Search

Background Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a standard surgical approach for comprehensive surgical staging in women with endometrial cancer. As rates and complexity of MIS are steadily increasing, it is important to identify potential risk factors which may be associated with this approach. This study evaluates the impact of local factors on the risk of disease recurrence. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients diagnosed with high grade endometrial cancer (HGEC) who underwent MIS between 2012 and 2016 at eight Canadian centers. Data was collected from medical records. The 75th percentile was calculated for estimated uterine volume and weight. All recurrences were categorized into two groups; intra-abdominal vs. extra-abdominal. To search for significant covariates associated with recurrence-free survival a Cox proportional hazard model was performed. Results A total of 758 patients were included in the study. Intra-uterine manipulator was used in 497 (35.8%) of patients. Vaginal lacerations were documented in 9.1%. Median follow-up was 30.5 months (interquartile range 20–47). There were 157 who had disease recurrence (20.71%), including 92 (12.14%) intra-abdominal and 60 (7.92%) extra-abdominal only recurrences. In univariate analysis myometrial invasion, LVI, stage, uterine volume and weight > 75th percentile and chemotherapy were associated with increased risk of intra-abdominal recurrence. In multivariable analysis only stage, and specimen weight > 75th percentile (OR 2.207, CI 1.123–4.337) remained significant. Uterine volume, and weight were not associated with increased risk of extra-abdominal recurrences. Conclusion For patients diagnosed with HGEC undergoing MIS, extracting a large uterus is associated with a significantly increased risk for intra-abdominal recurrence.

High grade cancers account for a disproportionate number of recurrences in patients with endometrial cancer. Accurately identifying these cases on endometrial biopsies allows for better surgical planning. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of general pathologists (GP) compared to gynecological pathologists (GYNP) in interpreting preoperative biopsies.A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients diagnosed with high grade endometrial cancer (HGEC) between 2012 and 2016 at eight Canadian cancer centres. Data was collected from medical records. Pre-operative biopsies were categorized into groups; biopsies read by GP, GYNP and GP reviewed by GYNP. Rates of HGEC on pre-operative biopsy were calculated. Fisher exact test was used to compare differences between the groups. Univariate logistic regression analysis was conducted for HGEC prediction.Of 1237 patients diagnosed with HGEC, 245 (19.8%) did not have a preoperative diagnosis of high-grade disease. Discordancy was identified in 91/287 (31.71%) of biopsies reported by GP, and in 114/910 (12.53%) of biopsies reported by a GYNP (p 0.0001). Compared to GP, GYNP were 3.24 (CI 2.36-4.45) times more likely to identify high grade disease on preoperative biopsy. Patients whose biopsy was reported by a GYNP were more likely to have a comprehensive staging procedure (OR 1.77 CI 1.33-2.38) and less likely to receive adjuvant therapy (OR 0.71 CI 0.52-0.96).GYNP are more likely to identify HGEC on pre-operative biopsies. Due to high rates of overall discordancy, it is possible that surgical staging procedures should not be based solely on preoperative biopsy. Further strategies to improve pre-operative biopsies' accuracy are needed.

Background Across many jurisdictions, adults with complex mental health and social needs face challenges accessing appropriate supports due to system fragmentation and strict eligibility criteria of existing services. To support this underserviced population, Toronto’s local health authority launched two novel community mental health models in 2014, inspired by Flexible Assertive Community Team principles. This study explores service user and provider perspectives on the acceptability of these services, and lessons learned during early implementation. Methods We purposively sampled 49 stakeholders (staff, physicians, service users, health systems stakeholders) and conducted 17 semi-structured qualitative interviews and 5 focus groups between October 23, 2014 and March 2, 2015, exploring stakeholder perspectives on the newly launched team based models, as well as activities and strategies employed to support early implementation. Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Findings revealed wide-ranging endorsement for the two team-based models’ success in engaging the target population of adults with complex service needs. Implementation strengths included the broad recognition of existing service gaps, the use of interdisciplinary teams and experienced service providers, broad partnerships and collaboration among various service sectors, training and team building activities. Emerging challenges included lack of complementary support services such as suitable housing, organizational contexts reluctant to embrace change and risk associated with complexity, as well as limited service provider and organizational capacity to deliver evidence-based interventions. Conclusions Findings identified implementation drivers at the practitioner, program, and system levels, specific to the implementation of community mental health interventions for adults with complex health and social needs. These can inform future efforts to address the health and support needs of this vulnerable population. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12888-018-1597-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Hospital readmission rates are a widely used quality indicator that may be elevated in disadvantaged populations. The objective of this study was to compare the hospital readmission rate among individuals experiencing homelessness with that of a low-income matched control group, and to identify risk factors associated with readmission within the group experiencing homelessness. We conducted a 1:1 matched cohort study comparing 30-day hospital readmission rates between homeless patients and low-income controls matched on age, sex and primary reason for admission. Multivariate analyses using generalized estimating equations were used to assess risk factors associated with 30-day readmission in the homeless cohort. This study examined a cohort of 1,165 homeless adults recruited at homeless shelters and meal programs in Toronto, Ontario, between 6 December 2004 and 20 December 2005. The primary outcome was the occurrence of an unplanned medical or surgical readmission within 30 days of discharge from hospital. Between 6 December 2004 and 31 March 2009, homeless participants (N = 203) had 478 hospitalizations and a 30-day readmission rate of 22.2 %, compared to 300 hospitalizations and a readmission rate of 7.0 % among matched controls (OR = 3.79, 95 % CI 1.93-7.39). In the homeless cohort, having a primary care physician (OR = 2.65, 95 % CI 1.05-6.73) and leaving against medical advice (OR = 1.96, 95 % CI 0.99-3.86) were associated with an increased risk of 30-day readmission. Homeless patients had nearly four times the odds of being readmitted within 30-days as compared to low-income controls matched on age, sex and primary reason for admission to hospital. Further research is needed to evaluate interventions to reduce readmissions among this patient population.