Search

This study examines whether the use of sterilization procedures changed after the Dobbs ruling by restrictiveness of state abortion laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study objectiveReduced-dose computed tomography (CT) scans have been recommended for diagnosis of kidney stone but are rarely used in the emergency department (ED) setting. Test characteristics are incompletely characterized, particularly in obese patients. Our primary outcome is to determine the sensitivity and specificity of a reduced-dose CT protocol for symptomatic ureteral stones, particularly those large enough to require intervention, using a protocol stratified by patient size.MethodsThis was a prospective, blinded observational study of 201 patients at an academic medical center. Consenting subjects underwent both regular- and reduced-dose CT, stratified into a high and low body mass index (BMI) protocol based on effective abdominal diameter. Reduced-dose CT scans were interpreted by radiologists blinded to regular-dose interpretations. Follow-up for outcome and intervention was performed at 90 days.ResultsCT scans with both regular and reduced doses were conducted for 201 patients, with 63% receiving the high BMI reduced-dose protocol. Ureteral stone was identified in 102 patients (50.7%) of those receiving regular-dose CT, with a ureteral stone greater than 5 mm identified in 26 subjects (12.9%). Sensitivity of the reduced-dose CT for any ureteral stone was 90.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.3% to 95.0%), with a specificity of 99.0% (95% CI 93.7% to 100.0%). For stones greater than 5 mm, sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 85.0% to 100.0%). Reduced-dose CT identified 96% of patients who required intervention for ureteral stone within 90 days. Mean reduction in size-specific dose estimate was 18.6 milligray (mGy), from 21.7 mGy (SD 9.7) to 3.4 mGy (SD 0.9).ConclusionCT with substantial dose reduction was 90.2% (95% CI 82.3% to 95.0%) sensitive and 98.9% (95% CI 85.0% to 100.0%) specific for ureteral stones in ED patients with a wide range of BMIs. Reduced-dose CT was 96.0% (95% CI 80.5% to 99.3%) sensitive for ureteral stones requiring intervention within 90 days.

Study objectiveHydronephrosis is readily visible on ultrasonography and is a strong predictor of ureteral stones, but ultrasonography is a user-dependent technology and the test characteristics of clinician-performed ultrasonography for hydronephrosis are incompletely characterized, as is the effect of ultrasound fellowship training on predictive accuracy. We seek to determine the test characteristics of ultrasonography for detecting hydronephrosis when performed by clinicians with a wide range of experience under conditions of direct patient care.MethodsThis was a prospective study of patients presenting to an academic medical center emergency department with suspected renal colic. Before computed tomography (CT) results, an emergency clinician performed bedside ultrasonography, recording the presence and degree of hydronephrosis. CT data were abstracted from the dictated radiology report by an investigator blinded to the bedside ultrasonographic results. Test characteristics of bedside ultrasonography for hydronephrosis were calculated with the CT scan as the reference standard, with test characteristics compared by clinician experience stratified into 4 levels: attending physicians with emergency ultrasound fellowship training, attending physicians without emergency ultrasound fellowship training, ultrasound experienced non-attending physician clinicians (at least 2 weeks of ultrasound training), and ultrasound inexperienced non-attending physician clinicians (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, off-service rotators, and first-year emergency medicine residents with fewer than 2 weeks of ultrasound training).ResultsThere were 670 interpretable bedside ultrasonographic tests performed by 144 unique clinicians, 80.9% of which were performed by clinicians directly involved in the care of the patient. On CT, 47.5% of all subjects had hydronephrosis and 47.0% had a ureteral stone. Among all clinicians, ultrasonography had a sensitivity of 72.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.4% to 78.9%), specificity of 73.3% (95% CI 66.1% to 79.4%), positive likelihood ratio of 2.72 (95% CI 2.25 to 3.27), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.44) for hydronephrosis, using hydronephrosis on CT as the criterion standard. Among attending physicians with fellowship training, ultrasonography had sensitivity of 92.7% (95% CI 83.8% to 96.9%), positive likelihood ratio of 4.97 (95% CI 2.90 to 8.51), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.08 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.23).ConclusionOverall, ultrasonography performed by emergency clinicians was moderately sensitive and specific for detection of hydronephrosis as seen on CT in patients with suspected renal colic. However, presence or absence of hydronephrosis as determined by emergency physicians with fellowship training in ultrasonography yielded more definitive test results. For clinicians without fellowship training, there was no significant difference between groups in the predictive accuracy of the application according to experience level.

Background: Older women with breast cancer frequently experience toxicity‐related hospitalizations during adjuvant chemotherapy. Although the geriatric assessment can identify those at risk, its use in clinic remains limited. One simple, low‐cost marker of vulnerability in older persons is fall history. Here, the authors examined whether falls prechemotherapy can identify older women at risk for toxicity‐related hospitalization during adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Methods: In a prospective study of women >65 years old with stage I–III breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, the authors assessed baseline falls in the past 6 months as a categorical variable: no fall, one fall, and more than one fall. The primary end point was incident hospitalization during chemotherapy attributable to toxicity. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between falls and toxicity‐related hospitalization, adjusting for sociodemographic, disease, and geriatric covariates. Results: Of the 497 participants, 60 (12.1%) reported falling before chemotherapy, and 114 (22.9%) had one or more toxicity‐related hospitalizations. After adjusting for sociodemographic, disease, and geriatric characteristics, women who fell more than once within 6 months before chemotherapy had greater odds of being hospitalized from toxicity during chemotherapy compared to women who did not fall (50.0% vs. 20.8% experienced toxicity‐related hospitalization, odds ratio, 4.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.66–11.54, p =.003). Conclusions: In this cohort of older women with early breast cancer, women who experienced more than one fall before chemotherapy had an over 4‐fold increased risk of toxicity‐related hospitalization during chemotherapy, independent of sociodemographic, disease, and geriatric factors. In this study, nearly one in four older women with early breast cancer experienced toxicity‐related hospitalization during chemotherapy. Women who reported more than one fall in the 6 months leading up to chemotherapy had a greater than four times higher odds of experiencing toxicity‐related hospitalization during treatment than women who reported no falls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although incarcerated adults are at elevated risk of dying from cancer, little is known about cancer screening in carceral settings. This study compared stage-specific incidence of screen-detectable cancers among incarcerated and recently released people with the general population, as a reflection of screening practices. We calculated the age- and sex-standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for early- and late-stage cancers for incarcerated and recently released adults compared to the general Connecticut population between 2005 and 2016. Our sample included 143 cancer cases among those incarcerated, 406 among those recently released, and 201 360 in the general population. The SIR for early-stage screen-detectable cancers was lower among incarcerated (SIR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.43) and recently released (SIR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.88) individuals than the general population. Incidence of late-stage screen-detectable cancer was lower during incarceration (SIR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.88) but not after release (SIR = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.82). Findings suggest that underscreening and underdetection of cancer may occur in carceral settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The impact of ongoing efforts to decrease opioid use on patients with cancer remains undefined. Our objective was to determine trends in new and additional opioid use in patients with and without cancer. Methods This retrospective cohort study used data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program–Medicare for opioid-naive patients with solid tumor malignancies diagnosed from 2012 through 2017 and a random sample of patients without cancer. We identified 238 470 eligible patients with cancer and further focused on 4 clinical strata: patients without cancer, patients with metastatic cancer, patients with nonmetastatic cancer treated with surgery alone ("surgery alone"), and patients with nonmetastatic cancer treated with surgery plus chemotherapy or radiation therapy ("surgery+"). We identified new, early additional, and long-term additional opioid use and calculated the change in predicted probability of these outcomes from 2012 to 2017. Results New opioid use was higher in patients with cancer (46.4%) than in those without (6.9%) (P  < .001). From 2012 to 2017, the predicted probability of new opioid use was more stable in the cancer strata (relative declines: 0.1% surgery alone; 2.4% surgery+; 8.8% metastatic cancer), than in the noncancer stratum (20.0%) (P  < .001 for each cancer to noncancer comparison). Early additional use declined among surgery patients (‒14.9% and ‒17.5% for surgery alone and surgery+, respectively) but was stable among patients with metastatic disease (‒2.8%, P  = .50). Conclusions Opioid prescribing declined over time at a slower rate in patients with cancer than in patients without cancer. Our study suggests important but tempered effects of the changing opioid climate on patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The federal government is funding a sea change in health care by investing in interventions targeting social determinants of health, which are significant contributors to illness and health inequity. This funding power has encouraged states, professional and accreditation organizations, health care entities, and providers to focus heavily on social determinants. We examine how this shift in focus affects clinical practice in the fields of oncology and emergency medicine, and highlight potential areas of reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]