Search

BackgroundSurvival in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is lower in the USA than in Taiwan. Little is known about the extent to which differences in stage at diagnosis and treatment contribute to this difference. We examined treatment patterns and survival in HCC and analyzed factors driving the difference.MethodsUsing a uniform methodology, we identified patients aged 66 years and older with newly diagnosed HCC between 2004 and 2011 in the USA and Taiwan. We compared treatment within 6 months after HCC diagnosis and 2-year stage-specific survival between the two countries.ResultsCompared with patients in Taiwan (n = 32,987), patients in the USA (n = 7,003) were less likely to be diagnosed as stage IA (4% vs 8%) and II (13% vs 22%), or receive cancer-directed treatments (41% vs 58%; all p < .001). Stage-specific 2-year survival rates were lower in the USA than in Taiwan (stage IA: 57% vs 77%; stage IB: 38% vs 63%; stage II: 40% vs 57%, stage III: 14% vs 18%; stage IV: 4% vs 5%, respectively; all p < .001 except p = .018 for stage IV). Differences in age and sex (combined), stage, and receipt of treatment accounted for 3.8%, 17.0%, and 16.8% of the survival difference, respectively, leaving 62.5% unexplained.ConclusionsDifferential stage at diagnosis and treatment were substantially associated with the survival difference, but approximately two-thirds of the difference remained unexplained. Identifying the main drivers of the difference could help improve HCC survival in the USA.

Accurate patient identification and specimen labeling at the time of collection are crucial steps in the prevention of medical errors, thereby improving patient safety.All patient specimen identification errors that occurred in the outpatient department (OPD), emergency department (ED), and inpatient department (IPD) of a 3,800-bed academic medical center in Taiwan were documented and analyzed retrospectively from 2005 to 2014. To reduce such errors, the following series of strategies were implemented: a restrictive specimen acceptance policy for the ED and IPD in 2006; a computer-assisted barcode positive patient identification system for the ED and IPD in 2007 and 2010, and automated sample labeling combined with electronic identification systems introduced to the OPD in 2009.Of the 2000345 specimens collected in 2005, 1023 (0.0511%) were identified as having patient identification errors, compared with 58 errors (0.0015%) among 3761238 specimens collected in 2014, after serial interventions; this represents a 97% relative reduction. The total number (rate) of institutional identification errors contributed from the ED, IPD, and OPD over a 10-year period were 423 (0.1058%), 556 (0.0587%), and 44 (0.0067%) errors before the interventions, and 3 (0.0007%), 52 (0.0045%) and 3 (0.0001%) after interventions, representing relative 99%, 92% and 98% reductions, respectively.Accurate patient identification is a challenge of patient safety in different health settings. The data collected in our study indicate that a restrictive specimen acceptance policy, computer-generated positive identification systems, and interdisciplinary cooperation can significantly reduce patient identification errors.

Myometrial smooth muscle is normally within the field of view for the gynecological imaging. This study aimed to investigate the use of normal myometrium as an internal reference for endometrial and cervical cancer during multiphase contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MCE-MRI) and to explore whether this information regarding tumor enhancement relative to the myometrium could be used to discriminate between endometrial and cervical cancer.MRI images, before and after contrast enhancement, were analyzed in newly diagnosed cervical (n = 18) and endometrial cancer (n = 19) patients. Signal intensities (SIs) from tumor tissue and non-neoplastic myometrium were measured using imaging software.The relative signal for cervical cancer was approximately 30% higher than that of endometrial cancer after contrast administration. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve for SI, relative signal enhancement, and tumor to myometrium contrast ratio (as used to discriminate between cervical cancer and endometrial cancer) was 0.7807, 0.7456 and 0.7895, respectively. There was no difference in SI of the normal myometrium between endometrial and cervical cancer patients prior to and after contrast administration. Using non-tumorous myometrium as an internal reference, the tumor to myometrium contrast ratio was significantly higher in tumor tissue from cervical cancer compared with that from endometrial cancer at 25 s post contrast enhancement (p = 0.0016), with an optimal sensitivity of 72.22% and specificity of 84.21%.With SI normalized to baseline or normal myometrium, tumor tissue from cervical cancer patients showed significant hyperintensity compared with that of tumor tissue from endometrial cancer patients after contrast enhancement, yielding acceptable performance. The use of the myometrium as an internal reference may provide an alternative method to analyze MCE-MRI data.