Cancer pain: a review of epidemiology, clinical quality and value impact.

Cancer-related pain, reported by more than 70% of patients, is one of the most common and troublesome symptoms affecting patients with cancer. Despite the availability of effective treatments, cancer-related pain may be inadequately controlled in up to 50% of patients. With the growing focus on 'value' (healthcare outcomes achieved per dollar spent) in healthcare, the management of cancer-related pain has assumed novel significance in recent years. Data from initiatives that assess the quality of pain management in clinical practice have shown that effective management of cancer-related pain improves patient-perceived value of cancer treatment. As a result, assessment and effective management of cancer-related pain are now recognized as important measures of value in cancer care.

Identifying Predictive Factors for Incident Reports in Patients Receiving Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: To describe radiation therapy cases during which voluntary incident reporting occurred; and identify patient- or treatment-specific factors that place patients at higher risk for incidents. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used our institution's incident learning system to build a database of patients with incident reports filed between January 2011 and December 2013. Patient- and treatment-specific data were reviewed for all patients with reported incidents, which were classified by step in the process and root cause. A control group of patients without events was generated for comparison. Summary statistics, likelihood ratios, and mixed-effect logistic regression models were used for group comparisons. RESULTS: The incident and control groups comprised 794 and 499 patients, respectively. Common root causes included documentation errors (26.5%), communication (22.5%), technical treatment planning (37.5%), and technical treatment delivery (13.5%). Incidents were more frequently reported in minors (age <18 years) than in adult patients (37.7% vs 0.4%, P<.001). Patients with head and neck (16% vs 8%, P<.001) and breast (20% vs 15%, P=.03) primaries more frequently had incidents, whereas brain (18% vs 24%, P=.008) primaries were less frequent. Larger tumors (17% vs 10% had T4 lesions, P=.02), and cases on protocol (9% vs 5%, P=.005) or with intensity modulated radiation therapy/image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (52% vs 43%, P=.001) were more likely to have incidents. CONCLUSIONS: We found several treatment- and patient-specific variables associated with incidents. These factors should be considered by treatment teams at the time of peer review to identify patients at higher risk. Larger datasets are required to recommend changes in care process standards, to minimize safety risks.

Patients and Physicians Can Discuss Costs of Cancer Treatment in the Clinic.

PURPOSE: As one solution to reducing costs and medical bankruptcies, experts have suggested that patients and physicians should discuss the cost of care up front. Whether these discussions are possible in an oncology setting and what their effects on the doctor-patient relationship are is not known. METHODS: We used the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines and the eviti Advisor platform to show patients with metastatic breast, lung, or colorectal cancer the costs associated with their chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy options during an oncology consultation. We measured provider attitudes and assessed patient satisfaction when consultations included discussion of costs. RESULTS: We approached 107 patients; 96 (90%) enrolled onto the study, three (3%) asked if they could be interviewed at a later date, and eight (7%) did not want to participate. Only five of 18 oncologists (28%) felt comfortable discussing costs, and only one of 18 (6%) regularly asked patients about financial difficulties. The majority of patients (80%) wanted cost information, and 84% reported that these conversations would be even more important if their co-pays were to increase. In total, 72% of patients responded that no health care professional has ever discussed costs with them. The majority of patients (80%) had no negative feelings about hearing cost information. CONCLUSION: In an era of rising co-pays, patients with cancer want cost-of-treatment discussions, and these conversations do not lead to negative feelings in the majority of patients. Additional training to prepare clinicians for how to discuss costs with their patients is needed.

Organizing a multidisciplinary clinic.

Multidisciplinary cancer care models have become increasingly more popular in recent years. This comprehensive approach to care delivery has evolved to address numerous medical and social aspects critical to all patients diagnosed with cancer. Because of the sheer number of specialists involved in the care trajectory of patients with cancer, multidisciplinary care models add significant value in facilitating communication between specialists and in coordinating care. Multidisciplinary models also allow for new and innovative therapies to be incorporated more quickly than is seen in single provider care. Two principal modes of multidisciplinary care have been described-the tumor board and the multidisciplinary clinic. While tumor boards are well established in oncology literature and practice, there is growing support favoring the use of multidisciplinary clinics, bringing providers together at the point of care. In this section, we describe recent data demonstrating the value of the multidisciplinary approach, with particular focus on the creation and potential benefits of a formal multidisciplinary clinic.

Proton beam therapy and accountable care: the challenges ahead.

PURPOSE: Proton beam therapy (PBT) centers have drawn increasing public scrutiny for their high cost. The behavior of such facilities is likely to change under the Affordable Care Act. We modeled how accountable care reform may affect the financial standing of PBT centers and their incentives to treat complex patient cases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used operational data and publicly listed Medicare rates to model the relationship between financial metrics for PBT center performance and case mix (defined as the percentage of complex cases, such as pediatric central nervous system tumors). Financial metrics included total daily revenues and debt coverage (daily revenues - daily debt payments). Fee-for-service (FFS) and accountable care (ACO) reimbursement scenarios were modeled. Sensitivity analyses were performed around the room time required to treat noncomplex cases: simple (30 minutes), prostate (24 minutes), and short prostate (15 minutes). Sensitivity analyses were also performed for total machine operating time (14, 16, and 18 h/d). RESULTS: Reimbursement under ACOs could reduce daily revenues in PBT centers by up to 32%. The incremental revenue gained by replacing 1 complex case with noncomplex cases was lowest for simple cases and highest for short prostate cases. ACO rates reduced this incremental incentive by 53.2% for simple cases and 41.7% for short prostate cases. To cover daily debt payments after ACO rates were imposed, 26% fewer complex patients were allowable at varying capital costs and interest rates. Only facilities with total machine operating times of 18 hours per day would cover debt payments in all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Debt-financed PBT centers will face steep challenges to remain financially viable after ACO implementation. Paradoxically, reduced reimbursement for noncomplex cases will require PBT centers to treat more such cases over cases for which PBT has demonstrated superior outcomes. Relative losses will be highest for those facilities focused primarily on treating noncomplex cases.

Prevalence and significance of subcentimeter hepatic lesions in patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence and significance of incidental, subcentimeter hepatic lesions in patients with a new diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study included 101 patients [45% men, median age 63 years (34-85)] treated for localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute from January 1999 to December 2007. Initial staging and follow-up computed tomographic scans were reviewed to determine the frequency of liver lesions that were initially too small to characterize and later proved to be metastases. Clinical variables known to be prognostic for patients with pancreatic cancer were also recorded. Using Cox regression, we calculated adjusted hazard ratios to determine the association between presence of liver lesions and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients (30.7%) had subcentimeter hepatic lesions on staging scans. Of these patients, 21 (20.7% of total, 67.7% of patients with lesions) had eventual metastases to the liver. Finally, of this group, 5 patients (5.0% of total, 16.1% of patients with lesions) eventually had a metastatic focus at the specific site of the original lesion. Liver lesions predicted the occurrence of metastatic disease to the liver compared with patients without lesions (67.7% with lesions vs 44.4% without, P = .034). The presence of subcentimeter liver lesions at diagnosis was significantly associated with reduced overall survival (hazard ratio 1.65; 95% confidence interval 1.03-2.64, P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: Subcentimeter lesions in the liver are common in patients with a new diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Approximately 16% of these lesions represent metastases. The presence of indeterminate liver lesions may be associated with reduced overall survival.

Electronic health record functions differ between best and worst hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patterns of electronic health record (EHR) adoption and "meaningful use" vary between high-, intermediate-, and low-quality US hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from the Hospital Quality Alliance program to designate hospitals as high quality (performance in the top decile nationally), low quality (bottom decile), and intermediate quality (all others). We examined EHR adoption and meaningful use using national survey data. METHODS: We used logistic regression models to determine the frequency with which hospitals in each group adopted individual EHR functions and met meaningful use criteria, and factor analyses to examine adoption patterns in high- and low-quality hospitals. RESULTS: High-quality hospitals were more likely to have all clinical decision support functions. High-quality hospitals were also more likely to have computerized physician order entry for medications compared with intermediate- and low-quality hospitals. Among those who had not yet implemented components of clinical decision support, two-thirds of low-quality hospitals reported no concrete plans for adoption. Finally, high-quality hospitals were more likely to meet many of the meaningful use criteria such as reporting quality measures, implementing at least 1 clinical decision support rule, and exchanging key clinical data. CONCLUSIONS: We found higher rates of adoption of key EHR functions among high-quality hospitals, suggesting that high quality and EHR adoption may be linked. Most low-quality hospitals without EHR functions reported no plans to implement them, pointing to challenges faced by policy makers in achieving widespread EHR adoption while simultaneously improving quality of care.