Article

Background

From 2000-2022 there were over 200 new drug and over 500 indication approvals specific to oncology. The rate of approvals has increased exponentially, making it difficult to maintain an up-to-date, standardized practice. Nationally, Veterans Affairs (VA) formulary decisions can take time given a lengthy approval process. Locally, the need was identified to incorporate new drugs and data into practice more rapidly. When bringing requests to the facility Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, it was recognized that the membership consisting of non-oncology practitioners did not allow for meaningful discussion of utilization. In 2017, a dedicated oncology drug review committee (DRC) comprised of oncology practitioners and a facility formulary representative was created as a P&T workgroup. Purpose: Evaluate and describe the utility of forming a local oncology DRC to incorporate new drugs and data into practice.

Methods

DRC minutes from December 2017 to May 2023 were reviewed. Discussion items were categorized into type of review. Date of local review was compared to national formulary criteria for use publication dates, and date of FDA approval for new drugs or publication date for new data, where applicable. Items were excluded if crucial information was missing from minutes. Descriptive statistics were used.

Results

Over 65 months, 38 meetings were held. Thirty total members include: pharmacists, physicians, fellows, and advanced practice providers. Items reviewed included: 36 new drugs (ND), 36 new indications/data (NI), 14 institutional preferences, 10 new dosage form/biosimilars, 4 drug shortages and 2 others. The median time from ND approval to discussion was 3 months (n= 36, IQR 3-6) and NI from publication was 3 months (n=30, IQR 1-8). Nearly all (34/36, 94%) ND were reviewed prior to national review. Local review was a median of 7 months before national, with 11 drugs currently having no published national criteria for use (n=25, IQR 2-12).

Conclusions

DRC formation has enabled faster incorporation of new drugs/indications into practice. It has also created an appropriate forum for in-depth utilization discussions, pharmacoeconomic stewardship, and sharing of formulary and medication related information. VA Health Systems could consider implementing similar committees to review and implement up-to-date oncology practices.

Background

From 2000-2022 there were over 200 new drug and over 500 indication approvals specific to oncology. The rate of approvals has increased exponentially, making it difficult to maintain an up-to-date, standardized practice. Nationally, Veterans Affairs (VA) formulary decisions can take time given a lengthy approval process. Locally, the need was identified to incorporate new drugs and data into practice more rapidly. When bringing requests to the facility Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, it was recognized that the membership consisting of non-oncology practitioners did not allow for meaningful discussion of utilization. In 2017, a dedicated oncology drug review committee (DRC) comprised of oncology practitioners and a facility formulary representative was created as a P&T workgroup. Purpose: Evaluate and describe the utility of forming a local oncology DRC to incorporate new drugs and data into practice.

Methods

DRC minutes from December 2017 to May 2023 were reviewed. Discussion items were categorized into type of review. Date of local review was compared to national formulary criteria for use publication dates, and date of FDA approval for new drugs or publication date for new data, where applicable. Items were excluded if crucial information was missing from minutes. Descriptive statistics were used.

Results

Over 65 months, 38 meetings were held. Thirty total members include: pharmacists, physicians, fellows, and advanced practice providers. Items reviewed included: 36 new drugs (ND), 36 new indications/data (NI), 14 institutional preferences, 10 new dosage form/biosimilars, 4 drug shortages and 2 others. The median time from ND approval to discussion was 3 months (n= 36, IQR 3-6) and NI from publication was 3 months (n=30, IQR 1-8). Nearly all (34/36, 94%) ND were reviewed prior to national review. Local review was a median of 7 months before national, with 11 drugs currently having no published national criteria for use (n=25, IQR 2-12).

Conclusions

DRC formation has enabled faster incorporation of new drugs/indications into practice. It has also created an appropriate forum for in-depth utilization discussions, pharmacoeconomic stewardship, and sharing of formulary and medication related information. VA Health Systems could consider implementing similar committees to review and implement up-to-date oncology practices.

Background

From 2000-2022 there were over 200 new drug and over 500 indication approvals specific to oncology. The rate of approvals has increased exponentially, making it difficult to maintain an up-to-date, standardized practice. Nationally, Veterans Affairs (VA) formulary decisions can take time given a lengthy approval process. Locally, the need was identified to incorporate new drugs and data into practice more rapidly. When bringing requests to the facility Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, it was recognized that the membership consisting of non-oncology practitioners did not allow for meaningful discussion of utilization. In 2017, a dedicated oncology drug review committee (DRC) comprised of oncology practitioners and a facility formulary representative was created as a P&T workgroup. Purpose: Evaluate and describe the utility of forming a local oncology DRC to incorporate new drugs and data into practice.

Methods

DRC minutes from December 2017 to May 2023 were reviewed. Discussion items were categorized into type of review. Date of local review was compared to national formulary criteria for use publication dates, and date of FDA approval for new drugs or publication date for new data, where applicable. Items were excluded if crucial information was missing from minutes. Descriptive statistics were used.

Results

Over 65 months, 38 meetings were held. Thirty total members include: pharmacists, physicians, fellows, and advanced practice providers. Items reviewed included: 36 new drugs (ND), 36 new indications/data (NI), 14 institutional preferences, 10 new dosage form/biosimilars, 4 drug shortages and 2 others. The median time from ND approval to discussion was 3 months (n= 36, IQR 3-6) and NI from publication was 3 months (n=30, IQR 1-8). Nearly all (34/36, 94%) ND were reviewed prior to national review. Local review was a median of 7 months before national, with 11 drugs currently having no published national criteria for use (n=25, IQR 2-12).

Conclusions

DRC formation has enabled faster incorporation of new drugs/indications into practice. It has also created an appropriate forum for in-depth utilization discussions, pharmacoeconomic stewardship, and sharing of formulary and medication related information. VA Health Systems could consider implementing similar committees to review and implement up-to-date oncology practices.

Background

In December of 2023, the Survivorship Coordinator at VA Connecticut spearheaded a multidisciplinary collaboration to offer PHASER testing to all patients newly diagnosed with a GI malignancy and/ or patients with a known GI malignancy and a new recurrence that might necessitate chemotherapy. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population.

Methods

By identifying patients who may have impaired metabolism prior to starting treatment, the doses of the appropriate drugs, 5FU and irinotecan, can be adjusted if appropriate, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment. We are tracking all of the patients who are being tested and will report quarterly to the Cancer Committee on any findings with a specific focus on whether any dose-adjustments were made to Veteran’s chemotherapy regimens as the result of this testing.

Discussion

We have developed a systematic process centered around GI tumor boards to ensure that testing is done at least two weeks prior to planned chemotherapy start-date to ensure adequate time for testing results to be received. We have developed a systematic process whereby primary care providers and pharmacists are alerted to the PHASER results and patients’ non-oncology medications are reviewed for any recommended adjustments. We will have 9 months of data to report on at AVAHO as well as lessons learned from this new quality improvement process. Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout the VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VA Connecticut on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.

Background

In December of 2023, the Survivorship Coordinator at VA Connecticut spearheaded a multidisciplinary collaboration to offer PHASER testing to all patients newly diagnosed with a GI malignancy and/ or patients with a known GI malignancy and a new recurrence that might necessitate chemotherapy. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population.

Methods

By identifying patients who may have impaired metabolism prior to starting treatment, the doses of the appropriate drugs, 5FU and irinotecan, can be adjusted if appropriate, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment. We are tracking all of the patients who are being tested and will report quarterly to the Cancer Committee on any findings with a specific focus on whether any dose-adjustments were made to Veteran’s chemotherapy regimens as the result of this testing.

Discussion

We have developed a systematic process centered around GI tumor boards to ensure that testing is done at least two weeks prior to planned chemotherapy start-date to ensure adequate time for testing results to be received. We have developed a systematic process whereby primary care providers and pharmacists are alerted to the PHASER results and patients’ non-oncology medications are reviewed for any recommended adjustments. We will have 9 months of data to report on at AVAHO as well as lessons learned from this new quality improvement process. Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout the VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VA Connecticut on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.

Background

In December of 2023, the Survivorship Coordinator at VA Connecticut spearheaded a multidisciplinary collaboration to offer PHASER testing to all patients newly diagnosed with a GI malignancy and/ or patients with a known GI malignancy and a new recurrence that might necessitate chemotherapy. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population.

Methods

By identifying patients who may have impaired metabolism prior to starting treatment, the doses of the appropriate drugs, 5FU and irinotecan, can be adjusted if appropriate, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment. We are tracking all of the patients who are being tested and will report quarterly to the Cancer Committee on any findings with a specific focus on whether any dose-adjustments were made to Veteran’s chemotherapy regimens as the result of this testing.

Discussion

We have developed a systematic process centered around GI tumor boards to ensure that testing is done at least two weeks prior to planned chemotherapy start-date to ensure adequate time for testing results to be received. We have developed a systematic process whereby primary care providers and pharmacists are alerted to the PHASER results and patients’ non-oncology medications are reviewed for any recommended adjustments. We will have 9 months of data to report on at AVAHO as well as lessons learned from this new quality improvement process. Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout the VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VA Connecticut on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The impact of treatment delay proves difficult to quantify, but increased time to treatment and subsequent progression can limit a patient’s chance for curative intent therapy. Reducing time to treatment aims to improve patient outcome and experience. This study aims to identify the median timeframes that occur in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients within a single Veteran Affair (VA) Medical Center.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 123 new primary lung cancer cases detected by imaging between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 within a single VA medical center. Exclusions were preexisting lung cancer or other malignancy. The following data was collected: time to PET scan, referrals, and treatment initiation. KruskalWallis test and Mann-Whitney U test was employed to assess differences in treatment times based on treatment modality and disease stage, respectively

Results

The median time from first abnormal image to PET scan was 26 days. The median time from initial abnormal scan to treatment was 91 days. Treatment initiation was significantly shorter in late-state disease (IV, extensive stage) at 57 days compared to early-stage disease (I-III, limited stage) at 98.5 days (p= 0.00008). There was a difference in the median time from abnormal scan to treatment initiation based on treatment modality: chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgical intervention occurred at 60 days, 86 days, and 98 days, respectively (p= 0.005).

Conclusions

At our institution, patients with latestage lung cancer initiate therapy significantly faster than those diagnosed with early-stage cancer. We feel this is largely due to complex, multidisciplinary coordination of early-stage disease, in contrast to those diagnosed at later stage disease who are treated in a palliative, systemic fashion. This study was instrumental at identifying key areas along the process that can be improved upon. Based on this data, changes will be implemented and studied in effort to shorten time to treatment.

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The impact of treatment delay proves difficult to quantify, but increased time to treatment and subsequent progression can limit a patient’s chance for curative intent therapy. Reducing time to treatment aims to improve patient outcome and experience. This study aims to identify the median timeframes that occur in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients within a single Veteran Affair (VA) Medical Center.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 123 new primary lung cancer cases detected by imaging between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 within a single VA medical center. Exclusions were preexisting lung cancer or other malignancy. The following data was collected: time to PET scan, referrals, and treatment initiation. KruskalWallis test and Mann-Whitney U test was employed to assess differences in treatment times based on treatment modality and disease stage, respectively

Results

The median time from first abnormal image to PET scan was 26 days. The median time from initial abnormal scan to treatment was 91 days. Treatment initiation was significantly shorter in late-state disease (IV, extensive stage) at 57 days compared to early-stage disease (I-III, limited stage) at 98.5 days (p= 0.00008). There was a difference in the median time from abnormal scan to treatment initiation based on treatment modality: chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgical intervention occurred at 60 days, 86 days, and 98 days, respectively (p= 0.005).

Conclusions

At our institution, patients with latestage lung cancer initiate therapy significantly faster than those diagnosed with early-stage cancer. We feel this is largely due to complex, multidisciplinary coordination of early-stage disease, in contrast to those diagnosed at later stage disease who are treated in a palliative, systemic fashion. This study was instrumental at identifying key areas along the process that can be improved upon. Based on this data, changes will be implemented and studied in effort to shorten time to treatment.

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The impact of treatment delay proves difficult to quantify, but increased time to treatment and subsequent progression can limit a patient’s chance for curative intent therapy. Reducing time to treatment aims to improve patient outcome and experience. This study aims to identify the median timeframes that occur in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients within a single Veteran Affair (VA) Medical Center.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 123 new primary lung cancer cases detected by imaging between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 within a single VA medical center. Exclusions were preexisting lung cancer or other malignancy. The following data was collected: time to PET scan, referrals, and treatment initiation. KruskalWallis test and Mann-Whitney U test was employed to assess differences in treatment times based on treatment modality and disease stage, respectively

Results

The median time from first abnormal image to PET scan was 26 days. The median time from initial abnormal scan to treatment was 91 days. Treatment initiation was significantly shorter in late-state disease (IV, extensive stage) at 57 days compared to early-stage disease (I-III, limited stage) at 98.5 days (p= 0.00008). There was a difference in the median time from abnormal scan to treatment initiation based on treatment modality: chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgical intervention occurred at 60 days, 86 days, and 98 days, respectively (p= 0.005).

Conclusions

At our institution, patients with latestage lung cancer initiate therapy significantly faster than those diagnosed with early-stage cancer. We feel this is largely due to complex, multidisciplinary coordination of early-stage disease, in contrast to those diagnosed at later stage disease who are treated in a palliative, systemic fashion. This study was instrumental at identifying key areas along the process that can be improved upon. Based on this data, changes will be implemented and studied in effort to shorten time to treatment.

Background

Goblet cell adenocarcinoma (GCA), also known as goblet cell carcinoid, is a rare and distinct type of cancer originating from the appendix. It is characterized by cells that exhibit both mucinous and neuroendocrine differentiation, presenting a more aggressive nature compared to conventional carcinoids and a higher propensity for metastasis.

Case Presentation

A 60-year-old male presented with complaints of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, constipation, and weight loss worsening in the last month. He had a history of heavy alcohol intake, smoking, and family history of colon cancer in his grandfather. Initial workup with abdominal CT revealed findings suggestive of early bowel obstruction and possible malignancy. Subsequent EGD showed esophagitis, and colonoscopy identified a cecal mass. Biopsies confirmed malignant cells of enteric type with goblet cell features. Staging CT during hospitalization did not reveal distant metastasis initially. However, diagnostic laparoscopy later identified widespread peritoneal carcinomatosis, precluding surgical intervention. The case was discussed in tumor boards, leading to the initiation of palliative FOLFOX + Bevacizumab chemotherapy. After completing 7 cycles, restaging imaging showed stable disease. Subsequently, the patient experienced worsening obstructive symptoms with CT abdomen and pelvis demonstrating disease progression. Given his condition, decompressive gastrostomy was not feasible. The patient decided to transition to comfort measures only.

Discussion

Goblet cell adenocarcinoma is a rare appendiceal tumor with amphicrine differentiation, occurring at a rate of 0.01–0.05 per 100,000 individuals annually and comprising approximately 15% of all appendiceal neoplasms. These tumors often disseminate within the peritoneum, contributing to their aggressive behavior and challenging management.

Conclusions

Metastatic goblet cell adenocarcinoma presents significant treatment challenges and is associated with a poor prognosis. Tailored treatment strategies, vigilant monitoring, and ongoing research efforts are essential for optimizing patient outcomes and enhancing quality of life in this aggressive cancer

Background

Goblet cell adenocarcinoma (GCA), also known as goblet cell carcinoid, is a rare and distinct type of cancer originating from the appendix. It is characterized by cells that exhibit both mucinous and neuroendocrine differentiation, presenting a more aggressive nature compared to conventional carcinoids and a higher propensity for metastasis.

Case Presentation

A 60-year-old male presented with complaints of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, constipation, and weight loss worsening in the last month. He had a history of heavy alcohol intake, smoking, and family history of colon cancer in his grandfather. Initial workup with abdominal CT revealed findings suggestive of early bowel obstruction and possible malignancy. Subsequent EGD showed esophagitis, and colonoscopy identified a cecal mass. Biopsies confirmed malignant cells of enteric type with goblet cell features. Staging CT during hospitalization did not reveal distant metastasis initially. However, diagnostic laparoscopy later identified widespread peritoneal carcinomatosis, precluding surgical intervention. The case was discussed in tumor boards, leading to the initiation of palliative FOLFOX + Bevacizumab chemotherapy. After completing 7 cycles, restaging imaging showed stable disease. Subsequently, the patient experienced worsening obstructive symptoms with CT abdomen and pelvis demonstrating disease progression. Given his condition, decompressive gastrostomy was not feasible. The patient decided to transition to comfort measures only.

Discussion

Goblet cell adenocarcinoma is a rare appendiceal tumor with amphicrine differentiation, occurring at a rate of 0.01–0.05 per 100,000 individuals annually and comprising approximately 15% of all appendiceal neoplasms. These tumors often disseminate within the peritoneum, contributing to their aggressive behavior and challenging management.

Conclusions

Metastatic goblet cell adenocarcinoma presents significant treatment challenges and is associated with a poor prognosis. Tailored treatment strategies, vigilant monitoring, and ongoing research efforts are essential for optimizing patient outcomes and enhancing quality of life in this aggressive cancer

Background

Goblet cell adenocarcinoma (GCA), also known as goblet cell carcinoid, is a rare and distinct type of cancer originating from the appendix. It is characterized by cells that exhibit both mucinous and neuroendocrine differentiation, presenting a more aggressive nature compared to conventional carcinoids and a higher propensity for metastasis.

Case Presentation

A 60-year-old male presented with complaints of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, constipation, and weight loss worsening in the last month. He had a history of heavy alcohol intake, smoking, and family history of colon cancer in his grandfather. Initial workup with abdominal CT revealed findings suggestive of early bowel obstruction and possible malignancy. Subsequent EGD showed esophagitis, and colonoscopy identified a cecal mass. Biopsies confirmed malignant cells of enteric type with goblet cell features. Staging CT during hospitalization did not reveal distant metastasis initially. However, diagnostic laparoscopy later identified widespread peritoneal carcinomatosis, precluding surgical intervention. The case was discussed in tumor boards, leading to the initiation of palliative FOLFOX + Bevacizumab chemotherapy. After completing 7 cycles, restaging imaging showed stable disease. Subsequently, the patient experienced worsening obstructive symptoms with CT abdomen and pelvis demonstrating disease progression. Given his condition, decompressive gastrostomy was not feasible. The patient decided to transition to comfort measures only.

Discussion

Goblet cell adenocarcinoma is a rare appendiceal tumor with amphicrine differentiation, occurring at a rate of 0.01–0.05 per 100,000 individuals annually and comprising approximately 15% of all appendiceal neoplasms. These tumors often disseminate within the peritoneum, contributing to their aggressive behavior and challenging management.

Conclusions

Metastatic goblet cell adenocarcinoma presents significant treatment challenges and is associated with a poor prognosis. Tailored treatment strategies, vigilant monitoring, and ongoing research efforts are essential for optimizing patient outcomes and enhancing quality of life in this aggressive cancer

Background

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare and aggressive cancer of the biliary system, accounting for 15% of primary liver cancers. Most CCAs arise spontaneously, with risk factors including primary biliary cirrhosis, liver fluke infection, and biliary malformations. A newly described variant, Inhibin-positive Cholangioblastic (solid-tubulocystic) intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), mimics neuroendocrine tumors (NET). This report presents a case of this new variant.

Case Presentation

A 53-year-old female with a history of alcohol use disorder and no family history of liver cancer presented with watery diarrhea for a month. Blood tests, including tumor markers, were normal. An ultrasound revealed a large mass in the right hepatic lobe. CT and MRI scans suggested a hemangioma. Due to the mass’s size and spontaneous bleeding risk, she underwent surgical resection. The mass was initially thought to be a hemangioma but was later identified as poorly differentiated intrahepatic CCA with a solid and tubulocystic structure. Pathology showed strong staining for Cytokeratin (CK) 7, CK-19, and Inhibin, and weak staining for synaptophysin, confirming a diagnosis of cholangioblastic iCCA. Genetic testing revealed no actionable variations. She was started on capecitabine for 8 cycles. Follow-up imaging showed no disease recurrence or metastasis.

Discussion

CCA often presents at advanced stages with symptoms like weight loss and jaundice. Diagnosis involves clinical assessment, lab work, and imaging, particularly MRI. Cholangioblastic Intrahepatic CCA (iCCA) is a newly described variant of cholangiocarcinoma. There have been 16 reported cases of the disease. Initially, it was thought to be a NET as it expressed Chromogranin, insulinoma-associated protein-1, and Synaptophysin. Almost half of the reported cases were diagnosed as NET initially. One tool clinicians can use to differentiate them is inhibin. Inhibin has been documented in all of the reported cases of Cholangioblastic iCCA. A novel inhibin-positive cholangioblastic iCCA variant with a Nipped-B-like protein and nucleus accumbens associated-1 (NIPBL-NACC1) fusion transcript has been reported recently, further helping differentiate the two. There is no standard of therapy for this variant. It’s managed similarly to CCAs, relying on surgical resection as the primary treatment. Limited data shows varied responses to neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.

Background

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare and aggressive cancer of the biliary system, accounting for 15% of primary liver cancers. Most CCAs arise spontaneously, with risk factors including primary biliary cirrhosis, liver fluke infection, and biliary malformations. A newly described variant, Inhibin-positive Cholangioblastic (solid-tubulocystic) intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), mimics neuroendocrine tumors (NET). This report presents a case of this new variant.

Case Presentation

A 53-year-old female with a history of alcohol use disorder and no family history of liver cancer presented with watery diarrhea for a month. Blood tests, including tumor markers, were normal. An ultrasound revealed a large mass in the right hepatic lobe. CT and MRI scans suggested a hemangioma. Due to the mass’s size and spontaneous bleeding risk, she underwent surgical resection. The mass was initially thought to be a hemangioma but was later identified as poorly differentiated intrahepatic CCA with a solid and tubulocystic structure. Pathology showed strong staining for Cytokeratin (CK) 7, CK-19, and Inhibin, and weak staining for synaptophysin, confirming a diagnosis of cholangioblastic iCCA. Genetic testing revealed no actionable variations. She was started on capecitabine for 8 cycles. Follow-up imaging showed no disease recurrence or metastasis.

Discussion

CCA often presents at advanced stages with symptoms like weight loss and jaundice. Diagnosis involves clinical assessment, lab work, and imaging, particularly MRI. Cholangioblastic Intrahepatic CCA (iCCA) is a newly described variant of cholangiocarcinoma. There have been 16 reported cases of the disease. Initially, it was thought to be a NET as it expressed Chromogranin, insulinoma-associated protein-1, and Synaptophysin. Almost half of the reported cases were diagnosed as NET initially. One tool clinicians can use to differentiate them is inhibin. Inhibin has been documented in all of the reported cases of Cholangioblastic iCCA. A novel inhibin-positive cholangioblastic iCCA variant with a Nipped-B-like protein and nucleus accumbens associated-1 (NIPBL-NACC1) fusion transcript has been reported recently, further helping differentiate the two. There is no standard of therapy for this variant. It’s managed similarly to CCAs, relying on surgical resection as the primary treatment. Limited data shows varied responses to neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.

Background

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare and aggressive cancer of the biliary system, accounting for 15% of primary liver cancers. Most CCAs arise spontaneously, with risk factors including primary biliary cirrhosis, liver fluke infection, and biliary malformations. A newly described variant, Inhibin-positive Cholangioblastic (solid-tubulocystic) intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), mimics neuroendocrine tumors (NET). This report presents a case of this new variant.

Case Presentation

A 53-year-old female with a history of alcohol use disorder and no family history of liver cancer presented with watery diarrhea for a month. Blood tests, including tumor markers, were normal. An ultrasound revealed a large mass in the right hepatic lobe. CT and MRI scans suggested a hemangioma. Due to the mass’s size and spontaneous bleeding risk, she underwent surgical resection. The mass was initially thought to be a hemangioma but was later identified as poorly differentiated intrahepatic CCA with a solid and tubulocystic structure. Pathology showed strong staining for Cytokeratin (CK) 7, CK-19, and Inhibin, and weak staining for synaptophysin, confirming a diagnosis of cholangioblastic iCCA. Genetic testing revealed no actionable variations. She was started on capecitabine for 8 cycles. Follow-up imaging showed no disease recurrence or metastasis.

Discussion

CCA often presents at advanced stages with symptoms like weight loss and jaundice. Diagnosis involves clinical assessment, lab work, and imaging, particularly MRI. Cholangioblastic Intrahepatic CCA (iCCA) is a newly described variant of cholangiocarcinoma. There have been 16 reported cases of the disease. Initially, it was thought to be a NET as it expressed Chromogranin, insulinoma-associated protein-1, and Synaptophysin. Almost half of the reported cases were diagnosed as NET initially. One tool clinicians can use to differentiate them is inhibin. Inhibin has been documented in all of the reported cases of Cholangioblastic iCCA. A novel inhibin-positive cholangioblastic iCCA variant with a Nipped-B-like protein and nucleus accumbens associated-1 (NIPBL-NACC1) fusion transcript has been reported recently, further helping differentiate the two. There is no standard of therapy for this variant. It’s managed similarly to CCAs, relying on surgical resection as the primary treatment. Limited data shows varied responses to neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.

Background

Despite the benefit of cancer clinical trials (CTs) in increasing medical knowledge and broadening treatment options, VA oncologists face challenges referring or enrolling Veterans in CTs including identifying appropriate CTs and navigating the referral process especially for non-VA CTs. To address these challenges, the VA National Oncology Program (NOP) provided guidance regarding community care referral for CT participation and established the Cancer Clinical Trial Nurse Navigation (CTN) service.

Methods

Referrals to CTN occur via Precision Oncology consult or email to [email protected]. The CT nurse navigator educates Veterans about CTs, identifies CTs for Veterans based on disease and geographic area, provides written summaries to Veterans and VA oncologists, and facilitates communication between clinical and research teams. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics of Veterans referred to CTN and results of the CTN searches. A semi-structured survey was used to assess satisfaction from 50 VA oncologists who had used the CTN service.

Results

Between June 2023 and May 2024, 72 Veterans were referred to CTN. Patient characteristics include male (94%), non-rural (65%), median age 66.5 (range 27-80), self-reported race as White (74%) and Black (22%), cancer type as solid tumor (73%) and blood cancer (27%). The median number of CTs found for each Veteran was two (range 0 - 12). No referred Veterans enrolled in CTs, with the most common causes being CT ineligibility and desire to receive standard therapy in the VA. Twenty oncologists were educated about NOP CT guidance. The response rate to the feedback survey was modest (34%) but 94% of survey respondents rated their overall satisfaction as highly satisfied or satisfied.

Conclusions

The CTN assists Veterans and VA oncologists in connecting with CTs. The high satisfaction rate and ability to reach a racially and geographically diverse Veteran population are measures of early program success. By lowering the barriers for VA oncologists to consider CTs for their patients, the CTN expects increased and earlier referrals of Veterans, which may improve CT eligibility and participation. Future efforts to provide disease-directed education about CTs to Veterans and VA oncologists is intended to encourage early consideration of CTs.

Background

Despite the benefit of cancer clinical trials (CTs) in increasing medical knowledge and broadening treatment options, VA oncologists face challenges referring or enrolling Veterans in CTs including identifying appropriate CTs and navigating the referral process especially for non-VA CTs. To address these challenges, the VA National Oncology Program (NOP) provided guidance regarding community care referral for CT participation and established the Cancer Clinical Trial Nurse Navigation (CTN) service.

Methods

Referrals to CTN occur via Precision Oncology consult or email to [email protected]. The CT nurse navigator educates Veterans about CTs, identifies CTs for Veterans based on disease and geographic area, provides written summaries to Veterans and VA oncologists, and facilitates communication between clinical and research teams. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics of Veterans referred to CTN and results of the CTN searches. A semi-structured survey was used to assess satisfaction from 50 VA oncologists who had used the CTN service.

Results

Between June 2023 and May 2024, 72 Veterans were referred to CTN. Patient characteristics include male (94%), non-rural (65%), median age 66.5 (range 27-80), self-reported race as White (74%) and Black (22%), cancer type as solid tumor (73%) and blood cancer (27%). The median number of CTs found for each Veteran was two (range 0 - 12). No referred Veterans enrolled in CTs, with the most common causes being CT ineligibility and desire to receive standard therapy in the VA. Twenty oncologists were educated about NOP CT guidance. The response rate to the feedback survey was modest (34%) but 94% of survey respondents rated their overall satisfaction as highly satisfied or satisfied.

Conclusions

The CTN assists Veterans and VA oncologists in connecting with CTs. The high satisfaction rate and ability to reach a racially and geographically diverse Veteran population are measures of early program success. By lowering the barriers for VA oncologists to consider CTs for their patients, the CTN expects increased and earlier referrals of Veterans, which may improve CT eligibility and participation. Future efforts to provide disease-directed education about CTs to Veterans and VA oncologists is intended to encourage early consideration of CTs.

Background

Despite the benefit of cancer clinical trials (CTs) in increasing medical knowledge and broadening treatment options, VA oncologists face challenges referring or enrolling Veterans in CTs including identifying appropriate CTs and navigating the referral process especially for non-VA CTs. To address these challenges, the VA National Oncology Program (NOP) provided guidance regarding community care referral for CT participation and established the Cancer Clinical Trial Nurse Navigation (CTN) service.

Methods

Referrals to CTN occur via Precision Oncology consult or email to [email protected]. The CT nurse navigator educates Veterans about CTs, identifies CTs for Veterans based on disease and geographic area, provides written summaries to Veterans and VA oncologists, and facilitates communication between clinical and research teams. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics of Veterans referred to CTN and results of the CTN searches. A semi-structured survey was used to assess satisfaction from 50 VA oncologists who had used the CTN service.

Results

Between June 2023 and May 2024, 72 Veterans were referred to CTN. Patient characteristics include male (94%), non-rural (65%), median age 66.5 (range 27-80), self-reported race as White (74%) and Black (22%), cancer type as solid tumor (73%) and blood cancer (27%). The median number of CTs found for each Veteran was two (range 0 - 12). No referred Veterans enrolled in CTs, with the most common causes being CT ineligibility and desire to receive standard therapy in the VA. Twenty oncologists were educated about NOP CT guidance. The response rate to the feedback survey was modest (34%) but 94% of survey respondents rated their overall satisfaction as highly satisfied or satisfied.

Conclusions

The CTN assists Veterans and VA oncologists in connecting with CTs. The high satisfaction rate and ability to reach a racially and geographically diverse Veteran population are measures of early program success. By lowering the barriers for VA oncologists to consider CTs for their patients, the CTN expects increased and earlier referrals of Veterans, which may improve CT eligibility and participation. Future efforts to provide disease-directed education about CTs to Veterans and VA oncologists is intended to encourage early consideration of CTs.

Background

Oral anti-cancer therapies have quickly moved to the forefront of cancer treatment for several oncologic disease states. While these treatments have led to improvements in prognosis and ease of administration, many of these agents carry the risk of serious short- and long-term toxicities affecting the cardiovascular system. This prompted the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) to release special guidance focused on cardiovascular monitoring strategies for anti-cancer agents. The primary objective of this retrospective review was to evaluate compliance with cardiovascular monitoring based on JAHA cardio-oncologic guidelines. The secondary objective was to assess disparities in cardiovascular monitoring based on markers of equity such as race/ ethnicity, rurality, socioeconomic status and gender.

Methods

Patients who initiated pazopanib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, axitinib, regorafenib, nilotinib, ibrutinib, sorafenib, sunitinib, ponatinib or everolimus between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 at a VHA VISN 12 site with oncology services were followed forward until treatment discontinuation or 12 months of therapy had been completed. Data was acquired utilizing the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) and the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The following cardiovascular monitoring markers were recorded at baseline and months 3, 6, 9 and 12 after initiation anti-cancer therapy: blood pressure, blood glucose, cholesterol, ECG and echocardiogram. Descriptive statistics were used to examine all continuous variables, while frequencies were used to examine categorical variables. Univariate statistics were performed on all items respectively.

Results

A total of 219 patients were identified initiating pre-specified oral anti-cancer therapies during the study time period. Of these, a total of n=145 met study inclusion criteria. 97% were male (n=141), 80% (n=116) had a racial background of white, 36% (n=52) live in rural or highly rural locations and 23% (n=34) lived in a high poverty area. Based on the primary endpoint, the mean compliance with recommended cardiovascular monitoring was 44.95% [IQR 12]. There was no statistically significant difference in cardiovascular monitoring based on equity.

Conclusions

Overall uptake of cardiovascular monitoring markers recommended by JAHA guidance is low. We plan to evaluate methods to increase these measures, utilizing clinical pharmacy provider support throughout VISN 12.

Background

Oral anti-cancer therapies have quickly moved to the forefront of cancer treatment for several oncologic disease states. While these treatments have led to improvements in prognosis and ease of administration, many of these agents carry the risk of serious short- and long-term toxicities affecting the cardiovascular system. This prompted the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) to release special guidance focused on cardiovascular monitoring strategies for anti-cancer agents. The primary objective of this retrospective review was to evaluate compliance with cardiovascular monitoring based on JAHA cardio-oncologic guidelines. The secondary objective was to assess disparities in cardiovascular monitoring based on markers of equity such as race/ ethnicity, rurality, socioeconomic status and gender.

Methods

Patients who initiated pazopanib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, axitinib, regorafenib, nilotinib, ibrutinib, sorafenib, sunitinib, ponatinib or everolimus between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 at a VHA VISN 12 site with oncology services were followed forward until treatment discontinuation or 12 months of therapy had been completed. Data was acquired utilizing the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) and the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The following cardiovascular monitoring markers were recorded at baseline and months 3, 6, 9 and 12 after initiation anti-cancer therapy: blood pressure, blood glucose, cholesterol, ECG and echocardiogram. Descriptive statistics were used to examine all continuous variables, while frequencies were used to examine categorical variables. Univariate statistics were performed on all items respectively.

Results

A total of 219 patients were identified initiating pre-specified oral anti-cancer therapies during the study time period. Of these, a total of n=145 met study inclusion criteria. 97% were male (n=141), 80% (n=116) had a racial background of white, 36% (n=52) live in rural or highly rural locations and 23% (n=34) lived in a high poverty area. Based on the primary endpoint, the mean compliance with recommended cardiovascular monitoring was 44.95% [IQR 12]. There was no statistically significant difference in cardiovascular monitoring based on equity.

Conclusions

Overall uptake of cardiovascular monitoring markers recommended by JAHA guidance is low. We plan to evaluate methods to increase these measures, utilizing clinical pharmacy provider support throughout VISN 12.

Background

Oral anti-cancer therapies have quickly moved to the forefront of cancer treatment for several oncologic disease states. While these treatments have led to improvements in prognosis and ease of administration, many of these agents carry the risk of serious short- and long-term toxicities affecting the cardiovascular system. This prompted the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) to release special guidance focused on cardiovascular monitoring strategies for anti-cancer agents. The primary objective of this retrospective review was to evaluate compliance with cardiovascular monitoring based on JAHA cardio-oncologic guidelines. The secondary objective was to assess disparities in cardiovascular monitoring based on markers of equity such as race/ ethnicity, rurality, socioeconomic status and gender.

Methods

Patients who initiated pazopanib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, axitinib, regorafenib, nilotinib, ibrutinib, sorafenib, sunitinib, ponatinib or everolimus between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 at a VHA VISN 12 site with oncology services were followed forward until treatment discontinuation or 12 months of therapy had been completed. Data was acquired utilizing the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) and the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The following cardiovascular monitoring markers were recorded at baseline and months 3, 6, 9 and 12 after initiation anti-cancer therapy: blood pressure, blood glucose, cholesterol, ECG and echocardiogram. Descriptive statistics were used to examine all continuous variables, while frequencies were used to examine categorical variables. Univariate statistics were performed on all items respectively.

Results

A total of 219 patients were identified initiating pre-specified oral anti-cancer therapies during the study time period. Of these, a total of n=145 met study inclusion criteria. 97% were male (n=141), 80% (n=116) had a racial background of white, 36% (n=52) live in rural or highly rural locations and 23% (n=34) lived in a high poverty area. Based on the primary endpoint, the mean compliance with recommended cardiovascular monitoring was 44.95% [IQR 12]. There was no statistically significant difference in cardiovascular monitoring based on equity.

Conclusions

Overall uptake of cardiovascular monitoring markers recommended by JAHA guidance is low. We plan to evaluate methods to increase these measures, utilizing clinical pharmacy provider support throughout VISN 12.

Background

This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.

Methods

A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.

Results

The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.

Conclusions

PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.

Background

This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.

Methods

A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.

Results

The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.

Conclusions

PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.

Background

This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.

Methods

A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.

Results

The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.

Conclusions

PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.

Background

Approximately 56,000 Veterans are diagnosed with cancer every year in the VA system. Up to 90% of survivors have at least one impairment that decreases their quality of life, but only 2-9% are receiving cancer rehabilitation. Current research in cancer care demonstrates the importance of prospective surveillance, rehabilitation, and a multidisciplinary (MultiD) approach to cancer survivorship. Multi-D treatments help mitigate the effects of cancer and its treatments as the veterans proceed through care, improve outcomes, and streamline the process to meet all rehabilitation needs for those affected by cancer. Prior to the development of this program all services except navigation were available. Those diagnosed with cancer were not receiving prehabilitation and consults to ancillary services did not occur until after active cancer treatment was completed. CCRP united existing Multi-D programs to better serve the needs of veterans with cancer. Development of the CCRP CPRS Consult menu has allowed for improved access for both providers and veterans.

Methods

Identified the need for ancillary services during cancer survivorship, regardless of Veterans treatment location within or outside the VA system. Initiated tracking via CCR consults, developed a CCRP guidebook to identify all services available and how to access them as well as the CCCRP consult menu to create easier access for providers and veterans. Tracking via Multi-D departments that allow for tracking in CPRS via CCRP Consult.

Results

Prior to FY23 no cancer rehab consults existed. Consults received since program implementation: Navigation: 144, Physical Therapy: 102, Occupational Therapy: 7, Speech: 15. All other Multi-D did not track CCRP-specific consults. Other tools for data analysis are utilized in other departments in which gaps in coordination of care have been caught/resolved, and advocacy has increased.

Conclusions

Comprehensive cancer care from diagnosis throughout survivorship improves quality of life. A Multi-D comprehensive Cancer rehabilitation provides an opportunity to streamline care via a CPRS Menu. Other VA medical centers can develop a Multi-D cancer rehabilitation program to coordinate treatments from diagnosis through survivorship. This is an opportunity to make the VA the forefront of oncology care – by providing all services within one system.

Background

Approximately 56,000 Veterans are diagnosed with cancer every year in the VA system. Up to 90% of survivors have at least one impairment that decreases their quality of life, but only 2-9% are receiving cancer rehabilitation. Current research in cancer care demonstrates the importance of prospective surveillance, rehabilitation, and a multidisciplinary (MultiD) approach to cancer survivorship. Multi-D treatments help mitigate the effects of cancer and its treatments as the veterans proceed through care, improve outcomes, and streamline the process to meet all rehabilitation needs for those affected by cancer. Prior to the development of this program all services except navigation were available. Those diagnosed with cancer were not receiving prehabilitation and consults to ancillary services did not occur until after active cancer treatment was completed. CCRP united existing Multi-D programs to better serve the needs of veterans with cancer. Development of the CCRP CPRS Consult menu has allowed for improved access for both providers and veterans.

Methods

Identified the need for ancillary services during cancer survivorship, regardless of Veterans treatment location within or outside the VA system. Initiated tracking via CCR consults, developed a CCRP guidebook to identify all services available and how to access them as well as the CCCRP consult menu to create easier access for providers and veterans. Tracking via Multi-D departments that allow for tracking in CPRS via CCRP Consult.

Results

Prior to FY23 no cancer rehab consults existed. Consults received since program implementation: Navigation: 144, Physical Therapy: 102, Occupational Therapy: 7, Speech: 15. All other Multi-D did not track CCRP-specific consults. Other tools for data analysis are utilized in other departments in which gaps in coordination of care have been caught/resolved, and advocacy has increased.

Conclusions

Comprehensive cancer care from diagnosis throughout survivorship improves quality of life. A Multi-D comprehensive Cancer rehabilitation provides an opportunity to streamline care via a CPRS Menu. Other VA medical centers can develop a Multi-D cancer rehabilitation program to coordinate treatments from diagnosis through survivorship. This is an opportunity to make the VA the forefront of oncology care – by providing all services within one system.

Background

Approximately 56,000 Veterans are diagnosed with cancer every year in the VA system. Up to 90% of survivors have at least one impairment that decreases their quality of life, but only 2-9% are receiving cancer rehabilitation. Current research in cancer care demonstrates the importance of prospective surveillance, rehabilitation, and a multidisciplinary (MultiD) approach to cancer survivorship. Multi-D treatments help mitigate the effects of cancer and its treatments as the veterans proceed through care, improve outcomes, and streamline the process to meet all rehabilitation needs for those affected by cancer. Prior to the development of this program all services except navigation were available. Those diagnosed with cancer were not receiving prehabilitation and consults to ancillary services did not occur until after active cancer treatment was completed. CCRP united existing Multi-D programs to better serve the needs of veterans with cancer. Development of the CCRP CPRS Consult menu has allowed for improved access for both providers and veterans.

Methods

Identified the need for ancillary services during cancer survivorship, regardless of Veterans treatment location within or outside the VA system. Initiated tracking via CCR consults, developed a CCRP guidebook to identify all services available and how to access them as well as the CCCRP consult menu to create easier access for providers and veterans. Tracking via Multi-D departments that allow for tracking in CPRS via CCRP Consult.

Results

Prior to FY23 no cancer rehab consults existed. Consults received since program implementation: Navigation: 144, Physical Therapy: 102, Occupational Therapy: 7, Speech: 15. All other Multi-D did not track CCRP-specific consults. Other tools for data analysis are utilized in other departments in which gaps in coordination of care have been caught/resolved, and advocacy has increased.

Conclusions

Comprehensive cancer care from diagnosis throughout survivorship improves quality of life. A Multi-D comprehensive Cancer rehabilitation provides an opportunity to streamline care via a CPRS Menu. Other VA medical centers can develop a Multi-D cancer rehabilitation program to coordinate treatments from diagnosis through survivorship. This is an opportunity to make the VA the forefront of oncology care – by providing all services within one system.

Background

VA Whole Health (WH) is an approach that empowers and equips people to take charge of their health and well-being. In 2020, 18 WH Flagship sites demonstrated reduced opiate use and smaller increases in pharmacy costs as well as favorable veteran self-reported measures. VA mandated WH integration into mental health and primary care. Purose: To incorporate WH within Dayton VA cancer care, using the Personal Health Inventory (PHI) as an intake tool, a tumor-agnostic WH oncology clinic was established.

Methods

Led by an oncologist, a referral-based clinic opened in 2021. Pre-work included EHR items (stop codes/templates), staff training and leverage of mental health integration. VA’s generic PHI was utilized until an oncology-specific PHI was developed by leaders in the field.(3-5) Clinic data was tracked.

Results

170 visits offered (June 2021-May 2024). 32 referrals received (one without cancer; deaths: two pre-intake/five post-intake); 70 appointments occurred among 30 veterans (30 intake/40 follow-up) for 41% fill rate (up 5% from 1st six months). 96% PHI completion rate. Referral sources: fellows (43%), attendings (17%), PCP (3%), Survivorship Clinic (3%), self-referral (33%)--40% of these from cancer support group members. Cancer types (one dual-diagnosis; total >100%): 24% breast, 17% prostate, 17% NSCLC, 10% NHL, 10% pancreatic, 7% Head/Neck, 7% SCLC, 3% each colon/esophageal/kidney. Cancer Stages represented: I (10%), II (20%), III (23%) and IV (47%). Participant info: Age range (36-85); 69% male and 31% female with 86% on active cancer therapy (hormonal, immune-, chemo- or chemoradiation). Supplements were discussed at 26% of visits and referrals ordered at 27% (4-massage therapy, 1-acupuncture, 1-chiropractic, 2-health coaching, 1-cardiology, 1-lymphedema therapy, 1-social work, 1-survivorship clinic, 1-yoga, 1-diabetes education, 1-ENT, 1-nutrition, 1-pathology, 1-pulmonary, 1-prosthetics).

Conclusions

WH within cancer care is feasible for veterans on active treatment (all types/stages) and at a non-Flagship/unfunded site. Veterans gain introduction to WH through the PHI and Complementary-Integrative Health referrals (VA Directive 1137). Cancer support group attendance prompts WH clinic self-referrals. Next steps at DVAMC are to offer mind-body approaches such as virtual reality experiences in the infusion room and VA CALM sessions via asynchronous online delivery; funding would support WH evolution in oncology.

Background

VA Whole Health (WH) is an approach that empowers and equips people to take charge of their health and well-being. In 2020, 18 WH Flagship sites demonstrated reduced opiate use and smaller increases in pharmacy costs as well as favorable veteran self-reported measures. VA mandated WH integration into mental health and primary care. Purose: To incorporate WH within Dayton VA cancer care, using the Personal Health Inventory (PHI) as an intake tool, a tumor-agnostic WH oncology clinic was established.

Methods

Led by an oncologist, a referral-based clinic opened in 2021. Pre-work included EHR items (stop codes/templates), staff training and leverage of mental health integration. VA’s generic PHI was utilized until an oncology-specific PHI was developed by leaders in the field.(3-5) Clinic data was tracked.

Results

170 visits offered (June 2021-May 2024). 32 referrals received (one without cancer; deaths: two pre-intake/five post-intake); 70 appointments occurred among 30 veterans (30 intake/40 follow-up) for 41% fill rate (up 5% from 1st six months). 96% PHI completion rate. Referral sources: fellows (43%), attendings (17%), PCP (3%), Survivorship Clinic (3%), self-referral (33%)--40% of these from cancer support group members. Cancer types (one dual-diagnosis; total >100%): 24% breast, 17% prostate, 17% NSCLC, 10% NHL, 10% pancreatic, 7% Head/Neck, 7% SCLC, 3% each colon/esophageal/kidney. Cancer Stages represented: I (10%), II (20%), III (23%) and IV (47%). Participant info: Age range (36-85); 69% male and 31% female with 86% on active cancer therapy (hormonal, immune-, chemo- or chemoradiation). Supplements were discussed at 26% of visits and referrals ordered at 27% (4-massage therapy, 1-acupuncture, 1-chiropractic, 2-health coaching, 1-cardiology, 1-lymphedema therapy, 1-social work, 1-survivorship clinic, 1-yoga, 1-diabetes education, 1-ENT, 1-nutrition, 1-pathology, 1-pulmonary, 1-prosthetics).

Conclusions

WH within cancer care is feasible for veterans on active treatment (all types/stages) and at a non-Flagship/unfunded site. Veterans gain introduction to WH through the PHI and Complementary-Integrative Health referrals (VA Directive 1137). Cancer support group attendance prompts WH clinic self-referrals. Next steps at DVAMC are to offer mind-body approaches such as virtual reality experiences in the infusion room and VA CALM sessions via asynchronous online delivery; funding would support WH evolution in oncology.

Background

VA Whole Health (WH) is an approach that empowers and equips people to take charge of their health and well-being. In 2020, 18 WH Flagship sites demonstrated reduced opiate use and smaller increases in pharmacy costs as well as favorable veteran self-reported measures. VA mandated WH integration into mental health and primary care. Purose: To incorporate WH within Dayton VA cancer care, using the Personal Health Inventory (PHI) as an intake tool, a tumor-agnostic WH oncology clinic was established.

Methods

Led by an oncologist, a referral-based clinic opened in 2021. Pre-work included EHR items (stop codes/templates), staff training and leverage of mental health integration. VA’s generic PHI was utilized until an oncology-specific PHI was developed by leaders in the field.(3-5) Clinic data was tracked.

Results

170 visits offered (June 2021-May 2024). 32 referrals received (one without cancer; deaths: two pre-intake/five post-intake); 70 appointments occurred among 30 veterans (30 intake/40 follow-up) for 41% fill rate (up 5% from 1st six months). 96% PHI completion rate. Referral sources: fellows (43%), attendings (17%), PCP (3%), Survivorship Clinic (3%), self-referral (33%)--40% of these from cancer support group members. Cancer types (one dual-diagnosis; total >100%): 24% breast, 17% prostate, 17% NSCLC, 10% NHL, 10% pancreatic, 7% Head/Neck, 7% SCLC, 3% each colon/esophageal/kidney. Cancer Stages represented: I (10%), II (20%), III (23%) and IV (47%). Participant info: Age range (36-85); 69% male and 31% female with 86% on active cancer therapy (hormonal, immune-, chemo- or chemoradiation). Supplements were discussed at 26% of visits and referrals ordered at 27% (4-massage therapy, 1-acupuncture, 1-chiropractic, 2-health coaching, 1-cardiology, 1-lymphedema therapy, 1-social work, 1-survivorship clinic, 1-yoga, 1-diabetes education, 1-ENT, 1-nutrition, 1-pathology, 1-pulmonary, 1-prosthetics).

Conclusions

WH within cancer care is feasible for veterans on active treatment (all types/stages) and at a non-Flagship/unfunded site. Veterans gain introduction to WH through the PHI and Complementary-Integrative Health referrals (VA Directive 1137). Cancer support group attendance prompts WH clinic self-referrals. Next steps at DVAMC are to offer mind-body approaches such as virtual reality experiences in the infusion room and VA CALM sessions via asynchronous online delivery; funding would support WH evolution in oncology.