Improved compliance with venous thromboembolism pharmacologic prophylaxis for patients with gynecologic malignancies hospitalized for nonsurgical indications did not reduce venous thromboembolism incidence.

OBJECTIVE: National guidelines recommend prophylactic anticoagulation for all hospitalized patients with cancer to prevent hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, adherence to these evidence-based recommended practice patterns remains low. We performed a quality improvement (QI) project to increase VTE pharmacologic prophylaxis rates among patients with gynecologic malignancies hospitalized for nonsurgical indications and evaluated the resulting effect on rates of development of VTE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In June 2011, departmental VTE practice guidelines were implemented for patients with gynecologic malignancies who were hospitalized for nonsurgical indications. A standardized VTE prophylaxis module was added to the admission electronic order sets. Outcome measures included number of admissions receiving VTE pharmacologic prophylaxis within 24 hours of admission; and number of potentially preventable hospital-acquired VTEs diagnosed within 30 and 90 days of discharge. Outcomes were compared between a preguideline implementation cohort (n = 99), a postguideline implementation cohort (n = 127), and a sustainability cohort assessed 2 years after implementation (n = 109). Patients were excluded if upon admission they had a VTE, were considered low risk for VTE, or had a documented contraindication to pharmacologic prophylaxis. RESULTS: Administration of pharmacologic prophylaxis within 24 hours of admission increased from 20.8% to 88.2% immediately following the implementation of guidelines, but declined to 71.8% in our sustainability cohort (P < 0.001). There was no difference in VTE incidence among the 3 cohorts [n = 2 (4.2%) vs n = 3 (3.9%) vs n = 3 (4.2%), respectively; P = 1.00]. CONCLUSIONS: Our QI project improved pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis rates. A small decrease in prophylaxis during the subsequent 2 years suggests a need for continued surveillance to optimize QI initiatives. Despite increased adherence to guidelines, VTE rates did not decline in this high-risk population.

Using Laboratory Test Results at Hospital Admission to Predict Short-term Survival in Critically Ill Patients With Metastatic or Advanced Cancer.

CONTEXT: Accurately estimating the life expectancy of critically ill patients with metastatic or advanced cancer is a crucial step in planning appropriate palliative or supportive care. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the results of laboratory tests performed within two days of hospital admission to predict the likelihood of death within 14 days. METHODS: We retrospectively selected patients 18 years or older with metastatic or advanced cancer who were admitted to intensive care units or palliative and supportive care services in our hospital. We evaluated whether the following are independent predictors in a logistic regression model: age, sex, comorbidities, and the results of seven commonly available laboratory tests. The end point was death within 14 days in or out of the hospital. RESULTS: Of 901 patients in the development cohort and 45% died within 14 days. The risk of death within 14 days after admission increased with increasing age, lactate dehydrogenase levels, and white blood cell counts and decreasing albumin levels and platelet counts (P < 0.01). The model predictions were confirmed using a separate validation cohort. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.74 and 0.70 for the development and validation cohorts, respectively, indicating good discriminatory ability for the model. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that laboratory test results performed within two days of admission are valuable in predicting death within 14 days for patients with metastatic or advanced cancer. Such results may provide an objective assessment tool for physicians and help them initiate conversations with patients and families about end-of-life care.

Provider and Patient Gender Influence on Timing of Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Hospitalized Patients with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life decisions and advance directives require timely physician-patient discussions but barriers exist to these discussions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of physician and patient gender on the timing of inpatient do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING/SUBJECTS: All adult patients (≥18 years) with cancer who received inpatient DNR orders at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 2011 and December 2013. MEASUREMENTS: Gender interaction between physicians and patients towards timing of the DNR order. RESULTS: We identified 4,157 unique patients with a cancer diagnosis. These patients were treated by 353 physicians, of whom 123 (34.8%) were females and 230 (65.2%) were males. Multivariate analysis showed female patients were 1.3 times more likely to have early DNR orders written during hospital admission than were male patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.50). When comparing gender interaction between physicians and patients, our results showed that female physicians were 1.5 times more likely to write early DNR orders with their female patients than for their male patients (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.13-1.94). Same gender physician-patient dyads were not found between male physician and their patients (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.91-1.31). Higher age, more comorbid conditions, and progression of diseases were also associated with early DNR orders (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Female patients are more likely to receive early DNR orders from their female physicians. Gender and gender interaction between physician and patients may potentially influence the timing of receiving DNR order.

Cost-effectiveness of pulmonary resection and systemic chemotherapy in the management of metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a combined analysis from the University of Texas M. D. Anderson and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies for patients with pulmonary metastases from soft tissue sarcoma. METHODS: We constructed a decision tree to model the outcomes of 4 treatment strategies for patients with pulmonary metastases from soft tissue sarcoma: pulmonary resection, systemic chemotherapy, pulmonary resection and systemic chemotherapy, and no treatment. Data from 1124 patients with pulmonary metastases from soft tissue sarcoma were used to estimate disease-specific survival for pulmonary resection and no treatment. Outcomes of systemic chemotherapy and pulmonary resection and of systemic chemotherapy were estimated by assuming a 12-month improvement in disease-specific survival with chemotherapy; this was done on the basis of the widely held but unproven assumption that chemotherapy provides a survival benefit in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. Direct costs were examined for a series of patients who underwent protocol-based pulmonary resection or doxorubicin/ifosfamide-based chemotherapy. RESULTS: The mean cost of pulmonary resection was 20,339 dollars per patient; the mean cost of 6 cycles of chemotherapy was 99,033 dollars. Compared with no treatment and assuming a 12-month survival advantage with chemotherapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 14,357 dollars per life-year gained for pulmonary resection, 104,210 dollars per life-year gained for systemic chemotherapy, and 51,159 dollars per life-year gained for pulmonary resection and systemic chemotherapy. Compared with pulmonary resection, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pulmonary resection and systemic chemotherapy was 108,036 dollars per life-year gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that certain patient and tumor features, as well as the assumed benefit of chemotherapy, affected cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with pulmonary metastases from soft tissue sarcoma who were surgical candidates, pulmonary resection was the most cost-effective treatment strategy evaluated. Even with favorable assumptions regarding its clinical benefit, systemic chemotherapy alone, compared with no treatment, was not a cost-effective treatment strategy for these patients.