First Results of the Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Cancer Center Freiburg (CCCF) Tumor Board (TB) Multiple Myeloma (MM) Assessing TB-Questions, TB-Advice Adherence, TB-Satisfaction of Patients, Participants and Referring Physicians, Inclusion of Difficult-to-Treat-MM Pts in Clinical Trials (CT) and Patient Outcome

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 2635-2635
Author(s):  
Ricarda Selder ◽  
Masa Pandurevic ◽  
Mandy-Deborah Möller ◽  
Johannes Waldschmidt ◽  
Milena Pantic ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Tumor boards have become a crucial institution in oncology practice to provide paramount interdisciplinary cancer treatment, stream-line patient (pt) entries and to ensure treatment according to clinical pathways (CP). We initiated a weekly MM-TB at our institution in 6/2012. Participating experts are hematologist-oncologists, pathologists/cytogenetic specialists, orthopedists, radiotherapists, immunologists/rheumatologists and, if needed, nephrologists, cardiologists and others. Pt applications to be discussed are centrally organized through our CCCF, with the TB advice being centrally stored within our electronic pt information system. Recommended TB advice is made according to best current literature/knowledge and international CP. The development of mandatory CCCF-CP and transparency of decision making are key quality criteria. Methods: This first analysis focused on a) discussed TB questions, b) given recommendations, c) pt characteristics, d) pts’, referring- and participating-physicians' satisfaction with the TB, e) inclusion of these challenging-to-treat pts in clinical trials (CT) and f) PFS/OS of TB pts as compared to the literature (Kumar SK. Leukemia 2012). Grades of recommendations were assigned using the GRADE criteria (Engelhardt M. Haematologica 2014) and meticulously assessed, as well as whether TB recommendations were pursued. Pts’, referring- and participating-physicians' satisfaction with the TB was evaluated via standardized questionnaires, the aimed sample size being n=100 for consecutive pts and ~n=30 each for participating and referring physicians. Results: From 6/2012-5/2014, 483 pts have been discussed within 90 MM-TB sessions, substantially increasing these from 2011 to 2012, 2013 and 2014 by 12-fold. Of the entire MM cohort seen at our institution, 60% of these challenging-to-treat pts were discussed within the TB in 2012, increasing to 71% in 2013. We have currently assessed 200 TB-protocols for pt characteristics, clinical outcome and adherence to TB decisions. Of those, 2% were presented for explicit diagnosis-finding, 17% had newly diagnosed MM, 41% relapsed/refractory MM and 40% had attained stable disease or better with their last-line therapy and were discussed to resolve their ongoing treatment. Expectedly, most pts (89%) were discussed for their next-line treatment, 43% due to strains with comorbidities, symptom control, side effects, diagnosis finding and MM-staging, and 11% due to various other reasons (multiple entries possible). Mean treatment lines of pts discussed in the TB was 2 (range 0-10), deciding on their 3rd-line-treatment. Within the TB cohort, 70% were presented once, but 30% several times (mean 2, range 2-4). Of these multiple presentations, most pts had relapsed or refractory MM, this rate further increasing towards the 3rd and 4th TB-presentation. The adherence to TB-recommendations was excellent with 93% of decisions being pursued. Reasons for adapted approaches were practicable issues or disagreement of the pt, family or referring physician. Of currently 80/100 interviewed pts, 95% were entirely satisfied with their care, treating oncologists/MM-expert team and very supportively perceived the MM-TB. Of note, 94% considered their cancer care ideally achieved by the TB, 92% that their local physician profited greatly and 88% that their personal preferences were also accounted for. Of 30 interviewed participating physicians, 97% considered themselves well-educated and their time well-spent. Of currently 18 referring physicians, 73% were unconditionally satisfied with all TB-diagnostics and -therapies, with the university centers' cooperation and 65% acknowledged no information loss. Of 288 pts assessed for their CT suitability, 28% were suggested by the TB to be included, with 53% actually being able to enter therein. Thus, 15% of our MM-TB cohort could be included in a CT, which is considerable since these were challenging-to-treat pts who had received extensive prior therapies and showed several comorbidities. This also confirms current CT accrual rates for cancer pts of 5-15%, which can be increased with well-structured TB. Conclusions: Our preliminary results suggest that this MM-TB is a highly relevant exchange platform and allows physicians from different disciplines to intensely and rewardingly collaborate for state-of-the-art cancer care. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 89-89
Author(s):  
Laurence J. Heifetz ◽  
Ahrin B. Koppel ◽  
Elaine Melissa Kaime ◽  
Daphne Palmer ◽  
Thomas John Semrad ◽  
...  

89 Background: In 2006, Tahoe Forest Hospital District—a 25-bed hospital in Truckee, CA, a mountain resort community one hour from regional and two hours from academic cancer services—designed and implemented an oncology program utilizing effective telecommunications with a committed academic partner, the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center in Sacramento. Methods: The UC Davis Cancer Care Network was established with four remote cancer programs, enabling participation in daily virtual tumor boards, clinical trial enrollment, and quality assurance assistance. (Richard J. Bold, et. al., Virtual tumor boards: community-university collaboration to improve quality of care. Community Oncol 10(11):310-315, November 2013.; Laurence J. Heifetz, MD, et. al., A Model for Rural Oncology. J Oncol Pract, 7:168-171, May 2011.). An increasing number of patients were observed to in-migrate to Truckee from even more remote rural areas in the mountains. In 2013, the now Gene Upshaw Memorial Tahoe Forest Cancer Center developed four remote telemedicine clinics to allow even more physically distant patients the capacity to be followed locally. Results: Since we opened the remote telemedicine clinics, our Sullivan-Luallin patient satisfaction scores have averaged 4.82/5.00 for “overall satisfaction with the practice” and 4.90/5.00 for “recommending your provider to others”; our in-migration rate of patients from outside our primary catchment area increased from 43% to 52%: and clinical trial accrual rate averaged 10%. Conclusions: Reducing cancer health disparities is an ASCO mission. (cover, ASCO Connection, July 2014; Laurence J. Heifetz, MD. Country Docs with City Technology Can Address Rural Cancer Care Disparities. Oncol, 29(9):641-644, September 2015.). We believe this synaptic knowledge network effectively addresses that mission for rural communities. This model can be scaled in many configurations to address the inherent degradation of quality care as a function of physical distance to an academic center that rural doctors and patients deal with on a daily basis. The key is to insist on a cultural shift – Do something smart at lunch every day. Attend a virtual tumor board.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Livio Blasi ◽  
Roberto Bordonaro ◽  
Vincenzo Serretta ◽  
Dario Piazza ◽  
Alberto Firenze ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Multidisciplinary tumor boards play a pivotal role in the patients -centered clinical management and in the decision-making process to provide best evidence -based, diagnostic and therapeutic care to cancer patients. Among the barriers to achieve an efficient multidisciplinary tumor board, lack of time and geographical distance play a major role. Therefore the elaboration of an efficient virtual multidisciplinary tumor board (VMTB) is a key-point to reach a successful oncology team and implement a network among health professionals and institutions. This need is stronger than ever in a Covid-19 pandemic scenario. OBJECTIVE This paper presents a research protocol for an observational study focused on exploring the structuring process and the implementation of a multi-institutional VMTB in Sicily. Other endpoints include analysis of cooperation between participants, adherence to guidelines, patients’ outcomes, and patients satisfaction METHODS This protocol encompasses a pragmatic, observational, multicenter, non-interventional, prospective trial. The study's programmed duration is five years, with a half-yearly analysis of the primary and secondary objectives' measurements. Oncology care health-professionals from various oncology subspecialties at oncology departments in multiple hospitals (academic and general hospitals as well as tertiary centers and community hospitals) are involved in a non-hierarchic fashion. VMTB employ an innovative, virtual, cloud-based platform to share anonymized medical data which are discussed via a videoconferencing system both satisfying security criteria and HIPAA compliance. RESULTS The protocol is part of a larger research project on communication and multidisciplinary collaboration in oncology units and departments spread in the Sicily region in Italy. Results of this study will particularly focus on the organization of VMTB involving oncology units present in different hospitals spread in the area and create a network to allow best patients care pathways and a hub and spoke relationship. Results will also include data concerning organization skills and pitfalls, barriers, efficiency, number and type con clinical cases, and customers’ satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS VMTB represents a unique opportunity to optimize patient’s management in a patient centered approach. An efficient virtualization and data banking system is potentially time-saving, a source for outcome data, and a detector of possible holes in the hull of clinical pathways. The observations and results from this VMTB study may hopefully useful to design nonclinical and organizational interventions that enhance multidisciplinary decision-making in oncology.


2017 ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Brian Dalton ◽  
Patrick M. Forde ◽  
Hyunseok Kang ◽  
Roisin M. Connolly ◽  
Vered Stearns ◽  
...  

Purpose Tumor genomic profiling for personalized oncology therapy is being widely applied in clinical practice even as it is being evaluated more formally in clinical trials. Given the complexities of genomic data and its application to clinical use, molecular tumor boards with diverse expertise can provide guidance to oncologists and patients seeking to implement personalized genetically targeted therapy in practice. Methods A multidisciplinary molecular tumor board reviewed tumor molecular profiling reports from consecutive referrals at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins over a 3-year period. The tumor board weighed evidence for actionability of genomic alterations identified by molecular profiling and provided recommendations including US Food and Drug Administration–approved drug therapy, clinical trials of matched targeted therapy, off-label use of such therapy, and additional tumor or germline genetic testing. Results One hundred fifty-five patients were reviewed. Actionable genomic alterations were identified in 132 patients (85%). Off-label therapies were recommended in 37 patients (24%). Eleven patients were treated off-label, and 13 patients were enrolled onto clinical trials of matched targeted therapies. Median progression-free survival of patients treated with matched therapies was 5 months ( 95% CI, 2.9 months to not reached), and the progression-free survival probability at 6 months was 43% (95% CI, 26% to 71%). Lack of locally available clinical trials was the major limitation on clinical actionability of tumor profiling reports. Conclusion The molecular tumor board recommended off-label targeted therapies for a quarter of all patients reviewed. Outcomes were heterogeneous, although 43% of patients receiving genomically matched therapy derived clinical benefit lasting at least 6 months. Until more data become available from precision oncology trials, molecular tumor boards can help guide appropriate use of tumor molecular testing to direct therapy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 325-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura A. Levit ◽  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
Barbara L. McAneny ◽  
Lincoln D. Nadauld ◽  
Kathryn Levit ◽  
...  

The use of precision medicine and the number of genomic-based treatments and immunotherapies is increasing. Nevertheless, oncology providers face challenges to implementing precision medicine, including in community practices, where most patients receive treatment. On January 31, 2018, ASCO hosted Precision Medicine: Expanding Opportunities, the inaugural event in ASCO’s new State of Cancer Care in America (SOCCA) event series. This article draws from the inaugural SOCCA event and the experiences of the SOCCA event participants to summarize the opportunities and challenges of precision medicine, and to highlight three successful models of implementing precision oncology in large, multisite community practices or networks: (1) Intermountain Healthcare, (2) Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, and (3) National Cancer Care Alliance. The experience of these practices suggests that practice innovations that offer clinical decision support through molecular tumor boards and clinical pathways, and administrative support for prior authorization and clinical trial matching are key to successful implementation of large-scale, community-based precision medicine programs.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 168-168
Author(s):  
Ofilio Ramon Vigil ◽  
Dana Ann Little ◽  
Kristin J. Mensonides ◽  
Richard J. Bold

168 Background: The UC Davis Health Cancer Care Network (CCN) in Sacramento improves quality through partnerships with community cancer centers and the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center (UCDCCC). The UCDCCC, as an NCI Lead Academic Participating Site (LAPS) grant recipient, lists Adventist Health Rideout Cancer Center (RCC) in Marysville (42 miles north of Sacramento) as a component. The Adventist Health Feather River Cancer Center (FRCC) and the town of Paradise were devastated by the 2018 Camp Fire, forcing FRCC’s relocation to the city of Chico (49 miles north of Marysville). FRCC was forced to disband its local IRB and unable to continue clinical trials research operations during the aftermath of this natural disaster. The CCN established an affiliation with the FRCC in April 2019. Future plans include establishing an IRB agreement and adding FRCC as a LAPS component. The CCN identified strategies to facilitate the participation of FRCC patients in clinical trials. Methods: The CCN identified 13 NCTN clinical trials with 34 enrolled patients that were in need of appropriate research oversight. Four of these trials were previously never activated at the UCDCCC or its affiliates. CCN staff engaged leaders at the various institutions involved: Quality Assurance (QA) Managers at each NCTN research base, the CIRB, the local IRB, the CTSU, and other leaders within UC Davis and Adventist Health. Results: Stakeholders acknowledged the unusual and urgent nature of our requests and questions, while contributing to the development of a plan allowing patients to continue clinical trial participation. QA managers approved a plan transferring patients to the RCC, allowing research staff to collect and submit data while patients continue receiving care closer to home. Together we developed a notification letter to inform patients of this plan. Conclusions: The relocation of facilities and patients brought rare challenges while conducting clinical research in rural communities. We learned that the cooperation and flexibility of all parties involved was crucial in supporting the continued care for FRCC's clinical trial patients and research contributions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13561-e13561
Author(s):  
Lijo Simpson ◽  
Anju Mathew ◽  
Robert Wojciechowski

e13561 Background: Cancer centers in the US are required to discuss a minimum of 15% analytic cases and prospective presentation (minimum 80%) in the multidisciplinary case conference (tumor board, MDCC), per the Commission on Cancer accrediting standards. Tumor board discussion have been shown to improve treatment decision making and patient outcomes. These meetings were in person meetings in the Pre-COVID era. The COVID 19 pandemic and the subsequent requirements for social distancing forced hospitals to move most MDCCs to a virtual format. We report on the large scale utilization of a propriety Care-Coordination platform OncoLens to run MDCCs across the country. Methods: Technology quality metrics were collected from the ongoing daily usage of the platform including time characteristics, care team utilization metrics, average attendance, quality metrics collected for accreditation and clinical trials matching on the OncoLens platform. Results: The virtual platform was accessible to around 8000 providers across the United States. On average per month there were 250 virtual meetings with over 290,000 meeting minutes. Conferences ranged from 30 minutes to 4 hours. 75% of users used the web application 25% of users utilized their smart phones .System uptime was 99.99%. Hospitals were able to conduct General and Site specific conferences. Virtual attendance of the required specialties of Medical Oncology, Radiation Oncology, Surgery, Pathology and Radiology was attained, with the average conference attendance being 14. On average hospitals required 2 administrative training sessions. Most of the case presentations were prospective. This format does enable cancer programs to collect quality metrics around Cancer program accreditation by the American College of Surgeons. A wide variety of common and rare cancer types were discussed in the virtual format. 66% of patients discussed potentially matched to clinical trials during the discussion. Conclusions: The shift of MDCCs to a mostly virtual environment occurred quickly in response to the COVID 19 pandemic. It took an average of 2 training classes to get the cancer care team on board with the use of new technology. It is possible to have high quality discussions and attain metrics for Commission On Cancer accreditation utilizing a virtual platform.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 241-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia H. Hardenbergh ◽  
Brigitta Gehl ◽  
Kimberly Anne Lyons-Mitchell

241 Background: The purpose of this project is to improve the quality of cancer care by connecting disease site-specific experts with community oncologists through web-based technology. Methods: Chartrounds.com is a conferencing web-site developed to allow community oncologists to present real cases to disease site specialists in oncology on a scheduled basis. Chartrounds was developed initially for radiation oncologists and subsequently has expanded to include multidisciplinary tumor boards and medical oncology specific sessions. Presently 43 disease site expert oncologists including surgeons, medical oncologists and radiation oncologists from 38 academic institutions in the US host sessions. Feedback reports following the completion of each session were designed to assess the impact of the project. Results: Since its inception in December 2010, 43 disease site-specialists have lead 366 sessions, connecting 3,793 participating oncologists from all 50 US states and 24 countries.Broken down by specialty, 348 radiation oncology sessions have linked 3,632 participants, 14 medical oncology specific and multidisciplinary tumor board sessions have included 161 participants. On a 5 point Likert scale with 5 representing the greatest possible impact, the mean response to feedback questions is as follows: session quality: 4.7 for radiation oncology, 4.6 for multidisciplinary; time used effectively: 4.6 for radiation oncology, 4.5 for multidisciplinary; discussions relevant to daily practice: 4.6 for radiation oncology, 4.6 for multidisciplinary; session is likely to result in a change of practice: 4.0 for radiation oncology, 4.0 for multidisciplinary. Chartrounds sessions qualify for 1 CME credit and is approved for a practice quality improvement project by the American Board of Radiology. Conclusions: Chartrounds.com is impacting oncology practices which results in changes in community practice. Future directions of this project include providing chartrounds sessions for oncology nurses and providing a library of video recorded archived sessions. This work has been funded by the Improving Cancer Care Grant of the ASCO Conquer Cancer Foundation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 49-49
Author(s):  
Elana Plotkin ◽  
Timothy Craig Allen ◽  
Sandra Brown ◽  
Pablo Gutman ◽  
Dana Herndon ◽  
...  

49 Background: In an era of precision medicine the role of pathology in the diagnosis/management of cancer is evolving. Pathologists are positioned at the intersection of multiple points along the cancer care continuum. Starting at diagnosis pathologists provide expert interpretation and may recommend biomarker testing to guide treatment decisions. Methods: ACCC joined with partners AMP, ASCP, and CAP administered a survey in June 2018. 659 responses were received from a multidisciplinary group and a variety of cancer program settings. Results: Respondents reported that breakdowns in communication are most likely to occur when selecting and ordering biomarker tests (78%) and when reporting the results of the tests (34%). The top 5 challenges reported were coverage/reimbursement, insufficient quantity of material, turnaround time, test selection/ordering, and communication across the multidisciplinary team. There were sizable gaps in regular ordering of NGS among those with 1 tumor board (28%), 2-3 tumor boards (42%) and 4+ tumor boards (64%). Current use of liquid biopsy remains low with the majority (52%) reporting that clinicians rarely order ctDNA testing (12% “routinely”). Time to receiving test results varied with 58% reporting 5-10 business days, 19% reporting <5 business days and 24% >10 business days. 43% indicated pathologists are authorized to order all types of cancer biomarker tests. 56% have molecular pathologists on staff, 24% have a cancer genetics team. 62% report pathology has access to all inpatient records (38% outpatient records). Conclusions: Programs viewed as having integrated pathology participation feature pathologists leading institutional biomarker testing protocols, active participation at tumor boards and standardized reflexive testing pathways that reduce waste & turnaround time. Full integration is a critical piece to ensure patients receive appropriate and timely care.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6508-6508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol J. Farhangfar ◽  
Oshuna Morgan ◽  
Charlene Concepcion ◽  
Jimmy J. Hwang ◽  
Kathryn Finch Mileham ◽  
...  

6508 Background: Physicians in the community have a broad range of experience using genomics data to inform treatment decisions. They typically have a heavier patient load than found in academic centers and treat a variety of tumor types. Genomic data has been reportedly used less than anticipated, even when results were actionable. Monthly didactic molecular tumor boards have been implemented in a number of cancer centers to try to fill gaps in knowledge. Methods: A weekly virtual consultative molecular tumor board (MTB) was implemented (Mar 2016) at an academic hybrid, multi-site community-based cancer institute to provide rapid molecularly-driven treatment guidance to physicians, augment genomics education, provide supporting documents for off-label use and clinical trials. A baseline survey was performed prior to first MTB. MTB assessments were summarized and provided to treating physician. Data was abstracted from the electronic medical records and clinical trials management system. Descriptive statistics were utilized to summarize utilization of MTB and treatment recommendations. Results: Genomics testing with a large panel (~600 genes) was requested for 809 patients (Jun 2015-Feb 2017). The MTB received 81 requests for review from 32 physicians from 14 locations. Most commonly reviewed disease sites were lung, ovary, pancreatic, colon, breast and head and neck cancers; 37% of reviews requested were for rare tumors. Median time to review request was 15 days from receipt of results. MTB recommendations were followed in 70% of cases, 16% continued current/other therapy, 11% declined rapidly (hospice/died), and 3% of patients decided against recommendations. Forty-four (44) percent were screened for recommended clinical trials; 26% went on study. Conclusions: Implementation of a weekly virtual consultative MTB facilitates molecularly-driven treatment decisions in community setting, especially in rare tumor types and enhances clinical trial accruals.


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4983-4983
Author(s):  
Jadee L Neff ◽  
Claudio A. Mosse ◽  
Jessica Wang-Rodriguez ◽  
Sara Ahmed ◽  
Michael Kelley

Abstract The Veterans Health Administration is the largest integrated provider of cancer services in the nation, with approximately 50,000 new cancer cases diagnosed each year. The goal of the VA's National Oncology Program is to establish a System of Excellence in cancer care with the help of tools, resources, programs, and best practices across the enterprise to ensure every veteran, regardless of location, receives the same high level of cancer care and access to precision diagnostics. This is mediated through a variety of programs, including the National TeleOncology Service and the National Precision Oncology Program which includes standardized clinical pathways for molecular testing, a second opinion service on diagnostic consultations, test result interpretation and treatment recommendations, as well as a molecular oncology tumor board. The VA National Oncology Program and the Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Program offices have collaborated on a recommended guideline for advanced laboratory and molecular testing algorithm in hematologic diagnosis. We aim to offer best practice for all VA providers who must decide the type of ancillary tests at the time of initial clinical presentation in order to gain prognostic information and guide therapy. The recommendations include traditional laboratory tests, such as morphology, flow cytometry, and immunohistochemistry, as well as the use of fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), karyotype, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and next generation sequencing (NGS). An overview of the draft algorithm for acute leukemias and chronic myeloid neoplasms is presented in Table 1; details will be discussed at the annual meeting. Conclusion: The joint effort from VA Oncology and Pathology presents advanced testing algorithms in a variety of hematolymphoid malignancies as a systematic approach to hematopathology diagnosis, classification, as well as offering prognostic and therapeutic information. The recommendations across VA Healthcare would ensure standardized care for all VA patients with hematologic malignancy to benefit from the latest advances in precision medicine. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Neff: Spring Discovery: Consultancy, Ended employment in the past 24 months; EUSA Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Enzyvant: Consultancy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document