Citations

Introduction: Team-based care has become an essential part of modern medical practice. Patient-centered medical homes often struggle to balance the dual competing goals of acute access and continuity of care. Multimorbidity patients may value continuity more than healthy patients, and thus may prefer to wait to see their primary care physician (PCP). Methods: A total of 1700 randomly selected healthy adults and multimorbidity patients were asked to rate satisfaction with care and presented with 4 acute and 4 chronic scenarios to choose an access and continuity preference in an anonymous mailed survey. Results: In all, 770 responses were obtained. All respondents preferred to be seen 2.5 days sooner for acute appointments. Multimorbidity patients preferred to wait 0.28 days longer for acute issues to see their PCP. Patients who were not satisfied with their care team preferred to wait 0.75 days to see their PCP. Those not satisfied with their PCP choose to be seen 0.38 days sooner by their care team or any physician. Conclusions: All patients prefer continuity of care with their PCP for chronic disease management and value quick access to care for acute problems. For acute visits, multimorbidity patients prefer to wait longer to see their PCP than healthy adults. Satisfaction also plays an important role in patients’ willingness to wait for an appointment with their PCP.

AbstractBackgroundThe Choosing Wisely campaign has called for better engagement of palliative and hospice care services for patients in the emergency department (ED). PREDICT is a clinical prediction tool that was derived in an Australian ED cohort. It assesses a patient's risk of mortality at 1 year to select those who would benefit from advanced care planning. Such goals‐of‐care discussion can improve patients’ ability to communicate what they want out of their healthcare and, in cases of end of life, potentially reduce the number of futile interventions. Using a cutoff of 13 points, PREDICT had a reported 95.3% specificity and 53.9% sensitivity for 1‐year mortality. We externally validated PREDICT and derived a simpler modified PREDICT tool to systematically identify high‐risk patients eligible for goals‐of‐care discussions and palliative care consultation in the ED.MethodsThis was an observational cohort study of a random sample of 927 patients aged 55+ seen in the ED in 2014. We identified advance healthcare directives (AHDs) on file. We summarized diagnostic accuracy of the clinical tool to predict 1‐year mortality using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). We refined PREDICT using multivariable modeling. We followed reporting guidelines including STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for cohort studies and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD).ResultsA total of 927 patients were included: 55.0% were male, 63 (7.0%) were nursing home residents, 389 (42.0%) patients had an AHD in their medical record at the time of ED visit, and 245 (26.4%) were deceased at 1 year. Of the 780 patients with PREDICT scores < 13, a total of 164 (21.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 18.3–24.1) were deceased at 1 year, and of the 147 patients with PREDICT scores ≥ 13, a total of 81 (55.1%; 95% CI = 46.7–63.2) were deceased at 1 year. The AUC of the PREDICT score was 0.717 (95% CI = 0.680–0.754), sensitivity was 33.1% (95% CI = 27.3–39.4), and specificity was 90.3% (95% CI = 87.8–92.4) to predict 1‐year mortality. The modified PREDICT tool resulted in an AUC of 0.709 (95% CI = 0.671–0.747). We decided to select this model as the preferred model, as the variable of intensive care unit (ICU) admission with multiorgan failure can be difficult to assess in the ED and may delay advanced care planning. Reweighting the score did not improve fit or the AUC, so points assigned to each variable were not adjusted.ConclusionPREDICT is an easy tool to administer to be able to identify patients who are at high risk of 1‐year mortality and who could benefit from AHDs, goals‐of‐care discussion, and when appropriate in the context of an end‐of‐life setting, palliative medicine consultation. External validation of PREDICT was successful in our population. We simplified PREDICT and derived a new tool, the modified PREDICT minus ICU tool, without significantly altering the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for death at 1 year. The next steps include external validation of the newly derived rule and prospective implementation.

SummaryObjectiveEvaluate the seizure‐reduction response and safety of mesial temporal lobe (MTL) brain‐responsive stimulation in adults with medically intractable partial‐onset seizures of mesial temporal lobe origin.MethodsSubjects with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE) were identified from prospective clinical trials of a brain‐responsive neurostimulator (RNS System, NeuroPace). The seizure reduction over years 2–6 postimplantation was calculated by assessing the seizure frequency compared to a preimplantation baseline. Safety was assessed based on reported adverse events.ResultsThere were 111 subjects with MTLE; 72% of subjects had bilateral MTL onsets and 28% had unilateral onsets. Subjects had one to four leads placed; only two leads could be connected to the device. Seventy‐six subjects had depth leads only, 29 had both depth and strip leads, and 6 had only strip leads. The mean follow‐up was 6.1 ± (standard deviation) 2.2 years. The median percent seizure reduction was 70% (last observation carried forward). Twenty‐nine percent of subjects experienced at least one seizure‐free period of 6 months or longer, and 15% experienced at least one seizure‐free period of 1 year or longer. There was no difference in seizure reduction in subjects with and without mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS), bilateral MTL onsets, prior resection, prior intracranial monitoring, and prior vagus nerve stimulation. In addition, seizure reduction was not dependent on the location of depth leads relative to the hippocampus. The most frequent serious device‐related adverse event was soft tissue implant‐site infection (overall rate, including events categorized as device‐related, uncertain, or not device‐related: 0.03 per implant year, which is not greater than with other neurostimulation devices).SignificanceBrain‐responsive stimulation represents a safe and effective treatment option for patients with medically intractable epilepsy, including patients with unilateral or bilateral MTLE who are not candidates for temporal lobectomy or who have failed a prior MTL resection.

SummaryObjectiveEvaluate the seizure‐reduction response and safety of brain‐responsive stimulation in adults with medically intractable partial‐onset seizures of neocortical origin.MethodsPatients with partial seizures of neocortical origin were identified from prospective clinical trials of a brain‐responsive neurostimulator (RNS System, NeuroPace). The seizure reduction over years 2–6 postimplantation was calculated by assessing the seizure frequency compared to a preimplantation baseline. Safety was assessed based on reported adverse events. Additional analyses considered safety and seizure reduction according to lobe and functional area (e.g., eloquent cortex) of seizure onset.ResultsThere were 126 patients with seizures of neocortical onset. The average follow‐up was 6.1 implant years. The median percent seizure reduction was 70% in patients with frontal and parietal seizure onsets, 58% in those with temporal neocortical onsets, and 51% in those with multilobar onsets (last observation carried forward [LOCF] analysis). Twenty‐six percent of patients experienced at least one seizure‐free period of 6 months or longer and 14% experienced at least one seizure‐free period of 1 year or longer. Patients with lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 77% reduction, LOCF) and those with normal MRI findings (45% reduction, LOCF) benefitted, although the treatment response was more robust in patients with an MRI lesion (p = 0.02, generalized estimating equation [GEE]). There were no differences in the seizure reduction in patients with and without prior epilepsy surgery or vagus nerve stimulation. Stimulation parameters used for treatment did not cause acute or chronic neurologic deficits, even in eloquent cortical areas. The rates of infection (0.017 per patient implant year) and perioperative hemorrhage (0.8%) were not greater than with other neurostimulation devices.SignificanceBrain‐responsive stimulation represents a safe and effective treatment option for patients with medically intractable epilepsy, including adults with seizures of neocortical onset, and those with onsets from eloquent cortex.

Purpose Treatment options for neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) remain limited. This trial assessed the progression-free survival (PFS) of bevacizumab or interferon alfa-2b (IFN-α-2b) added to octreotide among patients with advanced NETs. Patients and Methods Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) S0518, a phase III study conducted in a US cooperative group system, enrolled patients with advanced grades 1 and 2 NETs with progressive disease or other poor prognostic features. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with octreotide LAR 20 mg every 21 days with either bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 21 days or 5 million units of IFN-α-2b three times per week. The primary end point was centrally assessed PFS. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00569127. Results A total of 427 patients was enrolled, of whom 214 were allocated to bevacizumab and 213 to IFN-α-2b. The median PFS by central review was 16.6 months (95% CI, 12.9 to 19.6 months) in the bevacizumab arm and was 15.4 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 18.6 months) in the IFN arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.18; P = .55). By site review, the median PFS times were 15.4 months (95% CI, 12.6 to 17.2 months) for bevacizumab and 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.5 to 14.4 months) for interferon (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.12; P = .33). Time to treatment failure was longer with bevacizumab than with IFN (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89; P = .003). Confirmed radiologic response rates were 12% (95% CI, 8% to 18%) for bevacizumab and 4% (95% CI, 2% to 8%) for IFN. Common adverse events with bevacizumab and octreotide included hypertension (32%), proteinuria (9%), and fatigue (7%); with IFN and octreotide, they included fatigue (27%), neutropenia (12%), and nausea (6%). Conclusion No significant differences in PFS were observed between the bevacizumab and IFN arms, which suggests that these agents have similar antitumor activity among patients with advanced NETs.

Abstract Purpose: We aimed to establish the MTD of the poly (ADP-ribose) (PAR) polymerase inhibitor, veliparib, in combination with carboplatin in germline BRCA1- and BRCA2- (BRCA)-associated metastatic breast cancer (MBC), to assess the efficacy of single-agent veliparib, and of the combination treatment after progression, and to correlate PAR levels with clinical outcome. Experimental Design: Phase I patients received carboplatin (AUC of 5–6, every 21 days), with escalating doses (50-20 mg) of oral twice-daily (BID) veliparib. In a companion phase II trial, patients received single-agent veliparib (400 mg BID), and upon progression, received the combination at MTD. Peripheral blood mononuclear cell PAR and serum veliparib levels were assessed and correlated with outcome. Results: Twenty-seven phase I trial patients were evaluable. Dose-limiting toxicities were nausea, dehydration, and thrombocytopenia [MTD: veliparib 150 mg po BID and carboplatin (AUC of 5)]. Response rate (RR) was 56%; 3 patients remain in complete response (CR) beyond 3 years. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 8.7 and 18.8 months. The PFS and OS were 5.2 and 14.5 months in the 44 patients in the phase II trial, with a 14% RR in BRCA1 (n = 22) and 36% in BRCA2 (n = 22). One of 30 patients responded to the combination therapy after progression on veliparib. Higher baseline PAR was associated with clinical benefit. Conclusions: Safety and efficacy are encouraging with veliparib alone and in combination with carboplatin in BRCA-associated MBC. Lasting CRs were observed when the combination was administered first in the phase I trial. Further investigation of PAR level association with clinical outcomes is warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4066–76. ©2017 AACR.

764 Background: Psychosocial distress screening and assessment in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers has an established importance due to the distress experienced during and post treatment. GI cancer patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) for curative or palliative measures were reviewed in order to determine if there was a relationship between patient reported distress (PRD) and survival. Methods: Patients at our institution who receive external beam RT for GI cancers completed a 30 question PRD survey that also included a linear analog measure of overall distress, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer, which ranged from 1 (low overall distress) to 10 (high overall stress) at the start of and/or during treatment. Each question on the PRD questionnaire concentrated on a possible cause of distress. It allowed patients to rate distress levels for each question from 1 to 5 (1 being the least distressed and 5 being the most distressed), and also overall distress according. The reported clinical results of the PRD questionnaire were retrospectively reviewed in patients receiving RT for GI cancers from Jan 2012 to Aug 2015. Patients were considered distressed if their overall PRD score was 5 or greater (PRD+) or not distressed (PRD-) if their score was 4 or under. Overall survival between PRD+ and PRD- was compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: PRD surveys were completed by 134 consecutive patients, 67 (50%) male and 67 (50%) female within 30 days of starting RT. The median age was 65 years (range 28 to 93). The top histological finding was adenocarcinoma, 90 patients (60%). 113 (84%) received chemotherapy and 64 (48%) underwent surgery. 102 (75%) treatments were curative and 32 (25%) were palliative. Overall NCCN distress thermometer results ranged from 0 to 10, with a median of 4. Median follow-up was 2.7 years. Distressed patients (PRD+) had inferior survival to those not distressed (PRD-) at 2 years, 52% vs. 72%, p<0.02. Conclusions: Patient reported distress is associated with an inferior survival in patients receiving radiotherapy for gastrointestinal tumors.

AbstractAtypical chronic myeloid leukemia (aCML) is an aggressive myeloid neoplasm with overlapping features of myelodysplastic syndromes (prominent granulocytic dysplasia) and myeloproliferative neoplasms (neutrophilic leukocytosis). We studied 25 molecularly‐annotated and World Health Organization defined aCML patients; median age 70 years, 84% males. Cytogenetic abnormalities were seen in 36% and gene mutations in 100%. Mutational frequencies were, ASXL1 28%, TET2 16%, NRAS 16%, SETBP1 12%, RUNX1 12%, ETNK1 8%, and PTPN11 4%. Fifteen patients (60%) had >1 mutation, while 9 (36%) had ≥3. The median overall survival (OS) was 10.8 months and at last follow up (median 11 months), 17 (68%) deaths and 2 (8%) leukemic transformations were documented. On univariate analysis, survival was adversely impacted by advanced age (P = .02), low hemoglobin (P = .01), red blood cell transfusion dependence (P = .03), high white blood cell count (P = .02), TET2 (P = .03), NRAS (P = .04), PTPN11 (P = .02) mutations and the presence of ≥3 gene mutations (P = .006); ASXL1, SETBP1, and ETNK1 mutations did not impact OS. In multivariable analysis, advanced age (P = .003) [age >67: HR 10.1, 95% CI 1.3‐119], low hemoglobin (P = .008) [HB< 10 gm/dL: HR 8.2, 95% CI 1.6‐23.2] and TET2 mutations (P = .01) [HR 8.8, 95% CI 1.6‐47.7] retained prognostic significance. We then used age >67 years, hemoglobin <10 gm/dL and the presence of TET2 mutations (each counted as one risk factor) to create a hazard ratio weighted prognostic model; effectively stratifying patients into two risk categories, low (0‐1 risk factor) and high (≥2 risk factors), with median OS of 18 and 7 months, respectively.