Are There Non-Pharmacologic Strategies for Managing Myeloproliferative Neoplasms?

Are There Non-Pharmacologic Strategies for Managing Myeloproliferative Neoplasms? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What non pharmacologic strategies for managing myeloproliferative neoplasms are recommended? Dr. Gabriela Hobbs shares her approach in talking with her patients.

Dr. Gabriela Hobbs is a hematology-oncology physician specializing in the care of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), chronic myeloid leukemia, and leukemia. Dr. Hobbs serves as clinical director of the adult leukemia service at Massachusetts General Hospital and is an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. 

Natasha Johnson, is an Advanced Oncology Nurse Practitioner at Moffitt Cancer Center, where she cares for people living with MPNs with kindness, patience, and humanity. Natasha also speaks at conferences to educate other healthcare professionals about MPN care, research, and treatment. 

Download Resource Guide

See More from Empowering MPN Providers to Empower Patients (EPEP)

Related Resources

Explaining Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Disease Progression to Patients

Explaining Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Disease Progression to Patients

Tracking MPN Symptoms: Strategies for Managing Disease Burden

Tracking MPN Symptoms: Strategies for Managing Disease Burden

HCP Roundtable Shared Decision-Making in Myeloproliferative Neoplasm (MPN) Care

HCP Roundtable: Shared Decision-Making in Myeloproliferative Neoplasm (MPN) Care

Transcript:

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Dr. Hobbs, are there any non-pharmacologic strategies that you endorse? And I’m asking you specifically because I think a lot of times, patients and care partners think that physicians aren’t well-versed in non-pharmacologic therapies or that we don’t endorse non-pharmacologic therapy. So I’m curious to know if there are any that you tend to recommend to your patients with MPNs.

Gabriela Hobbs, MD:

I love this question, and I’m glad to have an opportunity to talk about it, and I loved everything that Ms. Johnson said. For many years, I’ve felt in my practice like I’m a primary care doctor and I’m talking to patients about diet and exercise, [chuckle] especially for the patients that have essential thrombocythemia and polycythemia vera or low-risk myelofibrosis, those diseases really are diseases that I think about as another cardiovascular risk factor. And when we’re talking to patients that have cardiovascular risk factors, like obesity, like hypertension, like hyperlipidemia, diabetes, etcetera, what do we talk to them about? We talk about lifestyle modification. And I think that that fits in beautifully in the care of a patient with an MPN because there’s nothing like getting a diagnosis to take away control from your life. And so giving patients control back by saying, “Actually, you do have control over this disease by changing your lifestyle, by living an active healthy lifestyle and having a well-balanced diet,” I think can actually be very helpful.

One of the things that we don’t talk a lot about in MPNs, ’cause we’re focused on cell signaling and new fancy medications, is just the basics, lifestyle modification. And so I’m a huge fan of that holistic approach. I loved what Ms. Johnson said about, “Don’t let yourself be defined by this disease.” Let’s really find a way of improving your quality of life and maximizing how you live your days. And so I think talking to them about lifestyle modification is something that is really near and dear to my heart. We have a clinical trial now helping patients to really change their lifestyle, get more active and eat more healthily, and I think that those things are actually really, really important. Many of my patients, the first thing they do when they get diagnosed is they want to go and find that magical supplement that’s going to change their natural history of their disease. And although I can’t really say if any of those supplements are going to be helpful or not, I can for sure say that there is no harm, and there’s probably benefit to staying active and also to having a more plant-based, less processed food diet. And I think that that really goes a long way in terms of helping patients to improve their symptoms, feel less tired and feel less anxious, also feel like they have more control over what’s going on with them.


Share Your Feedback:

Create your own user feedback survey

Tracking MPN Symptoms: Strategies for Managing Disease Burden



Tracking MPN Symptoms: Strategies for Managing Disease Burden from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How can MPN providers best have conversations with their patients about symptoms? Dr. Gabriela Hobbs and expert Natasha Johnson share tactics and advice for assessing MPN patient symptoms.

Dr. Gabriela Hobbs is a hematology-oncology physician specializing in the care of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), chronic myeloid leukemia, and leukemia. Dr. Hobbs serves as clinical director of the adult leukemia service at Massachusetts General Hospital and is an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. 

Natasha Johnson, is an Advanced Oncology Nurse Practitioner at Moffitt Cancer Center, where she cares for people living with MPNs with kindness, patience, and humanity. Natasha also speaks at conferences to educate other healthcare professionals about MPN care, research, and treatment.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Empowering MPN Providers to Empower Patients (EPEP)

Related Resources

Explaining Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Disease Progression to Patients

Explaining Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Disease Progression to Patients

Are There Non-Pharmacologic Strategies for Managing Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

Are There Non-Pharmacologic Strategies for Managing Myeloproliferative Neoplasms?

HCP Roundtable Shared Decision-Making in Myeloproliferative Neoplasm (MPN) Care

HCP Roundtable: Shared Decision-Making in Myeloproliferative Neoplasm (MPN) Care

Transcript:

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Both of you have mentioned the importance of tracking symptoms, and so we want to shift and talk about strategies for managing disease burden, and I’d love to hear from each of you about what are your recommendations as you speak to MPN patients and their care partners about symptoms? How should other providers bring up those conversations and what are the best ways to really elucidate the symptoms that patients with MPN are having? So I’ll start with you, Dr. Hobbs.

Gabriela Hobbs, MD:

So this may sound obvious, but the first way of figuring out what symptoms a patient has is by asking, and it’s so interesting, right? There’s been studies comparing what symptoms are most important to patients and what symptoms clinicians think the patient have. And guess what, the clinicians don’t actually know which symptoms the patient has, or which symptoms are most important to the patient, and…so anyway, it sounds obvious, but it sometimes isn’t, and I think clinicians are busy and sometimes feel like having a tool to ask those questions is maybe too burdensome. I personally find that the MPN symptom assessment form is a quick form, it’s easy to complete, it can be given to a patient, there’s a piece of paper while they’re waiting for you.

And that also directs the conversation because it really just gives numbers, makes it objective, and then can really start that conversation. And so remembering that we do have this tool, it actually can help cut down time to the visit and make it more focused, and it’s helpful to…empowers the patient and make sure that you really are asking about all of those symptoms, and just making sure that you don’t just assume that a patient has or doesn’t have a symptom, but really saying, “Are there any other symptoms that you’ve noticed?” I’m trying to be really thorough because, honestly, MPN symptoms can manifest in so many different ways for our patients in addition to those 10 symptoms that are asked in the MPN symptom assessment form, and so trying to be thorough about those symptoms, I think, really important.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

And thank you for that and for highlighting sometimes this disconnect between the patients and the clinicians, and also the fact that what’s important to us may not be as important to the patient, and what’s important to the patient may get overlooked by us, and so again, it’s always going back to centering the patient and their experiences. Do you have anything to add, Ms. Johnson, with regard to talking to patients about their symptoms? 

Natasha Johnson:

Yes, I had to just laugh in on my head with what Dr. Hobbs said, ’cause it’s so true. With MPNs, numbers are a big deal in this world, and we can see a patient and just look at their numbers and think, “They look good,” and then you see them and they’re like, “I feel horrible.” And it just doesn’t relate. And so I agree with what she said, really going over what are the common symptoms and then thinking about, if they’re on treatment, is this like a medication side effect or is this a disease-related symptom, and then thinking just about comorbidity. So often our patients can have CHF or pulmonary hypertension that’s contributing to their symptoms, and so discussing that and trying to get those things managed.


Share Your Feedback:

Create your own user feedback survey

HCP Roundtable: Shared Decision-Making in Myeloproliferative Neoplasm (MPN) Care

HCP Roundtable: Shared Decision-Making in Myeloproliferative Neoplasm (MPN) Care from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What does shared decision-making look like in myeloproliferative neoplasm care? How should fellow MPN specialists explain disease progression to patients and care partners? In this HCP-to-HCP roundtable discussion, experts Dr. Gabriela Hobbs and Natasha Johnson share best practices for helping your MPN patients play an active role in managing their health.

Dr. Gabriela Hobbs is a hematology-oncology physician specializing in the care of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), chronic myeloid leukemia, and leukemia. Dr. Hobbs serves as clinical director of the adult leukemia service at Massachusetts General Hospital and is an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. 

Natasha Johnson, is an Advanced Oncology Nurse Practitioner at Moffitt Cancer Center, where she cares for people living with MPNs with kindness, patience, and humanity. Natasha also speaks at conferences to educate other healthcare professionals about MPN care, research, and treatment.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Empowering MPN Providers to Empower Patients (EPEP)

Related Resources

Explaining Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Disease Progression to Patients

Explaining Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Disease Progression to Patients

Are There Non-Pharmacologic Strategies for Managing Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

Are There Non-Pharmacologic Strategies for Managing Myeloproliferative Neoplasms?

Tracking MPN Symptoms: Strategies for Managing Disease Burden

Tracking MPN Symptoms: Strategies for Managing Disease Burden

Transcript:

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Welcome to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients program. My name is Dr. Nicole Rochester, I’m a pediatrician and the CEO of Your GPS Doc. This program is for providers who desire to empower their patients and families. In this Patient Empowerment Network program, we connect MPN expert voices to discuss enhancing physician-patient communication and shared decision-making in MPN care. Some of the topics we’re going to cover today include how to help your MPN patients play an active role in managing their care, healthcare provider recommended strategies for managing disease burden to minimize disease impact on MPN patients’ lives, the importance of advanced practice clinicians on the health care team of MPN patients, clinical trials and the importance of nurses addressing this topic with their patients and families, as well as cultural humility in action.

I’m thrilled to be joined by MPN experts, Dr. Gabriela  Hobbs, Director of the Adult Leukemia Services at Massachusetts General Hospital and Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Hobbs leads multiple investigator-initiated clinical trials in MPN as well as non-interventional trials, assessing outcomes for patients with MPN.

I am also thrilled to be joined by Natasha Johnson, an Oncology Nurse Practitioner at Moffitt Cancer Center, where she cares for patients living with MPN. Ms. Johnson also works to educate other healthcare professionals about MPN care, research and treatment. Thank you both for joining me for this important conversation.

Natasha Johnson:

So glad to be here. Thank you.

Gabriela Hobbs, MD:

Thank you so much.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

So I’d like to start by talking about the MPN care team and best practices for shared decision-making. We hear a lot about shared decision-making in healthcare. I would say for some, it’s more of a buzzword than an actual practice. I’m sure that you all agree that it’s incredibly important and really a core for the type of care that we should provide patients and their families, so I’d love to hear from each of you about what does that actually mean? What does shared decision-making look like in myeloproliferative neoplasm care. And we’ll start with you, Dr. Hobbs.

Gabriela Hobbs, MD:

Great question. I think shared decision-making can take many different forms in many of our clinical encounters, and I think one of the luxuries that we have in myeloproliferative neoplasms is that a lot of the decision-making that we need to make doesn’t have to happen immediately, and we also have the luxury of really getting to know our patients over time. And so having that longitudinal relationship, I think really helps in shared decision-making, because I know who that patient is, I know what’s important to them, we get to know their families, and they’ve also gotten to know our care team throughout our relationship. But in general, when we do need to make a decision about treatment, using that foundation, I think is really what’s most important for shared decision-making.

Gabriela Hobbs, MD:

Oftentimes, patients are the drivers of a lot of these decisions and they’ll bring up the questions, but, of course, every patient is a little bit different, and sometimes I need to be more on the side of bringing up the questions, etcetera. So I think knowing where your patient is emotionally, what’s important to them, what are their worries, is really important, so you can have a conversation where you’re not just speaking about the things that you as a provider think is important, but really also listening to where the patient is coming from, and so that you can make sure that you’re appeasing their anxieties and whatever decision you make is consistent with both what you think is medically important, but also with what’s really important for the patients. I think listening is really at the core there.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Love that you highlighted listening. I think that’s something that we often don’t do enough of in healthcare, so thank you for that, Dr. Hobbs. What about you, Ms. Johnson? What are your thoughts about shared decision making in MPN care? 

Natasha Johnson:

Yeah, I agree with everything Dr. Hobbs said. I really believe it’s just…it starts with conversations and taking the time, making sure that you have the patient, you have the caregiver, if they can’t be there in person, sometimes you’re calling them on the phone. If it’s through Zoom visit they’re joining, and the health care provider, and I think that we spend a ton of time educating them to make sure that they really understand this disease, the symptoms that go along with it, the treatments that go along with that, and once we have a good confidence that they understand everything, lead them into discussing what their goals of care are, and then we take all that information together, and we create a treatment plan specific to that patient, really aiming to improve their quality of life and overall survival.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Awesome, so both of you spoke about the importance of listening and of really understanding the goals of the patients and their care partners, their family members, understanding their values, but we know that in reality, when you’re in that examination room and when you have all the distractions and all the competing priorities and the limited time, which is the thing I hear about most, I think, when I’m talking to colleagues, sometimes it can be difficult to put this into practice. So what can you share with fellow providers, maybe some tips or tricks or strategies that in face of all of those known barriers, how can they help patients take a more active role in managing their MPN? And we’ll start with you this time, Ms. Johnson.

Natasha Johnson:

All right, so one thing I would say is that here’s why I really think there’s a benefit to seeing an MPN expert that is at a national cancer center, academic center. I do think there is some more time allotted to those visits, especially the consults and first appointments for the patient, and we kind of start this with my doctor and other providers of assessing how much does the patient even know to begin with? So that can direct us where to start. And then how deep do they want to go. You know sometimes we have patients that they want to get down to the nitty-gritty and know all the scientific details, and other ones are like, Just lay it out for me easy. So really like assessing that from the beginning and then…so then start educating. Just like I said before, what does the disease look like, the symptoms, the treatment, alleviating symptoms, explaining that this is only cured by transplant. I think that’s really important to discuss right up front, and if they start treatment, usually treatment is indefinite. Of course, it’s changed depending on things, but educating them, so spending that time and then providing resources.

So we do this a lot by…I write a lot of things down for my patients when I see them, I think visuals are really helpful, provide literature, I tell them what websites to visit. A lot of times, they just will Google their doctor, which is great because they can find them and listen to their own lectures, and they really learn a lot. So just guiding them to those resources. I do think it’s important, too, to give them something like the total symptom score form. Just having that visual of, these are what is common, and then they can think about that between visits, but I think all of those things really help to educate them and get them involved.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Awesome, thank you for that, Ms. Johnson. What about you, Dr. Hobbs? Do you have any additional strategies that really help to empower patients to manage their care? 

Gabriela Hobbs, MD:

I think everything that Ms. Johnson said was spot on, and I agree with everything that she said. A few additional things that I would add to that is reminding a patient that they don’t need to remember every single thing we talk about at every single encounter, this is an ongoing conversation and decision-making will happen over time, especially when we’re trying to make more difficult decisions about when or if they have to go to transplant, for example. Sometimes I have a conversation with my patients for years before they actually get a transplant. Other things that I think are helpful strategies is reminding patients that they can be in touch.

Nowadays, we have so many different ways of keeping in touch with our patients, they know how to call our practice nurses in our clinic, how to get in touch with the nurse practitioner that I work with the most, how to get in touch with me through the patient portal. And so, knowing that when that visit finishes, which sometimes does feel short, even if…like Ms. Johnson said, we do have the luxury of time more in academic centers, they’re still…the patients will invariably get out of the room, get in their car and be like, “Oh, I forgot to ask that one question.” And so reminding them that they can get in touch, and then helping them to prepare for their next visits to make the most out of those visits, especially for some of those patients that maybe don’t always necessarily come back to see me.

There are some patients that live far away, and then they maybe see me infrequently, talking to them about the symptom assessment form, like Ms. Johnson said, pointing them to the right direction in terms of literature and reminding them that, especially for those patients that are very symptomatic, for example, keeping track of their symptoms over time, writing down notes about how they felt, what they think made something better, made something worse, how they’re responding to these medications, questions that they may have, and writing all of that down helps them be more empowered patients. They can advocate for themselves in a more organized way when they do go see either me or another clinician. So they come in fully prepared with the information and the questions that they want to get out of that visit.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Perfect, thank you both. That’s really important. And so this leads nicely into our next topic, both of you have mentioned the importance of tracking symptoms, and so we want to shift and talk about strategies for managing disease burden, and I’d love to hear from each of you about what are your recommendations as you speak to MPN patients and their care partners about symptoms? How should other providers bring up those conversations and what are the best ways to really elucidate the symptoms that patients with MPN are having? So I’ll start with you, Dr. Hobbs.

Gabriela Hobbs, MD:

So this may sound obvious, but the first way of figuring out what symptoms a patient has is by asking, and it’s so interesting, right? There have been studies comparing what symptoms are most important to patients and what symptoms clinicians think the patients have. And guess what, the clinicians don’t actually know which symptoms the patient has, or which symptoms are most important to the patient, and…so anyway, it sounds obvious, but it sometimes isn’t, and I think clinicians are busy and sometimes feel like having a tool to ask those questions is maybe too burdensome. I personally find that the MPN symptom assessment form is a quick form, it’s easy to complete, it can be given to a patient, there’s a piece of paper while they’re waiting for you.

And that also directs the conversation because it really just gives numbers, makes it objective, and then can really start that conversation. And so remembering that we do have this tool, it actually can help cut down time to the visit and make it more focused, and it’s helpful to…empowers the patient and make sure that you really are asking about all of those symptoms, and just making sure that you don’t just assume that a patient has or doesn’t have a symptom, but really saying, “Are there any other symptoms that you’ve noticed?” I’m trying to be really thorough because, honestly, MPN symptoms can manifest in so many different ways for our patients in addition to those 10 symptoms that are asked in the MPN symptom assessment form, and so trying to be thorough about those symptoms, I think, really important.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

And thank you for that and for highlighting sometimes this disconnect between the patients and the clinicians, and also the fact that what’s important to us may not be as important to the patient, and what’s important to the patient may get overlooked by us, and so again, it’s always going back to centering the patient and their experiences. Do you have anything to add, Ms. Johnson, with regard to talking to patients about their symptoms? 

Natasha Johnson:

Yes, I had to just laugh in on my head with what Dr. Hobbs said, because it’s so true. With MPNs, numbers are a big deal in this world, and we can see a patient and just look at their numbers and think, “They look good,” and then you see them and they’re like, “I feel horrible.” And it just doesn’t relate. And so I agree with what she said, really going over what are the common symptoms and then thinking about, if they’re on treatment, is this like a medication side effect or is this a disease-related symptom, and then thinking just about comorbidity. So often our patients can have CHF or pulmonary hypertension that’s contributing to their symptoms, and so discussing that and trying to get those things managed.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Awesome, Dr. Hobbs, did you have something you wanted to add? 

Gabriela Hobbs, MD:

Yeah. You know what I was thinking, we also have obviously very different personalities for our patients, of course, in addition for our clinicians, and there are sometimes patients that are very vocal, will come in and share every single symptom, and then we have some stoic patients that never complain, but for those patients, it’s very helpful to turn around and look at the spouse. And so you’ll ask the patient, “Are you tired?” “No, I’m fine.” “Are you whatever?” “No, everything’s okay,” and then the spouse is like, “But remember, you really haven’t been having your dinner, and remember how you were complaining about how your stomach was hurting every time you ate. And you say you’re not itchy, but every night when we’re watching TV, I turn around and I see that you’re scratching.” And so I think that’s also a really important tool to make sure that you make use of the family members, because they really know what’s going on if the patient is not willing to share as much or doesn’t like to complain. [chuckle]

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Oh, Dr. Hobbs, you are reminding me of my former caregiving experience. There were so many occasions where my dad, who did not have MPN by the way, but my dad would…he was that stoic person who would downplay everything, even though the entire car ride to the doctor’s office, he had been complaining, [chuckle] but in front of the doctor he was always fine.

Gabriela  Hobbs, MD:

Everything is fine.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Yeah, I was the care partner that was like, “But what about what you said 5 minutes ago?” So I appreciate you sharing that. We cannot overemphasize the importance of engaging with those incredible care partners. So you all both mentioned there are a lot of symptoms and those symptoms can really have an impact on patients and on their families, their care partners, what specific strategies can other providers use to explain how to minimize the disease impact of MPN? And I’ll start with you, Ms. Johnson.

Natasha Johnson:

Okay, so the number one symptom I hear is fatigue, and it has nothing really to do with hemoglobin, whether it’s normal or not. It’s so many factors that go into the disease, that cause it, and then also considering comorbidity, so I really try to encourage patients to be as active as possible. And we’ve seen with some of our solid tumors and studies that have been done when fatigue’s an issue, activity or physical exercise really seems to be the best way to combat that.

And I really try to encourage them. “Once you stop doing something and you sit down, it’s going to be hard to get back up and do it again. So pace yourself and do what you can.” But that is a big encouragement that I give. And then a second one I would say is diet. There’s been some new interest in looking at the Mediterranean diet, and that it has a possible benefit in reducing symptom burden in patients, so I think that’s something we can continue to look into, but it certainly can’t hurt a patient, especially when you look at cardiovascular risk factor, so just encouraging healthy diet. But I’m also a great advocate for, if they can eat, I want them to enjoy life and eat, too. So I go back and forth a little bit on that depending on the patient. And then just lastly, I really do encourage them to live, you know, live each day, continue living, and I have some patients that play pickleball several times a week and can be really active and enjoy that, and some, it’s just maybe having their neighbors over to play cards once a week, and that’s okay. Or their family, or their church community. Just an encouragement that if they’re living and trying to have healthy habits, I really think it can improve symptom burden.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Dr. Hobbs, are there any non-pharmacologic strategies that you endorse? And I’m asking you specifically because I think a lot of times, patients and care partners think that physicians aren’t well-versed in non-pharmacologic therapies or that we don’t endorse non-pharmacologic therapy. So I’m curious to know if there are any that you tend to recommend to your patients with MPNs.

Gabriela Hobbs, MD:  

I love this question, and I’m glad to have an opportunity to talk about it, and I loved everything that Ms. Johnson said. For many years, I’ve felt in my practice like I’m a primary care doctor, and I’m talking to patients about diet and exercise, [chuckle] especially for the patients that have essential thrombocythemia and polycythemia vera or low-risk myelofibrosis, those diseases really are diseases that I think about as another cardiovascular risk factor. And when we’re talking to patients that have cardiovascular risk factors, like obesity, like hypertension, like hyperlipidemia, diabetes, etcetera, what do we talk to them about? We talk about lifestyle modification. And I think that that fits in beautifully in the care of a patient with an MPN because there’s nothing like getting a diagnosis to take away control from your life. And so giving patients control back by saying, “Actually, you do have control over this disease by changing your lifestyle, by living an active healthy lifestyle and having a well-balanced diet,” I think can actually be very helpful.

One of the things that we don’t talk a lot about in MPNs, ’cause we’re focused on cell signaling and new fancy medications, is just the basics, lifestyle modification. And so I’m a huge fan of that holistic approach. I loved what Ms. Johnson said about, “Don’t let yourself be defined by this disease.” Let’s really find a way of improving your quality of life and maximizing how you live your days. And so I think talking to them about lifestyle modification is something that is really near and dear to my heart. We have a clinical trial now helping patients to really change their lifestyle, get more active and eat more healthily, and I think that those things are actually really, really important. Many of my patients, the first thing they do when they get diagnosed is they want to go and find that magical supplement that’s going to change their natural history of their disease. And although I can’t really say if any of those supplements are going to be helpful or not, I can for sure say that there is no harm, and there’s probably benefit to staying active and also to having a more plant-based, less processed food diet. And I think that that really goes a long way in terms of helping patients to improve their symptoms, feel less tired and feel less anxious, also feel like they have more control over what’s going on with them.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Wonderful. That’s great to hear. So I wanted to shift again and start to talk about specifically disease progression. And we know that that is, unfortunately, something that is an important element of MPNs. And so as we talk to fellow MPN specialists, what are you all’s recommendations for how they can best explain disease progression to patients? Are there any specific languaging or specific tactics that you all use, and even things that maybe you shouldn’t say as you are sharing information about disease progression? Either one of you, feel free to go first.

Gabriela Hobbs, MD:

So disease progression, I think is a really challenging topic, because on the one hand, I think it’s really important to educate patients. It’s really important for patients to know that that is a possibility, that it is something that can happen. It’s really challenging to have a patient that has lived with this disease for a long time, hardly even knows the name of that disease. Maybe they were seen elsewhere, etcetera, and then all of a sudden, something’s going wrong and they just weren’t prepared for that. But I feel like that really does need to be balanced by the fact that, thankfully, progression happens infrequently. And so you also…going back to what we were saying before, you want to help a patient to be able to live well with these diseases and not be defined by those diseases. And so one of the things that I try to do with patients is, especially during that initial visit, I spend some time explaining to them what the disease is, that it can progress to myelofibrosis, that it can progress to leukemia. But then I also try to reassure them as much as possible that this is an infrequent event, that the reason why we follow patients in-clinic is so that we can start to notice if there’s disease progression, that it usually happens gradually.

And then I try to say, “You have this information. We can’t necessarily change that at this moment, there are maybe some tools that we can use in the future, but try to put that information in a box in your brain, put the key, put it away, try not to think about that every day when you’re outside of here. Definitely okay to open that back up when you’re with me in the room. If you want to get those anxieties out, that’s fine, but let’s really try to make sure that that’s in the back and not at the forefront of our thoughts.” And kind of going back to one of the things we were discussing before about what the patient thinks is most important, what the clinician thinks is most important. If you ask patients what are they most concerned about with their MPN, oftentimes that response is, “Is my disease going to progress?” And so I think acknowledging that and talking about that is important, but then also reminding patients that over time, they need to, hopefully with your help, or maybe they need additional assistance with therapists or social workers, etcetera, let’s find a way to put that away so that it’s not really at the forefront of our thoughts every single day, because that also ends up being not productive.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

I love that approach, of providing the education, but also that balance that you talked about, Dr. Hobbs. I love the idea of putting it away, putting it in a box [chuckle] and locking it, and then opening it back up when you’re in the safety with your healthcare provider. That’s beautiful.

Do you have anything to add to that, Ms. Johnson? 

Natasha Johnson:

I completely agree. Your example there of putting it in the box, I’m going to use that in clinic. [laughter] I think it’s a great visual for patients. Because like you said, they’re very scared, and it can control them and take over, and we don’t want the disease to take over their life. Still live. Enjoy. 

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Absolutely. So as we start to wrap up, we definitely want to address the role of advanced practice clinicians. We’re honored to have Ms. Johnson here with us, a nurse practitioner. And you mentioned earlier, Dr. Hobbs, that you work very closely with the nurse practitioner, so I’d love for you to share, Dr. Hobbs, the importance, in your professional opinion, of the role of advanced practice clinicians in MPN care. And how can fellow providers best leverage and utilize advanced practice clinicians? 

Gabriela Hobbs, MD:

I love that Ms. Johnson is here with us. And I am thinking about Judy, the nurse practitioner that I work with the most. And honestly, without her and without the NPs that work in our clinic, I’m pretty sure that our clinic would fall apart, [chuckle] so I don’t have enough important…I really don’t have enough good things to say about the NPs or the advanced practice providers. They really play a huge role in the care of our patients and in so many different ways. I think sometimes a patient will feel more comfortable sharing some things either with the practice nurses or with the nurse practitioners. Sometimes having just a different perspective from another clinician is so helpful for the patient. Sometimes even if the two of us are communicating similar information, just to hear it slightly differently in another perspective can be really so helpful. Another thing that I think is also really essential about having that team approach is that when I’m away, if I’m on the inpatient service or Judy is away, [chuckle] the patients always know who they’re going to see when they come to the clinic. There’s that great continuity of care. And so I think the fact that there are two of us taking care of a patient as opposed to just me ends up really being very, very helpful for the patients, because they know that when they come to see us, they’re going to see somebody that really knows them longitudinally. And so two is better than one, honestly.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Two, absolutely better than one. And Ms. Johnson, how would you describe your role? Or maybe is there one example of how you partner with physicians and other members of the team, or maybe something that stands out for you that you’d like to share with the audience? 

Natasha Johnson:

Yes. So I work with two main physicians, and one of them is a MPN expert. And so he sees them in their consult initial visit. And then oftentimes, they’re following up with me for those more frequent visits. Our physicians are performing research, they’re teaching, so they’re not in clinic as many days a week as, like I am. And so I do see him more often and really get to know them. But I communicate with my physician almost on a daily basis. And because our relationship has grown, I think that he’s come to trust me to know that I can pick up on…when I’m concerned about disease progression, I know that I can go to him and talk to him, and he’s there. And then he also helps me to make…or he also trusts me to make more minor treatment decisions. But when things are a big deal, I call on him, and he’s there. Oftentimes, if the patient come in and we did not expect this and it’s obvious they’ve progressed, he’ll come into the room with me, and I really believe that makes the patient so much more comfortable. They enjoy seeing me. And we have a good relationship, but it’s different when it’s coming from your physician. And so yeah, we work really close, we communicate regularly. I try to ensure the patients of that. But I do develop very close relationships with patients, because I’m seeing them more routinely and more often.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

That makes perfect sense. It takes a team, right? I mean, we talk about healthcare teams, and that’s really what you all are describing, is teamwork in action. Lastly, I want to wrap up by talking about cultural humility. You all have spoken so eloquently about the importance of developing true, genuine relationships with patients and their care partners and valuing what’s important to them and bringing them into the shared decision-making. And we also know that our patients come with their own unique racial and ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and that sometimes, unfortunately in healthcare, we don’t take those things into consideration. So when we talk about cultural humility, we’re really talking about acknowledging a patient’s full, authentic self, their full, lived experiences, and also acknowledging our own biases that we bring to the table, listening to our patients and having that interest and that curiosity. So I’d love for you to either share an example of when you or a fellow provider were able to show cultural humility in action, or maybe a specific tip for the providers that are watching this program about how to truly incorporate cultural humility into your practice. We’ll start with you, Dr. Hobbs.

Gabriela Hobbs, MD:

I love that question. And I think this is something that is a lifelong process for all of us, and I think it starts with awareness, really just recognizing that you bring your own background and bias into every encounter. And that’s okay. So I think sometimes we want to feel like we’re color blind and culture blind and that we see everything the same. But we have our own biases. And one example for me where that’s always true is, I’m a physician, but I’m also an investigator, and so, obviously, I have a bias towards research. For me, it’s obvious, yeah, of course, I’m wanting to participate in a clinical trial.

And I think you have to be aware of the fact that clinical trials come with all sorts of different opinions from patients, patients don’t like to be guinea pigs, there is mistrust, there’s all sorts of history in [chuckle] this country, especially about clinical trials. And I think coming into those encounters, like I said at the beginning of our conversation, taking into account that you really do know your patient. But sometimes, you don’t know the patient as well. You’re getting to know them, and you need to make a decision. Just listening, being humble, being aware, trying to understand where the patient is coming from, I think sometimes, especially when you’re trying to make a decision quickly and you find that there’s some friction, I think taking some time to say, “Alright, where is that coming from?” And perhaps I’m coming across too strong with this recommendation to do this clinical trial and there’s maybe something that I need to explore, and so just keeping an open mind and trying to just ask questions, “Where are you coming from? What’s important to you? Why are you hesitating? Or is there something that I can explain in a different way?” And really trying to get the whole picture of who that patient is and where they’re coming from. I think that’s probably a really important one.

Another example and I’ll let Ms. Johnson talk. 

It comes often in my practice, I speak Spanish and I realize the moment that I switch languages, for example, with a patient, the whole conversation can change. And so in some instances, I have the ability to truly get into that cultural mindset very well because it’s a culture that I’m very familiar, and so you can break those barriers more easily. But then there’s some other situations, or maybe a culture that I’m not as familiar with and I don’t speak the language, or I don’t speak to culture, and you need to keep that in mind and realize, “Okay, here, I don’t know exactly all the same custom,” so I need to take a step back, be humble and just ask a lot of questions, and just acknowledge that, and that’s okay.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Absolutely. Thank you so much for sharing that. What about you, Ms. Johnson? Any examples or anything you want to reflect on regarding cultural humility.

Natasha Johnson:

Yes. When I think about this, I know that I have to go in prepared and be aware, so like educating myself on how does MPN affect this specific population, and with this culture, what are their values that they hold? And so when I’m going in to see the patient, just like Dr. Hobbs said, listening, being respectful, watching my body language, discussing all treatment options. And just two quick examples I can think about is, one, I’ve had a patient due to religious beliefs can’t take transfusions. And so a lot of times anemia is a big deal in our situation, and so really being creative with the treatments to not really worsen that and be okay with it. And you’d really be surprised how a patient can go around with a hemoglobin of like 5 and live normally when their body gets used to it. But I remember just that patient very well and having to respect that and understand it. And then the second is, I’ve had patients progress and they need to go to transplant or we need to do a bone marrow biopsy to really see where the disease is at right now. And in my mind, I think, “You’re fit. You feel good, like pushing these things,” and I have to step back and look at the patient and listen to the patient. And they’re telling me, “Right now for this, this or this reason, I don’t want to do this. And my priorities are over here.” And just really respecting the patient and still taking 100 percent great care of them through all that.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Well, this has been a phenomenal conversation. I really appreciate you all’s insight, your expertise. It’s time to wrap up. And you all have said a lot. You’ve talked about the importance of addressing symptoms, you’ve talked about getting to know patients and their care partners, you talked about the idea of centering our patients and their care partners and making sure that we understand their values, we’ve talked about disease progression, we’ve talked about holistic care and cultural humility. Do you have any closing thoughts, any one last thing that you want to leave with the audience as we wrap up this amazing program? We’ll start with you, Ms. Johnson. Any closing thoughts? 

Natasha Johnson:

I think of three things, assessing, educating and providing. So assessing your patient by listening, really getting to know them, seeing what they understand, educate them. Not to put fear in them, but to educate them so that they are well-empowered on their disease and how we’re going to move forward. And then providing them with resources regarding treatment with ways to alleviate symptoms so they can further their knowledge as well. So that way overall, we are aiming our goal to improve their quality of life and their overall survival.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Awesome. Thank you for that. And what about you, Dr. Hobbs? Any closing thoughts? 

Gabriela Hobbs, MD:

Hard to say anything better than what Ms. Johnson just said, [laughter] But the only thing I’ll add, which I think is really in the same message, is to remember that there’s a ton of hope, and I think our patients are nervous and they’re worried about this disease, but this field is changing rapidly there’s so many clinical trials in this space and new medications that are likely to be approved. That I think it’s important to remind patients that even though right at this moment, you know, the only curative treatment is a bone marrow transplant for those patients with myelofibrosis, I really do feel very optimistic that there’s going to be a lot of different treatments in the next couple of years that are going to be available for them. And so education is critical, and leaving those patients with hope at the end of each encounter is something that’s also really important.

Nicole Rochester, MD:

Well, I love that we’re ending the program with a message of hope. Thank you so much, Dr. Hobbs, Ms. Johnson, thank you for your time and thank you to all of you for tuning into this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients program. Have an amazing day.


Share Your Feedback:

Create your own user feedback survey

EPEP MPN Resource Guide

Download Guide

EPEP_MPN_Resource_Guide

Download Guide

See More from MPN | Empowering Providers to Empower Patients (EPEP)

Improving Communication Around Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

Improving Communication Around Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How can communication around lung cancer biomarker testing be improved? Experts Dr. Heather Wakelee and Dr. Leigh Boehmer share advice for framing conversations with patients about biomarker testing and ways to adjust communication to different learning styles.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Lung Cancer | Empowering Providers to Empower Patients

Related Resources:

Patient-Provider Relationship Role in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

Patient-Provider Relationship Role in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

What Challenges Surround Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

What Challenges Surround Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing?

How Are Barriers in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing Being Addressed

How Are Barriers in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing Being Addressed?

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

I just want to talk a little bit about that communication, because most of you have shared how important that communication is, and we know that there are challenges, inside and outside of cancer with regard to communicating with patients, and certainly as a physician that some of the complexity of the topics that you all have discussed I would admit is even a lot for me, and so we can imagine that for someone without any medical training, this is very difficult, these topics of biomarker testing and genetics and mutations and precision medicine. So I’d love for you, Dr. Wakelee, to start by just sharing some best practices, things you’ve learned over the years with how can providers who are watching this program really engage in effective, thoughtful conversations with patients and their family members about biomarker testing?

Dr. Heather Wakelee:

So that’s a great, great question. And really, the communication is to me, like I said, the core there, when I’m talking about biomarker testing with the patient, I usually try to frame it from the context of what makes the cancer different than the rest of you. And what we’re trying to figure out is what is it about the cancer that makes it different than the rest of you, so we can then target what’s different, and hopefully with that, being able to control the cancer without harming the rest of you. So that’s sort of one framework of it, and depending on the patient’s level of understanding, and then sort of layer in different levels of…for people who are understanding DNA and mutations, then you can start talking about those specifics, and for folks who don’t necessarily want to think about it that way, or haven’t had the education about it that way, then just starting from that framework. And I think about it this way too, is how is the cancer different than the rest of the person? And what can we do to therefore attack the cancer differently than we would the rest of the person?

And then from there, if there is a mutation or a translocation or something else that we found, can use the name of that gene and say, “This is different in the cancer than in the rest of you, and this is a targeted therapy that’s going to go after that, and it’s going to work for a period of time, but the cancer is always evolving.” And so we kind of plant that seed from the beginning also, that it’s not curing, that the cancer continues to evolve, and eventually it’s going to change in a way where that doesn’t work, but for right now, that’s the best treatment. So that’s how I’m going about with that communication with people on it. And then, again, I practice in Silicon Valley, so a lot of people will come in with books, practically, of all the research that they’ve done, and so that’s a very different conversation than someone who comes in and says, “Whatever you think is best, doc.” And even when I hear that, which I don’t happen to hear too often anymore, I really feel it’s critical that the patient is still understanding, why are we picking this treatment for your particular cancer, and what are our expectations from it?

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

I really appreciate the plain language, and I think that’s important, and also your acknowledgment that patients come to us with different levels of knowledge and expertise, and so really it’s about meeting them where they are, so I really appreciate that. And, Dr. Boehmer, we’re going to allow you to wrap up on this topic, I know that the Association of Community Cancer Centers has done research about what patients want to hear and some of the biases around providers, maybe thinking that patients don’t want or don’t need some of this information, that it may be too confusing for them, so I’d love for you to share some knowledge around your experience in this area and some best practices around communicating with patients.

Dr. Leigh Boehmer: 

Thanks very much, I appreciate the opportunity, I’ll try and keep it targeted. I think number one, Dr. Wakelee, you’re correct. We have visual learners, auditory learners, we have people that want more direction and less direction, so simply starting by asking, how do you prefer to learn? It’s a wonderful place to start. It could be drawing pictures, it could be giving them that academic print out of literature published in a cutting-edge journal. But we need to know how patients learn and respect the fact that we’re all individuals and we as providers talking to patients may need to alter our approach based on different patients’ characteristics. I also think our research has shown that consistent terminology must, must be utilized, biomarker testing, molecular profiling, next-generation sequencing, mutation analysis, whatever it is, that you have decided to make your consistent terminology, please in your teams, then in the next level of teams, then in your health system, and then with your colleagues, talk about what it is, why it is, does it go against another group or is it in agreement with A, B, C groups. Because we have to, as a collective, really agree on and start utilizing consistent terminology, because until we do, we’re just continuing to stir the pot and cause confusion amongst patients, caregivers, other patient advocacy organizations and ourselves.

The other thing I’ll say, at ACCC, we’ve got a lot of resources aggregated in one place about shared decision-making, what it is, how to do it, how to assess yourself, health literacy, how do you evaluate your program to make sure you’re asking the right questions before you ever, ever have a conversation with a patient about biomarker testing or different targeted treatments for patients with non-small cell lung cancer? There’s little things that you can do today that’s so important. Little things you can do today that will make a positive influence on your patients’ outcomes and experience just by asking, addressing your own biases, being inclusive with your language and using consistent terminology. All of that is on our website and it’s truly incremental. Go easy on yourself, we’re all learning here, and acknowledging your bias and trying to be more inclusive is very, very worthwhile, and it’s okay if it’s small steps every single day made. 


Share Your Feedback About the Program

Patient-Provider Relationship Role in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

Patient-Provider Relationship Role in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How is lung cancer biomarker testing impacted by the patient-provider role? Experts Dr. Heather Wakelee and Dr. Leigh Boehmer discuss how specific additions to multidisciplinary teams and support resources aid in building communication for biomarker testing and optimal treatment.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Lung Cancer | Empowering Providers to Empower Patients

Related Resources:

What Challenges Surround Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

What Challenges Surround Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing?

How Does Data Inform Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

How Does Data Inform Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing?

How Are Barriers in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing Being Addressed

How Are Barriers in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing Being Addressed?

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

As we begin to think about how the patient-provider relationship and the patient-provider communication plays a role in addressing some of these barriers that we’ve been talking about and then making sure that patients are appropriately being tested and treated, I’d love to hear from you all regarding the role of the patient-provider partnership as it relates to biomarker testing. So, let’s see, I’ll start with you, Dr. Boehmer.

Dr. Leigh Boehmer:  

So I really, really think this question is critical, and I’m going to bias by saying, an exciting new position on the multidisciplinary cancer care team that we are learning about it, some of our member programs, is that of a precision medicine steward or navigator. So if you’re at all familiar with the idea of a patient navigation service or the services provided by financial advocates or financial navigators, this is really identifying that it is getting so complex in the world of targeted testing, targeted treatments today, that it literally requires in some places and settings an FTE or multiple to try to navigate testing, pathology, external labs, medical oncology, pharmacy services, nursing administration, and then, of course, patients and caregivers, and communication and context building, working with patient advocacy groups who are out there publishing great resources on testing and what they mean and targeted treatments. But trying to put all of that together, I will admit as a community clinician, as you probably see 15, 18, 20 patients a day, sometimes with as many different discrete types of cancers, it gets overwhelming.

And so, having a support person on staff who can help you manage some of that information and the patient-provider conversations, ACCC is very, very much about recognizing multidisciplinary teams of providers, so it’s critical to have navigation, to have social work providing distress screening and psychosocial support, to have pharmacists talking about targeted therapies and how they match with, to Dr. Wakelee’s points, mutations and fusions and rearrangements and everything we’re testing for with our big panels of next-generation sequencing, right? So I really want to encourage us all to utilize as patients and as team members, everybody else on the team, which is also to say patients and caregivers, are team members too, right? They have rights and responsibilities as members of their own team. And I will end with this, I say all of this, and I feel justified in saying all of this because we’ve done research at ACCC, and without that critical infrastructure, there’s potentially a real disconnect. So, for example, we asked patients with lung cancer what resources would be most impactful for you as you embark on your treatment journey, and they said things to us like psychosocial support and financial assistance.

When we asked the provider respondents a similar question in their own survey, the number one thing they identified, they thought patients needed were educational handouts or websites to go seek information about their diagnosis. Now that’s not to shake a finger at anybody or to say that you were right or you were wrong, that’s just to say, we need people who can approach this whole patient-provider construct from different perspectives, because Leigh is going to ask different questions than Heather is going to ask, than Nicole is going to ask, and that’s the beauty of multidisciplinary care coordination. We do need to come at it from different angles, different perspectives, and always make sure we’re remaining open and inclusive and asking what patients need and want right now. Because we don’t always have the answers, we have to remember that. We’re human, we have biases, it’s always better to ask and provide and then ask again.

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

You are really speaking my language, Dr. Boehmer.

[laughter]

Dr. Nicole Rochester:  

And I see, Dr. Wakelee, both of us are shaking our heads the entire time that you’ve been speaking and just around this idea of multidisciplinary teams that include the patient and the family, and ideally at the center. Dr. Wakelee, do you have anything to add?

Dr. Heather Wakelee:

Hard to add. That was very impressive, Dr. Boehmer, [laughter] and highlighting that just…we talk about multidisciplinary sometimes, the first version, some people think of it’s just it’s a team of a few different types of doctors. And obviously that’s not at all what we’re talking about, this is to provide the best possible care for a patient dealing with cancer, that physician-to-patient interaction is critical, but the patient to physicians to family is critical. And then you’ve got to also think about all the psycho-social needs and whether that’s going to be with a social worker or… We have a lot of people working in oncology who are psychologists and psychiatrists particularly focused in that because the coping with the disease is such a big part of it. And it’s also the pharmacy teams and the nursing teams. It is…multidisciplinary is many, many different levels of circles, but at the core, it’s the patient and family and the primary physician, that’s kind of the way I think at it, but I’m an oncologist, so perhaps I’m a little biased in my viewpoint there.

But it’s that communication right there where you sort of have all of the information that the physician’s holding, that’s coming from all of the different treatment disciplines, and then you’ve got all the information that the patient’s holding, that’s coming from their understanding of them and all of their other aspects of their life, and that’s sort of that interaction at the core, and making sure that both sides are seeing each other and seeing all of the other layers of that, so that you could make sure that at each point the recommendations and what the patient is actually doing, everyone’s coming from a point of understanding. I think, to me, that’s the most critical piece. And you don’t have that understanding if you don’t also have all the information you need about the tumor, and you’re not making that right decision if you don’t have all the information you need about all the aspects of who that patient is as a person, and that goes into their decisions as well, and that’s to me, that’s what we’re aiming for, right?


Share Your Feedback About the Program

How Are Barriers in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing Being Addressed?

How Are Barriers in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing Being Addressed? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Now that barriers to lung cancer biomarker testing are understood, how are they being addressed? Experts Dr. Heather Wakelee and Dr. Leigh Boehmer discuss positive procedural changes that are assisting multidisciplinary teams to reduce time to testing and to overcome financial barriers to care.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Lung Cancer | Empowering Providers to Empower Patients

Related Resources:

Patient-Provider Relationship Role in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

Patient-Provider Relationship Role in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

How Does Data Inform Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

How Does Data Inform Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing?

Improving Communication Around Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

Improving Communication Around Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing 

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

We’ve talked a lot about the barriers, which are many, what’s on the horizon or what positive trends have you all seen, and specifically what are the opportunities, what are some things that are either happening or that are being explored with regard to removing some of these barriers or all of the barriers that each of you have talked about? I’ll start with you, Dr. Wakelee, give us some hope.

Dr. Heather Wakelee:

All right. Great. Well, I think there is reason to have hope. Absolutely. There always is reason to have hope. And so many organizations, including ISLC, including ACCC, including NCC…I mean, you could name any organization that’s involved in cancer care and education, is really focusing on this issue of making sure that every oncologist knows the importance of doing biomarker testing for patients with non-small cell lung cancer, that we are trying to expand that not just to the oncologist, but also to the folks making the diagnosis, so they can be aware as well. Patient advocacy groups are very engaged in this as well, making sure that when someone is newly diagnosed, if they reach out to an advocacy group, one of the messages they hear is, have you asked about testing what’s happening with the tumor testing?

The more people who are aware that’s a standard of care in treating lung cancer, the more that’s going to happen, and then continuing to explore those financial barriers, and as more agents are FDA-approved, where that becomes a preferred first sign option, but you only know that if the testing’s happened, that leads to campaigning to make sure that the testing is being covered as well, you know, when you can argue, this patient isn’t getting the FDA-approved best care for their cancer because that testing wasn’t done, that’s a really powerful statement. And I think that’s what we’re seeing change happening.

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

That is incredible, thank you. Thank you so much. I can smile again.

[laughter]

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

What about you, Dr. Boehmer? I know you’re getting…your organization is doing a lot of work in this area, so tell us about some of the advances, some of the improvements and tackling some of these barriers that both of you have elucidated today.

Dr. Leigh Boehmer:

So Dr. Wakelee, thank you for all of those hope-inducing concepts and methodologies, because I honestly believe that so many of us learn best today by seeing someone like me doing X, Y, Z, so I know I can do it as well. So I think it’s about documentation of justification of testing for prior authorization claims. I think it’s about working together with the multidisciplinary team, pharmacist, advanced practitioners, oncology-certified nurses to help manage that back and forth with testing and external pathology and laboratory companies, to make sure that results show up in the right spot in the electronic health record so that they can be interpreted, shared with patients, communicated and contextualized in real time. I think it’s about greater incorporation as we’ve seen across so many of our programs of the tenets of shared clinical decision-making, and how to have a meaningful conversation with a patient and/or their caregivers about testing and its role on treatment and drug selection, and outcomes, and progression-free survival. And there are a lot of programs out there that are doing bits of this or different points along that continuum.

ACCC for example, building on the research I shared before, recognizes that a lot of community programs don’t have kind of operational best practices for how to incorporate biomarker testing into a patient’s journey, and so for lung, and also, for example, for breast cancer, we’re working on creating care pathways which will help multidisciplinary clinician teams integrate discussions of biomarker testing and its impact at various critical time points along a patient’s diagnosis to treatment, to survivorship or end-of-life care. And those are just examples of us not being overly duplicative, but putting all the resources in one place, talking about timing, talking about when and how to have meaningful conversations, and then doing it with health-literate, vetted resources and through a lens of equity and shared decision-making, because you look like me, you had success with it. I’m going to do it for my at-risk patients as well, because one, it’s the right thing to do. And two, you taught me how to do it, and three, you told me what success looks like so I can measure myself against you, and that’s a successful model for scalability. 


Share Your Feedback About the Program

How Does Data Inform Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing?

How Does Data Inform Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Lung cancer biomarker testing now has actionable data for clinicians and patient advocates to utilize for improved patient care. Experts Dr. Heather Wakelee and Dr. Leigh Boehmer discuss barriers to time-critical testing, patient communication advice, and health outcome benefits backed up by data.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Lung Cancer | Empowering Providers to Empower Patients

Related Resources:

What Challenges Surround Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

What Challenges Surround Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing?

How Are Barriers in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing Being Addressed

How Are Barriers in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing Being Addressed?

Improving Communication Around Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

Improving Communication Around Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing 

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Both of you have been on the ground floor of research in this area with regard to biomarker testing and availability and disparities. So I’d love for you to talk a little bit about the data and what does the data tell us with regard to biomarker testing? So I’ll start with you this time, Dr. Boehmer.

Dr. Leigh Boehmer:

[chuckle] Thanks, I appreciate it. I’ve been privileged to work with both providers and patients’ caregivers, taking a closer look at some of the barriers and then practical solutions that might be utilized to address some of these concerns around testing. So back in 2021, ACCC used the mixed methods approach to try to understand the motivators of patients and providers, their practice patterns, their attitudes, the educational needs of patients and providers related to biomarker testing and beyond. And you know what’s really interesting, in almost 100 total provider respondents, less than half of community clinicians who responded said that they used biomarker testing to guide patient discussions.

And that was compared to nearly three-quarters of all responding academic clinicians, and it really made us start to think about…so, you know, the impetus for testing in the context of testing. In this particular research, to my earlier comments, we were actually targeting patients with non-small cell lung cancer who were uninsured, underinsured and/or covered by Medicaid. So dual eligible beneficiaries, and it was really interesting because we looked at why and how conversations were happening about biomarker testing between providers and patients, and really identified some tremendous opportunities for education around clinicians’ needs to become more familiar with guideline concordant testing and to have more practical applications of guideline concordant testing, so things like case-based examples, so then ultimately they could have optimal conversations with patients and help coordinate multidisciplinary care.

There’s also data which would suggest a disconnect between ordering testing after initial staging versus ordering testing at the time of initial biopsy. And, Dr. Wakelee, you said something that really resonated with me because if we can identify patients who need to be tested, if we can have access to testing, we still have a disconnect, and this is largely seen in community programs today where clinicians may be waiting 10 days, 14 days, even longer to receive results of testing, and you’re right, we have patients who need treatment initiated sooner than later, and you miss these opportunities because of delays, prior authorizations and a lot of other things, so the data certainly quantitatively, qualitatively is speaking to this hierarchy of problems and there’s definitely some mismatches between patient and provider perceptions of why testing happens, what it’s used for, and timing of the testing and results sharing.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

That is fascinating, and we’re definitely going to get deeper into that, this whole patient-provider interaction, so I really appreciate you introducing that and thank you for all the research that your organization has done in this area. So, Dr. Wakelee, you’re on the academic side of things, and you also have been deeply involved in research in this area, so what would you like to offer from your perspective in terms of the data around biomarker testing?

Dr. Heather Wakelee:

Well, thanks, and, Dr. Boehmer, you have a very comprehensive answer there, I think that the differences between academic and community sometimes are broad and sometimes aren’t that big at all, and I do think we face a lot of the same challenges. It’s just…it’s making sure that when a physician is meeting with a patient, and let’s say it’s with the oncologist, that the oncologist is really mindful that any patient with non-small cell lung cancer could have a tumor with a driver mutation. I think it’s easy to stereotype and think that only certain patients are going to, and therefore we shouldn’t be testing everybody. And that gets dangerous. I think it also is a matter of where you’re in practice, and if you’re in a practice where the prevalence of the driver mutations and the tumors is low, you might just say, “Oh, I’m never going to see it,” and you stop testing, and that’s also very dangerous because we have seen in multiple trials, as we get back to that research question, that if we can identify a driver mutation…

And we know that more than half of patients who’ve developed lung cancer who have never smoked or have a light smoking history are going to have an actionable driving mutation, and even in people who do have a smoking history, of any ethnic background, they’re still 10 to 20 percent or maybe more as we identify more of these driver mutations, where that’s what’s really the force in the tumor, and if you find it and you can start someone on the appropriate targeted therapy, usually across multiple trials, the toxicity is less than you would get with chemotherapy or immune therapy.

Usually the probability of response is over half, you know, if someone’s going to have a benefit that that’s going to help them feel better for a period of time in controlling their cancer, it really drastically changes their whole tumor outcome, they’re going to be living longer, feeling better, and ultimately that’s our goal when we’re helping someone with metastatic disease, and if you don’t know that the tumor has a driver mutation, you’re never going to give them that appropriate treatment, and I think that is the real challenge that we face, and there are multiple different angles to that, right? You have to have the physician aware of the importance of finding the mutation, altering the treatment as necessary, and giving that patient the best possible option for care.

But it also is making sure that the patients are open about this, because I think there’s still a lot of misperceptions about when we talk about driver mutations and the word mutation, making sure that people understand we’re talking about the cancer and not about the person. And in a short conversation that can sometimes be missed, and then people are afraid of getting tested, afraid of what that might mean for them or their family, and so the communication around, we’re going to test your tumor because your tumor might have a mutation that’s going to allow us to give different care.  I think that’s really important that people always remember to talk about the tumor and not about the mutation in the person, that’s really, really critical.

And also to avoid that stereotyping about who do we test and who do we not test, pretty much anyone with a non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer, their tumor needs to be tested, and many people who have a squamous cytology that’s also reasonable. So that’s the people aspect of it, the insurance barriers and the interpretation of the results, those are still there as well. And even if you have the perfect communication and the patient understands and you get the testing done immediately, you still have to deal with, is it going to get covered or not? And the results come back, is it going to be interpretable or not? Because that can sometimes be tricky also. 


Share Your Feedback About the Program

What Challenges Surround Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing?

What Challenges Surround Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo

Lung cancer biomarker testing is a vital piece of precision medicine, but what are the challenges around testing? Experts Dr. Heather Wakelee and Dr. Leigh Boehmer discuss the goals of biomarker testing for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and common barriers to biomarker testing access.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Lung Cancer | Empowering Providers to Empower Patients

Related Resources:

How Does Data Inform Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

How Does Data Inform Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing?

Patient-Provider Relationship Role in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

Patient-Provider Relationship Role in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

Improving Communication Around Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

Improving Communication Around Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing 

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

So we know that biomarker testing connects the right patient to the right treatment at the right time and potentially to the right clinical trial, but there also are some challenges and interventions are necessary, and that’s going to really frame our conversation today. So I’d like to start with the general landscape, so I’m going to start with you, Dr. Wakelee, what in your opinion and expertise are the existing challenges as it relates to biomarker testing in academic medical centers?

Dr. Heather Wakelee: 

Thanks for that question, Dr. Rochester. I think that the biggest challenge is making sure that every patient with a new diagnosis of advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer gets the testing done and gets the testing results back before they start treatment, right? And that’s the goal. I guess that’s more of the goal than the problem, and the challenges come in each of those different phases. First is making sure that every patient is given access to the testing, and there are barriers if the patient ends up very, very sick in a hospital setting.

There are some regulations that can make that challenging, they might be…their first encounters with the healthcare system are going to potentially be with pulmonologist, general practitioners, interventional radiology. And those people might not be aware of what needs to happen to get the tissue as quickly as possible into testing, they might not be as aware of drawing a blood test, if we’re going to do a liquid biopsy, and so if those things aren’t initiated first, when the patient gets to see the oncologist some days or even a week or two later, we’re already further down the path.

They might be starting to get symptoms, and then when you start the testing, you might have to wait longer than is really acceptable before you have the results that could inform treatment. And as you said, Dr. Rochester, the testing, when we get those molecular results back, that’s going to help us figure out what’s going on in that tumor that might change our treatment options, because there’s a driver mutation where there’s a new drug approved that’s going to be the best efficacious opportunity for that patient. And if they don’t know, they can’t start it, we also run into issues where if the patient’s symptomatic, we can’t wait, and then they get started on chemotherapy and immune therapy, which might otherwise be a standard approach, immune therapy is in the body, chemotherapy is in the body, the toxicity is there, and then if you later find out, oh, there was a driver mutation, your hands are a little tied, because the toxicity can be amplified if you combine agents and the immune therapy is in the system for months.

So these are some of the challenges and really the barrier…the biggest barriers from my perspective are not every patient is being tested with comprehensive testing as early as possible, right?

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you for that, Dr. Wakelee, you’ve really, really outlined how the challenges around access to testing and even the timeliness and the importance of timely testing and the fact that these patients are often kind of making their way through a series of providers before they get to the oncologist. So I appreciate that. Dr. Boehmer, I know you have a lot of experience in the community setting where we know there are a host of additional barriers, so I’d love for you to weigh in on this question, and what challenges are you seeing with biomarker testing in the community setting?

Dr. Leigh Boehmer:

Thanks very much for the question. Yeah, I think the use of precision medicine was initially touted as this opportunity to address care disparities, whether that’s in racial ethnic minorities, differences between academic and community practices, et cetera, by using the technology to try to determine treatment largely based on things like the genetic makeup of a tumor, and unfortunately, in reality disparities have sadly only continued to grow in the setting of targeted and/or testing related to things like ability to pay and insurance coverage for testing, mistrust in the healthcare system and historical injustices related to cancer care delivery. And there’s a significant discordance in literature between patients and clinicians understanding of the importance of biomarker testing relative to treatment planning.

So even now in 2023, as more states are passing legislation to expand coverage of comprehensive testing, we’re hearing from member programs of ACCC running up against increasing prior authorization restrictions and requirements, and there are unfortunate ramifications of that, like additional costs to programs or additional costs to patients, for example, in the setting of reflexive testing, there’s also a lot of ongoing data which suggests concerning continued racial disparities in rates of guideline concordant testing, so there’s a lot of opportunities for us to learn, yes, from what we have done in successful models of rollout of testing, but we’re still confronting some pretty major challenges and barriers, and I gotta say that’s true whether you’re talking about community programs and practices or academic partners as well. 


Share Your Feedback About the Program

HCP Roundtable: Improving Clinician-Patient Conversations in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing

HCP Roundtable: Improving Clinician-Patient Conversations in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Comprehensive biomarker testing can play a very important role in the personalized treatment for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). How do we improve clinician-patient conversations in biomarker testing? And how do we remove barriers that can impede an HCP’s ability to treat patients with personalized care?

Dr. Heather Wakelee, Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Oncology at Stanford University School of Medicine and Dr. Leigh Boehmer, medical director at Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) weigh in on this very important topic. 

Download Resource Guide

See More from Lung Cancer | Empowering Providers to Empower Patients

Related Resources:

How Can Lung Cancer Experts in Academic and Community Settings Collaborate

How Can Lung Cancer Experts in Academic and Community Settings Collaborate

Methods to Improve Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication

Methods to Improve Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication 

What Guidelines Exist for Lung Cancer Genomic Biomarker Testing

What Guidelines Exist for Lung Cancer Genomic Biomarker Testing

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Welcome to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients (EPEP) program. I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester, pediatrician and CEO of Your GPS Doc. In this Patient Empowerment Network program, we connect leading lung cancer expert voices to discuss enhancing physician-patient communication and shared decision-making in lung cancer care. Some of the topics we’re going to tackle in today’s conversation include the challenges and solutions for biomarker testing in the community hospital setting and in academic centers.

We’re also going to talk about removing barriers that can impede a healthcare provider’s ability to treat patients with personalized care, improving clinician-patient communication with regard to NSCLC biomarker testing, and we’re also going to explore opportunities to improve access to personalized care for all patients. I am thrilled to be joined by thoracic medical oncologist, Dr. Heather Wakelee, Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Oncology at Stanford University School of Medicine. Dr. Wakelee is also President of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. I am also thrilled to be joined by Dr. Leigh Boehmer, Chief Medical Officer at the Association of Community Cancer Centers. Thank you both for joining us today.

Dr. Leigh Boehmer:  

Thank you.

Dr. Heather Wakelee:

Thank you.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

So we know that biomarker testing connects the right patient to the right treatment at the right time and potentially to the right clinical trial, but there also are some challenges and interventions are necessary, and that’s going to really frame our conversation today. So I’d like to start with the general landscape, so I’m going to start with you, Dr. Wakelee, what in your opinion and expertise are the existing challenges as it relates to biomarker testing in academic medical centers?

Dr. Heather Wakelee: 

Thanks for that question, Dr. Rochester. I think that the biggest challenge is making sure that every patient with a new diagnosis of advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer gets the testing done and gets the testing results back before they start treatment, right? And that’s the goal. I guess that’s more of the goal than the problem, and the challenges come in each of those different phases. First is making sure that every patient is given access to the testing, and there are barriers if the patient ends up very, very sick in a hospital setting.

There are some regulations that can make that challenging, they might be…their first encounters with the healthcare system are going to potentially be with pulmonologists, general practitioners, interventional radiology. And those people might not be aware of what needs to happen to get the tissue as quickly as possible into testing, they might not be as aware of drawing a blood test, if we’re going to do a liquid biopsy, and so if those things aren’t initiated first, when the patient gets to see the oncologist some days or even a week or two later, we’re already further down the path.

They might be starting to get symptoms, and then when you start the testing, you might have to wait longer than is really acceptable before you have the results that could inform treatment. And as you said, Dr. Rochester, the testing, when we get those molecular results back, that’s going to help us figure out what’s going on in that tumor that might change our treatment options, because there’s a driver mutation where there’s a new drug approved that’s going to be the best efficacious opportunity for that patient. And if they don’t know, they can’t start it, we also run into issues where if the patient’s symptomatic, we can’t wait, and then they get started on chemotherapy and immunotherapy, which might otherwise be a standard approach, immunotherapy is in the body, chemotherapy is in the body, the toxicity is there, and then if you later find out, oh, there was a driver mutation, your hands are a little tied, because the toxicity can be amplified if you combine agents and the immune therapy is in the system for months.

So these are some of the challenges and really the barriers…the biggest barriers from my perspective are not every patient is being tested with comprehensive testing as early as possible, right?

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you for that, Dr. Wakelee, you’ve really, really outlined how the challenges around access to testing and even the timeliness and the importance of timely testing and the fact that these patients are often kind of making their way through a series of providers before they get to the oncologist. So I appreciate that. Dr. Boehmer, I know you have a lot of experience in the community setting where we know there are a host of additional barriers, so I’d love for you to weigh in on this question, and what challenges are you seeing with biomarker testing in the community setting?

Dr. Leigh Boehmer:

Thanks very much for the question. Yeah, I think the use of precision medicine was initially touted as this opportunity to address care disparities, whether that’s in racial ethnic minorities, differences between academic and community practices, et cetera, by using the technology to try to determine treatment largely based on things like the genetic makeup of a tumor. And, unfortunately, in reality disparities have sadly only continued to grow in the setting of targeted and/or testing related to things like ability to pay and insurance coverage for testing, mistrust in the healthcare system, and historical injustices related to cancer care delivery. And there’s a significant discordance in literature between patients and clinicians understanding of the importance of biomarker testing relative to treatment planning.

So even now in 2023, as more states are passing legislation to expand coverage of comprehensive testing, we’re hearing from member programs of ACCC running up against increasing prior authorization restrictions and requirements, and there are unfortunate ramifications of that, like additional costs to programs or additional costs to patients, for example, in the setting of reflexive testing, there’s also a lot of ongoing data which suggests concerning continued racial disparities in rates of guideline concordant testing. So there’s a lot of opportunities for us to learn, yes, from what we have done in successful models of rollout of testing, but we’re still confronting some pretty major challenges and barriers, and I’ve got to say that’s true whether you’re talking about community programs and practices or academic partners as well.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

I really appreciate you adding that layer, Dr. Boehmer. As someone who does a lot of work in health equity, I was just sharing prior to us recording that these disparities are pervasive, and now we’re learning it’s in lung cancer, and for all of the reasons that you stated, and it’s interesting that when we really start to look at our progress, and when we look at it by comparing different racial and ethnic groups, we find, as you stated, that sometimes the disparities actually widen.

And so it’s not that these aren’t great practices and precision medicine is a wonderful thing, but to your point, if we’re not ensuring that everyone has access to this new technology, then in fact, not only do we continue to see disparities, but sometimes that we inadvertently worsen them. So I appreciate you sharing that. Both of you have been on the ground floor of research in this area with regard to biomarker testing and availability and disparities. So I’d love for you to talk a little bit about the data and what does the data tell us with regard to biomarker testing? It’s important, some of the challenges that you both just stated, and so I’ll start with you this time, Dr. Boehmer.

Dr. Leigh Boehmer:

[chuckle] Thanks, I appreciate it. I’ve been privileged to work with both providers and patients’ caregivers, taking a closer look at some of the barriers and then practical solutions that might be utilized to address some of these concerns around testing. So back in 2021, ACCC used the mixed methods approach to try to understand the motivators of patients and providers, their practice patterns, their attitudes, the educational needs of patients and providers related to biomarker testing and beyond. And you know what’s really interesting, in almost 100 total provider respondents, less than half of community clinicians who responded said that they used biomarker testing to guide patient discussions.

And that was compared to nearly three-quarters of all responding academic clinicians, and it really made us start to think about…so, you know, the impetus for testing in the context of testing. In this particular research, to my earlier comments, we were actually targeting patients with non-small cell lung cancer who were uninsured, underinsured and/or covered by Medicaid. So dual eligible beneficiaries, and it was really interesting because we looked at why and how conversations were happening about biomarker testing between providers and patients, and really identified some tremendous opportunities for education around clinicians’ needs to become more familiar with guideline concordant testing and to have more practical applications of guideline concordant testing, so things like case-based examples, so then ultimately they could have optimal conversations with patients and help coordinate multidisciplinary care.

There’s also data which would suggest a disconnect between ordering testing after initial staging versus ordering testing at the time of initial biopsy. And, Dr. Wakelee, you said something that really resonated with me because if we can identify patients who need to be tested, if we can have access to testing, we still have a disconnect, and this is largely seen in community programs today where clinicians may be waiting 10 days, 14 days, even longer to receive results of testing. And you’re right, we have patients who need treatment initiated sooner than later, and you miss these opportunities because of delays, prior authorizations and a lot of other things, So the data certainly quantitatively, qualitatively is speaking to this hierarchy of problems and there’s definitely some mismatches between patient and provider perceptions of why testing happens, what it’s used for, and timing of the testing and results sharing.

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

That is fascinating, and we’re definitely going to get deeper into that, this whole patient-provider interaction, so I really appreciate you introducing that and thank you for all the research that your organization has done in this area. So, Dr. Wakelee, you’re on the academic side of things, and you also have been deeply involved in research in this area, so what would you like to offer from your perspective in terms of the data around biomarker testing?

Dr. Heather Wakelee:

Well, thanks, and, Dr. Boehmer, you have a very comprehensive answer there, I think that the differences between academic and community sometimes are broad and sometimes aren’t that big at all, and I do think we face a lot of the same challenges. It’s just…it’s making sure that when a physician is meeting with a patient, and let’s say it’s with the oncologist, that the oncologist is really mindful that any patient with non-small cell lung cancer could have a tumor with a driver mutation. I think it’s easy to stereotype and think that only certain patients are going to, and therefore we shouldn’t be testing everybody. And that gets dangerous. I think it also is a matter of where you’re in practice, and if you’re in a practice where the prevalence of the driver mutations and the tumors is low, you might just say, “Oh, I’m never going to see it,” and you stop testing, and that’s also very dangerous because we have seen in multiple trials, as we get back to that research question, that if we can identify a driver mutation…

And we know that more than half of patients who’ve developed lung cancer who have never smoked or have a light smoking history are going to have an actionable driving mutation, and even in people who do have a smoking history, of any ethnic background, they’re still 10 to 20 percent or maybe more as we identify more of these driver mutations, where that’s what’s really the force in the tumor. And if you find it and you can start someone on the appropriate targeted therapy, usually across multiple trials, the toxicity is less than you would get with chemotherapy or immunotherapy.

Usually the probability of response is over half, you know, if someone’s going to have a benefit that that’s going to help them feel better for a period of time in controlling their cancer, it really drastically changes their whole tumor outcome, they’re going to be living longer, feeling better, and ultimately that’s our goal when we’re helping someone with metastatic disease. And if you don’t know that the tumor has a driver mutation, you’re never going to give them that appropriate treatment, and I think that is the real challenge that we face, and there are multiple different angles to that, right? You have to have the physician aware of the importance of finding the mutation, altering the treatment as necessary, and giving that patient the best possible option for care.

But it also is making sure that the patients are open about this, because I think there’s still a lot of misperceptions about when we talk about driver mutations and the word mutation, making sure that people understand we’re talking about the cancer and not about the person. And in a short conversation that can sometimes be missed, and then people are afraid of getting tested, afraid of what that might mean for them or their family, and so the communication around, we’re going to test your tumor because your tumor might have a mutation that’s going to allow us to give different care. I think that’s really important that people always remember to talk about the tumor and not about the mutation in the person, that’s really, really critical.

And also to avoid that stereotyping about who do we test and who do we not test, pretty much anyone with a non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer, their tumor needs to be tested, and many people who have a squamous cytology that’s also reasonable. So that’s the people aspect of it, the insurance barriers and the interpretation of the results, those are still there as well. And even if you have perfect communication and the patient understands and you get the testing done immediately, you still have to deal with, is it going to get covered or not? And the results come back, is it going to be interpretable or not? Because that can sometimes be tricky also. 

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wow. I would say you two have really uncovered a lot of barriers, and it’s enough to make someone feel a little bit discouraged, I would say, however, because of the work that both of you are doing and so many others, we know that there indeed is hope. And so I’d love to shift a little bit. We’ve talked a lot about the barriers, which are many, what’s on the horizon or what positive trends have you all seen, and specifically what are the opportunities, what are some things that are either happening or that are being explored with regard to removing some of these barriers or all of the barriers that each of you have talked about? I’ll start with you, Dr. Wakelee, give us some hope.

Dr. Heather Wakelee:

All right. Great. Well, I think there is reason to have hope. Absolutely. There always is reason to have hope. And so many organizations, including ISLC, including ACCC, including NCC…I mean, you could name any organization that’s involved in cancer care and education, is really focusing on this issue of making sure that every oncologist knows the importance of doing biomarker testing for patients with non-small cell lung cancer, that we are trying to expand that not just to the oncologist, but also to the folks making the diagnosis, so they can be aware as well. Patient advocacy groups are very engaged in this as well, making sure that when someone is newly diagnosed, if they reach out to an advocacy group, one of the messages they hear is, have you asked about testing what’s happening with the tumor testing?

The more people who are aware that’s a standard of care in treating lung cancer, the more that’s going to happen, and then continuing to explore those financial barriers, and as more agents are FDA-approved, where that becomes a preferred first sign option, but you only know that if the testing’s happened, that leads to campaigning to make sure that the testing is being covered as well, you know, when you can argue, this patient isn’t getting the FDA-approved best care for their cancer because that testing wasn’t done, that’s a really powerful statement. And I think that’s what we’re seeing change happening.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

That is incredible, thank you. Thank you so much. I can smile again.

[laughter]

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

What about you, Dr. Boehmer? I know you’re getting…your organization is doing a lot of work in this area, so tell us about some of the advances, some of the improvements and tackling some of these barriers that both of you have elucidated today.

Dr. Leigh Boehmer:

So, Dr. Wakelee, thank you for all of those hope-inducing concepts and methodologies, because I honestly believe that so many of us learn best today by seeing someone like me doing X, Y, Z, so I know I can do it as well. So I think it’s about documentation of justification of testing for prior authorization claims. I think it’s about working together with the multidisciplinary team, pharmacist, advanced practitioners, oncology-certified nurses to help manage that back and forth with testing and external pathology and laboratory companies, to make sure that results show up in the right spot in the electronic health record so that they can be interpreted, shared with patients, communicated and contextualized in real time. I think it’s about greater incorporation as we’ve seen across so many of our programs of the tenets of shared clinical decision-making, and how to have a meaningful conversation with a patient and/or their caregivers about testing and its role on treatment and drug selection, and outcomes, and progression-free survival. And there are a lot of programs out there that are doing bits of this or different points along that continuum.

ACCC, for example, building on the research I shared before, recognizes that a lot of community programs don’t have kind of operational best practices for how to incorporate biomarker testing into a patient’s journey, and so for lung, and also, for example, for breast cancer, we’re working on creating care pathways which will help multidisciplinary clinician teams integrate discussions of biomarker testing and its impact at various critical time points along a patient’s diagnosis to treatment, to survivorship or end-of-life care. And those are just examples of us not being overly duplicative, but putting all the resources in one place, talking about timing, talking about when and how to have meaningful conversations, and then doing it with health-literate, vetted resources and through a lens of equity and shared decision-making, because you look like me, you had success with it. I’m going to do it for my at-risk patients as well, because one, it’s the right thing to do. And two, you taught me how to do it, and three, you told me what success looks like so I can measure myself against you, and that’s a successful model for scalability. 

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

That is wonderful. You both have nicely taken us into the next part of the conversation, and, Dr. Boehmer, you just talked about shared decision-making, and as someone who works very closely with patient advocates and health advocates, it’s so important that any effort to improve care with regard to any disease or illness, it has to involve the patient and their family, so I really appreciate you all sharing that. So, with that in mind, and as we begin to think about how the patient-provider relationship and the patient-provider communication plays a role in addressing some of these barriers that we’ve been talking about and then making sure that patients are appropriately being tested and treated, I’d love to hear from you all regarding the role of the patient-provider partnership as it relates to biomarker testing. So, let’s see, I’ll start with you, Dr. Boehmer.

Dr. Leigh Boehmer:

So I really, really think this question is critical, and I’m going to bias by saying, an exciting new position on the multidisciplinary cancer care team that we are learning about it, some of our member programs, is that of a precision medicine steward or navigator. So if you’re at all familiar with the idea of a patient navigation service or the services provided by financial advocates or financial navigators, this is really identifying that it is getting so complex in the world of targeted testing, targeted treatments today, that it literally requires in some places and settings an FTE or multiple to try to navigate testing, pathology, external labs, medical oncology, pharmacy services, nursing administration, and then, of course, patients and caregivers, and communication and context building, working with patient advocacy groups who are out there publishing great resources on testing and what they mean and targeted treatments. But trying to put all of that together, I will admit as a community clinician, as you probably see 15, 18, 20 patients a day, sometimes with as many different discrete types of cancers, it gets overwhelming.

And so, having a support person on staff who can help you manage some of that information and the patient-provider conversations, ACCC is very, very much about recognizing multidisciplinary teams of providers, so it’s critical to have navigation, to have social work providing distress screening and psychosocial support, to have pharmacists talking about targeted therapies and how they match with, to Dr. Wakelee’s points, mutations and fusions and rearrangements and everything we’re testing for with our big panels of next-generation sequencing, right? So I really want to encourage us all to utilize as patients and as team members, everybody else on the team, which is also to say patients and caregivers, are team members too, right? They have rights and responsibilities as members of their own team. And I will end with this, I say all of this, and I feel justified in saying all of this because we’ve done research at ACCC, and without that critical infrastructure, there’s potentially a real disconnect. So, for example, we asked patients with lung cancer what resources would be most impactful for you as you embark on your treatment journey, and they said things to us like psychosocial support and financial assistance.

When we asked the provider respondents a similar question in their own survey, the number one thing they identified, they thought patients needed were educational handouts or websites to go seek information about their diagnosis. Now that’s not to shake a finger at anybody or to say that you were right or you were wrong, that’s just to say, we need people who can approach this whole patient-provider construct from different perspectives, because Leigh is going to ask different questions than Heather is going to ask, than Nicole is going to ask, and that’s the beauty of multidisciplinary care coordination. We do need to come at it from different angles, different perspectives, and always make sure we’re remaining open and inclusive and asking what patients need and want right now. Because we don’t always have the answers, we have to remember that. We’re human, we have biases, it’s always better to ask and provide and then ask again.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

You are really speaking my language, Dr. Boehmer.

[laughter]

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

And I see, Dr. Wakelee, both of us are shaking our heads the entire time that you’ve been speaking and just around this idea of multidisciplinary teams that include the patient and the family, and ideally at the center. Dr. Wakelee, do you have anything to add?

Dr. Heather Wakelee:

Hard to add. That was very impressive, Dr. Boehmer, [laughter] and highlighting that just…we talk about multidisciplinary sometimes, the first version, some people think of it’s just it’s a team of a few different types of doctors. And obviously that’s not at all what we’re talking about, this is to provide the best possible care for a patient dealing with cancer, that physician-to-patient interaction is critical, but the patient to physicians to family is critical. And then you’ve got to also think about all the psycho-social needs and whether that’s going to be with a social worker or… We have a lot of people working in oncology who are psychologists and psychiatrists particularly focused in that because the coping with the disease is such a big part of it. And it’s also the pharmacy teams and the nursing teams. It is…multidisciplinary is many, many different levels of circles, but at the core, it’s the patient and family and the primary physician, that’s kind of the way I think at it, but I’m an oncologist, so perhaps I’m a little biased in my viewpoint there.

But it’s that communication right there where you sort of have all of the information that the physician’s holding, that’s coming from all of the different treatment disciplines, and then you’ve got all the information that the patient’s holding, that’s coming from their understanding of them and all of their other aspects of their life, and that’s sort of that interaction at the core, and making sure that both sides are seeing each other and seeing all of the other layers of that, so that you could make sure that at each point the recommendations and what the patient is actually doing, everyone’s coming from a point of understanding. I think, to me, that’s the most critical piece. And you don’t have that understanding if you don’t also have all the information you need about the tumor, and you’re not making that right decision if you don’t have all the information you need about all the aspects of who that patient is as a person, and that goes into their decisions as well, and that’s to me, that’s what we’re aiming for, right? 

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Absolutely, you all have done such an incredible job really highlighting the importance of involving the patient and family, involving this multidisciplinary team, which as you said, Dr. Wakelee, it’s not just a bunch of different types of doctors. So before we conclude, I just want to talk a little bit about that communication, because most of you have shared how important that communication is, and we know that there are challenges, inside and outside of cancer with regard to communicating with patients, and certainly as a physician that some of the complexity of the topics that you all have discussed I would admit is even a lot for me, and so we can imagine that for someone without any medical training, this is very difficult, these topics of biomarker testing and genetics and mutations and precision medicine. So I’d love for you, Dr. Wakelee, to start by just sharing some best practices, things you’ve learned over the years with how can providers who are watching this program really engage in effective, thoughtful conversations with patients and their family members about biomarker testing?

Dr. Heather Wakelee:  

So that’s a great, great question. And really, the communication is to me, like I said, the core there, when I’m talking about biomarker testing with the patient, I usually try to frame it from the context of what makes the cancer different than the rest of you. And what we’re trying to figure out is what is it about the cancer that makes it different than the rest of you, so we can then target what’s different, and hopefully with that, being able to control the cancer without harming the rest of you. So that’s sort of one framework of it, and depending on the patient’s level of understanding, and then sort of layer in different levels of…for people who are understanding DNA and mutations, then you can start talking about those specifics, and for folks who don’t necessarily want to think about it that way, or haven’t had the education about it that way, then just starting from that framework. And I think about it this way too, is how is the cancer different than the rest of the person? And what can we do to therefore attack the cancer differently than we would the rest of the person?

And then from there, if there is a mutation or a translocation or something else that we found, can use the name of that gene and say, “This is different in the cancer than in the rest of you, and this is a targeted therapy that’s going to go after that, and it’s going to work for a period of time, but the cancer is always evolving.” And so we kind of plant that seed from the beginning also, that it’s not curing, that the cancer continues to evolve, and eventually it’s going to change in a way where that doesn’t work, but for right now, that’s the best treatment. So that’s how I’m going about with that communication with people on it. And then, again, I practice in Silicon Valley, so a lot of people will come in with books, practically, of all the research that they’ve done, and so that’s a very different conversation than someone who comes in and says, “Whatever you think is best, doc.” And even when I hear that, which I don’t happen to hear too often anymore, I really feel it’s critical that the patient is still understanding, why are we picking this treatment for your particular cancer, and what are our expectations from it?

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

I really appreciate the plain language, and I think that’s important, and also your acknowledgment that patients come to us with different levels of knowledge and expertise, and so really it’s about meeting them where they are, so I really appreciate that. And, Dr. Boehmer, we’re going to allow you to wrap up on this topic, I know that the Association of Community Cancer Centers has done research about what patients want to hear and some of the biases around providers, maybe thinking that patients don’t want or don’t need some of this information, that it may be too confusing for them, so I’d love for you to share some knowledge around your experience in this area and some best practices around communicating with patients.

Dr. Leigh Boehmer:

Thanks very much, I appreciate the opportunity, I’ll try and keep it targeted. I think number one, Dr. Wakelee, you’re correct. We have visual learners, auditory learners, we have people that want more direction and less direction, so simply starting by asking, how do you prefer to learn? It’s a wonderful place to start. It could be drawing pictures, it could be giving them that academic print out of literature published in a cutting-edge journal. But we need to know how patients learn and respect the fact that we’re all individuals and we as providers talking to patients may need to alter our approach based on different patients’ characteristics. I also think our research has shown that consistent terminology must, must be utilized, biomarker testing, molecular profiling, next-generation sequencing, mutation analysis, whatever it is, that you have decided to make your consistent terminology, please in your teams, then in the next level of teams, then in your health system, and then with your colleagues, talk about what it is, why it is, does it go against another group or is it in agreement with A, B, C groups. Because we have to, as a collective, really agree on and start utilizing consistent terminology, because until we do, we’re just continuing to stir the pot and cause confusion amongst patients, caregivers, other patient advocacy organizations and ourselves.

The other thing I’ll say, at ACCC, we’ve got a lot of resources aggregated in one place about shared decision-making, what it is, how to do it, how to assess yourself, health literacy, how do you evaluate your program to make sure you’re asking the right questions before you ever, ever have a conversation with a patient about biomarker testing or different targeted treatments for patients with non-small cell lung cancer? There’s little things that you can do today that’s so important. Little things you can do today that will make a positive influence on your patients’ outcomes and experience just by asking, addressing your own biases, being inclusive with your language and using consistent terminology. All of that is on our website and it’s truly incremental. Go easy on yourself, we’re all learning here, and acknowledging your bias and trying to be more inclusive is very, very worthwhile, and it’s okay if it’s small steps every single day made.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

A wonderful way to end this program. I have learned a lot as always, I’m sure that those of you watching have as well. We have talked about the challenges around biomarker testing on the clinician side, on the patient and family side, we’ve explored some amazing solutions to some of these challenges and barriers, and I just want to really thank both of you for being here, and lastly, give you an opportunity if there’s something that you really feel like we should have talked about that we didn’t get to. Any closing thoughts or anything that you want to leave the audience with. And I’ll start with you, Dr. Wakelee.

Dr. Heather Wakelee:

Thanks. I think just to make sure everyone is always thinking, if you’ve got a patient and they’re coming to see you and they have lung cancer, that you’ve done the biomarker testing, that the patient understands about it, that you’ve had an opportunity to include that as part of the conversation whenever you’re talking about treatment.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you, Dr. Boehmer.

Dr. Leigh Boehmer:  

The only thing I would add is that if you’re thinking about creating resources, if you’re trying to target at-risk populations or communities in your area, please always, always remember to invite those individuals as you are talking, creating and disseminating. Because we don’t have all the answers, and that’s okay. I give you permission, but please invite people in and let them be a part of the discussion and the proposed solutions.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. Well, thank you again to both of you, Dr. Wakelee, Dr. Boehmer, this has been an amazing conversation. And thank you again for tuning in to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients program.

Dr. Leigh Boehmer:

Thank you.


Share Your Feedback About the Program

Empowering Providers to Explain Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing to Patients

Empowering Providers to Explain Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing to Patients from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) clinician Dr. Jhanelle Gray from Moffitt Cancer Center has some knowledge to share. NSCLC expert Dr. Gray discusses her experience in biomarker testing and personalized combination therapeutics.

Watch to learn some of the best practices Dr. Gray has developed in treating and empowering NSCLC patients toward more culturally sensitive and equitable care.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Lung Cancer | Empowering Providers to Empower Patients

Related Resources:

How Can Lung Cancer Experts in Academic and Community Settings Collaborate

How Can Lung Cancer Experts in Academic and Community Settings Collaborate

A Look at Lung Cancer Expert Learnings From Tumor Boards

A Look at Lung Cancer Expert Learnings From Tumor Boards

Methods to Improve Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication

Methods to Improve Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication

Transcript:

Dr. Jhanelle Gray:

My name is Dr. Jhanelle Gray, and I’m a clinical investigator focused on helping patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). My research has concentrated on evaluating novel molecular markers and developing cutting-edge, personalized combination therapeutics to improve the outcomes of patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Biomarker testing is so important to explain to patients, and I’ve learned some best practices along the way. I think it’s very important that we take the time to think about patients when we’re making decisions, and to be open to the idea that people think differently. We all come from different backgrounds, we have different experiences. I think trying to have empathy, taking a pause, and intentionally being an active listener are very important when a patient is sitting in front of you.

We need to be careful when we use the words manage or managing. We’re not managing the patient, what we’re doing is managing the therapies, we’re helping to manage the symptoms that patients experience. We also want to take time to slow down, look at what is happening in the room as you’re talking, as the patient’s talking to you…

Language is something that is critically important. When you’re delivering negative news, people will remember about 10 percent of what you say. There’s a lot going on, so patience is very important, using words that can resonate and land, and being open to questions are key. Making sure that, again, that you don’t judge and remember that you’re delivering a lot of information. We also must share the news in a culturally sensitive way and understand the dynamics. Again, it’s reading  the room.

Understand that this is an individual conversation. When the next patient comes in, you’re going to tailor the conversation to that individual. When the next patient comes in, you’re going to tailor the conversation to that individual. 

There are also some things to keep in mind about management. Patients do not fail therapies, our therapies fail our patients. And even when you’re talking to patients, you need to let them know, this is one of the things that can occur. While the intention might be to prepare them for what can happen in the future, you may not realize during the conversation that this could come across as blaming. 

Training is one of the ways that you can move this forward and also just pay attention, be thoughtful, and make sure that people feel as comfortable as possible when you need to deliver difficult news. Another time this becomes very important, is when you need to change therapies.

For the patients, they had gotten accustomed to a therapy, they knew how to take care of themselves, how to work with their team, and had familiarity with the side effects. And now you’re going to pivot treatments. To patients, this often feels like starting over from scratch. Thus, I think there are many sensitivities that must be considered, and we need to be thoughtful at those particular times.

I think that all providers should undergo cultural competency training. This can drive impact and help move us to the next level of reaching for that equity and honestly, lessening the inequities in healthcare.

Some things I’ve learned about communicating biomarker results with patients include:

  • Seeing patients as human beings first and the cancer as second.
  • Pause and think about what you’re saying and how you’re saying it.
  • Take your time and don’t rush the appointment.
  • Get to know your patient as a person.

For me, these actions are key to empowering my patients.


Share Your Feedback About the Program

Methods to Improve Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication

Methods to Improve Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo

What are some ways to improve lung cancer physician-patient communication? Experts Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova and Dr. Jessica Bauman share methods they’ve used and potential ideas for future studies to improve care.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Lung Cancer | Empowering Providers to Empower Patients

Related Resources:

How Can Lung Cancer Experts in Academic and Community Settings Collaborate

How Can Lung Cancer Experts in Academic and Community Settings Collaborate

How Can Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication Be Improved

How Can Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication Be Improved

What Guidelines Exist for Lung Cancer Genomic Biomarker Testing

What Guidelines Exist for Lung Cancer Genomic Biomarker Testing

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

I wonder if either of you or both of you have any thoughts around unique things that you’ve implemented that have allowed you to really connect and communicate with your patients in spite of these time limitations. Are there any unique things that you all have implemented in real time, like face-to-face, when communicating with patients?

Dr. Jessica Bauman: 

So I would say we did a pilot study that has not been implemented full time, and really I think we’re still working on how to best implement something like this but we did a pilot study using sort of educational materials, and this whole sort of pathway and educational system in coordination with our nurse navigators, where you could send sort of a prescription to the patient of reading material or of educational material, as they’re going along. And so, with the idea that early on that one of those prescriptions would be more information about molecular testing and biomarker testing, decision-making, all of those types of things.

We did a small pilot study to incorporate that, which on the surface is fantastic but it was surprisingly challenging to do, to actually implement. And I think that was…we were doing this, again, in collaboration with one of the researchers, the nurse researchers at our institution, and we hit more barriers than expected, because I think we all, as you say, we all want to educate, we all want to make sure that our patients understand and get the information that they need, but the practicality of doing that really successfully and in a streamlined way but that’s also consistent across providers across the institution, it’s a challenge.

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

Yeah, I can imagine. Are there a chance to extend the pilot or to maybe modify it based on what you all learn from the initial study?

Dr. Jessica Bauman: 

I think that that’s…it’s certainly in discussion about how to best implement something like this. Part of that is…again, sort of systems change. The role of the clinic nurse, the nurse navigators has changed a little bit and so even how we envision implementation is going to need to shift somewhat.

Dr. Nicole Rochester

Wonderful. What about you, Dr. Bazhenova? Any pilot studies or any other maybe tips and tricks that you employ independently?

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova

Yeah, we haven’t had any pilot studies but I think the more I think about it…so the challenge of discussing those molecular testing with the patients is the fact that majority of those molecular testing discussions happen in stage IV patients and majority of those discussions happen during the first visit for a patient with stage IV lung cancer where we just discussed that this is an incurable cancer with limited life expectancy. And then how much does our patient actually absorb anything else we said afterwards is still remain to be seen. And I actually have seen like when I talk to the patient because they are so understandably fixated on their prognosis and survival, because it’s going to affect their lives that after that my patient asked me a question that I know I’ve discussed it already because I have my spiel.

I tell the same thing to everybody. And I think now kind of thinking about it out loud after that, during that discussion and maybe we could set up another appointment with a nurse practitioner afterwards, that after the patient kind of already digested all that information, to go over again the management of the molecular abnormalities. And one thing I actually want to highlight and build upon something that Bauman said before, that in those patients we actually usually wait for the molecular testing to come back before we start their therapy. And it is much easier to just prescribe chemotherapy immunotherapy for those patients.

But then you’re going to run into issues of toxicity because if you gave immunotherapy before you give for example EGFR TKI and some ALK TKIs, you can actually going to run into toxicity and you can permanently prevent your patients from continue on tyrosine kinase inhibitors. And so that’s why this is an information that not all oncologists, especially those who practice in a tobacco belt where they don’t see a lot of oncogenic-driven patients, they might not be aware of that. And I think how do we pass that information to the physicians, and also how do we pass that information to the patients that there is an easy way, but easy way in this situation is not the right way. 


Share Your Feedback About the Program

A Look at Lung Cancer Expert Learnings From Tumor Boards

A Look at Lung Cancer Expert Learnings From Tumor Boards from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Lung cancer tumor boards can bring some key learnings to experts. Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova and Dr. Jessica Bauman share insights about multidisciplinary tumor boards and how information could potentially be shared with community practices.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Lung Cancer | Empowering Providers to Empower Patients

Related Resources:

Building on Lung Cancer Successes for Targetable Oncogenic Drivers

Building on Lung Cancer Successes for Targetable Oncogenic Drivers

How Can Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication Be Improved

How Can Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication Be Improved

What Guidelines Exist for Lung Cancer Genomic Biomarker Testing

What Guidelines Exist for Lung Cancer Genomic Biomarker Testing

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester

Well, Dr. Bazhenova, I know that you lead a weekly tumor board for lung cancer, and I’d love to learn more about some of the things that you can share that may be insightful for other lung cancer experts as a result of the tumor board.

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: 

At UC San Diego, we actually have two tumor boards where lung cancer patients can be presented, one is just a traditional multidisciplinary thoracic tumor board, which is attended by a medical oncologist, surgeons, radiation oncologist, pathologist, interventional people, clinical trial coordinators. And I think this is not unique to UC San Diego. The multidisciplinary tumor boards are available in all major academic institutions. And I think lung cancer care is becoming more and more multidisciplinary, especially with the new advances of new adjuvant to chemo-immunotherapy and controversies we still have to this point in management of stage III disease. And I think what I find in a multidisciplinary tumor board…

Because I think what I want to build upon as Dr. Bauman statement that she said that times of an essence here, and I think the multi-d tumor board help us make medical decisions on the spot rather than me sending a patient to see a surgeon or sending a patient to see radiation oncologist and sending patients to see interventional radiologist, and then the IR is telling you, “Oh, we can’t do that biopsy, you gotta send it to the pulmonologist.” I think that actually streamlines the patient care. The second tumor board what we have, that maturity of the lung cancer patients actually don’t get presented there, it’s a molecular tumor board. And the reason why we don’t present majority of the lung cancer patients there because management of antigen-driven lung cancer is pretty straightforward.

I think only presentations I would ever make there if they have an unusual mutation that I can’t find any information about, then I need the help of our molecular pathologist, but it is a good avenue for those weird rare molecular abnormalities that I’ve seen in other malignancies and so that is another option. And there’s actually…many institutions have molecular tumor boards as well. We do open our tumor board not to all communities. So we are not as good as you, Dr. Bauman. So only one community practice can join us because they’re kind of part of us, so we don’t usually…we don’t have it open to the whole community, and I think as an academic institution, we probably should strive to have an open tumor boards where everybody can join and listen and present and that’s the most important.

Dr. Jessica Bauman: 

I do want to say, we don’t..I must have misspoken, we definitely don’t include community practices. So I do think that that would be a fantastic offering in the sense of some of the…I don’t know that we could do that on a weekly basis, but consider something like on a monthly basis or even a quarterly basis of a true tumor board where people can present cases in real time from community practices. 


Share Your Feedback About the Program

How Can Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication Be Improved?

How Can Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication Be Improved? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Lung cancer physician-patient communication can sometimes present challenges. Experts Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova and Dr. Jessica Bauman share factors that can create challenges and methods they’ve used to improve their communication and patient care.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Lung Cancer | Empowering Providers to Empower Patients

Related Resources:

Building on Lung Cancer Successes for Targetable Oncogenic Drivers

Building on Lung Cancer Successes for Targetable Oncogenic Drivers

A Look at Lung Cancer Expert Learnings From Tumor Boards

A Look at Lung Cancer Expert Learnings From Tumor Boards

Methods to Improve Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication

Methods to Improve Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

Can you each share some examples from your own practice around improving physician-patient communication that may serve as exemplary for providers that are watching this program? And we’ll start with you, Dr. Bazhenova.

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: 

I think it also has some challenges, because in the current environment of practicing medicine, we are, as physicians, we are pushed to see more patients, it’s all about productivity. So when you do that, something has to give. And a time that we can spend with the patient is limited. And I think it’s important, for myself, as a practice, I have the same, I call it spiel that I give to all my patients. It’s the same picture I write down when I speak and I give that paper to the patients. I’ve had, you know, created some preprinted things that I used to give to the patients. Don’t do it anymore. But I think that’s another thing, have some kind of information that is a patient level that I can give to the patients.

And I think we have to educate the patients as well, either by ourselves or using the platforms that we are exhibiting here, that is outside of our primary institutions. And to make sure that the patients are aware that each one of them who have a stage IV lung cancer, as well as early stage lung cancer needs to be tested for the molecular testing. And kind of put it also have the patient question the physician, did you do that? Was that test done? That’s one part of information.  And I think the second part is, we do have to do better in allowing our patients to get a faster access to us. And we kind of accept the fact that we are going to be working after hours. When the clinic is over, that’s where I’m going to go to my charts, and I’m going to answer my patient’s question.

It’s kind of an intrinsic, is the work of the physician. Hours is…unfortunately, doesn’t really count. There is no limit to that. So whatever it works, like having a nurse educator. We have in our institution, we have…we call her tissue coordinator, but she’s the person who can actually make sure that the tissue is done, she can also make sure that reports are sent to the patient and make sure that patient has ability to ask questions of somebody. And I think the EMR, electronic medical record, it’s kind of a love-hate relationship, I think, with all of us. But one thing that I find it made it much easier for me is to communicate with my patients using my chart and this ability to release the result to the patient by one click of a button, that saves time for me so I can spend that time to actually visit the patient and explain to the patient what needs to be done.

Dr. Nicole Rochster: 

That is awesome, thank you. Do you have anything to add, Dr. Bauman?

Dr. Jessica Bauman: 

Yes, yes, I agree that I think that this overall requires a lot of education, and especially when patients come in and they want to know tomorrow or yesterday, actually, what they’re going to get for treatment and what we’re going to start with. And so telling them that actually we still can’t decide for at least another week or two, that in of itself can be challenging. I think the other piece of this that’s always important is, in general, when we’re doing molecular and biomarker testing, we’re looking for changes in the tumor, we’re looking for what we call somatic mutations, but there is also the second concern where on rare occasion, issues with molecular testing can bring up issues with germline testing, meaning some abnormality that’s found that may impact their own familial risk for cancer, and so that of course requires a lot of thought and careful education as well, in addition to the treatment decision-making that we’re really ordering the test to decide upon.


Share Your Feedback About the Program

How Can Lung Cancer Experts in Academic and Community Settings Collaborate?

How Can Lung Cancer Experts in Academic and Community Settings Collaborate? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How can lung cancer collaboration happen in academic and community settings? Experts Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova and Dr. Jessica Bauman share their perspectives on collaboration challenges and potential ways to decrease these challenges in the future.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Lung Cancer | Empowering Providers to Empower Patients

Related Resources:

Building on Lung Cancer Successes for Targetable Oncogenic Drivers

Building on Lung Cancer Successes for Targetable Oncogenic Drivers

How Can Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication Be Improved

How Can Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication Be Improved

What Guidelines Exist for Lung Cancer Genomic Biomarker Testing

What Guidelines Exist for Lung Cancer Genomic Biomarker Testing

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

So my next question really has to do with how can lung cancer experts in academic settings partner with, collaborate, work with those experts in the community settings to overcome some of these challenges that you all just talked about as it relates to biomarker testing? So I’ll start with you, Dr. Bauman.

Dr. Jessica Bauman: 

So, that’s a million dollar question. I do think there are many opportunities of educational opportunities to continue to educate everybody in terms of lung cancer. I think lung cancer is a very common diagnosis. And so we know that many community providers absolutely deliver excellent lung cancer care. And so making sure that there are many opportunities for them to participate in, either citywide or nationwide educational opportunities for updates on lung cancer. We have in Philadelphia, we actually have an academic, sort of a multi-multidisciplinary, multi-institutional tumor board, thoracic tumor board that happens quarterly, which we invite community providers to to discuss some of the latest literature. Certainly our emails are always available, so we can always bring them, certainly we get many different questions that come in from other providers, but I’m sure we could do a better job. And I’m very curious to hear what Dr. Bazhenova thinks about this as well, because I think it is such a huge challenge.

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: 

I agree with you fully, and I think my two cents here is I think we have to recognize and accept that one size does not fit all in this situation. And whatever works for my institution is probably not going to work for a smaller community practice. But as long as we recognize that this needs to be done and each community practice can work with their stakeholders in the molecular testing pathway, like molecular pathologists, regular pathologists, surgeons. Each institution has power to establish their own internal pathways. Would it be what Dr. Bauman says, reflex testing, which is probably not going to be an option for a majority of the community setting, because they do not have their own NGS. It’s going to be a sendout. Or like in our institutions, we don’t have a reflex molecular testing. It’s us medical oncologists who are ordering it, but we kind of get it on the backside.

We can get the patient in within 24, 48 hours from the consult was put in. And so that’s why we didn’t do the reflex testing, but as the reason we did it is because we sat down as a team and we decided this is what works for us. So I encouraged the community groups again, sitting down saying, okay, the task in hand is lung cancer patient has to have molecular testing at the time of the diagnosis. How are we going to get it, and how are we going to make sure that we are not missing, you know, have some kind of internal QI, and make sure you know what your practice is doing rather than assuming that your practice is doing molecular testing for all the patients.

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

Thank you so much. Did you have something you wanted to add, Dr. Bauman?

Dr. Jessica Bauman: 

Yeah, I was just going to say, and I think that so many things are happening before they ever see us, that includes a pulmonologist is going in and doing a biopsy, right? Or an interventional radiologist is getting a biopsy. So it has to start way upfront of the actual diagnosis because the, what you want to try to get to capture the information as soon as you can, right? So you don’t want to get just an FNA biopsy, for example, of a liver lesion knowing that three weeks later what you really need is a core biopsy, right? So it really, the path you do, it involves so many different stakeholders when you’re having conversations about how to streamline this for your own institution and practice. 


Share Your Feedback About the Program