Search

Background There remains no tool to quantify the total value of comparative processes in health care. Hospital administrative data sets are emerging as valuable sources to evaluate performance. Thus, we use a framework to simultaneously assess multiple domains of value associated with an enhanced recovery initiative using national administrative data. Materials and methods Risk-stratified clinical pathways for patients undergoing pancreatic surgery were implemented in 2016 at our institution. We used a national administrative database to characterize changes in value associated with this initiative. Value metrics assessed included in-hospital mortality, complication rates, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rates, and institutional costs. We compared our performance with other hospitals both before and after implementation of the pathways. Metrics were graphed on radar charts to assess overall value. Results 22,660 cases were assessed. Comparing 75 cases at our institution and 5520 cases at all other hospitals before pathway implementation, mean in-hospital LOS was 9.6 versus 10.8 d, in-hospital mortality was 0.0% versus 1.9%, mean costs were $23,585 versus $21,387, 30-day readmission rates were 1.3% versus 7.4%, and complication rates were 8.0% versus 11.2%, respectively. Comparing 334 cases at our institution and 16,731 cases at all other hospitals after pathway implementation, mean in-hospital LOS was 7.7 versus 10.3 d, in-hospital mortality was 0.3% versus 1.6%, mean costs were $19,428 versus $22,032, 30-day readmission rates were 6.6% versus 7.5%, and complication rates were 6.3% versus 10.3%, respectively. Notably, LOS and institutional costs were reduced at our institution after implementation of the enhanced clinical care pathways. Our costs were higher than comparators before implementation, but lower than comparators after implementation. Conclusions Herein, we used an analytic framework and used national administrative data to assess the value of an enhanced care initiative as benchmarked with data from other hospitals. We thus illustrate how to identify and measure opportunities for targeted improvements in health care delivery. We also recognize the limitations of the use of administrative data in a comprehensive assessment of value in health care.

Highlights • PDSA methodology was used to implement a pancreas SBRT in an academic satellite network. • Oncologic outcomes were favorable with no serious adverse events. • This technical note provides groundwork for safe establishment of SBRT pancreas programs., Background With increasing interest in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for unresectable pancreatic cancer, quality improvement (QI) initiatives to develop integrated clinical workflows are crucial to ensure quality assurance (QA) when introducing this challenging technique into radiation practices. Materials/Methods: In 2017, we used the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) QI methodology to implement a new pancreas SBRT program in an integrated community radiation oncology satellite. A unified integrated information technology infrastructure was used to virtually integrate the planned workflow into the community radiation oncology satellite network (P – Plan/D – Do). This workflow included multiple prospective quality assurance (QA) measures including multidisciplinary evaluation, prospective scrutiny of radiation target delineation, prospective radiation plan evaluation, and monitoring of patient outcomes. Institutional review board approval was obtained to retrospectively study and report outcomes of patients treated in this program (S – Study). Results: There were 12 consecutive patients identified who were treated in this program from 2017 to 2020 with a median follow-up of 27 months. The median survival was 13 months, median local failure free survival was 12 months and median progression free survival was 6 months from SBRT. There were no acute or late Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects (CTCAE) version 5 toxicities ≥ Grade 3. Conclusion: We report the successful implementation of a community pancreas SBRT program involving multiple prospective QA measures, providing the groundwork to safely expand access to pancreas SBRT in our community satellite network (A – Act).

Background Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) presenting as bone‐predominant (BCUP) or lymph node‐only disease (LNCUP) represents two clinically distinct subsets of nonvisceral CUP. These present a diagnostic challenge with a large differential of putative primary cancers and defy the “one‐treatment‐fits‐all” approach. Materials and Methods We identified patients with BCUP (n = 29) and LNCUP (n = 63) using a prospectively collected CUP database and tumor registry of patients seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2001 to 2017. Clinicopathological characteristics, treatments, and outcomes were abstracted. A control group of non‐BCUP/LNCUP cases (n = 443) from the database was used for comparison. Kaplan‐Meier method was used to estimate overall survival and compared using log‐rank test. Results In this cohort, 64% and 60% patients had disseminated disease at diagnosis and 39% and 23% had Culine poor‐risk disease in BCUP and LNCUP, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) for BCUP was 14.5 months and for LNCUP was 32.6 months. For BCUP, gemcitabine plus platinum was the most common initial chemotherapy (54%). For LNCUP, carboplatin plus paclitaxel was the most common initial chemotherapy (38%). Radiation was given to 74% of patients with BCUP and 37% of those with LNCUP. On multivariate analysis, poor‐risk Culine group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76; p < .001) and high neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (HR, 2.38, p < .001) were associated with worse OS. Conclusion BCUP and LNCUP are rare subsets within CUP with varying prognosis. Poor‐risk Culine group and high neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio are associated with poor survival. Select patients with limited metastases can have long‐term survival with aggressive multimodality treatment. Careful clinicopathological review can facilitate chances of site‐directed therapy. Implications for Practice Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) rarely presents as bone‐predominant (BCUP) or lymph node‐only (LNCUP) disease. This article describes a cohort of each and compares with a larger CUP cohort. Patients with BCUP have unique issues with fractures and pain, often receiving radiation. Overall survival of 14.5 months was similar to a larger CUP comparison cohort. Patients with LNCUP had improved overall survival at 32.6 months, with longer survival in patients without disseminated disease. Culine poor‐risk group and neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio were associated with worse overall survival. Tips regarding diagnosis and management of these rare malignant subsets are provided., Considering the limited understanding of bone‐predominant or lymph‐node‐only cancers of unknown primary, this article describes the clinical features and outcome data of these two unique conditions.

Background Sarcomatoid carcinoma of unknown primary (SCUP) is a rare entity of either poorly differentiated carcinoma with sarcoma-like differentiation or a true mixed lineage neoplasm. Limited data regarding clinicopathological profile and management exists. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the MD Anderson Cancer of Unknown Primary database and tumor registry to identify 48 SCUP patients between 2001 and 2017. Patient characteristics, pathology, molecular diagnostics, treatments, and outcomes were obtained. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and compared using log rank test. Results Median age at diagnosis was 59 years (range 27–86). Majority of patients were female (58%) and presented with ≥3 metastatic sites (52%), commonly lymph node (50%), bone (42%), lung (27%), and liver (21%). First line treatment included chemotherapy (35%), surgery (27%), and radiation (24%). Gemcitabine and docetaxel (18%) was the most common chemotherapy regimen. Median OS for entire cohort was 11 months (95% CI: 5.6 to 16.4). Poor performance status (PS), > 1 metastatic site, elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were significantly associated with worse OS on univariate analyses. On multivariate analyses, poor PS (HR 8.7; 95%CI: 3.0–25.0; p p = 0.011) emerged as independent prognostic factors for OS. Conclusions SCUP is a rare presentation with an aggressive clinical course and limited survival. Diagnosis is difficult to make and requires careful review and synthesis of histology, immunohistochemistry, and molecular diagnostics. Chemotherapy resistance remains a challenge. Early mutational profiling is warranted, and clinical trial participation should be encouraged for this subset.

Purpose: Prognostic uncertainty is a major challenge for cancer of unknown primary (CUP). Current models limit a meaningful patient-provider dialogue. We aimed to establish a nomogram for predicting overall survival (OS) in CUP based on robust clinicopathologic prognostic factors. Experimental Design: We evaluated 521 patients with CUP at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC; Houston, TX; 2012–2016). Baseline variables were analyzed using Cox regression and nomogram developed using significant predictors. Predictive accuracy and discriminatory performance were assessed by calibration curves, concordance probability estimate (CPE ± SE), and concordance statistic (C-index). The model was subjected to bootstrapping and multi-institutional external validations using two independent CUP cohorts: V1 [MDACC (2017), N = 103] and V2 (BC Cancer, Vancouver, Canada and Sarah Cannon Cancer Center/Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, TN; N = 302). Results: Baseline characteristics of entire cohort (N = 926) included: median age (63 years), women (51%), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0–1 (64%), adenocarcinomas (52%), ≥3 sites of metastases (30%), and median follow-up duration and OS of 40.1 and 14.7 months, respectively. Five independent prognostic factors were identified: gender, ECOG PS, histology, number of metastatic sites, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio. The resulting model predicted OS with CPE of 0.69 [SE: ± 0.01; C-index: 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.68–0.74)] outperforming Culine/Seve prognostic models (CPE: 0.59 ± 0.01). CPE for external validation cohorts V1 and V2 were 0.67 (± 0.02) and 0.70 (± 0.01), respectively. Calibration curves for 1-year OS showed strong agreement between nomogram prediction and actual observations in all cohorts. Conclusions: Our user-friendly CUP nomogram integrating commonly available baseline factors provides robust personalized prognostication which can aid clinical decision making and selection/stratification for clinical trials.

We describe a novel pathology finding in a 40-year-old woman without a history of breast carcinoma who presented with axillary swelling. The patient underwent core needle biopsy followed by axillary dissection 6 months later. The core biopsy of the axillary mass was initially considered to be a carcinoma of unknown primary, and as the biopsy specimen showed a pleomorphic malignant neoplasm that was GATA3 positive, the working diagnosis became metastatic breast carcinoma. The patient underwent an axillary dissection and was referred to our center for continuation of care. In addition to being positive for GATA3, the neoplasm was positive for CD21, CD23 and CD35, and negative for keratins, EMA, mammaglobin GCDFP-15, CD138, S-100 protein and other markers. The diagnosis of follicular dendritic cell sarcoma was established. We believe it is important to be aware that follicular dendritic cell sarcoma can be positive for GATA3, to avoid misdiagnosis as a metastatic neoplasm and an exhaustive workup for a primary site.

Background Clinical trials are an important therapeutic option for patients with cancer. Although financial burden in cancer treatment is well documented, the financial burden associated with clinical trials is not well understood. Patients and Methods We conducted a survey regarding economic burden and financial toxicity in patients with cancer enrolled in phase I clinical trials for >1 month. Financial toxicity score was assessed using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity survey. Patients also reported monthly out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Results Two hundred and thirteen patients completed the survey (72% non-Hispanic White; 45% with annual income ≤$60,000; 50% lived >300 miles from the clinic; 37% required air travel). Forty-eight percent of patients had monthly OOP costs of at least $1,000. Fifty-five percent and 64% of patients reported unanticipated medical and nonmedical expenses, respectively. Worse financial toxicity was associated with yearly household income 100 miles away from the clinical trial hospital (OR: 2.3; p = .043). Non-White or Hispanic patients (OR: 2.5; p = .011) and patients who were unemployed or not working outside the home (OR: 2.5; p = .016) were more likely to report high unanticipated medical costs. Conclusion Among patients with cancer participating in clinical trials, economic burden is high, and most of patients’ OOP costs were nonmedical costs. Financial toxicity is disproportionally higher in patients with lower income and those who travel farther, and unexpected medical costs were more common among non-White or Hispanic patients. OOP costs can be substantial and are often unexpected for patients. Implications for Practice The financial burden of cancer treatment is well documented, but there are limited data regarding the financial burden associated with cancer clinical trials. This study surveyed 213 patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials. Monthly out-of-pocket costs were at least $1000 for nearly half of patients. Worse financial toxicity was associated with income

e18383 Background: Clinical trials are an important therapeutic option for cancer patients. Although financial burden in cancer treatment is well-described, the financial burden associated with clinical trials is not well understood, especially for patients with lower socioeconomic status. Methods: We conducted a survey regarding economic burden and financial toxicity among cancer patients on Phase I clinical trials for at least 1 month. Financial Toxicity Score (FTS) was assessed using the validated COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) survey (scale 0-44, lower scores indicating worse financial toxicity). Patients also reported monthly out of pocket (OOP) medical and non-medical expenses. Results: Of 147 consecutive patients approached, 105 agreed to participate; median age = 60y; 62% female; 49% had annual income < $60K; 50% lived < 300 miles from the clinic; 34% required air travel; 41% had Medicare, 50% had employer sponsored insurance. Median FTS = 20, with interquartile range of 12.5. Median monthly OOP costs for non-medical expenses was $985, and for medical expenses was $475. Median total monthly OOP costs was $1695. Compared to patients in the highest quartile of FTS, a significantly lower % of patients in the lowest (worst) quartile of FTS had incomes > $60K (27% v. 77%, P < 0.001), and a significantly higher % were unemployed or not working outside the home (54% v. 12%, P = 0.001), and incurred higher than expected medical (39% vs. 12%, P = 0.025) and non-medical (64% vs. 15%, P = 0.003) expenses. Compared with patients for whom medical costs were not much higher than expected, a significantly higher % of patients with medical costs much higher than expected were non-White (77% v. 46%, P = 0.004) and unemployed/not working outside the home (46% v. 19%, P = 0.009). Conclusions: Among cancer patients participating on clinical trials, economic burden is high and financial toxicity is disproportionally higher in patients with lower income. OOP costs can be substantial and are often unexpected for patients.