Impact of a Stage IV NSCLC care pathway on front-line (FL) and maintenance (M) chemotherapy use at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute (TCI).

Authors

null

Marc A. Shapiro

Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Marc A. Shapiro , James Stevenson , Emily Van Wagoner , Katherine Glass , Chad W Cummings , Nathan A. Pennell , Patrick C. Ma , Vamsidhar Velcheti , Bruno R. Bastos , Brian James Bolwell , Abdo Haddad

Organizations

Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Inst, Highland Heights, OH, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH, Fairview Hospital,Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Research Funding

No funding sources reported

Background: Care pathways can reduce cancer care costs and variability in NSCLC. Effective implementation requires measurable outcomes and available data in near real-time. Methods: Between 10/1/13 and 7/7/14, TCI developed an evidence and value-based Stage IV NSCLC pathway. For patients with non-squamous EGFR WT/ALK neg NSCLC, ECOG PS 0-2 and sufficient renal function, FL carboplatin/pemetrexed (pem) followed by M pem is recommended standard care while bevacizumab (bev) is not. The pathway recommends best supportive care for pts with ECOG PS ≥ 3. To test feasibility, 4 academic thoracic and 12 community oncologists implemented the pathway into their practices starting 7/7/14. This analysis studies pathway impact on FL and M treatment decisions and charges in patients with metastatic non-squamous EGFR WT/ALK negative NSCLC. 57 pts meeting pathway criteria initiated care with these oncologists from 7/7/14 to 12/31/14 (Cohort A). A retrospective cohort (Cohort B) of 181 pts meeting similar criteria initiated care from 1/1/12 to 7/1/13. Care patterns were defined by manual chart review through 1/8/15. As only 1 Cohort A pt has progressed on M therapy, charge results assume pts who have initiated M pem will receive the same average of 5.11 doses seen in Cohort B. For Cohort B, actual FL and M therapy charges are reported. 3 Cohort B pts remain on M therapy. Results: Care patterns in Cohorts A and B were compared. 53 (93%) vs 128 (71%) (p = 0.0003) pts received pathway recommended FL care respectively. 42 (74%) vs 110 (61%) received chemotherapy (p = 0.0839). In pts receiving FL platinum-based regimens, 2 (6%) vs 35 (39%) received bev (p < 0.0001) outside of pathway recommendations. In Cohort A, 6 (32%) completing FL therapy initiated M therapy vs 36 (40%) in Cohort B. In pts completing FL therapy, FL and M drug charges per pt were an estimated $107,258 vs $205,431 (48% decrease). Conclusions: Implementation and measurement of adherence to a stage IV NSCLC pathway is feasible at an academic oncology practice with a regional network. This implementation led to a significant improvement in care variation and nearly 50% reduction in chemotherapy charges primarily through decreased bev use.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2015 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Health Services Research and Quality of Care

Track

Health Services Research and Quality of Care

Sub Track

Value/Cost of Care

Citation

J Clin Oncol 33, 2015 (suppl; abstr 6609)

DOI

10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.6609

Abstract #

6609

Poster Bd #

166

Abstract Disclosures