Bruce S. Lin

Rare long-term survivors of pancreatic adenocarcinoma without curative resection

Long-term outcome data in pancreatic adenocarcinoma are predominantly based on surgical series, as resection is currently considered essential for long-term survival. In contrast, five-year survival in non-resected patients has rarely been reported. In this report, we examined the incidence and natural history of ≥ 5-year survivors with non-resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. All patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who received oncologic therapy alone without surgery at our institution between 1995 and 2009 were identified. Non-resected ≥ 5-year survivors represented 2% (11/544) of all non-resected patients undergoing treatment for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and 11% (11/98) of ≥ 5-year survivors. Nine patients had localized tumor and 2 metastatic disease at initial diagnosis. Disease progression occurred in 6 patients, and the local tumor bed was the most common site of progression. Six patients suffered from significant morbidities including recurrent cholangitis, second malignancy, malnutrition and bowel perforation. A rare subset of patients with pancreatic cancer achieve long-term survival without resection. Despite prolonged survival, morbidities unrelated to the primary cancer were frequently encountered and a close follow-up is warranted in these patients. Factors such as tumor biology and host immunity may play a key role in disease progression and survival.

Initiation of adjuvant therapy following surgical resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC): Are patients from rural, remote areas disadvantaged?

Although race and socioeconomic status have been shown to affect outcomes in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the impact of rural residence on the delivery of adjuvant therapy (AT) has not been studied.

Using a QOPI-based template to monitor appropriate evaluation of constipation.

94 Background: A common symptom in patients being treated with opioid analgesics is constipation, which is often underreported by patients and therefore undertreated by providers. The Quality Oncology Project Initiative (QOPI) has identified constipation as one of the benchmark symptoms to be monitored in order to obtain certification. At Virginia Mason Medical Center, we had previously identified constipation as a symptom which was not adequately addressed in the medical record, and implemented a template-based initiative to increase its evaluation. METHODS We identified consecutive patients with advanced cancer undergoing systemic therapy who were also receiving opioid analgesic treatments. These patients were surveyed for constipation, and answered a questionnaire regarding its severity and whether they felt it was adequately handled. We then reviewed the encounter notes for the visit to correlate the providers documentation of constipation and its treatment and the patient experience. RESULTS Results will be presented at the symposium. CONCLUSIONS We aim to describe whether or not the symptom of constipation was adequately captured and/or treated in patients receiving opioid therapy.

Comparative analysis of resected duodenal and ampullary adenocarcinoma.

362 Background: Duodenal and ampullary adenocarcinomas are rare gastrointestinal cancers that share similar anatomic location and treatment strategy. We report a single-institution experience regarding the association between clinicopathologic features, treatment, and survival outcomes. Methods: A retrospective review of all patients resected with curative intent for duodenal adenocarcinoma (DUO) between 2005-2015 and ampullary adenocarcinoma (AMP) between 2011-2015 at VMMC was performed. For AMP, histologic subtyping into intestinal (IT) and pancreatobiliary (PB) phenotypes was determined. Demographic and clinicopathologic parameters were compared between DUO and AMP patients using Chi-square test. Overall survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and prognostic factors were identified by univariate Cox regression. Results: Patients with DUO (n = 44) presented at higher T-stage (p = 0.002) and with larger tumors (4.35cm vs 2.33cm, p < 0.001) than AMP patients (n = 46). DUO patients had a higher...

Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) participation as a means to physician engagement, performance improvement, and delivery of safe and high-quality cancer care.

80 Background: High quality and safe medical care has been a consistent goal of the medical community at Virginia Mason Medical Center (VMMC). The Am Soc of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has set out a list of criteria as part of Its Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI), which are increasingly being adopted as standards for quality measurement in the Oncology community. Our practice at VMMC participated in the QOPI quality metric survey, with the intent of measuring and enhancing cancer care delivery. METHODS We participated in the web-based QOPI quality metric during the September, 2013 and April, 2014 sessions. Chart abstraction was shared by the providers. Following the Sept session, our performance was analyzed, and targeted areas of improvement were collectively identified by all providers. Following the April session, the clinical note format was changed to incorporate a standard template, addressing areas of underperformance. RESULTS In the September 2013 session, the primary areas of underperformance were assessment of: a) pain, b) emotional distress, c) performance status (PFS), and d) documentation of staging. Following the April 2014 session, we noted improved performance in all these assessments. Thus, pain reporting rates improved from 40.6 to 61.2%; emotional distress screening from 37.3% to 42.8%; PFS documentation from 42.6 to 53.7%; and staging at initial diagnosis from 74.6% to 80.9%. However our areas of underperformance continued to lag 10 to 30% behind QOPI aggregate reporting rates. With the introduction of a structured note in the electronic medical record (EMR), further improvements are expected the results of which will be reported at the time of the meeting. On the positive side, chemotherapy education and discussion of risk/benefit were consistently areas of superior performance in our practice with our reporting rates being 10 to 40% higher than the QOPI aggregate. CONCLUSIONS QOPI participation is a useful tool for improving and sustaining a high level of practice performance in oncology. Structured notes in the EMR maybe indispensable for maintaining a high level of compliance with performance measures.