Tag Archive for: healthcare providers

Recognizing Implicit Bias and Respecting Patients’ Choices Infographic

Download Infographic

Recognizing Implicit Bias and Respecting Patients’ Choices_EPEP CLL

Download Infographic

See More from EPEP CLL

Empowering Providers to Enhance CLL Patient Care

Empowering patients is at the core of efforts at Patient Empowerment Network (PEN), and work toward reducing health disparities is part of conversations among healthcare professionals. With this in mind, PEN has taken on a new initiative for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the Empowering  CLL Providers to Empower Patients (EPEP) initiative. The program multiplies PEN’s reach to healthcare professionals with the aim to improve physician-patient communication; shared decision-making; and the role that CLL patients, survivors, care partners, and healthcare professionals each play in the shared decision-making process.

The EPEP CLL initiative includes the following resources:

  • Needs Assessment outlines key factors that enable patient empowerment, attributes of an empowered patient, and advice for healthcare professionals to perform a needs assessment for each patient.
  • EPEP Roundtables with CLL experts Dr. Jennifer Brown, Dr. Callie Coombs, Dr. Daniel Ermann, and Dr. Andres Chang as they discuss a range of topics including how to help your CLL patients play an active role in managing their care, healthcare provider recommended strategies for managing disease burden, the importance of advanced practice clinicians on the CLL health care team, and ins and outs of clinical trials and communication about clinical trials.
  • EPEP Resources includes the resource guide, infographics, blog, and other resources to improve patient care.
  • EPEP Peer Insights with PEN’s Vice President of Programs Aïcha Diallo breaks down the differences between cultural competence versus cultural humility and barriers that HCPs  may encounter and ways to overcome cultural humility barriers.
  • EPEP Portal utilizes PEN’s robust resource library and that of numerous trusted advocacy partners to create a vetted list of patient education resources. PEN delivers a curated PDF according to your interests and delivers it efficiently to your inbox.

Key Takeaways for CLL Patient Care

PEN had the opportunity to interview CLL experts Dr. Jennifer Brown from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Dr. Callie Coombs from the University of California, Irvine, Dr. Daniel Ermann from Huntsman Cancer Institute, and Dr. Andres Chang from Emory University School of Medicine to learn about some of their expertise. They shared their views about essential ways that they work with patients to help empower them and to educate them about CLL mutations and side effect management.

A team-based approach is the ideal model for taking optimal care of CLL patients. Dr. Callie Coombs stressed the key roles that pharmacists, oncology nurses, and nurse practitioners play in CLL patient care. “…I think it comes down to your internal resources, but I would say taking care of CLL patients is clearly a team effort. And so it’s not just me, but also a team of additional practitioners that I work with. So I’d like to emphasize how important pharmacists are because I’ve definitely seen some side effects that come about because a patient is now on a medication that interacts with whatever their CLL therapy is, which drives up the levels of the drug and then brings out certain toxicities so they can help us identify these if perhaps I missed it or didn’t ask the patient about a supplement, et cetera.”

The advances in CLL treatment have expanded tremendously over the past several years leading to refined treatments. Expert Dr. Callie Coombs shared her perspective about how patient care has changed. “…CLL is a chronic disease that affects our primarily elderly patients, and so it’s a marathon, not a sprint. However, with all of the advances that we’ve had in excellent drug therapies, despite these resistance mutations, patients can attain many, many, many years of high quality of life. But it’s incumbent upon us as their providers to help ensure that quality of life through effective management of side effects that may be encountered over the course of their time on therapy for the patients that do need therapy.

Switching treatments can be an effective method for resolving side effects in some patients. Dr. Callie Coombs discussed some changes she’s seen in some of her patients. “…I’ve had patients with chronic long-standing toxicities to ibrutinib (Imbruvica) that perhaps went underrecognized where I say, ‘Hey, I’ve notice your blood pressure has gone up a lot…Let’s switch you over to acalabrutinib,” or other patients, “Oh, you’ve had issues with atrial fibrillation…let’s try switching you to zanubrutinib.’..Because the rates are a lot lower and a lot of patients can have improvement or just complete resolution of the prior side effect. And so I hope that that emphasizes this is something that we think about every day, and switching is appropriate in the setting of intolerance.”

CLL Mutations and Side Effect Management

Although CLL is not defined by any specific mutation, CLL care providers see a large number of different mutations at low percentages. Dr. Jennifer Brown discussed how mutations can come into play with CLL treatment. “So at baseline, the most common mutations, which are somewhere in the 10 to 20 percent range of patients, although less than that if you have very early stage patients, affect the p53 gene, NOTCH1, SF3B1, and ATM. P53 is the most important because that one does influence our thinking about the patients and our choice of therapy in some cases.

TP53 aberrations are especially vital in relation to chemotherapy. Dr. Callie Coombs explained the impact of these specific mutations. “…when patients have TP53 aberrations, whether that’s 17P or a  TP53 mutation or both, given that they can occur in isolation or together, these patients should never get chemotherapy, because they have extremely terrible responses to chemo, and that should not be part of the therapies offered to these patients.

Warning CLL patients ahead of time about common treatment side effects is recommended to help prepare them for treatment. Dr. Jennifer Brown explained some common side effects with her patients. “…headaches often happen early on when you initiate acalabrutinib (Calquence) but they go away typically very quickly. And so if patients know that, then they’re much less worried, and then you can talk to them about the strategies, because caffeine or acetaminophen (Tylenol) will often help with that. If you warn them that they may have some joint aches or pains, that can also help, since those are often transient…With venetoclax, warning them about some nausea or diarrhea, and then we often manage that by subsequently moving the drug to the evening after they’re done with their ramp up, or initiating an antiemetic, things like this.”

Dose adjustments to CLL treatment may prove to be a highly effective method of side effect management for some patients. Dr. Daniel Ermann shared his perspective about dose adjustments. “…I think dose reduction can make a big difference in the side effect profiles of these medications. I’ve seen reduced bleeding, for example, reduced rates of atrial fibrillation. With BCL-2 inhibitors, I’ve seen reduced rates of neutropenia, for example. And I’ll just say from my experience, I haven’t seen too much compromise in efficacy. So I think I would recommend for providers when you’re thinking about dose reduction, it’s really a balance of toxicity and efficacy. And I think with just how good our treatments are for CLL these days, I try to reduce toxicity. And I think in that way, it does maximize their efficacy.”

 Dr. Andres Chang also shared his perspective on dose escalation and dose reduction in CLL patient care. “…whether to dose-escalate or dose-reduce really depends on the treatment we’re talking about. For new therapies like BCL-2 inhibitors such as venetoclax (Venclexta), we do dose escalation at the beginning of therapy to mitigate potential side effects such as tumor lysis syndrome, whereas in most of the other scenarios we will try to do dose reductions in order to mitigate adverse events.”

Even though CLL treatments have shown increases in the number and complexity of treatment options, vital HCP best practices can help further expansion in empowering CLL patients. How do we improve care of patients? And how do we work with dose adjustments and side effect management in patient care? We hope healthcare providers can take advantage of these timely resources of the EPEP initiative to work toward optimal and equitable treatment for all CLL patients.

MPN Treatment Barriers | Impacts and Solutions for Healthcare Providers

MPN experts Dr. Akriti Jain from Cleveland Clinic and Kimberly Smith from Duke Health discuss various treatment barriers that healthcare providers may encounter in team-based care and support solutions to help overcome barriers to optimal care.

Download Resource Guide

See More from EPEP MPNs

Related Resources:

MPN Care Barriers | Gaps in Patient-Centered Care

MPN Care Barriers | Gaps in Patient-Centered Care

What Are Key Challenges and Potential Solutions In MPN Management?

What Are Key Challenges and Potential Solutions In MPN Management?

Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Care Gaps | Effective Strategies to Improve Care

Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Care Gaps | Effective Strategies to Improve Care


Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

So we’ve been talking about the barriers that patients face, and I want to shift gears a little bit and focus on the healthcare provider. So, Dr. Jain, I’m going to start with you. Can you speak to some of the obstacles or barriers that healthcare providers face when treating MPN patients?

Dr. Akriti Jain:

Sure. So being a healthcare provider and doing this, I can tell you all about the barriers we face. I think going back to that team-based care, sometimes it’s easier said than done. Like I said, we need pathology input. A lot of times we need psychology input. Other times, we need cardiology input. Some of these patients are getting blood clots, vascular medicine, so team-based care and coordination within those various physicians and nurse practitioners and social workers that can sometimes become cumbersome requires lots of phone calls.

And so in a lot of places, we try to put together these teams where you have kind of like a go-to person to call when you have questions or concerns. The other thing we always are all short on is time. So it’s easier to talk about these MPN symptoms scores, but when there are 10 questions to ask these patients within those 15 to 30 minute appointments though that’s another barrier sometimes that we face as physicians and as healthcare providers.

The other important, one of the other important parts is management of some of the side effects of these newer therapies. Every patient reacts differently. Every patient has different side effects that they can have. And knowing those and being able to manage them while keeping them on these therapies, which don’t only improve symptoms, but can also sometimes improve survival and improve the natural history of the disease can be difficult to overcome and handle.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you, Dr. Jain. And what about you, Ms. Smith? Can you speak to any additional barriers that healthcare providers face?

Kim Smith:

Unlike Dr. Jain was saying, but one of the barriers that I see that that we face a lot is advocacy groups are great, they’re wonderful, we need them. But a lot of patients look at those groups, and they lump themselves into that group. And so I try to tell patients you are individual. You are individual. You need individualized care. It’s wonderful to look at the advocacy groups. It’s wonderful to follow, and you get some good information, but we also have to look at you as who you are and what we are treating and your symptoms, because your symptoms may not be the symptoms that they have.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

A really good point. And since we’ve talked about these barriers, I’d love to wrap this part of the conversation up by giving solutions. So, Dr. Jain, you mentioned a couple, you talked about having this one number for all of the how healthcare providers to call, if there are questions to kind of help to coordinate care. Are there other solutions that you or Ms. Smith can offer to start to overcome some of these barriers in care?

Dr. Akriti Jain:

Sure, yeah. In addition to the multidisciplinary team that we were discussing and having, those people that we can talk to another barrier that I didn’t talk about is a lot of prior auths and having pharmacy support to get some of these medicines that can be really expensive, right? The financial toxicity that can come with some of the medicines that we manage myeloproliferative neoplasms with is hard.

So having pharmacy support is again very important. Having that specialty pharmacy that can help us navigate how to get these medicines to patients quickly and get them in an affordable manner, I think another important part that we always come back to is education. Education of those pharmacists, of patients, of other healthcare providers helping them stay on top of what new drug approvals come through, what Phase III trials are available in the community, what the side effects of these medicines are so that they are empowered to be able to help their patients out in the community and also in tertiary care centers.


Share Your Feedback

 

Engaging in Myelofibrosis Shared Decision-Making | How Patients Can Collaborate With Healthcare Providers in Treatment

 
How can myelofibrosis patients engage in shared decision-making? Expert Dr. Michael Grunwald from Levine Cancer Institute discusses ways for patients to collaborate with healthcare providers to determine the optimal treatment approach for their care.
 

[ACT]IVATION TIP

“…patients can spend a few minutes preparing for appointments and find it very helpful. And I encourage patients to write down or type down questions and bring them with them, bring them with the patients to their medical appointments.”

Download GuideDescargar Guía

See More From [ACT]IVATED Myelofibrosis

Related Resources:

Harnessing Community Resources to Support Rural Myelofibrosis Patients

Harnessing Community Resources to Support Rural Myelofibrosis Patients

Leveraging Telemedicine to Manage Myelofibrosis in Rural Areas | Overcoming Distance and Accessibility Challenges

Leveraging Telemedicine to Manage Myelofibrosis in Rural Areas | Overcoming Distance and Accessibility Challenges

Managing Myelofibrosis for Patients Living Far From Specialists

Managing Myelofibrosis for Patients Living Far From Specialists

Transcript:

Lisa Hatfield:

Dr. Grunwald, how can patients engage in shared decision-making with their healthcare providers to determine the most appropriate treatment approach for their myelofibrosis?

Dr. Michael Grunwald:

I love it when patients come to me with a list of questions where they’ve thought about their disease since the last visit. And they have a number of ideas, and usually the ideas and thoughts that they have are very good. Sometimes they’re a little bit out there because they spoke to somebody who had a, who had a funny idea, or they talked to somebody whose disease was different from theirs, or they found something online, that was funny and it’s all okay.

So I like answering the hard questions, the easy ones, the ones that I think are out there and not pertinent to the patient’s disease. But I love it when patients have empowered themselves by learning and by gathering information. And they bring the list of questions, whether it’s on their phone or iPad, or whether it’s just written down on a sheet of paper and we go through them together. So I think that that’s really a way that patients can empower themselves. My [ACT]IVATION tip for this question is, patients can spend a few minutes preparing for appointments and find it very helpful. And I encourage patients to write down or type down questions and bring them with them, bring them with the patients to their medical appointments.


Share Your Feedback

EPEP CLL Resource Guide en Español II

Descargar guía de recursos

ES Fine-Tuning CLL Dose Modification and Side Effect Management Strategies CLL Resource Guide

Download Resource Guide | Descargar guía de recursos

See More from EPEP CLL

EPEP CLL Resource Guide II

Download Resource Guide

EN Fine-Tuning CLL Dose Modification and Side Effect Management Strategies CLL Resource Guide

Download Resource Guide | Descargar guía de recursos

See More from EPEP CLL

HCP Roundtable: Fine-Tuning CLL Dose Modification and Side Effect Management Strategies

HCP Roundtable: Fine-Tuning CLL Dose Modification and Side Effect Management Strategies from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo

What is the rationale and evidence behind dose optimization approaches in CLL treatment? What role does patient education play in recognizing and managing CLL treatment-related side effects? Dr. Andres Chang of Emory Healthcare and Dr. Daniel Ermann of Huntsman Cancer Institute discuss optimizing CLL care and the importance of empowering your CLL patients during their treatment journey.

Download Resource Guide  | Descargar guía de recursos

See More from EPEP CLL

Related Resources:

How Can CLL HCPs Gain More Understanding of Mutation Profiles

How Can CLL HCPs Gain More Understanding of Mutation Profiles?

CLL Expert Updates on Diagnostic Tool and Technology Advances

CLL Expert Updates on Diagnostic Tool and Technology Advances

Managing CLL Side Effects | Innovative Strategies and Approaches

Managing CLL Side Effects | Innovative Strategies and Approaches

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Welcome to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients (EPEP) program. I’m your host, Dr. Nicole Rochester. EPEP is a Patient Empowerment Network program that serves as a secure space for health care providers to learn techniques for improving physician-patient communication and overcome practice barriers. In this CLL roundtable, we are exploring fine-tuning CLL dose modification and side effect management strategies.

As the chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatment landscape evolves, we’re going to talk about the rationale and evidence behind dose optimization approaches in CLL treatment for those who may need therapy. We’ll also discuss strategies for dose modifications to mitigate adverse events while maintaining treatment efficacy, as well as approaches that are transforming CLL side effect management.

It is my honor and privilege to be joined by Dr. Andres Chang, Instructor in the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine. Dr. Chang specializes in treating patients with hematological malignancies including leukemia and lymphoma. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Chang.
Dr. Andres Chang:

Thank you so much for having me.

 Dr. Nicole Rochester:

It is also my pleasure to be joined by Dr. Daniel Ermann, Assistant Professor in the Division of Hematology and Hematologic Malignancies at the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Dr. Ermann specializes in the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and other forms of Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and he is passionate about working towards a cure. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Ermann.

Dr. Daniel Ermann:

Great to be here. Thank you so much for having me.

 Dr. Nicole Rochester:

So let’s start the conversation with dose modification, and I’m going to start with you, Dr. Chang. As the treatment landscape evolves for CLL, for some patient populations that need therapy, what is the rationale and evidence behind both dose escalation and dose reduction?

Dr. Andres Chang:

Well, so I think that the question of whether to dose-escalate or dose-reduce really depends on the treatment we’re talking about. For new therapies like BCL-2 inhibitors such as venetoclax (Venclexta), we do dose escalation at the beginning of therapy to mitigate potential side effects such as tumor lysis syndrome, whereas in most of the other scenarios we will try to do dose reductions in order to mitigate adverse events.

In all of these patients and in all of these cases, we do take into account the patient’s comorbidities. In the case of venetoclax, for instance, we think of whether patients have kidney dysfunction, and in the case of BTK inhibitors whether they have concomitant heart disease, hypertension, whether they are on anticoagulation, and also we take into account what other medications they have, in particular whether they have medications that affect their cytochrome P450 system.

 Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Awesome. Thank you so much, Dr. Chang. Is there anything specific that you think healthcare providers need to know with regard to dose escalation and dose reduction?

Dr. Andres Chang:

So dose escalation in terms of venetoclax initiation is, we already have a pretty well-established protocol that is on the label of the medication, and this is really mainly to mitigate the risk of tumor lysis syndrome. And in terms of dose reduction, I think it really depends again on which therapy we are talking about and also on which particular side effect we’re talking about. And so I really encourage all the providers to really inquire and look into what potential side effects the patient might have so that you can adequately address this, because each side effect can be addressed or should be addressed with a different kind of strategy.

 Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. Thank you, Dr. Chang. Dr. Ermann, I’m going to come to you. How do CLL healthcare providers better understand dosing, particularly with the emergence of novel CLL therapies?

Dr. Daniel Ermann:

Yeah. Thank you so much for the question. So I think nowadays, most of us in the CLL community, we’re really no longer using chemotherapy. We’re using, like Dr. Chang said, we’re sticking to these novel agents, BCL-2 inhibitors, BTK inhibitors in the frontline setting. All of these medications have been studied to the optimal dose in their respective trials. And for the most part, we start every patient, except for the venetoclax ramp-up, we start all patients at the optimal dose for what we think for them is the maximum tolerated dose in the studies, which is the dose seen in the FDA package inserts and the recommended starting dose.

So I think for most patients, generally we start at what dose that is recommended. And then the only time we really begin to dose-reduce is as Dr. Chang mentioned, if we’re seeing side effects or intolerance. So these are things that I always start looking at very early when I start patients on treatments. I check in with my patients within the first two weeks of them starting a BTK inhibitor. And then during the venetoclax ramp-up with BCL-2 inhibitors, I keep a very close eye on them.
So I think though these novel therapies are extremely effective at treating CLL, they do come with some toxicities. And it’s important to be aware of the toxicities, to keep an eye on the patients when you start them and know what the dose reductions are and how to effectively manage them.

 Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you, Dr. Ermann. And I just want to acknowledge and thank both of you for highlighting the importance of partnering with patients, particularly in an Empowering Providers to Empower Patients program. We understand that this is a partnership between the healthcare providers and the patients. And so I appreciate both of you really highlighting the importance of engaging with the patients and then making necessary adjustments. 

So, Dr. Chang, can you speak to any unforeseen or outdated practice-related barriers that may actually hinder your work and that of your colleagues as it relates to understanding CLL dosing?
Dr. Andres Chang:

Yeah, even though most of us in the CLL community have already moved to these novel targeted therapies, we do occasionally still see patients are referred to our centers who have undergone frontline chemo-immunotherapy, which for the vast majority of the patients nowadays, there really shouldn’t be an indication for that sort of treatment anymore. And so I think one of the main limitations is that we are using or at least some providers are using frontline chemo-immunotherapy and by doing so, they negate the great benefits that these novel targeted therapies have, particularly again in frontline setting.

Other unforeseen or outdated practices might be related to how patients, how we optimally mitigate the tumor lysis risks. And also occasionally, we might see some referrals from community practice physicians with patients who have CLL, and they have recurrent cytopenias or persistent cytopenias while in therapy, and they attribute it to toxicity of the therapy. Where in reality, if you do a bone marrow biopsy, they might be having a lot in the bone marrow, and that might be the answer for this particular so-called toxicity, but in reality it’s actually disease progression.
 Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you, Dr. Chang. So, Dr. Ermann, based on what Dr. Chang just shared and some of these, sounds like maybe knowledge or practice gaps, what are some solutions? How can we begin to bridge these gaps so that patients are receiving the best of the best with regard to therapy?

Dr. Daniel Ermann:

So there’s a little bit of, I would say that there can be a little bit of delay in certain providers changing their practice to the current academic approach. I think that from what I’ve seen, the best way to manage it is when patients are seen in the community by providers, I personally have quite a good relationship with many community providers in the community setting. And I encourage those providers if they get a new patient diagnosed with CLL, to recommend a CLL consultation.

And I would advocate that the patients also look into their disease and see whether or not a CLL consultation with an expert in the field of lymphoma or CLL may be good for them. And in those ways I’ve seen, personally I co-manage many patients across the Western United States. They’re still able to be seen by their local oncologist and also be seen for consideration of clinical trials in the CLL space when indicated for their more rare disease.

So I do think it comes from both providers and patients, but I think empowering your patients, letting them know that there are other doctors who may specialize in a condition that they have is really important. And when patients do that, not only are they happy, their local oncologist is happy. It makes it kind of better for everyone.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Absolutely. Thank you, Dr. Ermann. I love that idea of a team-based approach. Thank you so much. Well, let’s move into talking about side effects. And you all have already alluded to the importance of dose modification with regard to side effects and minimizing toxicity. So I’m going to go to you, Dr. Ermann. What techniques do you use in your practice for optimizing treatment efficacy while minimizing toxicity? And feel free, if you’d like, to share a specific example.

Dr. Daniel Ermann:

Yeah. Great question. So in CLL, there are a lot of unique toxicities with our CLL-directed therapies. I’ll take, for example, BTK inhibitors. So BTK inhibitors have certain off-target effects. The way these medications work is they turn off BTK, and that’s like flipping a switch that decreases the growth of the CLL cells and eventually causes them to die. However, some of the unique toxicities we see are things like atrial fibrillation, bleeding, bruising, infections, to name a few.

So, for example, you would like to start a patient optimally on the maximum dose, which is the kind of recommended starting dose. However, let’s say a patient gets a side effect such as bleeding or atrial fibrillation, I usually will follow the package insert pretty closely. In most cases, the recommended management is to hold the drug until a side effect resolves and then resume at the same dose. In my practice, I found that with many of our novel therapies, there are some cases where you can continue the same dose, but oftentimes you’ll need to dose-reduce.
And I will say from my personal experience, I think dose reduction can make a big difference in the side effect profiles of these medications. I’ve seen reduced bleeding, for example, reduced rates of atrial fibrillation. With BCL-2 inhibitors, I’ve seen reduced rates of neutropenia, for example. And I’ll just say from my experience, I haven’t seen too much compromise in efficacy. So I think I would recommend for providers when you’re thinking about dose reduction, it’s really a balance of toxicity and efficacy. And I think with just how good our treatments are for CLL these days, I try to reduce toxicity. And I think in that way, it does maximize their efficacy.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you, Dr. Ermann. What about you, Dr. Chang? How do you approach dose adjustments for CLL patients, particularly those who may be experiencing severe side effects? And what factors influence your decision-making process?

Dr. Andres Chang:

Yeah, so first of all, I agree with Dr. Ermann that I think trying to mitigate side effects and oftentimes following the package insert is really, really helpful. One of the things that I want to add, though, is I do spend quite a bit of time before starting any medication, educating patients and trying to teach them about what potential side effects, what to look for. And importantly, if there are mechanisms to mitigate or prevent those side effects, I will spend quite a bit of time talking about that. And these can be things such as taking caffeine to prevent an acalabrutinib-induced (Calquence) headaches, for example, maintaining adequate fluid intake and hydration to minimize the risk of tumor lysis, and so forth.

I find that by spending that time with patients ahead of starting therapy, that oftentimes it allows patients to identify the side effect and also start addressing it even before needing to come back to the clinic. My team, in addition to myself, also spends quite a bit of time, and we perform phone calls, follow-up phone calls, and things like that, that are conducted by my pharmacist or by my nurse. And together, I find that oftentimes just by talking through these potential issues, patients will feel a lot better.

Now, depending on how severe an adverse event is, or a side effect is, I tend to potentially dose-reduce somewhat quicker. Or if there’s an alternative, like in the case of BTK inhibitors, I will be a little bit more prone to switching from one BTK inhibitor to another, because there is data suggesting that if you don’t tolerate one BTK inhibitor, you can tolerate a second one.

 
And that’s particularly true if we are seeing some of these side effects that arise in the long term, particularly with ibrutinib (Imbruvica), and switching them to acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib (Brukinsa), oftentimes resolve those kinds of side effects. And I’ve seen that particularly true in cases where I see hypertension induced by ibrutinib (Imbruvica). I have a couple of patients where they are four or five years into ibrutinib therapy, came in with uncontrolled hypertension, I switched them to another BTK inhibitor, and the hypertension gets better controlled.

 Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you, Dr. Chang. I just really appreciate again how both of you are continuing to highlight the importance of a multidisciplinary team. So the importance of involving the patients, educating the patients, both ahead of time and as you’re beginning treatment. And also, you mentioned bringing in the pharmacists and bringing in your nurses and all of the other members of the support team. So I really, I really appreciate that. And speaking of patient education, Dr. Ermann, I’d love for you to share if you can have any ideas around the role that patient education plays in recognizing and managing treatment-related side effects.

Dr. Daniel Ermann:

Yeah, absolutely. So I’m a big advocate on educating patients, and I completely agree with what Dr. Chang mentioned. I think prevention is the key. I think the more work you can do up front to improve the outcomes down the road, the better. So in my experience, what I do for my patients in the clinic when it comes to education is I actually, I do quite a bit of, quite a few things. So I not only do I myself personally educate the patient on the drug, I also have my pharmacist meet with the patient either in person or over the phone depending on where things are at. I also print out handouts, because occasionally we hear a lot of things and as patients, sometimes it can be overwhelming, even as doctors, it can be overwhelming hearing a lot of things at once.

So I like to print things out for my patients, whether it be from UpToDate pages, whether it be from things like the websites that have drug information like Chemocare, etcetera etcetera. And I also utilize kind of these free sheets that you can find throughout…from many different organizations such as, like Lymphoma Research Foundation or others that have drug information, safety information.

And then I also recommend them easy ways to contact us, whether it be through like a messaging app or calling our office with questions. I think that educating your patients on what to expect with these drugs is really important. Fortunately in CLL, a lot of our medications, though there are some unique toxicities, are overwhelmingly much better tolerated than many other therapies for other cancers. So that is one good thing. So you want to give them enough information, but you don’t want to scare them to thinking that they’re going to have the worst of every situation, but I think it’s very important, especially up front, and then most patients will see how different drugs affect them.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you, Dr. Ermann. I love that you’re offering multiple different ways, because like you said, some people may be auditory learners. Many of the patients, when they’re hearing this information for the first time, as you alluded to, they’re going to be overwhelmed. They’re not going to remember. So I love the idea of also leaving them with something in writing that they can refer to later. What about you, Dr. Chang? You’ve been doing this for a while now. Are there any specific strategies or something that works really well for you, a particular tactic as it relates to educating your patients about side effects?

Dr. Andres Chang:

Yeah, I couldn’t agree more with Dr. Ermann. I spend quite a bit of time, again, speaking directly to my patients, having my team speak to my patients, and I follow many of the similar strategies that Dr. Ermann has already mentioned. In particular, places like Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Leukemia Lymphoma Research Foundation, the CLL Society, all those societies have a wealth of information about the different treatments and approaches that we normally use for CLL. And I find it very useful that as part of our discharge paperwork from clinic, we do include links to those societies so that they can find additional information.

And aside from that, I think once you have a good rapport with a patient and your team has a good rapport with a patient, as long as there’s good communication either through the patient portal, through phone calls, through return visits, I find that once patients are very well-educated, then they are actually very comfortable starting therapy and pretty much know exactly what to expect at each step in the therapy. Whether it is a dose escalation week for venetoclax, for example, or what happens when we have to hold a medication for a procedure, when to restart, and those sorts of things.
 Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. Thank you both. Well, we’ve talked about the importance of educating patients. We’re going to circle back to our healthcare providers. And, Dr. Chang, I’m going to stay with you for a moment. Can you share any successful strategies for healthcare provider to healthcare provider education, any innovative approaches with regard to side effect management in CLL?

Dr. Andres Chang:

Yeah, I think that as important as educating patients, educating other healthcare providers is as critical. And as such, I think one of the missions that we have at academic institutions is that we should also offer some educational aspect to our consultant physicians across the community or nurse practitioners or nursing staff.

And so one of the things that I commonly do is that my notes tend to have a couple of paragraphs that explain my rationale behind the recommendations with sources, primary sources of information if they want to look up any particular data where I’m basing my decision on. And that happens both in terms of picking this treatment versus this other treatment, what is the efficacy data, but also for side effect and adverse events data.

I also, as part of the Winship Cancer Institute, we have a big outreach program to our community. And I’m sure Dr. Ermann has [this] too over at Utah, where we have outreach programs and reach out to other community oncologists, trying to give them information about the newest and latest therapies. We do symposia. And we also have an app where community oncologists can actually look us up directly and give us a call or something that, in case they run into problems.

And then we are happy to talk to them and help guide the management of their particular patients. I find that this kind of verbal communication and live direct provider-to-provider contact has been very useful. And I think that the community oncologists have really appreciated that.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:  

I’m sure that they do. That is amazing. That’s awesome. What about you, Dr. Ermann? Do you have anything to add in terms of what you all are doing at your institution to communicate with other healthcare providers?

Dr. Daniel Ermann:

I just have to say Dr. Chang and I were on the same page. I completely agree with everything he said. I think that he is…it’s we’re super imposable at this point. I do the exact same things as he does, which is great, I think. I think that that’s fantastic. A couple other things I would just say as well is that I agree 100 percent. Communication is the biggest thing. Communication is not only one of the most important things, but it also can be a big barrier. So I think fostering communication between, a lot of what I do is deal with local oncologists as the academics. So I may only see patients a couple times a year, whereas the local oncologist may see them a couple times a month.

And so having an open line of communication, whether it be cell phone, like occasionally I’ll be texting local providers, calling them, having their phone number is very helpful, emailing back and forth. And then after I see patients, similar to Dr. Chang, I document well in my notes. And I also have my team send the note to them through fax or other means. So things like that, I think are very valuable and important and I think are game-changers when it comes to excellent patient care, because the communication barrier can sometimes be one of the biggest ones.

 Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Absolutely. Thank you for that. Before we wrap up, we know that social media is often leveraged in healthcare among providers. And I think you mentioned, Dr. Chang, an app. So are there any other digital tools or are there ways that either of you leverage social media in order to manage side effects, either with education to providers or to patients? And, Dr. Ermann, I’ll start with you on this one.

Dr. Daniel Ermann:

Sure. So social media is a tricky one, because not everyone uses it. Also in CLL in particular, our median patient age is around 70 years of age, and not too many of my 70-year-old patients are on, but they can be. So I think as a provider, there are a couple of things. I’ll be honest, Twitter is actually, can be a great resource. If you follow certain providers in the field, you’ll get some updated information before anyone else, including especially during our annual ASH meeting, there’s an ASH app. And if you could attend the meeting, you’ll see that most updated data. And you can see that on Twitter and/or X as well. Other than that, we also have a Huntsman app similar to Emory. But I think that that’s about as far as social media goes for me. What about you, Dr. Chang?

Dr. Andres Chang:

I agree with Dr. Ermann that places like X and LinkedIn, if you follow the right people, you can get very useful information. And I think that that’s particularly true for people within the academic community and healthcare providers. But for patients per se, I think that this could be a little bit more tricky. And so I try to steer them away from that, in fact, and I try to kind of keep them within the main resources.

And if they have any questions or they have…or they’re confused about something, I always tell them, feel free to send me a message, and we’re happy to discuss whatever you read. And so I find that patients really appreciate the openness of discussing data because sometimes the data might be not very accurate. And by having that trust, they find it comfortable talking about things that might not be as conventional as we might think so.

 Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. Fully understood. There are certainly some risks associated with getting information from social media. So I appreciate you all providing that balance. Well, it’s time to wrap up our roundtable. And, as always, this has been an incredibly enlightening conversation. So as we close, I’d love to get closing thoughts from each of you. And I’ll start with you, Dr. Chang. What is the most important takeaway that you want to leave with those healthcare providers who are listening and watching this program?

Dr. Andres Chang:

Yeah, I think that the most important takeaways are actually two things, I think. One is really, really important to educate patients about their disease, about their treatment, about the potential side effects, and also to try to anticipate and mitigate those potential side effects so that patients know exactly what they’re expecting.

And then the second thing is really essential to have a great team around you because practicing medicine, particularly oncology, is not a solo practice. We really need a village to take care of our patients. And so having well-trained nurses, having excellent clinical pharmacists, all of them are essential members of the team that will help with patient care.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful, Dr. Chang. Thank you. And, Dr. Ermann, what are some closing thoughts you’d like to leave with our audience today?

Dr. Daniel Ermann:

I would say is that I would say don’t be afraid. In medicine, there’s often this thought that reducing treatment doses or things like that is a bad thing and you shouldn’t do it. I would say I would empower providers to not be afraid to dose-reduce, especially to mitigate very undesirable toxicities. So I’d say don’t be afraid to dose-reduce. There’s a lot of, at least in some of our medications, good efficacy data showing that dose reductions can have similar, if not the same, efficacy profile while mitigating toxicity. So I would say don’t be afraid to dose reduce, especially if the toxicities are not improving. Don’t be afraid to dose-hold.

And when it comes to empowering our patients more, I’m a big advocate on empowering patients. Particularly diseases like CLL, where two-thirds of patients at diagnosis don’t require treatment, and they’re told that they have cancer, and then all of a sudden they’re told that they don’t need treatment can be very scary. And I think that’s when patients feel like they have their disease understood and that they’re doing the best that they can for their own disease, it makes it better for everyone involved.
So I think empowering both providers and patients is kind of the optimal way to do things. And those are the best patients. When you deal with someone who knows their cancer, knows what’s going on, sometimes I get patients they know as much or more than me and I’m like, wow, this is incredible. Those are the best.

 Dr. Nicole Rochester:

That is such a perfect way to end this program. An empowered patient is the best patient. Thank you so much, Dr. Chang. Thank you so much, Dr. Ermann, for this amazing discussion about managing side effects and managing dose modifications and educating patients and educating providers with regard to CLL. Thank you again for tuning in to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients, Patient Empowerment Network Program. I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester. Have an amazing day.

 

Share Your Feedback

HCP Roundtable: Exploring CLL Mutations and Best Practices for Side Effect Management

HCP Roundtable: Exploring CLL Mutations and Best Practices for Side Effect Management from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

As the chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) treatment landscape evolves, how can healthcare professionals deepen their understanding of mutation profiles, including the emergence of novel CLL mutations over time? What innovative approaches are transforming the management of CLL side effects? Additionally, how can barriers in CLL practice be removed to enhance physician-patient communication and promote shared decision-making? 

Dr. Jennifer Brown from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Dr. Callie Coombs from the University of California, Irvine, share their expertise and best practices for CLL healthcare providers.

Download Resource Guide  | Descargar guía de recursos

See More from EPEP CLL

Related Resources:

Aicha Diallo

Peer Insights: Understanding Cultural Competence vs. Cultural Humility

Collaborate | Understanding Your Role in Your CLL Care

Collaborate | Understanding Your Role in Your CLL Care

Aicha Diallo

Peer Insights: Practicing Cultural Humility to Empower Your Patients

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Welcome to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients or EPEP Program. I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester, founder and CEO of Your GPS Doc. EPEP is a patient empowerment network program that serves as a secure space for healthcare providers to learn techniques for improving physician-patient communication and overcome practice barriers.

In this CLL roundtable, we are tackling exploring CLL mutations and best practices for side effect management. As the chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatment landscape evolves, how do CLL healthcare providers better understand mutation profiles, including the emergence of novel CLL mutations over time? What groundbreaking CLL therapeutic targets are emerging, tailored specifically to molecularly defined patient subgroups? And what innovative approaches are transforming CLL side effect management? These are just some of the things that we’re going to discuss today. We’re going to talk about the complexities of CLL mutations and the clonal evolution and resistance mechanisms in CLL.

We’ll discuss clinical trials and novel targets focused on molecularly defined patient subgroups. And lastly, we’ll talk about strategies for healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication regarding the management of side effects.It’s my privilege to be joined by Dr. Jennifer Brown, Director of the CLL Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and the Worthington and Margaret Collette Professor of Medicine in the field of Hematologic Oncology at Harvard Medical School. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Brown.

Dr. Jennifer Brown:

My pleasure. Thank you for having me.

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

It’s also my privilege to be joined by Dr. Callie Coombs, an Associate Clinical Professor at the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Coombs primary clinical focus is in the care of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma. She has participated in multicenter studies examining the real world implications of novel therapeutic agents on the lives of patients, and has served as an investigator on a number of clinical trials. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Coombs.

Dr. Callie Coombs:

Thank you for having me as well.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

So let’s jump in as we have a lot to discuss as it relates to understanding CLL mutations and best practices for side effect management in CLL. So we’re going to start with the complexities of CLL mutations. And the first question, I’ll start with you, Dr. Brown, how do CLL healthcare providers better understand mutation profiles including the emergence of novel CLL mutations over time?

Dr. Jennifer Brown:

Well, the first thing that’s important to recognize is that CLL is not defined by any particular mutation. The landscape is quite varied and we see a large number of different mutations at low percentages. Well, the second key point to remember is that there are different mutations at baseline and then there can be acquired mutations that include some of what we see at baseline, but also novel resistance mutations that we don’t ever see at base.

So at baseline, the most common mutations, which are somewhere in the 10 to 20 percent range of patients, although less than that if you have very early stage patients, affect the p53 gene, NOTCH1, SF3B1, and ATM. P53 is the most important because that one does influence our thinking about the patients and our choice of therapy in some cases. P53 can be altered in CLL in two different ways. Actually, the most common way is as a deletion, deletion of the short arm of chromosome 17 or 17P deletion. About 75 to 80 percent of patients that have that deletion will have a point mutation usually in the other p53 allele. So they have double knockout of p53.

A small percentage of people with the deletion will not have the mutation. And then a certain number of patients will have just the mutation without the deletion. And one of the things that I’ve been very interested in for a while that we’re still trying to understand better is the implications of these different combinations of the way p53 can be affected in people with CLL, and that it may, in fact, be more adverse to have both alleles knocked out than single, although we don’t have great data for that as yet because most of the data that we have has combined all of it together.

But it’s very important to test for the p53 mutation alone because even if patients have only that one, at present, we consider the treatment implications of it all similarly regardless of how the p53 gene is affected. And then NOTCH1 is a fairly common mutation that always worries us a lot, because it’s associated with Richter’s transformation, which is a very high-risk event, but we don’t know anything to do about that to try and prevent it or to alter our therapy based on it.

So at the moment it’s mostly something that we are aware of that we keep an eye on but not that changes therapy. And SF3B1, ATM, and this long list of other genes that can be mutated in just a few percent of CLL, and mostly what we know about them is some biology that’s been studied, and then the fact that the more of these mutations are mutated in a patient that is associated with a worse prognosis, just a total number.

But that’s not something also that really alters our therapy. And then when patients go through lines of therapy, they can sometimes acquire mutations in these genes. So a patient can acquire a mutation in p53 or in NOTCH after their second or third line of therapy. But the mutations that are hottest right now, or that people are most interested in are some of the mutations that occur as resistance to therapy. So in particular, that means BTK mutations.

Covalent BTK inhibitors have transformed the therapy of CLL, and they bind to the cysteine 481 residue of BTK. So that means, as you might imagine, that if you mutate that cysteine so that the inhibitor can’t bind, that will be associated with resistance. And that, in fact, is what has been found that the cysteine to serine mutation at 481 is the most common resistance mutation in patients on covalent BTK inhibitors.

And in the case of ibrutinib (Imbruvica), it makes the inhibitor into a much weaker and non-covalent inhibitor. In the case of acalabrutinib (Calquence) and zanubrutinib (Brukinsa), it probably abrogates all activity. And so that’s a mutation that we will sometimes look for in patients with clinical progression on those drugs. There’s also a mutation in BCL2 that can occur in patients in venetoclax (Venclexta).

So another example of an on target resistance mutation. The role of that one is a little bit less clear, and testing for it is not as widely available, but we’re still working on that. Resistance to venetoclax is probably more complicated than resistance to BTK inhibitors, although there’s also a subset of patients who will get BTK inhibitors who have novel mechanisms of resistance not related to BTK that we don’t really know anything about as yet.

And then finally, the non-covalent BTK inhibitors are becoming available, pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca) was approved for CLL in the United States in December for patients who’ve had covalent BTK inhibitors and venetoclax. And we’re starting to see different mutations in BTK at different sites, even though pirtobrutinib has activity against the 481 mutation. So there’s going to be a lot of activity in this area in the next few years probably.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you so much, Dr. Brown, that was a very comprehensive overview of the mutations. Dr. Coombs, do you have anything that you want to add to what Dr. Brown said perhaps specifically around mutations associated with the progression of CLL?

Dr. Callie Coombs:

Sure. So, that’s a hard act to follow. She really took us through a whirlwind of everything mutation-related. I think what I would like to focus on in my answer is, well, what should we be testing for on a day-to-day basis in our CLL practices and what are some common misconceptions? So specific to TP53, I would say this is the most important test as far as all of the genetic tests that influences what we do day to day in the care of patients with CLL.

I test for this for my newly diagnosed patients who I think may be interested in enrolling in a clinical trial, first of all, so the standard of care in CLL is watch and wait, however, patients with higher risk disease may be eligible for trials looking at early intervention specifically the SWOG EVOLVE trial looking at early treatment. And so that’s one of the risk markers that can get a patient into the higher risk category of CLL where they could be eligible for a trial.

A common misconception I see is that 17p is the same thing as a TP53 mutation, it’s definitely not. So these are two different tests that have to be sent. 17p can be picked up on karyotype testing and on FISH testing where it looks for 17p deletion. However, mutations are a different test. And so I usually send a next gen sequencing assay that includes other genes.

However, you can test purely just for mutations in the TP53 gene, but again, that’s a sequencing test, so I’d like to convey that, somewhat a misunderstanding, but it’s such an important gene in CLL because when patients have TP53 aberrations, whether that’s 17p or a TP53 mutation or both, given that they can occur in isolation or together, these patients should never get chemotherapy, because they have extremely terrible responses to chemo, and that should not be part of the therapies offered to these patients.

The other interesting, I’d say controversy at least in 2024, is what is the role for mutation testing in the clinic in the setting of acquired resistance to inhibitors? So I think it’s very clearly important in the research setting where I think learning about the C481 mutation among others in the setting of covalent BTK inhibitors has shown us a lot about mechanism of resistance. But in the clinic, I don’t necessarily think that’s something that needs to be universally applied, given that it most of the time doesn’t affect what we would do clinically.

And so one example is a patient comes in progressing on ibrutinib, maybe about two-thirds of them may have a mutation in the C481S. However, if they’re clinically progressing, they need to switch therapy. And so I think an argument could be made in practice whether or not sending these mutation tests is beneficial, but research, clearly important, and I think it’s going to give us key insights into our therapeutic sequencing strategies going forward. So I’m certainly a proponent of doing the testing in a well-monitored setting, but I don’t think it’s ready for prime time to be applied completely broadly to our patients.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you, Dr. Coombs, and I appreciate you adding that additional practical tips and information specifically for our healthcare providers. And you kind of moved into the next topic, which was really around new diagnostic tools and technologies that are available to detect and monitor mutations. So I’m going to go back to you, Dr. Brown, to see if you have any additional information that you’d like to share about new diagnostic tools, technologies with regard to these mutations and any other tips perhaps for our healthcare provider audience.

Dr. Jennifer Brown:

Well,  really the only issue is what Dr. Coombs mentioned that it’s very important to get a next generation sequencing test to evaluate the p53 mutation, that it really is not well-evaluated by any other test, and is often missed because it’s thought that checking for the deletion is sufficient. So I would just reemphasize that point that she made very clearly. Other than that, we don’t really need any additional tools to monitor for mutations.

In the research setting we’re trying to do more and more sensitive assays to try and see when the earliest time that these mutations may emerge is and is there a way we could prevent that or, and just to better understand some of the biology, but it’s not really anything that’s needed in clinical practice. And we’re also not using the mutations to monitor residual disease. It turns out that the best way to do that is probably looking at the B-cell receptor itself, which is again, something that we’re studying in the research setting, but is not really something that needs to be done in clinical practices yet.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. Thank you, Dr. Brown. We definitely want to leverage you all’s expertise in this area. And so my next question has to do with practices. And you’ve really kind of addressed this to some extent already. Are there any unforeseen or perhaps outdated practice-related barriers that may either hinder your work or that of your colleagues specifically related to better understanding CLL mutations?

Dr. Callie Coombs:

Yeah, I mean, I think in addition to what I mentioned about 17p and TP53, one type of mutation we haven’t talked about is assessing for the mutation status of IGHV.  So that’s actually something else that I’ve seen frequently missed as far as the routine testing of a CLL patient. But I do think it’s very important to send. Is it as important as when we were in the chemoimmunotherapy era where it would be hugely predictive for who had a long remission and who wouldn’t? Maybe not as important, but I do think if someone’s unmutated that still can really help inform certain aspects of their journey. One is the time that between diagnosis and when he or she’ll need their first treatment.

But two, also the expected length of remission should this patient embark upon a time-limited regimen such as venetoclax and obinutuzumab (Gazyva). But the separate question is, again, coming down to the practical aspect of how IGVH is tested. So another misunderstanding that I’ve seen is FISH tests look for the IGH locus. And so I’ve seen on recurrent occasions if that’s deleted, they say, “Oh, that’s a mutation.” Well that’s definitely not the same thing, and so it’s just to realize the IGHV test is a very specific test.

Some large facilities do it as an in-house test, I myself have been sending mine out to the Mayo Clinic, there’s other vendors where you can do it, but what they do is they specifically sequence IGHV and then compare the patient sequence to a consensus germline sequence to determine the percent of mutation, and it’s actually a good thing to be mutated with this gene, these are the patients that often have a longer time until they need their first treatment, if they need treatment at all, and then they generally have better responses to therapy. Though with BTK inhibitors, that difference is often becoming quite slim given that they work in both groups of patients.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. Thank you so much, Dr. Coombs. So now we’re going to shift to talking about clinical trials and novel targets focused on molecularly defined patient subgroups. So, Dr. Brown, can you talk about any emerging CLL trials targeting specific molecular subgroups, and also how can CLL experts stay updated on these advancements in clinical trials?

Dr. Jennifer Brown:

So, as you heard from Dr. Coombs, there’s increasing interest in looking at high-risk patients in particular, and I think looking specifically at patients with p53 aberration in dedicated clinical trials, it’s become increasingly clear that the behavior of the disease when it’s higher risk based on p53 mutation, NOTCH mutation, IGHV status is quite different, particularly with time limited therapy compared to lower risk disease.

And so having dedicated trials that evaluate outcomes specifically in certain of these subgroups is increasingly important. We do have more trials than we used to focusing specifically on p53 aberration. My personal belief is that we would be well served to have trials separately in the IGHV groups that Dr. Coombs mentioned, although that has not gained as much traction.

And then what we are seeing is now that there are resistance mutations, it actually has turned out that some of the drugs that we use in that setting, venetoclax and pirtobrutinib, seem to have pretty similar activity in patients with and without the mutations. But as drugs are being studied in this context, there’s been an increasing tendency to study them in specific subgroups.

So patients who have the mutation and had clinical progression on a covalent inhibitor, patients who don’t have the mutation and had clinical progression, patients who may have come off their covalent inhibitor for adverse events who may not actually be resistant, what is their response to the next line of therapy? And so all of that is just helping us understand in a more nuanced way what the best benefit for patients will be as we look at these different subgroups of patients.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you, Dr. Brown. Appreciate that. Dr. Coombs, do you have anything to add?

Dr. Callie Coombs:

Yeah, so I echo all of Dr. Brown’s comments, and I think I’m the person that is bringing all the practical aspects of CLL care because it’s, she’s so thorough. I just always like to contribute a few little pearls. So, pirtobrutinib has been an exciting drug, to see it become available for our double refractory patients. So the current FDA indication is for patients failed by not only a covalent BTKi but also venetoclax. But it’s the first BTK inhibitor that we can effectively use in the setting of a prior BTK inhibitor.

And that’s because of this unique aspect where instead of forming a covalent bond at the C481 residue, it binds reversibly, and we can still see activity. But the practical aspect is that that’s not an effective strategy when you have a patient progressing on, say, ibrutinib, you can’t switch them to acalabrutinib (Calquence) or zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) because of their shared mechanism of resistance. They’re all covalent inhibitors. They all share the same mechanism of resistance.

And so that’s one thing I’d like to bring up. However, there’s a very different and very common clinical situation that I encounter really a lot in my clinic, which is intolerance. And so that’s where it would be a very effective strategy to switch a patient from one covalent drug to another. And so literally in the past couple weeks of clinic, I’ve had patients with chronic long-standing toxicities to ibrutinib that perhaps went underrecognized where I say, “Hey, you’ve had…noticed your blood pressure has gone up a lot. Let’s switch you over to acalabrutinib,” or other patients, “Oh, you’ve had issues with atrial fibrillation…let’s try switching you to zanubrutinib.” Because the rates are a lot lower and a lot of patients can have improvement or just complete resolution of the prior side effect.

And so I hope that that emphasizes this is something that we think about every day, and switching is appropriate in the setting of intolerance. It’s not appropriate when you’re staying in the covalent class to switch in the setting of progression. But pirtobrutinib being a non-covalent inhibitor is certainly very effective after a covalent. And I think once we see readout of some of the ongoing Phase III trials, we may be able to use it in that setting under an approved FDA label, though that is to be seen in the future.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Awesome. Thank you. Thank you to both of you. And that leads us very nicely into our next topic. And so we’ve been talking about improving CLL treatment efficacy, we’ve talked about mutations, we’ve talked about really providing better outcomes for our patients by using therapies that are very specifically designed for the molecular characteristics of their disease. But along with all those therapies, of course, come potential side effects. And so, Dr. Coombs, I’m going to start with you and then we’ll go to Dr. Brown. Are there any strategies that you can share with our healthcare provider audience around innovative approaches or protocols that have been implemented to mitigate and manage the CLL side effects from the treatment?

Dr. Callie Coombs:

Well, I think it comes down to your internal resources, but I would say taking care of CLL patients is clearly a team effort. And so it’s not just me, but also a team of additional practitioners that I work with. So I’d like to emphasize how important pharmacists are because I’ve definitely seen some side effects that come about because a patient is now on a medication that interacts with whatever their CLL therapy is, which drives up the levels of the drug and then brings out certain toxicities so they can help us identify these.

If, perhaps I missed it or didn’t ask the patient about a supplement, et cetera. Next is nurse practitioners and oncology nurses. And so number one is it’s a team-based approach, and I think it’s certainly very important to have protocols internally. But also to just realize what the common toxicities are and how can we mitigate these.

One of the most common reasons that I’ve seen for patients stopping a drug prematurely actually is venetoclax. It very commonly causes neutropenia. And I’ve seen the drug given up on very early without any growth factor support, and so I think if you become educated and experienced with using drugs, you can realize there’s very clear strategies in improving patients with neutropenia, by supporting them with growth factor and getting them through whatever their defined plan course of venetoclax may be.

And then BTK inhibitors have a whole smattering of side effects as well where perhaps working with cardio oncologists can help in addition to other strategies depending on exactly what side effect the patient may encounter. So in summary, definitely a team-based effort and growing experience with the common side effects helps I think all comers with strategies to help prevent or mitigate such side effects.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you so much, Dr. Coombs. Dr. Brown, do you have some additional best practices you’d like to share with regard to the management of treatment side effects?

Dr. Jennifer Brown:

Well, I agree completely with Dr. Coombs. I would just add that I think it helps a lot when you warn the patients ahead of time about things that may happen but that often go away or that you can manage. So, for example, headaches often happen early on when you initiate acalabrutinib but they go away typically very quickly. And so if patients know that, then they’re much less worried, and then you can talk to them about the strategies, because caffeine or acetaminophen (Tylenol) will often help with that. If you warn them that they may have some joint aches or pains, that can also help, since those are often transient.

With venetoclax, warning them about some nausea or diarrhea, and then we often manage that by subsequently moving the drug to the evening after they’re done with their ramp up, or initiating an antiemetic, things like this. And then oftentimes many patients who have that in the beginning, it doesn’t persist throughout the whole time that they’re on the drug. Sometimes the diarrhea may, but many times it doesn’t. So getting the patients through that early phase with the close management. Which again, it helps, have your team help with that, the nurse practitioners, et cetera, and then hopefully things settle out and everyone’s happy.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. I just want to emphasize two things. One that each of you said. One is this idea of a team-based approach, which is important in the treatment of all diseases, but of course very important in the treatment of the cancer. And also this idea of educating our patients so that they know ahead of time what to expect and really involving them as part of the team. So I really appreciate those, both of those points.

Well, it’s time to wrap up our roundtable. I have really enjoyed this conversation and I’d like to get closing thoughts from each of you. So I’ll start with you, Dr. Coombs. What is the most important takeaway message you’d like to leave with healthcare professionals who may be listening as they watch this program and understand better about CLL mutations, clinical trials, and managing side effects?

Dr. Callie Coombs:

So what is the most important thing, there’s so many, I would just say CLL is a chronic disease that affects our primarily elderly patients, and so it’s a marathon, not a sprint. However, with all of the advances that we’ve had in excellent drug therapies, despite these resistance mutations, patients can attain many, many, many years of high quality of life. But it’s incumbent upon us as their providers to help ensure that quality of life through effective management of side effects that may be encountered over the course of their time on therapy for the patients that do need therapy.


Share Your Feedback

Peer Insights: Practicing Cultural Humility to Empower Your Patients

Peer Insights: Practicing Cultural Humility to Empower Your Patients from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How can healthcare providers practice cultural humility to empower their patients? PEN’s Vice President of Programs Aïcha Diallo discusses barriers healthcare providers may encounter and advice for overcoming or minimizing these barriers to cultural humility.

Related Resources:

Cultural Competence vs. Cultural Humility

Cultural Competence vs. Cultural Humility Infographic

Aicha Diallo

Peer Insights: Understanding Cultural Competence vs. Cultural Humility

Cultural Humility Fostering Respect & Understanding Your Patient's Unique Identity

Cultural Humility: Fostering Respect & Understanding Your Patient’s Unique Identity Infographic

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Cultural humility has practical implications for improving healthcare outcomes such as improved communication, empowerment, and trust between providers and their patients, and also enhance patient-centered care. But we know that there are barriers that may exist to putting these things into action. Aicha, what are some common challenges that healthcare providers face when trying to practice cultural humility?

Aïcha Diallo:

Some of the things that I’ve been seeing is really not being able to carve out enough time to listen to their patients’ unique traits, unique characteristics, needs, wants, concerns, or even goals. We always encourage our patients and care partners to put all of this on the table and to share this with their healthcare teams. But something that we always hear is that there wasn’t enough time allocated to even go there.

So that is a challenge for someone who wants to practice cultural humility but doesn’t have enough time to be able to do that. I would also add to that, that it’s giving, and I sort of mentioned this earlier, sort of giving enough room for their patients to feel comfortable to engage in shared decision making, for them to feel that they are co-decision makers and it’s the time for them to express what’s going on. And to even add more. 

Another challenge is working in an environment that does not always promote cultural humility. So the healthcare professional might feel alone and feel that they’re practicing this on their own, and there are no other colleagues or no one else with them throughout this. One of the other things I would like to also add as a challenge is not being able to work as a group to identify some of the patient’s barriers that they’re facing and even providing helpful resources that could be meaningful to them.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you. You’ve talked about a lot of these barriers that are really outside of the control of the provider. And so that brings me to my next question, which is really about the systems in which we provide care. What is the role of healthcare institutions supporting ongoing learning and environments that actually promote cultural humility so that providers can truly empower their patients?

Aïcha Diallo:

It’s really ensuring that patients and their families can access effective and equitable care regardless of who they are, where they’re from, what they look like, where they live. I think here at Patient Empowerment Network, we have several cultural humility resources for healthcare professionals, which include infographics that are embedded in the EPEP program and other resources that incredibly useful and important to them to access at their fingertips and be able to feel empowered themselves so they can continue to empower their patients.

We have added recently over a 100 languages to our website to make sure that our resources are available to anyone. And one of the last things that I would add as well is we continue to encourage healthcare professionals to share our PEN’s resources because by doing that, not only that the healthcare professional empowers themselves comes ready with information and comes humble with a step back and say, please share more.

But they’re also able to provide those resources and programs to their patients so they can access them so they could also feel empowered. So I would add, please continue to share our PEN’s resources. Make sure you include a lot of the tools and the tips that are useful for your patients regardless of what language they speak or where they live or again, where they’re from. So providing our digital literacy skill programs are also really important, our Digital Sherpa and Digitally Empowered, with your patients and families as it will provide them with some additional insight and a way for them to feel that they do have presence and they sit at the table to engage better with their healthcare teams.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you so much. This has been such an enlightening discussion and lots and lots of resources that PEN provides. And thank you for all that you all are doing in this space. Aicha Diallo, vice President of Programs at Patient Empowerment Network, thank you so much for your wisdom and your insight.

Aïcha Diallo:

My absolute pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.


Share Your Feedback

HCP Roundtable: Breaking Through Myelofibrosis Practice Barriers

HCP Roundtable: Breaking Through Myelofibrosis Practice Barriers from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Explore the complex challenges and barriers in myelofibrosis care with Dr. Raajit K. Rampal from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Dr. Jeanne M. Palmer from the Mayo Clinic. Gain insights into therapeutic inertia, effective strategies for overcoming care barriers, and enhancing patient-centric care to improve myelofibrosis outcomes.

Related Resources:

Tracking MPN Symptoms: Strategies for Managing Disease Burden

Tracking MPN Symptoms: Strategies for Managing Disease Burden

Are There Non-Pharmacologic Strategies for Managing Myeloproliferative Neoplasms

Are There Non-Pharmacologic Strategies for Managing Myeloproliferative Neoplasms?

Explaining Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Disease Progression to Patients

Explaining Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Disease Progression to Patients


Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Welcome to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients EPEP program. I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester, founder and CEO of Your GPS Doc. EPEP is a Patient Empowerment Network program that serves as a secure space for healthcare providers to learn techniques for improving physician-patient communication and to overcome practice barriers. In this healthcare provider roundtable, we are discussing breaking through myelofibrosis practice barriers.

We’re going to talk about the nuanced challenges and practice barriers in myelofibrosis care. How do patient socioeconomic factors impact treatment access? We will look at gaps in the field and overcoming practice barriers such as lack of awareness, outdated practices, and therapeutic inertia, while also addressing solutions to enhance patient-centric care in myelofibrosis for improved patient outcomes. 

It is my privilege to be joined by Dr. Raajit K. Rampal of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Dr. Rampal is a clinical translational investigator whose research focuses on the genetic events that contribute to the development and progression of leukemia and myeloproliferative neoplasms. Thank you so much for joining this EPEP program, Dr. Rampal. 

Dr. Raajit K. Rampal:

Thanks so much for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

It’s also an honor to be joined by Dr. Jeanne Palmer, hematologist at Mayo Clinic. Dr. Palmer’s interest is in identifying novel targeted therapies for patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms. She strives to offer innovative therapies to patients in all stages of their disease through clinical trials. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Palmer.

Dr. Jeanne M. Palmer:

Thanks for having me.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

So we’re going to start today’s discussion by diving into the nuanced challenges and practice barriers in myelofibrosis care. We know that some of those factors may be related to socioeconomic factors and health disparities. So, Dr. Rampal, I’m going to start with you. What are the primary barriers in myelofibrosis care, and how might these barriers impact accessing effective treatment for myelofibrosis?

Dr. Raajit K. Rampal:

Well, I think it’s broad in the sense that, if we think about access to care, I think that part of the problem lies in underdiagnosis, and that is really on the end of the spectrum of access to primary care I’d say, are people getting in and getting regular blood count checks, the things that are going to tip somebody off that, you know, if somebody has a hematologic issue or problem, I think that is a big part of the entire discussion and spectrum here.

And then the second thing is that this is a rare disease, and there are a handful of specialists throughout the world who deal with this. And so making sure that patients have access to expert care, which is not to undermine the quality care that’s provided in the community, but this is more a question about do patients have access to, you know, clinical trials or to the most updated knowledge, and that to me really revolves around people being able to have access to tertiary care referral center who has a myelofibrosis expert. So I think those are some of the barriers, at least in my mind.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you so much. And, Dr. Palmer, I’d love to get your insight as well. From your perspective, what are the primary barriers to accessing effective treatment, and what strategies can be implemented to overcome these barriers?

Dr. Jeanne M. Palmer:

So I agree with everything that Dr. Rampal said, but I’d also want to add to it, like many people would have to travel a distance to see that specialist. And so one of the ways that I’ve been able to try to overcome that thus far is by telemedicine. So being able to have that ability to contact somebody over the Internet, I think, especially if they’re getting very good care locally, just being able to provide that sort of expert additional advice about how to manage their disease, what different options are available. Fortunately, this is a space where new drugs are coming pretty rapidly.

So I think that having the ability to be able to weed through all of these different drugs, understand the pros and cons of them, and advise patients is good. And if they can’t make it to see you, then they can’t get advice about the medications nor can the providers. Because recognizing this is such a rare disease, a community provider has a lot to keep track of. So trying to keep track of something that impacts so few patients is hard to do. I think the other big barrier is cost and support for getting these medications.

These medications are all, unfortunately, quite expensive, and new drugs that are coming down the horizon will probably be so as well. So being able to find the right support for them, even when insurance covers it, it’s sometimes with a very large copay. So trying to handle access to these drugs, not only in the knowledge of which drugs to give, but also the ability to be able to pay for them.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. Thank you both for elucidating some of those barriers. And you both mentioned that this is a rare disease and, Dr. Rampal, you also talked about expert care. And so I’d love to know, and I’ll start with you, Dr. Rampal, how do referral patterns impact treatment access in myelofibrosis and particularly for underserved populations?

Dr. Raajit K. Rampal:

This is a really interesting question, because things are changing in the sense that, I think at least in the New York area, but probably true elsewhere, there’s increasing consolidation of healthcare as hospital systems buy up smaller practices. And that means that referral patterns are going to change and are changing. There’s more of an impetus for docs to refer patients within their own health network. And they may or may not have access to expert care within their network. I think that’s one thing to keep in mind.

And the second is that, the elephant in the room here is that you have to have insurance to get into these networks. You have to have the right insurance. And do all of these big academic tertiary centers accept every kind of insurance? The answer is no, they don’t. So right off the bat, you have a systemic barrier, but then with the changing referral patterns, and I think likely certain insurances being more likely to be accepted in certain networks, you’ve already kind of fragmented the entire system. So, is there a streamlined way for patients to get in? Right now, I think the answer is no, there are a lot of barriers.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you, Dr. Rampal. Dr. Palmer, do you have anything to add? And also if you can touch on what healthcare providers should be aware of and what they can pay close attention to with regard to these barriers that you and Dr. Rampal have discussed?

Dr. Jeanne M. Palmer:

Right, so I completely agree with everything he said. I think it’s a real challenge, especially as you parse apart these different healthcare systems. I think one of the important things for patients to know and what providers can help with is providing sort of access to some of the patient advocacy sites. On these patient advocacy sites, they can find the name of different providers, and sometimes that helps them call in to get a referral.

Now, the insurance coverage is another challenge that’s a lot harder to manage. But I think one thing that patients can do is if within their own network, there isn’t an expert, at least being able to go to these patient advocacy sites, finding out who they should, who they can go see.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful, thank you. Well, we’ve been talking about how certain populations may experience more barriers. And certainly we know that’s at the root of health and healthcare disparities. So I want to move and start to talk a little bit about cultural competency. And I’ll go back to you, Dr. Rampal, what role do you believe cultural competency plays in addressing barriers in myelofibrosis care?

Dr. Raajit K. Rampal:

Yeah, I think one of the major tasks is to be aware that cultural competency is important. That to me is sort of the first step in everything. And in making this a little bit more granular. Not every patient approaches their disease or their diagnosis in the same way. And a lot of that is informed by their cultural beliefs, their community. And this is something, you know, living in a place like New York where we see people from all different cultures, this is a striking thing because there are people who, for example, you know, they come from, you know, strong religious faith backgrounds. Their approach to things is different.

In some respects, they approach the disease and the need for treatment in a very different way than people who come from other cultural communities or those who are, let’s say, even not coming from a religious setting. But if you’re not aware of those and you try to put the same sort of treatment paradigm on all patients, you’re going to run into conflicts at some point. So I think to me, the first step is to be aware that these things influence how people perceive their disease, how they perceive the treatments or their desire to even be treated. But if you’re not aware of those things at the outset, then you’re going to run into those issues, I think.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you so much, Dr. Rampal. Well, we’ve been talking about the barriers that patients face. Dr. Palmer, can you speak to some of the obstacles or barriers faced by healthcare providers themselves when treating myelofibrosis patients?

Dr. Jeanne M. Palmer:

I think one of the challenging pieces, you know, I know in Arizona, we have a pretty big catchment area, because there’s not only the Phoenix metropolitan area, but there are a lot of smaller communities scattered throughout Arizona. And I think one of the issues that we have is, let’s say I want to start somebody on a new medication that potentially has a side effect of anemia or something.

Being able to manage them remotely is difficult, because a lot of times they may require a blood transfusion. Can they even get a blood transfusion where they’re at? Can they afford the 5-hour drive down to Phoenix to get that? So I think sometimes, even access to simple things, well, I guess it’s not that simple, but things like blood transfusions can be hard. Fortunately for labs, you’re often able to get them most places through various Labcorp, Quest, et cetera. But sometimes any type of infusional treatment can be really, really hard to get.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you. Do you have anything to add, Dr. Rampal, with regard to barriers faced by providers?

Dr. Raajit K. Rampal:

No, I actually think that’s an important, that’s a really important thing. Because it depends on your area of the country and what access to resources patients have locally. If we’re thinking about this as sort of a hub and spoke model, that may be the outdated model. In other words, it’s not that people can afford to, you know, from a financial perspective or a time perspective, come into the major center and then go back. They need to get access to care locally, but you have to have the infrastructure, the healthcare infrastructure, if you will, to deliver that care. And that’s a difficult problem in many parts of the country.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Absolutely. Wonderful. Well, you talked about something maybe being outdated. That’s a perfect segue to our next conversation. And so I’ll start with you this time, Dr. Rampal. Can you speak to unforeseen or maybe outdated practice-related barriers that may hinder your work and that of your colleagues with regard to myelofibrosis treatment?

Dr. Raajit K. Rampal:

Yeah, I guess my broad answer to this is that things are changing rapidly and the pace of change is accelerated. In other words, when we think about myelofibrosis, the treatment paradigm probably, if you think about the last 15 years, in the early part of that, things were kind of relatively static and now they’re not as new knowledge emerges, as new treatments emerge. And the challenge here, again, speaking in general terms is, as Dr. Palmer pointed out, this is a rare disease. It’s not something that’s frequently seen by physicians in the community.

So how do you keep people up to date on something that is not the majority of what they do? It’s a very small percentage of what they see and do. And that’s an ongoing challenge. And I’m not sure there’s any perfect solution to that except for education. It’s just a question of how do you deliver that in a time-effective manner so that people can devote some time to getting up to date? But it is ultimately a good problem that things are changing rapidly.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Absolutely. And, Dr. Palmer, do you have any solutions or actions or things that healthcare providers can do as this treatment landscape rapidly evolves?

Dr. Jeanne M. Palmer:

I think it’s a real challenge because even when we look at sort of the dogma of like, well, what’s the response criteria? I mean, when you’re thinking of a lot of like solid tumors, you think, okay, did the tumor shrink a certain amount? Did the tumor go away? With myelofibrosis, when we think about even response criteria, it’s really challenging.

So I think I agree education is part of it, and it’s trying to figure out how to distill down the really important components of how do you manage these patients day-to-day? We can talk about the COMFORT study and the MOMENTUM study and everything else all we want to, that tested, were major studies that tested the drugs that we use, but then the nuances of how to manage them day-to-day is something that I think we could probably improve upon how we educate.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you. So as we move on to our final topic, we’re going to start talking about collaborative care. You all have spoken about this being a rare disease, the need for expert care, the fact that not everyone has access to that expert care. And so the reality is that it’s going to take more than just experts like yourself in order to manage these patients. And so, Dr. Palmer, I’m going to start with you. What are the key components of an effective collaborative care ecosystem for myelofibrosis? And how can healthcare providers integrate these components to ensure comprehensive patient care?

Dr. Jeanne M. Palmer:

Well, I think one of the most important things is really making sure you’re having conversations with the patients, are able to sort of elucidate what’s really important to them and how they’re feeling. I think many patients actually are very aware of things that they want to or don’t want to do. And so, and then in a disease like this one, where there are lots of different options, there are also just nuances in the way you sort of treat things like, okay, do you want to take this side effect or that side effect? Or how do you want to approach this? Being able to have those conversations to really get their input on it is very important.

That’s one of the reasons I really enjoy treating this disease is because it’s not so regimented in how you do it. It becomes really a conversation, understanding how the patient’s feeling, understanding the side effects that they’re having, so you can better determine how you should continue with the therapy.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. I appreciate that. And I appreciate that you brought in the patient perspective when we’re speaking about collaborative care, because, of course, they need to be involved in their part of their medical team. Dr. Rampal, what about the healthcare providers? How can you cultivate a collaborative ecosystem with other healthcare providers as you all provide care for myelofibrosis?

Dr. Raajit K. Rampal:

Part of my advice here is simple, which is to pick up the phone. And I’ll tell you why I put it that way. I think that what happens…and this is something I always emphasize to our trainees, because I don’t think this is something that’s taught. This is, as they call it, a soft skill. But there is, I think, a tendency, at least in academic centers, for people to want to ensconce themselves in the ivory tower. And that doesn’t help, because you have to communicate with the people taking care of the patients.

And the simplest way to do that is to pick up the phone and call the referring doctor who they’re seeing in the community, and say, “Listen, I saw your patient. Here’s what I think. I’d like to share the care with the patient. I can see them every six months. Please keep me updated. This is my cell phone number. Call me if there’s a problem.” That, to me, has been the most simple, effective tool to build collaborative partnerships with physicians in the community. And it’s not something that I think is taught, but we have to do that. We have to break down these barriers between specialty care or academic care and community care. I think that’s one of the best things we can do to help patients get the care they need.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

And what a simple tool, just picking up the phone. We often try to create complex technological solutions. And you’re right. It’s just as simple as picking up the phone and having that one-on-one conversation. So thank you for adding that. Dr. Palmer, how can multidisciplinary teams be best utilized to improve outcomes in myelofibrosis care?

Dr. Jeanne M. Palmer:

So it always takes a village to treat a patient. I think that making sure that you have…that your social workers or case managers have good access to different resources to help with patients. As I said, one of the biggest challenges is paying for these drugs. So having a good team of social workers or case managers who are really able to tap into resources, so patients can get access to these drugs is really important. Making sure that you have good nursing support.

One of the things that’s really important is I can ask my nurse, “Hey, look, can you check in on this person in the next few weeks to see how they’re doing with their new medication?” And even having good APPs. I’m very fortunate to have a couple of APPs I work with who are very knowledgeable about MPN. So I don’t worry that if I’m not there to see the patient that somebody else who’s seeing the patient won’t be able to assess them in a good way. So I think having that whole cadre of people around you to support the care of that patient is critical.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Absolutely. And I appreciate that you lifted up not just the medical providers, but the case managers as well, particularly with some of the challenges that we’ve been talking about today. And, Dr. Rampal, do you have any specific solutions for how to achieve seamless coordination among the different specialists that may be involved in the patient’s care?

Dr. Raajit K. Rampal:

No. I think it’s a difficult problem. I’m not sure there’s a clear solution. Even the simple thing of medical record systems not talking to each other; people use different medical record systems, those things all create barriers. I think that…the only thing that I think is worthwhile is making sure that you’re actively managing this communication.

In other words, when you write a note in your electronic medical system, you’re assuming that it’s getting sent and being read by the referring physician and all of that, but that’s a passive way of thinking about this. And one has to be active. One has to make sure that if there are key things to be communicated amongst all of the people taking care of a patient, as I said earlier, a simple thing is pick up the phone or make sure you have communication about your ideas and plans for the patient so that the other people, providers involved in that patient’s care are all aware of that.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you so much. Yeah, the electronic medical record does not sometimes live up to those expectations, which takes us back to what you said earlier, picking up the phone. It’s time to wrap up our roundtable. And I must say I have enjoyed this conversation so much. And as we bring this program to a close, I’d love to get closing thoughts from each of you.

And so I’ll start with you, Dr. Palmer. What is the most important takeaway message that you want to leave other healthcare professionals who may be listening and watching this program around how we begin to eliminate barriers in myelofibrosis care?

Dr. Jeanne M. Palmer:

Well, I think one of the key factors here is to make sure that you understand what you know and then understand what you don’t know. And there are lots of us out there who are very willing to help and support in any way we can. I think this is a really challenging disease to treat. Speaking as someone who started to treat it mid-career, it was something that I realized that it’s not just about reading papers, there are a lot of nuances to it. So really not having the fear of asking.

Also, to really tap into patient advocacy organizations. There are a number of really good organizations that provide excellent education opportunities for patients and making sure that patients are aware of those so that they can be able to do their own Google search, but not necessarily in a non-constructive fashion. So really tapping into those patient advocacy groups is really important.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. And what about you, Dr. Rampal? What’s a closing takeaway message for our audience?

Dr. Raajit K. Rampal:

I think open lines of communication. I think that from the perspective of providers in the community, we want to know that you have questions. We want to make ourselves available to answer those questions. And so I would much rather be inundated with questions specific to a patient’s care than not to hear from somebody.

And then I think from the specialist side of things, we have to make ourselves available to address these questions and make ourselves accessible. So I think in as much as possible, opening up lines of communication is one of the keys to overcoming some of these barriers. Obviously, there are systemic barriers here that require systemic solutions, but on a granular level I think those are the things we can do.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Well, I want to thank you both. Thank you, Dr. Palmer. Thank you, Dr. Rampal. As always, this has been a very informative conversation. We talked about many of the barriers to myelofibrosis care. We talked about some of the systemic and structural barriers, but we’ve also talked about barriers that healthcare providers can overcome.

And ultimately, the take-home message for me is communication. Communication with our patients in a way that they can understand, in a way that they like to receive information, having respect for cultural differences, and communication and collaboration with each other. So again, thank you both for all of the information that you shared. And thank you all for tuning in to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients Patient Empowerment Network Program. I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester. Thank you for watching.


Share Your Feedback

HCP Roundtable: Breaking Barriers and Cultivating Clinical Excellence in Endometrial Cancer Care

HCP Roundtable: Breaking Barriers and Cultivating Clinical Excellence in Endometrial Cancer Care from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What are obstacles faced by healthcare providers (HCPs) treating endometrial cancer patients and families? How can HCPs foster a culture of innovation and continuous improvement in clinical practice? Dr. Radhika Gogoi of Karmanos Cancer Institute and Dr. Charlotte Gamble of MedStar Health unravel the complexities of endometrial cancer care, providing HCPs with the insights and tools needed to navigate challenges effectively and to deliver optimal care to their patients and families.

See More from EPEP Endometrial Cancer

Related Resources:

Dr. Charlotte Gamble: Why Is It Important for You to Empower Patients

Dr. Charlotte Gamble: Why Is It Important for You to Empower Patients?

Addressing Disparities in Gynecologic Oncology | Key Challenges and Solutions

Addressing Disparities in Gynecologic Oncology | Key Challenges and Solutions

Overcoming Barriers: Empowering Underrepresented Groups With Endometrial Cancer

Overcoming Barriers: Empowering Underrepresented Groups With Endometrial Cancer

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Welcome to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients or EPEP Program. I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester, founder and CEO of Your GPS Doc. EPEP is a Patient Empowerment Network program that serves as a secure space for healthcare providers to learn techniques for improving physician patient communication and to overcome practice barriers. In this endometrial cancer healthcare provider roundtable, we are discussing breaking barriers and cultivating clinical excellence in endometrial cancer care. 

This program aims to improve healthcare provider awareness of screening and access disparities to specialized care in endometrial cancer, while also addressing solutions to overcome practice barriers such as lack of awareness, outdated practices, and inertia. Today, we’ll talk about some of the complexities of endometrial cancer care and we’ll provide healthcare providers with the insights and tools needed to navigate challenges effectively.

Our discussion will cover enhancing healthcare provider awareness of diagnostic and access disparities to specialized care in endometrial cancer, actionable strategies to overcome practice barriers in endometrial cancer care and empowering providers through fostering a culture of innovation and continuous improvement in clinical practice. 

It is my privilege to be joined by Dr. Radhika Gogoi from Karmanos Cancer Institute. Dr. Gogoi is a dedicated clinician and cancer researcher focused on exploring the Hippo pathway in gynecologic cancers, aiming to uncover novel therapeutic approaches. Thank you so much for joining us today, Dr. Gogoi.

Dr. Radhika Gogoi:

Thank you, Dr. Rochester, and thank you for having me. It’s great to be here.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

It’s also my honor to be joined by Dr. Charlotte Gamble, gynecologic oncologist at MedStar Washington Hospital Center and MedStar Southern Maryland Hospital. Dr. Gamble is dedicated to taking care of patients who have historically been marginalized and are vulnerable to poor health outcomes. Her research examines the role of safety net hospital systems in gynecologic cancer care. Thank you so much for joining us today, Dr. Gamble.

Dr. Charlotte Gamble:

Thank you so much for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

So we’re going to start today’s discussion by diving into enhancing healthcare provider awareness of diagnostic and access disparities in endometrial cancer care. And I want to start by just framing the current situation. Black women are twice as likely to die from endometrial cancer when compared to their white women counterparts.

There is no current screening test for endometrial cancer, and diagnosis is usually made after patients present with symptoms. Sadly, the list doesn’t end there. So I’m going to start with you, Dr. Gogoi. What are the primary barriers to accessing specialized care for endometrial cancer that you’ve observed in your practice and perhaps in others?

Dr. Radhika Gogoi:

So thank you for that question. I guess I just want to start by just level setting a little bit and talking about specifically endometrial cancer disparities. So unlike other gynecologic cancers, which actually have been shown to be decreasing in incidence, endometrial cancer is actually one of the cancers that is increasing. We know that low grade endometrial cancers really have an excellent prognosis, but higher grade endometrial cancers really have a much poorer prognosis.

And that’s the specific subgroup that seems to be increasing in all women. Black women, again, as you mentioned, have the lowest survival rate, and that is even when corrected for the specific type of endometrial cancer and the stage of endometrial cancer. So with that sort of background and problem, the question really becomes how do we allow and educate our patients about the barriers that they face when accessing specialized care?

And so some of the barriers, at least that I’ve noticed, and certainly in the hospital that I practice in is really as you pointed out, that there is no good current screening test. Black women tend to have a delayed onset from the time of their symptoms, which in this case is really postmenopausal bleeding to actually obtaining a diagnosis.

And there are studies that have shown that some of that is education or there is an understanding that perhaps postmenopausal bleeding is not as significant an issue, doesn’t lead necessarily, to obtaining healthcare which as you can appreciate then delays the onset of the diagnosis. There is also that Black women present with more advanced disease. This is, again, likely due to the delay in diagnosis and the delay from diagnosis to getting treated.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Gogoi for level setting and for getting us started with a better understanding of those disparities. And I’d love to go to you, Dr. Gamble. In your experience, what are the primary barriers to addressing specialized care for endometrial cancer?

Dr. Charlotte Gamble:

Yeah, thank you so much.  I’ll just add some additional context. I think there are so many places in which these barriers can happen. So as Dr. Gogoi alluded to, sometimes that can happen at the patient level due to just not recognizing that having irregular, unpredictable bleeding, bleeding after menopause, bleeding even before menopause has happened, but really heavy bleeding or heavy periods that any sort of abnormal, heavy irregular bleeding is not normal and has to be evaluated in a timely fashion. But that’s at the patient level.

And sometimes, people have competing priorities where they might recognize that it’s a problem but not be able to make it to their doctor’s office. Have other kinds of things that are happening in their day-to-day lives where they just are not able to prioritize their own health. We also see then how the system can affect that.

If someone hasn’t had a gynecologist in years, or their gynecologist said, bye, you don’t need to see me anymore because you’re over the age of 65, you no longer need pap smears and they’ve fallen out of care, or patients who don’t have health insurance or patients who live really far away from their doctors. Accessing the healthcare system in the year of our Lord 2024 is actually really, really hard. If you lack the resources or lack the wherewithal to navigate that.

Additionally, what we see on the healthcare standpoint is that maybe patients do actually access the healthcare system. They call the gynecologist’s office. They call their primary care doctor, and they’re told by an admin staff or someone else that hears them, but that says, okay, fine, we’ll get you in, but it’s going to be in about three-and-a-half months.

And so sometimes those barriers and those delays come from the health system in general, which is also a challenge. And then even after they present to their doctor, sometimes they’re told, “Okay, let’s go ahead and let’s get an ultrasound first, and based on what your ultrasound looks like, then we’ll decide if we need to do a uterine biopsy to diagnose you.” But we also know that for certain types of these uterine cancers, specifically the really aggressive ones, that sometimes their ultrasound might look totally fine, but there still can be cancer underlying there.

And so I think that there are multiple barriers to getting even. That’s before the diagnosis even happens much less what comes after the diagnosis is had, how one gets from their gynecologist to a surgical subspecialist called the gynecological oncologist that Dr. Gogoi and I, this is our field. And there are multiple barriers and referral pathways there. But that’s to give a little bit more context that these things might start at the patient level, but the healthcare system, unfortunately, can contribute in rarely challenging ways to the barriers that patients face.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you both for that. I think we have a really good idea of the breadth of this issue, and I appreciate both of you pointing out that there are patient level factors, but there are also system level factors that come into play. And, Dr. Gamble, you just kind of ended by talking about referrals.

So I’m going to pick up there. And let’s talk about referral patterns. And I’ll start with you for this question. How do those referral patterns impact access to specialized care gynecologic oncologists like yourself and Dr. Gogoi for women who are diagnosed with endometrial cancer and specifically for those underserved populations?

Dr. Charlotte Gamble:

Yeah, this is a complicated question and multi-layered. Again, I think big picture referral patterns. We know that there are barriers for patients who live rurally. We know there are barriers for patients who don’t have insurance or their insurance might be, they might be underinsured. And so there’s kind of system level barriers that we see on the macro level in some of our referral pathways.

And occasionally, sometimes patients with gynecologic cancers will actually be referred to not gynecologic oncologists, which are surgical subspecialists that work specifically with gynecologic malignancies, but might be referred to a general surgeon first, or a general gynecologist who may or may not know kind of what they’re getting into in terms of the care. I think what I’ve noticed in real life is that when I’m getting referrals, sometimes I’m getting a text message, sometimes I’m getting an email, sometimes getting a message in the medical record system, and the referrals are coming in many different ways.

Occasionally, patients are calling themselves. And so the ways that referrals actually then happen in real life and how those spread to kind of the macro levels is really interesting to me. It can be very complicated, very complex, and I think this is where the role of having healthcare navigators comes into play where folks can really assist patients in getting to the right surgical subspecialists.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Absolutely. And we know there’s a lot of evidence for the role of healthcare navigators in other disease spaces and specifically in cancer. So I appreciate you mentioning that. We’ve talked a little bit about patient level factors, and we’ve talked about system level factors. We haven’t talked a lot about maybe some provider level factors.

And I want to talk about cultural competency and the role that that plays in addressing disparities in endometrial cancer, specifically with regard to diagnosis. And I’m going to start with you, Dr. Gogoi on this one. And if you can share the role that you believe cultural competency plays in addressing some of these disparities that we’ve been talking about.

Dr. Radhika Gogoi:

Yeah, so I think you heard from us a little bit that oftentimes some of the symptoms that our patients have had are either ignored, or patients haven’t had a chance to fully address them, or the providers haven’t fully evaluated kind of the importance of their symptoms. And I think, so again, I think nurse navigators community educators are essential in sort of educating our communities about the importance of seeking care when you have sort of the symptoms that Dr. Gamble talked about and in a really timely fashion. I think that that’s really important as well.

So I think it obviously, cultural competency is important in sort of all facets of a patient’s journey as they kind of have the diagnosis through their treatment. But I think that the other place is really once they enter the healthcare system being aware and mindful of sort of healthcare mistrust both from the provider, from the institution, from a much larger governmental level and being aware of that distrust and really trying to take time to address their concerns.

That specifically at least comes up a lot in terms of clinical trials where we know that minority populations, Black patients are met vastly underrepresented. And so I think specifically in that area, there is really the opportunity to do a much better job in providing transparency about the trial design, about recruiting specifically minority patients. Interestingly, a lot of these landmark trials actually didn’t include race as a measure. And so we know that they’re underrepresented, but we actually don’t know how much minority populations are underrepresented. So important to really understand where patients are coming from when they enter a healthcare institution.

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you so much for that. Dr. Gamble, can you speak to awareness? You spoke about the fact that sometimes patients are referred to perhaps the wrong provider. You know, there was that sent, you mentioned to a general surgeon instead of to a gynecologic oncologist. And so we can imagine that there may be some challenges both in the primary care setting and perhaps even among general obstetrician gynecologists. So can you speak to how we can elevate the level of awareness to enhance healthcare provider awareness of diagnosis and access disparities and really appropriate referral patterns?

Dr. Charlotte Gamble:

Yeah, absolutely. I think it’s a tough question. I think it’s, again, like all things, it’s a little bit nuanced. Sometimes, again different levels of providers, different parts of the country, everybody practices a little bit differently. So everyone knows once you get a cancer diagnosis, you should probably go to a cancer specialist. And so generally, that’s coming to a gynecologic oncologist generally, or that’s sometimes that’s going to a medical oncologist. But occasionally, sometimes patients will have symptoms where it’s just abnormal bleeding, and they’re seeing a general gynecologist who then does a hysterectomy, and there’s a surprise diagnosis of an endometrial cancer.

Usually they’re, hopefully, they’re not making it too much to kind of the general surgery pathway our general surgery colleagues are awesome, but it’s kind of a different kettle of fish and the type of hysterectomy that’s needed and the type of specific surgery that’s needed to include lymph node assessment is different for somebody who’s getting a cancer surgery for uterine cancer compared to, let’s say, for fibroids or for adenomyosis or a non-gynecologic cancer situation.

I think, again, I’m on the receiving end of all of this, so I see patients who have made it to my doorstep and gotten kind of through the hoops and the barriers, but there’s definitely those out there that we know from the data somehow ended up with their surgery, not exactly in the appropriate hands.

And it’s hard to say, I don’t know if I actually even have advice for like how this is supposed to happen. I think we need to understand kind of the as Dr. Gogoi alluded to earlier, just kind of how prevalent endometrial cancer is right now and how the rates are rising and that abnormal bleeding has to be taken very seriously. And the thing that I harp on the most is a normal ultrasound does not mean there’s nothing else to explore there. There has to be a tissue biopsy.

And really impressing that on both patients as well as the first kind of people that they see, either their primary care doctor or even a nurse practitioner, a physician assistant. Just because there’s a normal ultrasound does not mean that your work is done. And we have studies to really demonstrate how that can delay patient’s care and missed diagnoses can happen. So it’s hard to answer your question, to like, how do we fix the referral pathway system? I don’t know the answer to that, and maybe Dr. Gogoi can speak to that, but I will say from like a screening standpoint, since there’s no great screening test, an ultrasound is not, might be the first step, but it’s definitely not the only step and it cannot be the last.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

I appreciate that. As you were talking, I was thinking like this needs to be a major awareness campaign, not just for healthcare providers, but for patients as well. You know, this idea that abnormal or or postmenopausal bleeding is never normal and make sure your doctor gets a tissue biopsy and not just an ultrasound. Dr. Gogoi, we’ve talked already about some of the obstacles and barriers faced by patients. Can you talk about some of the obstacles or barriers that are faced by healthcare providers when treating endometrial cancer?

Dr. Radhika Gogoi:

Yeah, I think that the one other barrier that sort of comes up a lot specifically in terms of maybe even in terms of getting a patient to their referring providers or a G1 oncologist is transportation. I find that transportation is a huge issue for our patients. And it’s mostly associated with cost. So I think that one of the things that really, that we can do as a community is to somehow provide means or ways for our patients to get to us once they’re diagnosed. It’s hard enough to get them to us but when they’re facing challenges of cost and transportation, that becomes even more challenging.

So I think that that’s from a patient standpoint. And then, and then I think what Dr. Gamble mentioned about really the barriers for providers is really education around ultrasound and how those how specifically perhaps even in Black women, that it’s not as predictive of endometrial cancer risk and that an ultrasound alone is not enough of a workup for a number of these patients to rule out some underlying pathology. So that’s huge, and again mistrust of the medical profession is something that all healthcare providers deal with. And allowing time for patients to ask their questions, to be transparent about what it is that you’re doing and why I think goes a long way towards overcoming those challenges.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you both for that. I think we’ve gotten a lot of information around the causes of the disparities and some actions that we can begin taking. Are there any unforeseen or outdated practice-related barriers that may hinder your work and that of your colleagues? And on that same note, are there any solutions or actions related to those? And I’ll start with you on this one, Dr. Gamble.

Dr. Charlotte Gamble:

Well, starting all the way back, I think an outdated practice is not listening to patients, and not recognizing your own privilege as a provider. I think that to Dr. Gogoi’s point that she’s mentioned a couple of times now, I have innumerable patients that just felt that they were not listened to felt that they couldn’t…that their stories were not being heard, that they faced no’s, no’s, no’s at multiple levels in trying to seek care for abnormal bleeding, and come to me very frustrated and kind of weary. And I think just really understanding how vulnerable patients are when they’re seeking care, and being cognizant of the privilege that we have as healthcare providers is something that is more contemporary compared to an outdated practice of being very paternalistic.

I guess sometimes I have had patients who are like, yeah, I was told that I needed a biopsy and I just…the way that they told me and the way that they said that it had to be done tomorrow, it freaked me out, and I couldn’t do it. And it’s just kind of unfortunate when the recommendations might be correct, but the way in which it’s being delivered is not being received by the patients in a way that they’re able to be receptive to.

I think another outdated practice again that I harp on that I’m such a strong believer in is like just the role of the ultrasound. I really, I don’t like it. I hate it. I think it’s useful for knowing uterine size and maybe if there’s some kind of stuff inside the uterus, but abnormal bleeding either before menopause or after menopause has to have a tissued biopsy. So I think that’s outdated to just get an ultrasound and have the patient come back, because it continues to perpetuate delays in care, and I think disparities to an extent. Another outdated…no, I don’t know. Is there anything else, Dr. Gogoi, that you’d add to this?

Dr. Radhika Gogoi:

I feel like this is a lot lot older now. It used to be at one point that we used to do all our endometrial cancer patients with open surgery. I think that now, I guess it’s even more outdated than outdated. Most of the surgeries are now pretty much done either minimally, invasively laparoscopically or robotically. There are obviously extenuating circumstances to both of those things, but I think approach to surgery is also sort of evolved.

The treatment paradigm for patients with advanced endometrial cancers has evolved even more so in the last maybe two years or so with the role of immunotherapy. So encouraging our patients to be educated about their options, both for route of surgery, for treatment and to make sure to ask those questions at the time of their office visit I think is something that we should all encourage.

Dr. Charlotte Gamble:

I would dovetail from that and also say, to kind of harken back to some of the other things we discussed in terms of referral pathways and things like that, and just how gynecologic oncology care is delivered in different parts of the country, there are various models for this, and so classically, patients who have gynecologic cancers, including endometrial cancer are managed solely by the gynecologic oncologist, meaning a surgical subspecialist like myself or Dr. Gogoi, who not only do the surgery, but also deliver if patients need it chemotherapy or specialized systemic therapies afterwards, sometimes with a component in partnership with a radiation oncologist.

But there are parts of the country by institution or by geography where the care that comes after the initial surgery done by the gynecologic oncologist might be shared with a medical oncologist who may or may not actually have super sub-specialized training when it comes to gynecologic cancers, because again, historically, this has been an area that’s been managed really by our subspecialty.

And so I encourage patients as well as referring doctors, et cetera, et cetera, to make sure that whoever, if there’s additional therapies that are needed after the hysterectomy is done, such as chemotherapy or immunotherapy, as Dr. Gogoi alluded to, that that is done in partnership with a gynecologic oncologist, because our field is kind of driving where so much of the contemporary understanding of how to manage these conditions long-term is coming from. And to make sure that if a medical oncologist is doing this, they feel very competent. They do this all the time, and they’re working in close partnership with their gynecologic oncology colleagues.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. Thank you for that. So as we talk about outdated practices, I guess the other side of the coin is innovation and continuous improvement. And so I’ll turn this question to you, Dr. Gogoi. How can healthcare providers and hospital leaders foster a culture of innovation and continuous improvement? So that’s some of these outdated practices that you all, that you and Dr. Gamble, discussed are really no longer a thing?

Dr. Radhika Gogoi:

Yeah. So I couldn’t agree more.I think that some of those innovative approaches really come from enrolling in clinical trials. And so I think that the importance of having minority populations, equally represented in clinical trials is essential. Otherwise we’re not going to make the progress that we need to make to really equal the playing field here, so to speak. So I think that that really is a huge player trying to educate patients about clinical trial options, being transparent about what those look like, who benefits, what the data suggests, why it’s important to me is again, really key.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. And Dr. Gamble, if we were to be specific, are there any healthcare provider to healthcare provider strategies, anything that you’ve seen work, maybe things that you’ve done yourself, innovative approaches or protocols with regard to this idea of innovation and continuous improvement?

Dr. Charlotte Gamble:

Yeah, I think different institutions have different cultures, and I think having institutional culture that embraces change that is, desires to be on the vanguard of advancing science, and the science could be in terms of bench research. It could be in terms of clinical trials, it could be in terms of healthcare delivery, really trying to advance and push forward. The science and how we get the best care to our patients in the most timely fashion I think is really important. Culture is hard to change, and we all work in institutions that have various different cultures. I think that healthcare provider to healthcare provider, I think open lines of communication are great. I tell folks, text, call, email, whatever you need to do to get patients in a timely fashion is necessary.

I think the understanding of we are one person working within a team is really necessary. So patients might say, oh, Dr. Gamble this, Dr. Gamble that, but I always, always, always tell them that I cannot do this work without my nurse navigator, without my fellow, without my residents, without my inpatient floor nurses, the oncology nurses, and really understanding that oncology care specifically is a really big team sport.

And healthcare leaders, when we’re thinking about things from a system level, I think sometimes have different like just help making sure that everybody understands how much of a team sport that this is. How much the radiation oncologists, the medical oncologists interface with us on a regular basis, I think is really important. And to understand that we’re all in this together to deliver the best care to our patients. I really think the role of health, like nurse navigators and lay navigators needs to be further pushed forward within our field, including not only gynecologic oncology, but just gynecology in general, and that’s some of the work that I’m doing from a research standpoint now. And so I’d love to see the role of navigators be fully embraced and somehow reimbursed by healthcare systems in general.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Absolutely. Well, it is time to wrap up this roundtable. I have really enjoyed talking with both of you as always. I have learned a lot. I’m sure that our audience will learn a lot from this conversation. And before we go, I’d love to get closing thoughts. So I’m going to start with you, Dr. Gogoi. What is one takeaway message that you would like to leave with the healthcare professionals who will watch this program?

Dr. Radhika Gogoi:

So I guess the one takeaway would be that, as I think about my role in sort of disparities prevention, if you say it is really as an educator, and so the importance of community education on symptoms, on diagnosis, on treatment approaches, I think it’s essential that we don’t think of ourselves as a silo. I’m not just, but I’m part of the larger community as Dr. Gamble spoke about. And to be part of that larger community means that I need to be within that community and function within the community. So whether it’s me, community navigators, health educators to really play a role in educating our patients about how to approach their symptoms.

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

Wonderful. Thank you, Dr. Gogoi. And what about you, Dr. Gamble, what’s your closing thought that you would like to leave with the audience?

Dr. Charlotte Gamble: 

Yeah, I think for healthcare providers in general, I think the thing that I think is most important is, again, being able to listen to patients, working and encouraging the systems that we are housed into, be able to be responsive to them, so that if patients are educated, do know that there’s something wrong. They’re able to not only get a hold of someone, but also be listened to and heard and taken seriously. And we have a lot to do in that regard. So I think just understanding again, our role and how privileged we are to be in our jobs, in this line of work, and being able to leverage that to listen to patients and get them the timely care that they need.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. Well, thank you both again, Dr. Gogoi, Dr. Gamble, thank you for this enlightening conversation. We’ve learned so much about endometrial cancer. I think for me, the main takeaway is postmenopausal bleeding, abnormal irregular bleeding is never normal. It needs to be evaluated. You both spoke about the importance of biopsy and not just an ultrasound, and in fact that ultrasound can be normal.

And with regard to disparities, I really appreciate both of your thoughts around community education, and this being a team sport and listening to our patients. So again, thank you so much for being here today, and thank you all for watching the program and tuning into this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients, Patient Empowerment Network program. I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester. Thanks again for watching.


Share Your Feedback

Maximizing Biomarker Equity: Leveraging Partnerships to Close Biomarker Disparities in Lung Cancer

Maximizing Biomarker Equity: Leveraging Partnerships to Close Biomarker Disparities in Lung Cancer from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How can biomarker disparities be minimized by lung cancer partnerships? Expert Dr. Eugene Manley from SCHEQ Foundation discusses individuals, lung cancer partnerships, and how partners can work collaboratively toward improved biomarker disparities and health outcomes.

Download Resource Guide  | Descargar guía de recursos

See More from [ACT]IVATED NSCLC Biomarkers

Related Resources:

Hope Unleashed: Advancing Therapies for Defiant Mutations in Lung Cancer

Hope Unleashed: Advancing Therapies for Defiant Mutations in Lung Cancer

Lung Cancer Biomarker Disparities | How Precision Medicine and Research Can Help

Lung Cancer Biomarker Disparities | How Precision Medicine and Research Can Help

How Can We Leverage Lung Cancer Biomarker Data to Address Health Disparities?

How Can We Leverage Lung Cancer Biomarker Data to Address Health Disparities

Transcript:

Lisa Hatfield:

Dr. Manley, how can partnerships between researchers, healthcare providers, community organizations, and policymakers be leveraged to address biomarker disparities and improve health outcomes for marginalized groups?

Dr. Eugene Manley:

I think partnerships are key to really moving the needle across the whole spectrum. You need the patient advocate groups, which are patients, caregivers, survivors. You need the researchers that are doing the studies. You need the physicians, researchers, surgeons that are doing the treatment surgeries follow-up. You need the histologists that are doing imaging and staining. And so, and then you need to really have an activated ecosystem that can really use stories and storytelling to translate this information to those that are writing policy. Because policy usually only gets changed through strong stories.

So you have to tell the story of your lung cancer, your diagnosis, your journey, and how…what did and didn’t work. And then the compelling story is usually what get laws passed. Often the use of webinar series where you have patients speaking about their experience are way more impactful because then they’re really bringing their life story to that journey. And that’s really key. So I think the partnerships at all levels are important, but you all need to be on the same page with what you’re trying to do and who you’re trying to impact.


Share Your Feedback

Create your own user feedback survey

Peer Insights: Fostering Clinic-Wide Engagement for Myeloma Clinical Trials

Peer Insights: Fostering Clinic-Wide Engagement for Myeloma Clinical Trials from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Dr. Craig Cole from Karmanos Cancer Institute speaks to the success of clinical trials relying on not only provider endorsement, but also on the collective enthusiasm and involvement of all healthcare staff, which cultivates a patient-centric culture promoting myeloma trial participation and engagement.

See More from EPEP Myeloma

Related Resources:

Peer Insights: Maximizing Myeloma Patient Care

Peer Insights: Maximizing Myeloma Patient Care 

HCP Strategies for Navigating the Pre-trial Eligibility and Informed Consent Process

HCP Strategies for Navigating the Pre-trial Eligibility and Informed Consent Process 

How Can Myeloma HCPs Overcome Unforeseen Practice Related Barriers?

How Can Myeloma HCPs Overcome Unforeseen Practice Related Barriers? 

Transcript:

Dr. Craig Cole:

Some of the other barriers to clinical trials, the nurses and the other staff in the cancer center aren’t aware of the clinical trials, that when a patient goes through the clinic, they talk to more than just the provider. They talk to the treatment nurses, they talk to the intake people, they talk to the MAs, they talk to the scheduling people. And there was a study that was done a few years ago in looking at patients who were given consent forms and declined clinical trials. And they found that a lot of patients declined clinical trials, were because they said that, well, their doctor didn’t want them on the trial.

And when they looked further into that, they saw that, well, the doctor offered them a clinical trial, but when they discussed the clinical trial with a nurse practitioner, when they discussed that trial with a treatment nurse or the MA or any of the other staff, when they didn’t know about the clinical trial, that was considered well, if you don’t know about the clinical trial, it must not be good for me. And then they withdrew from the trial.

It really shouldn’t be left in the provider compartment. That excitement should be clinic-wide. And when you have that all-in approach where everybody’s involved, everyone’s excited about clinical trials, it produces a culture of clinical trials that everybody wants to be part of, and the patients then can jump on that bus and feel comfortable participating in the trial.