Using a tele-oncology service provides a direct benefit to patients and caregivers in rural communities in the Intermountain West.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14153-e14153
Author(s):  
Derrick S. Haslem ◽  
Zachary Reese ◽  
Kimberlee Emfield ◽  
David Michael Gill ◽  
Ryan Eldredge Wilcox ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rural Communities ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Oncology Service ◽  
Nurse Navigator ◽  
Local Facility ◽  
Ancillary Staff ◽  
Increasing Demand ◽  
Intermountain Healthcare

e14153 Background: Cancer treatment is becoming more complex, necessitating subspecialty expertise and multidisciplinary approaches to treatment planning. Simultaneously, there is increasing demand to provide care as close to home as possible. Oncology services are in high demand with a geographical mismatch between where oncologists work and where patients live. Traditionally, patients have been required to travel long distances to seek care outside of their communities resulting in increased financial expense and emotional distress caused by leaving the comforts of their support system. Leveraging existing technologies, most of modern cancer care, including infusions can be delivered through a coordinated effort from consulting/ordering oncologists, onsite administrators, physicians, nurses and ancillary staff. Methods: Using a secure video-conferencing platform, Intermountain Healthcare has implemented 5 tele-oncology clinics (Site A- Sevier, UT; B- Cassia, ID; C- Teton, ID; D- Uintah Basin, UT, E- Star Valley, WY) in rural communities of Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. Patients are referred to the clinic by local providers. With the assistance of a nurse navigator, oncologists meet with patients via video conference for initial consults, follow-up, supportive care, survivorship care and systemic treatment including chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy. Standard NCCN/ASCO guidelines are followed in the treatment strategies for these patients. Care is taken to ensure any treatment that can safely be delivered in the local facility/community is coordinated to take place there. Based on distances from the rural facility to nearest tertiary cancer center, we calculated the mileage avoided and hours traveled avoided by using tele-oncology. Results: Since 2017, the tele-oncology service has managed 269 unique patients (A- 200; B- 21, C- 22, D- 18, E- 8) with 1,237 total tele-oncology visits (A- 1,068; B- 69; C- 39; D- 32; E- 29). In total, there were 397,326 driving miles avoided (A- 326,808; B- 26,358; C- 22,932; D- 9,280; E- 11,948). Travel hours avoided in total were 6,062 hours (A- 4,989; B- 380; C- 341; D- 155; E- 197). Conclusions: Intermountain Healthcare’s tele-oncology program benefits patients and communities by easing travel burden and improving quality of life by making cancer care more convenient and providing the care closer to home. Work is ongoing to prospectively evaluate the effects on the communities in addition to cancer related outcomes.

scholarly journals Enhancing Cancer care of rural dwellers through telehealth and engagement (ENCORE): protocol to evaluate effectiveness of a multi-level telehealth-based intervention to improve rural cancer care delivery

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuya Pal ◽  
Pamela C. Hull ◽  
Tatsuki Koyama ◽  
Phillip Lammers ◽  
Denise Martinez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rural Communities ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board ◽  
Facilitators And Barriers

Abstract Background Despite lower cancer incidence rates, cancer mortality is higher among rural compared to urban dwellers. Patient, provider, and institutional level factors contribute to these disparities. The overarching objective of this study is to leverage the multidisciplinary, multispecialty oncology team from an academic cancer center in order to provide comprehensive cancer care at both the patient and provider levels in rural healthcare centers. Our specific aims are to: 1) evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a multi-level telehealth-based intervention consisting of provider access to molecular tumor board expertise along with patient access to a supportive care intervention to improve cancer care delivery; and 2) identify the facilitators and barriers to future larger scale dissemination and implementation of the multi-level intervention. Methods Coordinated by a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center, this study will include providers and patients across several clinics in two large healthcare systems serving rural communities. Using a telehealth-based molecular tumor board, sequencing results are reviewed, predictive and prognostic markers are discussed, and treatment plans are formulated between expert oncologists and rural providers. Simultaneously, the rural patients will be randomized to receive an evidence-based 6-week self-management supportive care program, Cancer Thriving and Surviving, versus an education attention control. Primary outcomes will be provider uptake of the molecular tumor board recommendation and patient treatment adherence. A mixed methods approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research that combines qualitative key informant interviews and quantitative surveys will be collected from both the patient and provider in order to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing the multi-level intervention. Discussion The proposed study will leverage information technology-enabled, team-based care delivery models in order to deliver comprehensive, coordinated, and high-quality cancer care to rural and/or underserved populations. Simultaneous attention to institutional, provider, and patient level barriers to quality care will afford the opportunity for us to broadly share oncology expertise and develop dissemination and implementation strategies that will enhance the cancer care delivered to patients residing within underserved rural communities. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04758338. Registered 17 February 2021 – Retrospectively registered, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/

Using an online portal and nurse navigators to improve access to cancer care between network hospitals.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 126-126
Author(s):  
Eleanor Miller ◽  
Margaret Rummel
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Proton Radiation ◽  
Online Portal ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Nurse Navigator ◽  
Improve Access

126 Background: Nurse navigation-facilitated access to cancer care is an emerging trend in healthcare. One way to improve access to specialized cancer care is through nurse navigators in collaboration with affiliated network hospitals. The Abramson Cancer Center (ACC) has a network of 15 community hospitals in the tri-state area that provides patients access to an academic medical center for subspecialty care that is not always available the community cancer center. Methods: In 2010, a navigation referral process was developed using nurse navigators from the ACC and the network hospitals. Then in 2012, an online portal was developed to further streamline physician referrals to and from the ACC. Updates were made to the online portal in 2013 and 2014 for continued improvement. Results: Prior to the online portal, no central repository for network referrals existed to ensure that patients were scheduled with the correct provider(s). Now with the portal patients are referred, assessed, and scheduled with appropriate providers by the nurse navigator. This has increased accountability and streamlined the scheduling process. Now, patients can be seen by multiple providers during one visit to the ACC. It has also provided a network for the ACC nurse navigators to connect patients back to the community setting for ongoing care once consults or treatments at the ACC are completed. Since the navigation process was implemented, over 1200 patients have been referred (over 500 in the past year alone) for second opinions, clinical trials, proton radiation, bone marrow transplants, surgical options, and cutting- edge technology that may not have otherwise been available. Conclusions: Using nurse navigators at the core of the process ensures that patients are triaged and scheduled in a timely and medically-appropriate manner, thus enhancing their access to specialized cancer care.

The cancer care network clinical trials program: Rising from the camp fire ashes.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 168-168
Author(s):  
Ofilio Ramon Vigil ◽  
Dana Ann Little ◽  
Kristin J. Mensonides ◽  
Richard J. Bold
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Rural Communities ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Care Network ◽  
Research Oversight ◽  
The City

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.

Quality of gastrointestinal cancer care at a community hospital under the paradigm of multidisciplinary care.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 133-133
Author(s):  
Laurence E. McCahill ◽  
Sunil Konduri ◽  
Alan T. Davis ◽  
Mary May ◽  
Coralyn Martinez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Underserved Populations ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Quality Cancer Care ◽  
Nurse Navigator ◽  
Underserved Patients

133 Background: Benefits of MDC have been established for other cancers but not GI malignancies. Benefits of GI NDC cancer care for underserved populations is yet to be quantified. Our GI-MDC was established to provide efficient, evidenced-based, high quality cancer care to patients of all ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. Methods: We prospectively identified underserved patients in seven categories. A GI nurse navigator (NN) contacted patients, coordinated appointments /diagnostic studies and prepared for prospective case evaluation and weekly multidisciplinary GI clinic. Health care efficiency/quality data was abstracted by an R.N. quality analyst. Outcomes were compared between underserved and non-underserved populations. Percentages were compared using Chi square and medians by Mann-Whitney U test. Results: From Jan 2010-July 2011, 208 patients were evaluated, with 137 confirmed new cancers, clinically estimated as Stage I=31, II=30, III=26, and IV=47. Among underserved patients, categories included age >80(n=26), public aid (n=28), uninsured (n=12), mental disability/impairment (n=15), incarcerated/institutionalized (n=4), and language barrier (n=2), more then one category could be selected. Outcomes are listed in the Table. Conclusions: A model of GI cancer care including a GI NN, treatment planning conference, and MDC clinic is feasible in a community cancer center. Preliminary data demonstrates small differences between underserved and non underserved patient populations. This model of health care may help to reduce disparities in cancer care. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Maintaining an Adult Hematology/Oncology Service at a Tertiary Care Center during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An Eight-Week-Experience with a Newly Implemented Procedural Plan

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Philipp G. Hemmati ◽  
Dorothea Fischer ◽  
Frank Breywisch ◽  
Sabine Wohlfarth ◽  
Matthias Kramer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Oncology Service ◽  
Containment Measures ◽  
Vulnerable Patient ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Oncology Unit

Treatment of cancer patients has become challenging when large parts of hospital services need to be shut down as a consequence of a local COVID-19 outbreak that requires rapid containment measures, in conjunction with the shifting of priorities to vital services. Reports providing conceptual frameworks and first experiences on how to maintain a clinical hematology/oncology service during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic are scarce. Here, we report our first 8 weeks of experience after implementing a procedural plan at a hematology/oncology unit with its associated cancer center at a large academic teaching hospital in Germany. By strictly separating team workflows and implementing vigorous testing for SARS-CoV-2 infections for all patients and staff members irrespective of clinical symptoms, we were successful in maintaining a comprehensive hematology/oncology service to allow for the continuation of treatment for our patients. Notably, this was achieved without introducing or further transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infections within the unit and the entire center. Although challenging, our approach appears safe and feasible and may help others to set up or optimize their procedures for cancer treatment or for other exceedingly vulnerable patient cohorts.

scholarly journals Multidisciplinary Cancer Care With a Patient and Physician Satisfaction Focus

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. e35-e37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Litton ◽  
Dianne Kane ◽  
Gina Clay ◽  
Patricia Kruger ◽  
Thomas Belnap ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Physician Satisfaction ◽  
Care Process ◽  
Multidisciplinary Clinic ◽  
Intermountain Healthcare ◽  
Multidisciplinary Clinics

If implemented appropriately, multidisciplinary clinics can enhance quality of care and increase downstream revenue. The multidisciplinary clinic at Intermountain Healthcare has greatly improved the cancer care process for patients, physicians, and the community.

scholarly journals Easier Said Than Done: Keys to Successful Implementation of the Distress Assessment and Response Tool (DART) Program

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. e513-e526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madeline Li ◽  
Alyssa Macedo ◽  
Sean Crawford ◽  
Sabira Bagha ◽  
Yvonne W. Leung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Performance Indicator ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Psychosocial Needs ◽  
Electronic Screening ◽  
Screening For Distress

Purpose: Systematic screening for distress in oncology clinics has gained increasing acceptance as a means to improve cancer care, but its implementation poses enormous challenges. We describe the development and implementation of the Distress Assessment and Response Tool (DART) program in a large urban comprehensive cancer center. Method: DART is an electronic screening tool used to detect physical and emotional distress and practical concerns and is linked to triaged interprofessional collaborative care pathways. The implementation of DART depended on clinician education, technological innovation, transparent communication, and an evaluation framework based on principles of change management and quality improvement. Results: There have been 364,378 DART surveys completed since 2010, with a sustained screening rate of > 70% for the past 3 years. High staff satisfaction, increased perception of teamwork, greater clinical attention to the psychosocial needs of patients, patient-clinician communication, and patient satisfaction with care were demonstrated without a resultant increase in referrals to specialized psychosocial services. DART is now a standard of care for all patients attending the cancer center and a quality performance indicator for the organization. Conclusion: Key factors in the success of DART implementation were the adoption of a programmatic approach, strong institutional commitment, and a primary focus on clinic-based response. We have demonstrated that large-scale routine screening for distress in a cancer center is achievable and has the potential to enhance the cancer care experience for both patients and staff.

Leveraging the electronic medical record (EMR) to predict patient reported financial hardship in cancer patients.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6594-6594
Author(s):  
Sandeep Sai Voleti ◽  
Sikander Ailawadhi ◽  
Carolyn Mead-Harvey ◽  
Rahma M. Warsame ◽  
Rafael Fonseca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Mayo Clinic ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Disease State ◽  
Financial Hardship ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Median Income ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Zip Code

6594 Background: Patient reported financial hardship (FH) in cancer care is a growing challenge for patients, their caregivers and healthcare providers. As treatment costs escalate, it is imperative to develop effective strategies to proactively recognize and mitigate FH within oncology practice. Using automated processes to screen and refer patients to appropriate resources is a potential option. At Mayo Clinic, screening for FH involves using a single financial strain question ‘ How hard is it for you to pay for the very basics like food, housing, medical care, and heating?’ completed by all cancer patients annually as part of the Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) assessment. In this study, we describe the prevalence and predictors for FH (denoted by the answer ‘hard and very hard’) in our patient population. Methods: Patients receiving cancer care at the three Mayo Clinic sites (Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida) who completed the FH screen at least once were included in this study. Demographics (age, gender, race/ ethnicity, insurance, employment status, marital status, and zip code) and disease state data for included patients was extracted from the EMR and Mayo Clinic Cancer Registry. Disease state was categorized by type of cancer (hematological or solid malignancy) and cancer stage. Zip code was used to derive median income, rural/urban residence and distance from the cancer center. Multivariable logistic regression models were utilized to examine factors associated with FH. Results: The final study cohort included 31,969 patients with median age 66 years (IQR 57,73), 51% females, and 76% married. Race/ethnicity composition was 93% White, 3% Black, and 4% Hispanic. 52% of patients had Medicare and 43% had commercial insurance. Other notable factors included 48% retired, 41% working/ students, 76% married, and 72% urban residents. Median time from cancer diagnosis was 1.1 year (IQR 0.1, 3.8) and median income was $64,406 (IQR 53,067, 82,038). 31% of patients had hematological malignancies, 20% of the cancers for which staging information was available were metastatic. FH was reported by 4% (n = 1194) of the patients. A significantly higher likelihood of endorsing FH (p < 0.001 for all) was noted in Hispanic (OR 1.64), Black (OR 1.84), American Indian/Alaskan native (OR 2.02), below median income (OR 1.48), rural (OR 1.17), self-pay (OR 2.77), Medicaid (OR 2.29), Medicare (OR 1.43), unemployed/disabled (OR 2.39), single (OR 2.07), or divorced (OR 2.43) patients. Older age, being retired, and living farther from the cancer center were associated with significantly less likelihood of endorsing FH. Conclusions: Our study successfully leveraged the EMR to identify key sociodemographic groups more likely to report FH. An electronic trigger to flag such patients at high-risk of FH and proactively address FH is currently being developed.

scholarly journals Patient Characteristics and Outcomes in Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA) with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML): Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Experience

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2609-2609
Author(s):  
Muhned Alhumaid ◽  
Georgina S Daher-Reyes ◽  
Wilson Lam ◽  
Arjun Law ◽  
Tracy Murphy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Disease Behavior

Introduction: Clinical outcomes of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in adolescents and young adults (AYA) are rarely reported as an isolated subgroup. Treatments vary little across age groups, and treatment intensity depends upon comorbid conditions and performance status. Optimal treatment strategies focused on disease behavior, biological factors, and the distinct needs of this subset of AML patients remain elusive. The purpose of this retrospective analysis is to determine the characteristics and outcomes of AYA AML patients treated at a specialized adult leukemia cancer center in comparison to older adults with AML (40-60 years). Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients treated at Princess Margaret Cancer Center from 2008-2018. Patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia were excluded. Clinical characteristics, treatment strategies, and survival outcomes were recorded for all patients. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method and the impact of covariates were assessed using the Log-rank test. Finally, we compared the outcomes of AYA patients treated at our centre between 2015-2018 with older patients. Results: A total of 175 patients aged 18-39 were identified. Patient characteristics are shown in (Table 1). Cytogenetic were available in 163 patients. Based on MRC criteria, 27 (16%) were favorable risk, intermediate in 95 (54%), adverse in 39 (22%), and missing/failed in 14(8%). NPM1 status was available in 110 patients of whom 38 (35%) were positive. FLT3-ITD was available in 67 patients with 24 (36%) positive. Both mutations were present in 13 (54%) patients. There were no significant differences in terms of risk stratification based on cytogenetic and molecular markers based on age (18-29 vs.30-39) (P= 0.98). Most patients 172 (98%) received induction, 157 (91%) with 3+7, and 15 (9%) with FLAG-IDA. Complete remission (CR) was achieved in 133 (77%) after first induction [120 (76%) after 3+7 and 11 (73%) after FLAG-IDA]. Induction related mortality was low (2%). Of the 39 who did not achieve CR, thirty-four patients received re-induction (13 FLAG-IDA, 16 NOVE-HiDAC, 5 others) with CR in 21 (62%). Overall, 154 (89.5%) achieved CR1. Sixty-four (42%) proceeded to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in CR1. 59 (38%) patients relapsed in CR1 with 8 (12%) relapsing post HSCT. Fifty-five (5 post HSCT) patients received reinduction with 30 (51%) (2 after HSCT) achieving CR2. Fifteen patients received HSCT in CR2. OS and DFS at 2 years were 62% (95% CI 0.53-0.69) and 50% (95% CI 0.41-0.57), respectively. Stratified by cytogenetic risk, OS was 81% for favorable risk, 61% for intermediate, and 50% for adverse risk (P=0.0001), respectively. DFS in these groups was 85%, 57%, and 46 % (P=0.0025), respectively. We further compared outcomes in the 18-29y and 30-39y age groups. The OS was 61.9% compared to 62.5% (P=0.91) and DFS of 52.1% compared to 47% (P=0.65) respectively. On univariate analysis for OS and DFS, cytogenetic risk stratification was the only significant variable (P=0.0004 and P=0.0042). We then compared the outcomes 67 sequential patients aged I8-39 treated from 2014-2018, with those of 176 sequential patients aged 40-60 treated during the same period (table 2). OS at 2 years was not statistically higher in the younger group compared to the older group (66.7% vs. 61.2%, P=0.372). While relapse rate was lower in older patients (15.5% vs. 22.6%, P=0.093), NRM was higher in older patients (29.7% vs. 18.8%,P=0.094). Conclusion: AYA pts. occupy a unique niche amongst AML as a whole. While treatment responses have improved in general, there may be potential for further gains in these patients. Increased tolerance for more intense treatment strategies as well as the incorporation of novel agents into standard treatment protocols may provide a means to optimize care in AYA patients. Finally, research is needed to elucidate biological mechanisms and predictors of disease behavior instead of arbitrary, age-stratified treatment schema. Disclosures McNamara: Novartis Pharmaceutical Canada Inc.: Consultancy. Schimmer:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Medivir Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Schuh:Astellas: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva Canada Innovation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Maze:Pfizer Inc: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yee:Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Minden:Trillium Therapetuics: Other: licensing agreement. Gupta:Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document