Patient, physician, and policy factors underlying variation in use of telemedicine for radiation oncology cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Oncology telemedicine was implemented rapidly after COVID-19. We examined multilevel correlates and outcomes of telemedicine use for patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for cancer. METHODS: Upon implementation of a telemedicine platform at a comprehensive cancer center, we analyzed 468 consecutive patient RT courses from March 16, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients were categorized as using telemedicine during ≥1 weekly oncologist visits versus in-person oncologist management only. Temporal trends were evaluated with Cochran-Armitage tests; chi-squared test and multilevel multivariable logistic models identified correlates of use and outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 33% used telemedicine versus 67% in-person only oncologist management. Temporal trends (ptrend  < 0.001) correlated with policy changes: uptake was rapid after local social-distancing restrictions, reaching peak use (35% of visits) within 4 weeks of implementation. Use declined to 15% after national "Opening Up America Again" guidelines. In the multilevel model, patients more likely to use telemedicine were White non-Hispanic versus Black or Hispanic (odds ratio [OR] = 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-4.72; p = 0.04) or receiving ≥6 fractions of RT versus 1-5 fractions (OR = 4.49, 95% CI 2.29-8.80; p < 0.001). Model intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated 43% utilization variation was physician-level driven. Treatment toxicities and 30-day emergency visits or unplanned hospitalizations did not differ for patients using versus not using telemedicine (p > 0.05, all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Though toxicities were similar with telemedicine oncology management, there remained lower uptake among non-White patients. Continuing strategies for oncology telemedicine implementation should address multilevel patient, physician, and policy factors to optimize telemedicine's potential to surmount-and not exacerbate-barriers to quality cancer care.

Adoption of Ultrahypofractionated Radiation Therapy in Patients With Breast Cancer.

Introduction: The first high-quality clinical trial to support ultrahypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (ultra-HF-WBI) for invasive early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) was published in April 2020, coinciding with the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed adoption of ultra-HF-WBI for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and ESBC at our institution after primary trial publication. Methods and Materials: We evaluated radiation fractionation prescriptions for all patients with DCIS or ESBC treated with WBI from March 2020 to May 2021 at our main campus and regional campuses. Demographic and clinical characteristics were extracted from the electronic medical record. Treating physician characteristics were collected from licensure data. Hierarchical logistic regression models identified factors correlated with adoption of ultra-HF-WBI (26 Gy in 5 daily factions [UK-FAST-FORWARD] or 28.5 Gy in 5 weekly fractions [UK-FAST]). Results: Of 665 included patients, the median age was 61.5 years, and 478 patients (71.9%) had invasive, hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. Twenty-one physicians treated the included patients. In total, 249 patients (37.4%) received ultra-HF-WBI, increasing from 4.3% (2 of 46) in March-April 2020 to a high of 45.5% (45 of 99) in July-August 2020 (P < .001). Patient factors associated with increased use of ultra-HF-WBI included older age (≥50 years old), low-grade WBI without inclusion of the low axilla, no radiation boost, and farther travel distance (P < .03). Physician variation accounted for 21.7% of variance in the outcome, with rate of use of ultra-HF-WBI by the treating physicians ranging from 0% to 75.6%. No measured physician characteristics were associated with use of ultra-HF-WBI. Conclusions: Adoption of ultra-HF-WBI at our institution increased substantially after the publication of randomized evidence supporting its use. Ultra-HF-WBI was preferentially used in patients with lower risk disease, suggesting careful selection for this new approach while long-term data are maturing. Substantial physician-level variation may reflect a lack of consensus on the evidentiary standards required to change practice.

Understanding the Intersection of Working from Home and Burnout to Optimize Post-COVID19 Work Arrangements in Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: To evaluate burnout in an academic radiation oncology program after the workforce shifted to working from home all or part of the time to better understand the impact of remote work and if it is sustainable after the COVID-19 virus abates. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In May 2020, in the midst of work-safe policies in the state and stabilizing COVID-19 case numbers, the Qualtrics-based MiniZ burnout survey was amended to include questions related to COVID-19 and working from home and was emailed to all radiation oncology employees across 3 departments: radiation oncology, radiation physics, and experimental radiation oncology. Descriptive and χ2 statistics were calculated within Qualtrics using StatIQ to evaluate factors associated with burnout and positive work from home experience. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-five employees completed the survey. Aggregating 3 responses that indicate having some degree of burnout, the rate of burnout across the cohort was 32%. For the same survey questions administered a year earlier, burnout rate was reported to be 40%. In the current survey, radiation oncology faculty and therapists had the highest reported burnout rates, at 47% and 44%, respectively (P = .031). The majority of employees working from home at least part of the time reported the experience was positive (74%, 323/436), and feeling positive about working from home was associated with reduced burnout (P = .030). Qualitative data review suggested the main drivers of unfavorable work-from-home responses were child/family care issues and information technology issues. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout was not increased during the emerging COVID-19 period compared with pre-COVID data. The shift to working from home was positive for most of the workforce and a potential benefit in reducing burnout for many staff groups. Maintaining work-from-home options post COVID-19 may help reduce burnout long term. It is important to personalize options for those unable to work effectively from home and to resolve information technology challenges to ensure functionality.