Coronary Artery Calcium Score Predicts Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Stable Chest Pain.

Background Coronary artery calcium (CAC) has prognostic value for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in asymptomatic individuals, whereas its role in symptomatic patients is less clear. Purpose To assess the prognostic value of CAC scoring for MACE in participants with stable chest pain initially referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Materials and Methods This prespecified subgroup analysis from the Diagnostic Imaging Strategies for Patients With Stable Chest Pain and Intermediate Risk of Coronary Artery Disease (DISCHARGE) trial, conducted between October 2015 and April 2019 across 26 centers in 16 countries, focused on adult patients with stable chest pain referred for ICA. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo either ICA or coronary CT. CAC scores from noncontrast CT scans were categorized into low, intermediate, and high groups based on scores of 0, 1-399, and 400 or higher, respectively. The end point of the study was the occurrence of MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death) over a median 3.5-year follow-up, analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression tests. Results The study involved 1749 participants (mean age, 60 years ± 10 [SD]; 992 female). The prevalence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) at CT angiography rose from 4.1% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.8) in the CAC score 0 group to 76.1% (95% CI: 70.3, 81.2) in the CAC score 400 or higher group. Revascularization rates increased from 1.7% to 46.2% across the same groups (P < .001). The CAC score 0 group had a lower MACE risk (0.5%; HR, 0.08 [95% CI: 0.02, 0.30]; P < .001), as did the 1-399 CAC score group (1.9%; HR, 0.27 [95% CI: 0.13, 0.59]; P = .001), compared with the 400 or higher CAC score group (6.8%). No significant difference in MACE between sexes was observed (P = .68). Conclusion In participants with stable chest pain initially referred for ICA, a CAC score of 0 showed very low risk of MACE, and higher CAC scores showed increasing risk of obstructive CAD, revascularization, and MACE at follow-up. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02400229 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Hanneman and Gulsin in this issue.

Can routine register data be used to identify vulnerable lung cancer patients of suboptimal care in a German comprehensive cancer centre?

OBJECTIVES: Several patient factors have been described to influence access to optimal cancer care like socioeconomic factors or place of residence. In this study, we investigate whether data routinely collected in a clinical cancer registry can be used to identify populations of lung cancer patients with increased risk of not receiving optimal cancer care. METHODS: We analysed data of 837 lung cancer patients extracted from the clinical cancer registry of a German university hospital. We compared patient populations by two indicators of optimal care, namely implementation of tumour board meeting recommendations as well as the timeliness of care. RESULTS: There was a high rate of implementation of tumour board meeting recommendations of 94.4%. Reasons for non-implementation were mainly a patient's own wish or a worsening of the health situation. Of all patient parameters, only tumour stage was associated with the two optimal care indicators. CONCLUSION: Using routine data from a clinical cancer registry, we were not able to identify patient populations at risk of not getting optimal care and the implementation of guideline-conform care appeared to be very high in this setting. However, limitations were the ambiguity of optimal care indicators and availability of parameters predictive for patients' vulnerability.

Deciding on breast cancer risk reduction: The role of counseling in individual decision-making - A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The presentation of risks and benefits in clinical practice is common particularly in situations in which treatment recommendations involve trade-offs. The treatment of breast cancer risk with selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) is such a decision. We investigated the influence of health care provider (HCP) counseling on women's decision-making. METHODS: Thirty breast cancer risk counseling sessions were recorded from April 2012-August 2013 at a comprehensive cancer center and at a safety-net, community hospital in the US. Participating women and HCPs were interviewed. A cross-case synthesis was used for analysis. RESULTS: Of 30 participants 21 received a SERM-recommendation, 11 decided to take SERMs. Counseling impacted decision-making, but did not determine it. Three categories emerged: 1.) ability to change the decision anytime, 2.) perceptions on medications, and 3.) proximity of cancer. CONCLUSION: Decision-making under conditions of a risk diagnosis such as increased breast cancer risk is a continuous process in which risk information is transformed into practical and experiential considerations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Individuals' health care decision-making is only marginally dependent on the interactions in the clinic. Accepting patients' experiences and beliefs in their own right and letting them guide the discussion may be important for a satisfying decision-making process.

Quantifying population preferences around vaccination against severe but rare diseases: A conjoint analysis among French university students, 2016.

BACKGROUND: Several concepts are available to explain vaccine decision making by individual and inter-individual factors, including risk perception, social conformism and altruism. However, only a few studies have quantified the weight of these determinants in vaccine acceptance. Using a conjoint analysis tool, we aimed at eliciting preferences in a student population regarding vaccination against a rare, severe and rapidly evolving hypothetical disease, similar to meningococcal serogroup C meningitis or measles. METHODS: During March-May 2016, we conducted an emailing survey among university students aged 18-24years (N=775) in Rennes, France. Participants were asked to decide for or against immediate vaccination in 24 hypothetical scenarios, containing various levels of four attributes: epidemic situation, adverse events, information on vaccination coverage, and potential for indirect protection. Data were analysed using random effect estimator logit models. RESULTS: Participants accepted on average 52% of scenarios and all attributes significantly impacted vaccination acceptance. The highest positive effects were seen with an epidemic situation (OR 3.81, 95%-CI 3.46-4.19), 90% coverage in the community (3.64, 3.15-4.20) and potential for disease elimination from the community (2.87, 2.53-3.26). Information on "insufficient coverage" was dissuasive (vs. none of friends vaccinated: 0.65, 0.56-0.75). Controversy had a significantly greater negative effect than a confirmed risk of severe adverse events (OR 0.05 vs. 0.22). In models including participant characteristics, preference weights were unchanged, while trust in health authorities and vaccination perceptions strongly influenced acceptance themselves. The greatest significant variation of preference weights between subgroups was observed with controversy among students using alternative medicine daily (OR 0.28) and among students relying on scientific vaccine information (OR 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Among young adults, potential for indirect protection and factual information on coverage in the community and potential side effects positively impact theoretical vaccine acceptance. Conjoint analyses should be conducted to understand vaccine hesitancy in specific vaccination programs.