Lisa Barbera1,2,3,4, Rinku Sutradhar2,3, Hsien Seow5, Craig C Earle2, Doris Howell6, Nicole Mittmann4, Qing Li2, Deva Thiruchelvam2. 1. Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 6. University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is a validated instrument whose use has been standardized in the Ontario cancer system to measure symptoms among ambulatory patients with cancer. The objective was to examine the effect of ESAS exposure on visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations. METHODS: This was a retrospective matched cohort study conducted in Ontario, Canada. The study included patients ≥ 18 years of age diagnosed with cancer between 2007 and 2015. Patients were considered exposed if they were screened with ESAS at least once during the study period, and their first ESAS screening date was defined as the index date. Each exposed patient was matched randomly to a patient with cancer without ESAS assessment using a combination of hard matching (birth year ± 2 years, cancer diagnosis date ± 1 year, cancer type, and sex) and propensity score matching (14 variables, including cancer stage, treatments received, and comorbidities). A multivariable Andersen-Gill recurrent event model was used to evaluate the effect of ESAS on the rate of health care use. RESULTS: The analysis included 128,893 matched pairs that were well balanced on baseline measures. After adjusting for other variables, patients with ESAS had lower rates of both ED visits (relative rate [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.93) and hospitalizations (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.87) compared with patients without ESAS. CONCLUSION: ESAS exposure is independently associated with decreased rates of ED visits and hospitalizations. This provides real-world evidence of one potential positive impact of standardized symptom assessment in cancer care.
PURPOSE: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is a validated instrument whose use has been standardized in the Ontario cancer system to measure symptoms among ambulatory patients with cancer. The objective was to examine the effect of ESAS exposure on visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations. METHODS: This was a retrospective matched cohort study conducted in Ontario, Canada. The study included patients ≥ 18 years of age diagnosed with cancer between 2007 and 2015. Patients were considered exposed if they were screened with ESAS at least once during the study period, and their first ESAS screening date was defined as the index date. Each exposed patient was matched randomly to a patient with cancer without ESAS assessment using a combination of hard matching (birth year ± 2 years, cancer diagnosis date ± 1 year, cancer type, and sex) and propensity score matching (14 variables, including cancer stage, treatments received, and comorbidities). A multivariable Andersen-Gill recurrent event model was used to evaluate the effect of ESAS on the rate of health care use. RESULTS: The analysis included 128,893 matched pairs that were well balanced on baseline measures. After adjusting for other variables, patients with ESAS had lower rates of both ED visits (relative rate [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.93) and hospitalizations (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.87) compared with patients without ESAS. CONCLUSION: ESAS exposure is independently associated with decreased rates of ED visits and hospitalizations. This provides real-world evidence of one potential positive impact of standardized symptom assessment in cancer care.
Authors: Ethan Basch; Deborah Schrag; Sydney Henson; Jennifer Jansen; Brenda Ginos; Angela M Stover; Philip Carr; Patricia A Spears; Mattias Jonsson; Allison M Deal; Antonia V Bennett; Gita Thanarajasingam; Lauren J Rogak; Bryce B Reeve; Claire Snyder; Deborah Bruner; David Cella; Lisa A Kottschade; Jane Perlmutter; Cindy Geoghegan; Cleo A Samuel-Ryals; Barbara Given; Gina L Mazza; Robert Miller; Jon F Strasser; Dylan M Zylla; Anna Weiss; Victoria S Blinder; Amylou C Dueck Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Amanda Caissie; Robert Olson; Lisa Barbera; Jennifer O'Donnell; Carol-Anne Davis; Jennifer Croke; Louise Bird; John Kildea; Erika Brown; Michael Brundage; Michael Milosevic Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 3.109
Authors: Jens Lehmann; Petra Buhl; Johannes M Giesinger; Lisa M Wintner; Monika Sztankay; Lucia Neppl; Wolfgang Willenbacher; Roman Weger; Walpurga Weyrer; Gerhard Rumpold; Bernhard Holzner Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jens Lehmann; Maria Rothmund; David Riedl; Gerhard Rumpold; Vincent Grote; Michael J Fischer; Bernhard Holzner Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Cinzia Brunelli; Emanuela Zito; Sara Alfieri; Claudia Borreani; Anna Roli; Augusto Caraceni; Giovanni Apolone Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Karen Lisa Smith; Neha Verma; Amanda L Blackford; Jennifer Lehman; Kelly Westbrook; David Lim; John Fetting; Antonio C Wolff; Daniela Jelovac; Robert S Miller; Roisin Connolly; Deborah K Armstrong; Raquel Nunes; Kala Visvanathan; Carol Riley; Katie Papathakis; Nelli Zafman; Jennifer Y Sheng; Claire Snyder; Vered Stearns Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2022-04-21