Background: Rapid implementation of telehealth for cancer care during COVID-19 required innovative and adaptive solutions among oncology health care providers and professionals (HPPs). Objective: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore oncology HPPs’ experiences with telehealth implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This study was conducted at Moffitt Cancer Center (Moffitt), an NCI (National Cancer Institute)-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Prior to COVID-19, Moffitt piloted telehealth visits on a limited basis. After COVID-19, Moffitt rapidly expanded telehealth visits. Telehealth visits included real-time videoconferencing between HPPs and patients and virtual check-ins (ie, brief communication with an HPP by telephone only). We conducted semistructured interviews with 40 oncology HPPs who implemented telehealth during COVID-19. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for themes using Dedoose software (version 4.12). Results: Approximately half of the 40 participants were physicians (n=22, 55%), and one-quarter of the participants were advanced practice providers (n=10, 25%). Other participants included social workers (n=3, 8%), psychologists (n=2, 5%), dieticians (n=2, 5%), and a pharmacist (n=1, 3%). Five key themes were identified: (1) establishing and maintaining patient-HPP relationships, (2) coordinating care with other HPPs and informal caregivers, (3) adapting in-person assessments for telehealth, (4) developing workflows and allocating resources, and (5) future recommendations. Participants described innovative strategies for implementing telehealth, such as coordinating interdisciplinary visits with multiple HPPs and inviting informal caregivers (eg, spouse) to participate in telehealth visits. Health care workers discussed key challenges, such as workflow integration, lack of physical exam and biometric data, and overcoming the digital divide (eg, telehealth accessibility among patients with communication-related disabilities). Participants recommended policy advocacy to support telehealth (eg, medical licensure policies) and monitoring how telehealth affects patient outcomes and health care delivery. Conclusions: To support telehealth growth, implementation strategies are needed to ensure that HPPs and patients have the tools necessary to effectively engage in telehealth. At the same time, cancer care organizations will need to engage in advocacy to ensure that policies are supportive of oncology telehealth and develop systems to monitor the impact of telehealth on patient outcomes, health care quality, costs, and equity.

PURPOSE: To address shortcomings of human scribes (eg, turnover), clinicians are considering digital scribes (DSs). To our knowledge, to date, no study has assessed DS implementation or clinician user experience in cancer centers. We assessed the DS's feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, usability and its preliminary association on clinician well-being in a cancer center. We also identified implementation facilitators and barriers to DS use. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods longitudinal pilot study design, we implemented a DS at a cancer center. Data collection included surveys at baseline and 1 month after DS use and a semistructured interview with clinicians. The survey assessed demographics, Mini Z (workplace stress and burnout), sleep quality, and implementation outcomes (feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and usability). The interview assessed how the DS was used and its impacts on workflows and recommendations for future implementations of the DS. We used paired t tests to assess differences in Mini Z and sleep quality measures over time. RESULTS: Across nine survey responses and eight interviews, we found that although feasibility scores were slightly lower than our cutoff point (15.2 v 16.0), clinicians rated the DS as marginally acceptable (16.0) and appropriate (16.3). Usability was considered marginally usable (68.6 v 68.0). Although the DS did not significantly improve burnout (3.6 v 3.9, P = .081), it improved perceptions of having sufficient documentation time (2.1 v 3.6, P = .005). Clinicians identified suggestions for future implementations, including training needs and usability improvements. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary findings suggest that DS implementation is marginally acceptable, appropriate, and usable among cancer care clinicians. Individualized training and on-site support may improve implementation.

Background: Management recommendations for thyroid nodules rely primarily on the cytological diagnosis. However, 25% of biopsies render an indeterminate cytology for which management decision is more challenging due to heterogeneity of the specimens. This study aimed to stratify the cancer risk through subcategorization of indeterminate cytology. Methods: The indeterminate cytological specimens (Bethesda-III or IV) of 518 thyroid nodules consecutively evaluated at our academic cancer center between October 2008 and September 2015, blinded to the histological outcome, were retrospectively reviewed. Cytological specimens were subclassified into four groups: aspirates exhibiting nuclear atypia ( n = 158; 31%); architectural atypia ( n = 222; 43%); oncocytic features ( n = 120; 23%); or other types of atypia ( n = 18; 3%). The prevalence of malignancy and odds ratio for malignancy were calculated in 323 nodules with histological confirmation. Results: The prevalence of malignancy was 26% overall (20% in Bethesda-III and 29% in Bethesda-IV; p = 0.07), and 47%, 12%, 24%, and 25% for aspirates with nuclear atypia, architectural atypia, oncocytic features, or other types of atypia, respectively. The OR of nuclear atypia over architectural atypia was 6.4 (3.4–12.2; p < 0.001), and 2.7 over oncocytic features (1.4–5.1; p = 0.01), whereas the OR of architectural atypia over oncocytic features was 0.4 (0.2–0.9; p = 0.03). Results were similar for Bethesda-III and IV aspirates when analyzed independently. Furthermore, cytological subcategories improved cytology–histology correlation, as they were associated with distinct profiles of histological diagnoses ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Cytological subcategories can effectively stratify the risk of malignancy of thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology and improve cytology–histology correlation.

Mitotane (Lysodren, o,p'-DDD [1-(o-chlorophenyl)-1-(p-chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethane)] is currently the only United States Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency-approved product for the treatment of adrenocortical carcinoma. Mitotane is challenging to administer; however, its toxicities (specifically adrenal insufficiency) are well known, and the management of adverse consequences has established approaches. While often viewed through the prism of a cytotoxic agent, it can also interfere with hormone production making it a valuable asset in managing functional ACC. A recently completed prospective trial has shed some light on its use in the adjuvant setting, but further clarity is needed. Many think mitotane has a role in the advanced or metastatic setting, although prospective data are lacking and retrospective analyses are often difficult to interpret. When used carefully and thoughtfully, especially in patients with hormonal excess, mitotane is an important component of the treatment armamentarium for ACC.

Background: The limited availability of targeted therapies in thyroid cancer (TC) has challenged conventional treatment algorithms and has established urgency for the identification of targetable genomic abnormalities. In addition to widely adopted tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS), plasma-based circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) NGS is rapidly emerging as a genomic biomarker detection method and is steadily gaining utility across solid tumors. To date, plasma based genomic alterations in TC have not been determined. Herein, we profile potential actionable mutations detected via ctDNA in patients with TC subtypes. Methods: A retrospective data analysis of the Guardant Health, Inc. database was performed using the commercially available Guardant360® plasma-NGS test on TC samples from adult patients collected between 2016 -2021. The landscape of genomic alterations and blood tumor mutation burden (bTMB) were analyzed in patients with different types of TC: anaplastic TC (ATC), papillary TC (PTC), follicular TC (FTC), oncolytic carcinoma of the thyroid (OCA), poorly differentiated TC (PDTC), medullary TC (MTC), and TC not otherwise specified (TC NOS). Results: Of the 1,094 patients included most of the patients n= 876 had TC NOS, and 20% had a specific diagnosis (92 ATC, 62 PTC, 14 FTC, 16 OCA, 2 PDTC, and 32 MTC patients. The median age was 65 (range 10-98), and 47.3% were male. 78.3% of patients had one or more genomic alteration detected by ctDNA NGS. TP53 (46.9%) was the most common mutation detected among all TC. BRAF V600E was detected in 27.2% of ATC, 35.7% of PTC, and in none of FTC. RAS was detected in 18.5% of ATC, 11.9% of PTC, and 62.5 % of FTC. RET, ALK, and NTRK fusions were seen in 1.1%, 0.5%, and 0.2% of all TC, respectively. RET mutations were detected in 66.7% of MTC. bTMB analysis was performed on 159 patients. The mean bTMB was higher in ATC compared to other types of TC (p= 0.0011, 0.0557, and <0.0001, respectively). Conclusions: Plasma-based comprehensive NGS is a promising NGS method in TC; however, future validation of the clinical utility by analysis of paired tumor and plasma samples is needed.

Adrenocortical carcinoma is a rare and aggressive disease with an incidence of 1 per million people. Diagnosis occurs due to compressive symptoms from a large tumor, hormonal production, or incidental discovery on imaging studies. Surgery has been the mainstay of treatment and offers the best chance for a cure. However, local recurrence and metastatic disease are common. Survival at 5 years ranges from 82% for stage I disease to 13% for stage IV disease defined by distant metastases. Seventy percent of patients present with stage III or IV disease. Therefore, many patients require systemic therapy. Adjuvant treatment with mitotane, the only approved medication for ACC, has been used since 1960. Adjuvant radiation to the tumor bed is suggested for patients with a high risk for recurrence. Once the disease becomes metastatic, the current treatment is palliative chemotherapy with etoposide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin with mitotane. The EDP + mitotane regimen has a response rate of 23%. Targeted systemic therapies have been less successful than this regimen. Ablative techniques are often used for metastatic disease. More therapies continue to be explored and collaborative groups have formed around the world to work toward improved options for this patient population.