PURPOSE: Telehealth has been an integral response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, no studies to date have examined the utility and safety of telehealth for oncology patients undergoing systemic treatments. Concerns of the adequacy of virtual patient assessments for oncology patients include the risk and high acuity of illness and complications while on treatment. METHODS: We assessed metrics related to clinical efficiency and treatment safety after propensity matching of newly referred patients starting systemic therapy where care was in large part replaced by telehealth between March and May 2020, and 206 newly referred patients from a similar time period in 2019 where all encounters were in-person visits. RESULTS: Patient-initiated telephone encounters that capture care or effort outside of visits, time to staging imaging, and time to therapy initiation were not significantly different between cohorts. Similarly, 3 month all-cause or cancer-specific emergency department presentations and hospitalizations, and treatment delays were not significantly different between cohorts. There were substantial savings in travel time with virtual care, with an average of 211.4 minutes saved per patient over a 3-month interval. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that replacement of in-person care with virtual care in oncology does not lead to worse efficiency or outcomes. Given the increased barriers to patients seeking oncology care during the pandemic, our study indicates that telehealth efforts may be safely intensified. These findings also have implications for the continual use of virtual care in oncology beyond the pandemic.
Background and Aims:
Immunotherapies have altered the treatment paradigm in HCC. Surrogate and modified endpoints are used to assess early success in clinical studies and guide clinical practice. We sought to determine whether surrogate endpoints and modifications to the conventional criteria for tumor response (RECIST), including modified RECIST (mRECIST) and immune-modified RECIST (imRECIST), are valid measures to predict overall survival (OS) in HCC treated with immunotherapies.
Approach and Results:
We performed an individual-level post hoc analysis of patients treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab in the IMbrave150 trial (N = 279) and a cross-sectional analysis of a multicenter real-world patient cohort treated with immunotherapy (N = 328). Landmark analyses showed that objective response rates by RECIST were associated with greater OS including among Child-Pugh A and B patients and among patients treated with immunotherapies in the first- or second-line setting (IMbrave150: HR 0.24, 95% CI, 0.17–0.33; RW: HR 0.25, 95% CI, 0.15–0.43). Objective response rates by mRECIST or imRECIST were not associated with the greater predictive power of OS benefit (mRECIST: HR 0.30, 95% CI, 0.22–0.42; imRECIST: HR 0.36, 95% CI, 0.30–0.51). Progression-free survival determined by RECIST was only moderately correlated with OS, and this association was not improved using mRECIST or imRECIST.
Conclusions:
Our results clarify the utility of surrogate and modified endpoints in HCC treated with immunotherapies and support the use of RECIST objective response rates as an appropriate signal-finding measure for the evaluation of emerging treatments. Contrary to their intended purpose, mRECIST and imRECIST did not provide meaningful improvements in predicting OS benefits.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.