Adam J. Gadzinski, MD, MS, on the Limitations of a Study Assessing the Impact of Telemedicine on Patient-Reported Outcomes

Video

Study results revealed the impact of a rurally focused telemedicine program on patient outcomes.

Study results presented at the Society of Urologic Oncology 21st Annual Meeting determined the impact of a rurally focused telemedicine program on patient outcomes in the urologic oncology outpatient clinic at the University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC).

Through their research, the investigators determined that telemedicine provides a medium for cancer care delivery that eliminates the significant travel burden associated with in-person clinic appointments.

In an interview with CancerNetwork®, Adam J. Gadzinski, MD, MS, urologic oncology fellow and acting instructor of Urologic Oncology at the Urology Clinic at UWMC, explained the limitations of the study.

Transcription:

One of the limitations is that the survey was completed by roughly 42% of patients who were eligible for the survey. [Therefore], one limitation is [that] we don’t know what those other 58% of people thought; maybe they were the ones that hated telemedicine.

One of the other potential limitations is that we did not send the survey to patients who had what we called a “failed telemedicine visit”, or patients who were scheduled for telemedicine and then it didn't work and we had to call them on the phone. When we designed the study, we did not plan to include that group. We have kept track of who those patients were, but they did not systematically receive surveys. That’s another limitation and we don't know what the “failed telemedicine” patient-reported outcomes would be. I suspect they’d be a little less enthused about their visit.

We are planning to compare the patient characteristics of those who had a failed telemedicine visit versus a successful one. We haven’t done that yet, but that’s [on] one of our many to-do lists for the subsequent studies.

Recent Videos
A third of patients had a response [to lifileucel], and of the patients who have a response, half of them were alive at the 4-year follow-up.
We are seeing that, in those patients who have relapsed/refractory melanoma with survival measured as a few weeks and no effective treatments, about a third of these patients will have a response.
We have the current CAR [T-cell therapies], which target CD19; however, we need others.
“Every patient [with multiple myeloma] should be offered CAR T before they’re offered a bispecific, with some rare exceptions,” said Barry Paul, MD.
Barry Paul, MD, listed cilta-cel, anito-cel, and arlo-cel as 3 of the CAR T-cell therapies with the most promising efficacy in patients with multiple myeloma.
Jose Sandoval Sus, MD, discussed standard CAR T-cell therapies in patients across multiple high-risk lymphoma indications.
Elucidating nonresponses to bispecific T-cell engagers may be an important research consideration in the multiple myeloma field.
Barriers to access and financial toxicities are challenges that must be addressed for CAR T-cell therapies in LBCL, according to Jose Sandoval Sus, MD.
Fixed treatment durations with bispecific antibodies followed by observation may help in mitigating infection-related AEs, according to Shebli Atrash, MD.
Shebli Atrash, MD, stated that MRD should be considered carefully as an end point, given potential recurrence despite MRD negativity.
Related Content