Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 33 items for

  • Author: David Lin x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Employee Attitudes and Smoking Behavior at the City of Hope National Medical Center Smoke-Free Campus

David Lin, Douglas C. Stahl, David Iklé, and Frederic W. Grannis Jr

Since 1989, City of Hope National Medical Center (COH), located in Duarte, California, and a member of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, has prohibited smoking anywhere on the 100-acre campus. Because little published information is available on smoke-free campuses (SFCs), we investigated the attitudes of COH employees toward the SFC and attempted to answer the question of whether a difference in employee smoking behavior occurred and was attributable to the SFC policy. An anonymous survey was sent to all 2787 campus employees using both Web-based data entry and scannable paper forms. Employees with network access were contacted by e-mail and those without computers were contacted in person. Respondents were asked questions regarding their attitudes toward the SFC and about their smoking history and current smoking behavior. A total of 1356 responses (48.7%) were received. One hundred (7.4%) respondents were current smokers, 242 (17.8%) were ex-smokers, and 1014 (74.8%) were nonsmokers. Smokers and ex-smokers smoked a mean of 2.4 fewer cigarettes (95% CI, 1.8 to 3.1; P < .0001) on workdays than on days off, with evidence of a small amount of compensatory smoking (one cigarette per day). Of the smoking employees, 61.6% believed that the SFC reduced their cigarette consumption, and 42.2% quit smoking while employed at COH between 1989 and 2002. Of all respondents, 92.6% supported the COH SFC policy. High acceptance was consistent across gender, ethnicity, job type, and educational level. COH's SFC policy is strongly supported by employees and may decrease cigarette consumption and facilitate smoking cessation among smoking employees. This information may be useful to NCCN and other medical centers in assessing current and planning future campus smoking policies.

Full access

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Nonradiotherapeutic Ablative Procedures (Laser/Cryoablation and Electrocautery) for Early-Stage Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Michael J. Baine, Richard Sleightholm, Beth K. Neilsen, David Oupický, Lynette M. Smith, Vivek Verma, and Chi Lin

Background: Despite the fact that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is the only recommended first-line therapy for inoperable early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), several thermal ablative procedures (TAPs; defined herein as laser/cryoablation and electrocautery) are available. Studies showing outcomes of these procedures and how they compare with SBRT are scarce. We sought to evaluate the comparative efficacy of SBRT versus TAPs using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods: The NCDB was queried for patients with early-stage NSCLC who did not undergo surgical resection. Treatment-specific inclusion criteria were applied to select for patients receiving either TAPs or SBRT. Univariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling were performed, and Kaplan-Meier curves were generated. Serial propensity matches were performed using a modified greedy 8→n matching 1:1 algorithm. Results: A total of 27,734 patients were analyzed; 26,725 underwent SBRT and 1,009 underwent TAPs. Patients who received SBRT were older and more likely to have clinical stage IB (vs IA) disease. Despite this, SBRT was associated with longer median overall survival (mOS; 37.7 vs 33.5 months; P=.001) and 1-, 2-, and 5-year OS rates compared with the TAPs cohort (86.7% vs 83.1%, 67.5% vs 62.7%, and 30.6% vs 26.9%, respectively; P=.001). Upon propensity matching, improved OS with SBRT remained, with a mOS of 40.4 versus 33.4 months and 1-, 2-, and 5-year OS rates of 89.0% versus 82.9%, 69.7% versus 62.7%, and 34.4% versus 26.4%, respectively (P=.003). Conclusions: Despite being associated with more higher-risk factors, SBRT was associated with higher OS compared with TAPs for treatment of nonoperative patients diagnosed with early-stage NSCLC. However, causation cannot be implied owing to the inherent limitations of large heterogeneous datasets such as the NCDB.

Full access

Guideline Familiarity Predicts Variation in Self-Reported Use of Routine Surveillance PET/CT by Physicians Who Treat Head and Neck Cancer

Benjamin R. Roman, Snehal G. Patel, Marilene B. Wang, Anna M. Pou, F. Christopher Holsinger, David Myssiorek, David Goldenberg, Samuel Swisher-McClure, Alexander Lin, Jatin P. Shah, and Judy A. Shea

Background: Use of routine surveillance testing beyond guideline recommended levels is common in many oncologic disciplines, including head and neck cancer. The impact of guideline familiarity and other physician characteristics on surveillance imaging use are not well understood. Methods: A cross-sectional national survey was performed of physicians responsible for surveillance of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The primary outcome was self-reported use of routine surveillance PET/CT in asymptomatic patients. A secondary outcome was familiarity with guideline recommendations. Using multivariable regression, the impact of guideline familiarity and other physician characteristics on PET/CT use was examined. Results: Of the 502 responders, 79% endorsed ever using PET/CT scans for routine surveillance imaging, and 39% were high imaging users (used PET/CT scans on more than half of their asymptomatic patients); 76% were familiar with the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Head and Neck Cancers recommending against routine surveillance PET/CT scans. Although guideline familiarity was associated with being a low imaging user or a never-user, among those who were familiar with guidelines, 31% were nonetheless high imaging users and 73% endorsed ever using PET/CT scans. In multivariable analysis controlling for physician characteristics, guideline familiarity was the strongest predictor of PET/CT use. Conclusions: Familiarity with the NCCN Guidelines predicts self-reported routine surveillance PET/CT use among physicians who treat patients with HNSCC. However, given the observed variation and high levels of imaging even among physicians who are familiar with the guidelines, further research should examine the reasons physicians choose to use surveillance PET/CT scans.

Full access

Definitive Pelvic Radiotherapy and Survival of Patients With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Anal Cancer

Yuefeng Wang, Xinhua Yu, Nan Zhao, Jiajing Wang, Chi Lin, Enrique W. Izaguirre, Michael Farmer, Gary Tian, Bradley Somer, Nilesh Dubal, David L. Schwartz, Matthew T. Ballo, and Noam A. VanderWalde

Background: Chemotherapy with or without pelvic radiotherapy (RT) is included in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for metastatic anal cancer (MAC), despite limited clinical evidence for RT in this setting. In addition, increasing evidence shows that local therapies, including RT, may increase patient survival for some types of metastatic cancers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patterns of care and association between definitive pelvic RT and overall survival (OS) for patients with MAC. Methods: The National Cancer Database was analyzed to evaluate OS of patients with newly diagnosed MAC treated with chemotherapy with or without pelvic RT. Those who did not undergo treatment, treated with surgery, or without baseline variables were excluded. OS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, Cox proportional hazards models, and propensity score–matched analyses. Results: From 2004 through 2015, 437 patients received chemotherapy alone and 1,020 received pelvic chemoradiotherapy (CRT). At a median follow-up of 17.3 months, CRT was associated with improved OS on univariate (P<.001) and multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61–0.81; P<.001). Propensity score–matched analysis demonstrated superior median survival (21.3 vs 15.9 months) and 2-year OS rates (46% vs 34%) with CRT compared with chemotherapy alone (P<.001). Landmark analyses limited to long-term survivors of ≥1, ≥2, and ≥4 years showed improved OS with CRT in all subsets (all P<.05). CRT with therapeutic doses (≥45 Gy) was associated with longer median survival than palliative doses (<45 Gy) and chemotherapy alone (24.9 vs 10.9 vs 15.6 months, respectively; P<.001). The benefit of CRT was present among not only those with distant lymph node metastasis (HR, 0.63; P=.04) but also those with distant organ disease (HR, 0.74; P<.001). Conclusions: In this large hypothesis-generating analysis, patients with newly diagnosed MAC who received definitive pelvic RT with chemotherapy lived significantly longer than those who received chemotherapy alone. Prospective trials evaluating definitive local RT for MAC are warranted.

Full access

QIM19-136: Developing an Ideal CAR-T Cell Therapy Patient Experience Through Human-Centered Design and Innovation

Allison Matthews, Surbhi Sidana, Lauren Seymour, Nancy Pick, James Pringnitz, David Argue, Gina Lange, Eva Brandes, Allison McClanahan, Adrienne Nedved, Suzanne Hayman, Saad Kenderian, Shaji Kumar, David Dingli, Taxiarchis Kourelis, Rahma Warsame, Prashant Kapoor, Mithun Shah, Hassan Alkhateeb, Patrick Johnston, Stephen Ansell, Nabila Bennani, Mustaqeem Siddiqui, and Yi Lin

Background: The patient/caregiver experience during CAR-T therapy is stressful, overwhelming, terrifying, and often a patient’s last treatment option. The Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery Innovation and Design team has worked with the CAR-T therapy clinical team to develop a patient experience that provides patients with a sense of caring, supportive environment, timely knowledge, and realistic expectations. Using a human-centered design approach, the Innovation and Design team worked with patients and caregivers to understand latent and unspoken needs in order to develop an ideal CAR-T therapy patient journey. Methods: With qualitative interviewing techniques, patient observation, and low fidelity experimentation, 21 patients/caregiver pairs were interviewed throughout their CAR-T therapy experience in 2018. Patients were interviewed at several touch points as well as encouraged to reach out to the Innovation and Design team at any point with reflections on their experiences. Patients were recruited as they began their evaluation phase for CAR-T therapy. The interviews were unscripted to allow for a breadth of discovery by not constraining the conversations to previously developed themes. As themes emerged from patient/caregiver interviews, artifacts and interventions were designed to alleviate pain points and improve the patient/caregiver experience. These artifacts and interventions were integrated into the clinical processes in real time and patient/caregivers were interviewed to understand the impact of these activities. Results: Several themes emerged from qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers. From the themes, interventions were developed. We were able to demonstrate a qualitative improvement in patient/caregiver experience through these interventions (). Conclusions: Patients/caregivers undergoing CAR-T therapy have unique issues surrounding the logistics of care, emotional burden, and physical effects of treatment. We implemented processes to address these issues and observed a qualitative improvement via patient interviews/feedback. Ongoing work includes optimizing remote monitoring, digital platforms for patient education, and a quantitative study looking at patient reported outcomes (PROs) in such patients. To our knowledge, this is the first report for care delivery optimization in real-world practice for this new therapy.

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

Rectal Cancer

Al B. Benson III, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Emily Chan, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Paul F. Engstrom, Peter C. Enzinger, Marwan G. Fakih, Charles S. Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, Steven Hunt, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Michael G. Martin, Kilian Salerno May, Mary F. Mulcahy, Kate Murphy, Eric Rohren, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, Sunil Sharma, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, William Small Jr, Constantinos T. Sofocleous, Alan P. Venook, Christopher G. Willett, Deborah A. Freedman-Cass, and Kristina M. Gregory

These NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology provide recommendations for the management of rectal cancer, beginning with the clinical presentation of the patient to the primary care physician or gastroenterologist through diagnosis, pathologic staging, neoadjuvant treatment, surgical management, adjuvant treatment, surveillance, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, and survivorship. This discussion focuses on localized disease. The NCCN Rectal Cancer Panel believes that a multidisciplinary approach, including representation from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology, is necessary for treating patients with rectal cancer.

Full access

Colon Cancer

Paul F. Engstrom, Juan Pablo Arnoletti, Al B. Benson III, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Anne Covey, Raza A. Dilawari, Dayna S. Early, Peter C. Enzinger, Marwan G. Fakih, James Fleshman Jr., Charles Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, Krystyna Kiel, James A. Knol, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Mary F. Mulcahy, Sujata Rao, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, Constantinos Sofocleous, James Thomas, Alan P. Venook, and Christopher Willett

Full access

Rectal Cancer

Paul F. Engstrom, Juan Pablo Arnoletti, Al B. Benson III, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Anne Covey, Raza A. Dilawari, Dayna S. Early, Peter C. Enzinger, Marwan G. Fakih, James Fleshman Jr., Charles Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, Krystyna Kiel, James A. Knol, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Mary F. Mulcahy, Sujata Rao, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, Constantinos Sofocleous, James Thomas, Alan P. Venook, and Christopher Willett

Full access

Colon Cancer

Al B. Benson III, J. Pablo Arnoletti, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Emily Chan, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Raza A. Dilawari, Paul F. Engstrom, Peter C. Enzinger, James W. Fleshman Jr., Charles S. Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, James A. Knol, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Kilian Salerno May, Mary F. Mulcahy, Kate Murphy, Eric Rohren, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, Sunil Sharma, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, William Small Jr., Constantinos T. Sofocleous, Alan P. Venook, and Christopher Willett