Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 9 of 9 items for

  • Author: David H. Johnson x
  • Refine by Access: Content accessible to Me x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Trends in the Incidence and Outcomes of Hospitalized Cancer Patients With Clostridium difficile Infection: A Nationwide Analysis

Arjun Gupta, Raseen Tariq, Ryan D. Frank, Gary W. Jean, Muhammad S. Beg, Darrell S. Pardi, David H. Johnson, and Sahil Khanna

Background: Patients with cancer have several risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), but the impact of CDI on outcomes in this population needs elucidation. We analyzed the incidence of CDI and its impact on outcomes in patients with cancer using the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) database from 2001 to 2010. Methods: Diagnosis codes were used to identify patients with cancer and CDI events. Demographics, diagnoses, length of stay (LOS), and discharge information were abstracted. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models with weighted analysis were conducted to study CDI incidence and CDI-associated outcomes. Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4. Results: During the 10-year study period, 20.1 million discharges had a cancer diagnosis. CDI developed in 1.09% of patients with cancer versus 0.77% of patients without cancer (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.28–1.29; P<.001). The incidence of CDI in patients with cancer increased during the 10-year study period (64.7 per 10,000 discharges in 2001–2002 to 109.1 in 2009–2010; P<.001). In multivariable analysis, compared with patients with cancer without CDI, patients with cancer and CDI had a longer mean LOS (5.67 days; 95% CI, 5.39–5.94) and higher rates of in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.16–1.20) and discharge to a care facility (aOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.72–1.75; all P<.001). Conclusions: In this national database, CDI incidence increased significantly in patients with cancer over the study period and was associated with prolonged hospitalization, increased mortality, and discharge to a care facility. Despite increased attention, CDI remained a serious infection and merits appropriate prevention and management.

Full access

Effect of Patient Navigation on Completion of Lung Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Populations

Sheena Bhalla, Vijaya Natchimuthu, Jessica L. Lee, Urooj Wahid, Hong Zhu, Noel O. Santini, Travis Browning, Heidi A. Hamann, David H. Johnson, Hsienchang Chiu, Simon J. Craddock Lee, and David E. Gerber

Background: Although low-dose, CT–based lung cancer screening (LCS) can decrease lung cancer mortality in high-risk individuals, the process may be complex and pose challenges to patients, particularly those from minority underinsured and uninsured populations. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of telephone-based navigation for LCS within an integrated, urban, safety-net health care system. Patients and Methods: Patients eligible for LCS were randomized (1:1) to usual care with or without navigation at Parkland Health in Dallas, Texas. The primary endpoint was completion of the first 3 consecutive steps in a patient’s LCS process. We explored differences in completion of LCS steps between navigation and usual care groups, controlling for patient characteristics using the chi-square test. Results: Patients (N=447) were randomized to either navigation (n=225) or usual care (n=222). Mean patient age was 62 years, 46% were female, and 69% were racial/ethnic minorities. There was no difference in completion of the first 3 steps of the LCS algorithm between arms (12% vs 9%, respectively; P=.30). For ordered LCS steps, completion rates were higher among patients who received navigation (86% vs 79%; P=.03). The primary reason for step noncompletion was lack of order placement. Conclusions: In this study, lack of order placement was a key reason for incomplete LCS steps. When orders were placed, patients who received navigation had higher rates of completion. Clinical team education and enhanced electronic health record processes to simplify order placement, coupled with patient navigation, may improve LCS in safety-net health care systems.

Full access

Testicular Cancer, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Timothy Gilligan, Daniel W. Lin, Rahul Aggarwal, David Chism, Nicholas Cost, Ithaar H. Derweesh, Hamid Emamekhoo, Darren R. Feldman, Daniel M. Geynisman, Steven L. Hancock, Chad LaGrange, Ellis G. Levine, Thomas Longo, Will Lowrance, Bradley McGregor, Paul Monk, Joel Picus, Phillip Pierorazio, Soroush Rais-Bahrami, Philip Saylor, Kanishka Sircar, David C. Smith, Katherine Tzou, Daniel Vaena, David Vaughn, Kosj Yamoah, Jonathan Yamzon, Alyse Johnson-Chilla, Jennifer Keller, and Lenora A. Pluchino

Testicular cancer is relatively uncommon and accounts for <1% of all male tumors. However, it is the most common solid tumor in men between the ages of 20 and 34 years, and the global incidence has been steadily rising over the past several decades. Several risk factors for testicular cancer have been identified, including personal or family history of testicular cancer and cryptorchidism. Testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs) comprise 95% of malignant tumors arising in the testes and are categorized into 2 main histologic subtypes: seminoma and nonseminoma. Although nonseminoma is the more clinically aggressive tumor subtype, 5-year survival rates exceed 70% with current treatment options, even in patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Radical inguinal orchiectomy is the primary treatment for most patients with testicular GCTs. Postorchiectomy management is dictated by stage, histology, and risk classification; treatment options for nonseminoma include surveillance, systemic therapy, and nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Although rarely occurring, prognosis for patients with brain metastases remains poor, with >50% of patients dying within 1 year of diagnosis. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Testicular Cancer focuses on recommendations for the management of adult patients with nonseminomatous GCTs.

Full access

Geographic Accessibility and Completion of Initial Low-Dose CT-Based Lung Cancer Screening in an Urban Safety-Net Population

Sofia Yi, Rutu A. Rathod, Vijaya Subbu Natchimuthu, Sheena Bhalla, Jessica L. Lee, Travis Browning, Joyce O. Adesina, Minh Do, David Balis, Juana Gamarra de Wiliams, Ellen Kitchell, Noel O. Santini, David H. Johnson, Heidi A. Hamann, Simon J. Craddock Lee, Amy E. Hughes, and David E. Gerber

Background: Recent modifications to low-dose CT (LDCT)–based lung cancer screening guidelines increase the number of eligible individuals, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities. Because these populations disproportionately live in metropolitan areas, we analyzed the association between travel time and initial LDCT completion within an integrated, urban safety-net health care system. Methods: Using Esri’s StreetMap Premium, OpenStreetMap, and the r5r package in R, we determined projected private vehicle and public transportation travel times between patient residence and the screening facility for LDCT ordered in March 2017 through December 2022 at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas. We characterized associations between travel time and LDCT completion in univariable and multivariable analyses. We tested these associations in a simulation of 10,000 permutations of private vehicle and public transportation distribution. Results: A total of 2,287 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 1,553 (68%) completed the initial ordered LDCT. Mean age was 63 years, and 73% were underrepresented minorities. Median travel time from patient residence to the LDCT screening facility was 17 minutes by private vehicle and 67 minutes by public transportation. There was a small difference in travel time to the LDCT screening facility by public transportation for patients who completed LDCT versus those who did not (67 vs 66 min, respectively; P=.04) but no difference in travel time by private vehicle for these patients (17 min for both; P=.67). In multivariable analysis, LDCT completion was not associated with projected travel time to the LDCT facility by private vehicle (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82–1.25) or public transportation (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.89–1.44). Similar results were noted across travel-type permutations. Black individuals were 29% less likely to complete LDCT screening compared with White individuals. Conclusions: In an urban population comprising predominantly underrepresented minorities, projected travel time is not associated with initial LDCT completion in an integrated health care system. Other reasons for differences in LDCT completion warrant investigation.

Full access

Thymic Malignancies*

David S. Ettinger, Wallace Akerley, Gerold Bepler, Matthew G. Blum, Andrew Chang, Richard T. Cheney, Lucian R. Chirieac, Thomas A. D'Amico, Todd L. Demmy, Ramaswamy Govindan, Frederic W. Grannis Jr., Thierry Jahan, David H. Johnson, Anne Kessinger, Ritsuko Komaki, Feng-Ming Kong, Mark G. Kris, Lee M. Krug, Quynh-Thu Le, Inga T. Lennes, Renato Martins, Janis O'Malley, Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, Gregory A. Otterson, Jyoti D. Patel, Katherine M. Pisters, Karen Reckamp, Gregory J. Riely, Eric Rohren, Scott J. Swanson, Douglas E. Wood, and Stephen C. Yang

Full access

Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

David S. Ettinger, Wallace Akerley, Gerold Bepler, Matthew G. Blum, Andrew Chang, Richard T. Cheney, Lucian R. Chirieac, Thomas A. D'Amico, Todd L. Demmy, Apar Kishor P. Ganti, Ramaswamy Govindan, Frederic W. Grannis Jr., Thierry Jahan, Mohammad Jahanzeb, David H. Johnson, Anne Kessinger, Ritsuko Komaki, Feng-Ming Kong, Mark G. Kris, Lee M. Krug, Quynh-Thu Le, Inga T. Lennes, Renato Martins, Janis O'Malley, Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, Gregory A. Otterson, Jyoti D. Patel, Katherine M. Pisters, Karen Reckamp, Gregory J. Riely, Eric Rohren, George R. Simon, Scott J. Swanson, Douglas E. Wood, and Stephen C. Yang

Full access

Myelodysplastic Syndromes, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Peter L. Greenberg, Richard M. Stone, Aref Al-Kali, Stefan K. Barta, Rafael Bejar, John M. Bennett, Hetty Carraway, Carlos M. De Castro, H. Joachim Deeg, Amy E. DeZern, Amir T. Fathi, Olga Frankfurt, Karin Gaensler, Guillermo Garcia-Manero, Elizabeth A. Griffiths, David Head, Ruth Horsfall, Robert A. Johnson, Mark Juckett, Virginia M. Klimek, Rami Komrokji, Lisa A. Kujawski, Lori J. Maness, Margaret R. O'Donnell, Daniel A. Pollyea, Paul J. Shami, Brady L. Stein, Alison R. Walker, Peter Westervelt, Amer Zeidan, Dorothy A. Shead, and Courtney Smith

The myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) comprise a heterogenous group of myeloid disorders with a highly variable disease course. Diagnostic criteria to better stratify patients with MDS continue to evolve, based on morphology, cytogenetics, and the presence of cytopenias. More accurate classification of patients will allow for better treatment guidance. Treatment encompasses supportive care, treatment of anemia, low-intensity therapy, and high-intensity therapy. This portion of the guidelines focuses on diagnostic classification, molecular abnormalities, therapeutic options, and recommended treatment approaches.

Full access

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities, Version 1.2020

Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines

John A. Thompson, Bryan J. Schneider, Julie Brahmer, Stephanie Andrews, Philippe Armand, Shailender Bhatia, Lihua E. Budde, Luciano Costa, Marianne Davies, David Dunnington, Marc S. Ernstoff, Matthew Frigault, Benjamin H. Kaffenberger, Matthew Lunning, Suzanne McGettigan, Jordan McPherson, Nisha A. Mohindra, Jarushka Naidoo, Anthony J. Olszanski, Olalekan Oluwole, Sandip P. Patel, Nathan Pennell, Sunil Reddy, Mabel Ryder, Bianca Santomasso, Scott Shofer, Jeffrey A. Sosman, Yinghong Wang, Ryan M. Weight, Alyse Johnson-Chilla, Griselda Zuccarino-Catania, and Anita Engh

The NCCN Guidelines for Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities provide interdisciplinary guidance on the management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) resulting from cancer immunotherapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe symptoms that may be caused by an irAE and should trigger further investigation, and summarize the NCCN Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding immune checkpoint inhibitor–related diarrhea/colitis and cardiovascular irAEs.

Full access

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2024

Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines

Robert J. Motzer, Eric Jonasch, Neeraj Agarwal, Ajjai Alva, Hilary Bagshaw, Michael Baine, Kathryn Beckermann, Maria I. Carlo, Toni K. Choueiri, Brian A. Costello, Ithaar H. Derweesh, Arpita Desai, Yasser Ged, Saby George, John L. Gore, Andrew Gunn, Naomi Haas, Michael Johnson, Payal Kapur, Jennifer King, Christos Kyriakopoulos, Elaine T. Lam, Primo N. Lara, Clayton Lau, Bryan Lewis, David C. Madoff, Brandon Manley, M. Dror Michaelson, Amir Mortazavi, Lee Ponsky, Sundhar Ramalingam, Brian Shuch, Zachary L. Smith, Jeffrey Sosman, Randy Sweis, Matthew Zibelman, Ryan Schonfeld, MaryElizabeth Stein, and Lisa A. Gurski

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.