Search

BackgroundChimeric antigen receptor T cell infusion (CAR T) therapy has revolutionized the treatment of hematologic malignancies, but treatment-related toxicities are of concern. Understanding the timing and reasons for which patients present to the emergency department (ED) after CAR T therapy can assist with the early recognition and management of toxicities.MethodsA retrospective observational cohort study was conducted for patients who had undergone CAR T therapy in the past 6 months and visited the ED of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between 04/01/2018 and 08/01/2022. The timing of presentation after CAR T product infusion, patient characteristics, and outcomes of the ED visit were examined. Survival analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier estimates.ResultsDuring the period studied, there were 276 ED visits by 168 unique patients. Most patients had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (103/168; 61.3%), multiple myeloma (21/168; 12.5%), or mantle cell lymphoma (16/168; 9.5%). Almost all 276 visits required urgent (60.5%) or emergent (37.7%) care, and 73.5% of visits led to admission to the hospital or observation unit. Fever was the most frequent presenting complaint, reported in 19.6% of the visits. The 30-day and 90-day mortality rates after the index ED visits were 17.0% and 32.2%, respectively. Patients who had their first ED visit >14 days after CAR T product infusion had significantly worse overall survival (multivariable hazard ratio 3.27; 95% confidence interval 1.29–8.27; P=0.012) than patients who first visited the ED within 14 days of CAR T product infusion.ConclusionCancer patients who receive CAR T therapy commonly visit the ED, and most are admitted and/or require urgent or emergent care. During early ED visits patients mainly present with constitutional symptoms such as fever and fatigue, and these early visits are associated with better overall survival.

BackgroundThe increasing use of computed tomography (CT) has identified many patients with incidental adrenal lesions. Further evaluation of these lesions is often dependent on the language used in the radiology report. Compared to the general population, patients with cancer have a higher risk for adrenal abnormalities, yet data on the prevalence and type of incidental adrenal lesions reported on radiologic reports in cancer patients is limited. In this study, we aimed to determine the prevalence and nature of adrenal abnormalities as an incidental finding reported on radiology reports of cancer patients evaluated for reasons other than suspected adrenal pathology.MethodsRadiology reports of patients who underwent abdominal CT within 30 days of presentation to a tertiary cancer center were reviewed and analyzed. We used natural language processing to perform a multi-class text classification of the adrenal reports. Patients who had CT for suspected adrenal mass including adrenal protocol CT were excluded. Three independent abstractors manually reviewed abnormal and questionable results, and we measured the interobserver agreement.ResultsFrom June 1, 2006, to October 1, 2017, a total of 600,399 abdominal CT scans were performed including 66,478 scans obtained within 30 days of the patient’s first presentation. Of these, 58,512 were eligible after applying the exclusion criteria. Adrenal abnormalities were identified in 7,817 (13.4%) reports, with adrenal nodularity (3,401 [43.5%]), adenomas (1,733 [22.2%]), and metastases (1,337 [17.1%]) being the most reported categories. Only 10 cases (0.1%) were reported as primary adrenal carcinomas and 2 as pheochromocytoma. Interobserver agreement using 300 reports yielded a Fleiss kappa of 0.893, implying almost perfect agreement between the abstractors.ConclusionsIncidental adrenal abnormalities are commonly reported in abdominal CT reports of cancer patients. As the terminology used by radiologists to describe these findings greatly determine the subsequent management plans, further studies are needed to correlate some of these findings to the actual confirmed diagnosis based on hormonal, histological and follow-up data and ascertain the impact of such reported findings on patients’ outcomes.