No abstract

PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic created significant disruptions in cancer care, much of which was transitioned to telehealth. Because telehealth alters the way clinicians and patients interact with one another, this investigation examined patients' perceptions of their communication with clinicians during the pandemic. Method Patients were recruited from the Cancer Support Community, Fight Colorectal Cancer, and a market research firm to participate in an online survey. In addition to demographic and health-related information, respondents completed measures of patient-centered communication and evaluated how their communication in telehealth sessions compared with in-person visits. Results From October to December 2020, 227 respondents (65.6% female, 64.6% Non-Hispanic White, 33.5% had 6 or more telehealth sessions, 55% were 50 or older) reported having some of their cancer care provided via telehealth. Respondents who were of racial/ethnic minorities, male, had more telehealth sessions, or had poorer mental health reported less patientcentered communication with clinicians. Most patients thought communication in telehealth sessions was "about the same" as in-person visits with respect to good communication (59%). However, patients thinking communication in telehealth sessions was "better" than in-person visits were more likely to be Hispanic (49%), Non-Hispanic Black (41%), under 50 years of age (32%), male (40%), and had more telehealth sessions (34%). Conclusion Respondents reporting less patient-centered communication during the pandemic-e.g., persons of racial/ethnic minorities and males-were also more likely to evaluate communication in telehealth sessions as better than in-person visits. Further research is needed to understand reasons underlying this finding. Cancer care clinicians should take into account patient preferences regarding telehealth care, which may be particularly important for racial and ethnic minority patients.

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic heightened the psychosocial impact of a cancer diagnosis as patients face concerns about the risk of infection and serious disease and uncertainties about the impact on their treatment. We conducted an online survey (n = 317) and focus groups (n = 19) with patients to examine their experiences with cancer care during the pandemic. Most survey respondents (68%) reported one or more disruptions or delays in care, including appointments switched to telehealth (49%). Patients perceived both benefits (e.g., convenience) and drawbacks (e.g., more impersonal) to telehealth. For many patients, COVID-19-related restrictions on bringing family members to support them during appointments was a major concern and left them feeling alone and vulnerable during treatment. Patients’ self-reported coping during the pandemic was positively associated with age, education, and income ( P < .05 for each) and better communication with their doctors during telehealth sessions ( P < .001). Study findings highlight the importance of patient-centered care and communication to help patients cope with the challenges of the pandemic. Further research is needed to develop guidelines for use of telehealth as part of patient-centered cancer care.

e24164 Background: Biomarker testing has advanced precision medicine in cancer. However, not all eligible patients benefit from biomarker-driven therapies due to suboptimal testing rates. A working group of 20 patient advocacy groups representing solid/hematologic malignancies, three professional societies, and 18 pharmaceutical and diagnostics companies identified patient confusion inconsistent testing terms as a possible contributing factor to biomarker testing underutilization. The group aimed to address patients’ confusion by identifying and adopting consistent, plain language terms for biomarker and germline genetic testing that are applicable across cancer types. Methods: Following a stakeholder roundtable discussion on barriers to precision medicine, working group members participated in interviews on their goals for consistent testing terminology for their constituents. We then conducted a framework analysis covering five themes: available testing by cancer type; purpose of test; biospecimen source; terms used in patient education; and preferred plain language term. Working group members were surveyed on preferences for germline testing terminology and also deployed a preliminary patient survey to their constituents to gain insight on preferences for germline testing terms. Results: Interviews, framework analysis, and surveys revealed notable differences across cancer communities. We identified at least 33 different terms related to biomarker, genetic and genomic testing being used in patient education and clinical care among the different cancer communities and stakeholders. Terminology was complicated by the variety of testing modalities and gene mutations tested for across cancers. Following multiple discussions, working group members agreed on two umbrella terms to distinguish between somatic and germline testing with additional context for specific cancer communities. “Biomarker testing” was selected as the somatic testing term. “Genetic testing for an inherited mutation” and “genetic testing for inherited cancer risk” were selected as preferred germline testing terms. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the disparate testing terminology landscape and the need for consistent terms to reduce patient confusion, improve communication, facilitate shared decision-making and assure concordance in policy development.