Screening and overdiagnosis : public health implications

Overdiagnosis is the diagnosis of an abnormality that bears no substantial health hazard and no benefit for patients to be aware of. Resulting mainly from the use of increasingly sensitive screening and diagnostic tests, as well as broadened definitions of conditions requiring an intervention, overdiagnosis is a growing but still largely misunderstood public health issue. Fear of missing a diagnosis or of litigation, financial incentives or patient's need of reassurance are further causes of overdiagnosis. The main consequence of overdiagnosis is overtreatment. Treating an overdiagnosed condition bears no benefit but can cause harms and generates costs. Overtreatment also diverts health professionals from caring for those most severely ill. Recognition of overdiagnosis due to screening is challenging since it is rarely identifiable at the individual level and difficult to quantify precisely at the population level. Overdiagnosis exists even for screening of proven efficacy and efficiency. Measures to reduce overdiagnosis due to screening include heightened sensitization of health professionals and patients, active surveillance and deferred treatment until early signs of disease progression and prognosis estimation through biomarkers (including molecular) profiling. Targeted screening and balanced information on its risk and benefits would also help limit overdiagnosis. Research is needed to assess the the public health burden and implications of overdiagnosis due to screening activity.

MRI/TRUS fusion software-based targeted biopsy: the new standard of care?

The advent of multiparametric MRI has made it possible to change the way in which prostate biopsy is done, allowing to direct biopsies to suspicious lesions rather than randomly. The subject of this review relates to a computer-assisted strategy, the MRI/US fusion software-based targeted biopsy, and to its performance compared to the other sampling methods. Different devices with different methods to register MR images to live TRUS are currently in use to allow software-based targeted biopsy. Main clinical indications of MRI/US fusion software-based targeted biopsy are re-biopsy in men with persistent suspicious of prostate cancer after first negative standard biopsy and the follow-up of patients under active surveillance. Some studies have compared MRI/US fusion software-based targeted versus standard biopsy. In men at risk with MRI-suspicious lesion, targeted biopsy consistently detects more men with clinically significant disease as compared to standard biopsy; some studies have also shown decreased detection of insignificant disease. Only two studies directly compared MRI/US fusion software-based targeted biopsy with MRI/US fusion visual targeted biopsy, and the diagnostic ability seems to be in favor of the software approach. To date, no study comparing software-based targeted biopsy against in-bore MRI biopsy is available. The new software-based targeted approach seems to have the characteristics to be added in the standard pathway for achieving accurate risk stratification. Once reproducibility and cost-effectiveness will be verified, the actual issue will be to determine whether MRI/TRUS fusion software-based targeted biopsy represents anadd-on test or a replacement to standard TRUS biopsy.

Health care workers' influenza vaccination: motivations and mandatory mask policy

BACKGROUND: Vaccination of health care workers (HCW) against seasonal influenza (SI) is recommended but vaccination rate rarely reach >30%. Vaccination coverage against 2009 pandemic influenza (PI) was 52% in our hospital, whilst a new policy requiring unvaccinated HCW to wear a mask during patient care duties was enforced. AIMS: To investigate the determinants of this higher vaccination acceptance for PI and to look for an association with the new mask-wearing policy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study, involving HCW of three critical departments of a 1023-bed, tertiary-care university hospital in Switzerland. Self-reported 2009-10 SI and 2009 PI vaccination statuses, reasons and demographic data were collected through a literature-based questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, uni- and multivariate analyses were then performed. RESULTS: There were 472 respondents with a response rate of 54%. Self-reported vaccination acceptance was 64% for PI and 53% for SI. PI vaccination acceptance was associated with being vaccinated against SI (OR 9.5; 95% CI 5.5-16.4), being a physician (OR 7.7; 95% CI 3.1-19.1) and feeling uncomfortable wearing a mask (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.0-2.8). Main motives for refusing vaccination were: preference for wearing a surgical mask (80% for PI, not applicable for SI) and concerns about vaccine safety (64%, 50%) and efficacy (44%, 35%). CONCLUSIONS: The new mask-wearing policy was a motivation for vaccination but also offered an alternative to non-compliant HCW. Concerns about vaccine safety and efficiency and self-interest of health care workers are still main determinants for influenza vaccination acceptance. Better incentives are needed to encourage vaccination amongst non-physician HCW.

'Fast-implantable' aortic valve implantation and concomitant mitral procedures.

Concomitant aortic and mitral valve replacement or concomitant aortic valve replacement and mitral repair can be a challenge for the cardiac surgeon: in particular, because of their structure and design, two bioprosthetic heart valves or an aortic valve prosthesis and a rigid mitral ring can interfere at the level of the mitroaortic junction. Therefore, when a mitral bioprosthesis or a rigid mitral ring is already in place and a surgical aortic valve replacement becomes necessary, or when older high-risk patients require concomitant mitral and aortic procedures, the new 'fast-implantable' aortic valve system (Intuity valve, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) can represent a smart alternative to standard aortic bioprosthesis. Unfortunately, this is still controversial (risk of interference). However, transcatheter aortic valve replacements have been performed in patients with previously implanted mitral valves or mitral rings. Interestingly, we learned that there is no interference (or not significant interference) among the standard valve and the stent valve. Consequently, we can assume that a fast-implantable valve can also be safely placed next to a biological mitral valve or next to a rigid mitral ring without risks of distortion, malpositioning, high gradient or paravalvular leak. This paper describes two cases: a concomitant Intuity aortic valve and bioprosthetic mitral valve implantation and a concomitant Intuity aortic valve and mitral ring implantation.