Increased financial burden asa result of cancer care costs is the strongest independent predictor of poor quality of life among cancer survivors.

No abstract

Purpose Prior studies examining cost effectiveness of the 21-gene assay (Oncotype DX [ODX]) for women with hormone receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer have yielded disparate results. We aimed to explore why these analyses may have yielded different conclusions. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of ODX. We examined the extent to which the structure of CEA modeling, the assumptions of the models, and the selection of input parameters influenced cost-effectiveness estimates. We also explored the prevalence of industry funding and whether industry funding was associated with study designs favoring ODX. Results We identified 27 analyses, 15 of which received industry funding. In 18 studies, the clinical characteristics (eg, tumor size and grade) commonly used to make chemotherapy decisions were not incorporated into simulation modeling; thus, these studies would favor ODX being cost effective and might not reflect clinical practice. Most studies ignored the heterogeneous effect of ODX on chemotherapy use; only five studies assumed that ODX would increase chemotherapy use for clinically low-risk patients but decrease chemotherapy use for clinically high-risk patients. No study used population-based joint distributions of ODX recurrence score and tumor characteristics, and 12 studies inappropriately assumed that chemotherapy would increase distant recurrence for the low recurrence score group; both approaches overestimated the benefits of ODX. Industry-funded studies tended to favor ODX; all five studies that reported ODX as being cost saving were industry funded. In contrast, two studies that reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio > $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year were not funded by industry. Conclusion Although a majority of published analyses indicated that ODX is cost effective, they incorporated study designs that can increase the risk of bias.

No abstract

Introduction: More than 93,000 cases of coronavirus disease have been reported worldwide. We describe the epidemiology, clinical course, and virologic characteristics of the first 12 U.S. patients with COVID-19. Methods:We collected demographic, exposure, and clinical information from 12 patients confirmed by CDC during January 20-February 5, 2020 to have COVID-19. Respiratory, stool, serum, and urine specimens were submitted for SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR testing, virus culture, and whole genome sequencing. Results:Among the 12 patients, median age was 53 years (range: 21-68); 8 were male, 10 had traveled to China, and two were contacts of patients in this series. Commonly reported signs and symptoms at illness onset were fever (n=7) and cough (n=8). Seven patients were hospitalized with radiographic evidence of pneumonia and demonstrated clinical or laboratory signs of worsening during the second week of illness. Three were treated with the investigational antiviral remdesivir. All patients had SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected in respiratory specimens, typically for 2-3 weeks after illness onset, with lowest rRT-PCR Ct values often detected in the first week. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected after reported symptom resolution in seven patients. SARS-CoV-2 was cultured from respiratory specimens, and SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in stool from 7/10 patients. Conclusions:In 12 patients with mild to moderately severe illness, SARS-CoV-2 RNA and viable virus were detected early, and prolonged RNA detection suggests the window for diagnosis is long. Hospitalized patients showed signs of worsening in the second week after illness onset.for use under a CC0 license.

Incident learning is a key component for maintaining safety and quality in healthcare. Its use is well established and supported by professional society recommendations, regulations and accreditation, and objective evidence. There is an active interest in incident learning systems (ILS) in radiation oncology, with over 40 publications since 2010. This article is intended as a comprehensive topic review of ILS in radiation oncology, including history and summary of existing literature, nomenclature and categorization schemas, operational aspects of ILS at the institutional level including event handling and root cause analysis, and national and international ILS for shared learning. Core principles of patient safety in the context of ILS are discussed, including the systems view of error, culture of safety, and contributing factors such as cognitive bias. Finally, the topics of medical error disclosure and second victim syndrome are discussed. In spite of the rapid progress and understanding of ILS, challenges remain in applying ILS to the radiation oncology context. This comprehensive review may serve as a springboard for further work.

No abstract

No abstract