Citations

BACKGROUND The role of adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) following negative surgical margins is unclear. OBJECTIVE To retrospectively examine the clinical outcomes in a cohort of patients with cSCC who completed ART after Mohs micrographic surgery or wide local excision with negative margins. METHODS AND MATERIALS After the institutional review board approval, a retrospective review was conducted of all patients with cSCC treated in the Mayo Clinic Department of Radiation Oncology from March 10, 1998, through April 26, 2013. Inclusion criteria were age >18 years, resection with negative histologic surgical margins, and completion of ART. RESULTS Thirty-two patients met the inclusion criteria: 15 patients died, 12 without evidence of disease related to cSCC. Three patients developed recurrent disease, all with poorly differentiated cSCC, > 2 cm in clinical diameter, perineural invasion, and Brigham and Women's (BWH) stage T2b/T3; 2 of 3 patients were immunosuppressed; and 2 of 3 patients died of cSCC-related causes. CONCLUSION These data suggest that the combination of surgical resection and ART is a reasonable option for Brigham and Women's T2b/T3 tumors.

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate whether physician–patient agreement of potential patient problem areas impacts subsequent patient enrollment in an interdisciplinary pain management program.DesignRetrospective chart review of 544 patients who underwent evaluation of their chronic pain. Physicians and their patients endorsed perceived patient problems during the evaluation. The potential problems included 7 clinical domains: pain, sleep, mood, physical functioning, ability to cope with pain, ability to manage pain flare‐ups, and pain medication effectiveness.ResultsResults indicated statistically significant levels of agreement among the physicians and their patients (free‐marginal kappa range, 0.19 to 0.94, P's < 0.001). The highest agreement occurred for pain and the lowest for pain medication effectiveness. Patients who enrolled in a recommended program did not differ from those who did not enroll based on either levels of agreement or average number of physician–patient agreements for the 7 clinical domains (P's > 0.05). Patients recommended for higher‐intensity programs were perceived by their evaluating physician to have a significantly greater number of problematic clinical domains than those recommended for less intense pain programs.ConclusionThe level of physician–patient agreement regarding the patients’ current difficulties did not appear to influence patients’ decisions to participate in interdisciplinary pain management. Extraneous, nonclinical factors may have had a greater impact on participation in interdisciplinary pain management than physician–patient agreement. Future research should focus on identifying these factors and their impact. Also, studying the impact of physician–patient agreement beyond enrollment status (eg, on successful program completion) may be helpful in potentially enhancing patient outcomes.

PURPOSE The Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) has developed a series of guidelines for the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors, including systemic therapy and supportive care topics. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS Two CNS guidelines were reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists, and an independent multidisciplinary Expert Panel was formed to review the content and assess agreement with the recommendations. The Expert Panel voted to endorse the two guidelines, and ASCO and Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) independently reviewed and approved the ASCO/SNO guideline endorsement. RESULTS The ASCO/SNO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the CNS anticonvulsants and steroids guidelines, published January 9, 2019, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO/SNO endorsed these two CNS guidelines with minor alterations. RECOMMENDATIONS Key recommendations include the following: prophylactic antiepileptic drugs were not recommended for routine use; and corticosteroids, specifically dexamethasone, were recommended for temporary symptomatic relief in patients with neurologic symptoms and signs related to mass effect from brain metastases. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .

Blood pressure (BP) varies over time within individual patients and across different BP measurement techniques. The effect of different BP targets on the concordance between BP measurements is unknown. The goal of this analysis was to evaluate concordance in: 1) clinic BP and ambulatory BP, 2) clinic visit-to-visit variability and ambulatory BP variability and 3) initial and repeat ambulatory BP. We also sought to evaluate whether treatment assignment of intensive vs standard BP target affected these relationships. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) ambulatory blood pressure monitoring ancillary study obtained ambulatory BP readings in 897 SPRINT participants at the 27 month follow up visit and 203 consecutive repeat ambulatory BP readings taken an average of 9.8 months later. There was poor agreement between clinic systolic BP and daytime ambulatory systolic BP (limits of agreement in Bland-Altman plots of -21 to 34 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group and -26 to 32 mm Hg in the standard treatment group). There was poor agreement between clinic visit-to-visit variability (coefficient of variation) and ambulatory BP variability (coefficient of variation of a 24 hr ambulatory BP) with correlation coefficients for systolic BP <0.16. While there was a high correlation between ambulatory BP at 27 months and repeat ambulatory BP (r ~0.56), there was significant variability between repeat ambulatory BP assessments (limits of agreement of -27 to 21 mm Hg in the intensive group and -23 to 20 mm Hg in the standard group). In conclusion, irrespective of treatment target, we found low concordance in BP and BP variability between clinic BP and ambulatory BP, and additionally between repeat ambulatory BP assessments. These results reinforce the need for multiple guideline adherent BP measurements prior to clinical decision making.

Objective: To characterize agreement between administrative and registry data in the determination of patient-level comorbidities. Background: Previous research finds poor agreement between these 2 types of data in the determination of outcomes. We hypothesized that concordance between administrative and registry data would also be poor. Methods: A cohort of inpatient operations (length of stay 1 day or greater) was obtained from a consortium of 8 hospitals. Within each hospital, National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data were merged with intra-institutional inpatient administrative data. Twelve different comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, hemodialysis-dependence, cancer diagnosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ascites, sepsis, smoking, steroid, congestive heart failure, acute renal failure, and dyspnea) were analyzed in terms of agreement between administrative and NSQIP data. Results: Forty-one thousand four hundred thirty-two inpatient surgical hospitalizations were analyzed in this study. Concordance (Cohen Kappa value) between the 2 data sources varied from 0.79 (diabetes) to 0.02 (dyspnea). Hospital variation in concordance (intersite variation) was quantified using a test of homogeneity. This test found significant intersite variation at a level of P < 0.001 for each of the comorbidities except for dialysis (P = 0.07) and acute renal failure (P = 0.19). These findings imply significant differences between hospitals in their generation of comorbidity data. Conclusion: This study finds significant differences in how administrative versus registry data assess patient-level comorbidity. These differences are of concern to patients, payers, and providers, each of which had a stake in the integrity of these data. Standardized definitions of comorbidity and periodic audits are necessary to ensure data accuracy and minimize bias.

Study Design. Secondary analysis of a large administrative database. Objective. The objectives of this study are to: 1) identify the incidence and cause of 90-day readmissions following primary elective lumbar spine surgery, 2) offer insight into potential risk factors that contribute to these readmissions, and 3) quantify the cost associated with these readmissions. Summary of Background Data. As bundled-payment models for the reimbursement of surgical services become more popular in spine, the focus is shifting toward long-term patient outcomes in the context of 90-day episodes of care. With limited data available on national 90-day readmission statistics available, we hope to provide evidence that will aid in the development of more cost-effective perioperative care models. Methods. Using ICD-9 coding, we identified all patients 18 years of age and older in the 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) who underwent an elective, inpatient, primary lumbar spine surgery. Using multivariate logistic regression, we identified independent predictors of 90-day readmission while controlling for a multitude of confounding variables and completed a comparative cost analysis. Results. We identified 169,788 patients who underwent a primary lumbar spine procedure. In total 4268 (2.5%) were readmitted within 90 days. There was no difference in comorbidity burden between cohorts (readmitted vs. not readmitted) as quantified by the Elixhauser Comorbidity index. Independent predictors of increased odds of 90-day readmission were: anemia, uncomplicated diabetes and diabetes with chronic complications, surgical wound disruption and acute myocardial infarction at the time of the index admission, self-pay status, and an anterior surgical approach. Implant complications were identified as the primary related cause of readmission. These readmissions were associated with a significant cost increase. Conclusion. There are clearly identifiable risk factors that increase the odds of hospital readmission within 90 days of primary lumbar spine surgery. An overall 90-day readmission rate of 2.5%, while relatively low, carries significantly increased cost to both the patient and hospital. Level of Evidence: 3