The radiotherapy recommendation changed from pre-assay to post-assay 31.3% (95%CI: 23.0-40.6%) of the time--a clinically significant change. This study supports the clinical utility of the DCIS Score and indicates that the test provides additional, individualized information on LR risk.
Objective: Based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) rates range between 9 and 15 events per 1000 person-years, ischemic stroke between 4 and 6 per 1000 person-years, CHD death rates between 5 and 7 events per 1000 person-years, and any major vascular event between 28 and 53 per 1000 person-years in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We reviewed global literature on the topic to determine whether the real-world burden of secondary major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) is higher among ASCVD patients. Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase using MeSH/keywords including cardiovascular disease, secondary prevention and observational studies. Studies published in the last 5 years, in English, with 50 subjects with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) or on statins, and reporting secondary MACEs were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of each included study. Results: Of 4663 identified articles, 14 studies that reported MACE incidence rates per 1000 personyears were included in the review (NOS grades ranged from 8 to 9; 2 were prospective and 12 were retrospective studies). Reported incidence rates per 1000 person-years had a range (median) of 12.01-39.9 (26.8) for MI, 13.8-57.2 (41.5) for ischemic stroke, 1.0-94.5 (21.1) for CV-related mortality and 9.7-486 (52.6) for all-cause mortality. Rates were 25.8-211 (81.1) for composite of MACEs. Multiple event rates had a range (median) of 60-391 (183) events per 1000 person-years. Conclusions: Our review indicates that MACE rates observed in real-world studies are substantially higher than those reported in RCTs, suggesting that the secondary MACE burden and potential benefits of effective CVD management in ASCVD patients may be underestimated if real-world data are not taken into consideration.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Background
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known complication among pediatric and adult cancer patients. Adolescent and young adult oncology (AYAO) patients have unique biological and physiological characteristics that make them distinct from other populations. Our objective was to study the VTE incidence, risk factors, and outcomes, which have been understudied in this population.
Procedure
A retrospective case–control study was conducted on AYAO participants with new or relapsed cancer and an imaging confirmed VTE from January 2011 to November 2016 at our institution. Eligible AYAO participants without a history of VTE were designated as controls and were randomly selected from our institution's tumor registry. Demographics, medical history, surgeries, central venous catheter (CVC) data, VTE diagnosis and treatment, relapses, and deaths were abstracted.
Results
Thirty‐five VTE cases and 70 controls were included in this analysis. Eighty percent of cases had leukemia or lymphoma (vs. a solid tumor) compared to 58% of controls. The majority of VTEs (57%) were CVC associated, and more than 70% of cases had more than one CVC placed during their cancer treatment versus 34% of controls. Infection was associated with increased VTE risk (OR = 6.35, 95% CI = 2.30, 17.55, p < .0001). VTE cases had increased cancer relapse (23% vs. 10%) and mortality rates (29% vs. 16%) than controls.
Conclusion
AYAO participants with a VTE were more likely to have leukemia or lymphoma, more than one CVC or infection. Further studies are needed to identify patients who would benefit from modifiable prevention measures, such as limiting to one CVC, preventing infections, or considering prophylactic anticoagulation for those with a liquid tumor.
Use of the 92-gene assay for diagnosing metastatic tumors of uncertain origin is associated with reduced misdiagnoses, increased survival, and improved quality of life. Incorporating the assay into current practice is a cost-effective approach to standardizing diagnostic methods while improving patient care. Limitations of this analysis are the lack of data availability and resulting modeling simplifications, although sensitivity analyses showed these to not be key drivers of results.
To assess clinical utility of the 21-gene assay (Oncotype DX® Recurrence Score®), we determined whether women with HER2(−)/ER+ pN1mi breast cancer with low (<18) Recurrence Scores results are given adjuvant chemotherapy in a lower proportion than those with high scores (≥31). This was a multicenter chart review of ≥18 year old women with pN1mi breast cancer, HER2(−)/ER+ tumors, ductal/lobular/mixed histology, with the assay ordered on or after 1 January 2007. One hundred and eighty one patients had a mean age of 60.7 years; 82.9% had ECOG performance status 0; 33.7% had hypertension, 22.7% had osteoporosis, 18.8% had osteoarthritis, and 8.8% had type-2 diabetes. Mean Recurrence Score was 17.8 (range: 0–50). 48.6% had a mastectomy; 55.8% had a lumpectomy. 19.8% of low-risk group patients were recommended chemotherapy vs. 57.9% in the intermediate-risk group and 100% in the high-risk group (p < 0.001). A total of 80.2% of the low-risk group were recommended endocrine therapy alone, while 77.8% of the high-risk group were recommended both endocrine and chemotherapy (p < 0.001). The Oncotype DX Recurrence Score result provides actionable information that can be incorporated into treatment planning for women with HER2(−)/ER+ pN1mi breast cancer. The Recurrence Score result has clinical utility in treatment planning for HER2(−)/ER+ pN1mi breast cancer patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.