Thick primary melanoma has a heterogeneous tumor biology: an institutional series

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Thick melanomas (TM) ≥4 mm have a high risk for nodal and distant metastases. Optimal surgical management, prognostic significance of sentinel node biopsy (SLNB), and benefits of interferon (IFN) for these patients are unclear. As a continuum of increasing tumor thickness is placed into a single TM group, differences in biologic and clinical behavior may be lost. The purpose of this study was to better characterize the diverse biology in TM, including the value of increasing thickness and nodal status information, potentially identifying high risk TM subgroups that may warrant more aggressive treatment/follow up.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>155 consecutive TM patients treated at a single institution between 1971 and 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient, disease and treatment features were analyzed with respect to disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Median patient age was 66 years and 68% of patients were men. The trunk was the most common TM location (35%), followed by the head and neck (29%) and lower extremities (20%). Median thickness was 6 mm and 61% were ulcerated. 6% patients had stage IV disease, 12% had clinical nodal metastases. Clinically negative lymph node basins were treated by observation (22 patients - 15.4%), elective lymph node dissection (ELND) (24 patients - 17.6%) or SLNB (91 patients - 67%). 75% of ELND's and 53% of SLNB's were positive. Completion node dissection was performed in 38 SLNB+ patients and 22% had additional positive nodes. 17% of the study patients received IFN. At median follow up of 26 months, 5 year DFS and OS were 42% and 43.6%. For SLNB positive vs negative, median DFS were 22 vs 111 months (p = 0.006) and median OS were 41 vs 111 months (p = 0.006). When stratified by tumor thickness ≤ vs > 6 mm, 5 year DFS was 58.3% vs 20% (p < 0.0001) and OS was 62% vs 20% (P < 0.0001). IFN had no impact on DFS or OS (p = 0.98 and 0.8 respectively).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Within the high risk group of patients with TM, cases with tumor thickness > 6 mm or a positive SLNB had a significantly worse DFS and OS (p < .0001, <.0001 and .006, .006).</p

Educating medical trainees on medication reconciliation: a systematic review

Abstract Background Effective medication reconciliation is critical in reducing the risk of preventable adverse drug events. Medical trainees are often responsible for medication reconciliation on admission, transfer and discharge of the most vulnerable patients; therefore, it is important that trainees are educated on this aspect of quality care. Methods We conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify education initiatives targeted at improving trainee skill and knowledge in carrying out medication reconciliation. Studies published in English or French between July 1980 and July 2013, where the primary focus of the article was the role of medical trainees in conducting medication reconciliation, and where trainee-specific data was reported, were included. Included articles must have reported trainee-specific data. Given the anticipated heterogeneity and array of outcomes, we were unable to employ a specific tool in assessing the risk of bias across studies. Results Seven studies met pre-specified eligibility criteria, indicating the lack of published education initiatives targeted towards improving trainee knowledge and experience. Four described an education intervention targeted towards students completing internal medicine clerkship, while the remaining 3 were implemented among residents. Although no two interventions were the same, 5 out of 7 included an experiential component. Conclusions Varying success was achieved with medication reconciliation education interventions. While some noted improved competence and/or confidence amongst trainees, namely undergraduate medical students, others noted little effect resulting from the intervention

Description of the PanDIRECT self-care tools.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has required family physicians to rapidly address increasing mental health problems with limited resources. Vulnerable home-based seniors with chronic physical conditions and commonly undermanaged symptoms of anxiety and depression were recruited in this pilot study to compare two brief self-care intervention strategies for the management of symptoms of depression and/or anxiety.MethodsWe conducted a pilot RCT to compare two tele-health strategies to address mental health symptoms either with 1) validated CBT self-care tools plus up to three telephone calls from a trained lay coach vs. 2) the CBT self-guided tools alone. The interventions were abbreviated from those previously trialed by our team, to enable their completion in 2 months. Objectives were to assess the feasibility of delivering the interventions during a pandemic (recruitment and retention); and assess the comparative acceptability of the interventions across the two groups (satisfaction and tool use); and estimate preliminary comparative effectiveness of the interventions on severity of depression and anxiety symptoms. Because we were interested in whether the interventions were acceptable to a wide range of older adults, no mental health screening for eligibility was performed.Results90 eligible patients were randomized. 93% of study completers consulted the self-care tools and 84% of those in the coached arm received at least some coaching support. Satisfaction scores were high among participants in both groups. No difference in depression and anxiety outcomes between the coached and non-coached participants was observed, but coaching was found to have a significant effect on participants’ use and perceived helpfulness of the tools.ConclusionBoth interventions were feasible and acceptable to patients. Trained lay coaching increased patients’ engagement with the tools. Self-care tools offer a low cost and acceptable remote activity that can be targeted to those with immediate needs. While effectiveness results were inconclusive, this may be due to the lack of eligibility screening for mental health symptoms, abbreviated toolkit, and fewer coaching sessions than those used in our previous effective interventions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0460937.</div

Flowchart.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has required family physicians to rapidly address increasing mental health problems with limited resources. Vulnerable home-based seniors with chronic physical conditions and commonly undermanaged symptoms of anxiety and depression were recruited in this pilot study to compare two brief self-care intervention strategies for the management of symptoms of depression and/or anxiety.MethodsWe conducted a pilot RCT to compare two tele-health strategies to address mental health symptoms either with 1) validated CBT self-care tools plus up to three telephone calls from a trained lay coach vs. 2) the CBT self-guided tools alone. The interventions were abbreviated from those previously trialed by our team, to enable their completion in 2 months. Objectives were to assess the feasibility of delivering the interventions during a pandemic (recruitment and retention); and assess the comparative acceptability of the interventions across the two groups (satisfaction and tool use); and estimate preliminary comparative effectiveness of the interventions on severity of depression and anxiety symptoms. Because we were interested in whether the interventions were acceptable to a wide range of older adults, no mental health screening for eligibility was performed.Results90 eligible patients were randomized. 93% of study completers consulted the self-care tools and 84% of those in the coached arm received at least some coaching support. Satisfaction scores were high among participants in both groups. No difference in depression and anxiety outcomes between the coached and non-coached participants was observed, but coaching was found to have a significant effect on participants’ use and perceived helpfulness of the tools.ConclusionBoth interventions were feasible and acceptable to patients. Trained lay coaching increased patients’ engagement with the tools. Self-care tools offer a low cost and acceptable remote activity that can be targeted to those with immediate needs. While effectiveness results were inconclusive, this may be due to the lack of eligibility screening for mental health symptoms, abbreviated toolkit, and fewer coaching sessions than those used in our previous effective interventions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0460937.</div