Suitability of PSA-detected localised prostate cancers for focal therapy: Experience from the ProtecT study

This article is available through a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Copyright @ 2011 Cancer Research UK.Background: Contemporary screening for prostate cancer frequently identifies small volume, low-grade lesions. Some clinicians have advocated focal prostatic ablation as an alternative to more aggressive interventions to manage these lesions. To identify which patients might benefit from focal ablative techniques, we analysed the surgical specimens of a large sample of population-detected men undergoing radical prostatectomy as part of a randomised clinical trial. Methods: Surgical specimens from 525 men who underwent prostatectomy within the ProtecT study were analysed to determine tumour volume, location and grade. These findings were compared with information available in the biopsy specimen to examine whether focal therapy could be provided appropriately. Results: Solitary cancers were found in prostatectomy specimens from 19% (100 out of 525) of men. In addition, 73 out of 425 (17%) men had multiple cancers with a solitary significant tumour focus. Thus, 173 out of 525 (33%) men had tumours potentially suitable for focal therapy. The majority of these were small, well-differentiated lesions that appeared to be pathologically insignificant (38–66%). Criteria used to select patients for focal prostatic ablation underestimated the cancer's significance in 26% (34 out of 130) of men and resulted in overtreatment in more than half. Only 18% (24 out of 130) of men presumed eligible for focal therapy, actually had significant solitary lesions. Conclusion: Focal therapy appears inappropriate for the majority of men presenting with prostate-specific antigen-detected localised prostate cancer. Unifocal prostate cancers suitable for focal ablation are difficult to identify pre-operatively using biopsy alone. Most lesions meeting criteria for focal ablation were either more aggressive than expected or posed little threat of progression.National Institute for Health Researc

Outcomes associated with matching patients' treatment preferences to physicians' recommendations: study methodology

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients often express strong preferences for the forms of treatment available for their disease. Incorporating these preferences into the process of treatment decision-making might improve patients' adherence to treatment, contributing to better outcomes. We describe the methodology used in a study aiming to assess treatment outcomes when patients' preferences for treatment are closely matched to recommended treatments.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Participants included patients with moderate and severe psoriasis attending outpatient dermatology clinics at the University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Germany. A self-administered online survey used conjoint analysis to measure participants' preferences for psoriasis treatment options at the initial study visit. Physicians' treatment recommendations were abstracted from each participant's medical records. The Preference Matching Index (PMI), a measure of concordance between the participant's preferences for treatment and the physician's recommended treatment, was determined for each participant at t₁(initial study visit). A clinical outcome measure, the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and two participant-derived outcomes assessing treatment satisfaction and health related quality of life were employed at t₁, t₂(twelve weeks post-t₁) and t₃(twelve weeks post-t₂). Change in outcomes was assessed using repeated measures analysis of variance. The association between participants' PMI scores at t₁and outcomes at t₂and t₃was evaluated using multivariate regressions analysis.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We describe methods for capturing concordance between patients' treatment preferences and recommended treatment and for assessing its association with specific treatment outcomes. The methods are intended to promote the incorporation of patients' preferences in treatment decision-making, enhance treatment satisfaction, and improve treatment effectiveness through greater adherence.</p

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: A qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer screening rates are low among disadvantaged patients; few studies have explored barriers to screening in community health centers. The purpose of this study was to describe barriers to/facilitators of colorectal cancer screening among diverse patients served by community health centers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We identified twenty-three outpatients who were eligible for colorectal cancer screening and their 10 primary care physicians. Using in-depth semi-structured interviews, we asked patients to describe factors influencing their screening decisions. For each unscreened patient, we asked his or her physician to describe barriers to screening. We conducted patient interviews in English (n = 8), Spanish (n = 2), Portuguese (n = 5), Portuguese Creole (n = 1), and Haitian Creole (n = 7). We audiotaped and transcribed the interviews, and then identified major themes in the interviews.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Four themes emerged: 1) Unscreened patients cited lack of trust in doctors as a barrier to screening whereas few physicians identified this barrier; 2) Unscreened patients identified lack of symptoms as the reason they had not been screened; 3) A doctor's recommendation, or lack thereof, significantly influenced patients' decisions to be screened; 4) Patients, but not their physicians, cited fatalistic views about cancer as a barrier. Conversely, physicians identified competing priorities, such as psychosocial stressors or comorbid medical illness, as barriers to screening. In this culturally diverse group of patients seen at community health centers, similar barriers to screening were reported by patients of different backgrounds, but physicians perceived other factors as more important.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Further study of these barriers is warranted.</p

Patients' perceptions of the negative effects following different prostate cancer treatments and the impact on psychological well-being : a nationwide survey

Peer reviewe

Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status and Use of Colonoscopy in an Insured Population – A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Low-socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with a higher colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Screening with colonoscopy, the most commonly used test in the US, has been shown to reduce the risk of death from CRC. This study examined if, among insured persons receiving care in integrated healthcare delivery systems, differences exist in colonoscopy use according to neighborhood SES. Methods We assembled a retrospective cohort of 100,566 men and women, 50–74 years old, who had been enrolled in one of three US health plans for $\geq$ 1 year on January 1, 2000. Subjects were followed until the date of first colonoscopy, date of disenrollment from the health plan, or December 31, 2007, whichever occurred first. We obtained data on colonoscopy use from administrative records. We defined screening colonoscopy as an examination that was not preceded by gastrointestinal conditions in the prior 6-month period. Neighborhood SES was measured using the percentage of households in each subject's census-tract with an income below 1999 federal poverty levels based on 2000 US census data. Analyses, adjusted for demographics and comorbidity index, were performed using Weibull regression models. Results: The average age of the cohort was 60 years and 52.7% were female. During 449,738 person-years of follow-up, fewer subjects in the lowest SES quartile (Q1) compared to the highest quartile (Q4) had any colonoscopy (26.7% vs. 37.1%) or a screening colonoscopy (7.6% vs. 13.3%). In regression analyses, compared to Q4, subjects in Q1 were 16% (adjusted HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.80–0.88) less likely to undergo any colonoscopy and 30%(adjusted HR = 0.70, CI: 0.65–0.75) less likely to undergo a screening colonoscopy. Conclusion: People in lower-SES neighborhoods are less likely to undergo a colonoscopy, even among insured subjects receiving care in integrated healthcare systems. Removing health insurance barriers alone is unlikely to eliminate disparities in colonoscopy use

Understanding missed opportunities for more timely diagnosis of cancer in symptomatic patients after presentation.

The diagnosis of cancer is a complex, multi-step process. In this paper, we highlight factors involved in missed opportunities to diagnose cancer more promptly in symptomatic patients and discuss responsible mechanisms and potential strategies to shorten intervals from presentation to diagnosis. Missed opportunities are instances in which post-hoc judgement indicates that alternative decisions or actions could have led to more timely diagnosis. They can occur in any of the three phases of the diagnostic process (initial diagnostic assessment; diagnostic test performance and interpretation; and diagnostic follow-up and coordination) and can involve patient, doctor/care team, and health-care system factors, often in combination. In this perspective article, we consider epidemiological 'signals' suggestive of missed opportunities and draw on evidence from retrospective case reviews of cancer patient cohorts to summarise factors that contribute to missed opportunities. Multi-disciplinary research targeting such factors is important to shorten diagnostic intervals post presentation. Insights from the fields of organisational and cognitive psychology, human factors science and informatics can be extremely valuable in this emerging research agenda. We provide a conceptual foundation for the development of future interventions to minimise the occurrence of missed opportunities in cancer diagnosis, enriching current approaches that chiefly focus on clinical decision support or on widening access to investigations.We acknowledge the helpful and incisive comments by Dr Rikke Sand Andersen (Aarhus University, Denmark) in conceptualising this piece and in drafts of the manuscript. The work is independent research supported by different funding schemes. GL was supported by a Post-Doctoral Fellowship by the National Institute for Health Research (PDF-2011-04-047) until the end of 2014 and by a Cancer Research UK Clinician Scientist Fellowship award (A18180) from 2015. HS is supported by the VA Health Services Research and Development Service (CRE 12-033; Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers USA 14-274), the VA National Center for Patient Safety, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (R01HS022087) and in part by the Houston VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (CIN 13–413). PV was supported by CaP, funded by The Danish Cancer Society and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.4

Evaluation of Patients With Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Best Practice Advice From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians

Description: Pulmonary embolism (PE) can be a severe disease and is difficult to diagnose, given its nonspecific signs and symptoms. Because of this, testing patients with suspected acute PE has increased dramatically. However, the overuse of some tests, particularly computed tomography (CT) and plasma D-dimer measurement, may not improve care while potentially leading to patient harm and unnecessary expense. Methods: The literature search encompassed studies indexed by MEDLINE (1966-2014; English-language only) and included all clinical trials and meta-analyses on diagnostic strategies, decision rules, laboratory tests, and imaging studies for the diagnosis of PE. This document is not based on a formal systematic review, but instead seeks to provide practical advice based on the best available evidence and recent guidelines. The target audience for this paper is all clinicians; the target patient population is all adults, both inpatient and outpatient, suspected of having acute PE. Best Practice Advice 1: Clinicians should use validated clinical prediction rules to estimate pretest probability in patients in whom acute PE is being considered. Best Practice Advice 2: Clinicians should not obtain D-dimer measurements or imaging studies in patients with a low pretest probability of PE and who meet all Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria. Best Practice Advice 3: Clinicians should obtain a high-sensitivity D-dimer measurement as the initial diagnostic test in patients who have an intermediate pretest probability of PE or in patients with low pretest probability of PE who do not meet all Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria. Clinicians should not use imaging studies as the initial test in patients who have a low or intermediate pretest probability of PE. Best Practice Advice 4: Clinicians should use age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds (age x 10 ng/mL rather than a generic 500 ng/mL) in patients older than 50 years to determine whether imaging is warranted. Best Practice Advice 5: Clinicians should not obtain any imaging studies in patients with a D-dimer level below the age-adjusted cutoff. Best Practice Advice 6: Clinicians should obtain imaging with CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in patients with high pretest probability of PE. Clinicians should reserve ventilation-perfusion scans for patients who have a contraindication to CTPA or if CTPA is not available. Clinicians should not obtain a D-dimer measurement in patients with a high pretest probability of PE

On polynomials whose fibers are irreducible with no critical points

Depto. de Álgebra, Geometría y TopologíaFac. de Ciencias MatemáticasTRUECAICYTpu