Robert L. Ferris, MD, PhD, reflects on the status of telehealth in oncology and patient care following the COVID-19 pandemic.
As oncology and patient care have generally returned to some type of normalcy in the months after the COVID-19 pandemic, and the pandemic turned endemic, it is worth reflecting on the status of telehealth in oncology. A number of observations in this column have focused on virtual meetings, and the shift back to in-person interactions for education, networking, and collaboration in commercial ventures, all of which are facilitated by onsite oncology meetings. However, less attention has been paid to where we are with virtual visits to the oncologist, and where this manifestation of the COVID-19 lockdowns may be going.
Recently, in my clinic, I had another manifestation of a telehealth visit, which was requested as the second opinion from a patient across the country. This was not the intent of telehealth when COVID-19 forced us to reduce in-person patient visits to limit patient exposures in the clinic waiting area and around the medical office. So, it was interesting recently to be asked to comment as a second opinion for a practice 3000 miles away, primarily because this well-off patient could far more easily obtain my opinion on the direction of his care.
In one way, it seemed to democratize patient care, because a second opinion became very easy to seek and even economical since the pandemic. Previously, the patient would have to navigate flights, arrange hotel accommodations, and navigate a completely different health system. One that day, however, most of the burden fell on my staff and me as he sat comfortably in his house. In between my usual busy clinic activities, I had to find an available computer and private room, and then discovered voluminous records had been sent, including scans that I was expected to review and compare.
During a typical in-person visit, I would have the benefit of input by one of our expert radiologists and provide the patient with a follow-up visit or phone call. Moreover, it is likely that I did not provide as cogent an opinion for this patient as if he had been sitting in front of me, allowing for discussion, comparing a scan with a physical examination, and catching up on the key questions of his care. We are seeing a shift in the delivery of patient care that may not be desired by the key players in the relationship—the patient and the doctor. At some point, we may cross a threshold with negative impact on the quality of care and the appreciation for the art of medicine and oncology.
Gholam Contrasts Lenvatinib With Other Options in Child-Pugh B HCC
December 21st 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Pierre Gholam, MD, discussed how post hoc and real-world analyses build upon the limited available trial data for treating patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with Child-Pugh B status.
Read More
Ilson Examines Chemoimmunotherapy Regimens for Metastatic Gastroesophageal Cancers
December 20th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, David H. Ilson, MD, PhD, discussed the outcomes of the CheckMate 649, CheckMate 648, and KEYNOTE-859 trials of chemoimmunotherapy regimens in patients with upper GI cancers.
Read More
Participants Discuss Frontline Immunotherapy Followed by ADC for Metastatic Cervical Cancer
December 19th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Ramez N. Eskander, MD, and participants discussed first and second-line therapy decisions for a patient with PD-L1–positive cervical cancer in the frontline metastatic setting.
Read More
Oncologists Discuss a Second-Generation BTK for Relapsed/Refractory CLL
December 18th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Daniel A. Ermann, MD, discussed evaluation and treatment for a patient with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia after receiving venetoclax and obinutuzumab.
Read More