Comparison of the quantitative CT imaging biomarkers of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis at baseline and early change with an interval of 7 months.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Median survival of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is 2-5 years. Sensitive imaging metrics can play a role in detecting early changes in therapeutic development. The aim of the present study was to compare known computed tomography (CT) histogram kurtosis and a classifier-based quantitative score to assess baseline severity and change over time in patients with IPF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 57 patients with at least baseline and paired follow-up scans were selected from an imaging database of standardized CT scans obtained from patients with IPF. CT histogram measurement of kurtosis and quantitative lung fibrosis (QLF) and quantitative interstitial lung disease (QILD) scores from a classification algorithm were calculated. Spearman rank correlations were used to assess associations between baseline severity and changes for all CT-derived measures compared to forced vital capacity (FVC) and carbon monoxide diffusion capacity (DLCO) (percent predicted). RESULTS: At baseline, mean (±SD) of kurtosis was 2.43 (±1.83). Mean (±SD) values of QLF and QILD scores were 20.7% (±13.4) and 43.3% (±20.0), respectively. All baseline histogram indices and QLF and QILD scores were correlated well with baseline FVC and DLCO. When assessing associations with changes in FVC and DLCO over time, only QLF score was statistically significant (ρ = -0.57; P < .0001 for FVC and ρ = -0.34; P = .025 for DLCO), whereas kurtosis was not. CONCLUSIONS: Classifier-model-derived scores (QLF and QILD), based on a set of texture features, are associated with baseline disease extent and are also a sensitive measure of change over time. A QLF score can be used for measuring the extent of disease severity and longitudinal changes.

How confident are young adult cancer survivors in managing their survivorship care? A report from the LIVESTRONG™ Survivorship Center of Excellence Network.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined the association between sociodemographic, cancer treatment, and care delivery factors on young adult cancer survivors' confidence in managing their survivorship care. METHODS: Survivors aged 18-39 years (n = 376) recruited from the LIVESTRONG™ Survivorship Center of Excellence Network sites completed a survey assessing self-reported receipt of survivorship care planning, expectations of their providers, and confidence in managing their survivorship care. Multivariate logistic regression identified characteristics of those reporting low confidence in managing their survivorship care. RESULTS: Mean age was 28 years; mean interval from diagnosis was 9 ± 8 years. Seventy-one percent reported currently attending an oncology survivorship clinic. Regarding survivorship care planning, 33% did not have copies of their cancer-related medical records, 48% did not have a treatment summary, and 55% had not received a survivorship care plan. Seventy percent identified the oncologist as the most important health care provider for decisions regarding test and treatment decisions while 10% reported using a "shared-care model" involving both primary care providers and oncologists. Forty-one percent were classified as having low confidence in managing survivorship care. In multivariate analysis, low confidence was associated with non-white ethnicity and lack of a survivorship care plan (both p < 0.05). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that provision of survivorship care plans for young adult cancer survivors can be used to improve confidence in managing survivorship care, particularly for ethnic minorities. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Survivors should consider advocating for receipt of a survivorship care plan as it may facilitate confidence as a consumer of survivorship care.

Explaining disparities in colorectal cancer screening among five Asian ethnic groups: a population-based study in California.

BACKGROUND: Data from the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) indicate that levels and temporal trends in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening prevalence vary among Asian American groups; however, the reasons for these differences have not been fully investigated. METHODS: Using CHIS 2001, 2003 and 2005 data, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses progressively controlling for demographic characteristics, English proficiency and access to care in an attempt to identify factors explaining differences in screening prevalence and trends among Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese Americans (N = 4,188). RESULTS: After controlling for differences in gender and age, all Asian subgroups had significantly lower odds of having ever received screening in 2001 than the reference group of Japanese Americans. In addition, Korean Americans were the only subgroup that had a statistically significant decline in screening prevalence from 2001 to 2005 compared to the trend among Japanese Americans. After controlling for differences in education, marital status, employment status and federal poverty level, Korean Americans were the only group that had significantly lower screening prevalence than Japanese Americans in 2001, and their trend to 2005 remained significantly depressed. After controlling for differences in English proficiency and access to care, screening prevalences in 2001 were no longer significantly different among the Asian subgroups, but the trend among Korean Americans from 2001 to 2005 remained significantly depressed. Korean and Vietnamese Americans were less likely than other groups to report a recent doctor recommendation for screening and more likely to cite a lack of health problems as a reason for not obtaining screening. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in CRC screening trends among Asian ethnic groups are not entirely explained by differences in demographic characteristics, English proficiency and access to care. A better understanding of mutable factors such as rates of doctor recommendation and health beliefs will be crucial for designing culturally appropriate interventions to promote CRC screening.