Background When older adult patients with hip fracture (HFx) have unplanned hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge, it doubles their 1-year mortality, resulting in substantial personal and financial burdens. Although such unplanned readmissions are predominantly caused by reasons not related to HFx surgery, few studies have focused on how pre-existing high-risk comorbidities co-occur within and across subgroups of patients with HFx. Objective This study aims to use a combination of supervised and unsupervised visual analytical methods to (1) obtain an integrated understanding of comorbidity risk, comorbidity co-occurrence, and patient subgroups, and (2) enable a team of clinical and methodological stakeholders to infer the processes that precipitate unplanned hospital readmission, with the goal of designing targeted interventions. Methods We extracted a training data set consisting of 16,886 patients (8443 readmitted patients with HFx and 8443 matched controls) and a replication data set consisting of 16,222 patients (8111 readmitted patients with HFx and 8111 matched controls) from the 2010 and 2009 Medicare database, respectively. The analyses consisted of a supervised combinatorial analysis to identify and replicate combinations of comorbidities that conferred significant risk for readmission, an unsupervised bipartite network analysis to identify and replicate how high-risk comorbidity combinations co-occur across readmitted patients with HFx, and an integrated visualization and analysis of comorbidity risk, comorbidity co-occurrence, and patient subgroups to enable clinician stakeholders to infer the processes that precipitate readmission in patient subgroups and to propose targeted interventions. Results The analyses helped to identify (1) 11 comorbidity combinations that conferred significantly higher risk (ranging from P<.001 to P=.01) for a 30-day readmission, (2) 7 biclusters of patients and comorbidities with a significant bicluster modularity (P<.001; Medicare=0.440; random mean 0.383 [0.002]), indicating strong heterogeneity in the comorbidity profiles of readmitted patients, and (3) inter- and intracluster risk associations, which enabled clinician stakeholders to infer the processes involved in the exacerbation of specific combinations of comorbidities leading to readmission in patient subgroups. Conclusions The integrated analysis of risk, co-occurrence, and patient subgroups enabled the inference of processes that precipitate readmission, leading to a comorbidity exacerbation risk model for readmission after HFx. These results have direct implications for (1) the management of comorbidities targeted at high-risk subgroups of patients with the goal of pre-emptively reducing their risk of readmission and (2) the development of more accurate risk prediction models that incorporate information about patient subgroups.

Purpose: In order to accurately accumulate delivered dose for head and neck cancer patients treated with the Adapt to Position workflow on the 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-linear accelerator (MR-linac), the low-resolution T2-weighted MRIs used for daily setup must be segmented to enable reconstruction of the delivered dose at each fraction. In this study, our goal is to evaluate various autosegmentation methods for head and neck organs at risk (OARs) on on-board setup MRIs from the MR-linac for off-line reconstruction of delivered dose. Methods: Seven OARs (parotid glands, submandibular glands, mandible, spinal cord, and brainstem) were contoured on 43 images by seven observers each. Ground truth contours were generated using a simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) algorithm. 20 autosegmentation methods were evaluated in ADMIRE: 1-9) atlas-based autosegmentation using a population atlas library (PAL) of 5/10/15 patients with STAPLE, patch fusion (PF), random forest (RF) for label fusion; 10-19) autosegmentation using images from a patient's 1-4 prior fractions (individualized patient prior (IPP)) using STAPLE/PF/RF; 20) deep learning (DL) (3D ResUNet trained on 43 ground truth structure sets plus 45 contoured by one observer). Execution time was measured for each method. Autosegmented structures were compared to ground truth structures using the Dice similarity coefficient, mean surface distance, Hausdorff distance, and Jaccard index. For each metric and OAR, performance was compared to the inter-observer variability using Dunn's test with control. Methods were compared pairwise using the Steel-Dwass test for each metric pooled across all OARs. Further dosimetric analysis was performed on three high-performing autosegmentation methods (DL, IPP with RF and 4 fractions (IPP_RF_4), IPP with 1 fraction (IPP_1)), and one low-performing (PAL with STAPLE and 5 atlases (PAL_ST_5)). For five patients, delivered doses from clinical plans were recalculated on setup images with ground truth and autosegmented structure sets. Differences in maximum and mean dose to each structure between the ground truth and autosegmented structures were calculated and correlated with geometric metrics. Results: DL and IPP methods performed best overall, all significantly outperforming inter-observer variability and with no significant difference between methods in pairwise comparison. PAL methods performed worst overall; most were not significantly different from the inter-observer variability or from each other. DL was the fastest method (33 seconds per case) and PAL methods the slowest (3.7 - 13.8 minutes per case). Execution time increased with number of prior fractions/atlases for IPP and PAL. For DL, IPP_1, and IPP_RF_4, the majority (95%) of dose differences were within 250 cGy from ground truth, but outlier differences up to 785 cGy occurred. Dose differences were much higher for PAL_ST_5, with outlier differences up to 1920 cGy. Dose differences showed weak but significant correlations with all geometric metrics (R2 between 0.030 and 0.314). Conclusions: The autosegmentation methods offering the best combination of performance and execution time are DL and IPP_1. Dose reconstruction on on-board T2-weighted MRIs is feasible with autosegmented structures with minimal dosimetric variation from ground truth, but contours should be visually inspected prior to dose reconstruction in an end-to-end dose accumulation workflow.

Purpose: There is no current randomized data comparing the efficacy of brachytherapy and enucleation for patients with larger sized tumors. The purpose of the present study was to use a large, contemporary database to determine current practice patterns and compare survival outcomes between different management options for patients with choroidal melanoma of various sizes. Material and methods: The National Cancer Database was queried (2004-2014) for histologically-confirmed choroidal melanoma for patients treated with brachytherapy versus enucleation. Chi-square test was used to compare categorized demographic and clinical variables in both arms. Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated overall survival (OS). Cox proportional hazards assessment determined variables associated with OS. Patients were divided into cohorts representing small, medium, and large tumors. Propensity scores matching (PSM) was utilized to compare more similar cohorts. Results: A total of 7,096 patients met the selection criteria; 5,501 (78%) patients received brachytherapy and 1,595 (22%) patients were treated with enucleation. After PSM, 5-yr OS for small tumors was 87% vs. 64%, for medium tumors was 77% vs. 57%, and for large tumors was 68% vs. 46% for brachytherapy and enucleation, respectively (p < 0.001). Following PSM, multivariate Cox regression found older age (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.51-2.06), more comorbidities (HR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.25-1.70), extraocular extension (EOE) (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.06-1.48), ciliary body invasion (CBI) (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.02-1.40), and larger size (HR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.40-1.66) were negative prognosticators of survival. Brachytherapy was a positive prognosticator of survival (HR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.40-0.51). Conclusions: Patients selected for brachytherapy had improved survival compared to enucleation in all size cohorts. EOE and CBI are significantly higher in the enucleation cohort and are important negative prognosticators for survival selected against patients having brachytherapy. Brachytherapy is a reasonable treatment option for certain patients with large size tumors.

No abstract