Chemotherapy treatment patterns by site of care (SOC): A comparison of the physician office versus hospital outpatient setting.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17670-e17670
Author(s):  
Sari Hopson ◽  
Adrianne Casebeer ◽  
Stephen Stemkowski ◽  
Andrew M. Howe ◽  
Brian Barnett ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17536-e17536
Author(s):  
Andrew M Howe ◽  
Stephen Stemkowski ◽  
Yong Li ◽  
Sari Hopson ◽  
Joseph Dye ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. e30-e38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Lipitz-Snyderman ◽  
Coral L. Atoria ◽  
Stephen M. Schleicher ◽  
Peter B. Bach ◽  
Katherine S. Panageas

PURPOSE: A shift in outpatient oncology care from the physician’s office to hospital outpatient settings has generated interest in the effect of practice setting on outcomes. Our objective was to examine whether medical oncologists’ prescribing of drugs and services for older adult patients with advanced cancer is used more in physicians’ offices compared with hospital outpatient departments. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative study. SEER-Medicare data (2004 to 2011) were used to identify Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with advanced breast, colon, esophagus, non–small-cell lung, pancreatic, or stomach cancer. Between physicians’ offices and hospital outpatient departments, we compared use of selected likely low-value supportive drugs, low-value therapeutic drugs, chemotherapy-related hospitalizations, and hospice. We used hierarchical modeling to assess differences between settings to account for correlation within physicians. RESULTS: Compared with patients treated in a hospital outpatient department, those treated in a physician’s office setting were more likely to receive erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.53 to 1.94) and granulocyte colony–stimulating factors (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.38). For combination chemotherapy and nanoparticle albumin-bound–paclitaxel in patients with breast cancer, there was a trend toward higher use in physicians’ offices, although this was not statistically significant. Chemotherapy-related hospitalizations and hospice did not vary by setting. CONCLUSION: We found somewhat higher use of several drugs for patients with advanced cancer in physicians’ office settings compared with hospital outpatient departments. Findings support research to dissect the mechanisms through which setting might influence physicians’ behavior.


2018 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hailey Meaklim ◽  
Jo‐Anne M. Abbott ◽  
Gerard A. Kennedy ◽  
Greg Murray ◽  
Britt Klein ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 2567-2567
Author(s):  
Chris Craver ◽  
Julie Gayle ◽  
Sanjeev Balu ◽  
Deborah Buchner

Abstract Abstract 2567 Objective: This analysis explored the risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with initiation of palonosetron versus other 5-hydroxy tryptamine3-receptor antagonists (5-HT3-RAs) among patients with leukemia and/or lymphoma receiving chemotherapy (CT) [highly emetogenic chemotherapy, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, low emetogenic chemotherapy, or minimal emetogenic chemotherapy] treatment in a hospital outpatient setting. Methods: Patients diagnosed with any leukemia and/or lymphoma [identified through appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification, 9th Revision codes (ICD-9-CM)] initiating any CT and anti-emetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) or other 5-HT3-RAs (Group 2) for the first time (index date) between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2009 were identified from the Premier Perspective comparative research database. Other inclusion criteria were patients aged ≥ 18 years, no prior evidence of nausea and vomiting or a hospital charge for a CT or anti-emetic medication in the 6-month pre-index date period, and at least one CINV event in the post-index date follow-up study period. Patients also needed to have at least 36 consecutive months of hospital data submissions. Patients were followed through eight CT cycles or six months post index date, whichever occurred first. The unit of analysis was a CT cycle. Group 1 and Group 2 patients were matched on type of CT, specific CT cycle, and leukemia/lymphoma diagnosis using propensity scoring. A negative binomial distribution generalized linear multivariate regression model estimating the number of CINV events (identified through either ICD-9-CM codes for nausea and/or vomiting and volume depletion or CINV-related rescue medications one day after CT administration) in the follow-up period between the matched groups was developed after adjusting for other significant differences in demographic and clinical variables at index date (baseline) including age, gender, patient weight, payor type, patient race, CT cycle duration, and CT duration in days. Results: Of 1,256 identified patients, 234 initiated with palonosetron (Group 1; 18.6%). Group 1 patients were significantly younger [60.8 (SD: 17.9) vs. 64.4 (14.8) years; p=0.0045], comprised more females [49.6% vs. 43.2%; p<0.0001], received more emetogenic CT (high and moderate) [88.5% vs. 77.1%; p<0.0001], and less African Americans [9.4% vs. 12.7%]. Group 1 also had a lower percentage of patients with leukemia [9.0% vs. 17.6%; p<0.0001], and more patients with lymphoma [82.5% vs. 63.1%; p<0.0001]. In the follow-up period, the unadjusted number of CINV events per patient per CT cycle for Group1 patients was significantly lower versus Group 2 patients (3.4 vs. 4.3 CINV events per patient per CT cycle; p<0.0001). The regression model predicted a 32% reduction in the total CINV events per patient per CT cycle for Group 1 patients versus Group 2 patients; p=0.0003. Other significant variable results from the model included patients aged < 65 years had a 39.9% lower risk of total CINV events per patient per CT cycle versus patients aged ≥ 65 years; p=0.0009 and commercially insured patients had a 44.2% lower risk of total CINV events per patient per CT cycle versus traditional Medicare patients; p=0.0003. Conclusion: In this hospital outpatient retrospective database analysis, patients with hematologic malignancies initiated and maintained on palonosetron were more likely to experience a significantly lower rate of CINV events per patient per CT cycle versus those initiated on other 5-HT3-RAs. Disclosures: Craver: Eisai, Inc.: Research Funding. Gayle:Eisai, Inc.: Research Funding. Balu:Eisai, Inc.: Employment. Buchner:Eisai, Inc.: Employment. Off Label Use: The study was on hematology patients on all chemotherapy types (high, moderate, low, and minimal) even though the drug (palonosetron) is approved for highly emetogenic chemotherapy and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in the United States.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 99-99
Author(s):  
Chunlin Qian ◽  
Feng Lin ◽  
Jackie Kwong

99 Background: Outpatient administration of cancer therapy has become more common in recent years. The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns and cost of care for relapsed AML patients in the outpatient setting. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using the IQVIA Health Plan Claims Data–US database. Patients were eligible if they had at least one outpatient claim associated with relapsed AML diagnosis as identified by ICD-9 (205.02) and ICD-10 (C92.02, C92.42, C92.52, C92.62, C92.A2) codes between 1/1/2009 to 12/31/2017, had no inpatient claim for AML diagnosis within 30 days of index claim, and received treatment for relapsed AML as recommended by NCCN guidelines within 30 days of index outpatient claim. Utilization of high intensity chemotherapy (HIC), hypomethylating agent (HMA), low-dose cytarabine (LoDAC) and sorafenib, duration of treatment and the cost per 28-day treatment cycle were examined. Patients were censored at either treatment switching or end of follow-up. Results: Of the 6,242 patients with relapsed AML diagnosis in the IQVIA™ database, 709 did not have inpatient claim of which only 281 patients [26.0% >65 years; 43.8% females] met inclusion criteria and received a total of 1,336 treatment cycles of NCCN recommended treatment as outpatient. About 75% of patients (n=209) received HMA, 6% (n=17) received HIC and 19.6% (n=55) received LoDAC. Patients >65 years were more likely to receive HMA than HIC and LoDAC (p=0.003). Mean (SD) number of treatment cycles for HMA, high-intensity chemotherapy and LoDAC was 5.7 (5.2), 1.2 (0.4) and 2.2 (1.4), respectively. Sorafenib was used in 4.8%, 17.6% and 3.6% patients treated with HMA, HIC and LoDAC. Mean (SD) cost per cycle was $11,246 (8,895), $10,620 (16,722), $3,254 (2,948), and $10,799 (3,057) for HMA, HIC, LoDAC and sorafenib, respectively. Conclusions: Treatment for relapsed AML in the outpatient setting without hospitalization was uncommon during the study period. Low-intensity regimens remain the mainstay of therapy in the outpatient setting, suggesting that treatment toxicities and monitoring requirement are key determinants for treatment setting for relapsed AML.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document