Clinical Relevance of Resection Margins in Patients with Total Laryngectomy or Laryngopharyngectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer is complex and resection margins are therefore constrained. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical relevance of resection margins in laryngeal and hypopharyngeal surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed for patients treated with a total laryngectomy (TL) or laryngopharyngectomy (TLP) for laryngeal or hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC and HSCC, respectively). Within the groups primary LSCC, recurrent LSCC, primary HSCC, and recurrent HSCC the relationship between the status of the resection margin according to the Royal Collage of Pathology and the recurrence and survival rates were investigated. RESULTS: Positive resection margins were found in 54% for primary LSCC, 29% for recurrent LSCC, 62% for primary HSCC, and 44% for recurrent HSCC. For primary and recurrent LSCC, there was a linear association between total recurrence and narrowing margins (p = 0.007 resp. p = 0.008). Multivariate survival analysis for primary and recurrent LSCC showed a significantly worse disease free and disease-specific survival in case of positive margins compared to clear margins. CONCLUSION: Similar survival rates were recorded for close and clear margins for primary and recurrent LSCC. This may suggest that a margin > 5 mm is not clinically relevant in terms of survival. Therefore, a margin of 1-5 mm should be accepted in certain subsites. Margins < 1 mm are related to significantly worse outcomes and should be avoided.

Health-related quality of life and problem behaviour after GH cessation in adults born SGA: a 12-year follow-up study.

CONTEXT: Long-term data regarding HRQoL and problem behaviour in adults born SGA who were treated with GH during childhood are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To investigate longitudinal changes in HRQoL and problem behaviour in adults born SGA during 12 years after cessation of childhood GH-treatment (SGA-GH), and compare these with 3 control groups at age around 30 years. PARTICIPANTS: 176 SGA-GH adults and 3 untreated age-matched control groups: 50 born SGA with short stature (SGA-S), 77 born SGA with spontaneous catch-up growth to normal height (SGA-CU) and 99 born appropriate-for-gestational-age with normal height (AGA). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: HRQoL and problem behavior were assessed using TNO-AZL Adults Quality of Life questionnaire (TAAQoL) and Adolescent Behavior Check List (ABCL) at 6 months, 2, 5 and 12 years after GH-cessation. Data at 12-years after GH-cessation were compared with 3 control groups. RESULTS: During 12 years after GH-cessation, HRQoL remained similar on 9 subscales in SGA-GH adults, but decreased on 3 subscales (gross motor functioning, pain, sleep). Externalizing problem behaviour decreased significantly and internalizing problem behaviour tended to decrease. SGA-GH and SGA-S adults had similar HRQoL and problem behaviour. SGA-GH adults had, compared to AGA adults, similar HRQoL on 7 subscales, lower HRQoL on 5 subscales and more internalizing and externalizing problem behaviour. All SGA adults had lower HRQoL and more internalizing problem behaviour than AGA adults. Adult height associated negatively with externalizing problem behaviour, but the influence was small. CONCLUSIONS: During 12 years after GH-cessation, HRQoL remained mostly similar and problem behaviour decreased in SGA-GH adults. SGA-GH and SGA-S adults had similar HRQoL and problem behaviour. All SGA adults had lower HRQoL and more internalizing problem behaviour than AGA adults.

Calculating daily dose in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model.

PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a standardized method to calculate daily dose (i.e., the amount of drug a patient was exposed to per day) of any drug on a global scale using only drug information of typical observational data in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM) and a single reference table from Observational Health Data Sciences And Informatics (OHDSI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The OMOP DRUG_STRENGTH reference table contains information on the strength or concentration of drugs, whereas the OMOP DRUG_EXPOSURE table contains information on patients' drug prescriptions or dispensations/claims. Based on DRUG_EXPOSURE data from the primary care databases Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD (United Kingdom) and Integrated Primary Care Information (IPCI, The Netherlands) and healthcare claims from PharMetrics® Plus for Academics (USA), we developed four formulas to calculate daily dose given different DRUG_STRENGTH reference table information. We tested the dose formulas by comparing the calculated median daily dose to the World Health Organization (WHO) Defined Daily Dose (DDD) for six different ingredients in those three databases and additional four international databases representing a variety of healthcare settings: MAITT (Estonia, healthcare claims and discharge summaries), IQVIA Disease Analyzer Germany (outpatient data), IQVIA Longitudinal Patient Database Belgium (outpatient data), and IMASIS Parc Salut (Spain, hospital data). Finally, in each database, we assessed the proportion of drug records for which daily dose calculations were possible using the suggested formulas. RESULTS: Applying the dose formulas, we obtained median daily doses that generally matched the WHO DDD definitions. Our dose formulas were applicable to >85% of drug records in all but one of the assessed databases. CONCLUSION: We have established and implemented a standardized daily dose calculation in OMOP CDM providing reliable and reproducible results.