Charleston Breast Center

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to describe the process and cost of delivering a physical therapist–guided synchronous telehealth exercise program appropriate for older adults with functional limitations. Such programs may help alleviate some of the detrimental impacts of social distancing and quarantine on older adults at-risk of decline.MethodsData were derived from the feasibility arm of a parent study, which piloted the telehealth program for 36 sessions with 1 participant. The steps involved in each phase (ie, development, delivery) were documented, along with participant and program provider considerations for each step. Time-driven activity-based costing was used to track all costs over the course of the study. Costs were categorized as program development or delivery and estimated per session and per participant.ResultsA list of the steps and the participant and provider considerations involved in developing and delivering a synchronous telehealth exercise program for older adults with functional impairments was developed. Resources used, fixed and variable costs, per-session cost estimates, and total cost per person were reported. Two potential measures of the “value proposition” of this type of intervention were also reported. Per-session cost of $158 appeared to be a feasible business case, especially if the physical therapist to trained assistant personnel mix could be improved.ConclusionsThe findings provide insight into the process and costs of developing and delivering telehealth exercise programs for older adults with functional impairments. The information presented may provide a “blue print” for developing and implementing new telehealth programs or for transitioning in-person services to telehealth delivery during periods of social distancing and quarantine.ImpactAs movement experts, physical therapists are uniquely positioned to play an important role in the current COVID-19 pandemic and to help individuals who are at risk of functional decline during periods of social distancing and quarantine. Lessons learned from this study’s experience can provide guidance on the process and cost of developing and delivering a telehealth exercise program for older adults with functional impairments. The findings also can inform new telehealth programs, as well as assist in transitioning in-person care to a telehealth format in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

PurposeThe purpose of the NBRST study is to compare a multigene classifier to conventional immunohistochemistry (IHC)/fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) subtyping to predict chemosensitivity as defined by pathological complete response (pCR) or endocrine sensitivity as defined by partial response.MethodsThe study includes women with histologically proven breast cancer, who will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) or neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. BluePrint in combination with MammaPrint classifies patients into four molecular subgroups: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2, and Basal.ResultsA total of 426 patients had definitive surgery. Thirty-seven of 211 (18 %) IHC/FISH hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2− patients were reclassified by Blueprint as Basal (n = 35) or HER2 (n = 2). Fifty-three of 123 (43 %) IHC/FISH HER2+ patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 36) or Basal (n = 17). Four of 92 (4 %) IHC/FISH triple-negative (TN) patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 2) or HER2 (n = 2). NCT pCR rates were 2 % in Luminal A and 7 % Luminal B patients versus 10 % pCR in IHC/FISH HR+/HER2− patients. The NCT pCR rate was 53 % in BluePrint HER2 patients. This is significantly superior (p = 0.047) to the pCR rate in IHC/FISH HER2+ patients (38 %). The pCR rate of 36 of 75 IHC/FISH HER2+/HR+ patients reclassified as BPLuminal is 3 %. NCT pCR for BluePrint Basal patients was 49 of 140 (35 %), comparable to the 34 of 92 pCR rate (37 %) in IHC/FISH TN patients.ConclusionsBluePrint molecular subtyping reclassifies 22 % (94/426) of tumors, reassigning more responsive patients to the HER2 and Basal categories while reassigning less responsive patients to the Luminal category. These findings suggest that compared with IHC/FISH, BluePrint more accurately identifies patients likely to respond (or not respond) to NCT.