Abstract 17321: Aspirin Use is Associated With Improved Survival in Severely Thrombocytopenic Cancer Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila Feher ◽  
Rekha Parameswaran ◽  
Eytan M Stein ◽  
Dipti Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Rank Statistic ◽  
Severe Thrombocytopenia

Objective: Patients with hematologic malignancies are at risk for severe thrombocytopenia (sTP). The risk and benefit of aspirin therapy is not known in thrombocytopenic cancer patients who experience an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods: Medical records of patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with AMI at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center during 2005-2014 were reviewed. sTP was defined as platelet count <50 cells k/μL within 7 days of AMI. Demographics, aspirin use, survival and bleeding outcomes were collected. T-tests and Fisher exact tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables. Survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method; groups were compared with log-rank statistic. Results: 118 patients with hematologic malignancies had AMI. 58/118 (49%) had sTP. 25/58 (43%) of those with sTP received aspirin. Patients were mostly male (70%, n=83), mean age 69±11 years, mean follow up 3.6 years. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was the most common hematologic diagnosis (36%, n=42). Survival was significantly worse in patients with sTP vs. no sTP (23% vs. 50% at 1 year, log rank p=0.008). When compared to no sTP with AMI, patients with sTP and AMI were less likely to receive aspirin (83% vs 43%, p=0.0001), thienopyridine (27% vs 3%, p=0.0005) and to undergo coronary angiography (30% vs. 5%, p=0.0005) and revascularization (17% vs. 3%, p=0.03). Cancer patients with sTP and AMI who received aspirin had improved survival when compared to those not treated with aspirin, (92% vs. 70% at 7 days, 72% vs. 33% at 30 days and 32% vs. 13% at 1 year, log rank p=0.008). No fatal bleeding events occurred. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding occurred in one patient without sTP. Conclusions: In hematologic malignancy patients with AMI and sTP the use of aspirin was associated with improved survival without increase in major bleeding.

scholarly journals Financial Hardship Amongst Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: Using the EMR to Streamline and Prioritize Patient-Centered Care

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 661-661
Author(s):  
Sandeep S Voleti ◽  
Nandita Khera ◽  
Carolyn Mead-Harvey ◽  
Sikander Ailawadhi ◽  
Rafael Fonseca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Mayo Clinic ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Alaskan Native

Abstract Background: Self-reported financial hardship (FH) amongst cancer patients is increasingly becoming a challenge for patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. FH not only leads to financial struggles, significant lifestyle changes, and emotional distress, but also contributes to treatment noncompliance, affecting clinical outcomes. As treatment costs rise, it is crucial to develop efficient methods to proactively identify and alleviate FH in hematology practice. One potential approach is utilizing automated processes to identify those at highest risk of FH. At Mayo Clinic, screening for FH involves using a single financial strain question 'How hard is it for you to pay for the very basics like food, housing, medical care, and heating?' which all cancer patients answer annually as part of the institution's Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) assessment. Answers are on a five-point scale including not hard at all, not very hard, somewhat hard, hard, and very hard. In this study, we assess the prevalence and predictors for FH (denoted by a response of "Very hard" "Hard" or "Somewhat hard") amongst the Mayo Clinic hematologic malignancy patient population. Our study objective was to determine if this automated process could identify those at risk for FH. Methods: Patients who received care for hematologic malignancies (lymphoma, leukemia, plasma disorders, myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disorders, and other heme malignancies) at any of the Mayo Clinic cancer centers (Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida) and who had completed the SDOH screen at least once were included in this study. The electronic medical record (EMR) and Mayo Clinic Cancer Registry were utilized to extract demographic and disease variables. Patient's home zip code was used to determine rural/urban residence, distance from cancer center, and the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a measure of socioeconomic disadvantage based on home zip code (ranging from 1-100, with 100 representing the most disadvantaged). Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to examine predictor variables for FH in this patient population. Results: The final cohort included 10,024 patients from 2018 to 2020. Median age was 64.6 years (IQR 58.1,73.7), 58% were male, and 79% married. Race/ethnicity composition was 94% White (n=9,268), 2.5% Black (n=246), 0.4% American Indian/Alaskan Native (44), and 4% Hispanic (n=360). Fifty-six percent of patients had Medicare and 41% had commercial insurance. Fifty percent were retired, 40% were working/students, and 72% were urban residents. Mean ADI was 41.2. Fifty-six percent of patients had lymphomas, 23.5% had plasma cell disorders, 8.5% had leukemias, 6.8% had other hematological malignancies, and 5.5% had myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms. FH was reported by 12.8% (n=1286) of the patients. Table 1 shows the results of the multivariable model. A significantly higher likelihood of endorsing FH was noted in Hispanic vs non-Hispanics, Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native groups vs whites, Disabled/Unemployed vs working, Medicaid, Medicare, and Self-Pay groups vs commercial insurance, higher ADI (5 th quintile vs 1 st), and myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disorder and other hematologic malignancy vs lymphoma patients. Older age, being retired, and living farther from the cancer center were associated with significantly less likelihood of endorsing FH. Conclusion: Our study used automated data extraction from the EMR to efficiently identify predictors of FH in hematologic cancer patients. Employing a dichotomized and automated "flag" for FH, particularly if incorporated in the EMR, could ease the identification of SDOH issues, facilitate timely connection to appropriate resources, and help provide better patient-centered care. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Sanofi: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Ascentage: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Medimmune: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Fonseca: OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; Aduro: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; Novartis: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Griffin: Exact Sciences: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Association of Dephosphorylated-Uncarboxylated Matrix Gla Protein and Risk of Major Bleeding in Patients Presenting with Acute Myocardial Infarction

Life ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 733
Author(s):  
Admira Bilalic ◽  
Tina Ticinovic Kurir ◽  
Josip A. Borovac ◽  
Marko Kumric ◽  
Daniela Supe-Domic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Plasma Levels ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Matrix Gla Protein ◽  
Coagulation Cascade ◽  
Bleeding Tendency ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Bleeding Score

The “Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines” (CRUSADE) score emerged as a predictor of major bleeding in patients presenting with the acute coronary syndrome. On the other hand, previous studies established the association of dephosphorylated-uncarboxylated Matrix Gla protein (dp-ucMGP) and vitamin K, as well as their subsequent impact on coagulation cascade and bleeding tendency. Therefore, in the present study, we explored if dp-ucMGP plasma levels were associated with CRUSADE bleeding score. In this cross-sectional study, physical examination and clinical data, including plasma dp-ucMGP levels, were obtained from 80 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). A significant positive correlation was found between CRUSADE bleeding score and both dp-ucMGP plasma levels (r = 0.442, p < 0.001) and risk score of in-hospital mortality (r = 0.520, p < 0.001), respectively. In comparing the three risk groups of risk for in-hospital bleeding, the high/very high-risk group had significantly higher dp-ucMGP levels from both very low/low group (1277 vs. 794 pmol/L, p < 0.001) and the moderate group (1277 vs. 941 pmol/L, p = 0.047). Overall, since higher dp-ucMGP levels were associated with elevated CRUSADE score and prolonged hemostasis parameters, this may suggest that there is a biological link between dp-ucMGP plasma levels and the risk of bleeding in patients who present with AMI.

scholarly journals Active Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection at a comprehensive cancer center, 2006–2014

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joumana Kmeid ◽  
Prathit A. Kulkarni ◽  
Marjorie V. Batista ◽  
Firas El Chaer ◽  
Amrita Prayag ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mycobacterium Tuberculosis ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation ◽  
Average Rate ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Infection ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Disseminated Disease

Abstract Background Morbidity and mortality from Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) infection remain significant in cancer patients. We evaluated clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes in patients with active Mtb infection at our institution who had cancer or suspicion of cancer. Methods We retrospectively examined medical records of all patients with laboratory-confirmed active Mtb infection diagnosed between 2006 and 2014. Results A total of 52 patients with laboratory-confirmed active Mtb infection were identified during the study period, resulting in an average rate of 6 new cases per year. Thirty-two (62%) patients had underlying cancer, while 20 (38%) patients did not have cancer but were referred to the institution because of suspicion of underlying malignancy. Among patients with cancer, 18 (56%) had solid tumors; 8 (25%) had active hematologic malignancies; and 6 (19%) had undergone hematopoietic-cell transplantation (HCT). Patients with and without cancer were overall similar with the exception of median age (61 years in cancer patients compared to 53 years in noncancer patients). Pulmonary disease was identified in 32 (62%) patients, extrapulmonary disease in 10 (19%) patients, and disseminated disease in 10 (19%) patients. Chemotherapy was delayed in 53% of patients who were to receive such treatment. Eleven patients (all of whom had cancer) died; 3 of these deaths were attributable to Mtb infection. Conclusions Although not common, tuberculosis remains an important infection in patients with cancer. Approximately one-third of patients were referred to our institution for suspicion of cancer but were ultimately diagnosed with active Mtb infection rather than malignancy.

Evaluation of Rivaroxaban and Dalteparin in Cancer Associated Thrombosis

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 432-432
Author(s):  
Ateefa Chaudhury ◽  
Asha Balakrishnan ◽  
Christy Thai ◽  
Bjorn Holmstrom ◽  
Michael V. Jaglal
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Anticoagulant Therapy ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Minor Bleeding ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Recurrent Vte ◽  
Chi Square Analysis ◽  
Cancer Associated Thrombosis ◽  
Active Cancer

Abstract Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the form of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) is a complication of malignancy. Several studies have demonstrated the superiority of dalteparin (Fragmin®), a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), in comparison to oral vitamin K antagonists in preventing VTE recurrence in the setting of active cancer. LMWH is the preferred treatment of cancer associated thrombosis. However, the cost of LMWH can be prohibitive and the need for daily subcutaneous injections can decrease patients' quality of life. While rivaroxaban (Xarelto®), a Factor Xa inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment and secondary prevention of DVT and PE, there is limited data regarding its use in cancer patients. The objective of our study is to determine the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared to dalteparin in cancer associated thrombosis. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of cancer patients greater than age 18 treated at H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center between May 3, 2010 and June 30, 2015 on anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or dalteparin. Patients were excluded if the length of anticoagulant therapy was < 30 days, anticoagulant therapy was initiated > 6 months after VTE diagnosis, the indication for treatment was not DVT/PE, if patients had contraindications to either LMWH or rivaroxaban, or patients were not on treatment doses of therapy. Out of 459 patients identified, 226 patients (107 in the rivaroxaban group, and 119 in the dalteparin group) were eligible for analysis based on our exclusion criteria. Efficacy was determined by the incidence of recurrent VTE, such as recurrent DVT, new fatal or non-fatal PE within 30 days. The secondary endpoint of the study was to determine the safety of rivaroxaban compared to dalteparin in cancer patients for the treatment of VTE. Safety was determined by the incidence and severity of bleeding. Major bleeding was defined as clinically overt if it was associated with a fall in hemoglobin of 2 g/dL or more, required transfusions of ≥ 2 units of packed red blood cells, involved retroperitoneal, intracranial, or critical site bleeding, or if it contributed to death. Minor bleeding was defined as overt bleeding not meeting the criteria for major bleeding but associated with medical intervention, unscheduled contact with a physician, interruption or discontinuation of anticoagulation treatment, or associated with any other discomfort such as pain or impairment of activities of daily life. Descriptive statistical analyses were utilized. Chi square analysis and t- test were performed to compare categorical and continuous variables. All data was analyzed using SPSS version 21.0 statistical software. Results: Rivaroxaban had a similar rate of DVT and PE failure with 1 event versus 2 with dalteparin (p = 0.625). The rivaroxaban group had 0 major and 8 minor bleeds compared to 3 major and 8 minor bleeds in the dalteparin group with p values of 0.09 and 0.86 respectively. Comorbidities and risk factors for thrombosis were similar in both groups as summarized in Table 1. Table. Rivaroxaban vs. Dalteparin: No Significant Differences in the Efficacy and Safety Profile in Cancer Associated Thrombosis RivaroxabanN = 107 DalteparinN =119 P value DVT Failure within 30 days 1 (0.93%) 2 (1.68%) 0.625 PE Failure within 30 days 1 (0.93%) 1 (0.84%) 0.94 Major Bleeding 0 (0 %) 3 (2.5%) 0.09 Minor Bleeding 8 (7.5%) 8 (6.7%) 0.864 Median Age (Yrs) 61 65 0.93 MaleFemale 58 (54.2%) 49 (45.8%) 60 (50.4%) 59 (49.6%) 0.596 Active Cancer 96 (86.5%) 111 (93.2%) 0.350 Surgery within 30 Days 14 (13.1%) 13 (10.9%) 0.684 Hypertension 58 (54.2%) 61 (51.3%) 0.69 Diabetes 14 (13.1%) 14 (11.8%) 0.84 Coronary Artery Disease 6 (5.61%) 11 (9.2%) 0.326 History of Previous DVT 12 (11.2%) 5 (4.2%) 0.074 BMI >30 39 (36.4%) 48 (40.3%) 0.585 Creatinine Clearance (Cr Cl) 30 - 50 Cr Cl 50 - 70 7 (6.5%) 100 (93.3%) 7 (5.9%) 112 (94.1%) 0.837 Conclusions: Our study evaluated the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban compared to dalteparin in patients with predominantly active cancer treated at a large comprehensive cancer center and found rivaroxaban to be comparable to dalteparin in this cohort. There were no significant differences in regards to recurrent VTE or major/minor bleeding with patients on rivaroxaban or dalteparin in our cohort of patients. Large randomized trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in the oncology population are needed to further validate our findings. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Characteristics and outcomes of cancer patients ≥80 years treated with chemotherapy at a comprehensive cancer center

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8548-8548
Author(s):  
P. Jiang ◽  
M. Choi ◽  
D. Smith ◽  
L. Heilbrun ◽  
S. M. Gadgeel
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Solid Tumor ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Tumor Patients ◽  
Hematologic Cancer

8548 Background: The percentage of cancer patients ≥ 80 years old is expected to rise in the United States. However data are limited on use of chemotherapy in this group of patients. Methods: Retrospective identification of patients who received systemic chemotherapy at our cancer center between 1/1/2000 to 12/31/2004 was performed using the computer generated pharmacy data and medical records. Patients who had diagnosis of cancer and ≥ 80 years were included in the study; patients receiving only supportive care, hormonal therapy, or oral chemotherapy were excluded. The protocol for this study was approved by the Wayne State University IRB. Results: A total of 133 patients ≥ 80 years who received chemotherapy was analyzed. The median age was 83 and 31% of the patients were ≥ 85 years. There were more females (61%) than males (39%). The gender distribution was more even (47% v. 53%) after excluding gender specific tumors. The racial distribution was diverse- Whites 65 (49%); Blacks 41 (31%); Other 18 (13%); Unknown 9 (7%). 16% of the patients had hematologic malignancy and 84% had solid tumors. Gynecological cancers (32%) followed by aerodigestive cancers (26%) were the most common solid tumors. Solid tumor patients primarily had regional (48%) or distant (45%) disease. During the first regimen, 512 cycles of chemotherapy was delivered with a median of 3 cycles per patient (range 1–24 cycles); 40% of patients received only 2 cycles of chemotherapy. 64% of patients were able to receive chemotherapy without 2nd cycle delay. The distribution of single or multidrug regimens was fairly similar; Solid tumors 52% v. 48%; Hematologic cancers 43% v. 57%. Carboplatin and paclitaxel (22%) was the most common regimen among solid tumor patients. 26% of all patients received a second regimen. The 1 year survival rates among hematologic cancer and solid tumor patients were 65% and 48%, respectively. Stage of disease was the only statistically significant factor predicting survival. Conclusions: In this diverse group of cancer patients ≥ 80 years old and selected for chemotherapy, the treatment was feasible. The survival outcomes in this elderly population were comparable to those of a younger patient population suggesting that the treatment is beneficial. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Access to palliative care before death among patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 25-25
Author(s):  
David Hui ◽  
Sun Hyun Kim ◽  
Jung Hye Kwon ◽  
Kimberson Cochien Tanco ◽  
Tao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Disease Process ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Medical Team ◽  
Missed Opportunities

25 Background: Palliative care (PC) access is a critical component of quality cancer care. Previous studies on PC access have mostly examined the timing of PC referral. The proportion of patients who actually received PC is unclear. We determined the proportion of cancer patients who received PC at our comprehensive cancer center, and the predictors of PC referral. Methods: We reviewed the charts ofconsecutive patients with advanced cancer from the Houston region seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center and died between September 2009 and February 2010. We compared patients who received PC services with those who did not receive PC services before death using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Results: A total of 366/816 (45%) decedents had a PC consultation. The median interval between PC consultation and death was 1.4 months (interquartile range (0.5-4.2) and the median number of medical team encounters before PC was 20 (6-45). In multivariate analysis, older age, being married, and specific cancer types (gynecology, lung and head and neck) were significantly associated with a PC referral (Table). Patients with hematologic malignancies had significantly fewer PC referrals (33%), the longest interval between advanced cancer diagnosis and PC consultation (median 16 months), the shortest interval between PC consultation and death (median 0.4 month), and one of the largest number of medical team encounters (median 38) before PC. Conclusions: We found that a majority of cancer patients at our cancer center did not access PC before they die. PC referral occurs late in the disease process with many missed opportunities for referral. Further effort is needed to improve quality of end-of-life care. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document