Older individuals without DM are at high risk for foot-related disease and should receive the same foot care screening, education, and follow-up as those with DM. Older people who have PN, PVD, or physical and psychosocial limitations, may require referral to foot care specialists.

The foot care behaviors of patients with diabetes were assessed by medical history, and their feet were examined for peripheral neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, foot ulcers, and deformities. The sample consisted of 136 patients (14 with insulin-dependent diabetes and 122 with non-insulin-dependent diabetes). Mean age was 61 years and mean duration of diabetes was 13 years. Peripheral vascular disease was found in 25% of the patients, peripheral neuropathy in 33%, and 13% had both peripheral vascular disease and peripheral neuropathy. Potentially unsafe nail and foot care practices were identified, suggesting that routine diabetes care may not provide sufficient foot care education and follow-up for all patients. A screening algorithm was developed to provide guidelines for individualizing foot care education and referral of patients with diabetic foot disease. The recommendations included annual diabetes foot care assessments and education for those at low risk for foot amputation, intensive foot care education and more frequent follow-up for individuals with peripheral neuropathy or peripheral vascular disease, and referral to a foot care specialty clinic for individuals with peripheral neuropathy and peripheral vascular disease, or foot ulcers.

No abstract

PURPOSE: Tumour genomic profiling is of increasing importance in early phase trials to match patients to targeted therapeutics. Mutations vary by demographic group, however, regional differences are not characterised. This was investigated by comparing mutation prevalence for common cancers presenting to Newcastle Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC) to The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and utility of trial matching modalities. METHODS: Detailed clinicogenomic data was obtained for patients presenting September 2017 – December 2020. Prevalence of mutations in lung, colorectal, breast and prostate cancer was compared to TCGA GDC Data Portal. Experimental Cancer (EC) Trial Finder utility in matching trials was compared to Molecular Tumour Boards (MTB) commercial sequencing reports. RESULTS: Of 311 patients with advanced cancer this consisted of lung (n = 131, 42.1%), colorectal (n = 44, 14.1%), breast (n = 36, 11.6%) and prostate (n = 18, 5.6%). More than one mutation was identified in the majority (n = 260, 84%). Significant prevalence differences compared to TCGA were identified, including a high prevalence of EGFR in lung (P = 0.001); RB1 in lung and breast (P = 0.01, P = 0.0002); and multiple mutations in prostate cancer. EC Trial Finder demonstrated significantly different utility than sequencing reports in identifying trials (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Regional differences in mutations may exist with advanced stage accounting for prevalence of specific mutations. A national Trial Finder shows utility in finding targeted trials whilst commercial sequencing reports may over-report ‘actionable’ mutations. Understanding local prevalence and trial availability could increase enrolment onto matched early phase trials.

No abstract