Personalized medicine in oncology is maturing and evolving rapidly, and the use of molecular biomarkers in clinical decision-making is growing. This raises important issues regarding the safe, effective, and efficient deployment of molecular tests to guide appropriate care, specifically regarding laboratory-developed tests and companion diagnostics. In May 2011, NCCN assembled a work group composed of thought leaders from NCCN Member Institutions and other organizations to identify challenges and provide guidance regarding molecular testing in oncology and its corresponding utility from clinical, scientific, and coverage policy standpoints. The NCCN Molecular Testing Work Group identified challenges surrounding molecular testing, including health care provider knowledge, determining clinical utility, coding and billing for molecular tests, maintaining clinical and analytic validity of molecular tests, efficient use of specimens, and building clinical evidence.

Case rate payments combined with utilization monitoring may have the potential to improve the quality of care by reducing over and under-treatment. Thus, a national managed care organization introduced case rate payments at one multi-site radiation oncology provider while maintaining only fee-for-service payments at others. This study examined whether the introduction of the payment method had an effect on radiation fractions administered when compared to clinical guidelines. The number of fractions of radiation therapy delivered to patients with bone metastases, breast, lung, prostate, and skin cancer was assessed for concordance with clinical guidelines. The proportion of guideline-based care ascertained from the payer's claims database was compared before (2011) and after (2013) the payment method introduction using relative risks (RR). After the introduction of case rates, there were no significant changes in guideline-based care in breast, lung, and skin cancer; however, patients with bone metastases and prostate cancer were significantly more likely to have received guideline-based care (RR = 2.0 and 1.1, respectively, p<0.05). For the aggregate of all cancers, the under-treatment rate significantly declined (p = 0.008) from 4% to 0% after the introduction of case rate payments, while the over-treatment rate remained steady at 9%, with no significant change (p = 0.20). These findings suggest that the introduction of case rate payments did not adversely affect the rate of guideline-based care at the provider examined. Additional research is needed to isolate the effect of the payment model and assess implications in other populations.

Patterns of use were similar for each of the prescribed systemic treatments for mRCC, and the majority of patients were highly persistent and compliant with first-line therapies. Time to treatment discontinuation was slightly longer with oral agents compared with injectable drugs.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundAs Medicare expands the use of computed tomography (CT) for diagnosing lung cancer, there is increased opportunity to diagnose lung cancer in asymptomatic patients. This descriptive study characterizes the disease-specific diagnostic and treatment services that patients with a positive diagnosis following CT received, stratified by presentation at CT.MethodsPatients who were diagnosed with lung cancer following CT in 2013, had no history of lung cancer, survived at least 1 year, were aged 55–80 years, and had Medicare Advantage insurance were included. Patients were grouped based upon presentation at CT: morbidities unrelated to lung cancer, classic lung cancer symptoms, and cancer syndromes. Patients with none of these factors were categorized into a no diagnoses/symptoms group. The type and intensity of services used in the year following the CT was reported for each group.Results1,261 patients were included. Early treatment services were most common in the group with morbidities unrelated to lung cancer (13.7%) and least common in the cancer syndromes group (6.6%). Advanced treatment services were used by 47.3% of the cancer syndromes group versus 23.5% of the no diagnoses/symptoms group.ConclusionsThe intensity of disease-specific diagnostic and treatment services varied by presentation at CT. Patients with no symptoms or morbidities at the time of CT less frequently received advanced interventions. Learning about the utilization patterns of others with a similar presentation at CT may help patients with positive lung cancer diagnoses engage in shared decision making and in norming their experiences against those of other similarly-situated patients.

PURPOSE: The virtual tumor board (VTB) is a multidisciplinary group of specialist physicians who remotely educate the treating physician on the development of an evidence-based cancer treatment plan that will enhance patient outcomes according to the available literature. The use of hypofractionated (HF) radiation therapy (RT) is a preferred approach according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and is encouraged by the VTB, when appropriate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational, cohort study using prior authorization and claims data were conducted to show how the relative use of HF and conventional fractionated (CF) RT changed after the implementation of the VTB. Orders and claims for qualifying patients from 1 year before launch (August 2016) to 1 year after launch (August 2018) of the VTB were extracted. Claims were examined to observe which patients received CF (28-35 fractions) versus HF (15-21 fractions) RT. χ2 tests were used to assess the association between time period and the ordering and use of HF RT. Logistic regressions were used to test the association, after adjusting for the patient’s age, urbanicity, local average income, and the RT modality used. RESULTS: After implementation, we observed a significantly higher percentage of orders for HF RT (60.3% [n = 1,254 of 2,079] v 53.2% [n = 1,010 of 1,899]; P < .001) and claims for HF RT (71.5% [n = 1,143 of 1,598] v 59.0% [n = 941 of 1,595]; P < .001). Relative to before implementation, the adjusted odds of an order for HF RT was 1.35 (CI, 1.19 to 1.54), and the adjusted odds of a claim for HF RT was 1.76 (CI, 1.52 to 2.04). CONCLUSION: After the VTB was implemented, there was a significant increase in HF RT orders and claims.

e18574 Background: In the 1990s, it was demonstrated that Black patients were less likely to receive timely treatment for Stage 3 lung cancer than White patients. While contemporary work has found racial disparities in accessing insurance, diagnostics, and treatments, we wished to explore whether patients faced disparities once in treatment. To do this, we examined whether racial disparities were observable in a 2019 cohort of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries receiving treatment for lung cancer. Methods: This retrospective, observational study used health plan claims data to identify Black and White patients aged 18 to 89 years with a Medicare Advantage health plan in calendar year 2019 who received diagnostic imaging (computed tomography or positron emission tomography) followed by lung cancer treatment (radiation therapy [RT] or surgery claims mentioning a diagnosis of lung cancer) within 90 days. Only patients treated in 2019 were considered so that the findings would reflect the state of care immediately preceding the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients were excluded if they had a history of RT or lung surgery in the year prior to the diagnostic imaging date. Other databases were used to determine cancer stage, patient demographics, comorbidities, the urbanicity and median income of patients’ home ZIP code, and whether treatment was ordered by a hospital-based physician. A multivariate logistic model was used to examine the association between race and surgery, and a multivariate negative binomial model was used to examine the association between race and days to treatment (surgery or RT). Results: We identified 823 patients, 83.8% White (690), and 16.2% (133) Black. Surgery was received by 3.1% [4/133] of Black patients and 9.7% [61/690]) of White patients. Black patients received treatment on average 36.9 days after diagnosis, versus 35.1 days for White patients. Adjusted analysis did not find a significant association between race and receipt of surgery (P = 0.07) or race and days to treatment (P = 0.77). No covariate was significantly associated with receipt of surgery. Residence in a state with a higher obesity rate was associated with fewer days to treatment (P = 0.02). Conclusions: In a uniformly insured population that successfully received treatment, adjusted analysis found no evidence of a Black / White racial disparity in use of lung surgery for Stage 3 lung cancer or in timeliness of treatment. Given the directionality of the findings, they could potentially have been significant if the sample size had been increased by extending the enrollment period. The implication of these findings is that it may be most fruitful to address racial disparities at the frontend of the care process; working to ensure that patients have access to insurance, diagnostics, and treatments, as disparities were not observed in a population that had accessed treatment. Further research is needed to assess whether racial disparities in lung cancer treatment have dissipated over time.