Background: ABT-751 is a novel antimitotic agent that exerted cytotoxic effects in preclinical studies. Carboplatin has efficacy in treating advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in combination with other drugs. Methods: Lung cancer cell lines were treated with ABT-751 and/or carboplatin to investigate their impact on cell growth. A phase I study with an expansion cohort was conducted in previously treated NSCLC patients. The primary objective was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD); secondary objectives were objective response rates, median survival, time to tumor progression, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and pharmacodynamic evaluation of buccal swabs. Results: Combining ABT-751 with carboplatin significantly reduced growth and induced apoptosis of lung cancer cell lines. Twenty advanced NSCLC patients were enrolled. MTD was ABT-751 125 mg orally twice daily for 7 days with carboplatin AUC 6. DLTs included fatigue, ileus, neutropenia and pneumonitis. Two patients had confirmed partial responses. Median overall survival was 11.7 months (95% CI 5.9–27.0). Time to tumor progression was 2.8 months (95% CI 2.0–2.7). Four of 6 patients showed decreased cyclin D1 protein in posttreatment versus pretreatment buccal swabs. Conclusion: Combining ABT-751 with carboplatin suppressed growth of lung cancer cell lines and had modest clinical antitumor activity in advanced NSCLC previously treated predominantly with carboplatin. Further studies of this combination are not recommended while investigations of biomarkers in different patient populations, alternative schedules and combinations may be pursued.
Background
Despite significant policy concerns about the role of inpatient resource utilization on rising medical costs, little information is provided to residents regarding their practice patterns and the effect on resource use. Improved knowledge about their practice patterns and costs might reduce resource utilization and better prepare physicians for today's health care market.
Methods
We surveyed residents in the internal medicine residency at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Based on needs identified via the survey, discussions with experts, and a literature review, a curriculum was created to help increase residents' knowledge about benchmarking their own practice patterns and using objective performance measures in the health care market.
Results
The response rate to our survey was 67%. Only 37% of residents reported receiving any feedback on their utilization of resources, and only 20% reported receiving feedback regularly. Even fewer (16%) developed, with their attending physician, a concrete improvement plan for resource use. A feedback program was developed that included automatic review of the electronic medical record to provide trainee-specific feedback on resource utilization and outcomes of care including number of laboratory tests per patient day, laboratory cost per patient day, computed tomography scan ordering rate, length of stay, and 14-day readmission rate. Results were benchmarked against those of peers on the same service. Objective feedback was provided biweekly by the attending physician, who also created an action plan with the residents. In addition, an integrated didactic curriculum was provided to all trainees on the hospitalist service on a biweekly basis.
Conclusions
Interns and residents do not routinely receive feedback on their resource utilization or ways to improve efficiency. A method for providing objective data on individual resource utilization in combination with a structured curriculum can be implemented to help improve resident knowledge and practice. Ongoing work will test the impact on resource utilization and outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.