Adenomyosis: Diagnosis and Management.

Adenomyosis is a clinical condition where endometrial glands are found in the myometrium of the uterus. One in three patients with adenomyosis is asymptomatic, but the rest may present with heavy menstrual bleeding, pelvic pain, or infertility. Heavy menstrual bleeding is the most common symptom. Adenomyosis is distinct from endometriosis (the presence of endometrial glands outside of the uterus), but the two conditions often occur simultaneously. Risk factors for developing adenomyosis include increasing age, parity, and history of uterine procedures. Most patients are diagnosed from 40 to 50 years of age, but younger patients with infertility are increasingly being diagnosed with adenomyosis as imaging modalities improve. Diagnosis of adenomyosis begins with clinical suspicion and is confirmed with transvaginal ultrasonography and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. Treatment of adenomyosis typically starts with hormonal menstrual suppression. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems have shown some effectiveness. Patients with adenomyosis may ultimately have a hysterectomy if symptoms are not controlled with medical therapy.

Management of Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians screen for breast cancer risk factors and assess the risk level of their patients. Women at high risk for breast cancer (eg, 5-year risk of at least 3% or lifetime risk of ≥20%) are eligible for enhanced screening and/or chemoprophylaxis. However, many clinicians do not identify women at high risk and offer appropriate referrals, screening, or chemoprophylaxis. METHODS: We reviewed a sample of 200 charts of women ages 35 to 50 years old with a family history of breast cancer. We identified factors that contribute to their risk for breast cancer and used the Tyrer-Cuzick Risk Assessment Calculator to determine their personal lifetime risk. We then assessed whether these patients received counseling for chemoprophylaxis, referrals, or screening. We also looked for correlations between combinations of risk factors and increased lifetime risk. RESULTS: Out of 200 charts reviewed, 71 women were identified as high risk for breast cancer (lifetime risk of ≥20%). Of those 71 women, just 17 were referred to a high-risk clinic for enhanced screening and/or chemoprophylaxis. Three risk factors, mammographic breast density of category C or D, first degree relatives with breast cancer, and age first given birth if after 30 years old had a significant impact on lifetime risk for breast cancer. DISCUSSION: Primary care clinicians can use these independent risk factors as cues to pursue a more formal calculation of a woman's lifetime risk for breast cancer and make appropriate referrals for enhanced screening and chemoprophylaxis counseling if indicated.

Addressing and Dismantling the Legacy of Race and Racism in Academic Medicine: A Socioecological Framework.

Over the past several years, in both clinical and academic medicine, there seems to be a growing consensus that racial/ethnic health inequities result from social, economic and political determinants of health rather than from nonexistent biological markers of race. Simply put, racism is the root cause of inequity, not race. Yet, methods of teaching and practicing medicine have not kept pace with this truth, and many learners and practitioners continue to extrapolate a biological underpinning for race. To achieve systemic change that moves us toward racially/ethnically equitable health outcomes, it is imperative that medical academia implement policies that explicitly hold us accountable to maintain a clear understanding of race as a socio-political construct so that we can conduct research, disseminate scholarly work, teach, and practice clinically with more clarity about race and racism. This short commentary proposes the use of a socioecological framework to help individuals, leadership teams, and institutions consider the implementation of various strategies for interpersonal, community-level, and broad institutional policy changes. This proposed model includes examples of how to address race and racism in academic medicine across different spheres, but also draws attention to the complex interplay across these levels. The model is not intended to be prescriptive, but rather encourages adaptation according to existing institutional differences. This model can be used as a tool to refresh how academic medicine addresses race and, more importantly, normalizes conversations about racism and equity across all framework levels.