Combined Angio-CT Systems: A Roadmap Tool for Precision Therapy in Interventional Oncology.

Combined angiography-CT (angio-CT) systems, which combine traditional angiographic imaging with cross-sectional imaging, are a valuable tool for interventional radiology. Although cone-beam CT (CBCT) technology from flat-panel angiography systems has been established as an adjunct cross-sectional imaging tool during interventional procedures, the intrinsic advantages of angio-CT systems concerning superior soft-tissue imaging and contrast resolution, along with operational ease, have sparked renewed interest in their use in interventional oncology procedures. Owing to increases in affordability and usability due to an improved workflow, angio-CT systems have become a viable alternative to stand-alone flat-panel angiographic systems equipped with CBCT. This review aims to provide a comprehensive technical and clinical guide for the use of angio-CT systems in interventional oncology. The basic concepts related to the use of angio-CT systems, including concepts related to workflow setup, imaging characteristics, and acquisition parameters, will be discussed. Additionally, an overview on the clinical applications and the benefits of angio-CT systems in routine therapeutic and palliative interventional oncology procedures will be reviewed. Keywords: Ablation Techniques, CT-Angiography, Interventional-Body, Interventional-MSK, Chemoembolization, Embolization, Radiation Therapy/Oncology, Abdomen/GI, Skeletal-Axial Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2021.

The Cumulative Perioperative Model: Predicting 30-Day Mortality in Abdominal Surgery Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVES: 1) To develop a cumulative perioperative model (CPM) using the hospital clinical course of abdominal surgery cancer patients that predicts 30 and 90-day mortality risk; 2) To compare the predictive ability of this model to ten existing other models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed a multivariate logistic regression model of 30 (90)-day mortality, which occurred in 106 (290) of the cases, using 13,877 major abdominal surgical cases performed at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from January 2007 to March 2014. The model includes race, starting location (home, inpatient ward, intensive care unit or emergency center), Charlson Comorbidity Index, emergency status, ASA-PS classification, procedure, surgical Apgar score, destination after surgery (hospital ward location) and delayed intensive care unit admit within six days. We computed and compared the model mortality prediction ability (C-statistic) as we accumulated features over time. RESULTS: We were able to predict 30 (90)-day mortality with C-statistics from 0.70 (0.71) initially to 0.87 (0.84) within six days postoperatively. CONCLUSION: We achieved a high level of model discrimination. The CPM enables a continuous cumulative assessment of the patient's mortality risk, which could then be used as a decision support aid regarding patient care and treatment, potentially resulting in improved outcomes, decreased costs and more informed decisions.

Phenothiazine vs 5HT3 antagonist prophylactic regimens to prevent Post-Anesthesia Care Unit rescue antiemetic: an observational study.

PURPOSE: Our practitioners are asked to consider a patient's postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) risk profile when developing their prophylactic antiemetic strategy. There is wide variation in employed strategies, and we have yet to determine the most effective PONV prophylactic regimen. The objective of this study is to compare prophylactic antiemetic regimens containing: phenothiazines to 5HT3 antagonists for effectiveness at reducing the incidence of Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) rescue antiemetic administration. METHODS: This is an observational study of 4,392 nonsmoking women who underwent general anesthesia for breast surgery from 1/1/2009 through 6/30/2012. Previous history of PONV or motion sickness (HxPONV/MS) and the use of PACU opioids were recorded. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy was left to the discretion of the anesthesia care team. We compared phenothiazines and 5HT3 antagonists alone and with a glucocorticoid to determine the most effective treatment regimen in our practice for the prevention of the administration of PACU rescue antiemetics. RESULTS: Patients who received a phenothiazine regimen compared to a 5HT3 antagonist regimen were less likely to have an antiemetic administered in the PACU (p=0.0100) and this significant difference in rates holds in a logistic regression model adjusted for HxPONV/MS and PACU Opioid use (p=0.0103). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings our clinicians are encouraged to administer a combination of a phenothiazine and a glucocorticoid in female, nonsmoking surgical breast patients for the prevention of PACU rescue antiemetic administration.

Ongoing provision of individual clinician performance data improves practice behavior.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines summarize evidence from science and attempt to translate those findings into clinical practice. Pervasive and consistent adoption of these guidelines into daily provider practice has proven slow. METHODS: Using postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis guideline compliance as our metric, we compared the effects of continuing medical education (CME) alone (I), CME with a single snapshot of provider compliance (II), and ongoing reporting of provider compliance data without further CME (III). We retrospectively analyzed guideline compliance of 23,279 anesthetics at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Compliance was defined as a patient with 1 risk factor for PONV receiving at least 1 antiemetic, 2 risk factors receiving at least 2 antiemetics, and 3 risk factors receiving at least 3 antiemetics. Drugs of the same class were counted as single antiemetic administration. Propofol-based anesthetic techniques were counted as receiving 1 antiemetic. Patients with 0 risk factors for PONV were not included. We estimated the compliance rates for each of the 4 time periods of the study adjusting for multiple observations on the same clinician. Individual performance feedback was given once at 6 months after intervention I coincident with a refresher presentation on PONV (start of intervention II) and on an ongoing quarterly basis during intervention III. RESULTS: Compliance rates were not significantly influenced with CME (intervention I) compared with baseline behavior (54.5% vs 54.4%, P = 0.9140). Significant improvement occurred during the time period when CME was paired with performance data (intervention II) compared with intervention I (59.2% vs 54.4%, P = 0.0002). Further significant improvement occurred when data alone were presented (intervention III) compared with intervention II (65.1% vs 59.2%, P < 0.0001). For patients with 3 risk factors, we saw significant improvement in compliance rates during intervention III (P = 0.0002). In post hoc analysis of overtreatment, the percentage differences between the baseline and time period III decreased as the number of risk factors increased. CONCLUSIONS: We observed the greatest improvement in guideline compliance with ongoing personal performance feedback. Provider feedback can be an effective tool to modify clinical practice but can have unanticipated consequences.

The effect of an anatomically classified procedure on antiemetic administration in the postanesthesia care unit.

BACKGROUND: The effect of the type of surgical procedure on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) rate has been debated in the literature. Our goal in this retrospective database study was to investigate the effect the type of surgical procedure (categorized and compared anatomically) has on antiemetic therapy within 2 h of admission to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data for oncology surgeries (n = 18,109), from our automated anesthesia information system database. We classified the types of surgical procedures anatomically into seven categories, with the integumentary musculoskeletal and the superficial surgeries chosen as the referent group. Our analysis included nine other risk factors for each patient, such as gender, smoking status, history of PONV or motion sickness, duration of anesthesia, number of prophylactic antiemetics administered, intraoperative opioids, ketorolac, epidural use, and postoperative opioids. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the effect of the type of surgery on antiemetic administration within the first 2 h of PACU admission, while adjusting for the other risk factors. RESULTS: Compared with integumentary musculoskeletal and superficial surgeries, patients undergoing neurological (P < 0.0001), head or neck (P < 0.0001), and abdominal (P < 0.0001) surgeries were administered PACU antiemetic significantly more often, whereas patients undergoing thoracic surgeries were administered PACU antiemetic significantly less often (P = 0.02). Breast or axilla (P = 0.74) and endoscopic (P = 0.28) procedures did not differ from the referent category. Female, nonsmoker, history of PONV or motion sickness, anesthesia duration, and intraoperative and postoperative opioid administration were significantly associated with antiemetic administration during early PACU admission. CONCLUSIONS: Using our automated anesthesia information system database, we found that the type of surgery, when categorized anatomically, was associated with an increased frequency of early PACU antiemetic administration in our population.