Search

Aim: Unfavorable prognostic factors among classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) patients in the real-world setting have yet to be fully characterized. Methods: In this retrospective study using the ConcertAI Oncology Dataset, patient characteristics, unfavorable prognostic factors and treatment patterns were evaluated among patients diagnosed with cHL. Results: Among 324 adult cHL patients diagnosed 2016–2021, 16.1% were classified as early favorable, 32.7% early unfavorable and 51.2% advanced disease. Early unfavorable patients were younger and had a larger nodal mass. The prognostic factor B symptoms was most frequently documented in early unfavorable patients (59.4%), followed by bulky disease (46.2%), >3 involved lymph node regions (31.1%), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate ≥50 (25.5%). Conclusion: In this analysis of real-world data, we found that nearly a third of newly diagnosed cHL patients had early unfavorable disease. Our analysis also showed differences in the proportion of patients for each unfavorable factor among patients with early-stage unfavorable cHL. Lymphoma is a type of blood cancer that develops when white blood cells grow out of control. This study looked at a certain type of lymphoma called classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Patients with cHL are put into groups based on risk factors. Risk factors mean the cancer had certain characteristics that make it more likely to spread to other body parts and more difficult to treat. These can be symptoms like drenching night sweats, unexplained fever, sudden weight loss, or large swellings of the infection fighting glands of the body.What did we do? We studied the risk factors of patients with cHL, using data from electronic medical records. What were the results? About a third of the patients in this study had early stage cHL with unfavorable risk factors, and over half of the patients had advanced stage cHL. The patients who had early stage cHL with unfavorable risk factors were younger and had a larger lump in a lymph node. More than half of the patients experienced drenching night sweats, unexplained fever, or weight loss of more than 10%. What do the results mean? We found that nearly a third of new cHL patients had early-stage cHL with unfavorable risk factors. We also showed differences in the number of patients with each unfavorable risk factor among patients with early-stage unfavorable cHL. This study can help doctors and researchers group patients and determine the best treatment or research study for patients who have cHL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography in older current and former smokers (ie, eligible adults) has been recommended since 2013. Uptake has been slow and variable across the United States. We estimated the LCS rate and growth at the national and state level between 2016 and 2018.Methods: The American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry was used to capture screening events. Population-based surveys, the US Census, and cancer registry data were used to estimate the number of eligible adults and lung cancer mortality (ie, burden). Lung cancer screening rates (SRs) in eligible adults and screening rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure changes by state and year.Results: Nationally, the SR was steady between 2016 (3.3%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 3.7%) and 2017 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.4% to 3.9%), increasing to 5.0% (95% CI = 5.0% to 5.7%) in 2018 (2018 vs 2016 SR ratio = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.62). In 2018, several southern states with a high lung-cancer burden (eg, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas) had relatively low SRs (<4%) among eligible adults, whereas several northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (eg, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire) had the highest SRs (12.8%-15.2%). The exception was Kentucky, which had the nation's highest lung cancer mortality rate and one of the highest SRs (13.7%).Conclusions: Fewer than 1 in 20 eligible adults received LCS nationally, and uptake varied widely across states. LCS rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden across states, except for Kentucky, which has supported comprehensive efforts to implement LCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of genomic testing is increasing in the United States. Testing can be expensive, and not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance. Little is known about how often oncologists discuss costs of testing and treatment or about the factors associated with those discussions.Methods: We identified 1220 oncologists who reported discussing genomic testing with their cancer patients from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Multivariable polytomous logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between oncologist and practice characteristics and the frequency of cost discussions. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results: Among oncologists who discussed genomic testing with patients, 50.0% reported often discussing the likely costs of testing and related treatments, 26.3% reported sometimes discussing costs, and 23.7% reported never or rarely discussing costs. In adjusted analyses, oncologists with training in genomic testing or working in practices with electronic medical record alerts for genomic tests were more likely to have cost discussions sometimes (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19 to 3.69) or often (OR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.30 to 3.79), respectively, compared to rarely or never. Other factors statistically significantly associated with more frequent cost discussions included treating solid tumors (rather than only hematological cancers), using next-generation sequencing gene panel tests, having higher patient volume, and working in practices with higher percentages of patients insured by Medicaid, or self-paid or uninsured.Conclusions: Interventions targeting modifiable oncologist and practice factors, such as training in genomic testing and use of electronic medical record alerts, may help improve cost discussions about genomic testing and related treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography in older current and former smokers (ie, eligible adults) has been recommended since 2013. Uptake has been slow and variable across the United States. We estimated the LCS rate and growth at the national and state level between 2016 and 2018., Methods: The American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry was used to capture screening events. Population-based surveys, the US Census, and cancer registry data were used to estimate the number of eligible adults and lung cancer mortality (ie, burden). Lung cancer screening rates (SRs) in eligible adults and screening rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure changes by state and year., Results: Nationally, the SR was steady between 2016 (3.3%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 3.7%) and 2017 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.4% to 3.9%), increasing to 5.0% (95% CI = 5.0% to 5.7%) in 2018 (2018 vs 2016 SR ratio = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.62). In 2018, several southern states with a high lung-cancer burden (eg, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas) had relatively low SRs (<4%) among eligible adults, whereas several northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (eg, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire) had the highest SRs (12.8%-15.2%). The exception was Kentucky, which had the nation's highest lung cancer mortality rate and one of the highest SRs (13.7%)., Conclusions: Fewer than 1 in 20 eligible adults received LCS nationally, and uptake varied widely across states. LCS rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden across states, except for Kentucky, which has supported comprehensive efforts to implement LCS., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Use of genomic testing is increasing in the United States. Testing can be expensive, and not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance. Little is known about how often oncologists discuss costs of testing and treatment or about the factors associated with those discussions., Methods: We identified 1220 oncologists who reported discussing genomic testing with their cancer patients from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Multivariable polytomous logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between oncologist and practice characteristics and the frequency of cost discussions. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Among oncologists who discussed genomic testing with patients, 50.0% reported often discussing the likely costs of testing and related treatments, 26.3% reported sometimes discussing costs, and 23.7% reported never or rarely discussing costs. In adjusted analyses, oncologists with training in genomic testing or working in practices with electronic medical record alerts for genomic tests were more likely to have cost discussions sometimes (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19 to 3.69) or often (OR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.30 to 3.79), respectively, compared to rarely or never. Other factors statistically significantly associated with more frequent cost discussions included treating solid tumors (rather than only hematological cancers), using next-generation sequencing gene panel tests, having higher patient volume, and working in practices with higher percentages of patients insured by Medicaid, or self-paid or uninsured., Conclusions: Interventions targeting modifiable oncologist and practice factors, such as training in genomic testing and use of electronic medical record alerts, may help improve cost discussions about genomic testing and related treatments., (Published by Oxford University Press 2019. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

Background: There are no randomized data to guide clinicians treating patients with gallbladder cancer (GBC). Several retrospective studies reported the survival benefits of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) and chemoradiation (CRT). In this paper, we examine whether these publications have impacted the utilization of adjuvant therapies and whether their survival benefits are evident in a contemporary cohort of patients., Methods: Using the National Cancer Data Base, we identified 5029 patients diagnosed with T1-3N0-1 GBC and treated with surgical resection from 2005 to 2013. We described trends in receipt of adjuvant treatments for three time periods (2005-2007, 2008-2010, 2011-2013) and calculated three-year overall survival (OS) probabilities for 2989 patients treated in 2005-2010. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: The percentage of patients who received no adjuvant treatments was unchanged from 2005 to 2013. Adjuvant RT decreased from 4.2% to 1.7% ( P  < .001), adjuvant chemotherapy increased from 8.3% to 13.8% ( P  < .001), and adjuvant CRT remained stable at 15.9% ( P  = .98). Adjuvant treatments were associated with improved three-year OS, with adjusted hazard ratio of 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.39 to 0.58) for CRT, 0.77 (95% CI = 0.61 to 0.97) for chemotherapy, and 0.63 (95% CI = 0.44 to 0.92) for RT. Adjuvant CRT was associated with improved survival in all categories, except T1N0, and in patients with negative and positive margins., Conclusion: Over the past decade there was no increase in the utilization of adjuvant therapies in the United States for patients with resected GBC. Adjuvant therapy is associated with statistically significantly improved three-year OS. This analysis should form the basis for current clinical recommendations and support future prospective trials., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)