Khera, Nandita

ABSTRACT Venetoclax (Ven) plus hypomethylating agents (HMA) is standard frontline therapy for newly diagnosed AML (ND‐AML) patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy and is also considered in younger, fit patients. However, consolidation with allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) is often required to secure durable remission. The current study examines posttransplant outcomes in patients with ND‐AML treated with frontline Ven‐HMA who subsequently underwent ASCT. A total of 111 ND‐AML patients (58% male, 60% secondary/therapy‐related, median age 70 years [range, 37–80]) received a median of 3 cycles of Ven‐HMA. Mutations at the time of diagnosis included RUNX1 (18%), SRSF2 (17%), TP53 (16%), ASXL1 , IDH2 , K/NRAS , TET2 (14% each), STAG2 (11%), DNMT3A (8%). All patients were in CR/CRi at the time of transplant including 88% after Ven‐HMA. Measurable residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry was detectable in 18/76 (24%) patients. Donors were mostly HLA‐matched unrelated (75%); 51% receiving fludarabine/melphalan conditioning and 67% posttransplant cyclophosphamide. At a median follow‐up of 15 months, 42 (38%) of patients have died and 18 (16%) experienced posttransplant relapse. Median posttransplant survival was not reached (NR), with 1‐, 2‐, 3‐year survival rates of 69%/60%/57%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years, STAG2 mutation ( STAG2 MUT ) , and DNMT3A MUT were associated with superior posttransplant survival. Patients were stratified into low‐ (0–1 point), intermediate‐ (2 points), and high‐risk (3 points); age < 65 years, STAG2 wild type, and DNMT3A wild type, with 3‐year survival rates of 89%, 59%, and 19%, respectively ( p < 0.01). Taken together, age, STAG2 MUT and DNMT3A MUT stratified posttransplant survival in Ven‐HMA treated patients with ND‐AML.

ABSTRACT The recently published BLAST clinical risk model for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and its molecular version (BLAST‐Mol) differentiate low, intermediate, and high‐risk groups. The objective of the current retrospective study was to examine the survival impact of allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) in a consecutive series of Mayo Clinic patients ( n = 775; 68% males, median age 71 years) with CMML, overall and adjusted for baseline BLAST/BLAST‐Mol risk categories. At a median follow‐up of 77 months, 151 (20%) patients underwent ASCT. Overall survival (OS) was longer in the ASCT compared to the non‐ASCT cohorts (median 77 vs. 28 months; p < 0.01). The significant difference in OS between the ASCT and non‐ASCT cohorts was retained after adjusting for BLAST clinical risk groups: high‐risk (median 50 vs. 14 months; p < 0.01), intermediate‐risk (81 vs. 28 months; p < 0.01), and low‐risk (111 vs. 65 months; p = 0.04), respectively. The same was mostly the case when OS comparison was adjusted for BLAST‐Mol with respective p values of < 0.01, < 0.01, and 0.08, respectively. Time‐dependent cox models confirmed the favorable survival impact of ASCT in the BLAST/BLAST‐Mol high‐ and intermediate‐risk groups. The current study highlights the benefit of ASCT for BLAST/BLAST‐Mol high‐ and intermediate‐risk groups in CMML and its potential to overcome the adverse impact of some high risk cytogenetic or molecular abnormalities. These observations support the early use of ASCT in CMML, ideally before BT and regardless of genetic characteristics.

PURPOSE Public reporting of health care outcomes can have unintended effects such as inappropriate risk aversion in patient selection. METHODS The center-specific survival analysis annually assigns all hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) centers in the United States a +1, −1, or 0 score for observed outcomes that are above, below, or within a center-specific predicted range of outcome. For each index year (2012-2016), centers receiving a −1 score after 0 scores in the preceding 2 years were compared with contemporaneous centers with as-predicted outcomes (0 score). Changes in the patient population characteristics in the 3 years before versus the 3 years after the index years were compared between the newly below-expected centers (NBCs) and the controls. A multivariate model adjusted for baseline patient population characteristics and center volume. RESULTS No differences in patient selection behavior were identified when comparing the NBCs with the controls across eight key patient population characteristics. For the statistically modeled (predicted) 1-year overall survival (OS), reflecting a holistic measure of centers' patient population risk, we observed no statistically significant difference in change (−0.23% [95% CI, −1.4 to 0.9]; P = .70). The observed OS increased in both NBCs and controls by 0.9% and 4.5%, respectively, without statistically significant difference in change. CONCLUSION Centers receiving a −1 score were not observed to deviate significantly from patient selection trends in the HCT field. These findings suggest that public reporting of HCT outcomes in the United States does not result in unintended bias against HCT for high-risk patients.

Abstract Background This study examines patients’ understanding of health insurance terms and concepts and quantifies health insurance literacy (HIL) levels by key sociodemographic factors. Methods This study included 393 adult patients with cancer (>18 years old) receiving treatment in two ambulatory infusion centers: Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona and the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi. Respondents’ perceptions of their HIL were assessed using the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM), a validated 21‐item measure of a consumer's ability to select and use health insurance (HIL self‐efficacy). Respondents’ knowledge of health insurance concepts (HIL knowledge) was measured using 10 items created by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The number of correct answers was categorized into three levels: 0–4 (low knowledge), 5–6 (moderate knowledge), and 7–10 (high knowledge). Multivariable logistic regressions were used to compare correct answers to HIL knowledge questions by HIL self‐efficacy. Results Nearly three‐quarters of patients had high HIL self‐efficacy and high HIL knowledge (70.5%), understanding basic insurance terms, such as premiums and deductibles. Relatively low percentages of patients correctly answered questions about the meaning of provider networks, health insurance formularies, and calculating out‐of‐pocket spending in scenarios when insurers pay a portion of allowed charges. Lower HIL knowledge was more common among patients with less educational attainment (<college: 15.2%; ≥college: 4.7%), lower household income (<$4999: 11.8%; ≥$5000: 6.1%), and low HIL self‐efficacy scores (low: 24.8%; high: 5.2) (all p values <.05). Conclusions Efforts to improve HIL and navigation of health insurance plan features are required, especially for socioeconomically vulnerable patients.

Health insurance literacy (HIL) constructs are related to financial toxicity in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many cancer practices rapidly adopted telehealth services. However, there is a paucity of data regarding ongoing telehealth visit utilization beyond this initial response. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in variables associated with telehealth visit utilization over time. METHODS This is a cross-sectional, year-over-year, retrospective analysis of telehealth visits conducted across a multisite, multiregional cancer practice in the United States. Multivariable models examined the association of patient- and provider-level variables with telehealth utilization across outpatient visits conducted over three 8-week periods from July to August in 2019 (n = 32,537), 2020 (n = 33,399), and 2021 (n = 35,820). RESULTS The rate of telehealth utilization increased from <0.01% (2019) to 11% (2020) to 14% (2021). The most significant patient-level factors associated with increased telehealth utilization included nonrural residence and age ≤65 years. Among patients residing in rural settings, video visit utilization rates were significantly lower and phone visit utilization rates were significantly higher compared with patients from nonrural residences. Regarding provider-level factors, widening differences in telehealth utilization were observed at tertiary versus community-based practice settings. Increased telehealth utilization was not associated with duplicative care as per-patient and per-physician visit volumes in 2021 remained consistent with prepandemic levels. CONCLUSION We observed continuous expansion in telehealth visit utilization from 2020 to 2021. Our experiences suggest that telehealth can be integrated into cancer practices without evidence of duplicative care. Future work should examine sustainable reimbursement structures and policies to ensure accessibility of telehealth as a means to facilitate equitable, patient-centered cancer care.

Lay Summary People who have advanced myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) may live longer if they get a bone marrow transplant (BMT) instead of other therapies. However, only 15% of people with MDS actually get BMT. Experts say community physicians and transplant physicians should team up with insurance companies and patient advocacy groups to 1) spread this news about lifesaving advances in BMT, 2) ensure that everyone can afford health care, 3) provide emotional support for patients and families, 4) help patients and families get transportation and housing if they need to travel for transplant, and 5) improve care for people of under‐represented racial and ethnic backgrounds.

BackgroundThe association of community factors and outcomes after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has not been comprehensively described. Using the County Health Rankings and Roadmaps (CHRR) and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), this study evaluated the impact of community health status on allogeneic HCT outcomes.MethodsThis study included 18,544 adult allogeneic HCT recipients reported to the CIBMTR by 170 US centers in 2014‐2016. Sociodemographic, environmental, and community indicators were derived from the CHRR, an aggregate community risk score was created, and scores were assigned to each patient (patient community risk score [PCS]) and transplant center (center community risk score [CCS]). Higher scores indicated less healthy communities. The impact of PCS and CCS on patient outcomes after allogeneic HCT was studied.ResultsThe median age was 55 years (range, 18‐83 years). The median PCS was –0.21 (range, –1.37 to 2.10; standard deviation [SD], 0.42), and the median CCS was –0.13 (range, –1.04 to 0.96; SD, 0.40). In multivariable analyses, a higher PCS was associated with inferior survival (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD increase, 1.04; 99% CI, 1.00‐1.08; P = .0089). Among hematologic malignancies, a tendency toward inferior survival was observed with a higher PCS (HR, 1.04; 99% CI, 1.00‐1.08; P = .0102); a higher PCS was associated with higher nonrelapse mortality (NRM; HR, 1.08; 99% CI, 1.02‐1.15; P = .0004). CCS was not significantly associated with survival, relapse, or NRM.ConclusionsPatients residing in counties with a worse community health status have inferior survival as a result of an increased risk of NRM after allogeneic HCT. There was no association between the community health status of the transplant center location and allogeneic HCT outcomes.