scholarly journals Cancer Patient-Reported Preferences and Knowledge for Liquid Biopsies and Blood Biomarkers at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

2020 ◽  
Vol Volume 12 ◽  
pp. 1163-1173
Author(s):  
Min Joon Lee ◽  
Katrina Hueniken ◽  
Nathan Kuehne ◽  
Lin Lu ◽  
Shirley Xue Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Blood Biomarkers ◽  
Liquid Biopsies ◽  
Patient Reported

Cancer patient-reported knowledge and preferences for liquid biopsies and blood biomarkers at a comprehensive cancer centre.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6587-6587
Author(s):  
Min Joon Lee ◽  
Shirley Xue Jiang ◽  
Yizhuo Gao ◽  
Katrina Hueniken ◽  
Lin Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Blood Biomarkers ◽  
Liquid Biopsies ◽  
Cancer Centre ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centre

scholarly journals Enhancing Patient-Provider Communication With the Electronic Self-Report Assessment for Cancer: A Randomized Trial

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 1029-1035 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna L. Berry ◽  
Brent A. Blumenstein ◽  
Barbara Halpenny ◽  
Seth Wolpin ◽  
Jesse R. Fann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinic Visit ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Cancer Symptoms ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Life Issues ◽  
Clinic Visits

Purpose Although patient-reported cancer symptoms and quality-of-life issues (SQLIs) have been promoted as essential to a comprehensive assessment, efficient and efficacious methods have not been widely tested in clinical settings. The purpose of this trial was to determine the effect of the Electronic Self-Report Assessment–Cancer (ESRA-C) on the likelihood of SQLIs discussed between clinicians and patients with cancer in ambulatory clinic visits. Secondary objectives included comparison of visit duration between groups and usefulness of the ESRA-C as reported by clinicians. Patients and Methods This randomized controlled trial was conducted in 660 patients with various cancer diagnoses and stages at two institutions of a comprehensive cancer center. Patient-reported SQLIs were automatically displayed on a graphical summary and provided to the clinical team before an on-treatment visit (n = 327); in the control group, no summary was provided (n = 333). SQLIs were scored for level of severity or distress. One on-treatment clinic visit was audio recorded for each participant and then scored for discussion of each SQLI. We hypothesized that problematic SQLIs would be discussed more often when the intervention was delivered to the clinicians. Results The likelihood of SQLIs being discussed differed by randomized group and depended on whether an SQLI was first reported as problematic (P = .032). Clinic visits were similar with regard to duration between groups, and clinicians reported the summary as useful. Conclusion The ESRA-C is the first electronic self-report application to increase discussion of SQLIs in a US randomized clinical trial.

scholarly journals Changes in fatigue, barriers, and predictors towards physical activity in advanced cancer patients over a period of 12 months—a comparative study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Frikkel ◽  
M. Beckmann ◽  
N. De Lazzari ◽  
M. Götte ◽  
S. Kasper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Physical Functioning ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Psychological Conditions ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Purpose Physical activity (PA) is recommended to improve advanced cancer patients’ (ACP) physical functioning, fatigue, and quality of life. Yet, little is known about ACPs’ attitude towards PA and its influence on fatigue and depressiveness over a longer period. This prospective, non-interventional cohort study examined ACPs’ fatigue, depression, motivation, and barriers towards PA before and after 12 months of treatment among ACP Methods Outpatients with incurable cancer receiving treatment at a German Comprehensive Cancer Center reporting moderate/severe weakness/tiredness during self-assessment via MIDOS II were enrolled. Fatigue (FACT-F), depression (PHQ-8), cancer-related parameters, self-assessed PA behavior, motivation for and barriers against PA were evaluated (T0). Follow-up data was acquired after 12 months (T1) using the same questionnaire. Results At follow-up, fatigue (p=0.017) and depressiveness (p=0.015) had increased in clinical relevant extent. Physically active ACP did not show significant progress of FACT-F (p=0.836) or PHQ-8 (p=0.799). Patient-reported barriers towards PA remained stable. Logistic regression analyses identified motivation as a positive predictor for PA at both time points (T0, β=2.152, p=0.017; T1, β =2.264, p=0.009). Clinically relevant depression was a negative predictor for PA at T0 and T1 (T0, β=−3.187, p=0.044; T1, β=−3.521, p=0.041). Conclusion Our findings emphasize the importance of psychological conditions in physical activity behavior of ACP. Since psychological conditions seem to worsen over time, early integration of treatment is necessary. By combining therapy approaches of cognitive behavioral therapy and exercise in interdisciplinary care programs, the two treatment options might reinforce each other and sustainably improve ACPs’ fatigue, physical functioning, and QoL. Trial registration German Register of Clinical Trials, DRKS00012514, registration date: 30.05.2017

scholarly journals Integrative Oncology Physician Consultations at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Analysis of Demographic, Clinical and Patient Reported Outcomes

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Lopez ◽  
Jennifer McQuade ◽  
Lorenzo Cohen ◽  
Jane T Williams ◽  
Amy R Spelman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Integrative Oncology ◽  
Patient Reported

Successes with and barriers to patient-reported outcome deployment at a comprehensive cancer center.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 292-292
Author(s):  
Nadine Jackson McCleary ◽  
Deborah Schrag ◽  
Neil E. Martin ◽  
Sadiqa Mahmood ◽  
Elizabeth Beyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Oncology Practice ◽  
Plan Modification

292 Background: Routine collection of patient reported outcomes (PROs) reduces hospitalizations and improves quality of life. In the absence of clear implementation guidelines and research guiding deployment, PROs may not have the desired impact on outcomes in routine oncology practice. We share lessons learned from PRO deployment at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Methods: We developed a symptom/toxicity assessment tool based on the PRO-CTCAE to capture 15 symptomatic adverse events with a 1-week recall: fatigue/ decreased appetite/insomnia/ shortness of breath/numbness and tingling/concentration, general pain/anxiety/sadness, rash, nausea/vomiting/fever, constipation, and diarrhea. Responses from eligible English-literate patients scheduled for a gastrointestinal cancer center or adult palliative care visit between January 18 to March 22, 2018 were transmitted directly from clinic tablet to the EMR. To evaluate the deployment, we sought qualitative feedback from clinic staff and three multidisciplinary working groups comprised of patients, nurses, pharmacists, operations leaders, quality/safety experts, and health services researchers to identify technical and workflow gaps in PRO Content, Implementation, and Analytics. Results: We noted a 38% response rate of the N = 4440 PROs assigned to N = 4440 scheduled visits for N = 2055 unique patients (36% were completed, 2% started but not completed); 62% were not started. Workflow enhancement requests include an updated summary view, a clinical documentation tool, a scoring algorithm to highlight severe responses, and a quality metric dashboard to evaluate the deployment. Ongoing analyses are studying the proportion of moderate-severe symptomatic adverse events reported and their association with provider action (i.e., supportive care referral, chemotherapy treatment plan modification, or unplanned ED/hospitalization in the subsequent 30 days). Conclusions: Refinement of the PRO deployment strategy is needed to guide implementation efforts and demonstrate meaningful impact in routine oncology practice.

Reducing infusion wait time: An initiative to increase early signing of medication orders by providers at a comprehensive cancer center.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 123-123
Author(s):  
Jing Jing Wang Yakowec ◽  
Michael S. Rabin ◽  
Ursula A. Matulonis ◽  
Shital Shukla ◽  
Michael D Kearney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Process Improvement ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Wait Time ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Wait Times ◽  
Cancer Group ◽  
Dana Farber Cancer Institute ◽  
Routine Basis

123 Background: Many factors contribute to long wait times for oncology patients on the day of their infusion appointment. At Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI), one of the main causes of delay to infusion start is providers not signing medication orders in advance of patients checking in for their infusion appointment. We conducted a project to improve provider order signing behavior on the gynecology cancer patient infusion floor at DFCI. Methods: A data working group was formed which consisted of the infusion floor medical leads, nurse lead, pharmacy lead, and analytics and process improvement leads. Starting in February 2018, the working group shared baseline order signing data from September 2017 through January 2018 with the Gynecology Cancer Group. Descriptive and timestamp data from Epic were extracted and cleaned via Tableau to analyze the percentage of non-investigational medication orders, including chemotherapy, that were signed after a patient checked into infusion and the distributions of late order signing times. Results: Gynecology cancer patient providers had higher late order signing percentages at baseline (September 2017 through January 2018) than after sharing those data, which occurred from February through May 2018. The table below provides medication order counts and late order signing percentages by month. Although late signing percentages decreased after sharing the baseline data, the distribution of how late the late orders were signed did not show improvement, staying at an average of 20 minutes late. Conclusions: Sharing late order signing data with providers on a routine basis reduced late signing percentages. Initiating this process with all disease groups is crucial so that downstream workflows can start sooner and patient wait times reduced.[Table: see text]

Safety and outcomes of a cancer patient urgent care clinic.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6542-6542
Author(s):  
Jack S Bevins ◽  
Hannah Fullington ◽  
Thomas W. Froehlich ◽  
Stephanie Hobbs ◽  
Ethan Halm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Chief Complaints ◽  
Ed Visits ◽  
Urgent Care Clinic ◽  
Advanced Stage Cancer

6542 Background: Several cancer centers describe cancer-patient dedicated urgent care clinic (UCC) that address commonly anticipated complaints of adults with cancer. UCC may be capable of preventing some ED visits, but little is known of the safety and outcomes for patients after a UCC visit. Methods: We identified UCC visits made by adults at our comprehensive cancer center between 2013-2016 and compared the cohort to patients who did not visit the UCC. We linked patients to tumor registry data and their electronic health record from the UCC visit, then tracked ED visits, inpatient and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions occurring within 24 hours of the UCC visit. Results: Between 2013-2016, 551 patients generated 772 UCC visits, compared to 17,496 who did not visit. UCC users had significantly (p<0.001) more advanced-stage cancer than non-UCC users (37.3% vs 18.9%), but there were no significant differences in mean age, race/ethnicity, or death within 180 days of diagnosis. The most common chief complaints accounted for nearly half of all UCC visits: (17.4%), URI symptoms/fever (12.6%), nausea/vomiting/diarrhea (7.8%), and fatigue/weakness (7.6%). After 10.0% of UCC visits, patients had an ED visit, while 12.3% were admitted to the hospital; only 5 UCC visits (0.7%) had an associated ICU stay. Most patients (75.7%) only had a single UCC visit, but patients who visited the UCC more often tended to have higher rates of ED visits and hospitalizations within 24 hours (Table). The mean time from UCC arrival to ED arrival was 3.0 hours, and 6.5 hours from UCC arrival to inpatient arrival. Conclusions: The majority of patients seen in UCC did not require ED or inpatient hospitalization. Patients with subsequent ED or inpatient visits had minimal delays in care. Findings suggest that triaging cancer patients for commonly anticipated complaints to a UCC does not result in high rates of mis-triaging or major delays in care. Patients with ED, Inpatient, or ICU visit after UCC, stratified by UCC visits per patient (2013-2016). [Table: see text]

Patient-reported health literacy and numeracy among new patients seeking consultation at a comprehensive cancer center.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7038-7038
Author(s):  
Nadine Jackson McCleary ◽  
Jessica Cleveland ◽  
Sunyi Zhang ◽  
Eva M. Lepisto ◽  
Sherry Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Literacy ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Medical Statistics ◽  
Limited Health Literacy ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Limited Health ◽  
Medical Forms ◽  
Single Question

7038 Background: Health literacy and numeracy are essential for patients to make informed cancer treatment decisions. Oncologists do not typically evaluate literacy and numeracy and vary in their ability to adapt health discussions to meet patients’ needs. Systematic ascertainment of literacy and numeracy may provide oncologists with useful information to help guide initial oncology consultations. Methods: We deploy an electronic new patient intake questionnaire (NPIQ) that includes health literacy and numeracy, basic demographics and cancer risk screening. Patients are considered to have limited health literacy and/or numeracy if they respond with either “somewhat”, “a little bit” or “not at all” to a single question: “How confident are you filling out medical forms?” or “How confident are you in understanding medical statistics?” respectively. Results: Between January 2018 and August 2019, 8418 (24.6%) of patients presenting for a new patient consultation responded to the NPIQ. Among respondents with non-missing data, limited health literacy was reported by 19.4% respondents with 13.9% reporting “not at all” and 33.1% reporting “not at all” or only “a little bit” of confidence completing medical forms. Limited health numeracy was reported by 33.2% respondents with 9.1% reporting “not at all”. Nearly 20% of respondents reported both limited health literacy and numeracy. Patients reporting lack of confidence completing medical forms or understanding medical statistics were older (20.3%, 30.7% ³ 70 years old), male (20.2%, 30.1%), and non-white (21.3%, 32.1%). Conclusions: A substantial proportion of cancer patients report lack of confidence in their ability to complete medical forms or understand medical statistics, potentially limiting the ability to actively engage in shared decision-making. Prospective identification of these social determinants of health prior to consultations may provide oncologists with information necessary to tailor health discussions and to provide materials that promote understanding and informed decision-making. [Table: see text]

Patient-reported financial toxicity following management of localized prostate cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17053-e17053
Author(s):  
Brandon S. Imber ◽  
Amy L. Tin ◽  
Andrew Vickers ◽  
James Andrew Eastham ◽  
Michael J. Zelefsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Additive Models ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Financial Toxicity ◽  
Treatment Type ◽  
Patient Reported

e17053 Background: Cancer patients’ potential for severe financial toxicity (FT) is well-established, however there is limited data on the magnitude of this challenge associated with treatment of localized prostate cancer (PC). The extent to which men consider potential financial implications prior to selection of a treatment strategy remains poorly understood. Methods: Between 5/2020-10/2020, 1233 insured PC patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center completed a one-time FT survey which included the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) instrument, impressions of PC costs and financial coping strategies. Inclusion criteria was localized disease and treatment with either radical prostatectomy (RP) or definitive radiotherapy (RT) in the previous 4-26 months (mo) or at least 6mo of active surveillance (AS) prior to survey. To assess possible temporal differences in FT, responses were grouped into 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after treatment start, and we plotted COST against time, using generalized additive models to allow for non-linearity. Results: Overall, 988 men were eligible for analysis: 347 (35%) underwent RP, 384 (39%) underwent RT, and 257 (26%) were on AS. The median age at survey completion was 67 years (quartiles 62, 72). Men were predominantly white (89%), English-speakers (99%) and married (84%). The median (quartiles) COST score for all patients was 33 (26, 38) with possible range of 0-44 with lower scores indicating greater FT; median values were identical with similar quartiles (+/- 1 point) when stratified by treatment type. There were no significant changes in median COST between men surveyed at the four time points for any treatment subgroup. In total, 66 men (7.1%) reported spending > 20% of annual income on treatment and 10% felt that PC has created at least somewhat of a financial hardship for their family. Top drivers of burdensome cost included medical bills (37%) and transportation costs (21%). Most (83%) reported giving little or no consideration to possible costs prior to making a PC treatment decision, yet the majority (77%) felt that out of pocket costs should be communicated to a patient prior to decision making. Most believed patients should definitely (46%) or possibly (33%) have the opportunity to discuss financial concerns with the radiation oncologist or urologist. Conclusions: Our study is the first reported use of the COST instrument to assess subjective financial distress in localized PC patients. Our results demonstrate that the overall degree of FT in this cohort of insured patients treated at a specialized cancer center is low. While potential financial burden does not strongly influence treatment decision making in this cohort, most want this information and an opportunity to discuss financial concerns with their oncologist. Next steps include identification of predictors for high FT risk and extension of our survey to hospital systems with differing demographic profiles.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document