Chemotherapy-related hospitalization among community cancer center patients

ReCAP: Hospitalizations in Older Adults With Advanced Cancer: The Role of Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Hospital readmissions are often cited as a marker of poor quality of care. Limited data suggest some readmissions may be preventable depending upon definitions and available outpatient support.

METHODS

General criteria to define preventable and not preventable admissions were developed before data collection began. The records of sequential nonsurgical oncology readmissions were reviewed independently by two reviewers. When the reviewers disagreed about assigning admissions as preventable or not preventable, a third reviewer was the tie breaker. The reasons for assigning admissions as preventable or not preventable were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventy-two readmissions occurring among 69 patients were analyzed. The first two reviewers agreed that 18 (25%) of 72 were preventable and that 29 (40%) of 72 were not. A third reviewer found four of the split 25 cases to be preventable; therefore, the consensus preventability rate was 22 (31%) of 72. The most common causes of preventability were overwhelming symptoms in patients who qualified for hospice but were not participating in hospice and insufficient communication between patients and the care team about symptom burden. The most common reason for assignment of a not preventable admission was a high symptom burden among patients without strong indications for hospice or for whom aggressive outpatient management was inadequate. The median survival after readmission was 72 days.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of oncology readmissions could be prevented with better anticipation of symptoms in high-risk ambulatory patients and enhanced communication about symptom burden between patients and physicians before an escalation that leads to an emergency department visit. Managing symptoms in patients who are appropriate for hospice is challenging. Readmission is a marker of poor prognosis.

Free flap reconstruction for patients with bisphosphonate related osteonecrosis of the jaws after mandibulectomy

INTRODUCTION

Bisphosphonate related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ) is a recognised unwanted effect of these drugs which affect bone remodelling. Treatment options range from conservative approaches through local bone debridement to free flap reconstruction following segmental resection. This current study aims to evaluate clinical outcomes after microvascular tissue transfer in BRONJ patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 212 BRONJ patients were included in this prospective investigation. Those who met defined inclusion criteria and received a surgical intervention were reviewed regularly during a follow-up period of at least 6 months.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (11.8%) received free flap reconstructions. A mean of 2.12 local debridements were performed before microvascular tissue transfer. A mean of 29.25% showed BRONJ recurrence after minimalist surgical intervention, compared to significantly less in patients after resection and free flap reconstruction. The postoperative fistula rate was significantly higher in patients, who received mucoperiosteal flaps.

DISCUSSION

This study underlines the importance and effectiveness radical resection and free flap reconstruction in the complex and challenging surgical treatment of BRONJ patients in a large patient cohort study. Nevertheless, all patients received radical intervention after failure of minimally invasive treatment. An individualized analysis and planning is necessary to identify appropriate patients for free flap reconstructions.

Use of Bevacizumab in Community Settings: Toxicity Profile and Risk of Hospitalization in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Little is known regarding toxicities and hospitalizations in community-based settings for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received commonly prescribed carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) or carboplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab (CPB) chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with stages IIIB-IV NSCLC age ≥ 21 years diagnosed between 2005 and 2010 who received first-line CP or CPB were identified at four health maintenance organizations (N = 1,109). Using patient and tumor characteristics and hospital and ambulatory encounters from automated data in the 180 days after chemotherapy initiation, the association between CP and CPB and toxicities and hospitalizations were evaluated with χ(2) tests and propensity score-adjusted regression models.

RESULTS

Patients who received CPB were significantly younger and had significantly more bleeding, proteinuria, and GI perforation events (all P < .05). For these patients, the unadjusted odds ratio associated with the likelihood of having a hospitalization was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.67). As shown by multivariable and propensity score-adjusted models, patients who received CPB were less likely to have been hospitalized (odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.71) and had fewer total hospitalizations (rate ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.82) and hospital days (rate ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.60) than patients who received CP.

CONCLUSION

Consistent with earlier randomized clinical trials, significantly more toxicity events were identified in patients treated with CPB. However, both unadjusted and adjusted models showed that patients who received CPB were less likely than patients who received CP to experience a hospital-related event after the initiation of chemotherapy. Findings here confirm the need for adherence to clinical recommendations for judicious use of CPB, but provide reassurance regarding the relative risk for hospitalizations.

Population-Based Assessment of Emergency Room Visits and Hospitalizations Among Women Receiving Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Early Breast Cancer

The authors conclude that emergency room visits and hospitalization are common among patients with early breast cancer receiving chemotherapy and significantly higher than among controls.

Does value mean quality? The payer's perspective

The author concludes that quality cancer care needs to be high-value care, and it is up to the clinicians who are actually providing cancer care to determine how best to achieve the desired outcomes for individual patients.

Identification of potentially avoidable hospitalizations in patients with GI cancer

PURPOSE

To identify and characterize potentially avoidable hospitalizations in patients with GI malignancies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We compiled a retrospective series of sequential hospital admissions in patients with GI cancer. Patients were admitted to an inpatient medical oncology or palliative care service between December 2011 and July 2012. Practicing oncology clinicians used a consensus-driven medical record review process to categorize each hospitalization as "potentially avoidable" or "not avoidable." Patient demographic and clinical data were abstracted, and quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed to identify patient characteristics and outcomes associated with potentially avoidable hospitalizations.

RESULTS

We evaluated 201 hospitalizations in 154 unique patients. The median age was 62 years, and colorectal cancer was the most common diagnosis (32%). The majority of hospitalized patients had metastatic cancer (81%). In all, 53% of hospitalizations were attributable to cancer symptoms, and 28% were attributable to complications of cancer treatment. Medical oncologists identified 39 hospitalizations (19%) as potentially avoidable. Hospitalizations were more likely to be categorized as potentially avoidable for patients with the following characteristics: age ≥ 70 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.63; 95% CI, 1.15 to 6.02), receipt of an oncologist's advice to consider hospice (OR, 6.09; 95% CI, 2.54 to 14.58), or receipt of three or more lines of chemotherapy (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.01 to 7.08). Ninety-day mortality was higher after avoidable hospitalizations compared with hospitalizations that were not avoidable (OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.8 to 22.3).

CONCLUSION

Potentially avoidable hospitalizations are common in patients with advanced GI cancer. The majority of potentially avoidable hospitalizations occurred in patients with advanced treatment-refractory cancers near the end of life.

Multimorbidity: an issue of growing importance for oncologists

As our population ages, more are afflicted with chronic conditions. Likewise, as more patients survive the diagnosis of cancer, they are likely to experience the sequelae of cancer treatment in the context of other coexisting medical conditions. Oncologists can expect that more than half of the patients they see who are older than 65 years will have at least one other meaningful chronic condition that may affect their treatment regimen. Multimorbidity can increase both treatment and illness burden and influence the benefit and burden of cancer treatment. Recognition of the impact of multiple co-occurring conditions on a patient's cancer care plan and development of strategies to address the challenges associated with multimorbidity will enable oncologists to provide higher quality, patient-centered care. Increased efforts should be focused on educating clinical providers to practice the collaborative, team-based care required by these patients. Finally, research is desperately needed to guide oncologists and other providers in the unique management issues presented by patients with multimorbidity.

Unplanned presentations of cancer outpatients: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

As a result of the growing cancer incidence and the increasing trend towards chemotherapy treatment, a higher number of cancer outpatients ask for unplanned visits. This study aimed to describe the nature and magnitude of this phenomenon and to identify risk factors for repeated unplanned presentations and hospital admission.

METHODS

Unplanned consultations (2,811) of 1,431 cancer patients who accessed our acute oncology clinic over a 2-year period were reviewed. Demographics, clinical variables and reason(s) for presentation were all recorded. Recurrent event survival analysis was used to evaluate the relation of potential predictors to the two outcome events repeated presentations and hospitalization. A stratified Cox proportional hazard model was used.

RESULTS

Of 1,431 patients, 625 (43 %) received chemotherapy during the 90 days before the unplanned visit. Pain (27.7 %), fatigue (17.6 %), dyspnoea (13.8 %), fever (11.5 %) and gastrointestinal problems (31 %) were reported frequently. The time interval since the last chemotherapy was significantly related to the rate of repeated presentation. Two hundred and nine patients (7 %) were hospitalized after an unplanned presentation. Number of symptoms and selected toxicities, along with distance from the hospital, were all predictors for hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of unscheduled presentations of cancer outpatients is becoming crucial to avoid inappropriate selection for hospital admission and interferences with the ordinary work plan, improving quality of oncology services.