Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Bone metastases, affecting more than 4.8% of patients with cancer annually, and particularly spinal metastases require urgent intervention to prevent neurological complications. However, the current process of manually reviewing radiological reports leads to potential delays in specialist referrals. We hypothesized that natural language processing (NLP) review of routine radiology reports could automate the referral process for timely multidisciplinary care of spinal metastases. METHODS:We assessed 3 NLP models-a rule-based regular expression (RegEx) model, GPT-4, and a specialized Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model (NYUTron)-for automated detection and referral of bone metastases. Study inclusion criteria targeted patients with active cancer diagnoses who underwent advanced imaging (computed tomography, MRI, or positron emission tomography) without previous specialist referral. We defined 2 separate tasks: task of identifying clinically significant bone metastatic terms (lexical detection), and identifying cases needing a specialist follow-up (clinical referral). Models were developed using 3754 hand-labeled advanced imaging studies in 2 phases: phase 1 focused on spine metastases, and phase 2 generalized to bone metastases. Standard McRae's line performance metrics were evaluated and compared across all stages and tasks. RESULTS:In the lexical detection, a simple RegEx achieved the highest performance (sensitivity 98.4%, specificity 97.6%, F1 = 0.965), followed by NYUTron (sensitivity 96.8%, specificity 89.9%, and F1 = 0.787). For the clinical referral task, RegEx also demonstrated superior performance (sensitivity 92.3%, specificity 87.5%, and F1 = 0.936), followed by a fine-tuned NYUTron model (sensitivity 90.0%, specificity 66.7%, and F1 = 0.750). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:An NLP-based automated referral system can accurately identify patients with bone metastases requiring specialist evaluation. A simple RegEx model excels in syntax-based identification and expert-informed rule generation for efficient referral patient recommendation in comparison with advanced NLP models. This system could significantly reduce missed follow-ups and enhance timely intervention for patients with bone metastases.

BACKGROUND:Routine collection and use of sexual orientation and gender identity data can assist in understanding and addressing the health disparities that affect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer+ (LGBTQ+), also known as sexual and gender minority, individuals and communities. This study explored the implementation of a culturally relevant sexual and gender minority/sexual orientation and gender identity training program at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. METHODS:The training consisted of 6 in-person 15-minute modules or 3 virtual 30-minute modules that occurred during established high-reliability organization huddles attended by oncology faculty and staff. Module topics were (1) Building LGBTQ+ Knowledge & LGBTQ+ Cancer Disparities, (2) Creating an Inclusive Environment, (3) Recovering From Misgendering/Making Assumptions, (4) How to Receive & Respond to Feedback, (5) Witnessing & Responding to Discrimination, and (6) Making and Sustaining a Change. All high-reliability organization attendees were considered eligible for participation and were provided with pretraining and post-training surveys. Survey items included comfort caring for sexual and gender minority patients, practice collecting sexual orientation and gender identity data, knowledge of sexual and gender minority health, and demographics. RESULTS:A total of 344 individuals completed the presurvey and 187 completed the postsurvey. Postsurvey results demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in self-perceived knowledge about sexual and gender minority health (scale: 0-100, with 100 = highest; presurvey vs postsurvey, 69 vs 84; P < .001). Respondents also reported statistically significant improvements in confidence in engaging with sexual orientation and gender identity questions (53 vs 79, P < .001) as well as intention to collect patient sexual orientation and gender identity information (49 vs 75, P < .001). Notably, sexual orientation and gender identity data collection tracking demonstrated a 311% increase in sexual orientation and 262% in gender identity disclosure during the study period. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite the availability of sexual orientation and gender identity data fields within electronic health records, sexual orientation and gender identity disclosure remains an ongoing nationwide problem. Use of culturally relevant sexual and gender minority/sexual orientation and gender identity training can help improve oncology staff and clinician sexual and gender minority knowledge and confidence when engaging patients with and subsequent documentation of sexual orientation and gender identity data, resulting in improvement of data completion.

BACKGROUND:Advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer treatment has evolved with the introduction of molecularly targeted therapy, immunotherapy and combination frontline therapies. Despite these advancements, most patients experience treatment failure, resulting in poor prognosis characterized by low median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Second-line chemotherapy has demonstrated minimally improved survival compared to best supportive care. Exploring new mechanisms to enhance treatment response in this patient population is critical. OBJECTIVE:This retrospective study aims to assess if there is survival benefit in a cohort of patients with stage IV lung cancer who have failed previous systemic therapy treated with pulsed electrical fields (PEF) therapy compared to a propensity-matched cohort. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients treated with PEF at three academic institutions from January 1, 2023, to July 1, 2024, yielded 41 patients with progressive stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. Tumor response was evaluated by RECIST 1.1 criteria. A propensity matched cohort of 50 patients with advanced NSCLC undergoing systemic therapy was identified. Statistical analyses, including Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Hazard ratios, were conducted. RESULTS:The PEF-treated cohort exhibited a 1-year PFS of 63.2 % and OS of 74.3 %. In contrast, the matched cohort demonstrated a 1-year PFS of 11.8 % and OS of 33 %. The hazard ratio for PFS in the PEF group was 3.66 (p < 0.0001) and for OS was 3.5 (p = 0.0007), indicating a significant survival advantage for patients receiving PEF. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that PEF therapy may be associated with significantly improved PFS and OS in patients with progressive stage IV non-small cell lung cancer compared to the matched cohort. Prospective controlled studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings, to better understand the mechanism of action of PEF, and to identify which patient populations would best benefit from this therapy.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Breast cancer survivors may demonstrate elevated psychological distress, which can also hinder adherence to survivorship care plans. Our goal was to study heterogeneity of behavioral health and functioning in breast cancer survivors, and identify both risk and protective factors to improve targets for wellness interventions. METHODS:Breast cancer survivors (n = 187) consented to complete self-reported psychological measures and to access their medical records. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to classify heterogeneous subpopulations based on levels of depression, post-traumatic stress, fear of cancer recurrence, cancer-related pain, and fatigue. Multinomial logistic regression and auxiliary analysis in a 3-step modeling conditional approach was used to identify characteristics of the group based on demographics, treatment history and characteristics, and current medication prescriptions. RESULTS:Three subpopulations of breast cancer survivors were identified from the LCA: a modal Resilient group (48.2%, n = 90), a Moderate Symptoms group (34%, n = 65), and an Elevated Symptoms group (n = 17%, n = 32) with clinically-relevant impairment. Results from the logistic regression indicated that individuals in the Elevated Symptoms group were less likely to have a family history of breast cancer; they were more likely to be closer to time of diagnosis and younger, have received chemotherapy and psychotropic prescriptions, and have higher BMI. Survivors in the Elevated Symptoms group were also less likely to be prescribed estrogen inhibitors than the Moderate Symptoms group. CONCLUSIONS:This study identified subgroups of breast cancer survivors based on behavioral, psychological, and treatment-related characteristics, with implications for targeted monitoring and survivorship care plans. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS/CONCLUSIONS:Results showed the majority of cancer survivors were resilient, with minimal psychological distress. Results also suggest the importance of paying special attention to younger patients getting chemotherapy, especially those without a family history of breast cancer.

To identify potential gaps in attitudes, knowledge, and practices towards LGBTQ2S + patients with a cancer diagnosis, a survey of clinical providers (CP) and allied health staff (AHS) was conducted to identify areas of improvement and guide development for future education and training. A previously published, validated survey was adapted at the direction of a LGBTQ2S + Patient and Family Advisory Council, and modified to include AHS. The survey was disseminated to all faculty and staff, and was adapted to the participants' self-identified level of patient interaction/care responsibilities. Subsections consisted of questions related to demographics, knowledge, attitudes, and practice behaviors towards participating in the care of LGBTQ2S + patients. Results were quantified using stratified analysis and an attitude summary measure. Of the 311 respondents, 179 self-identified as CPs and 132 as AHS. There was high agreement in comfort treating or assisting LGBTQ2S + patients by CP and AHS respondents, respectively. CPs possessed significantly higher knowledge regarding LGBTQ2S + health when compared to AHS; however, there remained high percentages of "neutral" and "do not know or prefer not to answer" responses regardless of clinical role. There was high agreement regarding the importance of knowing a patient's gender identity (GI) and pronouns (CP vs. AHS; 76.9% vs. 73.5% and 89.4% vs. 84.1%, respectively), whereas patient's sexual orientation and sex assigned at birth (CP vs. AHS; 51.1% vs. 53.5% and 58.6% vs. 62.9%, respectively) were viewed as less important. There was high interest in receiving education regarding the unique needs of LGBTQ2S + patients regardless of clinical role. Stratified analyses of CPs revealed early-career physicians (< 1-5 years from graduation) expressed higher interest in additional education and involvement with LGBTQ2S + -focused trainings when compared to mid- and late-career providers. This is the first study, to our knowledge, assessing the attitudes, knowledge, and practices of CPs and AHS regarding the care of LGBTQ2S + patients with cancer. Overall, there was high comfort treating/assisting LGBTQ2S + patients among CP and AHS respondents, respectively; yet, both groups possessed significant gaps in LGBTQ2S + -focused knowledge.

BACKGROUND:Brain metastases (BM) have long been considered a terminal diagnosis with management mainly aimed at palliation and little hope for extended survival. Use of brain stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and/or resection, in addition to novel systemic therapies, has enabled improvements in overall and progression-free (PFS) survival. OBJECTIVE:To explore the possibility of extended survival in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) BM in the current era. METHODS:During the years 2008 to 2020, 606 patients with NSCLC underwent their first Gamma Knife SRS for BM at our institution with point-of-care data collection. We reviewed clinical, molecular, imaging, and treatment parameters to explore the relationship of such factors with survival. RESULTS:The median overall survival was 17 months (95% CI, 13-40). Predictors of increased survival in a multivariable analysis included age <65 years (P < .001), KPS ≥80 (P < .001), absence of extracranial metastases (P < .001), fewer BM at first SRS (≤3, P = .003), and targeted therapy (P = .005), whereas chemotherapy alone was associated with shorter survival (P = .04). In a subgroup of patients managed before 2016 (n = 264), 38 (14%) were long-term survivors (≥5 years), of which 16% required no active cancer treatment (systemic or brain) for ≥3 years by the end of their follow-up. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Long-term survival in patients with brain metastases from NSCLC is feasible in the current era of SRS when combined with the use of effective targeted therapeutics. Of those living ≥5 years, the chance for living with stable disease without the need for active treatment for ≥3 years was 16%.

Objectives/UNASSIGNED:To investigate the efficacy and safety of lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) including oligorecurrent and oligoprogressive disease. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Single-institution retrospective analysis of 60 NSCLC patients with 62 discrete lesions treated with SBRT between 2008 and 2017. Patients were stratified into three groups, including early stage, locally recurrent, and oligoprogressive disease. Group 1 included early stage local disease with no prior local therapy. Group 2 included locally recurrent disease after local treatment of a primary lesion, and group 3 included regional or well-controlled distant metastatic disease receiving SBRT for a treatment naive lung lesion (oligoprogressive disease). Patient/tumor characteristics and adverse effects were recorded. Local failure free survival (LFFS), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. Results/UNASSIGNED:At median follow-up of 34 months, 67% of the study population remained alive. The estimated 3-year LFFS for group 1, group 2, and group 3 patients was 95% (95% CI: 86%-100%), 82%(62% - 100%), and 83% (58-100%), respectively. The estimated 3-year PFS was 59% (42-83%), 40% (21%-78%), and 33% (12%-95%), and the estimated 3-year OS was 58% (41-82%), 60% (37-96%), and 58% (31-100%)), respectively for each group. When adjusted for age and size of lesion, no significant difference in OS, LFFS, and PFS emerged between groups (p > 0.05). No patients experienced grade 3 to 5 toxicity. Eighteen patients (29%) experienced grade 1 to 2 toxicity. The most common toxicities reported were cough and fatigue. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Our data demonstrates control rates in group 1 patients comparable to historical controls. Our study also reveals comparable clinical results for SBRT in the treatment of NSCLC by demonstrating similar rates of LFFS and OS in group 2 and group 3 patients with locally recurrent and treatment naïve lung lesion with well-controlled distant metastatic disease.

OBJECTIVE:Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) metastatic to the brain are living longer. The risk of new brain metastases when these patients stop systemic therapy is unknown. The authors hypothesized that the risk of new brain metastases remains constant for as long as patients are off systemic therapy. METHODS:A prospectively collected registry of patients undergoing radiosurgery for brain metastases was analyzed. Of 606 patients with NSCLC, 63 met the inclusion criteria of discontinuing systemic therapy for at least 90 days and undergoing active surveillance. The risk factors for the development of new tumors were determined using Cox proportional hazards and recurrent events models. RESULTS:The median duration to new brain metastases off systemic therapy was 16.0 months. The probability of developing an additional new tumor at 6, 12, and 18 months was 26%, 40%, and 53%, respectively. There were no additional new tumors 22 months after stopping therapy. Patients who discontinued therapy due to intolerance or progression of the disease and those with mutations in RAS or receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) pathways (e.g., KRAS, EGFR) were more likely to develop new tumors (hazard ratio [HR] 2.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33-3.81, p = 2.5 × 10-3; HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.45-4.34, p = 9.8 × 10-4, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:The rate of new brain metastases from NSCLC in patients off systemic therapy decreases over time and is uncommon 2 years after cessation of cancer therapy. Patients who stop therapy due to toxicity or who have RAS or RTK pathway mutations have a higher rate of new metastases and should be followed more closely.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) patients also referred to as sexual and gender minorities (SGM) are an understudied and medically underserved population that experiences a range of health disparities including increased cancer risk and worse cancer outcomes. Notably, negative provider interaction(s), including discrimination and poor understanding of LGBTQ specific health issues, are often cited by LGBTQ patients as barriers to care. In order to improve health outcomes for this understudied, underserved, and vulnerable population, additional assessment of oncology healthcare providers and staff knowledge and attitudes are needed to better identify areas of improvement and guide LGBTQ-focused healthcare trainings. Towards this goal we conducted a study assessing the knowledge of LBGTQ health, and attitudes towards LGBTQ patients among faculty and staff of a single institution. MATERIALS/METHODS: This study consisted of previously published surveys that were adapted at the direction of the institutional LGBTQ+ Patient and Family Advisory Council and modified to include non-clinical staff. The survey was disseminated to all faculty and staff at the institution. The survey was adapted to the participants' level of patient interaction / care responsibilities and consisted of subsections with questions related to demographics, knowledge, attitudes, practice behaviors, and open comments towards participating in the care of LGBTQ patients.
RESULT(S): There were 310 responses (178 clinical and 132 non-clinical). 68% (75% clinical/59% non-clinical) were white, 77% (83%/70%) were non-Hispanic, 75% (76%/72%) were female, 82% (84%/80%) were heterosexual. Preliminary analysis revealed no significant differences regarding comfort and attitudes in caring for the LGBTQ community regardless of clinical responsibilities; however, clinical care providers were more knowledgeable regarding the unique health care needs of LGBTQ individuals. Additional data analysis is ongoing and will be available by time of the conference.
CONCLUSION(S): While culturally competent best practices for treating LGBTQ populations have continued to evolve, few studies have assessed medical provider and support staff preparedness to treat LGBTQ patients, especially in an oncologic setting. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the few studies assessing oncologic providers' knowledge and attitudes in caring for the LGBTQ community, and one of the first studies assessing oncologic non-provider staff knowledge and attitudes in assisting LGBTQ patients.
Copyright