Search

Introduction: This study seeks to investigate the barriers to care that exist for patients presenting with sarcomas of musculoskeletal origin. Understanding the roots of delays in care for patients with musculoskeletal sarcoma is particularly important given the necessity of prompt treatment for oncologic diagnoses. Investigators reviewed relevant studies of publications reporting barriers to care in patients undergoing diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal tumors., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed-MEDLINE. Twenty publications were analyzed, including a total of 114,056 patients., Results: Four barrier subtypes were identified: Socioeconomic Status, Geographic Location, Healthcare Quality, Sociocultural Factors. Socioeconomic status included access to health insurance and income level. Geographic location included distance traveled by patients, access to referral centers, type of hospital system and resource-challenged environments. Healthcare quality included substandard imaging, access to healthcare resources, and healthcare utilization prior to diagnosis. Sociocultural factors included psychological states, nutrition, education and social support., Conclusion: After identifying the most significant barriers in this study, we can target specific public health issues within our community that may reduce delays in care. The assessment of barriers to care is an important first step for improving the delivery of oncologic patient care to this patient population., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Syros, Baron, Adalbert, Remer, Heng and Crawford.)

Patients' international normalized ratios (INRs) often fall slightly out of range. In these cases, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines suggest maintaining the current warfarin dose and retesting the INR within the following 2 weeks (watchful waiting). We sought to determine whether watchful waiting or dose changes for slightly out-of-range INRs is more effective in obtaining in-range INRs at follow-up. INRs and management strategies of warfarin-treated patients within the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative registry were analyzed. Management strategies included watchful waiting or dose changes. INRs slightly out of range (target range 2.0-3.0) and their associated management were identified. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of the next INR being in range, adjusted for clustering due to multiple out-of-range INRs per patient. A total of 45 351 slightly out-of-range INRs (ranging 1.50-1.99 and 3.01-3.49) from 8288 patients were identified. The next INR was slightly less likely to be in range with watchful waiting than with a dose change (predicted probabilities 58.9% vs 60.0%, P = 0.024). Although a significant statistical difference was detected in the probabilities of the next INR being back in range when managed by a dose change compared with watchful waiting following a slightly out-of-range INR, the magnitude of the difference was small and unlikely to represent clinical importance. Our study supports the current guideline recommendations for watchful waiting in cases of slightly out-of-range INRs values., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)