Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

IMPORTANCE:Active surveillance (AS) is endorsed by clinical guidelines as the preferred management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer, but its use in contemporary clinical practice remains incompletely defined. OBJECTIVE:To characterize trends over time and practice- and practitioner-level variation in the use of AS in a large, national disease registry. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort study included men with low-risk prostate cancer, defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 10 ng/mL, Gleason grade group 1, and clinical stage T1c or T2a, newly diagnosed between January 1, 2014, and June 1, 2021. Patients were identified in the American Urological Association (AUA) Quality (AQUA) Registry, a large quality reporting registry including data from 1945 urology practitioners at 349 practices across 48 US states and territories, comprising more than 8.5 million unique patients. Data are collected automatically from electronic health record systems at participating practices. EXPOSURES:Exposures of interest included patient age, race, and PSA level, as well as urology practice and individual urology practitioners. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The outcome of interest was the use of AS as primary treatment. Treatment was determined through analysis of electronic health record structured and unstructured clinical data and determination of surveillance based on follow-up testing with at least 1 PSA level remaining greater than 1.0 ng/mL. RESULTS:A total of 20 809 patients in AQUA were diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer and had known primary treatment. The median age was 65 (IQR, 59-70) years; 31 (0.1%) were American Indian or Alaska Native; 148 (0.7%) were Asian or Pacific Islander; 1855 (8.9%) were Black; 8351 (40.1%) were White; 169 (0.8%) were of other race or ethnicity; and 10 255 (49.3%) were missing information on race or ethnicity. Rates of AS increased sharply and consistently from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, use of AS varied from 4.0% to 78.0% at the urology practice level and from 0% to 100% at the practitioner level. On multivariable analysis, year of diagnosis was the variable most strongly associated with AS; age, race, and PSA value at diagnosis were all also associated with odds of surveillance. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:This cohort study of AS rates in the AQUA Registry found that national, community-based rates of AS have increased but remain suboptimal, and wide variation persists across practices and practitioners. Continued progress on this critical quality indicator is essential to minimize overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer and by extension to improve the benefit-to-harm ratio of national prostate cancer early detection efforts.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the United States and harms Black men disproportionately. Most US men are uninformed about many key facts important to make an informed decision about prostate cancer. Most experts agree that it is important for men to learn about these problems as early as possible in their lifetime. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:To compare the effect of a community health worker (CHW)-led educational session with a physician-led educational session that counsels Black men about the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:One hundred eighteen Black men recruited in 8 community-based settings attended a prostate cancer screening education session led by either a CHW or a physician. Participants completed surveys before and after the session to assess knowledge, decisional conflict, and perceptions about the intervention. Both arms used a decision aid that explains the benefits, risks, and controversies of PSA screening and decision coaching. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:There was no significant difference in decisional conflict change by group: 24.31 physician led versus 30.64 CHW led (P=.31). The CHW-led group showed significantly greater improvement on knowledge after intervention, change (SD): 2.6 (2.81) versus 5.1 (3.19), P<.001). However, those in the physician-led group were more likely to agree that the speaker knew a lot about PSA testing (P<.001) and were more likely to trust the speaker (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:CHW-led interventions can effectively assist Black men with complex health decision-making in community-based settings. This approach may improve prostate cancer knowledge and equally minimize decisional conflict compared with a physician-led intervention.

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".

OBJECTIVE:To assess urologists' perceptions and practices related to smoking and smoking cessation. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Six survey questions were designed to assess beliefs, practices, and determinants related to tobacco use assessment and treatment (TUAT) in outpatient urology clinics. These questions were included in an annual census survey (2021) offered to all practicing urologists. Responses were weighted to represent the practicing US population of nonpediatric urologists (N=12,852). The primary outcome was affirmative responses to the question, "Do you agree it is important for urologists to screen for and provide smoking cessation treatment to patients in the outpatient clinic?" Practice patterns, perceptions, and opinions of optimal care delivery were assessed. RESULTS:In total, 98% of urologists agreed (27%) or strongly agreed (71%) that cigarette smoking is a significant contributor to urologic disease. However, only 58% agreed that TUAT is important in urology clinics. Most urologists (61%) advise patients who smoke to quit but do not provide additional cessation counseling or medications or arrange follow-up. The most frequently identified barriers to TUAT were lack of time (70%), perceptions that patients are unwilling to quit (44%), and lack of comfort prescribing cessation medications (42%). Additionally, 72% of respondents stated that urologists should provide a recommendation to quit and refer patients for cessation support. CONCLUSIONS:TUAT does not routinely occur in an evidence-based fashion in outpatient urology clinics. Addressing established barriers and facilitating these practices with multilevel implementation strategies can promote tobacco treatment and improve outcomes for patients with urologic disease.