The impact of electronic patient-reported outcomes presentation during multi-disciplinary tumor board on clinician discussion of older adults' fitness and preferences

Introduction: Treatment of pancreatic cancer often entails multiple modalities (e.g., chemotherapy, surgery, radiation) that vary in intensity, timing, and toxicity profiles. Some treatment options are only recommended for medically 'fit' patients regardless of age, yet formal fitness measures (such as the geriatric assessment [GA]) and patient preferences are seldom utilized during treatment decision-making. Materials and Methods: The INtegrating Systematic PatIent-Reported Evaluations into Multi-Disciplinary Tumor Board (INSPIRE-MDTB) intervention involves the presentation of GA and treatment preferences data during tumor board discussions of older patients with stage I-IV pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This qualitative study recorded, transcribed, and inductively analyzed historical (November 2021-February 2022) and intervention (September 2022-June 2023) MDTBs using NVivo software. A constant comparative method was used to establish a grounded scheme representative of clinicians' characterization of patients' fitness and preferences during decision-making. Results: Recordings of the primary MDTB presentation of 31 historical and 49 intervention patients with similar sex (52 %; 53 % female), age (m = 68.1; 72.3), race (65 %; 59 % White), and cancer stage (26 %; 22 % stage IV) were included. Although GA was captured for all included patients, it was not discussed in any historical cases, but was in 94 % of intervention cases. When compared to historical controls, INSPIRE patients had more frequent discussions of (1) cancer-related factors (e.g., size, location, rate of progression; 35 % vs. 43 %), (2) individual risk factors (e.g., age, comorbidities, tolerance; 90 % vs 98 %), and (3) psychosocial factors (e.g., health literacy, social support, substance use; 19 % vs 33 %). Identified preference domains were discussed in 39 % of historical and 80 % of intervention patients, with notably higher rates of discussion of patients' concerns regarding physical (0 %; 35 %) and mental/emotional (0 %; 20 %) side effects, ability to work (0 %; 10 %), and the logistics and convenience of treatment (6 %; 14 %). Discussion: The INSPIRE intervention enhanced MDTB discussion of patient fitness and preferences and represents a promising approach for fostering consistent and systematic presentation and discussion of patientreported data, such as the GA and treatment preferences. This adds to our previous findings that INSPIRE was feasible, acceptable, appropriate, and time-effective according to patients and provider participants.