Search

Purpose: This study assesses the effectiveness of a single institution’s breast cancer survivorship program on patient perceptions, quality of life (QOL), and compliance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for follow-up. Methods: Sampled patients completed all their breast cancer treatment at a single tertiary center. Surveys designed to evaluate QOL were obtained, and retrospective medical record review was conducted to assess NCCN compliance. Survivorship clinic (SC) attendees and nonattendees were matched for age and disease stage for comparison of the outcomes (QOL, NCCN compliance, and overall effectiveness). Results: SC patients (n = 63) tended to perceive their concerns in various categories to be addressed more adequately than did nonattendees (n = 54), with significant differences in the areas of practical concerns (P = .03) and late-term adverse effects (P = .03). There was a significant difference in compliance with three NCCN guidelines (history and physical every 3 to 6 months, annual mammography, and a pelvic examination if on tamoxifen) between survivorship attendees and nonattendees (P < .001, P = .02, and P < .001, respectively). Women who attended an SC used other survivorship support resources more often. Conclusion: Survivorship programs can be time and resource consuming, but our study is one of the first to show that a survivorship program effectively changes patient behavior in important ways. Patients who attended an SC were more likely to be compliant with NCCN-recommended follow-up and to use other survivorship resources and felt their concerns were better addressed. These measures can be used to help us improve our survivorship services and by other institutions to measure the quality and effectiveness of their programs.

49 Background: The 2005 Institute of Medicine report recommended providing a cancer TSCP, but barriers including time needed to complete these documents led to limited implementation. In 2014, in order to facilitate delivery, ASCO released a streamlined version of a TSCP. The current prospective, randomized study compares a Breast Cancer ASCO 2014 derived template (concise TSCP) with a facility derived Breast Cancer TSCP template based on the “old” ASCO version and NCCN guideline recommended elements (detailed TSCP). Methods: Female breast cancer survivors who completed therapy at Gundersen Health System were randomized between a concise TSCP and a detailed TSCP. Subjects received a survey prior to their survivorship visit assessing their baseline knowledge of their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment (pre visit knowledge). After the visit, participants completed the same survey (post visit knowledge) and a satisfaction survey. Pre and post visit knowledge survey scores, patient satisfaction scores and time needed to complete the TSCP were compared between the two study groups. Results: Both TSCP groups showed significant improvement in patient-specific disease and treatment knowledge scores (% of applicable knowledge questions answered correctly) after their survivorship visit. There was no significant difference between the concise and detailed groups’ pre-visit knowledge score (mean 78% vs. 79%, p=0.88). Calculated difference between the groups’ post knowledge scores met the pre-determined threshold for non-inferiority (p=0.013). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the value of a cancer TSCP and Survivorship visit in improving breast cancer survivors’ knowledge of their disease characteristics and treatment. The concise version was found to be non-inferior to the detailed TSCP in terms of patient knowledge and satisfaction and required less time to complete. These results assist us and other institutions in choosing a more streamlined version of TSCP without compromising patient knowledge or satisfaction. [Table: see text]

10063 Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) standard 3.3 became effective in 1/2015 requiring the delivery of a survivorship care plan (SCP) at the completion of curative treatment. Both the CoC and ASCO have recommended minimum requirements for SCPs, which should include both a treatment summary and follow up care plan. Many cancer patients use social media (SM) as a way to obtain support and information. We have shown previously that the majority of SM savvy cancer survivors (88.2%) do not receive SCPs ( J Clin Oncol 35, 2017 suppl 5S; abstr 104). We sought to determine the contents of the SCPs received. Methods: An IRB-approved survey was conducted via the online tool SurveyMonkey from 3/21/2016 to 4/2/2016. Patients were invited to participate via SM outlets reaching cancer-related communities including Twitter chats, Facebook groups, blogs, and targeted emails. Results: A total of 312 patients responded. 63% (194) had completed curative treatment (excluding endocrine therapy). Of these 11.8% (23) reported receiving an SCP at the end of treatment. Of 22 patients who responded, 9/22 (40.9%) found the SCP helpful, 11/22 (50.0%) somewhat helpful, and 2/22 (9.1%) not helpful. The table below shows the components of those SCPs received. Conclusions: Not only did a small percentage of patients receive SCPs but also no patient received a complete SCP per the CoC and ASCO recommendations. Particularly deficient was a description of late/long-term effects of treatment—only 36% received such information. Challenges exist in the delivery of complete SCPs. [Table: see text]

57 Background: Patients treated for cancer are surviving their disease in increasing numbers. The 2005 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor - Lost in Transition resulted in a call to develop survivorship programs. The Commission on Cancer (CoC) standard 3.3 became effective in 1/2015 requiring the delivery of a survivorship care plan (SCP) at the completion of treatment. Many cancer patients use social media (SM) as a way to obtain support and information. We sought to determine if SM savvy patients have received a SCP. Methods: An IRB-approved survey was conducted via the online tool SurveyMonkey between 3/21/2016 and 4/2/2016. Patients were invited to participate via SM outlets reaching cancer-related communities including Twitter chats, Facebook groups, blogs, and targeted emails. Cochran-Armitage Trend test, exact version, was performed by year for % of survivors receiving a SCP. Results: A total of 312 patients responded. 63% had completed their treatment (excluding endocrine therapy). Of a total of 194 individuals only 11.8% (23) were given a SCP at the end of treatment. A breakdown by treatment completion year is given below. Of those who did not receive a care plan 65% (112/172) answered that it would still be helpful to receive one. Most SCPs (86%) were supplied in paper form. However, patient-reported preferences for SCP delivery were paper (50%), online patient portal (41%), and email (9%). Conclusions: Despite the IOM report and CoC standard 3.3, the majority of SM savvy cancer survivors (88.2%) do not receive SCPs. In the respondents to this survey, there was no significant increase from 2015 onwards, p = 0.11, confirming an Advisory Board survey that just over 1/3 of programs felt confident that they could implement 3.3 by 2015. The CoC has updated its standard such that 25% of eligible patients should receive a plan by 12/31/2016. According to these data, that goal of 25% may not be achieved. [Table: see text]

176 Background: The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of olanzapine (OLN) for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods: A randomized, double-blind, phase III trial was performed in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin, > 70 mg/m2, or cyclophosphamide-anthracycline-based chemotherapy, comparing OLN to placebo in combination with aprepitant (APR), a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3), and dexamethasone (DEX). The OLN regimen was 10 mg of oral OLN, 125 mg APR, a 5-HT3, and oral DEX 12 mg pre-chemotherapy, day 1, and 10 mg/day of oral OLN and 8 mg DEX on days 2-4 post-chemotherapy plus 80 mg APR on days 2, 3 post-chemotherapy. The placebo (PLA) regimen was oral placebo, pre-chemotherapy, day 1, and on days 2-4 post-chemotherapy; the APR, 5-HT3, and DEX pre- and post-chemotherapy were identical to that used in the OLN regimen. Fosaprepitant (150 mg IV), day 1 was allowed for substitution for the oral aprepitant. Palonosetron, ondansetron, or granisetron were the permitted 5-HT3 options. Nausea was measured on a 0-10 visual analogue scale, with 0 being “no nausea at all” and 10 being “nausea as bad as it can be”. No nausea was the primary endpoint and, complete response (no emesis and no use of rescue medications) was a secondary endpoint. Results: 401 patients (202 OLN, 199 PLA) were enrolled in the study. The proportion of patients who had no nausea was significantly greater for the OLN regimen compared to the PLA regimen for the acute period (24h post-chemotherapy) (74% vs. 45%, p < 0.0006), for the delayed period ( 24-120 h post-chemotherapy) (43% vs. 26%, p < 0.0006), and for the overall period (0-120 h) (39% vs. 22%, p < 0.0006). Complete response was significantly improved for the OLN patients compared to PLA patients for the acute (85% vs. 65%, p < 0.0001), the delayed (67% vs. 53%, p < 0.0078), and the overall periods (64% vs. 41%, p < 0.0001). There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Conclusions: No nausea, the primary endpoint, and complete response, a secondary endpoint, were significantly improved with OLN, compared to PLA. Clinical trial information: NCT02116530.

e11511 Background: Oncotype DX, a 21 gene recurrence score (RS) is used to predict the likelihood of benefit from systemic chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor (ER) positive ...

123 Background: After the IOM report “From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor - Lost in Transition” was issued, there was a widespread call to develop Survivorship programs. Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these programs. Prior studies have focused on perceptions of, or preferences for, certain models of survivorship care. Therefore, our goal was to retrospectively evaluate our effectiveness based on patient perception, quality of life (QOL) and compliance with NCCN guidelines for follow-up. Methods: Eligible patients completed all of their breast cancer treatment at GHS. Surveys were sent out to evaluate patient knowledge and QOL. Chart review was conducted to assess NCCN compliance. Survivorship clinic attendees and non-attendees were matched for age and disease stage for comparison purposes of the outcomes (QOL, NCCN compliance, overall effectiveness) using descriptive statistics analysis. Chi-squares and t-tests/ANOVA statistical tests were used for categorical and continuous data significance respectively. Results: We found survivorship clinic patients (n=65) tended to perceive their concerns, in various categories, to be more adequately addressed than non-attendees (n=52), with significant differences in the areas of practical concerns and questions regarding late-term side effects. Categories in which there were no significant differences tended to be highly rated in both groups. There was also a significant difference in compliance with two NCCN guidelines for those attending survivorship. Additionally, women attending the survivorship appointment utilized supportive resources more than those who did not attend. Conclusions: Survivorship clinic attendees felt certain concerns were better addressed, were more compliant with NCCN recommended follow-up, and used supportive services more often than non-attendees. Statistically significant differences in other categories may be found in a larger sample size. These measures can be used to help us improve our survivorship services and for other institutions to measure quality and effectiveness of their programs.

197 Background: There is a wide variation of compliance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Overutilization of preoperative testing and underutilization of adjuvant treatments have been documented. The former is associated with higher costs of care; the latter with poor patient outcomes. Prior reports of adherence to NCCN Guidelines contain methodological limitations due to lack of contemporary review and incomplete listing of reasons for non-compliance. This limits the “real time” analysis of breast cancer quality and delays action plans to address quality and cost issues of care. Methods: NCCN Guideline compliance was recorded prospectively by use of electronic synoptic templates for all newly diagnosed breast cancer patients treated at a single institution between January 2010 and December 2011. A retrospective review of the synoptic templates was then conducted. Accuracy of the synoptic auditing method was assessed as well as NCCN compliance and reasons for non-compliance. Results: A total of 312 new breast cancer patients who underwent surgery as initial treatment were identified. Compliance with NCCN Guidelines for preoperative testing, breast surgery and lymph node surgery was 98% (306/312), 99.7% (311/312) and 93% (290/312) respectively. Reasons for non-compliance include patient refusal, comorbidities, advanced age and overutilization of systemic imaging. There was 100% compliance to College of American Pathologist (CAP) molecular profile documentation for all breast cancer cases. There were two discrepancies noted between the prospective template reporting and medical record review. The average time needed to populate data into synoptic templates was less than 2 minutes per patient. Conclusions: Prospective auditing of adherence to NCCN Guidelines with electronic synoptic templates is accurate and time efficient. High compliance rates with NCCN Guidelines were demonstrated. Electronic synoptic NCCN templates potentially facilitate early recognition of quality gaps in compliance and provide a framework for peer performance comparison.

e19509 Background: Female Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) survivors treated with mantle radiation have 3-10 times the risk of the general population for developing breast cancer. Forty percent are unaware of...

6545 Background: Compliance with National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality (NICCQ) quality indicators and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for breast cancer care are proposed measures of quality breast cancer care. Previously, we had determined NCCN guideline compliance rates for breast cancer care by physician review of electronic medical record (EMR). In the present study, we sought to compare NCCN guideline compliance and NICCQ adherence at our institution in regard to percent compliance, time taken to complete review, and comparison of physician reviewer (PR) versus non-physician reviewer (NPR). Methods: Review of the EMR was conducted for all 200 female patients who were newly diagnosed with breast cancer and treated at our multi-specialty institution in 2004. A PR and a NPR reviewed compliance with NICCQ quality indicators and NCCN guidelines for breast cancer care and time spent reviewing charts was recorded. Results: Adherence rate was less than 85% in only 7 of 36 NICCQ breast cancer quality measures for PR and only 6 of 36 for NPR. Patients overall received 91.5 % of NICCQ recommended care according to PR and 89.8% according to NPR. NICCQ measures were divided into categories to correspond with NCCN guideline categories and results are compared and summarized in the table below. Differences in observed compliance rates between PR and NPR were not significant for NCCN (except in pre-op workup where NPR was more accurate) or overall NICCQ audit, however differences were seen in individual NICCQ items with small numbers of patients. Average time for review of charts for NCCN guideline compliance vs. NICCQ adherence was not significantly different (6.8 vs. 6.3 minutes for PR and 8.3 vs. 8.9 minutes for the NPR). Conclusions: Our adherence rates for NICCQ and NCCN measures compare favorably with published values. Despite both being proposed quality measures, comparison of adherence rates for the two systems varied. PR is slightly faster than NPR but offset by PR's time value. A NPR performs as well, if not better, than a PR. No significant financial relationships to disclose. [Table: see text]

6585 Background: We compared two existing sets of QIs for colorectal cancer care to evaluate our performance as compared to published data. We also explored reasons for non-adherence to these QIs to determine how we could increase our compliance. Methods: Chart review of all patients who were newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer at our institution in 2004 and 2005 for compliance with QIs for colorectal cancer care as presented by National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality (NICCQ) and Moffitt Network Initiative on Practice Quality (MNIPQ). When 85% compliance was not observed, charts were reviewed as to why care differed from QI. Results: Adherence rate was less than 85% in 5 of 25 NICCQ colon cancer measures and patients overall received 83% of recommended care. Reasons for No significant financial relationships to disclose.