Immune-related adverse event in the emergency department: methodology of the immune-related emergency disposition index (IrEDi).

For many cancer patients, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can be life-saving. However, the immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from ICIs can be debilitating and can quickly become severe or even be fatal. Often, irAEs will precipitate visits to the emergency department (ED). Therefore, early recognition and the decision to admit, observe, or discharge these patients from the ED can be key to a cancer patient's morbidity and mortality. ED clinicians typically make their decision for disposition (admit, observe, or discharge) within 2-6 h from their patient's ED presentation. However, irAEs are particularly challenging in the ED because of atypical presentations, the absence of classic symptoms, the delayed availability of diagnostic tests during the ED encounter, and the fast pace in the ED setting. At present, there is no single sufficiently large ED data source with clinical, biological, laboratory, and imaging data that will allow for the development of a tool that will guide early recognition and appropriate ED disposition of patients with potential irAEs. We describe an ongoing federally funded project that aims to develop an immune-related emergency disposition index (IrEDi). The project capitalizes on a multi-site collaboration among 4 members of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergency Research Network (CONCERN): MD Anderson Cancer Center, Ohio State University, Northwestern University, and University of California San Diego. If the aims are achieved, the IrEDi will be the first risk stratification tool derived from a large racial/ethnically and geographically diverse population of cancer patients. The future goal is to validate irEDi in general EDs to improve emergency care of cancer patients on ICIs.

Current gaps in emergency medicine core content education for oncologic emergencies: A targeted needs assessment.

Objective: The core content of emergency medicine (EM) residency training includes the management of oncologic emergencies; however, documented knowledge gaps continue to exist in this subtopic. This study represents a targeted needs assessment as indicated by Step 2 of Kern's curriculum design to determine the specific training gaps to be addressed within the oncologic EM curriculum. Methods: A multi-institutional cross-sectional survey of oncologists (surgical and medical) and emergency physicians (attendings and residents) was conducted during 2023 at five institutions. The voluntary survey consisted of general and specialty-specific questions exploring gaps in oncologic emergency-specific training/education topics. Descriptive statistics reported responses as frequencies and percentages. Results: Of the 833 surveys sent across the five sites, 302 (36.3%) were accessed by link; of these, 271 (89.7%) surveys were completed. There were no differences in the responses between early and later respondents and no differences in the characteristics of respondents between sites. A vast majority of the oncologist and EM groups (91.2% and 83.0%, respectively) reported a belief that emergency physicians would benefit from additional oncologic emergency training. Our survey identified 16 important topics for inclusion in an oncologic EM curriculum, including five topics not present on the 2022 Model of Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine. Conclusions: Based on this needs assessment, an oncologic EM curriculum should include the topics listed under oncologic emergencies in the 2022 Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine along with our respondent-identified topics of radiation therapy adverse effects, stem cell transplant complications, and the management of cancer-specific postsurgical complications, pain, and common diseases in patients with cancer.

A case series of adrenal insufficiency (likely due to hypophysitis) in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The number of approved immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and their indications have significantly increased over the past decade. Immune-related adverse effects (irAEs) of ICIs vary widely in presentation and symptoms and can present diagnostic challenges to emergency department (ED) physicians. Moreover, when ICIs are combined with radiotherapy, cytotoxic chemotherapy, or targeted therapy, the attribution of signs and symptoms to an immune-related cause is even more difficult. Here, we report a series of 5 ED cases of adrenal insufficiency in ICI-treated cancer patients. All 5 patients presented with severe fatigue and nausea. Four patients definitely had and one patient possibly had central adrenal insufficiency, and 4 patients had undetectable serum cortisol levels. The majority of the patients had nonspecific symptoms that were not recognized at their first ED presentation. These cases illustrate the need for a heightened level of suspicion for adrenal insufficiency in ICI-treated cancer patients with hypotension, nausea and/or vomiting, abdominal pain, fatigue, or hypoglycemia. As ICI use increases, irAE-associated oncologic emergencies will become more prevalent. Thus, ED physicians must update their knowledge regarding the diagnosis and management of irAEs and routinely inquire about the specific antineoplastic therapies that their ED patients with cancer are receiving. A random cortisol level (results readily available in most EDs) with interpretation taking the circadian rhythm and the current level of physiological stress into consideration can inform the differential diagnosis and whether further investigation of this potential irAE is warranted.

Cardiovascular events after cancer immunotherapy as oncologic emergencies: Analyses of 610 head and neck cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Cardio-oncology and emergency medicine are closely collaborative, as many cardiac events in cancer patients require evaluation and treatment in the emergency department (ED). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become a common treatment for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). However, the immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from ICIs can be clinically significant. METHODS: We reviewed and analyzed cardiovascular diagnoses among HNC patients who received ICI during the period April 1, 2016-December 31, 2020 in a large tertiary cancer center. Demographics, clinical and cancer-related data were abstracted, and billing databases were queried for cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related diagnosis using International Classification of Disease-version10 (ICD-10) codes. We recorded receipt of care at the ED as one of the outcome variables. RESULTS: A total of 610 HNC patients with a median follow-up time of 12.3 months (median, interquartile range = 5-30 months) comprised our study cohort. Overall, 25.7% of patients had pre-existing CVD prior to ICI treatment. Of the remaining 453 patients without pre-existing CVD, 31.5% (n = 143) had at least one CVD-related diagnosis after ICI initiation. Tachyarrhythmias (91 new events) was the most frequent CVD-related diagnosis after ICI. The time to diagnosis of myocarditis from initiation of ICI occurred the earliest (median 2.5 months, 1.5-6.8 months), followed by myocardial infarction (3.7, 0.5-9), cardiomyopathy (4.5, 1.6-7.3), and tachyarrhythmias (4.9, 1.2-11.4). Patients with myocarditis and tachyarrhythmias mainly presented to the ED for care. CONCLUSION: The use of ICI in HNC is still expanding and the spectrum of delayed manifestation of ICI-induced cardiovascular toxicities is yet to be fully defined in HNC survivors.

Diagnosis of cancer in the Emergency Department: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The Emergency Department (ED) plays a key role in the identification and care of acute medical conditions, including cancer. In this scoping review, we aimed to determine the role of the ED in the acute diagnosis of cancer. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of articles according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) using PubMed and Google Scholar. We screened studies of adults with a new diagnosis of cancer in the ED. We included randomized control trials, prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional observational studies, and case reports published in English since 2000. We grouped the articles into categories based on their objectives and findings. RESULTS: Of the 4459 articles, we included 47 in the review. The identified studies fell into three major categories: (1) studies describing the incidental diagnosis of cancer in the ED (n = 11, 23%), (2) studies characterizing the acute initial presentation of cancer in the ED (n = 19, 41%), and (3) studies describing the ED as a pathway to cancer diagnosis in the healthcare system (n = 17, 36%). Across the studies, cancer diagnoses in the ED were more likely in patients with higher comorbidities, occurred at later stages, and resulted in worse survival rates. CONCLUSIONS: The ED plays a prominent role in the initial diagnosis of cancer. Efforts must be made to integrate the ED within the cancer care continuum.

Palliative care models for patients living with advanced cancer: a narrative review for the emergency department clinician.

Eighty-one percent of persons living with cancer have an emergency department (ED) visit within the last 6 months of life. Many cancer patients in the ED are at an advanced stage with high symptom burden and complex needs, and over half is admitted to an inpatient setting. Innovative models of care have been developed to provide high quality, ambulatory, and home-based care to persons living with serious, life-limiting illness, such as advanced cancer. New care models can be divided into a number of categories based on either prognosis (e.g., greater than or less than 6 months), or level of care (e.g., lower versus higher intensity needs, such as intravenous pain/nausea medication or frequent monitoring), and goals of care (e.g., cancer-directed treatment versus symptom-focused care only). We performed a narrative review to (1) compare models of care for seriously ill cancer patients in the ED and (2) examine factors that may hasten or impede wider dissemination of these models.

Oncologic emergencies and urgencies: A comprehensive review.

Patients with advanced cancer generate 4 million visits annually to emergency departments (EDs) and other dedicated, high-acuity oncology urgent care centers. Because of both the increasing complexity of systemic treatments overall and the higher rates of active therapy in the geriatric population, many patients experiencing acute decompensations are frail and acutely ill. This article comprehensively reviews the spectrum of oncologic emergencies and urgencies typically encountered in acute care settings. Presentation, underlying etiology, and up-to-date clinical pathways are discussed. Criteria for either a safe discharge to home or a transition of care to the inpatient oncology hospitalist team are emphasized. This review extends beyond familiar conditions such as febrile neutropenia, hypercalcemia, tumor lysis syndrome, malignant spinal cord compression, mechanical bowel obstruction, and breakthrough pain crises to include a broader spectrum of topics encompassing the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion, venous thromboembolism and malignant effusions, as well as chemotherapy-induced mucositis, cardiomyopathy, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Emergent and urgent complications associated with targeted therapeutics, including small molecules, naked and drug-conjugated monoclonal antibodies, as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor T-cells, are summarized. Finally, strategies for facilitating same-day direct admission to hospice from the ED are discussed. This article not only can serve as a point-of-care reference for the ED physician but also can assist outpatient oncologists as well as inpatient hospitalists in coordinating care around the ED visit.

Characterization of older adults with cancer seeking acute emergency department care: A prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Disparities in care of older adults in cancer treatment trials and emergency department (ED) use exist. This report provides a baseline description of older adults ≥65 years old who present to the ED with active cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Planned secondary analysis of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network observational ED cohort study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Of 1564 eligible adults with active cancer, 1075 patients were prospectively enrolled, of which 505 were ≥ 65 years old. We recruited this convenience sample from eighteen participating sites across the United States between February 1, 2016 and January 30, 2017. RESULTS: Compared to cancer patients younger than 65 years of age, older adults were more likely to be transported to the ED by emergency medical services, have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and be admitted despite no significant difference in acuity as measured by the Emergency Severity Index. Despite the higher admission rate, no significant difference was noted in hospitalization length of stay, 30-day mortality, ED revisit or hospital admission within 30 days after the index visit. Three of the top five ED diagnoses for older adults were symptom-related (fever of other and unknown origin, abdominal and pelvic pain, and pain in throat and chest). Despite this, older adults were less likely to report symptoms and less likely to receive symptomatic treatment for pain and nausea than the younger comparison group. Both younger and older adults reported a higher symptom burden on the patient reported Condensed Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale than to ED providers. When treating suspected infection, no differences were noted in regard to administration of antibiotics in the ED, admissions, or length of stay ≤2 days for those receiving ED antibiotics. DISCUSSION: We identified several differences between older (≥65 years old) and younger adults with active cancer seeking emergency care. Older adults frequently presented for symptom-related diagnoses but received fewer symptomatic interventions in the ED suggesting that important opportunities to improve the care of older adults with cancer in the ED exist.

Palliative Care Needs and Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Advanced Cancer in the Emergency Department.

Background: Older adults with cancer use the emergency department (ED) for acute concerns. Objectives: Characterize the palliative care needs and clinical outcomes of advanced cancer patients in the ED. Design: A planned secondary data analysis of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network (CONCERN) data. Settings/Subjects: Cancer patients who presented to the 18 CONCERN affiliated EDs in the United States. Measurements: Survey included demographics, cancer type, functional status, symptom burden, palliative and hospice care enrollment, and advance directive code status. Results: Of the total (674/1075, 62.3%) patients had advanced cancer and most were White (78.6%) and female (50.3%); median age was 64 (interquartile range 54-71) years. A small proportion of them were receiving palliative (6.5% [95% confidence interval; CI 3.0-7.6]; p = 0.005) and hospice (1.3% [95% CI 1.0-3.2]; p = 0.52) care and had a higher 30-day mortality rate (8.3%, [95% CI 6.2-10.4]). Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer continue to present to the ED despite recommendations for early delivery of palliative care.

Observation unit use among patients with cancer following emergency department visits: Results of a multicenter prospective cohort from CONCERN.

PURPOSE: Emergency department (ED) visits by patients with cancer frequently end in hospitalization. As concerns about ED and hospital crowding increase, observation unit care may be an important strategy to deliver safe and efficient treatment for eligible patients. In this investigation, we compared the prevalence and clinical characteristics of cancer patients who received observation unit care with those who were admitted to the hospital from the ED. METHODS: We performed a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients with cancer presenting to an ED affiliated with one of 18 hospitals of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergency Research Network (CONCERN) between March 1, 2016 and January 30, 2017. We compared patient characteristics with the prevalence of observation unit care usage, hospital admission, and length of stay. RESULTS: Of 1051 enrolled patients, 596 (56.7%) were admitted as inpatients, and 72 (6.9%) were placed in an observation unit. For patients admitted as inpatients, 23.7% had a length of stay ≤2 days. The conversion rate from observation to inpatient was 17.1% (95% CI 14.6-19.4) among those receiving care in an observation unit. The average observation unit length of stay was 14.7 h. Patient factors associated ED disposition to observation unit care were female gender and low Charlson Comorbidity Index. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter prospective cohort study, the discrepancy between observation unit care use and short inpatient hospitalization may represent underutilization of this resource and a target for process change.

Emergency department disposition of non-neutropenic febrile patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: National data reveal that 60% of the 4.5 million annual emergency department (ED) visits by patients with cancer result in admission. Many of these visits are due to a febrile illness. Current literature provides limited guidance on how to treat non-neutropenic febrile ED patients. This study characterizes clinical outcomes of non-neutropenic febrile patients with cancer presenting to an academic, Comprehensive Cancer Center affiliated ED. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 101 randomly selected adult patients with active cancer presenting with a chief complaint of fever or a documented fever in the ED and an absolute neutrophil count above 1000 between October 2015 and September 2016. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: The primary malignancies represented were hematologic (24%), gastrointestinal (13%), head and neck (13%), and genitourinary (8%). Sixty-two percent were on chemotherapy, 15% on radiation therapy, and 12% were on targeted therapy. Severe illness outcomes occurred in 39% and 83% were admitted with a median length of stay of 4 days. Among admitted patients, 24% experienced a length of stay ≤2 days. A return visit to the ED or an in-system hospitalization within 7 days of the index visit occurred in 10% and death occurred within 7 days of the index visit in 4%. CONCLUSION: A majority of patients presenting to the ED with non-neutropenic fever are admitted (83%), of whom nearly a quarter experience a length of stay of ≤2 days with infrequent serious illness outcomes. Future efforts should focus on the development of risk stratification tools in this population to avoid potentially unnecessary hospitalizations.

Emergency department management of chemotherapy related febrile neutropenia: An opportunity to improve care.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is an important oncological emergency seen in the emergency department (ED), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends risk stratification of patients with febrile neutropenia using the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Index, with ED discharge on oral antibiotics recommended for low-risk patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of FN neutropenia and medical system wide ED treatment guideline adherence. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients with an ICD-10 confirmed diagnosis of FN from January 2016-2019at 13 affiliated EDs within one medical system. Only cancer/chemotherapy related FN were included. Following the MASCC guidelines, we used post-hoc calculations to classify patients as low/high-risk, and compared key clinical variables (mortality, blood culture positivity, interventions). RESULTS: 203 patients were found to have FN. 97.9% (184/203) received broad spectrum antibiotics, including 92% of the low-risk group (60/65). All patients were admitted, and no observed in-hospital mortality was noted in the low-risk group, meanwhile 5.1% (7/138) of the high-risk group died. 14/203 patients had positive blood cultures, none in the low-risk group. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of FN is low among 13 EDs that had almost 1.7 million ED visits over a 3-year period. Guideline compliance for low-risk FN was poor. All patients were admitted, and nearly all patients received IV fluids and IV antibiotics. Improving FN management to align with national guidelines represents an opportunity to improved ED care of patients with cancer by reducing unnecessary hospitalizations.

A hybrid model of acute unscheduled cancer care provided by a hospital-based acute care clinic and the emergency department: a descriptive study.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer often experience medical events that require immediate evaluation. These evaluations typically occur in an emergency department (ED), but there is increasing interest in providing this care in other settings. We report on a novel care model whereby a nursing hotline is used to triage patients to the ED or to the North Carolina Cancer Hospital Infusion Center (NCCHIC). METHODS: A retrospective study of adult patients with a neoplasm diagnosis seeking acute care at a large academic hospital pre- and post-initiation of the novel care model in January of 2016. Patients were identified by querying the electronic medical record and clinic administrative data during matched 6 month pre- and post-periods. RESULTS: During the pre-initiation period, 1346 patients visited the ED on 1651 occasions (76.1% admission rate). In the post-initiation period, 1434 patients visited the ED on 1797 occasions (81.5% admission rate), and 246 patients visited the NCCHIC on 322 occasions (68.9% admission rate). The emergency severity index (ESI) in the pre-initiation ED group was primarily ESI 2 (30.6%) and ESI 3 (65.4%). In the post-initiation ED group, the ESI was similar (32.6% ESI 2 and 64.2% ESI 3). In contrast, the NCCHIC predominantly treated lower acuity patients (65.8% calculated ESI of 4/5). CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrates a multidisciplinary partnership to providing acute unscheduled care for patients with cancer. In the early implementation phase of this model, approximately 15% of patients, generally of lower acuity, were seen in the NCCHIC.

Diagnostic Uncertainty in Dyspneic Patients with Cancer in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: Dyspnea is the second most common symptom experienced by the approximately 4.5 million patients with cancer presenting to emergency departments (ED) each year. Distinguishing pneumonia, the most common reason for presentation, from other causes of dyspnea is challenging. This report characterizes the diagnostic uncertainty in patients with dyspnea and pneumonia presenting to an ED by establishing the rates of co-diagnosis, co-treatment, and misdiagnosis. METHODS: Visits by individuals ≥18 years old with cancer who presented with a complaint of dyspnea were identified using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey between 2012-2014 and analyzed for rates of co-diagnosis, co-treatment (treatment or diagnosis for >1 of pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], and heart failure), and misdiagnosis of pneumonia. Additionally, we assessed rates of diagnostic uncertainty (co-diagnosis, co-treatment, or a lone diagnosis of dyspnea not otherwise specified [NOS]). RESULTS: Among dyspneic cancer visits (1,593,930), 15.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.1-20.5%) were diagnosed with pneumonia, 22.5% (95% CI, 16.7-29.7%) with COPD, and 7.4% (95% CI 4.7-11.4%) with heart failure. Dyspnea NOS was diagnosed in 32.3% (95% CI, 25.7-39.7%) of visits and as the only diagnosis in 23.1% (95% CI, 16.3-31.6%) of all visits. Co-diagnosis occurred in 4.0% (95% CI, 2.0-7.6%) of dyspneic adults with cancer and co-treatment in 12.1% (95% CI, 7.5-18.9%). Agreement between emergency physician and inpatient documentation for presence of pneumonia was 57.7% (95% CI, 37.0-76.1%). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic uncertainty remains a significant concern in patients with cancer presenting to the ED with dyspnea. Clinical uncertainty among dyspneic patients results in both misdiagnosis and under-treatment of patients with pneumonia and cancer.

Cancer pain management in the emergency department: a multicenter prospective observational trial of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network (CONCERN).

PURPOSE: Many patients with cancer seek care for pain in the emergency department (ED). Prospective research on cancer pain in this setting has historically been insufficient. We conducted this study to describe the reported pain among cancer patients presenting to the ED, how pain is managed, and how pain may be associated with clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter cohort study on adult patients with active cancer presenting to 18 EDs in the USA. We reported pain scores, response to medication, and analgesic utilization. We estimated the associations between pain severity, medication utilization, and the following outcomes: 30-day mortality, 30-day hospital readmission, and ED disposition. RESULTS: The study population included 1075 participants. Those who received an opioid in the ED were more likely to be admitted to the hospital and were more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (OR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.88) and OR 1.56 (95% CI: 1.17, 2.07)), respectively. Severe pain at ED presentation was associated with increased 30-day mortality (OR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.05, 5.02), though this risk was attenuated when adjusting for clinical factors (most notably functional status). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe pain had a higher risk of mortality, which was attenuated when correcting for clinical characteristics. Those patients who required opioid analgesics in the ED were more likely to require admission and were more at risk of 30-day hospital readmission. Future efforts should focus on these at-risk groups, who may benefit from additional services including palliative care, hospice, or home-health services.

Utility of Emergency Department Chest Imaging in Patients with Cancer: A Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of computed tomography (CT) has been scrutinized in emergency medicine, particularly in patients with cancer. Previous studies have characterized the rate of CT use in this population; however, limited data are available about the yield of this modality compared with radiography and its clinical decision-making effect. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether CT imaging of the chest increases identification of clinically significant results compared with chest radiography (CXR) in patients with cancer. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of patients with a history of solid tumors presenting to an emergency department in 2017. Patients who received both CXR and CT (or CT angiography) of the chest during their assessment were identified and the rate of clinically significant findings on imaging was compared. Clinical findings were further categorized as requiring nonurgent, urgent, or emergent attention. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared testing were performed between the 2 imaging modalities. RESULTS: From 839 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 287 were randomly sampled. The predominant malignancies were lung (32.4%), breast (13.9%), and head and neck cancer (13.6%). A greater number of patients had clinically significant findings identified on CT imaging (n = 222) compared with CXR (n = 108). Stratification upon urgency of these findings (nonurgent, urgent, or emergent) reveals a significant difference in all strata (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CXR, CT imaging of the chest identified significantly more clinically relevant findings requiring attention and consequently affecting clinical decision making.

Validation of the Emergency Severity Index (Version 4) for the Triage of Adult Emergency Department Patients With Active Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with active cancer account for a growing percentage of all emergency department (ED) visits and have a unique set of risks related to their disease and its treatments. Effective triage for this population is fundamental to facilitating their emergency care. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the validity of the Emergency Severity Index (ESI; version 4) triage tool to predict ED-relevant outcomes among adult patients with active cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prespecified analysis of the observational cohort established by the National Cancer Institute-supported Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network's multicenter (18 sites) study of ED visits by patients with active cancer (N = 1075). We used a series of χ2 tests for independence to relate ESI scores with 1) disposition, 2) ED resource use, 3) hospital length of stay, and 4) 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among the 1008 subjects included in this analysis, the ESI distribution skewed heavily toward high acuity (>95% of subjects had an ESI level of 1, 2, or 3). ESI was significantly associated with patient disposition and ED resource use (p values < 0.05). No significant associations were observed between ESI and the non-ED based outcomes of hospital length of stay or 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: ESI scores among ED patients with active cancer indicate higher acuity than the general ED population and are predictive of disposition and ED resource use. These findings show that the ESI is a valid triage tool for use in this population for outcomes directly relevant to ED care.

Analysis of Diagnoses, Symptoms, Medications, and Admissions Among Patients With Cancer Presenting to Emergency Departments.

Importance: Better understanding of the emergency care needs of patients with cancer will inform outpatient and emergency department (ED) management. Objective: To provide a benchmark description of patients who present to the ED with active cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter prospective cohort study included 18 EDs affiliated with the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network (CONCERN). Of 1564 eligible patients, 1075 adults with active cancer were included from February 1, 2016, through January 30, 2017. Data were analyzed from February 1 through August 1, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of patients reporting symptoms (eg, pain, nausea) before and during the ED visit, ED and outpatient medications, most common diagnoses, and suspected infection as indicated by ED antibiotic administration. The proportions observed, admitted, and with a hospital length of stay (LOS) of no more than 2 days were identified. Results: Of 1075 participants, mean (SD) age was 62 (14) years, and 51.8% were female. Seven hundred ninety-four participants (73.9%; 95% CI, 71.1%-76.5%) had undergone cancer treatment in the preceding 30 days; 674 (62.7%; 95% CI, 59.7%-65.6%) had advanced or metastatic cancer; and 505 (47.0%; 95% CI, 43.9%-50.0%) were 65 years or older. The 5 most common ED diagnoses were symptom related. Of all participants, 82 (7.6%; 95% CI, 6.1%-9.4%) were placed in observation and 615 (57.2%; 95% CI, 54.2%-60.2%) were admitted; 154 of 615 admissions (25.0%; 95% CI, 21.7%-28.7%) had an LOS of 2 days or less (median, 3 days; interquartile range, 2-6 days). Pain during the ED visit was present in 668 patients (62.1%; 95% CI, 59.2%-65.0%; mean [SD] pain score, 6.4 [2.6] of 10.0) and in 776 (72.2%) during the prior week. Opioids were administered in the ED to 228 of 386 patients (59.1%; 95% CI, 18.8%-23.8%) with moderate to severe ED pain. Outpatient opioids were prescribed to 368 patients (47.4%; 95% CI, 3.14%-37.2%) of those with pre-ED pain, including 244 of 428 (57.0%; 95% CI, 52.2%-61.8%) who reported quite a bit or very much pain. Nausea in the ED was present in 336 (31.3%; 95% CI, 28.5%-34.1%); of these, 160 (47.6%; 95% CI, 12.8%-17.1%) received antiemetics in the ED. Antibiotics were administered in the ED to 285 patients (26.5%; 95% CI, 23.9%-29.2%). Of these, 209 patients (73.3%; 95% CI, 17.1%-21.9%) were admitted compared with 427 of 790 (54.1%; 95% CI, 50.5%-57.6%) not receiving antibiotics. Conclusions and Relevance: This initial prospective, multicenter study profiling patients with cancer who were treated in the ED identifies common characteristics in this patient population and suggests opportunities to optimize care before, during, and after the ED visit. Improvement requires collaboration between specialists and emergency physicians optimizing ED use, improving symptom control, avoiding unnecessary hospitalizations, and appropriately stratifying risk to ensure safe ED treatment and disposition of patients with cancer.