Venous Thromboembolism in Peritoneal Mesothelioma: Uncovering the Hidden Risk.

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with abdominal malignancies. Despite known associations between pleural mesothelioma and increased VTE risk, the characteristics of VTE in patients with peritoneal mesothelioma (PeM) remain undescribed. METHODS: Patients treated for PeM were retrospectively identified from our institutional database. The frequency of VTE was assessed and logistic regression modeling was employed to assess VTE risk factors. The association between VTE and overall survival was also ascertained. Recommended thromboprophylaxis for patients who underwent surgery at our institution comprised a single preoperative dose of prophylactic anticoagulation, followed by daily dosing for four weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: Among 120 PeM patients, 26 (21.7%) experienced VTE, including 19/91 (20.9%) surgical patients, 4/23 (17.4%) patients who received systemic therapy, and 3/6 (50%) patients who underwent observation (p = 0.21). Most events were symptomatic (n = 16, 62%) and were attributable to pulmonary emboli (n = 16, 62%). The 90-day postoperative VTE rate was 4.4% (4/91), including 1 of 60 patients who underwent index surgical intervention at our institution and 3 patients with surgery elsewhere. A low serum albumin concentration was associated with VTE in non-surgical patients (odds ratio 0.12, confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.72; p = 0.03). No significant difference in overall survival was observed between patients with and without VTE (median 46.0 months [CI 24.9-67.0] vs. 55.0 months [CI 27.5-82.5]; hazard ratio 0.98 [CI 0.54-1.81], p = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: A high risk of VTE was observed in PeM patients, warranting suspicion throughout the disease trajectory. Postoperative VTE rates were within acceptable limits with 4-week thromboprophylaxis.

Fragmentation of Care in Patients with Peritoneal Metastases Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of multimodal treatment at a high-volume center is known to optimize the outcomes of gastrointestinal malignancies. However, patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for peritoneal metastases often must 'fragment' their surgical and systemic therapeutic care between different institutions. We hypothesized that this adversely affects outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults undergoing CRS for colorectal or appendiceal adenocarcinoma at our institution between 2016 and 2022 were identified retrospectively and grouped by care network: 'coordinated care' patients received exclusively in-network systemic therapy, while 'fragmented care' patients received some systemic therapy from outside-network providers. Factors associated with fragmented care were also ascertained. Overall survival (OS) from CRS and systemic therapy-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were compared across the groups. RESULTS: Among 85 (80%) patients, 47 (55%) had colorectal primaries and 51 (60%) received fragmented care. Greater travel distance [OR 1.01 (CI 1.00-1.02), p = 0.02] and educational status [OR 1.04 (CI 1.01-1.07), p = 0.01] were associated with receiving fragmented care. OS was comparable between patients who received fragmented and coordinated care in the colorectal [32.5 months versus 40.8 months, HR 0.95 (CI 0.43-2.10), p = 0.89] and appendiceal [31.0 months versus 27.4 months, HR 1.17 (CI 0.37-3.74), p = 0.55] subgroups. The frequency of SAEs (7.8% versus 17.6%, p = 0.19) was also similar. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in survival or SAEs based on the networks of systemic therapy delivery. This suggests that patients undergoing CRS at a high-volume center may safely receive systemic therapy at outside-network facilities with comparable outcomes.

Early Integrated Palliative Care Within a Surgical Oncology Clinic.

Importance: Advance directive (AD) designation is an important component of advance care planning (ACP) that helps align care with patient goals. However, it is underutilized in high-risk surgical patients with cancer, and multiple barriers contribute to the low AD designation rates in this population. Objective: To assess the association of early palliative care integration with changes in AD designation among patients with cancer who underwent surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained registry of adult patients who underwent elective surgery for advanced abdominal and soft tissue malignant tumors at a surgical oncology clinic in a comprehensive cancer center with expertise in regional therapeutics between June 2016 and May 2022, with a median (IQR) postoperative follow-up duration of 27 (15-43) months. Data analysis was conducted from December 2022 to April 2023. Exposure: Integration of ACP recommendations and early palliative care consultations into the surgical workflow in 2020 using electronic health records (EHR), preoperative checklists, and resident education. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were AD designation and documentation. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess factors associated with AD designation and documentation. Results: Among the 326 patients (median [IQR] age 59 [51-67] years; 189 female patients [58.0%]; 243 non-Hispanic White patients [77.9%]) who underwent surgery, 254 patients (77.9%) designated ADs. The designation rate increased from 72.0% (131 of 182 patients) before workflow integration to 85.4% (123 of 144 patients) after workflow integration in 2020 (P = .004). The AD documentation rate did not increase significantly after workflow integration in 2020 (48.9% [89 of 182] ADs documented vs 56.3% [81 of 144] ADs documented; P = .19). AD designation was associated with palliative care consultation (odds ratio [OR], 41.48; 95% CI, 9.59-179.43; P < .001), palliative-intent treatment (OR, 5.12; 95% CI, 1.32-19.89; P = .02), highest age quartile (OR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.32-10.89; P = .01), and workflow integration (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.01-4.18; P = .048). Patients who self-identified as a race or ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White were less likely to have designated ADs (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.76; P = .008). AD documentation was associated with palliative care consulation (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.57- 6.77; P < .001) and the highest age quartile (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.21-4.79; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: An integrated ACP initiative was associated with increased AD designation rates among patients with advanced cancer who underwent surgery. These findings demonstrate the feasibility and importance of modifying clinical pathways, integrating EHR-based interventions, and cohabiting palliative care physicians in the surgical workflow for patients with advanced care.

Combining Machine Learning, Patient-Reported Outcomes, and Value-Based Health Care: Protocol for Scoping Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are self-reporting tools that can measure important information about patients, such as health priorities, experience, and perception of outcome. The use of traditional objective measures such as vital signs and lab values can be supplemented with these self-reported patient measures to provide a more complete picture of a patient's health status. Machine learning, the use of computer algorithms that improve automatically through experience, is a powerful tool in health care that often does not use subjective information shared by patients. However, machine learning has largely been based on objective measures and has been developed without patient or public input. Algorithms often do not have access to critical information from patients and may be missing priorities and measures that matter to patients. Combining objective measures with patient-reported measures can improve the ability of machine learning algorithms to assess patients' health status and improve the delivery of health care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify gaps and benefits in the way machine learning is integrated with patient-reported outcomes for the development of improved public and patient partnerships in research and health care. METHODS: We reviewed the following 3 questions to learn from existing literature about the reported gaps and best methods for combining machine learning and patient-reported outcomes: (1) How are the public engaged as involved partners in the development of artificial intelligence in medicine? (2) What examples of good practice can we identify for the integration of PROMs into machine learning algorithms? (3) How has value-based health care influenced the development of artificial intelligence in health care? We searched Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Library, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects in addition to PROSPERO and the ClinicalTrials website. The authors will use Covidence to screen titles and abstracts and to conduct the review. We will include systematic reviews and overviews published in any language and may explore additional study types. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies are included in the reviews. RESULTS: The search is completed, and Covidence software will be used to work collaboratively. We will report the review using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from our review will help us identify examples of good practice for how to involve the public in the development of machine learning systems as well as interventions and outcomes that have used PROMs and PREMs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36395.