Dowdy, Sean C.

BACKGROUND: Publicly reported 30-day acute myocardial infarction (AMI) mortality rates are widely used to benchmark hospital performance. However, these measures may lack validity when they include deaths among patients with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders or those receiving palliative care—groups for whom mortality may be expected and goal-concordant. METHODS: We analyzed the national 100% Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic File and Medicare Beneficiary Summary file to assess 30-day AMI mortality rates stratified by DNR status (absent, present-on-admission, and postadmission) and palliative care involvement. We then conducted a retrospective chart review of all 30-day AMI mortalities at a single academic medical center (2019–2025), applying Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events and a Palliative Performance Scale scores to identify unpreventable deaths, which we defined as a Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events >190.5 or Palliative Performance Scale ≤40%. Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events is a risk-stratification tool using clinical and laboratory variables whereas the Palliative Performance Scale is a bedside functional status and palliative care assessment quantifying patient’s self-care ability. RESULTS: Across n=467 259 total AMI encounters, mean (SD) age was 75.1 (10.5), and the population was 44% female. Thirty-day mortality was 10.4% (39 112/376 062) among patients without DNRs, 43.1% (26 181/60 719) in those with present-on-admission DNR, and 72.1% (21 984/30 478) in those with postadmission DNR. Among 9.2% (43 090/467 259) of encounters with palliative care, there was a 76.9% mortality rate (33 151/43 090). Hazard ratios for mortality were 5.25 (95% CI, 5.17–5.33) for present-on-admission DNR and 10.73 (95% CI, 10.55–10.91) for postadmission DNR as compared with encounters without DNRs. Among n=24 AMI mortalities at our institution, 71% (17/24) had DNRs, and 33% (8/24) met the unpreventable death criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The validity of 30-day AMI mortality metrics may be undermined by their inclusion of high-acuity, end-of-life patients, which may disincentivize hospitals from delivering appropriate, patient-centered care. Removal of DNR or palliative cases from performance measures should be explored to better identify opportunities for reducing preventable deaths.

PURPOSE To compare mortality risk among long-term survivors of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) with that of the general US population and to examine how mortality and recurrence trends have evolved under changing treatment approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS This is a retrospective cohort study including patients with histologically confirmed HGSOC treated at a single referral cancer center from 1991 to 2022. Mortality risk, expressed as standardized mortality ratios (SMRs, ratio of observed deaths in the study population to expected deaths in an age-matched US population), was assessed at diagnosis and yearly on patients without events (disease persistence, recurrence, or death from any cause). RESULTS A total of 2,074 consecutive patients were included. The median follow-up was 12.5 years (IQR, 11.7-13.8). Most patients were stage III (1,396, 69.2%), 1,299 (62.8%) underwent primary cytoreductive surgery, and 1,688 (87.4%) received platinum-taxane as first-line therapy. At diagnosis, the mortality rate was 7.40 times higher than that in the general population (95% CI, 7.04 to 7.77). By 7 event-free years, the 95% CI for the SMR included 1 for the first time, and at 10 years, the SMR was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.49), indicating no statistically significant excess mortality compared with the general population. In those event-free at 10 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of ovarian cancer–related deaths (8.2% [95% CI, 4.2 to 16.0]) was comparable with that of non–ovarian cancer–related deaths (6.3% [95% CI, 2.9 to 13.8]). CONCLUSION In this cohort, mortality risk steadily declined for patients who remained event-free, approaching that of the general population by 7 years after diagnosis. These results emphasize the importance of individualized, long-term follow-up to address both recurrence risk and survivorship needs.

ImportanceHospital ratings including the US News & World Report’s Best Hospitals rankings and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS’) Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating (Overall Star Rating) measure different outcomes and are weakly correlated. Therefore, methods for defining and measuring reliable excellence, defined as consistently great performance across all quality measures, are needed.ObjectiveTo assess a measure of reliable excellence using the 45 quality measures reported in the Overall Star Ratings.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study used hospital-level data from the 2023 and 2024 CMS Overall Star Ratings at all US hospitals with a 2023 and 2024 CMS Overall Star Rating.ExposuresThe exposure was the CMS Overall Star Rating summary score, a continuous variable calculated from the weighted z scores of 45 quality measures used in the Overall Star Rating. A total of 100 000 simulations were run in which all US hospitals’ CMS Overall Star Rating summary scores were calculated through summation of z scores from randomly generated measure weights, as opposed to the existing weights used in the Overall Star Rating method.Main Outcomes and MeasuresReliable excellence, defined as achieving a 90th percentile (or better) CMS Overall Star Rating summary score on at least 50 000 of 100 000 simulations. The percentage of hospitals achieving reliable excellence was calculated both overall and stratified by CMS Ovearll Star Ratings.ResultsThere were 2700 hospitals in the analysis, with 335 5-star hospitals (12.4%), 727 4-star hospitals (26.9%), 799 3-star hospitals (29.6%), 572 2-star hospitals (21.2%), and 267 1-star hospitals (9.9%) in the 2024 CMS Overall Star Rating. A total of 244 of 2700 hospitals (9.0%) met the study definition of reliable excellence, whereas 1287 of 2700 hospitals (47.7%) achieved excellence in at least 1 simulation.Conclusions and RelevanceThis cross-sectional study of 2700 US hospitals found that only 244 hospitals (9.0%), including less than two-thirds of the CMS 5-star rated hospitals, were reliably excellent across 100 000 CMS Overall Star Rating scoring simulations using random measure weightings. These findings lend credence to the ubiquity of inconsistent greatness in health care quality and illuminate the need for methods to distinguish hospitals that provide reliably excellent care.

e15125 Background: Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy, with endometrioid being the most prevalent histology. Approximately 75% of high-grade endometrioid tumors are TP53 wild-type. During studies testing a novel combination of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib and TOP1 poison SN38 in high-risk primary patient serous and serous-like ECs, a subset of non-serous ECs with normal p53 expression showed unexpected synergy. This suggests broad efficacy in EC, warranting in vivo studies to assess tolerability and efficacy. Given potential overlapping toxicity, a novel formulation, pegylated SN38 (PLX038A), was tested. Methods: Primary patient tumors (n=4) were treated with rucaparib (0µM-25 µM) and SN38 (0µM-0.5 µM) in 3D cell culture experiments. RealTime Glo assessed viability after 3-5 days of drug exposure. Combination indices were determined using the Chou-Talalay method. Tolerability and efficacy were assessed in female SCID-beige mice (n=45) injected with intraperitoneal EC PDX tumors. Mice were randomized to controls, PLX038A (15 mmol/µmol IP, every 14 days), rucaparib (150 mg/kg daily gavage), or combination (same dose and schedule) for 8 weeks. Tolerability was assessed by daily animal weight and total condition score (TCS) from 1 (emaciated, non-ambulatory) to 13 (obese). Weight change more than -20% or TCS < 5 defined moribund criteria. Weekly ultrasound measurements assessed tumor response. Results: All four primary patient tumors exhibited synergy, with a combination index less than 1. Moribund criteria were not met in any mice across all cohorts. The average percent weight change and lowest TCS across cohorts were: rucaparib (-8.51%, min/max -19 to +14%; TCS 6.25, range 5-8, n=8), PLX038A (-3.97%, min/max -19 to +5%; TCS 6.8, range 6-9, n=10), the combination (-5.52%, min/max -15 to +1.8%; TCS 7.18, range 6-8, n=11), and control (+1.61%, range -6 to +8%; TCS 6.5, range 6-7, n=4). Scores were similar between groups, but the slightly lower TCS in the rucaparib cohort was associated with higher tumor burden from ineffective therapy. Tumors in the rucaparib monotherapy group grew similarly to controls. In contrast, the combination therapy cohort exhibited significant regression below baseline during treatment. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the combination of rucaparib and SN38 (PLX038A) is effective in EC primary patient tumor organoids and PDXs with wild-type TP53. No significant negative physiological effects on animal TCS and weight change were observed. No drug-related toxicity was observed in mice receiving combination treatment. Mice receiving combination treatment displayed significant tumor regression below baseline compared to both single agents and control. These data support future exploration of this combination therapy in ECs.

Abstract Background Hospital‐at‐home programs (HaH) in the United States have evolved to include a virtual‐hybrid delivery model, where all physician encounters are virtual and partnered with a home care team. Objective To examine whether a virtual hybrid HaH program enabled by technology has similar clinical outcomes to traditional brick‐and‐mortar (B&M) hospital care. Methods We conducted a pragmatic trial at three hospitals, randomizing 1150 acutely ill patients requiring hospital care between July 10, 2023, and October 31, 2023 one‐to‐one into two groups: intervention (HaH) and control (B&M). The primary analysis was an intention‐to‐treat non‐inferiority analysis of the primary outcome, which was a composite of 30‐day all‐cause mortality and unplanned readmissions. Secondary outcomes included 30‐day readmission, all‐cause mortality, and patient experience. Results The mean age was 67.8 (standard deviation [SD] 16.3) years, and 52.2% were female. The primary outcome occurred in 99 (17.3%) HaH patients and 114 (19.8%) B&M patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63–1.14, p = .28), meeting the non‐inferiority criterion. Thirty‐day unplanned readmission occurred in 84 (14.7%) HaH patients and 101 (17.5%) B&M patients (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59–1.11, p = .19). Thirty‐day all‐cause mortality occurred in 25 (4.4%) HaH patients and 19 (3.3%) B&M patients (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.73–2.46, p = .35). No HaH patients died while receiving their hospital care at home. HaH program was associated with a higher likelihood of patients reporting feeling extremely comfortable or very comfortable (84.4% HaH; 60.9% B&M, p = .001). Conclusion A hybrid HaH model is a safe and comfortable alternative to traditional B&M hospital care.

Background/Objectives: Our objective was to describe the use of intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) for the treatment of recurrent/persistent cervical or endometrial cancer and assess predictors of postoperative complications and 3-year mortality. Methods: In this multi-site retrospective study, data were abstracted for recurrent/persistent endometrial or cervical cancer patients who underwent IORT from June 2004 to May 2021. Complications were graded on the six-point Accordion scale. Variables associated with complications were analyzed with univariate logistic regression, while variables associated with death within 3 years were analyzed with Cox proportional hazards modeling. Survival was analyzed with the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: Eighty patients had planned IORT for recurrent/persistent endometrial (n = 35) or cervical cancer (n = 45). The mean age of the cohort was 56.8 years (SD = 13.7), and the median disease-free interval from primary disease to recurrence was 20.0 months (IQR 10.0–63.1). The overall survival at 3 years was 48.6% (95% CI: 38.3–61.6%) with a median survival of 2.8 years. Within 30 days postoperative, 16 patients (20.1%) had grade 3–5 complications and one death (1.3%) occurred. Factors associated with grade 3+ complication included ECOG PS 2–3 (OR 18.00, p = 0.04), neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy (OR 6.98, p < 0.01), and pelvic sidewall involvement (OR 8.80, p = 0.04). Factors associated with death within 3 years of surgery included ECOG PS 2–3 (HR 8.97, p < 0.01), neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy (HR 2.34, p = 0.03), whether exenteration was performed (HR 2.64, p = 0.01), and positive resection margin (HR 3.37, p < 0.01). Conclusions: In well-selected patients, IORT is a feasible and safe option for the treatment of recurrent/persistent gynecologic malignancy with an appreciable survival benefit.

AbstractPurposeBy assessing longitudinal associations between COVID‐19 census burdens and hospital characteristics, such as bed size and critical access status, we can explore whether pandemic‐era hospital quality benchmarking requires risk‐adjustment or stratification for hospital‐level characteristics.MethodsWe used hospital‐level data from the US Department of Health and Human Services including weekly total hospital and COVID‐19 censuses from August 2020 to August 2023 and the 2021 American Hospital Association survey. We calculated weekly percentages of total adult hospital beds containing COVID‐19 patients. We then calculated the number of weeks each hospital spent at Extreme (≥20% of beds occupied by COVID‐19 patients), High (10%–19%), Moderate (5%–9%), and Low (<5%) COVID‐19 stress. We assessed longitudinal hospital‐level COVID‐19 stress, stratified by 15 hospital characteristics including joint commission accreditation, bed size, teaching status, critical access hospital status, and core‐based statistical area (CBSA) rurality.FindingsAmong n = 2582 US hospitals, the median(IQR) weekly percentage of hospital capacity occupied by COVID‐19 patients was 6.7%(3.6%–13.0%). 80,268/213,383 (38%) hospital‐weeks experienced Low COVID‐19 census stress, 28% Moderate stress, 22% High stress, and 12% Extreme stress. COVID‐19 census burdens were similar across most hospital characteristics, but were significantly greater for critical access hospitals.ConclusionsUS hospitals experienced similar COVID‐19 census burdens across multiple institutional characteristics. Evidence‐based inclusion of pandemic‐era outcomes in hospital quality reporting may not require significant hospital‐level risk‐adjustment or stratification, with the exception of rural or critical access hospitals, which experienced differentially greater COVID‐19 census burdens and may merit hospital‐level risk‐adjustment considerations.