scholarly journals Adjuvant Radiation for Rectal Cancer: Do We Measure Up to the Standard of Care? An Epidemiologic Analysis of Trends Over 25 Years in the United States

2005 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. N. Baxter ◽  
D. A. Rothenberger ◽  
A. M. Morris ◽  
K. M. Bullard
2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 691-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helmneh M. Sineshaw ◽  
Ahmedin Jemal ◽  
Timur Mitin

691 Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NACRT) is widely accepted as the standard of care for treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer in the United States. We sought to examine patterns of treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer in US over the past decade. Methods: Using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), we identified 66,197 patients diagnosed with stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma and treated between 2004 and 2012. We described trends in receipt of treatment based on aggregated data for three time periods (2004-2006, 2007-2009, 2010-2012), using trend test. We analyzed 5-yr overall survival (OS) probabilities for 28,550 patients treated between 2004 and 2007. Results: Receipt of NACRT increased significantly over the past decade from 42.9% in 2004-2006 to 50.0% in 2007-2009, and then to 55.0% in 2010-2012 (p < 0.0001). In contrast, use of adjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) decreased steadily from 16.7% in 2004-2006 to 10.5% in 2007-2009, and then to 6.7% in 2010-2012 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, treatment with surgery alone decreased from 13.1% in 2004-2006 to 8.7% in 2010-2012 (p < 0.0001). Older age, presence of comorbidities, larger primary tumor size, lymph node involvement, non-Hispanic white ethnicity, lack of private insurance, and being treated at a non-high case volume facility were associated with a significantly lower chance of receiving NACRT in multivariable logistic regression analysis. 5-yr OS probabilities for patients treated with NACRT, surgery and adjuvant CRT, surgery alone, and definitive CRT were 72.4%, 70.9%, 44.9% and 48.8%, respectively. Conclusions: Utilization of NACRT prior to surgery in US patients diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer has substantially increased over the past decade. However, only about half of these patients currently receive the standard therapy as recommended by national guidelines, and there may be social and economic barriers to receiving the standard of care. Tri-modality therapy is associated with the best outcomes for these patients, and surgery alone or definitive chemo-radiation should only be reserved for patients unable to tolerate tri-modality therapy.


Author(s):  
David D. B. Bates ◽  
Hiram Shaish ◽  
Marc J. Gollub ◽  
Mukesh Harisinghani ◽  
Chandana Lall ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 61 (7) ◽  
pp. 753-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah S. Keller ◽  
Steven D. Wexner ◽  
Manish Chand

2018 ◽  
pp. 327-331
Author(s):  
Elizabeth DeVos

This case demonstrates a common presentation of appendicitis including frequent signs and symptoms and classic examination findings. Options for diagnostic imaging are reviewed. Clinical decision scores may assist in risk stratification, which may be particularly useful in austere or low-resource settings. The discussion introduces the concept of “antibiotics first” treatment for appendicitis including a discussion of patients who are poor candidates for such treatment, risks for need of future operative management, and proposed treatment protocols. While surgical management remains the standard of care in the United States, this case discusses potential utility for an “antibiotics first” protocol when definitive surgical treatment is not readily available.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Assaf Moore ◽  
Robert B. Den ◽  
Noa Gordon ◽  
Michal Sarfaty ◽  
Yulia Kundel ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 118 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-402
Author(s):  
Xue Han ◽  
Gregory E Frey ◽  
Changyou Sun

Abstract Abstract Forest-management burns have been widely acknowledged as a useful land-management tool in the United States. Nevertheless, fire is inherently risky and may lead to severe damages or create smoke that affects public health. Past research has not explored the difference in policy and practice between open burns, which meet minimum legal criteria, and certified prescribed burns, which follow a higher standard of care. This study seeks to understand the distinction between legal open burns and certified prescribed burns, and, furthermore, to identify trends by type of burn in the Southeast United States. To that end, we compared statutes, regulations, incentives, and notifications of fire as a forest-management tool among nine states in the US Southeast. We found no steady time trends in number or area of burns among the states for the past decade. A nontrivial proportion of legal open burns, which tend to be smaller burns, are noncertified burns, meaning they meet minimum legal requirements, but not the higher standard required for certified prescribed burns.


2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (7) ◽  
pp. 1715-1729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacey Kowal ◽  
Eliza Kruger ◽  
Pinar Bilir ◽  
James H. Holmes ◽  
William Hickerson ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document