Background and PurposeUnderstanding the mechanisms underlying stroke can aid the development of therapies and improve the final outcome. The purposes of this study were to establish whether there are characteristic mechanistic differences in the frequency, severity, functional outcome, and mortality between left- and right-hemisphere ischemic stroke and, given the velocity differences in the carotid circulation and direct branching of the left common carotid artery from the aorta, whether large-vessel ischemia (including cardioembolism) is more common in the territory of the left middle cerebral artery.MethodsTrial cohorts were combined into a data set of 476 samples. Using Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment criteria, ischemic strokes in a total 317 patients were included in the analysis. Hemorrhagic stroke, stroke of undetermined etiology, cryptogenic stroke, and bilateral ischemic strokes were excluded. Laterality and vascular distribution were correlated with outcomes using a logistic regression model. The etiologies of the large-vessel strokes were atherosclerosis and cardioembolism.ResultsThe overall event frequency, mortality, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and rate of mechanical thrombectomy interventions differed significantly between the hemispheres. Left-hemispheric strokes (54%) were more common than right-hemispheric strokes (46%; p=0.0073), and had higher admission NIHSS scores (p=0.011), increased mortality (p=0.0339), and higher endovascular intervention rates (p≤0.0001). ischemic strokes were more frequent in the distribution of the left middle cerebral artery (122 vs. 97; p=0.0003) due to the higher incidence of large-vessel ischemic stroke in this area (p=0.0011).ConclusionsLeft-hemispheric ischemic strokes appear to be more frequent and often have a worse outcome than their right-hemispheric counterparts. The incidence of large-vessel ischemic strokes is higher in the left middle cerebral artery distribution, contributing to these hemispheric differences. The hemispheric differences exhibit a nonsignificant trend when strokes in the middle cerebral artery distribution are excluded from the analysis.

No abstract

Purpose: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is a CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Bridging therapy may be required for lymphoma control during the manufacturing interval between collection of autologous T cells and final CAR T product administration. The optimal bridging therapy is not known and patients are often chemorefractory. We present a case series of patients receiving radiation as a bridge to axi-cel. Methods and Materials: Between December 2017 and October 2018, 12 patients were intended to receive bridging radiation before axi-cel. The group was characterized by highly aggressive disease including 6 of 12 with “double hit” lymphoma and 6 of 12 with may be required for lymphoma control during manufacture. In our case series, no significant toxicities were identified during bridging radiation and no patient experienced in-field progression of disease before CAR T infusion. These data suggest radiation is a well-tolerated and effective bridging therapy, warranting further prospective study for optimization. disease ≥10 cm in diameter. All patients received 2 to 4 Gy/fraction to a median dose of 20 Gy (range, 6–36.5 Gy). Half of patients received either 30 Gy in 10 fractions or 20 Gy in 5 fractions. Seven patients received concurrent chemotherapy. Eleven patients underwent axi-cel infusion and one did not. Median follow-up was 3.3 months (range, 1.1–12.0 months). Results: No significant toxicities were identified during bridging radiation, and no patient experienced in-field progression of disease before axi-cel infusion. One patient experienced abdominal pain, which resolved after dose reduction. Two patients had out-of-field progression of disease during the bridging period. After axi-cel infusion, 3 of 11 patients (27%) experienced severe cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity. At 30 days, the objective response rate was 81.8% (11 of 12 evaluable; 1 stable disease, 1 out-of-field progression), with complete response in 27% (3 of 11). At last follow-up, the best objective response rate was 81.8%, with a complete response attained in 45% (5 of 11). Lymphocyte counts decreased slightly in 10 of 12 patients during radiation (median, 0.25 k/uL). Conclusions: Radiation (with or without concurrent chemotherapy) can be safely administered as a bridge to axi-cel in high-risk lymphoma. Caution should be taken if irradiation is started before apheresis, and lymphocyte counts should be monitored closely throughout. Future investigation is warranted to optimize the use of bridging radiation before CAR T therapy.

IMPORTANCE Agreement between patient- and practitioner-reported toxic effects during chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE To compare patient-reported symptom severity and practitioner-reported toxic effects among patients receiving chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Forty-four patients participating in a phase 2 trial of deintensified chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma were included in the present study (conducted from February 8, 2012, to March 2, 2015). Most treatment (radiotherapy, 60 Gy, with concurrent weekly administration of cisplatin, 30mg/m2) was administered at academic medical centers. Included patients had no prior head and neck cancers, were 18 years or older, and had a smoking history of 10 pack-years or less or more than 10 pack-years but 30 pack-years or less and abstinent for the past 5 years. Cancer status was untreated human papillomavirus or p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx or unknown head and neck primary site; and cancer staging was category T0 to T3, category N0 to N2c, M0, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1. Baseline, weekly, and posttreatment toxic effects were assessed by physicians or nurse practitioners using National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4.0. Patient-reported symptom severity was measured using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize raw agreement between CTCAE grades and PRO-CTCAE severity ratings. INTERVENTIONS Baseline, weekly, and posttreatment toxic effects assessed using CTCAE, version 4.0, and PRO-CTCAE. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Raw agreement indices between patient-reported toxic effects, including symptom frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities (score range, 0 [none] to 4 [very severe]), and practitioner-measured toxic effects, including swallowing, oral pain, and hoarseness (score range, 1 [mild] to 5 [death]). RESULTS Of the 44 patients included in the analysis (39 men, 5 women; mean [SD] age, 61 [8.4] years), there were 327 analyzable pairs of CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE symptom surveys and no treatment delays due to toxic effects. Patient-reported and practitioner-reported symptom severity agreement was high at baseline when most symptoms were absent but declined throughout treatment as toxic effects increased. Most disagreement was due to lower severity of toxic effects reported by practitioners (eg, from 45% agreement at baseline to 27% at the final week of treatment for pain). This was particularly noted for domains that are not easily evaluated by physical examination, such as anxiety and fatigue (eg, severity of fatigue decreased from 43% at baseline to 12% in the final week of treatment). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Practitioner-reported toxic effects are lower than patient self-reports during head and neck chemoradiotherapy. The inclusion of patient-reported symptomatic toxic...

No abstract

There was low use of cancer-directed treatment at the end of life for younger cancer patients, and hospice use was higher than 50%. However, there was a relatively high utilization of hospital-based care. These results demonstrate an opportunity for continued improvements in the provision of high-value, patient-centered care at the end of life.

Purpose For patients with a high likelihood of having metastatic disease (high-risk prostate cancer), bone scan is the standard, guideline-recommended test to look for bony metastasis. We quantified the use of bone scans and downstream procedures, along with associated costs, in patients with high-risk prostate cancer, and their use in low- and intermediate-risk patients for whom these tests are not recommended. Methods and Materials Patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2004 to 2007 were included. Prostate specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, and clinical T stage were used to define D’Amico risk categories. We report use of bone scans from the date of diagnosis to the earlier of treatment or 6 months. In patients who underwent bone scans, we report use of bone-specific x-ray, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, and bone biopsy within 3 months after bone scan. Costs were estimated using 2012 Medicare reimbursement rates. Results In all, 31% and 48% of patients with apparent low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer underwent a bone scan; of these patients, 21% underwent subsequent x-rays, 7% CT, and 3% MRI scans. Bone biopsies were uncommon. Overall, <1% of low- and intermediate-risk patients were found to have metastatic disease. The annual estimated Medicare cost for bone scans and downstream procedures was $11,300,000 for low- and intermediate-risk patients. For patients with apparent high-risk disease, only 62% received a bone scan, of whom 14% were found to have metastasis. Conclusions There is overuse of bone scans in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancers, which is unlikely to yield clinically actionable information and results in a potential Medicare waste. However, there is underuse of bone scans in high-risk patients for whom metastasis is likely.

The present study is a reasonable next step in a systematic assessment of how task demands and workload are related to performance in EMR-evolving environments.