The cost burden is high for systemic fungal infections. Additional attention should be given to the 55% with fungal disease and other comorbid diagnoses.

Management decisions for patients with cancer are frequently taken within the context of a multi-disciplinary team (MDT). There is little known, however, about decision-making at team meetings and whether MDT decisions are all implemented. This study evaluated team decision-making in upper gastrointestinal cancer. Consecutive MDT treatment decisions were recorded for patients with oesophageal, gastric, pancreatic and peri-ampullary tumours. Implementation of MDT decisions was investigated by examining hospital records. Where decisions were implemented it was recorded as concordant and discordant if the decision changed. Reasons for changes in MDT decisions were identified. 273 decisions were studied and 41 (15.1%) were discordant (not implemented), (95% confidence interval 11.1-20.0%). Looking at the reasons for discordance, 18 (43.9%) were due to co-morbid health issues, 14 (34.2%) related to patient choice and 8 (19.5%) decisions changed when more clinical information was available. For one discordant decision, the reason was not apparent. Discordant decisions were more frequent for patients with pancreatic or gastric carcinoma as compared to oesophageal cancer (P = 0.001). Results show that monitoring concordance between MDT decisions and final treatment implementation is useful to inform team decision-making. For upper gastrointestinal cancer, MDTs require more information about co morbid disease and patient choice to truly optimize the implementation of multi-disciplinary expertise.

BACKGROUND: Lower weight has historically been equated with more severe illness in anorexia nervosa (AN). Reliance on admission weight to guide clinical concern is challenged by the rise in patients with atypical anorexia nervosa (AAN) requiring hospitalization at normal weight. METHODS: We examined weight history and illness severity in 12-to 24-year-olds with AN (n = 66) and AAN (n = 50) in a randomized clinical trial, the Study of Refeeding to Optimize Inpatient Gains (www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02488109). Amount of weight loss was the difference between the highest historical percentage median BMI and admission; rate was the amount divided by duration (months). Unpaired t tests compared AAN and AN; multiple variable regressions examined associations between weight history variables and markers of illness severity at admission. Stepwise regression examined the explanatory value of weight and menstrual history on selected markers. RESULTS: Participants were 16.5 6 2.6 years old, and 91% were of female sex. Groups did not differ by weight history or admission heart rate (HR). Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire global scores were higher in AAN (mean 3.80 [SD 1.66] vs mean 3.00 [SD 1.66]; P = .02). Independent of admission weight, lower HR (b = 20.492 [confidence interval (CI) 20.883 to 20.100]; P = .01) was associated with faster loss; lower serum phosphorus was associated with a greater amount (b = 20.005 [CI 20.010 to 0.000]; P = .04) and longer duration (b = 20.011 [CI 20.017 to 0.005]; P = .001). Weight and menstrual history explained 28% of the variance in HR and 36% of the variance in serum phosphorus. CONCLUSIONS: Weight history was independently associated with markers of malnutrition in inpatients with restrictive eating disorders across a range of body weights and should be considered when assessing illness severity on hospital admission. WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Lower weight was traditionally equated with more severe illness in anorexia nervosa. The rapid rise in patients with atypical anorexia nervosa who require hospitalization at normal weight has challenged reliance on current weight to guide clinical concern. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Patients with large, rapid, or longduration of weight loss were more severely ill regardless of their current weight. Weight history can help guide clinical concern for pediatricians tasked with assessing restrictive eating disorders in today' s diverse population of adolescents.

No abstract

IMPORTANCEThe standard of care for refeeding inpatients with anorexia nervosa, starting with low calories and advancing cautiously, is associated with slow weight gain and protracted hospital stay. Limited data suggest that higher-calorie refeeding improves these outcomes with no increased risk of refeeding syndrome.OBJECTIVE To compare the short-term efficacy, safety, and cost of lower-calorie vs higher-calorie refeeding for malnourished adolescents and young adults with anorexia nervosa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this multicenter randomized clinical trial with prospective follow-up conducted at 2 inpatient eating disorder programs at large tertiary care hospitals, 120 adolescents and young adults aged 12 to 24 years hospitalized with anorexia nervosa or atypical anorexia nervosa and 60% or more of median body mass index were enrolled from February 8, 2016, to March 7, 2019. The primary analysis was a modified intent-to-treat approach. INTERVENTIONS Higher-calorie refeeding, beginning at 2000 kcal/d and increasing by 200 kcal/d vs lower-calorie refeeding, beginning at 1400 k/cal and increasing by 200 kcal every other day.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Main outcomes were end-of-treatment outcomes; the primary end point of this trial will be clinical remission over 12 months. Short-term efficacy was defined a priori as time to restore medical stability in the hospital, measured by the following 6 indices: 24-hour heart rate of 45 beats/min or more, systolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or more, temperature of 35.6 °C or more, orthostatic increase in heart rate of 35 beats/min or less, orthostatic decrease in systolic blood pressure of 20 mm Hg or less, and 75% or more of median body mass index for age and sex. The prespecified safety outcome was incidence of electrolyte abnormalities; cost efficacy was defined as savings associated with length of stay. RESULTSBecause 9 participants withdrew prior to treatment, the modified intention-to-treat analyses included 111 participants (93%; 101 females [91%]; mean [SD] age, 16.4 [2.5] years). Higher-calorie refeeding restored medical stability significantly earlier than lower-calorie refeeding (hazard ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.10-2.53]; P = .01). Electrolyte abnormalities and other adverse events did not differ by group. Hospital stay was 4.0 days shorter (95% CI, −6.1 to −1.9 days) among the group receiving higher-calorie refeeding, which was associated with a

BACKGROUND.Studies that compare prostate cancer treatment costs show wide variation. None compare all contemporary treatment costs, and most focus on initial treatment costs. The authors compared healthcare utilization and cost patterns of prostate cancer treatments over a span of 5.5 years in 4553 newly diagnosed patients stratified by age and risk group.METHODS.Contemporary treatment and evaluation patterns for prostate cancer were identified by using CaPSURE, a national disease registry of men with prostate cancer that included ongoing clinical data collection from 31 academic and community urology practices and biennial patient‐reported outcome questionnaires that included demography, medical condition, comorbidity, risk measures, and healthcare utilization. Costs of outpatient visits, medications, and hospitalizations were applied from various national sources. Recurrent events analysis (MCF) accounted for left and right censorship. A mixed effects regression model with bootstrapping for skewed cost data quantified the relation between MCF cost, age, and risk.RESULTS.Prostate‐related costs in the first 6 months after treatment were $11,495, (from $2586 for watchful waiting (WW) to $24,204 for external beam radiation. After 6 months, average cost was only $3044. Annual cost is $7740, highest for androgen deprivation therapy ($12,590) and lowest for watch waiting ($5843). Risk and age were significantly related to initial treatment choice. Cumulative cost ($42,570) allowed a better estimate of treatment pattern costs.CONCLUSIONS.The cost burden of prostate cancer is high, but it varies by treatment type even when controlling for disease, age, and stage. Cumulative cost analysis allowed inclusion of adverse events and disease recurrence costs, making new cost comparisons evident among treatments. Cancer 2007;109:518–527. © 2006 American Cancer Society.

Katherine Possin and colleagues report on the implementation, development, and early findings of the Care Ecosystem, an adaptive, personalized, and scalable dementia care program.

The level of evidence for the use of acupuncture and massage for the management of perioperative symptoms in cancer patients is encouraging but inconclusive. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial assessing the effect of massage and acupuncture added to usual care vs. usual care alone in postoperative cancer patients. Cancer patients undergoing surgery were randomly assigned to receive either massage and acupuncture on postoperative Days 1 and 2 in addition to usual care, or usual care alone, and were followed over three days. Patients' pain, nausea, vomiting, and mood were assessed at four time points. Data on health care utilization were collected. Analyses were done by mixed-effects regression analyses for repeated measures. One hundred fifty of 180 consecutively approached cancer patients were eligible and consented before surgery. Twelve patients rescheduled or declined after surgery, and 138 patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 scheme to receive massage and acupuncture (n=93) or to receive usual care only (n=45). Participants in the intervention group experienced a decrease of 1.4 points on a 0-10 pain scale, compared to 0.6 in the control group (P=0.038), and a decrease in depressive mood of 0.4 (on a scale of 1-5) compared to +/-0 in the control group (P=0.003). Providing massage and acupuncture in addition to usual care resulted in decreased pain and depressive mood among postoperative cancer patients when compared with usual care alone. These findings merit independent confirmation using larger sample sizes and attention control.