Jenkins, Sarah

Background. The role of liver transplantation (LT) in the management of portopulmonary hypertension (POPH) is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to better understand provider attitudes and practice patterns regarding the management of patients with POPH and to assess the concordance between clinical practice and current guidelines. Methods. We performed a multicenter survey study of hepatologists and pulmonary hypertension (PH) physicians at US LT centers that performed >50 transplants per year. Survey responses are summarized as number (%). Associations were assessed using a Wilcoxon-rank sum, chi-square, or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. Results. Seventy-four providers from 35 centers were included. There was marked variability regarding screening practices, management, and attitudes. Forty-two percent responded that POPH nearly always or often improves with LT, and 15.5% reported that POPH rarely or never improves. In contrast to current guidelines, 50.7% agreed that treated POPH should be an indication for LT in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Hepatologists were more likely than PH physicians to agree that POPH should be an indication for LT (P = 0.02). Forty-nine percent of respondents thought that the current POPH Model for End-stage Liver Disease exception criteria should be modified, and management of patients with an elevated mean pulmonary arterial pressure and normal pulmonary vascular resistance differed from current policies. Conclusions. There is marked variability in provider attitudes and practice patterns regarding the management of POPH. This study highlights the need for prospective studies to inform practice and for improved implementation of practice guidelines in order to standardize care.

64 Background: The goals of our Lymphoma Survivorship Clinic (SC) are to coordinate care, educate patients, and create a survivorship care plan (SCP). The aim of this study was to determine if patient-centered outcomes are improved after a SC visit. Methods: From 11/13-5/15, surveys were mailed to recently-treated lymphoma patients who were within 4 weeks of their last visit and in remission. Quality of life (QOL) was measured with PROMIS and distress was measured with the Impact of Events scale. Responses between those who attended SC and those who were eligible but did not attend were analyzed. Results: There were 96 surveys sent to the SC group; 59 were returned (61% response rate). Of the non-SC group, 140 surveys were sent and 84 were returned (60% response rate). Mean age was 57 years (range 23-77) in the SC group and 59 years (23-88) in the non-SC group. There were more females in the SC group (52% vs 30%) but no differences in race, marital status, education, or health literacy. Those who attended the SC were more likely to recall receiving a summary of cancer treatment and recommendations for follow-up care (90% SC vs. 75% non-SC, p = 0.03). Furthermore, SC attendees were more likely to “definitely” recall discussion on improving health or preventing illness (89% vs. 53%), getting help in making changes in habits/lifestyle (76% vs. 50%), diet (80% vs. 31%), and exercise (82% vs. 51%), all p < 0.001. There were no differences in discussions regarding smoking, follow-up testing, and symptom monitoring. The SC group was less likely to need more information regarding sexuality (6% vs 20%, p = 0.045). There were no differences in need for information regarding anxiety, fitness, familial cancer risk, fertility, complementary therapies, and social issues. The SC group was slightly more confident that they could get information or advice related to cancer (completely confident 76% vs. 61%, p = 0.07). There were no differences in QOL or distress. Conclusions: A Lymphoma SC visit increased receipt of SCP and provided more information on survivorship issues, particularly health behaviors, but did not improve QOL or distress. Further study is needed to determine if this leads to long-term health benefits.