Plant-based diet trends in oncology patients.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19224-e19224
Author(s):  
Bradley R Webster ◽  
Matthew V Ton-That ◽  
Neda Hashemi-Sadraei ◽  
Satyan K Shah
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Oncology ◽  
Vegetarian Diet ◽  
Vegan Diet ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Inpatient Service ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Oncology Patients ◽  
University Of New Mexico ◽  
Number Of Patients

e19224 Background: Plant-based diets are beneficial in several cancers such as colorectal and prostate. However, their adoption among oncology patients is not well studied. We report trends in plant-based diet selection among medical and surgical oncology patients at a comprehensive cancer center. Methods: An IRB-approved retrospective review of all patients admitted to the University of New Mexico Hospitals between October 2009 and October 2017 was conducted. Inclusion criteria included: 1) vegetarian Ovo-Lacto (dairy and eggs ok) or vegan (no animal-derived foods) inpatient diet request and 2) age >= 18 years. For each individual, the dietary orders and discharge summaries were reviewed. Patients with cancer diagnosis principally related to admission and/or admission to an oncology inpatient service were defined as oncology patients. Surgical oncology services included 8 different surgical branches. Results: A total of 181 oncology patients ordered plant-based diets. Median age was 62 years (range 18 to 90) and 69% were female. Vegetarian Ovo-Lacto (66%) was requested more than vegan diet (34%). The services on which the greatest number of these patients were treated were Medical Oncology (31%), General Surgical Oncology (23%), and Gynecology-Oncology (20%). Comparing medical and surgical oncology patients, there was no difference in terms of median age (63 vs. 62 years, p=0.62), nor in the % requesting vegan diet (30 vs. 35%, p=0.50), respectively. However, females comprised 95 of 124 (77%) surgical patients, but only 29 of 57 (51%) medical patients (p<0.001). The number of patients requesting a plant-based diet grew from 81 in the first half of the study period to 100 in the second half (a 23% increase). During this time period, vegetarian diet became more popular than vegan with an increase from 48 patients (59%) in the first half to 72 (72%) in the second half (p=0.05). Conclusions: Oncology patients are increasingly requesting plant-based diets. Most are female and prefer vegetarian over vegan meals. These findings can help cancer centers improve quality of care by tailoring nutritional offerings.

Promoting quality breast cancer care: Psychosocial distress screening

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Tish Knobf ◽  
Maureen Major-Campos ◽  
Anees Chagpar ◽  
Andrea Seigerman ◽  
Ruth Mccorkle
Keyword(s):  
Administrative Support ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Surgical Oncology ◽  
Psychosocial Distress ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Breast Center ◽  
Number Of Patients

AbstractObjective:To evaluate the feasibility of implementing psychosocial distress screening in a breast center of a comprehensive cancer center, using a model of structure (personnel, resources), process (screening), and outcome (number of patients screened, number referred).Methods:The first step in the project was to establish administrative support, educate and engage breast center staff, identify stakeholders and persons with expertise in the conduct of evidence based initiatives. A two-phase implementation approach was agreed upon with Phase I being screening of new patients in surgical oncology and Phase II being screening women in medical oncology.Results:A total of 173 patients were screened. The new patients screened in surgical oncology reported higher average distress scores compared to patients in medical oncology (5.7 vs. 4.0). However, a greater number of patients in medical oncology reported scores >4 compared to the new patients screened in surgery (54% vs. 35%). Psychological distress was the most commonly reported distress for patients in surgery. In contrast, 60% of scores >4 in medical oncology were symptom related, managed by the nurse or physician.Significance of results:Nurse led implementation of psychosocial distress screening is feasible, addressing this important quality indicator of patient-centered care.

Incidence of cutaneous reactions with pemetrexed: Comparison of patients who received three days of oral dexamethasone twice daily to patients who did not

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. 1645-1650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie K Clark ◽  
Lisa M Anselmo
Keyword(s):  
New Mexico ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Control Group ◽  
University Of New Mexico ◽  
Oral Dexamethasone ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cutaneous Reactions

Pemetrexed is a multitargeted antifolate indicated for locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cutaneous reactions are associated with pemetrexed use. Pemetrexed prescribing information recommends oral dexamethasone 4 mg twice daily for three days starting the day before pemetrexed infusion to prevent cutaneous reactions. Patients receive intravenous dexamethasone before pemetrexed infusion at the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, but the oral dexamethasone recommendation is not always followed. The objective of this study was to determine if there is a difference between patients who received three days of oral dexamethasone starting the day before pemetrexed infusion and patients who did not by determining incidence of cutaneous reactions, delay in therapy, and therapy change due to adverse reactions. Eighty-five patients received at least one dose of pemetrexed between August 1, 2012 and August 31, 2017. Twenty-nine patients did not receive three days of oral dexamethasone 4 mg twice daily and 56 patients did (34.1% vs. 65.9%). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of cutaneous reactions between the intervention group and the control group (13.8% vs. 25.0%; p = 0.384), delay in pemetrexed therapy between groups (44.8% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.2), or therapy change due to adverse events (34.5% vs. 23.2%; p = 0.654). Results suggest three days of oral dexamethasone 4 mg twice daily did not significantly affect incidence rates of cutaneous reactions, delay in therapy, or therapy change in patients who received intravenous dexamethasone before pemetrexed infusion at University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Impact of Safety Concerns of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs) and Regulatory Changes on the Use of ESAs and Red Blood Cell (RBC) Transfusions at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 1300-1300
Author(s):  
Saroj Vadhan-Raj ◽  
Victoria E. Hawkins ◽  
Xiao Zhou ◽  
Kurt Sizer ◽  
Lincy S. Lal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hematological Malignancies ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Safety Concerns ◽  
Regulatory Changes ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Safety signals raised in the recent oncology clinical trials have led to various regulatory restrictions including FDA black-box warning, National Coverage Determination (NCD), and updated ASCO/ASH guidelines in 2007. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of these changes on the utilization of ESAs and on transfusion (Tx) of RBCs in 2006 (prior to changes) and 2007. We identified the total number of unique patients that received any treatment including chemotherapy, radiation, transfusions, or any treatment in the out-patient and in-patient settings during this 2 year time period. All the data on the ESA doses dispensed by the hospital pharmacy and all the RBC transfusions dispensed by the Blood bank were also analyzed. The ESA units were calculated by converting 40,000 units of epoetin alfa or 100 mcg of darbepoetin alfa to one unit of ESA. When comparing 2007 to 2006, the number of patients that received ESAs decreased by 26% and the total ESA units decreased by 30%. The overall usage of ESAs decreased by 55%, from 2398 units in 1/2006 to 1080 units in 12/2007. However, the number of pts that received RBC transfusions increased only by 6% and the total number of RBC units transfused by 2% (from 38,218 units in 2006 to 38,948 units in 2007). The median Hgb on the day of transfusion was same for each year (Hgb 8.2 g/dL for both 2006 and 2007), suggesting that the lack of impact on RBC Tx may not be due to a change in Tx threshold. The total number of unique patients referred and treated at MDACC during 2007 (24,356) increased by 13% from 2006 (21,619), not accounting for a lack of impact on transfusions. We therefore examined Hgb at the initiation of ESAs in a subset of pts (n=212) that had not received ESA for at least 3 months. The median Hgb/HCT values at the initiation of ESAs were 9.5 g/dL/27.4. The most frequent utilization of ESAs and transfusions was in patients with hematological malignancies. Conclusion: These findings indicate that the recent ESA safety concerns and related regulatory changes have significantly affected the ESA utilization. The lack of significant impact of reduced ESA usage on RBC transfusions may be related to a lower Hgb threshold used at initiation of ESAs and/or the targeted patient population (less likely to respond) treated with ESAs. Further research is needed to establish the factors contributing to the lack of correlation and to optimize the use of ESAs.

Factors influencing treatment of inflammatory breast cancer in the United States.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 118-118
Author(s):  
Heather Y. Lin ◽  
Gildy Babiera ◽  
Isabelle Bedrosian ◽  
Simona Flora Shaitelman ◽  
Henry Mark Kuerer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Inflammatory Breast Cancer ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
High Volume ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Data ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Facility Level

118 Background: Guidelines for treating inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) using trimodality (chemotherapy, surgery and radiation) therapy (TT) remain largely unchanged since 2000. However, many such patients did not receive TT. It is unknown how patient-level (PL) and facility-level (FL) factors contribute to TT utilization. Methods: Using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), patients who underwent surgical treatment of locoregional IBC from 2003-2011 were identified. We correlated patient, tumor, and treatment data with TT. An observed to expected (O/E) ratio of number of patients treated with TT was calculated for each hospital by adjusting for PL factors. Hierarchical mixed effects models were used to assess the proportion of variation in the use of TT attributable to PL and FL factors, respectively. Results: Among 5,537 patients who met the study criteria, the use of TT fluctuated annually (67.3%-75.7%) and was less likely for patients who were over 70, had a lower income or had an N0 tumor (all p < 0.05). By insurance type, TT use was lowest among Medicare patients. Of the 542 hospitals examined, 55 (10.1%) and 24 (4.4%) were identified as significantly low and high outliers for the use of TT (p < 0.05), respectively. While comprehensive cancer centers represented the majority of high outliers, the TT use by facility type overall was not significantly different demonstrating variability within comprehensive cancer center practice. The percentage of the total variance in the use of TT attributable to facility (11%) was almost triple the variance attributable to the measured PL factors (3.4%). Conclusions: The use of standard of care TT varied widely across facilities with some high volume centers clearly underutilizing TT. To improve clinical outcomes for this rare and aggressive malignancy, it is critical to identify facility level factors impacting the use of TT to ensure the guideline adherence of IBC treatment.

Post-discharge venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for surgical oncology patients.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 79-79
Author(s):  
Ashlie Nadler ◽  
Mary Ellen Morba ◽  
Jesse Pezzella ◽  
Jeffrey M. Farma
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Compliance Rate ◽  
Surgical Oncology ◽  
Pelvic Surgery ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Post Discharge ◽  
Oncology Patients ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis

79 Background: A number of guidelines have been proposed for prolonged venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following hospital discharge for cancer patients undergoing major abdominal or pelvic surgery. However, there is disparity in how closely these guidelines are followed. The purpose of this study was to examine the administration and complications of post-discharge chemical VTE prophylaxis (pdVTE) at an institutional level among surgical oncology patients to help inform policy creation. Methods: A retrospective study at a tertiary referral cancer center was performed. Data was analyzed for patients undergoing surgery in 2015. Chi-square tests were performed. Results: Of 566 colorectal, urologic, and gynecologic surgical oncology procedures performed in 2015, 24% (137) were discharged with a prescription for enoxaparin for pdVTE. An additional 24 patients were already on another form of anticoagulation at the time of discharge. Of the patients discharged on pdVTE, 77% (105) had the prescriptions filled. The compliance rate of those patients was 96% (101). The rate of VTE was 3.5% for all patients. There was a significantly greater rate of VTE amongst patients that received pdVTE (10.4%) compared to those who did not (1.6%) (OR 7.20, CI 2.80-18.46, p < 0.001). For each subspecialty, there was also a significantly greater rate of VTE amongst patients that received pdVTE (p < 0.001). Conclusions: There is a very low rate of pdVTE administration despite current guidelines. Identifying patients who received pdVTE appears to identify patients at high risk for VTE rather than the benefits of pdVTE. Institutional policies regarding prolonged VTE prophylaxis should be implemented to target high-risk patients and to ensure appropriate prescribing practices. [Table: see text]

Optimizing the use of a nutrition screening tool for oncology patients.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 101-101
Author(s):  
Carol Parrales ◽  
Maritza Cardena Alencar ◽  
Jessica MacIntyre ◽  
Chinny Trivedi ◽  
Patricia Araujo
Keyword(s):  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Referral Process ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Oncology Patients ◽  
Nutrition Screening ◽  
Nutrition Screening Tool

101 Background: Oncology infusion centers play a crucial role in detection of malnutrition. In one month, the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center chemotherapy infusion center in Miami (SCCC CTU) treats over 400 oncology patients. Research shows that 40-80% of patients with a cancer diagnosis are malnourished (Isenring et al., 2006). In April, 1.89% of patients seen at the Miami CTU were referred to an oncology nutritionist. The goal was to increase the percentage of patients referred by 2% by June through adequate screening and referral. Methods: SCCC Miami CTU nursing staff’s knowledge on the use of the Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) and the referral process were assessed through a survey. The survey also functioned as an educational instrument. Additionally, one-on-one discussions about the referral process were conducted with the SCCC CTU nurse practitioners. Results: The survey was available to CTU RNs with a 35% completion rate. Results portrayed that 82.35% were aware of the MST screening tool; however, 88.25% were unaware of the appropriate code to refer patients to nutritionist. Therefore, if nutritional consults were placed, it was unlikely that the nutritionist would receive the request. Identified obstacles included having to call a provider to initiate a consult, lack of time for proper assessment and the availability of a nutritionist. Conclusions: Although results did not yield a significant increase of referrals through the use of the appropriate code, there was a 1.22% increase on the overall referrals placed. Lack of training and knowledge on the MST, improper use of the referral code, and the intricacy of the workflow, were contributing factors to the inadequacy in screening and referral process. Participation of all staff in education initiatives and interventions should be a vital component in improving quality care of oncology patients. [Table: see text]

Cost implications of growth in new cancer drugs in a comprehensive cancer center.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 112-112
Author(s):  
Sukanya Murali Venkatesan ◽  
Anamika Chaudhuri ◽  
Belen Fraile
Keyword(s):  
Care Delivery ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Therapies ◽  
Hospital Data ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Number Of Visits ◽  
Cost Implications

112 Background: Rising costs of cancer therapies calls for strategizing towards sustainable care delivery models from a hospital planning, payer as well as policy-making perspective. This topic becomes increasingly significant as there is exponential growth of novel, high-cost immunotherapy drugs making it imperative for players to adopt and practice value-based oncology. Objective: This study aims to evaluate increasing trends in use of new and transformative cancer therapies, and associated drug costs in a comprehensive cancer center in Massachusetts. Methods: Study period was fiscal year (FY) 2015-2018. Utilization was defined by the number of patients receiving infusion and number of visits made by them to the center during the FY. Cost was defined as expense to hospital. Data source was hospital billing database. ASP (Average Sales Price) of drug was obtained from CMS website and was used as an indicator for cost per unit of the drug. Results: Top 10 drugs were identified based on total cost incurred in the study period and contributed to almost a third of center’s total cost. Over the three years, number of visits for these drugs grew up to 700% and treated patients grew up to 350%. Use of chemotherapy in isolation decreased from 35% of treated patients in FY15 to 26% in FY18, whereas its use in combination with immunotherapy increased from 22% in FY15 to 28% in FY18. Average drug cost to hospital per patient for the study period ranged as high as $120,000 (excluding non-drug treatment costs). Conclusions: While clinical value of the new cancer therapies is unquestionably significant, there is a dire need for policy-makers, providers and payers alike to pay continued attention towards its high cost implications as observed in this study and, continue striving towards establishing more sustainable pricing policies through alternative payment models.

Optimizing infusion wait time: Redesigning medication order verification/approval at a comprehensive cancer center.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14042-e14042
Author(s):  
Neda Hashemi-Sadraei ◽  
Zoneddy R. Dayao ◽  
Shenthol Sasankan ◽  
Andrea Cox ◽  
Sandra Peacock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Wait Time ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Wait Times ◽  
Medication Order ◽  
Time Data ◽  
Safety Standards ◽  
University Of New Mexico ◽  
Flat Dose ◽  
Nurse Assessment

e14042 Background: Nationwide, many cancer centers experience challenges with infusion center efficiency while maintaining high safety standards. Many factors contribute to long wait times for patients on the day of their infusion appointments. At University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center (UNMCCC), a contributing factor is the delays in verification or approval of medications. We conducted a project to improve order verification/approval workflow within a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) framework with the objective to decrease the infusion wait time. Methods: A multidisciplinary working group was formed consisting of the infusion floor physician lead, nurse lead, pharmacy lead, and analytics and process improvement leads. Upon exploring the infusion workflow database, disruptions in verification or approval of orders had a large impact on wait times. Order verification workflow was broken down into 3 steps: 1) physician assessment of patient and approval of orders, 2) infusion nurse assessment of patient, 3) pharmacist verification of order. Beginning Feb 2019, the following interventions were implemented in each section: 1) once patient was assessed by physician and orders approved, the patient was marked as “ready-to-treat”. 2) Pharmacist verified the order once “ready-to-treat” was communicated and initiated preparation of medications prior to arrival of patient to the infusion suit. 3) Infusion nurse assessment occurred once patient was seated on infusion chair. 4) Physicians were encouraged to pre-approve selected injections by the morning of patient appointment. Results: Prospective wait time was gathered for May 2019 using the real-time data available in the electronic medical record. Wait times were analyzed for patients receiving chemotherapy or flat dose injections. By marking appropriate patients “ready-to-treat” and moving pharmacist verification prior to infusion nurse assessment, there was an immediate decrease in wait time from 79 to 60 min. Selected injections which did not require mixing were pre-approved by the physician and stored in the medication dispensing system (Pyxis). This resulted in decrease in the injection wait time by 8.5 minutes, without wasting of drugs. Conclusions: Redesigning the medication order verification/approval workflow resulted in reduced wait times for patients receiving infusions or injections. We aim to further refine our PDSA cycles and ensure sustainability of change.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document