Suppr超能文献

癌症特异性不良事件触发因素与死亡率的相关性:一项验证研究。

Association between cancer-specific adverse event triggers and mortality: A validation study.

机构信息

Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

出版信息

Cancer Med. 2020 Jun;9(12):4447-4459. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3033. Epub 2020 Apr 13.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

As there are few validated measures of patient safety in clinical oncology, creating an efficient measurement instrument would create significant value. Accordingly, we sought to assess the validity of a novel patient safety measure by examining the association of oncology-specific triggers and mortality using administrative claims data.

METHODS

We examined a retrospective cohort of 322 887 adult cancer patients enrolled in commercial or Medicare Advantage products for one year after an initial diagnosis of breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer in 2008-2014. We used diagnosis and procedure codes to calculate the prevalence of 16 cancer-specific "triggers"-events that signify a potential adverse event. We compared one-year mortality rates among patients with and without triggers by cancer type and metastatic status using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Trigger events affected 19% of patients and were most common among patients with metastatic colorectal (41%) and lung (50%) cancers. There was increased one-year mortality among patients with triggers compared to patients without triggers across all cancer types in unadjusted and multivariate analyses. The increased mortality rate among patients with trigger events was particularly striking for nonmetastatic prostate cancer (1.3% vs 7.5%, adjusted odds ratio 1.96 [95% CI 1.49-2.57]) and nonmetastatic colorectal cancer (4.1% vs 11.7%, 1.44 [1.19-1.75]).

CONCLUSIONS

The association between adverse event triggers and poor survival among a cohort of cancer patients supports the validity of a cancer-specific, administrative claims-based trigger tool.

摘要

背景

由于临床肿瘤学中缺乏经过验证的患者安全衡量标准,因此创建一个有效的衡量工具将具有重要意义。因此,我们试图通过使用行政索赔数据来检查肿瘤学特异性触发因素与死亡率之间的关联,来评估一种新的患者安全衡量标准的有效性。

方法

我们对 2008 年至 2014 年间初始诊断为乳腺癌、结直肠癌、肺癌或前列腺癌的 322887 名成年癌症患者的商业或医疗保险优势产品的回顾性队列进行了研究。我们使用诊断和程序代码来计算 16 种癌症特异性“触发因素”的发生率,这些因素表明可能发生不良事件。我们使用逻辑回归模型比较了癌症类型和转移性状态下有和无触发因素的患者的一年死亡率。

结果

触发事件影响了 19%的患者,转移性结直肠癌(41%)和肺癌(50%)患者最常见。在未调整和多变量分析中,与无触发因素的患者相比,所有癌症类型的患者均有更高的一年死亡率。在无转移性前列腺癌(1.3%比 7.5%,调整后的优势比 1.96[95%置信区间 1.49-2.57])和无转移性结直肠癌(4.1%比 11.7%,1.44[1.19-1.75])患者中,有触发事件的患者的死亡率增加尤为明显。

结论

在癌症患者队列中,不良事件触发因素与不良生存之间的关联支持了基于行政索赔的癌症特异性触发工具的有效性。

相似文献

1
Association between cancer-specific adverse event triggers and mortality: A validation study.
Cancer Med. 2020 Jun;9(12):4447-4459. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3033. Epub 2020 Apr 13.
2
Developing a cancer-specific trigger tool to identify treatment-related adverse events using administrative data.
Cancer Med. 2020 Feb;9(4):1462-1472. doi: 10.1002/cam4.2812. Epub 2020 Jan 3.
3
4
Performance of a Trigger Tool for Identifying Adverse Events in Oncology.
J Oncol Pract. 2017 Mar;13(3):e223-e230. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2016.016634. Epub 2017 Jan 17.
5
Evaluating iatrogenic prescribing: development of an oncology-focused trigger tool.
Eur J Cancer. 2015 Feb;51(3):427-35. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.002. Epub 2014 Dec 27.
6
Preventable and mitigable adverse events in cancer care: Measuring risk and harm across the continuum.
Cancer. 2017 Dec 1;123(23):4728-4736. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30916. Epub 2017 Aug 17.
8
Italian cancer figures--Report 2015: The burden of rare cancers in Italy.
Epidemiol Prev. 2016 Jan-Feb;40(1 Suppl 2):1-120. doi: 10.19191/EP16.1S2.P001.035.
10
Mortality in Incident Maintenance Dialysis Patients Versus Incident Solid Organ Cancer Patients: A Population-Based Cohort.
Am J Kidney Dis. 2019 Jun;73(6):765-776. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.12.011. Epub 2019 Feb 6.

引用本文的文献

1
The Effects of Adverse Events and Associated Costs on Value-Based Care for Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.
J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2024 Dec 18;11(2):161-167. doi: 10.36469/001c.124367. eCollection 2024.
2
[Update of triggers for detection of adverse drug events in hematologic patients].
Cad Saude Publica. 2023 Dec 22;39(12):e00077923. doi: 10.1590/0102-311XPT077923. eCollection 2023.
3
Anesthesia and Cancer, Friend or Foe? A Narrative Review.
Front Oncol. 2021 Dec 23;11:803266. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.803266. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

1
Developing a cancer-specific trigger tool to identify treatment-related adverse events using administrative data.
Cancer Med. 2020 Feb;9(4):1462-1472. doi: 10.1002/cam4.2812. Epub 2020 Jan 3.
3
4
Chemotherapy medication errors.
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Apr;19(4):e191-e199. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30094-9.
5
Development of a 'ready-to-use' tool that includes preventability, for the assessment of adverse drug events in oncology.
Int J Clin Pharm. 2018 Apr;40(2):376-385. doi: 10.1007/s11096-017-0542-3. Epub 2018 Feb 14.
7
Test-Retest Reliability of an Experienced Global Trigger Tool Review Team.
J Patient Saf. 2021 Oct 1;17(7):e593-e598. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000433.
8
An electronic trigger based on care escalation to identify preventable adverse events in hospitalised patients.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Mar;27(3):241-246. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006975. Epub 2017 Sep 21.
9
Preventable and mitigable adverse events in cancer care: Measuring risk and harm across the continuum.
Cancer. 2017 Dec 1;123(23):4728-4736. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30916. Epub 2017 Aug 17.
10
Developing and Evaluating an Automated All-Cause Harm Trigger System.
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2017 Apr;43(4):155-165. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.01.004. Epub 2017 Feb 16.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验