Cancer Treatment Before and After Physician-Pharmacy Integration.

Importance: Integration of pharmacies with physician practices, also known as medically integrated dispensing, is increasing in oncology. However, little is known about how this integration affects drug use, expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation. Objective: To examine the association of physician-pharmacy integration with oral oncology drug expenditures, use, and patient-centered measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used claims data from a large commercial insurer in the US to analyze changes in outcome measures among patients treated by pharmacy-integrating vs nonintegrating community oncologists in 14 states between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019. Commercially insured patients were aged 18 to 64 years with 1 of the following advanced-stage diagnoses: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, or prostate cancer. Data analysis was conducted from May 2023 to March 2024. Exposure: Treatment by a pharmacy-integrating oncologist, ascertained by the presence of an on-site pharmacy or nonpharmacy dispensing site. Main Outcomes and Measures: Oral, intravenous (IV), total, and out-of-pocket drug expenditures for a 6-month episode of care; share of patients prescribed oral drugs; days' supply of oral drugs; medication adherence measured by proportion of days covered; and time to treatment initiation. The association between an oncologist's pharmacy integration and each outcome of interest was estimated using the difference-in-differences estimator. Results: Between 2012 and 2019, 3159 oncologists (745 females [27.1%], 2002 males [72.9%]) treated 23 968 patients (66.4% female; 53.4% aged 55-64 years). Of the 3159 oncologists, 578 (18.3%) worked in practices that integrated with pharmacies (with a low rate in 2011 of 0% and a high rate in 2019 of 31.5%). In the full sample (including all cancer sites), after physician-pharmacy integration, no significant changes were found in oral drug expenditures, IV drug expenditures, or total drug expenditures. There was, however, an increase in days' supply of oral drugs (5.96 days; 95% CI, 0.64-11.28 days; P = .001). There were no significant changes in out-of-pocket expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation of oral drugs. In the breast cancer sample, there was an increase in oral drug expenditures ($244; 95% CI, $41-$446; P = .02) and a decrease in IV drug expenditures (-$4187; 95% CI, -$8293 to -$80; P = .05). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study indicated that the integration of oncology practices with pharmacies was not associated with significant changes in expenditures or clear patient-centered benefits.

Trends in low-value cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and change in low-value cancer services. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we used administrative claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment, a repository of medical and pharmacy data from US health plans representing more than 80 million members, between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2021. METHODS: We used linear probability models to investigate the relation between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and 4 guideline-based metrics of low-value cancer care: (1) conventional fractionation radiotherapy instead of hypofractionated radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer; (2) non-guideline-based antiemetic use for minimal-, low-, or moderate- to high-risk chemotherapies; (3) off-pathway systemic therapy; and (4) aggressive end-of-life care. We identified patients with new diagnoses of breast, colorectal, and/or lung cancer. We excluded members who did not have at least 6 months of continuous insurance coverage and members with prevalent cancers. RESULTS: Among 117,116 members (median [IQR] age, 60 [53-69] years; 72.4% women), 59,729 (51.0%) had breast cancer, 25,751 (22.0%) had colorectal cancer, and 31,862 (27.2%) had lung cancer. The payer mix was 18.7% Medicare Advantage or Medicare supplemental and 81.2% commercial non-Medicare. Rates of low-value cancer services exhibited minimal changes during the pandemic, as adjusted percentage-point differences were 3.93 (95% CI, 1.50-6.36) for conventional radiotherapy, 0.82 (95% CI, -0.62 to 2.25) for off-pathway systemic therapy, -3.62 (95% CI, -4.97 to -2.27) for non-guideline-based antiemetics, and 2.71 (95% CI, -0.59 to 6.02) for aggressive end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Low-value cancer care remained prevalent throughout the pandemic. Policy makers should consider changes to payment and incentive design to turn the tide against low-value cancer care.

Immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy vs. immunotherapy alone for advanced non-small cell lung cancer and programmed death ligand 1 score <50.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the effectiveness of immunotherapy alone or with chemotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression <50 %. We examined the outcomes of PD-L1 therapy vs. PD-L1 therapy in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment among NSCLC patients with PD-L1 score <50 %. METHODS: We used administrative claims and prior authorization data of a national insurer from November 2015 to July 2021. We selected patients with Stage IIIb/IV NSCLC and PD-L1 expression <50 %. Each patient was required to have ≥1 claim of a PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitor. Treatment groups were propensity-score matched 1:1 on baseline characteristics. We measured PD-L1 therapy duration, incident immune-related adverse events (irAEs), healthcare utilization, costs, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In the matched sample totaling 176 patients, mean duration of PD-L1 therapy was similar (4.1 [SD 3.3] months combination vs. 4.0 [SD 4.9] months monotherapy, p = 0.800). IrAEs were similar, both for FDA-recognized irAEs (48.9 % combination, 48.9 % monotherapy, p = 0.710) and other types (34.1 % combination, 39.8 % monotherapy, p = 0.473). The combination group had more all-cause inpatient stays, ER visits, and outpatient visits (all p < 0.001). Total adjusted all-cause medical cost was $112,833 (95 % CI $5,548-$251,973) higher for combination therapy. We saw no difference in OS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.09 [95 % CI 0.72-1.65]). CONCLUSION: This study found no difference in adverse drug effects or survival between PD-L1 monotherapy compared to combination therapy for patients with Stage IIIb/IV NSCLC and PD-L1 expression <50 %, though the combination therapy cohort had higher healthcare utilization and costs. MICROABSTRACT: Use of immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer and programmed death ligand 1 expression <50 % is understudied. Our observational study using claims and authorization data from a matched sample of 176 patients found no difference in survival or the rate of adverse drug effects between groups, although the chemo-immunotherapy cohort generated higher overall healthcare costs.

Association Between Oncology Clinical Pathway Utilization and Toxicity and Cost Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: This retrospective observational study compared cancer care toxicity and cost outcomes for patients with metastatic cancer with nine different cancer types prescribed on- versus off-pathway regimens. METHODS: This study used claims and authorization data from a national insurer between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2021. Participants included adults with metastatic breast, lung, colorectal, pancreatic, melanoma, kidney, bladder, gastric, or uterine cancer, who were prescribed first-line anticancer regimens. Multivariable regressions were used to assess outcomes including counts of emergency room visits or hospitalizations, use of supportive care medications, immune-related adverse events (IRAEs), and health care costs. RESULTS: Of the 8,357 patients in the study, 5,453 (65.3%) were prescribed on-pathway regimens. The on-pathway proportion trended downward, from 74.3% in 2018 to 59.8% in 2021. The on- and off-pathway groups had a similar proportion of patients with treatment-related hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.080; P = .201) and IRAEs (aOR, 0.961; P = .497). More all-cause hospitalizations (aOR, 1.679; P = .013) were observed among patients with melanoma treated on-pathway. The on-pathway group had higher use of supportive care drugs in bladder cancer (aOR, 4.602; P < .001) and colorectal cancer (aOR, 4.465; P < .001), and lower use in breast (aOR, 0.668; P = .001) and lung cancer (aOR, 0.550; P < .001). On average, on-pathway patients incurred $17,589 less total health care cost (P < .001), and $22,543 lower chemotherapy cost (P < .001) than those from the off-pathway group. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that use of on-pathway regimens was associated with significant cost savings. Toxicity outcomes were variable by disease, but overall, there were similar numbers of treatment-related hospitalizations and IRAEs compared to off-pathway regimens. This cross-institutional study provides evidence to support the use of clinical pathway regimens for patients with metastatic cancer.

Association of Patient, Physician, and Practice-Level Factors with Uptake of Payer-Led Oncology Clinical Pathways.

Importance: Payers use oncology clinical pathways programs to increase evidence-based drug prescribing and control drug spending. However, compliance with these programs has been low, which may decrease their efficacy, and factors associated with pathway compliance are unknown. Objective: To determine extent of pathway compliance and identify factors associated with pathway compliance using characteristics of patients, practices, and the companies that develop cancer treatment pathways. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study comprised patients with claims and administrative data from a national insurer and a pathways health care professional between July 1, 2018, and October 31, 2021. Adult patients with metastatic breast, lung, colorectal, pancreatic, melanoma, kidney, bladder, gastric, and uterine cancer being treated in the first line were included. Six months of continuous insurance coverage prior to the date of treatment initiation was required for determination of baseline characteristics. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with pathway compliance. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of a pathway program-endorsed treatment regimen in the first-line setting for metastatic cancer. Results: Among 17 293 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.7 [11.2] years; 9183 [53.1%] women; mean [SD] Black patients per census block, 0.10 [0.20]), 11 071 patients (64.0%) were on-pathway, and 6222 (36.0%) were off-pathway. Factors associated with increased pathway compliance were higher health care utilization during the 6-month baseline period (measured in inpatient visits and emergency department visits) (5220 on-pathway inpatient visits [47.2%] vs 2797 off-pathway [45.0%]; emergency department visits, 3304 [27.1%] vs 1503 [24.2%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for inpatient visits, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.22-1.43; P < .001), volume of patients with this insurance provider per physician (mean [SD] visits: on-pathway, 128.0 [258.3] vs off-pathway, 121.8 [161.4]; aOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20; P = .002), and practice participation in the Oncology Care Model (on-pathway participation, 2601 [23.5%] vs 1305 [21.0%]; aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.23; P = .004). Higher total medical cost during the 6-month baseline period were associated with decreased pathway compliance (mean [SD] costs: on-pathway, $55 990 [$69 706] vs $65 955 [$74 678]; aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88; P < .001). There was heterogeneity in odds of pathway compliance between different malignancies. Pathway compliance rates trended down from the reference year of 2018. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, despite generous financial incentives, compliance with payer-led pathways remained at historically reported low rates. Factors such as increasing exposure to the program due to the number of patients impacted and participation in other value-based payment programs, such as the Oncology Care Model, were positively associated with compliance; factors such as the type of cancer and patient complexity may have played a role, but the directionality of potential effects was unclear.

Comparison of Acupuncture vs Sham Acupuncture or Waiting List Control in the Treatment of Aromatase Inhibitor-Related Joint Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have proven efficacy for the treatment of hormone-sensitive breast cancer; however, arthralgias (pain and stiffness) contribute to nonadherence with therapy for more than 50% of patients. Objective: To examine the effect of acupuncture in reducing AI-related joint pain through 52 weeks. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial was conducted at 11 sites in the US from May 1, 2012, to February 29, 2016, with a scheduled final date of follow-up of September 5, 2017, to compare true acupuncture (TA) with sham acupuncture (SA) or waiting list control (WC). Women with early-stage breast cancer were eligible if they were taking an AI and scored 3 or higher on the Brief Pain Inventory Worst Pain (BPI-WP) item (score range, 0-10; higher scores indicate greater pain). Analysis was conducted for data received through May 3, 2021. Interventions: Participants were randomized 2:1:1 to the TA (n = 110), SA (n = 59), or WC (n = 57) group. The TA and SA protocols were composed of 6 weeks of intervention at 2 sessions per week (12 sessions overall), followed by 6 additional weeks of intervention with 1 session per week. Participants randomized to WC received no intervention. All participants were offered 10 acupuncture sessions to be used between weeks 24 and 52. Main Outcomes and Measures: In this long-term evaluation, the primary end point was the 52-week BPI-WP score, compared by study group using linear regression, adjusted for baseline pain and stratification factors. Results: Among 226 randomized women (mean [SD] age, 60.7 [8.6] years; 87.7% White; mean [SD] baseline BPI-WP score, 6.7 [1.5]), 191 (84.5%) completed the trial. In a linear regression, 52-week mean BPI-WP scores were 1.08 (95% CI, 0.24-1.91) points lower in the TA compared with the SA group (P = .01) and were 0.99 (95% CI, 0.12-1.86) points lower in the TA compared with the WC group (P = .03). In addition, 52-week BPI pain interference scores were statistically significantly lower in the TA compared with the SA group (difference, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.00-1.16; P = .05). Between 24 and 52 weeks, 12 (13.2%) of TA, 6 (11.3%) of SA, and 5 (10.6%) of WC patients reported receipt of acupuncture. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, women with AI-related joint pain receiving 12 weeks of TA had reduced pain at 52 weeks compared with controls, suggesting long-term benefits of this therapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01535066.

Trends in Medically Integrated Dispensing Among Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: The integration of pharmacies with oncology practices-known as medically integrated dispensing or in-office dispensing-could improve care coordination but may incentivize overprescribing or inappropriate prescribing. Because little is known about this emerging phenomenon, we analyzed historical trends in medically integrated dispensing. METHODS: Annual IQVIA data on oncologists were linked to 2010-2019 National Council for Prescription Drug Programs pharmacy data; data on commercially insured patients diagnosed with any of six common cancer types; and summary data on providers' Medicare billing. We calculated the national prevalence of medically integrated dispensing among community and hospital-based oncologists. We also analyzed the characteristics of the oncologists and patients affected by this care model. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2019, the percentage of oncologists in practices with medically integrated dispensing increased from 12.8% to 32.1%. The share of community oncologists in dispensing practices increased from 7.6% to 28.3%, whereas the share of hospital-based oncologists in dispensing practices increased from 18.3% to 33.4%. Rates of medically integrated dispensing varied considerably across states. Oncologists who dispensed had higher patient volumes (P < .001) and a smaller share of Medicare beneficiaries (P < .001) than physicians who did not dispense. Patients treated by dispensing oncologists had higher risk and comorbidity scores (P < .001) and lived in areas with a higher % Black population (P < .001) than patients treated by nondispensing oncologists. CONCLUSION: Medically integrated dispensing has increased significantly among oncology practices over the past 10 years. The reach, clinical impact, and economic implications of medically integrated dispensing should be evaluated on an ongoing basis.

Sex Differences in Risk of Severe Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Immunotherapy, Targeted Therapy, or Chemotherapy in Cancer Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Women have more adverse events (AEs) from chemotherapy than men, but few studies have investigated sex differences in immune or targeted therapies. We examined AEs by sex across different treatment domains. METHODS: We analyzed treatment-related AEs by sex in SWOG phase II and III clinical trials conducted between 1980 and 2019, excluding sex-specific cancers. AE codes and grade were categorized using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Symptomatic AEs were defined as those aligned with the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcome-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; laboratory-based or observable/measurable AEs were designated as objective (hematologic v nonhematologic). Multivariable logistic regression was used, adjusting for age, race, and disease prognosis. Thirteen symptomatic and 14 objective AE categories were examined. RESULTS: In total, N = 23,296 patients (women, 8,838 [37.9%]; men, 14,458 [62.1%]) from 202 trials experiencing 274,688 AEs were analyzed; 17,417 received chemotherapy, 2,319 received immunotherapy, and 3,560 received targeted therapy. Overall, 64.6% (n = 15,051) experienced one or more severe (grade ≥ 3) AEs. Women had a 34% increased risk of severe AEs compared with men (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.42; P < .001), including a 49% increased risk among those receiving immunotherapy (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.78; P < .001). Women experienced an increased risk of severe symptomatic AEs among all treatments, especially immunotherapy (OR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.01; P < .001). Women receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy experienced increased severe hematologic AE. No statistically significant sex differences in risk of nonhematologic AEs were found. CONCLUSION: The greater severity of both symptomatic AEs and hematologic AEs in women across multiple treatment modalities indicates that broad-based sex differences exist. This could be due to differences in AE reported, pharmacogenomics of drug metabolism/disposition, total dose received, and/or adherence to therapy. Particularly large sex differences were observed for patients receiving immunotherapy, suggesting that studying AEs from these agents is a priority.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors: immune-related adverse events, healthcare utilization, and costs among commercial and Medicare Advantage patients.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used across multiple cancer types and stages and little is known about real-world outcomes. This study sought to determine healthcare utilization, costs, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and all-cause mortality of single-agent versus combination ICI in the USA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study conducted with 2016-2018 data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, consisting of commercial and Medicare-insured adult patients with a cancer diagnosis using ICI in the USA. Outcomes were healthcare utilization, costs, and irAEs (FDA-recognized and others) up to 1-year post-index between patients using ICI monotherapy (mono, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor) and combination therapy (combo, PD-1/PD-L1 with CTLA-4 inhibitors). RESULTS: In total, 9084 patients received monotherapy and 904 patients received combo therapy. Mean age 65 years for mono and 58 years for combo. Overall, the combo arm had higher rates of FDA-recognized irAEs (67.4% vs. 45.9%), especially endocrinopathies (27.7% vs 14.7%) and dermatitis (25.9% vs. 12.4%). All-cause mortality over 1-year follow-up was similar, 30.7% in mono vs 30.8% in combo arms. The combo group had higher rates of all-cause inpatient hospitalizations (55.4% mono vs 65.6% combo) and emergency department (ED) visits (33.7% mono vs 41.4% combo). IrAE-related hospitalizations were higher in combo (55.2% vs 42.1%). IrAE-related ED visits were 15.7% mono vs 22.7% combo. This increased toxicity and health care utilization was reflected in significant differences in healthcare costs. Stark differences were seen in all-cause medical costs as well as costs related to inpatient and ED utilization and costs attributed to irAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of irAEs, healthcare utilization, and costs occur with combination immunotherapy. As further indications are approved for combination ICI, our study highlights the real-world tradeoffs involved with combination therapy regarding burdens of toxicity and increased healthcare utilization.

Identification of Breast Cancer Survivors With High Symptom Burden.

BACKGROUND: While women diagnosed with breast cancer have increased survival when compared with other cancers, survivorship may include residual symptom burden from treatment and continuing endocrine therapies. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify subgroups of breast cancer survivors experiencing similar symptom severity. METHODS: Participants were 498 women with breast cancer, not on active treatment. Symptom severity was self-reported using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory. Target symptoms were included in a latent profile analysis. Factors related to subgroup membership and differences in quality of life (QOL) and functioning were explored using logistic regression. RESULTS: Mean age was 60.11 (SD, 11.32) years, 86.1% were white, and 79.1% were receiving endocrine therapy. Target symptoms included fatigue (reported at ≥5 by 22.8% of women), sleep disturbance (24.8%), and trouble remembering (17.2%). Two subgroups were identified: low symptom severity (77.0% of women) and high (23.0%). Older women (odds ratio [OR], 0.971; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.952-0.989) and employed women (OR, 0.621; 95% CI, 0404-0.956) were less likely to be in the high subgroup; women with poorer performance status (OR, 1.653; 95% CI, 1.188-2.299) were more likely to be in the high subgroup. Women in the high subgroup reported lower QOL (P = .000) and greater interference with functioning (P = .000). CONCLUSIONS: Two subgroups of women with distinct symptom severity were identified. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Identification of women at risk for high symptoms during survivorship may allow clinicians to intensify their approach to symptom management, thereby mitigating poor outcomes and impairments in QOL.

Predictors of Pain Reduction in Trials of Interventions for Aromatase Inhibitor-Associated Musculoskeletal Symptoms.

Background: Almost one-half of aromatase inhibitor (AI)-treated breast cancer patients experience AI-associated musculoskeletal symptoms (AIMSS); 20%-30% discontinue treatment because of severe symptoms. We hypothesized that we could identify predictors of pain reduction in AIMSS intervention trials by combining data from previously conducted trials. Methods: We pooled patient-level data from 3 randomized trials testing interventions (omega-3 fatty acids, acupuncture, and duloxetine) for AIMSS that had similar eligibility criteria and the same patient-reported outcome measures. Only patients with a baseline Brief Pain Inventory average pain score of at least 4 of 10 were included. The primary outcome examined was 2-point reduction in average pain from baseline to week 12. Variable cut-point selection and logistic regression were used. Risk models were built by summing the number of factors statistically significantly associated with pain reduction. Analyses were stratified by study and adjusted for treatment arm. Results: For the 583 analyzed patients, the 4 factors statistically significantly associated with pain reduction were Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Functional Well-Being greater than 24 and Physical Well-Being greater than 14 (higher scores reflect better function), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index less than 50 and Modified Score for the Assessment and Quantification of Chronic Rheumatoid Affections of the Hands less than 33 (lower scores reflect less pain). Patients with all 4 factors were greater than 6 times more likely to experience at least a 2-point pain reduction (odds ratio = 6.37, 95% confidence interval = 2.31 to 17.53, 2-sided P < .001); similar results were found for secondary 30% and 50% pain reduction endpoints. Conclusions: Patients with AIMSS who have lower symptom and functional distress at study entry on AIMSS intervention trials are more likely to experience meaningful pain reduction. Baseline symptom and functional status should be considered as stratification factors in future interventional trials.

Treatment Experiences with CDK4&6 Inhibitors Among Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: To describe patients' perspectives on the use of and potential challenges and barriers with adherence/persistence to cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4&6i's) to treat metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: This qualitative study consisted of 60-minute semi-structured telephone interviews with patients with MBC in the US who were either current or recent CDK4&6i users, identified from administrative claims of survey-eligible commercial and Medicare Advantage patients in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database between November 1, 2018 and November 1, 2019. Patients were recruited by email and/or mailed letter. The 60-minute telephone interviews were conducted by a trained facilitator using a study-developed interview discussion guide that included topics impacting treatment choice and adherence/persistence. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: All 462 eligible patients were sent a recruitment email and/or letter to which 36 patients responded, consented to participate, and met study inclusion criteria; 25 patients scheduled interviews, and 24 completed them. Study participants were predominately white, non-Hispanic (96%) with a mean age of 59.5 years. Participants reported a largely positive experience and mentioned very few adherence/persistence issues. They further reported appreciating the ease and convenience of oral oncolytics, coped with side effects, had strong medical and social support, and experienced few cost issues. CONCLUSION: The few adherence/persistence issues reported by participants contrasts with other findings of suboptimal oral oncolytic use. Interview themes indicated several factors that likely contributed to the lack of adherence/persistence issues: trusted relationship with oncologist, belief in importance of medication, positive medication views, strong medical and social support, and minimal personal drug cost. Future research should focus on whether and how much these factors impact adherence/persistence in more diverse populations. If adherence/persistence issues are identified in these populations, then it would be appropriate to study the development of interventions that target factors associated with better adherence/persistence.

Association of Osteonecrosis of the Jaw With Zoledronic Acid Treatment for Bone Metastases in Patients With Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) affects patients with cancer and metastatic bone disease (MBD) treated with bone-modifying agents (BMAs), yet the true incidence is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To define the cumulative incidence of ONJ at 3 years in patients receiving zoledronic acid for MBD from any malignant neoplasm. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, prospective observational cohort study (SWOG Cancer Research Network S0702) included patients with MBD with either limited or no prior exposure to BMAs and a clinical care plan that included use of zoledronic acid within 30 days of registration. Medical, dental, and patient-reported outcome forms were submitted at baseline and every 6 months. Follow-up was 3 years. Osteonecrosis of the jaw was defined using established criteria. Data were collected from January 30, 2009, to December 13, 2013, and analyzed from August 24, 2018, to August 6, 2020. INTERVENTIONS/EXPOSURES: Cancer treatments, BMAs, and dental care were administered as clinically indicated. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cumulative incidence of confirmed ONJ, defined as an area of exposed bone in the maxillofacial region present for more than 8 weeks with no concurrent radiotherapy to the craniofacial region. Risk factors for ONJ were also examined. RESULTS: The SWOG S0702 trial enrolled 3491 evaluable patients (1806 women [51.7%]; median age, 63.1 [range, 2.24-93.9] years), of whom 1120 had breast cancer; 580, myeloma; 702, prostate cancer; 666, lung cancer; and 423, other neoplasm. A baseline dental examination was performed in 2263 patients (64.8%). Overall, 90 patients developed confirmed ONJ, with cumulative incidence of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.5%-1.1%) at year 1, 2.0% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.5%) at year 2, and 2.8% (95% CI, 2.3%-3.5%) at year 3; 3-year cumulative incidence was highest in patients with myeloma (4.3%; 95% CI, 2.8%-6.4%). Patients with planned zoledronic acid dosing intervals of less than 5 weeks were more likely to experience ONJ than patients with planned dosing intervals of 5 weeks or more (hazard ratio [HR], 4.65; 95% CI, 1.46-14.81; P = .009). A higher rate of ONJ was associated with fewer total number of teeth (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31-0.83; P = .006), the presence of dentures (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.10-3.03; P = .02), and current smoking (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.12-4.02; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: As the findings show, the cumulative incidence of ONJ after 3 years was 2.8% in patients receiving zoledronic acid for MBD. Cancer type, oral health, and frequency of dosing were associated with the risk of ONJ. These data provide information to guide stratification of risk for developing ONJ in patients with MBD receiving zoledronic acid.

Association Between a National Insurer's Pay-for-Performance Program for Oncology and Changes in Prescribing of Evidence-Based Cancer Drugs and Spending.

PURPOSE: Cancer drug prescribing by medical oncologists accounts for the greatest variation in practice and the largest portion of spending on cancer care. We evaluated the association between a national commercial insurer's ongoing pay-for-performance (P4P) program for oncology and changes in the prescribing of evidence-based cancer drugs and spending. METHODS: We conducted an observational difference-in-differences study using administrative claims data covering 6.7% of US adults. We leveraged the geographically staggered, time-varying rollout of the P4P program to simulate a stepped-wedge study design. We included patients age 18 years or older with breast, colon, or lung cancer who were prescribed cancer drug regimens by 1,867 participating oncologists between 2013 and 2017. The exposure was a time-varying dichotomous variable equal to 1 for patients who were prescribed a cancer drug regimen after the P4P program was offered. The primary outcome was whether a patient's drug regimen was a program-endorsed, evidence-based regimen. We also evaluated spending over a 6-month episode period. RESULTS: The P4P program was associated with an increase in evidence-based regimen prescribing from 57.1% of patients in the preintervention period to 62.2% in the intervention period, for a difference of +5.1 percentage point (95% CI, 3.0 percentage points to 7.2 percentage points; P < .001). The P4P program was also associated with a differential $3,339 (95% CI, $1,121 to $5,557; P = .003) increase in cancer drug spending and a differential $253 (95% CI, $100 to $406; P = .001) increase in patient out-of-pocket spending, but no significant changes in total health care spending ($2,772; 95% CI, -$181 to $5,725; P = .07) over the 6-month episode period. CONCLUSION: P4P programs may be effective in increasing evidence-based cancer drug prescribing, but may not yield cost savings.

A prospective study to validate the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRI)-induced dermatologic toxicities FACT-EGFRI 18 questionnaire: SWOG S1013.

BACKGROUND: Papulopustular rash is a common class effect of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI) that can affect patients' health-related quality of life and cause disruptions to treatment. SWOG S1013 (NCT01416688) is a multi-center study designed to validate the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy EGFRI 18 (FACT-EGFRI 18) using 7-items from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 to assess EGFRI-induced skin-related toxicities and their impact on functional status. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of colorectal or lung cancer to receive EGFRI therapies for at least 6 weeks were enrolled. Patient self-assessments using the FACT-EGFRI 18 were completed prior to undergoing CTCAE assessment by trained clinicians at baseline, weekly × 6, and then monthly × 3. The psychometric properties of the FACT-EGFRI 14 (skin toxicity items only) and 18 (plus 2 nail and 2 hair items) were established based on criterion validity, known groups validity, internal consistency reliability, and responsiveness to change. RESULTS: Of the 146 registered patients, 124 were evaluable. High Cronbach's alpha (> 0.70) for both FACT-EGFRI 14 and FACT-EGFRI 18 scores across assessment times were observed. Although agreement (i.e. criterion validity) between individual and summary scales of the FACT-EGFRI 18 for assessing skin toxicity was good, agreement with the clinician-reported CTCAE was only fair. The minimal important difference was determined to be 3 points. The results also demonstrated responsiveness to symptom change. DISCUSSION: Based on the results of this multi-center validation study, the FACT-EGFRI 18 patient-reported outcome instrument provided data from the patient's perspective yielding unique information as well as complementing clinician-rated CTCAE grades, especially for the symptoms of pain, pruritus, and paronychia. CONCLUSIONS: Good to excellent psychometric properties for the FACT-EGFRI 18 were demonstrated, supporting further use of this patient-reported outcomes measure. Additional validation with a more diverse group of patients should be conducted.

Testing Symptom Severity Thresholds and Potential Alerts for Clinical Intervention in Patients With Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Symptom monitoring is attracting attention as a way to improve adherence to cancer therapy, reduce treatment-related toxicities, and possibly improve overall survival. How reporting thresholds affect symptom alert generation and clinical outcomes is poorly understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from 38 US health care institutions collected for the prospective Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network E2Z02 Symptom Outcomes and Practice Patterns study. Participants were outpatients receiving chemotherapy for breast (n = 642), colorectal (n = 486), or lung cancer (n = 340) who rated symptom severity using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory at 2 assessment points 1 month apart. Percentages of patients with pain, dyspnea, fatigue, or distress at different thresholds (score of 4-7 on a 0-10 scale) were compared. The percentage of patients whose performance status had worsened at follow-up was used to estimate risk for missing clinically important symptom data by using higher severity thresholds. RESULTS: At the guideline-recommended threshold of ≥ 4, suprathreshold rates were 60% for any of the 4 symptoms at the initial survey; performance status worsened at follow-up for 27% of all patients with any symptom rated ≥ 4 at the initiate survey. When the threshold was increased to ≥ 7, approximately half of patients (51%) with worsened performance status were not identified. CONCLUSION: The burden to clinicians from an alert threshold of ≥ 4 (per many current guidelines) would be substantial. However, setting higher alert thresholds may miss a large percentage of patients who need clinical intervention. These results may inform resource planning when implementing electronic symptom screening at an institutional or practice level.

Use of Optimal Evidence-Based Anticancer Drug Regimens in Physician Offices Versus Hospital Outpatient Facilities.

PURPOSE: Cancer care has increasingly shifted from physician offices (MDOs) to hospital-based outpatient departments (HOPDs). This study compared the proportion of patients receiving optimal, evidence-based anticancer drug regimens and the cost of care when administered in these sites. METHODS: Patients with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer were identified from a large health insurance database. Anticancer drug regimens were considered on pathway when they were on the payer's program list of optimal regimens when administered. Anticancer drug-related costs included all patient- and plan-paid costs on claims for anticancer drugs over the 6-month postindex period; total per-patient costs were summed over all claims in that period. RESULTS: A total of 38,140 patients (MDO, n = 18,998; HOPD, n = 19,142) were included. On-pathway status was similar in HOPDs (59.5%; 95% CI, 58.6% to 60.4%) versus MDOs (60.8%; 95% CI, 59.8% to 61.8%; P = .069). HOPDs had substantially higher costs. Adjusted cancer drug-related costs were $63,763 (95% CI, $62,301 to $65,224) for HOPDs versus $36,500 (95% CI, $35,729 to $37,271) for MDOs (P < .001); adjusted total costs were $115,843 (95% CI, $113,642 to $118,044) for HOPDs versus $77,346 (95% CI, $76,072 to $78,620) for MDOs (P < .001). For Medicare Advantage, adjusted total costs were $61,812 for HOPDs compared with $62,769 for MDOs; adjusted drug-related costs were $31,610 for HOPDs compared with $33,168 for MDOs. For commercial insurance, total costs were $119,288 for HOPDs compared with $77,613 for MDOs; drug-related costs were $65,930 for HOPDs compared with $36,366 for MDOs. CONCLUSION: Total and cancer drug-related per-patient costs were higher in HOPDs versus MDOs, but on-pathway status was similar. The cost differential between HOPDs and MDOs was driven by commercially insured members rather than Medicare Advantage members.

Occurrence and Characteristics of Hospitalizations During First-Line Chemotherapy Among Individuals with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Choosing chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) requires balancing clinical effectiveness and risk of complications. This study characterized real-world inpatient/emergency department (ED) hospitalizations during first-line chemotherapy among individuals with mCRC. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from medical and pharmacy claims. All patients had mCRC with ≥1 claim for ≥1 of the 5 most frequently utilized first-line chemotherapy agents (fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab, irinotecan, capecitabine). The main outcome was all-cause hospitalizations (inpatient or ED setting) identified from claims via ICD-9/10-CM coding from index date until 30 days after the end of first-line chemotherapy or last available data. RESULTS: A total of 717 individuals (mean age 55 years; 58% male; ECOG 0/1/2+/missing in 44%/39%/6%/11%; median follow-up 116 days) met study criteria. Thirty-four distinct chemotherapy regimens were used. Overall, 40% of patients had ≥1 hospitalization (n=285; total 415 hospitalizations); 12% (n=85) had ≥2 hospitalizations. The median time to first hospitalization was 52 days; median inpatient length of stay was 4 days; infections/neutropenia (21%) and bowel-related complications (17%) were the most common issues associated with inpatient hospitalizations. In univariate analyses, insurance plan type, geographical location, ECOG, and renal disease were associated with hospitalization. In multivariable analyses, ECOG ≥1 was associated with a 67% increase (p<0.01) in the odds of hospitalization vs ECOG= 0. CONCLUSION: Approximately 40% of patients with mCRC were hospitalized during the study period. Hospital stays were typically short. Further research is needed to determine how many of these hospitalizations may be avoidable. We also observed a large amount of variation in regimens used in the first-line setting.

A randomized trial of nurse-administered behavioral interventions to manage anticipatory nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy side effects diminish quality of life and can lead to treatment delay. Nausea and vomiting can occur prior to chemotherapy because of classical conditioning. We studied the effects of 20-minute behavioral interventions, administered by oncology nurses, of higher intensity (mindfulness relaxation-MR) or lower intensity (relaxing music-RM), on anticipatory nausea and vomiting (ANV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumors were randomized to MR (N = 160), RM (N = 159), or standard care SC (N = 155). Subjects were mostly female (91.8%) and white (86.1%) with breast cancer (85%). Most patients had early stage disease (Stage I: 26%; II: 52.9%; III: 19%; IV: 0.1%). Anticipatory nausea and vomiting were assessed at the midpoint and end of the chemotherapy course using the Morrow Assessment of Nausea and Emesis (MANE). RESULTS: Compared to SC, there was reduced anticipatory nausea at the midpoint of chemotherapy in those receiving MR (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.93) and RM (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.93), controlling for age, sex, cancer stage, and emetogenic level of chemotherapy. There was no difference between treatment groups in anticipatory nausea at the end of chemotherapy or in anticipatory vomiting and postchemotherapy nausea and vomiting at either time point. CONCLUSION: A brief nurse-delivered behavioral intervention can reduce midpoint ANV associated with chemotherapy.