Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Vasc Interv Radiol ; 31(6): 961-966, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32376176

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To evaluate utilization trends in percutaneous embolization among radiologists and nonradiologist providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The nationwide Medicare Part B fee-for-service databases for 2005-2016 were used to evaluate percutaneous embolization codes. Six codes describing embolization procedures were reviewed. Physician providers were grouped as radiologists, vascular surgeons, cardiologists, nephrologists, other surgeons, and all others. RESULTS: The total volume of Medicare percutaneous embolization procedures increased from 20,262 in 2005 to 45,478 in 2016 (+125%). Radiologists performed 13,872 procedures in 2005 (68% of total volume) and 33,254 in 2016 (73% of total volume), a 140% increase in volume. While other specialists also increased the number of cases performed from 2005 to 2016, radiologists strongly predominated, performing 87% of arterial and 30% of venous procedures in 2016, more than any other single specialty. In 2014 and 2015, a sharp increase in venous embolization cases performed by nonradiologists preceded a sharp decrease in 2016, likely the result of complicated billing codes for venous procedures. Radiologists maintained a steady upward trend in the number of cases they performed during those years. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of percutaneous embolization procedures performed in the Medicare population increased from 2005 to 2016, reflecting a trend toward minimally invasive intervention. In 2016, radiologists performed nearly 10 times more arterial embolization procedures than the second highest specialty and more venous embolization procedures than any other single specialty.


Assuntos
Embolização Terapêutica/tendências , Neoplasias/terapia , Padrões de Prática Médica/tendências , Radiologistas/tendências , Especialização/tendências , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Cardiologistas/tendências , Bases de Dados Factuais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Medicare Part B/tendências , Nefrologistas/tendências , Cirurgiões/tendências , Fatores de Tempo , Estados Unidos
2.
Cancers (Basel) ; 12(1)2020 Jan 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31906411

RESUMO

There is no FDA-approved treatment for metastatic uveal melanoma (UM) and overall outcomes are generally poor for those who develop liver metastasis. We performed a retrospective single-institution chart review on consecutive series of UM patients with liver metastasis who were treated at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital between 1971-1993 (Cohort 1, n = 80), 1998-2007 (Cohort 2, n = 198), and 2008-2017 (Cohort 3, n = 452). In total, 70% of patients in Cohort 1 received only systemic therapies as their treatment modality for liver metastasis, while 98% of patients in Cohort 2 and Cohort 3 received liver-directed treatment either alone or with systemic therapy. Median Mets-to-Death OS was shortest in Cohort 1 (5.3 months, 95% CI: 4.2-7.0), longer in Cohort 2 (13.6 months, 95% CI: 12.2-16.6) and longest in Cohort 3 (17.8 months, 95% CI: 16.6-19.4). Median Eye Tx-to-Death OS was shortest in Cohort 1 (40.8 months, 95% CI: 37.1-56.9), and similar in Cohort 2 (62.6 months, 95% CI: 54.6-71.5) and Cohort 3 (59.4 months, 95% CI: 56.2-64.7). It is speculated that this could be due to the shift of treatment modalities from DTIC-based chemotherapy to liver-directed therapies. Combination of liver-directed and newly developed systemic treatments may further improve the survival of these patients.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA