Providing Groceries and Transportation to Poverty-Exposed Pediatric Oncology Families: The PediCARE Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

This randomized clinical trial evaluates the Pediatric Cancer Resource Equity (PediCARE) intervention, which provided groceries and transportation, vs usual care, for poverty-exposed pediatric oncology families.

COVID-19 infection in children, adolescents, and young adults with Down syndrome and hematologic malignancies.

INTRODUCTION: Children, adolescents, and young adults (CAYAs) with Down syndrome (DS) and hematologic malignancies are particularly vulnerable to infections and related complications. There are limited data regarding COVID-19 infections in this group. We aimed to understand the clinical course of COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: This observational study leverages the de-identified clinical and sociodemographic data captured by the Pediatric Oncology COVID-19 Case Report Registry (POCC) regarding CAYAs with cancer and COVID-19. We evaluated CAYAs (≤21 years at COVID-19 infection) with hematologic malignancies and COVID-19 reported from April 1, 2020 to May 2, 2023, comparing those with and without DS. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, respiratory support, and changes in cancer-directed therapy. RESULTS: Among 1408 CAYAs with hematologic malignancies, 55 had DS (CAYA-DS). CAYA-DS had higher rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and respiratory support (p < .001) than CAYAs without DS. Similarly, multivariable analyses found higher odds of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] = 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5-5.1), ICU admission (OR = 4.2, 95% CI: 1.9-9.1), and need for respiratory support (OR = 4.2, 95% CI: 2.0-8.8) among CAYA-DS. Modifications to cancer-directed therapy were more common among CAYA-DS when related to neutropenia (p = .001), but not when unrelated to neutropenia (p = .88); CAYA-DS did not have higher odds of changes to cancer-directed therapy (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 0.7-2.1). CONCLUSIONS: We identify CAYA-DS with hematologic malignancies as a vulnerable subpopulation at greater risk for severe COVID-19 infection. This can inform conversations with patients and families regarding therapeutic and preventive measures, as well as the risks and benefits of modifying chemotherapy in the setting of COVID-19.

Adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer: the clinical course of COVID-19 infections.

Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs: 15-39 y) with cancer face unique vulnerabilities, yet remain under-represented on clinical trials, including adult registries of COVID-19 in cancer (AYAs: 8-12%). Thus, we leveraged the Pediatric Oncology COVID-19 Case Report (POCC) to examine the clinical course of COVID-19 among AYAs with cancer. POCC collects de-identified clinical and sociodemographic data regarding 0-39yo with cancer (AYAs = 37%) and COVID-19 from >100 institutions. Between 04/01/2020-11/28/2023, 191 older AYAs [22-39y] and 640 younger AYAs [15-21y] were captured. Older AYAs were less often hospitalized (p < .001), admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU, p = .02), and/or required respiratory support (p = .057). In multivariable analyses, older AYAs faced 80% lower odds of ICU admission but 2.3-times greater odds of changes to cancer-directed therapy. Unvaccinated patients had 5.4-times higher odds of ICU admission. Among AYAs with cancer, the COVID-19 course varies by age. These findings can inform pediatric/adult oncology teams surrounding COVID-19 management and prevention.

Characteristics of Health Care Settings Where Adolescents and Young Adults Receive Care for ALL.

PURPOSE: Individuals diagnosed with cancer between 15 and 39 years (adolescent and young adult [AYA]) face unique vulnerability. Detail is lacking about care delivery for these patients, especially those with ALL. We address these knowledge gaps by describing AYA ALL care delivery details at National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) (sub)affiliates by model of care. METHODS: Participating institutions treated at least one AYA with ALL from 2012 to 2016. Study-specific criteria were used to determine the number of unique clinical facilities (CFs) per NCORP and their model of care (adult/internal medicine [IM], pediatric, mixed [both]). Surveys completed by NCORPs for each CF by model of care captured size, resources, services, and communication. RESULTS: Among 84 participating CFs (adult/IM, n=47; pediatric, n=15; mixed, n=24), 34% treated 5-10 AYAs with ALL annually; adult/IM CFs more often treated <5 (adult/IM, 60%; pediatric, 40%; mixed, 29%). Referral decisions were commonly driven by an age/diagnosis combination (58%), with frequent ALL-specific age minimums (87%) or maximums (80%). Medical, navigational, and social work services were similar across models while psychology was available at more pediatric CFs (pediatric, 80%; adult/IM, 40%; mixed, 46%-54%). More pediatric or mixed CFs reported oncologists interacting with pediatric/adult counterparts via tumor boards (pediatric, 93%; adult/IM, 26%; mixed, 96%) or initiating contact (pediatric, 100%; adult/IM, 77%; mixed 96%); more pediatric CFs reported an affiliated counterpart (pediatric, 53%; adult, 19%). Most CFs reported no AYA-specific resources (79%) or meetings (83%-98%). CONCLUSION: System-level aspects of AYA ALL care delivery have not been examined previously. At NCORPs, these characteristics differ by models of care. Additional work is ongoing to investigate the impact of these facility-level factors on guideline-concordant care in this population. Together, these findings can inform a system-level intervention for diverse practice settings.

Access to Care for Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer in the United States: State of the Literature.

Access to care remains a persistent challenge for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. We review key findings in the science to date. (1) Location of care matters. There is survival benefit for AYAs treated either at a pediatric center or site with special status (eg, Children's Oncology Group, National Cancer Institute [NCI]-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center). (2) Socioeconomic status and insurance require further investigation. Medicaid expansion has had a moderate effect on AYA outcomes. The dependent care expansion benefit has come largely from improvements in coverage for younger populations whose parents have insurance, while some subgroups likely still face insurance gaps. (3) Clinical trial enrollment remains poor, but access may be improving. Numerous barriers and facilitators of clinical trial enrollment include those that are system level and patient level. NCI has established several initiatives over the past decade to improve enrollment, and newer collaboratives have recently brought together multidisciplinary US teams to increase clinical trial enrollment. (4) Effective AYA programs require provider and system flexibility and program reflection. With flexibility comes a need for metrics to assess program effectiveness in the context of the program model. Centers treating AYAs with cancer could submit a subset of metrics (appropriate to their program and/or services) to maintain their status; persistence would require an entity with staying power committed to overseeing the metrics and the system. Substantial clinical and biological advances are anticipated over the next 20 years that will benefit all patients with cancer. In parallel, it is crucial to prioritize research regarding access to health care and cancer care delivery; only with equitable access to care for AYAs can they, too, benefit from these advances.

Understanding Causes of Inferior Outcomes in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer.

Individuals diagnosed with cancer as adolescents and young adults (AYAs; ages 15-39 years) face unique vulnerabilities. Compared with individuals diagnosed when younger (≤14 years) or older (≥40 years), AYAs have not seen the same improvement in survival. Furthermore, they sit at a complex moment of social, emotional, and cognitive development, and have a unique interface with the healthcare system. With these observations, NCI prioritized addressing the unique vulnerabilities among AYAs with cancer, and NCCN developed guidelines regarding optimal AYA cancer care. Improvements in certain locales have been seen in the wake of this focus on AYAs, suggesting that continuing to consider AYA outcomes in the context of their specific needs is critical as we strive toward additional improvements. However, it is key to consider the drivers of these outcomes to continue this trajectory. This review presents a holistic conceptual model that includes factors that influence outcomes among AYAs with cancer, including domains in these levels that influence both clinical outcomes (such as relapse and survival) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). These include domains at the patient level, such as social constructs (race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status), behavior (adherence, risk-taking), biologic characteristics (cancer biology, host genetics), medical treatment (treatment regimen, risk-based survivorship care), and treatment-related toxicities. The model also includes domains at the system level, which include treatment location (NCI designation, facility model, AYA program presence), clinical trial enrollment, transdisciplinary communication, fertility preservation, and psychosocial support. Recognizing these multiple factors at the level of the individual and the healthcare system influence AYA outcomes (from HRQoL to survival), it is key not only to consider patient-level interventions and development of novel cancer agents but also to develop systems-level interventions that can be executed in parallel. In this way, the impact can be expanded to a vast number of AYAs.

Menstrual Suppression in the Myelosuppressed: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Adolescent and young adult female patients receiving myelosuppressive cancer treatments are at risk of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). The frequency with which patients with cancer receive menstrual suppression and the agents used have not previously been well-characterized. We studied the rate of menstrual suppression, the effect of suppression on bleeding and blood product utilization, and if there were practice pattern differences between adult and pediatric oncologists. METHODS: We established a retrospective cohort of 90 females with a diagnosis of Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 25), AML (n = 46), or sarcoma (n = 19) and treated with chemotherapy between 2008 and 2019 at our institutions (University of Alabama at Birmingham [UAB] adult oncology: UAB hospital; UAB pediatric oncology: Children's of Alabama). Data were abstracted from the medical record including sociodemographics, primary oncologist specialty (pediatric v adult), cancer details (diagnosis and treatment) and gynecologic course (documented gynecologic history, menstrual suppression agents used, reported AUB outcomes, and treatments). RESULTS: The majority of patients (77.8%) received menstrual suppression. Compared with nonsuppressed patients, suppressed patients had similar rates of packed red blood cell transfusions but higher number of platelet transfusions. Adult oncologists were more likely to document a gynecologic history, consult gynecology, and list AUB as a problem. Among suppressed patients, there was heterogeneity in the agents used for menstrual suppression, with a predilection toward progesterone-only agents; a low rate of thrombotic events was observed. CONCLUSION: Menstrual suppression was common in our cohort with variability in agents used. Pediatric and adult oncologists demonstrated different practice patterns.

Clinical Features and Risk Factors Associated With Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children With Cancer and COVID-19.

Importance: Little is known about the risk of post-COVID-19 multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) in the setting of childhood cancer. Objective: To evaluate factors associated with MIS-C and describe the clinical course of COVID-19 in the setting of MIS-C. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multisite observational cohort study of a registry representing more than 100 US pediatric oncology sites. All included patients were registered between April 1, 2020, and May 18, 2022. Sites submitted deidentified data surrounding sociodemographics, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 course (symptoms, maximum support required, outcome). Patients with MIS-C (n = 24) were compared with matched controls (n = 96). Children (<21 years) with cancer who developed COVID-19 while receiving cancer treatment or within 1 year of completing treatment were characterized based on their development of MIS-C. Exposures: (1) Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of children with cancer and COVID-19; and (2) MIS-C. Main Outcomes and Measures: (1) Development of MIS-C among children with cancer and COVID-19; and (2) symptoms and disease severity associated with MIS-C. Results: Among 2035 children with cancer and COVID-19, 24 (1.2%) developed MIS-C. COVID-19 occurred at a median (IQR) age of 12.5 (5.5-17.1) years in those with MIS-C and 11 (6-16) years among matched controls (P = .86). The majority of children with MIS-C had a hematologic cancer (83.3% [n = 20]), were publicly insured (66.7% [n = 16]), and were Hispanic (54.2% [n = 13]). Half (n = 12) had 1 or more noncancer comorbidity. Those with comorbidities were more likely to develop MIS-C than those without (odds ratio [OR], 2.5 [95% CI, 1.1-5.7]). Among children with MIS-C, 100% (n = 24) were admitted to the hospital and 54.2% (n = 13) to the intensive care unit (ICU), while COVID-19 contributed to the death of 20.1% (n = 5); cancer therapy was changed in 62.5% (n = 15). Compared with matched controls, those with MIS-C had higher odds of symptoms classified as systemic (OR, 4.7 [95% CI, 1.4-15.8]) or gastrointestinal (OR, 5.0 [95% CI, 1.7-14.6]) along with higher odds of hospitalization (OR, 42.9 [95% CI, 7.1-258]), ICU admission (OR, 11.4 [95% CI, 3.6-36.4]), and changes to cancer therapy (OR, 24.9 [95% CI, 6.5-94.8]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study among children with cancer and COVID-19, those with MIS-C had a more severe clinical course than those without MIS-C. The risk of MIS-C and its severity are important to consider as clinicians monitor patients with COVID-19. These findings can inform their conversations with families regarding COVID-19 risks and the benefits of prevention strategies that are pharmacologic (vaccination) and nonpharmacologic (masking), as well as treatment (antivirals, monoclonal antibodies).

How Accurate Is Oncologist Knowledge of Fertility Preservation Options, Cost, and Time in Female Adolescents and Young Adults?

Purpose: Often cited barriers to fertility preservation (FP) among female adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients include cost and time. We hypothesized that oncologists overestimate the time and costs required for female FP. Methods: We distributed an electronic survey to physicians in oncology-related departments. The survey assessed the knowledge and utilization of gonadotoxic therapies, FP options and requirements, and FP referral patterns. Student's t, Fisher's exact, ANOVA, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for continuous variables as appropriate; the chi-squared test was used for categorical variables. Results: Among respondents who reported prescribing gonadotoxic agents to AYAs (n = 38), 79% reported often/always discussing FP options, while only half referred to a reproductive specialist often/always. A smaller proportion of pediatric oncologists discussed FP often/always (p = 0.04) and most referred <25% of patients to a reproductive specialist; however, the majority of other specialists referred ≥75% of patients to a reproductive specialist (p = 0.001). While most respondents accurately estimated the time required to complete FP, the majority overestimated the cost of an FP procedure. Knowledge of FP options was inconsistent, with 63.2% reporting that suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian-axis is an option for FP, with 82.6% of these classifying it as standard of care. Conclusions: With variation across specialties, most oncology specialists prescribing gonadotoxic therapies for AYA females discuss FP, while a smaller proportion refer patients for FP. Despite relative accuracy in estimating the time required for FP, they overestimate costs of FP. Educational curricula related to FP are necessary across oncology specialties, especially pediatric oncology.

Neighborhood disadvantage, health status, and health care utilization after blood or marrow transplant: BMTSS report.

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with poor health outcomes. Blood or Marrow Transplant (BMT) survivors remain at risk of chronic health conditions requiring anticipatory management. We hypothesized that among BMT survivors, neighborhood disadvantage was associated with poor self-reported routine health care utilization and health. We leveraged data from BMTSS - a retrospective cohort study examining long-term outcomes among individuals surviving ≥2 y following BMT at three institutions between 1974 and 2014. Participants in this analysis completed the BMTSS survey (sociodemographics; chronic health conditions; time since routine check-up; self-reported health). The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) represented neighborhood disadvantage; this composite indicator of 17 census measures is a percentile rank (0 = least deprived to 100 = most deprived). Multivariable ordered logit regression adjusted for clinical factors and individual-level sociodemographics, modeling associations between ADI, time since routine check-up, and self-reported health. Among 2,857 survivors, median ADI was 24 (interquartile range: 10-46). Adjusting for self-reported individual-level socioeconomic indicators and chronic health conditions, patients in more disadvantaged neighborhoods had higher odds of reporting longer intervals since routine check-up (ORADI_continuous = 1.007, P < .001) and poorer health status (controlling for time since check-up; ORADI_continuous = 1.005, P = .003). Compared with patients living in the least disadvantaged neighborhood (ADI = 1), patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhood (ADI = 100), had twice the odds (ORADI = 1.007^99 = 2.06) of reporting no routine visits and 1.65-times the odds of reporting poor health (ORADI = 1.005^99 = 1.65). In BMT survivors, access to health care and health status are associated with area disadvantage. These findings may inform strategies to address long-term care coordination and retention for vulnerable survivors.

Using Teamwork to Bridge the Adolescent and Young Adult Gap.

PURPOSE: Individuals diagnosed with cancer age between 15 and 39 years (adolescents and young adults [AYAs]) have not seen improvement in survival compared with children or older adults; clinical trial accrual correlates with survival. Unique unmet needs among AYAs related to psychosocial support and fertility preservation (FP) are associated with health-related quality of life. METHODS: We enhanced existing structures and leveraged faculty/staff across pediatric/adult oncology to create novel teams focused on AYA (age 15-39 years) care at a single center, with minimal dedicated staff and no change to revenue streams. We aimed to influence domains shown to drive survival and health-related quality of life: clinical trial enrollment, physician/staff collaboration, psychosocial support, and FP. We captured metrics 3 months after patients presented to the institution and compared them before/after Program implementation using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Among 139 AYAs (age 15-39 years) from the pre-Program era (January 2016-February 2019: adult, n = 79; pediatric, n = 60), and 279 from the post-Program era (February 2019-March 2022: adult, n = 215; pediatric, n = 64), there was no change in clinical trial enrollment(P ≥ .3), whereas there was an increase in the proportion of AYAs referred for supportive care and psychology (pediatric: P ≤ .02; adult: P ≤ .001); whose oncologists discussed FP (pediatric: 15% v 52%, P < .0001; adult: 37% v 50%, P = .0004); and undergoing FP consults (pediatric: 8% v39%, P < .0001; adult 23% v 38%, P = .02). CONCLUSION: This team-based framework has effected change in most targeted domains. To affect all domains and design optimal interventions, it is crucial to understand patient-level and facility-level barriers/facilitators to FP and clinical trial enrollment.

The ASH-ASPHO Choosing Wisely Campaign: 5 hematologic tests and treatments to question.

Choosing Wisely is a medical stewardship and quality-improvement initiative led by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation in collaboration with leading medical societies in the United States. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) has been an active participant in the Choosing Wisely project. In 2019, ASH and the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (ASPHO) formed a joint task force to solicit, evaluate, and select items for a pediatric-focused Choosing Wisely list. By using an iterative process and an evidence-based method, the ASH-ASPHO Task Force identified 5 hematologic tests and treatments that health care providers and patients should question because they are not supported by evidence, and/or they involve risks of medical and financial costs with low likelihood of benefit. The ASH-ASPHO Choosing Wisely recommendations are as follows: (1) avoid routine preoperative hemostatic testing in an otherwise healthy child with no previous personal or family history of bleeding, (2) avoid platelet transfusion in asymptomatic children with a platelet count >10 × 103/µL unless an invasive procedure is planned, (3) avoid thrombophilia testing in children with venous access-associated thrombosis and no positive family history, (4) avoid packed red blood cells transfusion for asymptomatic children with iron deficiency anemia and no active bleeding, and (5) avoid routine administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for prophylaxis of children with asymptomatic autoimmune neutropenia and no history of recurrent or severe infections. We recommend that health care providers carefully consider the anticipated risks and benefits of these identified tests and treatments before performing them.

Expenditures in Young Adults with Hodgkin Lymphoma: NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers versus Other Sites.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes among Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients diagnosed between 22 and 39 years are worse than among those diagnosed <21 years, and have not seen the same improvement over time. Treatment at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) mitigates outcome disparities, but may be associated with higher expenditures. METHODS: We examined cancer-related expenditures among 22- to 39-year-old HL patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2016 using deidentified administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse; CCC: n = 1,154; non-CCC: n = 643). Adjusting for sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and months enrolled, multivariable general linear models modeled average monthly health-plan paid (HPP) expenditures, and incidence rate ratios compared CCC/non-CCC monthly visit rates. RESULTS: In the year following diagnosis, CCC patients had higher HPP expenditures ($12,869 vs. $10,688, P = 0.001), driven by higher monthly rates of CCC nontreatment outpatient hospital visits (P = 0.001) and per-visit expenditures for outpatient hospital chemotherapy ($632 vs. $259); higher CCC inpatient expenditures ($1,813 vs. $1,091, P = 0.001) were driven by 3.1 times higher rates of chemotherapy admissions (P = 0.001). Out-of-pocket expenditures were comparable (P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Young adults with HL at CCCs saw higher health-plan expenditures, but comparable out-of-pocket expenditures. Drivers of CCC expenditures included outpatient hospital utilization (monthly rates of non-therapy visits and per-visit expenditures for chemotherapy). IMPACT: Higher HPP expenditures at CCCs in the year following HL diagnosis likely reflect differences in facility structure and comprehensive care. For young adults, it is plausible to consider incentivizing CCC care to achieve superior outcomes while developing approaches to achieve long-term savings.

SARS-CoV-2 in Childhood Cancer in 2020: A Disease of Disparities.

PURPOSE: The Pediatric Oncology COVID-19 Case Report registry supplies pediatric oncologists with data surrounding the clinical course and outcomes in children with cancer and SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: This observational study captured clinical and sociodemographic characteristics for children (≤ 21 years) receiving cancer therapy and infected with SARS-CoV-2 from the pandemic onset through February 19, 2021. The demographic and clinical characteristics of the cohort were compared with population-level pediatric oncology data (SEER). Multivariable binomial regression models evaluated patient characteristics associated with hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and changes in cancer therapy. RESULTS: Ninety-four institutions contributed details on 917 children with cancer and SARS-CoV-2. Median age at SARS-CoV-2 infection was 11 years (range, 0-21 years). Compared with SEER, there was an over-representation of Hispanics (43.6% v 29.7%, P < .01), publicly insured (59.3% v 33.5%, P < .01), and patients with hematologic malignancies (65.8% v 38.3%, P < .01) in our cohort. The majority (64.1%) were symptomatic; 31.2% were hospitalized, 10.9% required respiratory support, 9.2% were admitted to the ICU, and 1.6% died because of SARS-CoV-2. Cancer therapy was modified in 44.9%. Hispanic ethnicity was associated with changes in cancer-directed therapy (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6]). Presence of comorbidities was associated with hospitalization (aRR = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6) and ICU admission (aRR = 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5 to 3.6). Hematologic malignancies were associated with hospitalization (aRR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.1). CONCLUSION: These findings provide critical information for decision making among pediatric oncologists, including inpatient versus outpatient management, cancer therapy modifications, consideration of monoclonal antibody therapy, and counseling families on infection risks in the setting of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The over-representation of Hispanic and publicly insured patients in this national cohort suggests disparities that require attention.

The ASH-ASPHO Choosing Wisely Campaign: 5 hematologic tests and treatments to question.

Choosing Wisely is a medical stewardship and quality-improvement initiative led by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation in collaboration with leading medical societies in the United States. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) has been an active participant in the Choosing Wisely project. In 2019, ASH and the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (ASPHO) formed a joint task force to solicit, evaluate, and select items for a pediatric-focused Choosing Wisely list. By using an iterative process and an evidence-based method, the ASH-ASPHO Task Force identified 5 hematologic tests and treatments that health care providers and patients should question because they are not supported by evidence, and/or they involve risks of medical and financial costs with low likelihood of benefit. The ASH-ASPHO Choosing Wisely recommendations are as follows: (1) avoid routine preoperative hemostatic testing in an otherwise healthy child with no previous personal or family history of bleeding, (2) avoid platelet transfusion in asymptomatic children with a platelet count 10 × 103 /µL unless an invasive procedure is planned, (3) avoid thrombophilia testing in children with venous access-associated thrombosis and no positive family history, (4) avoid packed red blood cells transfusion for asymptomatic children with iron deficiency anemia and no active bleeding, and (5) avoid routine administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for prophylaxis of children with asymptomatic autoimmune neutropenia and no history of recurrent or severe infections. We recommend that health care providers carefully consider the anticipated risks and benefits of these identified tests and treatments before performing them.

Expenditures among young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia by site of care.

BACKGROUND: Individuals diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) between the ages of 22 and 39 years experience worse outcomes than those diagnosed when they are 21 years old or younger. Treatment at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) mitigates these disparities but may be associated with higher expenditures. METHODS: Using deidentified administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), the cancer-related expenditures were examined among patients with ALL diagnosed between 2001 and 2014. Multivariable generalized linear model with log-link modeled average monthly health-plan-paid (HPP) expenditures and amount owed by the patient (out-of-pocket [OOP]). Cost ratios were used to calculate excess expenditures (CCC vs non-CCC). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) compared CCC and non-CCC monthly visit rates. Models adjusted for sociodemographics, comorbidities, adverse events, and months enrolled. RESULTS: Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were comparable between CCC (n = 160) and non-CCC (n = 139) patients. Higher monthly outpatient expenditures in CCC patients ($15,792 vs $6404; P < .001) were driven by outpatient hospital HPP expenditures. Monthly visit rates and per visit expenditures for nonchemotherapy visits (IRR = 1.6; P = .001; CCC = $8247, non-CCC = $1191) drove higher outpatient hospital expenditures among CCCs. Monthly OOP expenditures were higher at CCCs for outpatient care (P = .02). Inpatient HPP expenditures were significantly higher at CCCs ($25,918 vs $13,881; ꞵ = 0.9; P < .001) before accounting for adverse events but were no longer significant after adjusting for adverse events (ꞵ = 0.4; P = .1). Hospitalizations and length of stay were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Young adults with ALL at CCCs have higher expenditures, likely reflecting differences in facility structure, billing practices, and comprehensive patient care. It would be reasonable to consider CCCs comparable to the oncology care model and incentivize the framework to achieve superior outcomes and long-term cost savings. LAY SUMMARY: Health care expenditures in young adults (aged 22-39 years) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are higher among patients at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) than those at non-CCCs. The CCC/non-CCC differences are significant among outpatient expenditures, which are driven by higher rates of outpatient hospital visits and outpatient hospital expenditures per visit at CCCs. Higher expenditures and visit rates of outpatient hospital visits among CCCs may also reflect how facility structure and billing patterns influence spending or comprehensive care. Young adults at CCCs face higher inpatient HPP expenditures; these are driven by serious adverse events.

Isolation of DNA-free RNA from human bone marrow mononuclear cells: comparison of laboratory methods.

RNA quality (purity and integrity) and quantity are of critical importance to ensure reliable gene expression analysis, reproducibility of RNA sequencing and microarray data and validation by RT-PCR. Currently available methods for isolating RNA either are labor intensive (requiring the use of toxic organic solvents and separate DNase treatment) or require automation (with extensive setup and startup costs). To optimize both the quality and quantity of RNA from bone marrow, we recommend stabilization and storage of bone marrow mononuclear cells in RNAprotect® Cell Reagent, followed by extraction using the RNeasy® Protect Cell Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). This method achieves optimal quantity and high-quality RNA for sequencing and RT-PCR while remaining efficient and cost effective.

Lung Cancer in Nonelderly Patients: Facility and Patient Characteristics Associated With Not Receiving Treatment.

BACKGROUND: In elderly patients with lung cancer, race/ethnicity is associated with not receiving treatment; however, little attention has been given to nonelderly patients (aged ≤65 years) with a range of disease stages and histologies. Nonelderly patients with lung cancer have superior survival at NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), although the reasons remain unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 9,877 patients newly diagnosed with small cell or non-small cell lung cancer (all stages) between ages 22 and 65 years and reported to the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program registry between 1998 and 2008. Multivariable logistic regression examined factors associated with nontreatment. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis, race/ethnicity was associated with not receiving cancer treatment (black: odds ratio [OR], 1.22; P=.004; Hispanic: OR, 1.17; P=.04), adjusting for patient age, sex, disease stage, histology, diagnosis year, distance to treatment facility, type of facility (CCC vs non-CCC), and insurance status. With inclusion of socioeconomic status (SES) in the model, the effect of race/ethnicity was no longer significant (black: OR, 1.02; P=.80; Hispanic: OR, 1.00; P=1.00). Factors independently associated with nontreatment included low SES (OR range, 1.37-2.15; P<.001), lack of private insurance (public: OR, 1.71; P<.001; uninsured: OR, 1.30; P<.001), and treatment facility (non-CCC: OR, 3.22; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In nonelderly patients with lung cancer, SES was associated with nontreatment, mitigating the effect of race/ethnicity. Patients were also at higher odds of nontreatment if they did not have private insurance or received cancer care at a non-CCC facility. These findings highlight the importance of understanding how both patient-level factors (eg, SES, insurance status) and facility-level factors (eg, treatment facility) serve as barriers to treatment of nonelderly patients with lung cancer.