I am a medical oncology fellow with a clinical focus on breast cancer, and a research focus on examining cancer care delivery and resource allocation in both high- and low-income contexts. I am currently in my final year of fellowship, working on a Masters in health policy, and doing post-doctoral research on a T32 in the health policy department. My post-doctoral work is divided between domestic policy research, which focuses on analyzing cost and care variation, and global oncology projects, which concentrate on implementation and care delivery.
Honors & Awards
AOA, Alpha Omega Alpha (2018)
Boards, Advisory Committees, Professional Organizations
Global Health Postdoctoral Affiliate, Center for Innovation in Global Health (CIGH) (2022 - Present)
Member, ASCO (2021 - Present)
Board Certification, ABIM, Internal Medicine (2021)
Residency, Stanford University, Internal Medicine (2021)
MD, University of Mississippi Medical Center (2018)
BA, Vanderbilt University (2014)
- Response to trastuzumab deruxtecan in a patient with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer previously treated with sacituzumab govitecan CURRENT PROBLEMS IN CANCER: CASE REPORTS 2023; 11
Patient expectations and understanding of treatment intent in Belize.
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. 2023
View details for Web of Science ID 001053772005316
Time From Symptom Development to Care Milestones at the Only Public Oncology Clinic in Belize
AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH. 2023
View details for Web of Science ID 001047582800087
Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan in HER2 low metastatic breast cancer
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. 2023
View details for Web of Science ID 001053772000312
The financial toxicity of chemotherapy in Belize
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. 2023
View details for Web of Science ID 001053772005166
Cancer Demographics and Time-to-Care in Belize.
Belize is a middle-income Caribbean country with poorly described cancer epidemiology and no comprehensive cancer care capacity. In 2018, GO, Inc., a US-based NGO, partnered with the Ministry of Health and the national hospital in Belize City to create the first public oncology clinic in the country. Here, we report demographics from the clinic and describe time intervals to care milestones to allow for public health targeting of gaps.Using paper charts and a mobile health platform, we performed a retrospective chart review at the Karl Heusner Memorial Hospital (KHMH) clinic from 2018 to 2022.During this time period, 465 patients with cancer presented to the clinic. Breast cancer (28%) and cervical cancer (12%) were most common. Most patients (68%) presented with stage 3 or 4 disease and were uninsured (78%) and unemployed (79%). Only 21% of patients ever started curative intent treatment. Median time from patient-reported symptoms to a biopsy or treatment was 130 and 189 days. For the most common cancer, breast, similar times were seen at 140 and 178 days. Time intervals at the clinic: <30 days from initial visit to biopsy (if not previously performed) and <30 days to starting chemotherapy.This study reports the first clinic-based cancer statistics for Belize. Many patients have months between symptom onset and treatment. In this setting, the clinic has built infrastructure allowing for minimal delays in care despite an underserved population. This further affirms the need for infrastructure investment and early detection programs to improve outcomes in Belize.
View details for DOI 10.1093/oncolo/oyad030
View details for PubMedID 36928719
Implementation and efficacy of a fellow-led, case-based noon lecture series.
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. 2022
View details for Web of Science ID 000863680300287
Breast cancer characteristics and time to chemotherapy initiation in Belize.
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. 2022: E18643
View details for Web of Science ID 000863680303792
Updated demographics at the only public oncology clinic in Belize.
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. 2022: E18787
View details for Web of Science ID 000863680303920
Patient-reported outcome measurement implementation in cancer survivors: a systematic review.
Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice
Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are increasingly used for cancer patients receiving active treatment, but little is known about the implementation and usefulness of PROMs in cancer survivorship care. This systematic review evaluates how cancer survivors and healthcare providers (HCPs) perceive PROM implementation in survivorship care, and how PROM implementation impacts cancer survivors' health outcomes.We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to February 2022 to identify randomized and nonrandomized studies of PROM implementation in cancer survivors.Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 29 studies that reported on 26 unique PROMs. The studies were heterogeneous in study design, PROM instrument, patient demographics, and outcomes. Several studies found that cancer survivors and HCPs had favorable impressions of the utility of PROMs, and a few studies demonstrated that PROM implementation led to improvements in patient quality of life (QoL), with small to moderate effect sizes.We found implementation of PROMs in cancer survivorship care improved health outcomes for select patient populations. Future research is needed to assess the real-world utility of PROM integration into clinical workflows and the impact of PROMs on measurable health outcomes.Cancer survivors accepted PROMs. When successfully implemented, PROMs can improve health outcomes after completion of active treatment. We identify multiple avenues to strengthen PROM implementation to support cancer survivors.
View details for DOI 10.1007/s11764-022-01216-w
View details for PubMedID 35599269
Implementing Patient-Directed Cancer Education Materials Across Nigeria.
JCO global oncology
2021; 7: 1610-1619
PURPOSE: As access to cancer care expands in low-income countries, developing tools to educate patients is paramount. We took a picture booklet, which was initially developed by the nonprofit Global Oncology for Malawi and Rwanda, and adapted it for use in Nigeria. The primary goal was to assess acceptability and provide education. The secondary goals were (1) to describe the collaboration, (2) to assess knowledge gained from the intervention, (3) to assess patient understanding of their therapy intent, and (4) to explore patient's experiences via qualitative analysis.METHODS: We piloted the original English booklet at a single site and requested feedback from patients and providers. The booklet was updated; translated into Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, and Pidgin English; and used at three additional sites. For the three-site cohort, we collected basic demographics, pretest and post-test assessing content in the booklet, and performed a qualitative analysis.RESULTS: The original booklet was widely acceptable and recommended by patients at site one (n = 31) and by providers (N = 26) representing all four sites. In the three-site cohort (n = 103), 94% of patients recommended the booklet. An immediate post-test focusing on when patients should present to care showed a statistically significant improvement in one of the seven questions. Fifty-one percent of the patients (n = 103) knew their treatment intent (curative v palliative). Qualitative analysis highlighted that the patient's thoughts on cancer are dominated by negative associations, although curability and modern therapy are also frequently cited.CONCLUSION: We adapted an educational booklet to a novel context and had it delivered by local partners. The booklet was widely recommended to future patients. The booklet had an impact on patient's knowledge of cancer treatment, potentially allowing for decreased abandonment.
View details for DOI 10.1200/GO.21.00233
View details for PubMedID 34860566
Financial Toxicity of Cancer Care: An Analysis of Financial Burden in Three Distinct Health Care Systems.
JCO oncology practice
PURPOSE: The financial toxicity of cancer care is a source of significant distress for patients with cancer. The purpose of this study is to understand factors associated with financial toxicity in three distinct care systems.METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients in three care systems, Stanford Cancer Institute (SCI), VA Palo Alto Health Care System (VAPAHCS), and Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC), from October 2017 to May 2019. We assessed demographic factors, employment status, and out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) and administered the validated COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity tool. We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted linear regression models to analyze factors associated with financial toxicity.RESULTS: Four hundred forty-four of 578 patients (77%) completed the entire COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity tool and were included in the analysis. Most respondents at SCI were White, with annual household income (AHI) > $50,000 USD and Medicare insurance. At the VAPAHCS, most were White, with AHI ≤ $50,000 USD and insured by the Veterans Administration. At SCVMC, most were Asian and/or Pacific Islander, with AHI ≤ $25,000 USD and Medicaid insurance. Low AHI (P < .0001), high OOPCs (P = .003), and employment changes as a result of cancer diagnosis (P < .0001) were associated with financial toxicity in the pooled analysis. There was variation in factors associated with financial toxicity by site, with employment changes significant at SCI, OOPCs at SCVMC, and no significant factors at the VAPAHCS.CONCLUSION: Low AHI, high OOPCs, and employment changes contribute to financial toxicity; however, there are variations based on site of care. Future studies should tailor financial toxicity interventions within care delivery systems.
View details for DOI 10.1200/OP.20.00890
View details for PubMedID 33826366
Healthcare delivery interventions to reduce cancer disparities worldwide.
World journal of clinical oncology
2020; 11 (9): 705–22
Globally, cancer care delivery is marked by inequalities, where some economic, demographic, and sociocultural groups have worse outcomes than others. In this review, we sought to identify patient-facing interventions designed to reduce disparities in cancer care in both high- and low-income countries. We found two broad categories of interventions that have been studied in the current literature: Patient navigation and telehealth. Navigation has the strongest evidence base for reducing disparities, primarily in cancer screening. Improved outcomes with navigation interventions have been seen in both high- and low-income countries. Telehealth interventions remain an active area of exploration, primarily in high income countries, with the best evidence being for the remote delivery of palliative care. Ongoing research is needed to identify the most efficacious, cost-effective, and scalable interventions to reduce barriers to the receipt of cancer care globally.
View details for DOI 10.5306/wjco.v11.i9.705
View details for PubMedID 33033693
Health Disparities in Germline Genetic Testing for Cancer Susceptibility
Current Breast Cancer Reports
View details for DOI 10.1007/s12609-020-00354-3
- Patient-Reported Outcomes for Cancer Patients Receiving Checkpoint Inhibitors: Opportunities for Palliative Care-A Systematic Review JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT 2019; 58 (1): 137-+
- Variations in patient-reported outcome (PRO) collection and reporting in novel FDA approved anticancer therapies. AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY. 2019
"If you don't ask, you won't know": Do patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments capture the symptom experience of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)?
AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY. 2019
View details for Web of Science ID 000487345804248
The impact of blinding on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized controlled trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors versus traditional chemotherapies.
AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY. 2019
View details for Web of Science ID 000487345803187
Patient reported outcomes for cancer patients receiving immunotherapy: opportunities for palliative care - A Systematic Review.
Journal of pain and symptom management
CONTEXT: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are increasingly used to treat a variety of cancers, but comparatively little is known about patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients receiving these novel therapies.OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review to examine PROs and HRQoL among cancer patients receiving ICIs as compared to other anticancer therapies.METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus, using search terms representing ICIs, PROs and HRQoL on August 10, 2018. Eligible articles were required to involve cancer patients treated with ICIs and to report PROs and/or HRQoL data.RESULTS: We screened 1,453 references and included 15 publications representing 15 randomized controlled trials in our analysis. Studies included several cancer types (melanoma, lung cancer, genitourinary cancer, and head/neck cancer), utilized four different ICIs (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and ipilimumab), and compared ICIs to a wide range of therapies (chemotherapy, targeted therapies, other immunotherapy strategies, and placebo). Studies utilized a total of seven different PROs to measure HRQOL, most commonly the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) (n = 12, 80%). PRO data were reported in a variety of formats and at a variety of time points throughout treatment which made direct comparison challenging. Some trials (n=11, 73%) reported PROs on specific symptoms. In general, patients receiving ICIs had similar to improved HRQoL and experiences when compared to other therapies.CONCLUSION: Despite the broad clinical trials experience of ICI therapies across cancer types, relatively few randomized studies reported patient PROs and HRQoL data. Available data suggest that ICIs are well-tolerated in terms of HRQoL compared to other anticancer therapies although the conclusions are limited by the heterogeneity of trial designs and outcomes. Currently used instruments may fail to capture important symptomatology unique to ICIs, underscoring a need for PROs designed specifically for ICIs.
View details for PubMedID 30905677
Screening duplex ultrasonography in neurosurgery patients does not correlate with a reduction in pulmonary embolism rate or decreased mortality.
Journal of neurosurgery
OBJECTIVEDeep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a major focus of patient safety indicators and a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Many practices have employed lower-extremity screening ultrasonography in addition to chemoprophylaxis and the use of sequential compression devices in an effort to reduce poor outcomes. However, the role of screening in directly decreasing pulmonary emboli (PEs) and mortality is unclear. At the University of Mississippi Medical Center, a policy change provided the opportunity to compare independent groups: patients treated under a prior paradigm of weekly screening ultrasonography versus a post-policy change group in which weekly surveillance was no longer performed.METHODSA total of 2532 consecutive cases were reviewed, with a 4-month washout period around the time of the policy change. Criteria for inclusion were admission to the neurosurgical service or consultation for ≥ 72 hours and hospitalization for ≥ 72 hours. Patients with a known diagnosis of DVT on admission or previous inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement were excluded. The primary outcome examined was the rate of PE diagnosis, with secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality at discharge, DVT diagnosis rate, and IVC filter placement rate. A p value < 0.05 was considered significant.RESULTSA total of 485 patients met the criteria for the pre-policy change group and 504 for the post-policy change group. Data are presented as screening (pre-policy change) versus no screening (post-policy change). There was no difference in the PE rate (2% in both groups, p = 0.72) or all-cause mortality at discharge (7% vs 6%, p = 0.49). There were significant differences in the lower-extremity DVT rate (10% vs 3%, p < 0.01) or IVC filter rate (6% vs 2%, p < 0.01).CONCLUSIONSBased on these data, screening Doppler ultrasound examinations, in conjunction with standard-of-practice techniques to prevent thromboembolism, do not appear to confer a benefit to patients. While the screening group had significantly higher rates of DVT diagnosis and IVC filter placement, the screening, additional diagnoses, and subsequent interventions did not appear to improve patient outcomes. Ultimately, this makes DVT screening difficult to justify.
View details for PubMedID 31026839