Letters to the Editor

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1973 ◽  
Vol 52 (5) ◽  
pp. 755-756
Author(s):  
Michael Klein ◽  
Klaus Roghmann ◽  
Kenneth Woodward ◽  
Evan Charney
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Health Center ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Letters To The Editor ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Registration Process ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Selection Of

Dr. Klein and his co-authors comment as follows: Dr. Gordon T. Moore has raised extremely pertinent questions in relation to our article on "The Impact of the Rochester Neighborhood Health Center on Hospitalization of Children." Regarding his first point, we do acknowledge that the possible selection of low risk patients by the Health Center was not explored in the present study. Other local studies1 do not support his notion, however, and the registration process of the Health Center if anything tends to recruit and pursue high risk patients.

scholarly journals Impact of high-risk features for stage II adenocarcinoma of the appendix.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 795-795
Author(s):  
Mehmet Akce ◽  
Katerina Mary Zakka ◽  
Mckenna Penely ◽  
Renjian Jiang ◽  
Olatunji B. Alese ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Lymphovascular Invasion ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Stage Ii Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Poorly Differentiated ◽  
Multivariable Analyses ◽  
The Impact

795 Background: Clinico-pathological high risk features are frequently utilized in adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) decisions in stage II colorectal cancer and their utility in stage II appendiceal adenocarcinoma (AA) is less established. The aim of this study is to determine the impact of high risk features on clinical outcomes and whether high risk features are predictive of AC benefit in stage II AA. Methods: Patients with pathological stage II AA between 2010 and 2015 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) using ICD-O-3 morphology and topography codes: 8140, 8480 and C18.1. High risk stage II AA was defined as having at least one of the following clinicopathological features: T4 tumor, < 12 lymph nodes examined, poorly differentiated histology, positive margins, or lymphovascular invasion. Patients with none of these features were defined as low-risk. Results: A total of 1,040 patients were identified. 51.0% males, 84.5% Caucasian; median age 61 (range, 19-90). 46.4% were determined to have high-risk stage II AA. High-risk status was associated with worse OS compared to low-risk in univariate (HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.18-2.02; p = 0.001) and multivariable analyses (HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.03-1.79; p = 0.028). High-risk stage II AA patients had significantly worse 5-year OS compared to low-risk patients (67.1% vs. 74.5%, p = 0.0013). AC was administered in 34.4% (n = 166) of high-risk patients and in 36.5% (n = 203) of low-risk patients. Among high-risk patients, AC was not associated with better OS in univariate (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.59-1.26; p = 0.722) and multivariable analyses (HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.90-2.04; p = 0.324) compared to no AC. Similarly, among low-risk patients, AC was not associated with better OS in univariate (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.60-1.39; p = 0.813) and multivariable analyses (HR 1.27; 95% CI 0.81-2.02; p = 0.334) compared to no AC. For high-risk patients, 5-year OS was 68.3% in patients that received AC vs. 66.5% in patients that did not (p = 0.722). For low-risk patients, 5-year OS was 74.0% in patients that received AC vs. 76.3% in patients that did not (p = 0.813). Conclusions: High-risk stage II AA patients had significantly worse 5-year OS compared to low-risk patients. AC did not improve survival regardless of high risk features in stage II AA.

Implementing a clinical risk prediction tool for patients undergoing active cancer treatment.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS2086-TPS2086
Author(s):  
Nathan Handley ◽  
Adam Binder ◽  
Michael Li ◽  
Aliya Rogers ◽  
Valerie Pracilio Csik
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Nursing Intervention ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Nurse Navigator ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Active Cancer

TPS2086 Background: Acute care utilization (ACU), encompassing both emergency department visits and hospitalizations, is common in patients with cancer, with nearly three quarters of patients with advanced disease hospitalized at least once in the year after their diagnosis. Efforts to prospectively identify these patients prior to ACU have led to the development of a variety of scoring systems for specific cancer patient populations, including the elderly and those initiating palliative infusional chemotherapy. Prospectively identifying patients may enable early interventions to reduce ACU. However, few studies have demonstrated effective implementation of such prediction tools in clinical practice. We developed an oncology risk score (ORS) for active oncology patients (defined as patients with an active cancer diagnosis in the last 12 months who had a Medical Oncology encounter in a 180-day period ) to prospectively determine risk of ACU. Patients are defined as high risk (18% of patients, accounting for 57% of historical ACU), intermediate risk (25% of patients, accounting for 25% of ACU), or low risk (56% of patients, accounting for 18% of ACU) by the ORS. We are currently deploying a pragmatic implementation initiative to evaluate the impact of targeted nurse navigator (NN) outreach to patients defined as high risk for ACU by the ORS. Methods: The ORS is embedded within the health system electronic medical record. The ORS will be queried on a weekly basis. NNs will contact identified patients, prioritizing patients not yet identified by the navigation team by other means. Following chart review, NNs will either meet patients in person (if a visit is already planned within 24 hours) or complete standard navigation outreach and documentation (consisting of phone call and barrier assessment, as well as appropriate nursing intervention) if no visit is planned. NNs will determine follow up cadence based on clinical judgement. Efficacy will be determined using a case-control method. Case patients will be OCM patients defined as high risk by the ORS (historical n = 289); control patients will be non-OCM high risk patients (historical n = 388). The total number of patients in the case and control groups, as well as the proportion of patients in the group utilizing acute care, will be monitored over time. Proportion of high risk patients known to navigation will be tracked. ACU in medium and low risk groups will also be monitored. Targeted outreach to high risk patients using the ORS began on 2/5/2019.

scholarly journals Impact of High-Risk Features for Stage II Adenocarcinoma of the Appendix

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehmet Akce ◽  
Katerina Zakka ◽  
McKenna Penley ◽  
Renjian Jiang ◽  
Olatunji B. Alese ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Pathological Stage ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Stage Ii Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Poorly Differentiated ◽  
Multivariable Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Clinico-pathological high-risk features are frequently utilized in adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) decisions in stage II colorectal cancer and their utility in stage II appendiceal adenocarcinoma (AA) is not established. The aim of this study is to determine the impact of high-risk features in clinical outcomes and whether high risk features are predictive of AC benefit in stage II AA. Methods: Patients with pathological stage II AA between 2010-2015 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) using ICD-O-3 morphology and topography codes: 8140, 8480 and C18.1. High risk stage II AA was defined as having at least one of the following clinicopathological features: T4 tumor, <12 lymph nodes examined, poorly differentiated histology, positive margins, or lymphovascular invasion. Patients with none of these features were defined as low-risk.Results: A total of 1,040 patients with pathological stage II AA were identified. 51.0% males, 84.5% Caucasian; median age 61 (range, 19-90). 46.4% were determined to have high-risk stage II AA. High-risk status was associated with worse OS compared to low-risk in univariate (HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.18-2.02; p=0.001) and multivariable analyses (HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.03-1.79; p=0.028). High-risk stage II AA patients had significantly worse 5-year OS compared to low-risk patients (67.1% vs. 74.5%, p=0.0013). AC was administered in 34.4% (n=166) of high-risk patients and in 36.5% (n=203) of low-risk patients. Among high-risk patients, AC was not associated with better OS in univariate (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.59-1.26; p=0.448) and multivariable analyses (HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.90-2.04; p=0.151) compared to no AC. Similarly, among low-risk patients, AC was not associated with better OS in univariate (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.60-1.39; p=0.679) and multivariable analyses (HR 1.27; 95% CI 0.81-2.02; p=0.299) compared to no AC. For high-risk patients, 5-year OS was 68.3% in patients that received AC vs. 66.5% in patients that did not (p=0.722). For low-risk patients, 5-year OS was 74.0% in patients that received AC vs. 76.3% in patients that did not (p=0.813).Conclusion: High-risk stage II AA patients had significantly worse 5-year OS compared to low-risk patients. AC did not improve survival regardless of high-risk features in stage II AA.

scholarly journals Accuracy of upper endoscopies with random biopsies to identify patients with gastric premalignant lesions who can safely be exempt from surveillance

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 680-690
Author(s):  
Michiel C. Mommersteeg ◽  
Stella A. V. Nieuwenburg ◽  
Wouter J. den Hollander ◽  
Lisanne Holster ◽  
Caroline M. den Hoed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Premalignant Lesions ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
European Guidelines ◽  
Progression Of Disease ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Progression Risk

Abstract Introduction Guidelines recommend endoscopy with biopsies to stratify patients with gastric premalignant lesions (GPL) to high and low progression risk. High-risk patients are recommended to undergo surveillance. We aimed to assess the accuracy of guideline recommendations to identify low-risk patients, who can safely be discharged from surveillance. Methods This study includes patients with GPL. Patients underwent at least two endoscopies with an interval of 1–6 years. Patients were defined ‘low risk’ if they fulfilled requirements for discharge, and ‘high risk’ if they fulfilled requirements for surveillance, according to European guidelines (MAPS-2012, updated MAPS-2019, BSG). Patients defined ‘low risk’ with progression of disease during follow-up (FU) were considered ‘misclassified’ as low risk. Results 334 patients (median age 60 years IQR11; 48.7% male) were included and followed for a median of 48 months. At baseline, 181/334 (54%) patients were defined low risk. Of these, 32.6% were ‘misclassified’, showing progression of disease during FU. If MAPS-2019 were followed, 169/334 (51%) patients were defined low risk, of which 32.5% were ‘misclassified’. If BSG were followed, 174/334 (51%) patients were defined low risk, of which 32.2% were ‘misclassified’. Seven patients developed gastric cancer (GC) or dysplasia, four patients were ‘misclassified’ based on MAPS-2012 and three on MAPS-2019 and BSG. By performing one additional endoscopy 72.9% (95% CI 62.4–83.3) of high-risk patients and all patients who developed GC or dysplasia were identified. Conclusion One-third of patients that would have been discharged from GC surveillance, appeared to be ‘misclassified’ as low risk. One additional endoscopy will reduce this risk by 70%.

scholarly journals A Novel Epigenetic Machine Learning Model to Define Risk of Progression for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 1075
Author(s):  
Luca Bedon ◽  
Michele Dal Bo ◽  
Monica Mossenta ◽  
Davide Busato ◽  
Giuseppe Toffoli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Functional Enrichment ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Of Progression ◽  
Risk Patients

Although extensive advancements have been made in treatment against hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the prognosis of HCC patients remains unsatisfied. It is now clearly established that extensive epigenetic changes act as a driver in human tumors. This study exploits HCC epigenetic deregulation to define a novel prognostic model for monitoring the progression of HCC. We analyzed the genome-wide DNA methylation profile of 374 primary tumor specimens using the Illumina 450 K array data from The Cancer Genome Atlas. We initially used a novel combination of Machine Learning algorithms (Recursive Features Selection, Boruta) to capture early tumor progression features. The subsets of probes obtained were used to train and validate Random Forest models to predict a Progression Free Survival greater or less than 6 months. The model based on 34 epigenetic probes showed the best performance, scoring 0.80 accuracy and 0.51 Matthews Correlation Coefficient on testset. Then, we generated and validated a progression signature based on 4 methylation probes capable of stratifying HCC patients at high and low risk of progression. Survival analysis showed that high risk patients are characterized by a poorer progression free survival compared to low risk patients. Moreover, decision curve analysis confirmed the strength of this predictive tool over conventional clinical parameters. Functional enrichment analysis highlighted that high risk patients differentiated themselves by the upregulation of proliferative pathways. Ultimately, we propose the oncogenic MCM2 gene as a methylation-driven gene of which the representative epigenetic markers could serve both as predictive and prognostic markers. Briefly, our work provides several potential HCC progression epigenetic biomarkers as well as a new signature that may enhance patients surveillance and advances in personalized treatment.

scholarly journals Does socioeconomic status make a difference? A register-based study on the extent to which cardiovascular screening in patients with inflammatory arthritis leads to recommended follow-up in general practice

RMD Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e000940
Author(s):  
Anette Hvenegaard Kjeldgaard ◽  
Kim Hørslev-Petersen ◽  
Sonja Wehberg ◽  
Jens Soendergaard ◽  
Jette Primdahl
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Screening ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Eular Recommendations ◽  
Risk Patients

ObjectiveTo investigate to what extent patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) follow recommendations given in a secondary care nurse-led cardiovascular (CV) risk screening consultation to consult their general practitioner (GP) to reduce their CV risk and whether their socioeconomic status (SES) affects adherence.MethodsAdults with IA who had participated in a secondary care screening consultation from July 2012 to July 2015, based on the EULAR recommendations, were identified. Patients were considered to have high CV risk if they had risk Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) ≥5%, according to the European SCORE model or systolic blood pressure ≥145 mmHg, total cholesterol ≥8 mmol/L, LDL cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L, HbA1c ≥42 mmol/mol or fasting glucose ≥6 mmol/L. The primary outcome was a consultation with their GP and at least one action focusing on CV risk factors within 6 weeks after the screening consultation.ResultsThe study comprised 1265 patients, aged 18–85 years. Of these, 336/447 (75%) of the high-risk patients and 580/819 (71%) of the low-risk patients had a GP consultation. 127/336 (38%) of high-risk patients and 160/580 (28%) of low-risk patients received relevant actions related to their CV risk, for example, blood pressure home measurement or prescription for statins, antihypertensives or antidiabetics. Education ≥10 years increased the odds for non-adherence (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.0.37 to 0.92, p=0.02).Conclusions75% of the high-risk patients consulted their GP after the secondary care CV risk screening, and 38% of these received an action relevant for their CV risk. Higher education decreased adherence.

scholarly journals Impact of Different Modules of 21-Gene Assay in Early Breast Cancer Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mengdi Chen ◽  
Deyue Liu ◽  
Weilin Chen ◽  
Weiguo Chen ◽  
Kunwei Shen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Younger Patients ◽  
Gene Assay ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Gene Modules ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundThe 21-gene assay recurrence score (RS) provides additional information on recurrence risk of breast cancer patients and prediction of chemotherapy benefit. Previous studies that examined the contribution of the individual genes and gene modules of RS were conducted mostly in postmenopausal patients. We aimed to evaluate the gene modules of RS in patients of different ages.MethodsA total of 1,078 estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer patients diagnosed between January 2009 and March 2017 from Shanghai Jiao Tong University Breast Cancer Data Base were included. All patients were divided into three subgroups: Group A, ≤40 years and premenopausal (n = 97); Group B, &gt;40 years and premenopausal (n = 284); Group C, postmenopausal (n = 697). The estrogen, proliferation, invasion, and HER2 module scores from RS were used to characterize the respective molecular features. Spearman correlation and analysis of the variance tests were conducted for RS and its constituent modules.ResultsIn patients &gt;40 years, RS had a strong negative correlation with its estrogen module (ρ = −0.76 and −0.79 in Groups B and C) and a weak positive correlation with its invasion module (ρ = 0.29 and 0.25 in Groups B and C). The proliferation module mostly contributed to the variance in young patients (37.3%) while the ER module contributed most in old patients (54.1% and 53.4% in Groups B and C). In the genetic high-risk (RS &gt;25) group, the proliferation module was the leading driver in all patients (ρ = 0.38, 0.53, and 0.52 in Groups A, B, and C) while the estrogen module had a weaker correlation with RS. The impact of ER module on RS was stronger in clinical low-risk patients while the effect of the proliferation module was stronger in clinical high-risk patients. The association between the RS and estrogen module was weaker among younger patients, especially in genetic low-risk patients.ConclusionsRS was primarily driven by the estrogen module regardless of age, but the proliferation module had a stronger impact on RS in younger patients. The impact of modules varied in patients with different genetic and clinical risks.

scholarly journals Changes in patient activation following cardiac rehabilitation using the Active+me digital healthcare platform during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabbi Frith ◽  
Kathryn Carver ◽  
Sarah Curry ◽  
Alan Darby ◽  
Anna Sydes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cardiac Rehabilitation ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Patient Activation ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Smart Device ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Background Restrictions on face-to-face contact, due to COVID-19, led to a rapid adoption of technology to remotely deliver cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Some technologies, including Active+me, were used without knowing their benefits. We assessed changes in patient activation measure (PAM) in patients participating in routine CR, using Active+me. We also investigated changes in PAM among low, moderate, and high risk patients, changes in cardiovascular risk factors, and explored patient and healthcare professional experiences of using Active+me. Methods Patients received standard CR education and an exercise prescription. Active+me was used to monitor patient health, progress towards goals, and provide additional lifestyle support. Patients accessed Active+me through a smart-device application which synchronised to telemetry enabled scales, blood pressure monitors, pulse oximeter, and activity trackers. Changes in PAM score following CR were calculated. Sub-group analysis was conducted on patients at high, moderate, and low risk of exercise induced cardiovascular events. Qualitative interviews explored the acceptability of Active+me. Results Forty-six patients were recruited (Age: 60.4 ± 10.9 years; BMI: 27.9 ± 5.0 kg.m2; 78.3% male). PAM scores increased from 65.5 (range: 51.0 to 100.0) to 70.2 (range: 40.7 to 100.0; P = 0.039). PAM scores of high risk patients increased from 61.9 (range: 53.0 to 91.0) to 75.0 (range: 58.1 to 100.0; P = 0.044). The PAM scores of moderate and low risk patients did not change. Resting systolic blood pressure decreased from 125 mmHg (95% CI: 120 to 130 mmHg) to 119 mmHg (95% CI: 115 to 122 mmHg; P = 0.023) and waist circumference measurements decreased from 92.8 cm (95% CI: 82.6 to 102.9 cm) to 85.3 cm (95% CI 79.1 to 96.2 cm; P = 0.026). Self-reported physical activity levels increased from 1557.5 MET-minutes (range: 245.0 to 5355.0 MET-minutes) to 3363.2 MET-minutes (range: 105.0 to 12,360.0 MET-minutes; P < 0.001). Active+me was acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals. Conclusion Participation in standard CR, with Active+me, is associated with increased patient skill, knowledge, and confidence to manage their condition. Active+me may be an appropriate platform to support CR delivery when patients cannot be seen face-to-face. Trial registration As this was not a clinical trial, the study was not registered in a trial registry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document