Virtual Library
Start Your Search
Andrew Ciupek
Author of
-
+
ES15 - Getting All NSCLCs Genotyped: How Can We Get to 100%? (ID 222)
- Event: WCLC 2020
- Type: Educational Session
- Track: Pathology, Molecular Pathology and Diagnostic Biomarkers
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 1/30/2021, 14:15 - 15:15, Scientific Program Auditorium
-
+
ES15.04 - Engaging Lung Cancer Patients in their Molecular Testing (ID 4055)
14:15 - 15:15 | Presenting Author(s): Andrew Ciupek
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract
Biomarker testing rates among lung cancer patients, even for markers associated with approved targeted therapies, still fall short of clinical guideline recommendations. Dealing with this gap requires comprehensive solutions that involve each of the stakeholders in the biomarker testing and associated therapy decision process. Engaging patients by providing solutions they need to take a more active role as a partner with their clinical team in the biomarker testing process can be a part of this effort.
Patients are increasingly seeking biomarker testing support from sources such as patient advocacy organizations and are self-organizing into formal patient-led groups defined by shared biomarker status. Despite this increasing desire to take an active role in their own biomarker testing process and associated care, patients still face several barriers to truly engaging in the process. As demonstrated by real-world patient stories shared with a lung cancer patient advocacy organization providing biomarker testing support and navigation, these barriers are diverse, impacting different aspects of the process. Patients report facing barriers in navigating the testing and follow up care process, financial and other access related issues, and understanding of the testing and associated therapy selection process – all of which contribute to feeling less agency in the care process.
We propose several potential solutions the lung cancer clinical community can take to support patients in becoming a true partner with the clinal team and feeling agency in their own biomarker testing process. This can include improved patient education on the testing and therapy selection, improved communication with individual patients on testing procedures and associated timeframes for completion, returning biomarker testing results to patients along with their care team in an accessible manner, and engaging with members of a patient’s larger support network. We should also aim to improve communication surrounding biomarker testing to diverse and underserved patient populations and ensure discussions of biomarker testing initiatives include patient advisors. Patients empowered to take an active part in the process can be valuable partners in efforts to close biomarker testing gaps.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
P41 - Screening and Early Detection - Lung Cancer Screening Programmes (ID 176)
- Event: WCLC 2020
- Type: Posters
- Track: Screening and Early Detection
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 1/28/2021, 00:00 - 00:00, ePoster Hall
-
+
P41.02 - Implementation Barriers In US-based Lung Cancer Screening Programs (ID 2382)
00:00 - 00:00 | Presenting Author(s): Andrew Ciupek
- Abstract
Introduction
Both the National Lung Screening Trial and the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON) demonstrate that screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) leads to a reduction in lung cancer mortality underscoring the importance of implementing effective LDCT screening programs for those at risk. To better understand implementation barriers that programs face, the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer’s Screening Centers of Excellence (SCOE) network was surveyed to assess barriers in US-based screening programs related to patients, workflow and reimbursement.
Methods
100 SCOE network members, representing 87753 patients screened, participated in the survey. The survey was conducted online, focused on collecting data from calendar year 2018, and was analyzed by a market research firm ZoomRx. The survey assessed program structure, implementation barriers, capacity, screening rates and workflow. The survey was designed to baseline participants by collecting both quantitative and qualitative data and will be deployed annually to allow for longitudinal analysis. Data analysis allows the comparison of different groups such as academic v community, size of program and age of program.
Results
Of the 100 SCOE participants, 22 identified as academic-based programs, 61 as community-based, and the remaining as having other program structures (such as being a stand-alone imaging center). When asked what types of barriers were most challenging to them, the top category reported by academic programs was Patient-Volume/Patient-related barriers (reported by 55% of programs) and the top category reported by community programs was Operational/workflow barriers/lack of institutional buy-in (reported by 36% of programs). In addition to indicating the general categories of barriers that presented the most challenges to them, SCOEs were also asked to indicate what specific barriers they faced. 68% of academic programs indicated patients not returning for annual screenings and 50% reported patients not returning for interval follow up screenings. 46% of academic centers reported experiencing barriers in each of the following three areas: ordering/documenting eligibility, patient tracking/data management, and insurance coding/claims difficulties. When community programs were asked about specific barriers, 64% reported staffing limitations, 61% reported patients not returning for annual screenings, and 56% reported lack of support from referring providers.
Conclusion
The impact of barriers differs between center types with academic centers finding patient and volume related issues more challenging in 2018 while community centers found workflow and institutional issues more challenging. In terms of what specific barriers were encountered, lack of patient adherence to annual follow up screening is frequently encountered by all types of programs. However, a majority of community-based programs reported issues with staffing or lack of support from referring providers in direct contrast to academic based centers. This suggests that initiatives to improve screening implementation must address both common barriers and program-type specific issues. The SCOE program represents a unique opportunity to study screening implementation at scale and across settings and is an ideal platform for implementing potential solutions to address barriers.
