Differences in Use of Aggressive Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer in New York City

Author(s):  
Michael Smigelski ◽  
Brendan K. Wallace ◽  
Jun Lu ◽  
Gen Li ◽  
Christopher B. Anderson
2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 213-213
Author(s):  
Andrew Wood ◽  
Benjamin Shpeen ◽  
Jeffrey Lee ◽  
Rose Snyder ◽  
Yiqing Xu ◽  
...  

213 Background: In March 2020, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) spread across New York City. All non-emergent medical care was delayed, and healthcare resources were redirected to COVID-19 patients. Physicians managing prostate cancer faced unprecedented decisions to balance risks of the pandemic against risks of cancer progression. Here we review management of localized prostate cancer at an Urban Cancer Center in New York City during the height of the pandemic. Methods: We examined men with newly diagnosed, localized prostate cancer seen in initial consultation by Urology or Radiation Oncology between January 1 and June 30, 2020 (COVID-19 cohort). We reviewed cancer management, as well as the impact of the pandemic on treatment choice and patterns of care. Chi square and t-test analyses were performed to compare the COVID-19 cohort to a similar cohort managed before the pandemic from July 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 (pre-COVID-19 cohort). Results: We identified 75 men in the COVID-19 cohort. NCCN risk profile: 20% low risk, 53.4% intermediate, and 26.7% high. During the height of the pandemic, there was 7 week pause in both new radiation therapy (RT) and radical prostatectomy. 11 patients continued previous RT, 1 of which developed a symptomatic covid infection and required a 2 week pause in treatment. During the operating room restart, 11 patients underwent radical prostatectomy including 8 with unfavorable-intermediate or high-risk disease. No surgical patients acquired COVID-19. Compared to the pre-COVID-19 cohort, the COVID-19 cohort had longer time from initial visit to treatment (92.1 days vs 71.0 days, p = 0.045) and a larger percentage of patients who were seen but did not return for management (25.3% vs 14%, p = 0.044). Conclusions: Our cancer center had a coordinated, 7-week cessation in primary RT and surgery for prostate cancer during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. There were no severe COVID-19 infections among patients finishing RT, or the first cohort of men having surgery during the restart of treatments, suggesting that localized prostate cancer treatments can be safely delivered in the event of a second wave. We identified a substantial number of men who were seen, but did not return for management, highlighting a cohort who need to be reintegrated into the healthcare system. [Table: see text]


1942 ◽  
Vol 74 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 155-162
Author(s):  
H. Kurdian

In 1941 while in New York City I was fortunate enough to purchase an Armenian MS. which I believe will be of interest to students of Eastern Christian iconography.


1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-203
Author(s):  
Robert Chatham

The Court of Appeals of New York held, in Council of the City of New York u. Giuliani, slip op. 02634, 1999 WL 179257 (N.Y. Mar. 30, 1999), that New York City may not privatize a public city hospital without state statutory authorization. The court found invalid a sublease of a municipal hospital operated by a public benefit corporation to a private, for-profit entity. The court reasoned that the controlling statute prescribed the operation of a municipal hospital as a government function that must be fulfilled by the public benefit corporation as long as it exists, and nothing short of legislative action could put an end to the corporation's existence.In 1969, the New York State legislature enacted the Health and Hospitals Corporation Act (HHCA), establishing the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) as an attempt to improve the New York City public health system. Thirty years later, on a renewed perception that the public health system was once again lacking, the city administration approved a sublease of Coney Island Hospital from HHC to PHS New York, Inc. (PHS), a private, for-profit entity.


Author(s):  
Catherine J. Crowley ◽  
Kristin Guest ◽  
Kenay Sudler

What does it mean to have true cultural competence as an speech-language pathologist (SLP)? In some areas of practice it may be enough to develop a perspective that values the expectations and identity of our clients and see them as partners in the therapeutic process. But when clinicians are asked to distinguish a language difference from a language disorder, cultural sensitivity is not enough. Rather, in these cases, cultural competence requires knowledge and skills in gathering data about a student's cultural and linguistic background and analyzing the student's language samples from that perspective. This article describes one American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)-accredited graduate program in speech-language pathology and its approach to putting students on the path to becoming culturally competent SLPs, including challenges faced along the way. At Teachers College, Columbia University (TC) the program infuses knowledge of bilingualism and multiculturalism throughout the curriculum and offers bilingual students the opportunity to receive New York State certification as bilingual clinicians. Graduate students must demonstrate a deep understanding of the grammar of Standard American English and other varieties of English particularly those spoken in and around New York City. Two recent graduates of this graduate program contribute their perspectives on continuing to develop cultural competence while working with diverse students in New York City public schools.


2001 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo D. Cruz ◽  
Diana L. Galvis ◽  
Mimi Kim ◽  
Racquel Z. Le-Geros ◽  
Su-Yan L. Barrow ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document