Citations

Background: Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) in conjunction with atrial fibrillation (AF) presents unique management challenges. CHA2DS2VASc score in these patients is believed to underestimate the risk of ischemic stroke, necessitating a better predictive model in these patients. Methods: Data was obtained from the National Readmission Database (NRD). Outcomes between CA-AF and no-CA-AF were compared using multivariate regression analysis to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aOR). AutoScore; an interpretable machine learning framework, was used to develop a stroke risk prediction model, the predictive accuracy of which was evaluated with an area under the curve (AUC) using the receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results: A total of 11,860,804 (CA-AF 22,687 [0.19%] and no-CA-AF 11,838,117) patients were identified from 2015-2019. The adjusted odds of mortality (aOR 1.41 and 1.29), stroke (aOR 1.78 and 1.74), non-intracranial hemorrhage (aOR 2.10 and aOR 1.85), and intracranial hemorrhage (aOR 14.4 and aOR 4.26) were significantly higher in CA-AF compared with non-CA-AF at both index admission and 30-days, respectively. The CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score had a poor discriminative accuracy for stroke at 30-days in CA-AF (AUC 49%, 95%CI 47%-51%, p=0.54). The machine learning autoscore integrative model revealed that the predictive ability of our newly proposed E-CHADS score (end-stage renal disease (ESRD), congestive heart failure, hypertension, active cancer, dementia, and diabetes mellitus) for 30-day risk of ischemic stroke in CA-AF was excellent (for a cutoff of 52 points random forest score) with an AUC of 80% (95%CI 74%-86%) Conclusion: Cardiac amyloidosis carries a high risk of ischemic stroke that is not accurately predicted by the CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score. Our proposed model (E-CHADS) identifies 3 new variables (ESRD, dementia, and cancer) that have higher discriminative accuracy for ischemic stroke in these patients.

Objective The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and simplified PESI (sPESI) predict mortality for patients with PE. We compared PESI/sPESI to the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV (APACHE-IV) in predicting mortality in patients with PE admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Additionally, we assessed the performance of a novel ICU-sPESI score created by adding three clinical variables associated with acuity of PE presentation (intubation, confusion [altered mental status], use of vasoactive infusions) to sPESI. Materials and Methods Using the eICU Collaborative Research Database from 2014 to 2015, we conducted a large retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to the ICU with a primary diagnosis of PE. We calculated APACHE-IV, PESI, sPESI, and ICU-sPESI scores and compared their performance for predicting in-hospital mortality using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Score thresholds for >99% negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated for each score. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results We included 1424 PE cases. In-hospital mortality was 6.3% [95% CI: 5.1%-7.6%]. AUROC for APACHE-IV, PESI, and sPESI were 0.870, 0.848, and 0.777, respectively. APACHE-IV and PESI outperformed sPESI (P < 0.01 for both comparisons), while APACHE-IV and PESI demonstrated similar performance (P = 0.322). The ICU-sPESI performance was similar to APACHE-IV and PESI (AUROC = 0.847; AUROC comparison: APACHE-IV vs ICU-sPESI: P = 0.396; PESI vs ICU-sPESI: P = 0.945). Hospital mortality for ICU-sPESI scores 0-2 was 1.1%, and for scores 3, 4, 5, 6, and ≥7 was 8.6%, 11.7%, 29.2%, 37.5%, and 76.9%, respectively. Score thresholds for >99% NPV were ≤48 for APACHE-IV, ≤115 for PESI, and 0 points for sPESI and ICU-sPESI. Conclusions By accounting for severity of PE presentation, our newly proposed ICU-sPESI score provided improved PE mortality prediction compared to the original sPESI score and offered excellent discrimination of mortality risk.

435 Background: Assessing tobacco use and providing cessation support is recommended by the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO). As part of the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Cessation Initiative, we established an electronic health record based "opt-out" approach to refer patients to tobacco treatment specialists. However, the role of oncologists in contributing to the “opt-out” approach to patients has not been explored. We tested the hypothesis that a multi-component educational program for oncologists would increase the proportion of patients who completed tobacco treatment appointments. Methods: As a quality improvement initiative, oncology providers at the Rochester Mayo Clinic Cancer Center were educated using a multimodal academic detailing approach with group and individual educational sessions. Its effectiveness was tested using a modified step-wedge implementation design. The primary outcomes were patient behaviors that could plausibly be changed by conversations with their provider: the rate at which cancer patients identified as current tobacco users scheduled an appointment in the Nicotine Dependence Center, and the rate at which patients scheduled for a NDC appointment completed their appointment. Comparisons were made before, during, and after the education period (from July through Dec 2019) and with a separate group of providers who did not complete education (results examined over a similar time period). Results: Education intervention did not improve outcomes among providers who received education; indeed, the rate of appointment scheduling decreased, although this may reflect other concurrent changes in the tobacco treatment referral process (Table 1). Outcomes were similar between oncology providers who did and did not receive multicomponent education intervention. Conclusions: Smoking cessation efforts can be successfully integrated into routine cancer care. The implementation of the “opt-out” referral system resulted in approximately 1 in 5 patients being seen for tobacco use, but a multicomponent education intervention designed to equip oncologists to encourage patients to complete appointments was not effective. Novel approaches are needed to increase the uptake of tobacco treatment among patients.[Table: see text]

AbstractBackgroundBreast cancer (BC) is the most common malignancy in women of reproductive age. This study sought to explore the postcancer conception and pregnancy experience of young BC survivors to inform counseling.MethodsIn the Young Women's Breast Cancer Study (NCT01468246), a multicenter, prospective cohort, participants diagnosed at age ≤40 years with stage 0‐III BC who reported ≥1 postdiagnosis live birth were sent an investigator‐developed survey.ResultsOf 119 eligible women, 94 (79%) completed the survey. Median age at diagnosis was 32 years (range, 17–40) and at first postdiagnosis delivery was 38 years (range, 29–47). Most had stage I or II (77%) and HR+ (78%) BC; 51% were nulligravida at diagnosis. After BC treatment, most (62%) conceived naturally, though 38% used assisted reproductive technology, 74% of whom first attempted natural conception for a median of 9 months (range, 2–48). Among women with a known inherited pathogenic variant (n = 20), two underwent preimplantation genetic testing. Of 59 women on endocrine therapy before pregnancy, 26% did not resume treatment. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (20%) was the most common obstetrical condition. Nine percent of newborns required neonatal intensive care unit admission and 9% had low birth weight.ConclusionAmong women with live births after BC treatment, most conceived naturally and having a history of BC did not appear to negatively impact pregnancy complications, though the high rate of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy warrants further investigation. The prolonged period of attempting natural conception for some survivors suggests the potential need for improved understanding and counseling surrounding family planning goals after BC.

ImportanceBlack women in the United States have higher breast cancer (BC) mortality rates than White women. The combined role of multiple factors, including body mass index (BMI), age, and tumor subtype, remains unclear.ObjectiveTo assess the association of race and ethnicity with survival among clinical trial participants with early-stage BC (eBC) according to tumor subtype, age, and BMI.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study analyzed survival data, as of November 12, 2021, from participants enrolled between 1997 and 2010 in 4 randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trials: Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 9741, 49907, and 40101 as well as North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) N9831, legacy groups of the Alliance of Clinical Trials in Oncology. Median follow-up was 9.8 years.ExposuresNon-Hispanic Black and Hispanic participants were compared with non-Hispanic White participants within subgroups of subtype (hormone receptor positive [HR+]/ERBB2[formerlyHER2] negative [ERBB2−],ERBB2+, and HR−/ERBB2−), age (&amp;lt;50, 50 to &amp;lt;65, and ≥65 years), and BMI (&amp;lt;18.5, 18.5 to &amp;lt;25.0, 25.0 to &amp;lt;30.0, and ≥30.0).Main Outcomes and MeasuresRecurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsOf 9479 participants, 436 (4.4%) were Hispanic, 871 (8.8%) non-Hispanic Black, and 7889 (79.5%) non-Hispanic White. The median (range) age was 52 (19.0-89.7) years. Among participants with HR+/ERBB2− tumors, non-Hispanic Black individuals had worse RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.12; 5-year RFS, 88.5% vs 93.2%) than non-Hispanic White individuals, although the global test for association of race and ethnicity with RFS was not significant within any tumor subtype. There were no OS differences by race and ethnicity in any subtype. Race and ethnicity were associated with OS in young participants (age &amp;lt;50 years; globalP = .008); young non-Hispanic Black participants (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.04-1.71; 5-year OS, 86.6% vs 92.0%) and Hispanic participants (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.16-2.29; 5-year OS, 86.2% vs 92.0%) had worse OS than young non-Hispanic White participants. Race and ethnicity were associated with RFS in participants with BMIs of 25 to less than 30, with Hispanic participants having worse RFS (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.23-2.68; 5-year RFS, 83.2% vs 87.3%) than non-Hispanic White participants.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, racial and ethnic survival disparities were identified in patients with eBC receiving standardized initial care, and potentially at-risk subgroups, for whom focused interventions may improve outcomes, were found.

Objective and Background: Clinically significant posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF B+C) remains the main cause of mortality after major hepatic resection. This study aimed to establish an aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio combined with an albumin-bilirubin grade (APRI+ALBI), based multivariable model (MVM) to predict PHLF and compare its performance to indocyanine green clearance (ICG-R15 or ICG-PDR) and albumin-ICG evaluation (ALICE). Methods: A total of 12,056 patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were used to generate a MVM to predict PHLF B+C. The model was determined using stepwise backwards elimination. The performance of the model was tested using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and validated in an international cohort of 2525 patients. In 620 patients, the APRI+ALBI MVM, trained in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program cohort, was compared with the MVM’s based on other liver function tests (ICG clearance, ALICE) by comparing the areas under the curve (AUC). Results: A MVM including APRI+ALBI, age, sex, tumor type, and extent of resection was found to predict PHLF B+C with an AUC of 0.77, with comparable performance in the validation cohort (AUC: 0.74). In direct comparison with other MVM’s based on more expensive and time-consuming liver function tests (ICG clearance, ALICE), the APRI+ALBI MVM demonstrated equal predictive potential for PHLF B+C. A smartphone application for the calculation of the APRI+ALBI MVM was designed. Conclusion: Risk assessment through the APRI+ALBI MVM for PHLF B+C increases preoperative predictive accuracy and represents a universally available and cost-effective risk assessment before hepatectomy, facilitated by a freely available smartphone app.

Background: Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. Methods: This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity. Results: 1383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32–1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24–2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70–6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71–5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83–12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63–3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20–2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66–3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89–22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing, and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status. Conclusions: Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC-related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Funding: This study was partly supported by National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to Tianyi Sun, Sanjay Mishra, Benjamin French, Jeremy L Warner; P30-CA046592 to Christopher R Friese; P30 CA023100 for Rana R McKay; P30-CA054174 for Pankil K Shah and Dimpy P Shah; KL2 TR002646 for Pankil Shah and the American Cancer Society and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research (MRSG-16-152-01-CCE) and P30-CA054174 for Dimpy P Shah. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH). The funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication. Clinical trial number: CCC19 registry is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701 .