AVAHO

Background

This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.

Methods

A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.

Results

The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.

Conclusions

PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.

Background

This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.

Methods

A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.

Results

The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.

Conclusions

PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.

Background

This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.

Methods

A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.

Results

The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.

Conclusions

PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.

Background

Approximately 56,000 Veterans are diagnosed with cancer every year in the VA system. Up to 90% of survivors have at least one impairment that decreases their quality of life, but only 2-9% are receiving cancer rehabilitation. Current research in cancer care demonstrates the importance of prospective surveillance, rehabilitation, and a multidisciplinary (MultiD) approach to cancer survivorship. Multi-D treatments help mitigate the effects of cancer and its treatments as the veterans proceed through care, improve outcomes, and streamline the process to meet all rehabilitation needs for those affected by cancer. Prior to the development of this program all services except navigation were available. Those diagnosed with cancer were not receiving prehabilitation and consults to ancillary services did not occur until after active cancer treatment was completed. CCRP united existing Multi-D programs to better serve the needs of veterans with cancer. Development of the CCRP CPRS Consult menu has allowed for improved access for both providers and veterans.

Methods

Identified the need for ancillary services during cancer survivorship, regardless of Veterans treatment location within or outside the VA system. Initiated tracking via CCR consults, developed a CCRP guidebook to identify all services available and how to access them as well as the CCCRP consult menu to create easier access for providers and veterans. Tracking via Multi-D departments that allow for tracking in CPRS via CCRP Consult.

Results

Prior to FY23 no cancer rehab consults existed. Consults received since program implementation: Navigation: 144, Physical Therapy: 102, Occupational Therapy: 7, Speech: 15. All other Multi-D did not track CCRP-specific consults. Other tools for data analysis are utilized in other departments in which gaps in coordination of care have been caught/resolved, and advocacy has increased.

Conclusions

Comprehensive cancer care from diagnosis throughout survivorship improves quality of life. A Multi-D comprehensive Cancer rehabilitation provides an opportunity to streamline care via a CPRS Menu. Other VA medical centers can develop a Multi-D cancer rehabilitation program to coordinate treatments from diagnosis through survivorship. This is an opportunity to make the VA the forefront of oncology care – by providing all services within one system.

Background

Approximately 56,000 Veterans are diagnosed with cancer every year in the VA system. Up to 90% of survivors have at least one impairment that decreases their quality of life, but only 2-9% are receiving cancer rehabilitation. Current research in cancer care demonstrates the importance of prospective surveillance, rehabilitation, and a multidisciplinary (MultiD) approach to cancer survivorship. Multi-D treatments help mitigate the effects of cancer and its treatments as the veterans proceed through care, improve outcomes, and streamline the process to meet all rehabilitation needs for those affected by cancer. Prior to the development of this program all services except navigation were available. Those diagnosed with cancer were not receiving prehabilitation and consults to ancillary services did not occur until after active cancer treatment was completed. CCRP united existing Multi-D programs to better serve the needs of veterans with cancer. Development of the CCRP CPRS Consult menu has allowed for improved access for both providers and veterans.

Methods

Identified the need for ancillary services during cancer survivorship, regardless of Veterans treatment location within or outside the VA system. Initiated tracking via CCR consults, developed a CCRP guidebook to identify all services available and how to access them as well as the CCCRP consult menu to create easier access for providers and veterans. Tracking via Multi-D departments that allow for tracking in CPRS via CCRP Consult.

Results

Prior to FY23 no cancer rehab consults existed. Consults received since program implementation: Navigation: 144, Physical Therapy: 102, Occupational Therapy: 7, Speech: 15. All other Multi-D did not track CCRP-specific consults. Other tools for data analysis are utilized in other departments in which gaps in coordination of care have been caught/resolved, and advocacy has increased.

Conclusions

Comprehensive cancer care from diagnosis throughout survivorship improves quality of life. A Multi-D comprehensive Cancer rehabilitation provides an opportunity to streamline care via a CPRS Menu. Other VA medical centers can develop a Multi-D cancer rehabilitation program to coordinate treatments from diagnosis through survivorship. This is an opportunity to make the VA the forefront of oncology care – by providing all services within one system.

Background

Approximately 56,000 Veterans are diagnosed with cancer every year in the VA system. Up to 90% of survivors have at least one impairment that decreases their quality of life, but only 2-9% are receiving cancer rehabilitation. Current research in cancer care demonstrates the importance of prospective surveillance, rehabilitation, and a multidisciplinary (MultiD) approach to cancer survivorship. Multi-D treatments help mitigate the effects of cancer and its treatments as the veterans proceed through care, improve outcomes, and streamline the process to meet all rehabilitation needs for those affected by cancer. Prior to the development of this program all services except navigation were available. Those diagnosed with cancer were not receiving prehabilitation and consults to ancillary services did not occur until after active cancer treatment was completed. CCRP united existing Multi-D programs to better serve the needs of veterans with cancer. Development of the CCRP CPRS Consult menu has allowed for improved access for both providers and veterans.

Methods

Identified the need for ancillary services during cancer survivorship, regardless of Veterans treatment location within or outside the VA system. Initiated tracking via CCR consults, developed a CCRP guidebook to identify all services available and how to access them as well as the CCCRP consult menu to create easier access for providers and veterans. Tracking via Multi-D departments that allow for tracking in CPRS via CCRP Consult.

Results

Prior to FY23 no cancer rehab consults existed. Consults received since program implementation: Navigation: 144, Physical Therapy: 102, Occupational Therapy: 7, Speech: 15. All other Multi-D did not track CCRP-specific consults. Other tools for data analysis are utilized in other departments in which gaps in coordination of care have been caught/resolved, and advocacy has increased.

Conclusions

Comprehensive cancer care from diagnosis throughout survivorship improves quality of life. A Multi-D comprehensive Cancer rehabilitation provides an opportunity to streamline care via a CPRS Menu. Other VA medical centers can develop a Multi-D cancer rehabilitation program to coordinate treatments from diagnosis through survivorship. This is an opportunity to make the VA the forefront of oncology care – by providing all services within one system.

Background

VA Whole Health (WH) is an approach that empowers and equips people to take charge of their health and well-being. In 2020, 18 WH Flagship sites demonstrated reduced opiate use and smaller increases in pharmacy costs as well as favorable veteran self-reported measures. VA mandated WH integration into mental health and primary care. Purose: To incorporate WH within Dayton VA cancer care, using the Personal Health Inventory (PHI) as an intake tool, a tumor-agnostic WH oncology clinic was established.

Methods

Led by an oncologist, a referral-based clinic opened in 2021. Pre-work included EHR items (stop codes/templates), staff training and leverage of mental health integration. VA’s generic PHI was utilized until an oncology-specific PHI was developed by leaders in the field.(3-5) Clinic data was tracked.

Results

170 visits offered (June 2021-May 2024). 32 referrals received (one without cancer; deaths: two pre-intake/five post-intake); 70 appointments occurred among 30 veterans (30 intake/40 follow-up) for 41% fill rate (up 5% from 1st six months). 96% PHI completion rate. Referral sources: fellows (43%), attendings (17%), PCP (3%), Survivorship Clinic (3%), self-referral (33%)--40% of these from cancer support group members. Cancer types (one dual-diagnosis; total >100%): 24% breast, 17% prostate, 17% NSCLC, 10% NHL, 10% pancreatic, 7% Head/Neck, 7% SCLC, 3% each colon/esophageal/kidney. Cancer Stages represented: I (10%), II (20%), III (23%) and IV (47%). Participant info: Age range (36-85); 69% male and 31% female with 86% on active cancer therapy (hormonal, immune-, chemo- or chemoradiation). Supplements were discussed at 26% of visits and referrals ordered at 27% (4-massage therapy, 1-acupuncture, 1-chiropractic, 2-health coaching, 1-cardiology, 1-lymphedema therapy, 1-social work, 1-survivorship clinic, 1-yoga, 1-diabetes education, 1-ENT, 1-nutrition, 1-pathology, 1-pulmonary, 1-prosthetics).

Conclusions

WH within cancer care is feasible for veterans on active treatment (all types/stages) and at a non-Flagship/unfunded site. Veterans gain introduction to WH through the PHI and Complementary-Integrative Health referrals (VA Directive 1137). Cancer support group attendance prompts WH clinic self-referrals. Next steps at DVAMC are to offer mind-body approaches such as virtual reality experiences in the infusion room and VA CALM sessions via asynchronous online delivery; funding would support WH evolution in oncology.

Background

VA Whole Health (WH) is an approach that empowers and equips people to take charge of their health and well-being. In 2020, 18 WH Flagship sites demonstrated reduced opiate use and smaller increases in pharmacy costs as well as favorable veteran self-reported measures. VA mandated WH integration into mental health and primary care. Purose: To incorporate WH within Dayton VA cancer care, using the Personal Health Inventory (PHI) as an intake tool, a tumor-agnostic WH oncology clinic was established.

Methods

Led by an oncologist, a referral-based clinic opened in 2021. Pre-work included EHR items (stop codes/templates), staff training and leverage of mental health integration. VA’s generic PHI was utilized until an oncology-specific PHI was developed by leaders in the field.(3-5) Clinic data was tracked.

Results

170 visits offered (June 2021-May 2024). 32 referrals received (one without cancer; deaths: two pre-intake/five post-intake); 70 appointments occurred among 30 veterans (30 intake/40 follow-up) for 41% fill rate (up 5% from 1st six months). 96% PHI completion rate. Referral sources: fellows (43%), attendings (17%), PCP (3%), Survivorship Clinic (3%), self-referral (33%)--40% of these from cancer support group members. Cancer types (one dual-diagnosis; total >100%): 24% breast, 17% prostate, 17% NSCLC, 10% NHL, 10% pancreatic, 7% Head/Neck, 7% SCLC, 3% each colon/esophageal/kidney. Cancer Stages represented: I (10%), II (20%), III (23%) and IV (47%). Participant info: Age range (36-85); 69% male and 31% female with 86% on active cancer therapy (hormonal, immune-, chemo- or chemoradiation). Supplements were discussed at 26% of visits and referrals ordered at 27% (4-massage therapy, 1-acupuncture, 1-chiropractic, 2-health coaching, 1-cardiology, 1-lymphedema therapy, 1-social work, 1-survivorship clinic, 1-yoga, 1-diabetes education, 1-ENT, 1-nutrition, 1-pathology, 1-pulmonary, 1-prosthetics).

Conclusions

WH within cancer care is feasible for veterans on active treatment (all types/stages) and at a non-Flagship/unfunded site. Veterans gain introduction to WH through the PHI and Complementary-Integrative Health referrals (VA Directive 1137). Cancer support group attendance prompts WH clinic self-referrals. Next steps at DVAMC are to offer mind-body approaches such as virtual reality experiences in the infusion room and VA CALM sessions via asynchronous online delivery; funding would support WH evolution in oncology.

Background

VA Whole Health (WH) is an approach that empowers and equips people to take charge of their health and well-being. In 2020, 18 WH Flagship sites demonstrated reduced opiate use and smaller increases in pharmacy costs as well as favorable veteran self-reported measures. VA mandated WH integration into mental health and primary care. Purose: To incorporate WH within Dayton VA cancer care, using the Personal Health Inventory (PHI) as an intake tool, a tumor-agnostic WH oncology clinic was established.

Methods

Led by an oncologist, a referral-based clinic opened in 2021. Pre-work included EHR items (stop codes/templates), staff training and leverage of mental health integration. VA’s generic PHI was utilized until an oncology-specific PHI was developed by leaders in the field.(3-5) Clinic data was tracked.

Results

170 visits offered (June 2021-May 2024). 32 referrals received (one without cancer; deaths: two pre-intake/five post-intake); 70 appointments occurred among 30 veterans (30 intake/40 follow-up) for 41% fill rate (up 5% from 1st six months). 96% PHI completion rate. Referral sources: fellows (43%), attendings (17%), PCP (3%), Survivorship Clinic (3%), self-referral (33%)--40% of these from cancer support group members. Cancer types (one dual-diagnosis; total >100%): 24% breast, 17% prostate, 17% NSCLC, 10% NHL, 10% pancreatic, 7% Head/Neck, 7% SCLC, 3% each colon/esophageal/kidney. Cancer Stages represented: I (10%), II (20%), III (23%) and IV (47%). Participant info: Age range (36-85); 69% male and 31% female with 86% on active cancer therapy (hormonal, immune-, chemo- or chemoradiation). Supplements were discussed at 26% of visits and referrals ordered at 27% (4-massage therapy, 1-acupuncture, 1-chiropractic, 2-health coaching, 1-cardiology, 1-lymphedema therapy, 1-social work, 1-survivorship clinic, 1-yoga, 1-diabetes education, 1-ENT, 1-nutrition, 1-pathology, 1-pulmonary, 1-prosthetics).

Conclusions

WH within cancer care is feasible for veterans on active treatment (all types/stages) and at a non-Flagship/unfunded site. Veterans gain introduction to WH through the PHI and Complementary-Integrative Health referrals (VA Directive 1137). Cancer support group attendance prompts WH clinic self-referrals. Next steps at DVAMC are to offer mind-body approaches such as virtual reality experiences in the infusion room and VA CALM sessions via asynchronous online delivery; funding would support WH evolution in oncology.

Background

Ampulla of Vater is an extremely rare site for neuroendocrine tumors (NET), accounting for less than 0.3% of gastrointestinal (GI) and 2% of ampullary malignancies. This case report highlights the circuitous diagnosis of this rare tumor in a patient with a history of primary biliary cholangitis presenting with epigastric pain and severe pruritis.

Case Presentation

A 58-year-old female with history of sarcoidosis and primary biliary cholangitis status post sphincterotomy eight months prior, presented with worsening epigastric pain, fatigue, and weight loss over 6 months. Physical exam showed right upper quadrant tenderness. Labs revealed elevated alanine and aspartate aminotransferases at 415 and 195 units/L, with bilirubin of 0.3 mg/dl. Computerized tomography (CT) revealed a 2.3x3.2x4.0 cm peripancreatic hypodensity associated with phlegmon, pancreatic ductal dilation and pneumobilia. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated a pancreatic head mass. Positron emission tomogram (PET) was negative for distant metastases. After discussion of management options, patient opted for Whipple procedure. The surgical pathology was consistent with invasive ampullary ductal carcinoma of the small intestine, pancreaticobiliary type. However, staining for synaptophysin and chromogranin were positive, with Ki-67 < 55%. Tumor board review confirmed neuroendocrine tumor of the ampulla of Vater. NCCN guidelines recommended active surveillance due to locoregional disease without positive margins or lymph nodes, advising routine follow-up and imaging.

Discussion

Neuroendocrine tumors (NET) at the Ampulla of Vater are exceedingly rare. Often manifesting as obstructive jaundice, they pose diagnostic hurdles, especially in patients with anatomical variations like scarring from primary biliary cholangitis. In a case series of 20 ampullary tumors, only one was neuroendocrine, highlighting their rarity. Accurate diagnosis, achieved through surgical biopsy and immunohistochemical testing, is crucial for appropriate management. Following NCCN guidelines for gastrointestinal NETs, our patient avoided unnecessary systemic treatment meant for adenocarcinoma, preserving her quality of life. Reporting such cases is essential for advancing understanding and refining patient care.

Conclusions

This case had evolving diagnoses, altering both the prognosis and treatment standards. Comorbid primary biliary cholangitis and high-grade tumor complexity posed diagnostic challenges, which was finally confirmed by surgical biopsy. Reporting such cases is vital in aiding tumor management and patient outcomes.

Background

Ampulla of Vater is an extremely rare site for neuroendocrine tumors (NET), accounting for less than 0.3% of gastrointestinal (GI) and 2% of ampullary malignancies. This case report highlights the circuitous diagnosis of this rare tumor in a patient with a history of primary biliary cholangitis presenting with epigastric pain and severe pruritis.

Case Presentation

A 58-year-old female with history of sarcoidosis and primary biliary cholangitis status post sphincterotomy eight months prior, presented with worsening epigastric pain, fatigue, and weight loss over 6 months. Physical exam showed right upper quadrant tenderness. Labs revealed elevated alanine and aspartate aminotransferases at 415 and 195 units/L, with bilirubin of 0.3 mg/dl. Computerized tomography (CT) revealed a 2.3x3.2x4.0 cm peripancreatic hypodensity associated with phlegmon, pancreatic ductal dilation and pneumobilia. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated a pancreatic head mass. Positron emission tomogram (PET) was negative for distant metastases. After discussion of management options, patient opted for Whipple procedure. The surgical pathology was consistent with invasive ampullary ductal carcinoma of the small intestine, pancreaticobiliary type. However, staining for synaptophysin and chromogranin were positive, with Ki-67 < 55%. Tumor board review confirmed neuroendocrine tumor of the ampulla of Vater. NCCN guidelines recommended active surveillance due to locoregional disease without positive margins or lymph nodes, advising routine follow-up and imaging.

Discussion

Neuroendocrine tumors (NET) at the Ampulla of Vater are exceedingly rare. Often manifesting as obstructive jaundice, they pose diagnostic hurdles, especially in patients with anatomical variations like scarring from primary biliary cholangitis. In a case series of 20 ampullary tumors, only one was neuroendocrine, highlighting their rarity. Accurate diagnosis, achieved through surgical biopsy and immunohistochemical testing, is crucial for appropriate management. Following NCCN guidelines for gastrointestinal NETs, our patient avoided unnecessary systemic treatment meant for adenocarcinoma, preserving her quality of life. Reporting such cases is essential for advancing understanding and refining patient care.

Conclusions

This case had evolving diagnoses, altering both the prognosis and treatment standards. Comorbid primary biliary cholangitis and high-grade tumor complexity posed diagnostic challenges, which was finally confirmed by surgical biopsy. Reporting such cases is vital in aiding tumor management and patient outcomes.

Background

Ampulla of Vater is an extremely rare site for neuroendocrine tumors (NET), accounting for less than 0.3% of gastrointestinal (GI) and 2% of ampullary malignancies. This case report highlights the circuitous diagnosis of this rare tumor in a patient with a history of primary biliary cholangitis presenting with epigastric pain and severe pruritis.

Case Presentation

A 58-year-old female with history of sarcoidosis and primary biliary cholangitis status post sphincterotomy eight months prior, presented with worsening epigastric pain, fatigue, and weight loss over 6 months. Physical exam showed right upper quadrant tenderness. Labs revealed elevated alanine and aspartate aminotransferases at 415 and 195 units/L, with bilirubin of 0.3 mg/dl. Computerized tomography (CT) revealed a 2.3x3.2x4.0 cm peripancreatic hypodensity associated with phlegmon, pancreatic ductal dilation and pneumobilia. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated a pancreatic head mass. Positron emission tomogram (PET) was negative for distant metastases. After discussion of management options, patient opted for Whipple procedure. The surgical pathology was consistent with invasive ampullary ductal carcinoma of the small intestine, pancreaticobiliary type. However, staining for synaptophysin and chromogranin were positive, with Ki-67 < 55%. Tumor board review confirmed neuroendocrine tumor of the ampulla of Vater. NCCN guidelines recommended active surveillance due to locoregional disease without positive margins or lymph nodes, advising routine follow-up and imaging.

Discussion

Neuroendocrine tumors (NET) at the Ampulla of Vater are exceedingly rare. Often manifesting as obstructive jaundice, they pose diagnostic hurdles, especially in patients with anatomical variations like scarring from primary biliary cholangitis. In a case series of 20 ampullary tumors, only one was neuroendocrine, highlighting their rarity. Accurate diagnosis, achieved through surgical biopsy and immunohistochemical testing, is crucial for appropriate management. Following NCCN guidelines for gastrointestinal NETs, our patient avoided unnecessary systemic treatment meant for adenocarcinoma, preserving her quality of life. Reporting such cases is essential for advancing understanding and refining patient care.

Conclusions

This case had evolving diagnoses, altering both the prognosis and treatment standards. Comorbid primary biliary cholangitis and high-grade tumor complexity posed diagnostic challenges, which was finally confirmed by surgical biopsy. Reporting such cases is vital in aiding tumor management and patient outcomes.

Background

Multiple responses or repeat e-consults were observed by Hematology/Oncology Department. Root cause analysis uncovered that 60% of e-consults ordered required multiple responses or repeat econsults for the same clinical situation, often due to the need for additional lab testing before the e-consult question could be addressed. Hematology/Oncology econsult ordering process did not have an order design menu to provide guidance on appropriate questions, simplified ordering of relevant tests, or ways to identify patients that were either already established in the Hem/Onc clinic or patients that would be better managed with a more urgent or in-person consultation. This quality improvement project was created to improve the appropriateness and efficiency of hematology/oncology e-consult ordering process.

Methods

Using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) quality improvement methodology, a project team lead by Hematology/Oncology, Clinical Informatics, Clinical Application Coordinator and the Systems Redesign Coordinator, rebuilt menus to navigate referring providers to the appropriate e-consults. This would improve the process flow and enhance clear communication. The primary process improvement goals were 1) to decrease the number of e-consults that were better suited for inperson evaluation; 2) decrease the number of Hem/Onc e-consults that lack adequate clinical lab information and 3) decrease the number of e-consults for patients that are already established with a Hematology/Oncology provider.

Results

Baseline sample data (7-1-23-11-30-22)-revealed only 60% of e-consults placed were deemed appropriate. 13% required certain minimum lab testing, 11% were already established patients and 11% were better managed through in-person consultation. After the first PDSA cycle, from 9/21/23-3/29/24, 72% of econsults were deemed appropriate (114/158), a 12% improvement.

Conclusions

The success of the project supports the use of existing VA hospital-based program resources such as clinical informatics and utilizing frontline physician input. This input was critical to the redesigned ordering process. Ultimately, our process improvement efforts helped facilitate communication and information flow which improved our ability to better coordinate our Veteran’s care.

Background

Multiple responses or repeat e-consults were observed by Hematology/Oncology Department. Root cause analysis uncovered that 60% of e-consults ordered required multiple responses or repeat econsults for the same clinical situation, often due to the need for additional lab testing before the e-consult question could be addressed. Hematology/Oncology econsult ordering process did not have an order design menu to provide guidance on appropriate questions, simplified ordering of relevant tests, or ways to identify patients that were either already established in the Hem/Onc clinic or patients that would be better managed with a more urgent or in-person consultation. This quality improvement project was created to improve the appropriateness and efficiency of hematology/oncology e-consult ordering process.

Methods

Using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) quality improvement methodology, a project team lead by Hematology/Oncology, Clinical Informatics, Clinical Application Coordinator and the Systems Redesign Coordinator, rebuilt menus to navigate referring providers to the appropriate e-consults. This would improve the process flow and enhance clear communication. The primary process improvement goals were 1) to decrease the number of e-consults that were better suited for inperson evaluation; 2) decrease the number of Hem/Onc e-consults that lack adequate clinical lab information and 3) decrease the number of e-consults for patients that are already established with a Hematology/Oncology provider.

Results

Baseline sample data (7-1-23-11-30-22)-revealed only 60% of e-consults placed were deemed appropriate. 13% required certain minimum lab testing, 11% were already established patients and 11% were better managed through in-person consultation. After the first PDSA cycle, from 9/21/23-3/29/24, 72% of econsults were deemed appropriate (114/158), a 12% improvement.

Conclusions

The success of the project supports the use of existing VA hospital-based program resources such as clinical informatics and utilizing frontline physician input. This input was critical to the redesigned ordering process. Ultimately, our process improvement efforts helped facilitate communication and information flow which improved our ability to better coordinate our Veteran’s care.

Background

Multiple responses or repeat e-consults were observed by Hematology/Oncology Department. Root cause analysis uncovered that 60% of e-consults ordered required multiple responses or repeat econsults for the same clinical situation, often due to the need for additional lab testing before the e-consult question could be addressed. Hematology/Oncology econsult ordering process did not have an order design menu to provide guidance on appropriate questions, simplified ordering of relevant tests, or ways to identify patients that were either already established in the Hem/Onc clinic or patients that would be better managed with a more urgent or in-person consultation. This quality improvement project was created to improve the appropriateness and efficiency of hematology/oncology e-consult ordering process.

Methods

Using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) quality improvement methodology, a project team lead by Hematology/Oncology, Clinical Informatics, Clinical Application Coordinator and the Systems Redesign Coordinator, rebuilt menus to navigate referring providers to the appropriate e-consults. This would improve the process flow and enhance clear communication. The primary process improvement goals were 1) to decrease the number of e-consults that were better suited for inperson evaluation; 2) decrease the number of Hem/Onc e-consults that lack adequate clinical lab information and 3) decrease the number of e-consults for patients that are already established with a Hematology/Oncology provider.

Results

Baseline sample data (7-1-23-11-30-22)-revealed only 60% of e-consults placed were deemed appropriate. 13% required certain minimum lab testing, 11% were already established patients and 11% were better managed through in-person consultation. After the first PDSA cycle, from 9/21/23-3/29/24, 72% of econsults were deemed appropriate (114/158), a 12% improvement.

Conclusions

The success of the project supports the use of existing VA hospital-based program resources such as clinical informatics and utilizing frontline physician input. This input was critical to the redesigned ordering process. Ultimately, our process improvement efforts helped facilitate communication and information flow which improved our ability to better coordinate our Veteran’s care.

Background

Cancer diagnosis and treatment can be devastating! After treatment, a person often feels tired, weak, and worried while trying to put their life back together. This transition period is known to be difficult (www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/coping/survivorship/new-normal). A Time to Heal for Veterans and their Caregivers (“wellness rehabilitation”) was created to provide support, information, and skills to help with this transition.

Methods

This 9-week program is based on a successful, well documented, evidence-based book and protocol developed in 2005, that has been updated and adapted for specific populations. The VA program has a customized participant book and is facilitated by a VA social worker and a VA oncology nurse. It includes weekly protocols of research-based educational presentations on the following topics: Building Resilience, Physical Side Effects, Calming Worries and Fears, Nutrition and Exercise for Cancer Survivors, Relationships After Cancer, Nurturing Inner Strength, Planning for the Future, and Happiness Going Forward. It also includes facilitated discussions to share experiences, demonstration/ practices of simple strategies for relaxation or health, and journaling/affirmation writing. The program is held in person at the VA for locals and via Zoom for non-local participants (hybrid format).

Results

A Time to Heal program for Veterans has been offered since 2016. In 2020 it was shortened from 12 weeks to 9 weeks. Since then, 24 veterans and 8 caregivers have completed the program and 13 have completed the evaluation/survey. On a scale of 1 (below expectations) to 5 (exceeded expectations), the program and book have consistently received rating averages of 4.5/5.0. Testimonials include: “Awesome program!” “Was hesitant at first, but so glad I decided to participate. I was able to open up my feelings and express them. I am grateful for the VA to have these resources.”

Conclusions

Recruitment for the program has relied on fliers and education from oncology staff. The feedback received from veterans with cancer, caregivers, and providers indicates a positive impact of this program. More study is needed to evaluate specific aspects of the program, guide participant recruitment, and determine best delivery methods for participants.

Background

Cancer diagnosis and treatment can be devastating! After treatment, a person often feels tired, weak, and worried while trying to put their life back together. This transition period is known to be difficult (www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/coping/survivorship/new-normal). A Time to Heal for Veterans and their Caregivers (“wellness rehabilitation”) was created to provide support, information, and skills to help with this transition.

Methods

This 9-week program is based on a successful, well documented, evidence-based book and protocol developed in 2005, that has been updated and adapted for specific populations. The VA program has a customized participant book and is facilitated by a VA social worker and a VA oncology nurse. It includes weekly protocols of research-based educational presentations on the following topics: Building Resilience, Physical Side Effects, Calming Worries and Fears, Nutrition and Exercise for Cancer Survivors, Relationships After Cancer, Nurturing Inner Strength, Planning for the Future, and Happiness Going Forward. It also includes facilitated discussions to share experiences, demonstration/ practices of simple strategies for relaxation or health, and journaling/affirmation writing. The program is held in person at the VA for locals and via Zoom for non-local participants (hybrid format).

Results

A Time to Heal program for Veterans has been offered since 2016. In 2020 it was shortened from 12 weeks to 9 weeks. Since then, 24 veterans and 8 caregivers have completed the program and 13 have completed the evaluation/survey. On a scale of 1 (below expectations) to 5 (exceeded expectations), the program and book have consistently received rating averages of 4.5/5.0. Testimonials include: “Awesome program!” “Was hesitant at first, but so glad I decided to participate. I was able to open up my feelings and express them. I am grateful for the VA to have these resources.”

Conclusions

Recruitment for the program has relied on fliers and education from oncology staff. The feedback received from veterans with cancer, caregivers, and providers indicates a positive impact of this program. More study is needed to evaluate specific aspects of the program, guide participant recruitment, and determine best delivery methods for participants.

Background

Cancer diagnosis and treatment can be devastating! After treatment, a person often feels tired, weak, and worried while trying to put their life back together. This transition period is known to be difficult (www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/coping/survivorship/new-normal). A Time to Heal for Veterans and their Caregivers (“wellness rehabilitation”) was created to provide support, information, and skills to help with this transition.

Methods

This 9-week program is based on a successful, well documented, evidence-based book and protocol developed in 2005, that has been updated and adapted for specific populations. The VA program has a customized participant book and is facilitated by a VA social worker and a VA oncology nurse. It includes weekly protocols of research-based educational presentations on the following topics: Building Resilience, Physical Side Effects, Calming Worries and Fears, Nutrition and Exercise for Cancer Survivors, Relationships After Cancer, Nurturing Inner Strength, Planning for the Future, and Happiness Going Forward. It also includes facilitated discussions to share experiences, demonstration/ practices of simple strategies for relaxation or health, and journaling/affirmation writing. The program is held in person at the VA for locals and via Zoom for non-local participants (hybrid format).

Results

A Time to Heal program for Veterans has been offered since 2016. In 2020 it was shortened from 12 weeks to 9 weeks. Since then, 24 veterans and 8 caregivers have completed the program and 13 have completed the evaluation/survey. On a scale of 1 (below expectations) to 5 (exceeded expectations), the program and book have consistently received rating averages of 4.5/5.0. Testimonials include: “Awesome program!” “Was hesitant at first, but so glad I decided to participate. I was able to open up my feelings and express them. I am grateful for the VA to have these resources.”

Conclusions

Recruitment for the program has relied on fliers and education from oncology staff. The feedback received from veterans with cancer, caregivers, and providers indicates a positive impact of this program. More study is needed to evaluate specific aspects of the program, guide participant recruitment, and determine best delivery methods for participants.

Background

The Palliative Care in Hawaii/Pacific Island Communities for Veterans (PaCiHPIC Veterans) study is a VA-funded research study that explores social determinants of health, cultural values, and cancer disparities impacting Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander/US-affiliated Pacific Island resident (NHPI/USAPI) Veterans.Cancer prevalence and mortality are increasing among NHPI/ USAPI Veterans which can be partly attributed to nuclear fallout from U.S. military activities in the region. This population faces geographic, financial, and logistical barriers to cancer care. There is an imminent need to understand and address access to cancer care and palliative care to reduce disparities within this population.

Methods

We interviewed 15 clinicians including physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers, and clinical psychologists specializing in primary care, palliative care, and oncology, self-identifying as White, Asian American, NHPI, and Multiracial. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and de-identified. Using inductive and deductive strategies, we iteratively collapsed content into codes formulating a codebook. Thematic analyses were performed using dual-coder review in Atlas.ti v23. Themes were mapped to the socioecological model.

Results

Clinicians described how NHPI/USAPI Veterans receive healthcare and instrumental support at individual, community, and systems levels, including from family caregivers, “high-talking chiefs,” traditional healers (“suruhanu”), community health clinics, and the VHA. Clinicians identified challenges and opportunities for care coordination: (1) financial and logistical barriers to involve family and decision-makers; (2) clinician understanding of cultural values and influence on medical decision-making; (3) care fragmentation resulting from transitions between community care and VHA; and (4) collaboration with key individuals in Pacific social hierarchies.

Conclusions

Cancer navigation and care coordination gaps create challenges for clinicians and NHPI/USAPI Veterans managing cancer in the Pacific Islands. Better understanding of these systems of care and associated gaps can inform the development of an intervention to improve cancer care delivery to this population. NHPI/ USAPI Veterans may experience care fragmentation due to care transitions between community care and the VHA. At the same time, these sources also create multiple layers of support for Veterans. Interventions to address these challenges can leverage the strengths of Pacific communities, while striving to better integrate care between community healthcare providers and VHA.

Background

The Palliative Care in Hawaii/Pacific Island Communities for Veterans (PaCiHPIC Veterans) study is a VA-funded research study that explores social determinants of health, cultural values, and cancer disparities impacting Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander/US-affiliated Pacific Island resident (NHPI/USAPI) Veterans.Cancer prevalence and mortality are increasing among NHPI/ USAPI Veterans which can be partly attributed to nuclear fallout from U.S. military activities in the region. This population faces geographic, financial, and logistical barriers to cancer care. There is an imminent need to understand and address access to cancer care and palliative care to reduce disparities within this population.

Methods

We interviewed 15 clinicians including physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers, and clinical psychologists specializing in primary care, palliative care, and oncology, self-identifying as White, Asian American, NHPI, and Multiracial. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and de-identified. Using inductive and deductive strategies, we iteratively collapsed content into codes formulating a codebook. Thematic analyses were performed using dual-coder review in Atlas.ti v23. Themes were mapped to the socioecological model.

Results

Clinicians described how NHPI/USAPI Veterans receive healthcare and instrumental support at individual, community, and systems levels, including from family caregivers, “high-talking chiefs,” traditional healers (“suruhanu”), community health clinics, and the VHA. Clinicians identified challenges and opportunities for care coordination: (1) financial and logistical barriers to involve family and decision-makers; (2) clinician understanding of cultural values and influence on medical decision-making; (3) care fragmentation resulting from transitions between community care and VHA; and (4) collaboration with key individuals in Pacific social hierarchies.

Conclusions

Cancer navigation and care coordination gaps create challenges for clinicians and NHPI/USAPI Veterans managing cancer in the Pacific Islands. Better understanding of these systems of care and associated gaps can inform the development of an intervention to improve cancer care delivery to this population. NHPI/ USAPI Veterans may experience care fragmentation due to care transitions between community care and the VHA. At the same time, these sources also create multiple layers of support for Veterans. Interventions to address these challenges can leverage the strengths of Pacific communities, while striving to better integrate care between community healthcare providers and VHA.

Background

The Palliative Care in Hawaii/Pacific Island Communities for Veterans (PaCiHPIC Veterans) study is a VA-funded research study that explores social determinants of health, cultural values, and cancer disparities impacting Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander/US-affiliated Pacific Island resident (NHPI/USAPI) Veterans.Cancer prevalence and mortality are increasing among NHPI/ USAPI Veterans which can be partly attributed to nuclear fallout from U.S. military activities in the region. This population faces geographic, financial, and logistical barriers to cancer care. There is an imminent need to understand and address access to cancer care and palliative care to reduce disparities within this population.

Methods

We interviewed 15 clinicians including physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers, and clinical psychologists specializing in primary care, palliative care, and oncology, self-identifying as White, Asian American, NHPI, and Multiracial. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and de-identified. Using inductive and deductive strategies, we iteratively collapsed content into codes formulating a codebook. Thematic analyses were performed using dual-coder review in Atlas.ti v23. Themes were mapped to the socioecological model.

Results

Clinicians described how NHPI/USAPI Veterans receive healthcare and instrumental support at individual, community, and systems levels, including from family caregivers, “high-talking chiefs,” traditional healers (“suruhanu”), community health clinics, and the VHA. Clinicians identified challenges and opportunities for care coordination: (1) financial and logistical barriers to involve family and decision-makers; (2) clinician understanding of cultural values and influence on medical decision-making; (3) care fragmentation resulting from transitions between community care and VHA; and (4) collaboration with key individuals in Pacific social hierarchies.

Conclusions

Cancer navigation and care coordination gaps create challenges for clinicians and NHPI/USAPI Veterans managing cancer in the Pacific Islands. Better understanding of these systems of care and associated gaps can inform the development of an intervention to improve cancer care delivery to this population. NHPI/ USAPI Veterans may experience care fragmentation due to care transitions between community care and the VHA. At the same time, these sources also create multiple layers of support for Veterans. Interventions to address these challenges can leverage the strengths of Pacific communities, while striving to better integrate care between community healthcare providers and VHA.

Background

CML is usually classified in chronic phase (CP), accelerated phase (AP) and/or Blast phase (BP). Studies have described another provisional entity as Preleukemic phase of CML which precedes CP and is without leukocytosis and blood features of CP phase of CML. Here we will present a case of metastatic prostate cancer, where next-generation sequencing showed BCR-ABL1 but no overt leukocytosis and then later developed clinical CML after 11 months.

Case Presentation

Our patient was 87-yr-old male with history of metastatic prostate cancer, who presented with elevated PSA levels and new bony metastasis. He underwent next-generation-sequencing (foundation one liquid cdx) in April 2022. It did not show reportable alterations related to prostate cancer but BCR-ABL1 (p210) fusion was detected. It also showed ASXL1-S846fs5 and TET2-Q1548 that are also markers of clonal hematopoiesis. In March 2023 (11 months after the finding of BCR-ABL1), he developed asymptomatic leukocytosis, Workup showed BCR-ABL1(210) of 44% in peripheral blood and bone marrow showed 9% blasts. He was started on Imatinib after shared decision-making and considering the toxicity profile and comorbidities. He followed up regularly with improvement in leukocytosis.

Discussion

The diagnosis of CML is first suspected by typical findings in blood and/or bone marrow and then confirmed by presence of Philadelphia chromosome. Along with chronic and accelerated phases, there is another term described in few cases called “preleukemic or smoldering or aleukemic phase.” This is not a wellestablished term but mostly defined as normal leukocyte count with presence of BCR/ABL1 fusion gene/ ph chromosome. Preleukemic phase of CML is mostly underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed. Our case is unique in that BCR/ABL1 fusion was detected incidentally on next-generation sequencing and patient progressed to chronic phase of CML 11 months later. Upon literature review, few case reports and case series documenting aleukemic/preleukemic phase of CML but timing from the appearance of BCR/ABL1 mutation to actual development to leukocytosis is not well documented. Especially in the era of NGS testing, patients with incidental BCR-ABL1 should be evaluated further irrespective of normal WBC. Further studies need to be done to recognize this early and decrease the delay in treatment.

Background

CML is usually classified in chronic phase (CP), accelerated phase (AP) and/or Blast phase (BP). Studies have described another provisional entity as Preleukemic phase of CML which precedes CP and is without leukocytosis and blood features of CP phase of CML. Here we will present a case of metastatic prostate cancer, where next-generation sequencing showed BCR-ABL1 but no overt leukocytosis and then later developed clinical CML after 11 months.

Case Presentation

Our patient was 87-yr-old male with history of metastatic prostate cancer, who presented with elevated PSA levels and new bony metastasis. He underwent next-generation-sequencing (foundation one liquid cdx) in April 2022. It did not show reportable alterations related to prostate cancer but BCR-ABL1 (p210) fusion was detected. It also showed ASXL1-S846fs5 and TET2-Q1548 that are also markers of clonal hematopoiesis. In March 2023 (11 months after the finding of BCR-ABL1), he developed asymptomatic leukocytosis, Workup showed BCR-ABL1(210) of 44% in peripheral blood and bone marrow showed 9% blasts. He was started on Imatinib after shared decision-making and considering the toxicity profile and comorbidities. He followed up regularly with improvement in leukocytosis.

Discussion

The diagnosis of CML is first suspected by typical findings in blood and/or bone marrow and then confirmed by presence of Philadelphia chromosome. Along with chronic and accelerated phases, there is another term described in few cases called “preleukemic or smoldering or aleukemic phase.” This is not a wellestablished term but mostly defined as normal leukocyte count with presence of BCR/ABL1 fusion gene/ ph chromosome. Preleukemic phase of CML is mostly underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed. Our case is unique in that BCR/ABL1 fusion was detected incidentally on next-generation sequencing and patient progressed to chronic phase of CML 11 months later. Upon literature review, few case reports and case series documenting aleukemic/preleukemic phase of CML but timing from the appearance of BCR/ABL1 mutation to actual development to leukocytosis is not well documented. Especially in the era of NGS testing, patients with incidental BCR-ABL1 should be evaluated further irrespective of normal WBC. Further studies need to be done to recognize this early and decrease the delay in treatment.

Background

CML is usually classified in chronic phase (CP), accelerated phase (AP) and/or Blast phase (BP). Studies have described another provisional entity as Preleukemic phase of CML which precedes CP and is without leukocytosis and blood features of CP phase of CML. Here we will present a case of metastatic prostate cancer, where next-generation sequencing showed BCR-ABL1 but no overt leukocytosis and then later developed clinical CML after 11 months.

Case Presentation

Our patient was 87-yr-old male with history of metastatic prostate cancer, who presented with elevated PSA levels and new bony metastasis. He underwent next-generation-sequencing (foundation one liquid cdx) in April 2022. It did not show reportable alterations related to prostate cancer but BCR-ABL1 (p210) fusion was detected. It also showed ASXL1-S846fs5 and TET2-Q1548 that are also markers of clonal hematopoiesis. In March 2023 (11 months after the finding of BCR-ABL1), he developed asymptomatic leukocytosis, Workup showed BCR-ABL1(210) of 44% in peripheral blood and bone marrow showed 9% blasts. He was started on Imatinib after shared decision-making and considering the toxicity profile and comorbidities. He followed up regularly with improvement in leukocytosis.

Discussion

The diagnosis of CML is first suspected by typical findings in blood and/or bone marrow and then confirmed by presence of Philadelphia chromosome. Along with chronic and accelerated phases, there is another term described in few cases called “preleukemic or smoldering or aleukemic phase.” This is not a wellestablished term but mostly defined as normal leukocyte count with presence of BCR/ABL1 fusion gene/ ph chromosome. Preleukemic phase of CML is mostly underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed. Our case is unique in that BCR/ABL1 fusion was detected incidentally on next-generation sequencing and patient progressed to chronic phase of CML 11 months later. Upon literature review, few case reports and case series documenting aleukemic/preleukemic phase of CML but timing from the appearance of BCR/ABL1 mutation to actual development to leukocytosis is not well documented. Especially in the era of NGS testing, patients with incidental BCR-ABL1 should be evaluated further irrespective of normal WBC. Further studies need to be done to recognize this early and decrease the delay in treatment.

Background

This study investigates the effects of patient characteristics on overall survival in Sezary Syndrome (SS), addressing a gap in the current literature. SS is a rare and aggressive form of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). SS is presumed to be related to service exposure, and veterans have a 6-8 times higher incidence of CTCL than the general population. A study investigating the socio-demographic factors at diagnosis on overall survival in SS has yet to be done.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with SS (ICD- 9701/3) between 2004 and 2020 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB), highlighting patient demographics on overall survival in SS (N = 809). Exclusion criteria included missing data. Descriptive statistics were collected for all patients with SS. Overall survival was determined via KaplanMeier test. Multivariate analysis via Cox regression was performed to determine factors leading to decreased survival in SS. All statistical tests were evaluated for a significance of P < 0.05.

Results

Of 809 patients with SS, the majority were White (77.3%), male (57.8%), and had an average age at diagnosis of 66.9 years (SD=13.0). Age at diagnosis was associated with decreased overall survival (HR 0.028; 95% CI, 1.016 – 1.042, P< 0.05). Patients with SS treated at nonacademic facilities had a HR of 0.41 (95% CI, 1.171 – 1.932, P< 0.05) compared to academic facilities. Those with private insurance had improved survival with a HR of -0.83 [95% CI, (-0.241) - (-0.781), P< 0.05] compared to those who were non-insured. The average survival time for patients with SS was found to be 73.1 months. The average survival time for patients treated at academic facilities was 8.8 months longer than those treated at nonacademic facilities (75.0 vs 66.2 months, P< 0.05). Patients with private insurance had higher overall survival compared to government-insured and non-insured patients (100.4 versus 56.9 and 54.2 months, respectively). Age, facility type, and primary payor are significant factors that affect survival in SS. Further studies should address the influence of these factors on treatments received by SS patients to decrease disparity related to care.

Background

This study investigates the effects of patient characteristics on overall survival in Sezary Syndrome (SS), addressing a gap in the current literature. SS is a rare and aggressive form of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). SS is presumed to be related to service exposure, and veterans have a 6-8 times higher incidence of CTCL than the general population. A study investigating the socio-demographic factors at diagnosis on overall survival in SS has yet to be done.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with SS (ICD- 9701/3) between 2004 and 2020 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB), highlighting patient demographics on overall survival in SS (N = 809). Exclusion criteria included missing data. Descriptive statistics were collected for all patients with SS. Overall survival was determined via KaplanMeier test. Multivariate analysis via Cox regression was performed to determine factors leading to decreased survival in SS. All statistical tests were evaluated for a significance of P < 0.05.

Results

Of 809 patients with SS, the majority were White (77.3%), male (57.8%), and had an average age at diagnosis of 66.9 years (SD=13.0). Age at diagnosis was associated with decreased overall survival (HR 0.028; 95% CI, 1.016 – 1.042, P< 0.05). Patients with SS treated at nonacademic facilities had a HR of 0.41 (95% CI, 1.171 – 1.932, P< 0.05) compared to academic facilities. Those with private insurance had improved survival with a HR of -0.83 [95% CI, (-0.241) - (-0.781), P< 0.05] compared to those who were non-insured. The average survival time for patients with SS was found to be 73.1 months. The average survival time for patients treated at academic facilities was 8.8 months longer than those treated at nonacademic facilities (75.0 vs 66.2 months, P< 0.05). Patients with private insurance had higher overall survival compared to government-insured and non-insured patients (100.4 versus 56.9 and 54.2 months, respectively). Age, facility type, and primary payor are significant factors that affect survival in SS. Further studies should address the influence of these factors on treatments received by SS patients to decrease disparity related to care.

Background

This study investigates the effects of patient characteristics on overall survival in Sezary Syndrome (SS), addressing a gap in the current literature. SS is a rare and aggressive form of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). SS is presumed to be related to service exposure, and veterans have a 6-8 times higher incidence of CTCL than the general population. A study investigating the socio-demographic factors at diagnosis on overall survival in SS has yet to be done.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with SS (ICD- 9701/3) between 2004 and 2020 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB), highlighting patient demographics on overall survival in SS (N = 809). Exclusion criteria included missing data. Descriptive statistics were collected for all patients with SS. Overall survival was determined via KaplanMeier test. Multivariate analysis via Cox regression was performed to determine factors leading to decreased survival in SS. All statistical tests were evaluated for a significance of P < 0.05.

Results

Of 809 patients with SS, the majority were White (77.3%), male (57.8%), and had an average age at diagnosis of 66.9 years (SD=13.0). Age at diagnosis was associated with decreased overall survival (HR 0.028; 95% CI, 1.016 – 1.042, P< 0.05). Patients with SS treated at nonacademic facilities had a HR of 0.41 (95% CI, 1.171 – 1.932, P< 0.05) compared to academic facilities. Those with private insurance had improved survival with a HR of -0.83 [95% CI, (-0.241) - (-0.781), P< 0.05] compared to those who were non-insured. The average survival time for patients with SS was found to be 73.1 months. The average survival time for patients treated at academic facilities was 8.8 months longer than those treated at nonacademic facilities (75.0 vs 66.2 months, P< 0.05). Patients with private insurance had higher overall survival compared to government-insured and non-insured patients (100.4 versus 56.9 and 54.2 months, respectively). Age, facility type, and primary payor are significant factors that affect survival in SS. Further studies should address the influence of these factors on treatments received by SS patients to decrease disparity related to care.

Background

Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) is standard triplet induction for fit newly-diagnosed myeloma (NDMM) patients, with response rate (RR)>90%. A 21-day cycle with bortezomib given days 1, 4, 8, and 11 (2x/w) is standard. However, up to 80% of patients develop neuropathy. Weekly bortezomib dosing (1x/w), subcutaneous route, and 28- to 35-day cycle length may optimize tolerance. We present an effectiveness and toxicity analysis of Veterans who received RVD with 1x/w and 2x/w bortezomib for NDMM.

Methods

The VA Corporate Data Warehouse identified 1499 Veterans with NDMM given RVD ≤42 days of treatment start. 840 Veterans were grouped for initial analysis based on criteria: 1) lenalidomide and ≥ 3 bortezomib doses during cycle 1; 2) ≥6 mean days between bortezomib treatments=1x/w); and 3) number of lenalidomide days informed cycle length (21d, 28d, or 35d; default 7-day rest). Investigators reviewed algorithm results to finalize group assignments. Endpoints included depth of response, time to next treatment (TTNT), overall survival (OS), and neuropathy. Neuropathy was defined as use of neuropathy medications and neuropathy ICD-10 codes.

Results

Our algorithm correctly assigned 82% of 840 cycle 1 RVD schedules. The largest groups were 21d 1x/w (n=291), 21d 2x/w (n=193), 28d 1x/w (n=188), and 28d 2x/w (n=82). Median age was 68.3; 53% were non-Hispanic White. Demographics and ISS stage of groups were similar. 30% underwent autologous transplant. Tolerability. Median number of bortezomib doses ranged from 22.5-25.5 (p=0.57). Neuropathy favored 1x/w, 17.7 vs 30.2% (p=0.0001) and was highest (34.7%) in 21d 2x/w. Effectiveness. Response was assessable for 28% of patients. RR (72%, p=0.68) and median TTNT (19.3 months, p=0.20) were similar, including 1x/w vs 2x/w comparison (p=0.79). 21d regimens optimized TTNT (21.4 vs 13.9 months, p=0.045) and trended to better OS (73 vs 65 months, p=0.06).

Conclusions

1x/w RVD preserved effectiveness compared to “standard” RVD in a large Veteran cohort. 1x/w reduced neuropathy incidence. 28d regimens demonstrated inferior longer-term outcomes. Certain endpoints, such as RR and neuropathy, appear underestimated due to data source limitations. 21d 1x/w RVD optimizes effectiveness, tolerability, and administration and should be considered for broader utilization in Veterans with NDMM.

Background

Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) is standard triplet induction for fit newly-diagnosed myeloma (NDMM) patients, with response rate (RR)>90%. A 21-day cycle with bortezomib given days 1, 4, 8, and 11 (2x/w) is standard. However, up to 80% of patients develop neuropathy. Weekly bortezomib dosing (1x/w), subcutaneous route, and 28- to 35-day cycle length may optimize tolerance. We present an effectiveness and toxicity analysis of Veterans who received RVD with 1x/w and 2x/w bortezomib for NDMM.

Methods

The VA Corporate Data Warehouse identified 1499 Veterans with NDMM given RVD ≤42 days of treatment start. 840 Veterans were grouped for initial analysis based on criteria: 1) lenalidomide and ≥ 3 bortezomib doses during cycle 1; 2) ≥6 mean days between bortezomib treatments=1x/w); and 3) number of lenalidomide days informed cycle length (21d, 28d, or 35d; default 7-day rest). Investigators reviewed algorithm results to finalize group assignments. Endpoints included depth of response, time to next treatment (TTNT), overall survival (OS), and neuropathy. Neuropathy was defined as use of neuropathy medications and neuropathy ICD-10 codes.

Results

Our algorithm correctly assigned 82% of 840 cycle 1 RVD schedules. The largest groups were 21d 1x/w (n=291), 21d 2x/w (n=193), 28d 1x/w (n=188), and 28d 2x/w (n=82). Median age was 68.3; 53% were non-Hispanic White. Demographics and ISS stage of groups were similar. 30% underwent autologous transplant. Tolerability. Median number of bortezomib doses ranged from 22.5-25.5 (p=0.57). Neuropathy favored 1x/w, 17.7 vs 30.2% (p=0.0001) and was highest (34.7%) in 21d 2x/w. Effectiveness. Response was assessable for 28% of patients. RR (72%, p=0.68) and median TTNT (19.3 months, p=0.20) were similar, including 1x/w vs 2x/w comparison (p=0.79). 21d regimens optimized TTNT (21.4 vs 13.9 months, p=0.045) and trended to better OS (73 vs 65 months, p=0.06).

Conclusions

1x/w RVD preserved effectiveness compared to “standard” RVD in a large Veteran cohort. 1x/w reduced neuropathy incidence. 28d regimens demonstrated inferior longer-term outcomes. Certain endpoints, such as RR and neuropathy, appear underestimated due to data source limitations. 21d 1x/w RVD optimizes effectiveness, tolerability, and administration and should be considered for broader utilization in Veterans with NDMM.

Background

Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) is standard triplet induction for fit newly-diagnosed myeloma (NDMM) patients, with response rate (RR)>90%. A 21-day cycle with bortezomib given days 1, 4, 8, and 11 (2x/w) is standard. However, up to 80% of patients develop neuropathy. Weekly bortezomib dosing (1x/w), subcutaneous route, and 28- to 35-day cycle length may optimize tolerance. We present an effectiveness and toxicity analysis of Veterans who received RVD with 1x/w and 2x/w bortezomib for NDMM.

Methods

The VA Corporate Data Warehouse identified 1499 Veterans with NDMM given RVD ≤42 days of treatment start. 840 Veterans were grouped for initial analysis based on criteria: 1) lenalidomide and ≥ 3 bortezomib doses during cycle 1; 2) ≥6 mean days between bortezomib treatments=1x/w); and 3) number of lenalidomide days informed cycle length (21d, 28d, or 35d; default 7-day rest). Investigators reviewed algorithm results to finalize group assignments. Endpoints included depth of response, time to next treatment (TTNT), overall survival (OS), and neuropathy. Neuropathy was defined as use of neuropathy medications and neuropathy ICD-10 codes.

Results

Our algorithm correctly assigned 82% of 840 cycle 1 RVD schedules. The largest groups were 21d 1x/w (n=291), 21d 2x/w (n=193), 28d 1x/w (n=188), and 28d 2x/w (n=82). Median age was 68.3; 53% were non-Hispanic White. Demographics and ISS stage of groups were similar. 30% underwent autologous transplant. Tolerability. Median number of bortezomib doses ranged from 22.5-25.5 (p=0.57). Neuropathy favored 1x/w, 17.7 vs 30.2% (p=0.0001) and was highest (34.7%) in 21d 2x/w. Effectiveness. Response was assessable for 28% of patients. RR (72%, p=0.68) and median TTNT (19.3 months, p=0.20) were similar, including 1x/w vs 2x/w comparison (p=0.79). 21d regimens optimized TTNT (21.4 vs 13.9 months, p=0.045) and trended to better OS (73 vs 65 months, p=0.06).

Conclusions

1x/w RVD preserved effectiveness compared to “standard” RVD in a large Veteran cohort. 1x/w reduced neuropathy incidence. 28d regimens demonstrated inferior longer-term outcomes. Certain endpoints, such as RR and neuropathy, appear underestimated due to data source limitations. 21d 1x/w RVD optimizes effectiveness, tolerability, and administration and should be considered for broader utilization in Veterans with NDMM.