Volume and nature of classical hematology outpatient consults within a national cancer institute-designated comprehensive cancer center

Abstract

Abstract Introduction A 2017 survey by the American Society of Hematology found a widespread perceived shortage of classical hematologists in the US, which was compounded by a low trainee interest in the field (<5%) (Masselink LE, Blood Adv 2019). Recently, we reported that among hematologist/oncologists at the 64 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers with clinical programs, only ~5% identify as classical hematologists, despite 15% of them including classic hematology (CH) patients in their practice (Go LT, Blood Adv, in press). However, there remains limited data on CH consult volumes at NCI-designated cancer centers (West CV, JCO Oncol Pract 2023). This study aimed to evaluate the volume and nature of CH outpatient consults at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (MCCC). Methods We reviewed electronic medical records to identify all completed outpatient consults in CH, malignant hematology (MH), and solid tumor oncology at MCCC in Rochester, Minnesota from January 1 to December 31, 2024. Consults were defined as either external or internal referrals for new patients seen in CH outpatient clinic. CH consults were further categorized by referral reasons and the type of physician (CH, MH, or fellow) performing the consultations. CH physicians were defined as those whose clinical practice primarily focuses on non-malignant hematologic conditions; one advanced practice provider (APP) was included in this group. Inpatient consults, electronic consults, and return visits were excluded. Results In 2024, a total of 17,153 outpatient consults were completed. Of these, 13.4% were CH, 30.5% were MH and 56.1% were solid tumor oncology. Among CH consults, the most common referral reasons were abnormal blood counts (68.3%), bleeding disorders (10.6%), thrombosis (11.8%), and other hematologic diagnoses (9.3%). Within abnormal blood counts, the leading indications were anemia (50.7%), thrombocytopenia (15.3%), leukopenia (11.0%), leukocytosis (9.1%), and pancytopenia (7.0%). Among bleeding disorders, the top reasons included suspected bleeding diathesis (49.4%), von Willebrand disease (24.5%), Hemophilia A (4.1%), Factor VII deficiency (3.7%), and platelet qualitative defect (3.4%). Thrombosis-related consults were most often for pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (43.2%), antiphospholipid syndrome (17.7%), thrombophilia (16.2%), portal vein thrombosis (4.1%), and splenic infarct (2.6%). The top ten referrals for a specific hematologic diagnosis were iron deficiency anemia (29.2%), pulmonary embolism or DVT (13.5%), immune thrombocytopenic purpura (10.3%), von Willebrand disease (6.9%), hemoglobinopathy (5.5%), antiphospholipid syndrome (5.5%), thrombophilia (5.1%), anemia of chronic kidney disease (2.4%), aplastic anemia (1.5%), and hereditary spherocytosis (1.4%). Of the 114 physicians at MCCC during the study period, 55 (48.2%) were medical oncologists, 54 (47.4%) primarily practiced MH, and only 5 (4.4%) were dedicated CH physicians. Despite comprising only 4.4% of the hematology/oncology workforce, CH physicians or fellows completed the majority (86.1%) of CH consults; MH physicians completed 13.8%. Conclusion CH consults represent a substantial portion of outpatient hematology referrals at MCCC, primarily for diagnostic evaluation of cytopenias or thrombotic/bleeding symptoms. However, a striking mismatch exists between CH physician representation (4.4%) and CH consult volume (13.4%). This imbalance has implications for quality, timeliness, and continuity of care for patients with non-malignant hematologic conditions. Our findings underscore the urgent need to expand recruitment and career development pathways in CH to address a huge clinical demand.