User login
Enhancing Veteran Access to Cutting-Edge Treatments: Launching a T Cell Engager Therapy Administration Program
Background
The rise in the number of T-cell engager therapies highlights their importance in modern cancer treatment paradigms. Having recognized the need for, and complexities of, administering these innovative medications to our patients, our team assessed our institution’s capability to provide these therapies to our patients. We identified that our facility was wellequipped for implementation of T-cell engager therapy due to inpatient administration capabilities, an outpatient infusion center, on-hand supportive care medications (tocilizumab), and access to higher levels of care. Key players included medical oncologists, pharmacists, inpatient and infusion nurses, staff physicians, critical care practitioners, and care coordinators.
Clinical Practice Initiative
Barriers identified: education, toxicity concerns, formulary management, and logistics. To overcome these obstacles, comprehensive plans for procurement, hospital admission, monitoring, and training were developed as a facility-specific standard operating procedure (SOP). All available Tcell engager therapies were presented to the formulary committee and received local approval. Physician and pharmacist champions were registered for the associated risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) programs. Recorded webinars were done to provide education on REMS requirements, medication logistics, and adverse event management.
An admission plan was formulated to outline admission criteria, medication administration, and safety logistics. Order sets created by pharmacists, encompassed pre, post, and as needed medications for cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. To facilitate safe discharge and meet REMS criteria, patients received wallet cards, dexamethasone and acetaminophen PRNs with detailed instructions for use, and direction for seeking emergency care with consideration of local tocilizumab availability.
Conclusions
Our SOP has enabled administration of six T-cell engager therapies for six diseases. The primary limitation for some of these agents is the need for inpatient monitoring at initiation, which may not be available at smaller centers. Facilities that lack these capabilities could utilize community care or partner with a neighboring Veterans Affairs medical center for initial administration, then transition back for continued treatment. Facilities that lack inpatient oncology nursing could administer the drug in the infusion center followed by admission for monitoring and toxicity management. Our implementation plan serves as a scalable model for improving veteran access to novel therapies.
Background
The rise in the number of T-cell engager therapies highlights their importance in modern cancer treatment paradigms. Having recognized the need for, and complexities of, administering these innovative medications to our patients, our team assessed our institution’s capability to provide these therapies to our patients. We identified that our facility was wellequipped for implementation of T-cell engager therapy due to inpatient administration capabilities, an outpatient infusion center, on-hand supportive care medications (tocilizumab), and access to higher levels of care. Key players included medical oncologists, pharmacists, inpatient and infusion nurses, staff physicians, critical care practitioners, and care coordinators.
Clinical Practice Initiative
Barriers identified: education, toxicity concerns, formulary management, and logistics. To overcome these obstacles, comprehensive plans for procurement, hospital admission, monitoring, and training were developed as a facility-specific standard operating procedure (SOP). All available Tcell engager therapies were presented to the formulary committee and received local approval. Physician and pharmacist champions were registered for the associated risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) programs. Recorded webinars were done to provide education on REMS requirements, medication logistics, and adverse event management.
An admission plan was formulated to outline admission criteria, medication administration, and safety logistics. Order sets created by pharmacists, encompassed pre, post, and as needed medications for cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. To facilitate safe discharge and meet REMS criteria, patients received wallet cards, dexamethasone and acetaminophen PRNs with detailed instructions for use, and direction for seeking emergency care with consideration of local tocilizumab availability.
Conclusions
Our SOP has enabled administration of six T-cell engager therapies for six diseases. The primary limitation for some of these agents is the need for inpatient monitoring at initiation, which may not be available at smaller centers. Facilities that lack these capabilities could utilize community care or partner with a neighboring Veterans Affairs medical center for initial administration, then transition back for continued treatment. Facilities that lack inpatient oncology nursing could administer the drug in the infusion center followed by admission for monitoring and toxicity management. Our implementation plan serves as a scalable model for improving veteran access to novel therapies.
Background
The rise in the number of T-cell engager therapies highlights their importance in modern cancer treatment paradigms. Having recognized the need for, and complexities of, administering these innovative medications to our patients, our team assessed our institution’s capability to provide these therapies to our patients. We identified that our facility was wellequipped for implementation of T-cell engager therapy due to inpatient administration capabilities, an outpatient infusion center, on-hand supportive care medications (tocilizumab), and access to higher levels of care. Key players included medical oncologists, pharmacists, inpatient and infusion nurses, staff physicians, critical care practitioners, and care coordinators.
Clinical Practice Initiative
Barriers identified: education, toxicity concerns, formulary management, and logistics. To overcome these obstacles, comprehensive plans for procurement, hospital admission, monitoring, and training were developed as a facility-specific standard operating procedure (SOP). All available Tcell engager therapies were presented to the formulary committee and received local approval. Physician and pharmacist champions were registered for the associated risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) programs. Recorded webinars were done to provide education on REMS requirements, medication logistics, and adverse event management.
An admission plan was formulated to outline admission criteria, medication administration, and safety logistics. Order sets created by pharmacists, encompassed pre, post, and as needed medications for cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. To facilitate safe discharge and meet REMS criteria, patients received wallet cards, dexamethasone and acetaminophen PRNs with detailed instructions for use, and direction for seeking emergency care with consideration of local tocilizumab availability.
Conclusions
Our SOP has enabled administration of six T-cell engager therapies for six diseases. The primary limitation for some of these agents is the need for inpatient monitoring at initiation, which may not be available at smaller centers. Facilities that lack these capabilities could utilize community care or partner with a neighboring Veterans Affairs medical center for initial administration, then transition back for continued treatment. Facilities that lack inpatient oncology nursing could administer the drug in the infusion center followed by admission for monitoring and toxicity management. Our implementation plan serves as a scalable model for improving veteran access to novel therapies.
Daratumumab and Darbepoetin for Refractory Warm Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia: A Novel Duo for a Tough Case
Background
Warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (wAIHA) is traditionally treated with immunosuppresimmunosuppression, and management of refractory disease is often a challenge. The anti-CD38 antibody daratumumab is emerging as a promising treatment for refractory wAIHA, as it targets autoantibody-producing plasma cells. Here, we present the first reported case of daratumumab used in conjunction with an erythropoiesisstimulating agent (ESA) to salvage refractory wAIHA in a patient with AIDS and bone marrow suppression.
Case Presentation
A middle aged man with HIV (undetectable viral load on antiretroviral treatment but CD4 persistently < 200, requiring chronic antimicrobial prophylaxis) was diagnosed with classic wAIHA in late 2021. The disease initially responded to corticosteroids, but relapsed repeatedly and eventually required IVIG, rituximab, danazol, and three immunosuppressive agents, none of which induced remission. Hemolysis worsened by fall 2024, with hemoglobin 5-6 g/dL despite high-dose corticosteroids and IVIG. Bone marrow biopsy was unrevealing, and he underwent splenectomy. However, recovery was complicated by cutaneous nocardiosis, iron overload, liver injury, and continued hemolysis. Eventually, reticulocytosis also ceased, and hemoglobin declined to 4-5 g/dL. Due to failure of standard therapies and to minimize further immunosuppression, weekly daratumumab injections were initiated, with weekly darbepoetin injections added to aid in compensatory hematopoiesis. With this combination, hemolysis indices improved, reticulocytosis picked up, and hemoglobin increased to 8-9 g/dL. However, the patient continued to struggle with infections, and he succumbed to drug-resistant bacterial sepsis in spring 2025.
Discussion
The patient had very complicated chronic and acute comorbidities, and some simplification was required in order to provide this summary. However, we hope this case adds to the literature on daratumumab as an effective new agent in refractory wAIHA, and also present a novel duo of therapies for patients who may struggle with bone marrow suppression in addition to autoimmune hemolysis. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of the combination used in this manner.
Conclusions
Daratumumab is an effective and less immunosuppressive alternative for the treatment of heavily pretreated refractory wAIHA. Its combined use with ESA in patients with inadequate reticulocytosis should be studied further to clarify the efficacy and safety in this setting.
Background
Warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (wAIHA) is traditionally treated with immunosuppresimmunosuppression, and management of refractory disease is often a challenge. The anti-CD38 antibody daratumumab is emerging as a promising treatment for refractory wAIHA, as it targets autoantibody-producing plasma cells. Here, we present the first reported case of daratumumab used in conjunction with an erythropoiesisstimulating agent (ESA) to salvage refractory wAIHA in a patient with AIDS and bone marrow suppression.
Case Presentation
A middle aged man with HIV (undetectable viral load on antiretroviral treatment but CD4 persistently < 200, requiring chronic antimicrobial prophylaxis) was diagnosed with classic wAIHA in late 2021. The disease initially responded to corticosteroids, but relapsed repeatedly and eventually required IVIG, rituximab, danazol, and three immunosuppressive agents, none of which induced remission. Hemolysis worsened by fall 2024, with hemoglobin 5-6 g/dL despite high-dose corticosteroids and IVIG. Bone marrow biopsy was unrevealing, and he underwent splenectomy. However, recovery was complicated by cutaneous nocardiosis, iron overload, liver injury, and continued hemolysis. Eventually, reticulocytosis also ceased, and hemoglobin declined to 4-5 g/dL. Due to failure of standard therapies and to minimize further immunosuppression, weekly daratumumab injections were initiated, with weekly darbepoetin injections added to aid in compensatory hematopoiesis. With this combination, hemolysis indices improved, reticulocytosis picked up, and hemoglobin increased to 8-9 g/dL. However, the patient continued to struggle with infections, and he succumbed to drug-resistant bacterial sepsis in spring 2025.
Discussion
The patient had very complicated chronic and acute comorbidities, and some simplification was required in order to provide this summary. However, we hope this case adds to the literature on daratumumab as an effective new agent in refractory wAIHA, and also present a novel duo of therapies for patients who may struggle with bone marrow suppression in addition to autoimmune hemolysis. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of the combination used in this manner.
Conclusions
Daratumumab is an effective and less immunosuppressive alternative for the treatment of heavily pretreated refractory wAIHA. Its combined use with ESA in patients with inadequate reticulocytosis should be studied further to clarify the efficacy and safety in this setting.
Background
Warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (wAIHA) is traditionally treated with immunosuppresimmunosuppression, and management of refractory disease is often a challenge. The anti-CD38 antibody daratumumab is emerging as a promising treatment for refractory wAIHA, as it targets autoantibody-producing plasma cells. Here, we present the first reported case of daratumumab used in conjunction with an erythropoiesisstimulating agent (ESA) to salvage refractory wAIHA in a patient with AIDS and bone marrow suppression.
Case Presentation
A middle aged man with HIV (undetectable viral load on antiretroviral treatment but CD4 persistently < 200, requiring chronic antimicrobial prophylaxis) was diagnosed with classic wAIHA in late 2021. The disease initially responded to corticosteroids, but relapsed repeatedly and eventually required IVIG, rituximab, danazol, and three immunosuppressive agents, none of which induced remission. Hemolysis worsened by fall 2024, with hemoglobin 5-6 g/dL despite high-dose corticosteroids and IVIG. Bone marrow biopsy was unrevealing, and he underwent splenectomy. However, recovery was complicated by cutaneous nocardiosis, iron overload, liver injury, and continued hemolysis. Eventually, reticulocytosis also ceased, and hemoglobin declined to 4-5 g/dL. Due to failure of standard therapies and to minimize further immunosuppression, weekly daratumumab injections were initiated, with weekly darbepoetin injections added to aid in compensatory hematopoiesis. With this combination, hemolysis indices improved, reticulocytosis picked up, and hemoglobin increased to 8-9 g/dL. However, the patient continued to struggle with infections, and he succumbed to drug-resistant bacterial sepsis in spring 2025.
Discussion
The patient had very complicated chronic and acute comorbidities, and some simplification was required in order to provide this summary. However, we hope this case adds to the literature on daratumumab as an effective new agent in refractory wAIHA, and also present a novel duo of therapies for patients who may struggle with bone marrow suppression in addition to autoimmune hemolysis. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of the combination used in this manner.
Conclusions
Daratumumab is an effective and less immunosuppressive alternative for the treatment of heavily pretreated refractory wAIHA. Its combined use with ESA in patients with inadequate reticulocytosis should be studied further to clarify the efficacy and safety in this setting.
Carboplatin as a Radiosensitizing Agent in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer: Friendly to an Older Veteran Population
Background
The standard of care for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is combination chemoradiotherapy. Platinum-based chemotherapy is used for radiosensitization and significantly improves locoregional control and survival. Cisplatin is the standard of care; however, many patients are cisplatin-ineligible due to underlying comorbidities. Carboplatin is an alternative chemotherapy in these patients, but efficacy data are lacking. Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of weekly carboplatin concurrent with radiation in veterans with locally advanced HNSCC.
Methods
Our tumor registry was used to identify patients who received platinum-based chemoradiotherapy for stage III-IVB HNSCC at a single center between 2007 to 2017. Patients who received carboplatin were identified. Data including dosing, toxicities, and disease response was collected and analyzed.
Results
A total of 26 patients who received weekly carboplatin were analyzed. All patients were male with an average age of 65. A usual dose of carboplatin AUC 2 was utilized. The average cumulative dose for weekly carboplatin was AUC 12, with most patients (65%) receiving 6 doses or more. The mean number of weekly carboplatin doses held was 0.3. 7 patients (27%) had at least one dose held. 21 (81%) patients showed treatment benefit: 19 (73%) had complete response and 2 (8%) had partial response on first scan following treatment. The four most common toxicities were mucositis (69%), nausea/vomiting (23%), oral thrush (19%), and dermatologic toxicities (19%). The most common toxicities causing dose interruption were fatigue (12%), neutropenia (8%), and thrombocytopenia (8%). Grade 3/4 mucositis was experienced in 6 patients (23%). Other grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (8%), anemia (8%), thrombocytopenia (1%), nephrotoxicity (1%) and nausea (1%).
Conclusions
Carboplatin was both efficacious and well tolerated in our older veteran population. These findings add to the limited body of evidence examining weekly carboplatin in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. While cisplatin remains standard of care, carboplatin may be a reasonable alternative as evidenced in a real-world veteran population.
Background
The standard of care for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is combination chemoradiotherapy. Platinum-based chemotherapy is used for radiosensitization and significantly improves locoregional control and survival. Cisplatin is the standard of care; however, many patients are cisplatin-ineligible due to underlying comorbidities. Carboplatin is an alternative chemotherapy in these patients, but efficacy data are lacking. Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of weekly carboplatin concurrent with radiation in veterans with locally advanced HNSCC.
Methods
Our tumor registry was used to identify patients who received platinum-based chemoradiotherapy for stage III-IVB HNSCC at a single center between 2007 to 2017. Patients who received carboplatin were identified. Data including dosing, toxicities, and disease response was collected and analyzed.
Results
A total of 26 patients who received weekly carboplatin were analyzed. All patients were male with an average age of 65. A usual dose of carboplatin AUC 2 was utilized. The average cumulative dose for weekly carboplatin was AUC 12, with most patients (65%) receiving 6 doses or more. The mean number of weekly carboplatin doses held was 0.3. 7 patients (27%) had at least one dose held. 21 (81%) patients showed treatment benefit: 19 (73%) had complete response and 2 (8%) had partial response on first scan following treatment. The four most common toxicities were mucositis (69%), nausea/vomiting (23%), oral thrush (19%), and dermatologic toxicities (19%). The most common toxicities causing dose interruption were fatigue (12%), neutropenia (8%), and thrombocytopenia (8%). Grade 3/4 mucositis was experienced in 6 patients (23%). Other grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (8%), anemia (8%), thrombocytopenia (1%), nephrotoxicity (1%) and nausea (1%).
Conclusions
Carboplatin was both efficacious and well tolerated in our older veteran population. These findings add to the limited body of evidence examining weekly carboplatin in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. While cisplatin remains standard of care, carboplatin may be a reasonable alternative as evidenced in a real-world veteran population.
Background
The standard of care for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is combination chemoradiotherapy. Platinum-based chemotherapy is used for radiosensitization and significantly improves locoregional control and survival. Cisplatin is the standard of care; however, many patients are cisplatin-ineligible due to underlying comorbidities. Carboplatin is an alternative chemotherapy in these patients, but efficacy data are lacking. Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of weekly carboplatin concurrent with radiation in veterans with locally advanced HNSCC.
Methods
Our tumor registry was used to identify patients who received platinum-based chemoradiotherapy for stage III-IVB HNSCC at a single center between 2007 to 2017. Patients who received carboplatin were identified. Data including dosing, toxicities, and disease response was collected and analyzed.
Results
A total of 26 patients who received weekly carboplatin were analyzed. All patients were male with an average age of 65. A usual dose of carboplatin AUC 2 was utilized. The average cumulative dose for weekly carboplatin was AUC 12, with most patients (65%) receiving 6 doses or more. The mean number of weekly carboplatin doses held was 0.3. 7 patients (27%) had at least one dose held. 21 (81%) patients showed treatment benefit: 19 (73%) had complete response and 2 (8%) had partial response on first scan following treatment. The four most common toxicities were mucositis (69%), nausea/vomiting (23%), oral thrush (19%), and dermatologic toxicities (19%). The most common toxicities causing dose interruption were fatigue (12%), neutropenia (8%), and thrombocytopenia (8%). Grade 3/4 mucositis was experienced in 6 patients (23%). Other grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (8%), anemia (8%), thrombocytopenia (1%), nephrotoxicity (1%) and nausea (1%).
Conclusions
Carboplatin was both efficacious and well tolerated in our older veteran population. These findings add to the limited body of evidence examining weekly carboplatin in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. While cisplatin remains standard of care, carboplatin may be a reasonable alternative as evidenced in a real-world veteran population.
How to Make Keeping Up With the Drugs as Easy as Keeping Up With the Kardashians: Implementing a Local Oncology Drug Review Committee
Background
From 2000-2022 there were over 200 new drug and over 500 indication approvals specific to oncology. The rate of approvals has increased exponentially, making it difficult to maintain an up-to-date, standardized practice. Nationally, Veterans Affairs (VA) formulary decisions can take time given a lengthy approval process. Locally, the need was identified to incorporate new drugs and data into practice more rapidly. When bringing requests to the facility Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, it was recognized that the membership consisting of non-oncology practitioners did not allow for meaningful discussion of utilization. In 2017, a dedicated oncology drug review committee (DRC) comprised of oncology practitioners and a facility formulary representative was created as a P&T workgroup. Purpose: Evaluate and describe the utility of forming a local oncology DRC to incorporate new drugs and data into practice.
Methods
DRC minutes from December 2017 to May 2023 were reviewed. Discussion items were categorized into type of review. Date of local review was compared to national formulary criteria for use publication dates, and date of FDA approval for new drugs or publication date for new data, where applicable. Items were excluded if crucial information was missing from minutes. Descriptive statistics were used.
Results
Over 65 months, 38 meetings were held. Thirty total members include: pharmacists, physicians, fellows, and advanced practice providers. Items reviewed included: 36 new drugs (ND), 36 new indications/data (NI), 14 institutional preferences, 10 new dosage form/biosimilars, 4 drug shortages and 2 others. The median time from ND approval to discussion was 3 months (n= 36, IQR 3-6) and NI from publication was 3 months (n=30, IQR 1-8). Nearly all (34/36, 94%) ND were reviewed prior to national review. Local review was a median of 7 months before national, with 11 drugs currently having no published national criteria for use (n=25, IQR 2-12).
Conclusions
DRC formation has enabled faster incorporation of new drugs/indications into practice. It has also created an appropriate forum for in-depth utilization discussions, pharmacoeconomic stewardship, and sharing of formulary and medication related information. VA Health Systems could consider implementing similar committees to review and implement up-to-date oncology practices.
Background
From 2000-2022 there were over 200 new drug and over 500 indication approvals specific to oncology. The rate of approvals has increased exponentially, making it difficult to maintain an up-to-date, standardized practice. Nationally, Veterans Affairs (VA) formulary decisions can take time given a lengthy approval process. Locally, the need was identified to incorporate new drugs and data into practice more rapidly. When bringing requests to the facility Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, it was recognized that the membership consisting of non-oncology practitioners did not allow for meaningful discussion of utilization. In 2017, a dedicated oncology drug review committee (DRC) comprised of oncology practitioners and a facility formulary representative was created as a P&T workgroup. Purpose: Evaluate and describe the utility of forming a local oncology DRC to incorporate new drugs and data into practice.
Methods
DRC minutes from December 2017 to May 2023 were reviewed. Discussion items were categorized into type of review. Date of local review was compared to national formulary criteria for use publication dates, and date of FDA approval for new drugs or publication date for new data, where applicable. Items were excluded if crucial information was missing from minutes. Descriptive statistics were used.
Results
Over 65 months, 38 meetings were held. Thirty total members include: pharmacists, physicians, fellows, and advanced practice providers. Items reviewed included: 36 new drugs (ND), 36 new indications/data (NI), 14 institutional preferences, 10 new dosage form/biosimilars, 4 drug shortages and 2 others. The median time from ND approval to discussion was 3 months (n= 36, IQR 3-6) and NI from publication was 3 months (n=30, IQR 1-8). Nearly all (34/36, 94%) ND were reviewed prior to national review. Local review was a median of 7 months before national, with 11 drugs currently having no published national criteria for use (n=25, IQR 2-12).
Conclusions
DRC formation has enabled faster incorporation of new drugs/indications into practice. It has also created an appropriate forum for in-depth utilization discussions, pharmacoeconomic stewardship, and sharing of formulary and medication related information. VA Health Systems could consider implementing similar committees to review and implement up-to-date oncology practices.
Background
From 2000-2022 there were over 200 new drug and over 500 indication approvals specific to oncology. The rate of approvals has increased exponentially, making it difficult to maintain an up-to-date, standardized practice. Nationally, Veterans Affairs (VA) formulary decisions can take time given a lengthy approval process. Locally, the need was identified to incorporate new drugs and data into practice more rapidly. When bringing requests to the facility Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, it was recognized that the membership consisting of non-oncology practitioners did not allow for meaningful discussion of utilization. In 2017, a dedicated oncology drug review committee (DRC) comprised of oncology practitioners and a facility formulary representative was created as a P&T workgroup. Purpose: Evaluate and describe the utility of forming a local oncology DRC to incorporate new drugs and data into practice.
Methods
DRC minutes from December 2017 to May 2023 were reviewed. Discussion items were categorized into type of review. Date of local review was compared to national formulary criteria for use publication dates, and date of FDA approval for new drugs or publication date for new data, where applicable. Items were excluded if crucial information was missing from minutes. Descriptive statistics were used.
Results
Over 65 months, 38 meetings were held. Thirty total members include: pharmacists, physicians, fellows, and advanced practice providers. Items reviewed included: 36 new drugs (ND), 36 new indications/data (NI), 14 institutional preferences, 10 new dosage form/biosimilars, 4 drug shortages and 2 others. The median time from ND approval to discussion was 3 months (n= 36, IQR 3-6) and NI from publication was 3 months (n=30, IQR 1-8). Nearly all (34/36, 94%) ND were reviewed prior to national review. Local review was a median of 7 months before national, with 11 drugs currently having no published national criteria for use (n=25, IQR 2-12).
Conclusions
DRC formation has enabled faster incorporation of new drugs/indications into practice. It has also created an appropriate forum for in-depth utilization discussions, pharmacoeconomic stewardship, and sharing of formulary and medication related information. VA Health Systems could consider implementing similar committees to review and implement up-to-date oncology practices.
Barriers from Detection to Treatment in Lung Cancer: A Single Veteran Affair Institution Review
Background
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The impact of treatment delay proves difficult to quantify, but increased time to treatment and subsequent progression can limit a patient’s chance for curative intent therapy. Reducing time to treatment aims to improve patient outcome and experience. This study aims to identify the median timeframes that occur in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients within a single Veteran Affair (VA) Medical Center.
Methods
A retrospective chart review was conducted on 123 new primary lung cancer cases detected by imaging between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 within a single VA medical center. Exclusions were preexisting lung cancer or other malignancy. The following data was collected: time to PET scan, referrals, and treatment initiation. KruskalWallis test and Mann-Whitney U test was employed to assess differences in treatment times based on treatment modality and disease stage, respectively
Results
The median time from first abnormal image to PET scan was 26 days. The median time from initial abnormal scan to treatment was 91 days. Treatment initiation was significantly shorter in late-state disease (IV, extensive stage) at 57 days compared to early-stage disease (I-III, limited stage) at 98.5 days (p= 0.00008). There was a difference in the median time from abnormal scan to treatment initiation based on treatment modality: chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgical intervention occurred at 60 days, 86 days, and 98 days, respectively (p= 0.005).
Conclusions
At our institution, patients with latestage lung cancer initiate therapy significantly faster than those diagnosed with early-stage cancer. We feel this is largely due to complex, multidisciplinary coordination of early-stage disease, in contrast to those diagnosed at later stage disease who are treated in a palliative, systemic fashion. This study was instrumental at identifying key areas along the process that can be improved upon. Based on this data, changes will be implemented and studied in effort to shorten time to treatment.
Background
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The impact of treatment delay proves difficult to quantify, but increased time to treatment and subsequent progression can limit a patient’s chance for curative intent therapy. Reducing time to treatment aims to improve patient outcome and experience. This study aims to identify the median timeframes that occur in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients within a single Veteran Affair (VA) Medical Center.
Methods
A retrospective chart review was conducted on 123 new primary lung cancer cases detected by imaging between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 within a single VA medical center. Exclusions were preexisting lung cancer or other malignancy. The following data was collected: time to PET scan, referrals, and treatment initiation. KruskalWallis test and Mann-Whitney U test was employed to assess differences in treatment times based on treatment modality and disease stage, respectively
Results
The median time from first abnormal image to PET scan was 26 days. The median time from initial abnormal scan to treatment was 91 days. Treatment initiation was significantly shorter in late-state disease (IV, extensive stage) at 57 days compared to early-stage disease (I-III, limited stage) at 98.5 days (p= 0.00008). There was a difference in the median time from abnormal scan to treatment initiation based on treatment modality: chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgical intervention occurred at 60 days, 86 days, and 98 days, respectively (p= 0.005).
Conclusions
At our institution, patients with latestage lung cancer initiate therapy significantly faster than those diagnosed with early-stage cancer. We feel this is largely due to complex, multidisciplinary coordination of early-stage disease, in contrast to those diagnosed at later stage disease who are treated in a palliative, systemic fashion. This study was instrumental at identifying key areas along the process that can be improved upon. Based on this data, changes will be implemented and studied in effort to shorten time to treatment.
Background
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The impact of treatment delay proves difficult to quantify, but increased time to treatment and subsequent progression can limit a patient’s chance for curative intent therapy. Reducing time to treatment aims to improve patient outcome and experience. This study aims to identify the median timeframes that occur in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients within a single Veteran Affair (VA) Medical Center.
Methods
A retrospective chart review was conducted on 123 new primary lung cancer cases detected by imaging between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 within a single VA medical center. Exclusions were preexisting lung cancer or other malignancy. The following data was collected: time to PET scan, referrals, and treatment initiation. KruskalWallis test and Mann-Whitney U test was employed to assess differences in treatment times based on treatment modality and disease stage, respectively
Results
The median time from first abnormal image to PET scan was 26 days. The median time from initial abnormal scan to treatment was 91 days. Treatment initiation was significantly shorter in late-state disease (IV, extensive stage) at 57 days compared to early-stage disease (I-III, limited stage) at 98.5 days (p= 0.00008). There was a difference in the median time from abnormal scan to treatment initiation based on treatment modality: chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgical intervention occurred at 60 days, 86 days, and 98 days, respectively (p= 0.005).
Conclusions
At our institution, patients with latestage lung cancer initiate therapy significantly faster than those diagnosed with early-stage cancer. We feel this is largely due to complex, multidisciplinary coordination of early-stage disease, in contrast to those diagnosed at later stage disease who are treated in a palliative, systemic fashion. This study was instrumental at identifying key areas along the process that can be improved upon. Based on this data, changes will be implemented and studied in effort to shorten time to treatment.