Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:We aimed to determine whether implementation of clinical decision support (CDS) tool integrated into the electronic health record of a multisite academic medical center increased the proportion of patients with AUA "high-risk" microscopic hematuria (MH) who receive guideline concordant evaluations. MATERIALS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted a two-arm cluster randomized quality improvement project in which 202 ambulatory sites from a large health system were randomized to either have their physicians receive at time of test results an automated CDS alert for patients with "high-risk" MH with associated recommendations for imaging and cystoscopy (intervention) or usual care (control). Primary outcome was met if a patient underwent both imaging and cystoscopy within 180 days from MH result. Secondary outcomes assessed individual completion of imaging, cystoscopy, or placement of imaging orders. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:= .09). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Implementing an electronic health record-integrated CDS tool to promote evaluation of patients with high-risk MH did not lead to improvements in patient completion of a full guideline-concordant evaluation. The development of an algorithm to trigger a CDS alert was demonstrated to be feasible and effective. Further multilevel assessment of barriers to evaluation is necessary to continue to improve the approach to evaluating high-risk patients with MH.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening is a preference-sensitive decision for which experts recommend a shared decision making (SDM) approach. This study aimed to examine PSA screening SDM in primary care. Methods included qualitative analysis of audio-recorded patient-provider interactions supplemented by quantitative description. Participants included 5 clinic providers and 13 patients who were: (1) 40-69 years old, (2) Black, (3) male, and (4) attending clinic for routine primary care. Main measures were SDM element themes and "observing patient involvement in decision making" (OPTION) scoring. Some discussions addressed advantages, disadvantages, and/or scientific uncertainty of screening, however, few patients received all SDM elements. Nearly all providers recommended screening, however, only 3 patients were directly asked about screening preferences. Few patients were asked about prostate cancer knowledge (2), urological symptoms (3), or family history (6). Most providers discussed disadvantages (80%) and advantages (80%) of PSA screening. Average OPTION score was 25/100 (range 0-67) per provider. Our study found limited SDM during PSA screening consultations. The counseling that did take place utilized components of SDM but inconsistently and incompletely. We must improve SDM for PSA screening for diverse patient populations to promote health equity. This study highlights the need to improve SDM for PSA screening.

BACKGROUND:In recent years the US health-care system has witnessed a substantial increase in telehealth use. Telehealth enhances health-care access and quality and may reduce costs. However, there is a concern that the shift from in-person to telehealth care delivery may differentially improve cancer care access and quality in certain clinical settings and for specific patient populations while potentially exacerbating disparities in care for others. Our National Cancer Institute-funded center, called Telehealth Research and Innovation for Veterans with Cancer (THRIVE), is focused on health equity for telehealth-delivered cancer care. We seek to understand how social determinants of telehealth-particularly race and ethnicity, poverty, and rurality-affect the use of telehealth. METHODS:THRIVE draws from the Health Disparities Research Framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. THRIVE consists of multiple cores that work synergistically to assess and understand health equity for telehealth-delivered cancer care. These include the Administrative Core, Research and Methods Core, Clinical Practice Network, and Pragmatic Trial. RESULTS:As of October 2023, we identified and trained 5 THRIVE scholars, who are junior faculty beginning a research career. We have reviewed 20 potential pilot studies, funding 6. Additionally, in communication with our funders and advisory boards, we have adjusted our study design and analytic approach, ensuring feasibility while addressing our operational partners' needs. CONCLUSIONS:THRIVE has several key strengths. First, the Veterans Health Administration's health-care system is large and diverse regarding health-care setting type and patient population. Second, we have access to longitudinal data, predating the COVID-19 pandemic, about telehealth use. Finally, equitable access to high-quality care for all veterans is a major tenet of the Veterans Health Administration health-care mission. As a result of these advantages, THRIVE can focus on isolating and evaluating the impact of social determinants of telehealth on equity in cancer care.

The COVID-19 pandemic placed a spotlight on the potential to dramatically increase the use of telehealth across the cancer care continuum, but whether and how telehealth can be implemented in practice in ways that reduce, rather than exacerbate, inequities are largely unknown. To help fill this critical gap in research and practice, we developed the Framework for Integrating Telehealth Equitably (FITE), a process and evaluation model designed to help guide equitable integration of telehealth into practice. In this manuscript, we present FITE and showcase how investigators across the National Cancer Institute's Telehealth Research Centers of Excellence are applying the framework in different ways to advance digital and health equity. By highlighting multilevel determinants of digital equity that span further than access alone, FITE highlights the complex and differential ways structural determinants restrict or enable digital equity at the individual and community level. As such, achieving digital equity will require strategies designed to not only support individual behavior but also change the broader context to ensure all patients and communities have the choice, opportunity, and resources to use telehealth across the cancer care continuum.

BACKGROUND:Many men with prostate cancer will be exposed to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). While evidence-based ADT use is common, ADT is also used in cases with no or limited evidence resulting in more harm than benefit, i.e., overuse. Since there are risks of ADT (e.g., diabetes, osteoporosis), it is important to understand the behaviors facilitating overuse to inform de-implementation strategies. For these reasons, we conducted a theory-informed survey study, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), to better understand ADT overuse and provider preferences for mitigating overuse. METHODS:Our survey used the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) Model, and a DCE to elicit provider de-implementation strategy preferences. We surveyed the Society of Government Service Urologists listserv in December 2020. We stratified respondents based on the likelihood of stopping overuse as ADT monotherapy for localized prostate cancer ("yes"/"probably yes," "probably no"/"no"), and characterized corresponding Likert scale responses to seven COM-B statements. We used multivariable regression to identify associations between stopping ADT overuse and COM-B responses. RESULTS:Our survey was completed by 84 respondents (13% response rate), with 27% indicating "probably no"/"no" to stopping ADT overuse. We found differences across respondents who said they would and would not stop ADT overuse in demographics and COM-B statements. Our model identified 2 COM-B domains (Opportunity-Social, Motivation-Reflective) significantly associated with a lower likelihood of stopping ADT overuse. Our DCE demonstrated in-person communication, multidisciplinary review, and medical record documentation may be effective in reducing ADT overuse. CONCLUSIONS:Our study used a behavioral theory-informed survey, including a DCE, to identify behaviors and context underpinning ADT overuse. Specifying behaviors supporting and gathering provider preferences in addressing ADT overuse requires a stepwise, stakeholder-engaged approach to support evidence-based cancer care. From this work, we are pursuing targeted improvement strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03579680.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Incidence rates for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and mortality are higher for Black men. It is unknown whether similar disparities exist in survivorship care. We assessed the delivery and quality of survivorship care for Black men undergoing PCa therapy in terms of the burden of and treatment for urinary adverse events (UAEs) and erectile dysfunction (ED). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We queried Optum Clinformatics data for all patients diagnosed with PCa from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2017 and identified those who underwent primary PCa treatment. Index cohorts were identified in each year and followed longitudinally until 2017. Data for UAE diagnoses, UAE treatments, and ED treatments were analyzed in index cohorts. Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to examine associations of race with UAE diagnosis, UAE treatment, and ED treatment. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS/UNASSIGNED:We identified 146, 216 patients with a PCa diagnosis during the study period, of whom 55, 149 underwent primary PCa treatment. In the primary treatment group, 32.7% developed a UAE and 28.2% underwent UAE treatment. The most common UAEs were urinary incontinence (11%), ureteral obstruction/stricture (4.5%), bladder neck contracture (4.5%), and urethral stricture (3.7%). The most common UAE treatments were cystoscopy (13%), suprapubic tube placement (6%), and urethral dilation (5%). Overall, UAE diagnosis rates were higher for Black patients, who had significantly higher risk of urethral obstruction, rectourethral fistula, urinary incontinence, cystitis, urinary obstruction, and ureteral fistula. Overall, UAE treatment rates were lower for Black patients, who had significantly higher risk of fecal diversion and/or rectourethral fistula repair (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-2.79). Regarding ED treatments, Black patients had higher risk of penile prosthesis placement (aHR 1.591, 95% CI 1.26-2.00) and intracavernosal injection (aHR 1.215, 95% CI 1.08-1.37). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS/UNASSIGNED:Despite a high UAE burden, treatment rates were low in a cohort with health insurance. Black patients had a higher UAE burden and lower UAE treatment rates. Multilevel interventions are needed to address this stark disparity. ED treatment rates were higher for Black patients. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:We reviewed data for patients treated for prostate cancer (PCa) and found that 32.7% were diagnosed with a urinary adverse event (UAE) following their PCa treatment. The overall treatment rate for these UAEs was 28.2%. Analysis by race showed that the UAE diagnosis rate was higher for Black patients, who were also more likely to receive treatment for erectile dysfunction.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Previous studies document underuse of next-generation sequencing (NGS). We examined the impact to oncology care for veterans of incorporating NGS ordering into the Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic medical record (EMR) at two New York City VA Medical Centers. METHODS:We identified patients with non-small cell lung cancer and prostate cancer with oncology clinic visits and NGS testing indications between January and December 2021. Patients were divided into external ordering (EO) with visits before we implemented an EMR ordering system for NGS in July 2021, and internal ordering (IO) with visits after this date. The primary outcome was proportion of NGS testing performed in EO versus IO groups. Secondary outcomes were time between metastatic disease diagnosis to receipt of test by vendor, time of metastatic diagnosis to result, and proportion of testing by race. RESULTS:= .03). The proportion of tissue received by the vendor was not significantly different between the two groups. There were no significant differences in testing according to self-reported race. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Integration of NGS ordering in the EMR led to increased proportion and speed of testing for a vulnerable patient population served by the country's largest health system.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy of a multimodal intervention in reducing CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) overutilization in the evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism in the emergency department (ED). METHODS:Previous mixed-methods analysis of barriers to guideline-concordant CTPA ordering results was used to develop a provider-focused behavioral intervention consisting of a clinical decision support tool and an audit and feedback system at a multisite, tertiary academic network. The primary outcome (guideline concordance) and secondary outcomes (yield and CTPA and D-dimer order rates) were compared using a pre- and postintervention design. ED encounters for adult patients from July 5, 2017, to January 3, 2019, were included. Fisher's exact tests and statistical process control charts were used to compare the pre- and postintervention groups for each outcome. RESULTS:Of the 201,912 ED patient visits evaluated, 3,587 included CTPA. Guideline concordance increased significantly after the intervention, from 66.9% to 77.5% (P < .001). CTPA order rate and D-dimer order rate also increased significantly, from 17.1 to 18.4 per 1,000 patients (P = .035) and 30.6 to 37.3 per 1,000 patients (P < .001), respectively. Percent yield showed no significant change (12.3% pre- versus 10.8% postintervention; P = .173). Statistical process control analysis showed sustained special-cause variation in the postintervention period for guideline concordance and D-dimer order rates, temporary special-cause variation for CTPA order rates, and no special-cause variation for percent yield. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our success in increasing guideline concordance demonstrates the efficacy of a mixed-methods, human-centered approach to behavior change. Given that neither of the secondary outcomes improved, our results may demonstrate potential limitations to the guidelines directing the ordering of CTPA studies and D-dimer ordering.

The Veterans Health Administration is chartered "to serve as the primary backup for any health care services needed…in the event of war or national emergency" according to a 1982 Congressional Act. This mission was invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic to divert clinical and research resources. We used an electronic mixed-methods questionnaire constructed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation (COM-B) model for behavior change to study the effects of the pandemic on VHA researchers. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to 118 cancer researchers participating in national VHA collaborations. The questionnaire received 42 responses (36%). Only 36% did not feel that their research focus changed during the pandemic. Only 26% reported prior experience with infectious disease research, and 74% agreed that they gained new research skills. When asked to describe helpful support structures, 29% mentioned local supervisors, mentors, and research staff, 15% cited larger VHA organizations and 18% mentioned remote work. Lack of timely communication and remote work, particularly for individuals with caregiving responsibilities, were limiting factors. Fewer than half felt professionally rewarded for pursuing research related to COVID. This study demonstrated the tremendous effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on research activities of VHA investigators. We identified perceptions of insufficient recognition and lack of professional advancement related to pandemic-era research, yet most reported gaining new research skills. Individualizing the structure of remote work and ensuring clear and timely team communication represent high yield areas for improvement.

Following the publication of the original article [1] the authors requested to update the "Competing interests" section as follows: "The authors declare that Anne Sales is co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal".