Jennifer M. Lobo

Comparison of Renal Cell Carcinoma Surveillance Guidelines: Competing Trade-Offs

PURPOSE We estimated the differences in intensity, cost, radiation exposure and cancer control of published surveillance guidelines screening for secondary renal cell carcinoma in patients treated with partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS We developed a Monte Carlo simulation model to contrast the existing guidelines in terms of cost, radiation exposure and cancer control. Model inputs were extrapolated from the existing literature. Surveillance guidelines were analyzed from the AUA, CUA, EAU and NCCN®. Risk stratification among patients treated with partial nephrectomy was based on tumor characteristics. RESULTS Expected costs during the 5 years after partial nephrectomy were

Evaluating the clinical impact of a genomic classifier in prostate cancer using individualized decision analysis.

587 (CUA),

Provider Role in Transmission of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae

1,076 (AUA),

Cost-effectiveness of the Decipher Genomic Classifier to Guide Individualized Decisions for Early Radiation Therapy After Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer

1,705 (EAU) and

Disparities in recommended preventive care usage among persons living with diabetes in the Appalachian region

1,768 (NCCN) for low risk patients, and

Towards decision-making using individualized risk estimates for personalized medicine: A systematic review of genomic classifiers of solid tumors

903 (CUA),

From Data to Improved Decisions: Operations Research in Healthcare Delivery

2,525 (EAU) and

Reconsidering adjuvant versus salvage radiation therapy for prostate cancer in the genomics era.

3,904 (AUA and NCCN) for high risk patients. Radiation exposure ranged from 31.41 mSv (CUA) to 104.34 mSv (NCCN) for low risk patients and 46.88 mSv (CUA) to 231.61 mSv (AUA and NCCN) for high risk patients. The EAU and CUA guidelines led to the diagnosis of the highest percentage of low risk patients (more than 95%) while all guidelines diagnosed more than 92% of high risk patients with recurrence. CONCLUSIONS Renal cell carcinoma surveillance guidelines differ greatly in terms of intensity, cost and radiation exposure. It is important for clinicians to adopt standardized surveillance strategies that limit unnecessary cost and radiation exposure without compromising cancer control.

Longitudinal trends and predictors of statin use among patients with diabetes

Background Currently there is controversy surrounding the optimal way to treat patients with prostate cancer in the post-prostatectomy setting. Adjuvant therapies carry possible benefits of improved curative results, but there is uncertainty in which patients should receive adjuvant therapy. There are concerns about giving toxicity to a whole population for the benefit of only a subset. We hypothesized that making post-prostatectomy treatment decisions using genomics-based risk prediction estimates would improve cancer and quality of life outcomes. Methods We developed a state-transition model to simulate outcomes over a 10 year horizon for a cohort of post-prostatectomy patients. Outcomes included cancer progression rates at 5 and 10 years, overall survival, and quality-adjusted survival with reductions for treatment, side effects, and cancer stage. We compared outcomes using population-level versus individual-level risk of cancer progression, and for genomics-based care versus usual care treatment recommendations. Results Cancer progression outcomes, expected life-years (LYs), and expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were significantly different when individual genomics-based cancer progression risk estimates were used in place of population-level risk estimates. Use of the genomic classifier to guide treatment decisions provided small, but statistically significant, improvements in model outcomes. We observed an additional 0.03 LYs and 0.07 QALYs, a 12% relative increase in the 5-year recurrence-free survival probability, and a 4% relative reduction in the 5-year probability of metastatic disease or death. Conclusions The use of genomics-based risk prediction to guide treatment decisions may improve outcomes for prostate cancer patients. This study offers a framework for individualized decision analysis, and can be extended to incorporate a wide range of personal attributes to enable delivery of patient-centered tools for informed decision-making.

Using claims data linked with electronic health records to monitor and improve adherence to medication

OBJECTIVE We sought to evaluate the role healthcare providers play in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) acquisition among hospitalized patients. DESIGN A 1:4 case-control study with incidence density sampling. SETTING Academic healthcare center with regular CRE perirectal screening in high-risk units. PATIENTS We included case patients with ≥1 negative CRE test followed by positive culture with a length of stay (LOS) >9 days. For controls, we included patients with ≥2 negative CRE tests and assignment to the same unit set as case patients with a LOS >9 days. METHODS Controls were time-matched to each case patient. Case exposure was evaluated between days 2 and 9 before positive culture and control evaluation was based on maximizing overlap with the case window. Exposure sources were all CRE-colonized or -infected patients. Nonphysician providers were compared between study patients and sources during their evaluation windows. Dichotomous and continuous exposures were developed from the number of source-shared providers and were used in univariate and multivariate regression. RESULTS In total, 121 cases and 484 controls were included. Multivariate analysis showed odds of dichotomous exposure (≥1 source-shared provider) of 2.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-4.15; P=.006) for case patients compared to controls. Multivariate continuous exposure showed odds of 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01-1.03; P=.009) for case patients compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS Patients who acquire CRE during hospitalization are more likely to receive care from a provider caring for a patient with CRE than those patients who do not acquire CRE. These data support the importance of hand hygiene and cohorting measures for CRE patients to reduce transmission risk. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1329-1334.