Arash Naeim

Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed that screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) as compared with chest radiography reduced lung-cancer mortality. We examined the cost-effectiveness of screening with low-dose CT in the NLST. METHODS We estimated mean life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs per person, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three alternative strategies: screening with low-dose CT, screening with radiography, and no screening. Estimations of life-years were based on the number of observed deaths that occurred during the trial and the projected survival of persons who were alive at the end of the trial. Quality adjustments were derived from a subgroup of participants who were selected to complete quality-of-life surveys. Costs were based on utilization rates and Medicare reimbursements. We also performed analyses of subgroups defined according to age, sex, smoking history, and risk of lung cancer and performed sensitivity analyses based on several assumptions. RESULTS As compared with no screening, screening with low-dose CT cost an additional

Management of prostate cancer in older men: recommendations of a working group of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology

1,631 per person (95% confidence interval [CI], 1,557 to 1,709) and provided an additional 0.0316 life-years per person (95% CI, 0.0154 to 0.0478) and 0.0201 QALYs per person (95% CI, 0.0088 to 0.0314). The corresponding ICERs were

Physiologic aspects of aging : Impact on cancer management and decision making, Part II

52,000 per life-year gained (95% CI, 34,000 to 106,000) and

Evidence-Based Standards for Cancer Pain Management

81,000 per QALY gained (95% CI, 52,000 to 186,000). However, the ICERs varied widely in subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS We estimated that screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT would cost

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Cancer Nausea and Vomiting

81,000 per QALY gained, but we also determined that modest changes in our assumptions would greatly alter this figure. The determination of whether screening outside the trial will be cost-effective will depend on how screening is implemented. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Information and Care Planning in Cancer Care

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer in men and predominantly affects older men (aged ≥70 years). The median age at diagnosis is 68 years; overall, two‐thirds of prostate cancer‐related deaths occur in men aged ≥75 years. With the exponential ageing of the population and the increasing life‐expectancy in developed countries, the burden of prostate cancer is expected to increase dramatically in the future. To date, no specific guidelines on the management of prostate cancer in older men have been published. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) conducted a systematic bibliographic search based on screening, diagnostic procedures and treatment options for localized and advanced prostate cancer, to develop a proposal for recommendations that should provide the highest standard of care for older men with prostate cancer. The consensus of the SIOG Prostate Cancer Task Force is that older men with prostate cancer should be managed according to their individual health status, which is mainly driven by the severity of associated comorbid conditions, and not according to chronological age. Existing international recommendations (European Association of Urology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Urological Association) are the backbone for localized and advanced prostate cancer treatment, but need to be adapted to patient health status. Based on a rapid and simple evaluation, patients can be classified into four different groups: 1, ‘Healthy’ patients (controlled comorbidity, fully independent in daily living activities, no malnutrition) should receive the same treatment as younger patients; 2, ‘Vulnerable’ patients (reversible impairment) should receive standard treatment after medical intervention; 3, ‘Frail’ patients (irreversible impairment) should receive adapted treatment; 4, Patients who are ‘too sick’ with ‘terminal illness’ should receive only symptomatic palliative treatment.

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Cancer Fatigue, Anorexia, Depression, and Dyspnea

In this second article of our two-part review, we focus on age-associated physiologic changes involving the nervous, endocrine, hematologic, immune, and musculoskeletal systems, with close attention to the interconnected nature of these systems. There is a well-known connection between the neuroendocrine and immune systems via the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and via interaction by means of cytokines, hormones, and neurotransmitters. These changes may lead to a loss of integration and resiliency with age, thus decreasing the ability of the elderly patient with cancer to adapt to stressful circumstances. Prominent changes include decline in memory and cognition, and increased susceptibility to peripheral neuropathy. Hematologic and immune changes like reduced bone marrow reserve and increased susceptibility to infections have far reaching implications for cancer care in the elderly. Gradual decline in hormone levels, and changes in muscle and body composition, can lead to functional decline and frailty. Use of the clinical interventions suggested in this article, along with an appreciation of the interplay of these age-related physiologic changes and their consequences, allows oncology professionals to customize therapy and minimize side effects in the geriatric oncology patient.

Quality measures for supportive cancer care: the Cancer Quality-ASSIST Project.

High-quality management of cancer pain depends on evidence-based standards for screening, assessment, treatment, and follow-up for general cancer pain and specific pain syndromes. We developed a set of standards through an iterative process of structured literature review and development and refinement of topic areas and standards and subjected recommendations to rating by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Providers should routinely screen for the presence or absence and intensity of pain and should perform descriptive pain assessment for patients with a positive screen, including assessment for likely etiology and functional impairment. For treatment, providers should provide pain education, offer breakthrough opioids in patients receiving long-acting formulations, offer bowel regimens in patients receiving opioids chronically, and ensure continuity of opioid doses across health care settings. Providers should also follow up on patients after treatment for pain. For metastatic bone pain, providers should offer single-fraction radiotherapy as an option when offering radiation, unless there is a contraindication. When spinal cord compression is suspected, providers should treat with corticosteroids and evaluate with whole-spine magnetic resonance imaging scan or myelography as soon as possible but within 24 hours. Providers should initiate definitive treatment (radiotherapy or surgical decompression) within 24 hours for diagnosed cord compression and should follow up on patients after treatment. These standards provide an initial framework for high-quality evidence-based management of general cancer pain and pain syndromes.

Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization of cancer patients than filgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective United States claims analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF)

The experience of patients living with cancer and being treated with chemotherapy often includes the symptoms of nausea and vomiting. To provide a framework for high-quality management of these symptoms, we developed a set of key targeted evidence-based standards through an iterative process of targeted systematic review, development, and refinement of topic areas and standards and consensus ratings by a multidisciplinary expert panel as part of the RAND Cancer Quality-Assessing Symptoms Side Effects and Indicators of Supportive Treatment Project. For nausea and vomiting, key clinical standards included screening at the initial outpatient and inpatient visit, prophylaxis for acute and delayed emesis in patients receiving moderate to highly emetic chemotherapy, and follow-up after treatment for nausea and vomiting symptoms. In addition, patients with cancer and small bowel obstruction were examined as a special subset of patients who present with nausea and vomiting. The standards presented here for preventing and managing nausea and vomiting in cancer care should be incorporated into care pathways and should become the expectation rather than the exception.

Importance of testing for usability when selecting and implementing an electronic health or medical record system.

The practice of oncology is characterized by challenging communication tasks that make it difficult to ensure optimal physician-patient information sharing and care planning. Discussions of diagnosis, prognosis, and patient goals are essential processes that inform decisions. However, data suggest that there are deficiencies in this area. We conducted a systematic review to identify the evidence supporting high-quality clinical practices for information and care planning in the context of cancer care as part of the RAND Cancer Quality-Assessing Symptoms, Side Effects, and Indicators of Supportive Treatment Project. Domains of information and care planning that are important for high-quality cancer care include integration of palliation into cancer care, advance care planning, sentinel events as markers for the need to readdress a patients goals of care, and continuity of care planning. The standards presented here for information and care planning in cancer care should be incorporated into care pathways and should become the expectation rather than the exception.