Explore the vast range of titles available.

Examples of such systems used in the UK National Health Service, which has prioritised the adoption of these tools, include a sepsis alert to identify deteriorating patients and an AI-based risk score using mental health data for patients likely to access crisis services.1 Despite their rapid adoption, high-risk CDS systems, used to diagnose, treat, or drive clinical management for serious or critical conditions, might pose unclear or unacceptable risks to patient safety and equitable care. [...]unlike new medicines and traditional medical devices, there is insufficient transparency on the clinical testing and performance of key CDS systems. [...]regulatory frameworks should define and focus on high-risk applications, for example those with impacts on the care of patients with critical illnesses, and exempt low-risk CDS tools.

Men with grade group 2 or 3 prostate cancer are often considered ineligible for active surveillance; some patients with grade group 2 prostate cancer who are managed with active surveillance will have early disease progression requiring radical therapy. This study aimed to investigate whether MRI-guided focused ultrasound focal therapy can safely reduce treatment burden for patients with localised grade group 2 or 3 intermediate-risk prostate cancer. In this single-arm, multicentre, phase 2b study conducted at eight health-care centres in the USA, we recruited men aged 50 years and older with unilateral, MRI-visible, primary, intermediate-risk, previously untreated prostate adenocarcinoma (prostate-specific antigen ≤20 ng/mL, grade group 2 or 3; tumour classification ≤T2) confirmed on combined biopsy (combining MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies). MRI-guided focused ultrasound energy, sequentially titrated to temperatures sufficient for tissue ablation (about 60–70°C), was delivered to the index lesion and a planned margin of 5 mm or more of normal tissue, using real-time magnetic resonance thermometry for intraoperative monitoring. Co-primary outcomes were oncological outcomes (absence of grade group 2 and higher cancer in the treated area at 6-month and 24-month combined biopsy; when 24-month biopsy data were not available and grade group 2 or higher cancer had occurred in the treated area at 6 months, the 6-month biopsy results were included in the final analysis) and safety (adverse events up to 24 months) in all patients enrolled in the study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01657942, and is no longer recruiting. Between May 4, 2017, and Dec 21, 2018, we assessed 194 patients for eligibility and treated 101 patients with MRI-guided focused ultrasound. Median age was 63 years (IQR 58–67) and median concentration of prostate-specific antigen was 5·7 ng/mL (IQR 4·2–7·5). Most cancers were grade group 2 (79 [78%] of 101). At 24 months, 78 (88% [95% CI 79–94]) of 89 men had no evidence of grade group 2 or higher prostate cancer in the treated area. No grade 4 or grade 5 treatment-related adverse events were reported, and only one grade 3 adverse event (urinary tract infection) was reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. 24-month biopsy outcomes show that MRI-guided focused ultrasound focal therapy is safe and effectively treats grade group 2 or 3 prostate cancer. These results support focal therapy for select patients and its use in comparative trials to determine if a tissue-preserving approach is effective in delaying or eliminating the need for radical whole-gland treatment in the long term. Insightec and the National Cancer Institute.

BackgroundDuring the height of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, elective surgeries, including oncologic surgeries, were delayed. Little prospective data existed to guide practice, and professional surgical societies issued recommendations grounded mainly in common sense and expert consensus, such as medical therapy for early-stage breast and prostate cancer patients. To understand the patient experience of delay in cancer surgery during the pandemic, we interviewed breast and prostate cancer patients whose surgeries were delayed due to the pandemic.Patients and MethodsPatients with early-stage breast or prostate cancer who suffered surgical postponement at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) were invited to participate. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 21 breast and prostate cancer patients. Interviews were transcribed, and qualitative analysis using ground-theory approach was performed.ResultsMost patients reported significant distress due to cancer and COVID. Key themes that emerged included the lack of surprise and acceptance of the surgical delays but endorsed persistent cancer- and delay-related worries. Satisfaction with patient–physician communication and the availability of a delay strategy were key factors in patients’ acceptance of the situation; perceived lack of communication prompted a few patients to seek care elsewhere.DiscussionThe clinical effect of delay in cancer surgery will take years to fully understand, but there are immediate steps that can be taken to improve the patient experience of delays in care, including elicitation of individual patient perspectives and ongoing communication. More work is needed to understand the wider experiences of patients, especially minority, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and uninsured patients, who encounter delays in oncologic care.

Between 2010 and 2015, use of active surveillance or watchful waiting as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer increased from 12.6% to 36.4% among blacks and from 14.8% to 43.3% among nonblacks. Racial group was no longer significantly associated with the use of conservative management after adjustment for socioeconomic and insurance statuses.

Resource limitations because of pandemic or other stresses on infrastructure necessitate the triage of time-sensitive care, including cancer treatments. Optimal time to treatment is underexplored, so recommendations for which cancer treatments can be deferred are often based on expert opinion. To evaluate the association between increased time to definitive therapy and mortality as a function of cancer type and stage for the 4 most prevalent cancers in the US. This cohort study assessed treatment and outcome information from patients with nonmetastatic breast, prostate, non-small cell lung (NSCLC), and colon cancers from 2004 to 2015, with data analyzed January to March 2020. Data on outcomes associated with appropriate curative-intent surgical, radiation, or medical therapy were gathered from the National Cancer Database. Time-to-treatment initiation (TTI), the interval between diagnosis and therapy, using intervals of 8 to 60, 61 to 120, 121 to 180, and greater than 180 days. 5-year and 10-year predicted all-cause mortality. This study included 2 241 706 patients (mean [SD] age 63 [11.9] years, 1 268 794 [56.6%] women, 1 880 317 [83.9%] White): 1 165 585 (52.0%) with breast cancer, 853 030 (38.1%) with prostate cancer, 130 597 (5.8%) with NSCLC, and 92 494 (4.1%) with colon cancer. Median (interquartile range) TTI by cancer was 32 (21-48) days for breast, 79 (55-117) days for prostate, 41 (27-62) days for NSCLC, and 26 (16-40) days for colon. Across all cancers, a general increase in the 5-year and 10-year predicted mortality was associated with increasing TTI. The most pronounced mortality association was for colon cancer (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, stage III: TTI 61-120 d, 38.9% vs. 181-365 d, 47.8%), followed by stage I NSCLC (5 y predicted mortality: TTI 61-120 d, 47.4% vs 181-365 d, 47.6%), while survival for prostate cancer was least associated (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, high risk: TTI 61-120 d, 12.8% vs 181-365 d, 14.1%), followed by breast cancer (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, stage I: TTI 61-120 d, 11.0% vs. 181-365 d, 15.2%). A nonsignificant difference in treatment delays and worsened survival was observed for stage II lung cancer patients-who had the highest all-cause mortality for any TTI regardless of treatment timing. In this cohort study, for all studied cancers there was evidence that shorter TTI was associated with lower mortality, suggesting an indirect association between treatment deferral and mortality that may not become evident for years. In contrast to current pandemic-related guidelines, these findings support more timely definitive treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer.

Background Numerous studies have recorded racial disparities in access to care for major cancers. We investigate contemporary national disparities in the quality of perioperative surgical oncological care using a nationally representative sample of American patients and hypothesize that disparities in the quality of surgical oncological care also exists. Methods A retrospective, serial, and cross-sectional analysis of a nationally representative cohort of 3,024,927 patients, undergoing major surgical oncological procedures (colectomy, cystectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, hysterectomy, pneumonectomy, pancreatectomy, and prostatectomy), between 1999 and 2009. Results After controlling for multiple factors (including socioeconomic status), Black patients undergoing major surgical oncological procedures were more likely to experience postoperative complications (OR: 1.24; p  < 0.001), in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.24; p  < 0.001), homologous blood transfusions (OR: 1.52; p  < 0.001), and prolonged hospital stay (OR: 1.53; p  < 0.001). Specifically, Black patients have higher rates of vascular (OR: 1.24; p  < 0.001), wound (OR: 1.10; p  = 0.004), gastrointestinal (OR: 1.38; p  < 0.001), and infectious complications (OR: 1.29; p  < 0.001). Disparities in operative outcomes were particularly remarkable for Black patients undergoing colectomy, prostatectomy, and hysterectomy. Importantly, substantial attenuation of racial disparities was noted for radical cystectomy, lung resection, and pancreatectomy relative to earlier reports. Finally, Hispanic patients experienced no disparities relative to White patients in terms of in-hospital mortality or overall postoperative complications for any of the eight procedures studied. Conclusions Considerable racial disparities in operative outcomes exist in the United States for Black patients undergoing major surgical oncological procedures. These findings should direct future health policy efforts in the allocation of resources for the amelioration of persistent disparities in specific procedures.

Background Obesity is associated with poor surgical outcomes and disparity in access-to-care. There is a lack of quality data on the effect of body mass index (BMI) on perioperative outcomes. Accordingly, we sought to determine the procedure specific, independent-effect of BMI on 30-day perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing major surgery. Methods Participants included individuals undergoing one of 16 major surgery (cardiovascular, orthopedic, oncologic; n  = 141,802) recorded in the ACS-NSQIP (2005–2011). Outcomes evaluated included complications, blood transfusion, length-of-stay (LOS), re-intervention, readmission, and perioperative mortality. Multivariable-regression models assessed the independent-effect of BMI on outcomes. Results Nearly, 74  % of patients had a BMI disturbance; the majority being overweight (35.3  %) or obese (29.8  %). Morbidly obese patients constituted a small but significant proportion of the patients (5.7 %; n  = 8067). In adjusted-analyses, morbidly obese patients had significantly increased odds of wound complications in 15 of the examined procedures, of renal complications after 6-procedures, of thromboembolism after 5-procedures, of pulmonary, septic and UTI complications after 2-procedures, and of cardiovascular complications after CABG. Conversely, obese/overweight patients, except for increased odds of wound complications after select procedures, had significantly decreased odds of perioperative mortality, prolonged-LOS and blood transfusion relative to normal BMI patients after 4, 8, and 9 of the examined procedures. Conclusions The prevalence of BMI derangements in surgical patients is high. The effect of BMI on outcomes is procedure specific. Patients with BMI between 18.5 and 40-kg/m 2 at time of surgery fare equally well with regard to complications and mortality. However, morbidly obese patients are at-risk for postsurgical complications and targeted preoperative-optimization may improve outcomes and attenuate disparity in access-to-care.

Geographic access, including mode of transportation, to health care facilities remains understudied. To identify sociodemographic factors associated with public vs private transportation use to access health care and identify the respondent, trip, and community factors associated with longer distance and time traveled for health care visits. This cross-sectional study used data from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey, including 16 760 trips or a nationally weighted estimate of 5 550 527 364 trips to seek care in the United States. Households that completed the recruitment and retrieval survey for all members aged 5 years and older were included. Data were analyzed between June and August 2022. Mode of transportation (private vs public transportation) used to seek care. Survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with public vs private transportation and self-reported distance and travel time. Then, for each income category, an interaction term of race and ethnicity with type of transportation was used to estimate the specific increase in travel burden associated with using public transportation compared a private vehicle for each race category. The sample included 12 092 households and 15 063 respondents (8500 respondents [56.4%] aged 51-75 years; 8930 [59.3%] females) who had trips for medical care, of whom 1028 respondents (6.9%) were Hispanic, 1164 respondents (7.8%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 11 957 respondents (79.7%) were non-Hispanic White. Factors associated with public transportation use included non-Hispanic Black race (compared with non-Hispanic White: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.54 [95% CI, 1.90-6.61]; P < .001) and household income less than $25 000 (compared with ≥$100 000: aOR, 7.16 [95% CI, 3.50-14.68]; P < .001). The additional travel time associated with use of public transportation compared with private vehicle use varied by race and household income, with non-Hispanic Black respondents with income of $25 000 to $49 999 experiencing higher burden associated with public transportation (mean difference, 81.9 [95% CI, 48.5-115.3] minutes) than non-Hispanic White respondents with similar income (mean difference, 25.5 [95% CI, 17.5-33.5] minutes; P < .001). These findings suggest that certain racial, ethnic, and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations rely on public transportation to seek health care and that reducing delays associated with public transportation could improve care for these patients.

Assessing perioperative risk is essential for surgical decision-making. Our study compares the accuracy of comorbidity indices to predict morbidity and mortality. Analyzing the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, 16 major procedures were identified and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), Charlson Comorbidity Index and modified Frailty Index were calculated. We fit models with each comorbidity index for prediction of morbidity, mortality, and prolonged length of stay (pLOS). Decision Curve Analysis determined the effectiveness of each model. Of 650,437 patients, 11.7%, 6.0%, 17.0% and 0.75% experienced any, major complication, pLOS, and mortality, respectively. Each index was an independent predictor of morbidity, mortality, and pLOS (p < 0.05). While the indices performed similarly for morbidity and pLOS, ASA demonstrated greater net benefit for threshold probabilities of 1–5% for mortality. Models including readily available factors (age, sex) already provide a robust estimation of perioperative morbidity and mortality, even without considering comorbidity indices. All comorbidity indices show similar accuracy for prediction of morbidity and pLOS, while ASA, the score easiest to calculate, performs best in prediction of mortality. •Using comorbidity indices for prediction of perioperative morbidity and mortality.•ASA score, frailty index and CCI perform similarly for prediction of morbidity.•ASA score, the easiest to calculate, performs better for prediction of mortality.•Decision curve analysis determines the effectiveness of prediction models.