Association between sociodemographic factors and diagnosis of lethal prostate cancer in early life.

OBJECTIVE: A subset of patients are diagnosed with lethal prostate cancer (CaP) early in life before prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is typically initiated. To identify opportunities for improved detection, we evaluated patient sociodemographic factors associated with advanced vs. localized (CaP) diagnosis across the age spectrum. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database, identifying patients diagnosed with CaP from 2004 to 2020. We compared characteristics of patients diagnosed at the advanced (cN1 or M1) versus localized (cT1-4N0M0) stage. Using multivariable logistic regression, we evaluated the associations among patient clinical and sociodemographic factors and advanced diagnosis, stratifying patients by age as ≤55 (before screening is recommended for most patients), 56 to 65, 66 to 75, and ≥76 years. RESULTS: We identified 977,722 patients who met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at diagnosis was 65.3 years and 50,663 (5.1%) had advanced disease. Overall, uninsured (OR = 3.20, 95% CI 3.03-3.78) and Medicaid-insured (OR 2.58, 95% CI 2.48-2.69) vs. privately insured status was associated with higher odds of diagnosis with advanced disease and this effect was more pronounced for younger patients. Among patients ≤55 years, uninsured (OR 4.14, 95% CI 3.69-4.65) and Medicaid-insured (OR 3.39, 95% CI 3.10-3.72) vs. privately insured patients were associated with higher odds of advanced cancer at diagnosis. Similarly, residence in the lowest vs. highest income quartile was associated with increased odds of advanced CaP in patients ≤55 years (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.30). Black vs. White race was associated with increased odds of advanced CaP at diagnosis later in life (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.25); however, race was not significantly associated with advanced stage CaP in those ≤55 years (P = 0.635). CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic disparities in diagnosis at advanced stages of CaP were more pronounced in younger patients, particularly with respect to insurance status. These findings may support greater attention to differential use of early CaP screening based on patient health insurance.

Oncology hospitalist impact on hospice utilization.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned hospitalizations among patients with advanced cancer are often sentinel events prompting goals of care discussions and hospice transitions. Late referrals to hospice, especially those at the end of life, are associated with decreased quality of life and higher total health care costs. Inpatient management of patients with solid tumor malignancies is increasingly shifting from oncologists to oncology hospitalists. However, little is known about the impact of oncology hospitalists on the timing of transition to hospice. OBJECTIVE: To compare hospice discharge rate and time to hospice discharge on an inpatient oncology service led by internal medicine-trained hospitalists and a service led by oncologists. METHODS: At Smilow Cancer Hospital, internal medicine-trained hospitalists were integrated into one of two inpatient medical oncology services allowing comparison between the new, hospitalist-led service (HS) and the traditional, oncologist-led service (TS). Discharges from July 26, 2021, through January 31, 2022, were identified from the electronic medical record. The odds ratio for discharge disposition by team was calculated by logistic regression using a multinomial distribution. Adjusted length of stay before discharge was assessed using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: The HS discharged 47/400 (11.8%) patients to inpatient hospice, whereas the TS service discharged 18/313 (5.8%), yielding an adjusted odds ratio of 1.94 (95% CI, 1.07-3.51; p = .03). Adjusted average length of stay before inpatient hospice disposition was 6.83 days (95% CI, 4.22-11.06) for the HS and 16.29 days (95% CI, 7.73-34.29) for the TS (p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Oncology hospitalists improve hospice utilization and time to inpatient hospice referral on an inpatient medical oncology service. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Patients with advanced cancer are often admitted to the hospital near the end of life. These patients generally have a poor chance of long-term survival and may prefer comfort-focused care with hospice. In this study, oncology hospitalists discharged a higher proportion of patients to inpatient hospice with less time spent in the hospital before discharge.

Lung Cancer Supportive Care and Symptom Management.

Lung cancer carries significant mortality and morbidity. In addition to treatment advances, supportive care may provide significant benefit for patients and their caregivers. A multidisciplinary approach is critical in addressing complications of lung cancer, including disease- and treatment-related complications, oncologic emergencies, symptom management and supportive care, and addressing the psychosocial needs of affected patients.

Association of palliative care and hospital outcomes among solid tumour oncology inpatients.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to explore the association between receiving an inpatient palliative care consultation and hospital outcomes, including in-hospital death, intensive care unit (ICU) use, discharge to hospice, 30-day readmissions and 30-day emergency department (ED) visits. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of Yale New Haven Hospital medical oncology admissions from January 2018 through December 2021, with and without inpatient palliative care consultations. Hospital outcome data were extracted from medical records and operationalised as binary. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate ORs for the association between number of inpatient palliative care consultations and hospital outcomes. RESULTS: Our sample included 19 422 patients. Age, Rothman Index, site of malignancy, length of stay, discharge to hospice, ICU admissions, hospital death and readmissions within 30 days differed significantly between patients who received versus did not receive a palliative care consultation. On multivariable analysis, receiving one additional palliative care consultation was significantly associated with higher odds of hospital death (adjusted OR=1.15, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.17) and discharge to hospice (adjusted OR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.26), and lower odds of ICU admission (adjusted OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.97). There was no significant association between palliative care consultations and readmission within 30 days or with ED visits within 30 days. CONCLUSION: Inpatients receiving palliative care had increased likelihood of hospital death. However, when controlling for significant differences in patient presentation, patients had nearly 25% greater odds of discharge to hospice and less odds to transition to ICU level of care.

Duloxetine for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN): systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Duloxetine has previously been reported to be promising in the setting of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). The aim of this study was to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, on the use of duloxetine in prevention and treatment of CIPN. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from database inception up until April 2022. Articles were included in this review if they reported on duloxetine use in the setting of CIPN, in a multiarm comparative human trial. A random effects DerSimonian-Laird model was used to calculate summary risk ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% CIs, comparing duloxetine to placebo. This review was registered on. RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials that included 645 patients were identified. Five reported on duloxetine for treatment of CIPN, and two for prevention of CIPN. Two studies had some concern for bias. Duloxetine was statistically similar to placebo in its efficacy, both in the treatment (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01) and prevention (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19) of CIPN. Safety profile was similar, in the treatment (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.89) and prevention (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.38) setting. CONCLUSION: There is currently limited evidence supporting duloxetine's use for CIPN. There is a need for more comprehensive and higher-quality trials assessing duloxetine in the setting of CIPN, before further clinical practice recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42022327487).