BACKGROUND

The incidence of adenocarcinoma, the most common type of small intestine cancer, is increasing. Prior studies found a 5-year survival of about 25% even with surgical resection and lymph node dissection. A recent study found higher survival in insured versus uninsured patients, yet differential outcomes and treatments between private insurance and Medicare, along with Medicaid and no insurance, are unknown. This study aims to determine differential survival and treatment of patients with small intestine adenocarcinoma based on insurance status.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients diagnosed with small intestine adenocarcinoma from 2004-2019 using the histology code 8140 as assigned by the Commission on Cancer Accreditation program. Kaplan-Meier, Chi-Square, ANOVA, and Cox Proportional Hazards tests were performed. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS version 28 and statistical significance was set at α=0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 20,933 patients included, 7,629 (32.4%) had private insurance and 13,075 (55.5%) had Medicare. Patients with private insurance had a longer median survival (28.8 months) than patients with Medicare, Medicaid, and no insurance (p<.001), while patients with Medicare had a shorter median survival (12.2 months) than other insurance statuses (p<.001). No median survival difference existed between those with Medicaid (18.9 months) and no insurance (18.0 months) (p=.882). After controlling for age, co-morbidity score, grade, tumor size, low-income, academic facility, surgery of primary site, palliative care, and days between diagnosis and treatment, private insurance was associated with an independent decrease in hazard (HR=.874; p<.001). Patients with private insurance received more surgery (67.8%) than those with Medicaid (58.6%), no insurance (54.4%), and Medicare (52.9%) (p<.001). Patients with Medicare received more adjuvant radiation, but patients with private insurance received more adjuvant chemoradiation (p<.001). While patients with Medicare presented with greater co-morbidities and age, patients with private insurance presented with fewer co-morbidities, smaller sized tumors, and shorter time between diagnosis and treatment (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Since patients with private insurance received the most surgery and displayed the highest overall survival, while patients with Medicare displayed the lowest survival, future research should explore ways to alleviate this disparity in surgical resections.

BACKGROUND

The incidence of adenocarcinoma, the most common type of small intestine cancer, is increasing. Prior studies found a 5-year survival of about 25% even with surgical resection and lymph node dissection. A recent study found higher survival in insured versus uninsured patients, yet differential outcomes and treatments between private insurance and Medicare, along with Medicaid and no insurance, are unknown. This study aims to determine differential survival and treatment of patients with small intestine adenocarcinoma based on insurance status.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients diagnosed with small intestine adenocarcinoma from 2004-2019 using the histology code 8140 as assigned by the Commission on Cancer Accreditation program. Kaplan-Meier, Chi-Square, ANOVA, and Cox Proportional Hazards tests were performed. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS version 28 and statistical significance was set at α=0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 20,933 patients included, 7,629 (32.4%) had private insurance and 13,075 (55.5%) had Medicare. Patients with private insurance had a longer median survival (28.8 months) than patients with Medicare, Medicaid, and no insurance (p<.001), while patients with Medicare had a shorter median survival (12.2 months) than other insurance statuses (p<.001). No median survival difference existed between those with Medicaid (18.9 months) and no insurance (18.0 months) (p=.882). After controlling for age, co-morbidity score, grade, tumor size, low-income, academic facility, surgery of primary site, palliative care, and days between diagnosis and treatment, private insurance was associated with an independent decrease in hazard (HR=.874; p<.001). Patients with private insurance received more surgery (67.8%) than those with Medicaid (58.6%), no insurance (54.4%), and Medicare (52.9%) (p<.001). Patients with Medicare received more adjuvant radiation, but patients with private insurance received more adjuvant chemoradiation (p<.001). While patients with Medicare presented with greater co-morbidities and age, patients with private insurance presented with fewer co-morbidities, smaller sized tumors, and shorter time between diagnosis and treatment (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Since patients with private insurance received the most surgery and displayed the highest overall survival, while patients with Medicare displayed the lowest survival, future research should explore ways to alleviate this disparity in surgical resections.

BACKGROUND

The incidence of adenocarcinoma, the most common type of small intestine cancer, is increasing. Prior studies found a 5-year survival of about 25% even with surgical resection and lymph node dissection. A recent study found higher survival in insured versus uninsured patients, yet differential outcomes and treatments between private insurance and Medicare, along with Medicaid and no insurance, are unknown. This study aims to determine differential survival and treatment of patients with small intestine adenocarcinoma based on insurance status.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients diagnosed with small intestine adenocarcinoma from 2004-2019 using the histology code 8140 as assigned by the Commission on Cancer Accreditation program. Kaplan-Meier, Chi-Square, ANOVA, and Cox Proportional Hazards tests were performed. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS version 28 and statistical significance was set at α=0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 20,933 patients included, 7,629 (32.4%) had private insurance and 13,075 (55.5%) had Medicare. Patients with private insurance had a longer median survival (28.8 months) than patients with Medicare, Medicaid, and no insurance (p<.001), while patients with Medicare had a shorter median survival (12.2 months) than other insurance statuses (p<.001). No median survival difference existed between those with Medicaid (18.9 months) and no insurance (18.0 months) (p=.882). After controlling for age, co-morbidity score, grade, tumor size, low-income, academic facility, surgery of primary site, palliative care, and days between diagnosis and treatment, private insurance was associated with an independent decrease in hazard (HR=.874; p<.001). Patients with private insurance received more surgery (67.8%) than those with Medicaid (58.6%), no insurance (54.4%), and Medicare (52.9%) (p<.001). Patients with Medicare received more adjuvant radiation, but patients with private insurance received more adjuvant chemoradiation (p<.001). While patients with Medicare presented with greater co-morbidities and age, patients with private insurance presented with fewer co-morbidities, smaller sized tumors, and shorter time between diagnosis and treatment (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Since patients with private insurance received the most surgery and displayed the highest overall survival, while patients with Medicare displayed the lowest survival, future research should explore ways to alleviate this disparity in surgical resections.

INTRODUCTION

Gemcitabine is a part of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines as salvage therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, but its role in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) remains unclear. We describe a case of relapsed CLL showing complete response while on gemcitabine for another primary malignancy, suggesting a potential curative role of gemcitabine for CLL.

CASE REPORT

A 78-year-old male with relapsed CD38+ CLL with del11q on ibrutinib with partial response, presented with gross hematuria for one week. Of note, he was diagnosed with BRCA-negative Stage Ib pancreatic adenocarcinoma within the previous year, treated with surgery and adjuvant capecitabine-gemcitabine. Physical examination was unremarkable and bloodwork showed a white cell count of 32,000 cells/ mm3 with 1.5% lymphocytes, hemoglobin 9.5 g/dL, and platelets 866,000 cells/mm3. Hematuria remained persistent despite frequent bladder irrigations but resolved within a week of stopping ibrutinib. Eight months later, his white cell count is 6,600 cells/mm3, with 16% lymphocytes, hemoglobin 10.2 g/dL, platelets 519,000/m3, and CT scans show no pathological lymphadenopathy. A recent flow cytometry done for academic purposes showed no clonal B cells.

DISCUSSION

Relapsed CLL has a poor prognosis with no curative treatment. Gemcitabine is a part of NCCN guidelines for relapse/refractory B-cell lymphomas but is not included in guidelines for CLL. A study by Jamie et al in 2001 suggested the pre-clinical effectiveness of gemcitabine for relapsed/refractory CLL and phase II trials conducted in 2005 and 2012 on combination chemotherapy including gemcitabine have shown overall CLL response rates of 50-65%. The resolution of B-cell clonality and improvement in biochemical markers after treatment with gemcitabine for an alternate primary malignancy suggested that gemcitabine played a potential curative role in our patient. Further prospective studies are needed to explore this avenue for the role of gemcitabine as a salvage as well as potentially curative therapy for relapsed CLL with variable cytogenetics and treatment histories.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine is not part of NCCN guidelines for CLL currently but it is a reasonable treatment option for relapsed/refractory CLL. Further studies are needed to explore its potential curative role for relapsed CLL, and update existing guidelines.

INTRODUCTION

Gemcitabine is a part of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines as salvage therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, but its role in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) remains unclear. We describe a case of relapsed CLL showing complete response while on gemcitabine for another primary malignancy, suggesting a potential curative role of gemcitabine for CLL.

CASE REPORT

A 78-year-old male with relapsed CD38+ CLL with del11q on ibrutinib with partial response, presented with gross hematuria for one week. Of note, he was diagnosed with BRCA-negative Stage Ib pancreatic adenocarcinoma within the previous year, treated with surgery and adjuvant capecitabine-gemcitabine. Physical examination was unremarkable and bloodwork showed a white cell count of 32,000 cells/ mm3 with 1.5% lymphocytes, hemoglobin 9.5 g/dL, and platelets 866,000 cells/mm3. Hematuria remained persistent despite frequent bladder irrigations but resolved within a week of stopping ibrutinib. Eight months later, his white cell count is 6,600 cells/mm3, with 16% lymphocytes, hemoglobin 10.2 g/dL, platelets 519,000/m3, and CT scans show no pathological lymphadenopathy. A recent flow cytometry done for academic purposes showed no clonal B cells.

DISCUSSION

Relapsed CLL has a poor prognosis with no curative treatment. Gemcitabine is a part of NCCN guidelines for relapse/refractory B-cell lymphomas but is not included in guidelines for CLL. A study by Jamie et al in 2001 suggested the pre-clinical effectiveness of gemcitabine for relapsed/refractory CLL and phase II trials conducted in 2005 and 2012 on combination chemotherapy including gemcitabine have shown overall CLL response rates of 50-65%. The resolution of B-cell clonality and improvement in biochemical markers after treatment with gemcitabine for an alternate primary malignancy suggested that gemcitabine played a potential curative role in our patient. Further prospective studies are needed to explore this avenue for the role of gemcitabine as a salvage as well as potentially curative therapy for relapsed CLL with variable cytogenetics and treatment histories.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine is not part of NCCN guidelines for CLL currently but it is a reasonable treatment option for relapsed/refractory CLL. Further studies are needed to explore its potential curative role for relapsed CLL, and update existing guidelines.

INTRODUCTION

Gemcitabine is a part of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines as salvage therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, but its role in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) remains unclear. We describe a case of relapsed CLL showing complete response while on gemcitabine for another primary malignancy, suggesting a potential curative role of gemcitabine for CLL.

CASE REPORT

A 78-year-old male with relapsed CD38+ CLL with del11q on ibrutinib with partial response, presented with gross hematuria for one week. Of note, he was diagnosed with BRCA-negative Stage Ib pancreatic adenocarcinoma within the previous year, treated with surgery and adjuvant capecitabine-gemcitabine. Physical examination was unremarkable and bloodwork showed a white cell count of 32,000 cells/ mm3 with 1.5% lymphocytes, hemoglobin 9.5 g/dL, and platelets 866,000 cells/mm3. Hematuria remained persistent despite frequent bladder irrigations but resolved within a week of stopping ibrutinib. Eight months later, his white cell count is 6,600 cells/mm3, with 16% lymphocytes, hemoglobin 10.2 g/dL, platelets 519,000/m3, and CT scans show no pathological lymphadenopathy. A recent flow cytometry done for academic purposes showed no clonal B cells.

DISCUSSION

Relapsed CLL has a poor prognosis with no curative treatment. Gemcitabine is a part of NCCN guidelines for relapse/refractory B-cell lymphomas but is not included in guidelines for CLL. A study by Jamie et al in 2001 suggested the pre-clinical effectiveness of gemcitabine for relapsed/refractory CLL and phase II trials conducted in 2005 and 2012 on combination chemotherapy including gemcitabine have shown overall CLL response rates of 50-65%. The resolution of B-cell clonality and improvement in biochemical markers after treatment with gemcitabine for an alternate primary malignancy suggested that gemcitabine played a potential curative role in our patient. Further prospective studies are needed to explore this avenue for the role of gemcitabine as a salvage as well as potentially curative therapy for relapsed CLL with variable cytogenetics and treatment histories.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine is not part of NCCN guidelines for CLL currently but it is a reasonable treatment option for relapsed/refractory CLL. Further studies are needed to explore its potential curative role for relapsed CLL, and update existing guidelines.

BACKGROUND

The Pharmacogenomic Testing for Veterans (PHASER) program provides preemptive pharmacogenomic testing for Veterans nationally. Program implementation at the Madison VA began in the hematology and oncology (hem/onc) clinics. In these clinics, PHASER test results are reviewed by the hem/onc clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) who provides recommendations regarding therapy via an electronic health record note. The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to assess the impact of the CPP on medication management informed by pharmacogenomics.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was completed for all Veterans enrolled in hem/onc services and offered PHASER testing between April 1, 2022 and November 1, 2022. The number and type of interventions recommended by the hem/onc CPP, acceptance of recommended interventions, and hem/onc CPP time spent were collected for all patients who accepted and completed PHASER testing. Interventions were categorized and descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.

RESULTS

Of the 98 patients reviewed by the CPP, 75 (77%) were prescribed a medication with potential pharmacogenomic implications. At least one actionable recommendation for medication therapy adjustment was identified for 40 (53%) of those patients based on their pharmacogenomic test results. The CPP spent an average of 12 minutes per patient review (range 5 to 30 minutes) and 100% of CPP recommendations were accepted.

CONCLUSIONS

The CPP efficiently reviewed pharmacogenomic test results and made meaningful recommendations for medication therapy adjustments. CPP recommendations were highly accepted in the hem/onc setting.

BACKGROUND

The Pharmacogenomic Testing for Veterans (PHASER) program provides preemptive pharmacogenomic testing for Veterans nationally. Program implementation at the Madison VA began in the hematology and oncology (hem/onc) clinics. In these clinics, PHASER test results are reviewed by the hem/onc clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) who provides recommendations regarding therapy via an electronic health record note. The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to assess the impact of the CPP on medication management informed by pharmacogenomics.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was completed for all Veterans enrolled in hem/onc services and offered PHASER testing between April 1, 2022 and November 1, 2022. The number and type of interventions recommended by the hem/onc CPP, acceptance of recommended interventions, and hem/onc CPP time spent were collected for all patients who accepted and completed PHASER testing. Interventions were categorized and descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.

RESULTS

Of the 98 patients reviewed by the CPP, 75 (77%) were prescribed a medication with potential pharmacogenomic implications. At least one actionable recommendation for medication therapy adjustment was identified for 40 (53%) of those patients based on their pharmacogenomic test results. The CPP spent an average of 12 minutes per patient review (range 5 to 30 minutes) and 100% of CPP recommendations were accepted.

CONCLUSIONS

The CPP efficiently reviewed pharmacogenomic test results and made meaningful recommendations for medication therapy adjustments. CPP recommendations were highly accepted in the hem/onc setting.

BACKGROUND

The Pharmacogenomic Testing for Veterans (PHASER) program provides preemptive pharmacogenomic testing for Veterans nationally. Program implementation at the Madison VA began in the hematology and oncology (hem/onc) clinics. In these clinics, PHASER test results are reviewed by the hem/onc clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) who provides recommendations regarding therapy via an electronic health record note. The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to assess the impact of the CPP on medication management informed by pharmacogenomics.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was completed for all Veterans enrolled in hem/onc services and offered PHASER testing between April 1, 2022 and November 1, 2022. The number and type of interventions recommended by the hem/onc CPP, acceptance of recommended interventions, and hem/onc CPP time spent were collected for all patients who accepted and completed PHASER testing. Interventions were categorized and descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.

RESULTS

Of the 98 patients reviewed by the CPP, 75 (77%) were prescribed a medication with potential pharmacogenomic implications. At least one actionable recommendation for medication therapy adjustment was identified for 40 (53%) of those patients based on their pharmacogenomic test results. The CPP spent an average of 12 minutes per patient review (range 5 to 30 minutes) and 100% of CPP recommendations were accepted.

CONCLUSIONS

The CPP efficiently reviewed pharmacogenomic test results and made meaningful recommendations for medication therapy adjustments. CPP recommendations were highly accepted in the hem/onc setting.

BACKGROUND

The Breast and Gynecologic System of Excellence (BGSOE) program has developed a workflow support tool using health information technology to assist clinicians, coordinators and stakeholders in identifying, tracking and supporting Veterans with breast and gynecological cancers. This tool was designed and implemented through a novel process that involved clarifying program aims, defining workflows in process delivery diagrams, and identifying data, analytic products, and user needs. To determine the optimal tool for the program, a comparative usability evaluation was conducted, comparing the new workflow support tool with a previous tool that shared identical aims but utilized a different approach.

METHODS

Usability evaluation employed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and measured acceptance using modified items from a validated instrument used in a national survey of electronic health records. Task efficiency was evaluated based on time taken and the number of clicks required to complete tasks.

RESULTS

Eight healthcare professionals with experience in the BGSOE program or similar programs in the VA participated in the usability evaluation. This group comprised physicians (38%), clinical pharmacist (25%), health care coordinators (25%), and registered nurse (12%). The workflow support tool achieved an impressive SUS score of 89.06, with acceptance scores of 93% (positive statements) and 6% (negative statements), outperforming the standard tool, which scored score of 57.5 on the SUS and had acceptance scores of 53% (positive statements) and 50% (negative statements). In the comparative ranking, 100% of the users preferred the workflow support tool, citing its userfriendliness, intuitiveness, and ease of use. On average, users completed all tasks using the workflow support tool in 8 minutes with 31 clicks, while the standard tool required 18 minutes and 124 clicks.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of a workflow support tool in the design of health information technology interventions leads to improved usability, efficiency, and adoption. Based on the positive results from the usability evaluation, the BGSOE program has chosen to adopt the workflow support tool as its preferred health information technology solution.

BACKGROUND

The Breast and Gynecologic System of Excellence (BGSOE) program has developed a workflow support tool using health information technology to assist clinicians, coordinators and stakeholders in identifying, tracking and supporting Veterans with breast and gynecological cancers. This tool was designed and implemented through a novel process that involved clarifying program aims, defining workflows in process delivery diagrams, and identifying data, analytic products, and user needs. To determine the optimal tool for the program, a comparative usability evaluation was conducted, comparing the new workflow support tool with a previous tool that shared identical aims but utilized a different approach.

METHODS

Usability evaluation employed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and measured acceptance using modified items from a validated instrument used in a national survey of electronic health records. Task efficiency was evaluated based on time taken and the number of clicks required to complete tasks.

RESULTS

Eight healthcare professionals with experience in the BGSOE program or similar programs in the VA participated in the usability evaluation. This group comprised physicians (38%), clinical pharmacist (25%), health care coordinators (25%), and registered nurse (12%). The workflow support tool achieved an impressive SUS score of 89.06, with acceptance scores of 93% (positive statements) and 6% (negative statements), outperforming the standard tool, which scored score of 57.5 on the SUS and had acceptance scores of 53% (positive statements) and 50% (negative statements). In the comparative ranking, 100% of the users preferred the workflow support tool, citing its userfriendliness, intuitiveness, and ease of use. On average, users completed all tasks using the workflow support tool in 8 minutes with 31 clicks, while the standard tool required 18 minutes and 124 clicks.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of a workflow support tool in the design of health information technology interventions leads to improved usability, efficiency, and adoption. Based on the positive results from the usability evaluation, the BGSOE program has chosen to adopt the workflow support tool as its preferred health information technology solution.

BACKGROUND

The Breast and Gynecologic System of Excellence (BGSOE) program has developed a workflow support tool using health information technology to assist clinicians, coordinators and stakeholders in identifying, tracking and supporting Veterans with breast and gynecological cancers. This tool was designed and implemented through a novel process that involved clarifying program aims, defining workflows in process delivery diagrams, and identifying data, analytic products, and user needs. To determine the optimal tool for the program, a comparative usability evaluation was conducted, comparing the new workflow support tool with a previous tool that shared identical aims but utilized a different approach.

METHODS

Usability evaluation employed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and measured acceptance using modified items from a validated instrument used in a national survey of electronic health records. Task efficiency was evaluated based on time taken and the number of clicks required to complete tasks.

RESULTS

Eight healthcare professionals with experience in the BGSOE program or similar programs in the VA participated in the usability evaluation. This group comprised physicians (38%), clinical pharmacist (25%), health care coordinators (25%), and registered nurse (12%). The workflow support tool achieved an impressive SUS score of 89.06, with acceptance scores of 93% (positive statements) and 6% (negative statements), outperforming the standard tool, which scored score of 57.5 on the SUS and had acceptance scores of 53% (positive statements) and 50% (negative statements). In the comparative ranking, 100% of the users preferred the workflow support tool, citing its userfriendliness, intuitiveness, and ease of use. On average, users completed all tasks using the workflow support tool in 8 minutes with 31 clicks, while the standard tool required 18 minutes and 124 clicks.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of a workflow support tool in the design of health information technology interventions leads to improved usability, efficiency, and adoption. Based on the positive results from the usability evaluation, the BGSOE program has chosen to adopt the workflow support tool as its preferred health information technology solution.

BACKGROUND

Ewing sarcoma (EWS) is a malignancy which primarily arises in adolescence and has been studied extensively in this population. Much less is www.mdedge.com/fedprac/avaho SEPTEMBER 2023 • S23 known about the rare patient cohort over the age of 40 at diagnosis. In this study, we describe the survival outcomes and clinical characteristics of this population.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identify 4600 patients diagnosed between 2004 through 2019. Of these patients, 4058 were under the age of 40 and 542 were over 40. Multivariate Cox regression models and Kaplan- Meier curves were used to estimate survival from diagnosis to death between age groups. Chi-square tests were used to compare demographic and socioeconomic patient characteristics. IBM SPSS version 27.0 was used. p<0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS

EWS patients older than 40 experienced worse survival outcomes compared to patients under the age of 40. 5-year survival was 43.5% for older patients vs. 64.5% for younger patients (p<0.05). A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that age was independently associated with inferior survival. (HR 2.23; p<0.05). EWS patients over the age of 40 were more likely to have tumors originating from the vertebral column (16.2% vs. 9.6%; p<0.05), cranium (5.5% vs. 4.7%; p<0.05), and had a higher rate of axial tumors (43.3% vs. 32.4%; p<0.05) compared to patients under 40. Additionally, patients older than 40 experienced a significantly longer delay between the date of diagnosis and initiation of systemic treatment (29.85 days vs. 19.37 days; p<0.05). Despite presenting with larger tumors , older patients were less likely to undergo a surgical procedure of the primary site (47.6% vs. 52.2%; p<0.05) and had higher rates of micro- and macroscopic residual tumor following surgical resection.

CONCLUSIONS

An age over 40 is associated with decreased survival for patients with EWS. Due to the rarity of EWS in this cohort, the optimal role of systemic treatment remains unknown and has yet to be clearly elucidated. Consequently, our findings suggest that older patients receive disparities in treatment which may be contributing to decreased survival rates.

BACKGROUND

Ewing sarcoma (EWS) is a malignancy which primarily arises in adolescence and has been studied extensively in this population. Much less is www.mdedge.com/fedprac/avaho SEPTEMBER 2023 • S23 known about the rare patient cohort over the age of 40 at diagnosis. In this study, we describe the survival outcomes and clinical characteristics of this population.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identify 4600 patients diagnosed between 2004 through 2019. Of these patients, 4058 were under the age of 40 and 542 were over 40. Multivariate Cox regression models and Kaplan- Meier curves were used to estimate survival from diagnosis to death between age groups. Chi-square tests were used to compare demographic and socioeconomic patient characteristics. IBM SPSS version 27.0 was used. p<0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS

EWS patients older than 40 experienced worse survival outcomes compared to patients under the age of 40. 5-year survival was 43.5% for older patients vs. 64.5% for younger patients (p<0.05). A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that age was independently associated with inferior survival. (HR 2.23; p<0.05). EWS patients over the age of 40 were more likely to have tumors originating from the vertebral column (16.2% vs. 9.6%; p<0.05), cranium (5.5% vs. 4.7%; p<0.05), and had a higher rate of axial tumors (43.3% vs. 32.4%; p<0.05) compared to patients under 40. Additionally, patients older than 40 experienced a significantly longer delay between the date of diagnosis and initiation of systemic treatment (29.85 days vs. 19.37 days; p<0.05). Despite presenting with larger tumors , older patients were less likely to undergo a surgical procedure of the primary site (47.6% vs. 52.2%; p<0.05) and had higher rates of micro- and macroscopic residual tumor following surgical resection.

CONCLUSIONS

An age over 40 is associated with decreased survival for patients with EWS. Due to the rarity of EWS in this cohort, the optimal role of systemic treatment remains unknown and has yet to be clearly elucidated. Consequently, our findings suggest that older patients receive disparities in treatment which may be contributing to decreased survival rates.

BACKGROUND

Ewing sarcoma (EWS) is a malignancy which primarily arises in adolescence and has been studied extensively in this population. Much less is www.mdedge.com/fedprac/avaho SEPTEMBER 2023 • S23 known about the rare patient cohort over the age of 40 at diagnosis. In this study, we describe the survival outcomes and clinical characteristics of this population.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identify 4600 patients diagnosed between 2004 through 2019. Of these patients, 4058 were under the age of 40 and 542 were over 40. Multivariate Cox regression models and Kaplan- Meier curves were used to estimate survival from diagnosis to death between age groups. Chi-square tests were used to compare demographic and socioeconomic patient characteristics. IBM SPSS version 27.0 was used. p<0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS

EWS patients older than 40 experienced worse survival outcomes compared to patients under the age of 40. 5-year survival was 43.5% for older patients vs. 64.5% for younger patients (p<0.05). A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that age was independently associated with inferior survival. (HR 2.23; p<0.05). EWS patients over the age of 40 were more likely to have tumors originating from the vertebral column (16.2% vs. 9.6%; p<0.05), cranium (5.5% vs. 4.7%; p<0.05), and had a higher rate of axial tumors (43.3% vs. 32.4%; p<0.05) compared to patients under 40. Additionally, patients older than 40 experienced a significantly longer delay between the date of diagnosis and initiation of systemic treatment (29.85 days vs. 19.37 days; p<0.05). Despite presenting with larger tumors , older patients were less likely to undergo a surgical procedure of the primary site (47.6% vs. 52.2%; p<0.05) and had higher rates of micro- and macroscopic residual tumor following surgical resection.

CONCLUSIONS

An age over 40 is associated with decreased survival for patients with EWS. Due to the rarity of EWS in this cohort, the optimal role of systemic treatment remains unknown and has yet to be clearly elucidated. Consequently, our findings suggest that older patients receive disparities in treatment which may be contributing to decreased survival rates.

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of medical services is a significant barrier in modern patient care with contributing factors including patient and system level details. The Veterans Affairs (VA) department is the largest integrated health care organization in the US. Given the complex challenges of such a system, the VA has developed resources to lessen the impact of care fragmentation, potentially widening services and diminishing traditional barriers to care. We present a patient case as an example of how VA programs are impacting current veteran oncologic care.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 86-year-old veteran with shortness of breath and fatigue was found to have macrocytic anemia. Located nearly 200 miles from the closest VA with hematology services he was referred through the National TeleOncology (NTO) service to see hematology using clinical video telehealth (CVT) technology stationed at a VA approximately 100 miles from his home. Consultation led to lab work revealing no viral, nutritional, or rheumatologic explanation. A bone marrow biopsy was completed without clear diagnosis though molecular alterations demonstrated ASXL1, TET2 and CBL mutations. Hematopathology services were sought, and the patient’s case was presented at the NTO virtual hematologic tumor board where expert VA hematopathology, radiology and medical hematology opinions were available. A diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome was rendered with care recommendations including the novel agent luspatercept. Given patient age and comorbidities, transportation remained a barrier. The patient was set up to receive services through home based primary care (HBPC) with weekly lab draws and medication administration. Ultimately, the patient was able to receive the first dose of luspatercept through the NTO affiliated VA with subsequent administrations to be given by HBPC. Additional visits planned using at home VA video Connect (VVC) service and CVT visits with NTO hematology at his local community based outpatient center (CBOC) located 30 miles from his home.

DISCUSSION

Located over 3 hours from the closest in-person VA hematologist, this patient was able to receive complex care thanks to a marriage of in-person and virtual services involving specialty nurses, pharmacists, and physicians from across VA. Services such as the NTO hub-spoke model, virtual tumor boards and HBPC, reveal a care framework unique to the VA.

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of medical services is a significant barrier in modern patient care with contributing factors including patient and system level details. The Veterans Affairs (VA) department is the largest integrated health care organization in the US. Given the complex challenges of such a system, the VA has developed resources to lessen the impact of care fragmentation, potentially widening services and diminishing traditional barriers to care. We present a patient case as an example of how VA programs are impacting current veteran oncologic care.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 86-year-old veteran with shortness of breath and fatigue was found to have macrocytic anemia. Located nearly 200 miles from the closest VA with hematology services he was referred through the National TeleOncology (NTO) service to see hematology using clinical video telehealth (CVT) technology stationed at a VA approximately 100 miles from his home. Consultation led to lab work revealing no viral, nutritional, or rheumatologic explanation. A bone marrow biopsy was completed without clear diagnosis though molecular alterations demonstrated ASXL1, TET2 and CBL mutations. Hematopathology services were sought, and the patient’s case was presented at the NTO virtual hematologic tumor board where expert VA hematopathology, radiology and medical hematology opinions were available. A diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome was rendered with care recommendations including the novel agent luspatercept. Given patient age and comorbidities, transportation remained a barrier. The patient was set up to receive services through home based primary care (HBPC) with weekly lab draws and medication administration. Ultimately, the patient was able to receive the first dose of luspatercept through the NTO affiliated VA with subsequent administrations to be given by HBPC. Additional visits planned using at home VA video Connect (VVC) service and CVT visits with NTO hematology at his local community based outpatient center (CBOC) located 30 miles from his home.

DISCUSSION

Located over 3 hours from the closest in-person VA hematologist, this patient was able to receive complex care thanks to a marriage of in-person and virtual services involving specialty nurses, pharmacists, and physicians from across VA. Services such as the NTO hub-spoke model, virtual tumor boards and HBPC, reveal a care framework unique to the VA.

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of medical services is a significant barrier in modern patient care with contributing factors including patient and system level details. The Veterans Affairs (VA) department is the largest integrated health care organization in the US. Given the complex challenges of such a system, the VA has developed resources to lessen the impact of care fragmentation, potentially widening services and diminishing traditional barriers to care. We present a patient case as an example of how VA programs are impacting current veteran oncologic care.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 86-year-old veteran with shortness of breath and fatigue was found to have macrocytic anemia. Located nearly 200 miles from the closest VA with hematology services he was referred through the National TeleOncology (NTO) service to see hematology using clinical video telehealth (CVT) technology stationed at a VA approximately 100 miles from his home. Consultation led to lab work revealing no viral, nutritional, or rheumatologic explanation. A bone marrow biopsy was completed without clear diagnosis though molecular alterations demonstrated ASXL1, TET2 and CBL mutations. Hematopathology services were sought, and the patient’s case was presented at the NTO virtual hematologic tumor board where expert VA hematopathology, radiology and medical hematology opinions were available. A diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome was rendered with care recommendations including the novel agent luspatercept. Given patient age and comorbidities, transportation remained a barrier. The patient was set up to receive services through home based primary care (HBPC) with weekly lab draws and medication administration. Ultimately, the patient was able to receive the first dose of luspatercept through the NTO affiliated VA with subsequent administrations to be given by HBPC. Additional visits planned using at home VA video Connect (VVC) service and CVT visits with NTO hematology at his local community based outpatient center (CBOC) located 30 miles from his home.

DISCUSSION

Located over 3 hours from the closest in-person VA hematologist, this patient was able to receive complex care thanks to a marriage of in-person and virtual services involving specialty nurses, pharmacists, and physicians from across VA. Services such as the NTO hub-spoke model, virtual tumor boards and HBPC, reveal a care framework unique to the VA.

BACKGROUND

Implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS) in high-risk individuals reduces the risk of dying from lung cancer. The mortality benefit of LCS, however, can only be fully actualized in patients who adhere to follow-up screening examinations. Question: Does a centralized program offer better adherence to lung cancer screening compared with a decentralized approach?

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a large Veterans Affairs medical center LCS program was conducted to compare adherence to follow-up screening in veterans established through the consult-based (centralized) program with those screened by primary care providers (decentralized). In addition, imaging referral rates from the centralized program were longitudinally reviewed and compared. The cohort included patients completing an LCS imaging examination between 10/2020 and 1/2022. Annual adherence was assessed in patients with a baseline Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score of 1 or 2 and was defined as returning for follow-up imaging within 15 months. Outcomes among patients undergoing screening using a centralized and decentralized approach were compared using a two-proportion z-test.

RESULTS

A total of 1,114 patients with a baseline Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2 were included. The amount of low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging ordered for LCS increased exponentially from 2021 to 2023; however, a higher percentage of LDCT examinations were ordered via the decentralized approach, with no significant change observed over time (76%, 71%, and 74% in 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively). Overall adherence was 42%. Within the centralized program, adherence was 74% compared to 34% using a decentralized approach (p <0.001).

IMPLICATIONS

Adherence to annual screening among eligible veterans is greater within a centralized program. Future research aimed at identifying barriers and maximizing adherence to LCS is needed.

BACKGROUND

Implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS) in high-risk individuals reduces the risk of dying from lung cancer. The mortality benefit of LCS, however, can only be fully actualized in patients who adhere to follow-up screening examinations. Question: Does a centralized program offer better adherence to lung cancer screening compared with a decentralized approach?

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a large Veterans Affairs medical center LCS program was conducted to compare adherence to follow-up screening in veterans established through the consult-based (centralized) program with those screened by primary care providers (decentralized). In addition, imaging referral rates from the centralized program were longitudinally reviewed and compared. The cohort included patients completing an LCS imaging examination between 10/2020 and 1/2022. Annual adherence was assessed in patients with a baseline Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score of 1 or 2 and was defined as returning for follow-up imaging within 15 months. Outcomes among patients undergoing screening using a centralized and decentralized approach were compared using a two-proportion z-test.

RESULTS

A total of 1,114 patients with a baseline Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2 were included. The amount of low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging ordered for LCS increased exponentially from 2021 to 2023; however, a higher percentage of LDCT examinations were ordered via the decentralized approach, with no significant change observed over time (76%, 71%, and 74% in 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively). Overall adherence was 42%. Within the centralized program, adherence was 74% compared to 34% using a decentralized approach (p <0.001).

IMPLICATIONS

Adherence to annual screening among eligible veterans is greater within a centralized program. Future research aimed at identifying barriers and maximizing adherence to LCS is needed.

BACKGROUND

Implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS) in high-risk individuals reduces the risk of dying from lung cancer. The mortality benefit of LCS, however, can only be fully actualized in patients who adhere to follow-up screening examinations. Question: Does a centralized program offer better adherence to lung cancer screening compared with a decentralized approach?

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a large Veterans Affairs medical center LCS program was conducted to compare adherence to follow-up screening in veterans established through the consult-based (centralized) program with those screened by primary care providers (decentralized). In addition, imaging referral rates from the centralized program were longitudinally reviewed and compared. The cohort included patients completing an LCS imaging examination between 10/2020 and 1/2022. Annual adherence was assessed in patients with a baseline Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score of 1 or 2 and was defined as returning for follow-up imaging within 15 months. Outcomes among patients undergoing screening using a centralized and decentralized approach were compared using a two-proportion z-test.

RESULTS

A total of 1,114 patients with a baseline Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2 were included. The amount of low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging ordered for LCS increased exponentially from 2021 to 2023; however, a higher percentage of LDCT examinations were ordered via the decentralized approach, with no significant change observed over time (76%, 71%, and 74% in 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively). Overall adherence was 42%. Within the centralized program, adherence was 74% compared to 34% using a decentralized approach (p <0.001).

IMPLICATIONS

Adherence to annual screening among eligible veterans is greater within a centralized program. Future research aimed at identifying barriers and maximizing adherence to LCS is needed.

INTRODUCTION

The development of imatinib and now newer tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has revolutionized the overall survival of patients with CML. However, toxicity and treatment-resistance can result in premature discontinuation of therapy. Asciminib, a novel TKI, may have fewer off-target effects. It also bypasses the mechanism of resistance to first-line TKIs by binding to a different site on the BCR-ABL fusion protein. In our institution, three patients have been initiated on asciminib thus far. We present their cases, with a focus on quality of life.

CASE PRESENTATIONS

(1) A 76-year-old male with a history of diffuse vascular disease experienced off-target effects on multiple TKIs (i.e. intolerable nausea on imatinib, pleural effusion on dasatinib, complete heart block on nilotinib), so he was switched to asciminib. He has been tolerating asciminib well over five months and continues to see significant log reduction in BCR-ABL transcripts. (2) A 71-year-old male with a history of multiple complicated gastrointestinal infections never achieved major molecular remission on imatinib and was unable to tolerate dasatinib or bosutinib due to severe nausea and vomiting. He was switched to asciminib, which he has been tolerating well for one year, and has achieved complete hematologic response. (3) A 73-year-old male with a history of chronic kidney disease experienced kidney injury thought to be due to imatinib and was switched to bosutinib. His BCRABL transcripts rose on bosutinib, so patient was started on asciminib, which he has been tolerating well.

DISCUSSION

In this series of patients in their 70s with multiple underlying comorbidities, the unifying theme is that of intolerance to first-line TKIs due to toxicity (cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal). Existing data suggests that asciminib results in less toxicity than other first-line TKIs, and this is evident in our patients. More importantly, the combination of efficacy and tolerability gives these patients the opportunity to proceed with life-prolonging therapy, even for those who face treatment resistance with other agents.

CONCLUSIONS

For CML patients who have failed at least two lines of treatment, whether it is due to disease progression or intolerable toxicity, asciminib is an effective alternative. Further study may result in its promotion to first-line therapy for this disease.

INTRODUCTION

The development of imatinib and now newer tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has revolutionized the overall survival of patients with CML. However, toxicity and treatment-resistance can result in premature discontinuation of therapy. Asciminib, a novel TKI, may have fewer off-target effects. It also bypasses the mechanism of resistance to first-line TKIs by binding to a different site on the BCR-ABL fusion protein. In our institution, three patients have been initiated on asciminib thus far. We present their cases, with a focus on quality of life.

CASE PRESENTATIONS

(1) A 76-year-old male with a history of diffuse vascular disease experienced off-target effects on multiple TKIs (i.e. intolerable nausea on imatinib, pleural effusion on dasatinib, complete heart block on nilotinib), so he was switched to asciminib. He has been tolerating asciminib well over five months and continues to see significant log reduction in BCR-ABL transcripts. (2) A 71-year-old male with a history of multiple complicated gastrointestinal infections never achieved major molecular remission on imatinib and was unable to tolerate dasatinib or bosutinib due to severe nausea and vomiting. He was switched to asciminib, which he has been tolerating well for one year, and has achieved complete hematologic response. (3) A 73-year-old male with a history of chronic kidney disease experienced kidney injury thought to be due to imatinib and was switched to bosutinib. His BCRABL transcripts rose on bosutinib, so patient was started on asciminib, which he has been tolerating well.

DISCUSSION

In this series of patients in their 70s with multiple underlying comorbidities, the unifying theme is that of intolerance to first-line TKIs due to toxicity (cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal). Existing data suggests that asciminib results in less toxicity than other first-line TKIs, and this is evident in our patients. More importantly, the combination of efficacy and tolerability gives these patients the opportunity to proceed with life-prolonging therapy, even for those who face treatment resistance with other agents.

CONCLUSIONS

For CML patients who have failed at least two lines of treatment, whether it is due to disease progression or intolerable toxicity, asciminib is an effective alternative. Further study may result in its promotion to first-line therapy for this disease.

INTRODUCTION

The development of imatinib and now newer tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has revolutionized the overall survival of patients with CML. However, toxicity and treatment-resistance can result in premature discontinuation of therapy. Asciminib, a novel TKI, may have fewer off-target effects. It also bypasses the mechanism of resistance to first-line TKIs by binding to a different site on the BCR-ABL fusion protein. In our institution, three patients have been initiated on asciminib thus far. We present their cases, with a focus on quality of life.

CASE PRESENTATIONS

(1) A 76-year-old male with a history of diffuse vascular disease experienced off-target effects on multiple TKIs (i.e. intolerable nausea on imatinib, pleural effusion on dasatinib, complete heart block on nilotinib), so he was switched to asciminib. He has been tolerating asciminib well over five months and continues to see significant log reduction in BCR-ABL transcripts. (2) A 71-year-old male with a history of multiple complicated gastrointestinal infections never achieved major molecular remission on imatinib and was unable to tolerate dasatinib or bosutinib due to severe nausea and vomiting. He was switched to asciminib, which he has been tolerating well for one year, and has achieved complete hematologic response. (3) A 73-year-old male with a history of chronic kidney disease experienced kidney injury thought to be due to imatinib and was switched to bosutinib. His BCRABL transcripts rose on bosutinib, so patient was started on asciminib, which he has been tolerating well.

DISCUSSION

In this series of patients in their 70s with multiple underlying comorbidities, the unifying theme is that of intolerance to first-line TKIs due to toxicity (cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal). Existing data suggests that asciminib results in less toxicity than other first-line TKIs, and this is evident in our patients. More importantly, the combination of efficacy and tolerability gives these patients the opportunity to proceed with life-prolonging therapy, even for those who face treatment resistance with other agents.

CONCLUSIONS

For CML patients who have failed at least two lines of treatment, whether it is due to disease progression or intolerable toxicity, asciminib is an effective alternative. Further study may result in its promotion to first-line therapy for this disease.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aimed at addressing the issue of long waiting times in the hematology/ oncology clinic at Stratton VA Medical Center, aiming to improve the delivery time of infusion drugs and enhance patient care.

BACKGROUND

Patient feedback indicated that long waiting times were a significant barrier to care, with 32% of patients identifying this as an issue. Prolonged wait times in the healthcare setting can have various negative consequences, including increased patient dissatisfaction, reduced patient engagement, compromised patient safety, and increased healthcare costs.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary team comprising physicians, nurses, and pharmacists conducted a study to identify the primary contributors to extended wait times. Inadequate preparation for patients with complex infusion needs and delays in administering premedications were identified as the key factors. Wait times were measured using two variables: Go To Label Print (GTLP) and Go To First Bag Scanned (GTFS). Baseline data were collected showing a median GTLP of 8 minutes and a median GTFS of 67 minutes.

DATA ANALYSIS

The team analyzed real-time data related to wait times and the impact of interventions.

RESULTS

Two interventions were implemented: 1) redistributing patients with complex needs across the schedule and 2) adding premedications to the automated medication dispensing system. Postintervention analysis revealed a significant improvement in wait times. The median GTLP decreased to 2 minutes, and the median GTFS reduced to 53 minutes, representing a 75% improvement in GTLP and a 21% improvement in GTFS. These changes are estimated to save 303 patient hours annually.

IMPLICATIONS

This quality improvement project highlighted the significance of addressing long wait times, as they can significantly impact patient care. The team’s efforts, including the analysis of real-time data, interprofessional collaboration, and the implementation of sustainable changes through Plan-Do- Study-Act cycles, successfully improved infusion drug delivery time. These findings and interventions can serve as a model for other healthcare facilities seeking to streamline workflow in infusion centers and enhance patient care.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aimed at addressing the issue of long waiting times in the hematology/ oncology clinic at Stratton VA Medical Center, aiming to improve the delivery time of infusion drugs and enhance patient care.

BACKGROUND

Patient feedback indicated that long waiting times were a significant barrier to care, with 32% of patients identifying this as an issue. Prolonged wait times in the healthcare setting can have various negative consequences, including increased patient dissatisfaction, reduced patient engagement, compromised patient safety, and increased healthcare costs.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary team comprising physicians, nurses, and pharmacists conducted a study to identify the primary contributors to extended wait times. Inadequate preparation for patients with complex infusion needs and delays in administering premedications were identified as the key factors. Wait times were measured using two variables: Go To Label Print (GTLP) and Go To First Bag Scanned (GTFS). Baseline data were collected showing a median GTLP of 8 minutes and a median GTFS of 67 minutes.

DATA ANALYSIS

The team analyzed real-time data related to wait times and the impact of interventions.

RESULTS

Two interventions were implemented: 1) redistributing patients with complex needs across the schedule and 2) adding premedications to the automated medication dispensing system. Postintervention analysis revealed a significant improvement in wait times. The median GTLP decreased to 2 minutes, and the median GTFS reduced to 53 minutes, representing a 75% improvement in GTLP and a 21% improvement in GTFS. These changes are estimated to save 303 patient hours annually.

IMPLICATIONS

This quality improvement project highlighted the significance of addressing long wait times, as they can significantly impact patient care. The team’s efforts, including the analysis of real-time data, interprofessional collaboration, and the implementation of sustainable changes through Plan-Do- Study-Act cycles, successfully improved infusion drug delivery time. These findings and interventions can serve as a model for other healthcare facilities seeking to streamline workflow in infusion centers and enhance patient care.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aimed at addressing the issue of long waiting times in the hematology/ oncology clinic at Stratton VA Medical Center, aiming to improve the delivery time of infusion drugs and enhance patient care.

BACKGROUND

Patient feedback indicated that long waiting times were a significant barrier to care, with 32% of patients identifying this as an issue. Prolonged wait times in the healthcare setting can have various negative consequences, including increased patient dissatisfaction, reduced patient engagement, compromised patient safety, and increased healthcare costs.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary team comprising physicians, nurses, and pharmacists conducted a study to identify the primary contributors to extended wait times. Inadequate preparation for patients with complex infusion needs and delays in administering premedications were identified as the key factors. Wait times were measured using two variables: Go To Label Print (GTLP) and Go To First Bag Scanned (GTFS). Baseline data were collected showing a median GTLP of 8 minutes and a median GTFS of 67 minutes.

DATA ANALYSIS

The team analyzed real-time data related to wait times and the impact of interventions.

RESULTS

Two interventions were implemented: 1) redistributing patients with complex needs across the schedule and 2) adding premedications to the automated medication dispensing system. Postintervention analysis revealed a significant improvement in wait times. The median GTLP decreased to 2 minutes, and the median GTFS reduced to 53 minutes, representing a 75% improvement in GTLP and a 21% improvement in GTFS. These changes are estimated to save 303 patient hours annually.

IMPLICATIONS

This quality improvement project highlighted the significance of addressing long wait times, as they can significantly impact patient care. The team’s efforts, including the analysis of real-time data, interprofessional collaboration, and the implementation of sustainable changes through Plan-Do- Study-Act cycles, successfully improved infusion drug delivery time. These findings and interventions can serve as a model for other healthcare facilities seeking to streamline workflow in infusion centers and enhance patient care.

BACKGROUND

Leiomyosarcoma is a rare neoplasm of smooth muscle that can originate from various organ systems. Of the gastrointestinal tract, the rarity and the difficulty of diagnosing small intestine leiomyosarcoma affect its poor prognosis. With an average age of diagnosis of 64 years and a median life expectancy of 45 months, there exists a lack of information on the disparities that exist in these patients and how patient demographics contribute to differences in survival outcomes.

METHODS

We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients diagnosed with small intestine leiomyosarcoma (ICD-O-3 histology code 8890) between 2004-2019 (N=406). General patient characteristics were assessed using descriptive statistics. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Significance was set at p<0.05.

RESULTS

When analyzing race, patients diagnosed with small intestine leiomyosarcoma were predominantly White (81.8%) and African American (14.3%); however, White patients had statistically worse survival outcomes than African Americans (67 vs 97 months) (p=0.004). Patients with private insurance had statistically better outcomes when compared to Medicare (p<0.001). When compared to White patients, African Americans had a higher proportion of private insurance (53.4% vs 37.2%) and lower proportion of Medicare coverage (5.2% and 48.2%), a lower average age of diagnosis (60.5 vs 64.7 years), shorter travel distances (14.7 vs 31.1 miles) and fewer days between staging procedure and surgical diagnostics from initial diagnosis (4.54 vs 12.5 days). Patients who received surgical intervention had a statistically significant improved survival outcome than those who did not (78 vs 15 months) (p<0.001) with the majority of these procedures being partial gastrectomies (53.6%). More patients of the cohort were treated at comprehensive community cancer programs (36.2%), followed by academic research programs (32.0%), integrated network cancer programs (18.5%) and community cancer programs (8.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Factors associated with increased survival outcomes include race, average age of diagnosis, travel distance, fewer days between diagnostic procedure and initial diagnosis, insurance status and surgical treatment. These findings make a valuable contribution to the ongoing research on disparities affecting survival in patients with small intestine leiomyosarcoma.

BACKGROUND

Leiomyosarcoma is a rare neoplasm of smooth muscle that can originate from various organ systems. Of the gastrointestinal tract, the rarity and the difficulty of diagnosing small intestine leiomyosarcoma affect its poor prognosis. With an average age of diagnosis of 64 years and a median life expectancy of 45 months, there exists a lack of information on the disparities that exist in these patients and how patient demographics contribute to differences in survival outcomes.

METHODS

We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients diagnosed with small intestine leiomyosarcoma (ICD-O-3 histology code 8890) between 2004-2019 (N=406). General patient characteristics were assessed using descriptive statistics. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Significance was set at p<0.05.

RESULTS

When analyzing race, patients diagnosed with small intestine leiomyosarcoma were predominantly White (81.8%) and African American (14.3%); however, White patients had statistically worse survival outcomes than African Americans (67 vs 97 months) (p=0.004). Patients with private insurance had statistically better outcomes when compared to Medicare (p<0.001). When compared to White patients, African Americans had a higher proportion of private insurance (53.4% vs 37.2%) and lower proportion of Medicare coverage (5.2% and 48.2%), a lower average age of diagnosis (60.5 vs 64.7 years), shorter travel distances (14.7 vs 31.1 miles) and fewer days between staging procedure and surgical diagnostics from initial diagnosis (4.54 vs 12.5 days). Patients who received surgical intervention had a statistically significant improved survival outcome than those who did not (78 vs 15 months) (p<0.001) with the majority of these procedures being partial gastrectomies (53.6%). More patients of the cohort were treated at comprehensive community cancer programs (36.2%), followed by academic research programs (32.0%), integrated network cancer programs (18.5%) and community cancer programs (8.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Factors associated with increased survival outcomes include race, average age of diagnosis, travel distance, fewer days between diagnostic procedure and initial diagnosis, insurance status and surgical treatment. These findings make a valuable contribution to the ongoing research on disparities affecting survival in patients with small intestine leiomyosarcoma.

BACKGROUND

Leiomyosarcoma is a rare neoplasm of smooth muscle that can originate from various organ systems. Of the gastrointestinal tract, the rarity and the difficulty of diagnosing small intestine leiomyosarcoma affect its poor prognosis. With an average age of diagnosis of 64 years and a median life expectancy of 45 months, there exists a lack of information on the disparities that exist in these patients and how patient demographics contribute to differences in survival outcomes.

METHODS

We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients diagnosed with small intestine leiomyosarcoma (ICD-O-3 histology code 8890) between 2004-2019 (N=406). General patient characteristics were assessed using descriptive statistics. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Significance was set at p<0.05.

RESULTS

When analyzing race, patients diagnosed with small intestine leiomyosarcoma were predominantly White (81.8%) and African American (14.3%); however, White patients had statistically worse survival outcomes than African Americans (67 vs 97 months) (p=0.004). Patients with private insurance had statistically better outcomes when compared to Medicare (p<0.001). When compared to White patients, African Americans had a higher proportion of private insurance (53.4% vs 37.2%) and lower proportion of Medicare coverage (5.2% and 48.2%), a lower average age of diagnosis (60.5 vs 64.7 years), shorter travel distances (14.7 vs 31.1 miles) and fewer days between staging procedure and surgical diagnostics from initial diagnosis (4.54 vs 12.5 days). Patients who received surgical intervention had a statistically significant improved survival outcome than those who did not (78 vs 15 months) (p<0.001) with the majority of these procedures being partial gastrectomies (53.6%). More patients of the cohort were treated at comprehensive community cancer programs (36.2%), followed by academic research programs (32.0%), integrated network cancer programs (18.5%) and community cancer programs (8.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Factors associated with increased survival outcomes include race, average age of diagnosis, travel distance, fewer days between diagnostic procedure and initial diagnosis, insurance status and surgical treatment. These findings make a valuable contribution to the ongoing research on disparities affecting survival in patients with small intestine leiomyosarcoma.