Pritchett, Joshua

Abstract Rural and low-socioeconomic status women face social determinants of health barriers leading to disproportionately low rates of breast cancer screening and markedly reduced participation in clinical trials. To address this gap, we developed the WeCARE (Women’s Engagement for Cancer Awareness, Resources, and Education) intervention using a community-engaged approach. This paper describes how Community Advisory Board feedback informed the development of Mayo Clinic Health System’s WeCARE intervention components. Their input was systematically analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0) to identify determinants of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility and to guide actionable refinements to intervention content and delivery.

PURPOSE Limited access to high-speed internet (broadband [BB]) may pose challenges to video telehealth visit (VTV) utilization. This study explored barriers, facilitators, and attitudes toward VTV adoption in patients with cancer residing in low-BB settings. METHODS We examined a cohort of patients with cancer receiving longitudinal care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Practice in the Upper Midwest. Eligible patients had ≥6 in-person visits during July 2020-October 2022, received oncology care at Mayo Clinic sites, were alive at sampling, and resided in low-BB areas defined by Federal Communications Commission data as 0 or 1 internet service provider offering <25 Mbps. We enrolled 24 participants stratified into two groups: (1) Transitioned users (TUs): adopted VTVs postpandemic (November 2022-December 2023); (2) persistent nonusers (PNUs): received exclusively in-person visits. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted in June 2024 and thematically analyzed. RESULTS The average age of participants was 71.3 years (range, 42-88), 50% was female, and all identified as White. Three themes emerged: (1) Structural and clinical constraints—physical examinations, laboratory testing, and chemotherapy administration were viewed as requiring in-person care, whereas VTVs were perceived acceptable for routine follow-ups; (2) Skills and experience—digital literacy was generally adequate, but confidence and direct exposure to VTV distinguished TU from PNU; (3) Motivations—both groups preferred in-person care for cancer-related emotional reassurance. TU cited weather, travel burden, and proactive provider offering as adoption triggers, whereas PNU reported that VTV was rarely offered. TU focused on system-level solutions, whereas PNUs preferred individual-level resources. CONCLUSION Differential VTV adoption in low-BB settings reflected exposure, provider offering, and situational necessity rather than BB access alone. Oncology practices should consider normalizing the hybrid care model combining in-person and video appointment visits and provide tailored supports to advance equitable telemedicine. Expanding video care in oncology requires more than digital access and depends on patient experience, care context, and human connection inherent in oncology care.

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.

The theme of the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting is Partnering With Patients: The Cornerstone of Cancer Care and Research. As we aim to partner with patients to improve their health care, digital tools have the potential to enhance patient-centered cancer care and make clinical research more accessible and generalizable. Using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) to collect patients' reports of symptoms, functioning, and well-being facilitates patient-clinician communication and improves care and outcomes. Early studies suggest that racial and ethnic minority populations, older patients, and patients with less education may benefit even more from ePRO implementation. Clinical practices looking to implement ePROs can refer to the resources of the PROTEUS Consortium (Patient-Reported Outcomes Tools: Engaging Users & Stakeholders). Beyond ePROs, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer practices have rapidly adopted other digital tools (eg, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring). As implementation grows, we must be aware of the limitations of these tools and implement them in ways to promote optimal function, access, and ease of use. Infrastructure, patient, provider, and system-level barriers need to be addressed. Partnerships across all levels can inform development and implementation of digital tools to meet the needs of diverse groups. In this article, we describe how we use ePROs and other digital health tools in cancer care, how digital tools can expand access to and generalizability of oncology care and research, and prospects for broader implementation and use.

Abstract The role and immunological constitution of the tumor microenvironment (TME) in splenic marginal zone lymphoma (sMZL) is largely unknown and studies on the phenotype and subset composition of intratumoral T cells are lacking. In the present study, we evaluated 36 sMZL spleen specimens by single cell analysis to gain a better understanding of the TME in sMZL. Using mass cytometry (CyTOF), we observed that the TME in sMZL is distinct from that of control non-malignant reactive spleen (rSP). We found that the number of TFH cells varied greatly in sMZL, ICOS+ TFH cells were more abundant in sMZL than rSP, and TFH cells positively correlated with increased numbers of memory B cells. Treg cell analysis revealed that TIGIT+ Treg cells are enriched in sMZL and correlate with suppression of TH17 and TH22 cells. Intratumoral CD8+ T cells were comprised of subsets of short-lived, exhausted and late-stage differentiated cells, thereby functionally impaired. We observed that T-cell exhaustion was present in sMZL and TIM-3 expression on PD-1low cells identified cells with severe immune dysfunction. Gene expression profiling by CITE-seq analysis validated this finding. Taken together, our data sugget that the TME as a whole, and T-cell population specifically, are heterogenous in sMZL and immune exhaustion is one of the major factors impairing T-cell function.

PURPOSE: Precision oncology promises improved outcomes but the cost-effectiveness and accessibility of targeted therapies is debatable. We report price change patterns from 2015 to 2019 for several oral anticancer medications for common solid tumor malignancies. METHODS: We collected provider utilization and payment data from the public Medicare Part D database and extracted drug price information for commonly prescribed targeted oral anticancer agents for lung, breast, and prostate cancer. We then calculated median Pearson correlation coefficient values for various drugs (containing more than two data points) within each therapeutic class. We also calculated compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) for medication costs within each class and compared them with the consumer price index (CPI). RESULTS: Our study included six epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRi; one generic), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (ALKi), two B-Raf inhibitors (BRAFi), three hormonal agents (one generic), three cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i), two poly-ADP-ribose inhibitors (PARPi), and seven antiandrogen agents (two generic). The median (range) Pearson correlation coefficient values for cost of drugs within each therapeutic class were 0.967 (0.915-0.978) for EGFRi, 0.981 (0.966-0.989) for ALKi, 0.996 for BRAFi, 0.994 (0.992-0.999) for CDK4/6i, 0.855 for PARPi, and 0.442 (–0.522 to 0.962) for antiandrogens. Therapies with two or fewer data points (generic erlotinib, dacomitinib, abiraterone, apalutamide, and darolutamide) were excluded. The median CAGRs in costs over the 5-year period were 4.56% (EGFRi), 6.40% (ALKi), 2.58% (BRAFi), 5.48% (hormonal agents), 5.21% (CDK4/6i), 27.29% (PARPi), and 34.8% (antiandrogens). The CPI over 5 years was 2.26%/year, and the average inflation rate was 1.90%/year. CONCLUSION: The median CAGR in costs for modern oral precision-driven cancer therapeutic classes mostly outpaced CPI and the average inflation. Increase in cost within the same class should be weighed against incremental clinical benefit for the patients to ensure that rising costs do not limit access to targeted therapies.

Background CD8+ T-lymphocyte subsets defined by killer lectin-like receptor G1 (KLRG1) and CD127 expression have been reported to have an important role in infection, but their role in the setting of lymphoid malignancies, specifically follicular lymphoma (FL), has not been studied. Methods To characterize the phenotype of KLRG1/CD127-defined CD8+ subsets, surface and intracellular markers were measured by flow cytometry and Cytometry by time of flight (CyTOF), and the transcriptional profile of these cells was determined by CITE-Seq (Cellular Indexing of Transcriptomes and Epitopes by Sequencing). The functional capacity of each subset was determined, as was their impact on overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) of patients with FL. Results We found that intratumoral CD8+ cells in FL are skewed toward effector cell subsets, particularly KLRG+CD127- and KLRG1-CD127- cells over memory cell subsets, such as KLRG1-CD127+ and KLRG1+CD127+ cells. While effector subsets exhibited increased capacity to produce cytokines/granules when compared with memory subsets, their proliferative capacity and viability were found to be substantially inferior. Clinically, a skewed distribution of intratumoral CD8+ T cells favoring effector subtypes was associated with an inferior outcome in patients with FL. Increased numbers of CD127+KLRG1- and CD127+KLRG1+ were significantly associated with a favorable OS and EFS, while CD127-KLRG1- correlated with a poor EFS and OS in patients with FL. Furthermore, we demonstrated that interleukin (IL)-15 promotes CD127-KLRG1+ cell development in the presence of dendritic cells via a phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-dependent mechanism, and treatment of CD8+ T cells with a PI3K inhibitor downregulated the transcription factors responsible for CD127-KLRG1+ differentiation. Conclusions Taken together, these results reveal not only a biological and prognostic role for KLRG1/CD127-defined CD8+ subsets in FL but also a potential role for PI3K inhibitors to manipulate the differentiation of CD8+ T cells, thereby promoting a more effective antitumor immune response.

PURPOSE: The benefit of routine pre-emptive screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by routine screening (RS) in comparison with those diagnosed on the basis of clinical suspicion or exposure history (nonroutine screening [NRS]). METHODS: A multisite prospective observational study was conducted at three major and five satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between March 18 and July 31, 2020. The primary outcome was COVID-19–related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admissions and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred fifty-two patients underwent RS in the outpatient setting only, and 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. RS detected 19 additional patients from the scheduled inpatient admissions for surgical or interventional procedures or inpatient chemotherapy. One hundred sixty-one patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 on the basis of NRS. COVID-19–related hospitalization rate (17.5% v 26.7%; P = .14), intensive care unit admission (1.6% v 5.6%; P = .19), and mortality (4.8% v 3.7%; P = .72) were not significantly different between the RS and NRS groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio, 4.4; P = .023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio, 9.2; P = .002) were independent predictors of COVID-19–related hospital admission. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low on the basis of RS. Comparing the hospital admission and mortality outcomes with the NRS cohort, there were no significant differences. The value of routine pre-emptive screening of asymptomatic patients with cancer for COVID-19 remains low.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring (RPM) program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Adult patients receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020, were included. RPM was composed of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nursing and physician oversight. RESULTS: During the study timeframe, 224 patients with cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 187 patients (83%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM. Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity score weighting, rates of hospitalization for RPM and non-RPM patients were 2.8% and 13%, respectively, implying that the use of RPM was associated with a 78% relative risk reduction in hospital admission rate (95% CI, 54 to 102; P = .002). Furthermore, when hospitalized, these patients experienced a shorter length of stay and fewer prolonged hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths, although these trends did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of RPM and a centralized virtual care team was associated with a reduction in hospital admission rate and lower overall acute care resource utilization among cancer patients with COVID-19.