Search

Background & aimsThere are limited data regarding fibrosis progression in biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) compared with people without T2DM. We assessed the time to fibrosis progression in people with T2DM compared with people without T2DM in a large, multicenter, study of people with NAFLD who had paired liver biopsies.MethodsThis study included 447 adult participants (64% were female) with NAFLD who had paired liver biopsies more than 1 year apart. Liver histology was systematically assessed by a central pathology committee blinded to clinical data. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of a ≥1-stage increase in fibrosis in participants with T2DM compared with participants without T2DM.ResultsThe mean (SD) age and body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) were 50.9 (11.5) years and 34.7 (6.3), respectively. The median time between biopsies was 3.3 years (interquartile range, 1.8-6.1 years). Participants with T2DM had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of fibrosis progression at 4 years (24% vs 20%), 8 years (60% vs 50%), and 12 years (93% vs 76%) (P = .005). Using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for multiple confounders, T2DM remained an independent predictor of fibrosis progression (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.17-2.43; P = .005). The cumulative incidence of fibrosis regression by ≥1 stage was similar in participants with T2DM compared with participants without T2DM (P = .24).ConclusionsIn this large, multicenter cohort study of well-characterized participants with NAFLD and paired liver biopsies, we found that fibrosis progressed faster in participants with T2DM compared with participants without T2DM. These data have important implications for clinical practice and trial design.

Background: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) communicate cancer‐related information from oncology providers to patients and primary care providers. SCPs may limit overuse testing by specifying necessary follow‐up care. From a randomized, controlled trial of SCP delivery, we examined whether cancer‐related tests not specified in SCPs, but conducted after SCP receipt, were appropriate or consistent with overuse. Methods: Survivors of breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer treated at urban‐academic or rural‐community health systems were randomized to one of three SCP delivery arms. Tests during 18 months after SCP receipt were classified as consistent with overuse if they were (1) not included in SCPs and (2) on a guideline‐based predetermined list of "not recommended surveillance." After chart abstraction, physicians performed review and adjudication of potential overuse. Descriptive analyses were conducted of tests consistent with overuse. Negative binomial regression models determined if testing consistent with overuse differed across study arms. Results: Among 316 patients (137 breast, 67 colorectal, 112 prostate), 140 individual tests were identified as potential overuse. Upon review, 98 were deemed to be consistent with overuse: 78 tumor markers and 20 imaging tests. The majority of overuse testing was breast cancer‐related (95%). Across sites, 27 patients (9%) received ≥1 test consistent with overuse; most were breast cancer patients (22/27). Exploratory analyses of overuse test frequency by study arm showed no significant difference. Conclusions: This analysis identified practice patterns consistent with overuse of surveillance testing and can inform efforts to improve guideline‐concordant care. Future interventions may include individual practice patterns and provider education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Survivorship care plans seek to improve the transition to survivorship, but the required resources present implementation barriers. This randomized controlled trial aimed to identify the simplest, most effective approach for survivorship care planning.Methods: Stage 1-3 breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients aged 21 years or older completing treatment were recruited from an urban-academic and rural-community cancer center. Participants were randomly assigned, stratified by recruitment site and cancer type 1:1:1 to a mailed plan, plan delivered during a 1-time transition visit, or plan delivered during a transition visit plus 6-month follow-up visit. Health service use data were collected from participants and medical records for 18 months. The primary outcome, receipt of all plan-recommended care, was compared across intervention arms using logistic regression adjusting for cancer type and recruitment site, with P less than .05 considered statistically significant.Results: Of 378 participants randomly assigned, 159 (42.1%) were breast, 142 (37.6%) prostate, and 77 (20.4%) colorectal cancer survivors; 207 (54.8%) from the academic site and 171 (45.2%) from the community site; 316 were analyzable for the primary outcome. There was no difference across arms in the proportion of participants receiving all plan-recommended care: 45.2% mail, 50.5% 1-visit, 42.7% 2-visit (2-sided P = .60). Adherence by cancer type for mail, 1-visit, and 2-visit, respectively, was 52.2%, 53.3%, and 40.0% for breast cancer; 48.6%, 64.1%, and 57.1% for prostate cancer; and 23.8%, 19.0%, and 26.1% for colorectal cancer. There were no statistically significant interactions by recruitment site or cancer type.Conclusions: This study did not find differences in receipt of recommended follow-up care by plan delivery approach. Feasibility and other factors may determine the best approach for survivorship care planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Survivorship care plans seek to improve the transition to survivorship, but the required resources present implementation barriers. This randomized controlled trial aimed to identify the simplest, most effective approach for survivorship care planning., Methods: Stage 1-3 breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients aged 21 years or older completing treatment were recruited from an urban-academic and rural-community cancer center. Participants were randomly assigned, stratified by recruitment site and cancer type 1:1:1 to a mailed plan, plan delivered during a 1-time transition visit, or plan delivered during a transition visit plus 6-month follow-up visit. Health service use data were collected from participants and medical records for 18 months. The primary outcome, receipt of all plan-recommended care, was compared across intervention arms using logistic regression adjusting for cancer type and recruitment site, with P less than .05 considered statistically significant., Results: Of 378 participants randomly assigned, 159 (42.1%) were breast, 142 (37.6%) prostate, and 77 (20.4%) colorectal cancer survivors; 207 (54.8%) from the academic site and 171 (45.2%) from the community site; 316 were analyzable for the primary outcome. There was no difference across arms in the proportion of participants receiving all plan-recommended care: 45.2% mail, 50.5% 1-visit, 42.7% 2-visit (2-sided P = .60). Adherence by cancer type for mail, 1-visit, and 2-visit, respectively, was 52.2%, 53.3%, and 40.0% for breast cancer; 48.6%, 64.1%, and 57.1% for prostate cancer; and 23.8%, 19.0%, and 26.1% for colorectal cancer. There were no statistically significant interactions by recruitment site or cancer type., Conclusions: This study did not find differences in receipt of recommended follow-up care by plan delivery approach. Feasibility and other factors may determine the best approach for survivorship care planning., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)