Wong, Sandra L.

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.

ASCO believes that high-quality observational studies can advance evidence-based practice for cancer care and are complementary to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Observational studies can generate hypotheses by evaluating novel exposures or biomarkers and by revealing patterns of care and relationships that might not otherwise be discovered. Researchers can then test these hypotheses in RCTs. Observational studies can also answer or inform questions that either have not been or cannot be answered by RCTs. In addition, observational studies can be used for postmarketing surveillance of new cancer treatments, particularly in vulnerable populations. The incorporation of observational research as part of clinical decision making is consistent with the position of many leading institutions. ASCO identified five overarching recommendations to enhance the role of observational research in clinical decision making: (1) improve the quality of electronic health data available for research, (2) improve interoperability and the exchange of electronic health information, (3) ensure the use of rigorous observational research methodologies, (4) promote transparent reporting of observational research studies, and (5) protect patient privacy.

BACKGROUND Individuals from disadvantaged communities are among the millions of uninsured Americans gaining insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The extent to which health insurance can mitigate the effects of the social determinants of health on cancer care is unknown. METHODS This study linked the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries to US Census data to study patients diagnosed with the 4 leading causes of cancer deaths between 2007 and 2011. A county‐level social determinant score was developed with 5 measures of wealth, education, and employment. Patients were stratified into quintiles, with the lowest quintile representing the most disadvantaged communities. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations and cancer‐specific survival. RESULTS A total of 364,507 patients aged 18 to 64 years were identified (134,105 with breast cancer, 106,914 with prostate cancer, 62,606 with lung cancer, and 60,882 with colorectal cancer). Overall, patients from the most disadvantaged communities (median household income, $42,885; patients below the poverty level, 22%; patients completing college, 17%) were more likely to present with distant disease (odds ratio, 1.6; P < .001) and were less likely to receive cancer‐directed surgery (odds ratio, 0.8; P < .001) than the least disadvantaged communities (median income, $78,249; patients below the poverty level, 9%; patients completing college, 42%). The differences persisted across quintiles regardless of the insurance status. The effect of having insurance on cancer‐specific survival was more pronounced in disadvantaged communities (relative benefit at 3 years, 40% vs 31%). However, it did not fully mitigate the effect of social determinants on mortality (hazard ratio, 0.75 vs 0.68; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Cancer patients from disadvantaged communities benefit most from health insurance, and there is a reduction in disparities in outcome. However, the gap produced by social determinants of health cannot be bridged by insurance alone. Cancer 2017;123:1219–1227. © 2016 American Cancer Society .

BACKGROUNDAlthough colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines recommend initiating screening at age 50 years, the percentage of cancer cases in younger patients is increasing. To the authors' knowledge, the national treatment patterns and outcomes of these patients are largely unknown.METHODSThe current study was a population‐based, retrospective cohort study of the nationally representative Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry for patients diagnosed with CRC from 1998 through 2011. Patients were categorized as being younger or older than the recommended screening age. Differences with regard to stage of disease at diagnosis, patterns of therapy, and disease‐specific survival were compared between age groups using multinomial regression, multiple regression, Cox proportional hazards regression, and Weibull survival analysis.RESULTSOf 258,024 patients with CRC, 37,847 (15%) were aged <50 years. Young patients were more likely to present with regional (relative risk ratio, 1.3; P<.001) or distant (relative risk ratio, 1.5; P<.001) disease. Patients with CRC with distant metastasis in the younger age group were more likely to receive surgical therapy for their primary tumor (adjusted probability: 72% vs 63%; P<.001), and radiotherapy also was more likely in younger patients with CRC (adjusted probability: 53% vs 48%; P<.001). Patients younger than the recommended screening age had better overall disease‐specific survival (hazards ratio, 0.77; P<.001), despite a larger percentage of these individuals presenting with advanced disease.CONCLUSIONSPatients with CRC diagnosed at age <50 years are more likely to present with advanced‐stage disease. However, they receive more aggressive therapy and achieve longer disease‐specific survival, despite the greater percentage of patients with advanced‐stage disease. These findings suggest the need for improved risk assessment and screening decisions for younger adults. Cancer 2016;122:929–34. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Purpose The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing recent clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. Methods The Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Guideline on Follow-up Care, Surveillance Protocol, and Secondary Prevention Measures for Survivors of Colorectal Cancer was reviewed by ASCO for methodologic rigor and considered for endorsement. Results The ASCO Panel concurred with the CCO recommendations and recommended endorsement, with the addition of several qualifying statements. Conclusion Surveillance should be guided by presumed risk of recurrence and functional status of the patient (important within the first 2 to 4 years). Medical history, physical examination, and carcinoembryonic antigen testing should be performed every 3 to 6 months for 5 years. Patients at higher risk of recurrence should be considered for testing in the more frequent end of the range. A computed tomography scan (abdominal and chest) is recommended annually for 3 years, in most cases. Positron emission tomography scans should not be used for surveillance outside of a clinical trial. A surveillance colonoscopy should be performed 1 year after the initial surgery and then every 5 years, dictated by the findings of the previous one. If a colonoscopy was not preformed before diagnosis, it should be done after completion of adjuvant therapy (before 1 year). Secondary prevention (maintaining a healthy body weight and active lifestyle) is recommended. If a patient is not a candidate for surgery or systemic therapy because of severe comorbid conditions, surveillance tests should not be performed. A treatment plan from the specialist should have clear directions on appropriate follow-up by a nonspecialist.