PURPOSE: Utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer remains low. We sought to understand our practice of NAC use in order to design a quality improvement initiative geared towards optimizing medical oncology referral. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 339 patients with ≥cT2 bladder cancer treated with radical cystectomy between 2012-2017 at our institution. We assessed the rate of referral to medical oncology, rate of NAC administration, as well as medical, patient and provider variables associated with NAC use. Bayesian logistic regression modeling identified variables associated with NAC use and chart review provided granular patient-level data. RESULTS: 85% (n=289) of patients were referred to medical oncology and 62.5% (n=212) received NAC. Renal insufficiency, hearing loss, and treating urologist were conclusively associated with lower odds of NAC use. 46 patients were not referred to medical oncology and 50% of these had medical contraindications to cisplatin cited as the reason for no referral. 38 patients met with medical oncology but did not receive NAC. 30 (79%) had comorbidities that impacted this decision with 15 (39%) ineligible based on impaired renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relatively high rates of medical oncology referral and NAC use in this cohort, there are still opportunities to improve the efficiency of this practice. Quality improvement initiatives could optimize the referral of patients with ≥T2 bladder cancer for consideration of cisplatin-based NAC and establish an important quality metric in the management of these patients.
PURPOSE: Utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer remains low. We sought to understand our practice of NAC use in order to design a quality improvement initiative geared towards optimizing medical oncology referral. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 339 patients with ≥cT2 bladder cancer treated with radical cystectomy between 2012-2017 at our institution. We assessed the rate of referral to medical oncology, rate of NAC administration, as well as medical, patient and provider variables associated with NAC use. Bayesian logistic regression modeling identified variables associated with NAC use and chart review provided granular patient-level data. RESULTS: 85% (n=289) of patients were referred to medical oncology and 62.5% (n=212) received NAC. Renal insufficiency, hearing loss, and treating urologist were conclusively associated with lower odds of NAC use. 46 patients were not referred to medical oncology and 50% of these had medical contraindications to cisplatin cited as the reason for no referral. 38 patients met with medical oncology but did not receive NAC. 30 (79%) had comorbidities that impacted this decision with 15 (39%) ineligible based on impaired renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relatively high rates of medical oncology referral and NAC use in this cohort, there are still opportunities to improve the efficiency of this practice. Quality improvement initiatives could optimize the referral of patients with ≥T2 bladder cancer for consideration of cisplatin-based NAC and establish an important quality metric in the management of these patients.
Authors: Jonathan J Duplisea; Ross J Mason; Chad A Reichard; Roger Li; Yu Shen; Stephen A Boorjian; Colin P Dinney Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Lee A Hugar; Jonathan G Yabes; Robert M Turner; Mina M Fam; Leonard J Appleman; Benjamin J Davies; Bruce L Jacobs Journal: Urology Date: 2018-11-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ralph de Vere White; Primo N Lara; Peter C Black; Christopher P Evans; Marc Dall'Era Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sam S Chang; Bernard H Bochner; Roger Chou; Robert Dreicer; Ashish M Kamat; Seth P Lerner; Yair Lotan; Joshua J Meeks; Jeff M Michalski; Todd M Morgan; Diane Z Quale; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Anthony L Zietman; Jeffrey M Holzbeierlein Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Chelsea K Osterman; Dilip S Babu; Daniel M Geynisman; Bianca Lewis; Robert A Somer; Arjun V Balar; Matthew R Zibelman; Elizabeth A Guancial; Gianna Antinori; Shun Yu; Vivek Narayan; Thomas J Guzzo; Elizabeth R Plimack; David J Vaughn; Chunkit Fung; Ronac Mamtani Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-02-06
Authors: Peter E Clark; Neeraj Agarwal; Matthew C Biagioli; Mario A Eisenberger; Richard E Greenberg; Harry W Herr; Brant A Inman; Deborah A Kuban; Timothy M Kuzel; Subodh M Lele; Jeff Michalski; Lance C Pagliaro; Sumanta K Pal; Anthony Patterson; Elizabeth R Plimack; Kamal S Pohar; Michael P Porter; Jerome P Richie; Wade J Sexton; William U Shipley; Eric J Small; Philippe E Spiess; Donald L Trump; Geoffrey Wile; Timothy G Wilson; Mary Dwyer; Maria Ho Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Stephen H Culp; Rian J Dickstein; H Barton Grossman; Shanna M Pretzsch; Sima Porten; Siamak Daneshmand; Jie Cai; Susan Groshen; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Randall E Millikan; Bogdan Czerniak; Neema Navai; Matthew F Wszolek; Ashish M Kamat; Colin P N Dinney Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-07-30 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: J Alfred Witjes; Thierry Lebret; Eva M Compérat; Nigel C Cowan; Maria De Santis; Harman Maxim Bruins; Virginia Hernández; Estefania Linares Espinós; James Dunn; Mathieu Rouanne; Yann Neuzillet; Erik Veskimäe; Antoine G van der Heijden; Georgios Gakis; Maria J Ribal Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 20.096