Concurrent validity of a patient self-administered examination and a clinical examination for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome

ObjectiveTelehealth has been established as a viable option for improved access and timeliness of care. Physician-guided patient self-evaluation may improve the viability of telehealth evaluation; however, there are little data evaluating the efficacy of self-administered examination (SAE). This study aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of a patient SAE to a traditional standardised clinical examination (SCE) for evaluation of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).Methods75 patients seeking care for hip-related pain were included for participation. All patients underwent both SAE and SCE and were randomised to the order of the examinations. Diagnostic accuracy statistics were calculated for both examination group for a final diagnosis of FAIS. Mean diagnostic accuracy results for each group were then compared using Mann-Whitney U non-parametric tests.ResultsThe diagnostic accuracy of individual SAE and SCE manoeuvres varied widely. Both SAE and SCE demonstrated no to moderate change in post-test probability for the diagnosis of FAIS. Although low, SAE demonstrated a statistically greater mean diagnostic accuracy compared with the SCE (53.6% vs 45.5%, p=0.02).ConclusionDiagnostic accuracy was statistically significantly higher for the self-exam than for the traditional clinical exam although the difference may not be clinically relevant. Although the mean accuracy remains relatively low for both exams, these values are consistent with hip exam for FAIS reported in the literature. Having established the validity of an SAE, future investigations will need to evaluate implementation in a telehealth setting

Controversies around epithelial–mesenchymal plasticity in cancer metastasis

Experimental evidence accumulated over decades has implicated epithelial–mesenchymal plasticity (EMP), which collectively encompasses epithelial–mesenchymal transition and the reverse process of mesenchymal–epithelial transition, in tumour metastasis, cancer stem cell generation and maintenance, and therapeutic resistance. However, the dynamic nature of EMP processes, the apparent need to reverse mesenchymal changes for the development of macrometastases and the likelihood that only minor cancer cell subpopulations exhibit EMP at any one time have made such evidence difficult to accrue in the clinical setting. In this Perspectives article, we outline the existing preclinical and clinical evidence for EMP and reflect on recent controversies, including the failure of initial lineage-tracing experiments to confirm a major role for EMP in dissemination, and discuss accumulating data suggesting that epithelial features and/or a hybrid epithelial–mesenchymal phenotype are important in metastasis. We also highlight strategies to address the complexities of therapeutically targeting the EMP process that give consideration to its spatially and temporally divergent roles in metastasis, with the view that this will yield a potent and broad class of therapeutic agents.See 'additional link' for access to a free to read version of the article.</p