Publications

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the outcomes, safety, and response to subsequent therapies of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) treated with atezolizumab outside clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study include to report the clinical efficacy and safety of atezolizumab, and the response to future therapies in clinical practice outside clinical trials.

PATIENT AND METHODS

This is a retrospective, single-center study including consecutive patients with confirmed mUC who received at least one dose of atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks between May 2016 and April 2017.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients, median age 72 years (range 29-93), 71% men and 76% ECOG PS 0-1, were identified. Most patients (79%) had primary cancer in the bladder, 62% had prior surgery, and 75% received at least one prior line of treatment (34 patients had prior cisplatin-based chemotherapy). Best response included 18% partial response, 29% stable disease, and 53% progressive disease. Patients were on atezolizumab for a median of 2.7 months (95%CI, 1.8-3.6) and median PFS was 3.2 months (95%CI, 1.6-4.8). A total of 33 (42%) patients had significant (any cause) AEs, including grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia in two patients; no toxic deaths were reported. At time of data analysis, only 18% of patients received at least one subsequent line of treatment for a median of 1.8 months (95%CI, 0.0-5.0) while 42% were referred to palliative care/hospice or died.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with mUC who progressed on atezolizumab were unlikely to receive subsequent systemic treatments and the benefit of those treatments appeared limited in our cohort. The findings may impact timing and designs of clinical trials in mUC.

Importance

Safety-net health systems across the country are implementing electronic consult (eConsult) systems in which primary care practitioners (PCPs) submit all requests for specialty assistance electronically to be reviewed and discussed with specialists. Evidence suggests that eConsult systems can make significant improvements in specialty access, but the outcomes of these systems for frontline PCPs is poorly understood.

Objective

To understand PCP perceptions of the results of eConsult initiation on PCP workflow, specialist access, and patient care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Qualitative interviews were conducted from December 1, 2016, to April 15, 2017, with 40 safety-net PCPs in Los Angeles County who use the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS) eConsult system. Interviewees were recruited to include diversity in PCP type, practice setting, and employer (DHS employed vs DHS affiliated). Participants were interviewed about their perceptions of clinical workflow, access to specialists, relationships with specialists, and referral decision making.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Perceptions of the results of eConsult, including positive and negative themes and remaining perceived gaps in specialty care.

Results

Of the 40 participants, 27 (68%) were women; 24 (60%) PCPs performed 5 or more eConsults per week. Primary care practitioners' perceptions of eConsult clustered around 4 main themes: access and timeliness of specialty care, shift of work to PCPs, relationships with specialists, and eConsult interface issues. Many PCPs praised the improved timeliness of specialist input with eConsult, as well as the added clinical and educational value of dialogue with specialists, particularly compared with the limitations of the prior referral process. However, PCPs also consistently perceived that eConsult shifted some of the work of specialty care to them. Many PCPs believed that this extra burden was worth the effort given the benefits of eConsult, such as improved timeliness of care and ability to manage specialty conditions. In contrast, others were frustrated by the increased administrative burden, broadened clinical responsibility, and restructuring of specialty care delivery.

Conclusions and Relevance

While associated with improved specialty care access, eConsult systems simultaneously created new challenges for PCPs, such as an increased burden of work in providing specialty care. Primary care practitioners varied in their enthusiasm for these workflow changes with diverging perceptions of the same processes. Our findings provide insights on challenges future primary care transformation efforts may face.