Are We Choosing Wisely in Lymphoma? Excessive Use of Surveillance CT Imaging in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) in Long-Term Remission
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction The use of surveillance CT imaging in patients with DLBCL in remission is neither effective to detect recurrence nor cost-effective. The ASH Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign, in particular, emphasizes the lack of benefit in imaging beyond 2-years of completion of therapy. We sought to describe the practice of surveillance imaging and predictors of this practice. Methods We used population-based health system administrative databases from Ontario, Canada. We studied a cohort of all adult patients ≥18 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who received R-CHOP therapy for curative intent between January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2011. Based on the CW campaign, we defined an index date of 2-years after the last dose of R-CHOP as the time-frame beyond which surveillance CT imaging would be inappropriate. The cumulative incidence of receiving CT scans within 3 years after the index date (i.e. from 2- to 5-years beyond the end of treatment) represented the primary outcome of interest (established within the Ontario Health Insurance Program database). To ensure that only surveillance scans in asymptomatic patients were captured, patients were censored 6 months prior to development of recurrent disease or a new cancer diagnosis, further chemotherapy/radiation, or if they died (censored at time of death). Predictor characteristics included baseline comorbidities (John Hopkins weighted Aggregated Diagnosis Groups (ADG) comorbidity score) and income quintile (linkage of the patient postal code to Statistics Canada Census data on average household income by postal code). Results The cohort consisted of 2,838 patients treated with R-CHOP during the study period. Median age at time of first R-CHOP dosing was 63 years (IQR 52-72) and the median number of cycles received was 6 (IQR 6-8). The cumulative incidence of receiving CT imaging from the index date (2-years from end of treatment) to 3-years beyond the end of treatment was 40.1% (95% CI 38.3%-41.9%). The cumulative incidence of imaging from the index date to 5-years beyond the end of treatment was 55.6 % (95% CI 53.7%-57.5%). During the follow-up period, patients ≥65 were more likely to receive imaging than those aged <65 (58.2% vs. 53.0%; p<0.01) as were those with more comorbidities (65.4% in ADG group ≥7 vs. 44.3% in ADG group 0-2; p<0.01). Income level (p=0.06) and rurality (p=0.52) did not predict for increased imaging. The cumulative incidence appeared to decrease over the study follow-up period (from 65.5% in 2006 to 47.4% in 2013; p<0.01). For the entire population, the number of CT scans completed was 0.45 per patient-year of follow-up. Conclusion During a time-frame in which surveillance imaging is deemed unnecessary by the CW campaign (2 to 5 years beyond therapy), the practice in a large population remains excessive (>50% cumulative incidence in scanning). Patients who are older and with more comorbidities are more likely to receive scans, and may represent target populations to ensure greater compliance with the CW campaign. This study represents a real-world baseline from which future efforts to reduce surveillance imaging can be benchmarked. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».