Evidence-informed recommendations on managing breast screening atypia: perspectives from an expert panel consensus meeting reviewing results from the Sloane atypia project.

Evidence-based clinical guidelines are essential to maximize patient benefit and to reduce clinical uncertainty and inconsistency in clinical practice. Gaps in the evidence base can be addressed by data acquired in routine practice. At present, there is no international consensus on management of women diagnosed with atypical lesions in breast screening programmes. Here, we describe how routine NHS breast screening data collected by the Sloane atypia project was used to inform a management pathway that maximizes early detection of cancer and minimizes over-investigation of lesions with uncertain malignant potential. A half-day consensus meeting with 11 clinical experts, 1 representative from Independent Cancer Patients' Voice, 6 representatives from NHS England (NHSE) including from Commissioning, and 2 researchers was held to facilitate discussions of findings from an analysis of the Sloane atypia project. Key considerations of the expert group in terms of the management of women with screen detected atypia were: (1) frequency and purpose of follow-up; (2) communication to patients; (3) generalizability of study results; and (4) workforce challenges. The group concurred that the new evidence does not support annual surveillance mammography for women with atypia, irrespective of type of lesion, or woman's age. Continued data collection is paramount to monitor and audit the change in recommendations.

Colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma incidence during post-polypectomy surveillance: a national cohort study in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

BACKGROUND: Improved colonoscopy quality has led to debate about whether all post-polypectomy surveillance is justified. We evaluated surveillance within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) to determine the yield of surveillance and identify predictive factors for surveillance outcome. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of individuals undergoing post-polypectomy surveillance between July 2006 and January 2017. BCSP records were linked to the National Cancer Registration Database to identify interval-type post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (CRCs). Advanced adenoma and CRC at surveillance were documented. CRC incidence was compared with the general population using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). Predictors of advanced adenomas at first surveillance (S1), and CRC during follow-up, were identified. RESULTS: 44 151 individuals (23 078 intermediate risk; 21 073 high risk) underwent 64 544 surveillance episodes. Advanced adenoma and CRC yields were, respectively, 10.0 % and 0.5 % at S1, 8.5 % and 0.4 % at S2, and 10.8 % and 0.4 % at S3. S1 yield was lowest in those with one index adenoma ≥ 10 mm (advanced adenoma 6.1 %; CRC 0.3 %). The SIR was 0.76 (95 %CI 0.66-0.88), accounted for by the intermediate risk group (intermediate risk SIR 0.61, 95 %CI 0.49-0.75; high risk SIR 0.95, 95 %CI 0.79-1.15). Adenoma multiplicity, presence of a large nonpedunculated adenoma, and greater villous component were associated with advanced adenoma at S1. Older age and multiplicity were significantly associated with CRC risk. CONCLUSION: This large, national analysis found low levels of CRC in those undergoing surveillance and low advanced adenoma yield in most subgroups. Less intensive surveillance in some subgroups is warranted, and surveillance may be avoided in those with a single large adenoma.

Heterogeneity in colorectal cancer incidence among people recommended 3-yearly surveillance post-polypectomy: a validation study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) following adenoma removal. Low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups are defined by baseline adenoma characteristics. We previously examined intermediate-risk patients from hospital data and identified a higher-risk subgroup who benefited from surveillance and a lower-risk subgroup who may not require surveillance. This study explored whether these findings apply in individuals undergoing CRC screening. METHODS: This retrospective study used data from the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial (UKFSST), English CRC screening pilot (ECP), and US Kaiser Permanente CRC prevention program (KPCP). Screening participants (50 - 74 years) classified as intermediate-risk at baseline colonoscopy were included. CRC data were available through 2006 (KPCP) or 2014 (UKFSST, ECP). Lower- and higher-risk subgroups were defined using our previously identified baseline risk factors: higher-risk participants had incomplete colonoscopies, poor bowel preparation, adenomas ≥ 20 mm or with high-grade dysplasia, or proximal polyps. We compared CRC incidence in these subgroups and in the presence vs. absence of surveillance using Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 2291 intermediate-risk participants, 45 % were classified as higher risk. Median follow-up was 11.8 years. CRC incidence was higher in the higher-risk than lower-risk subgroup (hazard ratio [HR] 2.08, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.07 - 4.06). Surveillance reduced CRC incidence in higher-risk participants (HR 0.35, 95 %CI 0.14 - 0.86) but not statistically significantly so in lower-risk participants (HR 0.41, 95 %CI 0.12 - 1.38). CONCLUSION: As previously demonstrated for hospital patients, screening participants classified as intermediate risk comprised two risk subgroups. Surveillance clearly benefited the higher-risk subgroup.

Adverse Outcomes Associated With Intraoperative Anesthesia Handovers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Whether intraoperative handover of anesthesia care increases the risk of adverse outcomes in patients undergoing surgery remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the evidence on the association of intraoperative anesthesia handover with delivery of patient care and patient outcomes. DESIGN: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted to identify the eligible studies examining the association between intraoperative anesthesia handover and adverse outcomes in patients receiving surgery. The cohort studies and case-control studies were included. The methodological quality of each included study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis across the studies was performed using Review Manager. Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals were used for dichotomous variables. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by removing one study each time and re-estimating the overall effect size. FINDINGS: Seven retrospective cohort studies with 680,155 patients were finally included. Among these participants, 139,362 patients (20.49%) had anesthesia handovers during their surgeries. In pooled analysis, the statistically significant relationship between intraoperative anesthesia handover and composite morbidity was observed (aOR 1.20 and 95% CI 1.12-1.28). However, the number of handovers was not significantly associated with composite of mortality and morbidity (aOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00-1.25) and in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 0.96-1.67). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggested that each additional intraoperative anesthesia handover increased the odds of composite morbidity. It is important to improve the handover quality and avoid handovers when anesthesia providers have high-risk care events, patients having unstable status, or inadequate handover time.

Effect of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on the outcomes of subsequent faecal occult blood test screening.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the outcomes of biennial guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening after once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening. METHODS: Between 1994 and 1999, as part of the UK FS Screening Trial (UKFSST), adults aged 55-64 were randomly allocated to an intervention group (offered FS screening) or a control group (not contacted). From 2006, a subset of UKFSST participants (20,895/44,041 intervention group; 41,497/87,149 control group) were invited to biennial gFOBT screening by the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. We analysed gFOBT uptake, test positivity, yield of colorectal cancer (CRC), and positive predictive value (PPV) for CRC, advanced adenomas (AAs), and advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN: AA/CRC). RESULTS: Uptake of gFOBT at first invitation was 1.9% lower (65.7% vs. 67.6%, p < 0.01) among intervention versus control group participants. Positivity was 0.4% lower (2.0% vs. 2.4%, p < 0.01) and CRC yield was 0.08% lower (0.19% vs. 0.27%, p = 0.14). PPVs were also lower in the intervention versus control group, at 10.3% vs. 12.3% ( p = 0.44) for CRC, 22.7% vs. 31.4% ( p < 0.01) for AA, and 33.0% vs. 43.7% ( p < 0.01) for ACN. Among those who refused FS ( n = 5532), gFOBT uptake at first invitation was 47.7%, CRC yield was 0.25%, and PPV for ACN was 46.2%. Among FS attenders ( n = 15,363), uptake was 72.2%, CRC yield was 0.18%, and PPV for ACN was 27.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake, positivity and PPV of gFOBT screening were reduced following prior offer of FS screening. However, a quarter of FS screened participants receiving a diagnostic examination after positive gFOBT were diagnosed with ACN.

High test positivity and low positive predictive value for colorectal cancer of continued faecal occult blood test screening after negative colonoscopy.

Objectives The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme offers biennial guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening to 60-74-year-olds. Participants with positive results are referred for follow-up, but many do not have significant findings. If they remain age eligible, these individuals are reinvited for gFOBT screening. We evaluated the performance of repeat screening in this group. Methods We analysed data on programme participants reinvited to gFOBT screening after either previous negative gFOBT ( n = 327,542), or positive gFOBT followed by a diagnostic investigation negative for colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas requiring surveillance ( n = 42,280). Outcomes calculated were uptake, test positivity, yield of CRC, and positive predictive value (PPV) of gFOBT for CRC. Results For participants with a previous negative gFOBT, uptake in the subsequent screening round was 87.5%, positivity was 1.3%, yield of CRC was 0.112% of those adequately screened, and the PPV of gFOBT for CRC was 9.1%. After a positive gFOBT and a negative diagnostic investigation, uptake in the repeat screening round was 82.6%, positivity was 11.3%, CRC yield was 0.172% of participants adequately screened, and the PPV of gFOBT for CRC was 1.7%. Conclusion With high positivity and low PPV for CRC, the suitability of routine repeat gFOBT screening in two years among individuals with a previous positive test and a negative diagnostic examination needs to be carefully considered.

Screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in a rural health district: An analysis of practice.

OBJECTIVE: To describe hip dysplasia screening practices in a local rural health district. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of hospital birth records, local physiotherapy records, public community health electronic medical record (Community Health Information Management Enterprise database) and a survey of local clinicians who work with infants and children. SETTING: Three rural public hospitals and community health centres in a New South Wales health district. PARTICIPANTS: Birth records (n = 196) from March 2012 to May 2012; attendance at child and family nurse checks (n = 788) May 2013-April 2014; 13 cases of managed developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) 2012 and local clinicians (n = 49). RESULTS: At birth, the majority of infants (91%, 179/196) had documented hip screening. Community health records show this dropped to 75% (587/788) at 1-4 weeks and 29% (227/788) at 6-8 weeks. A survey of local clinicians (54% response rate; 49/91) revealed most (78%) screen for DDH and less than half (43%) use guidelines. Almost all (97%) clinicians reported screening for DDH at 6-8 weeks of age. Only 51% of clinicians reported having specific training for DDH screening and 76% would like further training. The rate of late DDH requiring management in 2012 was 0.87% (7/806) and the rate of late DDH requiring surgery was 0.25% (2/806). CONCLUSION: DDH screening practices are well established at birth in the rural health district. There is variability in DDH screening practices beyond 8 weeks of age. Clinicians report variations in their knowledge and training. Training in DDH screening and hip screening prompts added to the personal health record might improve rates of DDH screening beyond 8 weeks of age.

Patient experience of CT colonography and colonoscopy after fecal occult blood test in a national screening programme.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient experience of CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in a national screening programme. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patient experience postal questionnaires. We included screenees from a fecal occult blood test (FOBt) based screening programme, where CTC was performed when colonoscopy was incomplete or deemed unsuitable. We analyzed questionnaire responses concerning communication of test risks, test-related discomfort and post-test pain, as well as complications. CTC and colonoscopy responses were compared using multilevel logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 67,114 subjects identified, 52,805 (79 %) responded. Understanding of test risks was lower for CTC (1712/1970 = 86.9 %) than colonoscopy (48783/50975 = 95.7 %, p < 0.0001). Overall, a slightly greater proportion of screenees found CTC unexpectedly uncomfortable (506/1970 = 25.7 %) than colonoscopy (10,705/50,975 = 21.0 %, p < 0.0001). CTC was tolerated well as a completion procedure for failed colonoscopy (unexpected discomfort; CTC = 26.3 %: colonoscopy = 57.0 %, p < 0.001). Post-procedural pain was equally common (CTC: 288/1970,14.6 %, colonoscopy: 7544/50,975,14.8 %; p = 0.55). Adverse event rates were similar in both groups (CTC: 20/2947 = 1.2 %; colonoscopy: 683/64,312 = 1.1 %), but generally less serious with CTC. CONCLUSIONS: Even though CTC was reserved for individuals either unsuitable for or unable to complete colonoscopy, we found only small differences in test-related discomfort. CTC was well tolerated as a completion procedure and was extremely safe. CTC can be delivered across a national screening programme with high patient satisfaction. KEY POINTS: • High patient satisfaction at CTC is deliverable across a national screening programme. • Patients who cannot tolerate screening colonoscopy are likely to find CTC acceptable. • CTC is extremely safe; complications are rare and almost never serious. • Patients may require more detailed information regarding the expected discomfort of CTC.

Patient safety in anesthesia: learning from the culture of high-reliability organizations.

There has been an increased awareness of and interest in patient safety and improved outcomes, as well as a growing body of evidence substantiating medical error as a leading cause of death and injury in the United States. According to The Joint Commission, US hospitals demonstrate improvements in health care quality and patient safety. Although this progress is encouraging, much room for improvement remains. High-reliability organizations, industries that deliver reliable performances in the face of complex working environments, can serve as models of safety for our health care system until plausible explanations for patient harm are better understood.

Causes of obesity.

The prevalence of obesity has been rising steadily over the last several decades and is currently at unprecedented levels: more than 68% of US adults are considered overweight, and 35% are obese (Flegal et al., JAMA 303:235-241, 2010). This increase has occurred across every age, sex, race, and smoking status, and data indicate that segments of individuals in the highest weight categories (i.e., BMI > 40 kg/m(2)) have increased proportionately more than those in lower BMI categories (BMI < 35 kg/m(2)). The dramatic rise in obesity has also occurred in many other countries, and the causes of this increase are not fully understood (Hill and Melanson, Med Sci Sports Exerc 31:S515-S521, 1999).

Relationship between education and delay discounting in smokers.

Smokers are less educated and are more likely to discount future rewards than nonsmokers. We assessed the relationship between delay discounting and education level in 77 smokers entering smoking cessation treatment. There was an effect of education on computer task and the questionnaire measures of discounting, with participants having no college discounting delayed rewards significantly (P < .01) more than those attending college. Subjects discounted small rewards more than large rewards for both tasks (P < .001). Results show that education level is inversely associated with discounting in smokers.

Relation between food reinforcement and dopamine genotypes and its effect on food intake in smokers.

BACKGROUND: Food reinforcement and dopaminergic activity may influence food consumption, but research on whether they interact has not been performed. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the effects of food reinforcement and the interaction of food reinforcement with the dopamine transporter (SLC6A3) genotype and the dopamine D(2) receptor (DRD(2)) genotype on energy consumption. DESIGN: We studied food-consumption and reinforcing-value-of-food tasks in 88 smokers of European ancestry before they enrolled in smoking-cessation treatment. In the food-consumption task, subjects tasted and consumed 8 snack foods ad libitum. The reinforcing-value-of-food task assessed how hard subjects would work for food. RESULTS: Significant interactions between dopamine genotypes and food reinforcement were observed. Subjects high in food reinforcement who lacked an SLC6A3*9 allele consumed significantly more calories (>150 kcal; P = 0.015) than did subjects low in food reinforcement or those high in food reinforcement who carried at least one SLC6A3*9 allele. Similarly, subjects high in food reinforcement who carried at least one DRD(2)*A1 allele consumed >130 kcal more (P = 0.021) than did subjects low in food reinforcement or those high in food reinforcement who lacked a DRD(2)*A1 allele. There was also a main effect of food reinforcement on energy intake (P = 0.005), with subjects high in food reinforcement consuming 104 kcal (or 30%) more than did subjects low in food reinforcement. CONCLUSIONS: Food reinforcement has a significant effect on energy intake, and the effect is moderated by the dopamine loci SLC6A3 and DRD(2).

Food hedonics and reinforcement as determinants of laboratory food intake in smokers.

Both the hedonic ratings and the reinforcing value of food have been considered to be determinants of food intake. The objective of this study was to compare the pleasurable ratings and the reinforcing value of food as determinants of energy intake. Seventy-four smokers were studied in food consumption and reinforcing value of food tasks prior to enrolling in a smoking-cessation treatment program. For the food consumption task, the participants tasted and consumed food ad lib from eight snack foods. The reinforcing value of the food task assessed how hard subjects would work for a preferred snack food. Results showed that food reinforcement was related to laboratory food intake, with those high in food reinforcement consuming significantly more calories (+114.4 kcal, P<.01) than did the participants low in food reinforcement. Food reinforcement was related to food intake for the preferred food as well as to total energy intake. Hedonics for the preferred food was related to food reinforcement but not to either measure of laboratory energy intake. In multiple-regression models, food reinforcement and the interaction of food reinforcement by sex were significant predictors of energy intake for the preferred food and for total energy intake, along with baseline hunger. In conclusion, energy intake in smokers in a laboratory setting is more strongly related to food reinforcement than to the hedonic ratings of food.

Waiting times for radiotherapy--a survey of patients' attitudes.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine the maximum time cancer patients were willing to wait for radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a trade-off technique (TOT) the maximum time patients were prepared to wait for treatment at the centre closest to home before electing to transfer their care to a centre located (1) at a distance necessitating an extra 30 min travelling each day (MWT 1) or (2) at a distance necessitating staying away from home for the duration of therapy (MWT 2) was determined. A TOT was utilised to determine the loss in treatment effectiveness (LIE 1, LIE 2) patients were willing to accept as a consequence of their MWT 1 and MWT 2 choices. RESULTS: The median MWT 1 was 4 weeks while the median MWT 2 was 8 weeks. A longer MWT 1 was associated with increasing patient age and a problem with travelling an extra 30 min. Symptomatic patients were less likely to accept a longer MWT 1. The MWT 2 increased as the expected duration of treatment increased but patients in regional areas were less likely to accept a longer MWT 2. The majority of patients indicated that they were unwilling to accept any loss in treatment effectiveness. Patients who had a problem with travelling an extra 30 min daily or who were unable to drive were willing to accept a loss in treatment effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an estimate of the waiting times cancer patients are prepared to accept for radiation therapy and suggests that cancer patients are unlikely to trade-off effectiveness for convenience.