Purpose Telemedicine was rapidly implemented for initial consultations and radiation treatment planning in the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In this study, we explore utilization of and physician perspectives on this approach in an attempt to identify patient populations that may benefit most from virtual care. Methods and Materials This is a mixed-methods study with a convergent design. Approximately 6 to 8 weeks after implementation of telemedicine, all radiation oncologists in a single academic radiation oncology department were invited to participate in either semistructured interviews with embedded survey questions or a concurrently administered survey only. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to identify common themes, and quantitative data was assessed using descriptive statistics and univariable analyses. Results At the apex of the pandemic, 92% of radiation oncology visits were conducted via telemedicine. In total, 51 of 61 radiation oncologists participated in the study (response rate 84%). Most (71%) reported no difference in ability to treat cancer appropriately via telemedicine, which was more common among specialized physicians ( P = .01) but not those with higher visit volume or years of experience. Over half (55%) perceived no difference or even improvement in overall visit quality with telemedicine. Virtual visits were deemed acceptable for a median of 70% to 96% of patients, which varied by disease site. Need for physical examination, and availability of an acceptable proxy, factored into telemedicine acceptability. Most (88%) found telemedicine better than expected, but opinions were split on how telemedicine would affect physician burnout. Almost all (96%) foresaw a role for telemedicine beyond the pandemic and would opt for a median of 50% (interquartile range 20%-66%) of visits conducted via telemedicine. Conclusions Among radiation oncologists in an academic setting, telemedicine was perceived to be highly appropriate and acceptable for most patients. Future studies should focus on identifying the 5% to 30% of patients whose care may be optimized with in-person visits, and if there is alignment with patient preferences.

No abstract

Purpose: Guidelines for early-stage breast cancer allow for radiotherapy (RT) omission following breast conserving surgery (BCS) among older women, though high utilization of RT persists. This study explores surgeon referral and the effect of a productivity-based bonus metric for radiation oncologists in an academic institution with centralized quality assurance (QA) review.Methods: We evaluated patients >70 years of age treated with BCS for ER+ pT1N0 breast cancer at a single tertiary cancer network between 2015-2018. The primary outcomes were radiation oncology referral and RT receipt. Covariables included patient and physician characteristics, and treatment decisions before versus after productivity metric implementation. Univariable generalized linear effects models explored associations between these outcomes and covariables. Results: Of 703 patients included, 483 (69%) were referred to radiation oncology and 273 (39%) received RT (among those referred, 57% received RT). No difference in RT receipt pre- versus post- productivity metric implementation was observed (p=0.57). RT receipt was associated with younger patient age (70-74 years, OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.54-4.57) and higher grade (grade 3, OR 7.75, 95% CI 3.33-18.07). Initial referral was associated with younger age (70-74, OR 5.64, 95% CI 3.37-0.45) and higher performance status (KPS ³90, OR 5.34, 95% CI 2.63-10.83). Conclusion: Non-referral to radiation oncology accounted for half of RT omission, but was based on age and KPS, in accordance with guidelines. Lack of radiation oncologist practice change in response to misaligned financial incentives is reassuring, potentially reflecting centralized QA review. Multi-institutional studies are needed to confirm these findings.