A Microcosm of Disparities in Breast Cancer: Comparison Between a Private Hospital and a Safety-Net County Hospital Within Los Angeles County.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer survival is improving due to early detection and treatment advances. However, racial/ethnic differences in tumor biology, stage, and mortality remain. The objective of this study was to analyze presumed disparities at a local level. METHODS: Breast cancer patients at a county hospital and private hospital from 2010 to 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic, clinical, pathologic, and surgical data were collected. Comparisons were made between hospital cohorts and between racial/ethnic groups from both hospitals combined. RESULTS: 754 patients were included (322 from county hospital and 432 from private hospital). All patients were female. The median age was 54 years at county hospital and 60 years at private hospital (P < .0001). Racial/ethnic minorities comprised 85% of county hospital patients vs. 12% of private hospital patients (P < .0001). County hospital patients had a higher grade, clinical/pathologic stage, HER2-positive rate, and mastectomy rate. Compared to other racial/ethnic groups, non-Hispanic white women were more likely to have lower grade and ER-positive tumors. Hispanic/Latina women were younger and were more likely to have HER2-positive tumors. Both Hispanic/Latina and non-Hispanic black women presented at higher clinical stages and were more likely to undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy and mastectomy. DISCUSSION: At county hospital compared to private hospital, the proportion of racial/ethnic minorities was higher, and patients presented at younger ages with more aggressive tumors and more advanced disease. The racial/ethnic disparities that were identified locally are largely consistent with those identified in national database studies. These marked differences at hospitals within a diverse city highlight the need for further research into the disparities.

Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair After Prostatectomy: How to Navigate Safely.

INTRODUCTION: In recent decades, minimally invasive approaches have found their place in treating a specific subset of patients with inguinal hernias, predominantly those with recurrent or bilateral disease. Classically, prior history of urologic pelvic operations, such as prostatectomy, has been listed as relative contraindication for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair. As the adoption of the robotics platform continues to grow, we aim to outline a feasible robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair technique in patients with previous prostatectomies. We report the outcomes of 15 patients who underwent repair at 2 institutions. METHODS: This is a retrospective case series of 15 patients who underwent robotic transabdominal preperitoneal approach repair of their inguinal hernias after prostatectomy. Demographics, intraoperative variables, and outcomes of our cases are described. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were included in our cohort. All patients had a history of prostatectomy (7 open, 2 laparoscopic, and 6 robotic) due to prostate cancer. Median age was 70 years old (range: 60 to 89 y), with a median body mass index of 26.3 kg/m2 (range: 20.5 to 37.4 kg/m2). Hernia defects were bilateral in 6 patients and unilateral in the remaining 9 (right; 6, left; 3). The shortest interval between prostatectomy and subsequent hernia repair was 4 months (range: 4 to 216 mo). The median operative time was 139 min (range: 91 to 281 min). All defects were repaired using a polypropylene mesh except in 1 case, where a coated monofilament polyester mesh was used after having a large peritoneal defect to close, preventing future adhesions to the bowel. Mesh sizes used were large (16×11 cm), extra-large (17×12 cm) for anatomic mesh, and 20×15 cm for the monofilament polyester mesh. The mesh was fixed in 14 of 15 cases. Fixation was accomplished with absorbable suture (n=13), barbed suture (n=1), and fibrin sealant (n=1). Peritoneal closure was always performed using a continuous running v-loc suture. There were no documented major intraoperative complications, no 30-day readmission, or recurrences recorded within the follow-up period. Postoperatively, only 2 seromas and 1 hematoma were documented during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic inguinal hernia repairs in patients with previous prostatectomy is safe and feasible in most patients. Larger patient series are needed to confirm these findings.

Unusual presentation of rectal squamous cell carcinoma perforation-case report and literature review.

This is an unusual case of an obstructive rectal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), causing perforation and a pelvic abscess, requiring source control and diverting colostomy. A 50-year-old female with chronic constipation presented with worsening right buttock pain for 1 month. On exam, the patient reported right hip tenderness. A computer tomography (CT) revealed rectal wall thickening with a presacral abscess. Due to the concern of rectal perforation with abscess she was taken to the operating room for proctoscopy with biopsy, colostomy diversion and drainage of the abscess over the right buttock. Pathology reported invasive rectal SCC. Rectal SCC presents similarly to rectal adenocarcinoma but its diagnosis must include special markers for cytokeratins. The treatment approach is controversial but adequately treated offers better survival than rectal ADC. Rectal SCC is rare and treated with chemoradiation however it must also be tailored to the variable acute presentations.

Dedifferentiated liposarcoma of the scrotum. Case report and literature review.

Malignant paratesticular and spermatic cord tumors are rare and often misdiagnosed preoperatively due to clinical presentations similar to other benign scrotal mass etiologies. Only a few cases regarding giant, paratesticular liposarcomas (>10 cm) have been reported. We report a unique case of an aggressive giant dedifferentiated liposarcoma of the scrotum with osteosarcoma features in a 70-year-old patient who initially presented with indolent scrotal swelling. A CT scan showed a large, complex, solid and cystic mass (12.0 x 15.5 x 19.0 cm) in the right scrotum. With a concern of a complex hydrocele, the patient was taken to the operating room for a scrotal approach to excise the hydrocele, but the spermatic cord was not traced to any discernible testicle as the entire mass was indurated and multilocular, and was excised. Pathology revealed a dedifferentiated liposarcoma, with MDM2 amplification. The patient's course was complicated due to metastatic disease.