Survival disparities in vulvar cancer patients in Commission on Cancer®-accredited facilities.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate survival disparities and prognostic factors in vulvar cancer by age at diagnosis. METHODS: Women who underwent surgery and were diagnosed with stage I-IV vulvar cancer from 2004 to 2014 in the National Cancer Database were eligible. Proportions were compared using Chi-Square test. Survival was evaluated using Cox analysis. RESULTS: There were 18,207 eligible women. Median age at diagnosis was 64 years, and 31% diagnosed ≥75 years old were categorized as elderly. Most vulvar cancers were diagnosed at stage I and with squamous histology. Diagnosis with higher stage or non-squamous histology was more common in elderly vs. non-elderly patients (P < 0.001). Survival was 3.5 times worse in the elderly than the non-elderly (P < 0.0001). Risk of death for each 5-year increment in age increased by 22% for non-elderly and 43% for elderly patients (P < 0.0001). The prognostic value of comorbidity score, stage, regional node assessment and histology was smaller in elderly vs. non-elderly women (each P < 0.05). Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CTRT) use in the elderly vs. non-elderly was rare for stage I-II disease (3% vs. 2%) and more common for stage III-IV disease (6% vs. 43%), respectively (P < 0.0001). The survival disadvantage for elderly patients persisted following no adjuvant therapy, radiotherapy or chemotherapy alone, or CTRT (P < 0.0001). In stage III-IV disease, survival was superior following CTRT vs. radiotherapy when diagnosed <75 years (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.69-0.93) but not in the elderly (HR = 0.99, P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Age-associated risk of death increased at different rates in vulvar cancer and was larger in elderly vs. non-elderly patients. The impact of other prognostic factors was smaller in elderly vs. non-elderly women. The survival benefit of CTRT over radiotherapy in stage III-IV did not extend to the elderly.

Alternative doffing strategies of personal protective equipment to prevent self-contamination in the health care setting.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers routinely contaminate skin and clothing when doffing personal protective equipment (PPE). Alternative doffing strategies, such as hand hygiene on gloved hands and double gloving, have been suggested but not validated by comparison against the standard Centers for Disease Control and Prevention procedures. METHODS: Participants were assigned to doff PPE following 1 of 4 specific strategies. Prior to doffing, PPE was "contaminated" with Glo Germ and fluorescing Staphylococcus epidermidis at the recommended level of 1.5 × 108 colony forming units/mL. After doffing, areas of self-contamination were detected using a black light. Cultures were taken from these areas using cotton swabs, inoculated onto blood agar plates, and incubated for 48hours. Each participant completed a survey regarding usability. The Fisher exact test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were used for data analysis with SAS 9.4. RESULTS: There were 51 participants who completed the study. Breaches in PPE were observed in only 5 of 51 doffs (10%). However, 46 of 51 (90%) had areas of self-contamination that was apparent by transfer of Glo Germ to skin or clothing. A subset (16%) of these sites also grew fluorescing S epidermidis. Assigned doffing strategy was associated with bacterial contamination (P = .0151), but not usability (P = .2372). CONCLUSIONS: Participants experienced self-contamination when doffing PPE with both a surrogate marker and live bacteria. Close attention to doffing technique is necessary for optimal results, and one-step procedures may be more effective.