Conference Coverage

Background

Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors revolutionized the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) by improving overall survival compared to chemotherapy. PD-L1 biomarker testing is paramount for informing treatment decisions in aNSCLC. Real-world data describing patterns of PD-L1 testing within the Veteran Health Administration (VHA) are limited. This retrospective study seeks to evaluate demographic and clinical factors associated with PD-L1 testing in VHA.

Methods

Veterans diagnosed with aNSCLC from 2019-2022 were identified using VHA’s Corporate Data Warehouse. Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Chi- Square tests measured association between receipt of PD-L1 testing and patient demographic and clinical characteristics at aNSCLC diagnosis. Logistic regression assessed predictors of PD-L1 testing, and subgroup analyses were performed for significant interactions.

Results

Our study included 4575 patients with aNSCLC; 57.0% received PD-L1 testing. The likelihood of PD-L1 testing increased among patients diagnosed with aNSCLC after 2019 vs during 2019 (OR≥1.118, p≤0.035) and in Black vs White patients (OR=1.227, p=0.011). However, the following had decreased likelihood of PD-L1 testing: patients with stage IIIB vs IV cancer (OR=0.683, p=0.004); non vs current/former smokers (OR=0.733, p=0.039); squamous (OR=0.863, p=0.030) or NOS (OR=0.695,p=0.013) vs. adenocarcinoma histology. Interactions were observed between patient residential region and residential rurality (p=0.003), and region and receipt of oncology community care consults (OCCC) (p=0.030). Patients in rural Midwest (OR=0.445,p=0.004) and rural South (OR=0.566, p=0.032) were less likely to receive PD-L1 testing than Metropolitan patients. Across patients with OCCC, Western US patients were more likely to receive PD-L1 testing (OR=1.554, p=0.001) than patients in other regions. However, within Midwestern patients, those without a OCCC were more likely to receive PD-L1 testing (OR=1.724, p< 0.001) than those with a OCCC. High comorbidity index (CCI≥3) is associated with an increased likelihood of PD-L1 testing in a univariable model (OR=1.286 vs. CCI=0,p=0.009), but not in the multivariable model (p=0.278).

Conclusions

We identified demographic and clinical factors, including regional differences in rurality and OCCC patterns, associated with PD-L1 testing. These factors can focus ongoing efforts to improve PD-L1 testing and efforts to be more in line with recommended care.

Background

Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors revolutionized the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) by improving overall survival compared to chemotherapy. PD-L1 biomarker testing is paramount for informing treatment decisions in aNSCLC. Real-world data describing patterns of PD-L1 testing within the Veteran Health Administration (VHA) are limited. This retrospective study seeks to evaluate demographic and clinical factors associated with PD-L1 testing in VHA.

Methods

Veterans diagnosed with aNSCLC from 2019-2022 were identified using VHA’s Corporate Data Warehouse. Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Chi- Square tests measured association between receipt of PD-L1 testing and patient demographic and clinical characteristics at aNSCLC diagnosis. Logistic regression assessed predictors of PD-L1 testing, and subgroup analyses were performed for significant interactions.

Results

Our study included 4575 patients with aNSCLC; 57.0% received PD-L1 testing. The likelihood of PD-L1 testing increased among patients diagnosed with aNSCLC after 2019 vs during 2019 (OR≥1.118, p≤0.035) and in Black vs White patients (OR=1.227, p=0.011). However, the following had decreased likelihood of PD-L1 testing: patients with stage IIIB vs IV cancer (OR=0.683, p=0.004); non vs current/former smokers (OR=0.733, p=0.039); squamous (OR=0.863, p=0.030) or NOS (OR=0.695,p=0.013) vs. adenocarcinoma histology. Interactions were observed between patient residential region and residential rurality (p=0.003), and region and receipt of oncology community care consults (OCCC) (p=0.030). Patients in rural Midwest (OR=0.445,p=0.004) and rural South (OR=0.566, p=0.032) were less likely to receive PD-L1 testing than Metropolitan patients. Across patients with OCCC, Western US patients were more likely to receive PD-L1 testing (OR=1.554, p=0.001) than patients in other regions. However, within Midwestern patients, those without a OCCC were more likely to receive PD-L1 testing (OR=1.724, p< 0.001) than those with a OCCC. High comorbidity index (CCI≥3) is associated with an increased likelihood of PD-L1 testing in a univariable model (OR=1.286 vs. CCI=0,p=0.009), but not in the multivariable model (p=0.278).

Conclusions

We identified demographic and clinical factors, including regional differences in rurality and OCCC patterns, associated with PD-L1 testing. These factors can focus ongoing efforts to improve PD-L1 testing and efforts to be more in line with recommended care.

Background

Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors revolutionized the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) by improving overall survival compared to chemotherapy. PD-L1 biomarker testing is paramount for informing treatment decisions in aNSCLC. Real-world data describing patterns of PD-L1 testing within the Veteran Health Administration (VHA) are limited. This retrospective study seeks to evaluate demographic and clinical factors associated with PD-L1 testing in VHA.

Methods

Veterans diagnosed with aNSCLC from 2019-2022 were identified using VHA’s Corporate Data Warehouse. Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Chi- Square tests measured association between receipt of PD-L1 testing and patient demographic and clinical characteristics at aNSCLC diagnosis. Logistic regression assessed predictors of PD-L1 testing, and subgroup analyses were performed for significant interactions.

Results

Our study included 4575 patients with aNSCLC; 57.0% received PD-L1 testing. The likelihood of PD-L1 testing increased among patients diagnosed with aNSCLC after 2019 vs during 2019 (OR≥1.118, p≤0.035) and in Black vs White patients (OR=1.227, p=0.011). However, the following had decreased likelihood of PD-L1 testing: patients with stage IIIB vs IV cancer (OR=0.683, p=0.004); non vs current/former smokers (OR=0.733, p=0.039); squamous (OR=0.863, p=0.030) or NOS (OR=0.695,p=0.013) vs. adenocarcinoma histology. Interactions were observed between patient residential region and residential rurality (p=0.003), and region and receipt of oncology community care consults (OCCC) (p=0.030). Patients in rural Midwest (OR=0.445,p=0.004) and rural South (OR=0.566, p=0.032) were less likely to receive PD-L1 testing than Metropolitan patients. Across patients with OCCC, Western US patients were more likely to receive PD-L1 testing (OR=1.554, p=0.001) than patients in other regions. However, within Midwestern patients, those without a OCCC were more likely to receive PD-L1 testing (OR=1.724, p< 0.001) than those with a OCCC. High comorbidity index (CCI≥3) is associated with an increased likelihood of PD-L1 testing in a univariable model (OR=1.286 vs. CCI=0,p=0.009), but not in the multivariable model (p=0.278).

Conclusions

We identified demographic and clinical factors, including regional differences in rurality and OCCC patterns, associated with PD-L1 testing. These factors can focus ongoing efforts to improve PD-L1 testing and efforts to be more in line with recommended care.

Purpose

Skin adnexal tumors (SAT) include a group of benign and malignant appendageal tumors that arise from hair follicles, sebaceous glands, or sweat glands. They typically appear as small, painless bumps or nodules on the skin, and are more common in men compared to women. The 5-year overall SAT survival rate ranges from 74-90%. To better understand the differences in survival outcomes based on subtypes of SAT, the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was analyzed.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of 11,627 patients with histologically confirmed SAT between 2004 and 2021 was conducted across 1,500 Commission on Cancer facilities located in the US and Puerto Rico. Demographic factors such as sex, age, and race were analyzed using Pearson Chi-squared tests, and survival outcomes were analyzed by Kaplan- Meier survival analysis. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Most patients with SAT were male (57.3%). The average age at diagnosis was 65.9 (SD=14.4, range 0-90). Of the patient sample, 87.2% were White, 7.6% Black, 2.5% Asian, and 2.7% other. Several subtypes disproportionately affected Black individuals, including apocrine adenocarcinoma (15.7%) and hidradenocarcinoma (13.6%). The estimated 5-year survival of SAT was 74.9% with an overall survival of 135.8 months (SE=1.1). Sebaceous carcinoma (which accounts for 41.8% of all cases) had the lowest average survival time of 119.6 months (SE=1.8), while digital papillary adenocarcinoma had the highest survival at around 183.5 months (SE=4.6).

Conclusions

This study supports a higher frequency of SAT among men. While White patients were more likely to get SAT overall, including the most common sebaceous carcinoma, Black race were associated with higher frequency of rarer subtypes. The average age of diagnosis of SAT mimics other non-melanoma skin cancers, but has a lower overall survival rate. Future studies should consider other risk factors that may be impacting the differences in survival outcomes to guide treatment and address health disparities among the various subtypes.

Purpose

Skin adnexal tumors (SAT) include a group of benign and malignant appendageal tumors that arise from hair follicles, sebaceous glands, or sweat glands. They typically appear as small, painless bumps or nodules on the skin, and are more common in men compared to women. The 5-year overall SAT survival rate ranges from 74-90%. To better understand the differences in survival outcomes based on subtypes of SAT, the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was analyzed.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of 11,627 patients with histologically confirmed SAT between 2004 and 2021 was conducted across 1,500 Commission on Cancer facilities located in the US and Puerto Rico. Demographic factors such as sex, age, and race were analyzed using Pearson Chi-squared tests, and survival outcomes were analyzed by Kaplan- Meier survival analysis. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Most patients with SAT were male (57.3%). The average age at diagnosis was 65.9 (SD=14.4, range 0-90). Of the patient sample, 87.2% were White, 7.6% Black, 2.5% Asian, and 2.7% other. Several subtypes disproportionately affected Black individuals, including apocrine adenocarcinoma (15.7%) and hidradenocarcinoma (13.6%). The estimated 5-year survival of SAT was 74.9% with an overall survival of 135.8 months (SE=1.1). Sebaceous carcinoma (which accounts for 41.8% of all cases) had the lowest average survival time of 119.6 months (SE=1.8), while digital papillary adenocarcinoma had the highest survival at around 183.5 months (SE=4.6).

Conclusions

This study supports a higher frequency of SAT among men. While White patients were more likely to get SAT overall, including the most common sebaceous carcinoma, Black race were associated with higher frequency of rarer subtypes. The average age of diagnosis of SAT mimics other non-melanoma skin cancers, but has a lower overall survival rate. Future studies should consider other risk factors that may be impacting the differences in survival outcomes to guide treatment and address health disparities among the various subtypes.

Purpose

Skin adnexal tumors (SAT) include a group of benign and malignant appendageal tumors that arise from hair follicles, sebaceous glands, or sweat glands. They typically appear as small, painless bumps or nodules on the skin, and are more common in men compared to women. The 5-year overall SAT survival rate ranges from 74-90%. To better understand the differences in survival outcomes based on subtypes of SAT, the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was analyzed.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of 11,627 patients with histologically confirmed SAT between 2004 and 2021 was conducted across 1,500 Commission on Cancer facilities located in the US and Puerto Rico. Demographic factors such as sex, age, and race were analyzed using Pearson Chi-squared tests, and survival outcomes were analyzed by Kaplan- Meier survival analysis. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Most patients with SAT were male (57.3%). The average age at diagnosis was 65.9 (SD=14.4, range 0-90). Of the patient sample, 87.2% were White, 7.6% Black, 2.5% Asian, and 2.7% other. Several subtypes disproportionately affected Black individuals, including apocrine adenocarcinoma (15.7%) and hidradenocarcinoma (13.6%). The estimated 5-year survival of SAT was 74.9% with an overall survival of 135.8 months (SE=1.1). Sebaceous carcinoma (which accounts for 41.8% of all cases) had the lowest average survival time of 119.6 months (SE=1.8), while digital papillary adenocarcinoma had the highest survival at around 183.5 months (SE=4.6).

Conclusions

This study supports a higher frequency of SAT among men. While White patients were more likely to get SAT overall, including the most common sebaceous carcinoma, Black race were associated with higher frequency of rarer subtypes. The average age of diagnosis of SAT mimics other non-melanoma skin cancers, but has a lower overall survival rate. Future studies should consider other risk factors that may be impacting the differences in survival outcomes to guide treatment and address health disparities among the various subtypes.

Background

Enhancing symptom assessment and management of patients undergoing cancer treatment presents several challenges, ranging from workflow integration to application of evidenced-based interventions (Minteer, et al., 2023). Previously, our team conducted a VA mixed-methods study and identified a lack of standardized approaches for symptom assessment, lack of technology support to optimize workflows, and the need for adaptable workflows that reflect both facility and patient preferences. In response, the National Oncology Program Office at Palo Alto VA (PAVA) launched the Proactive Patient-Centered Care Program (PPP) to address these care gaps and develop a feasible, replicable, sustainable workflow to guide broader VA-wide implementation based on prior work conducted by the PAVA team (Banks, et al., 2024).

Methods

Prior to launch, the PPP team engaged oncology leadership in VISN21 and VISN22. Long Beach VA (LBVA) was selected as the initial pilot implementation site. A multidisciplinary group from PAVA and LBVA comprised of oncology and palliative care clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, a lay health worker, and project manager guided the workflow adaptations. To support scalability and sustainability, the Empowering Learning, Innovation, and experiences through Implementation of health Informatics (ELIXIR) team designed an electronic health record agnostic technology-enabled tool to support workflow. The group met weekly to bi-monthly over 5 months, virtually and two in-person sessions, to map current practices, co-develop workflows, and identify key decisions regarding patient eligibility criteria, frequency of symptom assessments, triage responsibilities, escalation protocols, and closed-loop communication processes.

Results

A technology-enabled workflow was developed to deploy proactive symptom assessment and management across VA oncology sites with streamlined coordination between peer support staff and clinicians along with technology to support timely interventions.

Conclusions

Process improvement for symptom management requires on the ground adaptation even within an integrated health system like the VA. This initiative underscores the need for multidisciplinary collaboration, sustainability, and technology integration to support long-term intervention fidelity and scalability. The workflow developed will guide the PPP program’s expansion to LBVA, with patient enrollment beginning May 2025. The approach used to develop this workflow will serve as a model for standardizing supportive care processes across the VA to account for local needs.

Background

Enhancing symptom assessment and management of patients undergoing cancer treatment presents several challenges, ranging from workflow integration to application of evidenced-based interventions (Minteer, et al., 2023). Previously, our team conducted a VA mixed-methods study and identified a lack of standardized approaches for symptom assessment, lack of technology support to optimize workflows, and the need for adaptable workflows that reflect both facility and patient preferences. In response, the National Oncology Program Office at Palo Alto VA (PAVA) launched the Proactive Patient-Centered Care Program (PPP) to address these care gaps and develop a feasible, replicable, sustainable workflow to guide broader VA-wide implementation based on prior work conducted by the PAVA team (Banks, et al., 2024).

Methods

Prior to launch, the PPP team engaged oncology leadership in VISN21 and VISN22. Long Beach VA (LBVA) was selected as the initial pilot implementation site. A multidisciplinary group from PAVA and LBVA comprised of oncology and palliative care clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, a lay health worker, and project manager guided the workflow adaptations. To support scalability and sustainability, the Empowering Learning, Innovation, and experiences through Implementation of health Informatics (ELIXIR) team designed an electronic health record agnostic technology-enabled tool to support workflow. The group met weekly to bi-monthly over 5 months, virtually and two in-person sessions, to map current practices, co-develop workflows, and identify key decisions regarding patient eligibility criteria, frequency of symptom assessments, triage responsibilities, escalation protocols, and closed-loop communication processes.

Results

A technology-enabled workflow was developed to deploy proactive symptom assessment and management across VA oncology sites with streamlined coordination between peer support staff and clinicians along with technology to support timely interventions.

Conclusions

Process improvement for symptom management requires on the ground adaptation even within an integrated health system like the VA. This initiative underscores the need for multidisciplinary collaboration, sustainability, and technology integration to support long-term intervention fidelity and scalability. The workflow developed will guide the PPP program’s expansion to LBVA, with patient enrollment beginning May 2025. The approach used to develop this workflow will serve as a model for standardizing supportive care processes across the VA to account for local needs.

Background

Enhancing symptom assessment and management of patients undergoing cancer treatment presents several challenges, ranging from workflow integration to application of evidenced-based interventions (Minteer, et al., 2023). Previously, our team conducted a VA mixed-methods study and identified a lack of standardized approaches for symptom assessment, lack of technology support to optimize workflows, and the need for adaptable workflows that reflect both facility and patient preferences. In response, the National Oncology Program Office at Palo Alto VA (PAVA) launched the Proactive Patient-Centered Care Program (PPP) to address these care gaps and develop a feasible, replicable, sustainable workflow to guide broader VA-wide implementation based on prior work conducted by the PAVA team (Banks, et al., 2024).

Methods

Prior to launch, the PPP team engaged oncology leadership in VISN21 and VISN22. Long Beach VA (LBVA) was selected as the initial pilot implementation site. A multidisciplinary group from PAVA and LBVA comprised of oncology and palliative care clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, a lay health worker, and project manager guided the workflow adaptations. To support scalability and sustainability, the Empowering Learning, Innovation, and experiences through Implementation of health Informatics (ELIXIR) team designed an electronic health record agnostic technology-enabled tool to support workflow. The group met weekly to bi-monthly over 5 months, virtually and two in-person sessions, to map current practices, co-develop workflows, and identify key decisions regarding patient eligibility criteria, frequency of symptom assessments, triage responsibilities, escalation protocols, and closed-loop communication processes.

Results

A technology-enabled workflow was developed to deploy proactive symptom assessment and management across VA oncology sites with streamlined coordination between peer support staff and clinicians along with technology to support timely interventions.

Conclusions

Process improvement for symptom management requires on the ground adaptation even within an integrated health system like the VA. This initiative underscores the need for multidisciplinary collaboration, sustainability, and technology integration to support long-term intervention fidelity and scalability. The workflow developed will guide the PPP program’s expansion to LBVA, with patient enrollment beginning May 2025. The approach used to develop this workflow will serve as a model for standardizing supportive care processes across the VA to account for local needs.

Purpose/Background

The purpose of this project was to understand how implementing a consult template could optimize hematology E-consult evaluation. At the Tampa VA, providers can submit hematology E-consults for interpretation of lab abnormalities and management recommendations that do not require an in-person hematology evaluation. Previously, submission of an E-consult did not require prerequisite labs or imaging or for lab parameters to be met, leading to an increased number of hematology E-consults and subsequently, lower efficiency for hematologists.

Methods

A hematology E-consult template was created through collaboration between the hematology/ oncology and ambulatory care sections, which lists specific diagnoses and required parameters/workup needed for each diagnosis prior to submission of the E-consult. If those criteria were not met, the consult was cancelled. A representative sample of one month pre- and post-implementation data was analyzed.

Results

The E-consult template was implemented in September 2024. From April to August 2024, the average number of E-consults per month was 243, averaging at 11.0 per day, while from October 2024 to February 2025, the average number of E-consults per month was 146.4, averaging at 6.6 per day. In August 2024, the leading reasons for consult were anemia (77), leukocytosis (26), and thrombocytopenia (24). That month, there were 15 consult cancellations, with the primary reason being the patient was established in clinic (9). In October 2024, the leading reasons for consult were anemia (39), leukocytosis (14), and thrombocytopenia (13). That month, there were 34 consult cancellations, with the primary reason being that hematology advised a clinic consultation rather than an E-consult (10).

Implications/Significance

These data reveal that the hematology E-consult template was associated with a decreased number of E-consults per day and per month. Implementation of the hematology E-consult template allows the hematology consultants to focus on interpretation of lab results and providing management recommendations, as opposed to providing standard of care diagnostic recommendations. It also serves as an educational tool to referring providers, to understand appropriate indications for hematology E-consultation. Lastly, the template has created increased efficiency in providing hematology recommendations and ultimately, improved timely care for our veterans.

Purpose/Background

The purpose of this project was to understand how implementing a consult template could optimize hematology E-consult evaluation. At the Tampa VA, providers can submit hematology E-consults for interpretation of lab abnormalities and management recommendations that do not require an in-person hematology evaluation. Previously, submission of an E-consult did not require prerequisite labs or imaging or for lab parameters to be met, leading to an increased number of hematology E-consults and subsequently, lower efficiency for hematologists.

Methods

A hematology E-consult template was created through collaboration between the hematology/ oncology and ambulatory care sections, which lists specific diagnoses and required parameters/workup needed for each diagnosis prior to submission of the E-consult. If those criteria were not met, the consult was cancelled. A representative sample of one month pre- and post-implementation data was analyzed.

Results

The E-consult template was implemented in September 2024. From April to August 2024, the average number of E-consults per month was 243, averaging at 11.0 per day, while from October 2024 to February 2025, the average number of E-consults per month was 146.4, averaging at 6.6 per day. In August 2024, the leading reasons for consult were anemia (77), leukocytosis (26), and thrombocytopenia (24). That month, there were 15 consult cancellations, with the primary reason being the patient was established in clinic (9). In October 2024, the leading reasons for consult were anemia (39), leukocytosis (14), and thrombocytopenia (13). That month, there were 34 consult cancellations, with the primary reason being that hematology advised a clinic consultation rather than an E-consult (10).

Implications/Significance

These data reveal that the hematology E-consult template was associated with a decreased number of E-consults per day and per month. Implementation of the hematology E-consult template allows the hematology consultants to focus on interpretation of lab results and providing management recommendations, as opposed to providing standard of care diagnostic recommendations. It also serves as an educational tool to referring providers, to understand appropriate indications for hematology E-consultation. Lastly, the template has created increased efficiency in providing hematology recommendations and ultimately, improved timely care for our veterans.

Purpose/Background

The purpose of this project was to understand how implementing a consult template could optimize hematology E-consult evaluation. At the Tampa VA, providers can submit hematology E-consults for interpretation of lab abnormalities and management recommendations that do not require an in-person hematology evaluation. Previously, submission of an E-consult did not require prerequisite labs or imaging or for lab parameters to be met, leading to an increased number of hematology E-consults and subsequently, lower efficiency for hematologists.

Methods

A hematology E-consult template was created through collaboration between the hematology/ oncology and ambulatory care sections, which lists specific diagnoses and required parameters/workup needed for each diagnosis prior to submission of the E-consult. If those criteria were not met, the consult was cancelled. A representative sample of one month pre- and post-implementation data was analyzed.

Results

The E-consult template was implemented in September 2024. From April to August 2024, the average number of E-consults per month was 243, averaging at 11.0 per day, while from October 2024 to February 2025, the average number of E-consults per month was 146.4, averaging at 6.6 per day. In August 2024, the leading reasons for consult were anemia (77), leukocytosis (26), and thrombocytopenia (24). That month, there were 15 consult cancellations, with the primary reason being the patient was established in clinic (9). In October 2024, the leading reasons for consult were anemia (39), leukocytosis (14), and thrombocytopenia (13). That month, there were 34 consult cancellations, with the primary reason being that hematology advised a clinic consultation rather than an E-consult (10).

Implications/Significance

These data reveal that the hematology E-consult template was associated with a decreased number of E-consults per day and per month. Implementation of the hematology E-consult template allows the hematology consultants to focus on interpretation of lab results and providing management recommendations, as opposed to providing standard of care diagnostic recommendations. It also serves as an educational tool to referring providers, to understand appropriate indications for hematology E-consultation. Lastly, the template has created increased efficiency in providing hematology recommendations and ultimately, improved timely care for our veterans.

Background

The American College of Surgeons’ Commission on Cancer (CoC) Accreditation requires establishment of a comprehensive cancer program, multi-disciplinary tumor boards, active cancer registry, quality improvement activities and cancer research.

Methods

In 2022, the Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center (TRVAMC) set out to obtain accreditation through enhancing workforce practices. Changes in workforce practices included (1) leadership engagement; (2) acquisition of staff; (3) enhancing staff efficiency and (4) inter-departmental collaboration, leading to CoC accreditation in August 2024. executive leadership team (ELT) buy-in was essential. ELT engagement included communicating the benefits of accreditation, alignment with organizational mission and values, protected time for Cancer Committee members, Chief of Staff presence in Cancer Committee, commitment to recruiting new staff, and membership in the Medical Executive Council to voice cancer program needs. New staff included a cancer program manager, cancer case conference RN care coordinator, certified oncology data specialist and survivorship nurse practitioner. Staff development included structured and focused training. Enhancing staff efficiency included developing standards of work with clear delineation of duties (delegation of specific CoC standards), decentralizing decision making, a shared governance council, and weekly Cancer Program meetings. These changes allowed staff members to be active, autonomous decision-making participants, and increased efficiency. Inter-departmental collaboration involved Hematology/Oncology, Surgery, Radiation Oncology, Pharmacy, Nutrition, Pathology, Palliative Care, Rehabilitation, Chaplaincy and Cancer Research, with key individuals serving as Cancer Committee members. Each department set performance goals and metrics. Each employee’s contribution was rated in annual performance reviews.

Results

TRVAMC thus elevated cancer care delivery standards through structured workforce practices within the framework of CoC standards required for accreditation. Additionally, the accreditation process achieved desirable and measurable outcomes, e.g. 100% growth in oncology dietitian referrals, 75% increase in early palliative care referrals (TRVAMC ranked in the top 5 in the US), and more than 200 patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials (TRVAMC was the highest enrolling VA in the US to NCI trials in 2024).

Conclusions

Our model demonstrates how strategic improvements in healthcare workforce practices at a VA can directly contribute to sustained improvements in quality and delivery of cancer care services.

Background

The American College of Surgeons’ Commission on Cancer (CoC) Accreditation requires establishment of a comprehensive cancer program, multi-disciplinary tumor boards, active cancer registry, quality improvement activities and cancer research.

Methods

In 2022, the Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center (TRVAMC) set out to obtain accreditation through enhancing workforce practices. Changes in workforce practices included (1) leadership engagement; (2) acquisition of staff; (3) enhancing staff efficiency and (4) inter-departmental collaboration, leading to CoC accreditation in August 2024. executive leadership team (ELT) buy-in was essential. ELT engagement included communicating the benefits of accreditation, alignment with organizational mission and values, protected time for Cancer Committee members, Chief of Staff presence in Cancer Committee, commitment to recruiting new staff, and membership in the Medical Executive Council to voice cancer program needs. New staff included a cancer program manager, cancer case conference RN care coordinator, certified oncology data specialist and survivorship nurse practitioner. Staff development included structured and focused training. Enhancing staff efficiency included developing standards of work with clear delineation of duties (delegation of specific CoC standards), decentralizing decision making, a shared governance council, and weekly Cancer Program meetings. These changes allowed staff members to be active, autonomous decision-making participants, and increased efficiency. Inter-departmental collaboration involved Hematology/Oncology, Surgery, Radiation Oncology, Pharmacy, Nutrition, Pathology, Palliative Care, Rehabilitation, Chaplaincy and Cancer Research, with key individuals serving as Cancer Committee members. Each department set performance goals and metrics. Each employee’s contribution was rated in annual performance reviews.

Results

TRVAMC thus elevated cancer care delivery standards through structured workforce practices within the framework of CoC standards required for accreditation. Additionally, the accreditation process achieved desirable and measurable outcomes, e.g. 100% growth in oncology dietitian referrals, 75% increase in early palliative care referrals (TRVAMC ranked in the top 5 in the US), and more than 200 patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials (TRVAMC was the highest enrolling VA in the US to NCI trials in 2024).

Conclusions

Our model demonstrates how strategic improvements in healthcare workforce practices at a VA can directly contribute to sustained improvements in quality and delivery of cancer care services.

Background

The American College of Surgeons’ Commission on Cancer (CoC) Accreditation requires establishment of a comprehensive cancer program, multi-disciplinary tumor boards, active cancer registry, quality improvement activities and cancer research.

Methods

In 2022, the Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center (TRVAMC) set out to obtain accreditation through enhancing workforce practices. Changes in workforce practices included (1) leadership engagement; (2) acquisition of staff; (3) enhancing staff efficiency and (4) inter-departmental collaboration, leading to CoC accreditation in August 2024. executive leadership team (ELT) buy-in was essential. ELT engagement included communicating the benefits of accreditation, alignment with organizational mission and values, protected time for Cancer Committee members, Chief of Staff presence in Cancer Committee, commitment to recruiting new staff, and membership in the Medical Executive Council to voice cancer program needs. New staff included a cancer program manager, cancer case conference RN care coordinator, certified oncology data specialist and survivorship nurse practitioner. Staff development included structured and focused training. Enhancing staff efficiency included developing standards of work with clear delineation of duties (delegation of specific CoC standards), decentralizing decision making, a shared governance council, and weekly Cancer Program meetings. These changes allowed staff members to be active, autonomous decision-making participants, and increased efficiency. Inter-departmental collaboration involved Hematology/Oncology, Surgery, Radiation Oncology, Pharmacy, Nutrition, Pathology, Palliative Care, Rehabilitation, Chaplaincy and Cancer Research, with key individuals serving as Cancer Committee members. Each department set performance goals and metrics. Each employee’s contribution was rated in annual performance reviews.

Results

TRVAMC thus elevated cancer care delivery standards through structured workforce practices within the framework of CoC standards required for accreditation. Additionally, the accreditation process achieved desirable and measurable outcomes, e.g. 100% growth in oncology dietitian referrals, 75% increase in early palliative care referrals (TRVAMC ranked in the top 5 in the US), and more than 200 patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials (TRVAMC was the highest enrolling VA in the US to NCI trials in 2024).

Conclusions

Our model demonstrates how strategic improvements in healthcare workforce practices at a VA can directly contribute to sustained improvements in quality and delivery of cancer care services.

Purpose/Objectives

Radiation oncology treatment planning and delivery systems are predominantly designed as silos, centered around the care of individual patients and generally disconnected from the broader health record. This poses significant challenges for cohort or population scale research, particularly when trying to analyze the nuances and details of treatments. The National Radiation Oncology Program (NROP) sought to design, develop, and implement a platform-agnostic tool to extract clinically meaningful treatment details from DICOM-RT data and applied this in a pilot initiative to centralize data from several VA distinct treatment facilities and merge the resulting dataset with the broader electronic health record to support research and clinical operations.

Methods

Leveraging NROP’s Health Information Gateway Exchange (HINGE) system, we developed the capability to analyze DICOM-RT datasets and output detailed and clinically meaningful radiation treatment information including but not limited to structure-specific dose volume histogram data, individual beam-level treatment details, and verified delivered fraction data. We applied this to historical data from VA facilities participating in NROP’s initial pilot and linked the resulting data with the broader electronic health record on an individual patient level, constituting the Granular Radiotherapy Information Database (GRID).

Results

We demonstrate successful export of clinically meaningful treatment details from a large real-world cohort of VA patients treated between 2012-2024. This constitutes a novel source of authoritative radiation oncology data within the VA CDW. We confirmed the ability to arbitrarily query these cohorts based on both the intrinsic data export as well as its linkages to the broader electronic health record.

Conclusions

This is a proof-of-principle study demonstrating the ability to extract and integrate detailed radiotherapy data with the broader health record, as well as enable unprecedented arbitrary queries at population scale and broad reuse in the VA research and clinical operations.

Purpose/Objectives

Radiation oncology treatment planning and delivery systems are predominantly designed as silos, centered around the care of individual patients and generally disconnected from the broader health record. This poses significant challenges for cohort or population scale research, particularly when trying to analyze the nuances and details of treatments. The National Radiation Oncology Program (NROP) sought to design, develop, and implement a platform-agnostic tool to extract clinically meaningful treatment details from DICOM-RT data and applied this in a pilot initiative to centralize data from several VA distinct treatment facilities and merge the resulting dataset with the broader electronic health record to support research and clinical operations.

Methods

Leveraging NROP’s Health Information Gateway Exchange (HINGE) system, we developed the capability to analyze DICOM-RT datasets and output detailed and clinically meaningful radiation treatment information including but not limited to structure-specific dose volume histogram data, individual beam-level treatment details, and verified delivered fraction data. We applied this to historical data from VA facilities participating in NROP’s initial pilot and linked the resulting data with the broader electronic health record on an individual patient level, constituting the Granular Radiotherapy Information Database (GRID).

Results

We demonstrate successful export of clinically meaningful treatment details from a large real-world cohort of VA patients treated between 2012-2024. This constitutes a novel source of authoritative radiation oncology data within the VA CDW. We confirmed the ability to arbitrarily query these cohorts based on both the intrinsic data export as well as its linkages to the broader electronic health record.

Conclusions

This is a proof-of-principle study demonstrating the ability to extract and integrate detailed radiotherapy data with the broader health record, as well as enable unprecedented arbitrary queries at population scale and broad reuse in the VA research and clinical operations.

Purpose/Objectives

Radiation oncology treatment planning and delivery systems are predominantly designed as silos, centered around the care of individual patients and generally disconnected from the broader health record. This poses significant challenges for cohort or population scale research, particularly when trying to analyze the nuances and details of treatments. The National Radiation Oncology Program (NROP) sought to design, develop, and implement a platform-agnostic tool to extract clinically meaningful treatment details from DICOM-RT data and applied this in a pilot initiative to centralize data from several VA distinct treatment facilities and merge the resulting dataset with the broader electronic health record to support research and clinical operations.

Methods

Leveraging NROP’s Health Information Gateway Exchange (HINGE) system, we developed the capability to analyze DICOM-RT datasets and output detailed and clinically meaningful radiation treatment information including but not limited to structure-specific dose volume histogram data, individual beam-level treatment details, and verified delivered fraction data. We applied this to historical data from VA facilities participating in NROP’s initial pilot and linked the resulting data with the broader electronic health record on an individual patient level, constituting the Granular Radiotherapy Information Database (GRID).

Results

We demonstrate successful export of clinically meaningful treatment details from a large real-world cohort of VA patients treated between 2012-2024. This constitutes a novel source of authoritative radiation oncology data within the VA CDW. We confirmed the ability to arbitrarily query these cohorts based on both the intrinsic data export as well as its linkages to the broader electronic health record.

Conclusions

This is a proof-of-principle study demonstrating the ability to extract and integrate detailed radiotherapy data with the broader health record, as well as enable unprecedented arbitrary queries at population scale and broad reuse in the VA research and clinical operations.

Purpose/Background

Oncology clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPP) play a critical role in optimizing drug therapy, managing side effects, and ensuring medication adherence. As a specialized clinical area, specific training is needed to ensure quality of care. Oncology pharmacy training programs are commercially available but pose a financial burden and are not specific to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). A comprehensive, virtual Oncology Bootcamp series was implemented to upskill new oncology pharmacists (or pharmacists seeking to further their understanding of oncology practice), with didactic materials and clinical tools to enhance and standardize quality care delivery.

Methods

This program was comprised of an online platform of 23 one hour-long continuing education accredited sessions, delivered by leading subject matter experts. Pharmacists from two Veteran Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) were invited for the first year of the bootcamp. The curriculum encompassed fundamentals of oncology practice, patient care assessment, chemotherapy protocol review, practice management, and supportive care. Participants also received in-depth training on managing various cancer types, including but not limited to prostate, lung, gastrointestinal and hematologic malignancies. VHA specific information, including utilization of Oncology Clinical Pathways to promote standardized care was included where applicable. The interactive nature of the virtual sessions provided opportunities for real-time discussion and immediate feedback. To measure the impact of this program, a pre and post program evaluation of participants was conducted.

Results

Over the course of the program, more than 40 pharmacists across two VISNs participated in the bootcamp series. Results of the program evaluation showed an increase in self-reported comfort and skill levels in all criteria that were assessed (oncology pharmacotherapy, solid tumor malignancies, hematologic malignancies and oral anti-cancer therapy management). Additionally, 85% of respondents stated the series met their overall goals and over 90% of respondents stated they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the content, speakers and organization of the course.

Implications/Significance

This initiative has established the viability and significance of a highly accessible, VHA pathway specific and Veteran centric platform for oncology pharmacy professional development. Future directions for the program include a broader nationwide audience, increased content coverage and self-paced learning options.

Purpose/Background

Oncology clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPP) play a critical role in optimizing drug therapy, managing side effects, and ensuring medication adherence. As a specialized clinical area, specific training is needed to ensure quality of care. Oncology pharmacy training programs are commercially available but pose a financial burden and are not specific to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). A comprehensive, virtual Oncology Bootcamp series was implemented to upskill new oncology pharmacists (or pharmacists seeking to further their understanding of oncology practice), with didactic materials and clinical tools to enhance and standardize quality care delivery.

Methods

This program was comprised of an online platform of 23 one hour-long continuing education accredited sessions, delivered by leading subject matter experts. Pharmacists from two Veteran Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) were invited for the first year of the bootcamp. The curriculum encompassed fundamentals of oncology practice, patient care assessment, chemotherapy protocol review, practice management, and supportive care. Participants also received in-depth training on managing various cancer types, including but not limited to prostate, lung, gastrointestinal and hematologic malignancies. VHA specific information, including utilization of Oncology Clinical Pathways to promote standardized care was included where applicable. The interactive nature of the virtual sessions provided opportunities for real-time discussion and immediate feedback. To measure the impact of this program, a pre and post program evaluation of participants was conducted.

Results

Over the course of the program, more than 40 pharmacists across two VISNs participated in the bootcamp series. Results of the program evaluation showed an increase in self-reported comfort and skill levels in all criteria that were assessed (oncology pharmacotherapy, solid tumor malignancies, hematologic malignancies and oral anti-cancer therapy management). Additionally, 85% of respondents stated the series met their overall goals and over 90% of respondents stated they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the content, speakers and organization of the course.

Implications/Significance

This initiative has established the viability and significance of a highly accessible, VHA pathway specific and Veteran centric platform for oncology pharmacy professional development. Future directions for the program include a broader nationwide audience, increased content coverage and self-paced learning options.

Purpose/Background

Oncology clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPP) play a critical role in optimizing drug therapy, managing side effects, and ensuring medication adherence. As a specialized clinical area, specific training is needed to ensure quality of care. Oncology pharmacy training programs are commercially available but pose a financial burden and are not specific to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). A comprehensive, virtual Oncology Bootcamp series was implemented to upskill new oncology pharmacists (or pharmacists seeking to further their understanding of oncology practice), with didactic materials and clinical tools to enhance and standardize quality care delivery.

Methods

This program was comprised of an online platform of 23 one hour-long continuing education accredited sessions, delivered by leading subject matter experts. Pharmacists from two Veteran Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) were invited for the first year of the bootcamp. The curriculum encompassed fundamentals of oncology practice, patient care assessment, chemotherapy protocol review, practice management, and supportive care. Participants also received in-depth training on managing various cancer types, including but not limited to prostate, lung, gastrointestinal and hematologic malignancies. VHA specific information, including utilization of Oncology Clinical Pathways to promote standardized care was included where applicable. The interactive nature of the virtual sessions provided opportunities for real-time discussion and immediate feedback. To measure the impact of this program, a pre and post program evaluation of participants was conducted.

Results

Over the course of the program, more than 40 pharmacists across two VISNs participated in the bootcamp series. Results of the program evaluation showed an increase in self-reported comfort and skill levels in all criteria that were assessed (oncology pharmacotherapy, solid tumor malignancies, hematologic malignancies and oral anti-cancer therapy management). Additionally, 85% of respondents stated the series met their overall goals and over 90% of respondents stated they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the content, speakers and organization of the course.

Implications/Significance

This initiative has established the viability and significance of a highly accessible, VHA pathway specific and Veteran centric platform for oncology pharmacy professional development. Future directions for the program include a broader nationwide audience, increased content coverage and self-paced learning options.

Objective

To assess the impact of virtual reality on the distress and pain levels of oncology patients in a VA outpatient infusion clinic.

Background

It is known that distress in cancer care leads to several problems including decreased survival, decreased treatment adherence, and inability to make treatment decisions. Virtual reality (VR) has proven to be beneficial to Veterans suffering from stress, anxiety, and other mental health ailments. This VA Oncology Infusion clinic is assessing the impact of VR on its Veterans’ distress and pain levels.

Methods

The pilot phase will last from 3/5/25- 9/5/25. Prior to each VR session, Veterans are administered an NCCN cancer distress screening tool and a numerical pain assessment. Post-VR session, Veterans are reassessed for distress and pain. The veterans are asked the following questions after each session: 1) Would you recommend VR to other veterans? and 2) Was the VR headset easy to use? Each VR session is approximately 10-15 minutes long, and the Veterans choose to engage in mindfulness activities, breathing exercises, or view scenery of their choice.

Results

Preliminary results indicate receptiveness and positive experiences amongst Veterans. 66% of Veterans who have used the VR headset have demonstrated a decrease in Cancer Distress by at least 2 points after a 10–15-minute VR session. 92% of Veterans that have used the VR headset report that it is easy to use and that they would recommend it to other Veterans.

Feasibility

The VA has created the Extended Reality Network (XR) to support the implementation of VR at the local site level. Resources and training are widely available to ensure program success.

Sustainability and Impact

A clearly developed standard of work and protocol that is tailored to the local site’s workflow, including a VR champion is needed to ensure sustainability. Preliminary data shows that veterans are engaged and responding positively to this innovative approach to cancer distress management, as evidenced by decreased distress levels and anxiety.

Objective

To assess the impact of virtual reality on the distress and pain levels of oncology patients in a VA outpatient infusion clinic.

Background

It is known that distress in cancer care leads to several problems including decreased survival, decreased treatment adherence, and inability to make treatment decisions. Virtual reality (VR) has proven to be beneficial to Veterans suffering from stress, anxiety, and other mental health ailments. This VA Oncology Infusion clinic is assessing the impact of VR on its Veterans’ distress and pain levels.

Methods

The pilot phase will last from 3/5/25- 9/5/25. Prior to each VR session, Veterans are administered an NCCN cancer distress screening tool and a numerical pain assessment. Post-VR session, Veterans are reassessed for distress and pain. The veterans are asked the following questions after each session: 1) Would you recommend VR to other veterans? and 2) Was the VR headset easy to use? Each VR session is approximately 10-15 minutes long, and the Veterans choose to engage in mindfulness activities, breathing exercises, or view scenery of their choice.

Results

Preliminary results indicate receptiveness and positive experiences amongst Veterans. 66% of Veterans who have used the VR headset have demonstrated a decrease in Cancer Distress by at least 2 points after a 10–15-minute VR session. 92% of Veterans that have used the VR headset report that it is easy to use and that they would recommend it to other Veterans.

Feasibility

The VA has created the Extended Reality Network (XR) to support the implementation of VR at the local site level. Resources and training are widely available to ensure program success.

Sustainability and Impact

A clearly developed standard of work and protocol that is tailored to the local site’s workflow, including a VR champion is needed to ensure sustainability. Preliminary data shows that veterans are engaged and responding positively to this innovative approach to cancer distress management, as evidenced by decreased distress levels and anxiety.

Objective

To assess the impact of virtual reality on the distress and pain levels of oncology patients in a VA outpatient infusion clinic.

Background

It is known that distress in cancer care leads to several problems including decreased survival, decreased treatment adherence, and inability to make treatment decisions. Virtual reality (VR) has proven to be beneficial to Veterans suffering from stress, anxiety, and other mental health ailments. This VA Oncology Infusion clinic is assessing the impact of VR on its Veterans’ distress and pain levels.

Methods

The pilot phase will last from 3/5/25- 9/5/25. Prior to each VR session, Veterans are administered an NCCN cancer distress screening tool and a numerical pain assessment. Post-VR session, Veterans are reassessed for distress and pain. The veterans are asked the following questions after each session: 1) Would you recommend VR to other veterans? and 2) Was the VR headset easy to use? Each VR session is approximately 10-15 minutes long, and the Veterans choose to engage in mindfulness activities, breathing exercises, or view scenery of their choice.

Results

Preliminary results indicate receptiveness and positive experiences amongst Veterans. 66% of Veterans who have used the VR headset have demonstrated a decrease in Cancer Distress by at least 2 points after a 10–15-minute VR session. 92% of Veterans that have used the VR headset report that it is easy to use and that they would recommend it to other Veterans.

Feasibility

The VA has created the Extended Reality Network (XR) to support the implementation of VR at the local site level. Resources and training are widely available to ensure program success.

Sustainability and Impact

A clearly developed standard of work and protocol that is tailored to the local site’s workflow, including a VR champion is needed to ensure sustainability. Preliminary data shows that veterans are engaged and responding positively to this innovative approach to cancer distress management, as evidenced by decreased distress levels and anxiety.

Background

The William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (Madison VA) prioritized the goal of ensuring patients with cancer are receiving guideline-based precision oncology care, including comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and germline genomics consultation based on evidence-based medicine and the VA Clinical Pathways. A local Precision Oncology Program was created to assist in review of CGP results including documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) and recommendations for treatment or additional testing as appropriate. The program, which began in February 2024, focused on patients with prostate cancer initially. This was expanded to all genitourinary cancers in April 2024, non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) in August 2024, and all cancers in Dec 2024.

Results

Since the implementation of the Madison VA Precision Oncology Program, CGP was reviewed for 73 unique Veterans leading to 281 recommendations including: 25 FDA approved therapies, 2 off-label standard of care treatment options, 11 patients with potential clinical trial eligibility at the Madison VA. Forty-eight patients had no actionable mutations and 44 were recommended for additional germline genetics counseling. For patients with metastatic prostate cancer, after 1 year of program implementation, an increase was seen in the percentage of patients receiving guideline-based CGP, the percentage of actionable alterations identified, and the percentage of patients identified as potentially eligible for a clinical trial open at the Madison VA based on CGP. The percentage of patients with an interfacility consult to the Clinical Cancer Genetics Service was also increased. For patients with metastatic NSCLC, after 6 months of program implementation, an increase was seen in the percentage of patients appropriately receiving CGP, the percentage of actionable alterations identified, and the percentage of patients on targeted therapy. In all cases where an actionable alteration was not being targeted, the treatment option was not yet appropriate for the stage of disease.

Conclusions

The implementation of preemptive review of all CGP results at the Madison VA through the Precision Oncology Program has increased uptake and awareness of CGP results and potential treatment options, improving the access of targeted treatments and clinical trial opportunities for Veterans with cancer.

Background

The William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (Madison VA) prioritized the goal of ensuring patients with cancer are receiving guideline-based precision oncology care, including comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and germline genomics consultation based on evidence-based medicine and the VA Clinical Pathways. A local Precision Oncology Program was created to assist in review of CGP results including documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) and recommendations for treatment or additional testing as appropriate. The program, which began in February 2024, focused on patients with prostate cancer initially. This was expanded to all genitourinary cancers in April 2024, non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) in August 2024, and all cancers in Dec 2024.

Results

Since the implementation of the Madison VA Precision Oncology Program, CGP was reviewed for 73 unique Veterans leading to 281 recommendations including: 25 FDA approved therapies, 2 off-label standard of care treatment options, 11 patients with potential clinical trial eligibility at the Madison VA. Forty-eight patients had no actionable mutations and 44 were recommended for additional germline genetics counseling. For patients with metastatic prostate cancer, after 1 year of program implementation, an increase was seen in the percentage of patients receiving guideline-based CGP, the percentage of actionable alterations identified, and the percentage of patients identified as potentially eligible for a clinical trial open at the Madison VA based on CGP. The percentage of patients with an interfacility consult to the Clinical Cancer Genetics Service was also increased. For patients with metastatic NSCLC, after 6 months of program implementation, an increase was seen in the percentage of patients appropriately receiving CGP, the percentage of actionable alterations identified, and the percentage of patients on targeted therapy. In all cases where an actionable alteration was not being targeted, the treatment option was not yet appropriate for the stage of disease.

Conclusions

The implementation of preemptive review of all CGP results at the Madison VA through the Precision Oncology Program has increased uptake and awareness of CGP results and potential treatment options, improving the access of targeted treatments and clinical trial opportunities for Veterans with cancer.

Background

The William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (Madison VA) prioritized the goal of ensuring patients with cancer are receiving guideline-based precision oncology care, including comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and germline genomics consultation based on evidence-based medicine and the VA Clinical Pathways. A local Precision Oncology Program was created to assist in review of CGP results including documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) and recommendations for treatment or additional testing as appropriate. The program, which began in February 2024, focused on patients with prostate cancer initially. This was expanded to all genitourinary cancers in April 2024, non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) in August 2024, and all cancers in Dec 2024.

Results

Since the implementation of the Madison VA Precision Oncology Program, CGP was reviewed for 73 unique Veterans leading to 281 recommendations including: 25 FDA approved therapies, 2 off-label standard of care treatment options, 11 patients with potential clinical trial eligibility at the Madison VA. Forty-eight patients had no actionable mutations and 44 were recommended for additional germline genetics counseling. For patients with metastatic prostate cancer, after 1 year of program implementation, an increase was seen in the percentage of patients receiving guideline-based CGP, the percentage of actionable alterations identified, and the percentage of patients identified as potentially eligible for a clinical trial open at the Madison VA based on CGP. The percentage of patients with an interfacility consult to the Clinical Cancer Genetics Service was also increased. For patients with metastatic NSCLC, after 6 months of program implementation, an increase was seen in the percentage of patients appropriately receiving CGP, the percentage of actionable alterations identified, and the percentage of patients on targeted therapy. In all cases where an actionable alteration was not being targeted, the treatment option was not yet appropriate for the stage of disease.

Conclusions

The implementation of preemptive review of all CGP results at the Madison VA through the Precision Oncology Program has increased uptake and awareness of CGP results and potential treatment options, improving the access of targeted treatments and clinical trial opportunities for Veterans with cancer.

Background

There are an estimated 18 million cancer survivors in the US with unique needs including specific surveillance imaging, testing for recurrence, monitoring for and managing late effects of cancer treatments, and for second malignancies. Survivorship care is an unmet need in most VAHC. Purpose: Assess implementation outcomes of a Survivorship Clinic.

Methods

A Survivorship Clinic was initiated comprising of a Survivorship APRN and Nurse Navigator. A referral process and workflow were created. Medical and Radiation Oncology providers were educated regarding availability of survivorship services. We describe the results of the Survivorship Clinic 2021-2025 including demographics, diagnoses and referral patterns.

Results

1,332 visits were completed for 424 patients. 2021 (Oct-Dec): 21, 2022: 219, 2023: 424, 2024: 508, 2025 (Jan-Mar): 160. 364 men and 60 women. Cancer diagnoses seen: lung: 108, lymphoma: 62, colorectal: 52, breast: 45, head and neck: 40, melanoma: 28, NET: 23, testicular: 13, bladder: 13, esophageal: 10, renal: 7, sarcomas: 7, anal: 6, HCC: 6, hepatobiliary: 6, gastric/GIST: 5, leukemia: 5, pancreatic: 5, prostate: 5, Merkel cell: 3, SCC: 3, thymus: 3, uterine: 2, 1 each appendix, anaplastic astrocytoma, periosteal carcinoma, poorly differentiated basaloid chest wall carcinoma, and small intestine. For symptom management the following referrals were placed: Rehab (all departments) : 71, Psychology/Whole Health/THRIVE: 52, Gastroenterology: 43, Nutrition: 24, Dermatology: 20, Urology, ED: 16, Pulmonology: 15, Plastic Surgery: 15, ENT: 12, LIVESTRONG YMCA: 10, Genetics: 9, General Surgery: 4, Neurology: 4, Breast Clinic: 3, Dental: 3, Neurosurgery: 2, Ophthalmology: 2, Pain Management: 2, Radiation Oncology: 2, Wound Care: 2, Pharmacy: 1, and Rheumatology: 1. Survivorship care plans were created and provided to all patients.

Conclusions

Since 2021, the Cancer Survivorship Clinic, operated by an APRN, has successfully served 424 cancer survivors encompassing a wide range of cancers. The disproportionately low number of prostate cancer survivors referred may be reflective of their care being managed by Urology, and presents an opportunity for future growth.

Implications for VA

Having a Survivorship Clinic provides cancer survivors specialized services and meets their unique needs; at the same allowing for improved capacity for new active cancer referrals for the Oncology Clinics.

Background

There are an estimated 18 million cancer survivors in the US with unique needs including specific surveillance imaging, testing for recurrence, monitoring for and managing late effects of cancer treatments, and for second malignancies. Survivorship care is an unmet need in most VAHC. Purpose: Assess implementation outcomes of a Survivorship Clinic.

Methods

A Survivorship Clinic was initiated comprising of a Survivorship APRN and Nurse Navigator. A referral process and workflow were created. Medical and Radiation Oncology providers were educated regarding availability of survivorship services. We describe the results of the Survivorship Clinic 2021-2025 including demographics, diagnoses and referral patterns.

Results

1,332 visits were completed for 424 patients. 2021 (Oct-Dec): 21, 2022: 219, 2023: 424, 2024: 508, 2025 (Jan-Mar): 160. 364 men and 60 women. Cancer diagnoses seen: lung: 108, lymphoma: 62, colorectal: 52, breast: 45, head and neck: 40, melanoma: 28, NET: 23, testicular: 13, bladder: 13, esophageal: 10, renal: 7, sarcomas: 7, anal: 6, HCC: 6, hepatobiliary: 6, gastric/GIST: 5, leukemia: 5, pancreatic: 5, prostate: 5, Merkel cell: 3, SCC: 3, thymus: 3, uterine: 2, 1 each appendix, anaplastic astrocytoma, periosteal carcinoma, poorly differentiated basaloid chest wall carcinoma, and small intestine. For symptom management the following referrals were placed: Rehab (all departments) : 71, Psychology/Whole Health/THRIVE: 52, Gastroenterology: 43, Nutrition: 24, Dermatology: 20, Urology, ED: 16, Pulmonology: 15, Plastic Surgery: 15, ENT: 12, LIVESTRONG YMCA: 10, Genetics: 9, General Surgery: 4, Neurology: 4, Breast Clinic: 3, Dental: 3, Neurosurgery: 2, Ophthalmology: 2, Pain Management: 2, Radiation Oncology: 2, Wound Care: 2, Pharmacy: 1, and Rheumatology: 1. Survivorship care plans were created and provided to all patients.

Conclusions

Since 2021, the Cancer Survivorship Clinic, operated by an APRN, has successfully served 424 cancer survivors encompassing a wide range of cancers. The disproportionately low number of prostate cancer survivors referred may be reflective of their care being managed by Urology, and presents an opportunity for future growth.

Implications for VA

Having a Survivorship Clinic provides cancer survivors specialized services and meets their unique needs; at the same allowing for improved capacity for new active cancer referrals for the Oncology Clinics.

Background

There are an estimated 18 million cancer survivors in the US with unique needs including specific surveillance imaging, testing for recurrence, monitoring for and managing late effects of cancer treatments, and for second malignancies. Survivorship care is an unmet need in most VAHC. Purpose: Assess implementation outcomes of a Survivorship Clinic.

Methods

A Survivorship Clinic was initiated comprising of a Survivorship APRN and Nurse Navigator. A referral process and workflow were created. Medical and Radiation Oncology providers were educated regarding availability of survivorship services. We describe the results of the Survivorship Clinic 2021-2025 including demographics, diagnoses and referral patterns.

Results

1,332 visits were completed for 424 patients. 2021 (Oct-Dec): 21, 2022: 219, 2023: 424, 2024: 508, 2025 (Jan-Mar): 160. 364 men and 60 women. Cancer diagnoses seen: lung: 108, lymphoma: 62, colorectal: 52, breast: 45, head and neck: 40, melanoma: 28, NET: 23, testicular: 13, bladder: 13, esophageal: 10, renal: 7, sarcomas: 7, anal: 6, HCC: 6, hepatobiliary: 6, gastric/GIST: 5, leukemia: 5, pancreatic: 5, prostate: 5, Merkel cell: 3, SCC: 3, thymus: 3, uterine: 2, 1 each appendix, anaplastic astrocytoma, periosteal carcinoma, poorly differentiated basaloid chest wall carcinoma, and small intestine. For symptom management the following referrals were placed: Rehab (all departments) : 71, Psychology/Whole Health/THRIVE: 52, Gastroenterology: 43, Nutrition: 24, Dermatology: 20, Urology, ED: 16, Pulmonology: 15, Plastic Surgery: 15, ENT: 12, LIVESTRONG YMCA: 10, Genetics: 9, General Surgery: 4, Neurology: 4, Breast Clinic: 3, Dental: 3, Neurosurgery: 2, Ophthalmology: 2, Pain Management: 2, Radiation Oncology: 2, Wound Care: 2, Pharmacy: 1, and Rheumatology: 1. Survivorship care plans were created and provided to all patients.

Conclusions

Since 2021, the Cancer Survivorship Clinic, operated by an APRN, has successfully served 424 cancer survivors encompassing a wide range of cancers. The disproportionately low number of prostate cancer survivors referred may be reflective of their care being managed by Urology, and presents an opportunity for future growth.

Implications for VA

Having a Survivorship Clinic provides cancer survivors specialized services and meets their unique needs; at the same allowing for improved capacity for new active cancer referrals for the Oncology Clinics.