Remote expert review of oncology cases may help to address and improve gaps in evidence-based cancer care, while also providing measurable cost savings, according to findings presented in a poster at the 2026 ASCO Quality Care Symposium (Abstract 700).
“Last year at ASCO's Quality Care Symposium, we showed that remote expert recommendations can meaningfully bridge socioeconomic and geographic barriers in cancer care, particularly for patients in nonurban communities. This year's real‑world evidence takes that a step further,” said lead study author Debra Wong, MD, Vice President, Development and Integration, Clinical Strategy and Medical Director for AccessHope. “We're now seeing that treating oncologists are not only receiving expert guidance, they're implementing it in more than half of eligible cases, improving care quality and generating substantial cost savings. Our research reinforces a simple truth: When subspecialty expertise reaches every corner of the country, patients benefit, regardless of where they live.”
Background and Study Methods
AccessHope provides remote, asynchronous case reviews conducted by oncologists from National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer centers to the treating cancer care team. The case reviews provide opportunities to improve care in six clinical domains: anticancer therapy, diagnostics, imaging and surveillance, symptom management, lifestyle and behavioral, and palliative care.
The researchers sought to identify patterns of remote oncology expert care recommendations across a diverse population, assess the implementation in real-world clinical care, and evaluate the subsequent effects on the cost of care.
They conducted a retrospective analysis of claims data from 1,417 cases with completed adjudication through AccessHope. They analyzed prespecified outcome measures of recommended care change and adoption of any recommendation across the six clinical domains. Then they looked to claims-based per-case cost savings over a 12-month period.
Key Findings
Hematologic malignancies were the most common cases reviewed (28%).
At least one opportunity to improve care was identified in 81% of the cases across the six clinical domains, with the most common domain for recommended changes being anticancer therapy. More than half of these cases (51%) had claims evidence suggesting that at least some of the recommended changes were implemented, with changes in imaging or surveillance being the most commonly accepted.
The odds of a recommended care change following remote oncology expert review was higher for cases of patients in nonurban settings (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.85; P = .015), those with late-stage cancers (aOR = 1.63; P = .009), and females (aOR = 1.41; P = .016).
When recommended changes were suggested and adopted, the case resulted in a median savings of $18,636, with the largest median savings occurring due to recommended anticancer therapy changes ($60,759).
These findings validate prior population-based research from AccessHope showing that remote expert case review can identify and improve gaps in care and provide a greater view of the real-world impact of these remote reviews.
Going forward, the researchers are planning to assess trends in the adoption of recommended changes after remote expert case reviews across disease types and looking to the subsequent impact on clinical outcomes and health-care costs.
DISCLOSURES: For full disclosures of the study authors, visit asco.org.
