RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Fertility preservation (FP) is an important issue for young survivors of breast cancer. Although international guidelines recommend pre-treatment fertility counseling for women with breast cancer, there is no standardized protocol or referral system for FP in South Korea. There are also barriers to discussing FP that make patient-centered decision making difficult. This study aimed to develop a shared decision making program for FP and compare the rates of FP procedures between the usual care and shared decision making groups. We hypothesized that multidisciplinary shared decision making for FP would increase the rate of FP procedures and patient satisfaction. METHODS: The multidisciplinary shared decision making for FP in young women with breast cancer (MYBC) is a multicenter, clustered, stepped-wedge, randomized trial. A total of 1100 patients with breast cancer, aged 19-40 years, from nine hospitals in South Korea, will be enrolled. They will be randomized at the institutional level and assigned to usual care and shared decision making groups. Four institutions, each of which can recruit more than 200 patients, will each become a cluster, whereas five institutions, each of which can recruit more than 50 patients, will become one cluster, for a total of five clusters. The shared decision making groups will receive multidisciplinary programs for FP developed by the investigator. The primary outcome is the rate of FP procedures; secondary outcomes include fertility results, satisfaction, and quality of life. Outcomes will be measured at enrollment, treatment initiation, and the 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-ups after starting breast cancer treatment. DISCUSSION: A multidisciplinary shared decision making program for FP is expected to increase fertility rates and satisfaction among young patients with breast cancer. This study will provide the evidence to implement a multidisciplinary system for patients with breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05139641. Registered on December 1, 2021.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Directly measured low density lipoprotein cholesterol (DLDLC) has been reported to be more accurate than calculated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (CLDLC) using the Friedewald equation. However, some limitations of DLDLC have been reported. In this study, we evaluated differences between CLDLC and DLDLC measured using HiSens reagents. METHODS: Data were collected from 582 persons undergoing routine physical examinations at a general hospital. LDLC measurements were made directly or estimated using the Friedewald formula, and were classified according to the National Cholesterol Education Program's Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. The relationship between these differences and other clinically relevant factors, such as triglyceride (TG) levels, were examined using multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The DLDLC and CLDLC were strongly correlated according to simple linear regression analysis (r=0.917, P<0.001) but the mean difference between measurements was -11.0±15.3 (-62 to 90.5) mg/dL (P<0.001). For more than 10 mg/dL of their absolute differences, the DLDLC was typically lower than the CLDLC. The highest discrepancies in LDLC measurements occurred when LDLC was more than 160 mg/dL and less than 190 mg/dL. Differences in LDLC measurements were prone to striking negative and positive biases dependent on CLDLC and TG concentrations, respectively (all r>0.5). CONCLUSION: Unlike other studies, DLDLC was significantly lower than CLDLC and the large differences in LDLC concentrations were not dependent on TG concentration. Our work suggests that verification of DLDLC accuracy is needed and differences in LDLC measurements should be accounted for in making clinical decisions.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Female physicians have a more patient-centered communication style than their male counterparts; however, few studies have investigated how the biomedical or psychosocial nature of a patient diagnosis might moderate this relationship. METHODS: Seventy six 3rd year residents (50 male and 26 females) seeking board certification from the Korean Academy of Family Medicine participated in the 2013 Clinical Practice Examination by conducting two simulated patient (SP) interviews, one presenting a largely psychosocial case and the other largely biomedical. The interview recordings were coded with the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). RESULTS: Female physicians and their SPs engaged in more dialog than male physicians in both cases. Female physicians were more patient-centered than males for the psychosocial case (t = -3.24, P < 0.05), however, their scores did not differ for the biomedical case. In multivariate analysis, a significant interaction between physician gender and case (z = -3.90, P < 0.001) similarly demonstrated greater female patient-centeredness only for the predominantly psychosocial case. CONCLUSION: Case characteristics moderated the association between physician gender and patient-centeredness. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Case characteristics need to be considered in future research on the association of physician gender and the patient-centered communication, as well as in the tailoring of physician communication training.
