Publications

BACKGROUND: Oncology providers often lack the confidence to make clinical recommendations about medical cannabis (MC). This study aimed to develop and evaluate the feasibility of implementing an educational curriculum on the use of MC in patient care for oncology trainees.

METHODS: A multidisciplinary team designed an educational curriculum for MC use in oncology. The curriculum was piloted as a 1-hour interactive webinar across 8 United States-based hematology/oncology fellowship programs between 2022 and 2023. Incentivized surveys measuring feasibility outcomes, including cultural attitudes/norms, acceptability, compatibility, and self-efficacy (a composite index of self-confidence in discussing MC efficacy, risks, modes of use, and role in symptom management), were distributed before, immediately after, and 12 weeks post-webinar.

RESULTS: Of 103 trainees, 75 (72.8%) completed the pretraining survey and 66 (64.1%) completed the posttraining survey. Most respondents believed discussions about the role of MC in symptom management were valuable (n=56; 74.7%), though few (14.7%) believed trainees were expected to engage in such discussions. Most participants rated the curriculum as helpful (92.4%), beneficial for oncology trainees (84.8%), and likely to be recommended to colleagues (87.9%). Post-webinar, 78.8% of participants reported an increased likelihood of initiating discussions with patients regarding MC. There were significant improvements in the composite self-confidence index from pre- to post-webinar (2.7% vs 65.2%; P<.001), which persisted in the follow-up surveys (n=36; response rate, 34.9%).

CONCLUSIONS: This multisite study demonstrates the feasibility of implementing a novel curriculum focused on MC for oncology trainees. These findings can guide the design of a prospective, multi-institutional study to evaluate knowledge expansion, retention, and behavioral changes resulting from the intervention.

BackgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) helps older adults make end-of-life medical decisions. While ACP discussions are associated with improved patient outcomes, overall engagement remains low in the emergency department (ED).ObjectivesThis study assessed ACP engagement in older ED patients.MethodsWe conducted a questionnaire study among adults ≥65 in a Boston ED (July-Oct 2023). Our primary outcome was ACP Engagement as measured by a validated 9-item instrument with three ACP self- efficacy and six ACP readiness questions. Secondary outcomes included participants' preferences for learning about five ACP topics in the ED-medical decision makers, what matters most, leeway and flexibility for decision makers, sharing wishes, and asking questions)-as well as their favored learning formats (eg, pamphlets, videos, clinician conversations). Each was rated on a 5-point Likert scale. We examined the relationship between ACP engagement and existing electronic health record (EHR) documentation.ResultsNinety-nine older adults participated (mean age 75.5; 53.5% women). On the 9-item ACP Engagement Survey, participants reported high overall scores with a mean of 4.1 (95% CI: 4.0-4.2). Among ACP readiness topics, 80 (81.6%) named a decision-maker; 37 (40.2%) discussed end-of-life wishes with doctors. Participants preferred ED team conversations. Among the 51 participants who reported having signed paperwork regarding end-of-life wishes, only 7 (13.7%) had forms documented in the EHR.ConclusionsAmong older adults in a large Boston-based ED, ACP engagement was high, but few patients had documentation of end-of-life wishes available in the EHR. Findings highlight the need for better ACP documentation in EDs.

PURPOSE: To inform decision making around mammography-screening frequency and cessation, we previously used Fine-Gray competing-risk regression to develop and validate a model to estimate older women's 10-year risk of breast cancer and their competing risk of non-breast cancer (non-BC) death. Here, we aimed to understand the amount of incident breast cancer and non-BC death risk explained by our model among women ≥ 65y.

METHODS: We included women ≥ 65y who completed the 2004 Nurses' Health Study questionnaire (NHS, n = 59,662) or who participated in the Women's Health Initiative-Extension Study (WHI-ES, n = 82,528). We calculated our model's full and risk factor-specific population attributable risk (PAR%) for incident breast cancer and non-BC death.

RESULTS: Mean age of the NHS participants was 73.5y (SD 5.2); 3.1% were diagnosed with breast cancer and 26.1% experienced non-BC death within 10 years. Mean age of WHI-ES participants was 73.6y (SD 5.4); 4.2% were diagnosed with breast cancer and 17.7% experienced non-BC death within 10 years. The full-model PAR% for breast cancer was 58.8% (22.7-80.6) in NHS and 54.8% (24.8-75.2%) in WHI-ES. Modifiable risk factors explained approximately 1/3 of breast cancer risk; BMI ≥ 30 had a PAR% of 6.5% (3.1-9.9%) in NHS and 12.2% (8.5-16.0%) in WHI-ES. For non-BC death, the full-model PAR% was 94.2% (91.4-96.1%) in NHS and 86.2% (80.9-90.0%) in WHI-ES.

CONCLUSIONS: Our competing-risk model explained the majority of breast cancers and non-BC deaths in women ≥ 65y, and we identified risk factors (e.g., elevated BMI) that may be targeted to reduce the burden of breast cancer in older women.

IMPORTANCE: Conversations between seriously ill patients and clinicians about values and goals (ie, serious illness conversations [SICs]) can lead to patient-centered care toward the end of life. However, many patients have not had SICs when arriving in the emergency department (ED) and are at risk of receiving undesired care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of an ED-based, multimodal SIC intervention (known as ED GOAL) compared with usual care on patient-reported engagement in advance care planning (ACP) and clinician-documented SICs after leaving the ED.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 2-armed, 1:1, parallel-design randomized clinical trial was conducted at 3 participating EDs (2 academic medical centers and 1 community hospital) in Boston, Massachusetts, within a single health system between March 1, 2022, and July 1, 2024, with a follow-up duration of 6 months. Eligible participants were English-speaking adults 50 years or older with serious illnesses, including mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia, along with their caregivers. For patients with moderate to severe dementia, caregivers were the primary participants in the study. Patients with documented goals for medical care or physician orders in the last 3 months in medical records or deemed clinically inappropriate by the treating ED team were excluded.

INTERVENTION: SIC-trained research nurses conducted (1) a motivational interview about SICs, (2) a structured SIC, and (3) communication priming for the patients and their primary clinicians to reinitiate SICs on a tablet computer in the ED or within 1 week after leaving the ED.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a validated survey of patient-reported engagement in ACP at 1 month, with total possible scores ranging from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more engagement. Secondary outcomes included clinician documentation of end-of-life values and preferences in the medical record and completed advance directives.

RESULTS: A total of 141 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [9.2] years; 73 [51.8%] female), predominantly diagnosed with metastatic cancer (85 [60.3%]), were enrolled and randomized to the intervention (n = 70) or usual care (n = 71). At 1 month, no difference was observed in patient-reported engagement in ACP (mean [SD] score, 3.32 [1.28] for control vs 3.37 [1.07] for intervention; maximum possible score, 5.00; P = .58), yet 12 patients in the intervention group (17.1%) discussed care preferences with their physicians compared with 5 (7.0%) control group patients (P = .07). Medical record documentation of end-of-life values and goals was significantly higher in the intervention group at 3 months (17 [24.3%] vs 7 [9.9%]; P = .03) and 6 months (22 [31.4%] vs 9 [12.7%]; P =  .008).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial of seriously ill older adults in the ED, while a nurse-led SIC intervention did not significantly improve patient-reported engagement in ACP, it did increase clinician-documented SICs in the medical records. ED visits may serve as a critical access point to enhance SICs for seriously ill yet clinically stable older adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05209880.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend primary care practitioners ("PCPs") engage women ≥ 75 years in shared decision-making (SDM) around mammography screening. Therefore, we aimed to develop a web-based conversation aid about mammography screening for women ≥ 75 using output from established simulation models to provide screening outcomes based on > 23,000 combinations of individual women's health and breast cancer risk factors.

METHODS: We used an end-user centered design approach to develop a prototype web-based conversation aid incorporating feedback. From July 2023 to April 2024, 10 PCPs from a Boston-area health system and a safety-net hospital used the prototype aid during encounters with women ≥ 75 without breast cancer or dementia (n = 30; 1-5 patients per PCP). We observed aid use and assessed clinician effort to involve patients in SDM using OPTION5 (assesses five components of SDM, scores range 0-100). We surveyed PCPs and patients about the aid's acceptability. Patients completed the SDM-process scale (scores range 0-4) to rate the SDM quality experienced. Participants' comments were subject to thematic analysis.

RESULTS: Of 10 PCP-participants, seven were female and four were community-based. Of 30 patient-participants, 22 (73%) were non-Hispanic White, 9 (30%) had ≥ 2 Charlson comorbidities and mean age was 78.5 years (SD 2.8). Nine PCPs agreed that the aid helped them with SDM and was easy-to-use; six felt it had too much information; and seven planned to continue using the aid. Patients rated the SDM-process highly (scores = 3.0 [SD 0.9]) and we observed high SDM (mean OPTION5 = 77.9 [SD 20.6]). Participants felt the aid was "empowering" and "helpful for decision-making." After SDM discussions, seven patients intended to stop screening, nine to screen less frequently, and 14 to continue screening regularly.

CONCLUSIONS: We developed a novel conversation aid that supports SDM about mammography screening with women ≥ 75 years. Lessons learned will guide revisions of a final tool for testing in a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient hyperglycemia is common among adults, and management varies.

PURPOSE: To systematically identify guidelines on inpatient hyperglycemia management.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Guidelines International Network, and specialty society websites were searched from 1 January 2010 to 14 August 2024.

STUDY SELECTION: Clinical practice guidelines pertaining to blood glucose management in hospitalized adults were included.

DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors screened articles and extracted data, and three assessed guideline quality. Recommendations on inpatient monitoring, treatment targets, medications, and care transitions were collected.

DATA SYNTHESIS: Guidelines from 10 organizations met inclusion criteria, and 5 were assessed to be of high quality per the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. All guidelines recommended monitoring blood glucose for patients with diabetes and nine for admission hyperglycemia. Eight guidelines recommended an upper blood glucose target of 180 mg/dL, five with a lower limit of 100 mg/dL and three of 140 mg/dL. Guidelines were in agreement on using capillary blood glucose monitoring, and three guidelines included discussion of continuous monitoring. Hyperglycemia treatment with basal-bolus insulin alone (n = 3) or with correction (n = 5) was most commonly recommended, while sliding scale insulin was advised against (n = 5). Guidance on use of oral diabetes medications was inconsistent. Five guidelines included discussion of transitioning to home medications. Recommendations for hypoglycemia management and diabetes management in older adults were largely limited to outpatient guidance.

LIMITATIONS: Non-English-language guidelines were excluded.

CONCLUSIONS: While there is consensus on inpatient blood glucose monitoring and use of basal-bolus insulin, there is disagreement on treatment targets and use of home medications and little guidance on how to transition treatment at discharge.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) around mammography screening for women ≥ 75 years old.

OBJECTIVE: To use microsimulation modeling to estimate the lifetime benefits and harms of screening women aged 75, 80, and 85 years based on their individual risk factors (family history, breast density, prior biopsy) and comorbidity level to support SDM in clinical practice.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We adapted two established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models to evaluate the remaining lifetime benefits and harms of screening U.S. women born in 1940, at decision ages 75, 80, and 85 years considering their individual risk factors and comorbidity levels. Results were summarized for average- and higher-risk women (defined as having breast cancer family history, heterogeneously dense breasts, and no prior biopsy, 5% of the population).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Remaining lifetime breast cancers detected, deaths (breast cancer/other causes), false positives, and overdiagnoses for average- and higher-risk women by age and comorbidity level for screening (one or five screens) vs. no screening per 1000 women.

RESULTS: Compared to stopping, one additional screen at 75 years old resulted in six and eight more breast cancers detected (10% overdiagnoses), one and two fewer breast cancer deaths, and 52 and 59 false positives per 1000 average- and higher-risk women without comorbidities, respectively. Five additional screens over 10 years led to 23 and 31 additional breast cancer cases (29-31% overdiagnoses), four and 15 breast cancer deaths avoided, and 238 and 268 false positives per 1000 average- and higher-risk screened women without comorbidities, respectively. Screening women at older ages (80 and 85 years old) and high comorbidity levels led to fewer breast cancer deaths and a higher percentage of overdiagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS: Simulation models show that continuing screening in women ≥ 75 years old results in fewer breast cancer deaths but more false positive tests and overdiagnoses. Together, clinicians and 75 + women may use model output to weigh the benefits and harms of continued screening.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine how considerations specific to older adults impact between- and within-surgeon variation in axillary surgery use in women ≥70 years with T1N0 HR+ breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Females ≥70 years with T1N0 HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer diagnosed from 2013 to 2015 in SEER-Medicare were identified and linked to the American Medical Association Masterfile. The outcome of interest was axillary surgery. Key patient-level variables included the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, frailty (based on a claims-based frailty index score), and age (≥75 vs <75). Multilevel mixed models with surgeon clusters were used to estimate the intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) (between-surgeon variance), with 1-ICC representing within-surgeon variance.

RESULTS: Of the 4410 participants included, 6.1% had a CCI score of ≥3, 20.7% were frail, and 58.3% were ≥ 75 years; 86.1% underwent axillary surgery. No surgeon omitted axillary surgery in all patients, but 42.3% of surgeons performed axillary surgery in all patients. In the null model, 10.5% of the variance in the axillary evaluation was attributable to between-surgeon differences. After adjusting for CCI score, frailty, and age in mixed models, between-surgeon variance increased to 13.0%.

DISCUSSION: In this population, axillary surgery varies more within surgeons than between surgeons, suggesting that surgeons are not taking an "all-or-nothing" approach. Comorbidities, frailty, and age accounted for a small proportion of the variation, suggesting nuanced decision-making may include additional, unmeasured factors such as differences in surgeon-patient communication.

IMPORTANCE: The likelihood of benefit from a preventive intervention in an older adult depends on its time-to-benefit and the adult's life expectancy. For example, the time-to-benefit from cancer screening is >10 years, so adults with <10-year life expectancy are unlikely to benefit.

OBJECTIVE: To examine receipt of screening for breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer and receipt of immunizations by 10-year life expectancy.

DESIGN: Analysis of 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

PARTICIPANTS: 8,329 non-institutionalized adults >65 years seen by a healthcare professional in the past year, representing 46.9 million US adults.

MAIN MEASURES: Proportions of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screenings, and immunizations, were stratified by 10-year life expectancy, estimated using a validated mortality index. We used logistic regression to examine receipt of cancer screening and immunizations by life expectancy and sociodemographic factors.

KEY RESULTS: Overall, 54.7% of participants were female, 41.4% were >75 years, and 76.4% were non-Hispanic White. Overall, 71.5% reported being current with colorectal cancer screening, including 61.4% of those with <10-year life expectancy. Among women, 67.0% reported a screening mammogram in the past 2 years, including 42.8% with <10-year life expectancy. Among men, 56.8% reported prostate specific antigen screening in the past two years, including 48.3% with <10-year life expectancy. Reported receipt of immunizations varied from 72.0% for influenza, 68.8% for pneumococcus, 57.7% for tetanus, and 42.6% for shingles vaccination. Lower life expectancy was associated with decreased likelihood of cancer screening and shingles vaccination but with increased likelihood of pneumococcal vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS: Despite the long time-to-benefit from cancer screening, in 2019 many US adults age >65 with <10-year life expectancy reported undergoing cancer screening while many did not receive immunizations with a shorter time-to-benefit. Interventions to improve individualization of preventive care based on older adults' life expectancy may improve care of older adults.

INTRODUCTION: Substantial barriers to screening exist for medically underserved populations, especially adults with limited English proficiency (LEP). We examined the proportion of US adults aged 45-75 up-to-date with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by LEP after 2018. The American Cancer Society began recommending CRC screening for adults 45-49 in 2018.

METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional data of adults 45-75 years old participating in the 2019 or 2021 National Health Interview Survey (N = 25,611). Adults were considered up-to-date with screening if they reported any stool test within 1 year, stool-DNA testing within 3 years, or colonoscopy within 10 years. Adults who interviewed in a language other than English were considered to have LEP. Adults not up-to-date with screening were asked if a healthcare professional (HCP) recommended screening, and if so which test(s). Regression models conducted in 2022-2023 evaluated receipt of screening, adjusting for sociodemographics, year, and healthcare access.

RESULTS: Overall, 54.0 % (95 % CI 53.1-54.9 %) of participants were up-to-date with screening (9.4 % aged 45-49 vs 75.5 % aged 65-75); prevalence increased from 2019 (52.9 %) to 2021(55.2 %). Adults with LEP (vs English proficiency) were less likely to be up-to-date with screening (31.6 % vs. 56.8 %, [aPR 0.86 (0.77-0.96)]). Among adults not up-to-date, 15.0 % reported their HCP recommended screening (8.4 % among adults with LEP).

CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of US adults were not up-to-date with CRC screening in 2019 and 2021 and few reported being recommended screening. Adults with LEP and those 45-49 were least likely to be screened suggesting targeted interventions are needed for these populations.