Emamekhoo, Hamid

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating clinician and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix I and Appendix II). Updates are published regularly and can be found on the ASCO Publications website .

Abstract The adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) has transformed health care, improving efficiency and chart accessibility. However, the widespread reliance on unstructured data entry and the lack of standardized documentation frameworks have resulted in significant data fragmentation across health care systems. The prevalence of unstructured data in EHRs limits their potential for clinical decision support, trial matching, real‐world evidence (RWE) generation, and quality measurement. Data fragmentation in health care triggers a cascade of challenges that ultimately compromise patient care. Clinicians face an excessive documentation burden and struggle to locate critical information buried in unstructured notes. Researchers encounter difficulties in extracting reliable clinical data. EHR vendors grapple with standardizing unstructured information for interoperability, and payers are unable to process unstructured clinical data efficiently to support value‐based care models. These challenges are particularly acute in oncology, where complex clinical elements like cancer staging, disease status, and treatment changes require precise, structured documentation. Emerging artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as large language models (LLMs) and ambient listening, offer a path to automate structured data generation while reducing the workload on providers. Here, the authors propose LLM‐based workflows that balance automation with clinician verification, streamlining data entry without compromising accuracy. Realizing these benefits requires coordinated efforts among clinicians, researchers, EHR vendors, payers, and policymakers to align regulatory frameworks with AI‐driven innovations. This article outlines a strategy to enhance structured data capture within EHRs, ultimately improving patient care, research, and health care efficiency.

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating clinician and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information ( Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 ). Updates are published regularly and can be found at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS An Expert Panel including patient representation completed a systematic review of the evidence and made recommendations. RESULTS Depending upon prior treatment received, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs: enzalutamide, abiraterone with prednisone), poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), chemotherapeutic agents (docetaxel, cabazitaxel), radiopharmaceuticals (radium 223, 177 Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]-617), and sipuleucel-T have demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with mCRPC. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI, the combination of PARPi and ARPI (talazoparib + enzalutamide, olaparib and/or niraparib + abiraterone) has shown clinical benefit. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI or ARPI followed by docetaxel, olaparib showed OS benefit. In select patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient, pembrolizumab showed clinical efficacy. RECOMMENDATIONS Prior systemic therapy for castration-sensitive prostate cancer will determine subsequent therapy used for mCRPC. Continue androgen-deprivation therapy for patients with mCRPC indefinitely. Early adoption of somatic genetic testing and palliative care is recommended. Patients with mCRPC and bony metastases should receive a bone-protective agent. The panel recommends the combination of ARPI with PARPi in patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI. For patients who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends docetaxel chemotherapy. The panel recommends 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or cabazitaxel chemotherapy for patients who receive prior ARPI and docetaxel chemotherapy. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends PARPi monotherapy. Radium 223 is recommended for patients with symptomatic bone–only disease. Evidence for optimal sequencing for mCRPC regimens is lacking. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

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.