Morgan T.M.,Vanderbilt University |
Barocas D.A.,Vanderbilt University |
Chang S.S.,Vanderbilt University |
Phillips S.E.,Vanderbilt University |
And 6 more authors.
Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations | Year: 2013
The relationship between perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) and oncologic outcomes is controversial. In patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer and several other solid malignancies, PBT has been associated with an increased risk of mortality. Yet, the urologic literature has a paucity of data addressing this topic. We sought to evaluate whether PBT affects overall survival following radical cystectomy (RC) for patients with bladder cancer. The medical records of 777 consecutive patients undergoing RC for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder were reviewed. PBT was defined as transfusion of red blood cells during RC or within the postoperative hospitalization. The primary outcome was overall survival. Clinical and pathologic variables were compared using χtests, and Cox multivariate survival analyses were performed. A total of 323 patients (41.6%) underwent PBT. In the univariate analysis, PBT was associated with increased overall mortality (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.11-1.78). Additionally, an independent association was demonstrated in a non-transformed Cox regression model (HR, 95% CI 1.01-1.36) but not in a model utilizing restricted cubic splines (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77-1.38). The c-index was 0.78 for the first model and 0.79 for the second. In a traditional multivariate model, mirroring those that have been applied to this question in the general surgery literature, we demonstrated an association between PBT and overall mortality after RC. However, this relationship is not observed in a second statistical model. Given the complex nature of adequately controlling for confounding factors in studies of PBT, a prospective study will be necessary to fully elucidate the independent risks associated with PBT. © 2013 Elsevier Inc.
Fowke J.H.,Vanderbilt University |
Motley S.S.,Vanderbilt University |
Concepcion R.S.,Urology Associates |
Penson D.F.,Vanderbilt University |
And 2 more authors.
BMC Cancer | Year: 2012
Background: Established risk factors for prostate cancer have not translated to effective prevention or adjuvant care strategies. Several epidemiologic studies suggest greater body adiposity may be a modifiable risk factor for high-grade (Gleason 7, Gleason 8-10) prostate cancer and prostate cancer mortality. However, BMI only approximates body adiposity, and may be confounded by centralized fat deposition or lean body mass in older men. Our objective was to use bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA) to measure body composition and determine the association between prostate cancer and total body fat mass (FM) fat-free mass (FFM), and percent body fat (%BF), and which body composition measure mediated the association between BMI or waist circumference (WC) with prostate cancer.Methods: The study used a multi-centered recruitment protocol targeting men scheduled for prostate biopsy. Men without prostate cancer at biopsy served as controls (n = 1057). Prostate cancer cases were classified as having Gleason 6 (n = 402), Gleason 7 (n = 272), or Gleason 8-10 (n = 135) cancer. BIA and body size measures were ascertained by trained staff prior to diagnosis, and clinical and comorbidity status were determined by chart review. Analyses utilized multivariable linear and logistic regression.Results: Body size and composition measures were not significantly associated with low-grade (Gleason 6) prostate cancer. In contrast, BMI, WC, FM, and FFM were associated with an increased risk of Gleason 7 and Gleason 8-10 prostate cancer. Furthermore, BMI and WC were no longer associated with Gleason 8-10 (OR BMI= 1.039 (1.000, 1.081), OR WC= 1.016 (0.999, 1.033), continuous scales) with control for total body FFM (OR BMI= 0.998 (0.946, 1.052), OR WC= 0.995 (0.974, 1.017)). Furthermore, increasing FFM remained significantly associated with Gleason 7 (OR FFM= 1.030 (1.008, 1.052)) and Gleason 8-10 (OR FFM= 1.044 (1.014, 1.074)) after controlling for FM.Conclusions: Our results suggest that associations between BMI and WC with high-grade prostate cancer are mediated through the measurement of total body FFM. It is unlikely that FFM causes prostate cancer, but instead provides a marker of testosterone or IGF1 activities involved with retaining lean mass as men age. © 2012 Fowke et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Maripuri S.,Vanderbilt University |
Penson D.F.,Vanderbilt University |
Penson D.F.,VA Tennessee Valley Geriatric Research |
Ikizler T.A.,Vanderbilt University |
Cavanaugh K.L.,Vanderbilt University
American Journal of Nephrology | Year: 2011
Background/Aims: Percutaneous kidney biopsy (PKB) is the primary diagnostic tool for kidney disease. Outpatient 'day surgery' (ODS) following PKB in low-risk patients has previously been described as a safe alternative to inpatient observation (IO). This study aims to determine if ODS is less costly compared to IO while accounting for all institutional costs (IC) associated with post-PKB complications, including death. Methods: A cost minimization study was performed using decision analysis methodology which models relative costs in relation to outcome probabilities yielding an optimum decision. The potential outcomes included major complications (bleeding requiring blood transfusion or advanced intervention), minor complications (bleeding or pain requiring additional observation), and death. Probabilities were obtained from the published literature and a base case was selected. IC were obtained for all complications from institutional activity-based cost estimates. The base case assumed a complication rate of 10% with major bleeding occurring in 2.5% of patients (for both arms) and death in 0.1 and 0.15% of IO and ODS patients, respectively. Results: ODS costs USD 1,394 per biopsy compared to USD 1,800 for IO inclusive of all complications. IC for ODS remain less when overall complications <20%, major complications <5.5%, and IC per death
Hoffman R.M.,University of New Mexico |
Koyama T.,Center for Quantitative science |
Fan K.-H.,Center for Quantitative science |
Albertsen P.C.,University of Connecticut |
And 8 more authors.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute | Year: 2013
Background No randomized trials have compared survival outcomes for men with localized prostate cancer (PC) being treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). The goal of the study, therefore, was to estimate the association of RP (compared with EBRT) with overall and PC mortality. Methods We analyzed an observational cohort from the population-based Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study, which included men aged 55 to 74 years diagnosed with localized PC between October 1994 and October 1995 who underwent either RP (n = 1164) or EBRT (n = 491) within 1 year of diagnosis. Patients were followed until death or study end (December 31, 2010). Overall and disease-specific mortality were assessed with multivariable survival analysis, with propensity scores to adjust for potential treatment selection confounders (demographics, comorbidities, and tumor characteristics). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results After 15 years of follow-up, there were 568 deaths, including 104 from PC. RP was associated with statistically significant advantages for overall (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.53 to 0.70, P <.0001.) and disease-specific mortality (HR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.26 to 0.49, P <.0001.). Mortality benefits for RP were also observed within treatment propensity quintiles, when subjects were pair-matched on propensity scores, and in subgroup analyses based on age, tumor characteristics, and comorbidity. Conclusions Population-based observational data on men diagnosed with localized PC in the mid-1990s suggest a mortality benefit associated with RP vs EBRT. Possible explanations include residual selection bias or a true survival advantage. Results might be less applicable for men facing treatment decisions today. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Donelan K.,Massachusetts General Hospital |
Donelan K.,Harvard University |
DesRoches C.M.,Mathematica Policy Research |
Dittus R.S.,Vanderbilt University |
And 2 more authors.
New England Journal of Medicine | Year: 2013
BACKGROUND: The U.S. health care system is at a critical juncture in health care workforce planning. The nation has a shortage of primary care physicians. Policy analysts have proposed expanding the supply and scope of practice of nurse practitioners to address increased demand for primary care providers. These proposals are controversial. METHODS: From November 23, 2011, to April 9, 2012, we conducted a national postal-mail survey of 972 clinicians (505 physicians and 467 nurse practitioners) in primary care practice. Questionnaire domains included scope of work, practice characteristics, and attitudes about the effect of expanding the role of nurse practitioners in primary care. The response rate was 61.2%. RESULTS: Physicians reported working longer hours, seeing more patients, and earning higher incomes than did nurse practitioners. A total of 80.9% of nurse practitioners reported working in a practice with a physician, as compared with 41.4% of physicians who reported working with a nurse practitioner. Nurse practitioners were more likely than physicians to believe that they should lead medical homes, be allowed hospital admitting privileges, and be paid equally for the same clinical services. When asked whether they agreed with the statement that physicians provide a higher-quality examination and consultation than do nurse practitioners during the same type of primary care visit, 66.1% of physicians agreed and 75.3% of nurse practitioners disagreed. CONCLUSIONS: Current policy recommendations that are aimed at expanding the supply and scope of practice of primary care nurse practitioners are controversial. Physicians and nurse practitioners do not agree about their respective roles in the delivery of primary care. (Funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and others.) Copyright © 2013 Massachusetts Medical Society.