Care of Seniors with Breast Cancer – Treatment Received and Refining Decision Making

AimsTreatment decisions for older patients with breast cancer are complex and evidence is largely extrapolated from younger populations. Frailty and comorbidity need to be considered. We studied the baseline characteristics and treatment decisions in older patients in Christchurch with breast cancer and assessed survival outcomes and prognostic/discriminatory performance of several tools.Materials and methodsWe searched the Canterbury Breast Cancer Registry and identified patients aged 70 years or older at diagnosis with invasive, non-metastatic breast cancer between 1 June 2009 and 30 June 2015. We retrieved demographics, treatment and outcome information. Overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival were estimated. Tools analysing performance status and comorbidity were assessed for their prognostic and discriminatory power.ResultsIn total, 440 patients were identified. Primary surgery was carried out for 362 patients (82.3%): breast-conserving surgery in 114 (of whom 88.6% received radiation therapy); mastectomy in 248 (of whom 24.6% received radiation). Hormone therapy was given for 265 (71.1%) patients with oestrogen receptor-positive cancers. Two hundred and seventy-four (62.3%) patients received full standard treatment, which was associated with significantly improved 5-year survival and 5-year breast cancer-specific survival. The median estimated overall survival was 8.2 years (95% confidence interval 7.3–9.1 years). Of those who died, 71.3% of deaths were due to causes other than breast cancer or unknown causes. The comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy (CALE) showed partial prognostic accuracy. CALE, Charlson and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group tools all showed discriminatory value.ConclusionIn this population-based series of older patients with breast cancer, showing high levels of primary and adjuvant treatment, patients were more likely to die of causes other than breast cancer. Performance status and comorbidity tools showed prognostic and discriminatory potential in this population supporting their use in treatment decision making. CALE showed the most potential to improve treatment decisions but requires validation in this population to improve prognostic accuracy.     

NEMA NU 2-2018标准在PET/CT系统性能测试中的作用评价

目的 评价美国国家电器制造协会(National Electrical Manufactures Association, NEMA)最新标准(NU 2-2018)在正电子发射型计算机断层显像/电子计算机断层显像(positron emission tomography/computed tomography, PET/CT)设备性能检测中的作用。 方法 依据最新的NEMA NU 2-2018标准,检测西门子Biograph Vision PET/CT的空间分辨率、灵敏度、散射分数、计数丢失、随机符合、飞行时间分辨率、计数丢失率和随机符合校正精度、图像质量、衰减和散射校正精度及PET与CT配准精度指标。 结果 距视野中心1 cm处横向和轴向空间分辨率分别为3.75 mm和3.76 mm;在视野中心和轴向10 cm处的灵敏度分别为16.83 kcps/MBq和16.67 kcps/MBq;放射性浓度为27.37 kBq/mL时,最大等效噪声计数率为258.26 kcps,散射分数为38.58%;系统时间分辨率为209.82 ps;图像质量模型的对比度恢复系数范围为88.9%~96.2%,背景变异系数范围为2.05%~6.80%,平均肺插件残余误差为2.43%;计数丢失和随机符合校正最大误差为3.9%;距离床板末端 5 cm 和 100 cm处,在距视野中心Y轴1 cm处,PET和CT的配准精度分别为0.46 mm和1.07 mm,在距视野中心X轴20 cm处,PET和CT的配准精度分别为1.06 mm和1.45 mm,在距视野中心Y轴20 cm处PET和CT的配准精度分别为0.85 mm和1.15 mm。 结论 NEMA NU 2-2018标准检测条件更加接近临床,能更好地反映PET/CT设备的系统性能。     

2022年北京冬奥会定点医院医疗卫生保障实践

2022年北京冬奥会是全球瞩目的盛事，如何有效提升延庆赛区定点医院医疗卫生保障能力是冬奥会筹办过程中需要解决的重大课题。文章系统总结延庆赛区冬奥定点医院医疗保障特点、主要做法和经验，旨在为今后大型赛事定点医院的医疗保障提供参考。     

DCE-MRI诊断原发性肝癌效能和TACE术后评估肿瘤活性应用价值研究*

目的 探讨动态对比增强磁共振成像(DCE-MRI)检查诊断原发性肝癌(PLC)患者的效能及评价疗效的价值。方法 2017年1月～2021年6月我院诊治的肝占位性病变患者68例,均接受DCE-MRI检查,并行穿刺细胞学检查诊断,应用临床流行病学基本技术评估MRI诊断的效能。所有PLC患者接受经皮肝动脉化疗栓塞术(TACE)治疗,术后再次接受MRI检查,评估疗效。结果 DCE-MRI检查显示PLC患者肝内特征性恶性肿瘤表现,T1WI序列为低信号,T2WI序列为高信号,动脉期明显强化,门脉期快速消退,偶见明显的肿瘤包膜;在68例肝占位性病变患者,经穿刺细胞学检查,诊断PLC患者64例,非肿瘤病变4例;DCE-MRI检查诊断的灵敏度、特异度、准确率、阳性和阴性预测值分别为95.2%、75.0%、89.7%、93.8%和25.0%;在TACE术后,MRI检查发现肿瘤被完全灭活18例(28.1%),部分灭活25例(39.1%),肿瘤稳定15例(23.4%),疾病进展6例(9.3%)。结论 DCE-MRI检查在诊断PLC和治疗后疗效判断方面有独特的作用,可指导临床制定治疗方案,价值很大。     

Factors influencing the rating of sonographer students’ clinical performance

IntroductionLittle is known about the factors influencing clinical supervisor-assessors’ ratings of sonographer students’ performance. This study identifies these influential factors and relates them to professional competency standards, with the aim of raising awareness and improving assessment practice.MethodsThis study used archived written comments from 94 clinical assessors describing 174 sonographer students’ performance one month into their initial clinical practice (2015–6). Qualitative mixed method analysis revealed factors influencing assessor ratings of student performance and provided an estimate of the valency, association, and frequency of these factors.ResultsAssessors provided written comments for 93 % (n = 162/174) of students. Comments totaled 7190 words (mean of 44 words/student). One-third of comment paragraphs were wholly positive, two-thirds were equivocal. None were wholly negative. Thematic analysis revealed eleven factors, and eight sub-factors, influencing assessor impressions of five dimensions of performance. Of the factors mentioned, 84.6 % (n = 853/1008) related to professional competencies. While 15.4 % (n = 155/1008) were unrelated to competencies, instead reflecting humanistic factors such as student motivation, disposition, approach to learning, prospects and impact on supervisor and staff. Factors were prioritised and combined independently, although some associated.ConclusionClinical assessors formed impressions based on student performance, humanistic behaviours and personal qualities not necessarily outlined in educational outcomes or professional competency standards. Their presence, and interrelations, impact success in clinical practice, through their contribution to, and indication of, competence.Implications for practiceSonographer student curricula and assessor training should raise awareness of the factors influencing performance ratings and judgement of clinical competence, particularly the importance of humanistic factors. Inclusion of narrative comments, multiple assessors, and broad performance dimensions would enhance clinical assessment of sonographer student performance.     

Low percentage of patients passed the ‘Back in Action’ test battery 9 months after bone-patellar tendon-bone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is recommended in patients who intend to return to high-level sports. However, there is only a 55–80% return to pre-injury level of sports after ACL reconstruction, with a re-injury rate up to 20%. The aim of this study was to determine the percentage of patients passing the Back in Action (BIA) test 9 months after primary bone-patellar-tendon-bone (BPTB) ACL reconstruction, and evaluate the association between passing the BIA test and patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs).MethodsPatients underwent the BIA test 9 months after BPTB ACL reconstruction. In total 103 patients were included. Passing the BIA test (PASSED-group) was defined as a normal or higher score at all sub-tests with limb symmetry index (LSI) ≥90% for the dominant leg and LSI >80% for the non-dominant leg. Patients who did not meet these criteria were defined as the FAILED-group. PROMs included the International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury.ResultsEighteen patients (17.5%) passed the BIA test 9 months after BPTB ACL reconstruction. PROMs were not statistically significant different between the PASSED- and FAILED-group.ConclusionLow percentage of patients passed the BIA test 9 months after BPTB ACL reconstruction. Although current PROMs cut-off values were met, the BIA test results show persistent functional deficits. Therefore, the BIA test could be of additional value in the decision-making process regarding return to sport (RTS). This study highlights the need for additional rehabilitation as RTS in a condition of incomplete recovery may increase the risk of re-injury.Level of evidenceII.     

Modeling the Recovery of Elective Waiting Lists Following COVID-19: Scenario Projections for England

ObjectivesA significant indirect impact of COVID-19 has been the increasing elective waiting times observed in many countries. In England’s National Health Service, the waiting list has grown from 4.4 million in February 2020 to 5.7 million by August 2021. The objective of this study was to estimate the trajectory of future waiting list size and waiting times up to December 2025.MethodsA scenario analysis was performed using computer simulation and publicly available data as of November 2021. Future demand assumed a phased return of various proportions (0%, 25%, 50%, and 75%) of the estimated 7.1 million referrals “missed” during the pandemic. Future capacity assumed 90%, 100%, and 110% of that provided in the 12 months immediately before the pandemic.ResultsAs a worst-case scenario, the waiting list would reach 13.6 million (95% confidence interval 12.4-15.6 million) by Autumn 2022, if 75% of missed referrals returned and only 90% of prepandemic capacity could be achieved. The proportion of patients waiting under 18 weeks would reduce from 67.6% in August 2021 to 42.2% (37.4%-46.2%) with the number waiting over 52 weeks reaching 1.6 million (0.8-3.1 million) by Summer 2023. At this time, 29.0% (21.3%-36.8%) of patients would be leaving the waiting list before treatment. Waiting lists would remain pressured under even the most optimistic of scenarios considered, with 18-week performance struggling to maintain 60%.ConclusionsThis study reveals the long-term challenge for the National Health Service in recovering elective waiting lists and potential implications for patient outcomes and experience.