Emamekhoo, Hamid

11128 Background: To improve documentation quality in Medical Onc outpatient clinics, a standardized template was created. In this template we embedded: 1. An Epic SmartForm to collect structured data (SD) about patient, disease, and response status at each encounter. Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE) compatible SD elements were used to enhance interoperability. 2. Several clinically impactful quality metrics (QM) selected based on the Quality Onc Practice Initiative (QOPI) guidelines. In this analysis, we aim to assess how template use impacted documentation quality. Methods: 113,376 outpatient encounters occurred between 01/2018 – 12/2022 (41 providers: 35 physicians, 6 APPs). The template go live was 3/19/2019. 2,520 randomly selected encounters were manually reviewed. Distinct documentation of 8 items served as QMs (Table). Of note, using the template was voluntary and data entry in the embedded form is not mandated. Documentation of each QM was compared between notes authored with/without template. For each note, a completeness score was calculated based on total number of QMs present/note. Categorical comparisons were made using chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests. Numerical/continuous values were summarized using means and standard deviations. A template “user” was defined as a provider using the template in >10% of encounters after go live. This QI project was exempted by IRB. Results: 154/2520 encounters were excluded after manual review (visits not for solid tumor malignancy). The template was used in 38.7% (917/2366) of the reviewed notes. Cancer diagnosis was documented in >99.8% of notes regardless of template use. Template use was associated with increased documentation of 7 QMs (Table). Documentation overall completeness improved from 62% to 90% with a very large effect size (Table). Template use positively correlated with female gender and fewer years since last training (p<0.001). In the subgroup of notes written by “users” (21 physicians, 4 APPs), individual QM and overall completeness scores improved with template use (p<0.001). Conclusions: Template use profoundly improved QM documentation (statistically significant and clinically meaningful) by Onc clinic providers. This strategy enhances mCODE compatible structured data collection and semantic interoperability between systems, strengthening the available real-world data (RWD) in EHR. [Table: see text]

4541 Background: PROSPER is a phase 3 National Clinical Trials Network study that accrued pts with clinical stage ≥T2 or TanyN+ RCC of any histology planned for radical/ partial nephrectomy. Pts were randomized to perioperative nivo followed by primary tumor resection and 9 cycles of nivo postoperatively or standard surgery followed by observation. To address concerns that core kidney bx might 1) not provide accurate diagnosis and 2) delay surgery due to adverse events (AEs) or scheduling, the study was amended from requiring all patients to undergo core bx prior to treatment for confirmation of RCC, to only require bx in patients randomized to the nivo arm. Herein, we report the accuracy and safety of primary tumor core bxs in predicting final histology and nuclear grade by both site and central pathology review as well as time from enrollment to surgery. We also report AEs of preoperative nivo. Methods: Concordance of both core bx and primary tumor by site and central pathology review of histology and grade (1-2 vs 3-4) are reported, along with the Cohen’s Kappa value, which measures the agreement and concordance (kappa=0 is no concordance and 1 is highest). AEs relating to core bxs and preoperative nivo, as well as time from enrollment to surgery for each arm, comparing pre- and post-amendment (dropping bx requirement in surgery alone arm) are also reported. Results: 387/404 pts in the nivo arm and 171/415 pts in the surgery alone arm had core bxs. 632 patients had both central pathology and site review available. 41 of all randomized patients (819) were considered as non-RCC and 26/41 were identified via bx. The median times from enrollment to surgery for nivo and control arms pre-amendment were 32d vs 19 d, and post-amendment were 21 d vs 14 d, respectively. The median (25th-75th percentile) number of days from last preoperative nivo to surgery was 14 d (9-20). AEs related to core bx, generally from bleeding, were reported in 13/558 (2.3%) pts. 2/13 bxs resulted in life-threatening complications. 21/353 (6%) of pts receiving nivo pre-surgery had ≥ grade 3-5 AE attributed to nivo. 181/353 (51%) pts had any grade AE attributed to nivo. Concordance between bxs and primary tumor pathologies for determining histological subtype was Kappa = 0.62. Agreement between central pathology and originating site review of primary tumor for determining nuclear grade was Kappa = 0.56, and concordance of histology was Kappa = 0.78. Conclusions: The PROSPER trial use of core bxs in advance of neoadjuvant therapy was generally safe, largely consistent with primary tumor histology and grade, and did not delay resection of the primary tumor. AEs of preoperative nivo were consistent with nivo AEs in metastatic disease. This approach is valid for future neoadjuvant trials. Clinical trial information: NCT03055013 .

Electronic patient‐reported outcome (ePRO) programs may offer advantages for patients with cancer, clinicians, health care systems, payors, and society in general; but developing and maintaining an ePRO program will require cancer centers to navigate defining meaningful problems, collecting ePROs, implementing action when those ePROs require intervention without over‐burdening clinicians, and monitoring the successes and failures of their ePRO programs. Physician informaticists from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Electronic Health Record Advisory Group offer 10 guiding principles to consider when contemplating, building, or refining an ePRO program for patients with cancer.

PURPOSE We sought to evaluate the patterns of portal usage among patients with cancer who regularly log in to the portal. These data will inform approaches to facilitate portal use among patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient portal usage by patients with cancer at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center. Our analysis focuses on patterns of portal use by regular users (≥ 2 portal logins/year, > 3 months) receiving ongoing oncology care between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. Demographics, cancer characteristics, number of oncology visits per month, and portal usage data were extracted. Regular portal users were grouped and compared on the basis of their frequency of use. A linear mixed-effects model was used to determine if the frequency of oncology visits influenced the number of logins. RESULTS We identified 2076 regular portal users. The median number of portal logins/year was 72 for the entire cohort. Age and race were associated with frequency of portal logins. There was no difference in frequency of portal login on the basis of cancer type or stage. Each additional oncology office visit in a month increased the frequency of portal logins by 3.05 ± 0.11 (SE) within the same month. Messages and test result functionalities were used by 98.7% and 98.9% of the regular users, respectively. Regular users who logged in to portal more frequently used all five studied portal functionalities. CONCLUSION Patients with cancer who use portals regularly use it more in proximity to an oncology office visit and use multiple available portal functionalities. These findings can direct strategic planning to facilitate portal utilization among those not engaged with this tool.

PURPOSE Structured data elements within electronic health records are health-related information that can be entered, stored, and extracted in an organized manner at later time points. Tracking outcomes for cancer survivors is also enabled by structured data. We sought to increase structured data capture within oncology practices at multiple sites sharing the same electronic health records. METHODS Applying engineering approaches and the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle, we launched dual quality improvement initiatives to ensure that a malignant diagnosis and stage were captured as structured data. Intervention: Close Visit Validation (CVV) requires providers to satisfy certain criteria before closing ambulatory encounters. CVV may be used to track open clinical encounters and chart delinquencies to encourage optimal clinical workflows. We added two cancer-specific required criteria at the time of closing encounters in oncology clinics: (1) the presence of at least one malignant diagnosis on the Problem List and (2) staging all the malignant diagnoses on the Problem List when appropriate. RESULTS Six months before the CVV implementation, the percentage of encounters with a malignant diagnosis on the Problem List at the time of the encounter was 65%, whereas the percentage of encounters with a staged diagnosis was 32%. Three months after cancer-specific CVV implementation, the percentages were 85% and 75%, respectively. Rates had increased to 90% and 88% more than 2 years after implementation. CONCLUSION Oncologist performance improved after the implementation of cancer-specific CVV criteria, with persistently high percentages of relevant malignant diagnoses and cancer stage structured data capture 2 years after the intervention.

TPS366 Background: First-line treatment of mRCC has rapidly changed to include IPI-NIVO or CABO, with clinical benefit of each based on the Checkmate 214 and CABOSUN (A031203) trials. Combination immunotherapy with VEGF therapies has shown benefit over sunitinib in the JAVELIN 101 and KEYNOTE 426 trials. It is yet unclear which patients (pts) benefit most from combination immunotherapy-VEGF inhibitors, and the optimal sequence of drugs. Methods: In an adaptive, randomized, multicenter phase III trial (Alliance A031704, PDIGREE), pts start treatment with induction IPI 1 mg/kg and NIVO 3 mg/kg intravenously (IV) once every 3 weeks. Key inclusion criteria include clear cell mRCC, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate or poor risk, Karnofsky performance status >70, and no prior treatments for mRCC. Based on 3-month radiographic assessment (after completing IPI-NIVO combination), pts with complete responses (CR) undergo maintenance NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks; pts with progression of disease (PD) switch to CABO 60 mg oral daily; pts with non-CR/non-PD are randomized to NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks versus NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks with CABO 40 mg oral daily. Randomization is stratified by IMDC risk criteria and presence of bone metastases. The primary endpoint of the study is overall survival (OS). We hypothesize that 3-year OS will improve to 70% for NIVO-CABO compared to 60% for NIVO alone; to achieve 85% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and exponential distribution, 696 patients will be randomized. Accounting for 30% patients with either CR or PD, and 5% dropout from toxicity, up to 1046 pts will be enrolled. Key secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, 12-month CR rate, overall response rate based on RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST criteria, and toxicity profiles. Quality of life will be assessed based on the FKSI-19, PROMIS-fatigue, and EQ5D-5L questionnaires. Biomarkers associated with CR, tissue-based and plasma-based biomarkers will be assessed. Updated enrollment through January 2021 will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03793166 .

TPS5100 Background: First-line treatment of mRCC has rapidly changed to include IPI-NIVO or CABO, with clinical benefit of each based on the Checkmate 214 and CABOSUN (A031203) trials. Combination immunotherapy with VEGF therapies has shown benefit over sunitinib in the JAVELIN 101 and KEYNOTE 426 trials. It is yet unclear which patients (pts) benefit most from combination immunotherapy-VEGF inhibitors, and the optimal sequence of drugs. Methods: In an adaptive, randomized, multicenter phase 3 trial (Alliance A031704, PDIGREE), pts start treatment with induction IPI 1 mg/kg and NIVO 3 mg/kg intravenously (IV) once every 3 weeks. Key inclusion criteria include clear cell mRCC, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate or poor risk, Karnofsky performance status > 70, and no prior treatments for mRCC. Based on 3-month radiographic assessment (after completing IPI-NIVO combination), pts with complete responses (CR) undergo maintenance NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks; pts with progression of disease (PD) switch to CABO 60 mg oral daily; pts with non-CR/non-PD are randomized to NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks versus NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks with CABO 40 mg oral daily. Randomization is stratified by IMDC risk criteria and presence of bone metastases. The primary endpoint of the study is overall survival (OS). We hypothesize that 3-year OS will improve to 70% for NIVO-CABO compared to 60% for NIVO alone; to achieve 85% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and exponential distribution, 696 patients will be randomized. Accounting for 30% patients with either CR or PD, and 5% dropout from toxicity, up to 1046 pts will be enrolled. Key secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, 12-month CR rate, overall response rate based on RECIST 1.1 and irRECIST criteria, and toxicity profiles. Quality of life will be assessed based on the FKSI-19, PROMIS-fatigue, and EQ5D-5L questionnaires. Biomarkers associated with CR, tissue-based and plasma-based biomarkers will be assessed. Updated enrollment through May 2020 will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03793166 .

TPS760 Background: First-line treatment of mRCC has rapidly changed to include IPI-NIVO or CABO, with clinical benefit of each based on the Checkmate 214 and CABOSUN trials. Combination immunotherapy with VEGF therapies have shown benefit in the JAVELIN 101 and KEYNOTE 426 trials over sunitinib. It is yet unclear which patients (pts) benefit most from combination immunotherapy-VEGF inhibitors, and the optimal sequence of drugs. Methods: In an adaptive, randomized, multicenter, phase 3 trial (Alliance A031704, PDIGREE), pts start treatment with induction IPI 1mg/kg and NIVO 3mg/kg intravenously (IV) once every 3 weeks. Key inclusion criteria include clear cell mRCC, IMDC intermediate or poor risk, Karnofsky performance status >70, and no prior treatments for mRCC. Based on 3-month radiographic assessment (after completing IPI-NIVO combination), pts with complete responses (CR) undergo maintenance NIVO 480mg IV every 4 weeks, pts with progression of disease (PD) switch to CABO 60mg oral daily, and pts with non-CR/non-PD are randomized to NIVO 480mg IV every 4 weeks versus NIVO 480mg IV every 4 weeks with CABO 40mg oral daily. Randomization is stratified by IMDC risk criteria and presence of bone metastases. The primary endpoint of the study is overall survival (OS). We hypothesize that 3-year OS rate will improve to 70% for NIVO-CABO compared to 60% for NIVO alone; to achieve 85% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and exponential distribution, 696 patients will be randomized. Accounting for 30% patients with either CR or PD, and 5% dropout from toxicity, up to 1046 pts will be enrolled. Key secondary endpoints include PFS, 12-month CR rate, ORR based on RECIST 1.1 and irRECIST criteria, and toxicity profiles. Quality of life will be assessed based on the FKSI-19, PROMIS-fatigue, and EQ5D-5L questionnaires. Biomarkers associated with CR and association of IL-6 with treatment benefit will be assessed. Other tissue-based and plasma-based biomarkers are planned. Updated enrollment will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03793166.

Testicular cancer is relatively uncommon and accounts for <1% of all male tumors. However, it is the most common solid tumor in men between the ages of 20 and 34 years, and the global incidence has been steadily rising over the past several decades. Several risk factors for testicular cancer have been identified, including personal or family history of testicular cancer and cryptorchidism. Testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs) comprise 95% of malignant tumors arising in the testes and are categorized into 2 main histologic subtypes: seminoma and nonseminoma. Although nonseminoma is the more clinically aggressive tumor subtype, 5-year survival rates exceed 70% with current treatment options, even in patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Radical inguinal orchiectomy is the primary treatment for most patients with testicular GCTs. Postorchiectomy management is dictated by stage, histology, and risk classification; treatment options for nonseminoma include surveillance, systemic therapy, and nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Although rarely occurring, prognosis for patients with brain metastases remains poor, with >50% of patients dying within 1 year of diagnosis. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Testicular Cancer focuses on recommendations for the management of adult patients with nonseminomatous GCTs.