T W LeBlanc1, A Howson2, W Turell2, P Sheldon2, S C Locke3, S A Tuchman4, C Gasparetto4, S Kaura5, Z M Khan5, A P Abernethy3. 1. Division of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapy, Department of Medicine, and; Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, U.S.A. 2. Opus Science, Annapolis, MD, U.S.A. 3. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, U.S.A. 4. Division of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapy, Department of Medicine, and. 5. Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ, U.S.A.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the early 2000s, treatment options for multiple myeloma have rapidly expanded, adding significant complexity to the management of this disease. To our knowledge, no systematic qualitative research on clinical decision-making in multiple myeloma has been published. We sought to characterize how physicians view and implement guidelines and incorporate novel approaches into patient care. METHODS: We designed a semi-structured qualitative interview guide informed by literature review and an expert advisory panel. We conducted 60-minute interviews with a diverse sample of oncology physicians in the southeast United States. We used a constant comparative method to code and analyze interview transcripts. The research team and advisory panel discussed and validated emergent themes. RESULTS: Participants were 13 oncologists representing 5 academic and 4 community practices. Academic physicians reported using formal risk-stratification schemas; community physicians typically did not. Physicians also described differences in eligibility criteria for transplantation; community physicians emphasized distance, social support, and psychosocial capacity in making decisions about transplantation referral; the academic physicians reported using more specific clinical criteria. All physicians reported using a maintenance strategy both for post-transplant and for transplant-ineligible patients; however, determining the timing of maintenance therapy initiation and the response were reported as challenging, as was recognition or definition of relapse, especially in terms of when treatment re-initiation is indicated. CONCLUSIONS: Practices reported by both academic and community physicians suggest opportunities for interventions to improve patient care and outcomes through optimal multiple myeloma management and therapy selection. Community physicians in particular might benefit from targeted education interventions about risk stratification, transplant eligibility, and novel therapies.
BACKGROUND: Since the early 2000s, treatment options for multiple myeloma have rapidly expanded, adding significant complexity to the management of this disease. To our knowledge, no systematic qualitative research on clinical decision-making in multiple myeloma has been published. We sought to characterize how physicians view and implement guidelines and incorporate novel approaches into patient care. METHODS: We designed a semi-structured qualitative interview guide informed by literature review and an expert advisory panel. We conducted 60-minute interviews with a diverse sample of oncology physicians in the southeast United States. We used a constant comparative method to code and analyze interview transcripts. The research team and advisory panel discussed and validated emergent themes. RESULTS:Participants were 13 oncologists representing 5 academic and 4 community practices. Academic physicians reported using formal risk-stratification schemas; community physicians typically did not. Physicians also described differences in eligibility criteria for transplantation; community physicians emphasized distance, social support, and psychosocial capacity in making decisions about transplantation referral; the academic physicians reported using more specific clinical criteria. All physicians reported using a maintenance strategy both for post-transplant and for transplant-ineligible patients; however, determining the timing of maintenance therapy initiation and the response were reported as challenging, as was recognition or definition of relapse, especially in terms of when treatment re-initiation is indicated. CONCLUSIONS: Practices reported by both academic and community physicians suggest opportunities for interventions to improve patient care and outcomes through optimal multiple myeloma management and therapy selection. Community physicians in particular might benefit from targeted education interventions about risk stratification, transplant eligibility, and novel therapies.
Authors: Sagar Lonial; Meletios Dimopoulos; Antonio Palumbo; Darrell White; Sebastian Grosicki; Ivan Spicka; Adam Walter-Croneck; Philippe Moreau; Maria-Victoria Mateos; Hila Magen; Andrew Belch; Donna Reece; Meral Beksac; Andrew Spencer; Heather Oakervee; Robert Z Orlowski; Masafumi Taniwaki; Christoph Röllig; Hermann Einsele; Ka Lung Wu; Anil Singhal; Jesus San-Miguel; Morio Matsumoto; Jessica Katz; Eric Bleickardt; Valerie Poulart; Kenneth C Anderson; Paul Richardson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Pieter Sonneveld; Ingo G H Schmidt-Wolf; Bronno van der Holt; Laila El Jarari; Uta Bertsch; Hans Salwender; Sonja Zweegman; Edo Vellenga; Annemiek Broyl; Igor W Blau; Katja C Weisel; Shulamiet Wittebol; Gerard M J Bos; Marian Stevens-Kroef; Christof Scheid; Michael Pfreundschuh; Dirk Hose; Anna Jauch; Helgi van der Velde; Reinier Raymakers; Martijn R Schaafsma; Marie-Jose Kersten; Marinus van Marwijk-Kooy; Ulrich Duehrsen; Walter Lindemann; Pierre W Wijermans; Henk M Lokhorst; Hartmut M Goldschmidt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul G Richardson; Edie Weller; Sagar Lonial; Andrzej J Jakubowiak; Sundar Jagannath; Noopur S Raje; David E Avigan; Wanling Xie; Irene M Ghobrial; Robert L Schlossman; Amitabha Mazumder; Nikhil C Munshi; David H Vesole; Robin Joyce; Jonathan L Kaufman; Deborah Doss; Diane L Warren; Laura E Lunde; Sarah Kaster; Carol Delaney; Teru Hideshima; Constantine S Mitsiades; Robert Knight; Dixie-Lee Esseltine; Kenneth C Anderson Journal: Blood Date: 2010-04-12 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Joseph R Mikhael; Craig B Reeder; Edward N Libby; Luciano J Costa; P Leif Bergsagel; Francis Buadi; Angela Mayo; Sravan K Nagi Reddy; Katherine Gano; Amylou C Dueck; A Keith Stewart Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Nikhil C Munshi; Kenneth C Anderson; P Leif Bergsagel; John Shaughnessy; Antonio Palumbo; Brian Durie; Rafael Fonseca; A Keith Stewart; Jean-Luc Harousseau; Meletios Dimopoulos; Sundar Jagannath; Roman Hajek; Orhan Sezer; Robert Kyle; Pieter Sonneveld; Michele Cavo; S Vincent Rajkumar; Jesus San Miguel; John Crowley; Hervé Avet-Loiseau Journal: Blood Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Hilde D Luijks; Maartje J W Loeffen; Antoine L Lagro-Janssen; Chris van Weel; Peter L Lucassen; Tjard R Schermer Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Philip L McCarthy; Kouros Owzar; Craig C Hofmeister; David D Hurd; Hani Hassoun; Paul G Richardson; Sergio Giralt; Edward A Stadtmauer; Daniel J Weisdorf; Ravi Vij; Jan S Moreb; Natalie Scott Callander; Koen Van Besien; Teresa Gentile; Luis Isola; Richard T Maziarz; Don A Gabriel; Asad Bashey; Heather Landau; Thomas Martin; Muzaffar H Qazilbash; Denise Levitan; Brian McClune; Robert Schlossman; Vera Hars; John Postiglione; Chen Jiang; Elizabeth Bennett; Susan Barry; Linda Bressler; Michael Kelly; Michele Seiler; Cara Rosenbaum; Parameswaran Hari; Marcelo C Pasquini; Mary M Horowitz; Thomas C Shea; Steven M Devine; Kenneth C Anderson; Charles Linker Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 91.245