Outcomes of preexisting diabetes mellitus in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer.

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Springer Verlag via the DOI in this record.PURPOSE: Preexisting diabetes is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in cancer. We examined the impact of incident cancer on the long-term outcomes of diabetes. METHODS: Using the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we identified three cohorts of diabetes patients subsequently diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer, each matched to diabetic noncancer controls. Patients were required to have survived at least 1 year after cancer diagnosis (cases) or a matched index date (controls), and were followed up to 10 years for incident microvascular and macrovascular complications and mortality. Multivariate competing risks regression analyses were used to compare outcomes between cancer patients and controls. RESULTS: Overall, there were 3382 cancer patients and 11,135 controls with 59,431 person-years of follow-up. In adjusted analyses, there were no statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences in diabetes complication rates between cancer patients and their controls in any of the three cancer cohorts. Combined, cancer patients were less likely (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.88; 95% CI = 0.79-0.98) to develop retinopathy. Cancer patients were more likely to die of any cause (including cancer), but prostate cancer patients were less likely to die of causes associated with diabetes (HR 0.61; 95% CI = 0.43-0.88). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There is no evidence that incident cancer had an adverse impact on the long-term outcomes of preexisting diabetes. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: These findings are important for cancer survivors with preexisting diabetes because they suggest that substantial improvements in the relative survival of several of the most common types of cancer are not undermined by excess diabetes morbidity and mortality.This study was funded by the Population Research Committee, Cancer Research UK. Quality and Outcomes of Care for Chronic Conditions in Older Patients Diagnosed with Breast, Colorectal, or Prostate Cancer Compared to Non-Cancer Controls: An Observational Study Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Reference # 16609. 1 July 2013–29 February, 2016. In addition, Dr. Keating is supported by K24CA181510 from the US National Cancer Institute

Outcomes of preexisting diabetes mellitus in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer.

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Springer Verlag via the DOI in this record.PURPOSE: Preexisting diabetes is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in cancer. We examined the impact of incident cancer on the long-term outcomes of diabetes. METHODS: Using the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we identified three cohorts of diabetes patients subsequently diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer, each matched to diabetic noncancer controls. Patients were required to have survived at least 1 year after cancer diagnosis (cases) or a matched index date (controls), and were followed up to 10 years for incident microvascular and macrovascular complications and mortality. Multivariate competing risks regression analyses were used to compare outcomes between cancer patients and controls. RESULTS: Overall, there were 3382 cancer patients and 11,135 controls with 59,431 person-years of follow-up. In adjusted analyses, there were no statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences in diabetes complication rates between cancer patients and their controls in any of the three cancer cohorts. Combined, cancer patients were less likely (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.88; 95% CI = 0.79-0.98) to develop retinopathy. Cancer patients were more likely to die of any cause (including cancer), but prostate cancer patients were less likely to die of causes associated with diabetes (HR 0.61; 95% CI = 0.43-0.88). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There is no evidence that incident cancer had an adverse impact on the long-term outcomes of preexisting diabetes. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: These findings are important for cancer survivors with preexisting diabetes because they suggest that substantial improvements in the relative survival of several of the most common types of cancer are not undermined by excess diabetes morbidity and mortality.This study was funded by the Population Research Committee, Cancer Research UK. Quality and Outcomes of Care for Chronic Conditions in Older Patients Diagnosed with Breast, Colorectal, or Prostate Cancer Compared to Non-Cancer Controls: An Observational Study Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Reference # 16609. 1 July 2013–29 February, 2016. In addition, Dr. Keating is supported by K24CA181510 from the US National Cancer Institute

Quality of diabetes care in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer

This is the final version. Available on open access from Springer via the DOI in this recordPURPOSE: Overlooking other medical conditions during cancer treatment and follow-up could result in excess morbidity and mortality, thereby undermining gains associated with early detection and improved treatment of cancer. We compared the quality of care for diabetes patients subsequently diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer to matched, diabetic non-cancer controls. METHODS: Longitudinal cohort study using primary care records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, United Kingdom. Patients with pre-existing diabetes were followed for up to 5 years after cancer diagnosis, or after an assigned index date (non-cancer controls). Quality of diabetes care was estimated based on Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators. Mixed effects logistic regression analyses were used to compare the unadjusted and adjusted odds of meeting quality measures between cancer patients and controls, overall and stratified by type of cancer. RESULTS: 3382 cancer patients and 11,135 controls contributed 44,507 person-years of follow-up. In adjusted analyses, cancer patients were less likely to meet five of 14 quality measures, including: total cholesterol ≤ 5 mmol/L (odds ratio [OR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.90); glycosylated hemoglobin ≤ 59 mmol/mol (adjusted OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.85); and albumin creatinine ratio testing (adjusted OR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.91). However, cancer patients were as likely as their matched controls to meet quality measures for other diabetes services, including retinal screening, foot examination, and dietary review. CONCLUSIONS: Although in the short-term, cancer patients were less likely to achieve target thresholds for cholesterol and HbA1c, they continued to receive high-quality diabetes primary care throughout 5 years post diagnosis. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: These findings are important for cancer survivors with pre-existing diabetes because they indicate that high-quality diabetes care is maintained throughout the continuum of cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.This study was funded by the Population Research Committee, Cancer Research UK. Quality and Outcomes of Care for Chronic Conditions in Older Patients Diagnosed with Breast, Colorectal, or Prostate Cancer Compared to Non-Cancer Controls: An Observational Study Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Reference # 16609. 1 July 2013–29 February, 2016. In addition, Dr. Keating is supported by K24CA181510 from the US National Cancer Institute

Appropriate disclosure of a diagnosis of dementia : identifying the key behaviours of 'best practice'

Background: Despite growing evidence that many people with dementia want to know their diagnosis, there is wide variation in attitudes of professionals towards disclosure. The disclosure of the diagnosis of dementia is increasingly recognised as being a process rather than a one-off behaviour. However, the different behaviours that contribute to this process have not been comprehensively defined. No intervention studies to improve diagnostic disclosure in dementia have been reported to date. As part of a larger study to develop an intervention to promote appropriate disclosure, we sought to identify important disclosure behaviours and explore whether supplementing a literature review with other methods would result in the identification of new behaviours. Methods: To identify a comprehensive list of behaviours in disclosure we conducted a literature review, interviewed people with dementia and informal carers, and used a consensus process involving health and social care professionals. Content analysis of the full list of behaviours was carried out. Results: Interviews were conducted with four people with dementia and six informal carers. Eight health and social care professionals took part in the consensus panel. From the interviews, consensus panel and literature review 220 behaviours were elicited, with 109 behaviours over-lapping. The interviews and consensus panel elicited 27 behaviours supplementary to the review. Those from the interviews appeared to be self-evident but highlighted deficiencies in current practice and from the panel focused largely on balancing the needs of people with dementia and family members. Behaviours were grouped into eight categories: preparing for disclosure; integrating family members; exploring the patient's perspective; disclosing the diagnosis; responding to patient reactions; focusing on quality of life and well-being; planning for the future; and communicating effectively. Conclusion: This exercise has highlighted the complexity of the process of disclosing a diagnosis of dementia in an appropriate manner. It confirms that many of the behaviours identified in the literature (often based on professional opinion rather than empirical evidence) also resonate with people with dementia and informal carers. The presence of contradictory behaviours emphasises the need to tailor the process of disclosure to individual patients and carers. Our combined methods may be relevant to other efforts to identify and define complex clinical practices for further study.This project is funded by UK Medical Research Council, Grant reference number G0300999

Citizen science in schools: Engaging students in research on urban habitat for pollinators

Citizen science can play an important role in school science education. Citizen science is particularly relevant to addressing current societal environmental sustainability challenges, as it engages the students directly with environmental science and gives students an understanding of the scientific process. In addition, it allows students to observe local representations of global challenges. Here, we report a citizen science programme designed to engage school-age children in real-world scientific research. The programme used standardized methods deployed across multiple schools through scientist–school partnerships to engage students with an important conservation problem: habitat for pollinator insects in urban environments. Citizen science programmes such as the programme presented here can be used to enhance scientific literacy and skills. Provided key challenges to maintain data quality are met, this approach is a powerful way to contribute valuable citizen science data for understudied, but ecologically important study systems, particularly in urban environments across broad geographical areas

Historical influence on the practice of chiropractic radiology: Part I - a survey of Diplomates of the American Chiropractic College of Radiology

Background It is known that not all chiropractors follow mainstream guidelines on the use of diagnostic ionising radiation. Various reasons have been discussed in the literature, including using radiography to screen for congenital anomalies, to perform postural analysis, to search for contraindications to spinal manipulation, and to document chiropractic subluxations, i.e., tiny anatomical displacements of vertebrae thought to affect nerves and health. The visualisation of subluxations was the reason chiropractic first adopted the x-ray in 1910. There has never been a study of the influence of this historical paradigm of radiography on the practices of chiropractic radiologists (DACBRs or Diplomates of the American Chiropractic College of Radiology). Methods A survey was administered with a modified Dillman method using SurveyMonkey and supplemented by hard copies distributed at a professional conference. The target population was all active DACBRs. There were 34 items, which consisted of multiple choice and open-ended interrogatives on all three areas in which chiropractic radiologists work: education, clinical practice, and radiology practice. Results The response rate was 38% (73 of 190 DACBRs). Respondents reported that the historical paradigm of radiography was found in all areas of practice, but not as a major aspect. The majority of respondents did not condone that historical paradigm, but many tolerated it, particularly from referring chiropractors. Radiographic subluxation analysis was reportedly perpetuated by private clinical practitioners as well as technique instructors and supervising clinicians in the teaching institutions. Conclusions Within the chiropractic profession, there is a continuing belief in radiographically visible subluxations as a cause of suboptimal health. This situation is sustained in part due to the reticence of other chiropractors to report these practices to licensing and registration boards. Investigation into other structures supporting a vitalistic belief system over science in chiropractic is recommended. In addition, it may be useful to explore remunerative systems that move beyond the inherently conflicted fee-for-service model

Surgical preferences of patients at risk of hip fractures: hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in patients over 60 years is controversial. While much research has focused on the impact of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) on surgical outcomes, little is known about patient preferences for either alternative. The purpose of this study was to elicit surgical preferences of patients at risk of sustaining hip fracture using a novel decision board. METHODS: We developed a decision board for the surgical management of displaced femoral neck fractures presenting risks and outcomes of HA and THA. The decision board was presented to 81 elderly patients at risk for developing femoral neck fractures identified from an osteoporosis clinic. The participants were faced with the scenario of sustaining a displaced femoral neck fracture and were asked to state their treatment option preference and rationale for operative procedure. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent (85%) of participants were between the age of 60 and 80 years; 89% were female; 88% were Caucasian; and 49% had some post-secondary education. Ninety-three percent (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 87-99%) of participants chose THA as their preferred operative choice. Participants identified several factors important to their decision, including the perception of greater walking distance (63%), less residual pain (29%), less reoperative risk (28%) and lower mortality risk (20%) with THA. Participants who preferred HA (7%; 95% CI, 1-13%) did so for perceived less invasiveness (50%), lower dislocation risk (33%), lower infection risk (33%), and shorter operative time (17%). CONCLUSION: The overwhelming majority of patients preferred THA to HA for the treatment of a displaced femoral neck fracture when confronted with risks and outcomes of both procedures on a decision board