Tag Archive for: multidisciplinary team
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.
HCP Roundtable: Advancing Practice and Enhancing Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Care
In this EPEP program, Dr. Akriti Jain of Cleveland Clinic and Nurse Practitioner Kimberly Smith of Duke Health discuss overcoming practice barriers, navigating emerging challenges, and implementing strategies to close gaps in patient-centered myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) care.
Related Resources:
Expert Insights on Overcoming Barriers to Myelofibrosis Care |
HCP Roundtable: Breaking Through Myelofibrosis Practice Barriers |
Explaining Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Disease Progression to Patients |
Transcript:
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Welcome to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients or EPEP Program. My name is 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 advancing practice and enhancing myeloproliferative neoplasm care. How can we overcome current challenges to enhance the management and outcomes of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia? What innovative practices are transforming the management of myeloproliferative neoplasms to improve patient outcomes?
Our conversation will look at gaps in the field and solutions to enhance patient-centric MPN care for improved patient outcomes. We’re going to discuss identifying practice barriers to patient-centered care, navigating emerging challenges and opportunities in management and effective strategies for closing gaps in MPN care. It is my privilege to be joined by Ms. Kimberly Smith of Duke Health. Ms. Smith is a nurse practitioner who provides security and compassion that patients and families need when they get a cancer diagnosis. Thank you so much for joining this EPEP program today, Ms. Smith.
Kim Smith:
Thanks for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
It is also my honor to be joined by Dr. Akriti Jain, a hematologist at Cleveland Clinic. Dr. Jain’s passion lies in understanding the needs of every patient and always prioritizing and advocating for her patients and their families. Thank you so much for joining the EPEP program, Dr. Jain.
Dr. Akriti Jain:
Thank you, Dr. Rochester. Happy to be here.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
So I’d like to start off by talking about identifying and overcoming barriers to patient-centered care for patients and families facing a myeloproliferative neoplasm. So, Dr. Jain, I’m going to start with you. What are the most common barriers to implementing patient-centered care in the management of myeloproliferative neoplasms?
Dr. Akriti Jain:
Thank you for that question, Dr. Rochester. It’s very pertinent. As you can imagine, there can be a lot of barriers when we are trying to provide patient-centered care, especially in the management of myeloproliferative neoplasms. As you said, there are multiple myeloproliferative neoplasms, and each one of them is complex. And hence the complexity of each diagnosis, how they’re diagnosed, how their risk-stratified and how those patients are symptomatic based on whether their platelets are high or their hemoglobin is high, or they have scarring or fibrosis in their bone marrow.
Then that in itself becomes complex and can become a problem when we’re seeing these patients in the community. That’s why a lot of these patients get referrals to tertiary care centers, and not all patients can have that opportunity to go to tertiary care centers and see providers that are very knowledgeable and know what…exactly how to diagnose these myeloproliferative neoplasms.
Dr. Akriti Jain:
A lot of times it’s very team-based approach. It’s not just the clinician, but also the pathologist. So a lot of times when these patients come to us we have their bone marrow biopsies reviewed because the diagnostic criteria requires certain things in their bone marrow that helps us diagnose these problems. So not just that these MPN are variable, but also individual variability within the MPNs. So not every polycythemia vera patient presents the same way. So that becomes a problem again when providing patient-centered care, because it’s not the one-size-fits-all philosophy. Those are some of the things that I can think of.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Ms. Smith, I know that you share Dr. Jain’s passion with regard to really being compassionate with your patients. So I’d love to get your perspective as a nurse practitioner what are the primary barriers that you’ve witnessed to accessing effective patient-centered care?
Kimberly Smith:
I would say what I’ve experienced most is the patients actually understanding their disease process, the education piece, like making sure that educating them about their disease, giving them security that, hey, that you have a myeloproliferative neoplasm, but let’s look at it as we’re running a marathon, not a sprint. You know that we have time, you know that we can get family involved. And I think that’s a big thing with me, just try to bridge that barrier that it’s a team effort. It’s not just you. Even though treatment is individualized, it’s still a team. We are a team, so I want you to be comfortable, but I also want to be comfortable with giving you the information and that you are able to receive it. That’s one of the big barriers that I see is them being able to accept their diagnosis.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Wonderful. Thank you so much Ms. Smith. So, Dr. Jain, I’m going to go back to you and staying on this theme of patient-centered care. Can you talk about some of the gaps in research regarding patient-centered care in MPNs, and how can those gaps be addressed?
Dr. Akriti Jain:
Sure. So building off of what Ms. Smith was just saying, education comes, it’s very important also for research. If our patients are educated on the potential options for trials, for retrospective research, for registry research, they are more open to accepting these options for their management, for their treatment. A lot of patients might not know which phase each trial is in, and a lot of patients don’t want to be, “guinea pigs.”
So sometimes it’s important for us to educate patients that some of these trials are Phase III trials and Phase III trials eventually lead to drug approval. So a lot of the drugs we have for myeloproliferative neoplasms were not available a few years ago. So education is very important here. And lack of education within patients and then also within healthcare providers can be a big gap in getting research to the patients where it is needed.
And we’re very thankful to these patients that help us advance research and help us get these drug approvals and enroll in trials. Other important gaps are including patient-reported outcomes. As we all might know within MPNs, we have a really nice MPN symptoms score MPN-SAF, a lot of newer research trials and other research avenues are including SAFs within the trials. And so these are important things that can help us give patients the prioritized and individualized care they need.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you so much, Dr. Jain. Ms. Smith, do you have anything to add with regard to gaps in research regarding patient-centered MPN care?
Kimberly Smith:
Yes. I agree with Dr. Jain, but also another thing that I notice, with these gaps is a lot of patients come to us with other comorbidities, and so they might not qualify for trials or they might have another associated heme malignancy that they might not be able to qualify. So it kind of puts a gap in treatment, because then we have to go with what’s already FDA-approved, and that might not be the best option for the patient at that time.
Dr. Nicole Rochester: Thank you for pointing that out. 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 symptom 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?
Kimberly 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 an 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.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Wonderful. Thank you both. Well, we’re going to move on. And in this section I want to talk about some of the challenges and opportunities. So I’m going to start with you on this one. Ms. Smith, can you speak to some of the emerging challenges and opportunities in the management of myeloproliferative neoplasms?
Kimberly Smith:
Well, a lot of the world of MPNs is starting to explode, especially with myelofibrosis. We are getting all these different treatments, these trials running, things hopefully that we will have that could that could change the disease process in these patients. And one of the biggest challenges is, is that where do the patients fit at in this aspect of it? Are we going to be able to actually get patients approved for some of these things or will we have to go with the oldie, but goodie with a lot of these? We still use hydroxyurea (Hydrea) a lot in these MPNs. And so, but we have a lot of other drugs now that we can use.
But because we know that it’s tried and true, and it’s harder to get patients on some of these other drugs, we go with the oldie but goodie. So I think that’s a challenge that we…that we’ll have. And the other thing is too these drugs are expensive. So even if we can get the drug form at our institution or in the community, if we can get them for them, will they be able to afford them? And one thing I can say that I’ve noticed is a lot of the drug companies that we’ve dealt with here that they are really good about helping, is there anything that we can do to kind of help push the process to get patients assistance for these therapies? And so I think that’s one of the biggest challenges that we’ll have with treating them, just this explosion of new therapies coming.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
And you kind of alluded to it when you spoke about hydroxyurea. So I’m going to pose this question to you, Dr. Jain, are there any unforeseen or outdated practice-related barriers or therapeutic inertia that may hinder your work in that of your colleagues?
Dr. Akriti Jain:
Yes, definitely. I echo Ms. Smith’s sentiments. I think a lot of times, things that we have already used for years and having familiarity with those treatments sometimes can lead to resistance to accepting new guidelines and treatments. And that can come from, again, not knowing the side effects that these treatments can pose, right? Not having long-term data that these drugs haven’t been, some of them are new, they haven’t been around for years, so we don’t know what they can cause in the future. And that can happen both from the healthcare provider standpoint and also from the patient standpoint. And it can be challenging. And what can help us overcome that is education.
Even though the drugs might not be approved, for example, the newest approval that came around last year was momelotinib (Ojjaara), which is a newer drug for myelofibrosis, can help treat anemia as well. After it was approved, we had patients ask us for that drug for months before we could actually prescribe it. Yes, because FDA approval and then actually being able to prescribe the drug take…it takes some time for these drugs to show up on formularies for pharmacies to start carrying them. And then going back to, even if the drug was approved last year, it doesn’t mean it’s a new drug. It’s being tested and it is being tested in trials for years now. So those are some of the things that I can think of.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you both. So I want to talk about the Landmark study. This, as you all know, was a large scale analysis and survey of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms as well as the healthcare providers who treat these rare chronic blood cancers. Ms. Smith, how do you feel that healthcare professionals can use the insights from the MPN Landmark study as an opportunity to improve how they communicate and interact with their patients?
Dr. Akriti Jain:
Sure, I think the most important thing that we can learn is understanding the patient perspectives and needs. It provides an in-depth analysis of what the patients get anxious about or what the patient’s symptoms are about. So if, for example, if the patients are anxious about side effects of treatment, we can be proactive in empowering our patients with that knowledge that these are the things that we need to look out for.
These are the things that you would call us for. And again, it gets us back to understanding the common challenges that our MPN patients face and then how we can help them with those challenges, those symptom management. If treatment adherence is a problem, how can we help them have a pill diary? Or if a burden is a problem, how can we help them reduce some of the medicines that they’re taking? I think it provided a really good understanding of what patients feel, how their perspectives are, and what things we can use to improve their management and provide more patient-centered care.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
And what about you, Ms. Smith? What are your main takeaways from the Landmark study and how can healthcare providers use those results to improve the way they interact with patients?
Kimberly Smith:
My main takeaway was where the patients, where it showed on the study, where the patients were saying it was hard for them to get up out of the bed. So I’ve dealt with that with many patients. Fatigue is a true issue. And, I’ve had patients tell me they’ve golfed nine holes. I had no idea what that meant. But then they say I come in and I can only golf five holes.
I still had no idea what that meant. However, it was significant for them. And so, what I take from that study is we have to not only just ask patients, what are your symptoms? We have to actually question and dig to actually find out because what we may be looking at just off of the symptom score page, they may have something else that’s hindering their ADLs or hindering their, what they’ve done all the time in their life. And it’s changed now.
And so, I think the main thing we have to do is actually ask, educate, have them to write down symptoms, anything that happens new that happens to them, let’s write it down. Let’s go over it. Let’s talk about it. And then if it’s fatigue, we have ways we can help mitigate some of that. We collaborate with palliative care to help with symptom management. If it’s allergy symptoms, we collaborate with allergy. So there’s ways we can help you with your symptoms, but if we don’t know, we don’t know. So I think the education, I think talking to patients, like actually talking to them on their level is what that Landmark study kind of presented to all of us, healthcare providers, that what we may be looking at as symptoms may not be symptoms for the patient.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Absolutely. And that kind of circles back to, I think what you were talking about earlier, Dr. Jain, with regard to patient-reported outcomes. So I will say I was thrilled to see this study, and I wish that this is something that was done in all disease states. So thank you both for commenting on that. So in our final topic, we’re going to talk about strategies for closing the gaps in myeloproliferative neoplasm care. So I’m going to go to you first, Dr. Jain, can you describe the most effective strategies, including your own best practices that can address gaps in care for patients facing a myeloproliferative neoplasm?
Dr. Akriti Jain:
Yes. So again, coming back to empowering our patient and leading to that shared medical decision-making. So different patients present differently, not using that one-size-fits-all philosophy, depending on what their symptoms are, what their diagnosis is tailoring their treatment. If cytopenias or anemia is a problem, helping them battle that. And different hemoglobins can be different for different patients. So not discounting their symptoms, saying that your hemoglobin is 11, your hemoglobin’s fine, you don’t need any treatment for this right now, maybe they’re used to functioning at a 14.
So shared medical decision-making is very important, because if patients feel like they’re heard, if patients feel like they’re a part of the decision that their healthcare provider made in helping them decide what is best for them, I think that is really important. And it would lead to patients actually adhering to treatment, following up with their healthcare provider, and also better physician-patient relationship, which I think is very important in some of these chronic diseases, where these relationships last for years, right? This is one of the chronic diseases, like a lot of times we’re telling our patients, this is like high blood pressure or diabetes, we have to learn to live with it.
And so they have to be friends with their healthcare provider, otherwise they’re not going to come see you again. So I think empowering the patient, making them a part of this decision of how we’re going to treat them, how we’re going to monitor them, how often should we be doing their labs, is it feasible for them, I think are really important ways to close those gaps and help our patients.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you so much, Dr. Jain. What about you, Ms. Smith, what thoughts do you have in terms of strategies to address the gaps in care for MPN patients?
Kimberly Smith:
I agree with Dr. Jain, but also bridging the gap between community and tertiary centers. A lot of times, we treat patients in these big centers, and then we send them out to local places to whether they need transfusions or, or to continue care because the distance for them to make it here is just too far. So I think, bridging, collaborating with the outside community hospitals and community centers, and also even the nursing staff, the nursing staff coordinating, just coordinating the care so these patients will know that they are receiving effective care, whether they are at this tertiary center or they’re at their community center, because we all are working as a team to make sure they have everything they need.
And also including the family. Families are important. That was a big thing to me. Like, I want to make sure families knew that they were a part of this team also, because a lot of times it’s the family who is having to deal with the symptom management. They’re the ones who want their family member to go somewhere with them, and they’re just too fatigued to get out, and they don’t understand it, because we’re telling them that this is a chronic disease. They should be able to do some things, but they just can’t. So I think we have to make sure we’re bridging the gap with the families also.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
So for you, Dr. Jain, are there specific strategies or maybe one strategy that you have implemented yourself, maybe where you work, that has helped to bridge that gap between tertiary care and the community setting, as an example?
Dr. Akriti Jain:
Yeah, that’s a very good point brought up by Ms. Smith. So what I do, because a lot of the patients I see in my clinical practice are second opinions. A lot of these patients I see one time, and maybe I’ll never see them again, or maybe I’ll see them in two years from now when things have changed, and they have more questions, or their provider has more questions. So what I do is I make sure the patient has my contact number so that they can always reach out if things change.
I make sure they have that MyChart set up so that they can always message me if they need me. The next step that I always take is I call their primary oncologist. I make sure they have my cell phone number so that they can call me if things change, if they have any questions. And the third thing I always tell my patients is you can use me however you want to use me.
So, I, a lot of times, would set up virtual visits in three months or in six months. That way, even if they live hours away from us, they can see us the tertiary care center through the comfort of their home. They can get labs locally and see us. They can kind of alternate between their primary oncologist and a tertiary care center, or maybe see us once a year. It’s dependent on how much they feel makes them comfortable seeing us along with their primary oncologist who’s doing most of the heavy lifting, providing the care close to their homes.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
And to circle back to the family part, I’m going to go back to you, Ms. Smith. Is there a strategy that you can share that you and your team implement to really engage with the family members of MPN patients?
Kimberly Smith:
Yes. So we provide educational materials to the patients. We always ask them to bring a family member with them. If they can’t bring a family member with them, I’m willing to call a family member if they need information after the visit. I always give them the contact numbers that the family member can contact me also. MyChart is a big thing. Make sure they have MyChart because the family reaches out via MyChart also.
Another thing that I do is that I try to make sure that the family also has like the educational material too, because sometimes you can give it to the patient, but they don’t share it. So if a family member comes, if I pass out information to the patient, I pass it out to the family member also. I also provide them with websites that they can use, that they can utilize. Like the Cleveland Clinic is one of them that I have them use a lot, but, but websites that they can use where they can actually look up information on these different MPNs that they may have. So I think the educational piece is the biggest thing that I do with my patients.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Excellent. Thank you both for that. We talked a little bit about the perception that patients have when we talked about the Landmark study a little earlier in this program. And Dr. Jain, I’m going to come to you. How did the gaps in perception or perhaps the disconnects between the patient perception and the physician or healthcare provider perception of the disease burden, how do those gaps impact overall management and treatment outcomes for MPN patients?
Dr. Akriti Jain:
Sure, Dr. Rochester. So the disconnect between the physician and patient can become really important and where that occurs is because a lot of times our low symptom burden, low-risk disease patients are being observed. And the physician might think that I don’t think this patient warrants treatment, but the perception that the patient has of their symptoms might actually be very different. And I think what comes really handy here again is that MPN symptoms score, when you ask patients to rate the symptoms from 0 to 10, but 10 being the worst, you can actually see where they lie on the spectrum.
And I do these symptoms scores on every visit, because especially if I’m starting them on treatment, it really helps to know in an objective manner that what was the number that our patient rated fatigue on at their last appointment and what that number is now. And it’s not just fatigue, but all those 10 points and then symptom score, how are their night sweats, how is their itching, are they still having problems concentrating, have they lost weight?
So all these questions with a number attached to them, and it’s very surprising. You’ll see patients put in a zero for all these numbers and suddenly after three months, those numbers change. And so that really helps to know where the patient lies and so that we can close the gap between what the patient is perceiving about their symptoms versus what their provider is.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Ms. Smith, what would you like to add?
Kimberly Smith:
Yeah, I agree with that. I agree with that because using that symptom score, one of the questions is early satiety and losing weight. And that’s a big thing for these patients because they can end up with spleen enlargement. And so one of the main things that I kind of hone in on is, I want you to chart your symptoms. I don’t care what it is, Chart your symptoms. Even if it seems small to you, chart it. Because once you start them on drug, these things can change. And I just speak from one, just remembering one patient that I had who had an enlarged spleen and her main thing was, I want to eat. I just want to eat a burger and a full burger. And I haven’t been able to do that.
And we started her on treatment. And within three months, her main thing was, Kim, I was able to eat a burger and I ate the whole thing. So even though we probably can’t see on scans that it’s smaller, she could tell something was different. And that just made her happy to be able to do that. And so I tell them to chart everything. It doesn’t matter what it is, how mediocre you may think it is or minuscule you may think it is. It’s important because if things change over time, we need to be able to manage it.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Absolutely. Thank you. Well, this has been awesome. I have learned a lot as always. It is time to wrap up our roundtable. And I’d like to get closing thoughts from each of you. So, Dr. Jain, what is the most important takeaway message you want to leave with the healthcare professionals who will be listening to this program?
Dr. Akriti Jain:
Yeah, thank you, Dr. Rochester. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation as well. I think the most important part of all of this is empower your patients. Tell them what they are suffering from. Tell them this is a chronic disease. Tell them you’re there for them. Use the resources we have the MPN symptom score. Use the medications we have if the patients meet those criteria, if they’re having symptoms. Sometimes it’s important to get down to the patient’s level and get to the point where they or get down to the patient’s level and feel what they’re feeling, rate their fatigue, and give them the help they need.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you, Dr. Jain. And Ms. Smith, what is the most important takeaway message that you would like to leave with our healthcare professional audience?
Kimberly Smith:
Thank you. I truly appreciated this and I loved it. This was awesome. But I just want to leave that, listen to your patients. They know their bodies. They know themselves. Listen to their family. They’ve dealt with them all their lives. They know when something is different. So just listen to them. Listen to them. Be receptive. And that way we can work as a team to make sure our patients get the best care that they need.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Well, thank you both. Just to echo what Dr. Jain and Ms. Smith have said, the most important takeaways are really involving our patients and their families, empowering our patients and families, educating our patients and families, and also valuing this multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary team. So thank you both so much again for being here and being part of this important conversation. And thanks to all of you for tuning in to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients, Patient Empowerment Network program. Again, I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester. Thank you for watching.
Share Your Feedback
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
Related Resources:
How Can CLL HCPs Gain More Understanding of Mutation Profiles? |
CLL Expert Updates on Diagnostic Tool and Technology Advances |
|
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
Overcoming Barriers in Myelofibrosis Care: Challenges Faced by Patients and Providers
Overcoming Barriers in Myelofibrosis Care: Challenges Faced by Patients and Providers from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
What are key myelofibrosis barriers and solutions for healthcare providers? Experts Dr. Raajit Rampal from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Dr. Jeanne Palmer from Mayo Clinic discuss common obstacles to myelofibrosis care and methods they’ve used to overcome barriers including collaborative care tips.
Related Resources:
|
Expert Insights on Overcoming Barriers to Myelofibrosis Care |
HCP Roundtable: Breaking Through Myelofibrosis Practice Barriers |
Explaining Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Disease Progression to Patients |
Transcript:
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
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:
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.
Share Your Feedback
Are There Lung Cancer Outcome Disparities for Veterans?
Are There Lung Cancer Outcome Disparities for Veterans? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
Do lung cancer outcome disparities exist for veterans? Expert Dr. Drew Moghanaki from UCLA Health discusses veteran outcome studies for civilian versus VA healthcare, efforts on improving outcomes over time, and proactive advice for accessing the best lung cancer care.
[ACT]IVATION TIP
“…if you’ve got cancer, to really understand lung cancer, to really appreciate that there’s been a lot of advances and if you’re not feeling that you have access to those advances, get a second opinion and go to a bigger place that actually has an integrated approach to lung cancer care with a multidisciplinary team with the doctors in different specialties are working together and are focused on giving the best lung cancer care.”
Download Resource Guide | Descargar guía de recursos
See More from [ACT]IVATED NSCLC Veterans
Related Resources:
Transcript:
Lisa Hatfield:
Dr. Moghanaki, can you discuss any disparities or differences in health outcomes among veterans compared to the general population when it comes to lung cancer treatment?
Dr. Drew Moghanaki:
Yeah, when it comes to lung cancer treatment, there’s new data that’s showing that since the discovery of better drugs and safer surgery and more effective radiotherapy, that survival rates are improving gradually, especially over the last 10 years. We’ve seen this same trend with VA data as well, that veterans, whether they’re getting care in a community or in the VA, the outcomes are getting better.
Are there disparities? Well, there’s notable disparities that we’ve identified which is that although outcomes in general are getting better for female and male and Black and white and other ethnic sections of the population, there continues to be a disparity in the civilian sector in that our Black patients, whether civilian or veteran, have inferior outcomes. And, of course, we know this is associated largely with other socioeconomic issues related to a long history of racism in this country that’s led to segregation and unequal access to health care and well-being opportunities.
But what we see in the VA, whether you’re Black or white, actually the outcomes are the same. So there’s something that VA is doing that’s addressing the barriers that are affecting people in the general population. And in fact, we see in some of our studies, Black veterans actually have better outcomes. And so we’re learning that it’s much more than just biology by itself, that there really are socioeconomic factors. And when you’ve got a healthcare system that’s more than just a healthcare system, it’s a benefit system as well.
We really provide a nice safety net that helps address those disparities. But the sad truth is that it definitely disparities do continue to exist outside the VA healthcare system. So my activation tip is, if you’re a veteran with maybe some less resources than others, again, check into the VA because the VA provides not just healthcare, but also a lot of support services, especially when you have lung cancer, which as mentioned, is just very difficult to deliver and requires more than just access to a doctor.
Lisa Hatfield:
And I’d like to mention a paper also that you published regarding improving outcomes over a certain time period. There was a paragraph in there where you had a discussion about potential contributing factors to the improvement of outcomes over time. Are you willing to discuss those a little bit, what those potential factors are for improving outcomes in patients with lung cancer?
Dr. Drew Moghanaki:
Yeah, there are three main components. One is making sure you get the diagnosis right. Making sure you do the right biopsies and you send the specimens for what’s called biomarker testing to make sure you know what type of lung cancer. There’s now more than a dozen different types of lung cancer. And if you don’t get that biomarker test, you’re not going to know. You’re just going to be treated with standard therapy. If you get the biomarker testing, you can get personalized medicine with a drug that’s more likely to work and probably safer than the older conventional chemotherapies, which still has a role. But sometimes we can skip chemotherapy altogether and go directly to a targeted therapy.
The second big advancement comes in the treatment delivery itself. So surgical treatments are now much less invasive than ever before. In fact, many of our patients, they go to the operating room, they wake up with four Band-Aids, and half their lung is removed. Remarkable technology using robotic and video-assisted technologies. Same with radiotherapy.
Patients lay on a table and the machine, the very sophisticated machine just rotates around them, zaps these tumors. The patient can actually drive themselves back and forth to treatment and go home and and live their lives. We’ve got patients getting lung radiotherapy, and they’re playing golf the next day. It’s unbelievable. And then the third really comes down to survivorship, which is that our patients, even if we really can’t cure their cancer, like a lot of advanced diabetes, we just can’t cure, we can keep our patients going as they live a high-quality life moving forward and make sure that their journey, unfortunately, with their lung cancer that they obviously didn’t ever want to have, that their journey is the best that it can be.
So my activation tip here is if you’ve got cancer, to really understand lung cancer, to really appreciate that there’s been a lot of advances and if you’re not feeling that you have access to those advances, get a second opinion and go to a bigger place that actually has an integrated approach to lung cancer care with a multidisciplinary team were the doctors in different specialties are working together and are focused on giving the best lung cancer care.
Share Your Feedback
Create your own user feedback survey
Peer Insights: Maximizing Myeloma Patient Care
Peer Insights: Maximizing Myeloma Patient Care from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
Dr. Beth Faiman shares how clinical trials offer vital support for myeloma patients by providing access to a diverse team of healthcare professionals. Despite existing challenges, such as outdated procedures, practice barriers within the hospital organization and scope of practice limitations, Dr. Faiman speaks to the pivotal role of multidisciplinary teams for maximizing myeloma patient care.
Related Resources:
Peer Insights: Fostering Clinic-Wide Engagement for Myeloma Clinical Trials |
How Can Myeloma HCPs and Nurses Help Manage Patient Concerns? |
|
Transcript:
Dr. Beth Faiman:
How can we harness all of our resources to provide the best care to that patient? And clinical trials are one of them. Clinical trials will offer support so that the patient can have access to a pharmacist, a social worker, a dedicated nurse, a dedicated line to call if they’re having a symptom. But to speak to some of the outdated procedures, again, it goes to scope of the practice. No matter how highly trained they are experientially or with credentialing, there are practice barriers within the hospital organization within state laws.
The nice thing about clinical trials though, is that nurses in most institutions are very able to watch that clinical protocol. They’ll look for who needs to hold a medication because of toxicity, consult with the provider, and then they’ll say, “Okay, hold your dose. And when your toxicity resolves, reduce it one dose level, and come back for labs,” or whatever that would entail. So while there are outdated practices historically, I think that within clinical trials nursing it provides some more autonomy for oncology nurses, again, as a part of that multidisciplinary team to enhance patient care.
Understanding Unique Barriers Faced by Myeloma Research Nurses
Understanding Unique Barriers Faced by Myeloma Research Nurses from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
What are some ways that myeloma research nurses overcome barriers? Expert Dr. Beth Faiman from Taussig Cancer Institute explains the vital role that research nurses serve as part of the multidisciplinary team for patients and how they overcome barriers.
Download Resource Guide|Descargar guía de recursos
Related Resources:
|
|
|
Transcript:
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Dr. Faiman, can you speak to unforeseen or outdated practice-related barriers that may actually hinder the work of research nurses?
Dr. Beth Faiman:
Absolutely. So I want to preface this by saying in my mind. I think that both oncology nurses and advanced practice providers are highly trained professionals that should function within a multidisciplinary team. So that team, just as you mentioned before, Dr. Rochester, was the physician has limited time, maybe even the advanced practice provider has limited time. How can we harness all of our resources to provide the best care to that patient?
And clinical trials are one of them. Clinical trials will offer support so that the patient can have access to a pharmacist, a social worker, a dedicated nurse, a dedicated line to call if they’re having a symptom. But to speak to some of the outdated procedures, again, it goes to scope of the practice. No matter how highly trained they are experientially or with credentialing, there are practice barriers within the hospital organization within state laws.
The nice thing about clinical trials though, is that nurses in most institutions are very able to watch that clinical protocol. They’ll look for who needs to hold a medication because of toxicity, consult with the provider, and then they’ll say, “Okay, hold your dose. And when your toxicity resolves, reduce it one dose level, and come back for labs,” or whatever that would entail. So while there are outdated practices historically, I think that within clinical trials nursing it provides some more autonomy for oncology nurses, again, as a part of that multidisciplinary team to enhance patient care.
Share Your Feedback:
Who Are the Members of a Head and Neck Cancer Care Team?
Who Are the Members of a Head and Neck Cancer Care Team? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
Head and neck cancer care may involve a whole team of healthcare providers, but who are they? Expert Dr. Ari Rosenberg discusses the various team members and their roles in patient care.
Dr. Ari Rosenberg is a medical oncologist and Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine. Learn more about Dr. Rosenberg.
See More From The Pro-Active Head and Neck Cancer Patient Toolkit
Related Programs:
|
|
Expert Advice for Newly Diagnosed Head and Neck Cancer Patients |
Transcript:
Katherine:
There can be a number of people on a head and neck cancer patient’s care team. Would you give us an overview of who these team members might be, and what their roles are?
Dr. Rosenberg:
Yeah, absolutely. And this is one thing, actually, that I enjoy about treating head and neck cancer which is that because of the complexity of the head and neck in general, cancers that arise really do require a multidisciplinary team to figure out what the best treatment approach is.
And not only that, but most of the treatment plans that we incorporate for the treatment of head and neck cancer involve a very large and robust support team that provide different perspectives and help in optimizing outcomes for patients.
So, the three types of oncologists in our program, for example, all new patients that come in meet all three of these types of oncologists. So, one is an ENT, or a head and neck oncologist, or a head and neck surgeon, that’s one important member of the team. The second is a radiation oncologist. So, a radiation oncologist is the team member that uses radiation to treat head and neck cancer. And the third is someone like myself, a medical oncologist. We’re the ones that do the chemotherapy, or other types of systemic therapy, or other types of things like that.
And those are really the three tools, and the three oncologists that use those tools to figure out what the best treatment approach is. However, because many of the treatments that we give, whether it’s surgical treatment, or whether it’s some combination of chemotherapy and radiation, or of chemoradiation, there are many side effects of treatment. And as such, there are many other team members that are involved in supporting patients and optimizing outcomes through any of those treatment modalities.
So, that oftentimes involves specialized nursing, speech and swallow doctors and pathologists, dentistry, and prosthodontics. Sometimes other types of surgeons are involved, like neurosurgeons, or skull-based surgeons, or nasopharynx surgeons as well.
As well as nutrition and dietician, physical therapy, psychosocial supportive services. I’m probably missing many, but on and on, really are all involved in the care of patients during treatment. And not only that, but even in the non-patient facing side, there are other team members also that are very important that a patient may not meet, such as the pathologists that help us determine the subtype of the cancer, whether it’s HPV related or not. Sometimes some of the genomic makers and things like that that can be very important, or immune markers that are very important for treatment decisions.
We have radiologists that have expertise in the head and neck space that help us determine exactly the extent of the disease and look at the imaging in a multidisciplinary fashion. Again, I probably missed some of the team members offhand, but yes, it’s definitely a team sport, which is really, really important.
Patient-Provider Relationship Role in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing
Patient-Provider Relationship Role in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
How is lung cancer biomarker testing impacted by the patient-provider role? Experts Dr. Heather Wakelee and Dr. Leigh Boehmer discuss how specific additions to multidisciplinary teams and support resources aid in building communication for biomarker testing and optimal treatment.
See More from Lung Cancer | Empowering Providers to Empower Patients
Related Resources:
|
|
How Are Barriers in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing Being Addressed? |
Transcript:
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
As we begin to think about how the patient-provider relationship and the patient-provider communication plays a role in addressing some of these barriers that we’ve been talking about and then making sure that patients are appropriately being tested and treated, I’d love to hear from you all regarding the role of the patient-provider partnership as it relates to biomarker testing. So, let’s see, I’ll start with you, Dr. Boehmer.
Dr. Leigh Boehmer:
So I really, really think this question is critical, and I’m going to bias by saying, an exciting new position on the multidisciplinary cancer care team that we are learning about it, some of our member programs, is that of a precision medicine steward or navigator. So if you’re at all familiar with the idea of a patient navigation service or the services provided by financial advocates or financial navigators, this is really identifying that it is getting so complex in the world of targeted testing, targeted treatments today, that it literally requires in some places and settings an FTE or multiple to try to navigate testing, pathology, external labs, medical oncology, pharmacy services, nursing administration, and then, of course, patients and caregivers, and communication and context building, working with patient advocacy groups who are out there publishing great resources on testing and what they mean and targeted treatments. But trying to put all of that together, I will admit as a community clinician, as you probably see 15, 18, 20 patients a day, sometimes with as many different discrete types of cancers, it gets overwhelming.
And so, having a support person on staff who can help you manage some of that information and the patient-provider conversations, ACCC is very, very much about recognizing multidisciplinary teams of providers, so it’s critical to have navigation, to have social work providing distress screening and psychosocial support, to have pharmacists talking about targeted therapies and how they match with, to Dr. Wakelee’s points, mutations and fusions and rearrangements and everything we’re testing for with our big panels of next-generation sequencing, right? So I really want to encourage us all to utilize as patients and as team members, everybody else on the team, which is also to say patients and caregivers, are team members too, right? They have rights and responsibilities as members of their own team. And I will end with this, I say all of this, and I feel justified in saying all of this because we’ve done research at ACCC, and without that critical infrastructure, there’s potentially a real disconnect. So, for example, we asked patients with lung cancer what resources would be most impactful for you as you embark on your treatment journey, and they said things to us like psychosocial support and financial assistance.
When we asked the provider respondents a similar question in their own survey, the number one thing they identified, they thought patients needed were educational handouts or websites to go seek information about their diagnosis. Now that’s not to shake a finger at anybody or to say that you were right or you were wrong, that’s just to say, we need people who can approach this whole patient-provider construct from different perspectives, because Leigh is going to ask different questions than Heather is going to ask, than Nicole is going to ask, and that’s the beauty of multidisciplinary care coordination. We do need to come at it from different angles, different perspectives, and always make sure we’re remaining open and inclusive and asking what patients need and want right now. Because we don’t always have the answers, we have to remember that. We’re human, we have biases, it’s always better to ask and provide and then ask again.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
You are really speaking my language, Dr. Boehmer.
[laughter]
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
And I see, Dr. Wakelee, both of us are shaking our heads the entire time that you’ve been speaking and just around this idea of multidisciplinary teams that include the patient and the family, and ideally at the center. Dr. Wakelee, do you have anything to add?
Dr. Heather Wakelee:
Hard to add. That was very impressive, Dr. Boehmer, [laughter] and highlighting that just…we talk about multidisciplinary sometimes, the first version, some people think of it’s just it’s a team of a few different types of doctors. And obviously that’s not at all what we’re talking about, this is to provide the best possible care for a patient dealing with cancer, that physician-to-patient interaction is critical, but the patient to physicians to family is critical. And then you’ve got to also think about all the psycho-social needs and whether that’s going to be with a social worker or… We have a lot of people working in oncology who are psychologists and psychiatrists particularly focused in that because the coping with the disease is such a big part of it. And it’s also the pharmacy teams and the nursing teams. It is…multidisciplinary is many, many different levels of circles, but at the core, it’s the patient and family and the primary physician, that’s kind of the way I think at it, but I’m an oncologist, so perhaps I’m a little biased in my viewpoint there.
But it’s that communication right there where you sort of have all of the information that the physician’s holding, that’s coming from all of the different treatment disciplines, and then you’ve got all the information that the patient’s holding, that’s coming from their understanding of them and all of their other aspects of their life, and that’s sort of that interaction at the core, and making sure that both sides are seeing each other and seeing all of the other layers of that, so that you could make sure that at each point the recommendations and what the patient is actually doing, everyone’s coming from a point of understanding. I think, to me, that’s the most critical piece. And you don’t have that understanding if you don’t also have all the information you need about the tumor, and you’re not making that right decision if you don’t have all the information you need about all the aspects of who that patient is as a person, and that goes into their decisions as well, and that’s to me, that’s what we’re aiming for, right?
HCP Roundtable: Improving Clinician-Patient Conversations in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing
HCP Roundtable: Improving Clinician-Patient Conversations in Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
Comprehensive biomarker testing can play a very important role in the personalized treatment for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). How do we improve clinician-patient conversations in biomarker testing? And how do we remove barriers that can impede an HCP’s ability to treat patients with personalized care?
Dr. Heather Wakelee, Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Oncology at Stanford University School of Medicine and Dr. Leigh Boehmer, medical director at Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) weigh in on this very important topic.
See More from Lung Cancer | Empowering Providers to Empower Patients
Related Resources:
How Can Lung Cancer Experts in Academic and Community Settings Collaborate |
Methods to Improve Lung Cancer Physician-Patient Communication |
|
Transcript:
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Welcome to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients (EPEP) program. I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester, pediatrician and CEO of Your GPS Doc. In this Patient Empowerment Network program, we connect leading lung cancer expert voices to discuss enhancing physician-patient communication and shared decision-making in lung cancer care. Some of the topics we’re going to tackle in today’s conversation include the challenges and solutions for biomarker testing in the community hospital setting and in academic centers.
We’re also going to talk about removing barriers that can impede a healthcare provider’s ability to treat patients with personalized care, improving clinician-patient communication with regard to NSCLC biomarker testing, and we’re also going to explore opportunities to improve access to personalized care for all patients. I am thrilled to be joined by thoracic medical oncologist, Dr. Heather Wakelee, Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Oncology at Stanford University School of Medicine. Dr. Wakelee is also President of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. I am also thrilled to be joined by Dr. Leigh Boehmer, Chief Medical Officer at the Association of Community Cancer Centers. Thank you both for joining us today.
Dr. Leigh Boehmer:
Thank you.
Dr. Heather Wakelee:
Thank you.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
So we know that biomarker testing connects the right patient to the right treatment at the right time and potentially to the right clinical trial, but there also are some challenges and interventions are necessary, and that’s going to really frame our conversation today. So I’d like to start with the general landscape, so I’m going to start with you, Dr. Wakelee, what in your opinion and expertise are the existing challenges as it relates to biomarker testing in academic medical centers?
Dr. Heather Wakelee:
Thanks for that question, Dr. Rochester. I think that the biggest challenge is making sure that every patient with a new diagnosis of advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer gets the testing done and gets the testing results back before they start treatment, right? And that’s the goal. I guess that’s more of the goal than the problem, and the challenges come in each of those different phases. First is making sure that every patient is given access to the testing, and there are barriers if the patient ends up very, very sick in a hospital setting.
There are some regulations that can make that challenging, they might be…their first encounters with the healthcare system are going to potentially be with pulmonologists, general practitioners, interventional radiology. And those people might not be aware of what needs to happen to get the tissue as quickly as possible into testing, they might not be as aware of drawing a blood test, if we’re going to do a liquid biopsy, and so if those things aren’t initiated first, when the patient gets to see the oncologist some days or even a week or two later, we’re already further down the path.
They might be starting to get symptoms, and then when you start the testing, you might have to wait longer than is really acceptable before you have the results that could inform treatment. And as you said, Dr. Rochester, the testing, when we get those molecular results back, that’s going to help us figure out what’s going on in that tumor that might change our treatment options, because there’s a driver mutation where there’s a new drug approved that’s going to be the best efficacious opportunity for that patient. And if they don’t know, they can’t start it, we also run into issues where if the patient’s symptomatic, we can’t wait, and then they get started on chemotherapy and immunotherapy, which might otherwise be a standard approach, immunotherapy is in the body, chemotherapy is in the body, the toxicity is there, and then if you later find out, oh, there was a driver mutation, your hands are a little tied, because the toxicity can be amplified if you combine agents and the immune therapy is in the system for months.
So these are some of the challenges and really the barriers…the biggest barriers from my perspective are not every patient is being tested with comprehensive testing as early as possible, right?
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you for that, Dr. Wakelee, you’ve really, really outlined how the challenges around access to testing and even the timeliness and the importance of timely testing and the fact that these patients are often kind of making their way through a series of providers before they get to the oncologist. So I appreciate that. Dr. Boehmer, I know you have a lot of experience in the community setting where we know there are a host of additional barriers, so I’d love for you to weigh in on this question, and what challenges are you seeing with biomarker testing in the community setting?
Dr. Leigh Boehmer:
Thanks very much for the question. Yeah, I think the use of precision medicine was initially touted as this opportunity to address care disparities, whether that’s in racial ethnic minorities, differences between academic and community practices, et cetera, by using the technology to try to determine treatment largely based on things like the genetic makeup of a tumor. And, unfortunately, in reality disparities have sadly only continued to grow in the setting of targeted and/or testing related to things like ability to pay and insurance coverage for testing, mistrust in the healthcare system, and historical injustices related to cancer care delivery. And there’s a significant discordance in literature between patients and clinicians understanding of the importance of biomarker testing relative to treatment planning.
So even now in 2023, as more states are passing legislation to expand coverage of comprehensive testing, we’re hearing from member programs of ACCC running up against increasing prior authorization restrictions and requirements, and there are unfortunate ramifications of that, like additional costs to programs or additional costs to patients, for example, in the setting of reflexive testing, there’s also a lot of ongoing data which suggests concerning continued racial disparities in rates of guideline concordant testing. So there’s a lot of opportunities for us to learn, yes, from what we have done in successful models of rollout of testing, but we’re still confronting some pretty major challenges and barriers, and I’ve got to say that’s true whether you’re talking about community programs and practices or academic partners as well.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
I really appreciate you adding that layer, Dr. Boehmer. As someone who does a lot of work in health equity, I was just sharing prior to us recording that these disparities are pervasive, and now we’re learning it’s in lung cancer, and for all of the reasons that you stated, and it’s interesting that when we really start to look at our progress, and when we look at it by comparing different racial and ethnic groups, we find, as you stated, that sometimes the disparities actually widen.
And so it’s not that these aren’t great practices and precision medicine is a wonderful thing, but to your point, if we’re not ensuring that everyone has access to this new technology, then in fact, not only do we continue to see disparities, but sometimes that we inadvertently worsen them. So I appreciate you sharing that. Both of you have been on the ground floor of research in this area with regard to biomarker testing and availability and disparities. So I’d love for you to talk a little bit about the data and what does the data tell us with regard to biomarker testing? It’s important, some of the challenges that you both just stated, and so I’ll start with you this time, Dr. Boehmer.
Dr. Leigh Boehmer:
[chuckle] Thanks, I appreciate it. I’ve been privileged to work with both providers and patients’ caregivers, taking a closer look at some of the barriers and then practical solutions that might be utilized to address some of these concerns around testing. So back in 2021, ACCC used the mixed methods approach to try to understand the motivators of patients and providers, their practice patterns, their attitudes, the educational needs of patients and providers related to biomarker testing and beyond. And you know what’s really interesting, in almost 100 total provider respondents, less than half of community clinicians who responded said that they used biomarker testing to guide patient discussions.
And that was compared to nearly three-quarters of all responding academic clinicians, and it really made us start to think about…so, you know, the impetus for testing in the context of testing. In this particular research, to my earlier comments, we were actually targeting patients with non-small cell lung cancer who were uninsured, underinsured and/or covered by Medicaid. So dual eligible beneficiaries, and it was really interesting because we looked at why and how conversations were happening about biomarker testing between providers and patients, and really identified some tremendous opportunities for education around clinicians’ needs to become more familiar with guideline concordant testing and to have more practical applications of guideline concordant testing, so things like case-based examples, so then ultimately they could have optimal conversations with patients and help coordinate multidisciplinary care.
There’s also data which would suggest a disconnect between ordering testing after initial staging versus ordering testing at the time of initial biopsy. And, Dr. Wakelee, you said something that really resonated with me because if we can identify patients who need to be tested, if we can have access to testing, we still have a disconnect, and this is largely seen in community programs today where clinicians may be waiting 10 days, 14 days, even longer to receive results of testing. And you’re right, we have patients who need treatment initiated sooner than later, and you miss these opportunities because of delays, prior authorizations and a lot of other things, So the data certainly quantitatively, qualitatively is speaking to this hierarchy of problems and there’s definitely some mismatches between patient and provider perceptions of why testing happens, what it’s used for, and timing of the testing and results sharing.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
That is fascinating, and we’re definitely going to get deeper into that, this whole patient-provider interaction, so I really appreciate you introducing that and thank you for all the research that your organization has done in this area. So, Dr. Wakelee, you’re on the academic side of things, and you also have been deeply involved in research in this area, so what would you like to offer from your perspective in terms of the data around biomarker testing?
Dr. Heather Wakelee:
Well, thanks, and, Dr. Boehmer, you have a very comprehensive answer there, I think that the differences between academic and community sometimes are broad and sometimes aren’t that big at all, and I do think we face a lot of the same challenges. It’s just…it’s making sure that when a physician is meeting with a patient, and let’s say it’s with the oncologist, that the oncologist is really mindful that any patient with non-small cell lung cancer could have a tumor with a driver mutation. I think it’s easy to stereotype and think that only certain patients are going to, and therefore we shouldn’t be testing everybody. And that gets dangerous. I think it also is a matter of where you’re in practice, and if you’re in a practice where the prevalence of the driver mutations and the tumors is low, you might just say, “Oh, I’m never going to see it,” and you stop testing, and that’s also very dangerous because we have seen in multiple trials, as we get back to that research question, that if we can identify a driver mutation…
And we know that more than half of patients who’ve developed lung cancer who have never smoked or have a light smoking history are going to have an actionable driving mutation, and even in people who do have a smoking history, of any ethnic background, they’re still 10 to 20 percent or maybe more as we identify more of these driver mutations, where that’s what’s really the force in the tumor. And if you find it and you can start someone on the appropriate targeted therapy, usually across multiple trials, the toxicity is less than you would get with chemotherapy or immunotherapy.
Usually the probability of response is over half, you know, if someone’s going to have a benefit that that’s going to help them feel better for a period of time in controlling their cancer, it really drastically changes their whole tumor outcome, they’re going to be living longer, feeling better, and ultimately that’s our goal when we’re helping someone with metastatic disease. And if you don’t know that the tumor has a driver mutation, you’re never going to give them that appropriate treatment, and I think that is the real challenge that we face, and there are multiple different angles to that, right? You have to have the physician aware of the importance of finding the mutation, altering the treatment as necessary, and giving that patient the best possible option for care.
But it also is making sure that the patients are open about this, because I think there’s still a lot of misperceptions about when we talk about driver mutations and the word mutation, making sure that people understand we’re talking about the cancer and not about the person. And in a short conversation that can sometimes be missed, and then people are afraid of getting tested, afraid of what that might mean for them or their family, and so the communication around, we’re going to test your tumor because your tumor might have a mutation that’s going to allow us to give different care. I think that’s really important that people always remember to talk about the tumor and not about the mutation in the person, that’s really, really critical.
And also to avoid that stereotyping about who do we test and who do we not test, pretty much anyone with a non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer, their tumor needs to be tested, and many people who have a squamous cytology that’s also reasonable. So that’s the people aspect of it, the insurance barriers and the interpretation of the results, those are still there as well. And even if you have perfect communication and the patient understands and you get the testing done immediately, you still have to deal with, is it going to get covered or not? And the results come back, is it going to be interpretable or not? Because that can sometimes be tricky also.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Wow. I would say you two have really uncovered a lot of barriers, and it’s enough to make someone feel a little bit discouraged, I would say, however, because of the work that both of you are doing and so many others, we know that there indeed is hope. And so I’d love to shift a little bit. We’ve talked a lot about the barriers, which are many, what’s on the horizon or what positive trends have you all seen, and specifically what are the opportunities, what are some things that are either happening or that are being explored with regard to removing some of these barriers or all of the barriers that each of you have talked about? I’ll start with you, Dr. Wakelee, give us some hope.
Dr. Heather Wakelee:
All right. Great. Well, I think there is reason to have hope. Absolutely. There always is reason to have hope. And so many organizations, including ISLC, including ACCC, including NCC…I mean, you could name any organization that’s involved in cancer care and education, is really focusing on this issue of making sure that every oncologist knows the importance of doing biomarker testing for patients with non-small cell lung cancer, that we are trying to expand that not just to the oncologist, but also to the folks making the diagnosis, so they can be aware as well. Patient advocacy groups are very engaged in this as well, making sure that when someone is newly diagnosed, if they reach out to an advocacy group, one of the messages they hear is, have you asked about testing what’s happening with the tumor testing?
The more people who are aware that’s a standard of care in treating lung cancer, the more that’s going to happen, and then continuing to explore those financial barriers, and as more agents are FDA-approved, where that becomes a preferred first sign option, but you only know that if the testing’s happened, that leads to campaigning to make sure that the testing is being covered as well, you know, when you can argue, this patient isn’t getting the FDA-approved best care for their cancer because that testing wasn’t done, that’s a really powerful statement. And I think that’s what we’re seeing change happening.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
That is incredible, thank you. Thank you so much. I can smile again.
[laughter]
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
What about you, Dr. Boehmer? I know you’re getting…your organization is doing a lot of work in this area, so tell us about some of the advances, some of the improvements and tackling some of these barriers that both of you have elucidated today.
Dr. Leigh Boehmer:
So, Dr. Wakelee, thank you for all of those hope-inducing concepts and methodologies, because I honestly believe that so many of us learn best today by seeing someone like me doing X, Y, Z, so I know I can do it as well. So I think it’s about documentation of justification of testing for prior authorization claims. I think it’s about working together with the multidisciplinary team, pharmacist, advanced practitioners, oncology-certified nurses to help manage that back and forth with testing and external pathology and laboratory companies, to make sure that results show up in the right spot in the electronic health record so that they can be interpreted, shared with patients, communicated and contextualized in real time. I think it’s about greater incorporation as we’ve seen across so many of our programs of the tenets of shared clinical decision-making, and how to have a meaningful conversation with a patient and/or their caregivers about testing and its role on treatment and drug selection, and outcomes, and progression-free survival. And there are a lot of programs out there that are doing bits of this or different points along that continuum.
ACCC, for example, building on the research I shared before, recognizes that a lot of community programs don’t have kind of operational best practices for how to incorporate biomarker testing into a patient’s journey, and so for lung, and also, for example, for breast cancer, we’re working on creating care pathways which will help multidisciplinary clinician teams integrate discussions of biomarker testing and its impact at various critical time points along a patient’s diagnosis to treatment, to survivorship or end-of-life care. And those are just examples of us not being overly duplicative, but putting all the resources in one place, talking about timing, talking about when and how to have meaningful conversations, and then doing it with health-literate, vetted resources and through a lens of equity and shared decision-making, because you look like me, you had success with it. I’m going to do it for my at-risk patients as well, because one, it’s the right thing to do. And two, you taught me how to do it, and three, you told me what success looks like so I can measure myself against you, and that’s a successful model for scalability.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
That is wonderful. You both have nicely taken us into the next part of the conversation, and, Dr. Boehmer, you just talked about shared decision-making, and as someone who works very closely with patient advocates and health advocates, it’s so important that any effort to improve care with regard to any disease or illness, it has to involve the patient and their family, so I really appreciate you all sharing that. So, with that in mind, and as we begin to think about how the patient-provider relationship and the patient-provider communication plays a role in addressing some of these barriers that we’ve been talking about and then making sure that patients are appropriately being tested and treated, I’d love to hear from you all regarding the role of the patient-provider partnership as it relates to biomarker testing. So, let’s see, I’ll start with you, Dr. Boehmer.
Dr. Leigh Boehmer:
So I really, really think this question is critical, and I’m going to bias by saying, an exciting new position on the multidisciplinary cancer care team that we are learning about it, some of our member programs, is that of a precision medicine steward or navigator. So if you’re at all familiar with the idea of a patient navigation service or the services provided by financial advocates or financial navigators, this is really identifying that it is getting so complex in the world of targeted testing, targeted treatments today, that it literally requires in some places and settings an FTE or multiple to try to navigate testing, pathology, external labs, medical oncology, pharmacy services, nursing administration, and then, of course, patients and caregivers, and communication and context building, working with patient advocacy groups who are out there publishing great resources on testing and what they mean and targeted treatments. But trying to put all of that together, I will admit as a community clinician, as you probably see 15, 18, 20 patients a day, sometimes with as many different discrete types of cancers, it gets overwhelming.
And so, having a support person on staff who can help you manage some of that information and the patient-provider conversations, ACCC is very, very much about recognizing multidisciplinary teams of providers, so it’s critical to have navigation, to have social work providing distress screening and psychosocial support, to have pharmacists talking about targeted therapies and how they match with, to Dr. Wakelee’s points, mutations and fusions and rearrangements and everything we’re testing for with our big panels of next-generation sequencing, right? So I really want to encourage us all to utilize as patients and as team members, everybody else on the team, which is also to say patients and caregivers, are team members too, right? They have rights and responsibilities as members of their own team. And I will end with this, I say all of this, and I feel justified in saying all of this because we’ve done research at ACCC, and without that critical infrastructure, there’s potentially a real disconnect. So, for example, we asked patients with lung cancer what resources would be most impactful for you as you embark on your treatment journey, and they said things to us like psychosocial support and financial assistance.
When we asked the provider respondents a similar question in their own survey, the number one thing they identified, they thought patients needed were educational handouts or websites to go seek information about their diagnosis. Now that’s not to shake a finger at anybody or to say that you were right or you were wrong, that’s just to say, we need people who can approach this whole patient-provider construct from different perspectives, because Leigh is going to ask different questions than Heather is going to ask, than Nicole is going to ask, and that’s the beauty of multidisciplinary care coordination. We do need to come at it from different angles, different perspectives, and always make sure we’re remaining open and inclusive and asking what patients need and want right now. Because we don’t always have the answers, we have to remember that. We’re human, we have biases, it’s always better to ask and provide and then ask again.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
You are really speaking my language, Dr. Boehmer.
[laughter]
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
And I see, Dr. Wakelee, both of us are shaking our heads the entire time that you’ve been speaking and just around this idea of multidisciplinary teams that include the patient and the family, and ideally at the center. Dr. Wakelee, do you have anything to add?
Dr. Heather Wakelee:
Hard to add. That was very impressive, Dr. Boehmer, [laughter] and highlighting that just…we talk about multidisciplinary sometimes, the first version, some people think of it’s just it’s a team of a few different types of doctors. And obviously that’s not at all what we’re talking about, this is to provide the best possible care for a patient dealing with cancer, that physician-to-patient interaction is critical, but the patient to physicians to family is critical. And then you’ve got to also think about all the psycho-social needs and whether that’s going to be with a social worker or… We have a lot of people working in oncology who are psychologists and psychiatrists particularly focused in that because the coping with the disease is such a big part of it. And it’s also the pharmacy teams and the nursing teams. It is…multidisciplinary is many, many different levels of circles, but at the core, it’s the patient and family and the primary physician, that’s kind of the way I think at it, but I’m an oncologist, so perhaps I’m a little biased in my viewpoint there.
But it’s that communication right there where you sort of have all of the information that the physician’s holding, that’s coming from all of the different treatment disciplines, and then you’ve got all the information that the patient’s holding, that’s coming from their understanding of them and all of their other aspects of their life, and that’s sort of that interaction at the core, and making sure that both sides are seeing each other and seeing all of the other layers of that, so that you could make sure that at each point the recommendations and what the patient is actually doing, everyone’s coming from a point of understanding. I think, to me, that’s the most critical piece. And you don’t have that understanding if you don’t also have all the information you need about the tumor, and you’re not making that right decision if you don’t have all the information you need about all the aspects of who that patient is as a person, and that goes into their decisions as well, and that’s to me, that’s what we’re aiming for, right?
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Absolutely, you all have done such an incredible job really highlighting the importance of involving the patient and family, involving this multidisciplinary team, which as you said, Dr. Wakelee, it’s not just a bunch of different types of doctors. So before we conclude, I just want to talk a little bit about that communication, because most of you have shared how important that communication is, and we know that there are challenges, inside and outside of cancer with regard to communicating with patients, and certainly as a physician that some of the complexity of the topics that you all have discussed I would admit is even a lot for me, and so we can imagine that for someone without any medical training, this is very difficult, these topics of biomarker testing and genetics and mutations and precision medicine. So I’d love for you, Dr. Wakelee, to start by just sharing some best practices, things you’ve learned over the years with how can providers who are watching this program really engage in effective, thoughtful conversations with patients and their family members about biomarker testing?
Dr. Heather Wakelee:
So that’s a great, great question. And really, the communication is to me, like I said, the core there, when I’m talking about biomarker testing with the patient, I usually try to frame it from the context of what makes the cancer different than the rest of you. And what we’re trying to figure out is what is it about the cancer that makes it different than the rest of you, so we can then target what’s different, and hopefully with that, being able to control the cancer without harming the rest of you. So that’s sort of one framework of it, and depending on the patient’s level of understanding, and then sort of layer in different levels of…for people who are understanding DNA and mutations, then you can start talking about those specifics, and for folks who don’t necessarily want to think about it that way, or haven’t had the education about it that way, then just starting from that framework. And I think about it this way too, is how is the cancer different than the rest of the person? And what can we do to therefore attack the cancer differently than we would the rest of the person?
And then from there, if there is a mutation or a translocation or something else that we found, can use the name of that gene and say, “This is different in the cancer than in the rest of you, and this is a targeted therapy that’s going to go after that, and it’s going to work for a period of time, but the cancer is always evolving.” And so we kind of plant that seed from the beginning also, that it’s not curing, that the cancer continues to evolve, and eventually it’s going to change in a way where that doesn’t work, but for right now, that’s the best treatment. So that’s how I’m going about with that communication with people on it. And then, again, I practice in Silicon Valley, so a lot of people will come in with books, practically, of all the research that they’ve done, and so that’s a very different conversation than someone who comes in and says, “Whatever you think is best, doc.” And even when I hear that, which I don’t happen to hear too often anymore, I really feel it’s critical that the patient is still understanding, why are we picking this treatment for your particular cancer, and what are our expectations from it?
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
I really appreciate the plain language, and I think that’s important, and also your acknowledgment that patients come to us with different levels of knowledge and expertise, and so really it’s about meeting them where they are, so I really appreciate that. And, Dr. Boehmer, we’re going to allow you to wrap up on this topic, I know that the Association of Community Cancer Centers has done research about what patients want to hear and some of the biases around providers, maybe thinking that patients don’t want or don’t need some of this information, that it may be too confusing for them, so I’d love for you to share some knowledge around your experience in this area and some best practices around communicating with patients.
Dr. Leigh Boehmer:
Thanks very much, I appreciate the opportunity, I’ll try and keep it targeted. I think number one, Dr. Wakelee, you’re correct. We have visual learners, auditory learners, we have people that want more direction and less direction, so simply starting by asking, how do you prefer to learn? It’s a wonderful place to start. It could be drawing pictures, it could be giving them that academic print out of literature published in a cutting-edge journal. But we need to know how patients learn and respect the fact that we’re all individuals and we as providers talking to patients may need to alter our approach based on different patients’ characteristics. I also think our research has shown that consistent terminology must, must be utilized, biomarker testing, molecular profiling, next-generation sequencing, mutation analysis, whatever it is, that you have decided to make your consistent terminology, please in your teams, then in the next level of teams, then in your health system, and then with your colleagues, talk about what it is, why it is, does it go against another group or is it in agreement with A, B, C groups. Because we have to, as a collective, really agree on and start utilizing consistent terminology, because until we do, we’re just continuing to stir the pot and cause confusion amongst patients, caregivers, other patient advocacy organizations and ourselves.
The other thing I’ll say, at ACCC, we’ve got a lot of resources aggregated in one place about shared decision-making, what it is, how to do it, how to assess yourself, health literacy, how do you evaluate your program to make sure you’re asking the right questions before you ever, ever have a conversation with a patient about biomarker testing or different targeted treatments for patients with non-small cell lung cancer? There’s little things that you can do today that’s so important. Little things you can do today that will make a positive influence on your patients’ outcomes and experience just by asking, addressing your own biases, being inclusive with your language and using consistent terminology. All of that is on our website and it’s truly incremental. Go easy on yourself, we’re all learning here, and acknowledging your bias and trying to be more inclusive is very, very worthwhile, and it’s okay if it’s small steps every single day made.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
A wonderful way to end this program. I have learned a lot as always, I’m sure that those of you watching have as well. We have talked about the challenges around biomarker testing on the clinician side, on the patient and family side, we’ve explored some amazing solutions to some of these challenges and barriers, and I just want to really thank both of you for being here, and lastly, give you an opportunity if there’s something that you really feel like we should have talked about that we didn’t get to. Any closing thoughts or anything that you want to leave the audience with. And I’ll start with you, Dr. Wakelee.
Dr. Heather Wakelee:
Thanks. I think just to make sure everyone is always thinking, if you’ve got a patient and they’re coming to see you and they have lung cancer, that you’ve done the biomarker testing, that the patient understands about it, that you’ve had an opportunity to include that as part of the conversation whenever you’re talking about treatment.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you, Dr. Boehmer.
Dr. Leigh Boehmer:
The only thing I would add is that if you’re thinking about creating resources, if you’re trying to target at-risk populations or communities in your area, please always, always remember to invite those individuals as you are talking, creating and disseminating. Because we don’t have all the answers, and that’s okay. I give you permission, but please invite people in and let them be a part of the discussion and the proposed solutions.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Wonderful. Well, thank you again to both of you, Dr. Wakelee, Dr. Boehmer, this has been an amazing conversation. And thank you again for tuning in to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients program.
Dr. Leigh Boehmer:
Thank you.
