Patient Survival With and Without Radiation Therapy for Early-Stage Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in the Era of PET and Rituximab.

Purpose: The benefit of radiation therapy (RT) becomes uncertain in the treatment of early stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the era of rituximab, positron emission topography (PET), and computed tomography (CT). We sought to retrospectively review modern patients with early stage I-II DLBCL treated with rituximab and staged by PET-CT to better define which patients benefit from consolidative RT. Methods and Materials: Patients with early stage I-II DLBCL from 1998 to 2017 were reviewed coinciding with our institutional utilization of rituximab with the standard regimen of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone and PET-CT. Relevant clinical information was used to calculate National Comprehensive Cancer Network international prognostic index (IPI) scores. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and a Cox proportional hazards model were used for overall survival (OS). Results: Seventy-seven patients received chemoimmunotherapy alone, and 41 received chemoimmunotherapy plus RT. Median follow-up time was 9.5 years. On univariate analysis, extranodal disease (P = .04) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (P < .001) were significantly correlated with OS. Five-year OS was 87% versus 67%, and 10-year OS was 67% versus 58%, numerically higher favoring RT (P = .16). On multivariate Cox regression analysis of OS controlling for IPI and extranodal disease, the addition of RT was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio of 0.4, P = .01). Conclusions: The current analysis supports the use of consolidative RT in early stage DLBCL given an OS benefit on multivariate analysis. Further prospective randomized data are needed to confirm these findings.

Eligibility Criteria Perpetuate Disparities in Enrollment and Participation of Black Patients in Pancreatic Cancer Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials determine safety and efficacy of cancer therapeutics and establish standards of care. Minority patient participation in cancer clinical trials is dismal. We aimed to determine the impact of eligibility criteria on disparities in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) clinical trial candidacy. METHODS: Traditional PDAC trial eligibility criteria were obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov. Patients with PDAC who sought care at Virginia Commonwealth University Health from 2010 to 2019 were included. Clinical data were obtained from billing codes and discrete values in the electronic medical record. Eligibility criteria differences between racial groups were determined using chi-squared tests and unconditional maximum likelihood-based odds ratios. RESULTS: Among 676 patients, most identified as Black or White race (42.5% and 51.6%, respectively). Using traditional criteria, Black patients were more likely to be ineligible for participation compared with White patients (42.4% v 33.2%, P = .023) secondary to hypoalbuminemia (14.1% v 7.9%, P = .023), HIV (3.1% v 0.3%, P = .010), hepatitis B (1.7% v 0%, P = .043), and hepatitis C (9.1% v 3.4%, P = .005). Black patients were also numerically more likely to be ineligible because of renal dysfunction, recent coronary stenting, and uncontrolled diabetes mellitus. Prior cancer treatment excluded fewer Black than White patients (9.1% v 14.0%, P = .072), most attributable to lower rates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy received. Strategic eligibility criteria revisions could equalize ineligibility rates between Black and White patients (26.8% v 24.8%, P = .581). CONCLUSION: Traditional eligibility criteria differentially exclude Black patients from participating in PDAC clinical trials. These criteria perpetuate disparities, limit generalizability, and are often not medically justifiable. Revised criteria may improve participant diversity, without compromising safety or study results.

Using predicted length of stay to define treatment and model costs in hospitalized adults with serious illness: an evaluation of palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Economic research on hospital palliative care faces major challenges. Observational studies using routine data encounter difficulties because treatment timing is not under investigator control and unobserved patient complexity is endemic. An individual's predicted LOS at admission offers potential advantages in this context. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on adults admitted to a large cancer center in the United States between 2009 and 2015. We defined a derivation sample to estimate predicted LOS using baseline factors (N = 16,425) and an analytic sample for our primary analyses (N = 2674) based on diagnosis of a terminal illness and high risk of hospital mortality. We modelled our treatment variable according to the timing of first palliative care interaction as a function of predicted LOS, and we employed predicted LOS as an additional covariate in regression as a proxy for complexity alongside diagnosis and comorbidity index. We evaluated models based on predictive accuracy in and out of sample, on Akaike and Bayesian Information Criteria, and precision of treatment effect estimate. RESULTS: Our approach using an additional covariate yielded major improvement in model accuracy: R2 increased from 0.14 to 0.23, and model performance also improved on predictive accuracy and information criteria. Treatment effect estimates and conclusions were unaffected. Our approach with respect to treatment variable yielded no substantial improvements in model performance, but post hoc analyses show an association between treatment effect estimate and estimated LOS at baseline. CONCLUSION: Allocation of scarce palliative care capacity and value-based reimbursement models should take into consideration when and for whom the intervention has the largest impact on treatment choices. An individual's predicted LOS at baseline is useful in this context for accurately predicting costs, and potentially has further benefits in modelling treatment effects.

Evaluating Hospital Readmissions for Persons With Serious and Complex Illness: A Competing Risks Approach.

Hospital readmission rate is a ubiquitous measure of efficiency and quality. Individuals with life-limiting illnesses account heavily for admissions but evaluation is complicated by high-mortality rates. We report a retrospective cohort study examining the association between palliative care (PC) and readmissions while controlling for postdischarge mortality with a competing risks approach. Eligible participants were adult inpatients admitted to an academic, safety-net medical center (2009-2015) with at least one diagnosis of cancer, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, liver failure, kidney failure, AIDS/HIV, and selected neurodegenerative conditions. PC was associated with reduced 30-, 60-, and 90-day readmissions (subhazard ratios = 0.57, 0.53, and 0.52, respectively [all p < .001]). Hospital PC is associated with a reduction in readmissions, and this is not explained by higher mortality among PC patients. Performance measures only counting those alive at a given end point may underestimate systematically the effects of treatments with a high-mortality rate.

Does Modality Matter? Palliative Care Unit Associated With More Cost-Avoidance Than Consultations.

CONTEXT: Inpatient palliative care (PC) is associated with reduced costs, but the optimal model for providing inpatient PC is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of palliative care consultations (PCCs) and care in a palliative care unit (PCU) on cost of care, in comparison with usual care (UC) only and in comparison with each other. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study, using multinomial propensity scoring to control for observed confounding between treatment groups. Participants were adults admitted as inpatients between 2009 and 2015, with at least one of seven life-limiting conditions who died within a year of admission (N = 6761). RESULTS: PC within 10 days of admission is estimated to reduce costs compared with UC in the case of both PCU (-$6333; 95% CI: -7871 to -4795; P < 0.001) and PCC (-$3559; 95% CI: -5732 to -1387; P < 0.001). PCU is estimated to reduce costs compared with PCC (-$2774; 95% CI: -5107 to -441; P = 0.02) and length of stay compared with UC (-1.5 days; -2.2 to -0.9; P < 0.001). The comparatively larger effect of PCU over PCC is not observable when the treatment groups are restricted to those who received PC early in their admission (within six days). CONCLUSION: Both PCU and PCC are associated with lower hospital costs than UC. PCU is associated with a greater cost-avoidance effect than PCC, except where both interventions are provided early in the hospitalization. Both timely provision of PC for appropriate patients and creation of more PCUs may decrease hospital costs.

Effect of a Home-Based Palliative Care Program on Healthcare Use and Costs.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the nonclinical outcomes of a proactive palliative care program funded and operated by a health system for Medicare Advantage plan beneficiaries. DESIGN: Observational, retrospective study using propensity-based matching. SETTING: A health system in southern California. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals who received the intervention between 2007 and 2014 (n = 368) were matched with 1,075 comparison individuals within each of four disease groups: cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, and dementia. All were known to be dead at the time of the retrospective study, were Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, and had 2 years of usage data before death. Median age at death for each disease group was older than 80. INTERVENTION: Home- and clinic-based palliative care (PC) services provided by a multidisciplinary team. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes included hospital costs, other healthcare costs, readmission rates, hospital admissions and bed days, intensive care unit use in final 30 days of life, and death within 30 days of an admission. RESULTS: Intervention participants in all four disease groups had less hospital use and lower hospital costs nonintervention participants, which drove lower overall healthcare costs. In the final 6 months of life, healthcare costs for the intervention groups stayed largely the same from month to month, whereas costs for comparison participants increased dramatically. CONCLUSION: In the context of an alternative payment model in which the provider was "at risk" of bearing the costs of care, a proactive PC program helped to avoid the escalation in hospital use and costs commonly seen in the final months of life.

Response to pain management among patients with active cancer, no evidence of disease, or chronic nonmalignant pain in an outpatient palliative care clinic.

UNLABELLED: Abstract Background: Outpatient palliative care clinics may be required to manage patients not typically seen by palliative care. These include patients treated for cancer who no longer have evidence of disease (NED) and patients with chronic pain but no life-limiting illness (NLLI). Treatment response may differ among these groups. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine treatment response by change in pain scores and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) between initial visit and first follow-up in patients with active cancer (AC), NED, and those with NLLI. METHODS: A retrospective review of 143 consecutive outpatients referred to a clinic staffed by the palliative care program was conducted. Pain treatment response was defined by a ≥ 2 point difference on the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) or ≥ 30% reduction from baseline score. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients had pain scores at both initial and follow-up visits after a median of 29.0 days. Fifty percent had AC, 27% NED, and 23% NLLI. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) pain scores at baseline were not significantly different among AC 6.0 (2.5), NED 5.6 (2.5), and NLLI 6.8 (2.2) patients (p=0.22), but were significant at follow-up between AC 4.2 (2.7) and NLLI 6.0 (2.6) (p=0.03) groups. The percent of responders differed significantly between AC 57.4% and NED 20% groups (p=0.002). MEDD increased by 17.2 mg in AC, 40.9 mg in NED, and 18.1mg in NLLI patients (p=0.88).Benzodiazepine use was significantly more frequent in the NLLI group than the AC (p=0.025) and NED (p=0.002) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although median pain scores improved at follow-up, less than half of patients were responders. Patients with AC had a significantly better response rate than NED patients and a lower pain score than NLLI patients at follow-up.