Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges in a Patient with Synchronous Very High-Risk Prostate Adenocarcinoma and Anal Carcinoma

A 79-year-old HIV-negative Caucasian man with a medical history of smoking 20 pack-years (quit 40 years prior), early-stage non-small cell lung cancer status post-lobectomy 13 years earlier at an outside hospital without evidence of recurrence, and benign prostatic hypertrophy was diagnosed with synchronous very high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and early-stage anal basaloid squamous cell carcinoma. He proceeded to undergo concurrent treatment for these tumors, consisting of androgen deprivation therapy, external beam radiation therapy, and a brachytherapy boost for the prostate adenocarcinoma; for the anal carcinoma, he was treated with definitive chemoradiation. Over 3.5 years since the completion of radiotherapy, he remains in clinical and biochemical remission

Cost reduction associated with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia panel ordering for enoxaparin versus heparin for prophylactic and therapeutic use: A retrospective analysis in a community hospital setting

Background: Most hospitals still use unfractionated heparin (UFH) as the primary agent for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in the hospital setting due to ease of use and insignificant cost. However, the risk of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) has led some groups to favor other options for therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulation. This is particularly relevant in light of recent data demonstrating a lower rate of HIT in patients receiving enoxaparin compared with UFH. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of enoxaparin, compared to UFH for prophylactic and therapeutic usage in hospitals. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent HIT panel testing at the Inspira Health Network, Vineland campus (an approximately 262-bedded community hospital located in southern New Jersey that services a population of approximately 61,050) from the period of April 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016. The starting date represents the time from which enoxaparin became the primary alternative anticoagulant available at this hospital. Records of the total usage and cost of UFH and enoxaparin for the specified time period were collected from the hospital pharmacy database for evaluation, as were records of HIT panels. The information was analyzed to determine the frequency of HIT panel testing orders for patients receiving UFH versus those receiving enoxaparin. Annual cost-savings for the hospital were extrapolated using the comparative incidence of HIT panels and associated costs, including increased length of stay, hematology/oncology consultation, use of an alternative anticoagulant, critical bleeding requiring transfusion, and complications of HIT-associated thrombosis. These variables were multiplied by the incidence rate for each specified drug and usage to determine the daily cost for each drug. Results: The use of enoxaparin did not result in a significant decrease in the ordering of HIT panels in the hospital, with a relative rate ratio of 0.948 (95% confidence interval: 0.336, 2.21). When the data were stratified to examine prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation, there was a marked difference in the frequency of HIT testing. The rate ratio of HIT panel orders for patients receiving therapeutic enoxaparin rather than intravenous (IV) UFH was 0.118 (0.006, 0.625). These numbers were used to extrapolate the total daily cost of enoxaparin compared with IV UFH; therapeutic enoxaparin cost $30.66, while IV UFH cost$162.30. IV UFH use was associated with a higher incidence rate of HIT panel orders, and consequently a higher daily cost due to the likelihood of increased length of stay, use of alternative anticoagulation, bleeding requiring transfusion, and request for expert consultation. Conclusion: In this study, the use of enoxaparin was associated with a significant cost-saving over IV UFH when used for therapeutic anticoagulation, but this cost saving was not observed for prophylactic anticoagulation

International case series of metastasis to penis

Abstract Objectives To evaluate clinical characteristics associated with survival in patients with metastases to the penis. Methods After approval by the IRB, records of collaborating centres in Leuven, London, Rostock, Amsterdam and Tampa were screened for men presenting with metastatic disease to penis. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify covariables associated with survival. We analysed clinical data on 34 patients. Results Primary sites were most frequently prostate (n = 14, 41%) and bladder (n = 9, 26%). Twenty‐eight of 34 (82%) presented with metachronous penile metastases, and 11 (32%) patients had penile metastases as the sole metastatic site. Penile metastatic locations were most frequently in the corpora (n = 18; 53%). Seven (21%) patients with penile metastases had priapism on presentation. Systemic therapy was frequent and variable (chemotherapy n = 12; immunotherapy n = 5; hormones n = 3). Local management included either surgery (n = 10) or RT (n = 8). Twelve‐ and 24‐month overall survival rate were 67% and 35%, respectively. No clinical parameter including primary histology, synchronous or metachronous metastases or priapism showed statistical survival benefit or detriment. Conclusion Metastasis to penis arises most frequently from pelvic primaries. Priapism does not appear to correlate with survival in this large, well‐defined series