Virtual Library
Start Your Search
Raymond U. Osarogiagbon
Author of
-
+
MA 04 - Advocacy: Listen to the Patients (ID 655)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Mini Oral
- Track: Patient Advocacy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Rudolf M Huber, C.L. Dégi
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 11:00 - 12:30, Room 313 + 314
-
+
MA 04.01 - Prospective Comparative Evaluation of Patient and Caregiver Perspectives on a Multidisciplinary Model of Lung Cancer Care (ID 10279)
11:00 - 11:05 | Author(s): Raymond U. Osarogiagbon
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Coordinated multidisciplinary (MD) lung cancer care, with all key specialists concurrently providing early input to develop a consensus care plan in collaboration with patients and their caregivers, may improve patient-centered outcomes over the usual serial care (SC) model, but needs rigorous evaluation.
Method:
Prospective, longitudinal study comparing newly-diagnosed lung cancer patients receiving MD vs. SC within the same US healthcare system. The MD intervention was implemented from lung cancer care initiation until definitive treatment decision. After that, both cohorts of patients received their actual cancer treatments within the same environments. At baseline and 6 months, patients completed treatment-related satisfaction measures from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy- Lung (FACT-L) quality of life instrument. All measures were coded so that larger scores are better. Time-specific comparisons were made with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and changes from baseline to 6 months were compared between MD vs. SC patients in mixed linear models.
Result:
The 463 patients who participated (156 MD, 307 SC) were similar in sex and health insurance. MD cohort was slightly older (69 v 66 years), with more racial minorities (37% v 29%). Patients receiving MD care reported greater satisfaction with the treatment plan (p=0.0266) and overall quality of care (p<0.0010) at 6 months. Additionally, satisfaction with the treatment plan showed greater improvement over time for MD vs. SC (p-value for trend=0.0046). SC patients showed more improvement in satisfaction with overall care than MD patients, but did not reach the level of satisfaction of MD patients at 6 months (p-value for trend=0.0018). Caregivers of MD patients perceived receiving better quality of care compared to other lung cancer patients than caregivers of SC patients (p=0.0049). Caregiver satisfaction did not differ between MD and SC in the communication measures or overall quality, and did not have significant differences in the trend over time. Patient reported Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) improved from baseline to 6 months for the lung cancer-specific scale compared with no change with SC (p-value for trend= 0.0334). Other HRQOL scales were similar between groups
Conclusion:
Compared with SC patients, MD patients experienced improved lung cancer-specific HRQOL and greater satisfaction with both treatment plan and quality of care received. MD patients’ caregivers were more likely than SC patients’ caregivers to think their care was better than that of other patients.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA 11 - Reducing Burden: Patient-Centered Care (ID 682)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Oral
- Track: Nursing/Palliative Care/Ethics
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Beth Ivimey, E. Bernicker
- Coordinates: 10/18/2017, 11:00 - 12:30, Room 313 + 314
-
+
OA 11.07 - Enhancing Lung Cancer (LC) Care in the Community Setting Through a Patient Advocacy 'Centers of Excellence' (COE) Program (ID 10423)
12:05 - 12:15 | Presenting Author(s): Raymond U. Osarogiagbon
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
The Addario Lung Cancer Foundation’s community hospital COE Program seeks to improve LC outcomes by catalyzing the dissemination of coordinated, evidence-based multidisciplinary care incorporating institutional performance benchmarks across the LC care continuum. The COE program is a network of community-level institutions committed to objectively-measured quality improvement through annual cycles of data collection, comparative analysis and feedback. We analyzed 2016 benchmarks, comparing COE and non-COE programs.
Method:
The annual COE Impact Survey instrument includes an 81-item questionnaire administered by ZoomRx, an independent survey company. Respondents were key institutional representatives of COE- and community-level non-COE institutions. The survey measured the care continuum from screening to end-of-life care. Patient- and institutional-level data for 2016 were analyzed.
Result:
Cohort- 15 COE v 15 non-COE, mean number of annual patients per site 264 v 279; % stage III/IV patients 62 v 74; Medicare-enrolled patients, 54% v 40%; patients 61-80 years 61% v 46%; % patients who encountered financial difficulty in 2016, 42% v 34%. Institutional screening/nodule management programs: 71% of COE v 60% of non-COE programs had a low-dose CT (LDCT) screening program; 86% v 80% used a standard protocol to follow patients with suspicious nodules; 35% v 28% LDCT patients were requested to follow up on suspicious findings; 76% v 67% patients actually followed up. Diagnostic biopsy of LC was by minimally invasive endobronchial approaches in 47% v 15%. Programmatic management of patients with stage III/IV disease: 75% v 49% of patients with stage III/IV disease were reviewed at a Tumor Board and 74% v 62% had a palliative care discussion. Molecular testing was used in 51% v 81%. In patients undergoing molecular testing, institutional use of blood-based ‘liquid biopsies’ was 86% v 18% and next generation sequencing of tissue 67% v 58%. Clinical trials enrollment rates were 20% v 13%, but 18% v 31% of patients were not screened for clinical trials. In weighting factors driving treatment selection on a 100-point relative scale, COE programs weighted ‘quality of life’ (39% v 26%) and ‘patient expense’ (22% v 11%) more than non-COE programs. Non-COE programs weighted ‘product attributes’ (efficacy and safety) 48% (v 14% in COE) more.
Conclusion:
Differences exist in the approach to LC care between COE and non-COE programs. Future iterations of the COE Impact Survey will enable a data-driven approach to disseminating high quality LC care at community-level institutions, where the majority of patients seek care for lung cancer.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA 15 - Diagnostic Radiology, Staging and Screening for Lung Cancer II (ID 684)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Oral
- Track: Radiology/Staging/Screening
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Y. Satoh, Jin Mo Goo
- Coordinates: 10/18/2017, 14:30 - 16:15, Room 303 + 304
-
+
OA 15.08 - Thoroughness of Staging and the Outcomes of Surgical Resection Outcomes in Potentially Curable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) (ID 10059)
15:45 - 15:55 | Author(s): Raymond U. Osarogiagbon
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Substantial variation exists in the processes of care for potentially curable NSCLC. We examined the impact of thoroughness of staging for patients undergoing NSCLC surgery in a large, heterogeneous population within a lung cancer endemic region of the US.
Method:
We evaluated all surgically resected patients in the Mid-South Quality of Surgical Resection (MS-QSR) cohort from 2009-2017. MS-QSR is a population-based cohort including all curative-intent NSCLC resections at 11 hospitals in the mid-south US. Patients were classified into 8 groups based on use (Yes/No) of the following staging modalities: PET/CT, pre-operative invasive staging, operative mediastinal nodal examination (MLE). We compared stage distribution, adjuvant therapy, and overall survival outcomes across groups using the chi-square test and adjusted Proportional Hazards Models.
Result:
The 2,370 patients had a median age of 67 years, were 53% male. The racial distribution was: 70% White, 25% Black, 5% Other. Clinical N-stage was similar between the 8 groups. We found statistically significant differences in pathologic stage distribution, adjuvant therapy usage, and overall survival across the 8 groups (Table 1). Patients who received PET/CT, invasive staging, and MLE (Group 1) had significantly higher pathologic N-stage distribution compared to the other groups due to substantial nodal upstaging. Group 1 had 76% eligibility and 31% use of adjuvant chemotherapy compared to 51% and 8% in the Group 8 (No PET/CT, No Invasive Staging, No MLE). Use and eligibility for adjuvant radiation therapy was also highest in Group 1. There was an overall difference in survival across the groups (p-value=0.0019) which remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, race, histology, and path stage (p-value=0.0013). After adjustment, Group 8 had a 14% increased hazard of death compared with Group 1. Figure 1
Conclusion:
A less thorough approach to staging may lead to less nodal upstaging and less eligibility for adjuvant therapy, which could have implications for long term survival.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
P2.16 - Surgery (ID 717)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Surgery
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/17/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P2.16-019 - Improving Survival with a Lymph Node (LN) Collection Kit for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Resections (ID 10000)
09:30 - 09:30 | Presenting Author(s): Raymond U. Osarogiagbon
- Abstract
Background:
Poor pathologic nodal staging impairs overall survival (OS) after curative-intent surgical resection of NSCLC. We implemented a LN collection kit and previously demonstrated how it improves pathologic nodal staging. We now report its survival impact.
Method:
Using a prospective step-wedge design, kits were implemented for curative-intent surgical resections from 2009-2017 in 11 hospitals within 4 contiguous US Dartmouth Hospital Referral Regions. OS was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Crude (HR) and adjusted (aHR) hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) are presented from Proportional Hazards Models adjusted for clustering by surgeon. Covariates in adjusted models include: age, sex, histology, tumor grade, extent of resection, T and M categories, and number of comorbidities.
Result:
The LN kit was used in 734 of 2,547 (29%) resections. All demographic and clinical characteristics, including age, sex, race, health insurance coverage and preoperative stage distribution were similar between kit and non-kit cases. Aggregate 1, 3, 5-year OS: 89%, 74%, 66%(kit) vs. 83%, 65%, 53% (non-kit) (p< 0.0001, Fig.1). Clinical stage stratification (kit v non-), 5-year OS: I, 68% vs. 58%, (p-value=0.0038); II, 68% vs. 40%, (p=0.0045); III, 57% vs. 42%, (p=0.0412). Pathologic stage stratification (kit v non-) 5-year OS: I, 72% vs. 59% (p=0.0082), II, 60% vs. 44% (p=0.0403); III, 48% vs. 36%, p =0.0179). For both clinical and pathologic Stage IV, survival did not differ. Kit cases had a 30% lower hazard of death compared to non-kit cases: HR 0.67 (CI[0.55,0.80], p<0.0001) and aHR: 0.70 (CI[0.54,0.92], p<0.0001). Results remained statistically significant after multiple sensitivity analyses excluding sub-lobar resections, 60-day mortality, non-adopting surgeons, and excluding the 48 months of retrospective baseline control data (aHR: 0.28 to 0.73). Operating time, perioperative complication rates, and duration of hospitalization were similar between groups. Figure 1
Conclusion:
Intraoperative specimen collection with a LN kit improves long-term NSCLC survival.
