User login
AVAHO
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Cancer Risk: Are Pesticides the New Smoking?
Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.
thus offering a limited perspective.
A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.
A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
Calculating Cancer Risk
Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:
- Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
- Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
- Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019
Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.
The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
Midwest Most Affected
While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.
The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Pesticides vs Smoking
The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.
The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.
This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
Expanding Scope of Research
Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.
The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.
Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
This story was translated from JIM using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.
thus offering a limited perspective.
A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.
A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
Calculating Cancer Risk
Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:
- Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
- Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
- Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019
Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.
The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
Midwest Most Affected
While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.
The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Pesticides vs Smoking
The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.
The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.
This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
Expanding Scope of Research
Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.
The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.
Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
This story was translated from JIM using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.
thus offering a limited perspective.
A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.
A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
Calculating Cancer Risk
Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:
- Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
- Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
- Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019
Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.
The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
Midwest Most Affected
While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.
The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Pesticides vs Smoking
The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.
The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.
This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
Expanding Scope of Research
Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.
The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.
Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
This story was translated from JIM using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Montana Hospital to Pay $10.8M to Settle False Claims Oncology Suit
As the deadline nears for a Montana healthcare system to pay what has been called a “jaw-dropping” settlement of nearly $11 million dollars to resolve an alleged violation of the False Claims Act, the legal troubles for the oncologist at the center of the case are ongoing and escalating.
On August 26, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana and other agencies announced the settlement agreement with St. Peter’s Health, a nonprofit healthcare system in Helena, to resolve allegations that it submitted “false claims for payments to federal health care programs for services performed by an oncology doctor.”
“This settlement would not have been possible without the cooperation of St. Peter’s Health, who voluntarily disclosed the misconduct and cooperated with federal investigators to identify the problem and amount of false billing,” said US Attorney Jesse Laslovich in a press release announcing the settlement.
On the same day, the US Attorney’s Office also filed a civil complaint against the oncologist Thomas Weiner, MD, accusing him of “false health care claims and improper prescribing of controlled substances.” Among the numerous allegations, the civil complaint specifies that Dr. Weiner used his position as the chief medical oncologist at St. Peter’s Health “to order medically unnecessary treatment,” including chemotherapy, blood tests, and imaging, as well as “knowingly falsified records” to double bill for office visits.
When It Began
The legal troubles for Dr. Weiner, now 61, started about 4 years ago. Dr. Weiner, who was the sole oncologist at St. Peter’s Health and worked there for 24 years, was suspended in October 2020 and then fired in November 2020 for allegedly providing unnecessary treatments and failing to refer patients to other specialists for care, among other claims.
“The magnitude of Dr. Weiner’s violations is staggering,” St. Peter’s CEO, Wade Johnson, had said in a December 2020 press statement.
At the time, Dr. Weiner had filed a lawsuit against St. Peter’s Health, claiming he was denied due process and seeking damages and a jury trial. Dr. Weiner’s lead lawyer, J. Devlan Geddes, said it was hard to believe that Dr. Weiner had suddenly become a danger to patients after more than 2 decades on the job.
Before 2020, Dr. Weiner had a clean record with Montana’s Board of Medical Examiners and had never been the subject of an internal investigation related to quality of care, according to his lawyers. He also served on St. Peter’s board of directors and as chief of medical staff.
Dr. Weiner’s exit from St. Peter’s in 2020 led to an outpouring of support from former patients and community members who formed the Facebook group, “ We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner.” The group soon grew to almost 4000 people.
Four years later, despite the new legal developments, community support for Dr. Weiner has held strong. Supporters continue to have regular rallies outside St. Peter’s Health as well as post messages and personal stories on two Facebook groups now devoted to the cause.
John Larson, 76, a Helena resident who was treated by Dr. Weiner, echoed a common sentiment from supporters. “I’m completely certain that Tom Weiner is not guilty of what the government is now involved in charging him with,” Dr. Larson said in an interview.
$10.8 Million: ‘It’s a Big Number’
At the press conference announcing the recent settlement, Mr. Laslovich recalled a participant describe the total as jaw-dropping, he said in an interview. While there haven’t been many such recent cases in the district, he agreed it’s a big number. The only other recent case he could remember was a 2018 settlement in Kalispell for $24 million.
The current settlement contends that St. Peter’s Health submitted false claims for payments to federal health care programs related to services performed and referred by Weiner. The infractions allegedly occurred between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020.
According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), St. Peter Health’s “knew, or should have known,” that the oncologist submitted claims for office visits that were coded at a higher level of service than was performed — ie upcoded claims — or did not meet the requirements of a significant, separately identifiable service when performed on the same day chemotherapy was administered — ie non-payable claims.
The DOJ contended that the healthcare system violated the False Claims Act “by knowingly submitting the upcoded and non-payable” claims to the Federal Health Care Programs. And, as a result, St. Peter’s compensated the oncologist with a salary based on the false claims.
“We had documents showing some of the claims that were being submitted were being done because the doctor wanted more in compensation and of course you can’t do that,” Laslovich said. “For me, the message to providers, and I said this during our press conference, is that coding is critical.”
“The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only,” the US Attorney’s Office press release clarified, and “there has been no determination of liability.”
The leadership at St. Peter’s Health issued a press release on August 27, stating it relied on Dr. Weiner’s medical record documentation and billing certification, though declined to comment further on the settlement
Bob Wade, a partner at Nelson Mullins, Nashville, Tennessee, and lead outside counsel representing St. Peter’s Health on the settlement, said in an interview that the quality issue was first identified in fall 2020.
“I first conducted a fair market value review for their entire system and noted that he [Weiner] was an extreme outlier with regard to his productivity,” Mr. Wade said.
In a separate statement, Mr. Wade praised the integrity of the health system, saying, “when the medical record documentation and medical necessity issues related to Dr. Weiner were identified, my client, St. Peter’s Health, through the Board and Executive Leadership took decisive action and authorized me to self-report to the Office of Inspector General and Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services and fully cooperated with the Department of Justice to reach an amicable settlement.”
Dr. Weiner still faces legal issues. According to the recent civil complaint filed against Weiner, the oncologist allegedly ordered “medically unnecessary treatments” for patients, “knowingly falsified records to double bill for patient office visits,” and “directed these false claims to increase his personal income, with little regard for the potential patient harm his conduct created.”
The complaint goes on to note that Dr. Weiner saw 50-70 patients a day — about four to five times more than most oncologists see in a given day. He allegedly wanted this schedule, the civil complaint said, “because it maximized his income.”
The civil complaint seeks treble damages, which is triple the actual damages awarded to the plaintiff, as well as civil penalties.
The Montana Board of Medical Examiners shows Dr. Weiner’s license as active, expiring March 31, 2025.
A Community’s Support
Over the past 4 years, Dr. Weiner has encountered strong, continued support from the community.
Rhonda Good, a Helena resident since 2002, is one of the nearly 4000 members of the “We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner” public Facebook group. Her son was treated for cancer by Dr. Weiner and is doing well.
Like other residents, she has strong opinions about the settlement.
“My feeling was, St. Peter’s Health, by settling, basically admitted that if they went to court, they wouldn’t be able to defend their billing procedures and so they settled out of court and that probably saved them money,” she said. “Since I have lived here, St. Peter’s Health billing has been a topic of conversation. And it is not a good conversation.”
Dayna Schwartz, 58, founded a private Facebook support group for Weiner, which she said has about 730 members.
Ms. Schwartz believes the doctor was set up and she plans to continue the weekly rallies. Those who show up, she said, are only a fraction of the supporters.
“A lot of the staunch supporters maintain a low profile,” she said, as the healthcare system employs more than 1700 residents.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As the deadline nears for a Montana healthcare system to pay what has been called a “jaw-dropping” settlement of nearly $11 million dollars to resolve an alleged violation of the False Claims Act, the legal troubles for the oncologist at the center of the case are ongoing and escalating.
On August 26, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana and other agencies announced the settlement agreement with St. Peter’s Health, a nonprofit healthcare system in Helena, to resolve allegations that it submitted “false claims for payments to federal health care programs for services performed by an oncology doctor.”
“This settlement would not have been possible without the cooperation of St. Peter’s Health, who voluntarily disclosed the misconduct and cooperated with federal investigators to identify the problem and amount of false billing,” said US Attorney Jesse Laslovich in a press release announcing the settlement.
On the same day, the US Attorney’s Office also filed a civil complaint against the oncologist Thomas Weiner, MD, accusing him of “false health care claims and improper prescribing of controlled substances.” Among the numerous allegations, the civil complaint specifies that Dr. Weiner used his position as the chief medical oncologist at St. Peter’s Health “to order medically unnecessary treatment,” including chemotherapy, blood tests, and imaging, as well as “knowingly falsified records” to double bill for office visits.
When It Began
The legal troubles for Dr. Weiner, now 61, started about 4 years ago. Dr. Weiner, who was the sole oncologist at St. Peter’s Health and worked there for 24 years, was suspended in October 2020 and then fired in November 2020 for allegedly providing unnecessary treatments and failing to refer patients to other specialists for care, among other claims.
“The magnitude of Dr. Weiner’s violations is staggering,” St. Peter’s CEO, Wade Johnson, had said in a December 2020 press statement.
At the time, Dr. Weiner had filed a lawsuit against St. Peter’s Health, claiming he was denied due process and seeking damages and a jury trial. Dr. Weiner’s lead lawyer, J. Devlan Geddes, said it was hard to believe that Dr. Weiner had suddenly become a danger to patients after more than 2 decades on the job.
Before 2020, Dr. Weiner had a clean record with Montana’s Board of Medical Examiners and had never been the subject of an internal investigation related to quality of care, according to his lawyers. He also served on St. Peter’s board of directors and as chief of medical staff.
Dr. Weiner’s exit from St. Peter’s in 2020 led to an outpouring of support from former patients and community members who formed the Facebook group, “ We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner.” The group soon grew to almost 4000 people.
Four years later, despite the new legal developments, community support for Dr. Weiner has held strong. Supporters continue to have regular rallies outside St. Peter’s Health as well as post messages and personal stories on two Facebook groups now devoted to the cause.
John Larson, 76, a Helena resident who was treated by Dr. Weiner, echoed a common sentiment from supporters. “I’m completely certain that Tom Weiner is not guilty of what the government is now involved in charging him with,” Dr. Larson said in an interview.
$10.8 Million: ‘It’s a Big Number’
At the press conference announcing the recent settlement, Mr. Laslovich recalled a participant describe the total as jaw-dropping, he said in an interview. While there haven’t been many such recent cases in the district, he agreed it’s a big number. The only other recent case he could remember was a 2018 settlement in Kalispell for $24 million.
The current settlement contends that St. Peter’s Health submitted false claims for payments to federal health care programs related to services performed and referred by Weiner. The infractions allegedly occurred between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020.
According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), St. Peter Health’s “knew, or should have known,” that the oncologist submitted claims for office visits that were coded at a higher level of service than was performed — ie upcoded claims — or did not meet the requirements of a significant, separately identifiable service when performed on the same day chemotherapy was administered — ie non-payable claims.
The DOJ contended that the healthcare system violated the False Claims Act “by knowingly submitting the upcoded and non-payable” claims to the Federal Health Care Programs. And, as a result, St. Peter’s compensated the oncologist with a salary based on the false claims.
“We had documents showing some of the claims that were being submitted were being done because the doctor wanted more in compensation and of course you can’t do that,” Laslovich said. “For me, the message to providers, and I said this during our press conference, is that coding is critical.”
“The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only,” the US Attorney’s Office press release clarified, and “there has been no determination of liability.”
The leadership at St. Peter’s Health issued a press release on August 27, stating it relied on Dr. Weiner’s medical record documentation and billing certification, though declined to comment further on the settlement
Bob Wade, a partner at Nelson Mullins, Nashville, Tennessee, and lead outside counsel representing St. Peter’s Health on the settlement, said in an interview that the quality issue was first identified in fall 2020.
“I first conducted a fair market value review for their entire system and noted that he [Weiner] was an extreme outlier with regard to his productivity,” Mr. Wade said.
In a separate statement, Mr. Wade praised the integrity of the health system, saying, “when the medical record documentation and medical necessity issues related to Dr. Weiner were identified, my client, St. Peter’s Health, through the Board and Executive Leadership took decisive action and authorized me to self-report to the Office of Inspector General and Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services and fully cooperated with the Department of Justice to reach an amicable settlement.”
Dr. Weiner still faces legal issues. According to the recent civil complaint filed against Weiner, the oncologist allegedly ordered “medically unnecessary treatments” for patients, “knowingly falsified records to double bill for patient office visits,” and “directed these false claims to increase his personal income, with little regard for the potential patient harm his conduct created.”
The complaint goes on to note that Dr. Weiner saw 50-70 patients a day — about four to five times more than most oncologists see in a given day. He allegedly wanted this schedule, the civil complaint said, “because it maximized his income.”
The civil complaint seeks treble damages, which is triple the actual damages awarded to the plaintiff, as well as civil penalties.
The Montana Board of Medical Examiners shows Dr. Weiner’s license as active, expiring March 31, 2025.
A Community’s Support
Over the past 4 years, Dr. Weiner has encountered strong, continued support from the community.
Rhonda Good, a Helena resident since 2002, is one of the nearly 4000 members of the “We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner” public Facebook group. Her son was treated for cancer by Dr. Weiner and is doing well.
Like other residents, she has strong opinions about the settlement.
“My feeling was, St. Peter’s Health, by settling, basically admitted that if they went to court, they wouldn’t be able to defend their billing procedures and so they settled out of court and that probably saved them money,” she said. “Since I have lived here, St. Peter’s Health billing has been a topic of conversation. And it is not a good conversation.”
Dayna Schwartz, 58, founded a private Facebook support group for Weiner, which she said has about 730 members.
Ms. Schwartz believes the doctor was set up and she plans to continue the weekly rallies. Those who show up, she said, are only a fraction of the supporters.
“A lot of the staunch supporters maintain a low profile,” she said, as the healthcare system employs more than 1700 residents.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As the deadline nears for a Montana healthcare system to pay what has been called a “jaw-dropping” settlement of nearly $11 million dollars to resolve an alleged violation of the False Claims Act, the legal troubles for the oncologist at the center of the case are ongoing and escalating.
On August 26, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana and other agencies announced the settlement agreement with St. Peter’s Health, a nonprofit healthcare system in Helena, to resolve allegations that it submitted “false claims for payments to federal health care programs for services performed by an oncology doctor.”
“This settlement would not have been possible without the cooperation of St. Peter’s Health, who voluntarily disclosed the misconduct and cooperated with federal investigators to identify the problem and amount of false billing,” said US Attorney Jesse Laslovich in a press release announcing the settlement.
On the same day, the US Attorney’s Office also filed a civil complaint against the oncologist Thomas Weiner, MD, accusing him of “false health care claims and improper prescribing of controlled substances.” Among the numerous allegations, the civil complaint specifies that Dr. Weiner used his position as the chief medical oncologist at St. Peter’s Health “to order medically unnecessary treatment,” including chemotherapy, blood tests, and imaging, as well as “knowingly falsified records” to double bill for office visits.
When It Began
The legal troubles for Dr. Weiner, now 61, started about 4 years ago. Dr. Weiner, who was the sole oncologist at St. Peter’s Health and worked there for 24 years, was suspended in October 2020 and then fired in November 2020 for allegedly providing unnecessary treatments and failing to refer patients to other specialists for care, among other claims.
“The magnitude of Dr. Weiner’s violations is staggering,” St. Peter’s CEO, Wade Johnson, had said in a December 2020 press statement.
At the time, Dr. Weiner had filed a lawsuit against St. Peter’s Health, claiming he was denied due process and seeking damages and a jury trial. Dr. Weiner’s lead lawyer, J. Devlan Geddes, said it was hard to believe that Dr. Weiner had suddenly become a danger to patients after more than 2 decades on the job.
Before 2020, Dr. Weiner had a clean record with Montana’s Board of Medical Examiners and had never been the subject of an internal investigation related to quality of care, according to his lawyers. He also served on St. Peter’s board of directors and as chief of medical staff.
Dr. Weiner’s exit from St. Peter’s in 2020 led to an outpouring of support from former patients and community members who formed the Facebook group, “ We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner.” The group soon grew to almost 4000 people.
Four years later, despite the new legal developments, community support for Dr. Weiner has held strong. Supporters continue to have regular rallies outside St. Peter’s Health as well as post messages and personal stories on two Facebook groups now devoted to the cause.
John Larson, 76, a Helena resident who was treated by Dr. Weiner, echoed a common sentiment from supporters. “I’m completely certain that Tom Weiner is not guilty of what the government is now involved in charging him with,” Dr. Larson said in an interview.
$10.8 Million: ‘It’s a Big Number’
At the press conference announcing the recent settlement, Mr. Laslovich recalled a participant describe the total as jaw-dropping, he said in an interview. While there haven’t been many such recent cases in the district, he agreed it’s a big number. The only other recent case he could remember was a 2018 settlement in Kalispell for $24 million.
The current settlement contends that St. Peter’s Health submitted false claims for payments to federal health care programs related to services performed and referred by Weiner. The infractions allegedly occurred between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020.
According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), St. Peter Health’s “knew, or should have known,” that the oncologist submitted claims for office visits that were coded at a higher level of service than was performed — ie upcoded claims — or did not meet the requirements of a significant, separately identifiable service when performed on the same day chemotherapy was administered — ie non-payable claims.
The DOJ contended that the healthcare system violated the False Claims Act “by knowingly submitting the upcoded and non-payable” claims to the Federal Health Care Programs. And, as a result, St. Peter’s compensated the oncologist with a salary based on the false claims.
“We had documents showing some of the claims that were being submitted were being done because the doctor wanted more in compensation and of course you can’t do that,” Laslovich said. “For me, the message to providers, and I said this during our press conference, is that coding is critical.”
“The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only,” the US Attorney’s Office press release clarified, and “there has been no determination of liability.”
The leadership at St. Peter’s Health issued a press release on August 27, stating it relied on Dr. Weiner’s medical record documentation and billing certification, though declined to comment further on the settlement
Bob Wade, a partner at Nelson Mullins, Nashville, Tennessee, and lead outside counsel representing St. Peter’s Health on the settlement, said in an interview that the quality issue was first identified in fall 2020.
“I first conducted a fair market value review for their entire system and noted that he [Weiner] was an extreme outlier with regard to his productivity,” Mr. Wade said.
In a separate statement, Mr. Wade praised the integrity of the health system, saying, “when the medical record documentation and medical necessity issues related to Dr. Weiner were identified, my client, St. Peter’s Health, through the Board and Executive Leadership took decisive action and authorized me to self-report to the Office of Inspector General and Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services and fully cooperated with the Department of Justice to reach an amicable settlement.”
Dr. Weiner still faces legal issues. According to the recent civil complaint filed against Weiner, the oncologist allegedly ordered “medically unnecessary treatments” for patients, “knowingly falsified records to double bill for patient office visits,” and “directed these false claims to increase his personal income, with little regard for the potential patient harm his conduct created.”
The complaint goes on to note that Dr. Weiner saw 50-70 patients a day — about four to five times more than most oncologists see in a given day. He allegedly wanted this schedule, the civil complaint said, “because it maximized his income.”
The civil complaint seeks treble damages, which is triple the actual damages awarded to the plaintiff, as well as civil penalties.
The Montana Board of Medical Examiners shows Dr. Weiner’s license as active, expiring March 31, 2025.
A Community’s Support
Over the past 4 years, Dr. Weiner has encountered strong, continued support from the community.
Rhonda Good, a Helena resident since 2002, is one of the nearly 4000 members of the “We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner” public Facebook group. Her son was treated for cancer by Dr. Weiner and is doing well.
Like other residents, she has strong opinions about the settlement.
“My feeling was, St. Peter’s Health, by settling, basically admitted that if they went to court, they wouldn’t be able to defend their billing procedures and so they settled out of court and that probably saved them money,” she said. “Since I have lived here, St. Peter’s Health billing has been a topic of conversation. And it is not a good conversation.”
Dayna Schwartz, 58, founded a private Facebook support group for Weiner, which she said has about 730 members.
Ms. Schwartz believes the doctor was set up and she plans to continue the weekly rallies. Those who show up, she said, are only a fraction of the supporters.
“A lot of the staunch supporters maintain a low profile,” she said, as the healthcare system employs more than 1700 residents.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Implementation of a Prior Authorization Drug Review Process for Care in the Community Oncology Prescriptions
Background
Veterans receiving care in the community (CITC) are prescribed oral oncology medications to be filled at VA pharmacies. Many of the outpatient prescriptions written for oncology medications require a prior authorization review by a pharmacist. A standardized workflow to obtain outside records to ensure patient safety, appropriate therapeutic selections, and maximize cost avoidance was established in March 2023. This quality improvement project evaluated the implementation of a clinical peer-to-peer prescription referral process between operational and oncology clinical pharmacists (CPS) to include a prior authorization drug request (PADR) review.
Methods
A retrospective chart review was completed to assess the effectiveness of the CITC Rx review process. Patients who had a CITC PADR consult entered between April 2023 and March 2024 were included. Metrics obtained included medication ordered, diagnosis, line of treatment, date prescription received, time to PADR completion, PADR outcome, FDA approval status, and conformity to VA National Oncology Program (NOP) disease pathway. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data.
Results
Top reasons for referral for CITC included best medical interest and drive time. Fifty-one PADR requests were submitted for 41 patients. Forty-six PADR consults were completed. Approval rate was 85%. Consults involved 32 different oncolytics, 78% had VA Pharmacy Benefits Manager criteria for use. Thirty-seven percent of the PADR requests adhered to the NOP pathways. Approximately 30% of PADR requests did not have an associated NOP pathway. Seventy-four percent of drugs had an associated FDA approval. On average, two calls were made to CITC provider by the operational pharmacist to obtain necessary information for clinical review, resulting in a 5 day time to PADR entry. The average time to PADR consult completion was 9.5 hours. Four interventions addressed drug interactions or dosing adjustments.
Conclusions
This review demonstrated the feasibility and framework for implementing a standardized peer-to-peer PADR consult review process for CITC prescriptions requiring prior authorization. Having separate intake of CITC prescriptions by the operational pharmacist who is responsible for obtaining outside records, the CPS provided a timely clinical review of PADR consults, assuring appropriate therapeutic selections to maximize cost avoidance while maintaining patient safety.
Background
Veterans receiving care in the community (CITC) are prescribed oral oncology medications to be filled at VA pharmacies. Many of the outpatient prescriptions written for oncology medications require a prior authorization review by a pharmacist. A standardized workflow to obtain outside records to ensure patient safety, appropriate therapeutic selections, and maximize cost avoidance was established in March 2023. This quality improvement project evaluated the implementation of a clinical peer-to-peer prescription referral process between operational and oncology clinical pharmacists (CPS) to include a prior authorization drug request (PADR) review.
Methods
A retrospective chart review was completed to assess the effectiveness of the CITC Rx review process. Patients who had a CITC PADR consult entered between April 2023 and March 2024 were included. Metrics obtained included medication ordered, diagnosis, line of treatment, date prescription received, time to PADR completion, PADR outcome, FDA approval status, and conformity to VA National Oncology Program (NOP) disease pathway. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data.
Results
Top reasons for referral for CITC included best medical interest and drive time. Fifty-one PADR requests were submitted for 41 patients. Forty-six PADR consults were completed. Approval rate was 85%. Consults involved 32 different oncolytics, 78% had VA Pharmacy Benefits Manager criteria for use. Thirty-seven percent of the PADR requests adhered to the NOP pathways. Approximately 30% of PADR requests did not have an associated NOP pathway. Seventy-four percent of drugs had an associated FDA approval. On average, two calls were made to CITC provider by the operational pharmacist to obtain necessary information for clinical review, resulting in a 5 day time to PADR entry. The average time to PADR consult completion was 9.5 hours. Four interventions addressed drug interactions or dosing adjustments.
Conclusions
This review demonstrated the feasibility and framework for implementing a standardized peer-to-peer PADR consult review process for CITC prescriptions requiring prior authorization. Having separate intake of CITC prescriptions by the operational pharmacist who is responsible for obtaining outside records, the CPS provided a timely clinical review of PADR consults, assuring appropriate therapeutic selections to maximize cost avoidance while maintaining patient safety.
Background
Veterans receiving care in the community (CITC) are prescribed oral oncology medications to be filled at VA pharmacies. Many of the outpatient prescriptions written for oncology medications require a prior authorization review by a pharmacist. A standardized workflow to obtain outside records to ensure patient safety, appropriate therapeutic selections, and maximize cost avoidance was established in March 2023. This quality improvement project evaluated the implementation of a clinical peer-to-peer prescription referral process between operational and oncology clinical pharmacists (CPS) to include a prior authorization drug request (PADR) review.
Methods
A retrospective chart review was completed to assess the effectiveness of the CITC Rx review process. Patients who had a CITC PADR consult entered between April 2023 and March 2024 were included. Metrics obtained included medication ordered, diagnosis, line of treatment, date prescription received, time to PADR completion, PADR outcome, FDA approval status, and conformity to VA National Oncology Program (NOP) disease pathway. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data.
Results
Top reasons for referral for CITC included best medical interest and drive time. Fifty-one PADR requests were submitted for 41 patients. Forty-six PADR consults were completed. Approval rate was 85%. Consults involved 32 different oncolytics, 78% had VA Pharmacy Benefits Manager criteria for use. Thirty-seven percent of the PADR requests adhered to the NOP pathways. Approximately 30% of PADR requests did not have an associated NOP pathway. Seventy-four percent of drugs had an associated FDA approval. On average, two calls were made to CITC provider by the operational pharmacist to obtain necessary information for clinical review, resulting in a 5 day time to PADR entry. The average time to PADR consult completion was 9.5 hours. Four interventions addressed drug interactions or dosing adjustments.
Conclusions
This review demonstrated the feasibility and framework for implementing a standardized peer-to-peer PADR consult review process for CITC prescriptions requiring prior authorization. Having separate intake of CITC prescriptions by the operational pharmacist who is responsible for obtaining outside records, the CPS provided a timely clinical review of PADR consults, assuring appropriate therapeutic selections to maximize cost avoidance while maintaining patient safety.
Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome (PRES) Following Bevacizumab and Atezolizumab Therapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)
Background
Bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody, is known to inhibit angiogenesis and prevent carcinogenesis. Recent evidence from the IMbrave050 trial indicates that combining bevacizumab with atezolizumab enhances recurrence-free survival (RFS) in high-risk HCC patients undergoing curative treatments. Bevacizumab is notorious for causing endothelial dysfunction that may provoke vasospasm, leading to central hypoperfusion, hypertension, and, albeit rarely, PRES. Similarly, immunotherapy, including atezolizumab, has been implicated in PRES, underscoring a potential risk when these therapies are administered concurrently.
Case Presentation
A 64-year-old woman with a history of hepatitis C and alcoholic cirrhosis was diagnosed with stage II (T2 N0 M0) HCC. Following partial hepatectomy, we proceeded with adjuvant systemic therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab (per the IMbrave050 trial). After her 2nd treatment, she developed altered mental status, seizures, and severe hypertension. Labs revealed acute kidney injury and elevated creatinine kinase levels suggesting rhabdomyolysis. Computed tomography head showed no acute findings, but magnetic resonance imaging of the brain identified increased flair attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) signal in the brain’s posterior regions, indicating PRES. Symptomatic management with anti-hypertensives and intravenous fluids led to the recovery of mental status to baseline. Further therapy with bevacizumab and atezolizumab was then held off.
Discussion
Therapeutic advances in HCC management through the IMbrave050 trial demonstrate the efficacy of bevacizumab and atezolizumab in reducing RFS, without highlighting the serious side effects like PRES. To our knowledge, this is the first case reported where PRES occurred with the simultaneous use of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. Since both drugs can individually cause PRES, there might be a heightened risk with the co-administration, signaling a critical need for vigilant monitoring and further research into this treatment modality’s long-term safety profile.
Background
Bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody, is known to inhibit angiogenesis and prevent carcinogenesis. Recent evidence from the IMbrave050 trial indicates that combining bevacizumab with atezolizumab enhances recurrence-free survival (RFS) in high-risk HCC patients undergoing curative treatments. Bevacizumab is notorious for causing endothelial dysfunction that may provoke vasospasm, leading to central hypoperfusion, hypertension, and, albeit rarely, PRES. Similarly, immunotherapy, including atezolizumab, has been implicated in PRES, underscoring a potential risk when these therapies are administered concurrently.
Case Presentation
A 64-year-old woman with a history of hepatitis C and alcoholic cirrhosis was diagnosed with stage II (T2 N0 M0) HCC. Following partial hepatectomy, we proceeded with adjuvant systemic therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab (per the IMbrave050 trial). After her 2nd treatment, she developed altered mental status, seizures, and severe hypertension. Labs revealed acute kidney injury and elevated creatinine kinase levels suggesting rhabdomyolysis. Computed tomography head showed no acute findings, but magnetic resonance imaging of the brain identified increased flair attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) signal in the brain’s posterior regions, indicating PRES. Symptomatic management with anti-hypertensives and intravenous fluids led to the recovery of mental status to baseline. Further therapy with bevacizumab and atezolizumab was then held off.
Discussion
Therapeutic advances in HCC management through the IMbrave050 trial demonstrate the efficacy of bevacizumab and atezolizumab in reducing RFS, without highlighting the serious side effects like PRES. To our knowledge, this is the first case reported where PRES occurred with the simultaneous use of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. Since both drugs can individually cause PRES, there might be a heightened risk with the co-administration, signaling a critical need for vigilant monitoring and further research into this treatment modality’s long-term safety profile.
Background
Bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody, is known to inhibit angiogenesis and prevent carcinogenesis. Recent evidence from the IMbrave050 trial indicates that combining bevacizumab with atezolizumab enhances recurrence-free survival (RFS) in high-risk HCC patients undergoing curative treatments. Bevacizumab is notorious for causing endothelial dysfunction that may provoke vasospasm, leading to central hypoperfusion, hypertension, and, albeit rarely, PRES. Similarly, immunotherapy, including atezolizumab, has been implicated in PRES, underscoring a potential risk when these therapies are administered concurrently.
Case Presentation
A 64-year-old woman with a history of hepatitis C and alcoholic cirrhosis was diagnosed with stage II (T2 N0 M0) HCC. Following partial hepatectomy, we proceeded with adjuvant systemic therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab (per the IMbrave050 trial). After her 2nd treatment, she developed altered mental status, seizures, and severe hypertension. Labs revealed acute kidney injury and elevated creatinine kinase levels suggesting rhabdomyolysis. Computed tomography head showed no acute findings, but magnetic resonance imaging of the brain identified increased flair attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) signal in the brain’s posterior regions, indicating PRES. Symptomatic management with anti-hypertensives and intravenous fluids led to the recovery of mental status to baseline. Further therapy with bevacizumab and atezolizumab was then held off.
Discussion
Therapeutic advances in HCC management through the IMbrave050 trial demonstrate the efficacy of bevacizumab and atezolizumab in reducing RFS, without highlighting the serious side effects like PRES. To our knowledge, this is the first case reported where PRES occurred with the simultaneous use of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. Since both drugs can individually cause PRES, there might be a heightened risk with the co-administration, signaling a critical need for vigilant monitoring and further research into this treatment modality’s long-term safety profile.
CDK7 Inhibition in Patient-Derived Organoid Modeling of Biliary Tract Cancers
Background
Biliary tract cancers (BTC) represent an important rare cancer type in Veterans. The heterogeneity of BTC has revealed distinct molecular subtypes, however a majority of patients remain without precision-based targeted therapeutics. Epigenomic remodeling has been considered as a shared mechanism of therapeutic resistance. Cyclin dependant kinase 7 (CDK7) is an emerging therapeutic target that functions by phosphorylation of RNA polymerase II and cell cycle progression. Here, we investigate CDK7 inhibition using small molecule inhibition (SY-5609) across a panel of BTC organoid models.
Methods
PCOs were expanded from patient-derived tissues and shared models provided from the NCI. Organoid response was tracked from growth using Z-stacked high content imaging (Cytation5) to track individual organoid growth and established viability markers of Caspase-3/7 (C3/7) and ToPro3, for induced apoptosis and necrosis for phenotypic screening. Treatment groups included media control, positive control (cycloheximide) 200uM continuous, gemcitabine (gem) 10uM 24h, cisplatin (cis) 5uM 48h, combination gem+cis, and SY-5609 10nM 144h. Glass’s delta was used to standardize effect size relative to media control.
Results
Patient-derived cancer organoids were generated across four unique models including pathogenic (A-B) IDH1 p.R132G, (C) FGFR2-HPGDS fusion and (D) non-targetable molecular profile (CCNE1 amplified, BRCA1 splice variant). In the non-targeted model, CDK7 inhibition achieved growth arrest +2.0% (SY-5607) v. +43.0% (media control) with effect size >1.1. This response was similar to standard of care gem+cis with growth of +1.5% and augmented using the combination of gem+SY-5609 -3.1% with effect size of >1.3. When treated with CDK7 inhibition, persistent growth was seen across models of IDH1 mutant and FGFR2-HPGDS2 fusion cancers. High content imaging revealed subclonal populations with failed induction of apoptosis and necrosis at 144h, suggestive of the critical need to address intrinsic resistant populations to both SOC chemotherapy and novel targeted strategies.
Conclusions
Across a diversity of BTC cancer models, CDK7 inhibition was found to achieve growth arrest in a CCNE1 amplified cancer model. High content imaging of organoids can identify subclonal resistant populations as a critical unmet need in future therapeutic development. Ongoing work is adapting these techniques to multiple small molecule inhibitors that target transcription including EZH1/2 and CDK9.
Background
Biliary tract cancers (BTC) represent an important rare cancer type in Veterans. The heterogeneity of BTC has revealed distinct molecular subtypes, however a majority of patients remain without precision-based targeted therapeutics. Epigenomic remodeling has been considered as a shared mechanism of therapeutic resistance. Cyclin dependant kinase 7 (CDK7) is an emerging therapeutic target that functions by phosphorylation of RNA polymerase II and cell cycle progression. Here, we investigate CDK7 inhibition using small molecule inhibition (SY-5609) across a panel of BTC organoid models.
Methods
PCOs were expanded from patient-derived tissues and shared models provided from the NCI. Organoid response was tracked from growth using Z-stacked high content imaging (Cytation5) to track individual organoid growth and established viability markers of Caspase-3/7 (C3/7) and ToPro3, for induced apoptosis and necrosis for phenotypic screening. Treatment groups included media control, positive control (cycloheximide) 200uM continuous, gemcitabine (gem) 10uM 24h, cisplatin (cis) 5uM 48h, combination gem+cis, and SY-5609 10nM 144h. Glass’s delta was used to standardize effect size relative to media control.
Results
Patient-derived cancer organoids were generated across four unique models including pathogenic (A-B) IDH1 p.R132G, (C) FGFR2-HPGDS fusion and (D) non-targetable molecular profile (CCNE1 amplified, BRCA1 splice variant). In the non-targeted model, CDK7 inhibition achieved growth arrest +2.0% (SY-5607) v. +43.0% (media control) with effect size >1.1. This response was similar to standard of care gem+cis with growth of +1.5% and augmented using the combination of gem+SY-5609 -3.1% with effect size of >1.3. When treated with CDK7 inhibition, persistent growth was seen across models of IDH1 mutant and FGFR2-HPGDS2 fusion cancers. High content imaging revealed subclonal populations with failed induction of apoptosis and necrosis at 144h, suggestive of the critical need to address intrinsic resistant populations to both SOC chemotherapy and novel targeted strategies.
Conclusions
Across a diversity of BTC cancer models, CDK7 inhibition was found to achieve growth arrest in a CCNE1 amplified cancer model. High content imaging of organoids can identify subclonal resistant populations as a critical unmet need in future therapeutic development. Ongoing work is adapting these techniques to multiple small molecule inhibitors that target transcription including EZH1/2 and CDK9.
Background
Biliary tract cancers (BTC) represent an important rare cancer type in Veterans. The heterogeneity of BTC has revealed distinct molecular subtypes, however a majority of patients remain without precision-based targeted therapeutics. Epigenomic remodeling has been considered as a shared mechanism of therapeutic resistance. Cyclin dependant kinase 7 (CDK7) is an emerging therapeutic target that functions by phosphorylation of RNA polymerase II and cell cycle progression. Here, we investigate CDK7 inhibition using small molecule inhibition (SY-5609) across a panel of BTC organoid models.
Methods
PCOs were expanded from patient-derived tissues and shared models provided from the NCI. Organoid response was tracked from growth using Z-stacked high content imaging (Cytation5) to track individual organoid growth and established viability markers of Caspase-3/7 (C3/7) and ToPro3, for induced apoptosis and necrosis for phenotypic screening. Treatment groups included media control, positive control (cycloheximide) 200uM continuous, gemcitabine (gem) 10uM 24h, cisplatin (cis) 5uM 48h, combination gem+cis, and SY-5609 10nM 144h. Glass’s delta was used to standardize effect size relative to media control.
Results
Patient-derived cancer organoids were generated across four unique models including pathogenic (A-B) IDH1 p.R132G, (C) FGFR2-HPGDS fusion and (D) non-targetable molecular profile (CCNE1 amplified, BRCA1 splice variant). In the non-targeted model, CDK7 inhibition achieved growth arrest +2.0% (SY-5607) v. +43.0% (media control) with effect size >1.1. This response was similar to standard of care gem+cis with growth of +1.5% and augmented using the combination of gem+SY-5609 -3.1% with effect size of >1.3. When treated with CDK7 inhibition, persistent growth was seen across models of IDH1 mutant and FGFR2-HPGDS2 fusion cancers. High content imaging revealed subclonal populations with failed induction of apoptosis and necrosis at 144h, suggestive of the critical need to address intrinsic resistant populations to both SOC chemotherapy and novel targeted strategies.
Conclusions
Across a diversity of BTC cancer models, CDK7 inhibition was found to achieve growth arrest in a CCNE1 amplified cancer model. High content imaging of organoids can identify subclonal resistant populations as a critical unmet need in future therapeutic development. Ongoing work is adapting these techniques to multiple small molecule inhibitors that target transcription including EZH1/2 and CDK9.
The OCTAGON Project: A Novel VA-Based Telehealth Intervention for Oral Chemotherapy Monitoring
Background
Many Veterans with cancer experience substantial side effects related to their chemotherapy treatments resulting in impaired quality of life. Prompt management of such symptoms can improve adherence to therapy and potentially clinical outcomes. Previous studies in cancer patients have shown that mobile apps can improve symptom management and quality of life, though there are limited studies using oncology-focused apps in the VA population. The VA Annie App is an optimal platform for Veterans since it relies primarily on SMS-based texting and not on internet capabilities. This would address several well-known barriers to Veterans’ care access (limited internet connectivity, transportation) and enhance symptom reporting between infrequent provider visits. Providers can securely collect app responses within the VA system and there is already considerable VA developer experience with designing complex protocols. The OCTAGON project (Optimizing Cancer Care with Telehealth Assessment for Goal-Oriented Needs) will have the following goals: 1) To develop Annie App protocols to assist in management of cancer and/or chemotherapy-related symptoms (OCTAGON intervention), 2) To examine initial acceptability, feasibility, and Veteran-reported outcomes, 3) To explore short term effects on the utilization of VA encounters.
Methods
All patients who are primarily being managed at the VA Ann Arbor for their cancer therapy and are receiving one of the following therapies are considered eligible: EGFR inhibitors (lung cancer), antiandrogen therapies (prostate cancer), BTK inhibitors (lymphoma).
Discussion
Drug-specific protocols will be developed in conjunction with clinical pharmacists with experience in outpatient oral chemotherapy toxicity monitoring. Questions will have either a Yes/No, or numerical response. Interventions will be administered weekly for the first 3 months after enrollment, then decrease to monthly for a total of 6 months on protocol. Patients will be directed to contact their providers with any significant changes in tolerability. Planned data collected will include intervention question responses, adverse events, demographics, diagnosis, disease response, hospitalizations, treatment dose reductions or interruptions, provider and staff utilization. Survey responses to assess treatment acceptability (Treatment Acceptability/Adherence Scale), usability (System Usability Scale), general health (PROMIS-GH), and patient satisfaction will also be collected. Funding: VA Telehealth Research and Innovation for Veterans with Cancer (THRIVE).
Background
Many Veterans with cancer experience substantial side effects related to their chemotherapy treatments resulting in impaired quality of life. Prompt management of such symptoms can improve adherence to therapy and potentially clinical outcomes. Previous studies in cancer patients have shown that mobile apps can improve symptom management and quality of life, though there are limited studies using oncology-focused apps in the VA population. The VA Annie App is an optimal platform for Veterans since it relies primarily on SMS-based texting and not on internet capabilities. This would address several well-known barriers to Veterans’ care access (limited internet connectivity, transportation) and enhance symptom reporting between infrequent provider visits. Providers can securely collect app responses within the VA system and there is already considerable VA developer experience with designing complex protocols. The OCTAGON project (Optimizing Cancer Care with Telehealth Assessment for Goal-Oriented Needs) will have the following goals: 1) To develop Annie App protocols to assist in management of cancer and/or chemotherapy-related symptoms (OCTAGON intervention), 2) To examine initial acceptability, feasibility, and Veteran-reported outcomes, 3) To explore short term effects on the utilization of VA encounters.
Methods
All patients who are primarily being managed at the VA Ann Arbor for their cancer therapy and are receiving one of the following therapies are considered eligible: EGFR inhibitors (lung cancer), antiandrogen therapies (prostate cancer), BTK inhibitors (lymphoma).
Discussion
Drug-specific protocols will be developed in conjunction with clinical pharmacists with experience in outpatient oral chemotherapy toxicity monitoring. Questions will have either a Yes/No, or numerical response. Interventions will be administered weekly for the first 3 months after enrollment, then decrease to monthly for a total of 6 months on protocol. Patients will be directed to contact their providers with any significant changes in tolerability. Planned data collected will include intervention question responses, adverse events, demographics, diagnosis, disease response, hospitalizations, treatment dose reductions or interruptions, provider and staff utilization. Survey responses to assess treatment acceptability (Treatment Acceptability/Adherence Scale), usability (System Usability Scale), general health (PROMIS-GH), and patient satisfaction will also be collected. Funding: VA Telehealth Research and Innovation for Veterans with Cancer (THRIVE).
Background
Many Veterans with cancer experience substantial side effects related to their chemotherapy treatments resulting in impaired quality of life. Prompt management of such symptoms can improve adherence to therapy and potentially clinical outcomes. Previous studies in cancer patients have shown that mobile apps can improve symptom management and quality of life, though there are limited studies using oncology-focused apps in the VA population. The VA Annie App is an optimal platform for Veterans since it relies primarily on SMS-based texting and not on internet capabilities. This would address several well-known barriers to Veterans’ care access (limited internet connectivity, transportation) and enhance symptom reporting between infrequent provider visits. Providers can securely collect app responses within the VA system and there is already considerable VA developer experience with designing complex protocols. The OCTAGON project (Optimizing Cancer Care with Telehealth Assessment for Goal-Oriented Needs) will have the following goals: 1) To develop Annie App protocols to assist in management of cancer and/or chemotherapy-related symptoms (OCTAGON intervention), 2) To examine initial acceptability, feasibility, and Veteran-reported outcomes, 3) To explore short term effects on the utilization of VA encounters.
Methods
All patients who are primarily being managed at the VA Ann Arbor for their cancer therapy and are receiving one of the following therapies are considered eligible: EGFR inhibitors (lung cancer), antiandrogen therapies (prostate cancer), BTK inhibitors (lymphoma).
Discussion
Drug-specific protocols will be developed in conjunction with clinical pharmacists with experience in outpatient oral chemotherapy toxicity monitoring. Questions will have either a Yes/No, or numerical response. Interventions will be administered weekly for the first 3 months after enrollment, then decrease to monthly for a total of 6 months on protocol. Patients will be directed to contact their providers with any significant changes in tolerability. Planned data collected will include intervention question responses, adverse events, demographics, diagnosis, disease response, hospitalizations, treatment dose reductions or interruptions, provider and staff utilization. Survey responses to assess treatment acceptability (Treatment Acceptability/Adherence Scale), usability (System Usability Scale), general health (PROMIS-GH), and patient satisfaction will also be collected. Funding: VA Telehealth Research and Innovation for Veterans with Cancer (THRIVE).
Carboplatin as a Radiosensitizing Agent in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer: Friendly to an Older Veteran Population
Background
The standard of care for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is combination chemoradiotherapy. Platinum-based chemotherapy is used for radiosensitization and significantly improves locoregional control and survival. Cisplatin is the standard of care; however, many patients are cisplatin-ineligible due to underlying comorbidities. Carboplatin is an alternative chemotherapy in these patients, but efficacy data are lacking. Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of weekly carboplatin concurrent with radiation in veterans with locally advanced HNSCC.
Methods
Our tumor registry was used to identify patients who received platinum-based chemoradiotherapy for stage III-IVB HNSCC at a single center between 2007 to 2017. Patients who received carboplatin were identified. Data including dosing, toxicities, and disease response was collected and analyzed.
Results
A total of 26 patients who received weekly carboplatin were analyzed. All patients were male with an average age of 65. A usual dose of carboplatin AUC 2 was utilized. The average cumulative dose for weekly carboplatin was AUC 12, with most patients (65%) receiving 6 doses or more. The mean number of weekly carboplatin doses held was 0.3. 7 patients (27%) had at least one dose held. 21 (81%) patients showed treatment benefit: 19 (73%) had complete response and 2 (8%) had partial response on first scan following treatment. The four most common toxicities were mucositis (69%), nausea/vomiting (23%), oral thrush (19%), and dermatologic toxicities (19%). The most common toxicities causing dose interruption were fatigue (12%), neutropenia (8%), and thrombocytopenia (8%). Grade 3/4 mucositis was experienced in 6 patients (23%). Other grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (8%), anemia (8%), thrombocytopenia (1%), nephrotoxicity (1%) and nausea (1%).
Conclusions
Carboplatin was both efficacious and well tolerated in our older veteran population. These findings add to the limited body of evidence examining weekly carboplatin in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. While cisplatin remains standard of care, carboplatin may be a reasonable alternative as evidenced in a real-world veteran population.
Background
The standard of care for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is combination chemoradiotherapy. Platinum-based chemotherapy is used for radiosensitization and significantly improves locoregional control and survival. Cisplatin is the standard of care; however, many patients are cisplatin-ineligible due to underlying comorbidities. Carboplatin is an alternative chemotherapy in these patients, but efficacy data are lacking. Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of weekly carboplatin concurrent with radiation in veterans with locally advanced HNSCC.
Methods
Our tumor registry was used to identify patients who received platinum-based chemoradiotherapy for stage III-IVB HNSCC at a single center between 2007 to 2017. Patients who received carboplatin were identified. Data including dosing, toxicities, and disease response was collected and analyzed.
Results
A total of 26 patients who received weekly carboplatin were analyzed. All patients were male with an average age of 65. A usual dose of carboplatin AUC 2 was utilized. The average cumulative dose for weekly carboplatin was AUC 12, with most patients (65%) receiving 6 doses or more. The mean number of weekly carboplatin doses held was 0.3. 7 patients (27%) had at least one dose held. 21 (81%) patients showed treatment benefit: 19 (73%) had complete response and 2 (8%) had partial response on first scan following treatment. The four most common toxicities were mucositis (69%), nausea/vomiting (23%), oral thrush (19%), and dermatologic toxicities (19%). The most common toxicities causing dose interruption were fatigue (12%), neutropenia (8%), and thrombocytopenia (8%). Grade 3/4 mucositis was experienced in 6 patients (23%). Other grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (8%), anemia (8%), thrombocytopenia (1%), nephrotoxicity (1%) and nausea (1%).
Conclusions
Carboplatin was both efficacious and well tolerated in our older veteran population. These findings add to the limited body of evidence examining weekly carboplatin in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. While cisplatin remains standard of care, carboplatin may be a reasonable alternative as evidenced in a real-world veteran population.
Background
The standard of care for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is combination chemoradiotherapy. Platinum-based chemotherapy is used for radiosensitization and significantly improves locoregional control and survival. Cisplatin is the standard of care; however, many patients are cisplatin-ineligible due to underlying comorbidities. Carboplatin is an alternative chemotherapy in these patients, but efficacy data are lacking. Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of weekly carboplatin concurrent with radiation in veterans with locally advanced HNSCC.
Methods
Our tumor registry was used to identify patients who received platinum-based chemoradiotherapy for stage III-IVB HNSCC at a single center between 2007 to 2017. Patients who received carboplatin were identified. Data including dosing, toxicities, and disease response was collected and analyzed.
Results
A total of 26 patients who received weekly carboplatin were analyzed. All patients were male with an average age of 65. A usual dose of carboplatin AUC 2 was utilized. The average cumulative dose for weekly carboplatin was AUC 12, with most patients (65%) receiving 6 doses or more. The mean number of weekly carboplatin doses held was 0.3. 7 patients (27%) had at least one dose held. 21 (81%) patients showed treatment benefit: 19 (73%) had complete response and 2 (8%) had partial response on first scan following treatment. The four most common toxicities were mucositis (69%), nausea/vomiting (23%), oral thrush (19%), and dermatologic toxicities (19%). The most common toxicities causing dose interruption were fatigue (12%), neutropenia (8%), and thrombocytopenia (8%). Grade 3/4 mucositis was experienced in 6 patients (23%). Other grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (8%), anemia (8%), thrombocytopenia (1%), nephrotoxicity (1%) and nausea (1%).
Conclusions
Carboplatin was both efficacious and well tolerated in our older veteran population. These findings add to the limited body of evidence examining weekly carboplatin in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. While cisplatin remains standard of care, carboplatin may be a reasonable alternative as evidenced in a real-world veteran population.
How to Make Keeping Up With the Drugs as Easy as Keeping Up With the Kardashians: Implementing a Local Oncology Drug Review Committee
Background
From 2000-2022 there were over 200 new drug and over 500 indication approvals specific to oncology. The rate of approvals has increased exponentially, making it difficult to maintain an up-to-date, standardized practice. Nationally, Veterans Affairs (VA) formulary decisions can take time given a lengthy approval process. Locally, the need was identified to incorporate new drugs and data into practice more rapidly. When bringing requests to the facility Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, it was recognized that the membership consisting of non-oncology practitioners did not allow for meaningful discussion of utilization. In 2017, a dedicated oncology drug review committee (DRC) comprised of oncology practitioners and a facility formulary representative was created as a P&T workgroup. Purpose: Evaluate and describe the utility of forming a local oncology DRC to incorporate new drugs and data into practice.
Methods
DRC minutes from December 2017 to May 2023 were reviewed. Discussion items were categorized into type of review. Date of local review was compared to national formulary criteria for use publication dates, and date of FDA approval for new drugs or publication date for new data, where applicable. Items were excluded if crucial information was missing from minutes. Descriptive statistics were used.
Results
Over 65 months, 38 meetings were held. Thirty total members include: pharmacists, physicians, fellows, and advanced practice providers. Items reviewed included: 36 new drugs (ND), 36 new indications/data (NI), 14 institutional preferences, 10 new dosage form/biosimilars, 4 drug shortages and 2 others. The median time from ND approval to discussion was 3 months (n= 36, IQR 3-6) and NI from publication was 3 months (n=30, IQR 1-8). Nearly all (34/36, 94%) ND were reviewed prior to national review. Local review was a median of 7 months before national, with 11 drugs currently having no published national criteria for use (n=25, IQR 2-12).
Conclusions
DRC formation has enabled faster incorporation of new drugs/indications into practice. It has also created an appropriate forum for in-depth utilization discussions, pharmacoeconomic stewardship, and sharing of formulary and medication related information. VA Health Systems could consider implementing similar committees to review and implement up-to-date oncology practices.
Background
From 2000-2022 there were over 200 new drug and over 500 indication approvals specific to oncology. The rate of approvals has increased exponentially, making it difficult to maintain an up-to-date, standardized practice. Nationally, Veterans Affairs (VA) formulary decisions can take time given a lengthy approval process. Locally, the need was identified to incorporate new drugs and data into practice more rapidly. When bringing requests to the facility Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, it was recognized that the membership consisting of non-oncology practitioners did not allow for meaningful discussion of utilization. In 2017, a dedicated oncology drug review committee (DRC) comprised of oncology practitioners and a facility formulary representative was created as a P&T workgroup. Purpose: Evaluate and describe the utility of forming a local oncology DRC to incorporate new drugs and data into practice.
Methods
DRC minutes from December 2017 to May 2023 were reviewed. Discussion items were categorized into type of review. Date of local review was compared to national formulary criteria for use publication dates, and date of FDA approval for new drugs or publication date for new data, where applicable. Items were excluded if crucial information was missing from minutes. Descriptive statistics were used.
Results
Over 65 months, 38 meetings were held. Thirty total members include: pharmacists, physicians, fellows, and advanced practice providers. Items reviewed included: 36 new drugs (ND), 36 new indications/data (NI), 14 institutional preferences, 10 new dosage form/biosimilars, 4 drug shortages and 2 others. The median time from ND approval to discussion was 3 months (n= 36, IQR 3-6) and NI from publication was 3 months (n=30, IQR 1-8). Nearly all (34/36, 94%) ND were reviewed prior to national review. Local review was a median of 7 months before national, with 11 drugs currently having no published national criteria for use (n=25, IQR 2-12).
Conclusions
DRC formation has enabled faster incorporation of new drugs/indications into practice. It has also created an appropriate forum for in-depth utilization discussions, pharmacoeconomic stewardship, and sharing of formulary and medication related information. VA Health Systems could consider implementing similar committees to review and implement up-to-date oncology practices.
Background
From 2000-2022 there were over 200 new drug and over 500 indication approvals specific to oncology. The rate of approvals has increased exponentially, making it difficult to maintain an up-to-date, standardized practice. Nationally, Veterans Affairs (VA) formulary decisions can take time given a lengthy approval process. Locally, the need was identified to incorporate new drugs and data into practice more rapidly. When bringing requests to the facility Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, it was recognized that the membership consisting of non-oncology practitioners did not allow for meaningful discussion of utilization. In 2017, a dedicated oncology drug review committee (DRC) comprised of oncology practitioners and a facility formulary representative was created as a P&T workgroup. Purpose: Evaluate and describe the utility of forming a local oncology DRC to incorporate new drugs and data into practice.
Methods
DRC minutes from December 2017 to May 2023 were reviewed. Discussion items were categorized into type of review. Date of local review was compared to national formulary criteria for use publication dates, and date of FDA approval for new drugs or publication date for new data, where applicable. Items were excluded if crucial information was missing from minutes. Descriptive statistics were used.
Results
Over 65 months, 38 meetings were held. Thirty total members include: pharmacists, physicians, fellows, and advanced practice providers. Items reviewed included: 36 new drugs (ND), 36 new indications/data (NI), 14 institutional preferences, 10 new dosage form/biosimilars, 4 drug shortages and 2 others. The median time from ND approval to discussion was 3 months (n= 36, IQR 3-6) and NI from publication was 3 months (n=30, IQR 1-8). Nearly all (34/36, 94%) ND were reviewed prior to national review. Local review was a median of 7 months before national, with 11 drugs currently having no published national criteria for use (n=25, IQR 2-12).
Conclusions
DRC formation has enabled faster incorporation of new drugs/indications into practice. It has also created an appropriate forum for in-depth utilization discussions, pharmacoeconomic stewardship, and sharing of formulary and medication related information. VA Health Systems could consider implementing similar committees to review and implement up-to-date oncology practices.
PHASER Testing Initiative for Patients Newly Diagnosed With a GI Malignancy
Background
In December of 2023, the Survivorship Coordinator at VA Connecticut spearheaded a multidisciplinary collaboration to offer PHASER testing to all patients newly diagnosed with a GI malignancy and/ or patients with a known GI malignancy and a new recurrence that might necessitate chemotherapy. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population.
Methods
By identifying patients who may have impaired metabolism prior to starting treatment, the doses of the appropriate drugs, 5FU and irinotecan, can be adjusted if appropriate, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment. We are tracking all of the patients who are being tested and will report quarterly to the Cancer Committee on any findings with a specific focus on whether any dose-adjustments were made to Veteran’s chemotherapy regimens as the result of this testing.
Discussion
We have developed a systematic process centered around GI tumor boards to ensure that testing is done at least two weeks prior to planned chemotherapy start-date to ensure adequate time for testing results to be received. We have developed a systematic process whereby primary care providers and pharmacists are alerted to the PHASER results and patients’ non-oncology medications are reviewed for any recommended adjustments. We will have 9 months of data to report on at AVAHO as well as lessons learned from this new quality improvement process. Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout the VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VA Connecticut on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.
Background
In December of 2023, the Survivorship Coordinator at VA Connecticut spearheaded a multidisciplinary collaboration to offer PHASER testing to all patients newly diagnosed with a GI malignancy and/ or patients with a known GI malignancy and a new recurrence that might necessitate chemotherapy. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population.
Methods
By identifying patients who may have impaired metabolism prior to starting treatment, the doses of the appropriate drugs, 5FU and irinotecan, can be adjusted if appropriate, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment. We are tracking all of the patients who are being tested and will report quarterly to the Cancer Committee on any findings with a specific focus on whether any dose-adjustments were made to Veteran’s chemotherapy regimens as the result of this testing.
Discussion
We have developed a systematic process centered around GI tumor boards to ensure that testing is done at least two weeks prior to planned chemotherapy start-date to ensure adequate time for testing results to be received. We have developed a systematic process whereby primary care providers and pharmacists are alerted to the PHASER results and patients’ non-oncology medications are reviewed for any recommended adjustments. We will have 9 months of data to report on at AVAHO as well as lessons learned from this new quality improvement process. Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout the VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VA Connecticut on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.
Background
In December of 2023, the Survivorship Coordinator at VA Connecticut spearheaded a multidisciplinary collaboration to offer PHASER testing to all patients newly diagnosed with a GI malignancy and/ or patients with a known GI malignancy and a new recurrence that might necessitate chemotherapy. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population.
Methods
By identifying patients who may have impaired metabolism prior to starting treatment, the doses of the appropriate drugs, 5FU and irinotecan, can be adjusted if appropriate, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment. We are tracking all of the patients who are being tested and will report quarterly to the Cancer Committee on any findings with a specific focus on whether any dose-adjustments were made to Veteran’s chemotherapy regimens as the result of this testing.
Discussion
We have developed a systematic process centered around GI tumor boards to ensure that testing is done at least two weeks prior to planned chemotherapy start-date to ensure adequate time for testing results to be received. We have developed a systematic process whereby primary care providers and pharmacists are alerted to the PHASER results and patients’ non-oncology medications are reviewed for any recommended adjustments. We will have 9 months of data to report on at AVAHO as well as lessons learned from this new quality improvement process. Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout the VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VA Connecticut on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.
Barriers from Detection to Treatment in Lung Cancer: A Single Veteran Affair Institution Review
Background
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The impact of treatment delay proves difficult to quantify, but increased time to treatment and subsequent progression can limit a patient’s chance for curative intent therapy. Reducing time to treatment aims to improve patient outcome and experience. This study aims to identify the median timeframes that occur in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients within a single Veteran Affair (VA) Medical Center.
Methods
A retrospective chart review was conducted on 123 new primary lung cancer cases detected by imaging between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 within a single VA medical center. Exclusions were preexisting lung cancer or other malignancy. The following data was collected: time to PET scan, referrals, and treatment initiation. KruskalWallis test and Mann-Whitney U test was employed to assess differences in treatment times based on treatment modality and disease stage, respectively
Results
The median time from first abnormal image to PET scan was 26 days. The median time from initial abnormal scan to treatment was 91 days. Treatment initiation was significantly shorter in late-state disease (IV, extensive stage) at 57 days compared to early-stage disease (I-III, limited stage) at 98.5 days (p= 0.00008). There was a difference in the median time from abnormal scan to treatment initiation based on treatment modality: chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgical intervention occurred at 60 days, 86 days, and 98 days, respectively (p= 0.005).
Conclusions
At our institution, patients with latestage lung cancer initiate therapy significantly faster than those diagnosed with early-stage cancer. We feel this is largely due to complex, multidisciplinary coordination of early-stage disease, in contrast to those diagnosed at later stage disease who are treated in a palliative, systemic fashion. This study was instrumental at identifying key areas along the process that can be improved upon. Based on this data, changes will be implemented and studied in effort to shorten time to treatment.
Background
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The impact of treatment delay proves difficult to quantify, but increased time to treatment and subsequent progression can limit a patient’s chance for curative intent therapy. Reducing time to treatment aims to improve patient outcome and experience. This study aims to identify the median timeframes that occur in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients within a single Veteran Affair (VA) Medical Center.
Methods
A retrospective chart review was conducted on 123 new primary lung cancer cases detected by imaging between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 within a single VA medical center. Exclusions were preexisting lung cancer or other malignancy. The following data was collected: time to PET scan, referrals, and treatment initiation. KruskalWallis test and Mann-Whitney U test was employed to assess differences in treatment times based on treatment modality and disease stage, respectively
Results
The median time from first abnormal image to PET scan was 26 days. The median time from initial abnormal scan to treatment was 91 days. Treatment initiation was significantly shorter in late-state disease (IV, extensive stage) at 57 days compared to early-stage disease (I-III, limited stage) at 98.5 days (p= 0.00008). There was a difference in the median time from abnormal scan to treatment initiation based on treatment modality: chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgical intervention occurred at 60 days, 86 days, and 98 days, respectively (p= 0.005).
Conclusions
At our institution, patients with latestage lung cancer initiate therapy significantly faster than those diagnosed with early-stage cancer. We feel this is largely due to complex, multidisciplinary coordination of early-stage disease, in contrast to those diagnosed at later stage disease who are treated in a palliative, systemic fashion. This study was instrumental at identifying key areas along the process that can be improved upon. Based on this data, changes will be implemented and studied in effort to shorten time to treatment.
Background
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The impact of treatment delay proves difficult to quantify, but increased time to treatment and subsequent progression can limit a patient’s chance for curative intent therapy. Reducing time to treatment aims to improve patient outcome and experience. This study aims to identify the median timeframes that occur in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients within a single Veteran Affair (VA) Medical Center.
Methods
A retrospective chart review was conducted on 123 new primary lung cancer cases detected by imaging between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 within a single VA medical center. Exclusions were preexisting lung cancer or other malignancy. The following data was collected: time to PET scan, referrals, and treatment initiation. KruskalWallis test and Mann-Whitney U test was employed to assess differences in treatment times based on treatment modality and disease stage, respectively
Results
The median time from first abnormal image to PET scan was 26 days. The median time from initial abnormal scan to treatment was 91 days. Treatment initiation was significantly shorter in late-state disease (IV, extensive stage) at 57 days compared to early-stage disease (I-III, limited stage) at 98.5 days (p= 0.00008). There was a difference in the median time from abnormal scan to treatment initiation based on treatment modality: chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgical intervention occurred at 60 days, 86 days, and 98 days, respectively (p= 0.005).
Conclusions
At our institution, patients with latestage lung cancer initiate therapy significantly faster than those diagnosed with early-stage cancer. We feel this is largely due to complex, multidisciplinary coordination of early-stage disease, in contrast to those diagnosed at later stage disease who are treated in a palliative, systemic fashion. This study was instrumental at identifying key areas along the process that can be improved upon. Based on this data, changes will be implemented and studied in effort to shorten time to treatment.