Time Course and Pattern of Metastasis of Cutaneous Melanoma Differ between Men and Women

Background: This study identified sex differences in progression of cutaneous melanoma. Methodology/Principal Findings: Of 7,338 patients who were diagnosed as an invasive primary CM without clinically detectable metastases from 1976 to 2008 at the University of Tuebingen in Germany, 1,078 developed subsequent metastases during follow up. The metastatic pathways were defined in these patients and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate survival analysis was performed using Cox modeling. In 18.7 % of men and 29.2 % of women (P,0.001) the first metastasis following diagnosis of primary tumor was locoregional as satellite/in-transit metastasis. The majority of men (54.0%) and women (47.6%, P = 0.035) exhibited direct regional lymph node metastasis. Direct distant metastasis from the stage of the primary tumor was observed in 27.3 % of men and 23.2 % of women (P = 0.13). Site of first metastasis was the most important prognostic factor of survival after recurrence in multivariate analysis (HR:1.3; 95 % CI: 1.0–1.6 for metastasis to the regional lymph nodes vs. satellite/in-transit recurrence, and HR:5.5; 95 % CI: 4.2–7.1 for distant metastasis vs. satellite/ in-transit recurrence, P,0.001). Median time to distant metastasis was 40.5 months (IQR, 58.75) in women and 33 months (IQR, 44.25) in men (P = 0.002). Five-year survival after distant recurrence probability was 5.2 % (95 % CI: 1.4–2.5) for men compared with 15.3 % (95 % CI: 11.1–19.5; P = 0.008) for women. Conclusions/Significance: Both, the pattern of metastatic spread with more locoregional metastasis in women, and th

Missed Opportunities: Family History and Behavioral Risk Factors in Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Among a Multiethnic Group of Women

BACKGROUND: Clinician’s knowledge of a woman’s cancer family history (CFH) and counseling about health-related behaviors (HRB) is necessary for appropriate breast cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether clinicians solicit CFH and counsel women on HRB; to assess relationship of well visits and patient risk perception or worry with clinician’s behavior. DESIGN: Cross-sectional population-based telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS: Multiethnic sample; 1,700 women from San Francisco Mammography Registry with a screening mammogram in 2001–2002. MEASUREMENTS: Predictors: well visit in prior year, self-perception of 10-year breast cancer risk, worry scale. Outcomes: Patient report of clinician asking about CFH in prior year, or ever counseling about HRB in relation to breast cancer risk. Multivariate models included age, ethnicity, education, language of interview, insurance/mammography facility, well visit, ever having a breast biopsy/follow-up mammography, Gail-Model risk, Jewish heritage, and body mass index. RESULTS: 58% reported clinicians asked about CFH; 33% reported clinicians ever discussed HRB. In multivariate analysis, regardless of actual risk, perceived risk, or level of worry, having had a well visit in prior year was associated with increased odds (OR = 2.3; 95% CI 1.6, 3.3) that a clinician asked about CFH. Regardless of actual risk of breast cancer, a higher level of worry (OR = 1.9; 95% CI 1.4, 2.6) was associated with increased odds that a clinician ever discussed HRB. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians are missing opportunities to elicit family cancer histories and counsel about health-related behaviors and breast cancer risk. Preventive health visits offer opportunities for clinicians to address family history, risk behaviors, and patients’ worries about breast cancer

Unrecognized Non-Q-Wave Myocardial Infarction: Prevalence and Prognostic Significance in Patients with Suspected Coronary Disease

Using delayed-enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance, Han Kim and colleagues show that in patients with suspected coronary disease the prevalence of unrecognized myocardial infarction without Q-waves is more than 3-fold higher than that with Q-waves and predicts subsequent mortality

Colorectal cancer risk assessment and screening recommendation: a community survey of healthcare providers' practice from a patient perspective

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Family history is a common risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC), yet it is often underused to guide risk assessment and the provision of risk-appropriate CRC screening recommendation. The aim of this study was to identify from a patient perspective health care providers' current practice relating to: (i) assessment of family history of CRC; (ii) notification of "increased risk" to patients at "moderately/potentially high" familial risk; and (iii) recommendation that patients undertake CRC screening.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>1592 persons aged 56-88 years randomly selected from the Hunter Community Study (HCS), New South Wales, Australia were mailed a questionnaire. 1117 participants (70%) returned a questionnaire.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty eight percent of respondents reported ever being asked about their family history of CRC. Ever discussing family history of CRC with a health care provider was significantly more likely to occur for persons with a higher level of education, who had ever received screening advice and with a lower physical component summary score. Fifty one percent of persons at "moderately/potentially high risk" were notified of their "increased risk" of developing CRC. Thirty one percent of persons across each level of risk had ever received CRC screening advice from a health care provider. Screening advice provision was significantly more likely to occur for persons who had ever discussed their family history of CRC with a health care provider and who were at "moderately/potentially high risk".</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Effective interventions that integrate both the assessment and notification of familial risk of CRC to the wider population are needed. Systematic and cost-effective mechanisms that facilitate family history collection, risk assessment and provision of screening advice within the primary health care setting are required.</p

In Reply: sentinel lymph node biopsy in melanoma

[Extract] Di Georgi and colleagues propose that sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) does not provide a real survival benefit and that the disease-free survival benefit is a result of lead-time bias. These are old arguments that have been repeatedly discussed in the literature. A reiterative statement of these arguments does not make them truer. The only new idea in the letter of Di Georgi and colleagues is to designate the gain of disease-free survival time as lead-time bias that shows that they did not really understand the concept of lead time bias