Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 97
Filtrar
2.
J Cutan Med Surg ; : 1203475420952425, 2020 Sep 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32911979

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Treatment practices vary for lentigo maligna (LM). Staged excision with circumferential margin control (SECMC) has the potential to achieve low recurrence rates. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of SECMC using permanent, paraffin-embedded sections and delayed reconstruction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, uncontrolled, observational cohort study involving patients who underwent staged excision for LM of the head and neck at Women's College Hospital in Toronto, Canada, from September 2010 to March 2013. Recurrence and infection rates were ascertained from patient charts and postal surveys. RESULTS: One hundred and two patients (45 female, 57 male) were included with a median follow-up time of 1410.5 (IQR 260-1756) days. The median age was 69 (IQR 61-79) years. Approximately one-fifth (21%, 21/102) of patients required greater than 0.5 cm margins to achieve histological clearance. One patient (1/102) upstaged to invasive melanoma based on the initial stage of excision. The infection rate was 6% (6/102) and the 5-year cumulative recurrence rate was 1.4% (95% CI 0.2-9.6%). CONCLUSION: SECMC using permanent sections and delayed reconstruction appears to be a safe and effective treatment method for LM on the head and neck. Randomized trials are needed to help define the optimal treatment.

3.
BMJ ; 370: m3210, 2020 09 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32907797

RESUMEN

The SPIRIT 2013 (The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement aims to improve the completeness of clinical trial protocol reporting, by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed. This guidance has been instrumental in promoting transparent evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there is a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate their impact on health outcomes.The SPIRIT-AI extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials protocols evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for trial reports: CONSORT-AI. Both guidelines were developed using a staged consensus process, involving a literature review and expert consultation to generate 26 candidate items, which were consulted on by an international multi-stakeholder group in a 2-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed on in a consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants).The SPIRIT-AI extension includes 15 new items, which were considered sufficiently important for clinical trial protocols of AI interventions. These new items should be routinely reported in addition to the core SPIRIT 2013 items. SPIRIT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention will be integrated, considerations around the handling of input and output data, the human-AI interaction and analysis of error cases.SPIRIT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness for clinical trial protocols for AI interventions. Its use will assist editors and peer-reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the design and risk of bias for a planned clinical trial.


Asunto(s)
Inteligencia Artificial , Protocolos Clínicos , Proyectos de Investigación , Lista de Verificación , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Consenso , Humanos
4.
Nat Med ; 26(9): 1351-1363, 2020 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32908284

RESUMEN

The SPIRIT 2013 statement aims to improve the completeness of clinical trial protocol reporting by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed. This guidance has been instrumental in promoting transparent evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate their impact on health outcomes. The SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trial protocols evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for trial reports: CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 26 candidate items, which were consulted upon by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The SPIRIT-AI extension includes 15 new items that were considered sufficiently important for clinical trial protocols of AI interventions. These new items should be routinely reported in addition to the core SPIRIT 2013 items. SPIRIT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention will be integrated, considerations for the handling of input and output data, the human-AI interaction and analysis of error cases. SPIRIT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness for clinical trial protocols for AI interventions. Its use will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the design and risk of bias for a planned clinical trial.


Asunto(s)
Inteligencia Artificial , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/métodos , Proyectos de Investigación/normas , Humanos
6.
Trials ; 21(1): 620, 2020 Jul 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32641085

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Clinicians, patients, and policy-makers rely on published evidence from clinical trials to help inform decision-making. A lack of complete and transparent reporting of the investigated trial outcomes limits reproducibility of results and knowledge synthesis efforts, and contributes to outcome switching and other reporting biases. Outcome-specific extensions for the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT-Outcomes) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-Outcomes) reporting guidelines are under development to facilitate harmonized reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and reports. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize existing guidance for trial outcome reporting to inform extension development. METHODS: We searched for documents published in the last 10 years that provided guidance on trial outcome reporting using: an electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register); a grey literature search; and solicitation of colleagues using a snowballing approach. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data charting after training. Extracted trial outcome reporting guidance was compared with candidate reporting items to support, refute, or refine the items and to assess the need for the development of additional items. RESULTS: In total, 1758 trial outcome reporting recommendations were identified within 244 eligible documents. The majority of documents were published by academic journals (72%). Comparison of each recommendation with the initial list of 70 candidate items led to the development of an additional 62 items, producing 132 candidate items. The items encompassed outcome selection, definition, measurement, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of modifications between trial documents. The total number of documents supporting each candidate item ranged widely (median 5, range 0-84 documents per item), illustrating heterogeneity in the recommendations currently available for outcome reporting across a large and diverse sample of sources. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome reporting guidance for clinical trial protocols and reports lacks consistency and is spread across a large number of sources that may be challenging to access and implement in practice. Evidence and consensus-based guidance, currently in development (SPIRIT-Outcomes and CONSORT-Outcomes), may help authors adequately describe trial outcomes in protocols and reports transparently and completely to help reduce avoidable research waste.

8.
J Am Acad Dermatol ; 83(3): 754-761, 2020 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32111554

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Risk of melanoma is increased with potentially worse outcomes after solid organ transplant. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence, stage, and survival in transplant recipients with melanoma. METHODS: Population-based, retrospective, observational study using linked administrative databases. Adults receiving their first solid organ transplant from 1991 through 2012 were followed to December 2013. RESULTS: We identified 51 transplant recipients with melanoma, 11 369 recipients without melanoma, and 255 matched patients with melanoma from the nontransplant population. Transplant recipients were at increased risk of melanoma (standardized incidence ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.07-2.49) and more likely to be diagnosed at stages II through IV (adjusted odds ratio, 4.29; 95% CI, 2.04-9.00) compared with the nontransplant population. Melanoma-specific mortality was increased in transplant recipients compared with the nontransplant population (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.03-3.63). Among transplant recipients, all-cause mortality was increased after melanoma compared with those without melanoma (stage T1/T2: adjusted hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.13-4.21; T3/T4: adjusted hazard ratio, 4.07; 95% CI, 2.36-7.04; III/IV: adjusted hazard ratio, 7.92; 95% CI, 3.76-16.70). LIMITATIONS: The databases did not contain data on immunosuppressive drugs; ascertainment of melanoma metastasis relied on pathology reports. CONCLUSION: Melanoma after solid organ transplant is more often diagnosed at a later stage and leads to increased mortality, even for early-stage tumors.

11.
JAMA Dermatol ; 156(2): 158-171, 2020 02 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31825457

RESUMEN

Importance: Impaired skin barrier and aberrant immune function in atopic dermatitis (AD) may alter immune response to malignant cancer. Conflicting data exist on the risk of cancer in patients with AD. Objective: To assess the risk of noncutaneous and cutaneous cancers in patients with AD compared with the general population without AD. Data Sources: Studies identified from searches of MEDLINE and Embase that were published from 1946 and 1980, respectively, to January 3, 2019. The following search terms were used: [(exp NEOPLASMS/ OR neoplas*.tw. OR tumo*.tw. OR cancer*.tw. OR malignanc*.tw.) AND (exp Dermatitis, Atopic/ OR (atopic adj1 (dermatit* or neurodermatit*)).tw. OR eczema.tw. OR disseminated OR neurodermatit*.tw.)]. Study Selection: Included were observational studies (cohort and case-control designs) reporting a risk estimate for cancer in patients with AD compared with a control group (general population or patients without AD). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool, modified for observational exposure studies. Data were pooled using a random-effects model and expressed as standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane Q statistic and the I2 statistic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome of the study was risk of cancer measured by SIRs or ORs. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 8 population-based cohort studies (n = 5 726 692 participants) and 48 case-control studies (n = 114 136 participants). Among cohort studies, a statistically significant association was found between AD and keratinocyte carcinoma (5 studies; pooled SIR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.20-1.77) as well as cancers of the kidney (2 studies; pooled SIR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.14-3.04), central nervous system (2 studies; pooled SIR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70), and pancreas (1 study; SIR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.03-3.50). Among 48 case-control studies, pooled effects showed patients with AD had statistically significantly lower odds of central nervous system cancers (15 studies; pooled OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.82) and pancreatic cancer (5 studies; pooled OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98), contrary to the higher incidence found in cohort studies. Case-control studies also demonstrated lower odds of lung and respiratory system cancers (4 studies; pooled OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45-0.82). No evidence of association was found between AD and other cancer types, including melanoma. There was substantial heterogeneity between studies for many other cancers, which precluded pooling of data, and there was moderate to serious risk of bias among included studies. Conclusions and Relevance: Observational evidence suggests potential associations between AD and increased risk of keratinocyte carcinoma and kidney cancer as well as lower odds of lung and respiratory system cancers. Further research is needed to address the heterogeneity and limitations of current evidence and to better understand the mechanisms underlying a possible association between AD and cancer risk.


Asunto(s)
Dermatitis Atópica/patología , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Neoplasias Cutáneas/epidemiología , Humanos , Neoplasias/patología , Riesgo , Neoplasias Cutáneas/patología
12.
Transpl Int ; 32(12): 1259-1267, 2019 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31423648

RESUMEN

Skin cancer is a common post-transplant complication. In this study, the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator (SUNTRAC) was developed to stratify patients into risk groups for post-transplant skin cancer. Data for this study were obtained from the Transplant Skin Cancer Network (TSCN), which conducted a multicenter study across 26 transplant centers in the United States. In total, 6340 patients, transplanted from 2003 and 2008, were included. Weighted point values were assigned for each risk factor based on beta coefficients from multivariable modeling: white race (9 points), pretransplant history of skin cancer (6 points), age ≥ 50 years (4 points), male sex (2 points), and thoracic transplant (1 point). Good prognostic discrimination (optimism-corrected c statistic of 0.74) occurred with a 4-tier system: 0-6 points indicating low risk, 7-13 points indicating medium risk, 14-17 points indicating high risk, and 18-22 points indicating very high risk. The 5-year cumulative incidence of development of skin cancer was 1.01%, 6.15%, 15.14%, and 44.75%, for Low, Medium, High, and Very High SUNTRAC categories, respectively. Based on the skin cancer risk in different groups, the authors propose skin cancer screening guidelines based on this risk model.


Asunto(s)
Trasplante de Órganos/efectos adversos , Neoplasias Cutáneas/etiología , Adulto , Estudios de Cohortes , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Factores de Riesgo , Neoplasias Cutáneas/epidemiología
13.
14.
JAMA Dermatol ; 2019 May 22.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31116351

RESUMEN

Importance: Keratinocyte carcinoma (KC), also known as nonmelanoma skin cancer, is the most common malignancy after solid organ transplant. Epidemiologic data on posttransplant KC in North America are limited by a lack of KC capture in cancer and transplant registries. Objective: To estimate the incidence and identify risk factors for posttransplant KC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based inception cohort study in Ontario, Canada, used linked administrative databases and a health insurance claims-based algorithm. Participants were adult recipients of a first kidney, liver, heart, or lung transplant from January 1, 1994, to December 31, 2012. The cohort (n = 10 198) was followed up to December 31, 2013. Data were analyzed from May 31, 2016, to April 21, 2017. Exposures: Solid organ transplant with functioning graft. Main Outcomes and Measures: Age- and sex-adjusted standardized incidence ratio for KC in the transplant cohort was compared with that in the general population. Cumulative incidence of posttransplant KC was estimated using cumulative incidence functions, accounting for the competing risks of death or kidney graft loss. The association between KC and patient-, transplant-, and health services-related factors was evaluated with a multivariable cause-specific hazards model. Results: A total of 10 198 transplant recipients were included in the study. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age at transplant was 51 (41-59) years, with most recipients being male (6608 [64.8%]) and white (5964 [58.5%]). Posttransplant KC was diagnosed in 1690 patients (16.6%) after a median (IQR) of 3.96 (1.94-7.09) years, with an incidence rate of 2.63 per 100 patient-years (95% CI, 2.51-2.76). The rate of KC was significantly higher after transplant compared with the general population (standardized incidence ratio, 6.61; 95% CI, 6.31-6.93). The highest 10-year cumulative incidence was in the subsets of patients with a history of pretransplant skin cancer (66.5%), older than 50 years at transplant (27.5% for 51-65 years; 40.5% for >65 years), and of the white race (24.1%). The strongest independent risk factors for KC included older age at transplant (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 9.27; 95% CI, 7.08-12.14 for >65 years vs 18-35 years), white vs black race (aHR, 8.50; 95% CI, 4.03-17.91), pretransplant invasive skin cancer (aHR, 4.30; 95% CI, 3.72-4.98), and posttransplant precancerous skin lesions (aHR, 4.32; 95% CI, 3.77-4.95). Conclusions and Relevance: The incidence of KC appeared to be substantially increased after transplant, particularly in patients who were older at transplant, were white, and had a history of cancerous or precancerous skin tumors; intensified skin cancer screening, education, and early use of chemopreventive interventions may be warranted for these high-risk patient subsets.

15.
Trials ; 20(1): 161, 2019 Mar 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30841935

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Inadequate and poor quality outcome reporting in clinical trials is a well-documented problem that impedes the ability of researchers to evaluate, replicate, synthesize, and build upon study findings and impacts evidence-based decision-making by patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. To facilitate harmonized and transparent reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and published reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is being developed. The final product will provide unique InsPECT extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines. METHODS: The InsPECT SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed in accordance with the methodological framework created by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality) Network for reporting guideline development. Development will consist of (1) the creation of an initial list of candidate outcome reporting items synthesized from expert consultations and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports; (2) a three-round international Delphi study to identify additional candidate items and assess candidate item importance on a 9-point Likert scale, completed by stakeholders such as trial report and protocol authors, systematic review authors, biostatisticians and epidemiologists, reporting guideline developers, clinicians, journal editors, and research ethics board representatives; and (3) an in-person expert consensus meeting to finalize the set of essential outcome reporting items for trial protocols and reports, respectively. The consensus meeting discussions will be independently facilitated and informed by the empirical evidence identified in the primary literature and through the opinions (aggregate rankings and comments) collected via the Delphi study. An integrated knowledge translation approach will be used throughout InsPECT development to facilitate implementation and dissemination, in addition to standard post-development activities. DISCUSSION: InsPECT will provide evidence-informed and consensus-based standards focused on outcome reporting in clinical trials that can be applied across diverse disease areas, study populations, and outcomes. InsPECT will support the standardization of trial outcome reporting, which will maximize trial usability, reduce bias, foster trial replication, improve trial design and execution, and ultimately reduce research waste and help improve patient outcomes.


Asunto(s)
Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/normas , Determinación de Punto Final/normas , Proyectos de Investigación/normas , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/métodos , Consenso , Conferencias de Consenso como Asunto , Técnica Delfos , Humanos , Literatura de Revisión como Asunto , Resultado del Tratamiento
16.
BMJ Open ; 9(2): e023001, 2019 02 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30782872

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Patients, families and clinicians rely on published research to help inform treatment decisions. Without complete reporting of the outcomes studied, evidence-based clinical and policy decisions are limited and researchers cannot synthesise, replicate or build on existing research findings. To facilitate harmonised reporting of outcomes in published trial protocols and reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is under development. As one of the initial steps in the development of InsPECT, a scoping review will identify and synthesise existing guidance on the reporting of trial outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will apply methods based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. Documents that provide explicit guidance on trial outcome reporting will be searched for using: (1) an electronic bibliographic database search; (2) a grey literature search; and (3) solicitation of colleagues for guidance documents using a snowballing approach. Reference list screening will be performed for included documents. Search results will be divided between two trained reviewers who will complete title and abstract screening, full-text screening and data charting. Captured trial outcome reporting guidance will be compared with candidate InsPECT items to support, refute or refine InsPECT content and to assess the need for the development of additional items. Data analysis will explore common features of guidance and use quantitative measures (eg, frequencies) to characterise guidance and its sources. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A paper describing the review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will be used to inform the InsPECT development process, helping to ensure that InsPECT provides an evidence-based tool for standardising trial outcome reporting.


Asunto(s)
Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/normas , Determinación de Punto Final/normas , Difusión de la Información , Proyectos de Investigación/normas , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/métodos , Consenso , Conferencias de Consenso como Asunto , Humanos , Literatura de Revisión como Asunto , Resultado del Tratamiento
17.
Am J Transplant ; 19(6): 1792-1797, 2019 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30604583

RESUMEN

Guidelines recommend annual dermatology screening after solid organ transplantation to facilitate early detection of keratinocyte carcinoma (nonmelanoma skin cancer), the most common posttransplant malignancy. There are limited data on adherence levels and barriers to screening. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 477 physicians and nurses providing posttransplant care in Canada. The questionnaire asked about skin cancer screening and education practices, including the perceived importance and barriers. Whereas care providers viewed skin cancer screening as important for adult patients (median rating of 10/10, interquartile range 8-10), only 53% ensured annual screening for white adult transplant recipients. Having a screening policy in place (adjusted odds ratio 6.78, 95% confidence interval 3.12-14.74) and a dermatologist present at the transplant center (adjusted odds ratio 2.19, 95% confidence interval 1.03-4.67) were independently associated with higher adherence. Long wait times, lack of specialized transplant dermatologists, long travel distances, and insufficient priority were cited as the most common barriers for access to dermatologic care. Skin cancer education was provided to patients by over three quarters of care providers. Given the self-reported lack of adherence to annual skin cancer screening, there is need to develop, evaluate, and implement interventions that improve screening rates and skin cancer outcomes.


Asunto(s)
Dermatología/normas , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Trasplante de Órganos , Neoplasias Cutáneas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Cutáneas/prevención & control , Adulto , Canadá , Niño , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Enfermeras y Enfermeros , Cooperación del Paciente , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Médicos , Periodo Posoperatorio , Factores de Riesgo , Neoplasias Cutáneas/complicaciones , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Receptores de Trasplantes , Resultado del Tratamiento
18.
Chin J Integr Med ; 25(1): 71-79, 2019 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30484022

RESUMEN

Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is one of the oldest systems of medicine. More and more attention has been paid to TCM application, but the variable quality of clinical trials with TCM impedes its widespread acceptance. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement has established guidelines for designing clinical trials to ensure that the trial results are accurate and reliable. However, there are difficulties when applying SPIRIT 2013 Statement to trials with TCM, due to the unique theory and the characteristic of TCM intervention. An Extension to the original SPIRIT was developed to ensure the quality of trial design with TCM. As Chinese herbal formulae, acupuncture and moxibustion are common and representative interventions in TCM practice, the executive working group determined that the SPIRIT-TCM Extension focus on these three interventions. Extension was developed through initiation, 3 rounds of Delphi consensus survey, and finalizing expert meeting. Seven items from the SPIRIT 2013 Statement were modified, namely, "title", "background and rationale", "objectives", "eligibility criteria", "interventions", "outcomes", and "data collection methods". The Extension includes the introduction of the concept of TCM pattern and 3 major TCM interventions, with examples and explanations. The SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 provides suggestion for investigators in designing high quality TCM clinical trials. It is expected that wide dissemination and application of this extension ensure continuous improvement of TCM trial quality throughout the world.


Asunto(s)
Protocolos Clínicos , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Medicina China Tradicional , Humanos , Proyectos de Investigación
19.
Am J Transplant ; 19(2): 522-531, 2019 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29900669

RESUMEN

Solid organ transplant recipients have a high risk of keratinocyte carcinoma (non-melanoma skin cancer). Consensus-based transplant guidelines recommend annual dermatological examination but the impact on skin cancer-related outcomes is unclear. We conducted a population-based, retrospective, inception cohort study using administrative health databases in Ontario, Canada to evaluate the association between adherence to annual dermatology assessments (time-varying exposure) and keratinocyte carcinoma-related morbidity and mortality after transplantation. The primary outcome was the time to first advanced (highly morbid or fatal) keratinocyte carcinoma. Among 10 183 adults receiving their first transplant from 1994 to 2012 and followed for a median of 5.44 years, 4.9% developed an advanced keratinocyte carcinoma after transplant. Adherence to annual dermatology assessments for at least 75% of the observation time after transplant was associated with a 34% reduction in keratinocyte carcinoma-related morbidity or death compared with adherence levels below 75% (adjusted hazard ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.92). Adherence levels were universally low (median proportion of time spent in adherence 0%, inter-quartile range 0-27%). Only 45% of transplant recipients had ever seen a dermatologist and 2.1% were fully adherent during the entire observation period. Strategies are needed to improve adherence rates in order to help decrease long-term morbidity after transplant.


Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Basocelular/terapia , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/terapia , Dermatología/métodos , Trasplante de Órganos/efectos adversos , Cooperación del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias Cutáneas/terapia , Receptores de Trasplantes/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Anciano , Carcinoma Basocelular/etiología , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/etiología , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pronóstico , Sistema de Registros , Estudios Retrospectivos , Neoplasias Cutáneas/etiología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA