Surgical management after active surveillance for low‐risk prostate cancer: pathological outcomes compared with men undergoing immediate treatment

Study Type – Therapy (case control)
Level of Evidence 3b What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The risks of delayed radical prostatectomy for men who progress on active surveillance are largely unknown. Two series have reported that prostatectomy after active surveillance has similar results to immediate therapy. Our data add to this growing body of evidence that appropriately selected men with prostate cancer can undergo active surveillance with delayed prostatectomy without added risk of missing an opportunity for cure as the majority of tumours remain organ confined.

OBJECTIVE

? To compare the pathological outcomes of men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) after a period of active surveillance (AS) with those of a similar risk group undergoing immediate surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

? We identified men through our institutional database who underwent RP within 6 months of diagnosis or after a period of AS. The primary outcome of the present study was Gleason upgrade to ≥7 after prostatectomy. ? Pathological stage and positive surgical margin rate were assessed as secondary outcomes. Binomial logistic regression models were used to determine associations of treatment subgroups with pathological upgrade, upstage and positive margins.

RESULTS

? Thirty‐three men with initially low‐risk cancer features underwent RP after a median (range) of 18 (7–76) months of AS. A total of 278 men with low‐risk disease features underwent immediate RP within 6 months of diagnosis. Rates of Gleason upgrading to ≥7, pathological category pT3 and positive surgical margins did not differ significantly from the immediate RP group. ? On multivariate analysis of low‐risk patients, adjusting for baseline pathological features, treatment group (AS followed by prostatectomy vs immediate prostatectomy) was not associated with Gleason upgrading (odds ratio, OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12–1.04), non‐organ‐confined disease (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.32–8.65) or positive surgical margins at prostatectomy (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.16–5.76).

CONCLUSION

? The present analysis did not show an association between RP after a period of AS and adverse pathological features for men with low‐risk disease.     

Variations in cancer care for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with ductal carcinoma in situ

NCCN guidelines recommend tamoxifen (TAM) for adjuvant treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). TAM has side effects that can potentially complicate treatment recommendations and patient acceptance. It is unknown how well‐accepted this recommended therapy is for the adolescent and young adult (AYA) patient population with DCIS. The NCDB was used to identify patients aged 15‐39 with DCIS treated between 2000 and 2012. Patient demographic, socioeconomic, and treatment data were collected. Chi‐squared test and multivariate analysis were used for statistical assessment. A total of 3988 women were identified of which 1795 (45%) were recommended for endocrine therapy. Age > 30 (OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.01‐1.70), Black (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12‐1.65), or Asian (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.08‐1.94) race, treatment at a nonacademic facility (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56‐0.91), geographic location of treating facility, receipt of radiation (OR 5.30, 95% CI 4.59‐6.11), and negative margins (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.47‐3.11) were significant predictors of recommendation for endocrine therapy. Of those recommended, 1484 (83%) accepted treatment. Age, race, and annual income were significant variables affecting acceptance. Overall, only 37.2% (1484 of 3988) of women in this study initiated endocrine therapy for treatment of DCIS. Our results demonstrate that little over a third of patients in the AYA cohort receive endocrine therapy as treatment for DCIS. The bias appears to lie in physician recommendation because when recommended, the majority of patients accept treatment. Factors exist both medical and nonmedical that appear to influence these treatment decisions.     

Utilization of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Undergoing Mastectomy

Background

Current guidelines suggest consideration of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) undergoing mastectomy. Our objective was to identify factors influencing the utilization of SLNB in this population.

Methods

We used the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database to identify all women with breast DCIS treated with mastectomy from 2000 to 2008. We excluded patients without histologic confirmation, those diagnosed at autopsy, those who had axillary lymph node dissections performed without a preceding SLNB, and those for whom the status of SLNB was unknown. We used multivariate logistic regression reporting odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) to evaluate the relationship of patient- and tumor-related factors to the likelihood of undergoing SLNB.

Results

Of 20,177 patients, 51 % did not receive SLNB. Factors associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving a SLNB included advancing age (OR 0.66; 95 % CI 0.62–0.71), Asian (OR 0.75; CI 0.68–0.83) or Hispanic (OR 0.84; 95 % CI 0.74–0.96) race/ethnicity, and history of prior non-breast (OR 0.57; 95 % CI 0.53–0.61). Factors associated with an increased likelihood of receiving a SLNB included treatment in the east (OR 1.28; 95 % CI 1.17–1.4), intermediate (OR 1.25; 95 % CI 1.11–1.41), high (OR 1.84; 95 % CI 1.62–2.08) grade tumors, treatment after the year 2000, and DCIS size 2–5 cm (OR 1.54; 95 % CI 1.42–1.68) and >5 cm (OR 2.43; 95 % CI 2.16–2.75).

Conclusions

SLNB is increasingly utilized in patients undergoing mastectomy for DCIS, but disparities in usage remain. Efforts at improving rates of SLNB in this population are warranted.     

Can patients with low-risk prostate cancer really benefit from radical treatment?: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active surveillance are three widely used treatment options for patients with low-risk prostate cancer, but the relative effects are controversial. We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science until June 2020, focusing on the studies comparing the effect of radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Through the random-effects model, dichotomous data were extracted and summarised by odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval. Twenty-two studies containing 185,363 participants were pooled for the comprehensive comparison. The Bayesian mixed network estimate demonstrated the cancer-specific mortality of radical prostatectomy was significantly lower than active surveillance (OR, 0.46; 95% CI 0.34–0.64) and external beam radiation therapy (OR, 0.66; 95% CI 0.46–0.96), but not brachytherapy (OR, 0.63; 95% CI 0.41–1.03). The brachytherapy demonstrated the best treatment ranking probability results in terms of all-cause mortality, while no significant difference was observed when compared with other three treatment modalities. Brachytherapy and radical prostatectomy were associated with a similar risk of cancer-specific mortality, and both of them were significantly superior to active surveillance and external beam radiation therapy; nevertheless, there was no significant difference among the aforementioned treatment methods in all-cause mortality.     

Utilization of lymph node assessment in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with lumpectomy

BackgroundLymph node assessment (LNA), including sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), is controversial in patients undergoing lumpectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Our goal was to identify factors influencing LNA in these patients.MethodsWe used the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database to identify all female patients treated with lumpectomy for DCIS from 2000 to 2008. We excluded patients without histologic confirmation, including those diagnosed at autopsy, and those for whom LNA status was unknown. Multivariate logistic regression models predicted use of LNA. Likelihood of undergoing LNA was reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsA total of 62,935 patients met inclusion criteria. Approximately 15% (N = 9726) had regional LNA at the time of lumpectomy, with 12% (N = 7294) undergoing SLNB. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of undergoing LNA included treatment in the Southeast (OR 1.25, CI 1.04–1.22); treatment after the year 2000; grade II (OR 2.71, CI 2.48–2.96), III (OR 2.38, CI 2.18–2.59), or IV (OR 2.61, CI 2.37–2.88) tumors; DCIS size 2–5 cm (OR 1.49, CI 1.37–1.62) or >5 cm (OR 2.16, CI 1.78–2.61), and estrogen receptor–negative (OR 1.29, CI 1.16–1.43) or progesterone receptor–negative (OR 1.22, CI 1.11–1.33) tumors. Factors associated with a decreased likelihood of undergoing regional LNA were age >60 (OR 0.83, CI 0.79–0.87), and Asian race (OR 0.88, CI 0.81–0.96). Factors predictive of LNA in general were also predictive of SLNB.ConclusionsAlthough LNA is controversial for patients undergoing lumpectomy for DCIS, it is used in 15% of cases. Further research establishing for the benefit of LNA in DCIS patients treated with lumpectomy is needed.     

Patients with anatomically “simple” renal masses are more likely to be placed on active surveillance than those with anatomically “complex” lesions

ObjectiveTo determine if radiographically less complex renal lesions are deemed clinically less “worrisome” and therefore are more likely to be considered for active surveillance (AS).MethodsWe examined our prospective institutional database to identify and compare patients with localized renal cell carcinoma undergoing an initial period of AS or immediate surgery. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine covariates associated with receipt of AS.ResultsOf 1,059 patients with available anatomic complexity data, 195 underwent an initial period of AS (median duration of AS 25.6 mo [interquartile range: 11.8–52.8 mo]). Compared with patients undergoing immediate surgical treatment, patients selected for AS had lower overall nephrometry scores (NS) with tumors that were smaller, further from the sinus or urothelium, more often polar, and less often hilar (P<0.0015 all comparisons). After adjustment for age, largest tumor size, individual components of NS, total NS, and Charlson comorbidity index, total NS (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9 [CI: 1.4–2.5]), “R” score of 1 (OR = 5.2 [CI: 1.8–15.2]), “N” score of 1 (OR = 2.3 [CI: 1.5–3.6]), “L” score of 1 (OR = 1.4 [CI: 0.84–2.2]), and nonhilar tumor location (OR = 2.7 [CI: 1.2–5.8]) increased the probability of being selected for AS compared with immediate surgery. Findings remained significant in a subanalysis of T1a renal masses.ConclusionsLower tumor anatomic complexity was strongly associated with the decision to proceed with AS in patients with stage I renal mass. Not only may these data afford new insights into renal mass treatment trends, but the findings may also prove useful in the development of objective protocols to most appropriately select patients for AS.     

Sentinel node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Never justified?

Sentinel lymph node biopsy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is not standard of care. However, nodal involvement for DCIS patients is reported. Aim of our study was to identify preoperative features predictive of nodal involvement in DCIS patients. We have retrospectively reviewed 175 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of DCIS following a vacuum‐assisted breast biopsy, and undergoing surgery with sentinel node biopsy. Variables distribution was compared between patients upstaged to invasive cancer at final pathology and patients with a confirmed DCIS, and between positive vs negative sentinel node patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for risk of a positive node. Lymph node biopsy was positive in 13 (7.4%) patients, with 8 (61.5%) macrometastases and 5 (38.5%) micrometastases. In these patients, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI‐RADS) index >4 (OR 4.69, 95% CI 1.282‐17.224, P = .02), lesion extension ≥20 mm (OR 4.25, 95% CI 1.255‐14.447, P = .02), multifocal disease (OR 4.12, 95% CI 0.987‐17.174, P = .05), comedo type (OR 3.54, 95% CI 1.044‐11.969, P = .04), and upstaging (OR 4.56, 95% CI 1.080‐19.249, P = .04) were all predictive of nodal involvement, although upstaging could not be predicted preoperatively. By multivariate analysis, the only independent factor predictive for positive sentinel node was multifocal disease (OR 5.14, 95% CI 1.015‐26.066, P < .05). A preoperative diagnosis of DCIS, also including advanced biopsy systems such as vacuum‐assisted breast biopsy, may be not always sufficient to exclude patients from sentinel node biopsy. DCIS patients with associated BI‐RADS >4, lesion extension ≥20 mm, comedo type, and above all multifocal disease should be considered for axillary evaluation.     

An evaluation of trends in the representation of patients by age,sex, and diverse race/ethnic groups in bladder and kidney cancer clinical trials

ObjectivesTo determine the representation of women, minorities, and the elderly groups in clinical trials and whether participation has changed over time.MethodsRetrospective study in the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Clinical Data Update System and Center for Disease Control and Prevention United States Cancer Statistics 2000 to 2019. We compared cancer incidence proportion to proportion of patients enrolled in an NCI trial when stratified by race/ethnicity, sex, and age. We performed multivariable analysis to determine the odds of participating in a clinical trial in 2015 to 2019 when compared to 2000 to 2004.ResultsThis study included 14,094 patients, 12,169 (86.3%) non-Hispanic White patients, 662 (4.7%) Black patients, and 660 (4.7%) Hispanic patients. There were 3,701 (26.3%) female patients and 10,393 (73.7%) male patients. For bladder cancer clinical trials, Black patients and Hispanic patients were underrepresented in clinical trials compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57–0.88, P = 0.002) and (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.54–0.88, P = 0.003), respectively. For kidney cancer trials, Black and Hispanic patients were underrepresented in clinical trials compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (OR 0.42, OR 0.33–0.54, P < 0.001) and (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55–0.83, P < 0.001), respectively. Women were underrepresented in kidney cancer trials compared to men (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72–0.89) and similarly for bladder cancer trials (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64–0.81, P < 0.001). For bladder cancer trials, the participation of Black patients over time (OR 1.04, P = 0.814) and female patients over time (OR 1.03, P = 0.741) were unchanged. For kidney cancer trials, the participation of Black patients over time (OR 1.17, P = 0.293) and female patients over time (OR 1.03, P = 0.663) participation was also unchanged.ConclusionIn this study of clinical trials in bladder and kidney cancer, we identified that Blacks, Hispanics, and females were underrepresented. Additionally, Black and female participation was unchanged over the span of 20 years.     

Active surveillance of small renal masses offers short‐term oncological efficacy equivalent to radical and partial nephrectomy

Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Active surveillance of small renal masses has traditionally been reserved for elderly patients deemed unfit for surgery or ablation. There is increasing evidence showing the safety of active surveillance in the management of small renal masses. In this retrospective study we compared outcomes for patients with small renal masses managed with active surveillance, radical nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy. We showed that active surveillance was safe and appeared as effective as immediate surgery in the management of small renal tumours.

OBJECTIVE

• ? To compare the oncological outcomes of active surveillance (AS), radical nephrectomy (RN) and partial nephrectomy (PN) in the management of T1a small renal masses (SRMs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• ? At present AS is used in the treatment of SRMs in elderly patients with multiple co‐morbidities or in those who decline surgery.
• ? We identified all patients with T1a SRMs managed with RN, PN or AS.
• ? Retrospective data were collected from patient case records with survival data and cause of death cross‐referenced with the Oxford Cancer Intelligence Unit.

RESULTS

• ? A total of 202 patients with 234 T1a SRMs (solid or Bosniak IV) were identified; 71 patients were managed with AS, 41 with an RN and 90 by PN.
• ? Over a median follow‐up of 34 months the mean growth rate on AS was 0.21 cm/year with 53% of SRMs managed with AS showing negative or zero growth.
• ? No statistically significant difference was observed in overall (OS) and cancer‐specific (CSS) survival for AS, RN and PN (AS‐CSS 98.6%, AS‐OS 83%; RN‐CSS 92.6%, RN‐OS 80.4%; PN‐CSS 96.6%, PN‐OS 90.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

• ? Active surveillance of SRMs offers oncological efficacy equivalent to surgery in the short/intermediate term.
• ? The results of this study support a multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial designed to compare the oncological efficacy of AS and surgery.

     

Testing the most stringent criteria for selection of candidates for active surveillance in patients with low‐risk prostate cancer

Study Type – Prognosis (case series)
Level of Evidence 4

OBJECTIVE

To test the ability of two of the most stringent criteria used to identify patients with low‐risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance (AS) to correctly exclude patients with unfavourable prostate cancer characteristics.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 874 consecutive patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). We selected patients who could have been selected for AS according to the van den Bergh et al. and the Carter et al. criteria. We analysed the rates of advanced disease in these patients, defined as presence of either extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), lymph node invasion (LNI) and Gleason sum of 8–10 or 7–10.

RESULTS

Of 874 patients, 85 (9.7%) and 61 (6.9%) patients, respectively, qualified for AS according to the tested criteria. Within the van den Bergh et al. candidates, 5.9, 1.2, 1.2 and 1.2% of patients, respectively, showed ECE, SVI, LNI and high‐grade Gleason sum 8–10 at pathology. Within the Carter et al. candidates, 3.3, 0, 3.3 and 0% of patients, respectively, showed ECE, SVI, LNI and high‐grade Gleason sum 8–10. The cumulative rate of unfavourable characteristics was 7.1 and 3.3%. The rate increased to 28.2 and 27.9%, respectively, when Gleason sum 7 was considered as an unfavourable prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the strictest criteria for AS inclusion identified 7–10% of the men in our cohort of men undergoing RP, as men that would have been eligible for AS. Among this small proportion, between 3.3 and 7.1% of patients harboured unfavourable prostate cancer characteristics. The clinical implications of these misclassification rates remain to be determined.     

Effect of treatment with 5-α reductase inhibitors on progression in monitored men with favourable-risk prostate cancer

Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Finasteride (Proscar) and dutasteride (Avodart) are 5‐α reductase inhibitors (5‐ARIs) used to treat LUTS in men with benign prostatic enlargement. Because these drugs suppress androgens, the theory has been put forward that 5‐ARIs might prevent the development of prostate cancer. Careful analysis of two randomized controlled trials, however, showed that, in the clinical setting, this was not the case, and that these drugs can increase the occurrence of more aggressive high‐grade disease. Because of this, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration did not approve 5‐ARIs for the primary prevention of prostate cancer and notified healthcare professionals about a change in the ‘Warnings and Precautions’ for these drugs. Interest remains among some for using 5‐ARIs in men diagnosed with very low‐risk prostate cancer to delay the progression from clinically indolent disease to clinically significant disease requiring treatment. The present study investigated whether 5‐ARI use among men with very low‐risk prostate cancer in an active surveillance (AS) programme would reduce the number of cancers reclassified to clinically significant disease on surveillance biopsy. Our results do not support the use of 5‐ARIs for slowing or preventing cancer progression in men with low‐risk prostate cancer, but do suggest that men with very low‐risk prostate cancer who take 5‐ARIs for LUTS are unlikely to be at increased risk for the development of high grade disease during AS.

OBJECTIVE

• ? To determine whether 5‐α reductase inhibitor (5‐ARI) use delays cancer reclassification in an active surveillance (AS) cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• ? We performed a retrospective study of 587 men enrolled in an AS programme, who had no history of 5‐ARI use.
• ? Chi‐squared and t‐tests were used to compare characteristics of 5‐ARI users and non‐users.
• ? Univariable and multivariable proportional hazards models, treating 5‐ARI use as a time‐dependent covariate, were used to evaluate the influence of 5‐ARIs on the risk of a subsequent biopsy no longer meeting criteria for continued AS (i.e. reclassification).

RESULTS

• ? 5‐ARI use was initiated in 47 men while on AS.
• ? Men using 5‐ARIs had larger prostates and higher PSA levels at diagnosis.
• ? During 5‐ARI use, PSA levels and prostate volume deceased by mean values of 47% and 11%, respectively.
• ? Men using 5‐ARIs had a mean of 2.5 surveillance biopsies while on the drug. Reclassification occurred in 17% of 5‐ARI users compared with 31% of non‐users (P= 0.04).
• ? Multivariable models (adjusting for age, α‐blocker use, PSA level, %free PSA, PSA density, prostate volume and number/percent biopsy core involvement at diagnosis) showed nonsignificant risk reductions for reclassification in 5‐ARI users as determined by either tumour extent (hazard ratio [HR]= 0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12 to 1.13), P= 0.08) or grade (HR = 0.8 (95% CI 0.25–2.59), P= 0.7).

CONCLUSION

• ? Treatment with 5‐ARIs did not significantly alter the outcome of biopsy reclassification by grade in men with very low‐risk prostate cancer.

     

Effect of preoperative statin therapy on postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing major surgery: Systemic review and meta‐analysis

We aimed to examine the association between preoperative use of statins and postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing major surgery by performing a systemic review and meta‐analysis. MEDLINE and EMBASE, from inception to April 2013, and the reference lists of related articles were searched for relevant studies. Trials comparing preoperative statin therapy with no preoperative statin in patients undergoing major surgery were included. Outcome measures of interest were the risk of cumulative postoperative AKI and postoperative AKI requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT). Fixed or random effect meta‐analysis was performed to derive summary effect estimates. In five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 19 observational studies, comprising a total of 989 173 patients undergoing major surgery, 112 840 patients (11.41%) received preoperative statin therapy. The specific type, dosage, and duration of statin therapy were not available in most studies. Preoperative statin therapy was associated with a significant risk reduction for cumulative postoperative AKI (weighted summary odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95). The effect of risk reduction was also significant when considering postoperative AKI requiring RRT (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.90). When restricting the analysis to the five RCTs, preoperative statin therapy did not show significant protective effect on postoperative AKI (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.09). In patients undergoing major surgery, preoperative statin therapy could associate with a reduced risk for postoperative AKI. However, considerable heterogeneity existed among included studies. Future randomized trials were warranted for this critical clinical question.     

Prostate cancer family history and eligibility for active surveillance: a systematic review of the literature

Active surveillance (AS) is an increasingly prevalent treatment choice for low grade prostate cancer. Eligibility criteria for AS are varied and it is unclear if family history of prostate cancer should be used as an exclusion criterion when considering men for AS. To determine whether family history plays a significant role in the progression of prostate cancer for men undergoing active surveillance, PubMed searches of ‘family history and prostate cancer’, ‘family history and prostate cancer progression’ and ‘factors of prostate cancer progression’ were used to identify research publications about the relationship between family history and prostate cancer progression. These searches generated 536 papers that were screened and reviewed. Six publications were ultimately included in this analysis. Review of the six publications suggests that family history does not increase the risk of prostate cancer progression, whilst a subgroup analysis in one study found that family history increases the risk of prostate cancer progression only in African‐Americans. A family history of prostate cancer does not appear to increase a patient's risk of having more aggressive prostate cancer and is therefore unlikely to be an important factor in determining eligibility for AS. Further studies are needed to better understand the relationship between race, family history, and eligibility for AS.     

The Utilization of Regional Anesthesia Among Pediatric Patients: A Retrospective Study

Background

The use of regional anesthesia (RA) in pediatric patients remains understudied, although evidence suggests benefits over general anesthesia.

Questions/Purposes

We sought to identify factors associated with RA use in patients under the age of 21 years undergoing ambulatory orthopedic surgery.

Methods

Patients under the age of 21 who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair or reconstruction, knee arthroscopy (KA), or shoulder arthroscopy (SA) were identified from the NY Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database (2005–2015). Frequencies of RA use (defined by femoral nerve block, spinal, epidural, caudal, or brachial plexus anesthesia) were calculated. Multivariable regression analysis identified patient- and healthcare system–related factors associated with the use of RA. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported.

Results

We identified 87,273 patients who underwent the procedures of interest (ACL n = 28,226; SA n = 18,155; KA n = 40,892). In our primary analysis, 14.4% (n = 1404) had RA as their primary anesthetic; this percentage increased for patients who had ACL or KA. When adjusting for covariates, Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.78; CI 0.65–0.94) and Medicaid insurance (OR 0.75; CI 0.65–0.87) were associated with decreased odds for the provision of RA. Further, we identified increasing age (OR 1.10; CI 1.08–1.11), ACL versus SA (OR 1.91; CI 1.74–2.10), and sports injuries (OR 1.20; CI 1.10–1.31) as factors associated with increased odds of RA use.

Conclusion

In this analysis, RA was used in a minority of patients under the age of 21 undergoing ambulatory orthopedic surgery. Older age was associated with increased use while Hispanic ethnicity and lower socioeconomic status were associated with lower use.

     

Racial differences in the use of epidural analgesia for labor

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence that pain is undertreated in black and Hispanic patients. The association between race and ethnicity and the use of epidural analgesia for labor is not well described. METHODS: Using the New York State Perinatal Database, the authors examined whether race and ethnicity were associated with the likelihood of receiving epidural analgesia for labor after adjusting for clinical characteristics, demographics, insurance coverage, and provider effect. This retrospective cohort study was based on 81,883 women admitted for childbirth between 1998 and 2003. RESULTS: Overall, 38.3% of the patients received epidural analgesia for labor. After adjusting for clinical risk factors, socioeconomic status, and provider fixed effects, Hispanic and black patients were less likely than non-Hispanic white patients to receive epidural analgesia: The adjusted odds ratio was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.93) for white/Hispanic and 0.78 (0.74-0.83) for blacks compared with non-Hispanic whites. Compared with patients with private insurance, patients without insurance were least likely to receive epidural analgesia (adjusted odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.89). Black patients with private insurance had similar rates of epidural use to white/non-Hispanic patients without insurance coverage: The adjusted odds ratio was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53-0.82) for white/non-Hispanic patients without insurance versus 0.69 (0.57-0.85) for black patients with private insurance. CONCLUSION: Black and Hispanic women in labor are less likely than non-Hispanic white women to receive epidural analgesia. These differences remain after accounting for differences in insurance coverage, provider practice, and clinical characteristics.     

Racial Differences in the Use of Epidural Analgesia for Labor

Background: There is strong evidence that pain is undertreated in black and Hispanic patients. The association between race and ethnicity and the use of epidural analgesia for labor is not well described.

Methods: Using the New York State Perinatal Database, the authors examined whether race and ethnicity were associated with the likelihood of receiving epidural analgesia for labor after adjusting for clinical characteristics, demographics, insurance coverage, and provider effect. This retrospective cohort study was based on 81,883 women admitted for childbirth between 1998 and 2003.

Results: Overall, 38.3% of the patients received epidural analgesia for labor. After adjusting for clinical risk factors, socioeconomic status, and provider fixed effects, Hispanic and black patients were less likely than non-Hispanic white patients to receive epidural analgesia: The adjusted odds ratio was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.93) for white/Hispanic and 0.78 (0.74-0.83) for blacks compared with non-Hispanic whites. Compared with patients with private insurance, patients without insurance were least likely to receive epidural analgesia (adjusted odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.89). Black patients with private insurance had similar rates of epidural use to white/non-Hispanic patients without insurance coverage: The adjusted odds ratio was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53-0.82) for white/non-Hispanic patients without insurance versus 0.69 (0.57-0.85) for black patients with private insurance.     

Clinical Trials for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is a non-obligatory precursor to invasive breast carcinoma, with a variable natural history and biological potential for progression to invasive disease. Over the past 30 years, clinical trials have applied the therapeutic principles used for invasive carcinoma to treat DCIS (surgery, with or without breast radiotherapy, and post-operative endocrine therapy), with excellent survival outcomes, and in-breast recurrence rates that range from 0.5 to 1% annually. However, half of such recurrences are again in-situ lesions, and intensive therapy is likely not necessary for all patients. Current clinical research is focused on a better characterization of the potential of individual lesions to progress to invasive disease, and to identify women who would do well with lesser treatment. Three ongoing trials in the United States and Europe randomize women to active surveillance (with or without endocrine therapy) versus usual treatment with surgery and radiotherapy. The use of pre-operative endocrine therapy has been evaluated in a recently completed trial of letrozole use in postmenopausal women with DCIS; and in on-going trials of tamoxifen, used either orally, or as a 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel formulation for application to the breast skin. This review summaries the major past and current clinical trials of DCIS, and the likely trajectories of DCIS management in the near future.     

The clinical and molecular epidemiology of pre‐transplant vancomycin‐resistant enterococci colonization among liver transplant recipients

Vancomycin‐resistant enterococci (VRE) infections cause significant morbidity in liver transplant recipients. The epidemiology and impact of pre‐transplant colonization with VRE among patients who undergo liver transplantation are poorly understood. We conducted an observational cohort study to identify risk factors and outcomes associated with pre‐transplant VRE colonization and described the molecular diversity among VRE strains colonizing patients who undergo liver transplantation. Perirectal VRE surveillance cultures were performed prior to transplantation. Repetitive sequence‐based polymerase chain reaction (rep‐PCR) testing was used to identify clonality among VRE isolates. Of 61 patients who underwent pre‐transplant VRE surveillance and subsequent liver transplantation, 27 (44%) were colonized with VRE. In multivariate analysis, pre‐transplant VRE colonization was associated with central venous catheterization (OR 9.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]= 1.3–70.2, p = 0.03) and rifaximin use (OR 15.4, 95% CI 1.5–159.7, p = 0.02). Pre‐transplant VRE colonization was associated with more hospital days post‐transplant (26.6 vs. 16.1 d, p = 0.04). Of VRE‐colonized patients analyzed with rep‐PCR, 68% were colonized with the same strain as another patient in the cohort. Active surveillance identifies VRE‐colonized patients who may benefit from targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis and enhanced infection prevention measures to prevent VRE spread. The relationship between rifaximin receipt and VRE colonization warrants further study. The identification of similar VRE isolates may suggest linked transmission during pre‐transplant hospitalizations, which should be further investigated in prospective studies.     

Selection of patients for ambulatory lumbar discectomy: results from four US states

Background contextThere is a persistent trend for more outpatient lumbar discectomies in the United States.PurposeTo investigate the characteristics of the patients selected for ambulatory procedures.Study designRetrospective cohort study.Patient sampleForty-seven thousand one hundred twenty-five patients who underwent outpatient and 102,592 patients undergoing inpatient lumbar discectomies and were were registered in the State Ambulatory Surgery Database (SASD) and State Inpatient Database (SID), respectively, for New York, California, Florida, and North Carolina from 2005 to 2008.Outcome measuresRate of outpatient procedures, 30-day readmissions, and hospital charges.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study involving patients who underwent outpatient and inpatient lumbar discectomies and were registered in SASD and SID, respectively, for New York, California, Florida, and North Carolina from 2005 to 2008. Logistic regression models were used to demonstrate the association of socioeconomic factors with the odds of undergoing an outpatient procedure.ResultsMale gender (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.08), private insurance (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.86–2.01), lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR, 4.04; 95% CI, 3.17–5.16), and higher volume hospitals (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04–1.08) were significantly associated with outpatient procedures. Higher income (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.81–0.85), older age (OR, 0.996; 95% CI, 0.995–0.997), coverage by Medicaid (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83–0.96), African Americans (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.60–0.70), and other minority races were associated with decreased odds of outpatient procedures. The rate of 30-day postoperative readmissions was higher among inpatients. Institutional charges were significantly lower for outpatient lumbar discectomies. The median charge for inpatient surgery was $24,273 as compared with $11,339 for the outpatient setting (p<.0001).ConclusionsAccess to ambulatory lumbar discectomies appears to be more common for younger, white, male patients, with private insurance and less comorbidities, in the setting of higher volume hospitals. Further investigation is needed in the direction of mapping these disparities for appropriate resource utilization.