This study compared the plan dosimetry between the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and field-in-field (FIF) technique for head-and-neck cancer using the Elekta Monaco treatment planning system (TPS).

A total of 20 head-and-neck cancer patients were selected in this study. IMRT and FIF plans for the patients were created on the Monaco TPS (ver. 5.11.02) using the 6-MV photon beam generated by the Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. The dose–volume histograms, maximum doses, minimum doses, mean doses of the target volumes and organs-at-risk (OARs), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and monitor units (MUs) were determined for each IMRT and FIF plan. All IMRT plans passed the patient-specific quality assurance tests from the 2D diode array measurements (MatriXX Evolution System, IBA Dosimetry, Germany).

The results showed that the dose distribution to the target volumes of IMRT plans was better than FIF plans, while the dose (mean or max dose) to the OAR was significantly lower than FIF plan, respectively. IMRT and FIF resulted in planning target volume coverage with mean dose of 71·32 ± 0·76 and 73·12 ± 0·62 Gy, respectively, and HI values of 0·08 ± 0·01 (IMRT) and 0·19 ± 0·06 (FIF). The CI for IMRT was 0·98 ± 0·01 and FIF was 0·97 ± 0·01. For the spinal cord tolerance (maximum dose < 45 Gy), IMRT resulted in 39·85 ± 2·04 Gy compared to 41·37 ± 2·42 Gy for FIF. In addition, the mean doses to the parotid grand were 27·27 ± 7·48 and 48·68 ± 1·62 Gy for the IMRT and FIF plans, respectively. Significantly more MUs were required in IMRT plans than FIF plans (on average, 846 ± 100 MU in IMRT and 467 ± 41 MU in FIF).

It is concluded that the IMRT technique could provide a better plan dosimetry than the FIF technique for head-and-neck patients.

The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) evaluates new cancer drugs for public funding recommendations. While pCODR's deliberative framework evaluates overall clinical benefit and includes considerations for exceptional circumstances, rarity of indication is not explicitly addressed. Given the high unmet need that typically accompanies these indications, we explored the impact of rarity on oncology HTA recommendations and funding decisions.

We examined pCODR submissions with final recommendations from 2012 to 2017. Incidence rates were calculated using pCODR recommendation reports and statistics from the Canadian Cancer Society. Indications were classified as rare if the incidence rate was lower than 1/100,000 diagnoses, a definition referenced by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Each pCODR final report was examined for the funding recommendation/justification, level of supporting evidence (presence of a randomized control trial [RCT]), and time to funding (if applicable).

Of the ninety-six pCODR reviews examined, 16.6 percent were classified as rare indications per above criteria. While the frequency of positive funding recommendations were similar between rare and nonrare indication (78.6 vs. 75 percent), rare indications were less likely to be presented with evidence from RCT (50 vs. 90 percent). The average time to funding did not differ significantly across provinces.

Rare indications appear to be associated with weaker clinical evidence. There appears to be no association between rarity, positive funding recommendations, and time to funding. Further work will evaluate factors associated with positive recommendations and the real-world utilization of funded treatments for rare indications.

To determine whether use of contact precautions on hospital ward patients is associated with patient adverse events

Individually matched prospective cohort study

The University of Maryland Medical Center, a tertiary care hospital in Baltimore, Maryland

A total of 296 medical or surgical inpatients admitted to non–intensive care unit hospital wards were enrolled at admission from January to November 2010. Patients on contact precautions were individually matched by hospital unit after an initial 3-day length of stay to patients not on contact precautions. Adverse events were detected by physician chart review and categorized as noninfectious, preventable and severe noninfectious, and infectious adverse events during the patient’s stay using the standardized Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s Global Trigger Tool.

The cohort of 148 patients on contact precautions at admission was matched with a cohort of 148 patients not on contact precautions. Of the total 296 subjects, 104 (35.1%) experienced at least 1 adverse event during their hospital stay. Contact precautions were associated with fewer noninfectious adverse events (rate ratio [RtR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.95; P=.02) and although not statistically significant, with fewer severe adverse events (RtR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46–1.03; P=.07). Preventable adverse events did not significantly differ between patients on contact precautions and patients not on contact precautions (RtR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.59–1.24; P=.41).

Hospital ward patients on contact precautions were less likely to experience noninfectious adverse events during their hospital stay than patients not on contact precautions.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015;36(11):1268–1274

The number of pediatric antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) is increasing and program evaluation is a key component to improve efficiency and enhance stewardship strategies.

To determine the antimicrobials and diagnoses most strongly associated with a recommendation provided by a well-established pediatric ASP.

Retrospective cohort study from March 3, 2008, to March 2, 2013, of all ASP reviews performed at a free-standing pediatric hospital.

ASP recommendations were classified as follows: stop therapy, modify therapy, optimize therapy, or consult infectious diseases. A multinomial distribution model to determine the probability of each ASP recommendation category was performed on the basis of the specific antimicrobial agent or disease category. A logistic model was used to determine the odds of recommendation disagreement by the prescribing clinician.

The ASP made 2,317 recommendations: stop therapy (45%), modify therapy (26%), optimize therapy (19%), or consult infectious diseases (10%). Third-generation cephalosporins (0.20) were the antimicrobials with the highest predictive probability of an ASP recommendation whereas linezolid (0.05) had the lowest probability. Community-acquired pneumonia (0.26) was the diagnosis with the highest predictive probability of an ASP recommendation whereas fever/neutropenia (0.04) had the lowest probability. Disagreement with ASP recommendations by the prescribing clinician occurred 22% of the time, most commonly involving community-acquired pneumonia and ear/nose/throat infections.

Evaluation of our pediatric ASP identified specific clinical diagnoses and antimicrobials associated with an increased likelihood of an ASP recommendation. Focused interventions targeting these high-yield areas may result in increased program efficiency and efficacy.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;00(0): 1–8