JCO Oncology Practice Podcast

Dr. Fumiko Chino talks with Dr. Evan Garrad, the first author of the JCO OP manuscript, "Artificial Intelligence Among US Hematology-Oncology Fellows: A Multicenter Survey of Education, Attitudes, and Clinical Use," which was simultaneously published with his oral presentation at ASCO 2026. LINK TO FULL TRANSCRIPT

An estimated 85k adolescents and young adults (AYAs) between the ages of 15 to 39 will be diagnosed with cancer in the United States this year. AYAs with advanced cancer face care gaps for psychosocial support and communication. A recent paper published in JCO OP titled "Promoting Resilience in Stress Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Novel Psychosocial Intervention for Adolescents and Young Adults With Advanced Cancer" detailed the findings of a clinical trial testing a skills-based coaching program with the goal of decreasing psychological distress and improving quality of life. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Fumiko Chino: Hello, and welcome to Put into Practice, the podcast from the JCO Oncology Practice. I'm Dr. Fumiko Chino, an Assistant Professor in Radiation Oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center, with a research focus on access, affordability, and equity. An estimated 85,000 adolescents and young adults (AYAs) between the age of 15 and 39 will be diagnosed with cancer in the United States this year. Although this accounts for less than 5% of all cancers, AYA cancers have been rising over the past decade, and AYA survivors have unique survivorship needs, including physical, emotional, social, and spiritual communication. A recent paper published in JCO OP titled "Promoting Resilience and Stress Management: A Randomized Control Trial of a Novel Psychosocial Intervention for Adolescents and Young Adults With Advanced Cancer" detailed the findings of a clinical trial testing a skills-based coaching program with the goal of decreasing psychological distress and improving quality of life. I'm excited to welcome two guests to the podcast today to discuss optimal care for the AYA population. Dr. Abby Rosenberg, MD, MS, MA, is the Chief of Pediatric Palliative Care at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Director of Pediatric Palliative Care, Boston Children's Hospital, and an Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School. She is also the current designated pediatric oncologist at the ASCO Board of Directors. Both Dr. Rosenberg's clinical approach and her research focus on helping patients facing critical illness live their best lives and for as long as possible. Specifically, she and her team develop programs that help patients and families build resilience and optimize quality of life. She is the first author of the published trial we will be discussing today. Dr. Lauren Ghazal, PhD, FNP-BC, is an Assistant Professor and researcher at the University of Rochester School of Nursing. As an AYA cancer survivor herself and a family nurse practitioner with a background in economics, she brings a unique perspective to cancer care delivery research. Dr. Ghazal completed a postdoctoral research fellowship at the University of Michigan on an NCI T32 in cancer care delivery after earning her PhD at NYU, where her dissertation focused on work-related challenges and financial toxicity in AYAs. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and we've already agreed to go by our first names for the podcast today. Abby and Lauren, it's wonderful to speak to you. Dr. Abby Rosenberg: Thanks for having us. We're so happy to be here. Dr. Lauren Ghazal: Yes, thank you for having us. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Our specific topic today is: improving outcomes for the AYA population. Abby, do you mind starting us off by sharing some background on this trial and giving us a brief overview of the study and your findings? Dr. Abby Rosenberg: Yeah, I'm happy to. And thanks again for having us. You mentioned, Fumiko, the prevalence and problems that adolescents and young adults with cancer often have. One of the things that I like to point out is we know that if you're diagnosed with cancer as an adolescent or a young adult, you have higher risks of poor psychosocial outcomes forevermore compared to younger pediatric or older adult counterparts. With that in mind, we have been thinking for a long time about: how do you promote well-being and resilience in this particular population? One of the things that we also know is that adolescents and young adults with advanced cancers, those that have recurred or progressed through initial treatment, not only tend to be less engaged with a lot of the really important conversations that we have in healthcare, but later on, especially if their time becomes short, they tend to regret that disengagement. And so what we had done in our previous research is we had created this program called PRISM, and that stands for Promoting Resilience in Stress Management. And PRISM was a peer-to-peer–based coaching program designed by our team in partnership with AYAs for AYAs, specifically to help them navigate these stressors. And what it does is it leverages simple, reproducible, evidence-based what we call 'resilience skills'. And these are things like skills in stress management, setting goals, cognitive reframing - that's how you appraise a situation - and then benefit-finding or meaning-making. And our prior randomized trial suggested that PRISM compared to usual care amongst adolescents and young adults with early-diagnosed cancers improved their resilience and their hope and their quality of life, and it reduced their psychological distress. In those studies, teens and young adults who had advanced cancers said, "Hey, you know what? These skills really helped me navigate this first experience, and now that my cancer has come back, what I really need help with is applying these skills to these really hard conversations I'm having with my medical team and with my family." So the current study that you are talking about today really tried to ask the question of: could we combine our previous PRISM projects with some integrated advanced care planning communication skills for AYAs with advanced cancer? And if we did that, could we improve some of these important outcomes? And so what we did was we randomly assigned 144 adolescents and young adults with advanced cancer to either PRISM or usual care. In this study, PRISM included those same four skills - stress management, goal setting, cognitive reframing, and benefit-finding - plus an optional component where they could engage in formal advanced care planning skills. And then we saw what we got at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Amongst the 144 people who enrolled, their average age was about 16 and a half years, and they were half-half male and female. Within the first 3 months, the people who got usual care, not PRISM, did better with their quality of life. It's not what you want to see as an investigator. But the people who got PRISM did better with their hope and their resilience skills. And then I think what was more important is over time, the improvements in the usual care arm, they weren't sustained. And in fact, the people who got usual care instead of PRISM tended to kind of bounce all over the place with their psychosocial well-being. There was really no predictability, and on average, they did worse over time. But on the other hand, people who got PRISM not only immediately improved that resilience and hope at 3 months, but then they had sustained and continuous improvements in quality of life and distress. They were more engaged in things like advanced care planning and conversations with their doctors and nurses over time. And the overall suggestion of those data is that building skills and resilience and hope early on can lead to lasting improvements in overall well-being. Dr. Fumiko Chino: That is a fantastic overview of the trial, and again, I love this concept of building from within, you know, what started with a peer-to-peer type program and realizing that these skills are so helpful to people going through any kind of critical illness. Now, Lauren, I'd love your take on why this type of study is important, why interventions in the AYA space can be so challenging to develop and test. So, for example, in this trial, one-third of the intervention group discontinued sessions because they were either too busy or too sick. Dr. Lauren Ghazal: Yes. And thanks again, Fumiko, for the introduction and for having me here. As you mentioned in my introduction, I'm an AYA. I was diagnosed at 26 with stage 2 Hodgkin lymphoma. And as many of us AYAs in the advocacy space, as you know, at the time of diagnosis, I was doing far more important things in my life than wanting to worry about and deal with cancer. And so when cancer came very dramatically into my life, I had to tackle it with whatever, as Abby said, resiliency skills and resilient skills that I had built up to that point. I was 26, so 10 years over the median age of Abby's study, but that's what I was left with at the time to deal with my diagnosis and my survivorship. So I was also working as a family nurse practitioner in primary care, and I was also in my first year of a PhD program in nursing research. So I had caught that nursing bug to be a researcher really early on in my clinical training. And I remember seeing this paper come across my inbox a few months back, and I was so excited to read this publication. As an AYA, I'm always like selfishly so grateful to see work being done in studying resiliency and stress management and overall quality of life because I feel like I'm constantly kind of suffering with that and really trying to understand kind of how do I separate my AYA advocacy role and my personal experience in this work, and then also as a researcher in the AYA world. And so, yes, very excited to see this study. And we all know AYAs face these unique challenges, challenges that include high symptom burden, developmental transitions, these competing life demands that can make participation in research particularly complex. I know firsthand how overwhelming having a cancer diagnosis can be during this life stage that's already filled with so much uncertainty. And so when you're straddling again this independence-dependence as an AYA, for me again, just beginning graduate training and trying to make sense of who I was, who I was becoming, all of these competing demands that can complicate not only how we experience care, but how we also engage with research. So I think when I think about Abby's study too and something that you had mentioned in the overview is really like the time investment of putting up this hard work up front of building the resilient skills that maybe you didn't see it within the first 3 months compared to usual care, but later on in the 6- and 12-month time point, that's so critical to promoting resilience and sustaining that resilience not only throughout the rest of your survivorship and navigating, you know, your healthcare engagement, but also your overall life skills too. And so I don't think you even know this, Fumiko, for as well as you know me, that I actually participated in another clinical trial on resilience and stress management. And this was 5 years ago now. And I actually pulled out the toolkit that we were given really early on this year when there was a lot of other stressor trigger points in my life, and I did one of the activities, and it was really just on targeting the trigger points, the stress points, and then trying to kind of address what I had control over in that moment, right, what was out of my control. And so that's 5 years. We know that we have not a lot of funding available that we can study AYAs for 5 years in these clinical trials, but they're skills that are really that you're using for the rest of your life. And so being able to capture that, I think is just so important. That was one thing I wanted to take home here was that I used those skills that I learned 6, 7 years out from that trial. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I was going to ask you a follow-up question to see if anyone had ever actually tried to develop coping skills for you as part of your standard of care, and it sounds like as part of a clinical trial, actually, you did get some of those, that development of those skills, and they're still paying off for you 5 years later, which is phenomenal. And I think we'll see potentially people on Abby's trial still benefiting in survivorship, be that as it may, in years if they get to that point, which is, you know, again, the whole goal of trying to think about resilience and building hope and sustainable interventions. Now, this study was really focused on patients in the early adolescent and young adult ages 12 to 24 on the trial and was recruited from the children's hospital pediatric cancer departments. Abby, as part of your clinical experience as a pediatrician, what are the potential differences in the cares and needs of the younger versus the older AYA population? From my own experience, I can give you an example. I remember when my husband was diagnosed with cancer in his 20s, one of his team members referred to him as, quote unquote, "basically a pediatric case." It kind of hit me sideways at the time, but in hindsight, I can actually understand how being treated in the pediatrics department could have had some unique advantages, especially with wrap-around services at the end of life. Dr. Abby Rosenberg: I so appreciate that question, Fumiko, and I feel like I first want to apologize on behalf of all oncologists for the way that your husband received or heard those words because I think the beauty of AYA oncology is that we really want to find the right place for people. And the way we balance it, before I answer your question, is I think there's two domains that people think about. One is what kind of cancer does this person have? Because there are a lot of, quote, "pediatric" types of tumors, and those types of biologies, those types of cancers are things that adult medical oncologists just may be less familiar with and we pediatric oncologists know how to treat really well and vice versa. So like if a young woman came into my clinic with breast cancer, I would be like, "Yeah, we don't do that in peds, you need to go across the street to the medical oncologists." If the goal is, we need the best oncologist to treat and hopefully cure you of your disease, then that's decision point number one. Decision point two is: what is the developmental and psychosocial place that you are in in your life? And so similarly, you know, AYAs are defined by the National Cancer Institute from people between the ages of 15 and 39, and that is an enormous developmental age spectrum. And my 15-year-old patients are really different than the 35-year-olds across the street. And so what we think about in this sort of triaging of where people should go is are you still living with your parents? Who are your decision-makers? In pediatrics, we are inherently family-centered. Like, we do not ever make decisions in isolation with patients, at least I should say very rarely. It's always understanding that they are in a dynamic of relationships and other caregivers and loved ones. And that's somewhat different in adult cancer centers where the patient can have a lot of private conversations with or without their caregivers. The other thing we think about a lot in pediatrics is people are still developing in their autonomy, their identity, many people are still on their parents' insurance, many people need caregiving support full-time, and it's different from if you're an independent young adult. And so we sort of think about how do we provide all of the services that you need. You mentioned wrap-around services. So now I get to stand on my 'pediatrics is better' soapbox. We in pediatrics practice these holistic ways of approaching healthcare in general. So in most pediatric places, every person with cancer has an assigned social worker. They often have access to things like psychology and child life and music therapy and art therapy and school rehab, and there's schools embedded within the children's hospitals and all the things that you can think of to try to maintain your life track as best we can while you're going through all the stressors of cancer. As you said, I'm a pediatrician, I'm a pediatric oncologist. My focus has been in AYA oncology, but in the pediatric space, and we thought about, should we also enroll people who are in the adult medical oncology centers, and we realized that that quote "usual care" would be so different between groups depending on where people were receiving their oncology care that we just decided for the rigor of the science to focus on pediatric centers. And I think what's kind of cool about that is if you imagine usual care in pediatrics is pretty high bar, like you get a lot. If PRISM is still better, that says something about what we are missing even in pediatric oncology care, let alone what the rest of the oncology treatment centers might be missing too. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Absolutely, absolutely. And again, not to dog on adult cancer services or to speak the benefits of pediatrics, but I definitely see that gap certainly in my own clinic and from my own lived experience. Now, Lauren, I have certainly heard from other AYA survivors in their 20s and 30s that they felt that sort of they were between worlds during their cancer treatment and just survivorship. Many have to maybe even move back home or they might need family caregivers during their treatment, and this can cause really a disconnect in identity that can also add to stress and anxiety. In your opinion, how can we be supporting AYA survivors' psychosocial needs better? Dr. Lauren Ghazal: Yeah, that's the million-dollar question. And I want to preface this by saying that it's so difficult to speak on behalf of all AYAs, and I can never do that. And I say this a lot, but we know this, the NCI, ACS knows, the one-size-fits-all for survivorship model does not work, especially for AYAs, and Abby alluded to this very wide age range that we see in AYA cancer survivorship. I think that there are really great programs across the nation that standardize AYA formal programs that are being designed, that are being implemented across the many different areas of AYA survivorship that Abby had mentioned including financial navigation, getting financial services, psychosocial support, embedding psych and mental health therapy into those survivorship programs as well because those are the biggest barriers for AYAs is being able to access mental health providers that are trained in seeing AYA patients. And for many AYAs, I've been hearing more and more from friends of mine that they had to transition to a new mental health provider, which we know is so difficult during that period of diagnosis. I would also say too that there's a lot of research being done at UNC in their, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, in their AYA program in implementing their AYA Needs Assessment or their Bridge that Dr. Emily Haines has developed, and I know they're undergoing a bit more testing too in shortening that. But when I look at that too and I see all of the different areas that AYAs endorse as these top unmet needs and then really being able to screen and identify in one place that, "Okay, there's more support needed here." That's when then there can be tailoring done. But to actually centrally funnel in through a standardized assessment that can be implemented, and then also recognizing that not every cancer program and AYA program across the nation has every answer and every resource available. And so being able to say, "Okay, we have these formal connections not only with a local AYA organization but also nationally through incredible organizations like Triage Cancer and Cancer and Careers or through the Cancer Support Network." Those have been areas that I've, you know, have really tried to push for is really strengthening referrals to address the health-related social needs of AYAs more formally through community-based organizations and then also streamlining a needs assessment for AYAs. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I often think about the challenge for someone who potentially could travel or maybe should travel to receive specialty care at these large centers that have so many resources versus staying closer to home where they have more support, where it is a lower cost, right? And trying to figure out what's really worth it. And I think you brought up a really good point, which is that there are national community-based services that are available to everyone. You don't have to go to an MD Anderson or a Dana-Farber to receive them necessarily as long as people are properly plugged into those services. Now, this trial enrolled AYA patients with advanced cancer. I know Abby, you already spoke to this a little bit, but one of the goals was to increase AYA engagement in goals of care and formal advanced care planning. And I was saddened but not shocked to see that less than 10% of patients in either arm had formal documentation of advance directives in their chart. This certainly aligns with my own experience, not to make this all about me, but, you know, I had a very traumatic conversation in a hallway outside of an ICU about intubation for my husband. And this paper really puts it quite eloquently, stating that even though the intervention may have, quote unquote, "enabled AYAs to engage", it did not help oncologists do the same necessarily. Abby, I would appreciate your insight into the barriers that oncologists may have about starting some of these hard conversations, particularly with younger patients. Dr. Abby Rosenberg: First of all, again, I'm going to apologize on behalf of all healthcare providers for the non-ideal ways that you guys were hearing serious news. Now I'm going to put on my oncologist hat and say, there's a couple things that I think explain these data. The first is, we oncologists love our patients. We want to fix this problem. We want to cure the cancer. We have the same hopes and prayers that so many of our patients and families do, and so I think there is this real sense of failure when we see the beginnings of treatment not working, and I think oncologists and patients will align together to keep fighting as long as they can. What we found in this study, we measured engagement in a lot of different ways and we saw that AYAs who received the PRISM program were more likely to directly engage in conversations that we would extract from like medical records, like sort of text notes about what conversations were happening in the room. They were more likely to ask direct questions and respond directly to palliative care consultation when palliative care teams were having sort of really hard conversations about prognosis and goals of care and what matters to you given what is happening. But the next step, as you're describing, is the formal documentation of something like an advance directive and the formal documentation of, "What would I want if I can't speak for myself?" So there's a couple sort of last things that I'll say that I think explain why we didn't see any difference in uptake of those advance directives in our study. One is, we had younger people. So 16 and a half, those young folks don't complete their own advance directives. They can complete a document called "Voicing My CHOiCES" which talks about what they would hypothetically want, but that is another sort of formal documentation that I think a lot of people might have felt like, "I'm not going to engage in that," or the oncologist wouldn't have offered it because they were talking to the parents or it was too scary or too hard for these young people who were still not of the age of majority making their own decisions, number one. And number two is, I think we really try to avoid, not for the right reasons, but I think oncologists in general with well intentions try to avoid those hard conversations because they worry that we will cause harm, we will cause pain, we will, quote, "take away hope". And this is where I and probably many other folks in palliative and supportive oncology struggle because we know that patients and families have those things on their minds. We know that inviting the conversation doesn't in fact take away their hope, it helps them really make more precise the things that they are hoping for and enable them to achieve the goals that they can realistically achieve, especially if time is short. And I think in this study, maybe the first obstacle was: will AYAs engage? We found the answer is 'yes'. And so now the second obstacle is, how do we enable the oncologists to reciprocate and to ask the hard questions? And maybe it's partnering with psychosocial clinicians and palliative care. Maybe it's just a little bit of risk-taking on the part of the oncologists to be curious and say, "Hey, what's on your mind? Many people like you think about these things. I'm happy to talk about them with you too. What do you think?" And then if an AYA says, "Hell no, I don't want to talk about that," fine, we can be like, "Great." But at least we're providing a doorway for them to walk through if they want. Dr. Fumiko Chino: It reminds me of what Dr. Tarlise Townsend- she gave this profound speech at ASCO Quality from a couple of years ago, and she said she had to kind of do her own death work to kind of come to terms with these issues and really think for herself what she was kind of willing to put up with and for what kind of end point. Lauren, do you have anything to add? Dr. Lauren Ghazal: Oh yeah, I just had a follow-up question for Abby too in that you mentioned, you know, you were able to answer, "Will they, will AYAs engage?" and 'yes'. Were you able to kind of decipher if they can engage with other healthcare professionals or other healthcare team members? Is there more of that engagement happening, let's say, with the infusion nurse or with the nurse practitioner? Dr. Abby Rosenberg: Great question. Just based on the way we measured this, we did not pick that up, and that's one of the limitations of the project is that we didn't expressly ask people, "Who is your person, who are you talking to about this?" Because what we were trying to do is sort of see organically if it came up without prompting. But I think you're right, Lauren, what we know about the experiences of folks with advanced cancers, and this is true certainly in pediatric and AYA oncology, is that it's not necessarily the oncologist who is the trusted person. It could be the infusion nurse. Often, it's the bedside nurse when folks are in the hospital for long periods of time. It could be the chaplain. It could be a whole host of people, the social workers. And I think what is really important is recognizing two things. One is, we need to honor the interprofessional team and recognize who needs to be in the room for this young person to engage in these really hard conversations And then secondly: how do we still empower the oncologists? And I say that not because I'm elevating the oncologist's role as much as I'm saying the oncologists are the ones who are offering treatment choices and guiding the care plan, and if they aren't part of the conversation, if they aren't hearing an AYA say, "You know what, actually what's most important to me is to be home," then we oncologists are potentially misguiding people. And so how we find that balance, we have to figure out how to integrate all of the players and important people into the room. Dr. Fumiko Chino: That dovetails so nicely to my next question for Lauren because I know that you had written in The Cancer Letter a couple of years ago that - and this is a direct quote - "Our current status quo is not working. It leaves patients without the resources or the knowledge to be fully engaged. We need more research directed at effective provider-patient communication and tailored interventions that engage the full care team to address each patient's unique needs and experiences." Now, having said that, what would you like to see next in the context of either research or practice to advance this very necessary communication and patient-centered care? Dr. Lauren Ghazal: Yes, and I had an incredible co-author for that piece as well. It was Fumiko, Abby. Dr. Fumiko Chino: That's awesome. Dr. Lauren Ghazal: So she's set me up very well for this. Thank you for referencing that piece again, Fumiko. You know, it's really great that Abby had touched on and everything that she's said so far is kind of what I had jotted down and brainstormed in preparation for this and what I'd like to see next, I think coming from an AYA in really this shift from like just simply documenting communication or communication breakdowns to actively building, testing, implementing solutions and that we know that will center AYAs and their care partners, whomever it is, throughout their experience with cancer. And really taking the time too to note that it's especially important for marginalized and underrepresented groups like queer and LGBTQ AYAs with cancer who we know face additional challenges throughout cancer survivorship. And so, I'm speaking to the choir here, but we trained as a nurse and as a nurse practitioner, communication in our training, you know, is treated as a soft skill rather than like a clinical competency that really we know has direct implications for outcomes for AYAs that include adherence, that include quality of life, include trust with our healthcare providers and in our healthcare system. And so I always advocate for more interventions that are co-designed with AYAs and their care partners and their communities that really account for structural barriers, identity-based barriers to communication, and that can extend beyond this dyad of just provider and patient but to include our broader healthcare team that include navigators, social workers, nurses, child life specialists even. And I had another piece that I had written around trauma-informed care for LGBTQ cancer survivors, but we know that embedding even tailored communication strategies into routine care improves care and care delivery, like trauma-informed care practices. And so I also always advocate for proactive conversations around the taboo topics of AYA care that we know things like fertility and family-building, finances, and employment, as you know so well, Fumiko, things about cost-of-care conversations, but all areas where AYAs can see, can often feel unseen or silenced or that it's not important right now because their goal is just to survive throughout this. Yeah, so that's a little bit about kind of my take on communication. Dr. Abby Rosenberg: Can I just jump in and say, I mean, I think, Lauren, the other thing to amplify from what you just said is if we don't model that it's okay to talk about these subjects, most patients in particular follow the lead of the clinical team. And so if it's not brought up, then the patient will appropriately assume that's not what I'm supposed to talk to my healthcare team about. But if we introduce all these topics and normalize them as part of a holistic care approach, then we're more likely to have these full, rich conversations that need to happen. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Absolutely, communication is not a soft skill. It is an essential skill for patient care. And again, this idea that the oncologist is the end-all be-all for communication is also, I think, deeply flawed, and thinking about the full team as being a team that actually envelops the patient in care is also essential. All right. Well, wrapping up, do you have any last thoughts today, anything that we missed, anything that you want to highlight again in terms of opportunities to reinforce for our listeners from Lauren or Abby? Dr. Abby Rosenberg: When I think about this whole horizon of research and clinical care, to me, I guess I'm taking away two things. One is to really be unafraid, those of us who are at the bedside, in whatever role, to open the door to these pathways of communication about all sorts of scary topics because then we can provide better care. And then the second, I think now, as a resilience researcher, is we can expect and normalize that some of these coping skills can be learned, and the investing in them in an evidence-based way can have these durable impacts in overall patient and family well-being, and so it's worth the investment. Dr. Fumiko Chino: We're worth it. Our patients are worth it. I was just thinking about as a caregiver, how much I wish resilience training and coping skills had been directed at me, selfishly again, I'm sorry, I'm again, this is all about me, apparently. But I do think that that might be one of the next frontiers as well because the caregivers really are part of that team unit that helps envelop the patient in love and care and support. Dr. Abby Rosenberg: Well said. Dr. Lauren Ghazal: I'm snapping for you, Fumiko. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Well, on the exit of the snaps, then, I want to thank you both so much for this wonderful conversation. Many thanks to both Dr. Rosenberg and Dr. Ghazal as well as our listeners for your time. You will find the links to the papers that we discussed in the transcript of this episode. If you value the insights that you hear from the JCO OP Put into Practice podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. I hope that you will join us next month for another Put into Practice episode, and until then, I hope you are staying safe. Dr. Abby Rosenberg: Thanks, everybody. Dr. Lauren Ghazal: Thank you. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Fumiko Chino Employment Company: MD Anderson Cancer Center Consulting or Advisory Role Company: Institute for Value Based Medicine Research Funding Company: Merck Abby R. Rosenberg No Relationships to Disclose Lauren Victoria Ghazal No Relationships to Disclose

Frustrations regarding the costs and difficulties with parking at hospitals is a common concern voiced by patients, families, and healthcare providers. Transportation barriers to receiving cancer care are incredibly common despite what appears to be relatively straightforward solutions. Dr. Chino welcomes two patient-centered health policy experts to discuss this: Dr. Arjun Gupta, MBBS, an Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota; and Dr. Shakira Grant, MBBS, MSCR, the Founder & CEO of CROSS Global Research & Strategy. Transcript Dr. Fumiko Chino: Hello, and welcome to Put Into Practice, the podcast for JCO Oncology Practice. I'm Dr. Fumiko Chino, an assistant professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center with a research focus on access, affordability, and equity. Frustrations regarding the costs and difficulties with parking at hospitals are some of the most common concerns voiced by patients, families, and healthcare providers online. There is nary a topic where you'll find a more unified level of outrage. Transportation barriers to receiving cancer care are incredibly common, despite what appears to be a relatively straightforward solution—to parking costs, at least. To discuss this, I'm excited to welcome two patient-centered health policy experts as guests today. Both have published work in JCO OP about transportation barriers. Dr. Arjun Gupta, MBBS, is an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota. He is a gastrointestinal oncologist, a symptom management enthusiast, and a health services researcher. His research examines cancer care access and delivery, the cost of cancer care, and the hidden burdens imposed on and faced by people with cancer and their caregivers while receiving this care. His 2020 editorial, "Park the Parking," documented parking costs at the top US hospitals as a source of financial toxicity. Dr. Shakira Grant, MBBS, MSCR, is the founder and CEO of CROSS Global Research and Strategy, a boutique consultancy focused on advancing equity-centered strategic solutions to complex healthcare challenges at the local, national, and global levels. She is the former health policy advisor to the US House of Representatives Ways and Means Health Subcommittee. Prior to that, she was an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina. Her qualitative analysis was published earlier this year and is called "Paying to Be a Patient in the Hospital and the Parking Lot: Patient-Caregiver Dyad Perspectives on Health-Related Transportation Access in Multiple Myeloma." Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and we've already agreed to go by our first names for the podcast today. Arjun and Shakira, it's exciting to speak with you today. Dr. Arjun Gupta: Thank you. It's a joy to be here, Fumiko. Dr. Shakira Grant: Thank you so much for having me also. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Our specific topic today is transportation barriers to receiving optimal cancer care. This concern fits within the larger focus of addressing the social determinants of health, with the goal of improving access to high-quality cancer care for all. Research on health-related social risks and needs has proliferated in the last decade, and recent evaluations of food, housing, and transportation insecurity have expanded our knowledge on the barriers that some people face to receive care. Arjun, do you mind starting us off with just a bit of background about why these issues matter for patients? Dr. Arjun Gupta: Sure. So, just some background on social determinants of health. These are non-medical factors that are often at the community level that can have direct impacts on both health and health outcomes. So, these are all the issues that are associated with living and our daily lives: where we live, where we work, do we play, and what we play. All of these issues can, of course, impact what sort of medical conditions one might develop, but also the medical care that one might be able to receive. And we think about someone who does have access to public transportation or does have access to a private vehicle, for example, or someone who is a daily wage earner or an hourly wage earner, or someone who lives next to a toxic wasteland and is exposed to chemicals. So, all of these factors can, of course, influence our health risks. And as one can imagine, all of these social determinants of health can lead to health risks or social risks. And so, my real interest in this topic came about when I was a first-year oncology fellow. So much of our training in residency is on the inpatient side. But when we had our own continuity clinic in oncology during my first year of fellowship is when I realized the importance of parking and transportation for the first time. When a patient who was receiving FOLFOX chemotherapy for colon cancer, I asked them if they wanted to get blood work a couple of days before chemotherapy so that they wouldn't have to wait for the blood work to result on the day of chemotherapy, and they very passionately said, "Oh, of course not. I only want to come in one day because the parking costs $12, and Christmas is coming up, and I need to buy presents for my grandkids." And that really, really struck me. I remember reaching out to you, Fumiko, at that time. We were junior investigators and launching our careers in oncology on what is going on and why is this real. And I think we'd done some work parallelly to highlight how these major cancer centers were charging obscene amounts for parking, which for an individual visit may seem very small, but of course, cumulatively can be large amounts. And also the fact of the nickel-and-diming that comes in for these very, very vulnerable patients and care partners. And my interests in these transportation and parking costs and barriers have evolved since our research group has been working on time toxicity. So, over the last couple of years, this concept of the time burdens of cancer care has evolved. And initially, we were largely focusing on the amount of time spent in medical appointments. So, you go up, and it takes so long. And in qualitative interviews, patients brought up that even for simple blood draws, "I'm actually spending three, four hours out of the home." So, we actually looked at this formally because our oncology discipline didn't believe this data. They kept thinking a blood draw is 10 minutes tops; you just ask a patient to come in. At our cancer center, patients get a radio frequency ID badge when they enter the clinic. This is to track them within the cancer center. So, using that radio frequency ID badge data and the average driving time through their home zip code, we found that actually, even a simple blood draw was taking people more than 3 hours, home to home. And I actually made a couple of residents walk from the parking garage to the entrance of the cancer center and found that it was a median of 7 minutes one way. Now, remember, these are mostly young adults in their 20s, not walking in the Minnesota snow. So, you can imagine someone who's an older adult, at risk of slipping, walking much slower. So, all of this to say, these are major, major issues that patients and care partners face, and I was very excited to read Shakira's work on this topic. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I love how you walked us through the granular of the patient interaction that then drove you to research this type of study because, initially, you were trying to be very patient-centered in your approach, which is, "Let me separate the lab from the visit so we can save you some time." But what they told you was that, "Hey, it actually costs me more money, and it may not actually save me any time." And I think that dovetails really nicely into thinking about the study at hand, the most recent study. And Shakira, your study on transportation barriers really just came out, and it highlights the voice of the patients and the caregivers on the lived experience of cancer treatment. And one patient from your study specifically said that their travel to receive cancer care was not only wear and tear on the cars but wear and tear on the body as well. So that echoes what Arjun just said. And I think that quote really nicely highlights that it's the costs, it's the time, it's the stamina required to navigate the hospital. These all contribute to the burdens that our patients and their families carry. Do you mind, Shakira, giving me a brief overview about why you did this work and what you found? Dr. Shakira Grant: Sure. So, I would say to dovetail on a lot of what Arjun said, this came also what I was seeing firsthand in the clinical practice. And at the time when I was directly involved in patient care, my population was caring for older adults, primarily with multiple myeloma. My background is as a geriatric oncologist, and so by and large, that meant that most of my patients are over the age of 65. But apart from age, they're also battling other things such as disability and other chronic conditions that impact their functional ability. And so, I kept hearing stories over and over, not only from patients, but I recognized there was an integral part that is often overlooked in clinical care, and that is the voice and the role that caregivers play, especially when we're dealing with older adults who may not have the independence to drive a car themselves to get to the cancer center because it might be disability, it might be other chronic conditions that impair their ability to operate a vehicle. And they kept talking about the same issues around accessibility of the parking structures, the time it takes for them to drive from their homes, especially when they're having their chemotherapies or other cancer therapies, and that may impact them by not feeling physically well and then needing to still get to the cancer center to see a physician or to receive additional treatment. And then on top of that, similarly, I heard the concerns about parking because parking was not free at the cancer center for patients. And so, this is an hourly rate, and the longer you're there, you pay more money. And for many of these older adults, they're already on a fixed income, and so it becomes very difficult for them. Even though for someone who's working and has a nice buffer of income, they may be able to readily afford $12 or $15 to pay to park every time you come to the cancer center. But if you're on a fixed income, that becomes more difficult. And so that was one of the real driving reasons behind why I wanted to do this type of research in this particular area. Dr. Fumiko Chino: This work from your team is really an excellent example of patient-centered research and explicitly examining and prioritizing the voice of the patient and the caregiver, their experiences as an avenue to help clinicians and researchers and policymakers understand where care gaps exist and how we can be doing better. And I'd love to hear from each of you why you specifically feel like this type of research is important - I know you've already mentioned some of it - and the range of patient-centered research that you have done in the past or you hope to do in the future. What is the unique knowledge that this research allows us to gain beyond some of the standard research paradigms? Dr. Shakira Grant: I think patient-centered research is really critical, not just in helping us to set the stage as clinicians, as researchers, but it becomes important for policymakers because oftentimes, we hear the stories, and the stories are the things that are most powerful. They speak to the emotional need of people, and that in itself can be very powerful, especially when you're trying to interact with policymakers about why this particular issue is important. It is easier to do that when you have a story, when you can put a face to what is actually happening. So, it doesn't seem as abstract if we're just talking about quantitative data where we're analyzing and putting out a lot of statistics. We're talking about this patient, their caregiver, their lived experience. These are the real barriers. So, I really appreciate doing patient-centered research because it centers the voices, the lived experiences, and that just enriches the experience, and it also gives that emotional and psychological appeal that is sometimes necessary to get the attention of policymakers and other legislators. Dr. Arjun Gupta: Absolutely. And to follow up on that, I think Shakira's point about telling stories is very important, especially these days. We've seen so much misinformation. And I think for me personally, as a researcher, learning how to do mixed-methods work, especially qualitative work, to be able to integrate stories into all of these quantitative data elements that we have is extremely important. To that point, I will say that when starting to research parking costs, the most impactful blog that I read on this topic was about parents whose newborns were in the neonatal ICU or the NICU. And it was such a beautifully written blog, asking someone to imagine their biological child in the neonatal ICU. And if the child had two parents, then each of the parents trying to balance work and coming to the NICU and having to pay parking fees twice a day. And to have to do that day after day and week after week and month after month, I think it's very important to share that part of the story and the horror along with that element of, "Okay, it cost $10 each time." And so, when I think about patient-centered research and how I best integrate my skills and interest, I think about symptom intervention trials. So, how do we make people feel physically better through things like medical cannabis and access through that? And the other big thing is exploring and intervening on the financial toxicity of care, the time toxicity of care, and the logistic toxicity of care. So, Fumiko, you've been such a champion for financial toxicity over the years. And just to go back in history a little bit, before Dr. Zafar coined the term "financial toxicity" 10-15 years ago, being bankrupt from cancer care was just something that happened. It sucks, it happens. But since then, it's been named, it's been shamed, and it's been intervened upon. And that's my hope with the time toxicity field now over the last two, three years. And the latest thing that our group has sort of worked on while studying time toxicity is that it's not just the time outside the home, but it's also all the paperwork and administrative burden that goes along with it. And so, our team is currently trying to provide patients with proactive legal support to actually help with medical debt, insurance denials, things like that. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I like that full scope of the patient experience when thinking about cancer care. And one thing that struck me when I thought about these studies about parking costs is that when we see someone in our clinic, you know, when we open the door and we say, "Hello," they've already had to deal with all of these transportation barriers. They've had to navigate the parking deck and walk over. And so, when we're seeing them, they've already had some amount of small trauma, sometimes large trauma, related to just trying to get in the door. And I think that really nicely encapsulates the fact that there is a larger picture that our patients are experiencing that is not just me talking to my patient and outlining a treatment plan. And one thing I think I heard kind of from both of you is that with these patient stories, you actually get ideas for research that you may not have actually thought of on your own. Again, your patient saying that they couldn't afford Christmas presents is such a compelling anchor for why what we do matters. And when we think about trying to explore things like quality of life or frailty, or the fact that, for example, the cost of a walker may actually be outside of someone's ability to pay, and they can't even afford their durable medical equipment. These are all part of the larger care experience for a lot of our patients. Now, one aspect about this most recent JCO OP study that I particularly loved was the inclusion of the caregiver as an essential member of the healthcare team. Selfishly, perhaps, as a prior cancer caregiver myself, now a cancer widow, I find the caregiver voice to be really underappreciated and understudied. Shakira, do you mind sharing why you felt like this was really important to include caregivers on this study? Dr. Shakira Grant: Sure. So, it came exactly out of the reason that you mentioned. Oftentimes when we think about research, especially within the cancer space, a lot of it is centered on the patient experience. And what I've learned through clinical practice and even working in the health policy space is that cancer is a disease that not only impacts the patient but it impacts the family around them, and that bleeds into financial issues and whether or not someone experiences financial toxicity. Now, especially in the health policy world, we hear a lot about medical debt and thinking about how that then gets passed on to other family members. So, it was critical for me and our team to really think about the caregiver because we saw them as being a central part of the cancer journey or experience. We wanted to capture their voices because so often their voices, their experiences are not taken into consideration. And I think when it's coming to think about something like transportation in particular, it's key to remember that transportation is a core determinant of whether or not people are going to be able to access healthcare. And when you are older and you have disability and you're not able to operate a vehicle, that's one aspect of it. But then there's the financial piece of the transportation, which is paying for costs to uptake your vehicle, insurance costs, parking costs, and then the other costs that happen once you actually reach the cancer center. So, it was important for us to not only understand this from the patient perspective, but we do recognize, especially with older adult caregivers, they too are taking time off from work. That means lost wages potentially for them in order to drive their caregiver to the care recipient to the cancer center. And that can have a downstream impact on them. So, it's important to amplify their voices whenever we are talking about this type of patient-centered, or should I say, patient and caregiver or patient-care partner focused research. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Now, Arjun, I saw that you recently published a piece in JAMA Network Open on time toxicity that similarly had qualitative interviews of patients, caregivers, and actually also clinicians. Can you also speak to the importance of including caregivers in research? Dr. Arjun Gupta: Absolutely. Before that, just I want to acknowledge that my own clinical care has evolved over time. I think I was much more immature earlier. But in my earlier years of clinical practice, it was largely patient-focused. And over time, I saw firsthand the importance of having an engaged care partner if I wanted the patient to do well. So, if our primary allegiance is to the patient, I initially used to look at it as, "I need the care partner to be on my side so that if we say the neutrophil count is 0.1 and we need to come to the emergency department, we need the care partner to be able to drive the patient." But over time, as I matured, the care partner became a distinct human being for me. And someone put it very beautifully that the care partner's suffering, unfortunately, often lives on even after the patient's death. And in my clinical space, which is often advanced GI cancers, that's not uncommon when the median survival for the patient may be one year or so on average. And so that's where this was motivated from. And when looking at time burdens faced by patients and their loved ones, a couple of themes came up prominently. Patients often brought up themselves that, "You know, my time is precious and so much of it is used up, but it's really my loved one who's suffering." They referred to their loved one's time loss as collateral damage. They often described it as, "I am the ball that's not allowed to drop." So, my care partner is juggling four different balls, and I'm the only one that's not allowed to drop. So, all of my care partner's balls are dropping. And one more point I'd like to raise is we often think about a care partner in the singular. So, there's an index or a main care partner. But one of the other interesting things was how often the entire network of friends and family around that patient and the index care partner were affected, which was likened to this domino effect or a rippling effect. And so, for all of our work, I think if we're talking about the patient, I think it's absolutely unfair and not applicable if we don't consider the care partner alongside patients. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I love what each of you have highlighted: that this is an evolving paradigm of broadening the scope of what we need to focus on. And it kind of shocks me that this is a new concept, that suddenly, "Oh my gosh, the caregiver and the caregiver team actually matter." It's sort of like how we thought of quality of life as, "Oh my gosh, suddenly quality of life matters." It used to be just, "Oh, well, you're alive, so good luck with that," or "Survivorship matters." And so again, part of evolving research to be better is to really think about the full picture for our patients, and that includes quality of life and care teams and survivorship and end-of-life care. Now, switching gears a little bit, Shakira, I know you're coming directly off of time within the federal government, working on health policy in the House Ways and Means Committee. Can you briefly speak to your experiences in DC and your work trying to bring some of these issues to the eyes and ears of legislators and how to prioritize national solutions to the affordability healthcare crisis? Dr. Shakira Grant: Sure. So, in DC, my work on Ways and Means under our jurisdiction largely focused on Medicare. And with Medicare being one of the largest federal insurers, with just over 66 million, I believe, as of 2024, enrolled in Medicare plans, it really brought to light a lot of the complexities at play when it comes to thinking about the issues that the older adult population and those who qualify for Medicare based on disability status could face. And so that ran the range from thinking about health equity in everything that we did, which broadly encompasses thinking about social determinants of health such as transportation, as we're discussing, to making drugs more affordable for our older adults, as well as thinking about how do we safely bring innovative technologies and new therapies to the older adult population or Medicare beneficiary space, while ensuring that we are able to be focused on containing costs as much as possible - so, thinking about financial payment models and reimbursement. When it comes to raising these issues, I would say from my experience in DC, I believe that regardless of which side of the aisle you sit, the health of the American people is always at the forefront of everyone, of every legislator. There's always ways to think about how do we improve the health of our communities, of the people that they are elected to serve. The way to do that, however, may look different depending on which side of the aisle you sit on. But I would say efforts that could be done that will help in this space are through the advocacy, especially through the work that ASCO continues to do, especially as it relates to drug pricing and addressing the drug shortages, raising issues such as affordability, healthcare access. Those voices together are really powerful and appeal to the broader legislative landscape to understand why this is so important, especially for your patient populations. The other aspect of this is also related to just thinking about future changes as it relates to the current political climate and a lot of the federal actions that have been taken. I think overall, there still needs to be a push to make healthcare a lot more affordable. In addition to addressing the affordability issues of healthcare, there's also the access issues and ensuring that the 21 million people who have sought health insurance through the marketplace, that they continue to be protected and that they can still continue to have access to health insurance. And then more recently, we've seen a lot of discussion around what is happening with Medicaid, and it would be remiss of me not to mention this because of the proposed $880 billion (with a B) in cuts that is proposed to this program. And so Medicaid is a key pillar. It provides insurance for those who are oftentimes the most vulnerable. It is one of the federal programs that actually addresses social determinants of health such as transportation by actually providing and covering transportation for its beneficiaries, as well as addressing other things such as food insecurity, housing insecurity. And so it's really critical when you think about framing social determinants of health, framing access to care, to think about Medicaid especially and proposed cuts and what that would mean for the most vulnerable among us in terms of being able to access the care that they need, in addition to the other programs that I mentioned. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Now, Arjun, I know with some concerns about federal cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, there's been some idea that maybe there's a shift of focus towards state, institutional, other organizational commitments to try to fill the gap that maybe federal dollars are departing from. Do you have any thoughts about what we should be doing within our clinics, within our institutions, within our societies? Dr. Arjun Gupta: Yes, I think just speaking at an individual clinician or health system level, especially as it pertains to transportation and parking specifically. So, what can I or we do in clinic tomorrow? We've actually been doing some qualitative interviews on this, on how to make people's life easier. And some of the things that patients and care partners have said are actually very, very simple. One of the first things is, "I wish my oncology care team was honest with me. We know you're well-intentioned. I know you're working in a broken system. But I was told, 'Oh, it's a quick infusion,' and then I was set up for a three-hour infusion, and then it ended up taking five hours. And I understand that you're all working hard, but just tell us if it's going to be five hours. And I can then plan my day and arrange childcare and things like that." And so, I just think being honest and vulnerable with our patients is super duper important. The other thing is things like, "Do we really need to make the patient, plus minus their care partner, come in on a given day?" So, trying to coordinate care better. And one of the more specific solutions for that is people have suggested having a designated care coordinator or scheduler with them, a one-stop shop for scheduling, which cuts down so much of this time that's spent scheduling but also avoiding extra visits. So, while these longer-term policy issues are implemented and leveraged, I think there's things we can do every day. Is that CT scan, does it need to be done, or can it be on the same day? These can make massive, massive differences for our patients. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Shakira, any last thoughts as we wrap up this podcast? Dr. Shakira Grant: I just wanted to add to that because one of the key things I would sum up our study in showing is that, again, transportation is a core determinant of whether people are able to access healthcare. And we found, especially that older patients, those with disabilities, low income, and living in remote areas, these are the people who are facing the most significant challenges when it comes to accessing care because of transportation. And so, when you think about interventions, an approach could be, rather than thinking about population-level approaches that incorporate everyone, rather, it may be thinking about who are the high-risk groups amongst the people that are seen within your respective healthcare system, and then targeting interventions at the individual level as well as the healthcare system level, and then building up to thinking about community-level interventions such as rideshares, investing and appealing to policymakers. But I would say we often think about policy changes as needed to really make a difference, but it really starts at the individual level, and you can then use that to build up to the policy because in order to develop a really great policy, it takes several years, sometimes up to a decade or more. And in the meantime, what we can be doing as clinicians, researchers, consultants, are focusing on the people within our immediate ecosystem and seeing how we can build strategic partnerships to address the issues that they're facing at those individual, interpersonal, healthcare system levels, and then leveraging that to build up robust policies. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I love it. It's this idea of not losing the forest for the trees, but also taking the time and care for each individual patient in front of us. And it's a dual goal. Arjun, any last thoughts from you? Dr. Arjun Gupta: Just, I read a very interesting quote which I love. Someone said - I haven't found who said this, but they're clearly very smart - they said that, "With all of this AI and stuff, the biggest technological advance will still be more time with the patient." And I think in some of our work on time toxicity, clinicians, which is all sorts of people in healthcare, have persistently said, "I just wish I had more time." And so, I think as we think of frontline solutions, I think we need to respect our own time to be able to respect patients' and care partners' time. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Well, thank you both for this wonderful conversation today. Many thanks to Dr. Arjun Gupta and Dr. Shakira Grant, as well as our listeners for your time today. You will find the links to the papers that we discussed in the transcript of this episode. If you value the insights that you hear on the JCO OP Put Into Practice podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. I hope you'll join us next month for Put Into Practice's next episode, and until then, I encourage you to continue advocating for your patients, from parking vouchers to health policy solutions. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Conflicts of Interest Fumiko Chino Consulting or Advisory Role Company: Institute for Value Based Medicine Research Funding Company: Merck Shakira Grant No relationships to disclose Arjun Gupta Employment Company: Genentech/Roche Recipient: An Immediate Family Member

Dr. Chino talks with Dr. Atif Khan and Dr. Lola Fayanju about the shift in breast cancer management from reducing locoregional recurrence and improving breast cancer mortality to deintensification, shared decision making, and improved quality of life. This discussion will be based off a JCO OP editorial published in late 2024 called "Contextual Framework for Understanding Treatment De-Escalation in Patients With Breast Cancer." Transcript Dr. Fumiko Chino: Hello, and welcome to Put into Practice, the podcast for JCO Oncology Practice. I'm Dr. Fumiko Chino, an Assistant Professor in Radiation Oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center with a research focus on access, affordability, and equity. Breast cancer treatment has made significant strides in the past century, with the five-year survival rate rising from less than 5% in the early 20th century to around 90% in the present day. In today's episode, we'll be discussing the shift in breast cancer management from reducing local-regional recurrence and improving breast cancer mortality to deintensification, shared decision-making, and improved quality of life. This discussion will be based off of a JCO OP editorial published in late 2024 called "Contextual Framework for Understanding Treatment De-escalation in Patients with Breast Cancer." I'm excited to welcome two breast cancer experts as guests today: the first author of this editorial and radiation oncologist, as well as a health services researcher and breast surgeon. They're both engaged in research to improve outcomes for breast cancer, including treatment optimization. Dr. Atif Khan, MD, MS, is a full attending breast cancer disease site leader and Service Chief in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. He is also on the steering committee of the Clinical Research Innovation Consortium, as well as on the Research Council at MSK. Dr. Khan is the chair of the breast section of oral examiners for the American Board of Radiology and is active in NRG, helping develop and lead key clinical trials to optimize radiation delivery for breast cancer. Dr. Khan is also a translational science investigator of novel radiosensitizers. Dr. Oluwadamilola "Lola" Fayanju, MD, MA, MPHS, is the Helen O. Dickens Presidential Associate Professor and Chief of the Division of Breast Surgery at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. She is also Surgical Director of the Rena Rowan Breast Center at the Abramson Cancer Center, Program Director for Implementation Innovation at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, and a Senior Fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at Penn. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and we've already agreed to go by our first names for the podcast today. Atif and Lola, it's wonderful to speak to you today. Dr. Atif Khan: It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you for inviting me, Fumiko. Dr. Lola Fayanju: Yeah, thanks for having me. Dr. Fumiko Chino: The topic today is treatment de-escalation for breast cancer, loosely based on the editorial that Atif wrote in JCO OP outlining a conceptual framework, which is primarily focused on local-regional therapies, i.e., radiation and surgery for breast cancer. The concept of rightsizing treatment has really been developing over the past three decades, spearheaded by surgical de-escalation. Lola, do you mind giving me a brief overview of surgical de-escalation as you have seen it throughout history and as currently realized in your practice? Dr. Lola Fayanju: Happy to. So, you know, it's one of those things where I think increasingly we recognize that breast cancer is a heterogeneous condition that shares an anatomical space. And with that refined understanding of treating breast cancer, we're no longer using a very blunt and large hammer to deal with what is actually a constellation of nails. So originally, when people used to treat breast cancer, the idea was that you wanted to take as much tissue as possible. And this originated the Halstedian mastectomy, which was a radical mastectomy that often involved removal of not only all the breast and axillary tissue but also the pectoralis muscle, even some accessory nerves, that really left people with incredibly deformed body habitus as well as compromised function. And in part, that was not an unreasonable approach given that disease was often presenting in a locally advanced fashion. However, as we have been increasingly able to detect disease at an asymptomatic, pre-palpable state, but also as our ability to treat disease at a systemic fashion has become more effective, we've been able to move from the Halstedian mastectomy to then the modified radical mastectomy, and then ultimately to even less axillary surgery, as well as less breast surgery, such that there was the advent of the lumpectomy pioneered by Bernie Fisher in the 1980s, as well as sentinel lymph node biopsy pioneered by Armando Giuliano and Don Morton in the 1990s and early 2000s. And what this allowed us to do, again, is to achieve similar if not better outcomes, because we were again catching disease at an earlier state thanks to screening mammography, but also able to provide more personalized, less morbid care that focused on just the cancer at hand with the additional adjuvant therapy of radiation to provide comparable survival to mastectomy. What this has allowed us to do is also think about the order in which we do treatment, that is allowing people to potentially get systemic therapy first in order to convert from a more morbid procedure to a smaller, less morbid procedure. So, we've made a huge number of strides both with regards to surgery in the breast as well as surgery in the axilla, and that's been facilitated by a combination of knowing more about disease, being able to be more systemic and holistic in its treatment, and also recognizing that more is not always more. The last thing I will say is that we've also been aided not only by the adjunct radiation and systemic therapies, but also by the ability of our radiologists to localize pre-existing cancer such that we can target the area and just the area of concern, whether it's through targeted axillary dissection or through sampling a previously positive area of the breast, such that we can again be more selective in terms of the surgery people get after systemic therapy. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Thanks for that great overview, and I really love it how you have highlighted that it's all of these advances that allow us to customize the treatment to the individual. So it's not one size fits all with cancer care. We're really trying to make a customized plan and really rallying all of the modern technologies to make sure that we're rightsizing the treatments for the individual. And I think that provides a lot of benefits for patients. Atif, can you highlight some of the key steps to de-escalate radiation for breast cancer? Dr. Atif Khan: I think thematically, we're seeing a very similar sort of trend in radiotherapy. Just as a reminder, radiotherapy is a critical component of breast conservation therapy and also in the post-mastectomy context for high-risk patients. Radiation has been shown to sterilize or reduce the risk of microscopic residual, reduce the risk of local-regional recurrence, and in high-risk contexts, you know, by extension, reduce the risk of all recurrences and even improve survival, for example, in the seminal post-mastectomy radiation therapy trials. Now, we existed in a time when there was perhaps only one right way to do radiation therapy, and that's not the case now. We have many different ways that we can deliver radiation therapy. And that's important because our, as Lola said earlier, our understanding of different risk strata of breast cancer has also improved, meaning we can stratify breast cancer patients into low risk, intermediate risk, high risk, maybe even very low risk. And therefore, we can tailor the intensification of our local-regional treatments to match the background risk that may exist for that particular patient. Now, if we consider five weeks of whole breast radiation or five weeks of post-mastectomy radiation to sort of be our historic norm, we now know that we don't have to protract the course of radiation out like that. We can treat that same target volume, for example, the whole breast, with a shorter course of radiation that generally is given over three weeks. Now, I do want to pause here for one second just to clarify for everyone listening: taking five weeks of whole breast and doing that over three weeks is not necessarily a de-escalation per se, because really the same biologically effective dose is being given. It's just being given faster. So it's not really a treatment deintensification or de-escalation per se. Now, it is less disruptive to patients, it might be less, say, financially toxic, for example, in terms of like missed days of work, etc., but it's not a de-escalation with respect to the intensity of the treatment. It's just the same treatment being given shorter, but we know that it's safe to do that. In contrast, partial breast radiation is, in fact, a de-escalation because now our target volume is no longer the entire breast, rather, we're just treating a part of the breast, that part of the breast where the risk primarily is, which is in the index quadrant where that original breast cancer was. And at the, let's say, at the low end of the risk spectrum, we now have very good evidence, you know, 14,000 randomized women, demonstrating that, in fact, partial breast radiation in those contexts is just as good as whole breast radiation. And I always sort of half-joke that whenever this treatment is possible, we should use it because for a fibroblast sitting in the breast somewhere minding its own business, a day without radiation is a good day, right? So if we can spare that treatment to uninvolved normal cells, we should try to do that. And then, of course, the ultimate de-escalation is to identify patients who don't need radiation at all and just omitting radiotherapy. And really across the risk spectrum, whether it's in breast conservation or whether it's in PMRT/regional nodal radiation, we are seeing the emergence of these different types of treatments, meaning kind of like the high-risk treatment, the intermediate-risk treatment, and then at the very low end of the risk spectrum, no treatment at all. But that's sort of the practice that we're living in now, and I think it's a good one. We're making progress. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I appreciate that. The whole idea is if we can potentially omit treatment to certain areas of the body or if we can omit it completely, we're certainly doing a favor for our patients if it's not going to increase their overall risk. We had talked, I think between the two of you, about some of the benefits of potentially omitting or reducing morbidities from, for example, surgeries or comprehensive treatments. Atif, do you want to take it first? What are the actual de-escalation risks? What are we potentially putting at risk when we talk about de-escalation or deintensification? Dr. Atif Khan: Yeah, great question. I mean, I think the primary risk, which is, you know, a scary thought, is that we de-escalate or we do it too quickly or we find that, in fact, reducing the intensity of treatment leads to an increase in the recurrence risk of breast cancer. That's a very scary thought. I will say that this process of creating options, you know, treatment options, de-escalated treatment options, has been quite successful. For example, I'll open it up to Lola and you, Fumiko, but I can't really think of a clear example in which the de-escalation trial went in the wrong direction. Like, they've all sort of gone in the same direction, which is that the de-escalation or deintensification studies have generally been successful, meaning that we were able to preserve the excellent oncologic outcomes that we are used to seeing with less treatment. That's a testament to kind of how careful, you know, the scientific process is with respect to these practice-defining trials. They go through multiple levels of scientific review. It's a multidisciplinary group of individuals that's looking at this. And I would say the endeavor overall has been quite successful. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Lola, anything to add? Dr. Lola Fayanju: Yeah, I think when we're thinking about the risk of de-escalation, I would put them into three categories of risk. So, there are risks to the individual, that is, you know, we're actually de-escalating in the wrong person because we have an insufficient amount of information about whether they meet the criteria for de-escalation. There's, I think, risk to the population in terms of are there groups of people who are systematically not benefiting from the de-escalation or who should not be benefiting from de-escalation because again of an underappreciation of how disease might work in that group or because the practice patterns where those people are getting care will not be amenable to de-escalation ultimately being of a good thing for them because they're not getting the other components of care that frankly are needed for de-escalation of one modality. And then three, I think there's a risk to our collective knowledge about cancer because when we're not collecting information about what happens after six weeks of radiation or how many lymph nodes are positive, we just know a little bit less about the natural history of the disease and the natural sequelae of treatment. Again, that knowledge may be worth forgoing given the morbidity to patients and the non-benefit with regards to recurrence and survival, but it's real. It means that our retrospective reviews look different. It means our ability to have preliminary data for other types of things look different. With regards to the populations, it means that whenever we're thinking about de-escalation, we need to think hard about how to translate what we see on the podium at San Antonio or ASCO into clinical practice. And that requires, I think, more care than is often administered. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Yeah, I'll quote directly from the manuscript of the editorial that we are basing this podcast on, and it said basically, "American women ascribe a high utility to remaining without evidence of disease." And that really sticks with me in that, even though there may not be a survival benefit, an increased risk of recurrence is not without a personal, financial, and physical burden on patients, even if that difference is small, it may be meaningful for the person in front of you. Now I'll also shift focus slightly and just mention that we're primarily talking about local therapy here, but I'd be remiss to not highlight that there are gains in de-escalation for systemic therapies from, for example, RxPONDER, allowing us to safely omit adjuvant chemotherapy for many node-positive patients; B21, showing that monotherapy with radiation may be actually even better than tamoxifen monotherapy with no metastatic or survival differences; and of course, the PERSEPHONE trial that demonstrated that six months of trastuzumab was non-inferior to 12 months, although, granted, there were many caveats leading to poor adoption of this in practice. Now, Lola, I know you've already mentioned this, but there are maybe some concerns that you see about broad adoption of these practices into, for example, surgical de-escalation. Based on what I know is stark disparities in clinical trial enrollment in certain populations or in maybe even clinical trial protocol adherence, are there any specific populations that you want to highlight that might be hesitant to apply this clinical trial podium data to? Dr. Lola Fayanju: That's a great question. So, as an example, when we think about the SOUND trial, which was recently published and demonstrated that in women with early-stage breast cancer who were undergoing breast-conserving therapy and had normal axillary evaluation prior to surgery, that sentinel lymph node biopsy could be safely omitted without detriment with regards to long-term outcomes, you need to think about the context in which that preoperative ultrasound is being done. So, at different institutions, whether or not an ultrasound is routinely done, whether or not that ultrasound is done prior to biopsy, all of these things have implications for how likely you are to have a false positive after biopsy (so it's preoperative, but it's post-biopsy) and also what you're going to do about it, whether you're going to act on it, whether you're going to go ahead and proceed with sampling that node if it looks enlarged, putting something in it that means you retrieve it. If it demonstrates a small amount of cancer, potentially consigning someone to either an axillary dissection or preoperative systemic therapy that they might have forgone had you had the full picture of surgical pathology. So that's just one example of how the context in which implementation occurs is really important because you have to take into account local practice patterns and what that means with regards to how we interpret the data that was used in the trial to then implement this practice in real life. With regards to populations that need to be considered, I think in terms of centering equity, both domestically but also at a global level, thinking about, for instance, how we stage the axilla, how we map the axilla. What's the facility for lymphoscintigraphy as well as for localization of a previously positive node? So, there are many countries, many quite wealthy countries, in which use of radiocolloid is not routine, where it is primarily that people are using some type of tracer blue dye, for example, and therefore would not strictly be meeting the criteria for optimal sentinel lymph node mapping that would allow for a low false negative rate after neoadjuvant systemic therapy. In the United States, we might be in places where you have patients who are having surgery with people who don't do that much breast surgery and who are less likely to have a successful and correct yield of lymph nodes at time of sentinel node biopsy. And so, you know, these are people for whom there might be actually clinically significant disease that's being left behind if not being done by someone who has a lot of experience working with dual tracer as an opportunity to localize a preoperatively positive lymph node. So again, thinking about both the availability of materials as well as the expertise of the local practitioners means that people in less or differently resourced settings may not benefit from implementation in a way that actually leads to appropriate outcomes. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Yeah, I love it how you highlight that there's global differences, but there's also just in the US differences in capacity and skills within doing these, some of these presurgical and surgical evaluations. All three of us work at world-leading cancer centers, and I recently just transitioned from two top cancer centers in the United States, but I was actually kind of shocked about the differences even between the two major centers about how we do ultrasounds, for example. Now, Atif, I've noticed that some providers don't really feel comfortable combining the information from various de-escalation trials in practice, i.e., so for some patients that might have had sentinel lymph node biopsy omitted per SOUND, they may be less likely to actually get PBI and instead, you know, prefer to treat whole breast radiation to cover the axilla. So, in this respect, it seems like we're kind of taking like one step forward, one step back. And are we de-escalating surgery to just escalate radiation? Dr. Atif Khan: Fumiko, I agree with you. It'd be very counterproductive if we found that de-escalation in one domain was leading to escalation in another domain. I think the example you cite is a good one. If we are moving to a world without sentinel node biopsy and let's say clinical staging only, does that then mean that we have to, for example, give up on partial breast irradiation and treat everybody with whole breast radiation on the notion that low axilla, for example, is going to get some therapeutic effect? And I would submit for everyone's consideration that no, we in fact should not do that. We spent years developing the partial breast irradiation literature. We know that PBI has less acute toxicity. In every single trial, it has less fatigue, and it actually has less late toxicity in some studies, which is not surprising because remember, you're treating less tissue, you're treating less stuff, and that's a good thing. Now, coming to SOUND and INSEMA, on the sentinel node arms of both of those studies, the rate of additional positive nodes is very- around, 10%, and that's pretty low. So I would submit for everyone's consideration the idea that if your patient is node-negative by SOUND criteria, let's say, right? They're very likely to be pathologically node-negative. And you can actually treat them as if they were pathologically node-negative. And that's kind of how we've adopted the findings of both SOUND and now also INSEMA from San Antonio, meaning that if a patient is eligible for PBI based on everything else, and she is node-negative by SOUND criteria, then we will offer them PBI in exactly the same way as we were before these trials were reported. I also wanted to make one observation on your prior comment, Fumiko, if I may, about the de-escalation of systemic therapy. One thing that has been on my mind quite a bit is, particularly with, let's say in the elderly group where we have been struggling with kind of like the best monotherapy, right? Should it be five years of endocrine therapy? Should it be a short course of radiation, or do patients really need both of these treatments? And this is topical because the EUROPA trial, one of the endpoints was reported at San Antonio, the quality of life endpoint. Not surprisingly, a short course of radiotherapy was sort of associated with better quality of life than the endocrine therapy. But I think we may be missing one potential opportunity in this sort of idea of like, we have to either do the radiation or the endocrine therapy, which is we might be able to give a little bit of systemic therapy and a little bit of radiation therapy. This line of investigation or line of thinking doesn't really exist right now. Like that conversation is interesting. So for example, can we give, for number one, can we go from AI back to TAM, right? Because AIs are just, there's just, the quality of life is worse. And can we give a lower dose of the TAM, monitor for compliance, and then give a little bit of radiation, you know, let's say PBI or something? And maybe that's the way to do that. And you could take that idea and you could apply it across different contexts even in breast cancer. And I'll note that that is how kind of the Hodgkin's lymphoma treatment evolved over time. At the low end of the risk spectrum, they kind of said, "Okay, a little bit of chemo and a little bit of radiation is better than just giving a lot of chemo or certainly a lot of radiation." And you know, that worked. And I think at the low end of the breast cancer risk spectrum, we might start thinking about that kind of line of investigation. Dr. Fumiko Chino: You want to 'Goldilocks' this situation. You want to try to find something that's just right. And I love that. And I think that sort of out-of-the-box thinking is very helpful when we think about how omission seems very clean, "you just don't get this," but deintensification, simultaneous deintensification, I think has a lot of appeal there. Lola, do you have anything to add about that? Dr. Lola Fayanju: I have to acknowledge the bias of three local-regional therapists on this podcast, I'm outnumbered by our two rad oncs. But just wearing my medical oncology ally hat, I think one of the challenges is also that for many of them, the ability to prescribe effective forms of systemic therapy, including CDK4/6 inhibitors, for example, is sometimes predicated on information we obtain at surgery. So, when we think about implementation, which is really, you know, an area of research for me, whether it's trying to implement the SOUND trial, again, in an institution where everyone's getting an ultrasound prior to biopsy, absolutely. But in an institution where either it's completely ad hoc, so it's kind of the 'wild, wild west', you have no idea from radiologist to radiologist who's doing ultrasound before or after biopsy, and also frankly, what is the kind of false negative rate at that institution, recognizing not everyone's working at the kind of places we work at. Are we doing patients a disservice? But then, in addition, thinking about working with insurance companies, right? If we're trying to say, "Okay, we are no longer going to do sentinel node biopsies," but that's actually required for the administration of certain medications, we put our medical oncology colleagues in a bad position in terms of their ability to actually get certain types of treatments paid for and approved. And so again, thinking about the consequences of our choices for patients, I think it really points to the fact that multidisciplinary consultation is increasingly going to be needed because we can't de-escalate everything. I think we all agree most cancers need to be treated in some fashion. But, you know, if we take away surgery, we take away radiation, we take away systemic therapy, suddenly we have a cancer that's just sitting there. And for some people, that's the right thing. Again, thinking about shared decision-making, for some patients with other morbidities and/or older age where they're unlikely to have any kind of meaningful threat from disease being left in place, well, that is the right thing potentially. But for a majority of our patients who actually want some form of treatment, I think we do need to think about the implications for our other prescribing providers, what that means, how we can help them, even as the clinical trial data suggests that there aren't major changes in adjuvant therapy or radiation prescription when you omit sentinel node biopsy, at least in the trials that have so far been shown. Dr. Fumiko Chino: This is a nice segue to my last point, which is to talk about how these discussions of de-escalation, these decisions should really be made after the full multidisciplinary input. And yet, I feel like I've seen our specialties get increasingly disconnected in this kind of era of Zoom conferences. There seem to be less face-to-face meetings. There seems to be decreasing space for our co-shared clinics. And I just wanted to ask both of you what you think our responsibility is to each other and to our field to ensure that we're really working on these things synergistically. Lola, you just mentioned some of your thoughts, but do you mind speaking about the multidisciplinary conversation or even how we're designing research? Dr. Lola Fayanju: I think, with regards to the research, I'll start with that first, it means that, I think we're less going to have trials that fit in certain kind of cooperative groups that are more geared towards radiation or what have you. I think, increasingly, we should be having MPIs, you know, co-PIs who are from different modalities. I think that that's going to allow us to bring our different lenses to constructing the trial, to ultimately interpreting the result. I think we'll only grow from that. I think the era of having a bunch of medical oncologists or surgeons or radiation oncologists as the primary authors really should probably shift. I think we need to think more globally about multidisciplinary care and what those, quote unquote, "tumor boards" should look like. And thinking beyond our own institutions, again, we're relatively privileged in terms of being at places where we all have at least weekly, if not bi-weekly multidisciplinary tumor boards. Most cancer care in the United States is happening in the community where a patient walks into, often a general surgeon's office, and that person will get surgery upfront whether they need it or not, or whether they should be getting systemic therapy or not first. And then from there, they will then be referred to a medical oncologist who may have had no input as to which procedure should have been omitted or discussed or vetted prior to meeting that person. And so, I think our greater challenge is how to bring in the global oncology community, and by global, I mean truly across the globe, across the United States, across the world. And it might be that ASCO and JCO, places like this for discussion, is an opportunity for us to connect people, connect our communities, and not having us work in silos, both at the institutions in which we currently are employed, but also at a broader level. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Wonderful statement. Atif, anything to add to that? Dr. Atif Khan: Yeah, I think you're pointing out an important thing, Fumiko, which is, you know, we are somewhat more fragmented since the pandemic, and we're kind of in our own spaces, and that is potentially a problem. I think in breast cancer, the different specialties are often existing in kind of a very cooperative matrix, and I think that ends up meaning that we're able to really provide high-level care to our patients. I think there are other specialties, I know, where the specialists may be existing in a somewhat more competitive matrix with each other, and I think that ends up potentially being counterproductive for patient care. So I think this is probably a thing that we need to have more conversation around and sort of thinking about how do we bring the different vantage points together in the interest of the patient and not lose that multidisciplinary care that we'd become so used to and that's provided such excellent outcomes. I think on the research side, I don't want anyone to sort of be left with the idea that there's just one specialty that's sort of driving, you know, the design of these trials. From my own first-hand experience, both at Alliance and NRG, there's a lot of scientific review that happens, and I spent quite a bit of my energies over the past decade and a half kind of convincing medical oncologists that a certain local-regional question is warranted. And, and you know, that's part of the process. I appreciate that because they're not just experts in their field. You know, we all eat, breathe, and live breast cancer. So, you know, they have keen insight into the local-regional management as well. Dr. Lola Fayanju: Yeah, I have to say I love the cooperative group meetings. That's kind of where the sausage gets made. And I think it is really exciting that you have people from different disciplines sitting together, proposing trials, vetting them. It feels like you're seeing the future in the present, which is really exciting. And, you know, I think what we're all striving to do. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I love that hopeful conclusion, and I really am so grateful for both of you for this wonderful conversation today. Many thanks to both Dr. Khan, Dr. Fayanju, as well as our listeners for your time today. You will find the links to the papers that we discussed in the transcript of this episode. If you value the insights that you hear on the JCO OP Put into Practice podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. I hope you'll join us next month for Put into Practice's next episode. Until then, I encourage everyone to continue doing the work that they find meaningful for their patients, for their community, and for themselves. Dr. Atif Khan: Thank you. Dr. Lola Fayanju: Thanks so much. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Disclosures: Atif Khan: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Novavax, Xtrava; Research Funding: Clovis Oncology, Merck KGaA, Varian Medical Systems; Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Use patent for the drug riluzole awarded to Rutgers University with me as inventor. Oluwadamilola Fayanju: Research Funding: Gilead Sciences

Dr. Fumiko Chino talks with Dr. Aditi Singh and patient advocate Liz Salmi about how this essential tool for documentation could be optimized to be more patient-centered. This discussion will be based off the JCO OP article published in late 2024, "Re-Envisioning the Electronic Health Records to Optimize Patient-Centered Cancer Care, Quality, Surveillance, and Research," on which Dr. Singh served as the lead author. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Fumiko Chino: Hello and welcome to Put into Practice, the podcast for JCO Oncology Practice. I'm Dr. Fumiko Chino, an Assistant Professor in Radiation Oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center with a research focus on access, affordability and equity. On today's episode we'll be discussing our friend, the Electronic Medical Record and how this essential tool for documentation could be re-envisioned to be more patient centered. This discussion will be based off of a JCO OP article published in late 2024 called, "Re-Envisioning the Electronic Health Records to Optimize Patient-Centered Cancer Care, Quality, Surveillance, and Research." I'm excited to welcome two guests, the first author, as well as a patient researcher advocate, to the podcast today. Both are passionate about improving how we use the EMR to communicate and provide care. Dr. Aditi Singh is an Assistant Professor in Clinical Medicine and Hematology Oncology with a focus on thoracic malignancies, particularly neuroendocrine tumors of the lung. She also serves as the Director of Clinical Informatics for the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Her work focuses on optimizing the EHR to enhance provider efficiency and provide high quality cancer care. She also serves on the NCCN Guidelines Committee for non-small cell lung cancer, thymic malignancies and mesothelioma. Liz Salmi is the Communications Inpatient Initiatives Director for OpenNotes. In this role, she helps clinicians, hospitals and the health system understand the changing nature of patient-clinician communication in an era of growing transparency. As a person living with a malignant brain tumor, she is active in research and advocacy to ensure that the patient voice and patient-centered care is prioritized. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. And we've all already agreed to go by our first names for this podcast today. Aditi and Liz, it's so great to speak with you today. I hope you guys are both staying warm. Dr. Aditi Singh: Hi. I'm very happy to be here. Liz Salmi: Thanks for having me back. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Our topic today is about how we make the electronic medical record more patient-centered. To start it off, I'd love to actually ask a hopefully non-controversial question to both of you. What is patient-centered care? How do you personally define it? Are there key characteristics or is it something that it's commonly mistaken for? Or is it like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography - 'I know it when I see it'? Liz, do you want to take that first? Liz Salmi: Sure. Yeah. So, I've been living with a malignant brain tumor or a grade 2 astrocytoma for 17 years. And when I first got into this space, I'm a person with a communications background originally, so when I would hear that term, I'm like, "Yeah, of course, patient-centered care - like what were you doing before that?" And then in the last 11 years I've been working in healthcare and the last eight years specifically with the OpenNotes team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. So, when I would hear that term, I was like, "What were they doing before that?" Like still even more frustrated. So, it to me sounds like jargon, like a bad form of jargon. And I think that there's new words we could be evolving into over the next, say, decade, maybe sooner. Dr. Fumiko Chino What are those words, actually, just out of curiosity? Liz Salmi: I want to co-design that with patients. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I love it. So that's still a work in progress. I love it. Aditi, what's your take on patient-centered care? Dr. Aditi Singh: I couldn't agree more. It should just be synonymous with good care. It should just be very obvious. It's a no-brainer. In 2025, it's sad to me that when I was thinking about this question, I'm thinking, "Yeah, what did we do before that? What is it called? What is the opposite of patient-centered care? Shouldn't certainly not be provider-centered or like hospital-centered care." So, I'm all for it. I'm glad that this generation of medical students, nursing students, everybody's going through learning this concept, even though it should really be something just so organic. But I'm glad that we're putting an emphasis on it, that there is no other way. This is the only way of providing good care. The more agency patients have and for them to be empowered to fully participate in understanding their care, fully participate in their care, I think that's what it means to me. I think sometimes I see misinterpretations of it in the sense that, well, that means that everything the patient says I have to do as a provider. And I feel like it's a partnership, it's not a restaurant where they're saying, "Okay, I want that. And I just make this up." It obviously has to be within your professional understanding. You're still trying to do the best for the patient in front of you. But within that, because we know there's so much gray area in medicine, not everything falls neatly in our evidence-based guidelines and algorithms. That's really where all the nuance is and that's where we can do a better job at taking care of people, if we work together. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Absolutely. I think you said the key word for me, which is 'partnership', because it really is. It's not like the patient as a consumer, it's a partnership. And I think patient-centered care for me really emphasizes this concept of shared decision making. And again, yeah, it blows my mind that this is like a newer concept that we didn't really, in the paternalistic world of healthcare, the patient was just sort of an afterthought. It was the receiver of care and not the person who was living with an illness. Liz Salmi: Just to throw in there, there's a very well-known palliative care thought leader, Dr. Ira Byock, who wrote a book called The Best Care Possible about patient-centered care, we could say that, or 'the best care possible'. And it's a bummer that 'the best care possible' was coined and really developed by a palliative care doctor. And I hope people in the oncology community will pull a page from the playbook of all of palliative care, because to me, all of oncology care should be palliative care and that's disease treatment but also pain and symptom management. So, I just got to throw that shout out to all of palliative care in this podcast. Dr. Fumiko Chino: 100%. I feel like there's a lot we can learn from palliative care for pretty much everything that we do in medicine, including enhanced communication. Aditi, do you mind giving us a quick overview of the article that your multidisciplinary team published in JCO OP last year about how to make the EMR both more patient-centered but also work better for research and surveillance? I'd also just really love to hear about how you got interested in this topic altogether. Dr. Aditi Singh: Yeah, absolutely. So, the National Cancer Policy Forum convened this workshop in 2022. It's a two-day workshop which focused really on improving EHRs for oncology care, surveillance and research. And we had discussions and talks from various stakeholders, experts in their fields, just putting our heads together and hoping for a better way than what we have. I think there was general agreement that we are very glad for EHRs as an advancement over paper records, but I think we all kind of felt that EHRs haven't really realized their full potential in all the great care that can come through them. And we all identified certain challenges that EHRs have brought with regards to EHRs really being formulated as primarily billing scheduling tools in the 1970s, and now it's this all-encompassing system that we use to do everything. All of our interactions are through the EHR, kind of this like thing that comes in between, sometimes we feel, like us and the patient. As providers, we talk to different stakeholders like oncologists and providers, patient advocates, patients, the federal agencies, EHR vendors. So, all of us kind of coming together, researchers, quality improvement advisors, to really figure out what are the challenges and what we can do moving forward to get to a better place. And I think my own personal journey on how I got interested in EHRs and how to use them to kind of harness their power, so to speak, to provide better care and to improve provider wellness was another one. I trained in India. My medical training was in India, where the system is fairly traditional and paternalistic. And then moving to the US and seeing just a lot more time spent with patients and involving them in general, there's a lot more we can do. But just coming from a place where there wasn't as much of it, it was really cool seeing that. And then through my training, just watching my colleagues struggle with how much we had to interact with EHRs. I think none of us went into medical school thinking that I'm going to sit in front of a computer all day and spend less time actually talking with my patients or always have this thing in the background when I'm talking to my patients. And so, I think seeing my colleagues and myself struggle through that and hoping for a better way to just achieve that "work-life balance," or doing what you love without getting bogged down by the administrative tasks that just keep piling up. And then I think my own life and my own struggles with fertility, having a late miscarriage, having a traumatic birth, and then now being a parent, once you're on the other side, it changes the way you think about these things. And I think being a patient can be so lonely and so scary. Here we're talking about cancer, and you're so vulnerable in that moment. Even as a parent, I say, you know, all your medical training goes out the window when you have a loved one that's sick. You both have beautiful stories on how you've learned from your own experiences. So, I think that was truly telling, that it changes the way you see the person in front of you once you've experienced it yourself. So, I think that's how I got into this space to hopefully move forward. Dr. Fumiko Chino: There's a quote from the paper which was, I thought, was very telling, which was that "EHR development was driven by regulatory requirements rather than a focus on the user experience." So that's either providers or patients. They're both using the EHR, correct? It was not really built for either of us on either side of the computer, basically. And so, I love the idea of how there could be steps along with each kind of stakeholder to make things a little better. Liz Salmi: One thing I didn't necessarily see in the paper was that patients are actually the biggest user of the EHR through the patient portal. And so that needs to be acknowledged as well. And as you said, Aditi, like the user experience of these portals, is not great for clinicians and it's terrible for patients as well. So, I think both patients and clinicians can come together to co-design the future of that user experience for sure. Dr. Aditi Singh: 100%. Dr. Fumiko Chino: And that actually segues directly into my next question, which is Liz, to kind of start off by saying, congratulations, you just won this recent award from the Society for Neuro-Oncology. And I know that your day job and your personal passion is to improve communication between providers and patients with this kind of central tenet that patients should be both encouraged and supported to be fully engaged with their medical care. Do you mind just kind of briefly discussing your career arc and how this really intersected with your diagnosis and your medical care for a malignant brain tumor? I know you mentioned a little bit already. Liz Salmi: Sure, yeah. None of this is pre-planned. It's just all happened. I think clinicians perhaps come into medicine, maybe not all of us, but "Oh, I want to be a doctor." And then you kind of figure out your path along the way and how you become leaders. I mentioned earlier that my background originally is in digital communications. And then at age 29, I had a massive grand mal seizure and then found out I had a brain tumor. And then jumping ahead, you know what I'm doing today and I can fill in the gaps. But today I work on the OpenNotes team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, which is one of the Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals. But the OpenNotes team, we've got researchers around the country and around the world, are really focusing on how transparency and transparent communication improves care. And so, when it's some defining words, we say when a clinical note is shared with patients, they become an open note, lowercase. And then our team is OpenNotes, a proper noun. And so, for the last 12 years, and this is before me, I've just been the last eight years, but for the last 12 years, we've kind of created this new field that's focused on research around how open and transparent communications improves relationships between clinicians and patients. And we just remain motivated by evidence that shows that when healthcare professionals offer patients and families ready access to these notes, how that improves actually safety of care as well, because you can spot errors in the record or, you know, just have more open dialogue. And so how I got here, grand mal seizure, communications, digital design. Really just sometimes people become patient advocates quite often because maybe they had a bad experience, a terrible experience, and they want to fight the system or co-design a thing with the system. I had the opposite experience. I had great care. I just was so curious about what was going on from a neurological perspective, from a neurosurgery perspective, move along around the lines. And then things started to change when I became a patient. It was the 'do not google the information in your records' era. We're talking about the 2000s and then late 2000s. And then my magical change moment is when I had to change health systems and request a copy of my medical record to like the new location. They said, "What do you want from your record?" And I was like, "All of it?" I don't know what's in it because I had really never seen it before. And so, God bless Kaiser Permanente Northern California for really giving me all of the record on like a DVD. And I had to pay for that. And so, I, of course, as a curious person, just threw that DVD into my computer and started looking at a 4800-page medical record. And I was like, "Oh, my gosh. They've been talking about me this whole time." I'll try to summarize it now, but I just didn't know that notes were part of the thing. And so that ultimately launched me to the OpenNotes team, the OpenNotes journey. Finding out that researchers at other hospitals are starting to study that. And so, I was like, "How do I get involved in that movement?" And so here we are seven, eight years later for me being part of the team and they're so wonderful academic clinicians, it's all about teaching and like training the next generation. So, I've been taught and trained and now I'm involved in the co-design research. Dr. Fumiko Chino: You know, I think you're underselling yourself because you as a patient PI, I think you've been on the ground floor of this concept of we need to be co-designing research around the patient experience. You've won, as part of your team, multimillion dollar grants to study quality of life and even this, I feel like this most recent award and I am not trying to paraphrase the SNO Annual Meeting, but I think you had asked, "Oh, is there registration or something for patients?" And they're like, "No, this isn't for you." Advance six years later and they're giving you an award! So, I feel like you've been on the ground floor of all of this very important move towards collaborative work with patients. Liz Salmi: Thank you for highlighting that. Yeah, I think what I've learned in this experience is if someone tells me 'No', I want to work harder to prove them wrong. Dr. Fumiko Chino: It's that punk rock mentality. Liz Salmi: There we go. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Now, there's been a lot of consternation from both institutions and providers regarding the release of test results immediately to patients via the 21st Century Cures Act. These releases may actually even come before the primary team has been able to discuss the results and their clinical context with the patient. And I know a 2023 JCO OP article showed that 75% of surveyed oncologists felt like the immediate release of clinical information had a negative effect on their practice and/or their patients. I've certainly personally seen how the immediate release seemed to have fostered some anxiety for some of my patients. And yet I truly believe, and this is a direct quote from the manuscript, "Health records fundamentally belong to patients." Liz, I'd love to hear your perspective on this because I know that you were a first author of an ASCO Education Book. The chapter was called "When Bad News Comes to the Portal: Strengthening Trust and Guiding Patients when they Receive Bad Results before their Clinicians." Liz Salmi: Yeah, that was a fun one to work on. It's open access, I believe, so people can go find that. But in that book chapter, we cite a couple of papers, specifically one of the papers and anyone can look this up. It's in JAMA Open, so it's open access. But well, we cite our own paper or I cited our paper with wonderful people. I was like fourth author or something like that. So, it's not just me. Saying that, all of those caveats, we cite this paper called "Perspectives of Patients About Immediate Access to Test Results Through an Online Patient Portal." And what we did with that study is we surveyed patients at four sites around the country and really, we learned, despite clinician reservations, about getting immediate access to these test results, 96% of patients still want immediate access to the test results. And that stayed true even among those who received non-normal test results. Could be scary. And we actually asked them, "How did this make you feel? Were you more nervous? And they said, "Yes, but we still want it immediately." Knowing that and knowing that we can't put the genie back in the bottle for Cure's rule and everybody has decided people should have access to their information immediately, there are benefits to people having access to the information. So, if it's a note thing, they can find errors in the record. When it comes to their test results, they can plan ahead. And I think in the oncology perspective, I believe for folks who have an active cancer diagnosis and they kind of understand their current experience like I do, I see these immediate results, I see the immediate MRI results and I'm like, "Yeah, I still know I have brain cancer. That is not surprising to me." But I think where things are kind of troublesome, is like a new diagnosis or somebody sees something through their primary care, general care setting and then something, probably an imaging result says something worrisome and then the patient is going to Google or use ChatGPT to kind of understand their situation. And I think that this is a situation where, and this was also mentioned in the ASCO book chapter where Daniel McFarland coined the phrase, 'truth jumping'. What do we do if people have access to all the information, they feel unsupported in their care. And I think that there's a way to mitigate that, especially in like primary care settings where the ordering clinician of that test, whatever that test is, can really create some anticipatory guidance around it and say something very simple when they're ordering the test and I'm pulling a quote directly from a book chapter and other things, but it's like, "I am ordering a test. You might see the result before me. You have a choice, patient. You can look immediately or wait to hear from us. And what questions do you have?" So really laying, "Here's what's happening. Now, I'm ordering the test." And so, it creates context around. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Aditi, do you have any additional thoughts about this? About, for example, how to release test results effectively? How could it potentially help or harm their relationship with their oncologist? Dr. Aditi Singh: Yeah. Before the 21st Century Cures Act, we all had the same reservations that, "Oh, my gosh, having cancer is hard enough! Hearing it through the portal and not through trained physicians or providers who know how to break that news with some empathy and context on immediately following it up with what's next is going to be so jarring for patients. It's going to create so much anxiety." And I kind of still believe that. Yes, I've seen people who've gotten their results and it has created anxiety and it has been stressful. But at the same time, I think that's their choice. They get to decide that. We're all adults here. Obviously, it's different when you're making a decision for someone else. But we're taking care of adult patients who get to choose. And now you can give, just as Liz said, actually setting expectations as the ordering clinician and saying, "I'm going to order this," and, again, as an oncologist, most patients, like Liz said, it's really about, "Is my disease progressing? Is it back?" And patients have understood that they can read that if your impression says, 'no concerns for cancer', you kind of get that - they are like, "Okay. I'm good." Or if there's something concerning, you understand that, and it's not mind blowing. You kind of know, well, there was a percentage of chance that this would be good or bad. I think setting expectations, especially when we think it might be a new diagnosis, that this could be something that is as bad as cancer. If you are getting a colonoscopy, a screening colonoscopy, and we find something there, and the pathology is looking for abnormal cells or cancer cells, you can opt out and say, "I don't want to look at this," or you can. The other thing I encourage patients to do is just kind of see when their next appointment is scheduled because, I for one, as a patient would hate that I see something online and now I'm not seeing my provider for the next two or three weeks. So, giving enough time, a reasonable amount of time for the test to be read so that I am prepared, so I have had a chance to look at it for the patient so we can have the best discussion. But at the same time, once the patients understand that, and I think many patients do now, and I have both types of patients, some people say, "I don't look at it until you tell me." And there's people who look at it and then there is a lot of sometimes back and forth and we try to set these expectations that if this is something bad, if it's something really bad, where I need you to come to the emergency room right now, you're going to be hearing from me. But at the same time, it's nice that patients have that agency where they can say, "Hey, I just want to make sure I didn't get missed because I know you get a lot of test results and I hope you saw this, but this doesn't look good." You're empowering patients again to fully participate. And if you are someone who finds it helpful to ChatGPT or Google, from reliable sources- that's another thing, as a provider, I can give them reliable resources like, "Hey, this is a good website. This one, not so much. You can look at it and then you can come prepared for your visit and say these are the things I looked up. I have some questions now that I can better participate in this conversation." So, I think in general I firmly believe that the patient health record really does belong to the patients. They get to decide how and when they want to look at these things. But just as providers, we can help them set appropriate expectations and boundaries. And we sometimes get a lot of back-and-forth messages and we have to say, "Hey. This is non-urgent. I promise I'm going to talk about this at our visit. But just to provide good care to all my patients, I can't be in a back-and-forth kind of text message about this result." And then the other thing is that we can now use cool new technologies like natural language processing and these large language models where we're looking at- one of the things we get a lot is, "Oh, my God. My esophagus has collapsed." Because that's the normal way for the esophagus to be in the body unless you're eating. So, it would be nice if maybe we could have cool technologies where someone can hover over their test result and kind of translate this to me in something that a layperson can understand who's not in medicine. That includes that your esophagus is collapsed, which is its natural state. Nothing to worry about. So, some of these things we can do better with just technology. And I think one other thing I'll say is the onus of all of this can't only be on the provider. I think we need to make sure that the providers are supported to do the right thing because it is the right thing to provide patient-centered care and give patients the answers they want and help them through their journey of whatever diagnosis they have. So, if you have competing interests where there's profit-based companies telling you, "You need to fit in more patients and you need to see 30 patients a day and you need to make sure you bill appropriately." Because none of us are thinking that way. We went into medical school to help people and interact with people. But if you don't give providers the time, they need to have these discussions, the support for some of these questions to be handled by their staff and it can be a triage nurse who can then immediately call the patient and say, "Hey. Don't worry. Dr. Singh looked at this report and she said that this part is totally fine. She's going to talk to you more about it," but you have to have a whole team that helps the provider do that for them. Dr. Fumiko Chino: One thing I think that struck me about your article was this idea that by providing more support to providers, so by making the electronic medical record system work better for providers, you are actually making it more patient centered. You are basically loosening up that chokehold that sometimes the EMR has on providers to actually give us more time to have those difficult conversations or to make those phone calls and not just to be constantly documenting. Now, Liz, I recently read one of your many research articles that you're a co-author on. This one was in a Medical Informatics Journal from 2021 and it showed that after OpenNotes implementation, oncologist notes overall seem to become a little longer and easier to read. Yet some consistent feedback I hear from patients remains that the use of abbreviations and medical jargon stymie their understanding of their notes and their results. Do you have any thoughts on concrete steps that we can do to improve the use of the EMR as a tool to provide patient-centered care? Liz Salmi: Yeah, for sure. How do we make these portals more friendly? I mean, they're not friendly for the docs and clinicians and they're not friendly for the patients. I mentioned earlier, the biggest user of the EHR through their patient portals is patients, and so these portals have not been designed well at all. Things we can do to make that portal easier for the patient user, knowing that now we have access to this information, we're seeing our test results before our clinicians and then we're going to message our clinicians and ask them questions. Some health systems are actually implementing penalties on patients. Like they're going to get charged for these patient messages and that's still up in the air. But with that in mind and all of that context and the amount of information that's available, some concrete next steps are to get people on the portal before something bad happens. So the proactive thing, people are used to using these tools and then from there you kind of learn the rules of the road or like what's okay or not okay or you kind of learn a bit about, "I know this question could be better asked in the clinic as opposed to through the portal because I've been dinged in some way." And it's unfortunate to get dinged in some way through those portal things. Or it's like if you keep asking me more questions, this becomes some sort of a digital visit and you might get charged for this. So, like figuring out that murky space, I feel like I'm talking about in a horrible way, but that still is like a place where getting things figured out. And then the thing is like the things that people like to use, things like social media are sticky and are pretty well designed. The patient portals have not been well designed. Can we pull a page from the playbook of digital tools that are working well that people like? And so that's like another ripe opportunity for co-design. And the people who build the patient portal tools, the people, the EHR vendors, I go to their conferences from time to time. Sometimes I have an abstract that gets submitted and then I get to learn what those vendors are doing and they don't partner with patients in the co-design of those things. I'm just talking about they in general but you can kind of guess who I'm talking about. But they are early phases of you know when I am at the conference and I'm the person who stands up and asks the room, "Did you involve patients in the co-design of your tool?" And they're like, "We're figuring that out." And so, it's sad that that hasn't happened. So, we could say it's sad for the clinician side but definitely sad from a patient user side especially if like that some of the systemic issues from a clinician strife perspective is, "Ah, my patients are over messaging me." And then another thing is we could bake in, we should be doing studies of how people are, especially people with cancers and kind of scarier conditions that make you message more, bake in things about studying what kind of maybe AI related tools to help us when we're in those kinds of scary situations. So, you know, shout out to our team as we are kind of focusing on some studies on that right now. But of course, the study is in progress and I would love to tell you the results right now and then I can't. So, it's like how do you kind of give really from a dissemination perspective how do you kind of say, "We're in progress, this is what we're learning so far." And so, from the 'what can we do right now' perspective as all of these things are going on, the Cares Act has happened, patients can see their test results. But something that has been well studied at least in the OpenNotes universe is we know from 12 years of research and 12 years of studies on the concept of when patients read their notes, they better understand their care and are more likely to follow up with what their doctor said, there's a whole body of work there. And the big tips are to patients and things you could communicate to patients are after the visit's over, reread your note. That is the concrete conversation. That's everything we talked about today. Read it. Encouraging reading your notes after a visit. And then another tip from Liz, super patient advocate, is before your next visit, read that last visit again. It may have been three months, it may have been six months, it could have been a year. Read that before your next visit. Because I know hopefully the clinician is doing that like 10 minutes before the visit. But it's like I'm going to read that and go, "Oh, this is what they said. I totally forgot that. I actually didn't do that or I did and it hasn't been fixed." So, the idea of reading the note and then reading it again later because that's what the clinician is doing as well. So, it really kind of puts us all on the same page. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I love it. Aditi, I'd love your perspective on this as well. As a provider, as a researcher, I think fundamentally we often don't think of notes as being education tools for patients and we need to balance this patient-centered care with other advances. Even in your paper, we're trying to get advances in quality surveillance and research. But again, there's this concept that maybe those advances in those things can be very patient centered as well. Where do we go next for this? Dr. Aditi Singh: Yeah, the culture shift. Because I know a lot of people have said, well, these notes traditionally were not really patient facing. So, we would write a lot of things and sometimes we would take it just too far where sometimes, like I can't understand what my colleague in ophthalmology is saying. I've tried to interpret sometimes hearing tests and I was just like, "Wow, I don't know your abbreviations. Mine are different from yours." And so, I think it's a good thing that we're in general saying that these notes should be more readable because for everybody, even within the medical community, I think there's been an issue with note bloat. And some of our notes, especially oncology notes, and there's been research on this, are just some of the longest, not necessarily the best quality, notes, but just very long where it's just really hard. When our patients get admitted to the hospital, sometimes a hospital team has a hard time understanding what was going on outpatient. Your note goes on for 30 pages and I can't find out what I need to find out. And same thing for patients. So, I think, in general, it's a good thing to just push increased readability and just teaching medical students and us, as hard as it is to change. But it's a good reminder for me and say, "Hey, I wrote this. Does this make sense to someone who doesn't practice oncology?" And if it doesn't, how else could I say it where it doesn't necessarily take me an extra hour finishing my note, but it's still succinct. It's not going to have all the education that patient needs. I'm still going to have supplementary material that is very specifically patient facing because it will have more information. And then I still have my people resources, my human resources that are going to do a, say, chemo teach visit for someone who's starting a new therapy. And I have my pharmacist who's going to do that, too. But how do we use all of that so that the patient in front of me feels as prepared as they possibly can to get this treatment, go through the scanxiety that comes with scans and go through this journey feeling that they have some sort of– We're all looking for that sense of control where we have none in some of these situations. So just helping each other out this way. So, I think, yes, absolutely, need to make our notes more readable. We can do some of it ourselves, some of it our technology does. So, we have an autocorrect in our EHR that I use heavily and I still sometimes will write in shorthand and it just auto corrects all the words that I'm used to writing in and it just fixes all of that for me. So, use the technology. And some things we're learning too, and we talked about this in our article too, how certain things we said were using stigmatizing language, sometimes inadvertently, and how some of these biases get perpetuated. And we've just been saying that and now someone said it in a different note that got copied and pasted and now we've just perpetuated this thing that was completely inaccurate about the patient. So absolutely, more power to patients to read that and say, "Uh-uh, that is actually not what I said. And actually, can we have a meaningful conversation on what this meant?" So I do think we can do better as a community and I think if we and the EHR vendor, if they continue to use these newer technology, a lot of us are testing ambient listening and I think that'll be really cool because if I can just sit and look at my patient and not have to type anything, and I have this AI tool that kind of summarizes our interaction and makes sure that we put in all the important information in that patient's note. And then it's a great reference, like Liz said, for the patient and for me when I look at that note next time. Because there's also research that's shown what the patient says and what you actually type is often you just filter out so many of the things because I'm in my medicine brain, you're filtering out as people are speaking because you're also trained to recognize the worst-case things and, "Not dangerous, not dangerous, not dangerous. Okay, I'm going to write the one that sounds- chest pain. I'll write down funny tingling in your toe that happens like once every once in a while." I keep on going because I need to also focus on things that I think I can triage in my head. But this is cool. This way we get to hear the whole story and I think have more open-ended discussions as opposed to these short, "Do you have chest pain or not? Constipation, yes, or no?" But actually saying, "Hey, Liz. What's your story? Very different question. Dr. Fumiko Chino: And I think that just to kind of point to this concept of the patient reported outcome and the tingling in the toe that does happen every now and then but has consistently happened for the last 10 years. I feel like PROs can really potentially actually capture that better. I would just like to give a little last time at the end in case there's anything that we didn't touch upon that you feel like is really relevant or pressing before we say goodbye. Liz, anything that we missed? Liz Salmi: Not a miss, but just a quick thing is a little bit about LLMs or AI tools in the exam room. And I just want my doctors to know that I'm also using those tools. And it'll be an interesting next few years as the patients are users and the clinicians are users and I don't want them to just talk to each other. So how do we design this stuff together? Dr. Fumiko Chino: Sometimes I feel like patients and providers are just on the world's longest blind date. We're just trying to find enough about each other to have a meaningful relationship. Liz Salmi: That's cute. I love that. Dr. Fumiko Chino: Aditi, any last thoughts from you? Dr. Aditi Singh: I love this quote by Ram Dass where he says, "We're all just walking each other home." We're a team. That's how I think most of us oncologists think. I love my patients. I want to do what's best for them. I think most of us are that way and I wish for our regulators, our payers, our healthcare systems, to all get on the same page so that- we want more of this. We want more of this interaction, that mutual respect and trust that is just invaluable. And we want all of those other stakeholders to come together and help support this. And I think that support's the biggest mission here. Dr. Fumiko Chino: I love that. What a great way of ending this conversation. Thank you so much for this wonderful conversation. Many thanks to both Dr. Singh and Ms. Salmi, as well as our listeners for your time today. You will find the links to the papers that we discussed in the transcript of this episode. If you value the insights that you hear on the JCO OP Put into Practice Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And I hope that you'll join us next month for Put into Practice's next episode. Until then, stay safe. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Dr. Pennell and Dr. James Hammock discuss the provision of oncologic services by Project Access safety net care coordination programs. NATHAN PENNELL: Hello, and welcome to the latest JCO Oncology Practice podcast, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all recordings, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. My name is Dr. Nate Pennell, medical oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic and consulting editor for the JCO OP. I have no conflicts of interest related to this podcast. And a complete list of disclosures is available at the end of the podcast. Today, I'd like to talk a little bit about the complexities of providing cancer care for patients who are uninsured or underinsured, which is a relatively large percentage of patients in the US. How do patients without insurance receive cancer care? One way is through community programs, including a program called Project Access, a care coordination program connecting patients to specialty medical care at no or reduced cost, including, in some instances, oncology care. But how does it work? Who does it help? And how impactful are this and other programs designed to obtain cancer care for low-income, uninsured, and underserved patients? With me today to discuss this topic is Dr. Jamey Hammock, a resident in internal medicine at the University of Alabama Birmingham. We'll be discussing the paper from he and his colleagues titled, Oncologic Services Through Project Access and Other Safety Net Care Coordination Programs, which was published online July 31, 2020 in the JCO OP. Welcome, Jamey, and thank you for joining me on the podcast. JAMEY HAMMOCK: Hey. Thank you, very excited to be here. I did want to say too that I do not have any conflicts of interest or disclosures for this particular study. NATHAN PENNELL: Why don't we start out by talking a little bit about how big a problem it is for providing cancer care in uninsured and underinsured patients in the US. JAMEY HAMMOCK: It's an enormous problem. If you look at previous studies, they've looked at patients who are underserved, underinsured, or even uninsured with cancer. And these patients actually typically present with later stage disease, they experience delays in treatment, and ultimately have worse overall survival compared to well-insured patients. So just that alone tells you how big of a problem that this is. I think that when you look at cancer care for underinsured and uninsured, you have to break those things up. And you can't really talk about it without talking about the Affordable Care Act. So let's take uninsured patients, for example. If you look at pre-Affordable Care Act and post-Affordable Care Act, there's a great study in 2017 that really broke down these two groups, pre and post. And what they found is with the Affordable Care Act, if you are uninsured across any income level and you lived in a Medicaid expansion state, the percentage of patients who were uninsured decreased from about 5% to 2 and 1/2%. So it really cut that percentage in half, which is pretty impressive. And then if you look at low-income uninsured patients, because they broke that down in the study, the percentage actually dropped from around 10% to 3 and 1/2%. So It just shows you when you talk about absolute numbers and then those percentages, how many individuals are really affected that have a diagnosis of cancer and are uninsured. And it gives you a little bit of insight of what Medicaid expansion has done for that group. And then I want to touch really quickly too on underinsured. So basically underinsured patients, they don't have the means to get the care that they need, even if they have insurance. That's important. And patients with Medicaid, for example, they have insurance, but they have their own challenges. For example, there's been studies showing that they have longer wait times to see some specialists. It's harder to find a physician that takes patients with Medicaid. Lastly, these providers are so few and far between that sometimes these patients are asked to drive very long distances to get the care they need. And you're already talking about a disadvantaged patient population who may not have the means to drive an hour away to get to their visit. NATHAN PENNELL: That sounds very challenging situation, even for people who technically have health insurance, and still don't necessarily have what they need to access care the way it should be given. Can you tell us a little bit about Project Access? I have to admit, I had never heard of that before I read this paper. And it was a fascinating program that something like this exists. Can you tell us a little bit about it? JAMEY HAMMOCK: Absolutely. So Project Access, first off, they do great work. It's a nonprofit organization that really, really works hard to try to get patients who are underinsured and uninsured subspecialty care. So I want to talk real briefly about the history first because I think it helps you understand why Project Access came to be. I think we need primary care pretty well in the US for patients who are underinsured and uninsured. We have things called community health centers, which are federal qualified health centers funded by the government. And they really do a good job providing primary care for patients who cannot get it elsewhere. The problem is that a lot of these patients ultimately will end up meaning a subspecialist. And there does not exist a community health center for subspecialty care that's funded by the government the way that community health centers are. One thing to address this was Medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion was supposed to increase the amount of patients who got insurance and thus wouldn't be able to obtain the subspecialty care that they need. But we've already talked about some of the shortcomings of Medicaid expansion, including not all states have done that, decided to expand unfortunately. And if you're an undocumented immigrant, unfortunately, you don't have access many times to government programs. So it doesn't do anything for those populations. There's been some other strategies, Dr. Pennell, to try to address subspecialty care in these populations, things like telehealth, and which you would need the technology, things like subspecialists actually coming to community health centers, let's say, every other Friday to see a patient who needs a cardiologist or an oncologist. But the problem with that is it's a little sporadic, it's inconsistent. And sometimes these patients can't be that flexible and come in the only day that the specialist is going to be there. And so really, here enters Project Access to say, you know what, let us negotiate-- pre-negotiate with subspecialists in the community that surround these community health centers and find subspecialists that agree to see x amount of patients a year. And when it comes time to refer a patient to a specialist, you contact us, and the work has been done. And so they sort of broker, if you will, or negotiate between some specialists in primary care. And they do a lot of the groundwork that it takes to get these patients the subspecialty care they need to get the results of the subspecialty visit back to the primary care. They do all of that legwork. And so they really are an incredible, incredible service. I do want to mention, they're more of a local solution. So Project Access Birmingham, for example, it serves the residents of Jefferson County. It's not meant to be a statewide solution. They're very good at serving the patients who are near, who are in the county. And in fact, a lot of them have requirements that you be a resident of the county that they operate in. But they do a wonderful job getting these patients the subspecialty care that they need. NATHAN PENNELL: Well, I have more questions about Project Access. But I think you're going to answer some of them when we start to talk about your paper. So why don't you just start off by talking us a little bit about, what was the purpose of the project that you did and how did you design your quality project. JAMEY HAMMOCK: This project started out as a genuine question I had working as an intern in internal medicine. I would see patients come into our hospital who were uninsured who had a malignancy or cancer. And I would just ask, where do these patients get their care. How are they suppose to get outpatient clinic follow-up? So that's when I learned about Project Access locally here in Birmingham. And as you just mentioned, I had a ton of questions. So I actually went and met with Project Access and just asked them all of these questions. How do you work? How is your funding? Who do you see? What specialties do you provide, et cetera, et cetera. And I decided I wanted to really take an in-depth study and look at our Project Access here in Birmingham. When I began doing the literature review for that, I realized that there was not much out there in terms of this Project Access model. I was told that many other ones exist across the country, but there had not been a lot done in the medical literature describing these places and the wonderful work that they do. And so at that point, I began to zoom out a little bit and look at all of the Project Access centers that exist in the country. NATHAN PENNELL: What did you find out when you started calling and checking in with all of the different Project Access programs? JAMEY HAMMOCK: To kind of bring things back to home, I really was particularly interested in how these Project Access centers offer oncology care because oncology care is a little bit different than other subspecialties in terms of the resources needed to provide such care. And my interest was, how do programs who are nonprofit who are trying to work with underinsured/uninsured patients provide care that require so much resources. So that was really one of my objectives is to tailor my approach to oncology care, specifically, while also describing the programs in general. And so what I found was that out of about 30 programs that I found, roughly 2/3 offered care medical oncologists. And then out of those 2/3, about 1/2 of those programs actually offered chemotherapy. Fortunately, everyone offered radiographic studies, such as MRI, CT, PET scan. So they could at least assist in diagnosing or helping to diagnose suspicion for a malignancy. Obviously, that doesn't include a biopsy, but could at least sort get the ball rolling, if you will. And then the other thing I discovered is, as I mentioned previously in the podcast, there was a lot of heterogeneity between the programs. So some programs offer transportation, some programs offered interpreter services, while others did not. Some programs required small co-pays. It seemed that everything was really tailored to their respective local community and what worked best for that community. In terms of Medicaid expansion, which was sort of another thing we were looking at with this study, what we found is about 2/3 of the states that have not expanded Medicaid have a Project Access center. And if you compare that to states that have expanded, only about one third of those have Project Access centers. And so our study suggests that the need for pro bono care is a little higher in Medicaid non-expansion states. And I think that that's intuitive. The percentage of uninsured patients with cancer in a non-expansion state is as high as 13%, depending on what their income is. And that's compared to about 2% to 3% in a state that's expanded Medicaid. So those are drastically different numbers and drastically different needs for patients, depending on if they reside in a state that has expanded Medicaid. NATHAN PENNELL: But it seems as though the difference between areas that had programs that offered cancer care and those that didn't probably revolve around whether they're able to find practitioners who are willing to provide those services. And it looks like you did some investigating of programs that did and did not offer cancer care. So what were the differences between those? JAMEY HAMMOCK: The next step of my project was to interview those program coordinators of the centers who were not able to offer medical oncology care. And three common themes emerged as I talked to these program directors. The first of those themes was cost. And I think that that's intuitive. And it did not surprise me. Medical care is expensive. Oncology care is expensive. And these programs, they're mostly nonprofit and rely on donations and such. And so the first barrier to offering this is cost. The patient see the medical oncologist, and they prescribe chemotherapy, someone has to pay for that chemotherapy. And a lot of Project Access centers were not prepared to do that. One in particular I spoke with, they had actually considered it. And when they ran the numbers, it would account for over half of their annual budget. So it just was not feasible. The second barrier that emerged while I was talking to these program directors was the concept of continuity and a longitudinal commitment. So for example, if I'm a medical oncologist and I decide that I want to take part in this and donate some of my services, and I see a patient that has a new diagnosis of cancer, and we treat the cancer, what happens if they relapse or what happens in five years that they need a medical oncologist again? And I don't think many oncologists were comfortable committing to a situation that had no clear end date. That's in contrast to a patient that has COPD and the primary care physician is referring them to a pulmonologist to get recommendations on maintenance inhalers and what might work best for this patient. That's more of a one and done visit. The third area barrier emerged as I talked to these patients was the concept of multiple physician buy-in. And so, as you're aware, many patients that have a cancer may require care from multiple subspecialties, whether that be surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiology, diagnostic radiology, and even palliative care. And so it really is a disservice to a patient if you can offer them not the full scope of oncological care that they need. A lot of Project Access centers were not comfortable providing some of the care without providing all of the care, if that makes sense. NATHAN PENNELL: I mean, all of those make perfect sense. I mean, although in some ways they relate partly back to the first issue, which is that things cost more if they take a long time and have to continue indefinitely over time. So I'm curious, for the places that did offer chemotherapy, and actually even though it was a relatively small percentage, it was not trivial, chemotherapy is extremely expensive. As you mentioned, some of them looked at it and decided it was going to be something like half of their revenue for the year would be taken and providing this. How did those that covered chemo actually cover the cost of that? JAMEY HAMMOCK: That's a great question. I had the same question. And so what we found is that most of the programs who were able to offer medical oncology and then services, and then taking the next step to offer chemotherapy, they were affiliated with very large hospital systems in the area. So I'll give you an example. Here in Birmingham, our Project Access center works with UAB. And they're able to offer these services because UAB takes the baton, if you will, and carries the care forward, offers that chemotherapy that is needed. So it's done through large affiliated hospital systems. If that does not exist, or if that relationship is not there, then what my study has shown is that it's not feasible. NATHAN PENNELL: Right. That makes sense. I mean, individual oncology offices that order their own chemotherapy could probably never afford to just donate that, whereas large systems have other ways to do that. And of course, the large nonprofits also have to give back to the community and may just consider that part of their community service. What's the next step to extend this? I guess, the larger question is, it'd be great if perhaps everyone had health insurance. But until that happens, what steps can be taken to provide something like this more broadly? JAMEY HAMMOCK: Yeah, so that is exactly what I was thinking. Medicare for all is the answer. And ultimately I think we need a centralized universal health insurance policy. But that's not the topic of this podcast. So until then, Project Access is stepping into the gap and doing this great work. And I really wanted them to be recognized just as a organization, broadly speaking, and then on an individual basis. They are on the ground doing the hard work, making the phone calls, making the partnerships, raising the money. They're really doing incredible, incredible work for people out there who have no other options. It's not enough. As I mentioned earlier, these are local solutions to statewide issues. If you look at Alabama, it's a non-expansion state, unfortunately. The patients in Jefferson County here where Birmingham is, they benefit from Public Access, but the patients in Shelby County might not. So it's a statewide issue for the states that don't have Medicaid expansion, and then even a small population in the states that do. One thing that we can do is we can look at the examples that have been set by Project Access centers who have partnered with these hospitals and collaborate and say, listen, we're a Project Access center that has not had any luck. Please share with us how you were successful in providing oncology care to your patients. My hope is that this project provides a list where collaboration can begin. And these places can learn from each other. NATHAN PENNELL: Well, I think that this is fantastic. And I'm really happy that we're going to be able to highlight Project Access and your manuscript so more people are aware of this and hopefully can start shining lights on their own local Project Access programs. JAMEY HAMMOCK: Right, right. NATHAN PENNELL: Well, Jamey, thank you so much for joining me on the podcast today. JAMEY HAMMOCK: Thank you for having me. I thoroughly enjoyed it and love talking about Project Access and access to care. And I really appreciate it. NATHAN PENNELL: Until next time, I also want to thank our listeners for checking in on this JCO Oncology Practice podcast. If you enjoyed what you heard today, don't forget to give us a rating or review on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen. While you're there, be sure to subscribe so you never missed an episode. JCO OP podcasts are just one of ASCO's many podcasts programs. You can find all recordings at podcast.asco.org. The full text of this paper is available online at ascohubs.org/journal/op. This is Dr. Nate Pennell for the JCO Oncology Practice signing off. PRESENTER: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care. And is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. For more original research, editorials, and review articles, please visit us online at jco.org. This production is copyrighted to the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Thank you for listening.

Dr. Pennell and Dr. Jennifer Tsui discuss the processes that lead to suboptimal EOL care within Medicaid populations and among racial/ethnic minority groups. Hello, and welcome to the latest JCO Oncology Practice podcast, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all recordings, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. My name is Dr. Nate Pennell, medical oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic and consultant editor for the JCO OP. I have no conflicts of interest related to this podcast, and a complete list of disclosures is available at the end of the podcast. Aggressive care at the end of life for cancer patients is widely recognized as poor-quality care. And by aggressive care, I don't mean aggressive supportive care or hospice, but rather inappropriate interventions, like chemotherapy or hospital and ICU admissions, near the end of life that rarely improve outcomes and often actually worsen quality of life. Efforts are being made to educate physicians and cancer patients to try to minimize aggressive treatments near the end of life and to help as many patients as possible benefit from things like hospice benefits and appropriate end-of-life care. However, not all patients receive high-quality end-of-life care, and there may be differences in end-of-life care in various populations. For example, how do race and things like Medicaid status impact aggressive care at the end of life? With me today to discuss this topic is Dr. Jennifer Tsui, Assistant Professor in the Division of Population Science at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. We'll be discussing her paper "Racial Disparities in Health Care Utilization at the End of Life Among New Jersey Medicaid Beneficiaries With Advanced Cancer," currently in press for the JCO OP. Welcome, Dr. Tsui, and thank you for joining me on the podcast. Thanks so much. Thanks for having me. I have no conflicts of interest with this study whatsoever. Dr. Tsui, can you please tell me a little bit about what exactly constitutes high or low-quality end-of-life care? Sure. I mean, I think that, in this study in particular, we wanted to focus on guideline-related end-of-life care. So we wanted to see if it was possible to take a look at patterns at the end of life for breast and colorectal cancer and stage cancer cases and see sort of what the patterns were in relation to adherence to guideline adherence and what they should be receiving at the end of life. And so that included a set of measures around aggressive care related to hospitalization in the last 30 days, emergency department visits in the last 30 days of life, an ICU admission in the last 30 days of life, and chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life. These are guidelines that have been discussed and published by national organizations. And we also looked at hospice enrollment. So we looked at whether there was any hospice enrollment and whether there was hospice enrollment in the last 30 days of life, I'm sorry. Are there already data existing for various disparities in end-of-life care among different racial groups or patients of different socioeconomic status? There are. So there have been a few prior publications before our study that have shown that Medicaid patients frequently-- not just for end-of-life care, but cancer care in general-- that Medicaid patients receive lower quality of care. And there were studies done prior to ours that did show, I think, in New York, for example, that Medicaid patients had lower-quality end-of-life care compared to Medicaid and privately insured patients. We have seen other studies also mentioning disparities by race in terms of quality of end-of-life care. However, I don't think-- some of these studies have focused on different populations and cancer sites. So some of the studies I mentioned looked at AYA, adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. Other studies have focused on other cancer sites. And also, these were studies that were conducted in earlier time period. And what we know is that, given all that's happened since the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion in several states, sort of the Medicaid population has changed, but sort of health care delivery has been redesigned in different ways. And so that was really why we wanted to look at this issue sort of in more recent years and during a period that spanned Medicaid expansion within New Jersey. You know, that's helpful to understand what sort of prompted you to do this. So why don't you tell our listeners basically how you designed your study. Sure. So this was a large data linkage that we established within the state of New Jersey to better understand cancer care quality for breast and colorectal cancer patients in general, so beyond just the stage IV cancer patients, the patient's diagnosis at stage IV, but breast and colorectal cancer patients in general. So we worked with our New Jersey State Cancer Registry, identified all our breast and colorectal cancer cases that were diagnosed between 2011 and 2015, and then we linked those with our New Jersey Medicaid enrollment and claims files. So this was a study that was done in partnership with our Rutgers Center for State Health Policy. It was conducted sort of with ongoing input and feedback from both our State Cancer Registry as well as our Medicaid program. They've seen sort of findings related to this and other research questions we've had throughout the process. And what we really ended up with was a very rich data set that not only gave us all the tumor characteristics that are available in the cancer registry, but also the health care utilization patterns and Medicaid enrollment characteristics that are available on the Medicaid claims and Medicaid program data side. And how well did this database capture all of these measures of aggressive end-of-life care, so ED visits and chemotherapy and such? Since we did focus on those who were continuously enrolled in our state Medicaid program, we were able to go through our claims data and be able to, using billing codes, identify things like ED visits, et cetera. This data set only includes cancer cases up to age 64. So we didn't include people who may be dual enrolled in Medicare or have Medicare claims. We also tried to create some other restrictions so that we can get at just the people where we had a definitive diagnosis month and year and follow them through their death. And so we did use the prior studies that I mentioned earlier to see what kind of codes were used there. We have quite a multidisciplinary team of collaborators. I worked with quite closely the first author here, Annie Yang. Soon-to-be Dr. Annie Yang is in medical school here at the New Jersey Medical School. And so we did try to be as comprehensive as we could with the codes we used to identify those utilization patterns. OK, so why don't you tell us some of your findings? So I would say that the overall finding is that 62% of these stage IV breast and colorectal cancer patients received at least one measure of aggressive end-of-life care. So out of those four individual measures, 2/3 received at least one, which seems quite high. They ranged from 27% having at least one hospitalization to 34% receiving chemotherapy within the last 14 days of life. What we found is alarming, and it's sort of a call to action for addressing racial and ethnic disparities in health care, is that we found that our non-Hispanic Black patients had a higher odds of receiving any one of those aggressive end-of-life care measures after controlling for other factors. So we did find this racial/ethnic disparity in non-Hispanic Black patients having more aggressive end-of-life care compared to our non-Hispanic white patients, even though these are all the same Medicaid program. This is within one state. And so it did point to some need to better understand what is going on within the health care system, within the health care encounter between patients and physicians towards the end of life and what needs to be done to address these disproportionate rates in end-of-life care among racial/ethnic minority patients. When you talk about these numbers, like 2/3 of patients having aggressive end-of-life care and 39% enrolling in hospice, how does that compare to what would be considered a more appropriate level, say, the private insured patients? So we didn't compare it to privately insured in our state, but we did look at what was published in other states. In New York, for example, I think we had a slightly higher proportion of Medicaid enrollees with stage IV breast and colorectal cancer having more aggressive care. So we did see higher rates. So while we can't compare within our state alone, we do see that the rates are slightly higher than other published studies. Well, I guess I'm just trying to figure out, is aggressive end-of-life care something that commonly happens to all Americans in general, or is this vastly more in this population than what we would expect? In the general population? Yeah, in the general-- You know, I don't-- yeah, I don't have those rates and what our bar should be at baseline, to be honest. I do think that what we see in the end-of-life hospice literature is that there is suboptimal use of hospice care. And what we found was, again, here also sort of suboptimal use of hospice care in this diverse, low-income, Medicaid population. No, clearly, clearly, definitely so. What are some reasons why Medicaid patients would be more likely to have aggressive end-of-life care, do you think? I think Medicaid patients sort of broadly often have higher rates of comorbid conditions when they're diagnosed with cancer. There are complex social factors related to the Medicaid population in terms of being low-income, in terms of other social determinants of health and social needs that increase barriers to care or barriers to high-quality care or continuity of care. In another paper that we published that focuses on this data linkage in the population and this data linkage, there was a lack of primary care utilization prior to cancer diagnosis as well as a lot of the cancer patients in Medicaid enrolling in Medicaid upon diagnosis, right? So I think that there are sort of just several multi-level factors that contribute to why there may be higher rates of aggressive end-of-life care. I think, from a patient perspective, there is a literature out there on the need for communication tools and sort of interaction and inclusion of caregivers that are a part of the decision-making in end-of-life care. Certainly, we've seen in the literature for a while the issue of providers and providers not only being sort of culturally competent or racial and ethnic concordant, but having the tools that they need, both for the physician or the health care team, to have these end-of-life discussions. So I think it's very multi-level and certainly not just either on the patient or the physician. Even within the Medicaid population, so independent just of the, say, the financial pressures that would lead one to enroll in Medicaid, what you showed was that non-Hispanic Black patients had a much higher rate of aggressive end-of-life care even than the overall Medicaid population. And why do you think that would be true? Yeah, so after we finished the analysis for this, we definitely did reach out to other colleagues who have worked in the communities more closely within New Jersey, within the non-Hispanic Black population across New Jersey. We've also talked to our state Medicaid program to, one, think of sort of action items for how to better understand what we're seeing in the quantitative administrative data here, and then two, how to engage communities to understand what to do next about this. So from the literature and from sort of racial/ethnic disparities literature, we do know that there is often mistrust of the medical system. There's underutilization of preventive screenings, and there are physician biases and structural biases that occur along the way, so again, the multi-level factors that impact why there may be disproportionate aggressive end-of-life care in the non-Hispanic Black population. You know, we can't answer those questions with Medicaid claims and enrollment files. We can identify these patterns. And I think what our research team has been in communication with our state Medicaid program to do next is then figure out, how do we talk with some of these communities across the state to figure out what the appropriate community-level education tools might be needed to improve an understanding of what end-of-life options are, but also to focus on the hospitals and health care systems that may be disproportionately seeing some of the-- that may be seeing higher proportions of non-Hispanic Black patients, and how can we engage the health care teams within those settings to figure out what can be done at the health care delivery level? Do you think we have enough information to make interventions now? I mean, are there-- how do you think, aside from further study and trying to understand it better, we might, in the short term, improve rates of quality end-of-life care in these high-risk patients? We've seen-- and we've talked about this, I think, in this field somewhat-- is, one, there are guidelines. And just having health care teams, providers, hospitals understand where they are, sort of tracking where they are in rates of aggressive end-of-life care and in hospice enrollment, and having that feedback and audit loop to kind of look introspectively within the health care delivery setting, I think is one option that we've seen in terms of trying to increase quality and increase adherence to guidelines for other things. And then I certainly think that there might be a need for community-level interventions around, what are the barriers to hospice enrollment? Or where is the lack of awareness and knowledge around end-of-life care options? And what does it mean to reduce interventional care, right? And what does it mean for communities? I think that targeting those aspects and having a dialogue that is responsive to the community-level needs are probably ways that we can start. I think that makes sense. I mean, as an oncologist, a city with a high minority population, I think improving the cultural competence and being able to establish a level of trust with patients who may have an inherent distrust of the medical system, especially when you're talking about something like that's as counterintuitive as trying to recommend not doing more aggressive care, it's certainly a complex conversation and definitely would require a level of trust and communication in order to do that properly. So I completely agree with you that I think, on the community level, the interventions will have to involve that if it's going to be effective. So Dr. Tsui, thanks so much for joining me on the podcast today. Thank you for having me. And until next time, thank you to our listeners for listening to this JCO Oncology Practice podcast. If you enjoyed what you heard today, don't forget to give us a rating or a review on Apple podcasts or wherever you listen. While you're there, be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. JCO OP podcasts are just one of ASCO's many podcasts programs. You can find all the recordings at podcast.asco.org. The full text of this paper will be available online at ascopubs.org/journal/op. This is Dr. Nate Pennell for the JCO Oncology Practice, signing off. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. For more original research, editorials, and review articles, please visit us online at jco.org. This production is copyrighted to the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Thank you for listening.

Dr. Pennell, Dr. Khosa and Dr. Marshall discuss the recent JCO OP publication, "Gender Differences in Faculty Rank and Leadership Positions Among Hematologists and Oncologists in the United States" Welcome to the latest JCO Oncology Practice podcast, brought to you by the ASCO podcast network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all recordings, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. my name is Dr. Nate Pennell, Medical Oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic, and consultant editor for the JCOOP. Today, I'd like to talk about sex disparities in academic oncology. Despite increasing attention in recent years, sex disparities in academic medicine clearly persist, and are most noticeable at the more senior and leadership positions within academic centers. While these disparities are well recognized, in general in medicine, what exactly is known about sex disparities in academic leadership in oncology specifically? With me today to discuss this topic are Dr. Faisal Khosa, Associate Professor in the Department of Radiology at Vancouver General Hospital, at the University of British Columbia; and Dr. Ariela Marshall, Associate Professor of Medicine and hematologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. We'll be discussing their paper, "Sex Differences in Faculty Rank and Leadership Positions Among Hematologist and Oncologists in the United States," published online in the JCOOP in February 2020. Welcome, Faisal and Ariela, and thank you for joining me on the podcast. Thanks so much for the invitation. We're glad to be here. So how big of a problem is sex disparities in academic medicine, in general? I can speak to that a little bit, and then certainly Dr. Khosa also is a world leader in this area. So he can add on to what I have to say. So I think we well know that this is a problem across the board, regardless of specialty, regardless of whether we're talking about academic rank, or position on editorial boards, or any number of other leadership positions. So we see the huge drop-off between our current medical school population, which is actually over 50% female as of the last couple of years, but then a sharp drop-off over time when we get up the ladder to then in the associate and then the full professor level, as well as positions like being hospital CEO, department chairs, and any number of other leadership positions. And I'd certainly like to hear what Dr. Khosa has to say as well. Nathan, thank you for inviting my participation on this very important topic. I would also like to add that I have no personal or institutional conflicts of interest with this publication that we are discussing, or this particular interview that is being recorded now. I would also like to thank Dr. Irbaz Bin Riaz from Department of Hematology Oncology at Mayo Clinic, who spearheaded this project successfully, and is also the first author on this manuscript. Yeah. Thank you for clarifying that. I agree with Ariela's comments. Women are underrepresented in high academic ranks and leadership positions, in spite of more than 50% matriculants from medical schools across North America, US, and Canada are now women. But they represent fewer than 20% of medical school deans and department chairs. Furthermore the American Association of Medical Colleges data reveals that female physicians make $0.76 for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. And this is even after adjusting for age, experience, and discipline of practice. Women report difficulty finding mentors and are significantly less likely to receive sponsorship. Now let me explain the difference. Mentorship is critical to the development of leadership skills or abilities, while sponsorship is a necessity to enter into leadership positions. No. That certainly makes sense that that would be a significant barrier to academic success. I think it's interesting you mention that women now make up approximately half of physicians in medical school. I went to medical school starting in 1998, and already more than half of my class was women. Why do you think they're still seeing this disparity 20 years later? That's a great question, and I think we can delve maybe a little bit into our paper here, in terms of what we found in hematology oncology. Because I would imagine that some of these findings are kind of similar across the board. And so what we observed here in this study is that we did see that sharp drop-off in number of associate and full professors. So what we saw, about 45% of women were assistant professors. Only about 36% of the associate professors were women. And only about 22% of the full professors were women. So there's definitely that drop-off over time. And also only about 30% of department leaders were women. And so one thing that people bring up a lot is just time. Right? So the time to go from assistant professor to associate professor to full professor, is not measured in months or even a couple of years. It's measured in the 10, 20, 30 year time frame. So somebody say that that's probably a big driving factor, is that what we're seeing in medical school has not yet caught up, with what we're seeing in leadership positions that take years-- probably 20, 30, 40 years to achieve. But the other thing that we can talk about a bit later is it's not just time. It's the fact that people who have those positions may stay in them for 10, 20 years, and not leave room for other people to get into those positions. And also there is differences in how long it takes women to get promoted. And if you have to achieve a certain academic rank to get one of these leadership positions, then there may be delays of women being able to do that for a number of factors that we could talk about. There is one more factor, which is less obvious, but equally challenging, which perpetuates the problem that we are discussing here. If you look at appointment and promotions in academic medicine, and I have been fortunate that I've practiced in Europe. Then I practiced in US. And now I practice in Canada. And all my practice has been in academic institutions. Whenever somebody is being shortlisted, selected, interviewed, appointed to an academic leadership position; the sole or entire or 90% or 99% of the focus is on that individual's performance of publications, of grants, of collaboration. Nowhere is the consideration given to a person or individual's track record, for advocacy for equity, diversity, and inclusion. Now such an individual gets into the leadership position, now they are handed a memo saying, you have to ensure equal opportunity, and you have to make sure that minorities are appointed, women are appointed, they are promoted. Now such an individual does not have innate interest, or understanding, or even expertise in equity, diversity, and inclusion. So previously what was a bottleneck of barriers to entry for women and minorities, has now become a bottleneck and barrier to promotion and leadership positions. And this is a subtle undertaking which people overlook when they are selecting people for appointment positions. No, I think that's a-- I hadn't thought of that. But that's a very significant factor I would think. And this gets to the larger topic of how we choose our leaders in academic medicine. We don't necessarily choose people based upon skills in leadership, and training in leadership, but rather on personal success in whatever their academic field is, which does not necessarily lend itself to being able to do the job that they've now been appointed to. Can you take us through how you designed your study? So we started off with publicly available data. And the first thing we did was here [INAUDIBLE] we went to the website, looked at institutions that offered residency and fellowship training, because those were academic institutions by default. From there, we actually downloaded or created the lists of programs, and then visited the website of each program to obtain the list of their faculty from department chair down to the level of assistant professor in hematology and oncology. We looked at leadership positions-- director, associate director, division chief. We also looked at practice type, whether it was university, whether it was community, whether it was a combination of the two. We looked at a number of trainees. We looked at the geographic location, like state of the practice. In addition to that, we also looked at whether it was an MD or DO, whether it was an international medical graduate faculty, the year since medical school, year since the residency, number of publications, the number of grants, the number of clinical trials, the number of first author publications, number of citations. So we made it as comprehensive as possible from our experience of what it takes for academic appointments, and what is considered vital for academic promotions and to get people into leadership positions. Yeah, that was one of the things that I wondered, is how one really measures this. And it sounds like you did a wonderful job of trying to identify, as best you could, objective measures. There probably isn't really a way to measure bias about sex differences in appointments. So you would have to look at this using these objective measures. I agree, Nathan. And let me add to that. What is normal? You know, we talk about normal. Normal is an illusion. What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly. So there are many things that are tangible. Then there are many things also that those are intangible. So we can only study what is objective or objectively can be calculated or measured. But in this equation, I'll give you an example. You look at the interview panels, and most of them are males, right? Now how are you want to configure bias in that room when a female comes in to interview? Automatically people going to presume, oh, she is married. Automatically people are going to presume, oh, she may have kids, or may she may not be able to do justice to this leadership position, this chair position or what have you. And those are things that are going on in people's heads. There is no way that you can shine a light on that. Of course. Of course. Although, in a way you do that by trying to match everything as objectively as you can, and seeing if there's still a significant difference at the end. OK, so why don't you start taking me through what you found? So I talked a little bit about what we had observed in terms of that drop-off in the numbers or the percentages that we see women who were of higher academic rank, and the associate professors, and then only 22% being full professors, and only 30% being leaders of their departments. We did also find that women had lower h-index. So what we could tell in terms of an objective measure of research productivity, although of course that's not by any means a perfect measure, and they also had fewer years of professional experience and fellowship; which again speaks to the fact that while there is parity in gender in medical schools currently; in terms of practicing physicians, there's still this gap. And then we looked at the odds of obtaining full professorship or leadership of a division, after we adjusted for how long somebody had been in practice, what their productivity was; again measured by the h-index, so not the most perfect measure. And we did not find actually any differences based on sex and the odds of obtaining either professorship or divisional leadership. So again, one could call this a, quote-unquote, "negative study," and that, OK, if you correct for enough of these factors, there don't appear to be sex disparities in women being able to achieve leadership or to obtain higher academic rank. But I think a very important thing to note is that's not the point we want to be making with this study, is that, oh there's no gender difference. There's no sex disparity here. We want to point out that this is the real world. In the real world, we don't correct for things like clinical experience and academic productivity. You can't do a mathematical correction. What we need to see is why are there things like difference in academic productivity. What are the factors that may make it more difficult for women to be able to achieve these ranks over time? What are the barriers that they're facing, and how can we try to overcome them? Because we're not in a mathematical world, where we just correct for these things, and we need to help our system change to allow women to achieve these positions of leadership. Yeah, I'm glad that you pointed that out. Because my first read of the paper was actually, wow, they're actually concluding that there isn't a big gender difference, or a sex difference in senior leadership. But as you actually read in, there clearly could be disparities in terms of women being able to achieve the same numbers of publications, and equally high h-index and grant funding that would get them to the point where they would be in a position to get these leadership positions. So the disparity extends well beyond those positions themselves. There's a lot of data out there that women are funded at lower rates for initial grants. And of course, you know that once somebody gets a grant, they're more likely to get other grants in the future. So putting that barrier in place from the beginning makes it harder for women to get grants over time, makes it harder for them to get published. We know that editorial boards have a lot of sex disparity. We know that as Dr. Khosa also said, there are sex disparities in leadership who are making decisions about who gets promoted. So there are all these unseen variables that we can't account for that are probably barriers to achieving these higher leadership positions. This is something that always comes up when we talk about barriers to women moving up in leadership roles, that they may be earlier in their careers focus to some extent on raising a family, or even if they are continuing to work without a break, that they have a disproportionate share of family and home care obligations, and that this may lead to lower academic productivity. And therefore some of the measures that go into leadership promotions may not be as prominently featured on their CVs for these reasons. And so do we need to think differently about the criteria that go into promotions? Exactly. And that's one of the points that we both wanted to make while talking with you today, is that as the saying goes we need to fix the system, not the women. For a long time, when we were told you just need to work harder, be more productive, you need to essentially "be like a man," quote-unquote. We're in a system that was developed by men, run by men, and have criteria that allow men to get promoted. And so if we apply the same criteria to women, we're essentially telling them, you need to behave like a man in order to succeed in the system. So we don't need to tell women to be like a man. We need to change the system to be more friendly for everybody. And so that does involve things like changing what criteria we look at for promotion. As Dr. Khosa was saying, why are we just looking at the number of publications on a CV? There's a lot of other things that women do that actually make a big contribution, whether it be seeing a higher number of patients, whether it be serving on committees. We know that women are more likely to serve on committees than men, and committees are things that are unrewarded on your CV that take quite a lot of time and effort to do. So there's all these unseen things that women are doing that don't make it onto the CV as a criteria for promotion that we really need to take a much harder look at. And at the same time, we also need to be changing the system, and to say, what are we doing wrong that allows women to be paid less than men for doing the same tasks? What are we doing wrong that we are funding women at a lower rate than men when they submit grants? What are we doing wrong that allows our editorial board and journal reviewers to continue being primarily men? So we need to really make some changes to the system, both from what supports women, and from how we judge people on a criteria for being promoted. How do we do that, though? So I think now I mean it's hard to escape that this is a real thing. I mean you've objectively shown differences. It's been well-documented. What do we do in order to make this actually change? I recently published a paper on Canadian health authorities. And out of the 30 manuscripts that I've published and 50 more that I'm working on, this was the only manuscript which showed clarity. There was no disparity, gender disparity. And the reason for that is because it is the governments that have mandated. And there are carrots and sticks. So if an institution's annual evaluation, or three yearly evaluations does not show progress, that institution's funding, government funding, grant funding, capsizes. And these are the metrics that are applied across health care authorities. These are the metrics by which progress is measured. Giving out policy and not following it through, or not having repercussions is rewarding bad behavior. The best apology is actually change the behavior. That is what best apology is. Similarly, remedial action has to be avoided, and those who could persist with this behavior have to be taken to task. That is the only way. I'm a huge fan of Dr. Julie Silver from Harvard Medical School, who is a world leader in gender equity research, very well published in this area. And she always says that if you can't measure it, you can't see it. And it's so important to measure these things. Because number one, as Dr. Khosa said, it gives a baseline for improvement. But number two, it really opens people's eyes to say, hey, we do have a problem. I think if you are trying to go to leadership and convince people that we need to implement some changes, we really need to be bringing some data with you. You can't just say, oh, we have a gender equity problem, because everybody knows it. You need to say, this is our percentage of women who are in leadership positions. This is what's changed over time. This is what hasn't. And here's what we propose to do to fix it. And here's how we're going to measure our success. So you really need that data as a starting point, and as a measuring stick to see how well your interventions are working. Well, I think that's a wonderful summation. So Dr. Khosa, Dr. Marshall, thank you so much for joining me on the podcast today. Thank you so much, and god bless. Have a nice day. Thanks so much for inviting us. Until next time, thank all of our listeners for listening to this JCO Oncology Practice podcast. If you enjoyed what you heard today, don't forget to give us a rating or a review on Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen. While you're there, be sure to subscribe, so you never miss an episode. JCOOP podcasts are just one of ASCO's as many podcast programs. You can find all recordings at podcast.asco.org. The full text of the paper is available online at ascopubs.org, backslash journal, backslash jcoop, posted February 2020. This is Dr. Nate Pennell for the JCO Oncology Practice signing off.