Implementation of a Web-Based Communication System for Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists.

Healthcare providers have reported challenges with coordinating care for patients with cancer. Digital technology tools have brought new possibilities for improving care coordination. A web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) was implemented in Ottawa, Canada for cancer specialists and primary care providers (PCPs). This study aimed to examine PCPs' experiences of implementing eOncoNote and how access to the system influenced communication between PCPs and cancer specialists. As part of a larger study, we collected and analyzed system usage data and administered an end-of-discussion survey to understand the perceived value of using eOncoNote. eOncoNote data were analyzed for 76 shared patients (33 patients receiving treatment and 43 patients in the survivorship phase). Thirty-nine percent of the PCPs responded to the cancer specialist's initial eOncoNote message and nearly all of those sent only one message. Forty-five percent of the PCPs completed the survey. Most PCPs reported no additional benefits of using eOncoNote and emphasized the need for electronic medical record (EMR) integration. Over half of the PCPs indicated that eOncoNote could be a helpful service if they had questions about a patient. Future research should examine opportunities for EMR integration and whether additional interventions could support communication between PCPs and cancer specialists.

Web-Based Asynchronous Tool to Facilitate Communication Between Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists: Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer poses a significant global health burden. With advances in screening and treatment, there are now a growing number of cancer survivors with complex needs, requiring the involvement of multiple health care providers. Previous studies have identified problems related to communication and care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine whether a web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) could facilitate communication between PCPs and cancer specialists (oncologists and oncology nurses) to improve patient-reported continuity of care among patients receiving treatment or posttreatment survivorship care. METHODS: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, a total of 173 patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (eOncoNote plus usual methods of communication between PCPs and cancer specialists) or a control group (usual communication only), including 104 (60.1%) patients in the survivorship phase (breast and colorectal cancer) and 69 (39.9%) patients in the treatment phase (breast and prostate cancer). The primary outcome was patient-reported team and cross-boundary continuity (Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire). Secondary outcome measures included the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire on Major Depression, and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire. Patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and at 2 points following randomization. Patients in the treatment phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 1 month and at either 4 months (patients with prostate cancer) or 6 months following randomization (patients with breast cancer). Patients in the survivorship phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 6 months and at 12 months following randomization. RESULTS: The results did not show an intervention effect on the primary outcome of team and cross-boundary continuity of care or on the secondary outcomes of depression and patient experience with their health care. However, there was an intervention effect on anxiety. In the treatment phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score from baseline to the 1-month follow-up for GAD-7 (mean difference -2.3; P=.03). In the survivorship phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score for GAD-7 between baseline and the 6-month follow-up (mean difference -1.7; P=.03) and between baseline and the 12-month follow-up (mean difference -2.4; P=.004). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to eOncoNote is not significantly associated with patient-reported continuity of care. However, PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to the eOncoNote intervention may be a factor in reducing patient anxiety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333785; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03333785.

Remote, proactive, telephone based management of toxicity in outpatients during adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer: pragmatic, cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of remote proactive management of toxicities during chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomised trial. SETTING: 20 cancer centres in Ontario, Canada, allocated by covariate constrained randomisation to remote management of toxicities or routine care. PARTICIPANTS: All patients starting adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer at each centre. 25 patients from each centre completed patient reported outcome questionnaires. INTERVENTIONS: Proactive, standardised, nurse led telephone management of common toxicities at two time points after each chemotherapy cycle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome, cluster level mean number of visits to the emergency department or admissions to hospital per patient during the whole course of chemotherapy treatment, was evaluated with routinely available administrative healthcare data. Secondary patient reported outcomes included toxicity, self-efficacy, and quality of life. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of participants were similar in the intervention (n=944) and control arms (n=1214); 22% were older than 65 years. Penetration (that is, the percentage of patients who received the intervention at each centre) was 50-86%. Mean number of visits to the emergency department or admissions to hospital per patient was 0.91 (standard deviation 0.28) in the intervention arm and 0.94 (0.40) in the control arm (P=0.94); 47% (1014 of 2158 patients) had at least one visit to the emergency department or a hospital admission during chemotherapy. Among 580 participants who completed the patient reported outcome questionnaires, at least one grade 3 toxicity was reported by 48% (134 of 278 patients) in the intervention arm and by 58% (163 of 283) in the control arm. No differences in self-efficacy, anxiety, or depression were found. Compared with baseline, the functional assessment of cancer therapy trial outcome index decreased by 6.1 and 9.0 points in the intervention and control participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive, telephone based management of toxicities during chemotherapy did not result in fewer visits to the emergency department or hospital admissions. With the rapid rise in remote care because of the covid-19 pandemic, identifying scalable strategies for remote management of patients during cancer treatment is particularly relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02485678.

Rivaroxaban Compared to Placebo for the Treatment of Leg Superficial Vein Thrombosis: A Randomized Trial.

The role of rivaroxaban in the treatment of leg superficial venous thrombosis (SVT) is uncertain. This article aims to determine if rivaroxaban is an effective and safe treatment for leg SVT. Patients with symptomatic leg SVT of at least 5 cm length were randomized to 45 days of rivaroxaban 10 mg daily or to placebo, and followed for a total of 90 days. Treatment failure (required a nonstudy anticoagulant; had proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism; or had surgery for SVT) at 90 days was the primary efficacy outcome. Secondary efficacy outcomes included leg pain severity, and venous disease-specific and general health-related quality of life over 90 days. Major bleeding at 90 days was the primary safety outcome. Poor enrollment led to the trial being stopped after 85 of the planned 600 patients were randomized to rivaroxaban (n = 43) or placebo (n = 42). One rivaroxaban and five placebo patients had a treatment failure by 90 days (absolute risk reduction = 9.0%, 95% confidence interval: -22 to 5.9%). Leg pain improvement did not differ at 7 (p = 0.16) or 45 days (p = 0.89), but was greater with rivaroxaban at 90 days (p = 0.011). There was no difference in venous disease-specific (p = 0.99) or general health-related (p = 0.37) quality of life over 45 days. There were no major bleeds or deaths in either group. There were no identifiable differences in efficacy or safety between rivaroxaban and placebo in patients with symptomatic SVT but comparisons were undermined by a much smaller than planned sample size (NCT1499953).

Quality of life after pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis for proximal deep venous thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: After deep venous thrombosis (DVT), many patients have impaired quality of life (QOL). We aimed to assess whether pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) improves short-term or long-term QOL in patients with proximal DVT and whether QOL is related to extent of DVT. METHODS: The Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (ATTRACT) trial was an assessor-blinded randomized trial that compared PCDT with no PCDT in patients with DVT of the femoral, common femoral, or iliac veins. QOL was assessed at baseline and 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months using the Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study on Quality of Life/Symptoms (VEINES-QOL/Sym) disease-specific QOL measure and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary general QOL measures. Change in QOL scores from baseline to assessment time were compared in the PCDT and no PCDT treatment groups overall and in the iliofemoral DVT and femoral-popliteal DVT subgroups. RESULTS: Of 692 ATTRACT patients, 691 were analyzed (mean age, 53 years; 62% male; 57% iliofemoral DVT). VEINES-QOL change scores were greater (ie, better) in PCDT vs no PCDT from baseline to 1 month (difference, 5.7; P = .0006) and from baseline to 6 months (5.1; P = .0029) but not for other intervals. SF-36 PCS change scores were greater in PCDT vs no PCDT from baseline to 1 month (difference, 2.4; P = .01) but not for other intervals. Among iliofemoral DVT patients, VEINES-QOL change scores from baseline to all assessments were greater in the PCDT vs no PCDT group; this was statistically significant in the intention-to-treat analysis at 1 month (difference, 10.0; P < .0001) and 6 months (8.8; P < .0001) and in the per-protocol analysis at 18 months (difference, 5.8; P = .0086) and 24 months (difference, 6.6; P = .0067). SF-36 PCS change scores were greater in PCDT vs no PCDT from baseline to 1 month (difference, 3.2; P = .0010) but not for other intervals. In contrast, in femoral-popliteal DVT patients, change scores from baseline to all assessments were similar in the PCDT and no PCDT groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with proximal DVT, PCDT leads to greater improvement in disease-specific QOL than no PCDT at 1 month and 6 months but not later. In patients with iliofemoral DVT, PCDT led to greater improvement in disease-specific QOL during 24 months.

External beam accelerated partial breast irradiation versus whole breast irradiation after breast conserving surgery in women with ductal carcinoma in situ and node-negative breast cancer (RAPID): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Whole breast irradiation delivered once per day over 3-5 weeks after breast conserving surgery reduces local recurrence with good cosmetic results. Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) delivered over 1 week to the tumour bed was developed to provide a more convenient treatment. In this trial, we investigated if external beam APBI was non-inferior to whole breast irradiation. METHODS: We did this multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial in 33 cancer centres in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Women aged 40 years or older with ductal carcinoma in situ or node-negative breast cancer treated by breast conserving surgery were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either external beam APBI (38·5 Gy in ten fractions delivered twice per day over 5-8 days) or whole breast irradiation (42·5 Gy in 16 fractions once per day over 21 days, or 50 Gy in 25 fractions once per day over 35 days). Patients and clinicans were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR), analysed by intention to treat. The trial was designed on the basis of an expected 5 year IBTR rate of 1·5% in the whole breast irradiation group with 85% power to exclude a 1·5% increase in the APBI group; non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the two-sided 90% CI for the IBTR hazard ratio (HR) was less than 2·02. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00282035. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2006, and July 15, 2011, we enrolled 2135 women. 1070 were randomly assigned to receive APBI and 1065 were assigned to receive whole breast irradiation. Six patients in the APBI group withdrew before treatment, four more did not receive radiotherapy, and 16 patients received whole breast irradiation. In the whole breast irradiation group, 16 patients withdrew, and two more did not receive radiotherapy. In the APBI group, a further 14 patients were lost to follow-up and nine patients withdrew during the follow-up period. In the whole breast irradiation group, 20 patients were lost to follow-up and 35 withdrew during follow-up. Median follow-up was 8·6 years (IQR 7·3-9·9). The 8-year cumulative rates of IBTR were 3·0% (95% CI 1·9-4·0) in the APBI group and 2·8% (1·8-3·9) in the whole breast irradiation group. The HR for APBI versus whole breast radiation was 1·27 (90% CI 0·84-1·91). Acute radiation toxicity (grade ≥2, within 3 months of radiotherapy start) occurred less frequently in patients treated with APBI (300 [28%] of 1070 patients) than whole breast irradiation (484 [45%] of 1065 patients, p<0·0001). Late radiation toxicity (grade ≥2, later than 3 months) was more common in patients treated with APBI (346 [32%] of 1070 patients) than whole breast irradiation (142 [13%] of 1065 patients; p<0·0001). Adverse cosmesis (defined as fair or poor) was more common in patients treated with APBI than in those treated by whole breast irradiation at 3 years (absolute difference, 11·3%, 95% CI 7·5-15·0), 5 years (16·5%, 12·5-20·4), and 7 years (17·7%, 12·9-22·3). INTERPRETATION: External beam APBI was non-inferior to whole breast irradiation in preventing IBTR. Although less acute toxicity was observed, the regimen used was associated with an increase in moderate late toxicity and adverse cosmesis, which might be related to the twice per day treatment. Other approaches, such as treatment once per day, might not adversely affect cosmesis and should be studied. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes for Health Research and Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance.

Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism with d-Dimer Adjusted to Clinical Probability.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective analyses suggest that pulmonary embolism is ruled out by a d-dimer level of less than 1000 ng per milliliter in patients with a low clinical pretest probability (C-PTP) and by a d-dimer level of less than 500 ng per milliliter in patients with a moderate C-PTP. METHODS: We performed a prospective study in which pulmonary embolism was considered to be ruled out without further testing in outpatients with a low C-PTP and a d-dimer level of less than 1000 ng per milliliter or with a moderate C-PTP and a d-dimer level of less than 500 ng per milliliter. All other patients underwent chest imaging (usually computed tomographic pulmonary angiography). If pulmonary embolism was not diagnosed, patients did not receive anticoagulant therapy. All patients were followed for 3 months to detect venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: A total of 2017 patients were enrolled and evaluated, of whom 7.4% had pulmonary embolism on initial diagnostic testing. Of the 1325 patients who had a low C-PTP (1285 patients) or moderate C-PTP (40 patients) and a negative d-dimer test (i.e., <1000 or <500 ng per milliliter, respectively), none had venous thromboembolism during follow-up (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.00 to 0.29%). These included 315 patients who had a low C-PTP and a d-dimer level of 500 to 999 ng per milliliter (95% CI, 0.00 to 1.20%). Of all 1863 patients who did not receive a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism initially and did not receive anticoagulant therapy, 1 patient (0.05%; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.30) had venous thromboembolism. Our diagnostic strategy resulted in the use of chest imaging in 34.3% of patients, whereas a strategy in which pulmonary embolism is considered to be ruled out with a low C-PTP and a d-dimer level of less than 500 ng per milliliter would result in the use of chest imaging in 51.9% (difference, -17.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -19.2 to -15.9). CONCLUSIONS: A combination of a low C-PTP and a d-dimer level of less than 1000 ng per milliliter identified a group of patients at low risk for pulmonary embolism during follow-up. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; PEGeD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02483442.).

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Versus Standard Anticoagulation in Patients With Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis: Results From the ATTRACT Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) in conjunction with anticoagulation therapy is increasingly used with the goal of preventing postthrombotic syndrome. Long-term costs and cost-effectiveness of these 2 treatment strategies from the perspective of the US healthcare system have not been compared. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2014, the ATTRACT trial (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal With Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis) randomized 692 patients with acute proximal DVT to PCDT plus anticoagulation (n=337) or standard treatment with anticoagulation alone (n=355). Costs (2017 US dollars) were assessed over a 24-month follow-up period using a combination of resource-based costing, hospital bills, Medicare reimbursement rates, and the Drug Topics Red Book. Health state utilities were obtained from the Short Form-36. In-trial results and US life tables were used to develop a Markov cohort model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. For the PCDT group, mean costs of the initial procedure were $13 600; per-patient costs associated with the index hospitalization were $21 509 for PCDT and $3877 for standard care (difference=$17 632; 95% CI, $16 117-$19 243). The 24-month difference in costs was $20 045 (95% CI, $16 093-$24 120). Utility scores increased significantly between baseline and 6 months for both groups, with no significant differences between groups at any follow-up time point. Projected differences in lifetime costs of $16 740 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.08, yield an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCDT of $222 041/QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that PCDT would achieve a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000/QALY or <$150 000/QALY was 1% and 25%, respectively. For iliofemoral DVT, QALY gains with PCDT were greater, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $137 526/QALY; for femoral-popliteal DVT, standard therapy was an economically dominant strategy. CONCLUSIONS: With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$200 000/QALY gained, PCDT is not an economically attractive treatment for proximal DVT. PCDT may be of intermediate value in patients with iliofemoral DVT. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00790335.

Ambulatory Toxicity Management (AToM) in patients receiving adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer - a pragmatic cluster randomized trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies suggest that emergency department visits and hospitalizations are common among patients receiving chemotherapy and that rates in routine practice are higher than expected from clinical trials. Chemotherapy-related toxicities are often predictable and, consequently, acute care visits may be preventable with adequate treatment planning and support between visits to the cancer centre. We will evaluate the impact of proactive telephone-based toxicity management on emergency department visits and hospitalizations in women with early stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: In this pragmatic covariate constraint-based cluster randomized trial, 20 centres in Ontario, Canada are randomly allocated to either proactive telephone toxicity management (intervention) or routine care (control). The primary outcome is the cluster-level mean number of ED + H visits per patient evaluated using Ontario administrative healthcare data. Participants are all patients with early stage (I-III) breast cancer commencing adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy at participating institutions during the intervention period. At least 25 patients at each centre participate in a patient reported outcomes sub-study involving the collection of standardized questionnaires to measure: severity of treatment toxicities, self-care, self-efficacy, quality of life, and coordination of care. Patients participating in the patient reported outcomes (PRO) sub-study are asked to provide written consent to link their PRO data to administrative data. Unit costs will be applied to each per person resource utilized, and a total cost per population and patient will be generated. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis will be undertaken to compare the incremental costs and outcomes between the intervention and control groups from the health system perspective. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates the effectiveness of a proactive toxicity management intervention in a routine care setting. The use of administrative healthcare data to evaluate the primary outcome enables an evaluation in a real world setting and at a much larger scale than previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02485678. Registered 30 June 2015.

Relationships between the use of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis, sonographic findings, and clinical outcomes in patients with acute proximal DVT: Results from the ATTRACT Multicenter Randomized Trial.

Few studies have documented relationships between endovascular therapy, duplex ultrasonography (DUS), post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), and quality of life (QOL). The Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (ATTRACT) trial randomized 692 patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) to receive anticoagulation or anticoagulation plus pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT). Compression DUS was obtained at baseline, 1 month and 12 months. Reflux DUS was obtained at 12 months in a subset of 126 patients. Clinical outcomes were collected over 24 months. At 1 month, patients who received PCDT had less residual thrombus compared to Control patients, evidenced by non-compressible common femoral vein (CFV) (21% vs 35%, p < 0.0001), femoral vein (51% vs 70%, p < 0.0001), and popliteal vein (61% vs 74%, p < 0.0001). At 12 months, in the ultrasound substudy, valvular reflux prevalence was similar between groups (85% vs 91%, p = 0.35). CFV non-compressibility at 1 month was associated with higher rates of any PTS (61% vs 46%, p < 0.001), a higher incidence of moderate-or-severe PTS (30% vs 19%, p = 0.003), and worse QOL (difference 8.2 VEINES-QOL (VEnous INsufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study on Quality of Life) points; p = 0.004) at 24 months. Valvular reflux at 12 months was associated with moderate-or-severe PTS at 24 months (30% vs 0%, p = 0.01). In summary, PCDT results in less residual thrombus but does not reduce venous valvular reflux. CFV non-compressibility at 1 month is associated with more PTS, more severe PTS, and worse QOL at 24 months. Valvular reflux may predispose to moderate-or-severe PTS. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00790335.

Long-term risk of recurrence in patients with a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism managed according to d-dimer results; A cohort study.

Essentials Long-term recurrence risk after a first unprovoked VTE with negative d-dimer levels is uncertain. Anticoagulation was stopped if d-dimer was negative, and was continued if d-dimer was positive. Five years after stopping anticoagulants, recurrent VTE was 30% in men and 17% in women. Negative d-dimers do not justify stopping anticoagulants in most men but appear to in most women. BACKGROUND: The long-term risk of recurrence in patients with a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) who have negative d-dimer results is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To determine this risk, including in subgroups based on sex. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ln a prospective interventional cohort study of 410 patients with a first unprovoked VTE, anticoagulants were stopped if d-dimer was negative on therapy and 1 month after stopping therapy. Other patients remained on anticoagulant therapy. We previously reported findings after a mean of 2.2 years. The current report includes 3 years of additional follow-up in 293 of these patients. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 5.0 years, recurrent VTE after stopping therapy in response to negative d-dimer testing was 5.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6-6.5) per patient-year overall, 7.5% (95% CI, 5.5-10.0) in men, 3.8% (95% CI, 2.0-6.6) in women with VTE not associated with estrogens, and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.0-2.3) in women with VTE associated with estrogens (P < 0.001 for three-group comparison). Risk of recurrence at 5 years was 21.5% (95% CI, 16.4-26.5) overall, 29.7% (95% CI, 22.1-37.3) in men, 17.0% (95% CI, 8.1-25.9) in non-estrogen women, and 2.3% (95% CI, 0.0-6.8) in estrogen women. CONCLUSION: The long-term risk of recurrence in patients with a first unprovoked VTE who have negative d-dimer results is not low enough to justify stopping anticoagulant therapy in men, but appears to be low enough in women for many to choose stopping therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT00720915).

Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in Acute Femoral-Popliteal Deep Vein Thrombosis: Analysis from a Stratified Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (ATTRACT) trial reported that pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) did not reduce post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), but reduced moderate-to-severe PTS and the severity of PTS symptoms. In this analysis, we examine the effect of PCDT in patients with femoral-popliteal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (without involvement of more proximal veins). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the ATTRACT trial, 300 patients had DVT involving the femoral vein without involvement of the common femoral or iliac veins and were randomized to receive PCDT with anticoagulation or anticoagulation alone (no PCDT). Patients were followed for 24 months. RESULTS: From 6 to 24 months, between the PCDT versus no PCDT arms, there was: no difference in any PTS (Villalta scale ≥ 5: risk ratio [RR] = 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.24); moderate-or-severe PTS (Villalta scale ≥ 10: RR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.57-1.52); severity of PTS scores; or general or disease-specific quality of life (p > 0.5 for all comparisons). From baseline to both 10 and 30 days, there was no difference in improvement of leg pain or swelling between treatment arms. From baseline to 10 days, major bleeding occurred in three versus none (p = 0.06) and any bleeding occurred in eight versus two (p = 0.032) PCDT versus no PCDT patients. Over 24 months, recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in 16 PCDT and 12 no PCDT patients (p = 0.24). CONCLUSION: In patients with femoral-popliteal DVT, PCDT did not improve short- or long-term efficacy outcomes, but it increased bleeding. Therefore, PCDT should not be used as initial treatment of femoral-popliteal DVT. (NCT00790335).

Endovascular Thrombus Removal for Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: The ATTRACT trial (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis) previously reported that pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) did not prevent postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) in patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis. In the current analysis, we examine the effect of PCDT in ATTRACT patients with iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis. METHODS: Within a large multicenter randomized trial, 391 patients with acute deep vein thrombosis involving the iliac or common femoral veins were randomized to PCDT with anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone (No-PCDT) and were followed for 24 months to compare short-term and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Between 6 and 24 months, there was no difference in the occurrence of PTS (Villalta scale ≥5 or ulcer: 49% PCDT versus 51% No-PCDT; risk ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78-1.15; P=0.59). PCDT led to reduced PTS severity as shown by lower mean Villalta and Venous Clinical Severity Scores ( P<0.01 for comparisons at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months), and fewer patients with moderate-or-severe PTS (Villalta scale ≥10 or ulcer: 18% versus 28%; risk ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.94; P=0.021) or severe PTS (Villalta scale ≥15 or ulcer: 8.7% versus 15%; risk ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.32-1.01; P=0.048; and Venous Clinical Severity Score ≥8: 6.6% versus 14%; risk ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.87; P=0.013). From baseline, PCDT led to greater reduction in leg pain and swelling ( P<0.01 for comparisons at 10 and 30 days) and greater improvement in venous disease-specific quality of life (Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study Quality of Life unit difference 5.6 through 24 months, P=0.029), but no difference in generic quality of life ( P>0.2 for comparisons of SF-36 mental and physical component summary scores through 24 months). In patients having PCDT versus No-PCDT, major bleeding within 10 days occurred in 1.5% versus 0.5% ( P=0.32), and recurrent venous thromboembolism over 24 months was observed in 13% versus 9.2% ( P=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, PCDT did not influence the occurrence of PTS or recurrent venous thromboembolism. However, PCDT significantly reduced early leg symptoms and, over 24 months, reduced PTS severity scores, reduced the proportion of patients who developed moderate-or-severe PTS, and resulted in greater improvement in venous disease-specific quality of life. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00790335.

A phase 1 trial evaluating thioridazine in combination with cytarabine in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

We completed a phase 1 dose-escalation trial to evaluate the safety of a dopamine receptor D2 (DRD2) antagonist thioridazine (TDZ), in combination with cytarabine. Thirteen patients 55 years and older with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) were enrolled. Oral TDZ was administered at 3 dose levels: 25 mg (n = 6), 50 mg (n = 4), or 100 mg (n = 3) every 6 hours for 21 days. Intermediate-dose cytarabine was administered on days 6 to 10. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included grade 3 QTc interval prolongation in 1 patient at 25 mg TDZ and neurological events in 2 patients at 100 mg TDZ (gait disturbance, depressed consciousness, and dizziness). At the 50-mg TDZ dose, the sum of circulating DRD2 antagonist levels approached a concentration of 10 µM, a level noted to be selectively active against human AML in vitro. Eleven of 13 patients completed a 5-day lead-in with TDZ, of which 6 received TDZ with hydroxyurea and 5 received TDZ alone. During this period, 8 patients demonstrated a 19% to 55% reduction in blast levels, whereas 3 patients displayed progressive disease. The extent of blast reduction during this 5-day interval was associated with the expression of the putative TDZ target receptor DRD2 on leukemic cells. These preliminary results suggest that DRD2 represents a potential therapeutic target for AML disease. Future studies are required to corroborate these observations, including the use of modified DRD2 antagonists with improved tolerability in AML patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02096289.

Antiphospholipid antibodies and recurrent thrombosis after a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism.

It is uncertain whether antiphospholipid antibodies (APAs) increase the risk of recurrence after a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). We tested for anticardiolipin antibodies, anti-ß2 glycoprotein 1 antibodies, and lupus anticoagulant on 2 occasions ∼6 months apart in 307 patients with a first unprovoked VTE who were part of a prospective cohort study. We then determined if APAs were associated with recurrent thrombosis in the 290 patients who stopped anticoagulant therapy in response to negative D-dimer results. Compared with those without an APA, the hazard ratios for recurrent VTE were 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-3.7; P = .09) in the 25.9% of patients with an APA on ≥1 occasions, 2.7 (95% CI, 1.1-.7; P = .03) in the 9.0% of patients with the same APA on 2 occasions, and 4.5 (95% CI, 1.5-13.0; P = .006) in the 3.8% of patients with 2 or 3 different APA types on either the same or different occasions. There was no association between having an APA and D-dimer levels. We conclude that having the same type of APA on 2 occasions or having >1 type of APA on the same or different occasions is associated with recurrent thrombosis in patients with a first unprovoked VTE who stop anticoagulant therapy in response to negative D-dimer tests. APA and D-dimer levels seem to be independent predictors of recurrence in patients with an unprovoked VTE. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00720915.

Population-Based Study to Determine the Health System Costs of Using the 21-Gene Assay.

Purpose The 21-gene assay Oncotype Dx (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA) test is used to aid the decision about chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who received endocrine therapy. Economic studies to support test adoption used decision-analytic models with assumptions and data derived from disparate sources. The objective was to evaluate whether the 21-gene assay test resulted in an overall cost expense or saving to the health system. Patients and Methods One thousand participants enrolled in a field evaluation study, were linked to population-level health system administrative databases, and were observed for 20 months. The cost for the cohort, which included the cost of the test, subsequent treatments received, and health care encounters, was determined. The cost in the absence of the test was compared with the pretest recommendation about chemotherapy from the field study for a base case and under scenarios that reflected different adjuvant chemotherapy use. Overall health system costs and incremental costs were calculated. Results The 21-gene assay resulted in a net decrease in chemotherapy use of 23%. For the base case incremental analysis, the actual overall health system cost of this cohort, including the cost of 21-gene assay, was $29.2 million compared with $26.2 million in the absence of the test-an increase of $3.1 million. For three of the four scenario analyses, the actual overall cost to the health system exceeded the estimated cost in the absence of the test. Results showed that, when at least half of the population received adjuvant chemotherapy, the cost increased to $30.2 million. Conclusion The use of real-world administrative data showed that, despite lower rates of chemotherapy use, the 21-gene assay test results in an overall incremental cost to the health care system in the short-term under most assumptions.

Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Deep-Vein Thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: The post-thrombotic syndrome frequently develops in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis despite treatment with anticoagulant therapy. Pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (hereafter "pharmacomechanical thrombolysis") rapidly removes thrombus and is hypothesized to reduce the risk of the post-thrombotic syndrome. METHODS: We randomly assigned 692 patients with acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis to receive either anticoagulation alone (control group) or anticoagulation plus pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (catheter-mediated or device-mediated intrathrombus delivery of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and thrombus aspiration or maceration, with or without stenting). The primary outcome was development of the post-thrombotic syndrome between 6 and 24 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Between 6 and 24 months, there was no significant between-group difference in the percentage of patients with the post-thrombotic syndrome (47% in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group and 48% in the control group; risk ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.11; P=0.56). Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis led to more major bleeding events within 10 days (1.7% vs. 0.3% of patients, P=0.049), but no significant difference in recurrent venous thromboembolism was seen over the 24-month follow-up period (12% in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group and 8% in the control group, P=0.09). Moderate-to-severe post-thrombotic syndrome occurred in 18% of patients in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group versus 24% of those in the control group (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.98; P=0.04). Severity scores for the post-thrombotic syndrome were lower in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group than in the control group at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months of follow-up (P<0.01 for the comparison of the Villalta scores at each time point), but the improvement in quality of life from baseline to 24 months did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis, the addition of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis to anticoagulation did not result in a lower risk of the post-thrombotic syndrome but did result in a higher risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ATTRACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00790335 .).

Comparison of clinical probability-adjusted D-dimer and age-adjusted D-dimer interpretation to exclude venous thromboembolism.

Two new strategies for interpreting D-dimer results have been proposed: i) using a progressively higher D-dimer threshold with increasing age (age-adjusted strategy) and ii) using a D-dimer threshold in patients with low clinical probability that is twice the threshold used in patients with moderate clinical probability (clinical probability-adjusted strategy). Our objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of age-adjusted and clinical probability-adjusted D-dimer interpretation in patients with a low or moderate clinical probability of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We performed a retrospective analysis of clinical data and blood samples from two prospective studies. We compared the negative predictive value (NPV) for VTE, and the proportion of patients with a negative D-dimer result, using two D-dimer interpretation strategies: the age-adjusted strategy, which uses a progressively higher D-dimer threshold with increasing age over 50 years (age in years × 10 µg/L FEU); and the clinical probability-adjusted strategy which uses a D-dimer threshold of 1000 µg/L FEU in patients with low clinical probability and 500 µg/L FEU in patients with moderate clinical probability. A total of 1649 outpatients with low or moderate clinical probability for a first suspected deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism were included. The NPV of both the clinical probability-adjusted strategy (99.7 %) and the age-adjusted strategy (99.6 %) were similar. However, the proportion of patients with a negative result was greater with the clinical probability-adjusted strategy (56.1 % vs, 50.9 %; difference 5.2 %; 95 % CI 3.5 % to 6.8 %). These findings suggest that clinical probability-adjusted D-dimer interpretation is a better way of interpreting D-dimer results compared to age-adjusted interpretation.

Long-Term Results of a Randomized Trial Comparing Iridium Implant Plus External Beam Radiation Therapy With External Beam Radiation Therapy Alone in Node-Negative Locally Advanced Cancer of the Prostate.

PURPOSE: To determine the impact on long-term survival from the addition of brachytherapy to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1992 and 1997, 104 men with cT2-3, surgically staged node-negative prostate cancer were randomized to receive either EBRT (40 Gy/20 fractions) with iridium implant (35 Gy/48 hours) or EBRT alone (66 Gy/33 fractions) to the prostate. According to T stage, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen level, 60% of patients had high-risk disease. Substantial improvements in biochemical control at 8 years have previously been reported. Additional follow-up was collected on deaths and metastases. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 14 years. Five patients were lost to follow-up. All other patients have been followed a minimum of 13 years. There have been 75 deaths, including 21 from prostate cancer and 25 from second cancers. No patients developing a second cancer have died from prostate cancer. There was no difference in overall survival between the 2 treatment groups: 34 deaths (67%) in the implant arm and 41 (77%) in the EBRT arm (hazard ratio [HR] 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.59). Similarly, there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific deaths: 9 (18%) patients in the implant arm compared with 12 (23%) in the EBRT arm (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.34-1.87). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of patients developing metastatic disease: 10 (20%) in the implant arm and 15 (28%) in the EBRT arm (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32-1.57). Improvements in biochemical control were maintained (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a dramatic reduction of biochemical recurrence rates, the addition of iridium implant to EBRT did not translate into improved overall survival or prostate cancer-specific survival.

Randomized Trial of a Hypofractionated Radiation Regimen for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer.

Purpose Men with localized prostate cancer often are treated with external radiotherapy (RT) over 8 to 9 weeks. Hypofractionated RT is given over a shorter time with larger doses per treatment than standard RT. We hypothesized that hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation is similar in efficacy without increased toxicity. Patients and Methods We conducted a multicenter randomized noninferiority trial in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (T1 to 2a, Gleason score ≤ 6, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 10.1 to 20 ng/mL; T2b to 2c, Gleason ≤ 6, and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL; or T1 to 2, Gleason = 7, and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL). Patients were allocated to conventional RT of 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 8 weeks or to hypofractionated RT of 60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. Androgen deprivation was not permitted with therapy. The primary outcome was biochemical-clinical failure (BCF) defined by any of the following: PSA failure (nadir + 2), hormonal intervention, clinical local or distant failure, or death as a result of prostate cancer. The noninferiority margin was 7.5% (hazard ratio, < 1.32). Results Median follow-up was 6.0 years. One hundred nine of 608 patients in the hypofractionated arm versus 117 of 598 in the standard arm experienced BCF. Most of the events were PSA failures. The 5-year BCF disease-free survival was 85% in both arms (hazard ratio [short v standard], 0.96; 90% CI, 0.77 to 1.2). Ten deaths as a result of prostate cancer occurred in the short arm and 12 in the standard arm. No significant differences were detected between arms for grade ≥ 3 late genitourinary and GI toxicity. Conclusion The hypofractionated RT regimen used in this trial was not inferior to conventional RT and was not associated with increased late toxicity. Hypofractionated RT is more convenient for patients and should be considered for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.