Sarah S. Mougalian

PURPOSE: Despite the growing calls for early and ubiquitous completion of advance directives (ADs), studies exploring links between AD completion and their impact on outcomes of patients with cancer have mixed conclusions. We used the ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) registry to compare end-of-life (EOL) quality measures and the effect of QOPI certification among patients with and without early AD completion, defined as completion within the first three oncology visits after cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Deidentified patient-level data were analyzed from the QOPI database from 2015 through 2017. Associations were assessed using Chi-square tests between early AD completion and patient enrollment in hospice < 7 days before death, chemotherapy receipt in the last 14 days of life, or with emergency room visits or intensive care unit admissions in the last 30 days of life. RESULTS: Data from 31,558 patients eligible for the AD question were analyzed. Patients treated at QOPI-certified practices had higher rates of early AD completion than patients at non-certified practices. Early AD completion was not associated with differences in hospice enrollment for < 7 days before death, chemotherapy receipt in the last 14 days of life, or emergency room visits or intensive care unit encounters in the last 30 days of life. CONCLUSION: The study found that QOPI certification is associated with higher rates of early AD completion. However, early AD completion was not associated with recognized EOL quality measures. Future research should focus on the timing, frequency, and content of AD conversations to demonstrate the impact on care at the EOL.

In the first decade of this millennium, ASCO pioneered a quality measurement tool, the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI). Despite an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirement since 2012 for oncology fellows to participate in quality improvement (QI) projects, the uptake of QOPI remains modest. This study examined reasons for low QOPI participation by surveying participating and nonparticipating HemOnc Fellowship Programs. The survey elicited views toward QI and QOPI as well as ideas about making the program more helpful. Among 69 fellowship programs, only 39% (n = 27) participated in QOPI. Other findings were that (1) the majority of programs considered their fellows' QI projects beneficial but were not fulfilling the ACGME standard for all fellows' QI participation; (2) nonparticipating programs were unfamiliar with but interested in QOPI; (3) participating programs tended to view QI as easier to conduct and more beneficial than nonparticipating programs; and (4) programs that withdrew from QOPI and participating programs alike were dissatisfied with the educational benefit and data abstraction burden for fellows. Academic oncology programs generally valued QI but many have not fully engaged in it. Fellows in programs participating in QOPI may have had less difficulty conducting QI and their projects may have been more beneficial than that of nonparticipating programs. However, perceived lack of educational benefits for fellows and the burden of manual data abstraction from the electronic medical record are impediments to satisfaction with the program. Higher faculty involvement and longitudinal reports for each fellow may significantly increase participation.

Background: Expert knowledge is often shared among multidisciplinary academic teams at tumor boards (TBs) across the country, but these conversations exist in silos and do not reach the wider oncology community. Objective: Using an oncologist-only question and answer (Q&A) website, we sought to document expert insights from TBs at National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (NCI-CCCs) to provide educational benefits to the oncology community. Methods: We designed a process with the NCI-CCCs to document and share discussions from the TBs focused on areas of practice variation on theMednet, an interactive Q&A website of over 13,000 US oncologists. The faculty translated the TB discussions into concise, non–case-based Q&As on theMednet. Answers were peer reviewed and disseminated in email newsletters to registered oncologists. Reach and engagement were measured. Following each Q&A, a survey question asked how the TB Q&As impacted the readers’ practice. Results: A total of 23 breast, thoracic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary programs from 16 NCI-CCC sites participated. Between December 2016 and July 2021, the faculty highlighted 368 questions from their TBs. Q&As were viewed 147,661 times by 7381 oncologists at 3515 institutions from all 50 states. A total of 277 (75%) Q&As were viewed every month. Of the 1063 responses to a survey question on how the Q&A affected clinicians’ practices, 646 (61%) reported that it confirmed their current practice, 163 (20%) indicated that a Q&A would change their future practice, and 214 (15%) reported learning something new. Conclusions: Through an online Q&A platform, academics at the NCI-CCCs share knowledge outside the walls of academia with oncologists across the United States. Access to up-to-date expert knowledge can reassure clinicians’ practices, significantly impact patient care in community practices, and be a source of new knowledge and education.

PURPOSE: Nonadherence is a significant issue in cancer care, especially as more oral therapies become available. Measuring and optimizing adherence to such therapies is challenging. In this study, we tested a novel technology that records real-time medication-taking behavior from a smart prescription bottle and can communicate with patients via text message to intervene in cases of nonadherence. METHODS: We conducted a 28-patient pilot study to assess the feasibility of this technology in measuring and improving adherence in patients taking capecitabine, an oral chemotherapy agent with a complex, cyclical regimen. The study had a preintervention stage, during which patients were monitored, and an intervention stage, during which the text messaging intervention was enabled. RESULTS: During preintervention, patients had an average self-adherence of 89%, and during post intervention, they had an average adherence of 90%. We defined three categories of patients by change in adherence: category 1 (> 8%), category 2 (−8% to 8%), and category 3 (< −8%). Patients in category 1 tended to live in regions with lower average household income (mean = $58,937 in US dollars [USD]) than those in category 2 (mean = $77,482 USD) and category 3 (mean = $90,972 USD). Of poststudy survey respondents, most indicated that they would want to continue using this technology and that they would recommend it to others. CONCLUSION: This novel technology is able to monitor, measure, and intervene for patients taking capecitabine in real time. Adherence overall was high, and some patients appeared to benefit more from text-message interventions. Future work should focus on patients deemed high risk for nonadherence.

A retrospective real-world study demonstrates the clinical effectiveness of eribulin in subgroups of MBC patients with poor prognostic characteristics, when used in accordance with the approved US indication. Research Reports from Journal of Clinical Pathways. eribulin metastatic breast cancer real world elderly

Background: There is currently no clinical trial data regarding the efficacy of everolimus exemestane (EE) following prior treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i). This study assesses the use and efficacy of everolimus exemestane in patients with metastatic HR+ HER2− breast cancer previously treated with endocrine therapy (ET) or endocrine therapy + CDK4/6i.Methods: Retrospective analysis of electronic health record-derived data for HR+ HER2− metastatic breast cancer from 2012 to 2018. The proportion of patients receiving EE first-line, second-line, or third-line, and the median duration of EE prior to next line of treatment (TTNT) by line of therapy was calculated. OS for patients receiving EE first-line, second-line, or third-line, indexed to the date of first-line therapy initiation and stratified by prior treatment received, was calculated with Kaplan-Meier method with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.Results: Six hundred twenty-two patients received EE first-line (n = 104, 16.7%), second-line (n = 273, 43.9%) or third-line (n = 245, 39.4%). Median TTNT was 8.3 months, 5.5 months, and 4.8 months respectively. Median TTNT of EE second-line was longer following prior ET alone compared to prior ET + CDK4/6i (6.2 months (95% CI 5.2, 7.3) vs 4.3 months (95% CI 3.2, 5.7) respectively,p = 0.03). Similarly, EE third-line following ET alone vs ET + CDK4/6i in first- or second-line resulted in median TTNT 5.6 months (95% CI 4.4, 6.9) vs 4.1 months (95% CI 3.6, 6.1) respectively, although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.08). Median OS was longer for patients who received EE following prior ET + CDK4/6i. EE second-line following ET + CDK 4/6i vs ET alone resulted in median OS 37.7 months vs. 32.7 months (p = 0.449). EE third-line following ET + CDK4/6i vs prior ET alone resulted in median OS 59.2 months vs. 40.8 months (p < 0.010). This difference in OS was not statistically significant when indexed to the start of EE therapy.Conclusion: This study suggests that EE remains an effective treatment option after prior ET or ET + CDK4/6i use. Median TTNT of EE was longer for patients who received prior ET, whereas median OS was longer for patients who received prior ET + CDK4/6i. However, this improvement in OS was not statistically significant when indexed to the start of EE therapy suggesting that OS benefit is primarily driven by prior CDK4/6i use. EE remains an effective treatment option regardless of prior treatment option.

Introduction Eribulin was approved in the United States (US) in 2010 for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who previously received at least two chemotherapeutic regimens, including anthracycline and taxane in the adjuvant or metastatic setting. With significant changes to the treatment landscape over the past decade, assessment of the real-world effectiveness of eribulin in clinical practice when used according to the approved US indication is valuable. Methods Patients with MBC were identified by community oncologists through a retrospective, multi-site patient chart review; de-identified data were abstracted into electronic case report forms. Eligible patients initiated eribulin consistent with approved US indication between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2017. Clinical outcomes assessed included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in all patients and those with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Results The analysis included 513 patients (median 59.0 years; 38.8% with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status ≥ 2). Eribulin was third-line therapy for 78.0% of patients, and fourth-line or later for the remainder. ORR was 54.4%, median PFS was 6.1 months (95% CI: 5.8, 6.6), and median OS was 10.6 months (95% CI 9.9, 11.7) in all patients. Among the 49.9% of patients with TNBC, ORR was 55.1%, median PFS was 5.8 months (95% CI 5.1, 6.4), and median OS was 9.8 months (95% CI 8.6, 11.0). Conclusion The current retrospective chart review study reinforces the clinical effectiveness of eribulin in patients with MBC, including those with TNBC, when used according to the approved US indication in real-world clinical practice.

Aim: To examine the effectiveness of eribulin mesylate for metastatic breast cancer post cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor (CDKi) 4/6 therapy. Materials & methods: US community oncologists reviewed...