Background: NCCN quality measures for breast cancer include (1) radiation therapy administered within 1 year of diagnosis for women under age 70 receiving breast-conserving surgery; (2) chemotherapy considered in 4 months of diagnosis for women under 70 with T1c or stage II/III ER/PR- tumors; (3) endocrine therapy administered within 1 year of diagnosis for women with AJCC T1 or stage II/III ER/PR+ breast cancer. These evidence-based measures promote accountability for providers and allow transparency in quality of care. Black women are less likely than white women to receive these therapies that are associated with a survival benefit. Improving adherence to guidelines can decrease the gap in mortality rates for minority women with breast cancer. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review on patients with breast cancer between April 2010 and October 2015 at Rush University. Information collected included time of diagnosis, clinical stage, ER/PR status, surgical procedures, radiation, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and demographics. Chi-squared analysis was done to compare percent of black versus white women who met each quality guideline. Results: In total, 2,436 women were analyzed, of whom 30.3% were black, 66% were white, and 3.7% were other. Of this cohort, 779 women met inclusion criteria for quality guideline 1, and there was no significant difference between black and white women who did not receive radiation therapy (P=.21; 24.7% vs 20.4%). For quality guideline 2 (n=382), there was also no significant difference between black and white women who did not get chemotherapy within 4 months of diagnosis (P=.32; 36.6% vs 31.4%). However, for quality guideline 3 (n=1,222), there was a statistically significant difference between black and white women who did not get hormone therapy within a year of diagnosis (P=.0008; 36.9% vs 26.1%). Conclusions: Endocrine therapy reduces risk of recurrence and mortality in women with ER/PR positive breast cancer; however, there is a disparity between black versus white women who meet this NCCN quality measure. Further studies are needed to understand the reason for this gap in quality of care so that specific interventions can be implemented to eliminate this disparity.
Surbhi Agarwal, Ruta Rao, and David Ansell
Radhakrishnan Ramchandren, Stephen M. Ansell, Philippe Armand, Andreas Engert, Fiona Taylor, Kim Cocks, Clara Chen, Bryan Bennett, Alejandro Moreno-Koehler, Adam Roeder, Anne Sumbul, Mariana Sacchi, and David Cella
Background: Patients (pts) with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) frequently experience reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (Oerlemans et al, Ann Hematol 2011). Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibody, demonstrated efficacy and clinically meaningful improvement in pt-reported outcomes (PROs) in pts with relapsed/refractory cHL in cohorts A, B, and C of CheckMate 205 (NCT02181738) (Armand et al, J Clin Oncol 2018; Engert et al, ASH 2017). Nivolumab monotherapy followed by nivolumab + doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (N-AVD) demonstrated an objective response rate of 84% in newly diagnosed cHL (cohort D of CheckMate 205; Ramchandren et al, EHA 2018). We present PROs in CheckMate 205 cohort D. Methods: Pts ≥18 years of age with untreated, advanced-stage cHL, with ECOG performance status (PS) of 0–1 received 4 doses of nivolumab monotherapy (240 mg IV Q2W) followed by N-AVD for 6 cycles (12 doses). Pts then entered the follow-up (FU) period. PROs were an exploratory endpoint, assessed using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions-3 level (EQ-5D-3L) and associated visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) in all treated pts who had both a baseline (monotherapy cycle 1) and post-baseline assessment. EQ-VAS ranges from 0–100, with higher scores indicating better HRQoL. In EQ-5D-3L, pts can report no, some, or extreme problems in each of 5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, activity, pain, and anxiety). Results: 51 pts were treated. At baseline, median age was 37 years, 63% were male, 59% had ECOG PS of 0. 49 pts (96%) completed baseline EQ-VAS. Mean EQ-VAS scores exceeded the mean baseline score at the end of monotherapy, after 2 combination cycles, at the end of therapy, and during follow-up (). The proportion of pts reporting some or extreme problems in EQ-5D-3L was numerically lower than or similar to baseline after monotherapy for all dimensions, but was numerically higher than baseline (dimensions of mobility and activity) after 2 combination cycles, and remained close to or numerically below baseline during follow-up (dimensions of self-care, activity, pain, and anxiety). Conclusions: Pt-reported HRQoL, as assessed by observed mean EQ-VAS scores, did not deteriorate from baseline during treatment with nivolumab followed by N-AVD. Proportions of pts reporting problems in individual EQ-5D-3L dimensions were generally similar to baseline during treatment and follow-up.
Allison Matthews, Surbhi Sidana, Lauren Seymour, Nancy Pick, James Pringnitz, David Argue, Gina Lange, Eva Brandes, Allison McClanahan, Adrienne Nedved, Suzanne Hayman, Saad Kenderian, Shaji Kumar, David Dingli, Taxiarchis Kourelis, Rahma Warsame, Prashant Kapoor, Mithun Shah, Hassan Alkhateeb, Patrick Johnston, Stephen Ansell, Nabila Bennani, Mustaqeem Siddiqui, and Yi Lin
Background: The patient/caregiver experience during CAR-T therapy is stressful, overwhelming, terrifying, and often a patient’s last treatment option. The Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery Innovation and Design team has worked with the CAR-T therapy clinical team to develop a patient experience that provides patients with a sense of caring, supportive environment, timely knowledge, and realistic expectations. Using a human-centered design approach, the Innovation and Design team worked with patients and caregivers to understand latent and unspoken needs in order to develop an ideal CAR-T therapy patient journey. Methods: With qualitative interviewing techniques, patient observation, and low fidelity experimentation, 21 patients/caregiver pairs were interviewed throughout their CAR-T therapy experience in 2018. Patients were interviewed at several touch points as well as encouraged to reach out to the Innovation and Design team at any point with reflections on their experiences. Patients were recruited as they began their evaluation phase for CAR-T therapy. The interviews were unscripted to allow for a breadth of discovery by not constraining the conversations to previously developed themes. As themes emerged from patient/caregiver interviews, artifacts and interventions were designed to alleviate pain points and improve the patient/caregiver experience. These artifacts and interventions were integrated into the clinical processes in real time and patient/caregivers were interviewed to understand the impact of these activities. Results: Several themes emerged from qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers. From the themes, interventions were developed. We were able to demonstrate a qualitative improvement in patient/caregiver experience through these interventions (). Conclusions: Patients/caregivers undergoing CAR-T therapy have unique issues surrounding the logistics of care, emotional burden, and physical effects of treatment. We implemented processes to address these issues and observed a qualitative improvement via patient interviews/feedback. Ongoing work includes optimizing remote monitoring, digital platforms for patient education, and a quantitative study looking at patient reported outcomes (PROs) in such patients. To our knowledge, this is the first report for care delivery optimization in real-world practice for this new therapy.