15 research outputs found
A multi-stage genome-wide association study of bladder cancer identifies multiple susceptibility loci.
We conducted a multi-stage, genome-wide association study of bladder cancer with a primary scan of 591,637 SNPs in 3,532 affected individuals (cases) and 5,120 controls of European descent from five studies followed by a replication strategy, which included 8,382 cases and 48,275 controls from 16 studies. In a combined analysis, we identified three new regions associated with bladder cancer on chromosomes 22q13.1, 19q12 and 2q37.1: rs1014971, (P = 8 × 10⁻¹²) maps to a non-genic region of chromosome 22q13.1, rs8102137 (P = 2 × 10⁻¹¹) on 19q12 maps to CCNE1 and rs11892031 (P = 1 × 10⁻⁷) maps to the UGT1A cluster on 2q37.1. We confirmed four previously identified genome-wide associations on chromosomes 3q28, 4p16.3, 8q24.21 and 8q24.3, validated previous candidate associations for the GSTM1 deletion (P = 4 × 10⁻¹¹) and a tag SNP for NAT2 acetylation status (P = 4 × 10⁻¹¹), and found interactions with smoking in both regions. Our findings on common variants associated with bladder cancer risk should provide new insights into the mechanisms of carcinogenesis
Recommended from our members
The Impact of Hospital Capacity Strain: a Qualitative Analysis of Experience and Solutions at 13 Academic Medical Centers
BackgroundHospital capacity strain impacts quality of care and hospital throughput and may also impact the well being of clinical staff and teams as well as their ability to do their job. Institutions have implemented a wide array of tactics to help manage hospital capacity strain with variable success.ObjectiveThrough qualitative interviews, our study explored interventions used to address hospital capacity strain and the perceived impact of these interventions, as well as how hospital capacity strain impacts patients, the workforce, and other institutional priorities.Design, setting, and participantsQualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews at 13 large urban academic medical centers across the USA from June 21, 2019, to August 22, 2019 (pre-COVID-19). Interviews were recorded, professionally transcribed verbatim, coded, and then analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive method at the semantic level.Main outcome measuresThemes and subthemes of semi-structured interviews were identified.ResultsTwenty-nine hospitalist leaders and hospital leaders were interviewed. Across the 13 sites, a multitude of provider, care team, and institutional tactics were implemented with perceived variable success. While there was some agreement between hospitalist leaders and hospital leaders, there was also some disagreement about the perceived successes of the various tactics deployed. We found three main themes: (1) hospital capacity strain is complex and difficult to predict, (2) the interventions that were perceived to have worked the best when facing strain were to ensure appropriate resources; however, less costly solutions were often deployed and this may lead to unanticipated negative consequences, and (3) hospital capacity strain and the tactics deployed may negatively impact the workforce and can lead to conflict.ConclusionsWhile institutions have employed many different tactics to manage hospital capacity strain and see this as a priority, tactics seen as having the highest yield are often not the first employed
Recommended from our members
Capturing what matters: A retrospective observational study of advance care planning documentation at an academic medical center during the COVID-19 pandemic
BackgroundAdvance care planning allows patients to share their preferences for medical care with the aim of ensuring goal-concordant care in times of serious illness. The morbidity and mortality of the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the importance and public visibility of advance care planning. However, little is known about the frequency and quality of advance care planning documentation during the pandemic.AimThis study examined the frequency, quality, and predictors of advance care planning documentation among hospitalized medical patients with and without COVID-19.DesignThis retrospective cohort analysis used multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with advance care planning documentation.Setting/participantsThis study included all adult patients tested for COVID-19 and admitted to a tertiary medical center in San Francisco, CA during March 2020.ResultsAmong 262 patients, 31 (11.8%) tested positive and 231 (88.2%) tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. The rate of advance care planning documentation was 38.7% in patients with COVID-19 and 46.8% in patients without COVID-19 (p = 0.45). Documentation consistently addressed code status (100% and 94.4% for COVID-positive and COVID-negative, respectively), but less often named a surrogate decision maker, discussed prognosis, or elaborated on other wishes for care. Palliative care consultation was associated with increased advance care planning documentation (OR: 6.93, p = 0.004).ConclusionThis study found low rates of advance care planning documentation for patients both with and without COVID-19 during an evolving global pandemic. Advance care planning documentation was associated with palliative care consultation, highlighting the importance of such consultation to ensure timely, patient-centered advance care planning
Recommended from our members
Prevalence and Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic required clinicians to care for a disease with evolving characteristics while also adhering to care changes (e.g., physical distancing practices) that might lead to diagnostic errors (DEs).ObjectiveTo determine the frequency of DEs and their causes among patients hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19.DesignRetrospective cohort.SettingEight medical centers affiliated with the Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network (HOMERuN).Target populationAdults hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 infection between February and July 2020.MeasurementsWe randomly selected up to 8 cases per site per month for review, with each case reviewed by two clinicians to determine whether a DE (defined as a missed or delayed diagnosis) occurred, and whether any diagnostic process faults took place. We used bivariable statistics to compare patients with and without DE and multivariable models to determine which process faults or patient factors were associated with DEs.ResultsTwo hundred and fifty-seven patient charts underwent review, of which 36 (14%) had a diagnostic error. Patients with and without DE were statistically similar in terms of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, risk factors for COVID-19, and COVID-19 test turnaround time and eventual positivity. Most common diagnostic process faults contributing to DE were problems with clinical assessment, testing choices, history taking, and physical examination (all p < 0.01). Diagnostic process faults associated with policies and procedures related to COVID-19 were not associated with DE risk. Fourteen patients (35.9% of patients with errors and 5.4% overall) suffered harm or death due to diagnostic error.LimitationsResults are limited by available documentation and do not capture communication between providers and patients.ConclusionAmong PUI patients, DEs were common and not associated with pandemic-related care changes, suggesting the importance of more general diagnostic process gaps in error propagation