Total Margin Control Is Superior to Traditional Margin Assessment for Treatment of Low-Stage Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Penile cancer is rare, with significant morbidity and limited literature assessing utility of peripheral and deep en face margin assessment (PDEMA) vs traditional margin assessment (vertical sections) on treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 32-year retrospective multicenter cohort study at 3 academic tertiary care centers. The cohort consisted of 189 patients with histologic diagnosis of in situ or T1a cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the penis at Brigham and Women's, Massachusetts General Hospital (1988-2020), and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (1995-2020) treated with PDEMA surgical excision, excision/circumcision, or penectomy/glansectomy. Local recurrence, metastasis, and disease-specific death were assessed via multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 189 patients. Median age at diagnosis was 62 years. Median tumor diameter was 1.3 cm. The following outcomes of interest occurred: 30 local recurrences, 13 metastases, and 5 disease-specific deaths. Primary tumors were excised with PDEMA (N = 30), excision/circumcision (N = 110), or penectomy/glansectomy (N = 49). Of patients treated with traditional margin assessment (non-PDEMA), 12% had narrow or positive margins. Five-year proportions were as follows with respect to local recurrence-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and disease-specific survival/progression-free survival, respectively: 100%, 100%, and 100% following PDEMA; 82%, 96%, and 99% following excision/circumcision; 83%, 91%, and 95% following penectomy/glansectomy. A limitation is that this multi-institutional cohort study was not externally validated. CONCLUSIONS: Initial results are encouraging that PDEMA surgical management effectively controls early-stage penile squamous cell carcinoma.

Moral distress among clinicians working in US safety net practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the causes and levels of moral distress experienced by clinicians caring for the low-income patients of safety net practices in the USA during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey in late 2020, employing quantitative and qualitative analyses. SETTING: Safety net practices in 20 US states. PARTICIPANTS: 2073 survey respondents (45.8% response rate) in primary care, dental and behavioural health disciplines working in safety net practices and participating in state and national education loan repayment programmes. MEASURES: Ordinally scaled degree of moral distress experienced during the pandemic, and open-ended response descriptions of issues that caused most moral distress. RESULTS: Weighted to reflect all surveyed clinicians, 28.4% reported no moral distress related to work during the pandemic, 44.8% reported 'mild' or 'uncomfortable' levels and 26.8% characterised their moral distress as 'distressing', 'intense' or 'worst possible'. The most frequently described types of morally distressing issues encountered were patients not being able to receive the best or needed care, and patients and staff risking infection in the office. Abuse of clinic staff, suffering of patients, suffering of staff and inequities for patients were also morally distressing, as were politics, inequities and injustices within the community. Clinicians who reported instances of inequities for patients and communities and the abuse of staff were more likely to report higher levels of moral distress. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic's first 9 months, moral distress was common among these clinicians working in US safety net practices. But for only one-quarter was this significantly distressing. As reported for hospital-based clinicians during the pandemic, this study's clinicians in safety net practices were often morally distressed by being unable to provide optimal care to patients. New to the literature is clinicians' moral distress from witnessing inequities and other injustices for their patients and communities.

Surgical Transfiguration.

This drawing considers the nature and scope of clinicians' responsibilities to speak and act in ways that express great regard for the breadth and depth of their capacity to influence patients' pre- and postsurgical self-understandings.

Defining Advanced Heart Failure: A Systematic Review of Criteria Used in Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Enrollment criteria used in advanced heart failure (HF) clinical trials might identify a common set of widely accepted quantitative characteristics as the basis of a consensus definition for advanced HF, which is currently lacking. METHODS: We reviewed all clinical trials investigating interventions in patients with advanced HF as of July 31, 2015. Eligible publications (N = 134) reported original data from clinical trials explicitly defining advanced HF in adults. RESULTS: New York Heart Association (NYHA) class was the most common criterion (119 trials, 88.8%; classes ranged from II to IV), followed by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (84 trials, 62.7%; cutoff range, 20% to 45%; mode 35%). Other criteria included inotrope-dependent status (12.7%), peak oxygen consumption (10.4%), ≥1 previous HF admissions (10.4%), cardiac index (10.4%), pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (9.0%), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (6.0%), and transplant listing status (5.2%). Cutoff points for quantitative criteria varied considerably. Previous HF admission was more frequently required in recent trials (P = .007 for temporal trend), whereas use of hemodynamic criteria decreased over time (P = .050 for temporal trend). Average LVEF among participants increased over time. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in the definition of advanced HF for clinical trial purposes. Beyond NYHA and LVEF, a wide array of criteria has been used, with little consistency both in criteria selection and quantitative cutoff points.