BACKGROUND

The Breast and Gynecologic System of Excellence (BGSOE) program has developed a workflow support tool using health information technology to assist clinicians, coordinators and stakeholders in identifying, tracking and supporting Veterans with breast and gynecological cancers. This tool was designed and implemented through a novel process that involved clarifying program aims, defining workflows in process delivery diagrams, and identifying data, analytic products, and user needs. To determine the optimal tool for the program, a comparative usability evaluation was conducted, comparing the new workflow support tool with a previous tool that shared identical aims but utilized a different approach.

METHODS

Usability evaluation employed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and measured acceptance using modified items from a validated instrument used in a national survey of electronic health records. Task efficiency was evaluated based on time taken and the number of clicks required to complete tasks.

RESULTS

Eight healthcare professionals with experience in the BGSOE program or similar programs in the VA participated in the usability evaluation. This group comprised physicians (38%), clinical pharmacist (25%), health care coordinators (25%), and registered nurse (12%). The workflow support tool achieved an impressive SUS score of 89.06, with acceptance scores of 93% (positive statements) and 6% (negative statements), outperforming the standard tool, which scored score of 57.5 on the SUS and had acceptance scores of 53% (positive statements) and 50% (negative statements). In the comparative ranking, 100% of the users preferred the workflow support tool, citing its userfriendliness, intuitiveness, and ease of use. On average, users completed all tasks using the workflow support tool in 8 minutes with 31 clicks, while the standard tool required 18 minutes and 124 clicks.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of a workflow support tool in the design of health information technology interventions leads to improved usability, efficiency, and adoption. Based on the positive results from the usability evaluation, the BGSOE program has chosen to adopt the workflow support tool as its preferred health information technology solution.

BACKGROUND

The Breast and Gynecologic System of Excellence (BGSOE) program has developed a workflow support tool using health information technology to assist clinicians, coordinators and stakeholders in identifying, tracking and supporting Veterans with breast and gynecological cancers. This tool was designed and implemented through a novel process that involved clarifying program aims, defining workflows in process delivery diagrams, and identifying data, analytic products, and user needs. To determine the optimal tool for the program, a comparative usability evaluation was conducted, comparing the new workflow support tool with a previous tool that shared identical aims but utilized a different approach.

METHODS

Usability evaluation employed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and measured acceptance using modified items from a validated instrument used in a national survey of electronic health records. Task efficiency was evaluated based on time taken and the number of clicks required to complete tasks.

RESULTS

Eight healthcare professionals with experience in the BGSOE program or similar programs in the VA participated in the usability evaluation. This group comprised physicians (38%), clinical pharmacist (25%), health care coordinators (25%), and registered nurse (12%). The workflow support tool achieved an impressive SUS score of 89.06, with acceptance scores of 93% (positive statements) and 6% (negative statements), outperforming the standard tool, which scored score of 57.5 on the SUS and had acceptance scores of 53% (positive statements) and 50% (negative statements). In the comparative ranking, 100% of the users preferred the workflow support tool, citing its userfriendliness, intuitiveness, and ease of use. On average, users completed all tasks using the workflow support tool in 8 minutes with 31 clicks, while the standard tool required 18 minutes and 124 clicks.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of a workflow support tool in the design of health information technology interventions leads to improved usability, efficiency, and adoption. Based on the positive results from the usability evaluation, the BGSOE program has chosen to adopt the workflow support tool as its preferred health information technology solution.

BACKGROUND

The Breast and Gynecologic System of Excellence (BGSOE) program has developed a workflow support tool using health information technology to assist clinicians, coordinators and stakeholders in identifying, tracking and supporting Veterans with breast and gynecological cancers. This tool was designed and implemented through a novel process that involved clarifying program aims, defining workflows in process delivery diagrams, and identifying data, analytic products, and user needs. To determine the optimal tool for the program, a comparative usability evaluation was conducted, comparing the new workflow support tool with a previous tool that shared identical aims but utilized a different approach.

METHODS

Usability evaluation employed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and measured acceptance using modified items from a validated instrument used in a national survey of electronic health records. Task efficiency was evaluated based on time taken and the number of clicks required to complete tasks.

RESULTS

Eight healthcare professionals with experience in the BGSOE program or similar programs in the VA participated in the usability evaluation. This group comprised physicians (38%), clinical pharmacist (25%), health care coordinators (25%), and registered nurse (12%). The workflow support tool achieved an impressive SUS score of 89.06, with acceptance scores of 93% (positive statements) and 6% (negative statements), outperforming the standard tool, which scored score of 57.5 on the SUS and had acceptance scores of 53% (positive statements) and 50% (negative statements). In the comparative ranking, 100% of the users preferred the workflow support tool, citing its userfriendliness, intuitiveness, and ease of use. On average, users completed all tasks using the workflow support tool in 8 minutes with 31 clicks, while the standard tool required 18 minutes and 124 clicks.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of a workflow support tool in the design of health information technology interventions leads to improved usability, efficiency, and adoption. Based on the positive results from the usability evaluation, the BGSOE program has chosen to adopt the workflow support tool as its preferred health information technology solution.

BACKGROUND

Ewing sarcoma (EWS) is a malignancy which primarily arises in adolescence and has been studied extensively in this population. Much less is www.mdedge.com/fedprac/avaho SEPTEMBER 2023 • S23 known about the rare patient cohort over the age of 40 at diagnosis. In this study, we describe the survival outcomes and clinical characteristics of this population.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identify 4600 patients diagnosed between 2004 through 2019. Of these patients, 4058 were under the age of 40 and 542 were over 40. Multivariate Cox regression models and Kaplan- Meier curves were used to estimate survival from diagnosis to death between age groups. Chi-square tests were used to compare demographic and socioeconomic patient characteristics. IBM SPSS version 27.0 was used. p<0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS

EWS patients older than 40 experienced worse survival outcomes compared to patients under the age of 40. 5-year survival was 43.5% for older patients vs. 64.5% for younger patients (p<0.05). A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that age was independently associated with inferior survival. (HR 2.23; p<0.05). EWS patients over the age of 40 were more likely to have tumors originating from the vertebral column (16.2% vs. 9.6%; p<0.05), cranium (5.5% vs. 4.7%; p<0.05), and had a higher rate of axial tumors (43.3% vs. 32.4%; p<0.05) compared to patients under 40. Additionally, patients older than 40 experienced a significantly longer delay between the date of diagnosis and initiation of systemic treatment (29.85 days vs. 19.37 days; p<0.05). Despite presenting with larger tumors , older patients were less likely to undergo a surgical procedure of the primary site (47.6% vs. 52.2%; p<0.05) and had higher rates of micro- and macroscopic residual tumor following surgical resection.

CONCLUSIONS

An age over 40 is associated with decreased survival for patients with EWS. Due to the rarity of EWS in this cohort, the optimal role of systemic treatment remains unknown and has yet to be clearly elucidated. Consequently, our findings suggest that older patients receive disparities in treatment which may be contributing to decreased survival rates.

BACKGROUND

Ewing sarcoma (EWS) is a malignancy which primarily arises in adolescence and has been studied extensively in this population. Much less is www.mdedge.com/fedprac/avaho SEPTEMBER 2023 • S23 known about the rare patient cohort over the age of 40 at diagnosis. In this study, we describe the survival outcomes and clinical characteristics of this population.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identify 4600 patients diagnosed between 2004 through 2019. Of these patients, 4058 were under the age of 40 and 542 were over 40. Multivariate Cox regression models and Kaplan- Meier curves were used to estimate survival from diagnosis to death between age groups. Chi-square tests were used to compare demographic and socioeconomic patient characteristics. IBM SPSS version 27.0 was used. p<0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS

EWS patients older than 40 experienced worse survival outcomes compared to patients under the age of 40. 5-year survival was 43.5% for older patients vs. 64.5% for younger patients (p<0.05). A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that age was independently associated with inferior survival. (HR 2.23; p<0.05). EWS patients over the age of 40 were more likely to have tumors originating from the vertebral column (16.2% vs. 9.6%; p<0.05), cranium (5.5% vs. 4.7%; p<0.05), and had a higher rate of axial tumors (43.3% vs. 32.4%; p<0.05) compared to patients under 40. Additionally, patients older than 40 experienced a significantly longer delay between the date of diagnosis and initiation of systemic treatment (29.85 days vs. 19.37 days; p<0.05). Despite presenting with larger tumors , older patients were less likely to undergo a surgical procedure of the primary site (47.6% vs. 52.2%; p<0.05) and had higher rates of micro- and macroscopic residual tumor following surgical resection.

CONCLUSIONS

An age over 40 is associated with decreased survival for patients with EWS. Due to the rarity of EWS in this cohort, the optimal role of systemic treatment remains unknown and has yet to be clearly elucidated. Consequently, our findings suggest that older patients receive disparities in treatment which may be contributing to decreased survival rates.

BACKGROUND

Ewing sarcoma (EWS) is a malignancy which primarily arises in adolescence and has been studied extensively in this population. Much less is www.mdedge.com/fedprac/avaho SEPTEMBER 2023 • S23 known about the rare patient cohort over the age of 40 at diagnosis. In this study, we describe the survival outcomes and clinical characteristics of this population.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identify 4600 patients diagnosed between 2004 through 2019. Of these patients, 4058 were under the age of 40 and 542 were over 40. Multivariate Cox regression models and Kaplan- Meier curves were used to estimate survival from diagnosis to death between age groups. Chi-square tests were used to compare demographic and socioeconomic patient characteristics. IBM SPSS version 27.0 was used. p<0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS

EWS patients older than 40 experienced worse survival outcomes compared to patients under the age of 40. 5-year survival was 43.5% for older patients vs. 64.5% for younger patients (p<0.05). A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that age was independently associated with inferior survival. (HR 2.23; p<0.05). EWS patients over the age of 40 were more likely to have tumors originating from the vertebral column (16.2% vs. 9.6%; p<0.05), cranium (5.5% vs. 4.7%; p<0.05), and had a higher rate of axial tumors (43.3% vs. 32.4%; p<0.05) compared to patients under 40. Additionally, patients older than 40 experienced a significantly longer delay between the date of diagnosis and initiation of systemic treatment (29.85 days vs. 19.37 days; p<0.05). Despite presenting with larger tumors , older patients were less likely to undergo a surgical procedure of the primary site (47.6% vs. 52.2%; p<0.05) and had higher rates of micro- and macroscopic residual tumor following surgical resection.

CONCLUSIONS

An age over 40 is associated with decreased survival for patients with EWS. Due to the rarity of EWS in this cohort, the optimal role of systemic treatment remains unknown and has yet to be clearly elucidated. Consequently, our findings suggest that older patients receive disparities in treatment which may be contributing to decreased survival rates.

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of medical services is a significant barrier in modern patient care with contributing factors including patient and system level details. The Veterans Affairs (VA) department is the largest integrated health care organization in the US. Given the complex challenges of such a system, the VA has developed resources to lessen the impact of care fragmentation, potentially widening services and diminishing traditional barriers to care. We present a patient case as an example of how VA programs are impacting current veteran oncologic care.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 86-year-old veteran with shortness of breath and fatigue was found to have macrocytic anemia. Located nearly 200 miles from the closest VA with hematology services he was referred through the National TeleOncology (NTO) service to see hematology using clinical video telehealth (CVT) technology stationed at a VA approximately 100 miles from his home. Consultation led to lab work revealing no viral, nutritional, or rheumatologic explanation. A bone marrow biopsy was completed without clear diagnosis though molecular alterations demonstrated ASXL1, TET2 and CBL mutations. Hematopathology services were sought, and the patient’s case was presented at the NTO virtual hematologic tumor board where expert VA hematopathology, radiology and medical hematology opinions were available. A diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome was rendered with care recommendations including the novel agent luspatercept. Given patient age and comorbidities, transportation remained a barrier. The patient was set up to receive services through home based primary care (HBPC) with weekly lab draws and medication administration. Ultimately, the patient was able to receive the first dose of luspatercept through the NTO affiliated VA with subsequent administrations to be given by HBPC. Additional visits planned using at home VA video Connect (VVC) service and CVT visits with NTO hematology at his local community based outpatient center (CBOC) located 30 miles from his home.

DISCUSSION

Located over 3 hours from the closest in-person VA hematologist, this patient was able to receive complex care thanks to a marriage of in-person and virtual services involving specialty nurses, pharmacists, and physicians from across VA. Services such as the NTO hub-spoke model, virtual tumor boards and HBPC, reveal a care framework unique to the VA.

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of medical services is a significant barrier in modern patient care with contributing factors including patient and system level details. The Veterans Affairs (VA) department is the largest integrated health care organization in the US. Given the complex challenges of such a system, the VA has developed resources to lessen the impact of care fragmentation, potentially widening services and diminishing traditional barriers to care. We present a patient case as an example of how VA programs are impacting current veteran oncologic care.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 86-year-old veteran with shortness of breath and fatigue was found to have macrocytic anemia. Located nearly 200 miles from the closest VA with hematology services he was referred through the National TeleOncology (NTO) service to see hematology using clinical video telehealth (CVT) technology stationed at a VA approximately 100 miles from his home. Consultation led to lab work revealing no viral, nutritional, or rheumatologic explanation. A bone marrow biopsy was completed without clear diagnosis though molecular alterations demonstrated ASXL1, TET2 and CBL mutations. Hematopathology services were sought, and the patient’s case was presented at the NTO virtual hematologic tumor board where expert VA hematopathology, radiology and medical hematology opinions were available. A diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome was rendered with care recommendations including the novel agent luspatercept. Given patient age and comorbidities, transportation remained a barrier. The patient was set up to receive services through home based primary care (HBPC) with weekly lab draws and medication administration. Ultimately, the patient was able to receive the first dose of luspatercept through the NTO affiliated VA with subsequent administrations to be given by HBPC. Additional visits planned using at home VA video Connect (VVC) service and CVT visits with NTO hematology at his local community based outpatient center (CBOC) located 30 miles from his home.

DISCUSSION

Located over 3 hours from the closest in-person VA hematologist, this patient was able to receive complex care thanks to a marriage of in-person and virtual services involving specialty nurses, pharmacists, and physicians from across VA. Services such as the NTO hub-spoke model, virtual tumor boards and HBPC, reveal a care framework unique to the VA.

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of medical services is a significant barrier in modern patient care with contributing factors including patient and system level details. The Veterans Affairs (VA) department is the largest integrated health care organization in the US. Given the complex challenges of such a system, the VA has developed resources to lessen the impact of care fragmentation, potentially widening services and diminishing traditional barriers to care. We present a patient case as an example of how VA programs are impacting current veteran oncologic care.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 86-year-old veteran with shortness of breath and fatigue was found to have macrocytic anemia. Located nearly 200 miles from the closest VA with hematology services he was referred through the National TeleOncology (NTO) service to see hematology using clinical video telehealth (CVT) technology stationed at a VA approximately 100 miles from his home. Consultation led to lab work revealing no viral, nutritional, or rheumatologic explanation. A bone marrow biopsy was completed without clear diagnosis though molecular alterations demonstrated ASXL1, TET2 and CBL mutations. Hematopathology services were sought, and the patient’s case was presented at the NTO virtual hematologic tumor board where expert VA hematopathology, radiology and medical hematology opinions were available. A diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome was rendered with care recommendations including the novel agent luspatercept. Given patient age and comorbidities, transportation remained a barrier. The patient was set up to receive services through home based primary care (HBPC) with weekly lab draws and medication administration. Ultimately, the patient was able to receive the first dose of luspatercept through the NTO affiliated VA with subsequent administrations to be given by HBPC. Additional visits planned using at home VA video Connect (VVC) service and CVT visits with NTO hematology at his local community based outpatient center (CBOC) located 30 miles from his home.

DISCUSSION

Located over 3 hours from the closest in-person VA hematologist, this patient was able to receive complex care thanks to a marriage of in-person and virtual services involving specialty nurses, pharmacists, and physicians from across VA. Services such as the NTO hub-spoke model, virtual tumor boards and HBPC, reveal a care framework unique to the VA.

BACKGROUND

Implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS) in high-risk individuals reduces the risk of dying from lung cancer. The mortality benefit of LCS, however, can only be fully actualized in patients who adhere to follow-up screening examinations. Question: Does a centralized program offer better adherence to lung cancer screening compared with a decentralized approach?

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a large Veterans Affairs medical center LCS program was conducted to compare adherence to follow-up screening in veterans established through the consult-based (centralized) program with those screened by primary care providers (decentralized). In addition, imaging referral rates from the centralized program were longitudinally reviewed and compared. The cohort included patients completing an LCS imaging examination between 10/2020 and 1/2022. Annual adherence was assessed in patients with a baseline Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score of 1 or 2 and was defined as returning for follow-up imaging within 15 months. Outcomes among patients undergoing screening using a centralized and decentralized approach were compared using a two-proportion z-test.

RESULTS

A total of 1,114 patients with a baseline Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2 were included. The amount of low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging ordered for LCS increased exponentially from 2021 to 2023; however, a higher percentage of LDCT examinations were ordered via the decentralized approach, with no significant change observed over time (76%, 71%, and 74% in 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively). Overall adherence was 42%. Within the centralized program, adherence was 74% compared to 34% using a decentralized approach (p <0.001).

IMPLICATIONS

Adherence to annual screening among eligible veterans is greater within a centralized program. Future research aimed at identifying barriers and maximizing adherence to LCS is needed.

BACKGROUND

Implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS) in high-risk individuals reduces the risk of dying from lung cancer. The mortality benefit of LCS, however, can only be fully actualized in patients who adhere to follow-up screening examinations. Question: Does a centralized program offer better adherence to lung cancer screening compared with a decentralized approach?

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a large Veterans Affairs medical center LCS program was conducted to compare adherence to follow-up screening in veterans established through the consult-based (centralized) program with those screened by primary care providers (decentralized). In addition, imaging referral rates from the centralized program were longitudinally reviewed and compared. The cohort included patients completing an LCS imaging examination between 10/2020 and 1/2022. Annual adherence was assessed in patients with a baseline Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score of 1 or 2 and was defined as returning for follow-up imaging within 15 months. Outcomes among patients undergoing screening using a centralized and decentralized approach were compared using a two-proportion z-test.

RESULTS

A total of 1,114 patients with a baseline Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2 were included. The amount of low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging ordered for LCS increased exponentially from 2021 to 2023; however, a higher percentage of LDCT examinations were ordered via the decentralized approach, with no significant change observed over time (76%, 71%, and 74% in 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively). Overall adherence was 42%. Within the centralized program, adherence was 74% compared to 34% using a decentralized approach (p <0.001).

IMPLICATIONS

Adherence to annual screening among eligible veterans is greater within a centralized program. Future research aimed at identifying barriers and maximizing adherence to LCS is needed.

BACKGROUND

Implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS) in high-risk individuals reduces the risk of dying from lung cancer. The mortality benefit of LCS, however, can only be fully actualized in patients who adhere to follow-up screening examinations. Question: Does a centralized program offer better adherence to lung cancer screening compared with a decentralized approach?

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a large Veterans Affairs medical center LCS program was conducted to compare adherence to follow-up screening in veterans established through the consult-based (centralized) program with those screened by primary care providers (decentralized). In addition, imaging referral rates from the centralized program were longitudinally reviewed and compared. The cohort included patients completing an LCS imaging examination between 10/2020 and 1/2022. Annual adherence was assessed in patients with a baseline Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score of 1 or 2 and was defined as returning for follow-up imaging within 15 months. Outcomes among patients undergoing screening using a centralized and decentralized approach were compared using a two-proportion z-test.

RESULTS

A total of 1,114 patients with a baseline Lung-RADS score of 1 or 2 were included. The amount of low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging ordered for LCS increased exponentially from 2021 to 2023; however, a higher percentage of LDCT examinations were ordered via the decentralized approach, with no significant change observed over time (76%, 71%, and 74% in 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively). Overall adherence was 42%. Within the centralized program, adherence was 74% compared to 34% using a decentralized approach (p <0.001).

IMPLICATIONS

Adherence to annual screening among eligible veterans is greater within a centralized program. Future research aimed at identifying barriers and maximizing adherence to LCS is needed.

INTRODUCTION

The development of imatinib and now newer tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has revolutionized the overall survival of patients with CML. However, toxicity and treatment-resistance can result in premature discontinuation of therapy. Asciminib, a novel TKI, may have fewer off-target effects. It also bypasses the mechanism of resistance to first-line TKIs by binding to a different site on the BCR-ABL fusion protein. In our institution, three patients have been initiated on asciminib thus far. We present their cases, with a focus on quality of life.

CASE PRESENTATIONS

(1) A 76-year-old male with a history of diffuse vascular disease experienced off-target effects on multiple TKIs (i.e. intolerable nausea on imatinib, pleural effusion on dasatinib, complete heart block on nilotinib), so he was switched to asciminib. He has been tolerating asciminib well over five months and continues to see significant log reduction in BCR-ABL transcripts. (2) A 71-year-old male with a history of multiple complicated gastrointestinal infections never achieved major molecular remission on imatinib and was unable to tolerate dasatinib or bosutinib due to severe nausea and vomiting. He was switched to asciminib, which he has been tolerating well for one year, and has achieved complete hematologic response. (3) A 73-year-old male with a history of chronic kidney disease experienced kidney injury thought to be due to imatinib and was switched to bosutinib. His BCRABL transcripts rose on bosutinib, so patient was started on asciminib, which he has been tolerating well.

DISCUSSION

In this series of patients in their 70s with multiple underlying comorbidities, the unifying theme is that of intolerance to first-line TKIs due to toxicity (cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal). Existing data suggests that asciminib results in less toxicity than other first-line TKIs, and this is evident in our patients. More importantly, the combination of efficacy and tolerability gives these patients the opportunity to proceed with life-prolonging therapy, even for those who face treatment resistance with other agents.

CONCLUSIONS

For CML patients who have failed at least two lines of treatment, whether it is due to disease progression or intolerable toxicity, asciminib is an effective alternative. Further study may result in its promotion to first-line therapy for this disease.

INTRODUCTION

The development of imatinib and now newer tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has revolutionized the overall survival of patients with CML. However, toxicity and treatment-resistance can result in premature discontinuation of therapy. Asciminib, a novel TKI, may have fewer off-target effects. It also bypasses the mechanism of resistance to first-line TKIs by binding to a different site on the BCR-ABL fusion protein. In our institution, three patients have been initiated on asciminib thus far. We present their cases, with a focus on quality of life.

CASE PRESENTATIONS

(1) A 76-year-old male with a history of diffuse vascular disease experienced off-target effects on multiple TKIs (i.e. intolerable nausea on imatinib, pleural effusion on dasatinib, complete heart block on nilotinib), so he was switched to asciminib. He has been tolerating asciminib well over five months and continues to see significant log reduction in BCR-ABL transcripts. (2) A 71-year-old male with a history of multiple complicated gastrointestinal infections never achieved major molecular remission on imatinib and was unable to tolerate dasatinib or bosutinib due to severe nausea and vomiting. He was switched to asciminib, which he has been tolerating well for one year, and has achieved complete hematologic response. (3) A 73-year-old male with a history of chronic kidney disease experienced kidney injury thought to be due to imatinib and was switched to bosutinib. His BCRABL transcripts rose on bosutinib, so patient was started on asciminib, which he has been tolerating well.

DISCUSSION

In this series of patients in their 70s with multiple underlying comorbidities, the unifying theme is that of intolerance to first-line TKIs due to toxicity (cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal). Existing data suggests that asciminib results in less toxicity than other first-line TKIs, and this is evident in our patients. More importantly, the combination of efficacy and tolerability gives these patients the opportunity to proceed with life-prolonging therapy, even for those who face treatment resistance with other agents.

CONCLUSIONS

For CML patients who have failed at least two lines of treatment, whether it is due to disease progression or intolerable toxicity, asciminib is an effective alternative. Further study may result in its promotion to first-line therapy for this disease.

INTRODUCTION

The development of imatinib and now newer tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has revolutionized the overall survival of patients with CML. However, toxicity and treatment-resistance can result in premature discontinuation of therapy. Asciminib, a novel TKI, may have fewer off-target effects. It also bypasses the mechanism of resistance to first-line TKIs by binding to a different site on the BCR-ABL fusion protein. In our institution, three patients have been initiated on asciminib thus far. We present their cases, with a focus on quality of life.

CASE PRESENTATIONS

(1) A 76-year-old male with a history of diffuse vascular disease experienced off-target effects on multiple TKIs (i.e. intolerable nausea on imatinib, pleural effusion on dasatinib, complete heart block on nilotinib), so he was switched to asciminib. He has been tolerating asciminib well over five months and continues to see significant log reduction in BCR-ABL transcripts. (2) A 71-year-old male with a history of multiple complicated gastrointestinal infections never achieved major molecular remission on imatinib and was unable to tolerate dasatinib or bosutinib due to severe nausea and vomiting. He was switched to asciminib, which he has been tolerating well for one year, and has achieved complete hematologic response. (3) A 73-year-old male with a history of chronic kidney disease experienced kidney injury thought to be due to imatinib and was switched to bosutinib. His BCRABL transcripts rose on bosutinib, so patient was started on asciminib, which he has been tolerating well.

DISCUSSION

In this series of patients in their 70s with multiple underlying comorbidities, the unifying theme is that of intolerance to first-line TKIs due to toxicity (cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal). Existing data suggests that asciminib results in less toxicity than other first-line TKIs, and this is evident in our patients. More importantly, the combination of efficacy and tolerability gives these patients the opportunity to proceed with life-prolonging therapy, even for those who face treatment resistance with other agents.

CONCLUSIONS

For CML patients who have failed at least two lines of treatment, whether it is due to disease progression or intolerable toxicity, asciminib is an effective alternative. Further study may result in its promotion to first-line therapy for this disease.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aimed at addressing the issue of long waiting times in the hematology/ oncology clinic at Stratton VA Medical Center, aiming to improve the delivery time of infusion drugs and enhance patient care.

BACKGROUND

Patient feedback indicated that long waiting times were a significant barrier to care, with 32% of patients identifying this as an issue. Prolonged wait times in the healthcare setting can have various negative consequences, including increased patient dissatisfaction, reduced patient engagement, compromised patient safety, and increased healthcare costs.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary team comprising physicians, nurses, and pharmacists conducted a study to identify the primary contributors to extended wait times. Inadequate preparation for patients with complex infusion needs and delays in administering premedications were identified as the key factors. Wait times were measured using two variables: Go To Label Print (GTLP) and Go To First Bag Scanned (GTFS). Baseline data were collected showing a median GTLP of 8 minutes and a median GTFS of 67 minutes.

DATA ANALYSIS

The team analyzed real-time data related to wait times and the impact of interventions.

RESULTS

Two interventions were implemented: 1) redistributing patients with complex needs across the schedule and 2) adding premedications to the automated medication dispensing system. Postintervention analysis revealed a significant improvement in wait times. The median GTLP decreased to 2 minutes, and the median GTFS reduced to 53 minutes, representing a 75% improvement in GTLP and a 21% improvement in GTFS. These changes are estimated to save 303 patient hours annually.

IMPLICATIONS

This quality improvement project highlighted the significance of addressing long wait times, as they can significantly impact patient care. The team’s efforts, including the analysis of real-time data, interprofessional collaboration, and the implementation of sustainable changes through Plan-Do- Study-Act cycles, successfully improved infusion drug delivery time. These findings and interventions can serve as a model for other healthcare facilities seeking to streamline workflow in infusion centers and enhance patient care.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aimed at addressing the issue of long waiting times in the hematology/ oncology clinic at Stratton VA Medical Center, aiming to improve the delivery time of infusion drugs and enhance patient care.

BACKGROUND

Patient feedback indicated that long waiting times were a significant barrier to care, with 32% of patients identifying this as an issue. Prolonged wait times in the healthcare setting can have various negative consequences, including increased patient dissatisfaction, reduced patient engagement, compromised patient safety, and increased healthcare costs.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary team comprising physicians, nurses, and pharmacists conducted a study to identify the primary contributors to extended wait times. Inadequate preparation for patients with complex infusion needs and delays in administering premedications were identified as the key factors. Wait times were measured using two variables: Go To Label Print (GTLP) and Go To First Bag Scanned (GTFS). Baseline data were collected showing a median GTLP of 8 minutes and a median GTFS of 67 minutes.

DATA ANALYSIS

The team analyzed real-time data related to wait times and the impact of interventions.

RESULTS

Two interventions were implemented: 1) redistributing patients with complex needs across the schedule and 2) adding premedications to the automated medication dispensing system. Postintervention analysis revealed a significant improvement in wait times. The median GTLP decreased to 2 minutes, and the median GTFS reduced to 53 minutes, representing a 75% improvement in GTLP and a 21% improvement in GTFS. These changes are estimated to save 303 patient hours annually.

IMPLICATIONS

This quality improvement project highlighted the significance of addressing long wait times, as they can significantly impact patient care. The team’s efforts, including the analysis of real-time data, interprofessional collaboration, and the implementation of sustainable changes through Plan-Do- Study-Act cycles, successfully improved infusion drug delivery time. These findings and interventions can serve as a model for other healthcare facilities seeking to streamline workflow in infusion centers and enhance patient care.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aimed at addressing the issue of long waiting times in the hematology/ oncology clinic at Stratton VA Medical Center, aiming to improve the delivery time of infusion drugs and enhance patient care.

BACKGROUND

Patient feedback indicated that long waiting times were a significant barrier to care, with 32% of patients identifying this as an issue. Prolonged wait times in the healthcare setting can have various negative consequences, including increased patient dissatisfaction, reduced patient engagement, compromised patient safety, and increased healthcare costs.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary team comprising physicians, nurses, and pharmacists conducted a study to identify the primary contributors to extended wait times. Inadequate preparation for patients with complex infusion needs and delays in administering premedications were identified as the key factors. Wait times were measured using two variables: Go To Label Print (GTLP) and Go To First Bag Scanned (GTFS). Baseline data were collected showing a median GTLP of 8 minutes and a median GTFS of 67 minutes.

DATA ANALYSIS

The team analyzed real-time data related to wait times and the impact of interventions.

RESULTS

Two interventions were implemented: 1) redistributing patients with complex needs across the schedule and 2) adding premedications to the automated medication dispensing system. Postintervention analysis revealed a significant improvement in wait times. The median GTLP decreased to 2 minutes, and the median GTFS reduced to 53 minutes, representing a 75% improvement in GTLP and a 21% improvement in GTFS. These changes are estimated to save 303 patient hours annually.

IMPLICATIONS

This quality improvement project highlighted the significance of addressing long wait times, as they can significantly impact patient care. The team’s efforts, including the analysis of real-time data, interprofessional collaboration, and the implementation of sustainable changes through Plan-Do- Study-Act cycles, successfully improved infusion drug delivery time. These findings and interventions can serve as a model for other healthcare facilities seeking to streamline workflow in infusion centers and enhance patient care.

BACKGROUND

Leiomyosarcoma is a rare neoplasm of smooth muscle that can originate from various organ systems. Of the gastrointestinal tract, the rarity and the difficulty of diagnosing small intestine leiomyosarcoma affect its poor prognosis. With an average age of diagnosis of 64 years and a median life expectancy of 45 months, there exists a lack of information on the disparities that exist in these patients and how patient demographics contribute to differences in survival outcomes.

METHODS

We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients diagnosed with small intestine leiomyosarcoma (ICD-O-3 histology code 8890) between 2004-2019 (N=406). General patient characteristics were assessed using descriptive statistics. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Significance was set at p<0.05.

RESULTS

When analyzing race, patients diagnosed with small intestine leiomyosarcoma were predominantly White (81.8%) and African American (14.3%); however, White patients had statistically worse survival outcomes than African Americans (67 vs 97 months) (p=0.004). Patients with private insurance had statistically better outcomes when compared to Medicare (p<0.001). When compared to White patients, African Americans had a higher proportion of private insurance (53.4% vs 37.2%) and lower proportion of Medicare coverage (5.2% and 48.2%), a lower average age of diagnosis (60.5 vs 64.7 years), shorter travel distances (14.7 vs 31.1 miles) and fewer days between staging procedure and surgical diagnostics from initial diagnosis (4.54 vs 12.5 days). Patients who received surgical intervention had a statistically significant improved survival outcome than those who did not (78 vs 15 months) (p<0.001) with the majority of these procedures being partial gastrectomies (53.6%). More patients of the cohort were treated at comprehensive community cancer programs (36.2%), followed by academic research programs (32.0%), integrated network cancer programs (18.5%) and community cancer programs (8.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Factors associated with increased survival outcomes include race, average age of diagnosis, travel distance, fewer days between diagnostic procedure and initial diagnosis, insurance status and surgical treatment. These findings make a valuable contribution to the ongoing research on disparities affecting survival in patients with small intestine leiomyosarcoma.

BACKGROUND

Leiomyosarcoma is a rare neoplasm of smooth muscle that can originate from various organ systems. Of the gastrointestinal tract, the rarity and the difficulty of diagnosing small intestine leiomyosarcoma affect its poor prognosis. With an average age of diagnosis of 64 years and a median life expectancy of 45 months, there exists a lack of information on the disparities that exist in these patients and how patient demographics contribute to differences in survival outcomes.

METHODS

We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients diagnosed with small intestine leiomyosarcoma (ICD-O-3 histology code 8890) between 2004-2019 (N=406). General patient characteristics were assessed using descriptive statistics. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Significance was set at p<0.05.

RESULTS

When analyzing race, patients diagnosed with small intestine leiomyosarcoma were predominantly White (81.8%) and African American (14.3%); however, White patients had statistically worse survival outcomes than African Americans (67 vs 97 months) (p=0.004). Patients with private insurance had statistically better outcomes when compared to Medicare (p<0.001). When compared to White patients, African Americans had a higher proportion of private insurance (53.4% vs 37.2%) and lower proportion of Medicare coverage (5.2% and 48.2%), a lower average age of diagnosis (60.5 vs 64.7 years), shorter travel distances (14.7 vs 31.1 miles) and fewer days between staging procedure and surgical diagnostics from initial diagnosis (4.54 vs 12.5 days). Patients who received surgical intervention had a statistically significant improved survival outcome than those who did not (78 vs 15 months) (p<0.001) with the majority of these procedures being partial gastrectomies (53.6%). More patients of the cohort were treated at comprehensive community cancer programs (36.2%), followed by academic research programs (32.0%), integrated network cancer programs (18.5%) and community cancer programs (8.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Factors associated with increased survival outcomes include race, average age of diagnosis, travel distance, fewer days between diagnostic procedure and initial diagnosis, insurance status and surgical treatment. These findings make a valuable contribution to the ongoing research on disparities affecting survival in patients with small intestine leiomyosarcoma.

BACKGROUND

Leiomyosarcoma is a rare neoplasm of smooth muscle that can originate from various organ systems. Of the gastrointestinal tract, the rarity and the difficulty of diagnosing small intestine leiomyosarcoma affect its poor prognosis. With an average age of diagnosis of 64 years and a median life expectancy of 45 months, there exists a lack of information on the disparities that exist in these patients and how patient demographics contribute to differences in survival outcomes.

METHODS

We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients diagnosed with small intestine leiomyosarcoma (ICD-O-3 histology code 8890) between 2004-2019 (N=406). General patient characteristics were assessed using descriptive statistics. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Significance was set at p<0.05.

RESULTS

When analyzing race, patients diagnosed with small intestine leiomyosarcoma were predominantly White (81.8%) and African American (14.3%); however, White patients had statistically worse survival outcomes than African Americans (67 vs 97 months) (p=0.004). Patients with private insurance had statistically better outcomes when compared to Medicare (p<0.001). When compared to White patients, African Americans had a higher proportion of private insurance (53.4% vs 37.2%) and lower proportion of Medicare coverage (5.2% and 48.2%), a lower average age of diagnosis (60.5 vs 64.7 years), shorter travel distances (14.7 vs 31.1 miles) and fewer days between staging procedure and surgical diagnostics from initial diagnosis (4.54 vs 12.5 days). Patients who received surgical intervention had a statistically significant improved survival outcome than those who did not (78 vs 15 months) (p<0.001) with the majority of these procedures being partial gastrectomies (53.6%). More patients of the cohort were treated at comprehensive community cancer programs (36.2%), followed by academic research programs (32.0%), integrated network cancer programs (18.5%) and community cancer programs (8.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Factors associated with increased survival outcomes include race, average age of diagnosis, travel distance, fewer days between diagnostic procedure and initial diagnosis, insurance status and surgical treatment. These findings make a valuable contribution to the ongoing research on disparities affecting survival in patients with small intestine leiomyosarcoma.

BACKGROUND

While the MISSION Act for community care has increased Veteran access to specialty services, this has caused considerable fragmentation of care and financial cost to U.S. taxpayers. The VA Salt Lake City Health Care System (VA SLCHCS) referral area spans 125,000 square miles, one of the largest geographic regions in the VA health care system. Numerous VA Community- Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) have been established in central and southern Utah, eastern Nevada, and southern Idaho; however, these clinics do not currently provide specialty services.

DISCUSSION

In conjunction with the National Oncology Program’s Close to Me project team, we conducted a cost analysis to determine financial feasibility of providing low-risk oncology parenteral therapies at rural CBOCs. Based on FY22 DO Paid Claim PowerBI and Pyramid Analytics Reports, VA SLCHCS paid claims for Community Care Hematology/Oncology community services in excess of $5.7 million for 380 unique Veterans (approximately $15,060 per unique Veteran). Comparatively, Veterans received high quality oncology care through VA SLCHCS with an estimated average cost of care of $5,424 per unique Veteran. Cost of parenteral therapies was estimated via review of Community Care Paid Claims Reports for individual drug claim costs (based on Jcode), VA drug pricing data from the VA National Acquisition Center Catalog, and drug unit claims data. The unit price of VA-care and community care costs were calculated and drug cost at the VA versus non- VA was compared. By retaining or re-establishing Hematology/Oncology Veteran care within VA, we estimate cost savings of approximately $9,636 per unique Veteran.

CONCLUSIONS

By re-establishing oncology care within VA SLCHCS the facility could net a substantial cost savings while simultaneously making Veterans lives easier, reduce need for transportation to/from the main SLC VA site, decrease costs due to VA pricing contracts, lessen Veteran out-of-pocket costs, improve care coordination through use of one electronic medical record, and maintain Veteran care within VA SLCHCS. Additionally, VA SLCHCS oncology will help lead the effort to launch a system within the CBOC’s to deliver high-cost parental therapies that could benefit other medical specialties such as gastroenterology, dermatology, and rheumatology.

BACKGROUND

While the MISSION Act for community care has increased Veteran access to specialty services, this has caused considerable fragmentation of care and financial cost to U.S. taxpayers. The VA Salt Lake City Health Care System (VA SLCHCS) referral area spans 125,000 square miles, one of the largest geographic regions in the VA health care system. Numerous VA Community- Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) have been established in central and southern Utah, eastern Nevada, and southern Idaho; however, these clinics do not currently provide specialty services.

DISCUSSION

In conjunction with the National Oncology Program’s Close to Me project team, we conducted a cost analysis to determine financial feasibility of providing low-risk oncology parenteral therapies at rural CBOCs. Based on FY22 DO Paid Claim PowerBI and Pyramid Analytics Reports, VA SLCHCS paid claims for Community Care Hematology/Oncology community services in excess of $5.7 million for 380 unique Veterans (approximately $15,060 per unique Veteran). Comparatively, Veterans received high quality oncology care through VA SLCHCS with an estimated average cost of care of $5,424 per unique Veteran. Cost of parenteral therapies was estimated via review of Community Care Paid Claims Reports for individual drug claim costs (based on Jcode), VA drug pricing data from the VA National Acquisition Center Catalog, and drug unit claims data. The unit price of VA-care and community care costs were calculated and drug cost at the VA versus non- VA was compared. By retaining or re-establishing Hematology/Oncology Veteran care within VA, we estimate cost savings of approximately $9,636 per unique Veteran.

CONCLUSIONS

By re-establishing oncology care within VA SLCHCS the facility could net a substantial cost savings while simultaneously making Veterans lives easier, reduce need for transportation to/from the main SLC VA site, decrease costs due to VA pricing contracts, lessen Veteran out-of-pocket costs, improve care coordination through use of one electronic medical record, and maintain Veteran care within VA SLCHCS. Additionally, VA SLCHCS oncology will help lead the effort to launch a system within the CBOC’s to deliver high-cost parental therapies that could benefit other medical specialties such as gastroenterology, dermatology, and rheumatology.

BACKGROUND

While the MISSION Act for community care has increased Veteran access to specialty services, this has caused considerable fragmentation of care and financial cost to U.S. taxpayers. The VA Salt Lake City Health Care System (VA SLCHCS) referral area spans 125,000 square miles, one of the largest geographic regions in the VA health care system. Numerous VA Community- Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) have been established in central and southern Utah, eastern Nevada, and southern Idaho; however, these clinics do not currently provide specialty services.

DISCUSSION

In conjunction with the National Oncology Program’s Close to Me project team, we conducted a cost analysis to determine financial feasibility of providing low-risk oncology parenteral therapies at rural CBOCs. Based on FY22 DO Paid Claim PowerBI and Pyramid Analytics Reports, VA SLCHCS paid claims for Community Care Hematology/Oncology community services in excess of $5.7 million for 380 unique Veterans (approximately $15,060 per unique Veteran). Comparatively, Veterans received high quality oncology care through VA SLCHCS with an estimated average cost of care of $5,424 per unique Veteran. Cost of parenteral therapies was estimated via review of Community Care Paid Claims Reports for individual drug claim costs (based on Jcode), VA drug pricing data from the VA National Acquisition Center Catalog, and drug unit claims data. The unit price of VA-care and community care costs were calculated and drug cost at the VA versus non- VA was compared. By retaining or re-establishing Hematology/Oncology Veteran care within VA, we estimate cost savings of approximately $9,636 per unique Veteran.

CONCLUSIONS

By re-establishing oncology care within VA SLCHCS the facility could net a substantial cost savings while simultaneously making Veterans lives easier, reduce need for transportation to/from the main SLC VA site, decrease costs due to VA pricing contracts, lessen Veteran out-of-pocket costs, improve care coordination through use of one electronic medical record, and maintain Veteran care within VA SLCHCS. Additionally, VA SLCHCS oncology will help lead the effort to launch a system within the CBOC’s to deliver high-cost parental therapies that could benefit other medical specialties such as gastroenterology, dermatology, and rheumatology.

PURPOSE

To evaluate if low molecular weight iron dextran (LMWID) is a safe and effective alternative to iron sucrose for intravenous iron administration.

BACKGROUND

In recent years, intravenous iron administration has increased due to clinical indications and rapid iron repletion. Early IV iron formulations had safety concerns that precluded widespread use. High molecular weight iron dextran was removed from the US market in 2009 due to safety concerns. Since then, several new IV formulations including LMWID and iron sucrose have been approved with a favorable benefit risk profile. While recent evidence and guidelines indicate that LMWID and other iron formulations have comparable safety profiles, no head-to-head comparisons exist. Both iron sucrose and LMWID are used for the treatment of IDA in Veterans Affairs hospitals. Iron sucrose is given 200 mg weekly for 5 weeks, while LMWID is given as a single 1-gram dose over 3 hours. We conducted a retrospective crosssectional analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of IV LMWID to IV iron sucrose.

METHODS

We identified 129 patients (LMWID: n=29, iron sucrose: n=100) who received intravenous iron from 01/01/2022 to 03/03/2023. To match the sample size, we selected every 3rd patient from the iron sucrose group (n=33). We captured data on infusion-related reactions, history of asthma/inflammatory bowel disease/> 2 drug allergies, overall and ≥ 2 g/dL hemoglobin increase, and treatment cost. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the safety and efficacy parameters. An unpaired t-test was used to calculate statistical significance of the cost.

RESULTS

We found that 82.7% of the patients who received LMWID had an increase in hemoglobin vs. 60.6% in the iron sucrose group. 48.3% of patients in LMWID had ≥ 2 hemoglobin increases vs. 27.3% in the iron sucrose group. The cost for LMWID administration was $2016.10, compared to $2315.40 for administration of IV iron sucrose cost. Two-tailed p value < 0.0001 indicating the observed difference to be statistically significant. No infusion reactions were observed in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single center analysis, IV LMWID administered provided comparable safety, and improved effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness to iron sucrose.

PURPOSE

To evaluate if low molecular weight iron dextran (LMWID) is a safe and effective alternative to iron sucrose for intravenous iron administration.

BACKGROUND

In recent years, intravenous iron administration has increased due to clinical indications and rapid iron repletion. Early IV iron formulations had safety concerns that precluded widespread use. High molecular weight iron dextran was removed from the US market in 2009 due to safety concerns. Since then, several new IV formulations including LMWID and iron sucrose have been approved with a favorable benefit risk profile. While recent evidence and guidelines indicate that LMWID and other iron formulations have comparable safety profiles, no head-to-head comparisons exist. Both iron sucrose and LMWID are used for the treatment of IDA in Veterans Affairs hospitals. Iron sucrose is given 200 mg weekly for 5 weeks, while LMWID is given as a single 1-gram dose over 3 hours. We conducted a retrospective crosssectional analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of IV LMWID to IV iron sucrose.

METHODS

We identified 129 patients (LMWID: n=29, iron sucrose: n=100) who received intravenous iron from 01/01/2022 to 03/03/2023. To match the sample size, we selected every 3rd patient from the iron sucrose group (n=33). We captured data on infusion-related reactions, history of asthma/inflammatory bowel disease/> 2 drug allergies, overall and ≥ 2 g/dL hemoglobin increase, and treatment cost. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the safety and efficacy parameters. An unpaired t-test was used to calculate statistical significance of the cost.

RESULTS

We found that 82.7% of the patients who received LMWID had an increase in hemoglobin vs. 60.6% in the iron sucrose group. 48.3% of patients in LMWID had ≥ 2 hemoglobin increases vs. 27.3% in the iron sucrose group. The cost for LMWID administration was $2016.10, compared to $2315.40 for administration of IV iron sucrose cost. Two-tailed p value < 0.0001 indicating the observed difference to be statistically significant. No infusion reactions were observed in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single center analysis, IV LMWID administered provided comparable safety, and improved effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness to iron sucrose.

PURPOSE

To evaluate if low molecular weight iron dextran (LMWID) is a safe and effective alternative to iron sucrose for intravenous iron administration.

BACKGROUND

In recent years, intravenous iron administration has increased due to clinical indications and rapid iron repletion. Early IV iron formulations had safety concerns that precluded widespread use. High molecular weight iron dextran was removed from the US market in 2009 due to safety concerns. Since then, several new IV formulations including LMWID and iron sucrose have been approved with a favorable benefit risk profile. While recent evidence and guidelines indicate that LMWID and other iron formulations have comparable safety profiles, no head-to-head comparisons exist. Both iron sucrose and LMWID are used for the treatment of IDA in Veterans Affairs hospitals. Iron sucrose is given 200 mg weekly for 5 weeks, while LMWID is given as a single 1-gram dose over 3 hours. We conducted a retrospective crosssectional analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of IV LMWID to IV iron sucrose.

METHODS

We identified 129 patients (LMWID: n=29, iron sucrose: n=100) who received intravenous iron from 01/01/2022 to 03/03/2023. To match the sample size, we selected every 3rd patient from the iron sucrose group (n=33). We captured data on infusion-related reactions, history of asthma/inflammatory bowel disease/> 2 drug allergies, overall and ≥ 2 g/dL hemoglobin increase, and treatment cost. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the safety and efficacy parameters. An unpaired t-test was used to calculate statistical significance of the cost.

RESULTS

We found that 82.7% of the patients who received LMWID had an increase in hemoglobin vs. 60.6% in the iron sucrose group. 48.3% of patients in LMWID had ≥ 2 hemoglobin increases vs. 27.3% in the iron sucrose group. The cost for LMWID administration was $2016.10, compared to $2315.40 for administration of IV iron sucrose cost. Two-tailed p value < 0.0001 indicating the observed difference to be statistically significant. No infusion reactions were observed in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single center analysis, IV LMWID administered provided comparable safety, and improved effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness to iron sucrose.

PURPOSE

To construct a composite score representing modifiable lifestyle and environmental risk (e-score) and test for associations with colonoscopy findings among US Veteran participants of CSP #380.

BACKGROUND

Understanding environmental and genetic risks beyond self-reported family history is a way to develop personalized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO) study examined CRC risk stratified by sex and included an e-score along with genetic risk scores, where higher scores indicated higher risk. Both e-scores and genetic risk scores were significantly associated with CRC risk and models that included these were more robust than models that only included family history.

METHODS

CSP #380 is a prospective study of outcomes during colonoscopy screening (1994-97) and follow- up (1994-2009) for 3,121 asymptomatic Veterans aged 50-75. The dichotomous outcome of interest was most significant colonoscopy findings (MSCF) of i) advanced neoplasia (AN: ≥10mm adenomas or advanced histology, or invasive CRC) vs. ii) non-advanced adenomas (<10mm with tubular histology) or no neoplasia. The independent variable, e-score, was weighted according to the GECCO male sample and comprised BMI, height, diabetes, NSAID use, education, alcohol intake, smoking, exercise, and diet.

DATA ANALYSIS

Logistic regression was used to test associations between MSCF and e-scores, controlling for age, family history and number of colonoscopies.

RESULTS

Among 2,846 participants with complete data, 33.3% were aged 50-59 at baseline, 97% were male, and 83.8% were White. Those with AN (n=405, 14.2%) compared to those without AN (n=2,441, 85.8%) had higher median e-scores (29.5, range:0-99.8 vs. 29.0, range:5.2-100), suggesting a difference. The logistic regression models showed older participants (aOR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.03-1.06) and those with more colonoscopies (aOR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.06-1.33) had higher odds for AN. However, e-scores and family history were not significantly associated with MCSF.

IMPLICATIONS

E-scores were not significantly associated with MSCF in this preliminary study. Developing escores among a larger, diverse sample (N~381,695) of US veterans in the Million Veterans Program study will allow for stratified models in investigations of environmental and genetic risk for CRC. Outcomes from those analyses will support advances in screening guidelines with tailored programs for long-term CRC prevention.

PURPOSE

To construct a composite score representing modifiable lifestyle and environmental risk (e-score) and test for associations with colonoscopy findings among US Veteran participants of CSP #380.

BACKGROUND

Understanding environmental and genetic risks beyond self-reported family history is a way to develop personalized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO) study examined CRC risk stratified by sex and included an e-score along with genetic risk scores, where higher scores indicated higher risk. Both e-scores and genetic risk scores were significantly associated with CRC risk and models that included these were more robust than models that only included family history.

METHODS

CSP #380 is a prospective study of outcomes during colonoscopy screening (1994-97) and follow- up (1994-2009) for 3,121 asymptomatic Veterans aged 50-75. The dichotomous outcome of interest was most significant colonoscopy findings (MSCF) of i) advanced neoplasia (AN: ≥10mm adenomas or advanced histology, or invasive CRC) vs. ii) non-advanced adenomas (<10mm with tubular histology) or no neoplasia. The independent variable, e-score, was weighted according to the GECCO male sample and comprised BMI, height, diabetes, NSAID use, education, alcohol intake, smoking, exercise, and diet.

DATA ANALYSIS

Logistic regression was used to test associations between MSCF and e-scores, controlling for age, family history and number of colonoscopies.

RESULTS

Among 2,846 participants with complete data, 33.3% were aged 50-59 at baseline, 97% were male, and 83.8% were White. Those with AN (n=405, 14.2%) compared to those without AN (n=2,441, 85.8%) had higher median e-scores (29.5, range:0-99.8 vs. 29.0, range:5.2-100), suggesting a difference. The logistic regression models showed older participants (aOR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.03-1.06) and those with more colonoscopies (aOR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.06-1.33) had higher odds for AN. However, e-scores and family history were not significantly associated with MCSF.

IMPLICATIONS

E-scores were not significantly associated with MSCF in this preliminary study. Developing escores among a larger, diverse sample (N~381,695) of US veterans in the Million Veterans Program study will allow for stratified models in investigations of environmental and genetic risk for CRC. Outcomes from those analyses will support advances in screening guidelines with tailored programs for long-term CRC prevention.

PURPOSE

To construct a composite score representing modifiable lifestyle and environmental risk (e-score) and test for associations with colonoscopy findings among US Veteran participants of CSP #380.

BACKGROUND

Understanding environmental and genetic risks beyond self-reported family history is a way to develop personalized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO) study examined CRC risk stratified by sex and included an e-score along with genetic risk scores, where higher scores indicated higher risk. Both e-scores and genetic risk scores were significantly associated with CRC risk and models that included these were more robust than models that only included family history.

METHODS

CSP #380 is a prospective study of outcomes during colonoscopy screening (1994-97) and follow- up (1994-2009) for 3,121 asymptomatic Veterans aged 50-75. The dichotomous outcome of interest was most significant colonoscopy findings (MSCF) of i) advanced neoplasia (AN: ≥10mm adenomas or advanced histology, or invasive CRC) vs. ii) non-advanced adenomas (<10mm with tubular histology) or no neoplasia. The independent variable, e-score, was weighted according to the GECCO male sample and comprised BMI, height, diabetes, NSAID use, education, alcohol intake, smoking, exercise, and diet.

DATA ANALYSIS

Logistic regression was used to test associations between MSCF and e-scores, controlling for age, family history and number of colonoscopies.

RESULTS

Among 2,846 participants with complete data, 33.3% were aged 50-59 at baseline, 97% were male, and 83.8% were White. Those with AN (n=405, 14.2%) compared to those without AN (n=2,441, 85.8%) had higher median e-scores (29.5, range:0-99.8 vs. 29.0, range:5.2-100), suggesting a difference. The logistic regression models showed older participants (aOR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.03-1.06) and those with more colonoscopies (aOR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.06-1.33) had higher odds for AN. However, e-scores and family history were not significantly associated with MCSF.

IMPLICATIONS

E-scores were not significantly associated with MSCF in this preliminary study. Developing escores among a larger, diverse sample (N~381,695) of US veterans in the Million Veterans Program study will allow for stratified models in investigations of environmental and genetic risk for CRC. Outcomes from those analyses will support advances in screening guidelines with tailored programs for long-term CRC prevention.