Citations

In 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) into its initial certification examination system. Previously, the ABA’s staged examination system consisted of 2 written examinations (the BASIC and ADVANCED examinations) and the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE). The OSCE and the existing SOE are now 2 separate components of the APPLIED Examination. This report presents the results of the first-year OSCE administration. A total of 1410 candidates took both the OSCE and the SOE in 2018. Candidate performance approximated a normal distribution for both the OSCE and the SOE, and was not associated with the timing of the examination, including day of the week, morning versus afternoon session, and order of the OSCE and the SOE. Practice-based Learning and Improvement was the most difficult station, while Application of Ultrasonography was the least difficult. The correlation coefficient between SOE and OSCE scores was 0.35 ([95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.30–0.39]; P < .001). Scores for the written ADVANCED Examination were modestly correlated with scores for the SOE ( r = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.25–0.34]; P < .001) and the OSCE ( r = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10–0.20]; P < .001). Most of the candidates who failed the SOE passed the OSCE, and most of the candidates who failed the OSCE passed the SOE. Of the 1410 candidates, 77 (5.5%) failed the OSCE, 155 (11.0%) failed the SOE, and 25 (1.8%) failed both. Thus, 207 (14.7%) failed at least 1 component of the APPLIED Examination. Adding an OSCE to a board certification examination system is feasible. Preliminary evidence indicates that the OSCE measures aspects of candidate abilities distinct from those measured by other examinations used for initial board certification.

Abstract Defining patient-to-patient similarity is essential for the development of precision medicine in clinical care and research. Conceptually, the identification of similar patient cohorts appears straightforward; however, universally accepted definitions remain elusive. Simultaneously, an explosion of vendors and published algorithms have emerged and all provide varied levels of functionality in identifying patient similarity categories. To provide clarity and a common framework for patient similarity, a workshop at the American Medical Informatics Association 2019 Annual Meeting was convened. This workshop included invited discussants from academics, the biotechnology industry, the FDA, and private practice oncology groups. Drawing from a broad range of backgrounds, workshop participants were able to coalesce around 4 major patient similarity classes: (1) feature, (2) outcome, (3) exposure, and (4) mixed-class. This perspective expands into these 4 subtypes more critically and offers the medical informatics community a means of communicating their work on this important topic.

Abstract Among 2,186 U.S. adults with invasive cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we examined the association of COVID-19 treatments with 30-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with treatment. Logistic regression with multiple adjustments (e.g., comorbidities, cancer status, baseline COVID-19 severity) was performed. Hydroxychloroquine with any other drug was associated with increased mortality versus treatment with any COVID-19 treatment other than hydroxychloroquine or untreated controls; this association was not present with hydroxychloroquine alone. Remdesivir had numerically reduced mortality versus untreated controls that did not reach statistical significance. Baseline COVID-19 severity was strongly associated with receipt of any treatment. Black patients were approximately half as likely to receive remdesivir as white patients. Although observational studies can be limited by potential unmeasured confounding, our findings add to the emerging understanding of patterns of care for patients with cancer and COVID-19 and support evaluation of emerging treatments through inclusive prospective controlled trials. Significance: Evaluating the potential role of COVID-19 treatments in patients with cancer in a large observational study, there was no statistically significant 30-day all-cause mortality benefit with hydroxychloroquine or high-dose corticosteroids alone or in combination; remdesivir showed potential benefit. Treatment receipt reflects clinical decision-making and suggests disparities in medication access. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients are at increased risk for pulmonary and cardiovascular complications; perioperative mortality risk is unclear. This report analyzes cases submitted to the OSA Death and Near Miss Registry, focusing on factors associated with poor outcomes after an OSA-related event. We hypothesized that more severe outcomes would be associated with OSA severity, less intense monitoring, and higher cumulative opioid doses. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, OSA diagnosed or suspected, event related to OSA, and event occurrence 1992 or later and <30 days postoperatively. Factors associated with death or brain damage versus other critical events were analyzed by tests of association and odds ratios (OR; 95% confidence intervals [CIs]). RESULTS: Sixty-six cases met inclusion criteria with known OSA diagnosed in 55 (83%). Patients were middle aged (mean = 53, standard deviation [SD] = 15 years), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) III (59%, n = 38), and obese (mean body mass index [BMI] = 38, SD = 9 kg/m 2 ); most had inpatient (80%, n = 51) and elective (90%, n = 56) procedures with general anesthesia (88%, n = 58). Most events occurred on the ward (56%, n = 37), and 14 (21%) occurred at home. Most events (76%, n = 50) occurred within 24 hours of anesthesia end. Ninety-seven percent (n = 64) received opioids within the 24 hours before the event, and two-thirds (41 of 62) also received sedatives. Positive airway pressure devices and/or supplemental oxygen were in use at the time of critical events in 7.5% and 52% of cases, respectively. Sixty-five percent (n = 43) of patients died or had brain damage; 35% (n = 23) experienced other critical events. Continuous central respiratory monitoring was in use for 3 of 43 (7%) of cases where death or brain damage resulted. Death or brain damage was (1) less common when the event was witnessed than unwitnessed (OR = 0.036; 95% CI, 0.007–0.181; P < .001); (2) less common with supplemental oxygen in place (OR = 0.227; 95% CI, 0.070–0.740; P = .011); (3) less common with respiratory monitoring versus no monitoring (OR = 0.109; 95% CI, 0.031–0.384; P < .001); and (4) more common in patients who received both opioids and sedatives than opioids alone (OR = 4.133; 95% CI, 1.348–12.672; P = .011). No evidence for an association was observed between outcomes and OSA severity or cumulative opioid dose. CONCLUSIONS: Death and brain damage were more likely to occur with unwitnessed events, no supplemental oxygen, lack of respiratory monitoring, and coadministration of opioids and sedatives. It is important that efforts be directed at providing more effective monitoring for OSA patients following surgery, and clinicians consider the potentially dangerous effects of opioids and sedatives—especially when combined—when managing OSA patients postoperatively.

PURPOSE The cancer research community is constantly evolving to better understand tumor biology, disease etiology, risk stratification, and pathways to novel treatments. Yet the clinical cancer genomics field has been hindered by redundant efforts to meaningfully collect and interpret disparate data types from multiple high-throughput modalities and integrate into clinical care processes. Bespoke data models, knowledgebases, and one-off customized resources for data analysis often lack adequate governance and quality control needed for these resources to be clinical grade. Many informatics efforts focused on genomic interpretation resources for neoplasms are underway to support data collection, deposition, curation, harmonization, integration, and analytics to support case review and treatment planning. METHODS In this review, we evaluate and summarize the landscape of available tools, resources, and evidence used in the evaluation of somatic and germline tumor variants within the context of molecular tumor boards. RESULTS Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) are collaborative efforts of multidisciplinary cancer experts equipped with genomic interpretation resources to aid in the delivery of accurate and timely clinical interpretations of complex genomic results for each patient, within an institution or hospital network. Virtual MTBs (VMTBs) provide an online forum for collaborative governance, provenance, and information sharing between experts outside a given hospital network with the potential to enhance MTB discussions. Knowledge sharing in VMTBs and communication with guideline-developing organizations can lead to progress evidenced by data harmonization across resources, crowd-sourced and expert-curated genomic assertions, and a more informed and explainable usage of artificial intelligence. CONCLUSION Advances in cancer genomics interpretation aid in better patient and disease classification, more streamlined identification of relevant literature, and a more thorough review of available treatments and predicted patient outcomes.

Continued tobacco use after cancer diagnosis is detrimental to treatment and survivorship. The current reach of evidence-based tobacco treatments in cancer patients is low. As a part of the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Cessation Initiative, the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center designed an electronic health record (EHR, Epic©)-based process to automatically refer ambulatory oncology patients to tobacco use treatment, regardless of intent to cease tobacco use(“opt out”). The referral and patient scheduling, accomplished through a best practice advisory (BPA) directed to staff who room patients, does not require a co-signature from clinicians. This process was piloted for a six-week period starting in July of 2019 at the Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. All oncology patients who were tobacco users were referred for tobacco treatment by the rooming staff (n = 210). Of these, 150 (71%) had a tobacco treatment appointment scheduled, and 25 (17%) completed their appointment. We conclude that an EHR-based “opt-out” approach to refer patients to tobacco dependence treatment that does not require active involvement by clinicians is feasible within the oncology clinical practice. Further work is needed to increase the proportion of scheduled patients who attend their appointments.

The NCCN Guidelines for Cervical Cancer provide recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with the disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the guidelines, including changes to first- and second-line systemic therapy recommendations for patients with recurrent or metastatic disease, and emerging evidence on a new histopathologic classification system for HPV-related endocervical adenocarcinoma.

LBA110 Background: There are limited data on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. We characterize the outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors. Methods: The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) cohort study includes patients with active or prior hematologic or invasive solid malignancies reported across academic and community sites. Results: We included 1,018 cases accrued March-April 2020. Median age was 66 years (range, 18-90). Breast (20%) and prostate (16%) cancers were most prevalent; 43% of patients were on active anti-cancer treatment. At time of data analysis, 106 patients (10.4%) have died and 26% met the composite outcome of death, severe illness requiring hospitalization, and/or mechanical ventilation. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality were age, male sex, former smoking, ECOG performance status (2 versus 0/1: partially adjusted odds ratio (pAOR) 2.74, 95% CI 1.31-5.7; 3/4 versus 0/1: pAOR 5.34, 95% CI 2.44-11.69), active malignancy (stable/responding, pAOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.06-3.5; progressing, pAOR 3.79, 95% CI 1.78-8.08), and receipt of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine. Tumor type, race/ethnicity, obesity, number of comorbidities, recent surgery, and type of active cancer therapy were not significant factors for mortality. Conclusions: All-cause 30-day mortality and severe illness in this cohort were significantly higher than previously reported for the general population and were associated with general risk factors as well as those unique to patients with cancer. Cancer type and treatment were not independently associated with increased 30-day mortality. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the impact of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments.

514 Background: The 21- gene Breast Recurrence Score predicts benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in estrogen receptor positive (ER+), HER-2 negative (-) breast cancer (BC). We aimed to examine whether the 21-gene assay predicts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Methods: We identified patients with stage I-III ER+/HER2− BC treated with NAC from the Young Women's Breast Cancer Study, a prospective cohort of women diagnosed with BC at age ≤ 40 years. The 21-gene assay was performed on tumor specimens removed prior to NAC either as part of clinical care or retrospectively for research. Pathologic complete response (pCR) was defined as no residual invasive tumor (ypT0/is ypN0). The relationship between Recurrence Score result (RS) and pCR was evaluated using logistic regression modeling. Results: 76 women in the cohort had undergone NAC for ER+, HER2- BC and were eligible for this analysis: 5 had undergone clinical 21-gene assay testing, 71 had banked specimens retrospectively tested. Median age at diagnosis was 36.7 (24.3-40). Most tumors were of ductal histology (78%), high grade (51%), progesterone receptor (PgR) positive (86%), ≥T2 (88%), clinically node positive (74%), and anthracycline and taxane containing protocols were administered in 86% of cases. RS ranged between 5-75 with 50% > 25 and only 4 < 11. Mean RS was significantly higher among tumors achieving pCR vs. non-pCR response (51.9 vs. 26.6, pwilcoxon= 0.0005). pCR rate in patients with RS > 25 was 21% (8/38) vs. 5% in patients with RS < 25 (2/38), with both pCRs in the <25 group in patients with RS 21-25. In univariable analysis, PgR negativity (odds ratio (OR) 5.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27-24.89, p = 0.02), high grade (OR 9.03, 95%CI 1.07-76.32, p = 0.04) and higher RS as a continuous variable (OR 1.08, 95%CI 1.04-1.13, p = 0.0003) were associated with a greater likelihood of pCR. In multivariable analysis only RS remained significantly associated with pCR (OR: 1.07, 95%CI 1.01-1.12, p = 0.01): a 7% increase in the odds of pCR for every 1-point increase in RS. Conclusions: In young women with ER+, HER2- BC who received NAC, higher pretreatment RS was associated with an increased likelihood of pCR. Genomic expression profiling assays may have a role in decision-making in young women in need of neoadjuvant therapy. For women with low likelihood of benefiting from NAC, alternative approaches are clearly warranted. Given the demonstrated efficacy of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in post-menopausal women, further evaluation in young women should be pursued.