Evaluation and management of acute high-grade immunotherapy-related neurotoxicity.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibodies allow the host's immune system to attack tumors, which has revolutionized cancer care over the last decade. As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors has expanded, so have autoimmune-like complications known as immune-related adverse events. These include the infrequent but increasingly more common, potentially deadly neurological immune related adverse events. When feeling acutely ill, patients will often seek care not from their oncologist but from their family physician, clinics, emergency, and urgent care sites, or other available providers. Thus, while assessing acutely ill cancer patients who are experiencing neurological symptoms, non-oncologists should be prepared to recognize, diagnose, and treat neurological immune related adverse events in addition to more familiar conditions. This narrative review is designed to update acute care clinicians on current knowledge and to present a symptom-based framework for evaluating and treating neurological immune related adverse events based on the leading immunotoxicity organizations' latest recommendations.

"Triple Threat" Conditions Predict Mortality Among Patients With Advanced Cancer Who Present to the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Delirium, poor performance status, and dyspnea predict short survival in the palliative care setting. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to determine whether these three conditions, which we refer to as a "triple threat," also predict mortality among patients with advanced cancers in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: The study sample included 243 randomly selected, clinically stable patients with advanced cancer who presented to our ED. The analysis included patients who had delirium (Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale score ≥ 7), poor performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 3 or 4), or dyspnea as a presenting symptom. We obtained survival data from medical records. We calculated predicted probability of dying within 30 days and association with number of symptoms after the ED visit using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients died within 30 days after presenting to the ED. Death within 30 days occurred in 36% (16 of 44) of patients with delirium, 28% (17 of 61) of patients with poor performance status, and 14% (7 of 50) of patients with dyspnea, with a predicted probability of 30-day mortality of 0.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.53), 0.28 (95% CI 0.18-0.40), and 0.15 (95% CI 0.07-0.29), respectively. The predicted probability of death within 30 days for patients with two or three of the conditions was 0.49 (95% CI 0.34-0.66) vs. 0.05 (95% CI 0.02-0.09) for patients with none or one of the conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced cancers who present to the ED and have at least two triple threat conditions have a high probability of death within 30 days.

A Model Oncologic Emergency Medicine Curriculum for Residency Training.

Background Emergency medicine (EM) resident training in oncologic emergencies is limited, and significant gaps have been identified. Although 90% of emergency medicine residency program directors recognize the importance of residency training in oncologic emergencies, there is no standardized oncologic emergency curriculum. Objective We propose a focused oncologic EM curriculum that serves as a complement to existing EM didactics curriculums to prepare EM residents to recognize and manage the most common oncologic emergencies. It will also allow for familiarization with constantly evolving therapies, such as chimeric antigen receptor cellular therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors.Discussion This curriculum consists of 10 hours of didactic instruction, which can be incorporated into an already existing didactic curriculum. The curriculum encompasses education on the recognition, rapid diagnosis, and management of oncologic emergencies, with the goal of improving the EM resident's understanding of cancer complications. The suggested topics can be delivered in a variety of methods, allowing for flexible integration in an already existing emergency education curriculum. The proposed curriculum should be introduced during the first postgraduate year and then in the second or third year of the residency to reinforce the learning points.Conclusions Our proposal of a focused, standardized 10 hour program curriculum aims to help to fill the gaps in knowledge of oncologic emergencies. To assist in wide dissemination and standardization of these curriculum topics, outlines for each module are given in the article and we also propose creation of open access online lectures and content to be shared for education purposes.

Characteristics of cancer patients with COVID-19 in a cancer hospital.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are vulnerable to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) given their compromised immune system. The purpose of this study was to describe the presenting symptoms, inpatient stay trajectory, and survival outcomes, for cancer patients infected with COVID-19; who presented to the emergency department (ED) of a single center during the early months of the pandemic. METHODS: We reviewed the electronic medical records of all cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at our institution for demographic information, clinical presentation, laboratory findings, treatment intervention and outcomes. All patients had at least 14 days of follow-up. We determined their survival outcomes as of August 5, 2020. RESULTS: Twenty-eight cancer patients were diagnosed with COVID-19, and 16 (57%) presented to the ED during the study period. The median age of patients who presented to the ED was 61 years, 69% were women, and the median length of hospitalization was 11 days. There was no difference between the groups (ED vs. no ED visit) for demographics, treatment status or solid tumor versus hematologic malignancies or treatments. Dyspnea was a significant symptom with 67% of ED patients experiencing it versus only 17% of those that did not come to the ED (P=0.009). Do not resuscitate orders were initiated in eight patients, as early as two days from ED presentation and two of these patients died, while 88% of patients were discharged alive. CONCLUSIONS: Most cancer patients with COVID-19 infection admitted though the ED experienced dyspnea and were discharged from the hospital. We did not notice a statistically significant difference between cancer types or type of therapy. A broad differential is of utmost importance when caring for cancer patients with COVID-19 due to the complexity of this population. Early goals of care discussion should be initiated in the ED.

Diagnosis and management of immune-related adverse effects of immune checkpoint therapy in the emergency department.

Rapid advances in cancer immunotherapy using immune checkpoint inhibitors have led to significantly improved survival. Rapid identification of the toxicity syndromes associated with these therapeutic agents is very important for emergency physicians because the population of patients diagnosed with cancer is increasing and cancer therapies including immune checkpoint inhibitors have become the first-line treatment for more and more types of cancer. The emergency medicine literature lags behind rapid advances in oncology, and oncology guidelines for rapid recognition and management of these emerging toxicity syndromes are not familiar to emergency physicians. In this review article, we discuss the clinical presentation and management of immune-related adverse effects during the critical first hours of emergency care. We also suggest a workflow for the recognition and treatment of emergencies arising from serious immune-related adverse effects, including but not limited to colitis, adrenal crisis, myocarditis, pneumonitis, myasthenic crisis, diabetic ketoacidosis, bullous pemphigus, and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Rapid advances in cancer therapy are bringing new diagnostic and therapeutic challenges to emergency providers, and therefore it is crucial to raise awareness and provide guidelines for the management of new treatment-related toxicities.

Advance Directives, Hospitalization, and Survival Among Advanced Cancer Patients with Delirium Presenting to the Emergency Department: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: To improve the management of advanced cancer patients with delirium in an emergency department (ED) setting, we compared outcomes between patients with delirium positively diagnosed by both the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), or group A (n = 22); by the MDAS only, or group B (n = 22); and by neither CAM nor MDAS, or group C (n = 199). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an oncologic ED, we assessed 243 randomly selected advanced cancer patients for delirium using the CAM and the MDAS and for presence of advance directives. Outcomes extracted from patients' medical records included hospital and intensive care unit admission rate and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Hospitalization rates were 82%, 77%, and 49% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0013). Intensive care unit rates were 18%, 14%, and 2% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0004). Percentages with advance directives were 52%, 27%, and 43% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .2247). Median OS was 1.23 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-3.55) for group A, 4.70 months (95% CI 0.89-7.85) for group B, and 10.45 months (95% CI 7.46-14.82) for group C. Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups A and B (p = .6392), but OS in group C exceeded those of the other groups (p < .0001 each). CONCLUSION: Delirium assessed by either CAM or MDAS was associated with worse survival and more hospitalization in patients with advanced cancer in an oncologic ED. Many advanced cancer patients with delirium in ED lack advance directives. Delirium should be assessed regularly and should trigger discussion of goals of care and advance directives. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Delirium is a devastating condition among advanced cancer patients. Early diagnosis in the emergency department (ED) should improve management of this life-threatening condition. However, delirium is frequently missed by ED clinicians, and the outcome of patients with delirium is unknown. This study finds that delirium assessed by the Confusion Assessment Method or the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale is associated with poor survival and more hospitalization among advanced cancer patients visiting the ED of a major cancer center, many of whom lack advance directives. Therefore, delirium in ED patients with cancer should trigger discussion about advance directives.

Delirium frequency among advanced cancer patients presenting to an emergency department: A prospective, randomized, observational study.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of delirium among patients with cancer presenting to the emergency department (ED) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine delirium frequency and recognition by ED physicians among patients with advanced cancer presenting to the ED of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. METHODS: The study population was a random sample of English-speaking patients with advanced cancer who presented to the ED and met the study criteria. All patients were assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) to screen for delirium and with the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) to measure delirium severity (mild, ≤15; moderate, 16-22; and severe, ≥23). ED physicians were also asked whether their patients were delirious. RESULTS: Twenty-two of the 243 enrolled patients (9%) had CAM-positive delirium, and their median MDAS score was 14 (range, 9-21 [30-point scale]). The median age of the enrolled patients was 62 years (range, 19-89 years). Patients with delirium had a poorer performance status than patients without delirium (P < .001); however, the 2 groups did not differ in other characteristics. Ten of the 99 patients who were 65 years old or older (10%) had CAM-positive delirium, whereas 12 of the 144 patients younger than 65 years (8%) did (P = .6). According to the MDAS scores, delirium was mild in 18 patients (82%) and moderate in 4 patients (18%). Physicians correctly identified delirium in 13 of the CAM-positive delirious patients (59%). CONCLUSIONS: Delirium is relatively frequent and is underdiagnosed by physicians in patients with advanced cancer who are visiting the ED. Further research is needed to identify the optimal screening tool for delirium in ED. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2918-2924. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Integrating palliative care in oncologic emergency departments: Challenges and opportunities.

Although visiting the emergency departments (EDs) is considered poor quality of cancer care, there are indications these visits are increasing. Similarly, there is growing interest in providing palliative care (PC) to cancer patients in EDs. However, this integration is not without major challenges. In this article, we review the literature on why cancer patients visit EDs, the rates of hospitalization and mortality for these patients, and the models for integrating PC in EDs. We discuss opportunities such integration will bring to the quality of cancer care, and resource utilization of resources. We also discuss barriers faced by this integration. We found that the most common reasons for ED visits by cancer patients are pain, fever, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal symptoms. The majority of the patients are admitted to hospitals, about 13% of the admitted patients die during hospitalization, and some patients die in ED. Patients who receive PC at an ED have shorter hospitalization and lower resource utilization. Models based solely on increasing PC provision in EDs by PC specialists have had modest success, while very limited ED-based PC provision has had slightly higher impact. However, details of these programs are lacking, and coordination between ED based PC and hospital-wide PC is not clear. In some studies, the objectives were to improve care in the communities and reduce ED visits and hospitalizations. We conclude that as more patients receive cancer therapy late in their disease trajectory, more cancer patients will visit EDs. Integration of PC with emergency medicine will require active participation of ED physicians in providing PC to cancer patients. PC specialist should play an active role in educating ED physicians about PC, and provide timely consultations. The impact of integrating PC in EDs on quality and cost of cancer care should be studied.

Using nonrapid HIV technology for routine, opt-out HIV screening in a high-volume urban emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: We implement an opt-out routine screening program in a high-volume, urban emergency department (ED), using conventional (nonrapid) technology as an alternative to rapid HIV tests. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study. Since October 2008, all patients who visited Ben Taub General Hospital ED and had blood drawn were considered eligible for routine opt-out HIV screening. The hospital is a large, publicly funded, urban, academic hospital in Houston, TX. The ED treats approximately 8,000 patients monthly. Screening was performed with standard chemiluminescence technology, batched hourly. Patients with positive screening test results were informed of their likely status, counseled by a service linkage worker, and offered follow-up care at an HIV primary care clinic. Confirmatory Western blot assays were automatically performed on all new HIV-positive samples. RESULTS: Between October 1, 2008, and April 30, 2009, 14,093 HIV tests were performed and 39 patients (0.3%) opted out. Two hundred sixty-two (1.9%) HIV test results were positive and 80 new diagnoses were made, for an incidence of new diagnoses of 0.6%. There were 22 false-positive chemiluminescence results and 7 indeterminate Western blot results. Nearly half the patients who received a new diagnosis were not successfully linked to HIV care in our system. CONCLUSION: Opt-out screening using standard nonrapid technology, rather than rapid testing, is feasible in a busy urban ED. This method of HIV screening has cost benefits and a low false-positivity rate, but aggressive follow-up and referral of patients with new diagnoses for linkage to care is required.