Phantosmia during proton radiation and differences in frequency of phantosmia rates based on proton craniospinal irradiation technique for pediatric brain tumor patients.

BACKGROUND: Unusual olfactory perception, often referred to as "phantosmia" or "cacosmia" has been reported during brain radiotherapy (RT), but is infrequent and does not typically interfere with the ability to deliver treatment. We seek to determine the rate of phantosmia for patients treated with proton craniospinal irradiation (CSI) and identify any potential clinical or treatment-related associations. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 127 pediatric patients treated with CSI, followed by a boost to the brain for primary brain tumors in a single institution between 2016 and 2021. Proton CSI was delivered with passive scattering (PS) proton technique (n = 53) or pencil beam scanning technique (PBS) (n = 74). Within the PBS group, treatment delivery to the CSI utilized a single posterior (PA) field (n = 24) or two posterior oblique fields (n = 50). We collected data on phantom smell, nausea/vomiting, and the use of medical intervention. RESULTS: Our cohort included 80 males and 47 females. The median age of patients was 10 years (range: 3-21). Seventy-one patients (56%) received concurrent chemotherapy. During RT, 104 patients (82%) developed worsening nausea, while 63 patients (50%) reported episodes of emesis. Of those patients who were awake during CSI (n = 59), 17 (29%) reported phantosmia. In the non-sedated group, we found a higher rate of phantosmia in patients treated with PBS (n = 16, 42%) than PS (n = 1, 4.7%) (p = .002). Seventy-eight patients (61%) required medical intervention after developing nausea/vomiting or phantosmia during RT. Two patients required sedation due to the malodorous smell during CSI. We did not find any significant difference in nausea/vomiting based on treatment technique. CONCLUSION: Proton technique significantly influenced olfactory perception with greater rates of phantosmia with PBS compared to PS. Prospective studies should be performed to determine the cause of these findings and determine techniques to minimize phantosmia during radiation therapy.

Practice Consolidation Among US Medical Oncologists, 2015-2022.

PURPOSE: Health care consolidation has significantly affected cancer care delivery, with oncology practices undergoing substantial consolidation over the past two decades. This study investigates practice consolidation trends among medical oncologists (MOs), factors associated with consolidation, and changes in MO geographic distribution. METHODS: Medicare data from 2015 to 2022 were used to assess MO practice consolidation in hospital referral regions (HRRs), linked with regional health care market data and physician demographics. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) was used to measure consolidation, and the Gini coefficient was used to measure MO distribution across counties. Multivariable linear regression explored factors associated with MO practice consolidation. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2022, the number of MOs increased by 14.5% (11,727-13,433), whereas the number of MO practices decreased by 18.0% (2,774-2,276). The mean number of MOs per practice increased by 40% (4.26-5.95; P < .001). The percentage of MOs in small practices decreased, whereas larger practices saw an increase. MO consolidation, as indicated by the HHI, increased by 9% (median HHI, 0.3204-0.3480). HRRs with higher baseline hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to have MO practice consolidation. Despite MO practice consolidation, the county-level distribution of MOs did not change substantially. CONCLUSION: On the basis of Federal Trade Commission classifications, MO practices were highly concentrated in 2015 and consolidated even further by 2022. While distribution of MOs at the county level remained stable, further research is needed to assess the effects of rapid consolidation on cancer care cost, quality, and access. These data have important implications for policymakers and payers as they design programs that ensure high-quality, affordable cancer care.

Accreditation Standards-An Untapped Lever for Cancer Equity.

This Viewpoint describes how the Commission on Cancer and the National Cancer Institute can incorporate health equity benchmarks into existing standards to improve care and outcomes for all patients with cancer.

Experience incentivizing reduction of racial and ethnic disparities in a Medicaid hospital quality incentive program.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe the experience of a state Medicaid agency incentivizing reduction of racial and ethnic disparities in a hospital quality incentive program (QIP). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a decade of experience implementing a hospital health disparity (HD) composite measure. METHODS: Observational analysis of programwide trends in missed opportunity rates and between-group variance (BGV) for the HD composite from 2011 to 2020 and subanalysis of 16 metrics included in the HD composite for at least 4 years over the decade. RESULTS: Programwide missed opportunity rates and BGV fluctuated widely from 2011 to 2020, likely due to variation in measures included in the HD composite. When the 16 measures that were included in the HD composite for at least 4 years were collapsed into a hypothetical 4-year period, missed opportunity rates decreased across the 4 consecutive years, from 47% in year 1 to 20% in year 4. Differences among racial and ethnic subgroups also decreased across the 4-year period, as reflected in the BGV decrease from 7.85 × 10-4 in year 1 to 5.10 × 10-4 in year 4. CONCLUSIONS: Construction of a composite measure, use of a summary disparity statistic, and measure selection are key considerations in the design and interpretation of equity-focused payment programs. This analysis revealed improved aggregate quality performance and a modest reduction in racial and ethnic disparities for measures included in the HD composite for at least 4 years. Further research is needed to evaluate the association between equity-oriented incentives and health disparities.

Individuals' experiences in U.S. immigration detention during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic: major challenges and public health implications.

BACKGROUND: Individuals held in carceral settings were significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, limited research exists of the direct experiences of individuals detained by the United States (U.S.) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This study illustrates the major challenges described by individuals held in ICE's immigration detention centers during the initial spread of COVID-19. METHODS: We interviewed 50 individuals who were released from ICE detention between March 15, 2020 until August 31, 2020. Participants were recruited through immigration attorneys. Responses to a semi-structured interview were documented. Quotes from these interviews were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Study participants were detained in 22 different ICE detention centers, which were located across 12 states, in both county (41%) and privately-contracted facilities (59%). The major themes that emerged from interviews included inadequate protections against COVID-19, denial of physical and mental healthcare, and experiences of retaliation in response to self-advocacy. These issues perpetuated emotions of fear, distrust, and helplessness in individuals in immigration detention centers. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest analysis of experiences of ICE-detained immigrants during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. To ensure the rights to health and wellbeing for this population, further actions should include improving public health conditions, protecting against human rights violations, addressing barriers to healthcare access, ensuring transparency about conditions in detention centers, and moving toward decarceration.

Breast cancer molecular diagnostics in Rwanda: a cost-minimization study of immunohistochemistry versus a novel GeneXpert® mRNA expression assay.

Objective: To compare the financial and time cost of breast cancer biomarker analysis by immunohistochemistry with that by the Xpert® STRAT4 assay. Methods: We estimated costs (personnel, location, consumables and indirect) and time involved in breast cancer diagnosis at the Butaro Cancer Centre of Excellence, Rwanda, using time-driven activity-based costing. We performed a cost-minimization analysis to compare the cost of biomarker analysis for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 status with immunohistochemistry versus STRAT4. We performed sensitivity analyses by altering laboratory-specific parameters for the two methods. Findings: We estimated that breast cancer diagnosis in Rwanda costs 138.29 United States dollars (US$) per patient when conducting biomarker analysis by immunohistochemistry. At a realistic immunohistochemistry antibody utilization efficiency of 70%, biomarker analysis comprises 48.7% (US$ 67.33) of diagnostic costs and takes 33 min. We determined that biomarker analysis with STRAT4 yields a reduction in diagnosis cost of US$ 7.33 (10.9%; 7.33/67.33), and in pathologist and technician time of 20 min (60.6%; 20/33), per patient. Our sensitivity analysis revealed that no cost savings would be made in laboratories with antibody utilization efficiencies over 90%, or where only estrogen and/or progesterone receptor status are assessed; however, such operational efficiencies are unlikely, and more laboratories are pursuing human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 analysis as targeted therapies become increasingly available. Conclusion: Breast cancer biomarker analysis with STRAT4 has the potential to reduce the required human and capital resources in sub-Saharan African laboratories, leading to improved treatment selection and better clinical outcomes.

Breast cancer molecular diagnostics in Rwanda: a cost-minimization study of immunohistochemistry versus a novel GeneXpert® mRNA expression assay

Objective To compare the financial and time cost of breast cancer biomarker analysis by immunohistochemistry with that by the Xpert® STRAT4 assay. Methods We estimated costs (personnel, location, consumables and indirect) and time involved in breast cancer diagnosis at the Butaro Cancer Centre of Excellence, Rwanda, using time-driven activity-based costing. We performed a cost-minimization analysis to compare the cost of biomarker analysis for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 status with immunohistochemistry versus STRAT4. We performed sensitivity analyses by altering laboratory-specific parameters for the two methods. Findings We estimated that breast cancer diagnosis in Rwanda costs 138.29 United States dollars (US$) per patient when conducting biomarker analysis by immunohistochemistry. At a realistic immunohistochemistry antibody utilization efficiency of 70%, biomarker analysis comprises 48.7% (US$ 67.33) of diagnostic costs and takes 33 min. We determined that biomarker analysis with STRAT4 yields a reduction in diagnosis cost of US$ 7.33 (10.9%; 7.33/67.33), and in pathologist and technician time of 20 min (60.6%; 20/33), per patient. Our sensitivity analysis revealed that no cost savings would be made in laboratories with antibody utilization efficiencies over 90%, or where only estrogen and/or progesterone receptor status are assessed; however, such operational efficiencies are unlikely, and more laboratories are pursuing human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 analysis as targeted therapies become increasingly available. Conclusion Breast cancer biomarker analysis with STRAT4 has the potential to reduce the required human and capital resources in subSaharan African laboratories, leading to improved treatment selection and better clinical outcomes.

A student-led interprofessional virtual outreach program for people with HIV during the Covid-19 pandemic: a pilot program at an academic medical center in Boston.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic caused an abrupt disruption in clinical care and medical education, putting patients at increased risk for social stressors and displacing medical students from traditional clerkships. The pandemic also exposed the need for virtual tools to supplement clinical care and an opportunity to create meaningful roles for learners. METHODS: An interdisciplinary group designed a student-led virtual outreach program for patients with HIV whose care was limited by the pandemic. Patients were identified by clinicians and social workers using a clinic-based registry. Students called patients to conduct needs assessments, provide Covid-19 education, and to facilitate connection to services. Students participated in case-based didactics and workshops on motivational interviewing and patient engagement using virtual tools. Facilitated team meetings were held weekly during which themes of calls were identified. RESULTS: During a three-month period, five students participated in the outreach program. Two hundred sixteen patients were identified for outreach calls, of which 174 (75.9%) were successfully reached by telephone. Rate of completed phone call did not differ by age or gender. Sixty patients had a preferred language other than English of which 95.6% were reached in their preferred language. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual proactive outreach can be used as a tool to support patients and engage students in clinical care when access to in-person care is limited. This model of care could be adapted to other ambulatory practices and integrated into pre-clerkship curriculum as an introduction to the social history and structural drivers of health (SDOH) (245/350).

Utilization of National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers by Medicare Beneficiaries with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about which patients use National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCICCs) nationally. This study aimed to identify sociodemographic characteristics associated with decreased NCICC use among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: This study examined a national cohort of 534,008 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer in 2017 using multivariable logistic regressions for NCICC use. The covariates in the study were sex, age, cancer type, race/ethnicity, dual-eligibility status for Medicaid and Medicare, and NCICC presence in the home state. RESULTS: In 2017, 19.5 % of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer used an NCICC at least once. Dual-eligible beneficiaries had 29 % lower adjusted odds of NCICC use than non-dual-eligible beneficiaries (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.71; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.73; p < 0.001). American Indian/Alaska Native beneficiaries had 40 % lower odds of NCICC use than non-Hispanic white (NHW) beneficiaries (aOR, 0.60; 95 % CI, 0.53-0.68; p < 0.001). Compared with NHW beneficiaries, the odds of NCICC use were higher for black beneficiaries by 15 % (aOR, 1.15; 95 % CI, 1.12-1.18; p < 0.001), for Hispanic beneficiaries by 31 % (aOR, 1.31; 95 % CI, 1.26-1.35; p < 0.001), and for Asian/Pacific Islander beneficiaries by 126 % (aOR, 2.26; 95 % CI, 2.16-2.36; p < 0.001). Utilization declined steadily in older groups, with beneficiaries older than 95 years showing 73 % lower odds of NCICC use than beneficiaries younger than 65 years (aOR, 0.27; 95 % CI, 0.24-0.29; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid-eligible, American Indian/Alaska Native, and older patients are substantially less likely to use NCICCs. Future research should focus on defining and addressing the barriers to NCICC access for these populations.

Health system costs of a breast cancer early diagnosis programme in a rural district of Rwanda: a retrospective, cross-sectional economic analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to quantify the health system cost of the first 2 years of a Breast Cancer Early Detection (BCED) programme in a rural district in Rwanda. We also aimed to estimate the cost of implementing the programme in other districts with different referral pathways and identify opportunities for enhanced cost efficiency. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis using time-driven activity-based costing, based on timed patient clinical encounters, retrospective patient data and unit costs of resources abstracted from administrative and finance records. SETTING: The BCED programme focused on timely evaluation of individuals with breast symptoms. The study evaluated the health system cost of the BCED programme at seven health centres (HCs) in Burera district and Butaro Cancer Centre of Excellence (BCCOE) at Butaro District Hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: Health system costs per patient visit and cost per cancer diagnosed were quantified. Total start-up and recurring operational costs were also estimated, as well as health system costs of different scale-up adaptations in other districts. RESULTS: One-time start-up costswere US$36 917, recurring operational costswere US$67 711 and clinical costswere US$14 824 over 2 years. Clinical breast examinations (CBE) at HCs cost US$3.27/visit. At BCCOE, CBE-only visits cost US$13.47/visit, CBE/ultrasound US$14.79/visit and CBE/ultrasound/biopsy/pathology US$147.81/visit. Overall, clinical cost per breast cancer diagnosed was US$1482. Clinicalcost drivers were personnel at HCs (55%) and biopsy/pathology supplies at BCCOE (46%). In other districts, patients experience a longer breast evaluation pathway, adding about US$14.00/patient; this could be decreased if ultrasound services were decentralised. CONCLUSION: Clinical costs associated with BCED services at HCs were modest, similar to other general outpatient services. The BCED programme's start-up and operational costs were high but could be reduced by using local trainers and virtual mentorship. In other districts, decentralising ultrasound and/or biopsies to district hospitals could reduce costs.

Ask Me Anything": Lessons learned in implementing a COVID-19 vaccine information initiative in Massachusetts jails.

As a group of medical professionals, faith-community leaders, and jail staff, we launched a COVID-19 vaccine Q&A initiative across Massachusetts county jails to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence and uptake among detained individuals. Here we describe the lessons learned in developing and implementing this initiative.

Gaps in completion and timeliness of breast surgery and adjuvant therapy: a retrospective cohort of Haitian patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on breast surgery completion rates and prevalence of care-continuum delays in breast cancer treatment programs in low-income countries. METHODS: This study analyzes treatment data in a retrospective cohort of 312 female patients with non-metastatic breast cancer in Haiti. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics; treatments received; and treatment delays of > 12 weeks. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed to identify factors associated with receiving surgery and with treatment delays. Exploratory multivariate survival analysis examined the association between surgery delays and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Of 312 patients, 249 (80%) completed breast surgery. The odds ratio (OR) for surgery completion for urban vs. rural dwellers was 2.15 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-3.88) and for those with locally advanced vs. early-stage disease was 0.34 (95%CI: 0.16-0.73). Among the 223 patients with evaluable surgery completion timelines, 96 (43%) experienced delays. Of the 221 patients eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy, 141 (64%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, 66 of whom (47%) experienced delays in chemotherapy initiation. Presentation in the later years of the cohort (2015-2016) was associated with lower rates of surgery completion (75% vs. 85%) and with delays in adjuvant chemotherapy initiation (OR [95%CI]: 3.25 [1.50-7.06]). Exploratory analysis revealed no association between surgical delays and DFS. CONCLUSION: While majority of patients obtained curative-intent surgery, nearly half experienced delays in surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy initiation. Although our study was not powered to identify an association between surgical delays and DFS, these delays may negatively impact long-term outcomes.

ACO Spending and Utilization Among Medicare Patients at the End of Life: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life (EOL) costs constitute a substantial portion of healthcare spending in the USA and have been increasing. ACOs may offer an opportunity to improve quality and curtail EOL spending. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether practices that became ACOs altered spending and utilization at the EOL. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims. PATIENTS: We assigned patients who died in 2012 and 2015 to an ACO or non-ACO practice. Practices that converted to ACOs in 2013 or 2014 were matched to non-ACOs in the same region. A total of 23,643 ACO patients were matched to 23,643 non-ACO patients. MAIN MEASURES: Using a difference-in-differences model, we examined changes in EOL spending and care utilization after ACO implementation. KEY RESULTS: The introduction of ACOs did not significantly impact overall spending for patients in the last 6 months of life (difference-in-difference (DID) = $192, 95%CI -$841 to $1125, P = 0.72). Changes in spending did not differ between ACO and non-ACO patients across spending categories (inpatient, outpatient, physician services, skilled nursing, home health, hospice). No differences were seen between ACO and non-ACO patients in rates of ED visits, inpatient admissions, ICU admission, mean healthy days at home, and mean hospice days at 180 and 30 days prior to death. However, non-ACO patients had a significantly greater increase in hospice utilization compared to ACO patients at 180 days (DID P-value = 0.02) and 30 days (DID P-value = 0.01) prior to death. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of hospice care utilization, spending and utilization were not different between ACOs and non-ACO patients at the EOL. Longer follow-up may be necessary to evaluate the impact of ACOs on EOL spending and care.

Spending outcomes among patients with cancer in accountable care organizations 4 years after implementation.

BACKGROUND: The long-term impact of affordable care organizations (ACOs) on cancer spending remains unknown. The authors examined whether practices that became ACOs altered their spending for patients with cancer in the first 4 years after ACO implementation. METHODS: By using national Medicare data from 2011 to 2017, a random sample of 20% of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with cancer was obtained (n = 866,532), and each patient was assigned to a practice. Practices that became ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program were matched to non-ACO practices. Total, cancer-specific, and service category-specific yearly spending per patient was calculated. A difference-in-differences model was used to determine spending changes associated with ACO status for patients with cancer in the 4 years after ACO implementation. RESULTS: The introduction of ACOs did not have a significant impact on overall spending for patients with cancer in the 2 years after ACO implementation (difference, -$38; 95% CI, -$268, $191; P = .74). Changes in spending also did not differ between ACO and non-ACO patients within service categories or among the 11 cancer types examined. The lack of difference in spending for patients with cancer in ACO and non-ACO practices persisted in the third and fourth years after ACO implementation (difference, -$120; 95% CI, -$284, $525; P = .56). CONCLUSIONS: ACOs did not significantly change spending for patients with cancer in the first 4 years after their implementation compared with non-ACOs. This prompts a reevaluation of the current efficacy of ACOs in reducing spending for cancer care and may encourage policymakers to reconsider the incentive structures of ACOs. LAY SUMMARY: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) were developed to curtail health care spending and improve quality, but their effects on cancer spending in their first 2 years have been minimal. The long-term impact of ACOs on cancer spending remains unknown. By using data from 866,532 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, the authors observed that the association of a practice with an ACO did not significantly change total yearly spending per patient in the first 4 years after ACO implementation. This finding prompts a reevaluation of the current efficacy of ACOs in reducing spending for cancer care.

Suicide rates of migrants in United States immigration detention (2010-2020).

OBJECTIVE: We determined the annual suicide rate of migrants detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the past decade. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of the annual suicide rates for ICE detainees from federal fiscal years (FY) 2010-2020. Death date and cause of death were directly extracted from publicly available ICE Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Library, ICE death reports, and ICE press releases. Annual suicide rates were calculated as suicides per 100,000 person-years and suicides per 100,000 admissions. RESULTS: From 2010-2019, the mean number of suicides per 100,000 person-years was 3.3 (standard deviation (SD): 2.6). In 2020, the suicide rate increased 5.3 times the prior 10-year average to 17.4 suicides per 100,000 person-years. When calculating suicide rate based on admissions per FY, the mean number of suicides from 2010-2019 per 100,000 admissions was 0.3 (SD: 0.3). In 2020, the suicide rate increased 11.0 times the prior 10-year average to 3.4 suicides per 100,000 admissions. CONCLUSION: In 2020, the detainee suicide rate increased substantially compared to the past decade. This may point to a worsening mental health crisis in ICE detention.