Poster session at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association

STOCKHOLM—The dual SYK/JAK inhibitor cerdulatinib has demonstrated efficacy in a phase 2 trial of patients with heavily pretreated B- and T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs).

There were a few deaths due to sepsis or septic shock that were considered related to cerdulatinib, but investigators have taken steps to prevent additional deaths.

Cerdulatinib produced responses in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and other NHLs.

The 5 deaths due to sepsis or septic shock (3 concomitant with pneumonia) occurred early on in the trial, and dose reductions, monitoring, and antibiotic prophylaxis appeared to be effective in preventing additional deaths.

Results from this trial were presented in a poster (abstract PF437) at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA).

The research was sponsored by Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The trial enrolled 114 patients. They had FL (grade 1-3A; n=39), PTCL (n=25), CTCL (n=5), CLL/SLL (n=28), other indolent NHLs (Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia and marginal zone lymphoma; n=12), or aggressive NHL (defined as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL], grade 3B FL, mantle cell lymphoma, and transformed NHL with relapsed disease; n=5).

The patients’ median age was 68 (range, 34-93), and 59% were male. The median number of prior treatment regimens was 3 (range, 1-13), and 37% of patients had refractory disease.

Patients received cerdulatinib at 25, 30, or 35 mg twice daily (BID). A total of 101 patients were evaluable as of May 4, 2018.

Response

The objective response rate (ORR) was 47% in the entire population. Thirteen patients achieved a complete response (CR), and 34 had a partial response (PR). Thirty-four patients remained on cerdulatinib at the data cut-off.

The ORR was 46% in the FL patients, with 3 patients achieving a CR and 13 achieving a PR. Thirteen FL patients remained on cerdulatinib.

In the CLL/SLL patients, the ORR was 61%. Two patients had a CR, and 15 had a PR. Four CLL/SLL patients remained on cerdulatinib.

In PTCL, the ORR was 35%. All 7 responders had a CR. Eleven PTCL patients remained on cerdulatinib.

Only 1 CTCL patient was evaluable, but this patient achieved a CR and remained on cerdulatinib.

The ORR was 42% for patients with other indolent NHLs, with 5 PRs and no CRs. Only 1 patient in this group remained on cerdulatinib.

For aggressive NHL, the ORR was 20%, with 1 PR and no CRs. None of the patients in this group stayed on cerdulatinib.

“Cerdulatinib continues to demonstrate promising results across a wide range of B- and T-cell malignancies, including early indications of the potential for durable responses,” said study investigator Paul Hamlin, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York.

“The new signals in relapsed/refractory PTCL and CTCL are particularly compelling when you consider the limited treatment options for patients that fail frontline therapy.”

Safety

Grade 3 or higher adverse events included lipase increase (18%), neutropenia (17%), pneumonia/lung infection (11%), diarrhea (8%), fatigue (6%), amylase increase (5%), sepsis/septic shock (4%), hypertension (4%), anemia (4%), thrombocytopenia (4%), and hypophosphatemia (4%).

The 5 deaths due to sepsis or septic shock (3 of which were concomitant with pneumonia) were considered related to cerdulatinib. Three of the deaths occurred in patients with CLL, 1 in a DLBCL patient, and 1 in an FL patient.

“One of the things we have seen [with CLL patients] is the background infection rate is quite a bit higher,” said John T. Curnutte, MD, PhD, interim co-president and head of research and development at Portola Pharmaceuticals.

“You see this with multiple other agents, so we were not particularly surprised to see [sepsis/septic shock in CLL].”

Dr Curnutte noted that grade 5 sepsis/septic shock tended to occur in patients who were pre-colonized and/or had high plasma levels of cerdulatinib.

So, to prevent these adverse events, the starting dose of cerdulatinib was lowered, investigators began monitoring patients’ plasma levels, and all patients began receiving antibiotic prophylaxis. (Previously, only CLL patients had received this prophylaxis.)

The investigators found that lowering the starting dose from 35 mg BID to 30 mg or even 25 mg BID reduced plasma levels.

“At the 35 mg dose, 1 out of every 4 patients showed accumulation of the drug,” Dr Curnutte said. “In general, the use of the 30 mg BID or step-down 25 mg BID did not result in accumulation of drug.”

Dr Curnutte also noted that enrollment of CLL/SLL patients is complete, and investigators would be “very careful” if the study were to be re-opened to these patients.

For now, Portola is focused on completing enrollment in other patient groups on this phase 2 trial. The company is also hoping to conduct a phase 3 trial of cerdulatinib in PTCL that could begin as early as the end of this year.

Poster session at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association

STOCKHOLM—The dual SYK/JAK inhibitor cerdulatinib has demonstrated efficacy in a phase 2 trial of patients with heavily pretreated B- and T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs).

There were a few deaths due to sepsis or septic shock that were considered related to cerdulatinib, but investigators have taken steps to prevent additional deaths.

Cerdulatinib produced responses in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and other NHLs.

The 5 deaths due to sepsis or septic shock (3 concomitant with pneumonia) occurred early on in the trial, and dose reductions, monitoring, and antibiotic prophylaxis appeared to be effective in preventing additional deaths.

Results from this trial were presented in a poster (abstract PF437) at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA).

The research was sponsored by Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The trial enrolled 114 patients. They had FL (grade 1-3A; n=39), PTCL (n=25), CTCL (n=5), CLL/SLL (n=28), other indolent NHLs (Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia and marginal zone lymphoma; n=12), or aggressive NHL (defined as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL], grade 3B FL, mantle cell lymphoma, and transformed NHL with relapsed disease; n=5).

The patients’ median age was 68 (range, 34-93), and 59% were male. The median number of prior treatment regimens was 3 (range, 1-13), and 37% of patients had refractory disease.

Patients received cerdulatinib at 25, 30, or 35 mg twice daily (BID). A total of 101 patients were evaluable as of May 4, 2018.

Response

The objective response rate (ORR) was 47% in the entire population. Thirteen patients achieved a complete response (CR), and 34 had a partial response (PR). Thirty-four patients remained on cerdulatinib at the data cut-off.

The ORR was 46% in the FL patients, with 3 patients achieving a CR and 13 achieving a PR. Thirteen FL patients remained on cerdulatinib.

In the CLL/SLL patients, the ORR was 61%. Two patients had a CR, and 15 had a PR. Four CLL/SLL patients remained on cerdulatinib.

In PTCL, the ORR was 35%. All 7 responders had a CR. Eleven PTCL patients remained on cerdulatinib.

Only 1 CTCL patient was evaluable, but this patient achieved a CR and remained on cerdulatinib.

The ORR was 42% for patients with other indolent NHLs, with 5 PRs and no CRs. Only 1 patient in this group remained on cerdulatinib.

For aggressive NHL, the ORR was 20%, with 1 PR and no CRs. None of the patients in this group stayed on cerdulatinib.

“Cerdulatinib continues to demonstrate promising results across a wide range of B- and T-cell malignancies, including early indications of the potential for durable responses,” said study investigator Paul Hamlin, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York.

“The new signals in relapsed/refractory PTCL and CTCL are particularly compelling when you consider the limited treatment options for patients that fail frontline therapy.”

Safety

Grade 3 or higher adverse events included lipase increase (18%), neutropenia (17%), pneumonia/lung infection (11%), diarrhea (8%), fatigue (6%), amylase increase (5%), sepsis/septic shock (4%), hypertension (4%), anemia (4%), thrombocytopenia (4%), and hypophosphatemia (4%).

The 5 deaths due to sepsis or septic shock (3 of which were concomitant with pneumonia) were considered related to cerdulatinib. Three of the deaths occurred in patients with CLL, 1 in a DLBCL patient, and 1 in an FL patient.

“One of the things we have seen [with CLL patients] is the background infection rate is quite a bit higher,” said John T. Curnutte, MD, PhD, interim co-president and head of research and development at Portola Pharmaceuticals.

“You see this with multiple other agents, so we were not particularly surprised to see [sepsis/septic shock in CLL].”

Dr Curnutte noted that grade 5 sepsis/septic shock tended to occur in patients who were pre-colonized and/or had high plasma levels of cerdulatinib.

So, to prevent these adverse events, the starting dose of cerdulatinib was lowered, investigators began monitoring patients’ plasma levels, and all patients began receiving antibiotic prophylaxis. (Previously, only CLL patients had received this prophylaxis.)

The investigators found that lowering the starting dose from 35 mg BID to 30 mg or even 25 mg BID reduced plasma levels.

“At the 35 mg dose, 1 out of every 4 patients showed accumulation of the drug,” Dr Curnutte said. “In general, the use of the 30 mg BID or step-down 25 mg BID did not result in accumulation of drug.”

Dr Curnutte also noted that enrollment of CLL/SLL patients is complete, and investigators would be “very careful” if the study were to be re-opened to these patients.

For now, Portola is focused on completing enrollment in other patient groups on this phase 2 trial. The company is also hoping to conduct a phase 3 trial of cerdulatinib in PTCL that could begin as early as the end of this year.

Poster session at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association

STOCKHOLM—The dual SYK/JAK inhibitor cerdulatinib has demonstrated efficacy in a phase 2 trial of patients with heavily pretreated B- and T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs).

There were a few deaths due to sepsis or septic shock that were considered related to cerdulatinib, but investigators have taken steps to prevent additional deaths.

Cerdulatinib produced responses in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and other NHLs.

The 5 deaths due to sepsis or septic shock (3 concomitant with pneumonia) occurred early on in the trial, and dose reductions, monitoring, and antibiotic prophylaxis appeared to be effective in preventing additional deaths.

Results from this trial were presented in a poster (abstract PF437) at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA).

The research was sponsored by Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The trial enrolled 114 patients. They had FL (grade 1-3A; n=39), PTCL (n=25), CTCL (n=5), CLL/SLL (n=28), other indolent NHLs (Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia and marginal zone lymphoma; n=12), or aggressive NHL (defined as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL], grade 3B FL, mantle cell lymphoma, and transformed NHL with relapsed disease; n=5).

The patients’ median age was 68 (range, 34-93), and 59% were male. The median number of prior treatment regimens was 3 (range, 1-13), and 37% of patients had refractory disease.

Patients received cerdulatinib at 25, 30, or 35 mg twice daily (BID). A total of 101 patients were evaluable as of May 4, 2018.

Response

The objective response rate (ORR) was 47% in the entire population. Thirteen patients achieved a complete response (CR), and 34 had a partial response (PR). Thirty-four patients remained on cerdulatinib at the data cut-off.

The ORR was 46% in the FL patients, with 3 patients achieving a CR and 13 achieving a PR. Thirteen FL patients remained on cerdulatinib.

In the CLL/SLL patients, the ORR was 61%. Two patients had a CR, and 15 had a PR. Four CLL/SLL patients remained on cerdulatinib.

In PTCL, the ORR was 35%. All 7 responders had a CR. Eleven PTCL patients remained on cerdulatinib.

Only 1 CTCL patient was evaluable, but this patient achieved a CR and remained on cerdulatinib.

The ORR was 42% for patients with other indolent NHLs, with 5 PRs and no CRs. Only 1 patient in this group remained on cerdulatinib.

For aggressive NHL, the ORR was 20%, with 1 PR and no CRs. None of the patients in this group stayed on cerdulatinib.

“Cerdulatinib continues to demonstrate promising results across a wide range of B- and T-cell malignancies, including early indications of the potential for durable responses,” said study investigator Paul Hamlin, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York.

“The new signals in relapsed/refractory PTCL and CTCL are particularly compelling when you consider the limited treatment options for patients that fail frontline therapy.”

Safety

Grade 3 or higher adverse events included lipase increase (18%), neutropenia (17%), pneumonia/lung infection (11%), diarrhea (8%), fatigue (6%), amylase increase (5%), sepsis/septic shock (4%), hypertension (4%), anemia (4%), thrombocytopenia (4%), and hypophosphatemia (4%).

The 5 deaths due to sepsis or septic shock (3 of which were concomitant with pneumonia) were considered related to cerdulatinib. Three of the deaths occurred in patients with CLL, 1 in a DLBCL patient, and 1 in an FL patient.

“One of the things we have seen [with CLL patients] is the background infection rate is quite a bit higher,” said John T. Curnutte, MD, PhD, interim co-president and head of research and development at Portola Pharmaceuticals.

“You see this with multiple other agents, so we were not particularly surprised to see [sepsis/septic shock in CLL].”

Dr Curnutte noted that grade 5 sepsis/septic shock tended to occur in patients who were pre-colonized and/or had high plasma levels of cerdulatinib.

So, to prevent these adverse events, the starting dose of cerdulatinib was lowered, investigators began monitoring patients’ plasma levels, and all patients began receiving antibiotic prophylaxis. (Previously, only CLL patients had received this prophylaxis.)

The investigators found that lowering the starting dose from 35 mg BID to 30 mg or even 25 mg BID reduced plasma levels.

“At the 35 mg dose, 1 out of every 4 patients showed accumulation of the drug,” Dr Curnutte said. “In general, the use of the 30 mg BID or step-down 25 mg BID did not result in accumulation of drug.”

Dr Curnutte also noted that enrollment of CLL/SLL patients is complete, and investigators would be “very careful” if the study were to be re-opened to these patients.

For now, Portola is focused on completing enrollment in other patient groups on this phase 2 trial. The company is also hoping to conduct a phase 3 trial of cerdulatinib in PTCL that could begin as early as the end of this year.

Photo courtesy of Amgen

The European Commission (EC) has granted a full marketing authorization for blinatumomab (BLINCYTO®) as a treatment for adults with Philadelphia chromosome-negative (Ph-), relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

The EC granted blinatumomab conditional authorization for this indication in 2015. Now, the drug has full authorization based on overall survival (OS) data from the phase 3 TOWER study.

This authorization is valid in all European Union and European Economic Area-European Free Trade Association states (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein).

Blinatumomab is a bispecific CD19-directed CD3 T cell engager (BiTE®) immunotherapy construct. It binds to CD19 expressed on the surface of cells of B-lineage origin and CD3 expressed on the surface of effector T cells.

The TOWER study was a phase 3, randomized trial in which researchers compared blinatumomab to standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy in 405 adults with Ph-, relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL.

Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive blinatumomab (n=271) or investigator’s choice of SOC chemotherapy (n=134).

On the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee, Amgen ended the study early for evidence of superior efficacy in the blinatumomab arm.

The median OS was 7.7 months in the blinatumomab arm and 4 months in the SOC arm (hazard ratio=0.71; P=0.012).

For patients treated in first salvage, the median OS was 11.1 months in the blinatumomab arm and 5.3 months in the SOC arm (hazard ratio=0.6).

Safety results in the blinatumomab arm were comparable to those seen in previous phase 2 studies.

These results were published in NEJM in March 2017.

Photo courtesy of Amgen

The European Commission (EC) has granted a full marketing authorization for blinatumomab (BLINCYTO®) as a treatment for adults with Philadelphia chromosome-negative (Ph-), relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

The EC granted blinatumomab conditional authorization for this indication in 2015. Now, the drug has full authorization based on overall survival (OS) data from the phase 3 TOWER study.

This authorization is valid in all European Union and European Economic Area-European Free Trade Association states (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein).

Blinatumomab is a bispecific CD19-directed CD3 T cell engager (BiTE®) immunotherapy construct. It binds to CD19 expressed on the surface of cells of B-lineage origin and CD3 expressed on the surface of effector T cells.

The TOWER study was a phase 3, randomized trial in which researchers compared blinatumomab to standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy in 405 adults with Ph-, relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL.

Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive blinatumomab (n=271) or investigator’s choice of SOC chemotherapy (n=134).

On the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee, Amgen ended the study early for evidence of superior efficacy in the blinatumomab arm.

The median OS was 7.7 months in the blinatumomab arm and 4 months in the SOC arm (hazard ratio=0.71; P=0.012).

For patients treated in first salvage, the median OS was 11.1 months in the blinatumomab arm and 5.3 months in the SOC arm (hazard ratio=0.6).

Safety results in the blinatumomab arm were comparable to those seen in previous phase 2 studies.

These results were published in NEJM in March 2017.

Photo courtesy of Amgen

The European Commission (EC) has granted a full marketing authorization for blinatumomab (BLINCYTO®) as a treatment for adults with Philadelphia chromosome-negative (Ph-), relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

The EC granted blinatumomab conditional authorization for this indication in 2015. Now, the drug has full authorization based on overall survival (OS) data from the phase 3 TOWER study.

This authorization is valid in all European Union and European Economic Area-European Free Trade Association states (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein).

Blinatumomab is a bispecific CD19-directed CD3 T cell engager (BiTE®) immunotherapy construct. It binds to CD19 expressed on the surface of cells of B-lineage origin and CD3 expressed on the surface of effector T cells.

The TOWER study was a phase 3, randomized trial in which researchers compared blinatumomab to standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy in 405 adults with Ph-, relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor ALL.

Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive blinatumomab (n=271) or investigator’s choice of SOC chemotherapy (n=134).

On the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee, Amgen ended the study early for evidence of superior efficacy in the blinatumomab arm.

The median OS was 7.7 months in the blinatumomab arm and 4 months in the SOC arm (hazard ratio=0.71; P=0.012).

For patients treated in first salvage, the median OS was 11.1 months in the blinatumomab arm and 5.3 months in the SOC arm (hazard ratio=0.6).

Safety results in the blinatumomab arm were comparable to those seen in previous phase 2 studies.

These results were published in NEJM in March 2017.

The family physician diagnosed a nevus sebaceous (NS) in this patient.

There are 3 stages of evolution paralleling the histologic differentiation of normal sebaceous glands:

1. Infancy and young children. The lesion is smooth to slightly papillated, waxy, and hairless. (See Photo Rounds Friday, 6/15/18.)
2. Puberty.  Epidermal hyperplasia results in verrucous irregularity of the surface and coverage with numerous closely aggregated yellow-to-brown papules (this case).
3. Development of secondary appendageal tumors. This occurs in 20% to 30% of patients. Most lesions are benign, but single (most commonly basal cell carcinoma) or multiple malignant tumors of both epidermal and adnexal origins may be seen. These malignancies are rarely seen in childhood.

In this case, a biopsy was not needed because the clinical picture was clear and no operative intervention was planned. When needed, a shave biopsy should provide adequate tissue for diagnosis because the pathology is epidermal and in the upper dermis. The NS need not be removed to prevent malignant transformation.

The FP explained that hair usually doesn’t grow where an NS is, and it was okay to proceed with observation only. He advised the patient’s father that if any changes were to occur, he would be happy to refer the child for surgical removal. The boy was not worried about the appearance of the NS and did not want to have surgery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Smith M. Epidermal nevus and nevus sebaceous. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:958-962.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The family physician diagnosed a nevus sebaceous (NS) in this patient.

There are 3 stages of evolution paralleling the histologic differentiation of normal sebaceous glands:

1. Infancy and young children. The lesion is smooth to slightly papillated, waxy, and hairless. (See Photo Rounds Friday, 6/15/18.)
2. Puberty.  Epidermal hyperplasia results in verrucous irregularity of the surface and coverage with numerous closely aggregated yellow-to-brown papules (this case).
3. Development of secondary appendageal tumors. This occurs in 20% to 30% of patients. Most lesions are benign, but single (most commonly basal cell carcinoma) or multiple malignant tumors of both epidermal and adnexal origins may be seen. These malignancies are rarely seen in childhood.

In this case, a biopsy was not needed because the clinical picture was clear and no operative intervention was planned. When needed, a shave biopsy should provide adequate tissue for diagnosis because the pathology is epidermal and in the upper dermis. The NS need not be removed to prevent malignant transformation.

The FP explained that hair usually doesn’t grow where an NS is, and it was okay to proceed with observation only. He advised the patient’s father that if any changes were to occur, he would be happy to refer the child for surgical removal. The boy was not worried about the appearance of the NS and did not want to have surgery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Smith M. Epidermal nevus and nevus sebaceous. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:958-962.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The family physician diagnosed a nevus sebaceous (NS) in this patient.

There are 3 stages of evolution paralleling the histologic differentiation of normal sebaceous glands:

1. Infancy and young children. The lesion is smooth to slightly papillated, waxy, and hairless. (See Photo Rounds Friday, 6/15/18.)
2. Puberty.  Epidermal hyperplasia results in verrucous irregularity of the surface and coverage with numerous closely aggregated yellow-to-brown papules (this case).
3. Development of secondary appendageal tumors. This occurs in 20% to 30% of patients. Most lesions are benign, but single (most commonly basal cell carcinoma) or multiple malignant tumors of both epidermal and adnexal origins may be seen. These malignancies are rarely seen in childhood.

In this case, a biopsy was not needed because the clinical picture was clear and no operative intervention was planned. When needed, a shave biopsy should provide adequate tissue for diagnosis because the pathology is epidermal and in the upper dermis. The NS need not be removed to prevent malignant transformation.

The FP explained that hair usually doesn’t grow where an NS is, and it was okay to proceed with observation only. He advised the patient’s father that if any changes were to occur, he would be happy to refer the child for surgical removal. The boy was not worried about the appearance of the NS and did not want to have surgery.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Smith M. Epidermal nevus and nevus sebaceous. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas of Family Medicine, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:958-962.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/.

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com.

The American Cancer Society reports that 1.6 million people are diagnosed with cancer each year, of whom 78% are aged 55 years or older. The 5-year survival rate for cancer is 68%.¹ Almost 15.5 million living Americans have been diagnosed with cancer.² Many patients with cancer have difficulty walking and with activities of daily living. Patients with primary brain tumors or tumors metastatic to the brain may present with focal weakness or cognitive deficits similar to patients with stroke. Patients with tumors metastatic to the spine may have the same deficits as a patient with a traumatic spinal cord injury. Patients with metastasis to bone may have pathologic fractures of the hip or long bones. Patients may develop peripheral neuropathy associated with a paraneoplastic syndrome, chemotherapy, or critical illness neuropathy. Lehmann and colleagues evaluated 805 patients admitted to hospitals affiliated with the University of Washington Medical School with a diagnosis of cancer and found that 15% had difficulty walking and 20% had difficulty with activities of daily living.³

Many patients with cancer can benefit from inpatient rehabilitation.^4,5 Study findings have shown that patients with impairments in function related to cancer are often not referred for rehabilitation. Among the reasons mentioned for that are that oncologists are more focused on treating the patients’ cancer than on their functional deficits and that specialists in rehabilitation medicine do not want to be involved with patients with complex medical problems. Rehabilitation facilities may not want to incur the costs associated with caring for patients with cancer.⁶

The present paper looks at the outcomes of 61 consecutive patients with cancer who were admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) and received radiation therapy concurrent with rehabilitation. It compares the outcomes of the cancer patients with the outcomes of patients without cancer who were admitted with stroke or spinal cord injury, conditions more commonly treated at an IRF.
 

Methods

We reviewed electronic medical records of all patients with cancer admitted to the IRF from 2008 through 2013 who received radiation therapy while at the facility. We also reviewed the data of all patients without cancer admitted with a diagnosis of stroke in 2013 and all patients admitted with a diagnosis of traumatic spinal cord injury in 2012 and 2013. No patients were excluded from stroke and traumatic spinal cord injury groups.

We recorded the sex, age, diagnostic group, Functional Independence Measure (FIM) admission score, FIM discharge score, length of stay (LoS) in the IRF, place of discharge of each patient (eg, home, acute care, or subacute care), and calculated the FIM efficiency score (change in FIM/LoS) for each patient. The FIM is an instrument that has 18 items measuring mobility, participation in activities of daily living, ability to communicate, and cognitive function.⁷ Each item is scored from 1 to 7, with 1 denoting that the patient cannot perform the task and 7 that the activity can be performed independently. The minimum score is 18 (complete dependence), and the maximum score is 126 (independent function). Thirteen items compose the motor FIM score: eating, grooming, bathing, dressing upper body, dressing lower body, toileting, bladder management, management of bowel, transfer to bed or wheelchair, transfer to toilet, tub transfer, walking (or wheelchair use), and climbing stairs. Five items – comprehension, expression, social interaction, problem solving, and memory – compose the cognitive FIM score.

We used a 1-way analysis of variance to evaluate differences between age and cancer type, age and diagnostic group, admission FIM score and cancer type, discharge FIM score and cancer type, change in FIM and cancer type, LoS and cancer type, and LoS and diagnostic group. The Pearson chi-square test was used to test the goodness of fit between the place of disposition and diagnostic group. The paired t test was used to evaluate the improvement in FIM of the patients who were in the cancer groups. The Tukey Simultaneous Tests for Differences of Means was used to compare the FIM efficiency scores of the groups. A 2-sample t test was used to evaluate the factors associated with the need for transfer from the IRF to the acute medical service.

Results

The demographic characteristics of the patients in the study and the admission and discharge FIM scores are reported in Table 1. There were initially 62 cancer patients in the radiation group, which was further divided into 4 subgroups based on the site of the primary tumor or metastasis. In all, 23 had a primary malignant brain tumor and received radiation and temozolomide. Sixteen patients had malignancies metastatic to the brain, 15 patients had tumors metastatic to the spine, and 7 had tumors metastatic to the long bones. One patient had laryngeal cancer and was excluded from the study because we did not think that we could do an analysis of a group with only 1 patient. The final number of patients in the cancer group was therefore 61. There were 69 patients in the stroke group and 23 in the spinal cord injury group.

We report improvement in total FIM, motor FIM, and cognitive FIM scores and were able to identify all 18 of the items of the FIM score on 60 of the 61 patients in the cancer group. Improvement in total FIM of the 61 patients in the cancer groups was significant at P P P = .05. Just over 75% of the patients in the cancer group had sufficient enough improvement in their level of function that they were able to return to their homes (Table 1). The average FIM score at the time of discharge was 83.08. This was not significantly different than the level of function of patients discharged after stroke (87.52) or traumatic spinal cord injury (89.13).

The patients with primary brain tumors were younger than the patients with cancer metastatic to the brain (P = .013). The patients with a primary brain tumor had lower admission FIM scores than patients with tumors metastatic to the brain (P = .027). The patients with a primary brain tumor had a greater increase in FIM score than patients with metastasis to the brain (P = .043; Table 2). There was not a significant difference between these 2 groups in FIM score at discharge or in the likelihood of discharge to home (Table 1). The FIM efficiency score was 1.12 for the patients in the primary brain tumor group and .80 in those with metastasis to the brain. This difference was not significant P = .96.

Discussion

Radiation therapy is considered a service that is provided to people who come for treatment as an outpatient. Caregivers may have difficulty transporting patients to radiation if the patient has deficits in mobility. This may be particularly true if the patient is heavy, the caregivers are frail, or perhaps if they live in rural settings where there is no wheelchair-accessible public transportation. There are many factors that help determine whether a patient with functional deficits can be discharged to his or her home. These include sex, age, marital status, family and/or community support, income, and insurance.⁸ The FIM is an instrument that indicates how much help a patient needs with mobility and self-care skills. It also correlates with the amount of time that caregivers must spend helping a patient.⁹ Study findings have shown that the FIM score is an important determinant of whether a patient can be discharged to home. The total FIM score is as useful as an analysis of the components of the FIM score in predicting whether a patient can return to the community.^10,11 Reistetter and colleagues found a total FIM score of 78 to be the score that best separates patients who are likely to be able to go home and patients who are likely to need long-term care.¹¹ Bottemiller and colleagues¹⁰ reported that 37% of patients with total discharge FIM scores of less than 40 were discharged to home. They reported that 62% of patients with FIM scores between 40 and 79 were discharged to home, and 88% of patients with scores of 80 or above were discharged to home.¹⁰ The goal in bringing patients to the IRF was to accept and treat patients with reasonable community support and potential to achieve a functional level compatible with discharge to the community. Most patients in each of the cancer groups were able to reach an FIM score of 78 to 80 and to be discharged to home.

Most of the patients in the cancer groups had underlying problems that are not considered curable. The primary goal was to enable the patients to have some time at home with their families before requiring readmission to a hospital or hospice care. Reasonable LoS and rate of progress are now expected or required by third-party payors and hospital administrators. Physicians at the Mayo Clinic have indicated that a rehabilitation service should aim for an FIM efficiency score of at least .6 points per day.¹⁰ The FIM efficiency of patients in each of the 4 cancer subgroups in this study was higher than this level.

J. Herbert Dietz, Jr was an early advocate of the need to provide comprehensive rehabilitation services for patients with cancer. He first described his work in 1969.¹² Since that time, there have been many papers that have documented the benefits of IRF for patients with cancer. O’Toole and Golden have shown outcomes of a large series of patients from an IRF. They reported that at the time of admission, 14% of patients could ambulate, but at discharge, 80% could ambulate without hands-on assistance. They reported significant improvements in continence, FIM score, and score on the Karnofsky Performance Scale.¹³ Marciniak,¹⁴ Hunter,¹⁵ Shin,¹⁶ and Cole,¹⁷ and their respective colleagues have all shown that patients with many different types of cancer benefit from rehabilitation at the IRF level. Gallegos-Kearin and colleagues⁴ reported on the care of 115,570 patients admitted to IRF with cancer from 2002 to 2014. Patients had significant improvement in function, with more than 70% of patients discharged to home.⁴ Ng and colleagues studied a group of 200 patients who received IRF care and found there was significant improvement in function. Ninety-four percent of patients rated their stay as either extremely good or very good.⁵

Metastasis to the spine is a common problem. It is found in 30% of cancer patients at autopsy. The most common sources of metastasis to the spine are breast, lung, prostate, kidney, and thyroid.¹⁸ Multiple myeloma and lymphoma may also involve the spine. Several authors have shown that these patients benefit from inpatient rehabilitation. Mckinley and colleagues¹⁹ have noted that patients with metastasis to the spine make significant improvement with care at an IRF. Compared with patients with a traumatic spinal cord injury, the cancer patients had shorter LoS, smaller improvement in FIM, equal FIM efficiency (FIM gain/LoS), and equal success in making enough progress to be discharged to home.¹⁹ Eriks and colleagues showed that patients at an IRF in Amsterdam made significant improvement in function as measured by the Barthel’s Index.²⁰ Tang .,²¹ and Parsch²² and their respective colleagues, Murray,²³ and New²⁴ and colleagues have published findings confirming that patients with spinal cord injury caused by metastasis to the spine make significant progress with inpatient rehabilitation programs. The present study adds to the literature by showing that patients with metastasis to the spine who are receiving radiation can make progress and be discharged to the community.

There are 24,000 new cases of primary malignant brain tumors in the United States each year.²⁵ The incidence of metastatic cancer to the brain has been estimated to be 100,000 cases per year in the United States. The most common cancer sources are lung, breast, melanoma, kidney, and colon.^26,27 The first study of patients admitted to an IRF for treatment of brain tumors was published in 1998 by Huang and colleagues²⁸ who compared the outcomes of 63 patients with brain tumors with the outcomes of 63 patients with stroke. They reported that the patients with the brain tumors made significant improvement in function. There was not a significant difference between the 2 groups of patients in improvement in function, FIM efficiency, or success in discharging the patients to home.²⁸ Greenberg²⁹ and Bartolo³⁰ and their respective colleagues compared the outcomes of patients admitted with brain tumors and patients with stroke and found that improvement in function and discharge to home was similar in the 2 groups. In 2000, Huang and his same colleagues³¹ compared a group of patients with brain tumors to a group of patients with traumatic brain injury. They found significant improvement in the function of the patients with brain tumors. Patients in the traumatic brain injury group made more progress but had longer LoS. FIM efficiency was not significantly different between the groups.³¹

Three papers have reported outcomes of patients who received radiation concurrent with inpatient rehabilitation. Tang and colleagues³² reported 63 patients, of whom 48% percent received radiation concurrent with rehabilitation. The patients who received radiation made significant gains in function, and more than 70% were discharged to home. There was no difference in the outcomes of the patients in the radiation and nonradiation groups.³² Marciniak³³ and O’Dell³⁴ and their colleagues also reported that patients with brain tumors that required radiation therapy can benefit from inpatient rehabilitation. The present paper is the fourth (with the largest patient group) to show that patients with primary and metastatic tumors to the brain can benefit from a program that provides radiation concurrent with inpatient rehabilitation. We have shown that patients can achieve functional levels and rates of discharge to home that are not significantly different from those of the most commonly admitted group of patients to IRF – patients with stroke.

In the present study, 18% of all of the cancer patients were transferred to medical services and/or acute hospital care (Table 1). This is consistent with a paper by Asher and colleagues³⁵ who reported that 17.4% of patients at an IRF with a diagnosis of cancer required transfer back to medical service, and that low admission motor FIM score correlated with the likelihood of transfer back to medical service. In the present paper, the total admission FIM score was not related to the likelihood of return to medical service, although a lack of improvement in the FIM score did correlate with transfer to medical service.

All of the papers we reviewed found that appropriately selected patients with cancer make significant improvement in function with treatment at an IRF. Tang and colleagues have also shown that for patients with malignant brain tumors and metastasis to the spine, improvement in function correlates with increased survival.³² Our paper confirms that patients with primary malignant brain tumors, malignant tumors metastatic to the brain or spine, and tumors metastatic to long bones may benefit from rehabilitation concurrent with radiation. Rehabilitation units are traditionally associated with treating patients with stroke and spinal cord injury. The patients in our study had cancer and were receiving radiation therapy. They had significant improvement in function and FIM efficiency scores that are not below the threshold set as expected for care at an IRF. Most patients in our study achieved a functional level consistent with what is needed to go home.

There is a prospective payment or reimbursement system for rehabilitation units.³⁶ The payments are based on the admitting diagnosis, the admission FIM score, the age of the patient, and comorbidities. There are 4 tiers for comorbidities with no additional payments for patients in tier 0 but with additional payments for patients with conditions that qualify for tiers 1 through 3. The highest payments are for patients in tier 1. Examples of conditions that can increase payment include morbid obesity, congestive heart failure, vocal cord paralysis, and the need for hemodialysis. There is no increased payment for provision of radiation therapy. There are no reports on the feasibility, in terms of finances, of providing radiation on an IRF. We asked the finance office of the Albany Medical Center to comment on the cost to the hospital of providing radiation therapy to patients on the rehabilitation unit. The hospital’s finance department reviewed available data and reported that the variable cost of providing radiation therapy is about 6.5% of the revenue collected from third-party payors for caring for patients who receive that service (personal communication from the finance office of Albany Medical Center to George Forrest, 2015). Our findings suggest that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should make an adjustment to the payment system to support the cost of providing radiation to patients at an IRF. Even under the current payment system, for a hospital that has the equipment and personnel to provide radiation treatments, the variable cost of 6.5% of revenue should not be an absolute barrier to providing this service.
 

Limitations

This study reports on the experience of only 1 facility. The number of patients in the radiation group is greater than the number of patients in any previous report of people receiving radiation at an IRF, but the statistician does not think it is large enough to allow statistical analysis of covariates such as age, sex, and comorbid conditions. In addition, we did not investigate all of the factors that influence the type of care patients are offered and their LoS, such as hospital policy, insurance coverage, income, and family structure.

Conclusions

Acute care medical units are now challenged to both reduce LoS and reduce the number of patients who are readmitted to the hospital. Rehabilitation units are challenged to maintain census, as government and private payors are shifting patients from acute rehabilitation units to subacute rehabilitation units. We found that patients with cancer who need radiation are a population of patients who are seen by payors as needing to be in a facility with excellent nursing, therapy, and comprehensive physician services. A comprehensive cancer care program within a rehabilitation unit can be a great benefit to the acute care services, the IRF, and, most importantly, patients and their families.

The American Cancer Society reports that 1.6 million people are diagnosed with cancer each year, of whom 78% are aged 55 years or older. The 5-year survival rate for cancer is 68%.¹ Almost 15.5 million living Americans have been diagnosed with cancer.² Many patients with cancer have difficulty walking and with activities of daily living. Patients with primary brain tumors or tumors metastatic to the brain may present with focal weakness or cognitive deficits similar to patients with stroke. Patients with tumors metastatic to the spine may have the same deficits as a patient with a traumatic spinal cord injury. Patients with metastasis to bone may have pathologic fractures of the hip or long bones. Patients may develop peripheral neuropathy associated with a paraneoplastic syndrome, chemotherapy, or critical illness neuropathy. Lehmann and colleagues evaluated 805 patients admitted to hospitals affiliated with the University of Washington Medical School with a diagnosis of cancer and found that 15% had difficulty walking and 20% had difficulty with activities of daily living.³

Many patients with cancer can benefit from inpatient rehabilitation.^4,5 Study findings have shown that patients with impairments in function related to cancer are often not referred for rehabilitation. Among the reasons mentioned for that are that oncologists are more focused on treating the patients’ cancer than on their functional deficits and that specialists in rehabilitation medicine do not want to be involved with patients with complex medical problems. Rehabilitation facilities may not want to incur the costs associated with caring for patients with cancer.⁶

The present paper looks at the outcomes of 61 consecutive patients with cancer who were admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) and received radiation therapy concurrent with rehabilitation. It compares the outcomes of the cancer patients with the outcomes of patients without cancer who were admitted with stroke or spinal cord injury, conditions more commonly treated at an IRF.
 

Methods

We reviewed electronic medical records of all patients with cancer admitted to the IRF from 2008 through 2013 who received radiation therapy while at the facility. We also reviewed the data of all patients without cancer admitted with a diagnosis of stroke in 2013 and all patients admitted with a diagnosis of traumatic spinal cord injury in 2012 and 2013. No patients were excluded from stroke and traumatic spinal cord injury groups.

We recorded the sex, age, diagnostic group, Functional Independence Measure (FIM) admission score, FIM discharge score, length of stay (LoS) in the IRF, place of discharge of each patient (eg, home, acute care, or subacute care), and calculated the FIM efficiency score (change in FIM/LoS) for each patient. The FIM is an instrument that has 18 items measuring mobility, participation in activities of daily living, ability to communicate, and cognitive function.⁷ Each item is scored from 1 to 7, with 1 denoting that the patient cannot perform the task and 7 that the activity can be performed independently. The minimum score is 18 (complete dependence), and the maximum score is 126 (independent function). Thirteen items compose the motor FIM score: eating, grooming, bathing, dressing upper body, dressing lower body, toileting, bladder management, management of bowel, transfer to bed or wheelchair, transfer to toilet, tub transfer, walking (or wheelchair use), and climbing stairs. Five items – comprehension, expression, social interaction, problem solving, and memory – compose the cognitive FIM score.

We used a 1-way analysis of variance to evaluate differences between age and cancer type, age and diagnostic group, admission FIM score and cancer type, discharge FIM score and cancer type, change in FIM and cancer type, LoS and cancer type, and LoS and diagnostic group. The Pearson chi-square test was used to test the goodness of fit between the place of disposition and diagnostic group. The paired t test was used to evaluate the improvement in FIM of the patients who were in the cancer groups. The Tukey Simultaneous Tests for Differences of Means was used to compare the FIM efficiency scores of the groups. A 2-sample t test was used to evaluate the factors associated with the need for transfer from the IRF to the acute medical service.

Results

The demographic characteristics of the patients in the study and the admission and discharge FIM scores are reported in Table 1. There were initially 62 cancer patients in the radiation group, which was further divided into 4 subgroups based on the site of the primary tumor or metastasis. In all, 23 had a primary malignant brain tumor and received radiation and temozolomide. Sixteen patients had malignancies metastatic to the brain, 15 patients had tumors metastatic to the spine, and 7 had tumors metastatic to the long bones. One patient had laryngeal cancer and was excluded from the study because we did not think that we could do an analysis of a group with only 1 patient. The final number of patients in the cancer group was therefore 61. There were 69 patients in the stroke group and 23 in the spinal cord injury group.

We report improvement in total FIM, motor FIM, and cognitive FIM scores and were able to identify all 18 of the items of the FIM score on 60 of the 61 patients in the cancer group. Improvement in total FIM of the 61 patients in the cancer groups was significant at P P P = .05. Just over 75% of the patients in the cancer group had sufficient enough improvement in their level of function that they were able to return to their homes (Table 1). The average FIM score at the time of discharge was 83.08. This was not significantly different than the level of function of patients discharged after stroke (87.52) or traumatic spinal cord injury (89.13).

The patients with primary brain tumors were younger than the patients with cancer metastatic to the brain (P = .013). The patients with a primary brain tumor had lower admission FIM scores than patients with tumors metastatic to the brain (P = .027). The patients with a primary brain tumor had a greater increase in FIM score than patients with metastasis to the brain (P = .043; Table 2). There was not a significant difference between these 2 groups in FIM score at discharge or in the likelihood of discharge to home (Table 1). The FIM efficiency score was 1.12 for the patients in the primary brain tumor group and .80 in those with metastasis to the brain. This difference was not significant P = .96.

Discussion

Radiation therapy is considered a service that is provided to people who come for treatment as an outpatient. Caregivers may have difficulty transporting patients to radiation if the patient has deficits in mobility. This may be particularly true if the patient is heavy, the caregivers are frail, or perhaps if they live in rural settings where there is no wheelchair-accessible public transportation. There are many factors that help determine whether a patient with functional deficits can be discharged to his or her home. These include sex, age, marital status, family and/or community support, income, and insurance.⁸ The FIM is an instrument that indicates how much help a patient needs with mobility and self-care skills. It also correlates with the amount of time that caregivers must spend helping a patient.⁹ Study findings have shown that the FIM score is an important determinant of whether a patient can be discharged to home. The total FIM score is as useful as an analysis of the components of the FIM score in predicting whether a patient can return to the community.^10,11 Reistetter and colleagues found a total FIM score of 78 to be the score that best separates patients who are likely to be able to go home and patients who are likely to need long-term care.¹¹ Bottemiller and colleagues¹⁰ reported that 37% of patients with total discharge FIM scores of less than 40 were discharged to home. They reported that 62% of patients with FIM scores between 40 and 79 were discharged to home, and 88% of patients with scores of 80 or above were discharged to home.¹⁰ The goal in bringing patients to the IRF was to accept and treat patients with reasonable community support and potential to achieve a functional level compatible with discharge to the community. Most patients in each of the cancer groups were able to reach an FIM score of 78 to 80 and to be discharged to home.

Most of the patients in the cancer groups had underlying problems that are not considered curable. The primary goal was to enable the patients to have some time at home with their families before requiring readmission to a hospital or hospice care. Reasonable LoS and rate of progress are now expected or required by third-party payors and hospital administrators. Physicians at the Mayo Clinic have indicated that a rehabilitation service should aim for an FIM efficiency score of at least .6 points per day.¹⁰ The FIM efficiency of patients in each of the 4 cancer subgroups in this study was higher than this level.

J. Herbert Dietz, Jr was an early advocate of the need to provide comprehensive rehabilitation services for patients with cancer. He first described his work in 1969.¹² Since that time, there have been many papers that have documented the benefits of IRF for patients with cancer. O’Toole and Golden have shown outcomes of a large series of patients from an IRF. They reported that at the time of admission, 14% of patients could ambulate, but at discharge, 80% could ambulate without hands-on assistance. They reported significant improvements in continence, FIM score, and score on the Karnofsky Performance Scale.¹³ Marciniak,¹⁴ Hunter,¹⁵ Shin,¹⁶ and Cole,¹⁷ and their respective colleagues have all shown that patients with many different types of cancer benefit from rehabilitation at the IRF level. Gallegos-Kearin and colleagues⁴ reported on the care of 115,570 patients admitted to IRF with cancer from 2002 to 2014. Patients had significant improvement in function, with more than 70% of patients discharged to home.⁴ Ng and colleagues studied a group of 200 patients who received IRF care and found there was significant improvement in function. Ninety-four percent of patients rated their stay as either extremely good or very good.⁵

Metastasis to the spine is a common problem. It is found in 30% of cancer patients at autopsy. The most common sources of metastasis to the spine are breast, lung, prostate, kidney, and thyroid.¹⁸ Multiple myeloma and lymphoma may also involve the spine. Several authors have shown that these patients benefit from inpatient rehabilitation. Mckinley and colleagues¹⁹ have noted that patients with metastasis to the spine make significant improvement with care at an IRF. Compared with patients with a traumatic spinal cord injury, the cancer patients had shorter LoS, smaller improvement in FIM, equal FIM efficiency (FIM gain/LoS), and equal success in making enough progress to be discharged to home.¹⁹ Eriks and colleagues showed that patients at an IRF in Amsterdam made significant improvement in function as measured by the Barthel’s Index.²⁰ Tang .,²¹ and Parsch²² and their respective colleagues, Murray,²³ and New²⁴ and colleagues have published findings confirming that patients with spinal cord injury caused by metastasis to the spine make significant progress with inpatient rehabilitation programs. The present study adds to the literature by showing that patients with metastasis to the spine who are receiving radiation can make progress and be discharged to the community.

There are 24,000 new cases of primary malignant brain tumors in the United States each year.²⁵ The incidence of metastatic cancer to the brain has been estimated to be 100,000 cases per year in the United States. The most common cancer sources are lung, breast, melanoma, kidney, and colon.^26,27 The first study of patients admitted to an IRF for treatment of brain tumors was published in 1998 by Huang and colleagues²⁸ who compared the outcomes of 63 patients with brain tumors with the outcomes of 63 patients with stroke. They reported that the patients with the brain tumors made significant improvement in function. There was not a significant difference between the 2 groups of patients in improvement in function, FIM efficiency, or success in discharging the patients to home.²⁸ Greenberg²⁹ and Bartolo³⁰ and their respective colleagues compared the outcomes of patients admitted with brain tumors and patients with stroke and found that improvement in function and discharge to home was similar in the 2 groups. In 2000, Huang and his same colleagues³¹ compared a group of patients with brain tumors to a group of patients with traumatic brain injury. They found significant improvement in the function of the patients with brain tumors. Patients in the traumatic brain injury group made more progress but had longer LoS. FIM efficiency was not significantly different between the groups.³¹

Three papers have reported outcomes of patients who received radiation concurrent with inpatient rehabilitation. Tang and colleagues³² reported 63 patients, of whom 48% percent received radiation concurrent with rehabilitation. The patients who received radiation made significant gains in function, and more than 70% were discharged to home. There was no difference in the outcomes of the patients in the radiation and nonradiation groups.³² Marciniak³³ and O’Dell³⁴ and their colleagues also reported that patients with brain tumors that required radiation therapy can benefit from inpatient rehabilitation. The present paper is the fourth (with the largest patient group) to show that patients with primary and metastatic tumors to the brain can benefit from a program that provides radiation concurrent with inpatient rehabilitation. We have shown that patients can achieve functional levels and rates of discharge to home that are not significantly different from those of the most commonly admitted group of patients to IRF – patients with stroke.

In the present study, 18% of all of the cancer patients were transferred to medical services and/or acute hospital care (Table 1). This is consistent with a paper by Asher and colleagues³⁵ who reported that 17.4% of patients at an IRF with a diagnosis of cancer required transfer back to medical service, and that low admission motor FIM score correlated with the likelihood of transfer back to medical service. In the present paper, the total admission FIM score was not related to the likelihood of return to medical service, although a lack of improvement in the FIM score did correlate with transfer to medical service.

All of the papers we reviewed found that appropriately selected patients with cancer make significant improvement in function with treatment at an IRF. Tang and colleagues have also shown that for patients with malignant brain tumors and metastasis to the spine, improvement in function correlates with increased survival.³² Our paper confirms that patients with primary malignant brain tumors, malignant tumors metastatic to the brain or spine, and tumors metastatic to long bones may benefit from rehabilitation concurrent with radiation. Rehabilitation units are traditionally associated with treating patients with stroke and spinal cord injury. The patients in our study had cancer and were receiving radiation therapy. They had significant improvement in function and FIM efficiency scores that are not below the threshold set as expected for care at an IRF. Most patients in our study achieved a functional level consistent with what is needed to go home.

There is a prospective payment or reimbursement system for rehabilitation units.³⁶ The payments are based on the admitting diagnosis, the admission FIM score, the age of the patient, and comorbidities. There are 4 tiers for comorbidities with no additional payments for patients in tier 0 but with additional payments for patients with conditions that qualify for tiers 1 through 3. The highest payments are for patients in tier 1. Examples of conditions that can increase payment include morbid obesity, congestive heart failure, vocal cord paralysis, and the need for hemodialysis. There is no increased payment for provision of radiation therapy. There are no reports on the feasibility, in terms of finances, of providing radiation on an IRF. We asked the finance office of the Albany Medical Center to comment on the cost to the hospital of providing radiation therapy to patients on the rehabilitation unit. The hospital’s finance department reviewed available data and reported that the variable cost of providing radiation therapy is about 6.5% of the revenue collected from third-party payors for caring for patients who receive that service (personal communication from the finance office of Albany Medical Center to George Forrest, 2015). Our findings suggest that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should make an adjustment to the payment system to support the cost of providing radiation to patients at an IRF. Even under the current payment system, for a hospital that has the equipment and personnel to provide radiation treatments, the variable cost of 6.5% of revenue should not be an absolute barrier to providing this service.
 

Limitations

This study reports on the experience of only 1 facility. The number of patients in the radiation group is greater than the number of patients in any previous report of people receiving radiation at an IRF, but the statistician does not think it is large enough to allow statistical analysis of covariates such as age, sex, and comorbid conditions. In addition, we did not investigate all of the factors that influence the type of care patients are offered and their LoS, such as hospital policy, insurance coverage, income, and family structure.

Conclusions

Acute care medical units are now challenged to both reduce LoS and reduce the number of patients who are readmitted to the hospital. Rehabilitation units are challenged to maintain census, as government and private payors are shifting patients from acute rehabilitation units to subacute rehabilitation units. We found that patients with cancer who need radiation are a population of patients who are seen by payors as needing to be in a facility with excellent nursing, therapy, and comprehensive physician services. A comprehensive cancer care program within a rehabilitation unit can be a great benefit to the acute care services, the IRF, and, most importantly, patients and their families.

The American Cancer Society reports that 1.6 million people are diagnosed with cancer each year, of whom 78% are aged 55 years or older. The 5-year survival rate for cancer is 68%.¹ Almost 15.5 million living Americans have been diagnosed with cancer.² Many patients with cancer have difficulty walking and with activities of daily living. Patients with primary brain tumors or tumors metastatic to the brain may present with focal weakness or cognitive deficits similar to patients with stroke. Patients with tumors metastatic to the spine may have the same deficits as a patient with a traumatic spinal cord injury. Patients with metastasis to bone may have pathologic fractures of the hip or long bones. Patients may develop peripheral neuropathy associated with a paraneoplastic syndrome, chemotherapy, or critical illness neuropathy. Lehmann and colleagues evaluated 805 patients admitted to hospitals affiliated with the University of Washington Medical School with a diagnosis of cancer and found that 15% had difficulty walking and 20% had difficulty with activities of daily living.³

Many patients with cancer can benefit from inpatient rehabilitation.^4,5 Study findings have shown that patients with impairments in function related to cancer are often not referred for rehabilitation. Among the reasons mentioned for that are that oncologists are more focused on treating the patients’ cancer than on their functional deficits and that specialists in rehabilitation medicine do not want to be involved with patients with complex medical problems. Rehabilitation facilities may not want to incur the costs associated with caring for patients with cancer.⁶

The present paper looks at the outcomes of 61 consecutive patients with cancer who were admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) and received radiation therapy concurrent with rehabilitation. It compares the outcomes of the cancer patients with the outcomes of patients without cancer who were admitted with stroke or spinal cord injury, conditions more commonly treated at an IRF.
 

Methods

We reviewed electronic medical records of all patients with cancer admitted to the IRF from 2008 through 2013 who received radiation therapy while at the facility. We also reviewed the data of all patients without cancer admitted with a diagnosis of stroke in 2013 and all patients admitted with a diagnosis of traumatic spinal cord injury in 2012 and 2013. No patients were excluded from stroke and traumatic spinal cord injury groups.

We recorded the sex, age, diagnostic group, Functional Independence Measure (FIM) admission score, FIM discharge score, length of stay (LoS) in the IRF, place of discharge of each patient (eg, home, acute care, or subacute care), and calculated the FIM efficiency score (change in FIM/LoS) for each patient. The FIM is an instrument that has 18 items measuring mobility, participation in activities of daily living, ability to communicate, and cognitive function.⁷ Each item is scored from 1 to 7, with 1 denoting that the patient cannot perform the task and 7 that the activity can be performed independently. The minimum score is 18 (complete dependence), and the maximum score is 126 (independent function). Thirteen items compose the motor FIM score: eating, grooming, bathing, dressing upper body, dressing lower body, toileting, bladder management, management of bowel, transfer to bed or wheelchair, transfer to toilet, tub transfer, walking (or wheelchair use), and climbing stairs. Five items – comprehension, expression, social interaction, problem solving, and memory – compose the cognitive FIM score.

We used a 1-way analysis of variance to evaluate differences between age and cancer type, age and diagnostic group, admission FIM score and cancer type, discharge FIM score and cancer type, change in FIM and cancer type, LoS and cancer type, and LoS and diagnostic group. The Pearson chi-square test was used to test the goodness of fit between the place of disposition and diagnostic group. The paired t test was used to evaluate the improvement in FIM of the patients who were in the cancer groups. The Tukey Simultaneous Tests for Differences of Means was used to compare the FIM efficiency scores of the groups. A 2-sample t test was used to evaluate the factors associated with the need for transfer from the IRF to the acute medical service.

Results

The demographic characteristics of the patients in the study and the admission and discharge FIM scores are reported in Table 1. There were initially 62 cancer patients in the radiation group, which was further divided into 4 subgroups based on the site of the primary tumor or metastasis. In all, 23 had a primary malignant brain tumor and received radiation and temozolomide. Sixteen patients had malignancies metastatic to the brain, 15 patients had tumors metastatic to the spine, and 7 had tumors metastatic to the long bones. One patient had laryngeal cancer and was excluded from the study because we did not think that we could do an analysis of a group with only 1 patient. The final number of patients in the cancer group was therefore 61. There were 69 patients in the stroke group and 23 in the spinal cord injury group.

We report improvement in total FIM, motor FIM, and cognitive FIM scores and were able to identify all 18 of the items of the FIM score on 60 of the 61 patients in the cancer group. Improvement in total FIM of the 61 patients in the cancer groups was significant at P P P = .05. Just over 75% of the patients in the cancer group had sufficient enough improvement in their level of function that they were able to return to their homes (Table 1). The average FIM score at the time of discharge was 83.08. This was not significantly different than the level of function of patients discharged after stroke (87.52) or traumatic spinal cord injury (89.13).

The patients with primary brain tumors were younger than the patients with cancer metastatic to the brain (P = .013). The patients with a primary brain tumor had lower admission FIM scores than patients with tumors metastatic to the brain (P = .027). The patients with a primary brain tumor had a greater increase in FIM score than patients with metastasis to the brain (P = .043; Table 2). There was not a significant difference between these 2 groups in FIM score at discharge or in the likelihood of discharge to home (Table 1). The FIM efficiency score was 1.12 for the patients in the primary brain tumor group and .80 in those with metastasis to the brain. This difference was not significant P = .96.

Discussion

Radiation therapy is considered a service that is provided to people who come for treatment as an outpatient. Caregivers may have difficulty transporting patients to radiation if the patient has deficits in mobility. This may be particularly true if the patient is heavy, the caregivers are frail, or perhaps if they live in rural settings where there is no wheelchair-accessible public transportation. There are many factors that help determine whether a patient with functional deficits can be discharged to his or her home. These include sex, age, marital status, family and/or community support, income, and insurance.⁸ The FIM is an instrument that indicates how much help a patient needs with mobility and self-care skills. It also correlates with the amount of time that caregivers must spend helping a patient.⁹ Study findings have shown that the FIM score is an important determinant of whether a patient can be discharged to home. The total FIM score is as useful as an analysis of the components of the FIM score in predicting whether a patient can return to the community.^10,11 Reistetter and colleagues found a total FIM score of 78 to be the score that best separates patients who are likely to be able to go home and patients who are likely to need long-term care.¹¹ Bottemiller and colleagues¹⁰ reported that 37% of patients with total discharge FIM scores of less than 40 were discharged to home. They reported that 62% of patients with FIM scores between 40 and 79 were discharged to home, and 88% of patients with scores of 80 or above were discharged to home.¹⁰ The goal in bringing patients to the IRF was to accept and treat patients with reasonable community support and potential to achieve a functional level compatible with discharge to the community. Most patients in each of the cancer groups were able to reach an FIM score of 78 to 80 and to be discharged to home.

Most of the patients in the cancer groups had underlying problems that are not considered curable. The primary goal was to enable the patients to have some time at home with their families before requiring readmission to a hospital or hospice care. Reasonable LoS and rate of progress are now expected or required by third-party payors and hospital administrators. Physicians at the Mayo Clinic have indicated that a rehabilitation service should aim for an FIM efficiency score of at least .6 points per day.¹⁰ The FIM efficiency of patients in each of the 4 cancer subgroups in this study was higher than this level.

J. Herbert Dietz, Jr was an early advocate of the need to provide comprehensive rehabilitation services for patients with cancer. He first described his work in 1969.¹² Since that time, there have been many papers that have documented the benefits of IRF for patients with cancer. O’Toole and Golden have shown outcomes of a large series of patients from an IRF. They reported that at the time of admission, 14% of patients could ambulate, but at discharge, 80% could ambulate without hands-on assistance. They reported significant improvements in continence, FIM score, and score on the Karnofsky Performance Scale.¹³ Marciniak,¹⁴ Hunter,¹⁵ Shin,¹⁶ and Cole,¹⁷ and their respective colleagues have all shown that patients with many different types of cancer benefit from rehabilitation at the IRF level. Gallegos-Kearin and colleagues⁴ reported on the care of 115,570 patients admitted to IRF with cancer from 2002 to 2014. Patients had significant improvement in function, with more than 70% of patients discharged to home.⁴ Ng and colleagues studied a group of 200 patients who received IRF care and found there was significant improvement in function. Ninety-four percent of patients rated their stay as either extremely good or very good.⁵

Metastasis to the spine is a common problem. It is found in 30% of cancer patients at autopsy. The most common sources of metastasis to the spine are breast, lung, prostate, kidney, and thyroid.¹⁸ Multiple myeloma and lymphoma may also involve the spine. Several authors have shown that these patients benefit from inpatient rehabilitation. Mckinley and colleagues¹⁹ have noted that patients with metastasis to the spine make significant improvement with care at an IRF. Compared with patients with a traumatic spinal cord injury, the cancer patients had shorter LoS, smaller improvement in FIM, equal FIM efficiency (FIM gain/LoS), and equal success in making enough progress to be discharged to home.¹⁹ Eriks and colleagues showed that patients at an IRF in Amsterdam made significant improvement in function as measured by the Barthel’s Index.²⁰ Tang .,²¹ and Parsch²² and their respective colleagues, Murray,²³ and New²⁴ and colleagues have published findings confirming that patients with spinal cord injury caused by metastasis to the spine make significant progress with inpatient rehabilitation programs. The present study adds to the literature by showing that patients with metastasis to the spine who are receiving radiation can make progress and be discharged to the community.

There are 24,000 new cases of primary malignant brain tumors in the United States each year.²⁵ The incidence of metastatic cancer to the brain has been estimated to be 100,000 cases per year in the United States. The most common cancer sources are lung, breast, melanoma, kidney, and colon.^26,27 The first study of patients admitted to an IRF for treatment of brain tumors was published in 1998 by Huang and colleagues²⁸ who compared the outcomes of 63 patients with brain tumors with the outcomes of 63 patients with stroke. They reported that the patients with the brain tumors made significant improvement in function. There was not a significant difference between the 2 groups of patients in improvement in function, FIM efficiency, or success in discharging the patients to home.²⁸ Greenberg²⁹ and Bartolo³⁰ and their respective colleagues compared the outcomes of patients admitted with brain tumors and patients with stroke and found that improvement in function and discharge to home was similar in the 2 groups. In 2000, Huang and his same colleagues³¹ compared a group of patients with brain tumors to a group of patients with traumatic brain injury. They found significant improvement in the function of the patients with brain tumors. Patients in the traumatic brain injury group made more progress but had longer LoS. FIM efficiency was not significantly different between the groups.³¹

Three papers have reported outcomes of patients who received radiation concurrent with inpatient rehabilitation. Tang and colleagues³² reported 63 patients, of whom 48% percent received radiation concurrent with rehabilitation. The patients who received radiation made significant gains in function, and more than 70% were discharged to home. There was no difference in the outcomes of the patients in the radiation and nonradiation groups.³² Marciniak³³ and O’Dell³⁴ and their colleagues also reported that patients with brain tumors that required radiation therapy can benefit from inpatient rehabilitation. The present paper is the fourth (with the largest patient group) to show that patients with primary and metastatic tumors to the brain can benefit from a program that provides radiation concurrent with inpatient rehabilitation. We have shown that patients can achieve functional levels and rates of discharge to home that are not significantly different from those of the most commonly admitted group of patients to IRF – patients with stroke.

In the present study, 18% of all of the cancer patients were transferred to medical services and/or acute hospital care (Table 1). This is consistent with a paper by Asher and colleagues³⁵ who reported that 17.4% of patients at an IRF with a diagnosis of cancer required transfer back to medical service, and that low admission motor FIM score correlated with the likelihood of transfer back to medical service. In the present paper, the total admission FIM score was not related to the likelihood of return to medical service, although a lack of improvement in the FIM score did correlate with transfer to medical service.

All of the papers we reviewed found that appropriately selected patients with cancer make significant improvement in function with treatment at an IRF. Tang and colleagues have also shown that for patients with malignant brain tumors and metastasis to the spine, improvement in function correlates with increased survival.³² Our paper confirms that patients with primary malignant brain tumors, malignant tumors metastatic to the brain or spine, and tumors metastatic to long bones may benefit from rehabilitation concurrent with radiation. Rehabilitation units are traditionally associated with treating patients with stroke and spinal cord injury. The patients in our study had cancer and were receiving radiation therapy. They had significant improvement in function and FIM efficiency scores that are not below the threshold set as expected for care at an IRF. Most patients in our study achieved a functional level consistent with what is needed to go home.

There is a prospective payment or reimbursement system for rehabilitation units.³⁶ The payments are based on the admitting diagnosis, the admission FIM score, the age of the patient, and comorbidities. There are 4 tiers for comorbidities with no additional payments for patients in tier 0 but with additional payments for patients with conditions that qualify for tiers 1 through 3. The highest payments are for patients in tier 1. Examples of conditions that can increase payment include morbid obesity, congestive heart failure, vocal cord paralysis, and the need for hemodialysis. There is no increased payment for provision of radiation therapy. There are no reports on the feasibility, in terms of finances, of providing radiation on an IRF. We asked the finance office of the Albany Medical Center to comment on the cost to the hospital of providing radiation therapy to patients on the rehabilitation unit. The hospital’s finance department reviewed available data and reported that the variable cost of providing radiation therapy is about 6.5% of the revenue collected from third-party payors for caring for patients who receive that service (personal communication from the finance office of Albany Medical Center to George Forrest, 2015). Our findings suggest that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should make an adjustment to the payment system to support the cost of providing radiation to patients at an IRF. Even under the current payment system, for a hospital that has the equipment and personnel to provide radiation treatments, the variable cost of 6.5% of revenue should not be an absolute barrier to providing this service.
 

Limitations

This study reports on the experience of only 1 facility. The number of patients in the radiation group is greater than the number of patients in any previous report of people receiving radiation at an IRF, but the statistician does not think it is large enough to allow statistical analysis of covariates such as age, sex, and comorbid conditions. In addition, we did not investigate all of the factors that influence the type of care patients are offered and their LoS, such as hospital policy, insurance coverage, income, and family structure.

Conclusions

Acute care medical units are now challenged to both reduce LoS and reduce the number of patients who are readmitted to the hospital. Rehabilitation units are challenged to maintain census, as government and private payors are shifting patients from acute rehabilitation units to subacute rehabilitation units. We found that patients with cancer who need radiation are a population of patients who are seen by payors as needing to be in a facility with excellent nursing, therapy, and comprehensive physician services. A comprehensive cancer care program within a rehabilitation unit can be a great benefit to the acute care services, the IRF, and, most importantly, patients and their families.

More than 164,690 men are expected to be diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States in 2018.¹ Men with prostate cancer face not only stress associated with the diagnosis but also decisional conflict regarding different treatment options.² Most men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer receive 1 or more of the following treatments: radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiation therapy, and/or brachytherapy, all of which are associated with posttreatment urological or sexual side effects including bowel, urinary, or erectile dysfunction.^3-5 Men who choose active surveillance may experience increased anxiety associated with the constant vigilance and monitoring of their tumor status along with the uncertainty of not definitively removing or radiating their prostate.⁶ In addition to direct functional limitations of sexual and urological side effects, treatment can also lead to secondary psychosocial effects, including depression, self-blame, embarrassment, guilt, lower masculine self-esteem, increased reticence to participate socially or engage in sexual activity, and relationship distress.^7-9 Therefore, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction are important for this population.

Urological and sexual side effects of prostate cancer treatments are often a primary focus during treatment decision making between patients and providers. However, little prospective empirical data exist regarding the role of HRQoL and other nonurological physical and psychosocial outcomes on overall treatment satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the role of both urological and nonurological outcomes on overall treatment satisfaction in men diagnosed with prostate cancer. We hypothesize that such an understanding can help describe changes in physical and psychosocial factors that are important to men beyond traditional urological outcomes, including their association with overall treatment satisfaction.
 

Methods

This was a prospective longitudinal assessment of patients from the Department of Urology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. Patients were eligible if they met the following inclusion criteria: they had been diagnosed with clinically localized or locally advanced prostate cancer; they had not yet received a primary treatment (eg, surgery, radiation, active surveillance) before their baseline assessment; they were 18 years or older; and they were able to read, write, speak, and understand English. Patients were excluded if they had a physical debilitation that would make participation not feasible or would create undue hardship, or if they had a history of diagnosed severe mental illness or hospitalization for chronic psychiatric reasons, as identified by referring physicians.

Eligible participants were approached before their treatment decision (if any). Patient enrollment occurred in 2 ways. For patients invited to participate during their clinic visit, the research assistant explained the study and obtained written informed consent for interested patients. A unique user identification and password was created for each patient, and they practiced using the touch screen computer while the research assistant observed and provided guidance as needed. When the patients were ready to start their pretreatment online interview, they completed the questionnaires by themselves. For patients who were invited to participate but were not scheduled to return in the foreseeable future, enrollment was carried out differently. In those cases, participating physicians contacted eligible patients who were not scheduled for a visit and informed them of the study opportunity. Interested patients were contacted by the research assistant who provided them with the study website address, which directed them to the online consent form. After a patient had completed the consent form, he was prompted to self-register. He received a unique user identification and password that could be used to complete the baseline assessment and subsequent assessments. However, for interested patients who did not have access to a computer or Internet connection, the research assistant provided them with paper consent forms and paper versions of all study assessments. After participants had completed the baseline assessment, the research assistant provided them with a written schedule of future assessments, which were expected to occur at 1 month posttreatment, 3 months posttreatment, 6 months posttreatment, and 12 months posttreatment.

For all follow-up appointments, participants could complete assessments either at clinic visits or from home using a secure online assessment platform called Assessment Center.¹⁰ The research assistant used a patient log to track participants and their progress in the study, which included study number, patient name (or initials), registration date, date of birth, sex, and timeline of completed or future assessments. The research assistant called or emailed participants (depending on patient preference) about a week before each of their follow-up assessments to facilitate adherence. If the participant did not log into the system by the target day, the research assistant contacted him the following day (target day +1) with a phone or email reminder to log into the system and complete the assessments. If the participant did not log in by midnight 1 day after the target day, the research assistant attempted to contact him one last time (target day +2) with either a reminder to log into the system or to ascertain his status that might be related to his noncompletion. Overall, a participant was called or e-mailed 1 to 3 times to remind him of his assessment. If he was unresponsive after 3 attempts, he was recorded as having withdrawn for an unknown reason.

At baseline and each follow-up time point, study participants completed a battery of patient-reported outcome measures, with most coming from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)¹¹ and the Surgical Outcomes Measurement System (SOMS).¹² PROMIS is a National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded measurement system that has helped standardize and improve self-reported assessment of health status, symptoms, side effects, and different aspects of HRQoL, including physical, emotional, cognitive, and social health. SOMS is a suite of patient-reported outcome measures assessing important aspects of HRQoL after surgery. It was developed with feedback from surgeons, postoperative patients, and surgical nurses. PROMIS items were directly incorporated into numerous SOMS measures to facilitate easier comparisons and score crosswalks across measures and patient populations. In addition to PROMIS and SOMS measures, we also administered several well-known instruments of urological and sexual function, including the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and American Urological Association Symptom Score Index (AUASS).^13,14

Outcome measures were compared across sociodemographic and clinical variables at each time point using t tests for numerical variables (age) and with chi-square or Fisher exact tests for categorical variables; those variables with significant differences were used as covariates in statistical models. To examine differences in patient-reported scores over time, we used repeated measures analysis of covariance with general linear modeling methods. We used Pearson correlation coefficients to evaluate for correlations between quality-of-life outcomes and treatment satisfaction.

Not all participants completed each of the follow-up surveys, and reasons for dropout were prospectively documented. Most participants elected surgical resection as their primary treatment compared with the fewer than 10% of patients who chose radiation or chemotherapy as their primary treatment and about 20% of men who chose active surveillance after their initial diagnosis. Therefore, our analysis focused on patients who elected surgical resection. For comparison purposes, we included the HRQoL results from active surveillance patients.

Results

A total of 105 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer were enrolled in the study. Response rates decreased throughout the study (n = 75 at 1 month; n = 71 at 3 months; n = 64 at 6 months; n = 54 at 12 months). Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants are shown in Table 1. The mean change from pretreatment (baseline) scores for each measure in patients treated with surgery is shown in Table 2, and the mean change from pretreatment scores in patients who elected active surveillance is shown in Table 3 (in both tables, a negative score denotes worsened function, and a positive change denotes improvement).

After surgery, patients reported significantly lower erectile function and sexual satisfaction scores. These included statistically significant decreases for IIEF Erectile Function, IIEF Overall Satisfaction, PROMIS Sexual Satisfaction, PROMIS Sexual Interest, and PROMIS Orgasm. In patients treated with surgery, there were significant improvements in anxiety observed for patients at each follow-up time, whereas significantly worse bladder problems were observed on SOMS Bladder at 1 and 3 months but returned to baseline by 12 months after surgery. AUASS was worse at 1 month but significantly improved at 6 and 12 months. Fatigue scores significantly worsened at 1 month but were no longer significant at 6 and 12 months. Physical Function was worsened at 1 month but not throughout the rest of the study. Bowel Problems (SOMS) were significantly worse at 1 month, but changes became nonsignificant on subsequent assessments. The only 2 domains that did not demonstrate any significant changes over time were Pain Interference and Sleep Disturbance (both SOMS).

Discussion

This prospective study assessed the HRQoL from pretreatment through 12 months posttreatment in men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer that had been treated with surgery. Although the indicators of sexual function significantly decreased over time, they were not meaningfully associated with overall treatment satisfaction. Instead, a host of other factors, including psychosocial (eg, anxiety, depression, body image dissatisfaction, embarrassment), nonurological physical symptoms (pain interference, physical function, sleep disturbance, fatigue), and bladder problems, were significantly related to overall treatment satisfaction. Although this may not be surprising in other clinical oncology paradigms, the sheer surfeit of focus and attention on sexual function has overshadowed aspects of HRQoL that many men report are important to them, despite worsened sexual function outcomes.

Understanding potential treatment-related changes in HRQoL can be challenging for men when choosing providers and different therapeutic options. The increasing complexity of treatment in prostate cancer has created an opportunity to not only understand efficacy on cancer control but also focus on meaningful patient-reported outcomes. Hospitals and medical groups are increasingly aware of the importance of improving the patient care experience. Objective measures of patient satisfaction for health care providers, such as the Press-Ganey and Net Promoter score, exist to measure and improve patient experience. In prostate cancer, clinicians and large groups, including governmental agencies such as the US Preventive Services Task Force, have often focused on declines in urinary and erectile function¹⁵ without considering the full impact of prostate cancer treatment on global HRQoL. Our study was a prospective, longitudinal, self-reported examination of the impact, positive and negative, of prostate cancer treatment over a 12-month period.

Numerous studies have documented the treatment-related side effects of erectile, urinary, and bowel dysfunction in patients treated for prostate cancer, which may occur after definitive local therapies.^5,16-18 The present study shows a similar impact on urinary, bowel, and erectile domains after treatment. Although erectile function scores remained lower through the course of the 12-month study, bowel and bladder domains returned to baseline by month 12. Unlike other studies, we also examined psychosocial and nonurological aspects of prostate cancer treatment. We found that there was a measurable and significant positive impact on other HRQoL measurements such as decreased anxiety. Despite a variety of declines across HRQoL domains, most patients reported that their results were largely as they had expected, and their side effects were the same or better than they had expected. No patient in the cohort reported being dissatisfied with his overall treatment, and more than 90% of patients were mostly or completely satisfied with their treatment choice. This highlights the point that while sexual and other urological domains of HRQoL are important, impairments in these areas do not necessarily reflect how many patients perceive success or satisfaction with their treatment choice. We also showed correlations between treatment satisfaction and improvement in sleep, anxiety, depression, and fatigue. It is worth noting that although there were decreases in the erectile and sexual function domains after treatment, those factors were not correlated with overall treatment satisfaction. Those factors may not routinely be assessed before, during, and after treatment for prostate cancer in most clinical encounters. However, because they were strongly associated with satisfaction with treatment outcomes in this study, identification in impairments may lead to opportunities to intervene and improve the patient experience. Therefore, important “teachable moments” may be missed (for both patients and providers) during treatment decision-making encounters if other factors beyond sexual and urological outcomes are not adequately considered and addressed. Furthermore, the results of our study may help clinicians counsel patients on their expectations for their recovery after surgery and identify particular issues related to HRQoL to pay close attention to in follow-up visits.

Strengths of our study include its prospective nature, which allowed evaluation of HRQoL outcomes at multiple time points throughout the first year after treatment. In addition, we used existing patient-reported outcome tools validated by the NIH to assess changes in HRQoL. PROMIS is an NIH-supported tool that can be leveraged in the pre- and posttreatment periods to identify patients who have impairments with HRQoL. It can provide clinicians with a unique opportunity to detect and intervene in setbacks and side effects to improve patient satisfaction and HRQoL.

Limitations of the current study include that most patients selected surgery for their treatment choice and that not all patients completed all longitudinal questionnaires, although this is expected in longitudinal studies of this nature. Although all the patients were approached and encouraged to participate, many did not participate and were not captured. In addition, not all patients completed end-of-study surveys. These factors may have biased our results because of unmeasurable factors related to nonparticipation or dropout. Our study encompassed the preoperative period up to 12 months postoperatively, which may fail to identify improvements or declines in HRQoL that may occur more than 12 months postoperatively, particularly related to continence and erectile function. The participants were enrolled by 6 surgeons, and we were not able to standardize the preoperative counseling either preoperatively or postoperatively, which may have biased our results. Finally, our study population consisted of predominantly white, married men of higher socioeconomic status; therefore, our results may not be generalizable to newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients overall.
 

Conclusions

By using validated self-administered questionnaires, we found that despite decreased sexual and urinary function, patients treated for prostate cancer were satisfied with their treatment choice. Correlates to higher patient satisfaction included decreased anxiety, depression, fatigue, and sleep disturbances.

More than 164,690 men are expected to be diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States in 2018.¹ Men with prostate cancer face not only stress associated with the diagnosis but also decisional conflict regarding different treatment options.² Most men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer receive 1 or more of the following treatments: radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiation therapy, and/or brachytherapy, all of which are associated with posttreatment urological or sexual side effects including bowel, urinary, or erectile dysfunction.^3-5 Men who choose active surveillance may experience increased anxiety associated with the constant vigilance and monitoring of their tumor status along with the uncertainty of not definitively removing or radiating their prostate.⁶ In addition to direct functional limitations of sexual and urological side effects, treatment can also lead to secondary psychosocial effects, including depression, self-blame, embarrassment, guilt, lower masculine self-esteem, increased reticence to participate socially or engage in sexual activity, and relationship distress.^7-9 Therefore, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction are important for this population.

Urological and sexual side effects of prostate cancer treatments are often a primary focus during treatment decision making between patients and providers. However, little prospective empirical data exist regarding the role of HRQoL and other nonurological physical and psychosocial outcomes on overall treatment satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the role of both urological and nonurological outcomes on overall treatment satisfaction in men diagnosed with prostate cancer. We hypothesize that such an understanding can help describe changes in physical and psychosocial factors that are important to men beyond traditional urological outcomes, including their association with overall treatment satisfaction.
 

Methods

This was a prospective longitudinal assessment of patients from the Department of Urology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. Patients were eligible if they met the following inclusion criteria: they had been diagnosed with clinically localized or locally advanced prostate cancer; they had not yet received a primary treatment (eg, surgery, radiation, active surveillance) before their baseline assessment; they were 18 years or older; and they were able to read, write, speak, and understand English. Patients were excluded if they had a physical debilitation that would make participation not feasible or would create undue hardship, or if they had a history of diagnosed severe mental illness or hospitalization for chronic psychiatric reasons, as identified by referring physicians.

Eligible participants were approached before their treatment decision (if any). Patient enrollment occurred in 2 ways. For patients invited to participate during their clinic visit, the research assistant explained the study and obtained written informed consent for interested patients. A unique user identification and password was created for each patient, and they practiced using the touch screen computer while the research assistant observed and provided guidance as needed. When the patients were ready to start their pretreatment online interview, they completed the questionnaires by themselves. For patients who were invited to participate but were not scheduled to return in the foreseeable future, enrollment was carried out differently. In those cases, participating physicians contacted eligible patients who were not scheduled for a visit and informed them of the study opportunity. Interested patients were contacted by the research assistant who provided them with the study website address, which directed them to the online consent form. After a patient had completed the consent form, he was prompted to self-register. He received a unique user identification and password that could be used to complete the baseline assessment and subsequent assessments. However, for interested patients who did not have access to a computer or Internet connection, the research assistant provided them with paper consent forms and paper versions of all study assessments. After participants had completed the baseline assessment, the research assistant provided them with a written schedule of future assessments, which were expected to occur at 1 month posttreatment, 3 months posttreatment, 6 months posttreatment, and 12 months posttreatment.

For all follow-up appointments, participants could complete assessments either at clinic visits or from home using a secure online assessment platform called Assessment Center.¹⁰ The research assistant used a patient log to track participants and their progress in the study, which included study number, patient name (or initials), registration date, date of birth, sex, and timeline of completed or future assessments. The research assistant called or emailed participants (depending on patient preference) about a week before each of their follow-up assessments to facilitate adherence. If the participant did not log into the system by the target day, the research assistant contacted him the following day (target day +1) with a phone or email reminder to log into the system and complete the assessments. If the participant did not log in by midnight 1 day after the target day, the research assistant attempted to contact him one last time (target day +2) with either a reminder to log into the system or to ascertain his status that might be related to his noncompletion. Overall, a participant was called or e-mailed 1 to 3 times to remind him of his assessment. If he was unresponsive after 3 attempts, he was recorded as having withdrawn for an unknown reason.

At baseline and each follow-up time point, study participants completed a battery of patient-reported outcome measures, with most coming from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)¹¹ and the Surgical Outcomes Measurement System (SOMS).¹² PROMIS is a National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded measurement system that has helped standardize and improve self-reported assessment of health status, symptoms, side effects, and different aspects of HRQoL, including physical, emotional, cognitive, and social health. SOMS is a suite of patient-reported outcome measures assessing important aspects of HRQoL after surgery. It was developed with feedback from surgeons, postoperative patients, and surgical nurses. PROMIS items were directly incorporated into numerous SOMS measures to facilitate easier comparisons and score crosswalks across measures and patient populations. In addition to PROMIS and SOMS measures, we also administered several well-known instruments of urological and sexual function, including the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and American Urological Association Symptom Score Index (AUASS).^13,14

Outcome measures were compared across sociodemographic and clinical variables at each time point using t tests for numerical variables (age) and with chi-square or Fisher exact tests for categorical variables; those variables with significant differences were used as covariates in statistical models. To examine differences in patient-reported scores over time, we used repeated measures analysis of covariance with general linear modeling methods. We used Pearson correlation coefficients to evaluate for correlations between quality-of-life outcomes and treatment satisfaction.

Not all participants completed each of the follow-up surveys, and reasons for dropout were prospectively documented. Most participants elected surgical resection as their primary treatment compared with the fewer than 10% of patients who chose radiation or chemotherapy as their primary treatment and about 20% of men who chose active surveillance after their initial diagnosis. Therefore, our analysis focused on patients who elected surgical resection. For comparison purposes, we included the HRQoL results from active surveillance patients.

Results

A total of 105 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer were enrolled in the study. Response rates decreased throughout the study (n = 75 at 1 month; n = 71 at 3 months; n = 64 at 6 months; n = 54 at 12 months). Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants are shown in Table 1. The mean change from pretreatment (baseline) scores for each measure in patients treated with surgery is shown in Table 2, and the mean change from pretreatment scores in patients who elected active surveillance is shown in Table 3 (in both tables, a negative score denotes worsened function, and a positive change denotes improvement).

After surgery, patients reported significantly lower erectile function and sexual satisfaction scores. These included statistically significant decreases for IIEF Erectile Function, IIEF Overall Satisfaction, PROMIS Sexual Satisfaction, PROMIS Sexual Interest, and PROMIS Orgasm. In patients treated with surgery, there were significant improvements in anxiety observed for patients at each follow-up time, whereas significantly worse bladder problems were observed on SOMS Bladder at 1 and 3 months but returned to baseline by 12 months after surgery. AUASS was worse at 1 month but significantly improved at 6 and 12 months. Fatigue scores significantly worsened at 1 month but were no longer significant at 6 and 12 months. Physical Function was worsened at 1 month but not throughout the rest of the study. Bowel Problems (SOMS) were significantly worse at 1 month, but changes became nonsignificant on subsequent assessments. The only 2 domains that did not demonstrate any significant changes over time were Pain Interference and Sleep Disturbance (both SOMS).

Discussion

This prospective study assessed the HRQoL from pretreatment through 12 months posttreatment in men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer that had been treated with surgery. Although the indicators of sexual function significantly decreased over time, they were not meaningfully associated with overall treatment satisfaction. Instead, a host of other factors, including psychosocial (eg, anxiety, depression, body image dissatisfaction, embarrassment), nonurological physical symptoms (pain interference, physical function, sleep disturbance, fatigue), and bladder problems, were significantly related to overall treatment satisfaction. Although this may not be surprising in other clinical oncology paradigms, the sheer surfeit of focus and attention on sexual function has overshadowed aspects of HRQoL that many men report are important to them, despite worsened sexual function outcomes.

Understanding potential treatment-related changes in HRQoL can be challenging for men when choosing providers and different therapeutic options. The increasing complexity of treatment in prostate cancer has created an opportunity to not only understand efficacy on cancer control but also focus on meaningful patient-reported outcomes. Hospitals and medical groups are increasingly aware of the importance of improving the patient care experience. Objective measures of patient satisfaction for health care providers, such as the Press-Ganey and Net Promoter score, exist to measure and improve patient experience. In prostate cancer, clinicians and large groups, including governmental agencies such as the US Preventive Services Task Force, have often focused on declines in urinary and erectile function¹⁵ without considering the full impact of prostate cancer treatment on global HRQoL. Our study was a prospective, longitudinal, self-reported examination of the impact, positive and negative, of prostate cancer treatment over a 12-month period.

Numerous studies have documented the treatment-related side effects of erectile, urinary, and bowel dysfunction in patients treated for prostate cancer, which may occur after definitive local therapies.^5,16-18 The present study shows a similar impact on urinary, bowel, and erectile domains after treatment. Although erectile function scores remained lower through the course of the 12-month study, bowel and bladder domains returned to baseline by month 12. Unlike other studies, we also examined psychosocial and nonurological aspects of prostate cancer treatment. We found that there was a measurable and significant positive impact on other HRQoL measurements such as decreased anxiety. Despite a variety of declines across HRQoL domains, most patients reported that their results were largely as they had expected, and their side effects were the same or better than they had expected. No patient in the cohort reported being dissatisfied with his overall treatment, and more than 90% of patients were mostly or completely satisfied with their treatment choice. This highlights the point that while sexual and other urological domains of HRQoL are important, impairments in these areas do not necessarily reflect how many patients perceive success or satisfaction with their treatment choice. We also showed correlations between treatment satisfaction and improvement in sleep, anxiety, depression, and fatigue. It is worth noting that although there were decreases in the erectile and sexual function domains after treatment, those factors were not correlated with overall treatment satisfaction. Those factors may not routinely be assessed before, during, and after treatment for prostate cancer in most clinical encounters. However, because they were strongly associated with satisfaction with treatment outcomes in this study, identification in impairments may lead to opportunities to intervene and improve the patient experience. Therefore, important “teachable moments” may be missed (for both patients and providers) during treatment decision-making encounters if other factors beyond sexual and urological outcomes are not adequately considered and addressed. Furthermore, the results of our study may help clinicians counsel patients on their expectations for their recovery after surgery and identify particular issues related to HRQoL to pay close attention to in follow-up visits.

Strengths of our study include its prospective nature, which allowed evaluation of HRQoL outcomes at multiple time points throughout the first year after treatment. In addition, we used existing patient-reported outcome tools validated by the NIH to assess changes in HRQoL. PROMIS is an NIH-supported tool that can be leveraged in the pre- and posttreatment periods to identify patients who have impairments with HRQoL. It can provide clinicians with a unique opportunity to detect and intervene in setbacks and side effects to improve patient satisfaction and HRQoL.

Limitations of the current study include that most patients selected surgery for their treatment choice and that not all patients completed all longitudinal questionnaires, although this is expected in longitudinal studies of this nature. Although all the patients were approached and encouraged to participate, many did not participate and were not captured. In addition, not all patients completed end-of-study surveys. These factors may have biased our results because of unmeasurable factors related to nonparticipation or dropout. Our study encompassed the preoperative period up to 12 months postoperatively, which may fail to identify improvements or declines in HRQoL that may occur more than 12 months postoperatively, particularly related to continence and erectile function. The participants were enrolled by 6 surgeons, and we were not able to standardize the preoperative counseling either preoperatively or postoperatively, which may have biased our results. Finally, our study population consisted of predominantly white, married men of higher socioeconomic status; therefore, our results may not be generalizable to newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients overall.
 

Conclusions

By using validated self-administered questionnaires, we found that despite decreased sexual and urinary function, patients treated for prostate cancer were satisfied with their treatment choice. Correlates to higher patient satisfaction included decreased anxiety, depression, fatigue, and sleep disturbances.

More than 164,690 men are expected to be diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States in 2018.¹ Men with prostate cancer face not only stress associated with the diagnosis but also decisional conflict regarding different treatment options.² Most men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer receive 1 or more of the following treatments: radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiation therapy, and/or brachytherapy, all of which are associated with posttreatment urological or sexual side effects including bowel, urinary, or erectile dysfunction.^3-5 Men who choose active surveillance may experience increased anxiety associated with the constant vigilance and monitoring of their tumor status along with the uncertainty of not definitively removing or radiating their prostate.⁶ In addition to direct functional limitations of sexual and urological side effects, treatment can also lead to secondary psychosocial effects, including depression, self-blame, embarrassment, guilt, lower masculine self-esteem, increased reticence to participate socially or engage in sexual activity, and relationship distress.^7-9 Therefore, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction are important for this population.

Urological and sexual side effects of prostate cancer treatments are often a primary focus during treatment decision making between patients and providers. However, little prospective empirical data exist regarding the role of HRQoL and other nonurological physical and psychosocial outcomes on overall treatment satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the role of both urological and nonurological outcomes on overall treatment satisfaction in men diagnosed with prostate cancer. We hypothesize that such an understanding can help describe changes in physical and psychosocial factors that are important to men beyond traditional urological outcomes, including their association with overall treatment satisfaction.
 

Methods

This was a prospective longitudinal assessment of patients from the Department of Urology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. Patients were eligible if they met the following inclusion criteria: they had been diagnosed with clinically localized or locally advanced prostate cancer; they had not yet received a primary treatment (eg, surgery, radiation, active surveillance) before their baseline assessment; they were 18 years or older; and they were able to read, write, speak, and understand English. Patients were excluded if they had a physical debilitation that would make participation not feasible or would create undue hardship, or if they had a history of diagnosed severe mental illness or hospitalization for chronic psychiatric reasons, as identified by referring physicians.

Eligible participants were approached before their treatment decision (if any). Patient enrollment occurred in 2 ways. For patients invited to participate during their clinic visit, the research assistant explained the study and obtained written informed consent for interested patients. A unique user identification and password was created for each patient, and they practiced using the touch screen computer while the research assistant observed and provided guidance as needed. When the patients were ready to start their pretreatment online interview, they completed the questionnaires by themselves. For patients who were invited to participate but were not scheduled to return in the foreseeable future, enrollment was carried out differently. In those cases, participating physicians contacted eligible patients who were not scheduled for a visit and informed them of the study opportunity. Interested patients were contacted by the research assistant who provided them with the study website address, which directed them to the online consent form. After a patient had completed the consent form, he was prompted to self-register. He received a unique user identification and password that could be used to complete the baseline assessment and subsequent assessments. However, for interested patients who did not have access to a computer or Internet connection, the research assistant provided them with paper consent forms and paper versions of all study assessments. After participants had completed the baseline assessment, the research assistant provided them with a written schedule of future assessments, which were expected to occur at 1 month posttreatment, 3 months posttreatment, 6 months posttreatment, and 12 months posttreatment.

For all follow-up appointments, participants could complete assessments either at clinic visits or from home using a secure online assessment platform called Assessment Center.¹⁰ The research assistant used a patient log to track participants and their progress in the study, which included study number, patient name (or initials), registration date, date of birth, sex, and timeline of completed or future assessments. The research assistant called or emailed participants (depending on patient preference) about a week before each of their follow-up assessments to facilitate adherence. If the participant did not log into the system by the target day, the research assistant contacted him the following day (target day +1) with a phone or email reminder to log into the system and complete the assessments. If the participant did not log in by midnight 1 day after the target day, the research assistant attempted to contact him one last time (target day +2) with either a reminder to log into the system or to ascertain his status that might be related to his noncompletion. Overall, a participant was called or e-mailed 1 to 3 times to remind him of his assessment. If he was unresponsive after 3 attempts, he was recorded as having withdrawn for an unknown reason.

At baseline and each follow-up time point, study participants completed a battery of patient-reported outcome measures, with most coming from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)¹¹ and the Surgical Outcomes Measurement System (SOMS).¹² PROMIS is a National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded measurement system that has helped standardize and improve self-reported assessment of health status, symptoms, side effects, and different aspects of HRQoL, including physical, emotional, cognitive, and social health. SOMS is a suite of patient-reported outcome measures assessing important aspects of HRQoL after surgery. It was developed with feedback from surgeons, postoperative patients, and surgical nurses. PROMIS items were directly incorporated into numerous SOMS measures to facilitate easier comparisons and score crosswalks across measures and patient populations. In addition to PROMIS and SOMS measures, we also administered several well-known instruments of urological and sexual function, including the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and American Urological Association Symptom Score Index (AUASS).^13,14

Outcome measures were compared across sociodemographic and clinical variables at each time point using t tests for numerical variables (age) and with chi-square or Fisher exact tests for categorical variables; those variables with significant differences were used as covariates in statistical models. To examine differences in patient-reported scores over time, we used repeated measures analysis of covariance with general linear modeling methods. We used Pearson correlation coefficients to evaluate for correlations between quality-of-life outcomes and treatment satisfaction.

Not all participants completed each of the follow-up surveys, and reasons for dropout were prospectively documented. Most participants elected surgical resection as their primary treatment compared with the fewer than 10% of patients who chose radiation or chemotherapy as their primary treatment and about 20% of men who chose active surveillance after their initial diagnosis. Therefore, our analysis focused on patients who elected surgical resection. For comparison purposes, we included the HRQoL results from active surveillance patients.

Results

A total of 105 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer were enrolled in the study. Response rates decreased throughout the study (n = 75 at 1 month; n = 71 at 3 months; n = 64 at 6 months; n = 54 at 12 months). Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants are shown in Table 1. The mean change from pretreatment (baseline) scores for each measure in patients treated with surgery is shown in Table 2, and the mean change from pretreatment scores in patients who elected active surveillance is shown in Table 3 (in both tables, a negative score denotes worsened function, and a positive change denotes improvement).

After surgery, patients reported significantly lower erectile function and sexual satisfaction scores. These included statistically significant decreases for IIEF Erectile Function, IIEF Overall Satisfaction, PROMIS Sexual Satisfaction, PROMIS Sexual Interest, and PROMIS Orgasm. In patients treated with surgery, there were significant improvements in anxiety observed for patients at each follow-up time, whereas significantly worse bladder problems were observed on SOMS Bladder at 1 and 3 months but returned to baseline by 12 months after surgery. AUASS was worse at 1 month but significantly improved at 6 and 12 months. Fatigue scores significantly worsened at 1 month but were no longer significant at 6 and 12 months. Physical Function was worsened at 1 month but not throughout the rest of the study. Bowel Problems (SOMS) were significantly worse at 1 month, but changes became nonsignificant on subsequent assessments. The only 2 domains that did not demonstrate any significant changes over time were Pain Interference and Sleep Disturbance (both SOMS).

Discussion

This prospective study assessed the HRQoL from pretreatment through 12 months posttreatment in men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer that had been treated with surgery. Although the indicators of sexual function significantly decreased over time, they were not meaningfully associated with overall treatment satisfaction. Instead, a host of other factors, including psychosocial (eg, anxiety, depression, body image dissatisfaction, embarrassment), nonurological physical symptoms (pain interference, physical function, sleep disturbance, fatigue), and bladder problems, were significantly related to overall treatment satisfaction. Although this may not be surprising in other clinical oncology paradigms, the sheer surfeit of focus and attention on sexual function has overshadowed aspects of HRQoL that many men report are important to them, despite worsened sexual function outcomes.

Understanding potential treatment-related changes in HRQoL can be challenging for men when choosing providers and different therapeutic options. The increasing complexity of treatment in prostate cancer has created an opportunity to not only understand efficacy on cancer control but also focus on meaningful patient-reported outcomes. Hospitals and medical groups are increasingly aware of the importance of improving the patient care experience. Objective measures of patient satisfaction for health care providers, such as the Press-Ganey and Net Promoter score, exist to measure and improve patient experience. In prostate cancer, clinicians and large groups, including governmental agencies such as the US Preventive Services Task Force, have often focused on declines in urinary and erectile function¹⁵ without considering the full impact of prostate cancer treatment on global HRQoL. Our study was a prospective, longitudinal, self-reported examination of the impact, positive and negative, of prostate cancer treatment over a 12-month period.

Numerous studies have documented the treatment-related side effects of erectile, urinary, and bowel dysfunction in patients treated for prostate cancer, which may occur after definitive local therapies.^5,16-18 The present study shows a similar impact on urinary, bowel, and erectile domains after treatment. Although erectile function scores remained lower through the course of the 12-month study, bowel and bladder domains returned to baseline by month 12. Unlike other studies, we also examined psychosocial and nonurological aspects of prostate cancer treatment. We found that there was a measurable and significant positive impact on other HRQoL measurements such as decreased anxiety. Despite a variety of declines across HRQoL domains, most patients reported that their results were largely as they had expected, and their side effects were the same or better than they had expected. No patient in the cohort reported being dissatisfied with his overall treatment, and more than 90% of patients were mostly or completely satisfied with their treatment choice. This highlights the point that while sexual and other urological domains of HRQoL are important, impairments in these areas do not necessarily reflect how many patients perceive success or satisfaction with their treatment choice. We also showed correlations between treatment satisfaction and improvement in sleep, anxiety, depression, and fatigue. It is worth noting that although there were decreases in the erectile and sexual function domains after treatment, those factors were not correlated with overall treatment satisfaction. Those factors may not routinely be assessed before, during, and after treatment for prostate cancer in most clinical encounters. However, because they were strongly associated with satisfaction with treatment outcomes in this study, identification in impairments may lead to opportunities to intervene and improve the patient experience. Therefore, important “teachable moments” may be missed (for both patients and providers) during treatment decision-making encounters if other factors beyond sexual and urological outcomes are not adequately considered and addressed. Furthermore, the results of our study may help clinicians counsel patients on their expectations for their recovery after surgery and identify particular issues related to HRQoL to pay close attention to in follow-up visits.

Strengths of our study include its prospective nature, which allowed evaluation of HRQoL outcomes at multiple time points throughout the first year after treatment. In addition, we used existing patient-reported outcome tools validated by the NIH to assess changes in HRQoL. PROMIS is an NIH-supported tool that can be leveraged in the pre- and posttreatment periods to identify patients who have impairments with HRQoL. It can provide clinicians with a unique opportunity to detect and intervene in setbacks and side effects to improve patient satisfaction and HRQoL.

Limitations of the current study include that most patients selected surgery for their treatment choice and that not all patients completed all longitudinal questionnaires, although this is expected in longitudinal studies of this nature. Although all the patients were approached and encouraged to participate, many did not participate and were not captured. In addition, not all patients completed end-of-study surveys. These factors may have biased our results because of unmeasurable factors related to nonparticipation or dropout. Our study encompassed the preoperative period up to 12 months postoperatively, which may fail to identify improvements or declines in HRQoL that may occur more than 12 months postoperatively, particularly related to continence and erectile function. The participants were enrolled by 6 surgeons, and we were not able to standardize the preoperative counseling either preoperatively or postoperatively, which may have biased our results. Finally, our study population consisted of predominantly white, married men of higher socioeconomic status; therefore, our results may not be generalizable to newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients overall.
 

Conclusions

By using validated self-administered questionnaires, we found that despite decreased sexual and urinary function, patients treated for prostate cancer were satisfied with their treatment choice. Correlates to higher patient satisfaction included decreased anxiety, depression, fatigue, and sleep disturbances.

Thirteen members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to approve the influenza vaccine recommendations for 2018-2019, while one member abstained from voting at the summer ACIP meeting.

The 2018-2019 recommendation maintains the core recommendation that influenza vaccines should be administered to all persons 6 months or older who have no contraindications.

Jovanmandic/Thinkstock

Thirteen members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to approve the influenza vaccine recommendations for 2018-2019, while one member abstained from voting at the summer ACIP meeting.

The 2018-2019 recommendation maintains the core recommendation that influenza vaccines should be administered to all persons 6 months or older who have no contraindications.

Jovanmandic/Thinkstock

Thirteen members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to approve the influenza vaccine recommendations for 2018-2019, while one member abstained from voting at the summer ACIP meeting.

The 2018-2019 recommendation maintains the core recommendation that influenza vaccines should be administered to all persons 6 months or older who have no contraindications.

Jovanmandic/Thinkstock

A move toward more individualized treatment of hyperglycemia is coming in the next American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes Consensus Report, according to John B. Buse, MD, PhD, cochair of the committee writing the new consensus statement.

He will present a draft of the statement on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes at the ADA’s annual scientific sessions in Orlando.

When finalized – after revisions based on comments and feedback from diabetes care providers – clinical researchers, patient groups, payers, regulators, and stakeholders – the statement will update the last revision, issued in 2015.

“We are taking a new look at hyperglycemia based on the many studies conducted since 2014, particularly the cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Buse, the Verne S. Caviness Distinguished Professor in the division of endocrinology and metabolism and chief of endocrinology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in a statement.

A move toward more individualized treatment of hyperglycemia is coming in the next American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes Consensus Report, according to John B. Buse, MD, PhD, cochair of the committee writing the new consensus statement.

He will present a draft of the statement on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes at the ADA’s annual scientific sessions in Orlando.

When finalized – after revisions based on comments and feedback from diabetes care providers – clinical researchers, patient groups, payers, regulators, and stakeholders – the statement will update the last revision, issued in 2015.

“We are taking a new look at hyperglycemia based on the many studies conducted since 2014, particularly the cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Buse, the Verne S. Caviness Distinguished Professor in the division of endocrinology and metabolism and chief of endocrinology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in a statement.

A move toward more individualized treatment of hyperglycemia is coming in the next American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes Consensus Report, according to John B. Buse, MD, PhD, cochair of the committee writing the new consensus statement.

He will present a draft of the statement on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes at the ADA’s annual scientific sessions in Orlando.

When finalized – after revisions based on comments and feedback from diabetes care providers – clinical researchers, patient groups, payers, regulators, and stakeholders – the statement will update the last revision, issued in 2015.

“We are taking a new look at hyperglycemia based on the many studies conducted since 2014, particularly the cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Buse, the Verne S. Caviness Distinguished Professor in the division of endocrinology and metabolism and chief of endocrinology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in a statement.

The use of permanent cosmetics dates back thousands of years in history. Microblading, a technique for creating natural looking eyebrows using pigment, has reemerged in popularity in the 21st century, and has rapidly become one of the most popular cosmetic procedures in the United States. However, it has not completely replaced traditional eyebrow micropigmentation techniques: Many people may not be candidates for microblading because of how the pigment is manually deposited in the skin through tiny “tears” in the skin with this procedure.

The use of microblading has increased exponentially since 2015, as reflected by the millions of searches on popular social media sites. With the increase in the popularity and volume of tattoo artists performing these procedures, there has also been an increase in side effects and complications from microblading provided by poorly trained and unlicensed “artists,” a problem facilitated by the absence of adequate training requirements and/or regulatory oversight in many states.

Lola Jonsson, Skin Care and Laser Physicians of Beverly Hills.

Lola Jonsson, Skin Care and Laser Physicians of Beverly Hills.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley and are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected]. This column was written with the help and professional expertise of Emily Joy, a cosmetic tattoo artist and the founder of Dollistic in McLean.

The use of permanent cosmetics dates back thousands of years in history. Microblading, a technique for creating natural looking eyebrows using pigment, has reemerged in popularity in the 21st century, and has rapidly become one of the most popular cosmetic procedures in the United States. However, it has not completely replaced traditional eyebrow micropigmentation techniques: Many people may not be candidates for microblading because of how the pigment is manually deposited in the skin through tiny “tears” in the skin with this procedure.

The use of microblading has increased exponentially since 2015, as reflected by the millions of searches on popular social media sites. With the increase in the popularity and volume of tattoo artists performing these procedures, there has also been an increase in side effects and complications from microblading provided by poorly trained and unlicensed “artists,” a problem facilitated by the absence of adequate training requirements and/or regulatory oversight in many states.

Lola Jonsson, Skin Care and Laser Physicians of Beverly Hills.

Lola Jonsson, Skin Care and Laser Physicians of Beverly Hills.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley and are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected]. This column was written with the help and professional expertise of Emily Joy, a cosmetic tattoo artist and the founder of Dollistic in McLean.

The use of permanent cosmetics dates back thousands of years in history. Microblading, a technique for creating natural looking eyebrows using pigment, has reemerged in popularity in the 21st century, and has rapidly become one of the most popular cosmetic procedures in the United States. However, it has not completely replaced traditional eyebrow micropigmentation techniques: Many people may not be candidates for microblading because of how the pigment is manually deposited in the skin through tiny “tears” in the skin with this procedure.

The use of microblading has increased exponentially since 2015, as reflected by the millions of searches on popular social media sites. With the increase in the popularity and volume of tattoo artists performing these procedures, there has also been an increase in side effects and complications from microblading provided by poorly trained and unlicensed “artists,” a problem facilitated by the absence of adequate training requirements and/or regulatory oversight in many states.

Lola Jonsson, Skin Care and Laser Physicians of Beverly Hills.

Lola Jonsson, Skin Care and Laser Physicians of Beverly Hills.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley and are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected]. This column was written with the help and professional expertise of Emily Joy, a cosmetic tattoo artist and the founder of Dollistic in McLean.

Click Here to Read Supplement.

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) affects women worldwide and recurrent BV can be a frustrating condition for both patients and providers. In this new supplement, expert Khady Diouf, MD, discusses her treatment approach and suggested counseling for patients with recurrent BV.

Click Here to Read the Supplement. 

Click Here to Read Supplement.

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) affects women worldwide and recurrent BV can be a frustrating condition for both patients and providers. In this new supplement, expert Khady Diouf, MD, discusses her treatment approach and suggested counseling for patients with recurrent BV.

Click Here to Read the Supplement. 

Click Here to Read Supplement.

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) affects women worldwide and recurrent BV can be a frustrating condition for both patients and providers. In this new supplement, expert Khady Diouf, MD, discusses her treatment approach and suggested counseling for patients with recurrent BV.

Click Here to Read the Supplement. 

Treatment of gastroesophageal reflux (GER) in preterm infants with traditional treatments, such as body positioning, and newer treatments with pharmacologic agents appear to be ineffective, and pharmacologic agents in particular may cause significant harm, according to a clinical report by the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn.

“I think that probably the most important point for any physician, including neonatologists, is that the committee concluded on the basis of the evidence that gastroesophageal reflux is a normal phenomenon that happens in almost all preterm infants,” Eric Eichenwald, MD, lead author of the committee’s clinical report and chief of neonatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “So really the bottom line of the clinical report is watchful waiting, conservative management, and patience is the most important approach to a baby that you think is suffering from reflux.”

andresr/Getty Images

Pharmacologic management

The committee members focused on four categories of pharmacologic interventions in their report in Pediatrics.

Prokinetic (promotility) agents, such as metoclopramide, domperidone, and erythromycin, are widely used in treating symptoms of GER in older infants and appear to improve gastric emptying, reduce regurgitation, and enhance lower esophageal sphincter tone, but they do not appear to reduce GER symptoms in preterm infants. In addition to not being effective in these infants, there is also a potential for significant adverse events, including cardiac arrhythmia and neurologic side effects. Another common pharmacologic treatment is the use of sodium alginate in combination with sodium bicarbonate. In the presence of gastric acid, sodium alginate precipitates as a gel that forms a physical barrier that protects the gastric mucosa. When sodium bicarbonate is added, a carbon dioxide foam forms that is less harmful to the esophagus than GER-related fluids. While this combination treatment has reduced the number of acidic GER exposures and esophageal acid exposure in preterm infants in small studies, the long-term safety has not been evaluated in this populations.

Histamine₂ (H₂) blockers, like famotidine and ranitidine, also are commonly prescribed to treat preterm infant gastroesophageal reflux. H_{2 blockers} compete with H₂ for the histamine receptors of the parietal cells, which causes a decrease in hydrochloric acid and a subsequent increase in intragastric pH. These are often prescribed on the premise that GER symptoms are secondary to acid reflux in the lower esophagus, but there is no research on the efficacy of H₂ blockers on the symptom profile of GER in preterm infants. This class of drugs also has been linked with an increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis and a higher incidence of late-onset infections and death. This is thought to be caused by alteration of the intestinal microbiome, according to the clinical report.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are another treatment for reducing acid secretion by the parietal cells, but are largely ineffective in relieving clinical signs of GER in preterm infants. PPIs also have been associated with a higher risk of bacterial overgrowth, gastroenteritis, and community-acquired pneumonia in older children. It is theorized that, because of the acid mitigating effects of PPIs, they will have the potential for adverse effects similar to those seen with H₂ blockers, although this has not been investigated.
 

Traditional treatments

Dr. Eichenwald also was quick to point out that even traditional methods of treating preterm infant GER are not particularly effective.

“Some of the conservative approaches that have been advocated include head-up position and different ways of side-lying to enhance emptying of the stomach after feeding. And none of those have been shown to reduce clinically appreciated signs of reflux in preterm infants. If anything – in term babies – some of those positions have been shown to increase the amount of reflux,” he said in an interview.

“I think that the other important point to make about this is that there are many signs that clinicians attribute to reflux in preterm babies, which include wakefulness, irritability, arching after a feeding. And none of those behaviors have been shown to be associated with reflux when it’s critically examined using either a pH Probe or multichannel impedance monitoring. And therefore the treatments to try to decrease reflux don’t really have an effect on those behaviors either.”
 

Parental concern

Treating a pediatric issue is not as simple as diagnosis and treatment. Often, parents are justifiably concerned about their children. Dr. Eichenwald sees educating parents as an important facet of treating GER in preterm infants.

“Quite honestly I think that there’s some projection on the part of adults who say, ‘I know how I feel when I have heartburn, which is the adult equivalent of reflux, and the baby must be experiencing the same thing, and that’s why they’re acting uncomfortable,’ ” suggested Dr. Eichenwald. “I think that it’s important for clinicians to educate families that a lot of the signs that we typically have attributed to gastroesophageal reflux are not really related to it.”

With both traditional and pharmacological interventions failing to treat preterm infant GER, Dr. Eichenwald believes that the most effective treatment could be patiently waiting. “I think that the important thing to stress is that reflux is a normal physiologic phenomenon. It rarely causes pathology in preterm infants, and therefore, in treating it, you’re not treating any pathology. You should just be patient and it will likely just go away on its own.”

Dr. Eichenwald has no potential conflicts of interest or external funding to report.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Eichenwald E et al. Pediatrics. 2018 June. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1061 .

Treatment of gastroesophageal reflux (GER) in preterm infants with traditional treatments, such as body positioning, and newer treatments with pharmacologic agents appear to be ineffective, and pharmacologic agents in particular may cause significant harm, according to a clinical report by the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn.

“I think that probably the most important point for any physician, including neonatologists, is that the committee concluded on the basis of the evidence that gastroesophageal reflux is a normal phenomenon that happens in almost all preterm infants,” Eric Eichenwald, MD, lead author of the committee’s clinical report and chief of neonatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “So really the bottom line of the clinical report is watchful waiting, conservative management, and patience is the most important approach to a baby that you think is suffering from reflux.”

andresr/Getty Images

Pharmacologic management

The committee members focused on four categories of pharmacologic interventions in their report in Pediatrics.

Prokinetic (promotility) agents, such as metoclopramide, domperidone, and erythromycin, are widely used in treating symptoms of GER in older infants and appear to improve gastric emptying, reduce regurgitation, and enhance lower esophageal sphincter tone, but they do not appear to reduce GER symptoms in preterm infants. In addition to not being effective in these infants, there is also a potential for significant adverse events, including cardiac arrhythmia and neurologic side effects. Another common pharmacologic treatment is the use of sodium alginate in combination with sodium bicarbonate. In the presence of gastric acid, sodium alginate precipitates as a gel that forms a physical barrier that protects the gastric mucosa. When sodium bicarbonate is added, a carbon dioxide foam forms that is less harmful to the esophagus than GER-related fluids. While this combination treatment has reduced the number of acidic GER exposures and esophageal acid exposure in preterm infants in small studies, the long-term safety has not been evaluated in this populations.

Histamine₂ (H₂) blockers, like famotidine and ranitidine, also are commonly prescribed to treat preterm infant gastroesophageal reflux. H_{2 blockers} compete with H₂ for the histamine receptors of the parietal cells, which causes a decrease in hydrochloric acid and a subsequent increase in intragastric pH. These are often prescribed on the premise that GER symptoms are secondary to acid reflux in the lower esophagus, but there is no research on the efficacy of H₂ blockers on the symptom profile of GER in preterm infants. This class of drugs also has been linked with an increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis and a higher incidence of late-onset infections and death. This is thought to be caused by alteration of the intestinal microbiome, according to the clinical report.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are another treatment for reducing acid secretion by the parietal cells, but are largely ineffective in relieving clinical signs of GER in preterm infants. PPIs also have been associated with a higher risk of bacterial overgrowth, gastroenteritis, and community-acquired pneumonia in older children. It is theorized that, because of the acid mitigating effects of PPIs, they will have the potential for adverse effects similar to those seen with H₂ blockers, although this has not been investigated.
 

Traditional treatments

Dr. Eichenwald also was quick to point out that even traditional methods of treating preterm infant GER are not particularly effective.

“Some of the conservative approaches that have been advocated include head-up position and different ways of side-lying to enhance emptying of the stomach after feeding. And none of those have been shown to reduce clinically appreciated signs of reflux in preterm infants. If anything – in term babies – some of those positions have been shown to increase the amount of reflux,” he said in an interview.

“I think that the other important point to make about this is that there are many signs that clinicians attribute to reflux in preterm babies, which include wakefulness, irritability, arching after a feeding. And none of those behaviors have been shown to be associated with reflux when it’s critically examined using either a pH Probe or multichannel impedance monitoring. And therefore the treatments to try to decrease reflux don’t really have an effect on those behaviors either.”
 

Parental concern

Treating a pediatric issue is not as simple as diagnosis and treatment. Often, parents are justifiably concerned about their children. Dr. Eichenwald sees educating parents as an important facet of treating GER in preterm infants.

“Quite honestly I think that there’s some projection on the part of adults who say, ‘I know how I feel when I have heartburn, which is the adult equivalent of reflux, and the baby must be experiencing the same thing, and that’s why they’re acting uncomfortable,’ ” suggested Dr. Eichenwald. “I think that it’s important for clinicians to educate families that a lot of the signs that we typically have attributed to gastroesophageal reflux are not really related to it.”

With both traditional and pharmacological interventions failing to treat preterm infant GER, Dr. Eichenwald believes that the most effective treatment could be patiently waiting. “I think that the important thing to stress is that reflux is a normal physiologic phenomenon. It rarely causes pathology in preterm infants, and therefore, in treating it, you’re not treating any pathology. You should just be patient and it will likely just go away on its own.”

Dr. Eichenwald has no potential conflicts of interest or external funding to report.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Eichenwald E et al. Pediatrics. 2018 June. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1061 .

Treatment of gastroesophageal reflux (GER) in preterm infants with traditional treatments, such as body positioning, and newer treatments with pharmacologic agents appear to be ineffective, and pharmacologic agents in particular may cause significant harm, according to a clinical report by the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn.

“I think that probably the most important point for any physician, including neonatologists, is that the committee concluded on the basis of the evidence that gastroesophageal reflux is a normal phenomenon that happens in almost all preterm infants,” Eric Eichenwald, MD, lead author of the committee’s clinical report and chief of neonatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “So really the bottom line of the clinical report is watchful waiting, conservative management, and patience is the most important approach to a baby that you think is suffering from reflux.”

andresr/Getty Images

Pharmacologic management

The committee members focused on four categories of pharmacologic interventions in their report in Pediatrics.

Prokinetic (promotility) agents, such as metoclopramide, domperidone, and erythromycin, are widely used in treating symptoms of GER in older infants and appear to improve gastric emptying, reduce regurgitation, and enhance lower esophageal sphincter tone, but they do not appear to reduce GER symptoms in preterm infants. In addition to not being effective in these infants, there is also a potential for significant adverse events, including cardiac arrhythmia and neurologic side effects. Another common pharmacologic treatment is the use of sodium alginate in combination with sodium bicarbonate. In the presence of gastric acid, sodium alginate precipitates as a gel that forms a physical barrier that protects the gastric mucosa. When sodium bicarbonate is added, a carbon dioxide foam forms that is less harmful to the esophagus than GER-related fluids. While this combination treatment has reduced the number of acidic GER exposures and esophageal acid exposure in preterm infants in small studies, the long-term safety has not been evaluated in this populations.

Histamine₂ (H₂) blockers, like famotidine and ranitidine, also are commonly prescribed to treat preterm infant gastroesophageal reflux. H_{2 blockers} compete with H₂ for the histamine receptors of the parietal cells, which causes a decrease in hydrochloric acid and a subsequent increase in intragastric pH. These are often prescribed on the premise that GER symptoms are secondary to acid reflux in the lower esophagus, but there is no research on the efficacy of H₂ blockers on the symptom profile of GER in preterm infants. This class of drugs also has been linked with an increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis and a higher incidence of late-onset infections and death. This is thought to be caused by alteration of the intestinal microbiome, according to the clinical report.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are another treatment for reducing acid secretion by the parietal cells, but are largely ineffective in relieving clinical signs of GER in preterm infants. PPIs also have been associated with a higher risk of bacterial overgrowth, gastroenteritis, and community-acquired pneumonia in older children. It is theorized that, because of the acid mitigating effects of PPIs, they will have the potential for adverse effects similar to those seen with H₂ blockers, although this has not been investigated.
 

Traditional treatments

Dr. Eichenwald also was quick to point out that even traditional methods of treating preterm infant GER are not particularly effective.

“Some of the conservative approaches that have been advocated include head-up position and different ways of side-lying to enhance emptying of the stomach after feeding. And none of those have been shown to reduce clinically appreciated signs of reflux in preterm infants. If anything – in term babies – some of those positions have been shown to increase the amount of reflux,” he said in an interview.

“I think that the other important point to make about this is that there are many signs that clinicians attribute to reflux in preterm babies, which include wakefulness, irritability, arching after a feeding. And none of those behaviors have been shown to be associated with reflux when it’s critically examined using either a pH Probe or multichannel impedance monitoring. And therefore the treatments to try to decrease reflux don’t really have an effect on those behaviors either.”
 

Parental concern

Treating a pediatric issue is not as simple as diagnosis and treatment. Often, parents are justifiably concerned about their children. Dr. Eichenwald sees educating parents as an important facet of treating GER in preterm infants.

“Quite honestly I think that there’s some projection on the part of adults who say, ‘I know how I feel when I have heartburn, which is the adult equivalent of reflux, and the baby must be experiencing the same thing, and that’s why they’re acting uncomfortable,’ ” suggested Dr. Eichenwald. “I think that it’s important for clinicians to educate families that a lot of the signs that we typically have attributed to gastroesophageal reflux are not really related to it.”

With both traditional and pharmacological interventions failing to treat preterm infant GER, Dr. Eichenwald believes that the most effective treatment could be patiently waiting. “I think that the important thing to stress is that reflux is a normal physiologic phenomenon. It rarely causes pathology in preterm infants, and therefore, in treating it, you’re not treating any pathology. You should just be patient and it will likely just go away on its own.”

Dr. Eichenwald has no potential conflicts of interest or external funding to report.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Eichenwald E et al. Pediatrics. 2018 June. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1061 .