Emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations among older patients with brain metastases: a dual population- and institution-level analysis.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with brain metastases (BrM) commonly experience symptoms that prompt acute medical evaluation. We characterized emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient hospitalizations in this population. METHODS: We identified 17 789 and 361 Medicare enrollees diagnosed with BrM using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database (2010-2016) and an institutional database (2007-2016), respectively. Predictors of ED visits and hospitalizations were assessed using Poisson regression. RESULTS: The institutional cohort averaged 3.3 ED visits/1.9 hospitalizations per person-year, with intracranial disease being the most common reason for presentation/admission. SEER-Medicare patients averaged 2.8 ED visits/2.0 hospitalizations per person-year. For patients with synchronous BrM (N = 7834), adjusted risk factors for ED utilization and hospitalization, respectively, included: male sex (rate ratio [RR] = 1.15 [95% CI = 1.09-1.22], P < .001; RR = 1.21 [95% CI = 1.13-1.29], P < .001); African American vs white race (RR = 1.30 [95% CI = 1.18-1.42], P < .001; RR = 1.25 [95% CI = 1.13-1.39], P < .001); unmarried status (RR = 1.07 [95% CI = 1.01-1.14], P = .02; RR = 1.09 [95% CI = 1.02-1.17], P = .01); Charlson comorbidity score >2 (RR = 1.27 [95% CI = 1.17-1.37], P < .001; RR = 1.36 [95% CI = 1.24-1.49], P < .001); and receipt of non-stereotactic vs stereotactic radiation (RR = 1.44 [95% CI = 1.34-1.55, P < .001; RR = 1.49 [95% CI = 1.37-1.62, P < .001). For patients with metachronous BrM (N = 9955), ED visits and hospitalizations were more common after vs before BrM diagnosis (2.6 vs 1.2 ED visits per person-year; 1.8 vs 0.9 hospitalizations per person-year, respectively; RR = 2.24 [95% CI = 2.15-2.33], P < .001; RR = 2.06 [95% CI = 1.98-2.15], P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with BrM commonly receive hospital-level care secondary to intracranial disease, especially in select subpopulations. Enhanced care coordination, closer outpatient follow-up, and patient navigator programs seem warranted for this population.

Treating the SARS-CoV-2-positive patient with cancer: A proposal for a pragmatic and transparent ethical process.

The treatment of patients with cancer who test positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) poses unique challenges. In this commentary, the authors describe the ethical rationale and implementation details for the creation of a novel, multidisciplinary treatment prioritization committee, including physicians, frontline staff, an ethicist, and an infectious disease expert. Organizational obligations to health care workers also are discussed. The treatment prioritization committee sets a threshold of acceptable harm to patients from decreased cancer control that is justified to reduce risk to staff. The creation of an ethical, consistent, and transparent decision-making process involving such frontline stakeholders is essential as departments across the country are faced with decisions regarding the treatment of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with cancer.

Implementing patient-reported outcome surveys as part of routine care: lessons from an academic radiation oncology department.

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of health conditions that come directly from patients. Use of PROs has been associated with improved patient outcomes, enhanced quality of life, and reduced end-of-life spending. Yet there are still outstanding questions regarding the process of implementing PRO collection in routine practice. In this article, we describe the experience of selecting and implementing PROs in a multisite, multidisease academic medical center-based radiation oncology practice and demonstrate that such large-scale rollout is feasible. We establish that PROs can be implemented with minimal to no workflow delays, are generally seen as valuable by clinicians, and can enhance patient-doctor communication. We additionally detail the challenges involved in selecting clinically relevant PRO questionnaires and the centrality of physician buy-in, easy data access, and clear workflows to successful implementation.