Nipp, Ryan David

Background: Aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aNHL) commonly occurs in older adults. However, geriatric assessments (GAs), which are associated with both survival and treatment-related toxicity, are infrequently performed due to logistical constraints. In this study, we examined how the brief, self-reported Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) screening tool and a comprehensive GA relate to clinical outcomes in this population. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study of 105 adults aged ≥65 years who were initiating upfront chemoimmunotherapy for aNHL at 2 academic medical centers and their community affiliates between September 2020 and January 2023. Baseline frailty was evaluated using the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL) GA, which classifies patients as fit, unfit, or frail. The VES-13 was assessed both continuously and by categorizing patients as vulnerable (score ≥3). Using logistic regression controlling for covariates, we examined the association of VES-13 with grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicity (toxicity), unplanned hospitalization within 6 months of treatment initiation, decline in quality of life (QoL) 1 year after therapy initiation, and death within 1 year of treatment initiation. In addition, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of both the VES-13 and the FIL GA in identifying patients at risk for these outcomes. Results: The median patient age was 73 years (range, 64–99 years), with 42% aged ≥75 years. GA classified 40% of patients as fit, 10% as unfit, and 51% as frail, while 46% of patients had a VES-13 score ≥3, indicating vulnerability. VES-13 score was significantly associated with toxicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; P =.026), unplanned hospitalization (OR, 1.16; P =.043), QoL decline at 1 year (OR, 1.22; P =.027), and death within 1 year (OR, 1.49; P =.010). Using the VES-13 to define vulnerability (score ≥3), sensitivity and specificity were 59% and 61% for predicting toxicity, and 100% and 59% for predicting death within 1 year, respectively. FIL GA frailty had a sensitivity of 63% and specificity of 56% for predicting toxicity, and 100% sensitivity and 54% specificity for predicting death within 1 year. Conclusions: We found that VES-13 score was associated with survival, toxicity, health care utilization, and QoL decline, demonstrating similar sensitivity and specificity to the FIL GA. These findings underscore the potential utility of VES-13 as a screening instrument to identify older patients with aNHL at risk for adverse clinical outcomes.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases, or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE To provide evidence-based guidance to oncology clinicians, patients, nonprofessional caregivers, and palliative care clinicians to update the 2016 ASCO guideline on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology for all patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical, radiation, hematology-oncology, oncology nursing, palliative care, social work, ethics, advocacy, and psycho-oncology experts. The Panel conducted a literature search, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 2015-2023. Outcomes of interest included quality of life (QOL), patient satisfaction, physical and psychological symptoms, survival, and caregiver burden. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS The literature search identified 52 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS Evidence-based recommendations address the integration of palliative care in oncology. Oncology clinicians should refer patients with advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies to specialized interdisciplinary palliative care teams that provide outpatient and inpatient care beginning early in the course of the disease, alongside active treatment of their cancer. For patients with cancer with unaddressed physical, psychosocial, or spiritual distress, cancer care programs should provide dedicated specialist palliative care services complementing existing or emerging supportive care interventions. Oncology clinicians from across the interdisciplinary cancer care team may refer the caregivers (eg, family, chosen family, and friends) of patients with cancer to palliative care teams for additional support. The Expert Panel suggests early palliative care involvement, especially for patients with uncontrolled symptoms and QOL concerns. Clinicians caring for patients with solid tumors on phase I cancer trials may also refer them to specialist palliative care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Abstract Aims Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a potentially curative therapy for several malignant and non-malignant haematologic conditions. Patients undergoing HSCT are at an increased risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF). We hypothesized that a diagnosis of AF would be associated with poor outcomes in patients undergoing HSCT. Methods and results The National Inpatient Sample (2016–19) was queried with ICD-10 codes to identify patients aged >50 years undergoing HSCT. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients with and without AF. A multivariable regression model adjusting for demographics and comorbidities was used to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and regression coefficients with corresponding 95% confidence intervals and P-values. A total of 50 570 weighted hospitalizations for HSCT were identified, out of which 5820 (11.5%) had AF. Atrial fibrillation was found to be independently associated with higher inpatient mortality (aOR 2.75; 1.9–3.98; P < 0.001), cardiac arrest (aOR 2.86; 1.55–5.26; P = 0.001), acute kidney injury (aOR 1.89; 1.6–2.23; P < 0.001), acute heart failure exacerbation (aOR 5.01; 3.54–7.1; P < 0.001), cardiogenic shock (aOR 7.73; 3.17–18.8; P < 0.001), and acute respiratory failure (aOR 3.24; 2.56–4.1; P < 0.001) as well as higher mean length of stay (LOS) (+2.67; 1.79–3.55; P < 0.001) and cost of care (+67 529; 36 630–98 427; P < 0.001). Conclusion Among patients undergoing HSCT, AF was independently associated with poor in-hospital outcomes, higher LOS, and cost of care.

Abstract Purpose Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) contributes to avoidable acute care, a metric now tracked in Medicare's oncology outcome measure. CINV is preventable, yet guidelines are often not followed. We sought to quantify acute care involving CINV and other avoidable toxicities after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to identify excess risk and assess clinician adherence to antiemesis guidelines for HEC. Materials and Methods We retrospectively evaluated U.S. electronic health records (2012-2018) using Medicare's OP-35 outcome measure to identify avoidable acute care involving any of 10 toxicities, including CINV, after HEC regimens relative to non-HEC. Antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as use ofneurokinin-1 (NKl) receptor antagonists Q5 (RAs) plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA+ dexamethasone at HEC initiation. Results Among 17,609 patients receiving HEC, acute care rates associated with HEC chemotherapy included 32% cisplatin, 31% carboplatin, and 21% anthracycline/cyclosphospharnide (AC), with 76% meeting the criteria as avoidable events. Oxaliplatin rates were 29%. Avoidable acute care occurred 1.83 times (95% confidence interval, 1.76-1.91, p < .0001) as often after HEC versus non-HEC excluding oxaliplatin; CINV-related acute care occurred 2.29 times as often. Nonadherence to antiemesis guidelines occurred in 34% and 24% of cisplatin and AC courses, respectively, because of omission of a NKl RA. Conclusions Patients treated with HEC regimens experienced high avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. Nonadherence to guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis highlights the need to ensure adherence to antiemetic guidelines, including the use of NKl RA in HEC. Implications for Practice After survival, perhaps the most important goal in oncology is limiting avoidable acute care, a goal now used by Medicare to impact cancer reimbursement. This study found that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimens had high rates of avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. A substantial proportion of the avoidable acute care involved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results showed that incomplete adherence to national antiemetic guidelines for HEC regimens primarily driven by omission of upfront neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist use, suggesting that improved adherence can meaningfully resolve this gap in quality and cost of care.

Background: Clinician adherence to antiemetic guidelines for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) remains poorly characterized. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate individual clinician adherence to HEC antiemetic guidelines. Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients receiving HEC was conducted using the IBM Watson Explorys Electronic Health Record Database (2012–2018). HEC antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as prescription of triple prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1 RA], serotonin type-3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone) at initiation of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC). Clinicians who prescribed ≥5 HEC courses were included and individual guideline adherence was assessed, noting the number of prescribing clinicians with >90% adherence. Results: A total of 217 clinicians were identified who prescribed 2,543 cisplatin and 1,490 AC courses. Patients (N=4,033) were primarily women (63.3%) and chemotherapy-naïve (92%) with a mean age of 58.6 years. Breast (36%) and thoracic (19%) cancers were the most common tumor types. Guideline adherence rates of >90% were achieved by 35% and 58% of clinicians using cisplatin or AC, respectively. Omission of an NK1 RA was the most common practice of nonadherence. Variation in prophylaxis guideline adherence was considerable for cisplatin (mean, 71%; SD, 29%; coefficient of variation [CV], 0.40) and AC (mean, 84%; SD, 26%; CV, 0.31). Conclusions: Findings showed substantial gaps in clinician adherence to HEC CINV guidelines, including a high variability across clinicians. Clinicians should review their individual clinical practices and ensure adherence to evidence-based CINV guidelines to optimize patient care.

Background: Avoiding acute care services can improve cancer care and reduce cost. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) new oncology outcome measure (OP-35) defines 30-day post-chemotherapy inpatient (IP) and/or emergency department (ED) events (IP/ED) as “potentially avoidable” if involving any of 10 toxicities, including nausea or vomiting (NV). Evidence demonstrates meaningful gaps in oncologists’ adherence to antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), and that NV-related IP use costs >$10,000; yet the incidence of avoidable acute care events involving NV is not well studied. Methods: We assessed chemotherapy courses using IBM Explorys electronic health records (4Q 2012–1Q 2018). We identified rates of IP/ED ≤30 days post-chemotherapy, and OP-35 toxicities (NV, anemia, dehydration, diarrhea, fever, neutropenia, pain, pneumonia, or sepsis) by ICD-9, ICD-10, procedure codes, and CMS criteria. We evaluated cisplatin, anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), carboplatin (>14 days apart, as a proxy for AUC ≥4), oxaliplatin (OX), and other non-HEC chemotherapy. We assessed guideline adherence, defined as triple prophylaxis (NK1 RA + 5HT3 RA +dexamethasone) rates at HEC initiation. Results: In 17,609 HEC and 56,624 non-HEC courses, we observed 30-day IP/ED utilization in 29% and 19% of courses, respectively (Table 1). For HEC, 76% of IP/ED use involved ≥1 of the 10 CMS toxicities, most often anemia (42%), pain (41%), dehydration (24%), and NV (24%). Rates of all-cause IP/ED, IP/ED with OP-35 toxicity, and NV-related IP/ED were consistent for HEC and OX. Gaps in triple prophylaxis were common in HEC. Conclusion: Roughly one-third of patients receiving HEC or OX experienced IP/ED events ≤30 days after chemotherapy. Three-quarters of IP/ED events involved ≥1 of 10 OP-35 toxicities linked by CMS to potentially avoidable acute care; of these, one-third involved NV. NV-associated acute care use is considerable, costly, and potentially avoidable with better adherence to antiemesis guidelines.

74 Background: U.S. National Antiemetic Guidelines recommend upfront triple prophylaxis (NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) + 5HT3 RA + dexamethasone) for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), including carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 per 2017 guidelines. While existing data show gaps in guideline compliance, variation between individual physicians is less studied, and a realistic target compliance rate remains unknown. Methods: In a large electronic health record database (IBM Explorys), we identified HEC courses of therapy initiated from 2012 to 2017. Guideline compliance was defined as triple prophylaxis at chemotherapy initiation. Patient courses for ≥ 7 day cycles of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), or carboplatin (≥ 14 day cycles as a proxy for AUC ≥ 4) were ascribed to oncologists based on encounter frequency. We then ranked physicians treating ≥ 5 HEC courses and evaluated guideline compliance and individual physician variation. Results: In total, 10,074 HEC courses were identified and attributed to 451 unique physicians. Overall antiemetic guideline compliance with cisplatin and AC averaged 68% and 81% respectively. When ranked by compliance, the top 20% of physicians were 2.5 - 1.5 times as compliant as the bottom 20% (cisplatin 100% vs 40%; AC 100% vs 67%). For cisplatin, 32% of physicians had > 90% compliance; the remaining 68% were evenly distributed from 0 - 90%. For AC, 56% of physicians had > 90% compliance, and another 14% had 80 - 90%; the remaining 30% were evenly distributed. For carboplatin, 62% of physicians had ≤ 10% compliance, and another 17% had 11 - 20%; however, the majority of these data preceded guideline inclusion of carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 as HEC. Rates were independent of course volume per physician. Conclusions: Considerable physician-level variation exists in triple antiemetic prophylaxis guideline adherence for HEC. Hundreds of physicians had > 90% compliance with guidelines, suggesting 90% is a realistic target. However, the majority exhibited substantial gaps in NK1 RA use in HEC, placing patients unnecessarily at risk for CINV. Interventions are needed to bolster triple antiemetic prophylaxis in HEC, perhaps especially for carboplatin.

112 Background: Reducing hospitalizations for chemotherapy-related toxicities represents an opportunity to improve both the quality and cost of cancer treatment. Nausea and vomiting (NV) account for almost 10% of “avoidable” toxicity-related post-chemotherapy hospitalizations (2016 Medicare data). We sought to evaluate the event cost of NV-related hospitalizations among patients with cancer from a US payer perspective. Methods: From a large US claims database (Truven MarketScan), we identified hospitalizations with NV as the primary diagnosis and cancer as a secondary diagnosis (01/2011-06/2017). This method increases specificity for NV as the principal hospitalization factor, while underreporting the prevalence of NV as a contributory factor. To determine event costs, we evaluated hospital and other reimbursement during the hospitalization. To explore subgroup differences, we stratified results by tumor type, payer type, admission route, receipt of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC; 2017 definition includes carboplatin AUC ≥4) and antiemetic prophylaxis. We adjusted all costs to 2017 US dollars. Results: Among 918,192 hospitalizations involving cancer, we identified 80,995 with both NV and a cancer diagnosis code. Of these, 5,293 had NV as the primary diagnosis and 62 lacked cost data. Patients (mean age = 57.7±16.2) were 67% female. Median hospital length of stay was 4 days and mean cost per hospitalization was $15,085. Non-Medicare admissions (82%) had a higher mean cost vs. Medicare ($15,737 vs. $12,111, p < 0.01). We found < $1,000 difference between the highest and lowest cost per hospitalization among the 6 most common tumor types. We found the 65% of patients with a chemotherapy claim ≤30 days prior to hospitalization had costs of $13,882 per event. Among the 45% of chemotherapies that were HEC, > 50% lacked an NK1 receptor antagonist as prophylaxis. Conclusions: The average cost of NV-related hospitalizations among patients with cancer exceeds $15,000 per event, highlighting the need to effectively address this symptom. Roughly half the hospitalizations involved HEC, with over half of those patients not receiving guideline-based antiemetic prophylaxis.