N M Santucci1, B Garber2, R Ivory3, M A Kuhn2, M Stephen4, D Aizenberg5. 1. Oregon Health and Science University, School of Medicine, Portland, OR, USA. 2. University of California Davis Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2521 Stockton Blvd., Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA. 3. University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA. 4. University of California Davis Department of Internal Medicine - Hematology/Oncology, Sacramento, CA, USA. 5. University of California Davis Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2521 Stockton Blvd., Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA. daizenberg@ucdavis.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the current state of ototoxicity monitoring for patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy in an academic medical center with particular attention to how closely monitoring adheres to national ototoxicity guidelines. METHODS: Case series including retrospective medical records review of patients (age > 18) treated with cisplatin at University of California Davis Medical Center between January 2014 and August 2017. Patient and ototoxicity related variables were analyzed. Patients that underwent a transfer of care during treatment and with less than 3 months of follow-up were excluded. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-nine patients met study criteria, of which 104 (27.4%) had a prior history of hearing loss. Prior to treatment, 196 (51.7%) patients were counseled regarding the ototoxic nature of cisplatin and 92 (24.3%) patients had a pretreatment audiogram. During treatment, 91 (24%) patients had documented otologic complaints. Only 17 patients (4.5%) patients had an audiogram ordered during their cisplatin treatment period. 130 (34.3%) patients had otologic complaints following cisplatin treatment. Audiograms were ordered for 20 (7.8%), 13 (5.1%), and 16 (6.2%) patients at 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month follow-ups, respectively. No patients in the study cohort received baseline, treatment, and post-treatment audiograms as recommended by national ototoxicity monitoring protocols. Patients with Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) represented the largest subgroup that received cisplatin (n = 122, 32.2%) and demonstrated higher rates of ototoxicity counseling (n = 103, 84.4%) and pretreatment audiograms (n = 70, 57.4%) compared to the non HNC group (n = 36, 36.2%, P < 0.0001 and n = 22, 8.5%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There is poor adherence to national ototoxicity monitoring guidelines at a large academic medical center. This is a missed opportunity for intervention and aural rehabilitation. Improved education and collaboration between otolaryngology, audiology, and medical oncology is needed to develop and promote an effective ototoxicity-monitoring program.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the current state of ototoxicity monitoring for patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy in an academic medical center with particular attention to how closely monitoring adheres to national ototoxicity guidelines. METHODS: Case series including retrospective medical records review of patients (age > 18) treated with cisplatin at University of California Davis Medical Center between January 2014 and August 2017. Patient and ototoxicity related variables were analyzed. Patients that underwent a transfer of care during treatment and with less than 3 months of follow-up were excluded. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-nine patients met study criteria, of which 104 (27.4%) had a prior history of hearing loss. Prior to treatment, 196 (51.7%) patients were counseled regarding the ototoxic nature of cisplatin and 92 (24.3%) patients had a pretreatment audiogram. During treatment, 91 (24%) patients had documented otologic complaints. Only 17 patients (4.5%) patients had an audiogram ordered during their cisplatin treatment period. 130 (34.3%) patients had otologic complaints following cisplatin treatment. Audiograms were ordered for 20 (7.8%), 13 (5.1%), and 16 (6.2%) patients at 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month follow-ups, respectively. No patients in the study cohort received baseline, treatment, and post-treatment audiograms as recommended by national ototoxicity monitoring protocols. Patients with Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) represented the largest subgroup that received cisplatin (n = 122, 32.2%) and demonstrated higher rates of ototoxicity counseling (n = 103, 84.4%) and pretreatment audiograms (n = 70, 57.4%) compared to the non HNC group (n = 36, 36.2%, P < 0.0001 and n = 22, 8.5%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There is poor adherence to national ototoxicity monitoring guidelines at a large academic medical center. This is a missed opportunity for intervention and aural rehabilitation. Improved education and collaboration between otolaryngology, audiology, and medical oncology is needed to develop and promote an effective ototoxicity-monitoring program.
Authors: Wendy A Teft; Eric Winquist; Anthony C Nichols; Sara Kuruvilla; Suzanne Richter; Christina Parker; Peggy Francis; Maureen Trinnear; Jelena Lukovic; Nedal Bukhari; Yun-Hee Choi; Stephen Welch; David A Palma; John Yoo; Richard B Kim Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Jong W Lee; Kusala Pussegoda; Shahrad R Rassekh; Jose G Monzon; Geoffrey Liu; Soomi Hwang; Amit P Bhavsar; Sheila Pritchard; Colin J Ross; Ursula Amstutz; Bruce C Carleton Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Miguel Caballero; Paula Mackers; Oscar Reig; Elvira Buxo; Pilar Navarrete; Jose L Blanch; Juan J Grau Journal: Oncology Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 2.935