Tilburt, Jon C.

ABSTRACT Background Men with castration‐resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who have a pre‐existing history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or other comorbidities are often excluded from clinical trials involving oral androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPi). In this study, we compared all‐cause and prostate cancer‐specific mortality among CRPC patients, with and without a pre‐existing history of CVD, receiving ARPi compared to chemotherapy. Methods Men with CRPC were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results‐Medicare Linked Database from 2004 to 2015. Patients were grouped into two analytical cohorts by drug use. Inverse probability treatment weights (IPTW)‐adjusted Cox models and Fine‐Gray subdistribution hazards models were used to evaluate associations between ARPi and chemotherapy, and between ENZ and AA for all‐cause mortality and cancer‐specific mortality separately. Results The study cohort included 1438 men with CRPC. Nearly 54.4% of patients had a pre‐existing history of CVD. Patients with a pre‐existing history of CVD had a higher incidence of all‐cause and prostate cancer‐specific mortality compared to patients without a history of CVD (all‐cause mortality: 69.7% vs. 59.3%, prostate cancer‐specific mortality: 56.0% vs. 49.5%, respectively). In the pre‐existing history of CVD cohort, the IPTW‐adjusted Cox model showed a significantly lower all‐cause mortality in patients who received APRi, enzalutamide, and abiraterone, versus chemotherapy (IPTW‐adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.56; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.48–0.64; p ‐value < 0.001). Further, the IPTW‐adjusted competing risk model showed significantly lower prostate cancer‐specific mortality in patients who received ARPi compared with those who received chemotherapy (IPTW‐AHR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.57; p ‐value < 0.001). In the without pre‐existing history of CVD cohort, the adjusted Cox model showed significantly lower all‐cause mortality in patients who received APRi than those who received chemotherapy (IPTW‐AHR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.41–0.60; p ‐value < 0.001). Whereas the IPTW‐adjusted competing risk model showed significantly lower prostate cancer‐specific mortality in patients who received ARPi compared with those who received chemotherapy (IPTW‐AHR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42–0.64; p ‐value < 0.001). Conclusion In this population‐based cohort of older men with castration‐resistant prostate cancer, treatment with oral androgen receptor pathway inhibitors was associated with lower estimated risks of all‐cause and prostate cancer–specific mortality compared with chemotherapy in patients with and without pre‐existing CVD. These findings add real‐world comparative effectiveness evidence for patient populations not well represented in randomized clinical trials; however, given the observational design and limitations of administrative data, residual confounding and unmeasured clinical differences may have influenced the results.

Background: While surgeon burnout is extensively documented, the medical community has limited corresponding data regarding what it might mean to thrive in the profession as captured by robust measures of “flourishing.” Study Design: We conducted a cross-sectional survey measuring flourishing in a sample of 1,000 practicing US surgeons from the American Medical Association Masterfile between September and December 2025, including the Harvard Flourish Index (FI) and Secure Flourish Index (SFI). We used multivariable regression to assess personal and professional correlates of flourishing. Results Of 959 eligible surgeons in our sample, 283 (30%) responded. Mean flourishing (SFI) score was 7.98 (± 1.21) on a 0-10 scale (higher score=higher flourishing). Surgeons reported the highest flourishing in "Financial and Material Stability" (8.57 ± 2.11) and "Meaning and Purpose" (8.50 ± 1.39), while "Close Social Relationships" (7.41 ± 2.08) was the lowest-ranked domain. In multivariate linear regression, working fewer hours (adjusted β (each additional hour), -0.02; p<0.001), having children (adjusted β, 0.43; p=0.05) and viewing surgery as a calling (adjusted β, 0.28; p=0.006) were associated with higher flourishing. A majority (88%) of surgeons view the profession as a calling. Conclusion: Practicing surgeons report high levels of flourishing, with scores surpassing several historical medical and non-medical cohorts. Most surgeons reported comparatively high scores in meaning and purpose concurrent with deficits in social connectivity. Burnout and well-being conversations in the surgical professions may benefit from a flourishing framework. Naming meaning and purpose exemplars while being able to identify key deficits like social connectivity may be crucial for helping surgeons thrive.

Abstract Rationale The United States has the highest per capita incarceration rate of any developed democracy. As the incarcerated population ages, medically complex and frail patients are increasingly hospitalized in the community, often arriving without decisional capacity and with limited family involvement. This is the first analysis of state laws and policies governing decision-making for incapacitated incarcerated patients. Methods Two team members independently conducted Westlaw and Internet searches for statutes, regulations and department of corrections (DOC) policies from 50 states and the District of Columbia, identifying language about medical decision-making for incapacitated incarcerated patients. These parallel searches were merged into a single database and reviewed by the analytic team, who created a codebook of inductively and deductively derived themes, guided by principles of grounded theory. The codebook was then systematically applied to the database by 2 independent coders; all data were double-coded. Disputes were resolved by consensus with the entire analytic team, in consultation with a legal scholar. Results Thirty-four of 51 jurisdictions have language addressing decision-making for incapacitated incarcerated patients. Data collected include the definition and determination of incapacity, language affirming incarcerated persons’ right to autonomy in medical decision-making, approaches to decision-making for patients with and without surrogate decision-makers, and whether treatment over patient/surrogate objection is authorized. Assertions about the importance of advance care planning (n = 25) are often undercut by procedural hurdles (n = 20), such as complex witnessing requirements for advance directive completion. Many jurisdictions (n = 26) allow family or friends to serve as legally recognized decision-makers. Thirteen jurisdictions exclude an incarcerated person from serving as decision-maker for another incarcerated person. Fourteen jurisdictions have provisions allowing for treatment over the objection of a patient or their surrogate. While approaches to unrepresented patients differ widely (Figure), 5 jurisdictions grant narrow decisional authority to treating physicians and 4 jurisdictions authorize correctional employees to make medical decisions. Conclusion A heterogeneous assortment of laws, policies and regulations govern the care of incapacitated incarcerated patients, with wide variation observed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. One-third of jurisdictions lack policies or language regarding decision-making processes for incapacitated incarcerated patients. Even more troubling, 14 jurisdictions allow treatment over a patient or surrogate’s objection and 4 jurisdictions delegate authority over decisions for unrepresented patients to correctional employees, such as the prison medical director or the warden. These findings raise serious concerns about autonomy, beneficence and justice. National reform is needed to align correctional policies with established ethical standards for surrogate decision-making. This abstract is funded by: National Institute on Aging

Abstract Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic exposed underrecognized structural deficiencies in pandemic preparedness across the US, particularly impacting marginalized and medically vulnerable populations. State leaders who were developing policies to allocate critical care resources, often called crisis standards of care (CSC), confronted challenges such as whether and how to incorporate age and chronic conditions into triage protocols, how to contend with imperfect illness acuity scores such as the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), and whether essential worker status or area deprivation index (ADI) ought to confer an advantage during triage. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis to highlight CSC writers’ approach to ethical challenges, including from states whose policies provoked corrective action from the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). This study explores how state leaders navigated ethical controversies underlying states’ CSC policies, including whether those controversies were satisfactorily resolved. Methods Between February-September 2022 we conducted semi-structured interviews of public health leaders tasked with developing their states’ (CSC) policies. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a codebook was developed iteratively, using inductively and deductively derived themes based on principles of grounded theory. The codebook was systematically applied to transcripts; disputes were resolved by consensus discussion among analytic team members. Results Leaders from 34 states were interviewed. Participants described how their states’ CSC policy writing committees considered the role of age in triage, some proposing age as a tiebreaker, or considering age only if coupled with measures of frailty or chronic illness, with others proposing age as an “exclusion criterion.” Many leaders acknowledged a controversial approach to disability in early versions of their policies, some describing how they responded to civil rights complaints. Participants described debates over whether pandemic triage decisions should advantage patients from underserved populations or affirmatively consider essential worker status or pregnancy. While most leaders regretted that early iterations of their policies stood to exacerbate health disparities, others described a less conciliatory response to civil rights complaints. In particular, triage exclusion criteria, whereby certain patients would be excluded outright from certain resources, provoked intense debate. Conclusion We describe ethical controversies that stymied CSC policy writing committees during the COVID-19 pandemic. Leaders described spirited debate around how age, disability, and justice ought to factor into triage; few described satisfactory resolution to those debates. Improved community engagement and adherence to civil rights protections in CSC are imperative to protect marginalized populations as we prepare for future calamites, whether global or local. This abstract is funded by: R03 AG73987; K76 AG88403

Introduction The unproven stem cell intervention (SCI) industry markets stem cell products to patients navigating chronic and serious conditions who seek alternative options when conventional treatments no longer offer relief or improvement. This market is often characterized by providers using deceptive advertising to misinform potential consumers to seek stem cells that have not been shown to be safe and/or effective through clinical studies. Objective This study examines how patients describe interpersonal and institutional trust in relation to their interest in and decisions about unproven SCIs among two distinct and divergent chronic disease patient groups: patients with little or no interest in unproven SCIs (low seekers) and those with high interest or have undertaken an unproven SCI (high seekers). Methods A semi-structured interview guide was developed deductively and modified inductively based on the Unified Theory of Health Behavior. Qualitative interviews among 36 patients and carers were conduct and transcripts were analyzed using constant comparison based on the principles of grounded theory. Results Trust varies across social contexts as low seekers expressed strong reservations about the commercialization elements of the SCI industry placing greater confidence in conventional medicine. In contrast, high seekers questioned the advice of conventional providers and motives of medical regulators. Across both, personal relationships were commonly described as influential in how participants evaluated unproven SCIs. Conclusion These findings suggest that communication efforts in clinical settings should account for the relational and emotional dimensions of trust. Interventions aimed at countering misleading information and promoting informed choices should engage trusted messengers and address the broader social and psychological contexts in which patients may seek unproven SCIs.

ABSTRACT Background The COVID‐19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges to hospital system and critical care resources, leading to significant changes to operations and patient care. There are limited national data on these changes and instances of unsanctioned deviations from patient care, yet understanding the COVID response is key to future preparedness efforts. We sought to understand how hospitals and states navigated scarcity during COVID‐19, particularly in the absence of a declaration of crisis standards of care. Methods Between February 2022 and September 2022 we conducted 34 interviews with 36 leaders of U.S. states' COVID‐19 planning and response efforts. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and verified. We analyzed interviews using iterative inductive thematic analysis for descriptions of resource scarcity and changes to policies and procedures to prevent rationing lifesaving care. Results Nearly all participants described equipment and personnel scarcity in their home institution or state during COVID‐19. Hospitals across regions and states developed formal and informal coordination processes for load and resource sharing in response to influxes of high‐acuity patients, avoiding formal rationing of lifesaving resources in many regions. Participants also described unsanctioned patient triage, early discharge, and patients counseled to accept less aggressive care (e.g., premature transition to hospice) in states that had not declared crisis standards of care. Conclusions Extending limited resources and inter‐institutional collaboration helped avoid formal rationing. Yet, patient care was unquestionably impacted due to scarcity, both real and perceived. Reports of using hospital triage protocols to deny patients lifesaving care outside of formally recognized crisis conditions and attempts to nudge patients to accept less‐resource‐intensive care are concerning. This may have had disproportionate effects on older adults, individuals with disabilities, and racial and ethnic minoritized groups. To avoid unsanctioned deviations from standard practice in future health emergencies, we recommend that transparent and equitable triage protocols are implemented with robust oversight.

566 Background: Video telemedicine visits (VTVs) have the potential to overcome disparities in access to cancer care for many socially, geographically, and economically disadvantaged populations. Internet connectivity, digital literacy, and socioeconomic factors are traditionally cited as influencing VTV utilization. However, digital diffusion has occurred rapidly across several sectors, including healthcare, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and less is known about how these factors have evolved to influence VTV utilization behavior over this time. Through a qualitative approach, we aimed to: (1) explore the lived experiences of cancer patients who transitioned to VTV use as compared to those who persistently did not, and (2) identify similarities and differences between these two groups that could inform targeted interventions to support access and patient acceptance of VTVs in the setting of cancer care. Methods: During June 2024, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 patients (Mean age 71.3 years, range 42-88; female 50%) receiving ongoing, longitudinal cancer care at our academic medical center since July 2021 who had not used VTVs through at least October 2022. Using purposeful sampling, patients were equally divided according to VTV utilization behaviors defined as “transitioned users” (TU; i.e. those who transitioned to VTV utilization after October 2022) and “persistent non-users” (PNU). Transcripts were analyzed using a combined deductive–inductive thematic approach and categorized into themes of barriers and facilitators across three domains consistent with the COM-B model: capabilities (C), opportunities (O), and motivations (M). Results: TU patients frequently cited a reduction in travel and logistical considerations as a primary reason for uptake of VTVs. PNU patients frequently reported digital literacy barriers, particularly among older patients, as primary reasons for lack of VTV utilization. TU patients reported more experience and comfort in technical skills as compared to PNU participants. PNU patients also reported less frequent offering of VTV as an option by their care teams over time, implying they may have transitioned to VTV utilization if it had been offered with more regularity. Both study groups desired improved internet access and technical support to enhance (or, in the case of PNU patients, enable) VTV utilization. Conclusions: These findings suggest that multi-modal care delivery may best serve current patient populations, not requiring, yet offering VTV services as an adjunct to in-person care. Longer term, individual barriers to VTV use will also need to be addressed to further optimize access for patients who desire to incorporate this care modality.

Background/Objectives: Multi-cancer detection (MCD) tests have emerged as a promising tool to redefine the landscape of early cancer detection. Implementation of this novel technology will likely fall to primary care clinicians (PCC). The purpose of this study is to characterize and explore differences in PCCs perceptions and preferences towards MCD testing. Methods: Between March and May of 2023, this cross-sectional survey was administered to 281 PCCs, including physicians and advanced care providers practicing within an integrated healthcare system spanning five states. The survey collected data on self-reported characteristics, perceptions of MCD testing, and preferences for learning about MCD testing. Analysis was limited to those with no prior experience with MCD testing (N = 181, response rate 22.8%). Descriptive statistics summarized key variables and chi-square tests assessed differences in perceptions and preferences by key characteristics. Results: Most PCCs were interested in MCD testing (66.3%), but limited knowledge/awareness of MCD testing and confidence to manage patients with a positive test were observed, along with concerns around cost (76.7%) and misuse/poor implementation. The primary preferences for learning about MCD testing were online courses or classroom instruction (64.5%). Significant differences in perceptions and preferences for learning were observed by location, degree, and years in practice. Conclusions: PCCs in our study held positive views towards MCD testing, but gaps and variation in knowledge and confidence towards MCD testing and concerns around the cost and misuse/poor implementation were observed. While efforts to train and educate all PCCs on MCD testing is a critical first step, more research is needed to understand how best to support implementation tailored to individual and system-level needs and characteristics.

Abstract Rationale: The US prison population carries a high burden of chronic disease and disability, with older adults constituting the fastest growing subpopulation. When medical needs exceed a prison's healthcare service capabilities, incarcerated patients are transported to clinics and hospitals in surrounding communities. The influence of prison policies on off-site medical care of incarcerated patients is poorly understood. This study aims to identify and classify correctional policies regulating the care of incarcerated patients in community hospitals. Methods: Between 6/2024-10/2024 we searched the Internet for policies from states’ Departments of Corrections (DOC) pertaining to healthcare of incarcerated patients. We compiled, reconciled and organized those policies according to date, jurisdiction and relevance to hospital care. We then developed a preliminary thematic coding scheme and, using mixed inductive and deductive content analysis, two coders independently applied our codebook to each policy. Any coding discrepancies were resolved by consensus, and when necessary, with adjudication by a third team member. Results: Forty-eight state DOCs and the District of Columbia (totaling 49 “states”) have publicly available policies pertaining to healthcare. Among these, 20/49 (41%) have policies pertaining to the protection of bodily privacy during healthcare encounters. Separately, 31 (63%) have policies regarding the confidentiality of incarcerated patients’ medical encounters and records. Thirty-four (69%) maintain policies regarding incarcerated individuals’ right to select and consent to treatment. Thirty-three (67%) include language about the right to refuse treatment. Twenty-six states (53%) direct that incarcerated individuals be informed of their right to access healthcare either in writing (22/49; 45%), verbally (20/49; 41%), or through posted signage (5/49; 10%). Twenty-one states (43%) address shackling during off-site medical care, but only 15 (31%) address responding to requests from off-site clinicians to minimize or remove patients’ restraints. Just 4/49 states (8%) use person-centered language (avoiding terms like “offender” and “inmate”). Policy excerpts addressing key domains are depicted in the Table. Conclusions: Correctional policies regarding the care of incarcerated patients in community hospitals vary significantly in scope and content across states. While incarcerated people have a Constitutionally protected right to accept or refuse healthcare, including making their own treatment decisions, many state policies do not explicitly mandate how these disclosures must be communicated to patients or their healthcare providers. These silences, when combined with security measures like shackling and the ubiquitous presence of officers, countermand person-centered care and undermine the ability of hospital healthcare professionals to uphold the rights and dignity of incarcerated patients.

Importance Many older adults with advanced cancer never communicate goals of care or treatment preferences to their clinicians, raising the risk that care received will not match their values. Scalable models of care may help surmount this barrier. Objective To test whether a combined patient and clinician intervention increased the rate of advance care planning (ACP) documentation in large health care systems. Design, Setting, and Participants This stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial using an open cohort design included patients aged 65 years or older with advanced cancer seen at oncology clinics in 3 health care systems located in the US South, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic regions from April 1, 2020, to November 30, 2022. Data collection ended in 2024. Intervention The intervention involved delivering brief evidence-based patient-facing video decision aids available in 25 languages as well as goals-of-care communication training to oncology clinicians. Patients in the control period received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was ACP documentation, which included any electronic health record documentation of a goals-of-care conversation, palliative care, hospice, or limitation of life-sustaining treatments, identified via a validated natural language processing program. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results Twenty-nine practices, comprising 13 800 unique eligible patients with a total of 29 357 repeated measurements, were included (mean [SD] age, 74.5 [6.6] years; 52.3% men [15 344 of 29 357 measurements]). The proportion of patients with ACP documentation was greater in the intervention phase compared with the usual care phase (adjusted rate difference, 6.8% [95% CI, 2.8%-10.8%]; P &amp;lt; .001). ACP documentation in the intervention phase occurred among 3980 of 15 754 patients (25.3%) (goals-of-care conversation, 21.4% [3377 of 15 754]; palliative care, 9.6% [1517 of 15 754]; hospice, 5.4% [847 of 15 754]; and limitation of life-sustaining treatments, 7.2% [1128 of 15 754]). In comparison, ACP documentation in the usual care phase occurred among 2834 of 13 603 patients (20.8%) (goals-of-care conversation, 16.8% [2281 of 13 603]; palliative care, 9.5% [1287 of 13 603]; hospice, 5.3% [724 of 13 603]; and limitation of life-sustaining treatments, 8.4% [1149 of 13 603]). Conclusions and Relevance In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial for older adults with advanced cancer, a bundled evidence-based decision aid and communication training intervention increased the proportion of older patients with ACP documentation. This approach offers an innovative paradigm with a clinically meaningful increase in ACP documentation, a widely used quality metric that reflects high-quality patient-centered care delivery. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03609177