Associations With Virtual Visit Use Among Patients Receiving Radiation Therapy.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to test for patient characteristics associated with virtual versus office visits among radiation oncology patients. Methods and Materials: Using the electronic health record, we extracted encounter data and corresponding patient information for the 6 months before and 6 months of COVID-19-enabled virtual visits (October 1, 2019, to March 22, 2020 vs March 23, 2020, to September 1, 2020) at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center. Encounters during COVID-19 were categorized as in-person or virtual visits. We compared patient demographic variables including race, age, sex, marital status, preferred language, insurance status, and tumor type during the pre-COVID-19 period as a baseline versus during the COVID-19 period. Multivariable analyses examined associations between these variables and virtual visit use. Results: We analyzed 4974 total encounters (2287 before COVID-19 and 2687 during COVID-19) for 3960 unique patients. All (100%) pre-COVID-19 encounters were in-person. During COVID-19, 21% of encounters were via virtual visits. There were no differences identified in pre- versus during-COVID-19 patient characteristics. However, we found significant differences in patient characteristics for in-person versus virtual encounters during COVID-19. On multivariable analysis, virtual visit use was less common among patients who were Black versus White (odds ratio [OR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99; P = .044) and not married versus married (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98; P = .037). Patients with head and neck (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.97; P = .034), breast (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.62; P ≤ .001), gastrointestinal/abdominal (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.63; P = .001), or hematologic malignancy (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-0.95; P = .043) diagnoses were less likely to be scheduled for virtual visits relative to patients with genitourinary malignancy. No Spanish-speaking patients engaged in a virtual visit. We did not identify differences in the insurance status or sex of patients scheduled for virtual visits. Conclusions: We found significant differences in virtual visit use by patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Further investigation into implications of differential virtual visit use including social and structural determinants and subsequent clinical outcomes is indicated.

Underascertainment of Clinically Meaningful Symptoms During Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy-Does This Vary by Patient Characteristics?

PURPOSE: It is well known that physicians underascertain chemotherapy-related toxicity compared with patient self-report. However, symptom underascertainment in radiation therapy and characterization of patient groups at increased risk for underascertainment have not been examined. METHODS AND MATERIALS: As part of routine clinical care, 7 urinary and gastrointestinal symptoms were prospectively collected with both patient-report outcomes (PROs) using the validated Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices and physician-graded symptoms using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) for 544 consecutive patients from 2010 to 2018 who received intensity modulated radiation therapy to the prostate or prostate bed. Data from weekly treatment visits and the first posttreatment follow-up were analyzed. Underascertainment was defined as an occurrence when a clinically meaningful symptom was indicated on PROs but not physician CTCAE assessment. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression examined characteristics associated with underascertainment. RESULTS: Overall, 85.3% of patients had underascertainment of at least 1 symptom. Per PRO, 16.9% of assessments reported clinically meaningful symptoms, in contrast to only 3.4% per CTCAE, representing an approximate 5-fold difference. Multivariable analysis showed underascertainment was more common in patients who were unmarried (odds ratio [OR] 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.38), lived in rural regions (OR 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21), incarcerated (OR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.36-1.84), retired/unemployed (OR 1.29; 95% CI, 1.18-1.40), received prostate gland (vs prostate bed) treatment (OR 1.43; 95% CI, 1.31-1.58), and received concurrent hormone therapy (OR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.29). Patients age >70 years were less likely to have underascertainment compared with those age <60 years (OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to show underascertainment of clinically meaningful symptoms in radiation therapy patients in routine clinical care and further to demonstrate that certain patient groups are especially vulnerable to underascertainment. These results highlight the importance of incorporating PROs in the clinical care of radiation therapy patients. If PROs are not routinely used, vulnerable patient groups may need additional attention during cancer treatment to ensure accurate toxicity assessment and management.