OA10.01 Perceptions of Biomarker Testing for Underserved Patients With Lung Cancer: A Mixed-Methods Survey of Us-Based Oncology Clinicians

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. S863-S864
Author(s):  
L. Boehmer ◽  
U. Roy ◽  
J. Schrag ◽  
N. Martin ◽  
G. Salinas ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 123-123
Author(s):  
Leigh Boehmer ◽  
Upal Kunal Basu Roy ◽  
Janelle Schrag ◽  
Nikki A. Martin ◽  
Gregory D. Salinas ◽  
...  

123 Background: Despite recent advances in cancer precision medicine, patients from underserved communities do not have equal access to biomarker testing and targeted therapies. This study used a mixed-methods approach to identify barriers to equitable precision medicine access among underserved patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Paired national surveys (one clinician-facing and one patient-facing) were developed respectively by the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) and LUNGevity Foundation. Administered online in spring/summer 2020, the surveys were designed to identify key attitudes/barriers related to biomarker testing, resource needs, and current practice patterns for pertinent stakeholders. Survey data was triangulated with data from focus groups (2 clinician and 6 patient) conducted in fall 2020. The study was approved by Advarra IRB. Results: A total of 99 clinicians responded, with 67% (66/99) representing oncologists from community cancer programs. 248 patients responded to the LUNGevity survey, with 161 coming from the general population and 87 from the LUNGevity network (patients with relatively high income and education levels). Most clinicians surveyed indicated they were “very” (34%) or “extremely” likely (44%) to discuss biomarker testing with NSCLC patients. Academic clinicians, however, were more likely than community-based clinicians to order testing at the time of initial biopsy (76% vs 52%, P =.02). Academic clinicians were also more likely to involve the patient’s family in biomarker testing discussions (85% vs 59%, P =.009). Patient survey results identified that medical oncologists are the primary source of biomarker testing information; 64% of LUNGevity-connected and 37% of underserved patients. Eighty-five percent of LUNGevity-connected patients receive biomarker testing versus 52% for general patients (p < 0.05). Notably, more than a quarter (27%) of underserved patients who have undergone biomarker testing do not know their results. Clinician focus group participants corroborated survey findings that most clinicians receive testing results in 7-14 days, but for 23% of community and 6% of academic clinicians the process can take over 2 weeks. They identified disparities in offering biomarker testing and results to patients with known or presumed low socioeconomic status (SES) and/or health literacy. This was supported by patient survey data, which showed biomarker testing was proactively offered to only 40% of low-SES patients. Conclusions: This study identifies key areas of ongoing need related to equitable biomarker testing. Quality-improvement opportunities exist to address both clinician and patient barriers to guideline-concordant biomarker testing for underserved patients with NSCLC.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 254-254
Author(s):  
Matthew Smeltzer ◽  
Percy Lee ◽  
Joseph Kim ◽  
David R. Spigel ◽  
Brendon Matthew Stiles ◽  
...  

254 Background: Quality improvement (QI) in cancer care delivery requires understanding the setting, clearly defining problem(s), and identifying targeted solutions. The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) conducted a national project to identify and provide guidance on key issues in care for patients with stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the problems and solutions identified after a mixed-methods baseline data evaluation. Methods: The multi-phase ACCC QI initiative was guided by an expert steering committee. A request for applications was advertised to all ACCC programs, with committee members ranking each site in pre-specified categories (ex., replicability, practice champion engagement). After selection of sites, baseline data assessed programs’ patient populations, current care delivery practices, processes of care, and biomarker testing rates. A full-day workshop was conducted with multidisciplinary team members and expert faculty to review baseline data, refine problem statements, and identify site-specific QI solutions. Results: The 6 participating US sites were regionally diverse with a rural/urban mix. In baseline data, median patient ages were 65-72 years and patients treated were 50% stage III/50% stage IV. Biomarker testing practices, use of multidisciplinary tumor board, and clinical care pathways varied across sites. Five key QI areas were identified: 1.Management of immune related adverse events (irAE), 2.Biomarker testing, 3.Emergency visit management (EVM), 4.Access to clinical trials, and 5.Smoking cessation. Two sites identified problems with irAE management during immunotherapy (IT). The first identified needs for proactive symptom identification, assessment, and management. Solutions included: 1. a patient questionnaire to identify early signs of irAEs and 2. pilot testing a nurse-administered questionnaire. A second site identified that front-line clinicians may not be properly identifying possible irAEs. Solutions included: 1. form an IT toxicity working group and 2. educate front-line clinicians about irAEs. Two sites focused on biomarker testing. The first problem identified was inefficient tracking of testing results. Solutions were: 1. assign a nurse navigator to track, enter, and communicate test results and 2. proactively coordinate appointments for patients with positive test results. The second site identified delayed care when inadequate tissue was obtained. Solutions included: 1. pathology-driven reflex testing and 2. liquid biopsy order at diagnosis. Similar problems/solutions were developed for EVM, clinical trial access, and smoking cessation. Conclusions: Challenges in lung cancer care delivery can be identified and addressed using an intentional QI approach. Clearly defining the problem and identifying potential solution(s) are critical steps and should occur before implementation.


Author(s):  
Jana B. Adizie ◽  
Judith Tweedie ◽  
Aamir Khakwani ◽  
Emily Peach ◽  
Richard Hubbard ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (7) ◽  
pp. e008254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noor Ali ◽  
Kate J Lifford ◽  
Ben Carter ◽  
Fiona McRonald ◽  
Ghasem Yadegarfar ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 107327482110397
Author(s):  
S. M. Khan ◽  
J. Gomes ◽  
S. Chreim

Background Radon is a predominant indoor air pollutant and second leading cause of lung cancer in radon-prone areas. Despite the gravity of the health risk, residents in Canada have inadequate perception and taken minimal protective actions. Better perception of a risk motivates people to take preventive measures. Scholarship about radon health risk perception is lacking in Canada. We applied a mixed methods population health approach to explore the determinants shaping perception and actions of a resident population in Canada. Methods We conducted mixed surveys (n = 557) and qualitative bilingual interviews (n = 35) with both homeowners and tenants of Ottawa–Gatineau areas. The study explored residents' risk perception and adaptations factors. Descriptive, correlational and regression analyses described and established associations between quantitative variables. Thematic, inductive analyses identified themes in the qualitative data. A mixed methods analysis triangulated both results to draw a holistic perception of the health risk. Results Residents’ quantitative perceptions of radon health risk, smoking at home, synergistic risk perception, social influence and care for family were associated significantly with their intention to test for radon levels in their home, actual testing and mitigation. These results were explained further with the qualitative findings. Residents who had dual cognitive and emotional awareness of the risk were motivated enough to take preventive actions. Caring for family, knowing others who contracted lung cancer and financial capability were enablers, whereas lack of awareness and homeownership, cost of mitigation and stigma were obstacles to preventive actions. We also explored the dual subjective and objective aspects of risk perception that are influenced by micro- and macro-level determinants. Conclusions Inducing protective action to reduce risk requires comprehensive population-level interventions considering dual perceptions of the risk that can modify the risk determinants. Future research can explore the dual aspects of risk perception and unequal distribution of the risk factors.


2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (10) ◽  
pp. 1228-1233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rishabh Verma ◽  
Shivanshan Pathmanathan ◽  
Zulfiquer A. Otty ◽  
John Binder ◽  
Venkat N. Vangaveti ◽  
...  

Lung Cancer ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 116 ◽  
pp. 90-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul A. VanderLaan ◽  
Deepa Rangachari ◽  
Adnan Majid ◽  
Mihir S. Parikh ◽  
Sidharta P. Gangadharan ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
Upal Basu Roy ◽  
Jennifer L. Ersek ◽  
Jennifer King ◽  
Robert A. Smith ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. e207171
Author(s):  
Hossein Borghaei ◽  
Martin J. Edelman

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document