Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant or Adjuvant-Only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Whether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

The Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes cohort study: Design, baseline characteristics, and early outcomes.

To address the current and long-term unmet health needs of the growing population of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, we established the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study (NCT02736357; https://leocohort.org/). A total of 7735 newly diagnosed patients aged 18 years and older with NHL were prospectively enrolled from 7/1/2015 to 5/31/2020 at 8 academic centers in the United States. The median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 18-99). Participants came from 49 US states and included 538 Black/African-Americans (AA), 822 Hispanics (regardless of race), 3386 women, 716 age <40 years, and 1513 rural residents. At study baseline, we abstracted clinical, pathology, and treatment data; banked serum/plasma (N = 5883, 76.0%) and germline DNA (N = 5465, 70.7%); constructed tissue microarrays for four major NHL subtypes (N = 1189); and collected quality of life (N = 5281, 68.3%) and epidemiologic risk factor (N = 4489, 58.0%) data. Through August 2022, there were 1492 deaths. Compared to population-based SEER data (2015-2019), LEO participants had a similar distribution of gender, AA race, Hispanic ethnicity, and NHL subtype, while LEO was underrepresented for patients who were Asian and aged 80 years and above. Observed overall survival rates for LEO at 1 and 2 years were similar to population-based SEER rates for indolent B-cell (follicular and marginal zone) and T-cell lymphomas, but were 10%-15% higher than SEER rates for aggressive B-cell subtypes (diffuse large B-cell and mantle cell). The LEO cohort is a robust and comprehensive national resource to address the role of clinical, tumor, host genetic, epidemiologic, and other biologic factors in NHL prognosis and survivorship.

Finding the Balance Between Reduced Opioid Prescribing and Patient-reported Pain Management Among General Surgery Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes before and after implementation of evidence-based, procedure-specific opioid prescribing guidelines. BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic remains a significant public health issue. Many institutions have responded by reducing opioid prescribing after surgery. However, the impact of this on patient-reported outcomes remains poorly understood. METHODS: Opioid-naïve adults undergoing 12 elective general surgery procedures at a single institution prospectively completed telephone surveys at median 26 days from discharge. Patients were compared before (March 2017-January 2018) and after (May 2019-November 2019) implementation of evidence-based, procedure-specific opioid prescribing guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 603 preguideline and 138 postguideline patients met inclusion criteria and completed surveys. Overall, 60.5% of preguideline and 92.5% of postguideline prescriptions fell within recommendations ( P <0.001), while refill rates were similar (4.5% vs 5.8%, P =0.50). A statistically significant drop in median morphine milligram equivalent prescribed was observed for 9 of 12 procedures (75%). No opioids were prescribed for 16.7% of patients in both cohorts ( P =0.98). While 93.3% of preguideline and 87.7% of postguideline patients were very/somewhat satisfied with their pain control, the proportion of patients who were very/somewhat dissatisfied increased from 4.2% to 9.4% ( P =0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing guidelines successfully reduced opioid prescribing without increased refill rates. Despite decreased prescribing overall, there was a continued reluctance to prescribe no opioids after surgery. Although most patients experienced good pain control, there remains a subset of patients whose pain is not optimally managed in the era of reduced opioid prescribing.

Identifying meaningful change on PROMIS short forms in cancer patients: a comparison of item response theory and classic test theory frameworks.

BACKGROUND: This study compares classical test theory and item response theory frameworks to determine reliable change. Reliable change followed by anchoring to the change in categorically distinct responses on a criterion measure is a useful method to detect meaningful change on a target measure. METHODS: Adult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers. Baseline and follow-up assessments at 6 weeks were administered. We investigated short forms derived from PROMIS® item banks on anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain intensity, pain interference, and sleep disturbance. We detected reliable change using reliable change index (RCI). We derived the T-scores corresponding to the RCI calculated under IRT and CTT frameworks using PROMIS® short forms. For changes that were reliable, meaningful change was identified using patient-reported change in PRO-CTCAE by at least one level. For both CTT and IRT approaches, we applied one-sided tests to detect reliable improvement or worsening using RCI. We compared the percentages of patients with reliable change and reliable/meaningful change. RESULTS: The amount of change in T score corresponding to RCICTT of 1.65 ranged from 5.1 to 9.2 depending on domains. The amount of change corresponding to RCIIRT of 1.65 varied across the score range, and the minimum change ranged from 3.0 to 8.2 depending on domains. Across domains, the RCICTT and RCIIRT classified 80% to 98% of the patients consistently. When there was disagreement, the RCIIRT tended to identify more patients as having reliably changed compared to RCICTT if scores at both timepoints were in the range of 43 to 78 in anxiety, 45 to 70 in depression, 38 to 80 in fatigue, 35 to 78 in sleep disturbance, and 48 to 74 in pain interference, due to smaller standard errors in these ranges using the IRT method. The CTT method found more changes compared to IRT for the pain intensity domain that was shorter in length. Using RCICTT, 22% to 66% had reliable change in either direction depending on domains, and among these patients, 62% to 83% had meaningful change. Using RCIIRT, 37% to 68% had reliable change in either direction, and among these patients, 62% to 81% had meaningful change. CONCLUSION: Applying the two-step criteria demonstrated in this study, we determined how much change is needed to declare reliable change at different levels of baseline scores. We offer reference values for percentage of patients who meaningfully change for investigators using the PROMIS instruments in oncology.

Use of the Electronic Health Record During Clinical Encounters: An Experience Survey.

PURPOSE: Use of the electronic health record (EHR) during face-to-face clinical encounters affects communication, and prior research has been inconclusive regarding its effect. This survey study assessed health care practitioner use of EHR-specific communication skills and patient and practitioner experiences and attitudes regarding EHR use during clinical encounters. METHODS: For this US-based study, we distributed previously validated surveys to practitioners and adult patients (aged >18 years) at academic primary care practices from July 1, 2018 through August 31, 2018. The electronic practitioner survey was completed first; a paper survey was administered to patients after appointments. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and the Cochran-Armitage test was used to assess for associations between key variables. RESULTS: The practitioner response was 72.9% (43/59); patient response, 45.2% (452/1,000). Practitioners reported maintaining less eye contact (79.1%), listening less carefully (53.5%), focusing less on patients (65.1%), and visits feeling less personal (62.8%). However, patients reported that practitioners provided sufficient eye contact (96.8%) and listened carefully (97.0%); they disagreed that practitioners focused less on them (86.7%) or that visits felt less personal (87.2%). Patients thought EHR use was positive (91.7%); only one-third of practitioners (37.2%) thought that patients would agree with that statement. Practitioners reported stress, burnout, and a lack of sufficient time for EHR documentation. CONCLUSIONS: A discrepancy existed in this study between patient and practitioner experiences and attitudes about EHR use, which appeared to negatively affect the experience of health care practitioners but not patients. Organizations should adopt formal strategies to improve practitioner experiences with EHR use.

Development, Validation, and Results of a Survey of Personal Electronic Device Use Among 299 Anesthesia Providers From a Single Institution.

BACKGROUND: The pattern of perioperative use of personal electronic devices (PEDs) among anesthesia providers in the United States is unknown. METHODS: We developed a 31-question anonymous survey of perioperative PED use that was sent to 813 anesthesiologists, anesthesiology residents, and certified registered nurse anesthetists at 3 sites within one health system. The electronic survey assessed patterns of PED use inside the operating room (OR), outside the OR, and observed in others. Questions were designed to explore the various purposes for PED use, the potential impact of specific hospital policies or awareness of medicolegal risk on PED use, and whether PED was a source of perioperative distraction. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 36.8% (n = 299). With regard to often/frequent PED activity inside the OR, 24% reported texting, 5% reported talking on the phone, and 11% reported browsing on the Internet. With regard to often/frequent PED activity outside the OR, 88% reported texting, 26% reported talking on the phone, and 63% reported browsing the Internet. With regard to often/frequent PED activity observed in others, 52% reported others texting, 14% reported others talking on the phone, and 34% reported others browsing the Internet. Two percent of respondents self-reported a distraction compared to 15% who had observed a distraction in others. Eighty percent of respondents recognized PED as a potential distraction for patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: Our data reinforce that PED use is prevalent among anesthesia providers.

Effects of patient-reported outcome assessment order.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. METHODS: This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran-Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. RESULTS: A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach's alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. CONCLUSION: The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.

Skin Cancer Risk Perception and Tanning Bed Use: A Population-Based Survey to Identify Persons at Risk for Melanoma in Olmsted County, Minnesota.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous melanoma is strongly associated with tanning bed use. OBJECTIVE: To describe local residents' knowledge, attitudes, and behavior regarding skin cancer and tanning bed use and to estimate prevalence of high risk for melanoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was mailed to 886 local residents (549, aged 18-39 years; 337, aged ≥40 years). Logistic and linear regression and univariate and multivariable analysis were used to assess perceived risk and skin cancer knowledge. RESULTS: The response rate was 21%; 55% of the younger group and 37% of the older group had used indoor tanning, and prevalence of high risk for melanoma according to a skin cancer risk calculator was 18% in the younger group and 33% in the older group. Individuals with high risk scores were more likely to correctly perceive that they were at high risk for skin cancer. Most participants with high risk scores and those who previously used tanning beds reported low likelihood of future indoor tanning. CONCLUSION: Female sex, high risk score, and previous indoor tanning were associated with participants' views of higher skin cancer risk. No specific knowledge gaps were identified. Understanding community residents' attitudes about skin cancer and indoor tanning can help guide interventions.

Development and Validation of a Kidney-Transplant Specific Measure of Treatment Burden.

BACKGROUND: Treatment burden refers to the work involved in managing one's health and its impact on well-being and has been associated with nonadherence in patients with chronic illnesses. No kidney transplant (KT)-specific measure of treatment burden exists. The aim of this study was to develop a KT-specific supplement to the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management (PETS), a general measure of treatment burden. METHODS: After drafting and pretesting KT-specific survey items, we conducted a cross-sectional survey study involving KT recipients from Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify domains for scaling the KT-specific supplement. Construct and known-groups validity were determined. RESULTS: Survey respondents (n = 167) had a mean age of 61 years (range 22-86) and received a KT on average 4.0 years ago. Three KT-specific scales were identified (transplant function, self-management, adverse effects). Higher scores on the KT-specific scales were correlated with higher PETS treatment burden, worse physical and mental health, and lower self-efficacy (p < 0.0001). Patients taking more medications reported higher transplant self-management burden. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a KT-specific supplement to the PETS general measure of treatment burden. Scores may help providers identify recipients at risk for nonadherence.

Standardization of lower extremity quantitative lymphedema measurements and associated patient-reported outcomes in gynecologic cancers.

Practice changing standardization of lower extremity lymphedema quantitative measurements with integrated patient reported outcomes will likely refine and redefine the optimal risk-reduction strategies to diminish the devastating limb-related dysfunction and morbidity associated with treatment of gynecologic cancers. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), Division of Cancer Prevention brought together a diverse group of cancer treatment, therapy and patient reported outcomes experts to discuss the current state-of-the-science in lymphedema evaluation with the potential goal of incorporating new strategies for optimal evaluation of lymphedema in future developing gynecologic clinical trials.

Three-Dimensional-Printed Liver Model Helps Learners Identify Hepatic Subsegments: A Randomized-Controlled Cross-Over Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to find out whether 3-dimensional (3D)-printed models improved the learners' ability to identify liver segments. METHODS: A total of 116 physicians from 3 disciplines were tested in a cross-over trial at baseline and after teaching with 3D models and 2-dimensional (2D) images. Adjusted multilevel-mixed models were used to compare scores at baseline and after 3D and 2D. RESULTS: Accuracy in identifying hepatic segments was higher with 3D first than 2D (77% vs 69%; P = 0.05) and not significantly improved by a combination of 3D and 2D. Increased confidence in segment identification was highest in trainees after 3D (P = 0.04). DISCUSSION: 3D-printed models facilitate learning hepatic segmental anatomy.

A Multicenter Comparison of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Discussions in Oncology Care: The Role of Time, Patient-Centeredness, and Practice Context.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is discussed in cancer care across varied settings in the U.S. METHODS: In two practices affiliated with one academic medical center in southern California (SoCal), and one in the upper Midwest (UM), we audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions in medical oncology outpatient practices. We counted the frequency and duration of CAM-related conversations. We coded recordings using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. We used chi-square tests for bivariate analysis of categorical variables and generalized linear models for continuous variables to examine associations between dialogue characteristics, practice setting, and population characteristics with the occurrence of CAM discussion in each setting followed by multivariate models adjusting for clinician clustering. RESULTS: Sixty-one clinicians and 529 patients participated. Sixty-two of 529 (12%) interactions included CAM discussions, with significantly more observed in the SoCal university practice than in the other settings. Visits that included CAM were on average 6 minutes longer, with CAM content lasting an average of 78 seconds. In bivariate tests of association, conversations containing CAM included more psychosocial statements from both clinicians and patients, higher patient-centeredness, more positive patient and clinician affect, and greater patient engagement. In a multivariable model including significant bivariate terms, conversations containing CAM were independently associated with higher patient-centeredness, slightly longer visits, and being at the SoCal university site. CONCLUSION: The frequency of CAM-related discussion in oncology varied substantially across sites. Visits that included CAM discussion were longer and more patient centered. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The Institute of Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have called for more open discussions of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). But little is known about the role population characteristics and care contexts may play in the frequency and nature of those discussions. The present data characterizing actual conversations in practice complements a much larger literature based on patient and clinician self-report about CAM disclosure and use. It was found that CAM discussions in academic oncology visits varied significantly by practice context, that the majority were initiated by the patient, and that they may occur more when visit time exists for lifestyle, self-care, and psychosocial concerns.

Phase I/II study of bevacizumab with BKM120, an oral PI3K inhibitor, in patients with refractory solid tumors (phase I) and relapsed/refractory glioblastoma (phase II).

BACKGROUND: Current bevacizumab-based regimens have failed to improve survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. To improve treatment efficacy, we evaluated bevacizumab + BKM120, an oral pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, in this patient population. METHODS: A brief phase I study established the optimal BKM120 dose to administer with standard-dose bevacizumab. BKM120 60 mg PO daily + bevacizumab 10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks in 28-day cycles was then administered to patients with relapsed/refractory glioblastoma in the phase II portion. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients enrolled (phase I, 12; phase II, 76). In phase I, BKM120 80 mg PO daily produced dose limiting toxicity in 3 of 6 patients; a BKM120 dose of 60 mg PO daily was established as the maximum tolerated dose. In phase II, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.4, 5.4), PFS at 6 months was 36.5%, and the overall response rate was 26%. Forty-two patients (57%) experienced one or more serious treatment related toxicities. The most common CNS toxicities included mood alteration (17%) and confusion (12%); however, these were often difficult to classify as treatment- versus tumor-related. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy seen in this study is similar to the efficacy previously reported with single-agent bevacizumab. This regimen was poorly tolerated, despite the low daily dose of BKM120. Further development of this combination for the treatment of glioblastoma is not recommended.

Antifungal prophylaxis in lung transplant: A survey of United States' transplant centers.

BACKGROUND: Antifungal prophylaxis strategies for lung transplant recipients vary without consensus or standard of care. Our current study aims to identify antifungal prophylaxis practices in the United States. METHODS: From November 29, 2018, to February 15, 2019, we emailed surveys to medical directors of adult lung transplant centers. An alternate physician representative was approached if continued non-response after three survey attempts. Descriptive statistics were used to report findings. RESULTS: Forty-four of 62 (71.0%) eligible centers responded. All Organ Procurement and Transplantation Networks were represented. Only four (9.1%) centers used pre-transplant prophylaxis for prevention of tracheobronchitis (3 of 4) and invasive fungal disease (4 of 4). Thirty-nine of forty (97.5%) centers used post-transplant prophylaxis: 36 (90.0%) universal and 3 (7.5%) pre-emptive/selective prophylaxis. Most centers used nebulized amphotericin with a systemic agent (26 of 36, 72.2%). Thirty-two of thirty-six (88.9%) centers continued universal prophylaxis beyond the hospital setting. Duration of prophylaxis ranged from the post-transplant hospitalization to lifelong with most centers (25 of 36, 69.4%) discontinuing prophylaxis 6 months or less post-transplant. CONCLUSION: Most United States' lung transplant centers utilize a universal prophylaxis with nebulized amphotericin and a systemic triazole for 6 months or less post-transplant. Very few centers use pre-transplant antifungal prophylaxis.

Patient-Reported Outcomes After Percutaneous Renal Ablation: Initial Experience.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess patient-reported outcomes after renal tumor ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of a pilot quality initiative from February 2016 to April 2016 in our renal ablation practice was performed to assess outcomes after treatment. This included a total of 38 patients (mean age, 63 years; range, 39-83 years) undergoing renal ablation procedures. This pilot included the quantification of recovery, pain, physical well-being, interference with social activities, and physical function as reported by the patient, including measures obtained from the National Institutes of Health's Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Such measures were obtained within 24 hours before ablation and days 1-7 and 30 after ablation. RESULTS: The mean numeric rating (0-10) pain scores at 1 and 2 days after treatment were 1.8 (SD, 2.3) and 2.6 (SD, 2.5). Similarly, mean scores for both overall physical well-being and social activities declined by less than 2 points in the days after ablation. PROMIS scales for physical function and social activities showed very little change from baseline. Nearly 50% of patients thought that they had completely recovered from the ablation on the day after treatment; this perception of recovery declined at days 3-5 and then increased to 89% at 30 days after ablation. CONCLUSION: This pilot study shows the feasibility of capturing patient-reported outcomes after renal ablation. Such information, particularly when collected from a broader patient population, will be valuable in providing a means to measure quality in the ablation practice and in improving patient education regarding treatment.

Factors influencing the adoption of the sentinel lymph node technique for endometrial cancer staging: an international survey of gynecologic oncologists.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the factors influencing adoption of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) technique for endometrial cancer staging among gynecologic oncologists. METHODS: A self-administered, web-based survey was sent via email (April 20 through May 21, 2017) to all members of European Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, and Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. Surgical and pathologic practices related to SLN and reasons for not adopting this technique were investigated. RESULTS: Overall, 489 attending physicians or consultants in gynecologic oncology from 69 countries responded: 201 (41.1%), 118 (24.1%), and 117 (23.9%) from Europe, the USA, and other countries, respectively (10.8% did not report a country). SLN was adopted by 246 (50.3%) respondents, with 93.1% injecting the cervix and 62.6 % using indocyanine green dye. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network SLN algorithm was followed by 160 (65.0%) respondents (USA 74.4%, Europe 55.4%, other countries 71.4%). However, 66.7% completed a backup lymphadenectomy in high-risk patients. When SLN biopsy revealed isolated tumor cells, 13.8% of respondents recommended adjuvant therapy. This percentage increased to 52% if micrometastases were detected. Among the 243 not adopting SLN, 50.2% cited lack of evidence and 45.3% stated that inadequate instrumentation fueled their decisions. CONCLUSIONS: SLN with a cervical injection is gaining widespread acceptance for staging of endometrial cancer among gynecologic oncologists worldwide. Standardization of the surgical approach with the National Comprehensive Care Network algorithm is applied by most users. Management of isolated tumor cells and the role of backup lymphadenectomy for 'high-risk' cases remain areas of investigation.

Reflecting on shared decision making: A reflection-quantification study.

BACKGROUND: Reflecting ("stop-and-think") before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self-reported SDM measures. METHODS: We asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3-item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open-ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient. RESULTS: In Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores ("less" SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Reflection-before-quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient-reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects.

Results of a Prospective, Multicenter Initiative Aimed at Developing Opioid-prescribing Guidelines After Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a prospective, multicenter survey of patients regarding postoperative opioid use to inform development of standardized, evidence-based, procedure-specific opioid prescribing guidelines. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous work has shown significant variation in the amount of opioids prescribed after elective procedures, calling for optimization of prescribing. METHODS: Adults (n = 3412) undergoing 25 elective procedures were identified prospectively from 3 academic centers (March 2017 to January 2018) to complete a 29-question telephone interview survey 21 to 35 days post-discharge (n = 688 not contacted, n = 107 refused). Discharge opioids were converted into Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MMEs). RESULTS: Of the 2486 patients who completed the survey, 91.2% received opioids at discharge [median 225 (interquartile range, IQR 125 to 381) MME]. A median of 43 (0 to 184) MMEs were consumed after discharge with 77.3% of patients having leftover opioids at the time of the survey. In total, 61.5% of prescribed opioids were unused; 31.4% of patients used no opioids, and 52.6% required <50 MME. Overall, 90.6% of patients were satisfied with their postdischarge pain control. While 28.3% reported being prescribed too many opioids, 9.0% felt they were not prescribed enough. Only 9.6% of patients disposed of remaining opioids. Of the 2068 opioid-naive respondents (83.2%), 33.6% consumed no opioids (range 5.2% to 80.0% by procedure) and 57.0% (65.7% nonorthopedic) consumed <50 MME. Utilization data and predictors of low/high opioid consumption informed development of postoperative prescribing guidelines. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of postoperative patients reported using no or few opioids following discharge. Guidelines were developed to minimize opioid prescribing and identify patients requiring low doses or additional multimodal pain control.

Quality of life at diagnosis predicts overall survival in patients with aggressive lymphoma.

Our aim was to evaluate whether quality of life (QOL) scores at diagnosis predict survival among patients with aggressive lymphoma. Newly diagnosed lymphoma patients were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE and systematically followed for event-free and overall survival (OS). QOL was measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-General (FACT-G), which measures 4 domains: physical, social/family, emotional, and functional well-being (WB); a single item Linear Analogue Self-Assessment (LASA) measuring overall QOL; and a spiritual WB LASA. From 9/2002 to 12/2009, 701 patients with aggressive lymphoma who completed baseline QOL questionnaires were enrolled. At a median follow-up of 71 months (range 6-128), 316 patients (45%) had an event and 228 patients (33%) died. All baseline QOL measures but emotional WB were significantly associated with OS (all P < 0.04); of which all but LASA spiritual remained significant after adjusting for IPI and NHL subtype. The strongest associations were with total FACT-G (adjusted HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.79-0.94, P = 0.00062) and functional WB (adjusted HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.83-0.93, P < .0001). QOL LASA was associated with OS (adjusted HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.87-0.97, P = 0.0041). Patients with clinically deficient QOL (overall QOL ≤50) had a median OS of 92 months compared with 121 months for patients with QOL >50 (P = 0.0004). In this large sample of patients with aggressive lymphoma, we found that baseline QOL is independently predictive of OS. QOL should be assessed as a prognostic factor in patients with aggressive lymphoma.

Patient-reported outcome domains for the esophageal CONDUIT report card: a prospective trial to establish domains.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (QoL) deteriorates immediately after esophagectomy. Patients may benefit from periodic assessments to detect increased morbidity on the basis of subjective self-reports. Using input from patients and health care providers, we developed a brief prototype for the esophageal conduit questionnaire (Mayo Clinic Esophageal Conduit Outcomes Noting Dysphagia/Dumping, and Unknown outcomes with Intermittent symptoms over Time after esophageal reconstruction [CONDUIT] Report Card) and previously used it in comparative research. The present study aimed to expand its content and establish health-related QoL and symptom domains of a patient-reported postesophagectomy conduit evaluation tool. METHODS: We expanded tool content by selecting items measuring patient-reported symptoms from existing questionnaires or written de novo. A multidisciplinary group of clinician content-matter experts approved the draft tool, together with a designated patient advocate. The expanded tool was administered to patients postesophagectomy from March 1 to November 30, 2016. We established domains of conduit performance for score reporting through data analysis with exploratory factor analyses. We assessed psychometric properties such as dimensionality, internal consistency, and inter-item correlations in each domain and compared content coverage with other existing measures intended for this patient population. For data that were missing less than 50% of patient responses, the missing values were imputed. RESULTS: Five multi-item domains were established from data of 76 patients surveyed after esophagectomy; single items were used to assess stricture and conduit emptying. For every multi-item domain, dominance of 1 factor was present. Internal consistency reliability estimates for the domains were 0.87, 0.78, 0.75, 0.80, and 0.83 and average inter-item correlations were 0.40, 0.50, 0.40, 0.33, and 0.73 for dysphagia, reflux, dumping-gastrointestinal symptoms, dumping-hypoglycemia, and pain, respectively. Some items observed to have lower inter-item correlation were reworded or flagged for removal at future validation. For reflux and dumping-related hypoglycemia, additional items were written after these analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The CONDUIT Report Card is a novel questionnaire for assessing QoL and symptoms of patients after esophageal reconstruction. It covers major symptoms of these patients and has good content validity and psychometric properties. The tool can be used to help direct patient care, guide intervention, and compare efficacy of different treatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier No. 02530983 on 8/18/2015.