Search

BACKGROUND: Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data. RESULTS: Participants (n = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51-79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail. CONCLUSION: Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

BackgroundThis study aims to quantitatively assess use of the NSQIP surgical risk calculator (NSRC) in contemporary surgical practice and to identify barriers to use and potential interventions that might increase use.Materials and methodsWe performed a cross-sectional study of surgeons at seven institutions. The primary outcomes were self-reported application of the calculator in general clinical practice and specific clinical scenarios as well as reported barriers to use.ResultsIn our sample of 99 surgeons (49.7% response rate), 73.7% reported use of the NSRC in the past month. Approximately half (51.9%) of respondents reported infrequent NSRC use (

Cancer treatment can trigger or exacerbate health-related socioeconomic risks (HRSR; food/housing insecurity, transportation/utilities difficulties, and interpersonal violence). The American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute recommend HRSR screening and referral, but little research has examined the perceptions of patients with cancer on the appropriateness of HRSR screening in healthcare settings. We examined whether HRSR status, desire for assistance with HRSRs, and sociodemographic and health care-related factors were associated with perceived appropriateness of HRSR screening in health care settings and comfort with HRSR documentation in electronic health records (EHR). A convenience sample of adult patients with cancer at two outpatient clinics completed self-administered surveys. We used χ 2 and Fisher exact tests to test for significant associations. The sample included 154 patients (72% female, 90% ages 45 years or older). Thirty-six percent reported ≥1 HRSRs and 27% desired assistance with HRSRs. Overall, 80% thought it was appropriate to assess for HRSRs in health care settings. The distributions of HRSR status and sociodemographic characteristics were similar among people who perceived screening to be appropriate and those who did not. Participants who perceived screening as appropriate were three times as likely to report prior experience with HRSR screening (31% vs. 10%, P = 0.01). Moreover, 60% felt comfortable having HRSRs documented in the EHR. Comfort with EHR documentation of HRSRs was significantly higher among patients desiring assistance with HRSRs (78%) compared with those who did not (53%, P < 0.01). While initiatives for HRSR screening are likely to be seen by patients with cancer as appropriate, concerns may remain over electronic documentation of HRSRs.SignificanceNational organizations recommend addressing HRSRs such as food/housing insecurity, transportation/utilities difficulties, and interpersonal violence among patients with cancer. In our study, most patients with cancer perceived screening for HRSRs in clinical settings as appropriate. Meanwhile, concerns may remain over the documentation of HRSRs in EHRs.

PURPOSE: Current tools in predicting survival outcomes for patients with colon cancer predominantly rely on clinical and pathologic characteristics, but increasing evidence suggests that diet and lifestyle habits are associated with patient outcomes and should be considered to enhance model accuracy. METHODS: Using an adjuvant chemotherapy trial for stage III colon cancer (CALGB 89803), we developed prediction models of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival by additionally incorporating self-reported nine diet and lifestyle factors. Both models were assessed by multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and externally validated using another trial for stage III colon cancer (CALGB/SWOG 80702), and visual nomograms of prediction models were constructed accordingly. We also proposed three hypothetical scenarios for patients with (1) good-risk, (2) average-risk, and (3) poor-risk clinical and pathologic features, and estimated their predictive survival by considering clinical and pathologic features with or without adding self-reported diet and lifestyle factors. RESULTS: Among 1,024 patients (median age 60.0 years, 43.8% female), we observed 394 DFS events and 311 deaths after median follow-up of 7.3 years. Adding self-reported diet and lifestyle factors to clinical and pathologic characteristics meaningfully improved performance of prediction models (c-index from 0.64 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.67] to 0.69 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.72] for DFS, and from 0.67 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.70] to 0.71 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.75] for overall survival). External validation also indicated good performance of discrimination and calibration. Adding most self-reported favorable diet and lifestyle exposures to multivariate modeling improved 5-year DFS of all patients and by 6.3% for good-risk, 21.4% for average-risk, and 42.6% for poor-risk clinical and pathologic features. CONCLUSION: Diet and lifestyle factors further inform current recurrence and survival prediction models for patients with stage III colon cancer.

ObjectivesAlthough demand for price transparency in healthcare is growing, variation in private payors' payments to surgeons for oncologic resection has not been well characterised. Our aim was to assess variation of private payors' payments to surgeons for cancer resection using data based on fee-for-service allowed amounts, billed by a large mix of commercial payors and third-party administrators.SettingFair Health (FH), an independent, not-for-profit organisation that collects and compiles claims data from payors nationwide. FH maintains the nation's largest repository of privately billed medical and dental claims representing over 125 million covered lives in the USA.ParticipantsWe performed a cross-sectional study assessing private payer data for five common types of cancer surgery: simple mastectomy (SM), modified radical mastectomy (MRM), open lobectomy, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy and radical prostatectomy during 2012 and 2013.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTo assess variation across regions, we compared regional median allowed payments. To assess intraregion variability, we evaluated the distribution of regional IQRs of allowed payments.ResultsMedian allowed payments varied substantially across regions. For SM, median allowed payments ranged from $550 in the least expensive to $1380 in the costliest region. For MRM, the range was $842-$1760, for lobectomy $326-$3066, for VATS $317-$3307 and for prostatectomy $1716-$4867. There was also substantial variation within geographic areas. For example, the mean IQRs in surgeon payment within regions were: SM $577 (25th percentile) to $1132 (75th percentile); MRM $850-$1620; lobectomy $861-$2767; VATS $1024-$3122; and prostatectomy $2286-$3563.ConclusionsThere is a wide range of variation both across and within geographic regions in allowed amounts of surgeon payments for common oncologic resections. Transparency about these allowed amounts may have a profound impact on patient and employer choice and facilitate future assessments of value in cancer care.

High upfront cost may be a barrier to adopting chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy for relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphoma. Data on the real-world costs are limited. Using the Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis database, we evaluated 271 commercially insured patients who received CAR-T therapy for B-cell lymphoma (median age = 58 years; men = 68%; diffuse large B-cell lymphoma = 87%; inpatient CAR-T therapy = 85%). Our peri–CAR-T period of interest was from 41 days before to 154 days after CAR-T therapy index divided into seven 28-day intervals. Median total costs were $608 100 (interquartile range, IQR = $534 100-$732 800); 8.5% of patients had total costs exceeding $1 million. The median cost of CAR-T therapy products was $402 500, and the median out-of-pocket copayment was $510. Monthly costs were highest during the month of CAR-T therapy administration (median = $521 500), with median costs below $25 000 in all other 28-day intervals. Costs of CAR-T therapy use were substantial, largely driven by product acquisition. Future studies should examine the relationship between costs, access, and financial outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the criticality and complexity of decision making for novel treatment approval and further research. Our study aims to assess potential decision-making methodologies, an evaluation vital for refining future public health crisis responses. Methods: We compared 4 decision-making approaches to drug approval and research: the Food and Drug Administration's policy decisions, cumulative meta-analysis, a prospective value-of-information (VOI) approach (using information available at the time of decision), and a reference standard (retrospective VOI analysis using information available in hindsight). Possible decisions were to reject, accept, provide emergency use authorization, or allow access to new therapies only in research settings. We used monoclonal antibodies provided to hospitalized COVID-19 patients as a case study, examining the evidence from September 2020 to December 2021 and focusing on each method's capacity to optimize health outcomes and resource allocation. Results: Our findings indicate a notable discrepancy between policy decisions and the reference standard retrospective VOI approach with expected losses up to $269 billion USD, suggesting suboptimal resource use during the wait for emergency use authorization. Relying solely on cumulative meta-analysis for decision making results in the largest expected loss, while the policy approach showed a loss up to $16 billion and the prospective VOI approach presented the least loss (up to $2 billion). Conclusion: Our research suggests that incorporating VOI analysis may be particularly useful for research prioritization and treatment implementation decisions during pandemics. While the prospective VOI approach was favored in this case study, further studies should validate the ideal decision-making method across various contexts. This study's findings not only enhance our understanding of decision-making strategies during a health crisis but also provide a potential framework for future pandemic responses. Highlights: This study reviews discrepancies between a reference standard (retrospective VOI, using hindsight information) and 3 conceivable real-time approaches to research-treatment decisions during a pandemic, suggesting suboptimal use of resources. Of all prospective decision-making approaches considered, VOI closely mirrored the reference standard, yielding the least expected value loss across our study timeline. This study illustrates the possible benefit of VOI results and the need for evidence accumulation accompanied by modeling in health technology assessment for emerging therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundTreatment-related toxicity can vary substantially between chemotherapy regimens. In this study we evaluated the frequency of outpatient office visits among a cohort of early stage breast cancer survivors after completion of 4 different adjuvant chemotherapy regimens to better understand how differences in toxicities between regimens might affect health care use.Materials and methodsWe analyzed administrative claims data from a US commercial insurance database (OptumLabs) to identify women who received adjuvant doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC), AC followed or preceded by docetaxel or paclitaxel (AC-T), AC concurrent with docetaxel or paclitaxel (TAC), or docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) between 2008 and 2014. We compared mean numbers of visits per patient (adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, region, year, surgery type, radiation, chronic conditions, and previous hospitalizations) across the different regimens (TC = reference) for 12 months, starting 4 months after the end of chemotherapy.ResultsIn 6247 eligible patients, the mean adjusted number of outpatient visits per patient was significantly higher in patients who received AC-T (8.1) or TAC (7.3) than TC (6.5) or AC (6.0; P < .001 for comparisons of AC-T and TAC with TC), primarily because of differences in Medical Oncology visits. Approximately 40% did not see a primary care provider at all during this time frame.ConclusionsAC-T and TAC are associated with more subsequent outpatient visits than TC. Visits to primary care providers are infrequent during the year after completion of chemotherapy.

BackgroundPhysicians "purchase" many health care services on behalf of patients yet remain largely unaware of the costs of these services. Electronic health record (EHR) cost displays may facilitate cost-conscious ordering of health services.ObjectiveTo determine whether displaying hospital lab and imaging order costs is associated with changes in the number and costs of orders placed.DesignQuasi-experimental study.ParticipantsAll patients with inpatient or observation encounters across a multi-site health system from April 2013 to October 2015.InterventionDisplay of order costs, based on Medicare fee schedules, in the EHR for 1032 lab tests and 1329 imaging tests.Main measuresOutcomes for both lab and imaging orders were (1) whether an order was placed during a hospital encounter, (2) whether an order was placed on a given patient-day, (3) number of orders placed per patient-day, and (4) cost of orders placed per patient-day.Key resultsDuring the lab and imaging study periods, there were 248,214 and 258,267 encounters, respectively. Cost display implementation was associated with a decreased odds of any lab or imaging being ordered during the encounter (lab adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.97, p = .01; imaging AOR = 0.97, p