Dual-Positive CD4/CD8 Primary Cutaneous Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma Previously Classified as Mycosis Fungoides a Tumor D'Emblée.

Cutaneous peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified represents a "waste basket" of all cases that cannot be put into another of the categories of mature cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Previously, the sudden multifocal development of cutaneous CD4 tumors without preceding a patch or plaque stage was classified as d'emblée form of mycosis fungoides (MF). Currently, the term "MF" reserved only for the classic Alibert-Bazin type characterized by the evolution of patches, plaques, and tumors or for variants showing a similar clinical course. The authors describe a 75-year-old white woman who presented with a solitary skin tumor in the right supraclavicular region, with no lymph node or systemic involvement. Local external beam radiation treatment resulted in a complete response. The patient relapsed after 5 months with new tumors in the left neck and left upper chest. Biopsy of the lesions showed a dermal infiltrate of atypical small- to medium-sized T-lymphocytes, and immunohistochemical staining showed coexpression of CD4/CD8 in a subset of these cells, which was confirmed with flow cytometry of the tumor. Although the patient had no preceding patch or plaque stage, the authors herein report this extremely rare case of CD4/CD8 dual-positive peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified presented as MF d'emblée and discuss the seldom similar cases published previously.

Impact of dynamic changes to a bone metastases pathway in a large, integrated, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center network.

PURPOSE: Studies suggest equivalent pain relief from bone metastases after radiation therapy with >10-fraction regimens and shorter courses. Although American Society for Radiation Oncology evidence-based guidelines and the Choosing Wisely campaign endorse single-fraction treatments and caution against the use of extended courses, publications report single-fraction utilization rates below 5%. We evaluated the impact of our bone metastasis clinical pathway on the adoption of short-course palliative radiation in a large, integrated radiation oncology network. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We implemented a clinical pathway for the management of bone metastases in 2003 that required the entry of management decisions into an online tool that subjected off-pathway choices to peer review beginning in 2009. In 2014, the pathway was modified to encourage single-fraction treatments, and the use of >10 fractions was considered off pathway. Data were obtained from 16 integrated sites (4 academic, 12 community) from 2003 through 2014. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to establish factors associated with treatment with a single fraction and with >10 fractions. RESULTS: In this study, 12,678 unique courses were delivered. From 2003 to 2008, the single-fraction utilization rate was 7.6%. This increased to 10.9% from 2009 to 2013 and to 15.8% in 2014. The odds ratios for single-fraction use were 1.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-1.81) and 2.58 (95% CI, 2.11-3.15) for 2009-2013 and 2014, respectively. Academic physicians were more likely to treat with a single fraction (odds ratio, 5.00; 95% CI, 4.38-5.71). Use of >10-fraction regimens significantly decreased from 18.6% in 2003-2008 to 15.2% in 2009-2013 and 9.7% in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Although our single-fraction utilization rate was initially in line with national rates (7.6%), the adoption rate increased to >15%. The use of >10-fraction regimens decreased significantly, predominantly among community practices. By 2014, >90% of courses were delivered with <10 fractions. This study demonstrates that provider-driven clinical pathways are able to standardize practice patterns and promote change consistent with evidence-based guidelines.

The accuracy of predicting survival in individual patients with cancer.

OBJECT: Estimating survival time in cancer patients is crucial for clinicians, patients, families, and payers. To provide appropriate and cost-effective care, various data sources are used to provide rational, reliable, and reproducible estimates. The accuracy of such estimates is unknown. METHODS: The authors prospectively estimated survival in 150 consecutive cancer patients (median age 62 years) with brain metastases undergoing radiosurgery. They recorded cancer type, number of brain metastases, neurological presentation, extracranial disease status, Karnofsky Performance Scale score, Recursive Partitioning Analysis class, prior whole-brain radiotherapy, and synchronous or metachronous presentation. Finally, the authors asked 18 medical, radiation, or surgical oncologists to predict survival from the time of treatment. RESULTS: The actual median patient survival was 10.3 months (95% CI 6.4-14). The median physician-predicted survival was 9.7 months (neurosurgeons = 11.8 months, radiation oncologists = 11.0 months, and medical oncologist = 7.2 months). For patients who died before 10 months, both neurosurgeons and radiation oncologists generally predicted survivals that were more optimistic and medical oncologists that were less so, although no group could accurately predict survivors alive at 14 months. All physicians had individual patient survival predictions that were incorrect by as much as 12-18 months, and 14 of 18 physicians had individual predictions that were in error by more than 18 months. Of the 2700 predictions, 1226 (45%) were off by more than 6 months and 488 (18%) were off by more than 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Although crucial, predicting the survival of cancer patients is difficult. In this study all physicians were unable to accurately predict longer-term survivors. Despite valuable clinical data and predictive scoring techniques, brain and systemic management often led to patient survivals well beyond estimated survivals.

How effective are clinical pathways with and without online peer-review? An analysis of bone metastases pathway in a large, integrated National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center Network.

PURPOSE: Clinical pathways are an important tool used to manage the quality in health care by standardizing processes. This study evaluated the impact of the implementation of a peer-reviewed clinical pathway in a large, integrated National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center Network. METHODS: In 2003, we implemented a clinical pathway for the management of bone metastases with palliative radiation therapy. In 2009, we required the entry of management decisions into an online tool that records pathway choices. The pathway specified 1 or 5 fractions for symptomatic bone metastases with the option of 10-14 fractions for certain clinical situations. The data were obtained from 13 integrated sites (3 central academic, 10 community locations) from 2003 through 2010. RESULTS: In this study, 7905 sites were treated with 64% of courses delivered in community practice and 36% in academic locations. Academic practices were more likely than community practices to treat with 1-5 fractions (63% vs. 23%; p < 0.0001). The number of delivered fractions decreased gradually from 2003 to 2010 for both academic and community practices (p < 0.0001); however, greater numbers of fractions were selected more often in community practices (p < 0.0001). Using multivariate logistic regression, we found that a significantly greater selection of 1-5 fractions developed after implementation online pathway monitoring (2009) with an odds ratio of 1.2 (confidence interval, 1.1-1.4) for community and 1.3 (confidence interval, 1.1-1.6) for academic practices. The mean number of fractions also decreased after online peer review from 6.3 to 6.0 for academic (p = 0.07) and 9.4 to 9.0 for community practices (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This is one of the first studies to examine the efficacy of a clinical pathway for radiation oncology in an integrated cancer network. Clinical pathway implementation appears to be effective in changing patterns of care, particularly with online clinical peer review as a valuable aid to encourage adherence to evidence-based practice.

Assessment of "best practice" treatment patterns for a "radiation oncology community outreach group" engaged in cancer disparities outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Minority patients with cancer have higher recurrence rates than the general population and are more likely to be treated at community centers where the standard of care has been reported to be inferior to that at academic centers. These issues are being explored by Radiation Oncology Community Outreach Group (ROCOG), a consortium of 5 Community Radiation Oncology centers participating in a National Cancer Institute-funded Disparities Grant. As a quality assurance/quality improvement initiative, this study was undertaken to ensure that treatment was at a "best practice" level. METHODS: With the use of the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation criteria, an initial self-evaluation was done on 10 randomly selected cases at each of 5 radiation oncology clinics for patients treated between July 2002 and December 2003. The results were analyzed and presented to the centers with recommendations for improvements in April 2004. As part of an application to the ACR for accreditation, a second self-evaluation was performed on randomly selected cases treated between July and December 2004. ACR surveyors conducted the last randomly selected case evaluation. RESULTS: All centers had acceptable standards at baseline. The ROCOG average compliance rate at first evaluation was 88% vs 92% for ACR-accredited facilities. At reevaluation, the ROCOG average compliance rate was 95% vs 92% (ACR-accredited facilities). At the final evaluation, the ROCOG average compliance rate was 92% vs 90% (ACR-accredited facilities). All 5 sites received ACR accreditation. CONCLUSION: Despite a small sample, patients served by these institutions, regardless of minority status, received radiation oncology care at or above the accepted standards. A quality assessment/quality improvement initiative using ACR accreditation to ensure that "best practice" levels led to improved standards. Accreditation is one method that could be used to support a "pay-for-performance" program.