University of Pennsylvania Telehealth Research Center of Excellence.

Drawing from insights from communication science and behavioral economics, the University of Pennsylvania Telehealth Research Center of Excellence (Penn TRACE) is designing and testing telehealth strategies with the potential to transform access to care, care quality, outcomes, health equity, and health-care efficiency across the cancer care continuum, with an emphasis on understanding mechanisms of action. Penn TRACE uses lung cancer care as an exemplar model for telehealth across the care continuum, from screening to treatment to survivorship. We bring together a diverse and interdisciplinary team of international experts and incorporate rapid-cycle approaches and mixed methods evaluation in all center projects. Our initiatives include a pragmatic sequential multiple assignment randomized trial to compare the effectiveness of telehealth strategies to increase shared decision-making for lung cancer screening and 2 pilot projects to test the effectiveness of telehealth to improve cancer care, identify multilevel mechanisms of action, and lay the foundation for future pragmatic trials. Penn TRACE aims to produce new fundamental knowledge and advance telehealth science in cancer care at Penn and nationally.

An NLP Framework for the Extraction of Concept Measurements from Radiology and Pathology Notes.

Natural language processing (NLP) tools can automate the identification of cancer patients eligible for specific pathways. We developed and validated a cancer agnostic, rules-based NLP framework to extract the dimensions and measurements of several concepts from pathology and radiology reports. This framework was then efficiently and cost-effectively deployed to identify patients eligible for breast, lung, and prostate cancers clinical pathways.

Estimating Pack-Year Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening Using 2 Yes or No Questions.

This cross-sectional study describes the development and testing the accuracy of using 2 yes or no questions to estimate pack-year eligibility for lung cancer screening.

Patient responses to passive enrollment into a large, pragmatic clinical trial: A qualitative content analysis.

BACKGROUND: While passive enrollment or "opt-out" recruitment methods facilitate pragmatic clinical trials, they pose unique challenges, and it is unclear how participants feel about them. Here, we describe patient responses to passive enrollment into the Watch the Spot Trial, a pragmatic trial comparing two sets of guidelines for small lung nodule follow-up. METHODS: For this nested qualitative study, we analyzed participant-initiated calls and emails. We performed a qualitative content analysis, using a team-coding approach to identify reasons that eligible participants contacted the study team. We calculated the proportion of contacts containing each code, and how often each code coincided with study opt-outs and other codes. RESULTS: Of 23,412 eligible participants across seven sites, 1494 (6.4%) contacted the study team, with 1560 total contacts. Among the total contacts, the most common codes (i.e., reasons for contacting the team) were study opt-outs (n = 614, 39.0%), clarification of study procedures (n = 328, 21.0%), and unawareness of the nodule prior to research notification (n = 244, 15.6%). The least common codes were concerns about sharing of protected health information with the study team (n = 22, 1.4%) or outside of the healthcare system (n = 26, 1.7%), and disapproval of the opt-out approach (n = 10, 0.6%); most patients with these concerns opted-out. Nodule unawareness sometimes coincided with anger (n = 24) or distress (n = 15), and questions about nodule care sometimes coincided with distress (n = 20) and questions about follow-up surveys (n = 26). CONCLUSION: Most participants did not report concerns about passive enrollment. Patient perspectives are an invaluable resource for minimizing risks and inconveniences of future pragmatic trials using this recruitment method.

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Pulmonary Nodules Detected Incidentally or by Screening: A Survey of Radiologist Awareness, Agreement, and Adherence From the Watch the Spot Trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine radiologists' beliefs about existing guidelines for pulmonary nodule evaluation. METHODS: A self-administered survey was developed to ascertain awareness of, agreement with, and adherence to published guidelines, including those from the Fleischner Society and the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS™). Surveys were distributed to 514 radiologists at 13 health care systems that are participating in a large, pragmatic trial of pulmonary nodule evaluation. Prespecified comparisons were made among groups defined by type of health system, years of experience, reader volume, and study arm. RESULTS: The response rate was 26.3%. Respondents were most familiar with guidelines from Fleischner (94%) and Lung-RADS (71%). For both incidental and screening-detected nodules, self-reported adherence to preferred guidelines was very high (97% and 94%, respectively), and most respondents believed that the benefits of adherence outweigh the harms (81% and 74%, respectively). Underlying evidence was thought to be high in quality by 68% of respondents for screening-detected nodules and 41% for incidental nodules. Approximately 70% of respondents believed that the frequency of recommended follow-up was "just right" for both guidelines. Radiologists who practice in nonintegrated health care systems were more likely to believe that the evidence was high in quality (79.5% versus 57.1%) and that the benefits of adherence outweigh the harms (85.1% versus 67.5%). Low-volume readers had lower awareness and self-reported adherence than higher volume readers. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists reported high levels of familiarity and agreement with and adherence to guidelines for pulmonary nodule evaluation, but many overestimated the quality of evidence in support of the recommendations.

A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study of Three Guided Bronchoscopic Approaches for Investigating Pulmonary Nodules: The PRECISION-1 Study.

BACKGROUND: The capability of bronchoscopy in the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary nodules (PPNs) remains limited. Despite decades of effort, evidence suggests that the diagnostic accuracy for electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy (EMN) and radial endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) approach only 50%. New developments in robotic bronchoscopy (RB) may offer improvements in the assessment of PPNs. METHODS: A prospective single-blinded randomized controlled comparative study to assess success in localization and puncture of PPNs, using an ultrathin bronchoscope with radial EBUS (UTB-rEBUS) vs EMN vs RB in a human cadaver model of PPNs < 2 cm, was performed. The primary end point was the ability to successfully localize and puncture the target nodule, verified by cone-beam CT comparing RB and EMN. Secondary end points included needle to target position "miss" distance, and UTB-rEBUS comparisons. RESULTS: Sixty procedures were performed to target 20 PPNs over the study period. Implanted PPNs were distributed across all lobes, with 80% located within the lung periphery. The target PPN mean diameter was 16.5 ± 1.5 mm, with 50% noted to have a CT bronchus sign. The rate of successful PPN localization and puncture was superior when using RB, compared with EMN (80% vs 45%; P = .02). Among unsuccessful needle passes, the median needle to target "miss" distance was significantly different when comparing UTB-rEBUS, EMN, and RB (P = .0014). CONCLUSIONS: In a cadaver model, use of RB significantly increased the ability to localize and successfully puncture small PPNs when compared with existing technologies. This study demonstrates the potential of RB to precisely reach, localize, and puncture small nodules in the periphery of the lung.