Telehealth Availability for Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth was an important strategy for maintaining continuity of cancer care during the coronavirus pandemic and has continued to play a role in outpatient care; however, it is unknown whether services are equally available across cancer hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with common cancers to contextualize the impact of access barriers to technology on overall access to health care. METHODS: We conducted a national cross-sectional secret shopper study from June to November 2020 to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with colorectal, breast, and skin (melanoma) cancer. We examined facility-level factors to determine predictors of telehealth availability. RESULTS: Of the 312 investigated facilities, 97.1% (n=303) provided telehealth services for at least 1 cancer site. Telehealth was less available to new compared to established patients (n=226, 72% vs n=301, 97.1%). The surveyed cancer hospitals more commonly offered telehealth visits for breast cancer care (n=266, 85%) and provided lower access to telehealth for skin (melanoma) cancer care (n=231, 74%). Most hospitals (n=163, 52%) offered telehealth for all 3 cancer types. Telehealth availability was weakly correlated across cancer types within a given facility for new (r=0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.23) and established (r=0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21) patients. Telehealth was more commonly available for new patients at National Cancer Institute-designated facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, and major teaching sites, with high total admissions and below-average timeliness of care. Telehealth availability for established patients was highest at Academic Comprehensive Cancer Programs, nongovernment and nonprofit facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, Accountable Care Organizations, and facilities with a high number of total admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in telehealth services for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic, we identified differences in access across cancer hospitals, which may relate to measures of clinical volume, affiliation, and infrastructure.

Access to urologic cancer care for Medicaid-insured patients.

BACKGROUND: The expansion of state Medicaid programs associated with the Affordable Care Act has led to significant increases in insurance coverage for economically vulnerable patients, however barriers to accessing cancer care still exist. To develop strategies to improve healthcare access, we characterized access to new urologic cancer care for patients with Medicaid insurance in the United States. METHODS: Using a secret shopper approach, we contacted a representative sample of facilities designated for cancer care in United States. Trained volunteers posed as a family member seeking urologic cancer care using a simulated scenario of a parent with a new diagnosis of a localized kidney tumor. The primary study outcome was acceptance of Medicaid. In addition, we assessed facility characteristics associated with Medicaid acceptance relating to state Medicaid expansion status, Medicare reimbursement rates, and teaching hospital status using data from the Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital General Information data file, the American Hospital Directory, and the American Medical Association of Colleges Organizational Characteristics Database. RESULTS: We sampled a total of 389 facilities, of which 14.4% did not accept new Medicaid patients. Medicaid acceptance was higher in facilities located in states that elected to expand Medicaid through the ACA vs. non-expansion states (90.1% vs. 77.4% respectively, P < 0.001). Facilities accepting patients with Medicaid were located in states with higher mean Medicaid-to-Medicare fee indexes (0.70 for Medicaid-accepting vs. 0.65 for non-accepting facilities, P < 0.001). In addition, Medicaid acceptance was higher in teaching hospitals vs. non-teaching facilities (93.8% vs. 83.4% P = 0.02), and medical school affiliated facilities (89.2% vs. 79.7% P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We identified access disparities for patients with Medicaid insurance seeking urologic cancer care at centers. These findings highlight opportunities to improve the quality and timeliness of cancer care.

Secret shopper studies: an unorthodox design that measures inequities in healthcare access.

Secret shopper studies are particularly potent study designs that allow for the gathering of objective data for a variety of research hypotheses, including but not limited to, healthcare delivery, equity of healthcare, and potential barriers to care. Of particular interest during the COVID-19 pandemic, secret shopper study designs allow for the gathering of data over the phone. However, there is a dearth of literature available on appropriate methodological practices for these types of studies. To make these study designs more widely accessible, here we outline the case for using the secret shopper methodology and detail best practices for designing and implementing them.

Acceptance of Simulated Adult Patients With Medicaid Insurance Seeking Care in a Cancer Hospital for a New Cancer Diagnosis.

Importance: Although there have been significant increases in the number of US residents insured through Medicaid, the ability of patients with Medicaid to access cancer care services is less well known. Objective: To assess facility-level acceptance of Medicaid insurance among patients diagnosed with common cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national cross-sectional secret shopper study was conducted in 2020 in a random sample of Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities in the United States using a simulated cohort of Medicaid-insured adult patients with colorectal, breast, kidney, and melanoma skin cancer. Exposures: Telephone call requesting an appointment for a patient with Medicaid with a new cancer diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Acceptance of Medicaid insurance for cancer care. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with Medicaid acceptance for colorectal, breast, kidney, and skin cancer. High access hospitals were defined as those offering care across all 4 cancer types surveyed. Explanatory measures included facility-level factors from the 2016 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services General Information database. Results: A nationally representative sample of 334 facilities was created, of which 226 (67.7%) provided high access to patients with Medicaid seeking cancer care. Medicaid acceptance differed by cancer site, with 319 facilities (95.5%) accepting Medicaid insurance for breast cancer care; 302 (90.4%), colorectal; 290 (86.8%), kidney; and 266 (79.6%), skin. Comprehensive community cancer programs (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7; P = .007) were significantly less likely to provide high access to care for patients with Medicaid. Facilities with nongovernment, nonprofit (vs for-profit: OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-10.8; P = .03) and government (vs for-profit: OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.6-27.2; P = .01) ownership, integrated salary models (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5; P = .001), and average (vs above-average: OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.4-29.6; P = .02) or below-average (vs above-average: OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 1.5-47.5; P = .02) effectiveness of care were associated with high access to Medicaid. State Medicaid expansion status was not significantly associated with high access. Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified access disparities for patients with Medicaid insurance at centers designated for high-quality care. These findings highlight gaps in cancer care for the expanding population of patients receiving Medicaid.

Access to telehealth services for colorectal cancer patients in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic yielded rapid telehealth deployment to improve healthcare access, including for surgical patients. METHODS: We conducted a secret shopper study to assess telehealth availability for new patient and follow-up colorectal cancer care visits in a random national sample of Commission on Cancer accredited hospitals and investigated predictive facility-level factors. RESULTS: Of 397 hospitals, 302 (76%) offered telehealth for colorectal cancer patients (75% for follow-up, 42% for new patients). For new patients, NCI-designated Cancer Programs offered telehealth more frequently than Integrated Network (OR: 0.20, p = 0.01), Academic Comprehensive (OR: 0.18, p = 0.001), Comprehensive Community (OR: 0.10, p < 0.001), and Community (OR: 0.11, p < 0.001) Cancer Programs. For follow-up, above average timeliness of care hospitals offered telehealth more frequently than average hospitals (OR: 2.87, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We identified access disparities and predictive factors for telehealth availability for colorectal cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors should be considered when constructing telehealth policies.

Association Between Private Equity Acquisition of Urology Practices and Physician Medicare Payments.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether private equity (PE) acquisitions of urology practices were associated with changes in Medicare payments and patient volume. METHODS: We identified PE acquisitions of urology practices through financial databases, industry news outlets, practice websites, and Google search. Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service's Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (2012-2019), we conducted descriptive statistics and trends analysis to examine whether PE acquisition was associated with changes in Medicare payments and patient volume in comparison to non-PE affiliated urologists within the same states. RESULTS: We identified PE acquisitions of 10 independent urology practices across 6 states during the study period. In the preacquisition period, urologists later joining private-equity groups received greater mean inflation-adjusted Medicare payments ($246,977 vs $160,038; P <.001) and had greater patient volume (839.7 vs 674.2 patients; P = .001) than urologists who did not. In the postacquisition period, PE affiliated urologists had an 11.0% (95% CI: -0.2% to 22.3%) increase in inflation-adjusted Medicare payments (P = .054) and a 12.5% (95% CI: 6.5%-18.6%) increase in patient volume (P <.001). Non-PE affiliated urologists exhibited a 6% decline in Medicare payments (P <.001) and a 2.7% increase in patient volume (P <.001). CONCLUSION: PE affiliated urologists exhibited increases in Medicare payments even prior to acquisition, in contrast to declines for geographically similar, non-PE urologists. These findings may highlight characteristics of practices targeted by PE firms and local practice trends that may further diverge following acquisition.

Charges for Initial Visits for Uninsured Patients at Musculoskeletal Urgent Care Centers in the US.

Importance: In recent years, specialized musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) have opened across the US. Uninsured patients may increasingly turn to these orthopedic-specific urgent care centers as a lower-cost alternative to emergency department or general urgent care center visits. Objective: To assess out-of-pocket costs and factors associated with these costs at MUCCs for uninsured and underinsured patients in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, a national secret shopper survey was conducted in June 2019. Clinics identified as MUCCs in 50 states were contacted by telephone by investigators using a standardized script and posing as uninsured patients seeking information on the out-of-pocket charge for a new patient visit. Exposures: State Medicaid expansion status, clinic Medicaid acceptance status, state Medicaid reimbursement rate, median income per zip code, and clinic region. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was each clinic's out-of-pocket charge for a level 3 visit, defined as a new patient office visit requiring medical decision-making of low complexity. Linear regression was used to examine correlations of price with clinic policy against accepting Medicaid, median income per zip code, and Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit. Results: Of 565 MUCCs identified, 558 MUCCs were able to be contacted (98.8%); 536 of the 558 MUCCs (96.1%) disclosed a new patient visit out-of-pocket charge. Of those, 313 (58.4%) accepted Medicaid insurance and 326 (60.8%) were located in states with expanded Medicaid at the time of the survey. The mean (SD) price of a visit to an MUCC was $250 ($110). Clinic policy against accepting Medicaid (ß, 22.91; 95% CI, 12.57-33.25; P < .001), higher median income per zip code (ß, 0.00056; 95% CI, 0.00020-0.00092; P = .003), and increased Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit (ß, 0.737; 95% CI, 0.158-1.316; P = .01) were positively correlated with visit price. The overall regression was statistically significance (R2 = 0.084; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, MUCCs charged a mean price of $250 for a new patient visit. Medicaid acceptance policy, median income per zip code, and Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit were associated with differences in out-of-pocket charges. These findings suggest that accessibility to orthopedic urgent care at MUCCs may be limited for underinsured and uninsured patients.

Access to Urological Care for Medicaid-Insured Patients at Urology Practices Acquired by Private Equity Firms.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize appointment access for Medicaid-insured patients seeking care at urology practices affiliated with private equity firms in light of the recent national trends in practice consolidation. METHODS: We identified 214 urology offices affiliated with private equity firms that were geographically matched with 231 non-private equity affiliated urology offices. Using a standardized script, researchers posed as an adult patient with either Medicaid or commercial insurance in the clinical setting of new onset, painless hematuria. The primary outcome was whether the patient's insurance was accepted for an appointment. The secondary outcome was appointment wait time. RESULTS: We conducted 815 appointment inquiry calls to 214 private equity (PE) and 231 non-PE-affiliated urology offices across 12 states. Appointment availability was higher for commercially-insured patients (99.0%; 95% CI: 98.1%-99.9%) vs Medicaid-insured patients (59.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 55.0%-64.6%) (P < .0001). Medicaid acceptance was higher at non-PE affiliated (66.8%; CI 60.4%-73.2%) than PE-affiliated practices (52.1%; 95% CI 45.0%-59.2%) (P = .003). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, state Medicaid expansion status (odds ratio [OR] 2.20; CI 1.14-4.28; P = .020) was independently associated with Medicaid appointment availability, whereas PE-affiliation (OR 0.55; CI 0.37-0.83; P = .004) was independently associated with lower Medicaid access. Appointment wait times did not differ significantly for commercially-insured vs Medicaid patients (19.2 vs 20.1 days; p = .59), but PE-affiliated practices offered shorter mean wait times than non-PE offices (17.5 vs 21.4 days; P = .017). CONCLUSION: Access disparities for urologic evaluation in patients with Medicaid insurance at urology practices and were more pronounced at private equity acquired practices.

Evaluating musculoskeletal urgent care center triage and transfer of emergency conditions for emergency surgical assessment and intervention.

Musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) are an alternative to emergency departments (EDs) for patients to seek care for low acuity orthopedic injuries such as ankle sprains or joint pain, but are not equipped to manage orthopedic emergencies that require a higher level of care provided in the ED. This study aims to evaluate telephone and online triage practices as well as ED transfer procedures for MUCCs for patients presenting with an orthopedic condition requiring urgent surgical intervention. We called 595 MUCCs using a standardized script presenting as a critical patient with symptoms of lower extremity compartment syndrome. We compared direct ED referral frequency and triage frequency for MUCCs for patients insured by either Medicaid or by private insurance. We found that patients presenting with an apparent compartment syndrome were directly referred to the ED by < 1 in 5 MUCCs. Additionally, < 5% of patients were asked additional triage questions that would increase clinician suspicion for compartment syndrome and allow MUCCs to appropriately direct patients to the ED. MUCCs provide limited telephone and online triage for patients, which may result in delays of care for life or limb threatening injuries that require ED resources such as sedation, reductions, and emergency surgery. However, when MUCCs did conduct triage, it significantly increased the likelihood that patients were appropriately referred to the ED. Level of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study.

Urology Practice Acquisitions by Private Equity Firms from 2011-2021.

INTRODUCTION: Private equity firms have recently acquired several large urology practices in the United States. As little is known about these acquisitions, we sought to characterize trends in urology practice consolidation. METHODS: We compiled urology practice acquisition data via financial databases, news outlets, practice websites, and Internet keyword search for the time period January 1, 2011 through March 15, 2021. For each acquisition, we determined the acquiring group, number of employed urologists, practice locations, and status of ancillary services (pathology, radiology, or surgery centers). We estimated workforce effects based on the 2019 American Urological Association workforce census. RESULTS: We identified 69 independent practice acquisitions in the study period, including 19 (28.4%) by hospital systems, 7 (10.4%) by multispecialty physician groups, 23 (34.3%) by urology practices, and 20 (29.9%) by private equity-backed platforms. Private equity firms initially targeted large urology practices (mean of 60.8±32.6 urologists) with ownership of ancillary services and consolidated local market share through acquisitions of smaller practices (mean of 15.9±14.5 urologists). As of March 2021, we estimate that 7.2% of private practice urologists in the U.S. were employed by one of 5 private equity-backed platforms; over 25% of all urologists practicing in New Jersey and Maryland are employed by a private equity-backed platform. CONCLUSIONS: Private equity acquisitions have accelerated to become a dominant form of urology practice consolidation in recent years and have achieved significant market influence in certain regions. Future research should assess the impact of private equity investment on practice patterns, health outcomes, and expenditures.

Evaluation of Insurance Coverage and Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Among Low-Income Adults With Renal Cell Carcinoma After Passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Importance: The association of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) with insurance status and cancer stage at diagnosis among patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is unknown. Objective: To test the hypothesis that the ACA may be associated with increased access to care through expansion of insurance, which may vary based on income. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis included patients diagnosed with RCC from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2016, in the National Cancer Database. Data were analyzed from July 1 to December 31, 2020. The periods from 2010 to 2013 and from 2014 to 2016 were defined as pre- and post-ACA implementation, respectively. Patients were categorized as living in a Medicaid expansion state or not. Exposures: Implementation of the ACA. Main Outcomes and Measures: The absolute percentage change (APC) of insurance coverage was calculated before and after ACA implementation in expansion and nonexpansion states. Secondary outcomes included change in stage at diagnosis, difference in the rate of insurance change, and change in localized disease between expansion and nonexpansion states. Adjusted difference-in-difference modeling was performed. Results: The cohort included 78 099 patients (64.7% male and 35.3% female; mean [SD] age, 54.66 [6.46] years), of whom 21.2% had low, 46.2% had middle, and 32.6% had high incomes. After ACA implementation, expansion states had a lower proportion of uninsured patients (adjusted difference-in-difference, -1.14% [95% CI, -1.98% to -1.41%]; P = .005). This occurred to the greatest degree among low-income patients through the acquisition of Medicaid (APC, 11.0% [95% CI, 8.6%-13.3%]; P < .001). Implementation of the ACA was also associated with an increase in detection of stage I and II disease (APC, 4.0% [95% CI, 1.6%-6.3%]; P = .001) among low-income patients in expansion states. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with RCC, ACA implementation was associated with an increase in insurance coverage status in both expansion and nonexpansion states for all income groups, but to a greater degree in expansion states. The proportion of patients with localized disease increased among low-income patients in both states. These data suggest that ACA implementation is associated with earlier RCC detection among lower-income patients.

Access to Urologic Care at Urgent Care Centers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate Medicaid insurance access disparities for urologic care at urgent care centers (UCCs) in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a "secret shopper" methodology. We sampled 240 UCCs across 8 states. Using a standardized script, researchers posed as a patient with either Medicaid or commercial insurance in the clinical setting of obstructing nephrolithiasis. The primary study endpoint was whether a patient's insurance (Medicaid vs commercial) was accepted. We assessed factors associated with Medicaid acceptance using logistic regression models adjusted for state-level and facility-level characteristics. Additionally, we calculated triage rates, emergency department referral rates, and the ability of a UCC to refer the patient to a specialist. RESULTS: Of 240 UCCs contacted, 239 (99.6%) accepted commercial insurance and 159 (66.2%) accepted Medicaid. UCCs in Medicaid expansion states more frequently accepted patients with Medicaid insurance (74.2% vs 58.3%, respectively, P < .01). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, state Medicaid expansion (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.04-3.26, P = .04) and affiliation with an institution (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.59-5.57, P < .01) were independently associated with greater odds of accepting Medicaid. Medicaid-insured patients were significantly less likely to be triaged or referred to the emergency department compared to commercial patients. CONCLUSION: We identified significant disparities in access to UCCs for Medicaid patients presenting with a urologic condition. Given the expanding national role of UCCs, these findings highlight potential sources of insurance disparity in the context of a urologic emergency.

Musculoskeletal Urgent Care Centers Restrict Access for Patients with Medicaid Insurance Based on Policy and Location.

BACKGROUND: As the urgent care landscape evolves, specialized musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) are becoming more prevalent. MUCCs have been offered as a convenient, cost-effective option for timely acute orthopaedic care. However, a recent "secret-shopper" study on patient access to MUCCs in Connecticut demonstrated that patients with Medicaid had limited access to these orthopaedic-specific urgent care centers. To investigate how generalizable these regional findings are to the United States, we conducted a nationwide secret-shopper study of MUCCs to identify determinants of patient access. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of MUCCs in the United States provide access for patients with Medicaid insurance? (2) What factors are associated with MUCCs providing access for patients with Medicaid insurance? (3) What barriers exist for patients seeking care at MUCCs? METHODS: An online search of all MUCCs across the United States was conducted in this cross-sectional study. Three separate search modalities were used to gather a complete list. Of the 565 identified, 558 were contacted by phone with investigators posing over the telephone as simulated patients seeking treatment for a sprained ankle. Thirty-nine percent (216 of 558) of centers were located in the South, 13% (71 of 558) in the West, 25% (138 of 558) in the Midwest, and 24% (133 of 558) in New England. This study was given an exemption waiver by our institution's IRB. MUCCs were contacted using a standardized script to assess acceptance of Medicaid insurance and identify barriers to care. Question 1 was answered through determining the percentage of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid insurance. Question 2 considered whether there was an association between Medicaid acceptance and factors such as Medicaid physician reimbursements or MUCC center type. Question 3 sought to characterize the prevalence of any other means of limiting access for Medicaid patients, including requiring a referral for a visit and disallowing continuity of care at that MUCC. RESULTS: Of the MUCCs contacted, 58% (323 of 558) accepted Medicaid insurance. In 16 states, the proportion of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid was equal to or less than 50%. In 22 states, all MUCCs surveyed accepted Medicaid insurance. Academic-affiliated MUCCs accepted Medicaid patients at a higher proportion than centers owned by private practices (odds ratio 14 [95% CI 4.2 to 44]; p < 0.001). States with higher Medicaid physician reimbursements saw proportional increases in the percentage of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid insurance under multivariable analysis (OR 36 [95% CI 14 to 99]; p < 0.001). Barriers to care for Medicaid patients characterized included location restriction and primary care physician referral requirements. CONCLUSION: It is clear that musculoskeletal urgent care at these centers is inaccessible to a large segment of the Medicaid-insured population. This inaccessibility seems to be related to state Medicaid physician fee schedules and a center's affiliation with a private orthopaedic practice, indicating how underlying financial pressures influence private practice policies. Ultimately, the refusal of Medicaid by MUCCs may lead to disparities in which patients with private insurance are cared for at MUCCs, while those with Medicaid may experience delays in care. Going forward, there are three main options to tackle this issue: increasing Medicaid physician reimbursement to provide a financial incentive, establishing stricter standards for MUCCs to operate at the state level, or streamlining administration to reduce costs overall. Further research will be necessary to evaluate which policy intervention will be most effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

Urgent care center wait times increase for COVID-19 results in August 2020, with rapid testing availability limited.

BACKGROUND: In a response to the pandemic, urgent care centers (UCCs) have gained a critical role as a common location for COVID-19 testing. We sought to characterize the changes in testing accessibility at UCCs between March and August 2020 on the basis of testing availability (including rapid antigen testing), wait time for test results, cost of visits, and cost of tests. METHODS: Data were collected using a secret shopper methodology. Researchers contacted 250 UCCs in 10 states. Investigators used a standardized script to survey centers on their COVID-19 testing availability and policies. UCCs were initially contacted in March and re-called in August. T-tests and chi-square tests were conducted to identify differences between March and August data and differences by center classification. RESULTS: Our results indicate that both polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to detect COVID-19 genetic material and rapid antigen COVID-19 tests have increased in availability. However, wait times for PCR test results have significantly increased to an average of 5.79 days. Additionally, a high proportion of UCCs continue to charge for tests and visits and no significant decrease was found in the proportion of UCCs that charge for COVID-19 testing from March to August. Further, no state reported a majority of UCCs with rapid testing available, indicating an overall lack of rapid testing. CONCLUSIONS: From March to August, COVID-19 testing availability gradually improved. However, many barriers lie in access to COVID-19 testing, including testing costs, visit costs, and overall lack of availability of rapid testing in the majority of UCCs. Despite the passage of the CARES Act, these results suggest that there is room for additional policy to improve accessibility to testing, specifically rapid testing.

Choosing the Best Approach to Warfarin Reversal After Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Patients on warfarin with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage often have the warfarin effects pharmacologically reversed. We compared outcomes among patients who received 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), fresh frozen plasma (FFP), or no reversal to assess the real-world impact of PCC on elderly patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 150 patients on preinjury warfarin. Data were manually abstracted from the electronic medical record of an academic level 1 trauma center for patients admitted between January 2013 and December 2018. Outcomes were ICH progression on follow-up computed tomography scan, mortality, need for surgical intervention, and trends in the use of reversal agents. RESULTS: Of 150 patients eligible for analysis, 41 received FFP, 60 PCC, and 49 were not reversed. On multivariable analysis, patients not reversed [OR 0.25 95% CI (0.31-0.85)] and women [OR 0.38 95% CI (0.17-0.88)] were less likely to experience progression of their initial bleed on follow-up computed tomography while subdural hemorrhage increased the risk [OR 3.69 95% CI (1.27-10.73)]. There was no difference between groups in terms of mortality or need for surgery. Over time use of reversal with PCC increased while use of FFP and not reversing warfarin declined (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Male gender and using a reversal agent were associated with progression of ICH. Choice of reversal did not impact the need for surgery, hospital length of stay, or mortality. Some ICH patients may not require warfarin reversal and may bias studies, especially retrospective studies of warfarin reversal.

Outcomes of Serial Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Subsequent Biopsy in Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer Managed with Active Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and subsequent biopsy in monitoring prostate cancer (PCa) in men on active surveillance (AS) have not been defined clearly. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether changes in serial mpMRI can predict pathological upgrade among men with grade group (GG) 1 PCa managed with AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of men with GG1 on AS with at least two consecutive mpMRI examinations during 2012-2018 who underwent mpMRI/ultrasound fusion or systematic biopsies. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Progression on serial mpMRI was evaluated as a predictor of pathological upgrading to GG≥2 on a follow-up biopsy using clinical, pathological, and imaging factors in binary logistic regression. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were determined. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 122 patients, 29 men (23.8%) experienced pathological upgrade on the follow-up biopsy. Progression on mpMRI was not associated with pathological upgrade. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mpMRI progression for predicting pathological upgrade were 41.3%, 54.8%, 22.2%, and 75%, respectively. Age (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, p=0.006), Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score on initial mpMRI (4-5 vs ≤3, OR 7.48, p=0.01), number of positive systematic cores (OR 1.84, p=0.03), number of positive targeted cores (OR 0.44, p=0.04), and maximum percent of targeted core tumor involvement (OR 1.04, p=0.01) were significantly associated with pathological upgrade. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe an association between mpMRI progression and pathological upgrade; however, a PI-RADS score of 4-5 on initial mpMRI was predictive of subsequent pathological progression. The continued use of systematic and fusion biopsies appears necessary due to risks of reclassification over time. PATIENT SUMMARY: Progression on serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging during active surveillance (AS) is not associated with progression on the follow-up biopsy. Both systematic and fusion biopsies are necessary to sufficiently capture progression during AS.