Practice Patterns and Guideline Non-Adherence in Surgical Management of Appendiceal Carcinoid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of appendiceal carcinoid tumors is heavily debated, despite National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommending aggressive resection of tumors >2 cm. We investigated national practice patterns and the predictors and impact of guideline non-adherence. STUDY DESIGN: The National Cancer Database was queried for cases of appendiceal carcinoids diagnosed from 2004 to 2015 treated with either appendectomy or hemicolectomy. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for demographic and clinical factors, identified associations with the procedure type among patients stratified by tumor size ≤2 cm and >2 cm. Cox Proportional Hazards then identified associations with overall survival among stratified patient groups. RESULTS: Of 3,198 cases of appendiceal carcinoids, 1,893 appendectomies and 1,305 hemicolectomies were identified. Contrary to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, 32.4% of tumors ≤2 cm were treated with hemicolectomy and 31.3% of tumors >2 cm were treated with definitive appendectomy. Hemicolectomy for small tumors was associated with age 65 years and older (odds ratio [OR] 2.4; 95% CI 1.7 to 3.3; reference group age 18 to 39 years), history of malignancy (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6 to 2.6), tumor size 1.1 to 2 cm (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.4; reference group size ≤1 cm), and lymphovascular invasion (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.6 to 3.2); appendectomy for large tumors was associated with age 65 years and older only (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.1 to 4.2). Procedure type was not associated with survival for small or large tumors (hazard ratio 1.0; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.4 and hazard ratio 1.1; 95% CI 0.6 to 2.0, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite well-known size-based treatment guidelines for appendiceal carcinoids, one-third of patients in the US undergo hemicolectomy for small tumors and appendectomy for large tumors. Guideline non-adherence, however, is not associated with overall survival. Reasons for these practice patterns should be explored, and guidelines revisited.

Moderating laboratory adaptation with the use of a heart-rate variability biofeedback device (StressEraser).

Difficulty sleeping is a common problem with laboratory polysomnograms. This affects both polysomnograms that are used as a clinical tool to investigate sleep pathology or as an outcome variable in research. The goal of this study was to use a handheld biofeedback device (StressEraser) to improve sleep quality in the laboratory. Ten subjects without a history of sleep disorders were randomly assigned to either a StressEraser or no-treatment control condition. A sleep disturbance scale derived from sleep efficiency, REM latency, minutes of stage 1 sleep, and wake after sleep onset was created to evaluate the differences between these groups. Subjects in the StressEraser group had significantly lower scores on the sleep disturbance scale compared to the no-treatment control group (p = 0.003). Sleep latency was not improved. In conclusion, the StressEraser significantly improved sleep quality compared to a no-treatment control group. This suggests that the StressEraser may be an effective tool to help reduce the first-night effect in nighttime laboratory sleep studies.