Treating symptomatic uterine fibroids with myomectomy: current practice and views of UK consultants

Background: The demand for uterus-sparing treatments is increasing as more women postpone childbirth to their 30–40s, when fibroids are more symptomatic. With an increasing choice of treatment options and changing care-provider profiles, now is an opportune time to survey current practices and opinions. Using a 25-stem questionnaire, a web-based survey was used to capture the practices and opinions of UK consultant gynecologists on the treatment of symptomatic fibroids, including the types of procedure most frequently used, methods used to reduce blood loss, and awareness and acceptability of treatment options, and to assess the impact of gender and experience of the treating gynecologist. Results: The response rate was 22%. Laparascopic myomectomy is used least frequently, with 80% of the respondents using GnRHa preoperatively to minimize blood loss and correct anemia, while vasopressin is most frequently used to reduce intraoperative blood loss. Female consultants operate significantly less frequently than males. Those with more than 10 years consultant experience are more likely to perform an open myomectomy compared to those with less than 10 years experience. Conclusions: Compared to a similar survey performed 10 years ago, surgical methods remain to be the most common treatments, but use of less invasive treatments such as UAE has increased. Consultants’ attitudes appear to be responding to the patient demand for less radical treatments. However, it is yet to be seen if the changing consultant demographics will keep up with this demand. The low response rate warrants cautious interpretation of the results, but they provide an interesting snapshot of current views and practices

Systematic review of methods used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended event

addresses: Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. [email protected]: PMCID: PMC3528446types: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't© 2012 Warren et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Adverse consequences of medical interventions are a source of concern, but clinical trials may lack power to detect elevated rates of such events, while observational studies have inherent limitations. Meta-analysis allows the combination of individual studies, which can increase power and provide stronger evidence relating to adverse events. However, meta-analysis of adverse events has associated methodological challenges. The aim of this study was to systematically identify and review the methodology used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended event, following a therapeutic intervention

Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes?:Systematic review

background: It is unclear whether more timely cancer diagnosis brings favourable outcomes, with much of the previous evidence, in some cancers, being equivocal. We set out to determine whether there is an association between time to diagnosis, treatment and clinical outcomes, across all cancers for symptomatic presentations. methods: Systematic review of the literature and narrative synthesis. results: We included 177 articles reporting 209 studies. These studies varied in study design, the time intervals assessed and the outcomes reported. Study quality was variable, with a small number of higher-quality studies. Heterogeneity precluded definitive findings. The cancers with more reports of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes were breast, colorectal, head and neck, testicular and melanoma. conclusions: This is the first review encompassing many cancer types, and we have demonstrated those cancers in which more evidence of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes exists, and where it is lacking. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that efforts to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer are likely to have benefits for patients in terms of improved survival, earlier-stage diagnosis and improved quality of life, although these benefits vary between cancers

The Initiative to Maximize Progress in Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Therapy (IMPACT) Cohort Study: a population-based cohort of young Canadians with cancer

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the leading cause of disease-related death in adolescents and young adults (AYA). Annual improvements in AYA cancer survival have been inferior to those observed in children and older adults. Prior studies of AYA with cancer have been limited by their focus on patients from select treatment centres, reducing generalizability, or by being population-based but lacking diagnostic and treatment details. There is a critical need to conduct population-based studies that capture detailed patient, disease, treatment and system-level data on all AYA regardless of treatment location. METHODS/DESIGN: We will create a cohort of all AYA (aged 15–21 years) at the time of diagnosis with any malignancy between 1992 and 2011 in Ontario, Canada (n = 5,394). Subjects will be identified through the Ontario Cancer Registry and the final cohort will be expanded to include 2012 diagnoses, as these data become available. Detailed diagnostic, treatment and outcome data for those patients treated at a pediatric cancer centre will be provided by a population-based pediatric cancer registry (n = 1,030). For 15–18 year olds treated at adult centres (n = 923) and all 19–21 year olds (n = 3396), trained abstractors will collect the comparable data elements from medical records. We will link these data to population-based administrative health data that include physician billings, hospitalizations and emergency room visits. This will allow descriptions of health care access and use prior to cancer diagnosis, and during and after treatment. DISCUSSION: The IMPACT cohort will serve as a platform for addressing questions that span the AYA cancer journey. These will include determining which factors influence where AYA receive care, the impact of locus of care on the types and intensity of cancer therapy, appropriateness of surveillance for disease recurrence, access to clinical trials, and receipt of palliative and survivor care. Findings using the IMPACT cohort have the potential to lead to changes in practice and cancer policy, reduce mortality, and improve quality of life for AYA with cancer. The IMPACT data platform will be a permanent resource, accessible to researchers across Canada