43 research outputs found
Variation in use of surveillance colonoscopy among colorectal cancer survivors in the United States
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical practice guidelines recommend colonoscopies at regular intervals for colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. Using data from a large, multi-regional, population-based cohort, we describe the rate of surveillance colonoscopy and its association with geographic, sociodemographic, clinical, and health services characteristics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We studied CRC survivors enrolled in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study. Eligible survivors were diagnosed between 2003 and 2005, had curative surgery for CRC, and were alive without recurrences 14 months after surgery with curative intent. Data came from patient interviews and medical record abstraction. We used a multivariate logit model to identify predictors of colonoscopy use.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Despite guidelines recommending surveillance, only 49% of the 1423 eligible survivors received a colonoscopy within 14 months after surgery. We observed large regional differences (38% to 57%) across regions. Survivors who received screening colonoscopy were more likely to: have colon cancer than rectal cancer (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.05-1.90); have visited a primary care physician (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.14-1.82); and received adjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.27-2.41). Compared to survivors with no comorbidities, survivors with moderate or severe comorbidities were less likely to receive surveillance colonoscopy (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.49-0.98 and OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.66, respectively).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Despite guidelines, more than half of CRC survivors did not receive surveillance colonoscopy within 14 months of surgery, with substantial variation by site of care. The association of primary care visits and adjuvant chemotherapy use suggests that access to care following surgery affects cancer surveillance.</p
Electronic patient self-assessment and management (SAM): a novel framework for cancer survivorship
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We propose a novel framework for management of cancer survivorship: electronic patient Self-Assessment and Management (SAM). SAM is a framework for transfer of information to and from patients in such a way as to increase both the patient's and the health care provider's understanding of the patient's progress, and to help ensure that patient care follows best practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients who participate in the SAM system are contacted by email at regular intervals and asked to complete validated questionnaires online. Patient responses on these questionnaires are then analyzed in order to provide patients with real-time, online information about their progress and to provide them with tailored and standardized medical advice. Patient-level data from the questionnaires are ported in real time to the patient's health care provider to be uploaded to clinic notes. An initial version of SAM has been developed at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) for aiding the clinical management of patients after surgery for prostate cancer.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Pilot testing at MSKCC and UCSF suggests that implementation of SAM systems are feasible, with no major problems with compliance (> 70% response rate) or security.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>SAM is a conceptually simple framework for passing information to and from patients in such a way as to increase both the patient's and the health care provider's understanding of the patient's progress, and to help ensure that patient care follows best practice.</p
Five insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a rules-based synthesis of the available evidence on levels and trends in health outcomes, a diverse set of risk factors, and health system responses. GBD 2019 covered 204 countries and territories, as well as first administrative level disaggregations for 22 countries, from 1990 to 2019. Because GBD is highly standardised and comprehensive, spanning both fatal and non-fatal outcomes, and uses a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of hierarchical disease and injury causes, the study provides a powerful basis for detailed and broad insights on global health trends and emerging challenges. GBD 2019 incorporates data from 281 586 sources and provides more than 3.5 billion estimates of health outcome and health system measures of interest for global, national, and subnational policy dialogue. All GBD estimates are publicly available and adhere to the Guidelines on Accurate and Transparent Health Estimate Reporting. From this vast amount of information, five key insights that are important for health, social, and economic development strategies have been distilled. These insights are subject to the many limitations outlined in each of the component GBD capstone papers.Peer reviewe
CARMENES: high-resolution spectra and precise radial velocities in the red and infrared
SPIE Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation (2018, Austin, Texas, United States
Recommended from our members
Saltwater anglers\u27 attitudes towards marine protected areas
Attempts to establish “no-take” marine reserves in the United States have engendered strong opposition from sportfishing interest groups. This study investigated northeastern saltwater anglers\u27 attitudes towards several hypothetical marine protected area (MPA) alternatives. Support for MPAs decreased with increasing level of restrictiveness. Anglers attitudes towards the establishment of “catch-and-release” MPAs were somewhat divided. The majority of those surveyed were opposed to “no-take” reserves. If “no-take” reserves are to be accepted by anglers, managers need to convince them of the advantages of incorporating this innovative management tool over more traditional fishery regulations alone. Anglers were more opposed to MPAs that restrict recreational fishing within state waters as compared to similar MPAs sited in federal waters. In general, anglers from New York and New Jersey held more favorable MPA attitudes than did anglers from Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Anglers who were members of a fishing organization were more opposed to MPAs than were non-members. Anglers whose most preferred species was striped bass were more opposed to “no-take” reserves than were anglers whose most preferred species was summer flounder. Attitudinal data on MPAs collected early in the planning process can help highlight important differences in management preferences among stakeholder subgroups, identify management alternatives, justify preferred management actions, and reduce the likelihood of alienating important stakeholder groups
Physicians' Beliefs About the Benefits and Risks of Adjuvant Therapies for Stage II and Stage III Colorectal Cancer
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapy plays a major role in treating colorectal cancer, and physicians' views of its effectiveness influence treatment decisions. We assessed physicians' views of the relative benefits and risks of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stages II and III colon and rectal cancers. METHODS: The Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium surveyed a geographically dispersed population of medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons in the United States about the benefits and risks of adjuvant therapies for colorectal cancer. We used logistic regression to assess the association of physician and practice characteristics with beliefs about adjuvant therapies. RESULTS: Among 1,296 respondents, > 90% believed the benefits of adjuvant therapies for stage III colorectal cancer outweigh the risks. Only 21.9%, 50%, and 50.4% believed in the net benefit of chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer, chemotherapy for stage II rectal cancer, and radiation for stage II rectal cancer, respectively. Younger physicians were less likely than others to perceive adjuvant therapy for stage II colorectal cancer as beneficial. Medical oncologists were more likely than surgeons and radiation oncologists to endorse the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation for stage II rectal cancer, but less likely for stage II colon cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians largely agreed that the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer, as well as chemotherapy, and radiation for stage III rectal cancer, outweigh the risks, consistent with strong evidence, but were divided over the net benefit of adjuvant therapies for stage II colorectal cancer, where evidence is inconsistent