Advances in oncologic imaging

Imaging has become a pivotal component throughout a patient's encounter with cancer, from initial disease detection and characterization through treatment response assessment and posttreatment follow‐up. Recent progress in imaging technology has presented new opportunities for improving clinical care. This article provides updates on the latest approaches to imaging of 5 common cancers: breast, lung, prostate, and colorectal cancers, and lymphoma. CA Cancer J Clin 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Development of a fragile X syndrome (FXS) knowledge scale: towards a modified multidimensional measure of informed choice for FXS population carrier screening

Background

Genetic carrier screening is increasingly possible for many conditions, but it is important to ensure decisions are informed. The multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC) is a quantitative instrument developed to evaluate informed choice in prenatal screening for Down syndrome, measuring knowledge, attitudes and uptake. To apply the MMIC in other screening settings, the knowledge scale must be modified.

Objective

To develop and validate a modified MMIC knowledge scale for use with women undergoing carrier screening for fragile X syndrome (FXS).

Setting and participants

Responses to MMIC items were collected through questionnaires as part of a FXS carrier screening pilot study in a preconception setting in Melbourne, Australia.

Design

Ten knowledge scale items were developed using a modified Delphi technique. Cronbach''s alpha and factor analysis were used to validate the new FXS knowledge scale. We summarized the knowledge, attitudes and informed choice status based on the modified MMIC.

Results

Two hundred and eighty‐five women were recruited, 241 eligible questionnaires were complete for analysis. The FXS knowledge scale items measured one salient construct and were internally consistent (alpha = 0.70). 71% (172/241) of participants were classified as having good knowledge, 70% (169/241) had positive attitudes and 27% (65/241) made an informed choice to accept or decline screening.

Discussion and conclusions

We present the development of a knowledge scale as part of a MMIC to evaluate informed choice in population carrier screening for FXS. This can be used as a template by other researchers to develop knowledge scales for other conditions for use in the MMIC.     

The effect of low concentrations versus high concentrations of local anesthetics for labour analgesia on obstetric and anesthetic outcomes: a meta-analysis

Introduction

The influence that different concentrations of labour epidural local anesthetic have on assisted vaginal delivery (AVD) and many obstetric outcomes and side effects is uncertain. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine whether local anesthetics utilized at low concentrations (LCs) during labour are associated with a decreased incidence of AVD when compared with high concentrations (HCs).

Methods

We searched PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials of labouring patients that compared LCs (defined as ≤ 0.1% epidural bupivacaine or ≤ 0.17% ropivacaine) of epidural local anesthetic with HCs for maintenance of analgesia. The primary outcome was AVD and secondary outcomes included Cesarean delivery, duration of labour, analgesia, side effects (nausea and vomiting, motor block, hypotension, pruritus, and urinary retention), and neonatal outcomes. The odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random effects modelling. An OR < 1 or a WMD < 0 favoured LCs.

Results

Eleven studies met our criteria (eight bupivacaine and three ropivacaine studies), providing 1,145 patients in the LCs group and 852 patients in the HCs group for analysis of the primary outcome. Low concentrations were associated with a reduction in the incidence of AVD (OR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; P < 0.001). There was no difference in the incidence of Cesarean delivery (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.33; P = 0.7). The LCs group had less motor block (OR 3.9; 95% CI 1.59 to 9.55; P = 0.003), greater ambulation (OR 2.8; 95% CI 1.1 to 7.14; P = 0.03), less urinary retention (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.73; P = 0.002), and a shorter second stage of labour (WMD ?14.03; 95% CI ?27.52 to ?0.55; P = 0.04) compared with the HCs group. There were no differences between groups in pain scores, maternal nausea and vomiting, hypotension, fetal heart rate abnormalities, five-minute Apgar scores, and need for neonatal resuscitation. One-minute Apgar scores < 7 favoured the HCs group (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.07 to 2.21; P = 0.02), and there was more pruritus in the LCs group (OR 3.36; 95% CI 1.00 to 11.31; P = 0.05).

Conclusion

When compared with HCs of local anesthetics, the use of LCs for labour epidural analgesia reduces the incidence of AVD. This may be due to a reduction in the amount of local anesthetic used and the subsequent decrease in motor blockade. We therefore recommend the use of LCs of local anesthetics for epidural analgesia to optimize obstetric outcome.     

The difficult airway with recommendations for management – Part 1 – Difficult tracheal intubation encountered in an unconscious/induced patient

Background

Previously active in the mid-1990s, the Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG) studied the unanticipated difficult airway and made recommendations on management in a 1998 publication. The CAFG has since reconvened to examine more recent scientific literature on airway management. The Focus Group’s mandate for this article was to arrive at updated practice recommendations for management of the unconscious/induced patient in whom difficult or failed tracheal intubation is encountered.

Methods

Nineteen clinicians with backgrounds in anesthesia, emergency medicine, and intensive care joined this iteration of the CAFG. Each member was assigned topics and conducted reviews of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Results were presented and discussed during multiple teleconferences and two face-to-face meetings. When appropriate, evidence- or consensus-based recommendations were made together with assigned levels of evidence modelled after previously published criteria.

Conclusions

The clinician must be aware of the potential for harm to the patient that can occur with multiple attempts at tracheal intubation. This likelihood can be minimized by moving early from an unsuccessful primary intubation technique to an alternative “Plan B” technique if oxygenation by face mask or ventilation using a supraglottic device is non-problematic. Irrespective of the technique(s) used, failure to achieve successful tracheal intubation in a maximum of three attempts defines failed tracheal intubation and signals the need to engage an exit strategy. Failure to oxygenate by face mask or supraglottic device ventilation occurring in conjunction with failed tracheal intubation defines a failed oxygenation, “cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate” situation. Cricothyrotomy must then be undertaken without delay, although if not already tried, an expedited and concurrent attempt can be made to place a supraglottic device.