In May 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first 2 targeted treatments for prostate cancer, specifically, the poly-(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors rucaparib and olaparib.^1,2 For these medications to work, the tumor must have a homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which is a form of DNA repair deficiency. The PARP pathway is important for DNA repair, and PARP inhibition leads to “synthetic lethality” in cancer cells that already are deficient in DNA repair mechanisms.³ Now, there is evidence that patients with prostate cancer who have HRD tumors and receive PARP inhibitors live longer when compared with those who receive standard of care options.⁴ These findings offer hope for patients with prostate cancer. They also demonstrate the process and potential benefits of precision oncology efforts; namely, targeted treatments for specific tumor types in cancer patients.

This article discusses the challenges and opportunities of precision oncology for US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA). First, the article will discuss working with relatively rare mutations. Second, the article will examine how the trials of olaparib and rucaparib illuminate the VHA contribution to research on new therapies for patients with cancer. Finally, the article will explore the ways in which VHA is becoming a major national contributor in drug discovery and approval of precision medications.

Precision Oncology

Despite advances in screening and treatment, an estimated 600,000 people in the US will die of cancer in 2020.⁵ Meaningful advances in cancer care depend on both laboratory and clinical research. This combination, known as translational research, takes discoveries in the laboratory and applies them to patients and vice versa. Successful translational research requires many components. These include talented scientists to form hypotheses and perform the work; money for supplies and equipment; platforms for timely dissemination of knowledge; well-trained clinicians to treat patients and lead research teams; and patients to participate in clinical trials. In precision oncology, the ability to find patients for the trials can be daunting, particularly in cases where the frequency of the mutation of interest is low.

During the 20th century, with few exceptions, physicians caring for patients with cancer had blunt instruments at their disposal. Surgery and radiation could lead to survival if the cancer was caught early enough. Systemic therapies, such as chemotherapy, rarely cured but could prolong life in some patients. However, chemotherapy is imprecise and targets any cell growing rapidly, including blood, hair, and gastrointestinal tract cells, which often leads to adverse effects. Sometimes complications from chemotherapy may shorten a person’s life, and certainly the quality of life during and after these treatments could be diminished. The improvements in cancer care occurred more rapidly once scientists had the tools to learn about individual tumors.

In the summer of 2000, researchers announced that the human genome had been sequenced.⁶ The genome (ie, DNA) consists of introns and exons that form a map for human development. Exons can be converted to proteins that carry out specific actions, such as helping in cell growth, cell death, or DNA repair. Solving the human genome itself did not lead directly to cures, but it did represent a huge advance in medical research. As time passed, sequencing genomes became more affordable, and sequencing just the exome alone was even cheaper.⁷ Treatments for cancer began to expand with the help of these tools, but questions as to the true benefit of targeted therapy also grew.⁸

Physicians and scientists have amassed more information about cancer cells and have applied this knowledge to active drug development. In 2001, the FDA approved the first targeted therapy, imatinib, for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). This rapidly improved patient survival through targeting the mutated protein that leads to CML, rather than just aiming for rapidly dividing cells.⁹ Those mutations for which there is a drug to target, such as the BCR-ABL translocation in CML, are called actionable mutations.

Precision Oncology Program for Prostate Cancer

In 2016, the VA and the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) established the Precision Oncology Program for Prostate Cancer (POPCaP) Centers of Excellence (COE). This partnership was formed to accelerate treatment and cure for veterans with prostate cancer. The VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System in California and VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Washington led this effort, and their principal investigators continue to co-lead POPCaP. Since its inception, 9 additional funded POPCaP COEs have joined, each with a mandate to sequence the tumors of men with metastatic prostate cancer.

The more that is learned about a tumor, the more likely it is that researchers can find mutations that are that tumor’s Achilles heel and defeat it. In fact, many drugs that can target mutations are already available. For example, BRCA2 is an actionable mutation that can be exploited by knocking out another key DNA repair mechanism in the cell, PARP. Today, the effort of sequencing has led to a rich database of mutations present in men with metastatic prostate cancer.

Although there are many targeted therapies, most have not been studied formally in prostate cancer. Occasionally, clinicians treating patients will use these drugs in an unapproved way, hoping that there will be anticancer activity. It is difficult to estimate the likelihood of success with a drug in this situation, and the safety profile may not be well described in that setting. Treatment decisions for incurable cancers must be made knowing the risks and benefits. This helps in shared decision making between the clinician and patient and informs choices concerning which laboratory tests to order and how often to see the patient. However, treatment decisions are sometimes made with the hope of activity when a cancer is known to be incurable. Very little data, which are critical to determine whether this helps or hurts patients, support this approach.

Some data suggest that sequencing and giving a drug for an actionable mutation may lead to better outcomes for patients. Sequencing of pancreatic tumors by Pishvaian and colleagues revealed that 282 of 1,082 (26%) samples harbored actionable mutations.¹⁰ Those patients who received a drug that targeted their actionable mutation (n = 46; 24%) lived longer when compared with those who had an actionable mutation but did not receive a drug that targeted it (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26-0.68; P = .0004]). Additionally, those who received therapy for an actionable mutation lived longer when compared with those who did not have an actionable mutation (HR 0.34 [95% CI, 0.22-0.53; P < .001]). While this finding is intriguing, it does not mean that treating actionable mutations outside of a clinical trial should be done. To this end, VA established Prostate cancer Analysis for Therapy CHoice (PATCH) as a clinical trials network within POPCaP.

Prostate Cancer Analysis

The overall PATCH vision is designed for clinical care and research work to together toward improved care for those with prostate cancer (Figure 1). The resources necessary for successful translational research are substantial, and PATCH aims to streamline those resources. PATCH will support innovative, precision-based clinical research at the POPCaP COEs through its 5 arms.

Arm 1. Dedicated personnel ensure veteran access to trials in PATCH by giving patients and providers accurate information about available trial options; aiding veterans in traveling from home VA to a POPCaP COE for participation on a study; and maintaining the Committee for Veteran Participation in PATCH, where veterans will be represented and asked to provide input into the PATCH process.

Arm 2. Coordinators at the coordinating COE in Portland, Orgeon, train investigators and study staff at the local POPCaP COEs to ensure research can be performed in a safe and responsible way.

Arm 3. Personnel experienced in conducting clinical trials liaise with investigators at VA Central Institutional Review Board, monitor trials, build databases for appropriate and efficient data collection, and manage high-risk studies conducted under an Investigational New Drug application. This group works closely with biostatisticians to choose appropriate trial designs, estimate numbers of patients needed, and interpret data once they are collected.

Arm 4. Protocol development and data dissemination is coordinated by a group to assist investigators in drafting protocols and reviewing abstracts and manuscripts.

Arm 5. A core group manages contracts and budgets, as well as relationships between VA and industry, where funding and drugs may be obtained.

Clinical Trials

There are currently 2 clinical trials in PATCH; 4 additional trials await funding decisions, and more trials are in the concept stage. BRACeD (NCT04038502) is a phase 2 trial examining platinum and taxane chemotherapy in tumors with HRD (specifically, BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2). About 15% to 20% of men with advanced prostate cancer will have a DNA repair defect in the tumor that could make them eligible for this study. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival.

A second study, CHOMP (NCT04104893), is a phase 2 trial examining the efficacy of immunotherapy (PD-1 inhibition) in tumors having mismatch repair deficiency or CDK12-/-. Each of those is found in about 7% of men with metastatic prostate cancer, and full accrual of a trial with rare mutations could take 5 to 10 years without a systematic approach of sequencing and identifying potential participants. The primary endpoint is a composite of radiographic response by iRECIST (immune response evaluation criteria in solid tumors), progression-free survival at 6 months and prostate specific antigen reduction by ≥ 50% in ≤ 12 weeks. With 11 POPCaP COEs sequencing the tumors of every man with metastatic prostate cancer, identifying men with the appropriate mutation is possible. PATCH will aid the sites in recruitment through outreach and coordination of travel.

Industry Partnerships

PATCH depends upon pharmaceutical industry partners, as clinical trials of even 40 patients can require significant funding and trial resources to operate. Furthermore, many drugs of interest are not available outside of a clinical trial, and partnerships enable VA researchers to access these medications. PATCH also benefits greatly from foundation partners, such as the PCF, which has made POPCaP possible and will continue to connect talented researchers with VA resources. Finally, access to other publicly available research funds, such as those from VA Office of Research and Development, National Institutes of Health, and US Department of Defense (DoD) Congressionally Directed Research Program are needed for trials.

Funding for these trials remains limited despite public health and broader interests in addressing important questions. Accelerated accrual through PATCH may be an attractive partnership opportunity for companies, foundations and government funding agencies to support the PATCH efforts.

Both POPCaP and PATCH highlight the potential promise of precision oncology within the nation’s largest integrated health care system. The VHA patient population enables prostate cancer researchers to serve an important early target. It also provides a foundational platform for a broader set of activities. These include a tailored approach to identifying tumor profiles and other patient characteristics that may help to elevate standard of care for other common cancers including ones affecting the lungs and/or head and neck.

To this end, VA has been working with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and DoD to establish a national infrastructure for precision oncology across multiple cancer types.¹² In addition to clinical capabilities and the ability to run clinical trials that can accrue sufficient patients to answer key questions, we have developed capabilities for data collection and sharing, and analytical tools to support a learning health care system approach as a core element to precision oncology.

Besides having a research-specific context, such informatics and information technology systems enable clinicians to obtain and apply decision-making data rapidly for a specific patient and cancer type. These systems take particular advantage of the extensive electronic health record that underlies the VHA system, integrating real-world evidence into rigorous trials for precision oncology and other diseases. This is important for facilitating prerequisite activities for quality assessments for incorporation into databases (with appropriate permissions) to enhance treatment options. These activities are a key focus of the APOLLO initiative.¹³ While a more in-depth discussion of the importance of informatics is beyond the scope of this article, the field represents an important investment that is needed to achieve the goals of precision oncology.

In addition to informatics and data handling capabilities, VA has a longstanding tradition of designing and coordinating multisite clinical trials. This dates to the time of World War II when returning veterans had a high prevalence of tuberculosis. Since then, VA has contributed extensively to landmark findings in cardiovascular disease and surgery, mental health, infectious disease, and cancer. It was a VA study that helped establish colonoscopy as a standard for colorectal cancer screening by detecting colonic neoplasms in asymptomatic patients.¹⁴

From such investigations, the VA Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) has developed many strategies to conduct multisite clinical trials. But, CSP also has organized its sites methodically for operational efficiency and the ability to maintain institutional knowledge that crosses different types of studies and diseases. Using its Network of Dedicated Enrollment Sites (NODES) model, VA partnered with NCI to more effectively address administrative and regulatory requirements for initiating trials and recruiting veterans into cancer clinical trials.¹⁵ This partnership—the NCI And VA Interagency Group to Accelerate Trials Enrollment (NAVIGATE)—supports 12 sites with a central CSP Coordinating Center (CSPCC).

CSPCC provides support, shares best practices and provides organizational commitment at the senior levels of both agencies to overcome potential barriers. The goals and strategies are described by Schiller and colleagues.¹⁶ While still in its early stage as a cancer research network, NAVIGATE may be integrated with POPCaP and other parts of VA clinical research enterprise. This would allow us to specialize in advancing oncology care and to leverage capabilities more specifically to precision oncology. With an emphasis on recruitment, NAVIGATE has established capabilities with VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure to quickly identify patients who may be eligible for particular clinical trials. We envision further refining these capabilities for precision oncology trials that incorporate genetic and other information for individual patients. VA also hopes to inform trial sponsors about design considerations. This is important since networked investigators will have direct insights into patient-level factors, which may help with more effectively identifying and enrolling them into trials for their particular cancers.

Conclusions

VA may have an opportunity to reach out to veterans who may not have immediate access to facilities running clinical trials. As it develops capabilities to bring the trial to the veteran, VA could have more virtual and/or centralized recruitment strategies. This would broaden opportunities for considering novel approaches that may not rely on a more traditional facility-based recruitment approach.

Ultimately, VA can be a critical part of a national effort to fight and, perhaps even, defeat cancers. With its extensive resources and capabilities, VA has the ability to advance a precision oncology agenda that provides veterans with the highest standard of care. It has built upon many key elements in clinical, technological and scientific fields of study that would challenge most health care systems given the extensive costs involved. In addition, creating strong partnerships with organizations such as PCF, NCI, and DoD that are complementary in resources and expertise will help VA to build a national network for cancer care. Putting this all together will support and facilitate a vision for more precise care for any veteran with cancer by more rapidly enabling the testing and approval of medications developed for this purpose.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Daphne Swancutt for comments and edits on drafts of this article.

In May 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first 2 targeted treatments for prostate cancer, specifically, the poly-(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors rucaparib and olaparib.^1,2 For these medications to work, the tumor must have a homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which is a form of DNA repair deficiency. The PARP pathway is important for DNA repair, and PARP inhibition leads to “synthetic lethality” in cancer cells that already are deficient in DNA repair mechanisms.³ Now, there is evidence that patients with prostate cancer who have HRD tumors and receive PARP inhibitors live longer when compared with those who receive standard of care options.⁴ These findings offer hope for patients with prostate cancer. They also demonstrate the process and potential benefits of precision oncology efforts; namely, targeted treatments for specific tumor types in cancer patients.

This article discusses the challenges and opportunities of precision oncology for US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA). First, the article will discuss working with relatively rare mutations. Second, the article will examine how the trials of olaparib and rucaparib illuminate the VHA contribution to research on new therapies for patients with cancer. Finally, the article will explore the ways in which VHA is becoming a major national contributor in drug discovery and approval of precision medications.

Precision Oncology

Despite advances in screening and treatment, an estimated 600,000 people in the US will die of cancer in 2020.⁵ Meaningful advances in cancer care depend on both laboratory and clinical research. This combination, known as translational research, takes discoveries in the laboratory and applies them to patients and vice versa. Successful translational research requires many components. These include talented scientists to form hypotheses and perform the work; money for supplies and equipment; platforms for timely dissemination of knowledge; well-trained clinicians to treat patients and lead research teams; and patients to participate in clinical trials. In precision oncology, the ability to find patients for the trials can be daunting, particularly in cases where the frequency of the mutation of interest is low.

During the 20th century, with few exceptions, physicians caring for patients with cancer had blunt instruments at their disposal. Surgery and radiation could lead to survival if the cancer was caught early enough. Systemic therapies, such as chemotherapy, rarely cured but could prolong life in some patients. However, chemotherapy is imprecise and targets any cell growing rapidly, including blood, hair, and gastrointestinal tract cells, which often leads to adverse effects. Sometimes complications from chemotherapy may shorten a person’s life, and certainly the quality of life during and after these treatments could be diminished. The improvements in cancer care occurred more rapidly once scientists had the tools to learn about individual tumors.

In the summer of 2000, researchers announced that the human genome had been sequenced.⁶ The genome (ie, DNA) consists of introns and exons that form a map for human development. Exons can be converted to proteins that carry out specific actions, such as helping in cell growth, cell death, or DNA repair. Solving the human genome itself did not lead directly to cures, but it did represent a huge advance in medical research. As time passed, sequencing genomes became more affordable, and sequencing just the exome alone was even cheaper.⁷ Treatments for cancer began to expand with the help of these tools, but questions as to the true benefit of targeted therapy also grew.⁸

Physicians and scientists have amassed more information about cancer cells and have applied this knowledge to active drug development. In 2001, the FDA approved the first targeted therapy, imatinib, for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). This rapidly improved patient survival through targeting the mutated protein that leads to CML, rather than just aiming for rapidly dividing cells.⁹ Those mutations for which there is a drug to target, such as the BCR-ABL translocation in CML, are called actionable mutations.

Precision Oncology Program for Prostate Cancer

In 2016, the VA and the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) established the Precision Oncology Program for Prostate Cancer (POPCaP) Centers of Excellence (COE). This partnership was formed to accelerate treatment and cure for veterans with prostate cancer. The VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System in California and VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Washington led this effort, and their principal investigators continue to co-lead POPCaP. Since its inception, 9 additional funded POPCaP COEs have joined, each with a mandate to sequence the tumors of men with metastatic prostate cancer.

The more that is learned about a tumor, the more likely it is that researchers can find mutations that are that tumor’s Achilles heel and defeat it. In fact, many drugs that can target mutations are already available. For example, BRCA2 is an actionable mutation that can be exploited by knocking out another key DNA repair mechanism in the cell, PARP. Today, the effort of sequencing has led to a rich database of mutations present in men with metastatic prostate cancer.

Although there are many targeted therapies, most have not been studied formally in prostate cancer. Occasionally, clinicians treating patients will use these drugs in an unapproved way, hoping that there will be anticancer activity. It is difficult to estimate the likelihood of success with a drug in this situation, and the safety profile may not be well described in that setting. Treatment decisions for incurable cancers must be made knowing the risks and benefits. This helps in shared decision making between the clinician and patient and informs choices concerning which laboratory tests to order and how often to see the patient. However, treatment decisions are sometimes made with the hope of activity when a cancer is known to be incurable. Very little data, which are critical to determine whether this helps or hurts patients, support this approach.

Some data suggest that sequencing and giving a drug for an actionable mutation may lead to better outcomes for patients. Sequencing of pancreatic tumors by Pishvaian and colleagues revealed that 282 of 1,082 (26%) samples harbored actionable mutations.¹⁰ Those patients who received a drug that targeted their actionable mutation (n = 46; 24%) lived longer when compared with those who had an actionable mutation but did not receive a drug that targeted it (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26-0.68; P = .0004]). Additionally, those who received therapy for an actionable mutation lived longer when compared with those who did not have an actionable mutation (HR 0.34 [95% CI, 0.22-0.53; P < .001]). While this finding is intriguing, it does not mean that treating actionable mutations outside of a clinical trial should be done. To this end, VA established Prostate cancer Analysis for Therapy CHoice (PATCH) as a clinical trials network within POPCaP.

Prostate Cancer Analysis

The overall PATCH vision is designed for clinical care and research work to together toward improved care for those with prostate cancer (Figure 1). The resources necessary for successful translational research are substantial, and PATCH aims to streamline those resources. PATCH will support innovative, precision-based clinical research at the POPCaP COEs through its 5 arms.

Arm 1. Dedicated personnel ensure veteran access to trials in PATCH by giving patients and providers accurate information about available trial options; aiding veterans in traveling from home VA to a POPCaP COE for participation on a study; and maintaining the Committee for Veteran Participation in PATCH, where veterans will be represented and asked to provide input into the PATCH process.

Arm 2. Coordinators at the coordinating COE in Portland, Orgeon, train investigators and study staff at the local POPCaP COEs to ensure research can be performed in a safe and responsible way.

Arm 3. Personnel experienced in conducting clinical trials liaise with investigators at VA Central Institutional Review Board, monitor trials, build databases for appropriate and efficient data collection, and manage high-risk studies conducted under an Investigational New Drug application. This group works closely with biostatisticians to choose appropriate trial designs, estimate numbers of patients needed, and interpret data once they are collected.

Arm 4. Protocol development and data dissemination is coordinated by a group to assist investigators in drafting protocols and reviewing abstracts and manuscripts.

Arm 5. A core group manages contracts and budgets, as well as relationships between VA and industry, where funding and drugs may be obtained.

Clinical Trials

There are currently 2 clinical trials in PATCH; 4 additional trials await funding decisions, and more trials are in the concept stage. BRACeD (NCT04038502) is a phase 2 trial examining platinum and taxane chemotherapy in tumors with HRD (specifically, BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2). About 15% to 20% of men with advanced prostate cancer will have a DNA repair defect in the tumor that could make them eligible for this study. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival.

A second study, CHOMP (NCT04104893), is a phase 2 trial examining the efficacy of immunotherapy (PD-1 inhibition) in tumors having mismatch repair deficiency or CDK12-/-. Each of those is found in about 7% of men with metastatic prostate cancer, and full accrual of a trial with rare mutations could take 5 to 10 years without a systematic approach of sequencing and identifying potential participants. The primary endpoint is a composite of radiographic response by iRECIST (immune response evaluation criteria in solid tumors), progression-free survival at 6 months and prostate specific antigen reduction by ≥ 50% in ≤ 12 weeks. With 11 POPCaP COEs sequencing the tumors of every man with metastatic prostate cancer, identifying men with the appropriate mutation is possible. PATCH will aid the sites in recruitment through outreach and coordination of travel.

Industry Partnerships

PATCH depends upon pharmaceutical industry partners, as clinical trials of even 40 patients can require significant funding and trial resources to operate. Furthermore, many drugs of interest are not available outside of a clinical trial, and partnerships enable VA researchers to access these medications. PATCH also benefits greatly from foundation partners, such as the PCF, which has made POPCaP possible and will continue to connect talented researchers with VA resources. Finally, access to other publicly available research funds, such as those from VA Office of Research and Development, National Institutes of Health, and US Department of Defense (DoD) Congressionally Directed Research Program are needed for trials.

Funding for these trials remains limited despite public health and broader interests in addressing important questions. Accelerated accrual through PATCH may be an attractive partnership opportunity for companies, foundations and government funding agencies to support the PATCH efforts.

Both POPCaP and PATCH highlight the potential promise of precision oncology within the nation’s largest integrated health care system. The VHA patient population enables prostate cancer researchers to serve an important early target. It also provides a foundational platform for a broader set of activities. These include a tailored approach to identifying tumor profiles and other patient characteristics that may help to elevate standard of care for other common cancers including ones affecting the lungs and/or head and neck.

To this end, VA has been working with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and DoD to establish a national infrastructure for precision oncology across multiple cancer types.¹² In addition to clinical capabilities and the ability to run clinical trials that can accrue sufficient patients to answer key questions, we have developed capabilities for data collection and sharing, and analytical tools to support a learning health care system approach as a core element to precision oncology.

Besides having a research-specific context, such informatics and information technology systems enable clinicians to obtain and apply decision-making data rapidly for a specific patient and cancer type. These systems take particular advantage of the extensive electronic health record that underlies the VHA system, integrating real-world evidence into rigorous trials for precision oncology and other diseases. This is important for facilitating prerequisite activities for quality assessments for incorporation into databases (with appropriate permissions) to enhance treatment options. These activities are a key focus of the APOLLO initiative.¹³ While a more in-depth discussion of the importance of informatics is beyond the scope of this article, the field represents an important investment that is needed to achieve the goals of precision oncology.

In addition to informatics and data handling capabilities, VA has a longstanding tradition of designing and coordinating multisite clinical trials. This dates to the time of World War II when returning veterans had a high prevalence of tuberculosis. Since then, VA has contributed extensively to landmark findings in cardiovascular disease and surgery, mental health, infectious disease, and cancer. It was a VA study that helped establish colonoscopy as a standard for colorectal cancer screening by detecting colonic neoplasms in asymptomatic patients.¹⁴

From such investigations, the VA Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) has developed many strategies to conduct multisite clinical trials. But, CSP also has organized its sites methodically for operational efficiency and the ability to maintain institutional knowledge that crosses different types of studies and diseases. Using its Network of Dedicated Enrollment Sites (NODES) model, VA partnered with NCI to more effectively address administrative and regulatory requirements for initiating trials and recruiting veterans into cancer clinical trials.¹⁵ This partnership—the NCI And VA Interagency Group to Accelerate Trials Enrollment (NAVIGATE)—supports 12 sites with a central CSP Coordinating Center (CSPCC).

CSPCC provides support, shares best practices and provides organizational commitment at the senior levels of both agencies to overcome potential barriers. The goals and strategies are described by Schiller and colleagues.¹⁶ While still in its early stage as a cancer research network, NAVIGATE may be integrated with POPCaP and other parts of VA clinical research enterprise. This would allow us to specialize in advancing oncology care and to leverage capabilities more specifically to precision oncology. With an emphasis on recruitment, NAVIGATE has established capabilities with VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure to quickly identify patients who may be eligible for particular clinical trials. We envision further refining these capabilities for precision oncology trials that incorporate genetic and other information for individual patients. VA also hopes to inform trial sponsors about design considerations. This is important since networked investigators will have direct insights into patient-level factors, which may help with more effectively identifying and enrolling them into trials for their particular cancers.

Conclusions

VA may have an opportunity to reach out to veterans who may not have immediate access to facilities running clinical trials. As it develops capabilities to bring the trial to the veteran, VA could have more virtual and/or centralized recruitment strategies. This would broaden opportunities for considering novel approaches that may not rely on a more traditional facility-based recruitment approach.

Ultimately, VA can be a critical part of a national effort to fight and, perhaps even, defeat cancers. With its extensive resources and capabilities, VA has the ability to advance a precision oncology agenda that provides veterans with the highest standard of care. It has built upon many key elements in clinical, technological and scientific fields of study that would challenge most health care systems given the extensive costs involved. In addition, creating strong partnerships with organizations such as PCF, NCI, and DoD that are complementary in resources and expertise will help VA to build a national network for cancer care. Putting this all together will support and facilitate a vision for more precise care for any veteran with cancer by more rapidly enabling the testing and approval of medications developed for this purpose.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Daphne Swancutt for comments and edits on drafts of this article.

In May 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first 2 targeted treatments for prostate cancer, specifically, the poly-(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors rucaparib and olaparib.^1,2 For these medications to work, the tumor must have a homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which is a form of DNA repair deficiency. The PARP pathway is important for DNA repair, and PARP inhibition leads to “synthetic lethality” in cancer cells that already are deficient in DNA repair mechanisms.³ Now, there is evidence that patients with prostate cancer who have HRD tumors and receive PARP inhibitors live longer when compared with those who receive standard of care options.⁴ These findings offer hope for patients with prostate cancer. They also demonstrate the process and potential benefits of precision oncology efforts; namely, targeted treatments for specific tumor types in cancer patients.

This article discusses the challenges and opportunities of precision oncology for US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA). First, the article will discuss working with relatively rare mutations. Second, the article will examine how the trials of olaparib and rucaparib illuminate the VHA contribution to research on new therapies for patients with cancer. Finally, the article will explore the ways in which VHA is becoming a major national contributor in drug discovery and approval of precision medications.

Precision Oncology

Despite advances in screening and treatment, an estimated 600,000 people in the US will die of cancer in 2020.⁵ Meaningful advances in cancer care depend on both laboratory and clinical research. This combination, known as translational research, takes discoveries in the laboratory and applies them to patients and vice versa. Successful translational research requires many components. These include talented scientists to form hypotheses and perform the work; money for supplies and equipment; platforms for timely dissemination of knowledge; well-trained clinicians to treat patients and lead research teams; and patients to participate in clinical trials. In precision oncology, the ability to find patients for the trials can be daunting, particularly in cases where the frequency of the mutation of interest is low.

During the 20th century, with few exceptions, physicians caring for patients with cancer had blunt instruments at their disposal. Surgery and radiation could lead to survival if the cancer was caught early enough. Systemic therapies, such as chemotherapy, rarely cured but could prolong life in some patients. However, chemotherapy is imprecise and targets any cell growing rapidly, including blood, hair, and gastrointestinal tract cells, which often leads to adverse effects. Sometimes complications from chemotherapy may shorten a person’s life, and certainly the quality of life during and after these treatments could be diminished. The improvements in cancer care occurred more rapidly once scientists had the tools to learn about individual tumors.

In the summer of 2000, researchers announced that the human genome had been sequenced.⁶ The genome (ie, DNA) consists of introns and exons that form a map for human development. Exons can be converted to proteins that carry out specific actions, such as helping in cell growth, cell death, or DNA repair. Solving the human genome itself did not lead directly to cures, but it did represent a huge advance in medical research. As time passed, sequencing genomes became more affordable, and sequencing just the exome alone was even cheaper.⁷ Treatments for cancer began to expand with the help of these tools, but questions as to the true benefit of targeted therapy also grew.⁸

Physicians and scientists have amassed more information about cancer cells and have applied this knowledge to active drug development. In 2001, the FDA approved the first targeted therapy, imatinib, for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). This rapidly improved patient survival through targeting the mutated protein that leads to CML, rather than just aiming for rapidly dividing cells.⁹ Those mutations for which there is a drug to target, such as the BCR-ABL translocation in CML, are called actionable mutations.

Precision Oncology Program for Prostate Cancer

In 2016, the VA and the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) established the Precision Oncology Program for Prostate Cancer (POPCaP) Centers of Excellence (COE). This partnership was formed to accelerate treatment and cure for veterans with prostate cancer. The VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System in California and VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Washington led this effort, and their principal investigators continue to co-lead POPCaP. Since its inception, 9 additional funded POPCaP COEs have joined, each with a mandate to sequence the tumors of men with metastatic prostate cancer.

The more that is learned about a tumor, the more likely it is that researchers can find mutations that are that tumor’s Achilles heel and defeat it. In fact, many drugs that can target mutations are already available. For example, BRCA2 is an actionable mutation that can be exploited by knocking out another key DNA repair mechanism in the cell, PARP. Today, the effort of sequencing has led to a rich database of mutations present in men with metastatic prostate cancer.

Although there are many targeted therapies, most have not been studied formally in prostate cancer. Occasionally, clinicians treating patients will use these drugs in an unapproved way, hoping that there will be anticancer activity. It is difficult to estimate the likelihood of success with a drug in this situation, and the safety profile may not be well described in that setting. Treatment decisions for incurable cancers must be made knowing the risks and benefits. This helps in shared decision making between the clinician and patient and informs choices concerning which laboratory tests to order and how often to see the patient. However, treatment decisions are sometimes made with the hope of activity when a cancer is known to be incurable. Very little data, which are critical to determine whether this helps or hurts patients, support this approach.

Some data suggest that sequencing and giving a drug for an actionable mutation may lead to better outcomes for patients. Sequencing of pancreatic tumors by Pishvaian and colleagues revealed that 282 of 1,082 (26%) samples harbored actionable mutations.¹⁰ Those patients who received a drug that targeted their actionable mutation (n = 46; 24%) lived longer when compared with those who had an actionable mutation but did not receive a drug that targeted it (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26-0.68; P = .0004]). Additionally, those who received therapy for an actionable mutation lived longer when compared with those who did not have an actionable mutation (HR 0.34 [95% CI, 0.22-0.53; P < .001]). While this finding is intriguing, it does not mean that treating actionable mutations outside of a clinical trial should be done. To this end, VA established Prostate cancer Analysis for Therapy CHoice (PATCH) as a clinical trials network within POPCaP.

Prostate Cancer Analysis

The overall PATCH vision is designed for clinical care and research work to together toward improved care for those with prostate cancer (Figure 1). The resources necessary for successful translational research are substantial, and PATCH aims to streamline those resources. PATCH will support innovative, precision-based clinical research at the POPCaP COEs through its 5 arms.

Arm 1. Dedicated personnel ensure veteran access to trials in PATCH by giving patients and providers accurate information about available trial options; aiding veterans in traveling from home VA to a POPCaP COE for participation on a study; and maintaining the Committee for Veteran Participation in PATCH, where veterans will be represented and asked to provide input into the PATCH process.

Arm 2. Coordinators at the coordinating COE in Portland, Orgeon, train investigators and study staff at the local POPCaP COEs to ensure research can be performed in a safe and responsible way.

Arm 3. Personnel experienced in conducting clinical trials liaise with investigators at VA Central Institutional Review Board, monitor trials, build databases for appropriate and efficient data collection, and manage high-risk studies conducted under an Investigational New Drug application. This group works closely with biostatisticians to choose appropriate trial designs, estimate numbers of patients needed, and interpret data once they are collected.

Arm 4. Protocol development and data dissemination is coordinated by a group to assist investigators in drafting protocols and reviewing abstracts and manuscripts.

Arm 5. A core group manages contracts and budgets, as well as relationships between VA and industry, where funding and drugs may be obtained.

Clinical Trials

There are currently 2 clinical trials in PATCH; 4 additional trials await funding decisions, and more trials are in the concept stage. BRACeD (NCT04038502) is a phase 2 trial examining platinum and taxane chemotherapy in tumors with HRD (specifically, BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2). About 15% to 20% of men with advanced prostate cancer will have a DNA repair defect in the tumor that could make them eligible for this study. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival.

A second study, CHOMP (NCT04104893), is a phase 2 trial examining the efficacy of immunotherapy (PD-1 inhibition) in tumors having mismatch repair deficiency or CDK12-/-. Each of those is found in about 7% of men with metastatic prostate cancer, and full accrual of a trial with rare mutations could take 5 to 10 years without a systematic approach of sequencing and identifying potential participants. The primary endpoint is a composite of radiographic response by iRECIST (immune response evaluation criteria in solid tumors), progression-free survival at 6 months and prostate specific antigen reduction by ≥ 50% in ≤ 12 weeks. With 11 POPCaP COEs sequencing the tumors of every man with metastatic prostate cancer, identifying men with the appropriate mutation is possible. PATCH will aid the sites in recruitment through outreach and coordination of travel.

Industry Partnerships

PATCH depends upon pharmaceutical industry partners, as clinical trials of even 40 patients can require significant funding and trial resources to operate. Furthermore, many drugs of interest are not available outside of a clinical trial, and partnerships enable VA researchers to access these medications. PATCH also benefits greatly from foundation partners, such as the PCF, which has made POPCaP possible and will continue to connect talented researchers with VA resources. Finally, access to other publicly available research funds, such as those from VA Office of Research and Development, National Institutes of Health, and US Department of Defense (DoD) Congressionally Directed Research Program are needed for trials.

Funding for these trials remains limited despite public health and broader interests in addressing important questions. Accelerated accrual through PATCH may be an attractive partnership opportunity for companies, foundations and government funding agencies to support the PATCH efforts.

Both POPCaP and PATCH highlight the potential promise of precision oncology within the nation’s largest integrated health care system. The VHA patient population enables prostate cancer researchers to serve an important early target. It also provides a foundational platform for a broader set of activities. These include a tailored approach to identifying tumor profiles and other patient characteristics that may help to elevate standard of care for other common cancers including ones affecting the lungs and/or head and neck.

To this end, VA has been working with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and DoD to establish a national infrastructure for precision oncology across multiple cancer types.¹² In addition to clinical capabilities and the ability to run clinical trials that can accrue sufficient patients to answer key questions, we have developed capabilities for data collection and sharing, and analytical tools to support a learning health care system approach as a core element to precision oncology.

Besides having a research-specific context, such informatics and information technology systems enable clinicians to obtain and apply decision-making data rapidly for a specific patient and cancer type. These systems take particular advantage of the extensive electronic health record that underlies the VHA system, integrating real-world evidence into rigorous trials for precision oncology and other diseases. This is important for facilitating prerequisite activities for quality assessments for incorporation into databases (with appropriate permissions) to enhance treatment options. These activities are a key focus of the APOLLO initiative.¹³ While a more in-depth discussion of the importance of informatics is beyond the scope of this article, the field represents an important investment that is needed to achieve the goals of precision oncology.

In addition to informatics and data handling capabilities, VA has a longstanding tradition of designing and coordinating multisite clinical trials. This dates to the time of World War II when returning veterans had a high prevalence of tuberculosis. Since then, VA has contributed extensively to landmark findings in cardiovascular disease and surgery, mental health, infectious disease, and cancer. It was a VA study that helped establish colonoscopy as a standard for colorectal cancer screening by detecting colonic neoplasms in asymptomatic patients.¹⁴

From such investigations, the VA Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) has developed many strategies to conduct multisite clinical trials. But, CSP also has organized its sites methodically for operational efficiency and the ability to maintain institutional knowledge that crosses different types of studies and diseases. Using its Network of Dedicated Enrollment Sites (NODES) model, VA partnered with NCI to more effectively address administrative and regulatory requirements for initiating trials and recruiting veterans into cancer clinical trials.¹⁵ This partnership—the NCI And VA Interagency Group to Accelerate Trials Enrollment (NAVIGATE)—supports 12 sites with a central CSP Coordinating Center (CSPCC).

CSPCC provides support, shares best practices and provides organizational commitment at the senior levels of both agencies to overcome potential barriers. The goals and strategies are described by Schiller and colleagues.¹⁶ While still in its early stage as a cancer research network, NAVIGATE may be integrated with POPCaP and other parts of VA clinical research enterprise. This would allow us to specialize in advancing oncology care and to leverage capabilities more specifically to precision oncology. With an emphasis on recruitment, NAVIGATE has established capabilities with VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure to quickly identify patients who may be eligible for particular clinical trials. We envision further refining these capabilities for precision oncology trials that incorporate genetic and other information for individual patients. VA also hopes to inform trial sponsors about design considerations. This is important since networked investigators will have direct insights into patient-level factors, which may help with more effectively identifying and enrolling them into trials for their particular cancers.

Conclusions

VA may have an opportunity to reach out to veterans who may not have immediate access to facilities running clinical trials. As it develops capabilities to bring the trial to the veteran, VA could have more virtual and/or centralized recruitment strategies. This would broaden opportunities for considering novel approaches that may not rely on a more traditional facility-based recruitment approach.

Ultimately, VA can be a critical part of a national effort to fight and, perhaps even, defeat cancers. With its extensive resources and capabilities, VA has the ability to advance a precision oncology agenda that provides veterans with the highest standard of care. It has built upon many key elements in clinical, technological and scientific fields of study that would challenge most health care systems given the extensive costs involved. In addition, creating strong partnerships with organizations such as PCF, NCI, and DoD that are complementary in resources and expertise will help VA to build a national network for cancer care. Putting this all together will support and facilitate a vision for more precise care for any veteran with cancer by more rapidly enabling the testing and approval of medications developed for this purpose.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Daphne Swancutt for comments and edits on drafts of this article.

For > 90 years, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been in the vanguard of cancer research and treatment—improving the lives of veterans and all Americans. In 1932, recognizing the intrinsic link between research and clinical care, the Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, established a tumor research laboratory to complement the work of its cancer treatment center. As the first VA laboratory to receive funding specifically for research, the new facility symbolized a paradigm shift in thinking about cancer treatment.

Today, through its National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has embarked upon another paradigm shift—one that also puts research front and center by leveraging VHA’s unique assets as a learning health care system. As noted by Montgomery and colleagues, “given its size, integration and capabilities, the VA is an ideal setting for rapid learning cycles of testing and implementing best practices at scale.”¹ The articles in this special issue, which focus on the 2 cancers that affects the most veterans—prostate and lung—show the transformative work underway to develop a new model of collaboration in cancer care.

At VHA, research and practice are not just proximal; they are truly integrated in the service of enhancing veterans’ outcomes. For example, > 60% of VA researchers are clinicians who also provide direct patient care. As observed by Levine and colleagues, “meaningful advances in cancer care depend on both laboratory and clinical research. This combination, known as translational research, takes discoveries in the laboratory and applies them to patients and vice versa.”²

For example, it was physician-scientist Donald Gleason, MD, PhD, who in the 1960s pioneered the standardized system that helps doctors better assess and treat prostate cancer (the Gleason score). More recently, physician-scientists Matthew Rettig, MD, and Bruce Montgomery, MD, both leading experts in prostate cancer research, were instrumental to VA’s partnership with the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) to establish a national network for oncology trials serving veterans.

Having an embedded research program within the nation’s largest integrated health care system also provides the VA with the ability to conduct large-scale, multisite clinical trials. Since the 1940s, the VA Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) has generated key research findings across a range of diseases, including cancer, and provided definitive evidence and learning. In 1994, CSP launched its Prostate Cancer Intervention vs Observation Trial (PIVOT) study to determine whether observation is as effective as surgery for early-stage prostate cancer. Today, through the CSP, VA researchers are conducting a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial called VA Lung cancer surgery Or stereotactic Radiotherapy trial (VALOR) that will assess which of the 2 modalities is better when treating veterans with operable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

Additionally, VA is privileged to serve a patient population so dedicated to their country that many volunteer to serve again as participants in VA research clinical trials. In fact, Levine and colleagues credit the patients willing to enter clinical trials for the collective call to action and “critical philanthropic investment” that led to the Precision Oncology Program for Cancer of the Prostate (POPCaP).²

As a learning health care system, we also have been mindful of lessons drawn from the ongoing COVID-19 public health crisis. Almost overnight, VHA shifted from in-person to virtual visits to minimize the risk for veterans and their families. At the same time, we limited in-person clinical research visits to those that were required for the Veterans’ health or well-being and conducted large numbers of virtual research visits. (Notably, the current crisis motivated accelerated study regarding virtual research trials, clarifying which touchpoints must be face-to-face and which have been face-to-face due mainly to convention.) In parallel, we also launched numerous clinical studies focused on the fight against COVID-19. Our capacity to transition both clinical care and research is due in no small part to our preexisting and strong foundation in telehealth.

With one-third of our patient population living in rural areas, these achievements are vital to our commitment of “no veteran left behind.” These efforts were recently boosted by VHA’s newest partnership with the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation to establish a national teleoncology center that will enable all veterans to benefit from new research advances no matter where they live.

Precision oncology represents a new model of collaboration in cancer care among clinicians, operations leaders, researchers and veterans. By leveraging the many assets that have contributed to VA’s success as a learning health care system, we can fulfill the promise of providing leading edge cancer care to all veterans.

For > 90 years, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been in the vanguard of cancer research and treatment—improving the lives of veterans and all Americans. In 1932, recognizing the intrinsic link between research and clinical care, the Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, established a tumor research laboratory to complement the work of its cancer treatment center. As the first VA laboratory to receive funding specifically for research, the new facility symbolized a paradigm shift in thinking about cancer treatment.

Today, through its National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has embarked upon another paradigm shift—one that also puts research front and center by leveraging VHA’s unique assets as a learning health care system. As noted by Montgomery and colleagues, “given its size, integration and capabilities, the VA is an ideal setting for rapid learning cycles of testing and implementing best practices at scale.”¹ The articles in this special issue, which focus on the 2 cancers that affects the most veterans—prostate and lung—show the transformative work underway to develop a new model of collaboration in cancer care.

At VHA, research and practice are not just proximal; they are truly integrated in the service of enhancing veterans’ outcomes. For example, > 60% of VA researchers are clinicians who also provide direct patient care. As observed by Levine and colleagues, “meaningful advances in cancer care depend on both laboratory and clinical research. This combination, known as translational research, takes discoveries in the laboratory and applies them to patients and vice versa.”²

For example, it was physician-scientist Donald Gleason, MD, PhD, who in the 1960s pioneered the standardized system that helps doctors better assess and treat prostate cancer (the Gleason score). More recently, physician-scientists Matthew Rettig, MD, and Bruce Montgomery, MD, both leading experts in prostate cancer research, were instrumental to VA’s partnership with the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) to establish a national network for oncology trials serving veterans.

Having an embedded research program within the nation’s largest integrated health care system also provides the VA with the ability to conduct large-scale, multisite clinical trials. Since the 1940s, the VA Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) has generated key research findings across a range of diseases, including cancer, and provided definitive evidence and learning. In 1994, CSP launched its Prostate Cancer Intervention vs Observation Trial (PIVOT) study to determine whether observation is as effective as surgery for early-stage prostate cancer. Today, through the CSP, VA researchers are conducting a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial called VA Lung cancer surgery Or stereotactic Radiotherapy trial (VALOR) that will assess which of the 2 modalities is better when treating veterans with operable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

Additionally, VA is privileged to serve a patient population so dedicated to their country that many volunteer to serve again as participants in VA research clinical trials. In fact, Levine and colleagues credit the patients willing to enter clinical trials for the collective call to action and “critical philanthropic investment” that led to the Precision Oncology Program for Cancer of the Prostate (POPCaP).²

As a learning health care system, we also have been mindful of lessons drawn from the ongoing COVID-19 public health crisis. Almost overnight, VHA shifted from in-person to virtual visits to minimize the risk for veterans and their families. At the same time, we limited in-person clinical research visits to those that were required for the Veterans’ health or well-being and conducted large numbers of virtual research visits. (Notably, the current crisis motivated accelerated study regarding virtual research trials, clarifying which touchpoints must be face-to-face and which have been face-to-face due mainly to convention.) In parallel, we also launched numerous clinical studies focused on the fight against COVID-19. Our capacity to transition both clinical care and research is due in no small part to our preexisting and strong foundation in telehealth.

With one-third of our patient population living in rural areas, these achievements are vital to our commitment of “no veteran left behind.” These efforts were recently boosted by VHA’s newest partnership with the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation to establish a national teleoncology center that will enable all veterans to benefit from new research advances no matter where they live.

Precision oncology represents a new model of collaboration in cancer care among clinicians, operations leaders, researchers and veterans. By leveraging the many assets that have contributed to VA’s success as a learning health care system, we can fulfill the promise of providing leading edge cancer care to all veterans.

For > 90 years, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been in the vanguard of cancer research and treatment—improving the lives of veterans and all Americans. In 1932, recognizing the intrinsic link between research and clinical care, the Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, established a tumor research laboratory to complement the work of its cancer treatment center. As the first VA laboratory to receive funding specifically for research, the new facility symbolized a paradigm shift in thinking about cancer treatment.

Today, through its National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has embarked upon another paradigm shift—one that also puts research front and center by leveraging VHA’s unique assets as a learning health care system. As noted by Montgomery and colleagues, “given its size, integration and capabilities, the VA is an ideal setting for rapid learning cycles of testing and implementing best practices at scale.”¹ The articles in this special issue, which focus on the 2 cancers that affects the most veterans—prostate and lung—show the transformative work underway to develop a new model of collaboration in cancer care.

At VHA, research and practice are not just proximal; they are truly integrated in the service of enhancing veterans’ outcomes. For example, > 60% of VA researchers are clinicians who also provide direct patient care. As observed by Levine and colleagues, “meaningful advances in cancer care depend on both laboratory and clinical research. This combination, known as translational research, takes discoveries in the laboratory and applies them to patients and vice versa.”²

For example, it was physician-scientist Donald Gleason, MD, PhD, who in the 1960s pioneered the standardized system that helps doctors better assess and treat prostate cancer (the Gleason score). More recently, physician-scientists Matthew Rettig, MD, and Bruce Montgomery, MD, both leading experts in prostate cancer research, were instrumental to VA’s partnership with the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) to establish a national network for oncology trials serving veterans.

Having an embedded research program within the nation’s largest integrated health care system also provides the VA with the ability to conduct large-scale, multisite clinical trials. Since the 1940s, the VA Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) has generated key research findings across a range of diseases, including cancer, and provided definitive evidence and learning. In 1994, CSP launched its Prostate Cancer Intervention vs Observation Trial (PIVOT) study to determine whether observation is as effective as surgery for early-stage prostate cancer. Today, through the CSP, VA researchers are conducting a randomized, phase 3 clinical trial called VA Lung cancer surgery Or stereotactic Radiotherapy trial (VALOR) that will assess which of the 2 modalities is better when treating veterans with operable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

Additionally, VA is privileged to serve a patient population so dedicated to their country that many volunteer to serve again as participants in VA research clinical trials. In fact, Levine and colleagues credit the patients willing to enter clinical trials for the collective call to action and “critical philanthropic investment” that led to the Precision Oncology Program for Cancer of the Prostate (POPCaP).²

As a learning health care system, we also have been mindful of lessons drawn from the ongoing COVID-19 public health crisis. Almost overnight, VHA shifted from in-person to virtual visits to minimize the risk for veterans and their families. At the same time, we limited in-person clinical research visits to those that were required for the Veterans’ health or well-being and conducted large numbers of virtual research visits. (Notably, the current crisis motivated accelerated study regarding virtual research trials, clarifying which touchpoints must be face-to-face and which have been face-to-face due mainly to convention.) In parallel, we also launched numerous clinical studies focused on the fight against COVID-19. Our capacity to transition both clinical care and research is due in no small part to our preexisting and strong foundation in telehealth.

With one-third of our patient population living in rural areas, these achievements are vital to our commitment of “no veteran left behind.” These efforts were recently boosted by VHA’s newest partnership with the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation to establish a national teleoncology center that will enable all veterans to benefit from new research advances no matter where they live.

Precision oncology represents a new model of collaboration in cancer care among clinicians, operations leaders, researchers and veterans. By leveraging the many assets that have contributed to VA’s success as a learning health care system, we can fulfill the promise of providing leading edge cancer care to all veterans.

In late 2016, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) announced a multiyear public-private partnership to deliver precision oncology and best-in-class care to all veterans battling prostate cancer.¹ The creation of this partnership was due to several favorable factors. At that time, VA Secretary Robert A. McDonald had created the Secretary’s Center for Strategic Partnerships. This Center provided a mechanism for nonprofit and industry partners to collaborate with the VA, thereby advancing partnerships that served the VA mission of “serving and honoring…America’s veterans.”^1,2 Concurrently, Vice President Joseph Biden’s Cancer Moonshot (later renamed the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot) charged PCF and other cancer-focused organizations with the ambitious goal of making a decade’s worth of advancements in cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in 5 years.³ As such, both organizations were positioned to recognize and address the unique prostate cancer challenges faced by male veterans, which ultimately led to the PCF-VA partnership.

A number of factors have allowed the PCF-VA partnership to scale the Centers of Excellence (COE) program. This article seeks to highlight the strategic organizing and mobilization techniques employed by the PCF-VA partnership, which can inform future public-private hybrid initiatives focused on precision medicine.

Executive Leadership as Patient Advocates

From its creation, the PCF-VA partnership placed as much importance on veteran patient care as it has on making oncologic advances. The fact that this focus came primarily from executive leadership was critical to the partnership’s success. PCF board members emphasized the significance of prioritizing veterans and military families in cancer research efforts.

A notable example is S. Ward “Trip” Casscells, MD, a veteran who was deployed to Iraq in 2006 and subsequently served as US Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. He focused much of his leadership on ensuring that veterans and military families, having performed a critical service for the country, were served with this same degree of excellence when it came to health.⁴ Fellow PCF Board member Lawrence Stupski, spoke publicly about his drug-resistant form of prostate cancer, bringing awareness to the complexity of ending death and suffering from the disease.⁵ Like Casscells, Stupski has a military service background, and served in Vietnam in 1968 as an officer in the US Navy. Both participated in multiple prostate cancer clinical trials themselves, serving as models of veteran trial participants. This visibility and leadership created a culture where veterans were not just instrumental in advancing cancer research, but also representative of a responsibility to ensure high-quality care for an underserved and at-risk community (Figure 1).

VHA Economy of Scale

Utilizing the vast capacity of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for care was integral to the success of the partnership. The VHA serves 9 million veterans each year in 1,255 health care facilities, which include 170 medical centers and 1,075 outpatient clinics.⁶ As the nation’s largest integrated health care system, the VHA approaches cancer care with a single electronic health record system across all of its facilities, featuring comprehensive clinical outcome documentation.⁷ The VHA’s systemwide DNA sequence platform, through the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP), also provided an optimal area for research and standardization of precision oncology practices on a national scale.⁸

Centers of Excellence: An Adaptable Model

The primary thrust of the partnership centers on the PCF-VA COEs, which form the Precision Oncology Program for Cancer of the Prostate (POPCaP) network. Over the last 4 years, PCF-deployed philanthropy has established 12 PCF-VA COEs, located in the Bronx and Manhattan, New York; Tampa Bay, Florida; Los Angeles, California; Seattle, Washington; Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Durham, North Carolina; Washington, DC; Boston, Massachusetts; and Portland, Oregon. Sites were initially chosen based on strong connections to academic medical centers, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive care centers, and physician-scientists who were professionally invested in precision prostate cancer oncology. Drawing on PCF’s existing networks helped to identify these areas, which were already rich in human and technological capital, before expanding to areas that were less resource rich. Future health partnerships may therefore consider capitalizing on existing relationships to spark initial growth, which can provide pathways for scaling.

In collaboration with NPOP, COEs work to sequence genomic and somatic tissue from veterans with metastatic prostate cancer, connect patients to appropriate clinical trials and treatment pathways, and advance guidelines for precision cancer care. Certain aspects of COE operations remain constant across all facilities. Annual progress reports, comprising of a written report, slide deck of accomplishments, and bulleted delineation of challenges and future plans are required of all COE-funded investigators. All COEs also are tasked with hiring a center coordinator, instituting a standardized sequencing and mutation reporting protocol, participating in consortium-wide phase 3 studies, and engaging in monthly conference calls to assess progress. A complete list of requirements is found in the Table.

However, the methods through which these goals must be completed is at the discretion of the COE investigators. Each COE, due to institutional and patient variance, experiences distinctive challenges and must mold its practice to fit existing capacities. For example, certain sites optimized workflow by training coordinators to analyze specimens, thereby improving care speed for veteran patients. Other COEs maximized nearby resources by hiring offsite specialists such as genetic counselors and interventional radiologists. By providing the freedom to design site-specific methodology, the PCF-VA partnership allows each COE to meet the award goals through any appropriate path using the funds provided, increasing efficiency and optimizing progress. This diversity of protocol also helped to expand the capabilities of the POPCaP Network, allowing sites to specialize in areas of interest in precision oncology. This eventually helped to inform future initiatives.

Accelerating Clinical Trials

A critical feature of the POPCaP network is the Prostate Cancer Analysis for Therapy Choice (PATCH) plexus.⁹ Through this investigative umbrella, veterans who are sequenced at any COE are given access to clinical trials at sites across POPCaP. Funding is available to support veteran travel to these sites, decreasing the chance that a veteran’s location is a barrier to treatment. In this way, the PCF-VA partnership continues to broaden treatment scopes for tens of thousands of veterans while simultaneously advancing clinical knowledge of precision oncology.

Fostering a Scientific Community

The PCF-VA partnership’s COE initiative capitalizes on resources from both nonprofit and public sectors to cultivate dynamic scientific discourse and investigative support. Through monthly meetings of the NPOP Molecular Oncology Tumor Board, COE investigators receive guidance and education to better assist veterans sequenced through their programs. Another example of enriched scientific collaboration are the Dream Team investigators, who were collaboratively funded by PCF, Stand Up 2 Cancer, and the American Association for Cancer Research.¹⁰ These teams made significant strides in genomic profiling of advanced prostate cancer and outpatient computed tomography-guided metastatic bone biopsy techniques. Through the PCF-VA partnership, COE researchers benefited from these investigators’ insight and expertise during regular check-in calls with investigators. PCF’s Prescription Pad, also connects all investigators to current therapies and trials, better informing them of future directions for their own work (Figure 3).^11,12

The PCF-VA partnership also facilitates peer-to-peer communication through regular inperson and virtual meetings of investigators, coordinators, and other stakeholders. These meetings allow the creation of focused working groups composed of COE leaders across the nation. The working groups seek to improve all aspects of functionality, including operational roadblocks, sequencing and phenotyping protocols, and addressing health service disparities. The VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, Washington, and the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center in California both are mentorship sites that play instrumental roles in guiding newer sites through challenges, such as obtaining rapid pathology results and navigating the VA system. This interinvestigator communication also helps to recruit new junior and senior investigators to POPCaP, thereby broadening the network’s reach.

Future Pathways

In line with the mission outlined in the MOU of developing treatments for veteran populations, the PCF-VA partnership has actively pursued addressing veteran health inequities. In 2018, a $2.5 million gift from Robert F. Smith, Founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Vista Equity Partners, set up the Chicago COE with the express purpose of serving African American veterans, who represent men at highest risk of prostate cancer incidence and mortality.¹³ A regularly convened health disparities working group explores future efforts. This group, composed of VA investigators, epidemiologists, geneticists, and other field leaders, seeks to advance the most compelling approaches to eliminate inequities in prostate cancer care.

A novel nursing initiative that focuses on the role of nurses in providing genetic services for prostate cancer is being developed. The need for new genetic care models and significant barriers to genetic service delivery have been well-documented for prostate cancer.¹⁴ The initiative provides nurses with opportunities to train with POPCaP and VA geneticists, enroll in a City of Hope genetics course, and to join a collaborative of geneticists, medical oncologists, and nurse practitioners.¹⁵ By furthering nursing education and leadership, the initiative empowers nurses to fill the gaps in veteran health care, particularly in genomics-based precision oncology.

The COE platform also has provided the foundation for the building of COEs for other cancers relevant to veterans, such as lung cancer. This expansion of COE function helps to further the VA goal of not only creating COEs, but a system of excellence. More recently, COE infrastructure has been leveraged in the fight against COVID-19 through HITCH, a clinical trial investigating the use of temporary androgen suppression in improving clinical outcomes of veterans with COVID-19.¹⁶ This expansion of function also provides a mechanism for COEs to continue to be funded in the future: attracting federal capital, private philanthropy, and industrial support is dependent on realized and expanded goals, as well as demonstrable progress in veteran care.

Conclusions

The PCF-VA partnership serves as an example of a public-private health partnership pursuing strategic pathways and bold goals to ensure that every eligible veteran has access to precision oncology. These pathways include advocacy on the part of executive leadership, recognizing existing economies of scale, building compelling narratives to maximize funding, creating flexible requirements, and facilitating a robust, resource-rich scientific network. This partnership already has opened doors to future initiatives and continues to adapt to a rapidly changing health landscape. The discussed strategies have the potential to inform future health initiatives and showcase how a systemic approach to eradicating health inequities can greatly benefit underserved communities.

The success of the PCF-VA partnership represents more than just an efficient partnership model. The partnership’s emphasis on veterans, who exemplify service, highlights the extent to which cancer patients sacrifice to contribute to medical research. This service necessitates a service in kind: all health stakeholders share the responsibility to rapidly advance therapies and care, both to honor the patients who have come before, and to meet the needs of patients with treatment resistant forms of the disease urgently awaiting precision breakthroughs and cures.

In late 2016, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) announced a multiyear public-private partnership to deliver precision oncology and best-in-class care to all veterans battling prostate cancer.¹ The creation of this partnership was due to several favorable factors. At that time, VA Secretary Robert A. McDonald had created the Secretary’s Center for Strategic Partnerships. This Center provided a mechanism for nonprofit and industry partners to collaborate with the VA, thereby advancing partnerships that served the VA mission of “serving and honoring…America’s veterans.”^1,2 Concurrently, Vice President Joseph Biden’s Cancer Moonshot (later renamed the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot) charged PCF and other cancer-focused organizations with the ambitious goal of making a decade’s worth of advancements in cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in 5 years.³ As such, both organizations were positioned to recognize and address the unique prostate cancer challenges faced by male veterans, which ultimately led to the PCF-VA partnership.

A number of factors have allowed the PCF-VA partnership to scale the Centers of Excellence (COE) program. This article seeks to highlight the strategic organizing and mobilization techniques employed by the PCF-VA partnership, which can inform future public-private hybrid initiatives focused on precision medicine.

Executive Leadership as Patient Advocates

From its creation, the PCF-VA partnership placed as much importance on veteran patient care as it has on making oncologic advances. The fact that this focus came primarily from executive leadership was critical to the partnership’s success. PCF board members emphasized the significance of prioritizing veterans and military families in cancer research efforts.

A notable example is S. Ward “Trip” Casscells, MD, a veteran who was deployed to Iraq in 2006 and subsequently served as US Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. He focused much of his leadership on ensuring that veterans and military families, having performed a critical service for the country, were served with this same degree of excellence when it came to health.⁴ Fellow PCF Board member Lawrence Stupski, spoke publicly about his drug-resistant form of prostate cancer, bringing awareness to the complexity of ending death and suffering from the disease.⁵ Like Casscells, Stupski has a military service background, and served in Vietnam in 1968 as an officer in the US Navy. Both participated in multiple prostate cancer clinical trials themselves, serving as models of veteran trial participants. This visibility and leadership created a culture where veterans were not just instrumental in advancing cancer research, but also representative of a responsibility to ensure high-quality care for an underserved and at-risk community (Figure 1).

VHA Economy of Scale

Utilizing the vast capacity of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for care was integral to the success of the partnership. The VHA serves 9 million veterans each year in 1,255 health care facilities, which include 170 medical centers and 1,075 outpatient clinics.⁶ As the nation’s largest integrated health care system, the VHA approaches cancer care with a single electronic health record system across all of its facilities, featuring comprehensive clinical outcome documentation.⁷ The VHA’s systemwide DNA sequence platform, through the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP), also provided an optimal area for research and standardization of precision oncology practices on a national scale.⁸

Centers of Excellence: An Adaptable Model

The primary thrust of the partnership centers on the PCF-VA COEs, which form the Precision Oncology Program for Cancer of the Prostate (POPCaP) network. Over the last 4 years, PCF-deployed philanthropy has established 12 PCF-VA COEs, located in the Bronx and Manhattan, New York; Tampa Bay, Florida; Los Angeles, California; Seattle, Washington; Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Durham, North Carolina; Washington, DC; Boston, Massachusetts; and Portland, Oregon. Sites were initially chosen based on strong connections to academic medical centers, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive care centers, and physician-scientists who were professionally invested in precision prostate cancer oncology. Drawing on PCF’s existing networks helped to identify these areas, which were already rich in human and technological capital, before expanding to areas that were less resource rich. Future health partnerships may therefore consider capitalizing on existing relationships to spark initial growth, which can provide pathways for scaling.

In collaboration with NPOP, COEs work to sequence genomic and somatic tissue from veterans with metastatic prostate cancer, connect patients to appropriate clinical trials and treatment pathways, and advance guidelines for precision cancer care. Certain aspects of COE operations remain constant across all facilities. Annual progress reports, comprising of a written report, slide deck of accomplishments, and bulleted delineation of challenges and future plans are required of all COE-funded investigators. All COEs also are tasked with hiring a center coordinator, instituting a standardized sequencing and mutation reporting protocol, participating in consortium-wide phase 3 studies, and engaging in monthly conference calls to assess progress. A complete list of requirements is found in the Table.

However, the methods through which these goals must be completed is at the discretion of the COE investigators. Each COE, due to institutional and patient variance, experiences distinctive challenges and must mold its practice to fit existing capacities. For example, certain sites optimized workflow by training coordinators to analyze specimens, thereby improving care speed for veteran patients. Other COEs maximized nearby resources by hiring offsite specialists such as genetic counselors and interventional radiologists. By providing the freedom to design site-specific methodology, the PCF-VA partnership allows each COE to meet the award goals through any appropriate path using the funds provided, increasing efficiency and optimizing progress. This diversity of protocol also helped to expand the capabilities of the POPCaP Network, allowing sites to specialize in areas of interest in precision oncology. This eventually helped to inform future initiatives.

Accelerating Clinical Trials

A critical feature of the POPCaP network is the Prostate Cancer Analysis for Therapy Choice (PATCH) plexus.⁹ Through this investigative umbrella, veterans who are sequenced at any COE are given access to clinical trials at sites across POPCaP. Funding is available to support veteran travel to these sites, decreasing the chance that a veteran’s location is a barrier to treatment. In this way, the PCF-VA partnership continues to broaden treatment scopes for tens of thousands of veterans while simultaneously advancing clinical knowledge of precision oncology.

Fostering a Scientific Community

The PCF-VA partnership’s COE initiative capitalizes on resources from both nonprofit and public sectors to cultivate dynamic scientific discourse and investigative support. Through monthly meetings of the NPOP Molecular Oncology Tumor Board, COE investigators receive guidance and education to better assist veterans sequenced through their programs. Another example of enriched scientific collaboration are the Dream Team investigators, who were collaboratively funded by PCF, Stand Up 2 Cancer, and the American Association for Cancer Research.¹⁰ These teams made significant strides in genomic profiling of advanced prostate cancer and outpatient computed tomography-guided metastatic bone biopsy techniques. Through the PCF-VA partnership, COE researchers benefited from these investigators’ insight and expertise during regular check-in calls with investigators. PCF’s Prescription Pad, also connects all investigators to current therapies and trials, better informing them of future directions for their own work (Figure 3).^11,12

The PCF-VA partnership also facilitates peer-to-peer communication through regular inperson and virtual meetings of investigators, coordinators, and other stakeholders. These meetings allow the creation of focused working groups composed of COE leaders across the nation. The working groups seek to improve all aspects of functionality, including operational roadblocks, sequencing and phenotyping protocols, and addressing health service disparities. The VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, Washington, and the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center in California both are mentorship sites that play instrumental roles in guiding newer sites through challenges, such as obtaining rapid pathology results and navigating the VA system. This interinvestigator communication also helps to recruit new junior and senior investigators to POPCaP, thereby broadening the network’s reach.

Future Pathways

In line with the mission outlined in the MOU of developing treatments for veteran populations, the PCF-VA partnership has actively pursued addressing veteran health inequities. In 2018, a $2.5 million gift from Robert F. Smith, Founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Vista Equity Partners, set up the Chicago COE with the express purpose of serving African American veterans, who represent men at highest risk of prostate cancer incidence and mortality.¹³ A regularly convened health disparities working group explores future efforts. This group, composed of VA investigators, epidemiologists, geneticists, and other field leaders, seeks to advance the most compelling approaches to eliminate inequities in prostate cancer care.

A novel nursing initiative that focuses on the role of nurses in providing genetic services for prostate cancer is being developed. The need for new genetic care models and significant barriers to genetic service delivery have been well-documented for prostate cancer.¹⁴ The initiative provides nurses with opportunities to train with POPCaP and VA geneticists, enroll in a City of Hope genetics course, and to join a collaborative of geneticists, medical oncologists, and nurse practitioners.¹⁵ By furthering nursing education and leadership, the initiative empowers nurses to fill the gaps in veteran health care, particularly in genomics-based precision oncology.

The COE platform also has provided the foundation for the building of COEs for other cancers relevant to veterans, such as lung cancer. This expansion of COE function helps to further the VA goal of not only creating COEs, but a system of excellence. More recently, COE infrastructure has been leveraged in the fight against COVID-19 through HITCH, a clinical trial investigating the use of temporary androgen suppression in improving clinical outcomes of veterans with COVID-19.¹⁶ This expansion of function also provides a mechanism for COEs to continue to be funded in the future: attracting federal capital, private philanthropy, and industrial support is dependent on realized and expanded goals, as well as demonstrable progress in veteran care.

Conclusions

The PCF-VA partnership serves as an example of a public-private health partnership pursuing strategic pathways and bold goals to ensure that every eligible veteran has access to precision oncology. These pathways include advocacy on the part of executive leadership, recognizing existing economies of scale, building compelling narratives to maximize funding, creating flexible requirements, and facilitating a robust, resource-rich scientific network. This partnership already has opened doors to future initiatives and continues to adapt to a rapidly changing health landscape. The discussed strategies have the potential to inform future health initiatives and showcase how a systemic approach to eradicating health inequities can greatly benefit underserved communities.

The success of the PCF-VA partnership represents more than just an efficient partnership model. The partnership’s emphasis on veterans, who exemplify service, highlights the extent to which cancer patients sacrifice to contribute to medical research. This service necessitates a service in kind: all health stakeholders share the responsibility to rapidly advance therapies and care, both to honor the patients who have come before, and to meet the needs of patients with treatment resistant forms of the disease urgently awaiting precision breakthroughs and cures.

In late 2016, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) announced a multiyear public-private partnership to deliver precision oncology and best-in-class care to all veterans battling prostate cancer.¹ The creation of this partnership was due to several favorable factors. At that time, VA Secretary Robert A. McDonald had created the Secretary’s Center for Strategic Partnerships. This Center provided a mechanism for nonprofit and industry partners to collaborate with the VA, thereby advancing partnerships that served the VA mission of “serving and honoring…America’s veterans.”^1,2 Concurrently, Vice President Joseph Biden’s Cancer Moonshot (later renamed the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot) charged PCF and other cancer-focused organizations with the ambitious goal of making a decade’s worth of advancements in cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in 5 years.³ As such, both organizations were positioned to recognize and address the unique prostate cancer challenges faced by male veterans, which ultimately led to the PCF-VA partnership.

A number of factors have allowed the PCF-VA partnership to scale the Centers of Excellence (COE) program. This article seeks to highlight the strategic organizing and mobilization techniques employed by the PCF-VA partnership, which can inform future public-private hybrid initiatives focused on precision medicine.

Executive Leadership as Patient Advocates

From its creation, the PCF-VA partnership placed as much importance on veteran patient care as it has on making oncologic advances. The fact that this focus came primarily from executive leadership was critical to the partnership’s success. PCF board members emphasized the significance of prioritizing veterans and military families in cancer research efforts.

A notable example is S. Ward “Trip” Casscells, MD, a veteran who was deployed to Iraq in 2006 and subsequently served as US Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. He focused much of his leadership on ensuring that veterans and military families, having performed a critical service for the country, were served with this same degree of excellence when it came to health.⁴ Fellow PCF Board member Lawrence Stupski, spoke publicly about his drug-resistant form of prostate cancer, bringing awareness to the complexity of ending death and suffering from the disease.⁵ Like Casscells, Stupski has a military service background, and served in Vietnam in 1968 as an officer in the US Navy. Both participated in multiple prostate cancer clinical trials themselves, serving as models of veteran trial participants. This visibility and leadership created a culture where veterans were not just instrumental in advancing cancer research, but also representative of a responsibility to ensure high-quality care for an underserved and at-risk community (Figure 1).

VHA Economy of Scale

Utilizing the vast capacity of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for care was integral to the success of the partnership. The VHA serves 9 million veterans each year in 1,255 health care facilities, which include 170 medical centers and 1,075 outpatient clinics.⁶ As the nation’s largest integrated health care system, the VHA approaches cancer care with a single electronic health record system across all of its facilities, featuring comprehensive clinical outcome documentation.⁷ The VHA’s systemwide DNA sequence platform, through the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP), also provided an optimal area for research and standardization of precision oncology practices on a national scale.⁸

Centers of Excellence: An Adaptable Model

The primary thrust of the partnership centers on the PCF-VA COEs, which form the Precision Oncology Program for Cancer of the Prostate (POPCaP) network. Over the last 4 years, PCF-deployed philanthropy has established 12 PCF-VA COEs, located in the Bronx and Manhattan, New York; Tampa Bay, Florida; Los Angeles, California; Seattle, Washington; Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Durham, North Carolina; Washington, DC; Boston, Massachusetts; and Portland, Oregon. Sites were initially chosen based on strong connections to academic medical centers, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive care centers, and physician-scientists who were professionally invested in precision prostate cancer oncology. Drawing on PCF’s existing networks helped to identify these areas, which were already rich in human and technological capital, before expanding to areas that were less resource rich. Future health partnerships may therefore consider capitalizing on existing relationships to spark initial growth, which can provide pathways for scaling.

In collaboration with NPOP, COEs work to sequence genomic and somatic tissue from veterans with metastatic prostate cancer, connect patients to appropriate clinical trials and treatment pathways, and advance guidelines for precision cancer care. Certain aspects of COE operations remain constant across all facilities. Annual progress reports, comprising of a written report, slide deck of accomplishments, and bulleted delineation of challenges and future plans are required of all COE-funded investigators. All COEs also are tasked with hiring a center coordinator, instituting a standardized sequencing and mutation reporting protocol, participating in consortium-wide phase 3 studies, and engaging in monthly conference calls to assess progress. A complete list of requirements is found in the Table.

However, the methods through which these goals must be completed is at the discretion of the COE investigators. Each COE, due to institutional and patient variance, experiences distinctive challenges and must mold its practice to fit existing capacities. For example, certain sites optimized workflow by training coordinators to analyze specimens, thereby improving care speed for veteran patients. Other COEs maximized nearby resources by hiring offsite specialists such as genetic counselors and interventional radiologists. By providing the freedom to design site-specific methodology, the PCF-VA partnership allows each COE to meet the award goals through any appropriate path using the funds provided, increasing efficiency and optimizing progress. This diversity of protocol also helped to expand the capabilities of the POPCaP Network, allowing sites to specialize in areas of interest in precision oncology. This eventually helped to inform future initiatives.

Accelerating Clinical Trials

A critical feature of the POPCaP network is the Prostate Cancer Analysis for Therapy Choice (PATCH) plexus.⁹ Through this investigative umbrella, veterans who are sequenced at any COE are given access to clinical trials at sites across POPCaP. Funding is available to support veteran travel to these sites, decreasing the chance that a veteran’s location is a barrier to treatment. In this way, the PCF-VA partnership continues to broaden treatment scopes for tens of thousands of veterans while simultaneously advancing clinical knowledge of precision oncology.

Fostering a Scientific Community

The PCF-VA partnership’s COE initiative capitalizes on resources from both nonprofit and public sectors to cultivate dynamic scientific discourse and investigative support. Through monthly meetings of the NPOP Molecular Oncology Tumor Board, COE investigators receive guidance and education to better assist veterans sequenced through their programs. Another example of enriched scientific collaboration are the Dream Team investigators, who were collaboratively funded by PCF, Stand Up 2 Cancer, and the American Association for Cancer Research.¹⁰ These teams made significant strides in genomic profiling of advanced prostate cancer and outpatient computed tomography-guided metastatic bone biopsy techniques. Through the PCF-VA partnership, COE researchers benefited from these investigators’ insight and expertise during regular check-in calls with investigators. PCF’s Prescription Pad, also connects all investigators to current therapies and trials, better informing them of future directions for their own work (Figure 3).^11,12

The PCF-VA partnership also facilitates peer-to-peer communication through regular inperson and virtual meetings of investigators, coordinators, and other stakeholders. These meetings allow the creation of focused working groups composed of COE leaders across the nation. The working groups seek to improve all aspects of functionality, including operational roadblocks, sequencing and phenotyping protocols, and addressing health service disparities. The VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, Washington, and the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center in California both are mentorship sites that play instrumental roles in guiding newer sites through challenges, such as obtaining rapid pathology results and navigating the VA system. This interinvestigator communication also helps to recruit new junior and senior investigators to POPCaP, thereby broadening the network’s reach.

Future Pathways

In line with the mission outlined in the MOU of developing treatments for veteran populations, the PCF-VA partnership has actively pursued addressing veteran health inequities. In 2018, a $2.5 million gift from Robert F. Smith, Founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Vista Equity Partners, set up the Chicago COE with the express purpose of serving African American veterans, who represent men at highest risk of prostate cancer incidence and mortality.¹³ A regularly convened health disparities working group explores future efforts. This group, composed of VA investigators, epidemiologists, geneticists, and other field leaders, seeks to advance the most compelling approaches to eliminate inequities in prostate cancer care.

A novel nursing initiative that focuses on the role of nurses in providing genetic services for prostate cancer is being developed. The need for new genetic care models and significant barriers to genetic service delivery have been well-documented for prostate cancer.¹⁴ The initiative provides nurses with opportunities to train with POPCaP and VA geneticists, enroll in a City of Hope genetics course, and to join a collaborative of geneticists, medical oncologists, and nurse practitioners.¹⁵ By furthering nursing education and leadership, the initiative empowers nurses to fill the gaps in veteran health care, particularly in genomics-based precision oncology.

The COE platform also has provided the foundation for the building of COEs for other cancers relevant to veterans, such as lung cancer. This expansion of COE function helps to further the VA goal of not only creating COEs, but a system of excellence. More recently, COE infrastructure has been leveraged in the fight against COVID-19 through HITCH, a clinical trial investigating the use of temporary androgen suppression in improving clinical outcomes of veterans with COVID-19.¹⁶ This expansion of function also provides a mechanism for COEs to continue to be funded in the future: attracting federal capital, private philanthropy, and industrial support is dependent on realized and expanded goals, as well as demonstrable progress in veteran care.

Conclusions

The PCF-VA partnership serves as an example of a public-private health partnership pursuing strategic pathways and bold goals to ensure that every eligible veteran has access to precision oncology. These pathways include advocacy on the part of executive leadership, recognizing existing economies of scale, building compelling narratives to maximize funding, creating flexible requirements, and facilitating a robust, resource-rich scientific network. This partnership already has opened doors to future initiatives and continues to adapt to a rapidly changing health landscape. The discussed strategies have the potential to inform future health initiatives and showcase how a systemic approach to eradicating health inequities can greatly benefit underserved communities.

The success of the PCF-VA partnership represents more than just an efficient partnership model. The partnership’s emphasis on veterans, who exemplify service, highlights the extent to which cancer patients sacrifice to contribute to medical research. This service necessitates a service in kind: all health stakeholders share the responsibility to rapidly advance therapies and care, both to honor the patients who have come before, and to meet the needs of patients with treatment resistant forms of the disease urgently awaiting precision breakthroughs and cures.

A remote monitoring system was highly effective in managing symptoms and improving quality of life among patients with cancer who were receiving chemotherapy, say researchers reporting the first clinical trial of the new approach.

The study tested the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) for patients with various cancer types who were undergoing treatment at cancer centers in several European countries. The study primarily focused on patients who were being treated with curative intent.

The 24-hour monitoring system optimized symptom management in a manner safe, secure, and in “real time,” the team reports. This is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, they note.

“Our findings suggest that an evidence based remote monitoring intervention, such as ASyMS, has potential for implementation into routine care to make a meaningful difference to people with cancer,” the authors conclude.

The findings were published online in BMJ.

The results show that “ASyMS can be implemented across multiple countries within diverse health care systems,” commented lead author Roma Maguire, PhD, a professor of digital health and care at the University of Strathclyde, in Glasgow, and director of the Health and Care Futures initiative.

So far, the system has only been used in clinical research studies, but “our findings do suggest that it is feasible to implement our system on a wider scale,” she added.

The study cohort included 829 patients with various cancers, including nonmetastatic breast cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin disease, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The patients were receiving first-line adjuvant chemotherapy or chemotherapy for the first time in 5 years. They were recruited from 12 cancer centers in Austria, Greece, Norway, the Republic of Ireland, and the United Kingdom.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive ASyMS (n = 415) or standard care (n = 414) during six cycles of chemotherapy.

The primary outcome was symptom burden, as determined using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, as determined by results on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, the Supportive Care Needs Survey–Short Form, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory–Revised, the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer, and the Work Limitations Questionnaire.

Patients in the intervention group completed a daily symptom questionnaire on a handheld ASyMS device, which generated alerts to health care professionals if any intervention was needed. The patients were also provided with advice and information on how to manage their symptoms themselves.

Among patients using ASyMS, symptom burden remained at prechemotherapy levels over all six chemotherapy cycles. Conversely, the control group reported an increase in symptom burden from cycle 1; symptom burden slowly decreased during the remaining chemotherapy cycles.

Overall, the investigators found that, among the patients who used ASyMS, psychological and physical symptoms were significantly reduced, along with the level of distress associated with each symptom.

In addition, for the patients who used ASyMS, health-related quality-of-life scores were higher across all cycles. The authors note that the improvements in health-related quality of life are consistent with findings from recent trials of the use of remote monitoring systems in chemotherapy care. The intervention group also experienced significant improvements regarding the need for supportive care.

Improvements in symptom burden differed among countries. The greatest improvements were seen among patients with breast cancer, Hodgkin disease, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Austria, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The reasons for these differences are unclear, the authors note. ASyMS was developed in the United Kingdom, and it’s possible that ASyMS is more effective in countries that have health care systems similar to the system in the United Kingdom, they suggest.

The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two groups, although the rate of neutropenia was higher among patients using ASyMS (n = 125; 64%) in comparison with the standard-care group ( n = 71; 36%). Three deaths occurred in each study arm. The number of planned hospital admissions was similar between the two groups (34 vs. 38), as was the number of unplanned hospital admissions (120 vs. 109). No ASyMS device-related incidents were reported.

The trial was funded by the European Commission and was sponsored by the University of Strathclyde. Dr. Maguire has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A remote monitoring system was highly effective in managing symptoms and improving quality of life among patients with cancer who were receiving chemotherapy, say researchers reporting the first clinical trial of the new approach.

The study tested the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) for patients with various cancer types who were undergoing treatment at cancer centers in several European countries. The study primarily focused on patients who were being treated with curative intent.

The 24-hour monitoring system optimized symptom management in a manner safe, secure, and in “real time,” the team reports. This is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, they note.

“Our findings suggest that an evidence based remote monitoring intervention, such as ASyMS, has potential for implementation into routine care to make a meaningful difference to people with cancer,” the authors conclude.

The findings were published online in BMJ.

The results show that “ASyMS can be implemented across multiple countries within diverse health care systems,” commented lead author Roma Maguire, PhD, a professor of digital health and care at the University of Strathclyde, in Glasgow, and director of the Health and Care Futures initiative.

So far, the system has only been used in clinical research studies, but “our findings do suggest that it is feasible to implement our system on a wider scale,” she added.

The study cohort included 829 patients with various cancers, including nonmetastatic breast cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin disease, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The patients were receiving first-line adjuvant chemotherapy or chemotherapy for the first time in 5 years. They were recruited from 12 cancer centers in Austria, Greece, Norway, the Republic of Ireland, and the United Kingdom.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive ASyMS (n = 415) or standard care (n = 414) during six cycles of chemotherapy.

The primary outcome was symptom burden, as determined using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, as determined by results on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, the Supportive Care Needs Survey–Short Form, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory–Revised, the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer, and the Work Limitations Questionnaire.

Patients in the intervention group completed a daily symptom questionnaire on a handheld ASyMS device, which generated alerts to health care professionals if any intervention was needed. The patients were also provided with advice and information on how to manage their symptoms themselves.

Among patients using ASyMS, symptom burden remained at prechemotherapy levels over all six chemotherapy cycles. Conversely, the control group reported an increase in symptom burden from cycle 1; symptom burden slowly decreased during the remaining chemotherapy cycles.

Overall, the investigators found that, among the patients who used ASyMS, psychological and physical symptoms were significantly reduced, along with the level of distress associated with each symptom.

In addition, for the patients who used ASyMS, health-related quality-of-life scores were higher across all cycles. The authors note that the improvements in health-related quality of life are consistent with findings from recent trials of the use of remote monitoring systems in chemotherapy care. The intervention group also experienced significant improvements regarding the need for supportive care.

Improvements in symptom burden differed among countries. The greatest improvements were seen among patients with breast cancer, Hodgkin disease, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Austria, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The reasons for these differences are unclear, the authors note. ASyMS was developed in the United Kingdom, and it’s possible that ASyMS is more effective in countries that have health care systems similar to the system in the United Kingdom, they suggest.

The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two groups, although the rate of neutropenia was higher among patients using ASyMS (n = 125; 64%) in comparison with the standard-care group ( n = 71; 36%). Three deaths occurred in each study arm. The number of planned hospital admissions was similar between the two groups (34 vs. 38), as was the number of unplanned hospital admissions (120 vs. 109). No ASyMS device-related incidents were reported.

The trial was funded by the European Commission and was sponsored by the University of Strathclyde. Dr. Maguire has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A remote monitoring system was highly effective in managing symptoms and improving quality of life among patients with cancer who were receiving chemotherapy, say researchers reporting the first clinical trial of the new approach.

The study tested the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) for patients with various cancer types who were undergoing treatment at cancer centers in several European countries. The study primarily focused on patients who were being treated with curative intent.

The 24-hour monitoring system optimized symptom management in a manner safe, secure, and in “real time,” the team reports. This is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, they note.

“Our findings suggest that an evidence based remote monitoring intervention, such as ASyMS, has potential for implementation into routine care to make a meaningful difference to people with cancer,” the authors conclude.

The findings were published online in BMJ.

The results show that “ASyMS can be implemented across multiple countries within diverse health care systems,” commented lead author Roma Maguire, PhD, a professor of digital health and care at the University of Strathclyde, in Glasgow, and director of the Health and Care Futures initiative.

So far, the system has only been used in clinical research studies, but “our findings do suggest that it is feasible to implement our system on a wider scale,” she added.

The study cohort included 829 patients with various cancers, including nonmetastatic breast cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin disease, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The patients were receiving first-line adjuvant chemotherapy or chemotherapy for the first time in 5 years. They were recruited from 12 cancer centers in Austria, Greece, Norway, the Republic of Ireland, and the United Kingdom.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive ASyMS (n = 415) or standard care (n = 414) during six cycles of chemotherapy.

The primary outcome was symptom burden, as determined using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, as determined by results on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, the Supportive Care Needs Survey–Short Form, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory–Revised, the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer, and the Work Limitations Questionnaire.

Patients in the intervention group completed a daily symptom questionnaire on a handheld ASyMS device, which generated alerts to health care professionals if any intervention was needed. The patients were also provided with advice and information on how to manage their symptoms themselves.

Among patients using ASyMS, symptom burden remained at prechemotherapy levels over all six chemotherapy cycles. Conversely, the control group reported an increase in symptom burden from cycle 1; symptom burden slowly decreased during the remaining chemotherapy cycles.

Overall, the investigators found that, among the patients who used ASyMS, psychological and physical symptoms were significantly reduced, along with the level of distress associated with each symptom.

In addition, for the patients who used ASyMS, health-related quality-of-life scores were higher across all cycles. The authors note that the improvements in health-related quality of life are consistent with findings from recent trials of the use of remote monitoring systems in chemotherapy care. The intervention group also experienced significant improvements regarding the need for supportive care.

Improvements in symptom burden differed among countries. The greatest improvements were seen among patients with breast cancer, Hodgkin disease, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Austria, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The reasons for these differences are unclear, the authors note. ASyMS was developed in the United Kingdom, and it’s possible that ASyMS is more effective in countries that have health care systems similar to the system in the United Kingdom, they suggest.

The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two groups, although the rate of neutropenia was higher among patients using ASyMS (n = 125; 64%) in comparison with the standard-care group ( n = 71; 36%). Three deaths occurred in each study arm. The number of planned hospital admissions was similar between the two groups (34 vs. 38), as was the number of unplanned hospital admissions (120 vs. 109). No ASyMS device-related incidents were reported.

The trial was funded by the European Commission and was sponsored by the University of Strathclyde. Dr. Maguire has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wrong-site surgery

Florida regulators have imposed a fine and other measures on a Tampa doctor who made a crucial error prior to his patient’s testicular surgery, as a story in the Miami Herald, among other news sites, reports.

On Sept. 10, 2019, a patient referred to in state documents as “C.F.” showed up for a procedure – a varicocelectomy – that would remove the enlarged veins in his left testicle. His doctor that day was Raul Fernandez-Crespo, MD, a urologist who had been licensed to practice in Florida since April of the same year. Dr. Fernandez-Crespo completed his urology residency at the University of Puerto Rico in 2019.

Following a conversation with C.F., Dr. Fernandez-Crespo designated what he believed was the proper surgical site – his patient’s right testicle.

He then proceeded to operate, but at some point during the procedure – news accounts don’t make clear when or how he became aware of his error – he realized C.F. had actually consented to a left-testicle varicocelectomy. With his patient still sedated, Dr. Fernandez-Crespo also completed the second procedure.

His mistake came to the attention of the Department of Health, which filed an administrative complaint against the surgeon. On June 17, 2021, the department’s medical licensing body, the Florida Board of Medicine, handed down its final order about the case.

In addition to imposing a $2,500 fine on Dr. Fernandez-Crespo and issuing “a letter of concern” – a public document that can be used as evidence in any relevant future disciplinary action against him – regulators said the surgeon must reimburse $2,045.56 to the department for its case-related administrative costs; take a 5-hour CME course in risk management or attend 8 hours of board disciplinary hearings; and, finally, give a 1-hour lecture on wrong-site surgeries at a board-approved medical facility.

Before this, Dr. Fernandez-Crespo had no previous disciplinary history with the Florida Board of Medicine.
 

Huge judgment after fertility procedure goes wrong

A Connecticut couple whose fertility and prenatal care at a state university health center proved disastrous will receive millions of dollars in damages, according to a report in the Hartford Courant.

In 2014, Jean-Marie Monroe-Lynch and her husband, Aaron Lynch, went to UConn Health, in Farmington, for treatment of Jean-Marie’s infertility. Her care was overseen by the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services (CARS), a private company then under contract with UConn Health. (The contract, which ended in 2014, obligated UConn to provide CARS providers with medical malpractice coverage.)

There, Jean-Marie was inseminated with sperm from a donor who turned out to be a carrier for cytomegalovirus (CMV), the herpes virus that can cause severe birth defects, or fetal death, when contracted by a pregnant woman. The insemination resulted in a twin pregnancy, a boy and a girl. The girl, Shay, died in utero after several of her organs became infected with CMV; the boy, Joshua, was born with severe mental and physical disabilities.

In their suit, Ms. Monroe-Lynch and her husband alleged that they were never cautioned about the risks associated with using a sperm donor whose blood had tested positive for CMV antibodies. Their suit further alleged that, at the 20-week ultrasound, UConn’s prenatal team failed to detect evidence of congenital CMV infection and again failed, at the 22-week ultrasound, to properly recognize and respond to abnormal findings.

“They totally dropped the ball,” said the couple’s attorney. “If you’re a pregnant woman and contract the virus for the first time, the results can be devastating.” 

CARS disputes this conclusion, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to prove as a “matter of scientific fact” that Ms. Monroe-Lynch was infected with CMV as the result of her intrauterine insemination.

But Superior Court Judge Mark H. Taylor disagreed. In his 107-page ruling, he said that the court “agrees with the vast majority of superior courts, concluding that a physician providing obstetric care owes a direct duty to a mother to prevent harm to her child during gestation and delivery.”

Jean-Marie Monroe-Lynch and Aaron Lynch received a $37.6 million award, consisting of $24.1 million in economic damages and $13.5 million in noneconomic damages.

Their surviving child, Joshua, will reportedly require a lifetime of medical and other care. In the meantime, UConn Health vows to appeal the Superior Court’s decision.
 

COVID patient’s relative demands justice for fatal outcome

An Indiana man whose grandfather recently died after suffering a stroke is calling on state lawmakers to rethink legislation passed earlier this year to protect health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a story reported by CBS4Indy.

Late last year, Daniel Enlow’s 83-year-old grandfather, Edward Rigney, was checked into Eskenazi Hospital, in Indianapolis. Mr. Rigney suffered from COPD and had also been diagnosed with COVID-19.

At some point during his hospitalization, medical staff attempted to place what seems to have been an arterial line in order to monitor his condition. During the procedure, or at some point shortly thereafter, an “iatrogenic air embolus” was released into his veins and caused a stroke, according to medical records and Mr. Rigney’s death certificate.

“I started asking for medical records because I wanted to know what was happening leading up to it in black and white in front of me,” said Mr. Enlow, who wished to present his evidence to a medical review panel, as required by Indiana law. The first step in this process would have been to consult with a medical malpractice attorney, but several declined to take his case.

Why? Because a pair of bills passed by Indiana legislators in early 2021 make COVID-19–related suits – even tangentially related ones – potentially difficult to take to court.

The bills raised the bar to file a medical malpractice claim in COVID-19 cases and to allow only those that involve “gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.”

“In the vast majority of cases, it’s impossible to prove that,” said Fred Schultz, immediate past president of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, who lobbied against the legislation.

The bills were never designed to offer “blanket freedom,” said GOP State Senator Aaron Freeman, sponsor of one of the bills. “If something is being used in a way that it is a complete bar to certain claims, then maybe we need to go back and look at it and open that up a little bit and make it less restrictive. I’m certainly open to having those conversations.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Enlow has vowed to keep pushing in the name of his late grandfather. The hospital’s parent company, Eskenazi Health, has declined to comment.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wrong-site surgery

Florida regulators have imposed a fine and other measures on a Tampa doctor who made a crucial error prior to his patient’s testicular surgery, as a story in the Miami Herald, among other news sites, reports.

On Sept. 10, 2019, a patient referred to in state documents as “C.F.” showed up for a procedure – a varicocelectomy – that would remove the enlarged veins in his left testicle. His doctor that day was Raul Fernandez-Crespo, MD, a urologist who had been licensed to practice in Florida since April of the same year. Dr. Fernandez-Crespo completed his urology residency at the University of Puerto Rico in 2019.

Following a conversation with C.F., Dr. Fernandez-Crespo designated what he believed was the proper surgical site – his patient’s right testicle.

He then proceeded to operate, but at some point during the procedure – news accounts don’t make clear when or how he became aware of his error – he realized C.F. had actually consented to a left-testicle varicocelectomy. With his patient still sedated, Dr. Fernandez-Crespo also completed the second procedure.

His mistake came to the attention of the Department of Health, which filed an administrative complaint against the surgeon. On June 17, 2021, the department’s medical licensing body, the Florida Board of Medicine, handed down its final order about the case.

In addition to imposing a $2,500 fine on Dr. Fernandez-Crespo and issuing “a letter of concern” – a public document that can be used as evidence in any relevant future disciplinary action against him – regulators said the surgeon must reimburse $2,045.56 to the department for its case-related administrative costs; take a 5-hour CME course in risk management or attend 8 hours of board disciplinary hearings; and, finally, give a 1-hour lecture on wrong-site surgeries at a board-approved medical facility.

Before this, Dr. Fernandez-Crespo had no previous disciplinary history with the Florida Board of Medicine.
 

Huge judgment after fertility procedure goes wrong

A Connecticut couple whose fertility and prenatal care at a state university health center proved disastrous will receive millions of dollars in damages, according to a report in the Hartford Courant.

In 2014, Jean-Marie Monroe-Lynch and her husband, Aaron Lynch, went to UConn Health, in Farmington, for treatment of Jean-Marie’s infertility. Her care was overseen by the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services (CARS), a private company then under contract with UConn Health. (The contract, which ended in 2014, obligated UConn to provide CARS providers with medical malpractice coverage.)

There, Jean-Marie was inseminated with sperm from a donor who turned out to be a carrier for cytomegalovirus (CMV), the herpes virus that can cause severe birth defects, or fetal death, when contracted by a pregnant woman. The insemination resulted in a twin pregnancy, a boy and a girl. The girl, Shay, died in utero after several of her organs became infected with CMV; the boy, Joshua, was born with severe mental and physical disabilities.

In their suit, Ms. Monroe-Lynch and her husband alleged that they were never cautioned about the risks associated with using a sperm donor whose blood had tested positive for CMV antibodies. Their suit further alleged that, at the 20-week ultrasound, UConn’s prenatal team failed to detect evidence of congenital CMV infection and again failed, at the 22-week ultrasound, to properly recognize and respond to abnormal findings.

“They totally dropped the ball,” said the couple’s attorney. “If you’re a pregnant woman and contract the virus for the first time, the results can be devastating.” 

CARS disputes this conclusion, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to prove as a “matter of scientific fact” that Ms. Monroe-Lynch was infected with CMV as the result of her intrauterine insemination.

But Superior Court Judge Mark H. Taylor disagreed. In his 107-page ruling, he said that the court “agrees with the vast majority of superior courts, concluding that a physician providing obstetric care owes a direct duty to a mother to prevent harm to her child during gestation and delivery.”

Jean-Marie Monroe-Lynch and Aaron Lynch received a $37.6 million award, consisting of $24.1 million in economic damages and $13.5 million in noneconomic damages.

Their surviving child, Joshua, will reportedly require a lifetime of medical and other care. In the meantime, UConn Health vows to appeal the Superior Court’s decision.
 

COVID patient’s relative demands justice for fatal outcome

An Indiana man whose grandfather recently died after suffering a stroke is calling on state lawmakers to rethink legislation passed earlier this year to protect health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a story reported by CBS4Indy.

Late last year, Daniel Enlow’s 83-year-old grandfather, Edward Rigney, was checked into Eskenazi Hospital, in Indianapolis. Mr. Rigney suffered from COPD and had also been diagnosed with COVID-19.

At some point during his hospitalization, medical staff attempted to place what seems to have been an arterial line in order to monitor his condition. During the procedure, or at some point shortly thereafter, an “iatrogenic air embolus” was released into his veins and caused a stroke, according to medical records and Mr. Rigney’s death certificate.

“I started asking for medical records because I wanted to know what was happening leading up to it in black and white in front of me,” said Mr. Enlow, who wished to present his evidence to a medical review panel, as required by Indiana law. The first step in this process would have been to consult with a medical malpractice attorney, but several declined to take his case.

Why? Because a pair of bills passed by Indiana legislators in early 2021 make COVID-19–related suits – even tangentially related ones – potentially difficult to take to court.

The bills raised the bar to file a medical malpractice claim in COVID-19 cases and to allow only those that involve “gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.”

“In the vast majority of cases, it’s impossible to prove that,” said Fred Schultz, immediate past president of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, who lobbied against the legislation.

The bills were never designed to offer “blanket freedom,” said GOP State Senator Aaron Freeman, sponsor of one of the bills. “If something is being used in a way that it is a complete bar to certain claims, then maybe we need to go back and look at it and open that up a little bit and make it less restrictive. I’m certainly open to having those conversations.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Enlow has vowed to keep pushing in the name of his late grandfather. The hospital’s parent company, Eskenazi Health, has declined to comment.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wrong-site surgery

Florida regulators have imposed a fine and other measures on a Tampa doctor who made a crucial error prior to his patient’s testicular surgery, as a story in the Miami Herald, among other news sites, reports.

On Sept. 10, 2019, a patient referred to in state documents as “C.F.” showed up for a procedure – a varicocelectomy – that would remove the enlarged veins in his left testicle. His doctor that day was Raul Fernandez-Crespo, MD, a urologist who had been licensed to practice in Florida since April of the same year. Dr. Fernandez-Crespo completed his urology residency at the University of Puerto Rico in 2019.

Following a conversation with C.F., Dr. Fernandez-Crespo designated what he believed was the proper surgical site – his patient’s right testicle.

He then proceeded to operate, but at some point during the procedure – news accounts don’t make clear when or how he became aware of his error – he realized C.F. had actually consented to a left-testicle varicocelectomy. With his patient still sedated, Dr. Fernandez-Crespo also completed the second procedure.

His mistake came to the attention of the Department of Health, which filed an administrative complaint against the surgeon. On June 17, 2021, the department’s medical licensing body, the Florida Board of Medicine, handed down its final order about the case.

In addition to imposing a $2,500 fine on Dr. Fernandez-Crespo and issuing “a letter of concern” – a public document that can be used as evidence in any relevant future disciplinary action against him – regulators said the surgeon must reimburse $2,045.56 to the department for its case-related administrative costs; take a 5-hour CME course in risk management or attend 8 hours of board disciplinary hearings; and, finally, give a 1-hour lecture on wrong-site surgeries at a board-approved medical facility.

Before this, Dr. Fernandez-Crespo had no previous disciplinary history with the Florida Board of Medicine.
 

Huge judgment after fertility procedure goes wrong

A Connecticut couple whose fertility and prenatal care at a state university health center proved disastrous will receive millions of dollars in damages, according to a report in the Hartford Courant.

In 2014, Jean-Marie Monroe-Lynch and her husband, Aaron Lynch, went to UConn Health, in Farmington, for treatment of Jean-Marie’s infertility. Her care was overseen by the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services (CARS), a private company then under contract with UConn Health. (The contract, which ended in 2014, obligated UConn to provide CARS providers with medical malpractice coverage.)

There, Jean-Marie was inseminated with sperm from a donor who turned out to be a carrier for cytomegalovirus (CMV), the herpes virus that can cause severe birth defects, or fetal death, when contracted by a pregnant woman. The insemination resulted in a twin pregnancy, a boy and a girl. The girl, Shay, died in utero after several of her organs became infected with CMV; the boy, Joshua, was born with severe mental and physical disabilities.

In their suit, Ms. Monroe-Lynch and her husband alleged that they were never cautioned about the risks associated with using a sperm donor whose blood had tested positive for CMV antibodies. Their suit further alleged that, at the 20-week ultrasound, UConn’s prenatal team failed to detect evidence of congenital CMV infection and again failed, at the 22-week ultrasound, to properly recognize and respond to abnormal findings.

“They totally dropped the ball,” said the couple’s attorney. “If you’re a pregnant woman and contract the virus for the first time, the results can be devastating.” 

CARS disputes this conclusion, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to prove as a “matter of scientific fact” that Ms. Monroe-Lynch was infected with CMV as the result of her intrauterine insemination.

But Superior Court Judge Mark H. Taylor disagreed. In his 107-page ruling, he said that the court “agrees with the vast majority of superior courts, concluding that a physician providing obstetric care owes a direct duty to a mother to prevent harm to her child during gestation and delivery.”

Jean-Marie Monroe-Lynch and Aaron Lynch received a $37.6 million award, consisting of $24.1 million in economic damages and $13.5 million in noneconomic damages.

Their surviving child, Joshua, will reportedly require a lifetime of medical and other care. In the meantime, UConn Health vows to appeal the Superior Court’s decision.
 

COVID patient’s relative demands justice for fatal outcome

An Indiana man whose grandfather recently died after suffering a stroke is calling on state lawmakers to rethink legislation passed earlier this year to protect health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a story reported by CBS4Indy.

Late last year, Daniel Enlow’s 83-year-old grandfather, Edward Rigney, was checked into Eskenazi Hospital, in Indianapolis. Mr. Rigney suffered from COPD and had also been diagnosed with COVID-19.

At some point during his hospitalization, medical staff attempted to place what seems to have been an arterial line in order to monitor his condition. During the procedure, or at some point shortly thereafter, an “iatrogenic air embolus” was released into his veins and caused a stroke, according to medical records and Mr. Rigney’s death certificate.

“I started asking for medical records because I wanted to know what was happening leading up to it in black and white in front of me,” said Mr. Enlow, who wished to present his evidence to a medical review panel, as required by Indiana law. The first step in this process would have been to consult with a medical malpractice attorney, but several declined to take his case.

Why? Because a pair of bills passed by Indiana legislators in early 2021 make COVID-19–related suits – even tangentially related ones – potentially difficult to take to court.

The bills raised the bar to file a medical malpractice claim in COVID-19 cases and to allow only those that involve “gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.”

“In the vast majority of cases, it’s impossible to prove that,” said Fred Schultz, immediate past president of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, who lobbied against the legislation.

The bills were never designed to offer “blanket freedom,” said GOP State Senator Aaron Freeman, sponsor of one of the bills. “If something is being used in a way that it is a complete bar to certain claims, then maybe we need to go back and look at it and open that up a little bit and make it less restrictive. I’m certainly open to having those conversations.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Enlow has vowed to keep pushing in the name of his late grandfather. The hospital’s parent company, Eskenazi Health, has declined to comment.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Program death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibition suppresses tumor activity via modulation of immune and tumor cell interaction. TNBC is characterized by higher PD-L1 expression and increased immune infiltration, compared to other subtypes. In the randomized, phase 3 IMpassion130 trial, among 902 patients who were treatment naïve in the metastatic TNBC setting, an exploratory analysis in the PD-L1-positive population demonstrated a clinically meaningful OS benefit with atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel compared to placebo + nab-paclitaxel (25.4 vs 17.9 months; HR 0.67) (Emens et al). Additionally, the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 trial demonstrated PFS benefit among patients with mTNBC with combined positive score (CPS) ≥10 with pembrolizumab + chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel or gemcitabine/carboplatin) versus placebo + chemotherapy (mPFS 9.7 vs 5.6 months; HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.86). These results are in contrast to the phase 3 IMpassion131 trial which found no statistically significant difference in PFS or OS among 651 patients with mTNBC randomized to atezolizumab + paclitaxel vs placebo + paclitaxel (PD-L1-positive population: PFS 6.0 vs 5.7 months, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60-1.12; OS 22.1 vs 28.3 months, HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.62) (Miles et al). The reasons underlying these differences remain unclear and warrant further investigation. Some thoughts raised include lack of information on BRCA status (which may serve as prognostic factor) in IMpassion131, concomitant use of steroids with paclitaxel, and allowance of sufficient long-term follow-up for generation of events. Regardless, these studies suggest chemotherapy backbone is relevant and the regimens utilized in IMpassion130 and KEYNOTE-355 have gained FDA approval in the first-line mTNBC setting.

The phase 3 CLEOPATRA trial has established the regimen of docetaxel + trastuzumab + pertuzumab as standard of care in the first-line setting for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer with an OS benefit of 16 months compared to docetaxel + trastuzumab + placebo (57.1 vs 40.8 months; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58-0.82) with over 8 years of follow-up. PERUSE was a single-arm phase 3b study that investigated the safety and efficacy of trastuzumab + pertuzumab combined with various taxanes (docetaxel, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel) among 1426 patients with HER2+ mBC (Miles et al). In the overall population at follow-up of 5.7 years, median PFS and OS were 20.7 and 65.3 months, respectively, and were similar regardless of taxane backbone. Docetaxel was associated with higher incidences of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. These results support consideration of an alternative taxane combined with trastuzumab + pertuzumab in this setting (for example paclitaxel) in patients who may not be ideal candidates for docetaxel.

In the second-line treatment setting for HER2+ mBC with prior exposure to trastuzumab and taxane, the phase 3 EMILIA study showed improvement in OS with T-DM1 vs capecitabine + lapatinib (mOS 29.9 vs 25.9 months, HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.88). Ethier et al explored real-world application and outcomes associated with pertuzumab and T-DM1 in the first- and second-line settings respectively, in a population-based, retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada. In the pertuzumab cohort, median OS and time on treatment were 43 and 4 months, respectively. In the T-DM1 cohort, median OS and time on treatment were 15 months and 4 months, respectively. Additionally, patients in the T-DM1 cohort who were pertuzumab-naïve appeared to do better, potentially suggesting less responsiveness to subsequent HER2-targeted treatment in the real world setting among those who received prior pertuzumab. Findings from this population study demonstrate inferior outcomes when compared to the pivotal CLEOPATRA and EMILIA trials, and highlight a gap between clinical trial and real-world observations (described by authors as efficacy-effectiveness gap). Potential etiologies for these differences include patient factors, prior therapies and delivery of care models, and convey the importance of recognizing this gap exists and optimizing any modifiable factors as trial data and novel therapies are applied to routine clinical practice.

References:

Mittendorf EA, Philips AV, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. PD-L1 expression in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Immunol Res. 2014;2(4):361-70.

Cortes J, Cescon DW, Rugo HS, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-355): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet. 2020;396(10265):1817-1828.

Swain SM, Miles D, Kim SB, et al. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (CLEOPATRA): end-of-study results from a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(4):519-530.

Diéras V, Miles D, Verma S, et al. Trastuzumab emtansine versus capecitabine plus lapatinib in patients with previously treated HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (EMILIA): a descriptive analysis of final overall survival results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(6):732-742.

Program death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibition suppresses tumor activity via modulation of immune and tumor cell interaction. TNBC is characterized by higher PD-L1 expression and increased immune infiltration, compared to other subtypes. In the randomized, phase 3 IMpassion130 trial, among 902 patients who were treatment naïve in the metastatic TNBC setting, an exploratory analysis in the PD-L1-positive population demonstrated a clinically meaningful OS benefit with atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel compared to placebo + nab-paclitaxel (25.4 vs 17.9 months; HR 0.67) (Emens et al). Additionally, the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 trial demonstrated PFS benefit among patients with mTNBC with combined positive score (CPS) ≥10 with pembrolizumab + chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel or gemcitabine/carboplatin) versus placebo + chemotherapy (mPFS 9.7 vs 5.6 months; HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.86). These results are in contrast to the phase 3 IMpassion131 trial which found no statistically significant difference in PFS or OS among 651 patients with mTNBC randomized to atezolizumab + paclitaxel vs placebo + paclitaxel (PD-L1-positive population: PFS 6.0 vs 5.7 months, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60-1.12; OS 22.1 vs 28.3 months, HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.62) (Miles et al). The reasons underlying these differences remain unclear and warrant further investigation. Some thoughts raised include lack of information on BRCA status (which may serve as prognostic factor) in IMpassion131, concomitant use of steroids with paclitaxel, and allowance of sufficient long-term follow-up for generation of events. Regardless, these studies suggest chemotherapy backbone is relevant and the regimens utilized in IMpassion130 and KEYNOTE-355 have gained FDA approval in the first-line mTNBC setting.

The phase 3 CLEOPATRA trial has established the regimen of docetaxel + trastuzumab + pertuzumab as standard of care in the first-line setting for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer with an OS benefit of 16 months compared to docetaxel + trastuzumab + placebo (57.1 vs 40.8 months; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58-0.82) with over 8 years of follow-up. PERUSE was a single-arm phase 3b study that investigated the safety and efficacy of trastuzumab + pertuzumab combined with various taxanes (docetaxel, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel) among 1426 patients with HER2+ mBC (Miles et al). In the overall population at follow-up of 5.7 years, median PFS and OS were 20.7 and 65.3 months, respectively, and were similar regardless of taxane backbone. Docetaxel was associated with higher incidences of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. These results support consideration of an alternative taxane combined with trastuzumab + pertuzumab in this setting (for example paclitaxel) in patients who may not be ideal candidates for docetaxel.

In the second-line treatment setting for HER2+ mBC with prior exposure to trastuzumab and taxane, the phase 3 EMILIA study showed improvement in OS with T-DM1 vs capecitabine + lapatinib (mOS 29.9 vs 25.9 months, HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.88). Ethier et al explored real-world application and outcomes associated with pertuzumab and T-DM1 in the first- and second-line settings respectively, in a population-based, retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada. In the pertuzumab cohort, median OS and time on treatment were 43 and 4 months, respectively. In the T-DM1 cohort, median OS and time on treatment were 15 months and 4 months, respectively. Additionally, patients in the T-DM1 cohort who were pertuzumab-naïve appeared to do better, potentially suggesting less responsiveness to subsequent HER2-targeted treatment in the real world setting among those who received prior pertuzumab. Findings from this population study demonstrate inferior outcomes when compared to the pivotal CLEOPATRA and EMILIA trials, and highlight a gap between clinical trial and real-world observations (described by authors as efficacy-effectiveness gap). Potential etiologies for these differences include patient factors, prior therapies and delivery of care models, and convey the importance of recognizing this gap exists and optimizing any modifiable factors as trial data and novel therapies are applied to routine clinical practice.

References:

Mittendorf EA, Philips AV, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. PD-L1 expression in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Immunol Res. 2014;2(4):361-70.

Cortes J, Cescon DW, Rugo HS, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-355): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet. 2020;396(10265):1817-1828.

Swain SM, Miles D, Kim SB, et al. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (CLEOPATRA): end-of-study results from a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(4):519-530.

Diéras V, Miles D, Verma S, et al. Trastuzumab emtansine versus capecitabine plus lapatinib in patients with previously treated HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (EMILIA): a descriptive analysis of final overall survival results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(6):732-742.

Program death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibition suppresses tumor activity via modulation of immune and tumor cell interaction. TNBC is characterized by higher PD-L1 expression and increased immune infiltration, compared to other subtypes. In the randomized, phase 3 IMpassion130 trial, among 902 patients who were treatment naïve in the metastatic TNBC setting, an exploratory analysis in the PD-L1-positive population demonstrated a clinically meaningful OS benefit with atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel compared to placebo + nab-paclitaxel (25.4 vs 17.9 months; HR 0.67) (Emens et al). Additionally, the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 trial demonstrated PFS benefit among patients with mTNBC with combined positive score (CPS) ≥10 with pembrolizumab + chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel or gemcitabine/carboplatin) versus placebo + chemotherapy (mPFS 9.7 vs 5.6 months; HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.86). These results are in contrast to the phase 3 IMpassion131 trial which found no statistically significant difference in PFS or OS among 651 patients with mTNBC randomized to atezolizumab + paclitaxel vs placebo + paclitaxel (PD-L1-positive population: PFS 6.0 vs 5.7 months, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60-1.12; OS 22.1 vs 28.3 months, HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.62) (Miles et al). The reasons underlying these differences remain unclear and warrant further investigation. Some thoughts raised include lack of information on BRCA status (which may serve as prognostic factor) in IMpassion131, concomitant use of steroids with paclitaxel, and allowance of sufficient long-term follow-up for generation of events. Regardless, these studies suggest chemotherapy backbone is relevant and the regimens utilized in IMpassion130 and KEYNOTE-355 have gained FDA approval in the first-line mTNBC setting.

The phase 3 CLEOPATRA trial has established the regimen of docetaxel + trastuzumab + pertuzumab as standard of care in the first-line setting for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer with an OS benefit of 16 months compared to docetaxel + trastuzumab + placebo (57.1 vs 40.8 months; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58-0.82) with over 8 years of follow-up. PERUSE was a single-arm phase 3b study that investigated the safety and efficacy of trastuzumab + pertuzumab combined with various taxanes (docetaxel, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel) among 1426 patients with HER2+ mBC (Miles et al). In the overall population at follow-up of 5.7 years, median PFS and OS were 20.7 and 65.3 months, respectively, and were similar regardless of taxane backbone. Docetaxel was associated with higher incidences of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. These results support consideration of an alternative taxane combined with trastuzumab + pertuzumab in this setting (for example paclitaxel) in patients who may not be ideal candidates for docetaxel.

In the second-line treatment setting for HER2+ mBC with prior exposure to trastuzumab and taxane, the phase 3 EMILIA study showed improvement in OS with T-DM1 vs capecitabine + lapatinib (mOS 29.9 vs 25.9 months, HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.88). Ethier et al explored real-world application and outcomes associated with pertuzumab and T-DM1 in the first- and second-line settings respectively, in a population-based, retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada. In the pertuzumab cohort, median OS and time on treatment were 43 and 4 months, respectively. In the T-DM1 cohort, median OS and time on treatment were 15 months and 4 months, respectively. Additionally, patients in the T-DM1 cohort who were pertuzumab-naïve appeared to do better, potentially suggesting less responsiveness to subsequent HER2-targeted treatment in the real world setting among those who received prior pertuzumab. Findings from this population study demonstrate inferior outcomes when compared to the pivotal CLEOPATRA and EMILIA trials, and highlight a gap between clinical trial and real-world observations (described by authors as efficacy-effectiveness gap). Potential etiologies for these differences include patient factors, prior therapies and delivery of care models, and convey the importance of recognizing this gap exists and optimizing any modifiable factors as trial data and novel therapies are applied to routine clinical practice.

References:

Mittendorf EA, Philips AV, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. PD-L1 expression in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Immunol Res. 2014;2(4):361-70.

Cortes J, Cescon DW, Rugo HS, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-355): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet. 2020;396(10265):1817-1828.

Swain SM, Miles D, Kim SB, et al. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (CLEOPATRA): end-of-study results from a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(4):519-530.

Diéras V, Miles D, Verma S, et al. Trastuzumab emtansine versus capecitabine plus lapatinib in patients with previously treated HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (EMILIA): a descriptive analysis of final overall survival results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(6):732-742.

It’s understandable that the COVID-19 pandemic has dominated healthcare news and education over the past year. But in case you missed news about advances in other diseases, you will find this year’s issue of Hot Topics in Primary Care interesting and practice changing. Learn more as you read and watch the videos about the following articles:

• Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction: A Review of Clinical Guidelines and the Role of SGLT-2 Inhibitors

  

• Decision Points in the Management of Patients with Diabetic Kidney Disease
• Improving Shingles Vaccination Rates in Family Medicine
• National Asthma Education and Prevention Program 2020 Guidelines: What’s Important for Primary Care
• New Perspectives in COPD Management
• Obesity 2021: Current Clinical Management of a Chronic, Serious Disease
• Primary Prevention of CVD with Aspirin: Benefits vs Risks
• Screening for Autoantibodies in Type 1 Diabetes: A Call to Action
• The Challenge: Finding the Most Appropriate Statin and Dose for Each Patient
• Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease
• Utilizing CGM Ambulatory Glucose Profiles to Optimize Diabetes Management

This supplement offers the opportunity to earn a total of 6 CME credits. Credit is awarded for successful completion of the online evaluation after reading the article. The links can be found within the supplement on the first page of each article that offers the credits. 

Click here to read Hot Topics in Primary Care 2021

This supplement to The Journal of Family Practice was sponsored by the Primary Care Education Consortium and Primary Care Metabolic Group.
Check out these short video segments, which were prepared by the supplement authors and summarize the individual articles. 
By clicking each article title above the videos below you will be directed to the individual article within the supplement.

Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction: A Review of Clinical Guidelines and the Role of SGLT-2 Inhibitors, Timothy Reid, MD

Decision Points in the Management of Patients with Diabetic Kidney Disease, Matthew R. Weir, MD

Improving Shingles Vaccination Rates in Family Medicine, Jeffrey S. Luther, MD

National Asthma Education and Prevention Program 2020 Guidelines: What’s Important for Primary Care, Joel Solis, MD

New Perspectives in COPD Management, Barbara Yawn, MD, Msc, FAAFP

Obesity 2021: Current Clinical Management of a Chronic, Serious Disease, Robert Kushner, DO

Primary Prevention of CVD with Aspirin: Benefits vs Risks, Steven M. Weisman, PhD

Screening for Autoantibodies in Type 1 Diabetes: A Call to Action, Anne Peters, MD

The Challenge: Finding the Most Appropriate Statin and Dose for Each Patient, Joseph L. Lillo, DO, FNLA, FAPCR, CPI

Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease, Amy Mottl, MD, MPH, FASN

Utilizing CGM Ambulatory Glucose Profiles to Optimize Diabetes Management, Eden Miller, DO

It’s understandable that the COVID-19 pandemic has dominated healthcare news and education over the past year. But in case you missed news about advances in other diseases, you will find this year’s issue of Hot Topics in Primary Care interesting and practice changing. Learn more as you read and watch the videos about the following articles:

• Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction: A Review of Clinical Guidelines and the Role of SGLT-2 Inhibitors

  

• Decision Points in the Management of Patients with Diabetic Kidney Disease
• Improving Shingles Vaccination Rates in Family Medicine
• National Asthma Education and Prevention Program 2020 Guidelines: What’s Important for Primary Care
• New Perspectives in COPD Management
• Obesity 2021: Current Clinical Management of a Chronic, Serious Disease
• Primary Prevention of CVD with Aspirin: Benefits vs Risks
• Screening for Autoantibodies in Type 1 Diabetes: A Call to Action
• The Challenge: Finding the Most Appropriate Statin and Dose for Each Patient
• Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease
• Utilizing CGM Ambulatory Glucose Profiles to Optimize Diabetes Management

This supplement offers the opportunity to earn a total of 6 CME credits. Credit is awarded for successful completion of the online evaluation after reading the article. The links can be found within the supplement on the first page of each article that offers the credits. 

Click here to read Hot Topics in Primary Care 2021

This supplement to The Journal of Family Practice was sponsored by the Primary Care Education Consortium and Primary Care Metabolic Group.
Check out these short video segments, which were prepared by the supplement authors and summarize the individual articles. 
By clicking each article title above the videos below you will be directed to the individual article within the supplement.

Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction: A Review of Clinical Guidelines and the Role of SGLT-2 Inhibitors, Timothy Reid, MD

Decision Points in the Management of Patients with Diabetic Kidney Disease, Matthew R. Weir, MD

Improving Shingles Vaccination Rates in Family Medicine, Jeffrey S. Luther, MD

National Asthma Education and Prevention Program 2020 Guidelines: What’s Important for Primary Care, Joel Solis, MD

New Perspectives in COPD Management, Barbara Yawn, MD, Msc, FAAFP

Obesity 2021: Current Clinical Management of a Chronic, Serious Disease, Robert Kushner, DO

Primary Prevention of CVD with Aspirin: Benefits vs Risks, Steven M. Weisman, PhD

Screening for Autoantibodies in Type 1 Diabetes: A Call to Action, Anne Peters, MD

The Challenge: Finding the Most Appropriate Statin and Dose for Each Patient, Joseph L. Lillo, DO, FNLA, FAPCR, CPI

Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease, Amy Mottl, MD, MPH, FASN

Utilizing CGM Ambulatory Glucose Profiles to Optimize Diabetes Management, Eden Miller, DO

It’s understandable that the COVID-19 pandemic has dominated healthcare news and education over the past year. But in case you missed news about advances in other diseases, you will find this year’s issue of Hot Topics in Primary Care interesting and practice changing. Learn more as you read and watch the videos about the following articles:

• Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction: A Review of Clinical Guidelines and the Role of SGLT-2 Inhibitors

  

• Decision Points in the Management of Patients with Diabetic Kidney Disease
• Improving Shingles Vaccination Rates in Family Medicine
• National Asthma Education and Prevention Program 2020 Guidelines: What’s Important for Primary Care
• New Perspectives in COPD Management
• Obesity 2021: Current Clinical Management of a Chronic, Serious Disease
• Primary Prevention of CVD with Aspirin: Benefits vs Risks
• Screening for Autoantibodies in Type 1 Diabetes: A Call to Action
• The Challenge: Finding the Most Appropriate Statin and Dose for Each Patient
• Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease
• Utilizing CGM Ambulatory Glucose Profiles to Optimize Diabetes Management

This supplement offers the opportunity to earn a total of 6 CME credits. Credit is awarded for successful completion of the online evaluation after reading the article. The links can be found within the supplement on the first page of each article that offers the credits. 

Click here to read Hot Topics in Primary Care 2021

This supplement to The Journal of Family Practice was sponsored by the Primary Care Education Consortium and Primary Care Metabolic Group.
Check out these short video segments, which were prepared by the supplement authors and summarize the individual articles. 
By clicking each article title above the videos below you will be directed to the individual article within the supplement.

Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction: A Review of Clinical Guidelines and the Role of SGLT-2 Inhibitors, Timothy Reid, MD

Decision Points in the Management of Patients with Diabetic Kidney Disease, Matthew R. Weir, MD

Improving Shingles Vaccination Rates in Family Medicine, Jeffrey S. Luther, MD

National Asthma Education and Prevention Program 2020 Guidelines: What’s Important for Primary Care, Joel Solis, MD

New Perspectives in COPD Management, Barbara Yawn, MD, Msc, FAAFP

Obesity 2021: Current Clinical Management of a Chronic, Serious Disease, Robert Kushner, DO

Primary Prevention of CVD with Aspirin: Benefits vs Risks, Steven M. Weisman, PhD

Screening for Autoantibodies in Type 1 Diabetes: A Call to Action, Anne Peters, MD

The Challenge: Finding the Most Appropriate Statin and Dose for Each Patient, Joseph L. Lillo, DO, FNLA, FAPCR, CPI

Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease, Amy Mottl, MD, MPH, FASN

Utilizing CGM Ambulatory Glucose Profiles to Optimize Diabetes Management, Eden Miller, DO

Hospital medicine procedure services have proliferated in recent years, driven by multiple synergistic factors, including an interest in improving hospital throughput, bolstering resident education, and ensuring full-spectrum practice for hospitalists. These services have become established and have demonstrated their capabilities, further catalyzed by emerging interest—and expertise—in point-of-care ultrasonography by hospitalists.

Most hospital medicine procedure services (HMPSs) focus on performing ultrasound-assisted procedures at bedside, providing purported advantages in convenience, cost, and potentially timing when compared to services performed by interventional radiology. The scope of procedures performed by HPMSs reflects the populations cared for by hospitalists, including paracentesis, thoracentesis, central venous catheter placement, lumbar puncture and, more recently, pigtail chest tube placement.^1,2 Fitting with the early development of HMPSs, initial reports regarding these services centered on optimal development of services and emphasized the question, “Are hospital medicine procedure services able to do [procedure x] as safely as radiology or the primary team?”²

Ensuring safety and quality is fundamental to implementing new workflows; however, it is now clear that HMPSs provide high-quality, safe, patient-centered bedside procedures; these services are no longer novel.³ As HMPSs mature, so too must their evaluation, research, and scholarship. It is no longer enough to document that a HMPS can perform procedures as well as interventional radiology or a standard hospital medicine care team—instead, we must identify how these services affect patient outcomes, improve education, add value, and influence the overall process of care in the hospital.

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Ritter and colleagues⁴ describe an important first step in this maturing field by evaluating how a HMPS affects process outcomes in the context of paracentesis. The faster time from admission to paracentesis observed in the HMPS population compared with radiology services has important implications for patient satisfaction (symptom relief) and morbidity and mortality (time to peritonitis diagnosis). Ritter et al also demonstrated shorter length of stay (LOS) among patients who had paracenteses performed by the HMPS compared with the radiology service; this finding is consistent with previous studies that, while not evaluating a HMPS per se, demonstrated shorter LOS with bedside paracentesis. While there were some limitations, such as the findings representing a single-site experience and group differences that necessitated assessment of multiple confounders (some of which may remain unknown), the authors’ efforts to shift focus toward patient and high-value care outcomes should be applauded.

The evaluation of HMPSs has reached an inflection point. The field must now focus on assessing outcomes. Does the appropriateness of procedures improve when those with internal medicine training are performing the procedures rather than radiologists, who have more focused procedural knowledge but less general medical training? What procedures are not or should not be performed by HMPSs? What does the shift of procedures to HMPSs do to the flow of patients and procedures in interventional radiology, and do other patients indirectly benefit? How should hospital medicine groups and hospitals account for lower work relative value unit productivity of HMPSs compared with other traditional rounding services? In what ways do HMPSs provide cost-effective care compared with alternatives? There has been limited evaluation of cost-savings realized when performing paracentesis at the bedside as opposed to in the interventional radiology suite.⁵

Additionally, most HMPSs are staffed by a small number of hospitalists within a group. It is unclear how a HMPS will affect general hospitalist procedural competence, and whether that even matters. Should we still expect every hospitalist to be able to perform procedures, or are HMPSs a step in the evolution of subspecialties in hospital medicine? Such subspecialties exist already, including perioperative medicine and transitional care specialists.

Now that more HMPSs have been established, the next step in their evolution must go beyond feasibility and safety assessments and toward evaluation of their effectiveness. It has become clear that HMPSs can perform procedures safely, but what can they do better?

Hospital medicine procedure services have proliferated in recent years, driven by multiple synergistic factors, including an interest in improving hospital throughput, bolstering resident education, and ensuring full-spectrum practice for hospitalists. These services have become established and have demonstrated their capabilities, further catalyzed by emerging interest—and expertise—in point-of-care ultrasonography by hospitalists.

Most hospital medicine procedure services (HMPSs) focus on performing ultrasound-assisted procedures at bedside, providing purported advantages in convenience, cost, and potentially timing when compared to services performed by interventional radiology. The scope of procedures performed by HPMSs reflects the populations cared for by hospitalists, including paracentesis, thoracentesis, central venous catheter placement, lumbar puncture and, more recently, pigtail chest tube placement.^1,2 Fitting with the early development of HMPSs, initial reports regarding these services centered on optimal development of services and emphasized the question, “Are hospital medicine procedure services able to do [procedure x] as safely as radiology or the primary team?”²

Ensuring safety and quality is fundamental to implementing new workflows; however, it is now clear that HMPSs provide high-quality, safe, patient-centered bedside procedures; these services are no longer novel.³ As HMPSs mature, so too must their evaluation, research, and scholarship. It is no longer enough to document that a HMPS can perform procedures as well as interventional radiology or a standard hospital medicine care team—instead, we must identify how these services affect patient outcomes, improve education, add value, and influence the overall process of care in the hospital.

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Ritter and colleagues⁴ describe an important first step in this maturing field by evaluating how a HMPS affects process outcomes in the context of paracentesis. The faster time from admission to paracentesis observed in the HMPS population compared with radiology services has important implications for patient satisfaction (symptom relief) and morbidity and mortality (time to peritonitis diagnosis). Ritter et al also demonstrated shorter length of stay (LOS) among patients who had paracenteses performed by the HMPS compared with the radiology service; this finding is consistent with previous studies that, while not evaluating a HMPS per se, demonstrated shorter LOS with bedside paracentesis. While there were some limitations, such as the findings representing a single-site experience and group differences that necessitated assessment of multiple confounders (some of which may remain unknown), the authors’ efforts to shift focus toward patient and high-value care outcomes should be applauded.

The evaluation of HMPSs has reached an inflection point. The field must now focus on assessing outcomes. Does the appropriateness of procedures improve when those with internal medicine training are performing the procedures rather than radiologists, who have more focused procedural knowledge but less general medical training? What procedures are not or should not be performed by HMPSs? What does the shift of procedures to HMPSs do to the flow of patients and procedures in interventional radiology, and do other patients indirectly benefit? How should hospital medicine groups and hospitals account for lower work relative value unit productivity of HMPSs compared with other traditional rounding services? In what ways do HMPSs provide cost-effective care compared with alternatives? There has been limited evaluation of cost-savings realized when performing paracentesis at the bedside as opposed to in the interventional radiology suite.⁵

Additionally, most HMPSs are staffed by a small number of hospitalists within a group. It is unclear how a HMPS will affect general hospitalist procedural competence, and whether that even matters. Should we still expect every hospitalist to be able to perform procedures, or are HMPSs a step in the evolution of subspecialties in hospital medicine? Such subspecialties exist already, including perioperative medicine and transitional care specialists.

Now that more HMPSs have been established, the next step in their evolution must go beyond feasibility and safety assessments and toward evaluation of their effectiveness. It has become clear that HMPSs can perform procedures safely, but what can they do better?

Hospital medicine procedure services have proliferated in recent years, driven by multiple synergistic factors, including an interest in improving hospital throughput, bolstering resident education, and ensuring full-spectrum practice for hospitalists. These services have become established and have demonstrated their capabilities, further catalyzed by emerging interest—and expertise—in point-of-care ultrasonography by hospitalists.

Most hospital medicine procedure services (HMPSs) focus on performing ultrasound-assisted procedures at bedside, providing purported advantages in convenience, cost, and potentially timing when compared to services performed by interventional radiology. The scope of procedures performed by HPMSs reflects the populations cared for by hospitalists, including paracentesis, thoracentesis, central venous catheter placement, lumbar puncture and, more recently, pigtail chest tube placement.^1,2 Fitting with the early development of HMPSs, initial reports regarding these services centered on optimal development of services and emphasized the question, “Are hospital medicine procedure services able to do [procedure x] as safely as radiology or the primary team?”²

Ensuring safety and quality is fundamental to implementing new workflows; however, it is now clear that HMPSs provide high-quality, safe, patient-centered bedside procedures; these services are no longer novel.³ As HMPSs mature, so too must their evaluation, research, and scholarship. It is no longer enough to document that a HMPS can perform procedures as well as interventional radiology or a standard hospital medicine care team—instead, we must identify how these services affect patient outcomes, improve education, add value, and influence the overall process of care in the hospital.

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Ritter and colleagues⁴ describe an important first step in this maturing field by evaluating how a HMPS affects process outcomes in the context of paracentesis. The faster time from admission to paracentesis observed in the HMPS population compared with radiology services has important implications for patient satisfaction (symptom relief) and morbidity and mortality (time to peritonitis diagnosis). Ritter et al also demonstrated shorter length of stay (LOS) among patients who had paracenteses performed by the HMPS compared with the radiology service; this finding is consistent with previous studies that, while not evaluating a HMPS per se, demonstrated shorter LOS with bedside paracentesis. While there were some limitations, such as the findings representing a single-site experience and group differences that necessitated assessment of multiple confounders (some of which may remain unknown), the authors’ efforts to shift focus toward patient and high-value care outcomes should be applauded.

The evaluation of HMPSs has reached an inflection point. The field must now focus on assessing outcomes. Does the appropriateness of procedures improve when those with internal medicine training are performing the procedures rather than radiologists, who have more focused procedural knowledge but less general medical training? What procedures are not or should not be performed by HMPSs? What does the shift of procedures to HMPSs do to the flow of patients and procedures in interventional radiology, and do other patients indirectly benefit? How should hospital medicine groups and hospitals account for lower work relative value unit productivity of HMPSs compared with other traditional rounding services? In what ways do HMPSs provide cost-effective care compared with alternatives? There has been limited evaluation of cost-savings realized when performing paracentesis at the bedside as opposed to in the interventional radiology suite.⁵

Additionally, most HMPSs are staffed by a small number of hospitalists within a group. It is unclear how a HMPS will affect general hospitalist procedural competence, and whether that even matters. Should we still expect every hospitalist to be able to perform procedures, or are HMPSs a step in the evolution of subspecialties in hospital medicine? Such subspecialties exist already, including perioperative medicine and transitional care specialists.

Now that more HMPSs have been established, the next step in their evolution must go beyond feasibility and safety assessments and toward evaluation of their effectiveness. It has become clear that HMPSs can perform procedures safely, but what can they do better?

Throughout North America, hospitalizations and deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 have fallen substantially due to the rapid roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines. Despite this monumental success, however, transmission of the virus will unfortunately persist for the foreseeable future due to a variety of factors, including incomplete population vaccination, emergence of variants, and increased exposures as social and economic activity return to normal.¹ Therefore, it is of critical importance to continue to track the burden of COVID-19 by region. Specifically, the incidence of hospitalizations due to COVID-19 will be a key metric, as highlighted by Tsai et al² in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

Tsai et al² explored the challenge of accurately determining the burden of hospitalization due to COVID-19, focusing on the potential for misclassification leading to overestimations. They rigorously evaluated the proportion of overall COVID-19–associated hospitalizations reported to Los Angeles County Department of Public Health that were potentially misclassified as caused by COVID-19 because of incidentally detected virus in patients who were hospitalized for unrelated reasons. In their study, they reviewed medical records from a randomly selected subset of hospital discharges with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 to determine whether a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 was warranted. Among 618 patients, COVID-19 was deemed incidental to the reason for hospitalization in 12% (95% CI, 9%-16%) of admissions.

Incidental viral detection is more common during periods of high case prevalence and when case presentations overlap with nonclassic COVID symptoms.³ Incidental viral detection also occurs when broad testing of asymptomatic patients is instituted prior to admission, procedures, or high-risk medical therapies. Residual postinfectious shedding and false-positive results may further falsely increase case counts. The clinical and infection control implications of detectable virus is further complicated by vaccination, which leads to milder forms of the infection with less capacity for transmission.⁴

Why is establishing an overestimation COVID-19 hospitalization important? First, if misclassification leads to an overestimate of the number of hospitalizations caused by COVID-19, public health restrictions might be increased to protect overloading acute care sites when such measures are unnecessary, resulting in unintended social and economic fallouts.⁵ Second, healthcare resource allocation depends on accurate estimates of disease burden—overestimation of COVID-19–related hospitalization can lead to misallocation of scarce resources, including personnel, equipment, and medication to units or hospitals.⁶ Relatedly, cancelling of “nonurgent” tests, procedures, and clinic visits to reallocate resources to COVID-19–related care delays diagnosis and treatment of potentially serious illnesses. Last, overattributing hospitalizations due to COVID-19, particularly in patients who are now fully vaccinated, may lead researchers to underestimate the efficacy of vaccination efforts on the individual and population level, especially in the era of evolving variant strains.

How could this research change future practice? As the authors astutely state, the purpose of the investigation is not to alter practice on the individual patient level, but rather to help public health officials to make better decisions. One solution (similar to census adjustment) based on future research would be to potentially apply a corrective factor to “adjust” COVID-19 hospitalizations downward to explicitly account for the recognition that some proportion of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were not actually hospitalized because of COVID-19.

Although vaccination continues to be highly successful at curbing the pandemic, transmission of COVID-19 persists due to gaps in vaccination and emergence of variants. Therefore, continued ongoing vigilance for disease burden, specifically focused on the most vulnerable aspects of the health care system—acute care centers—is critical to informing optimal public health restrictions and resource allocation.

Throughout North America, hospitalizations and deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 have fallen substantially due to the rapid roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines. Despite this monumental success, however, transmission of the virus will unfortunately persist for the foreseeable future due to a variety of factors, including incomplete population vaccination, emergence of variants, and increased exposures as social and economic activity return to normal.¹ Therefore, it is of critical importance to continue to track the burden of COVID-19 by region. Specifically, the incidence of hospitalizations due to COVID-19 will be a key metric, as highlighted by Tsai et al² in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

Tsai et al² explored the challenge of accurately determining the burden of hospitalization due to COVID-19, focusing on the potential for misclassification leading to overestimations. They rigorously evaluated the proportion of overall COVID-19–associated hospitalizations reported to Los Angeles County Department of Public Health that were potentially misclassified as caused by COVID-19 because of incidentally detected virus in patients who were hospitalized for unrelated reasons. In their study, they reviewed medical records from a randomly selected subset of hospital discharges with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 to determine whether a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 was warranted. Among 618 patients, COVID-19 was deemed incidental to the reason for hospitalization in 12% (95% CI, 9%-16%) of admissions.

Incidental viral detection is more common during periods of high case prevalence and when case presentations overlap with nonclassic COVID symptoms.³ Incidental viral detection also occurs when broad testing of asymptomatic patients is instituted prior to admission, procedures, or high-risk medical therapies. Residual postinfectious shedding and false-positive results may further falsely increase case counts. The clinical and infection control implications of detectable virus is further complicated by vaccination, which leads to milder forms of the infection with less capacity for transmission.⁴

Why is establishing an overestimation COVID-19 hospitalization important? First, if misclassification leads to an overestimate of the number of hospitalizations caused by COVID-19, public health restrictions might be increased to protect overloading acute care sites when such measures are unnecessary, resulting in unintended social and economic fallouts.⁵ Second, healthcare resource allocation depends on accurate estimates of disease burden—overestimation of COVID-19–related hospitalization can lead to misallocation of scarce resources, including personnel, equipment, and medication to units or hospitals.⁶ Relatedly, cancelling of “nonurgent” tests, procedures, and clinic visits to reallocate resources to COVID-19–related care delays diagnosis and treatment of potentially serious illnesses. Last, overattributing hospitalizations due to COVID-19, particularly in patients who are now fully vaccinated, may lead researchers to underestimate the efficacy of vaccination efforts on the individual and population level, especially in the era of evolving variant strains.

How could this research change future practice? As the authors astutely state, the purpose of the investigation is not to alter practice on the individual patient level, but rather to help public health officials to make better decisions. One solution (similar to census adjustment) based on future research would be to potentially apply a corrective factor to “adjust” COVID-19 hospitalizations downward to explicitly account for the recognition that some proportion of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were not actually hospitalized because of COVID-19.

Although vaccination continues to be highly successful at curbing the pandemic, transmission of COVID-19 persists due to gaps in vaccination and emergence of variants. Therefore, continued ongoing vigilance for disease burden, specifically focused on the most vulnerable aspects of the health care system—acute care centers—is critical to informing optimal public health restrictions and resource allocation.

Throughout North America, hospitalizations and deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 have fallen substantially due to the rapid roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines. Despite this monumental success, however, transmission of the virus will unfortunately persist for the foreseeable future due to a variety of factors, including incomplete population vaccination, emergence of variants, and increased exposures as social and economic activity return to normal.¹ Therefore, it is of critical importance to continue to track the burden of COVID-19 by region. Specifically, the incidence of hospitalizations due to COVID-19 will be a key metric, as highlighted by Tsai et al² in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

Tsai et al² explored the challenge of accurately determining the burden of hospitalization due to COVID-19, focusing on the potential for misclassification leading to overestimations. They rigorously evaluated the proportion of overall COVID-19–associated hospitalizations reported to Los Angeles County Department of Public Health that were potentially misclassified as caused by COVID-19 because of incidentally detected virus in patients who were hospitalized for unrelated reasons. In their study, they reviewed medical records from a randomly selected subset of hospital discharges with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 to determine whether a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 was warranted. Among 618 patients, COVID-19 was deemed incidental to the reason for hospitalization in 12% (95% CI, 9%-16%) of admissions.

Incidental viral detection is more common during periods of high case prevalence and when case presentations overlap with nonclassic COVID symptoms.³ Incidental viral detection also occurs when broad testing of asymptomatic patients is instituted prior to admission, procedures, or high-risk medical therapies. Residual postinfectious shedding and false-positive results may further falsely increase case counts. The clinical and infection control implications of detectable virus is further complicated by vaccination, which leads to milder forms of the infection with less capacity for transmission.⁴

Why is establishing an overestimation COVID-19 hospitalization important? First, if misclassification leads to an overestimate of the number of hospitalizations caused by COVID-19, public health restrictions might be increased to protect overloading acute care sites when such measures are unnecessary, resulting in unintended social and economic fallouts.⁵ Second, healthcare resource allocation depends on accurate estimates of disease burden—overestimation of COVID-19–related hospitalization can lead to misallocation of scarce resources, including personnel, equipment, and medication to units or hospitals.⁶ Relatedly, cancelling of “nonurgent” tests, procedures, and clinic visits to reallocate resources to COVID-19–related care delays diagnosis and treatment of potentially serious illnesses. Last, overattributing hospitalizations due to COVID-19, particularly in patients who are now fully vaccinated, may lead researchers to underestimate the efficacy of vaccination efforts on the individual and population level, especially in the era of evolving variant strains.

How could this research change future practice? As the authors astutely state, the purpose of the investigation is not to alter practice on the individual patient level, but rather to help public health officials to make better decisions. One solution (similar to census adjustment) based on future research would be to potentially apply a corrective factor to “adjust” COVID-19 hospitalizations downward to explicitly account for the recognition that some proportion of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were not actually hospitalized because of COVID-19.

Although vaccination continues to be highly successful at curbing the pandemic, transmission of COVID-19 persists due to gaps in vaccination and emergence of variants. Therefore, continued ongoing vigilance for disease burden, specifically focused on the most vulnerable aspects of the health care system—acute care centers—is critical to informing optimal public health restrictions and resource allocation.

“Being a role model is the most powerful form of educating.”

—John Wooden

The typical approach to faculty development in education often emphasizes specific teaching skills, such as rounding and teaching styles, providing expectations, and giving feedback. Before these strategies can be applied, however, we must first take note that memorable and influential physicians share common practices of compassionate, person-centered care. Role models are important in professional, character, and career development.¹ Role modeling compassionate patient care gains learners’ respect and engagement, and, ideally, inspires them to grow as people and physicians. An often-overlooked foundation of improving as a medical educator is working to improve our bedside interactions and role modeling compassionate care.

As new roles and promotions draw us away from clinical commitments and toward administrative work, it is easy to become disconnected from the value of clinical medicine. We risk unintentionally perpetuating a hidden curriculum that undervalues humanistic care when we do not explicitly endorse empathic values and behaviors. Exemplary teaching physicians respect patients, care for their well-being, and consider the big picture.² Next time you are rounding, remember the importance of bedside patient interactions.

With that in mind, here are three key strategies to consider for effective physician-patient interactions.

1. Start strong: It is crucial to get off to a good start by leading with respect and kindness. Knocking and pausing before entering the patient’s hospital room shows you remember that they are in vulnerable positions, with little privacy. Smiling warmly when greeting patients shows you are happy to see them. Greet them using their preferred honorific and introduce yourself and your team each day. Ask whether it’s okay to mute the television, but remember to turn the volume back up when leaving. Convey warmth with appropriate touch, consider small acts to make the patient more comfortable, and, when possible, sit at a patient’s eye level.

2. Show empathy: Be patient and remind yourself that hospitalized patients and their families are often in the most difficult times of their lives. In addition to being in vulnerable positions, patients are often lonely and anxious. Humanistic physicians get to know patients as people and beyond their medical illness by talking about nonmedical topics.³ Ask about their family, their pets, memorable moments in their lives, sports teams, favorite shows, and how they pass the time while hospitalized. Are there any photos they would like to share with you? Ask, too, before you leave the room whether they need you to reach something for them. Use humor thoughtfully, and always with kindness. Demonstrate humility about your own abilities, and what you know and do not know about the patient’s diagnoses, and their lived experience.

3. Strive for trustworthiness: Advocate for the patient and show them and your learners that you care. Make shared decisions when straying from guideline-directed care. Aim for trustworthiness; patients’ distrust is an adaptive response to how they have experienced healthcare, so while you do not have to take distrust personally, you should take addressing it as a personal obligation. Be aware of your own privilege, and that how patients perceive you is a reflection of how they have experienced the world, including other clinicians. Model vulnerability, including showing appropriate sadness when there is bad news to report and acknowledging grief.

Being a better clinical teacher starts with being a better doctor. Role modeling compassionate and person-centered care is a cornerstone of being an exceptional clinical teacher.

We gratefully acknowledge SHM’s Physician-in-Training Committee, whose support made this collaboration possible.

“Being a role model is the most powerful form of educating.”

—John Wooden

The typical approach to faculty development in education often emphasizes specific teaching skills, such as rounding and teaching styles, providing expectations, and giving feedback. Before these strategies can be applied, however, we must first take note that memorable and influential physicians share common practices of compassionate, person-centered care. Role models are important in professional, character, and career development.¹ Role modeling compassionate patient care gains learners’ respect and engagement, and, ideally, inspires them to grow as people and physicians. An often-overlooked foundation of improving as a medical educator is working to improve our bedside interactions and role modeling compassionate care.

As new roles and promotions draw us away from clinical commitments and toward administrative work, it is easy to become disconnected from the value of clinical medicine. We risk unintentionally perpetuating a hidden curriculum that undervalues humanistic care when we do not explicitly endorse empathic values and behaviors. Exemplary teaching physicians respect patients, care for their well-being, and consider the big picture.² Next time you are rounding, remember the importance of bedside patient interactions.

With that in mind, here are three key strategies to consider for effective physician-patient interactions.

1. Start strong: It is crucial to get off to a good start by leading with respect and kindness. Knocking and pausing before entering the patient’s hospital room shows you remember that they are in vulnerable positions, with little privacy. Smiling warmly when greeting patients shows you are happy to see them. Greet them using their preferred honorific and introduce yourself and your team each day. Ask whether it’s okay to mute the television, but remember to turn the volume back up when leaving. Convey warmth with appropriate touch, consider small acts to make the patient more comfortable, and, when possible, sit at a patient’s eye level.

2. Show empathy: Be patient and remind yourself that hospitalized patients and their families are often in the most difficult times of their lives. In addition to being in vulnerable positions, patients are often lonely and anxious. Humanistic physicians get to know patients as people and beyond their medical illness by talking about nonmedical topics.³ Ask about their family, their pets, memorable moments in their lives, sports teams, favorite shows, and how they pass the time while hospitalized. Are there any photos they would like to share with you? Ask, too, before you leave the room whether they need you to reach something for them. Use humor thoughtfully, and always with kindness. Demonstrate humility about your own abilities, and what you know and do not know about the patient’s diagnoses, and their lived experience.

3. Strive for trustworthiness: Advocate for the patient and show them and your learners that you care. Make shared decisions when straying from guideline-directed care. Aim for trustworthiness; patients’ distrust is an adaptive response to how they have experienced healthcare, so while you do not have to take distrust personally, you should take addressing it as a personal obligation. Be aware of your own privilege, and that how patients perceive you is a reflection of how they have experienced the world, including other clinicians. Model vulnerability, including showing appropriate sadness when there is bad news to report and acknowledging grief.

Being a better clinical teacher starts with being a better doctor. Role modeling compassionate and person-centered care is a cornerstone of being an exceptional clinical teacher.

We gratefully acknowledge SHM’s Physician-in-Training Committee, whose support made this collaboration possible.

“Being a role model is the most powerful form of educating.”

—John Wooden

The typical approach to faculty development in education often emphasizes specific teaching skills, such as rounding and teaching styles, providing expectations, and giving feedback. Before these strategies can be applied, however, we must first take note that memorable and influential physicians share common practices of compassionate, person-centered care. Role models are important in professional, character, and career development.¹ Role modeling compassionate patient care gains learners’ respect and engagement, and, ideally, inspires them to grow as people and physicians. An often-overlooked foundation of improving as a medical educator is working to improve our bedside interactions and role modeling compassionate care.

As new roles and promotions draw us away from clinical commitments and toward administrative work, it is easy to become disconnected from the value of clinical medicine. We risk unintentionally perpetuating a hidden curriculum that undervalues humanistic care when we do not explicitly endorse empathic values and behaviors. Exemplary teaching physicians respect patients, care for their well-being, and consider the big picture.² Next time you are rounding, remember the importance of bedside patient interactions.

With that in mind, here are three key strategies to consider for effective physician-patient interactions.

1. Start strong: It is crucial to get off to a good start by leading with respect and kindness. Knocking and pausing before entering the patient’s hospital room shows you remember that they are in vulnerable positions, with little privacy. Smiling warmly when greeting patients shows you are happy to see them. Greet them using their preferred honorific and introduce yourself and your team each day. Ask whether it’s okay to mute the television, but remember to turn the volume back up when leaving. Convey warmth with appropriate touch, consider small acts to make the patient more comfortable, and, when possible, sit at a patient’s eye level.

2. Show empathy: Be patient and remind yourself that hospitalized patients and their families are often in the most difficult times of their lives. In addition to being in vulnerable positions, patients are often lonely and anxious. Humanistic physicians get to know patients as people and beyond their medical illness by talking about nonmedical topics.³ Ask about their family, their pets, memorable moments in their lives, sports teams, favorite shows, and how they pass the time while hospitalized. Are there any photos they would like to share with you? Ask, too, before you leave the room whether they need you to reach something for them. Use humor thoughtfully, and always with kindness. Demonstrate humility about your own abilities, and what you know and do not know about the patient’s diagnoses, and their lived experience.

3. Strive for trustworthiness: Advocate for the patient and show them and your learners that you care. Make shared decisions when straying from guideline-directed care. Aim for trustworthiness; patients’ distrust is an adaptive response to how they have experienced healthcare, so while you do not have to take distrust personally, you should take addressing it as a personal obligation. Be aware of your own privilege, and that how patients perceive you is a reflection of how they have experienced the world, including other clinicians. Model vulnerability, including showing appropriate sadness when there is bad news to report and acknowledging grief.

Being a better clinical teacher starts with being a better doctor. Role modeling compassionate and person-centered care is a cornerstone of being an exceptional clinical teacher.

We gratefully acknowledge SHM’s Physician-in-Training Committee, whose support made this collaboration possible.