Hassett, Michael J.

1543 Background: Treatment toxicity may limit the ability of cancer patients to receive all recommended cycles of therapy. Four to six cycles of docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide (TC) is a common adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for early-stage breast cancer. We assessed the impact of routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), coupled with a collaborative care model-based symptom management intervention, on the number of cycles of TC received by patients with breast cancer. Methods: The Enhanced, EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic clinical trial, conducted between March 2019 and January 2023 at Mayo Clinic Rochester and within the Mayo Clinic Health System in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Patients regularly reported the severity of 6 SPPADE symptoms (Sleep deficit, Pain, Physical function impairment, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue) on 11-point numerical rating scales. Each symptom score was interpreted as none to mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). The E2C2 intervention included symptom management education modules, clinician decision support aids, and the option to discuss severe symptoms with a nurse, physical therapist, or social worker. Patients with breast cancer who received at least one cycle of TC were included in this analysis. We compared the number of cycles of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide completed by patients in the control condition versus those in the intervention condition. Results: We identified 198 patients with breast cancer who received TC during the control condition and 128 who received TC during the intervention condition. Median age was 61.3 years in the control group and 60.3 years in the intervention group, and 94% and 95% were white, respectively. Those receiving treatment during the control condition, on average, completed 3.53 cycles of docetaxel, while those receiving TC during the intervention condition completed 3.77 cycles ( p = 0.014). Seventy-eight percent in the control group completed at least 4 cycles of docetaxel, compared to 84% in the intervention group. Those receiving TC during the control condition completed an average of 3.71 cycles of cyclophosphamide, compared to 3.78 cycles in the intervention condition (p = 0.231). Eighty-four percent of patients in the control group and 86% in the intervention group completed at least 4 cycles of cyclophosphamide. Conclusions: Routine PRO surveillance, coupled with guideline-based collaborative care interventions, was associated with completion of a greater number of cycles of docetaxel. These findings suggest that routine symptom surveillance and management may enhance the docetaxel tolerance profile and improve treatment adherence in patients with early-stage breast cancer, allowing for delivery of an optimized treatment course.

AbstractObjectivesTo report lessons from integrating the methods and perspectives of clinical informatics (CI) and implementation science (IS) in the context of Improving the Management of symPtoms during and following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium pragmatic trials.Materials and MethodsIMPACT informaticists, trialists, and implementation scientists met to identify challenges and solutions by examining robust case examples from 3 Research Centers that are deploying systematic symptom assessment and management interventions via electronic health records (EHRs). Investigators discussed data collection and CI challenges, implementation strategies, and lessons learned.ResultsCI implementation strategies and EHRs systems were utilized to collect and act upon symptoms and impairments in functioning via electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) captured in ambulatory oncology settings. Limited EHR functionality and data collection capabilities constrained the ability to address IS questions. Collecting ePRO data required significant planning and organizational champions adept at navigating ambiguity.DiscussionBringing together CI and IS perspectives offers critical opportunities for monitoring and managing cancer symptoms via ePROs. Discussions between CI and IS researchers identified and addressed gaps between applied informatics implementation and theory-based IS trial and evaluation methods. The use of common terminology may foster shared mental models between CI and IS communities to enhance EHR design to more effectively facilitate ePRO implementation and clinical responses.ConclusionImplementation of ePROs in ambulatory oncology clinics benefits from common understanding of the concepts, lexicon, and incentives between CI implementers and IS researchers to facilitate and measure the results of implementation efforts.

AbstractCancer and its treatment produce deleterious symptoms across the phases of care. Poorly controlled symptoms negatively affect quality of life and result in increased health-care needs and hospitalization. The Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium was created to develop 3 large-scale, systematic symptom management systems, deployed through electronic health record platforms, and to test them in pragmatic, randomized, hybrid effectiveness and implementation trials. Here, we describe the IMPACT Consortium’s conceptual framework, its organizational components, and plans for evaluation. The study designs and lessons learned are highlighted in the context of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract Background Electronic health record–linked portals may improve health-care quality for patients with cancer. Barriers to portal access and use undermine interventions that rely on portals to reduce cancer care disparities. This study examined portal access and persistence of portal use and associations with patient and structural factors before the implementation of 3 portal-based interventions within the Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium. Methods Portal use data were extracted from electronic health records for the 12 months preceding intervention implementation. Sociodemographic factors, mode of accessing portals (web vs mobile), and number of clinical encounters before intervention implementation were also extracted. Rurality was derived using rural-urban commuting area codes. Broadband access was estimated using the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. Multiple logistic regression models tested the associations of these factors with portal access (ever accessed or never accessed) and persistence of portal use (accessed the portal ≤20 weeks vs ≥21 weeks in the 35-week study period). Results Of 28 942 eligible patients, 10 061 (35%) never accessed the portal. Male sex, membership in a racial and ethnic minority group, rural dwelling, not working, and limited broadband access were associated with lower odds of portal access. Younger age and more clinical encounters were associated with higher odds of portal access. Of those with portal access, 25% were persistent users. Using multiple modalities for portal access, being middle-aged, and having more clinical encounters were associated with persistent portal use. Conclusion Patient and structural factors affect portal access and use and may exacerbate disparities in electronic health record–based cancer symptom surveillance and management.

419 Background: The patient portal is part of an electronic health record (EHR) that allows patients to communicate with their healthcare team. The portal also provides a platform for patients to receive and complete symptom surveys that can be directly integrated into the EHR, allowing clinical care teams to monitor symptoms and provide cancer symptom management. The Improving Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) consortium, supported by the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer MoonshotSM, aims to improve symptom control for cancer patients through assessment and symptom management interventions deployed via the EHR. This initiative presents an opportunity to examine portal enrollment and variation in use, factors critical to successful implementation, especially among groups that have high cancer symptom burden. To this end, we examine: 1) relationships between portal enrollment prior to the launch of IMPACT interventions and neighborhood broadband access, demographic, and social characteristics; and 2) frequency of pre-intervention portal use for any purpose among enrollees. Methods: Data are derived from two of three IMPACT research centers. Enrollment in and frequency of portal use, mode of accessing the portal (web vs. phone), social, demographic, and cultural factors were extracted from the EHR. Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes were used to classify population density and degree of rurality. Broadband access was estimated using 2015-2019 American Community Survey estimates matched to zip codes from enrolled IMPACT patients and classified as a patient’s residence being in a community with high (≥85% of households) or low (< 85% of households) access. Bivariate comparisons and adjusted odds ratios were used to describe all associations. Results: Forty-seven percent of patients (22,596/48,034) were enrolled in the portal prior to the intervention. Patients in zip codes with low broadband access and those who were men, > 65 years old, not White, of Hispanic ethnicity, or disabled or not employed had significantly lower odds of being enrolled in the portal. If enrolled, 21% (n = 4825) used the portal at least once a week. Less variation was found in the average frequency of portal use, but patients younger than 40, and those who were Black, disabled, unemployed, or those who used a mobile device to access the portal had the lowest odds of accessing it at least once a week. Conclusions: Significant disparities in portal enrollment exist across demographic groups and among those with limited broadband access. Among those enrolled, most used the portal less than once a week. Fewer differences in frequency of use were observed by sociodemographic factors. Improving portal enrollment and frequency of use may be critical for symptom management interventions deployed via patient portals.

PURPOSE To develop recommendations concerning the management of male breast cancer. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and a formal consensus process. RESULTS Twenty-six descriptive reports or observational studies met eligibility criteria and formed the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS Many of the management approaches used for men with breast cancer are like those used for women. Men with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer who are candidates for adjuvant endocrine therapy should be offered tamoxifen for an initial duration of five years; those with a contraindication to tamoxifen may be offered a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist plus aromatase inhibitor. Men who have completed five years of tamoxifen, have tolerated therapy, and still have a high risk of recurrence may be offered an additional five years of therapy. Men with early-stage disease should not be treated with bone-modifying agents to prevent recurrence, but could still receive these agents to prevent or treat osteoporosis. Men with advanced or metastatic disease should be offered endocrine therapy as first-line therapy, except in cases of visceral crisis or rapidly progressive disease. Targeted systemic therapy may be used to treat advanced or metastatic cancer using the same indications and combinations offered to women. Ipsilateral annual mammogram should be offered to men with a history of breast cancer treated with lumpectomy regardless of genetic predisposition; contralateral annual mammogram may be offered to men with a history of breast cancer and a genetic predisposing mutation. Breast magnetic resonance imaging is not recommended routinely. Genetic counseling and germline genetic testing of cancer predisposition genes should be offered to all men with breast cancer.