Accelerated partial irradiation for breast cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 8653 women in eight randomized trials

Background and purpose: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is the strategy that allows adjuvant treatment delivery in a shorter period of time in smaller volumes. This study was undertaken to assess the effectiveness and outcomes of APBI in breast cancer compared with whole-breast irradiation (WBI). Material and methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of WBI versus APBI. Two authors independently selected and assessed the studies regarding eligibility criteria. Results: Eight studies were selected. A total of 8653 patients were randomly assigned for WBI versus APBI. Six studies reported local recurrence outcomes. Two studies were matched in 5 years and only one study for different time of follow-up. Meta-analysis of two trials assessing 1407 participants showed significant difference in the WBI versus APBI group regarding the 5-year local recurrence rate (HR = 4.54, 95% CI: 1.78-11.61, p = 0.002). Significant difference in favor of WBI for different follow-up times was also found. No differences in nodal recurrence, systemic recurrence, overall survival and mortality rates were observed. Conclusions: APBI is associated with higher local recurrence compared to WBI without compromising other clinical outcomes. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Established cardiovascular disease and CVD risk factors in a primary care population of middle-aged Irish men and women

Contemporary Irish data on the prevalence of major cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors are sparse. The primary aims of this study were (1) to estimate the prevalence of major cardiovascular disease risk factors, including Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, in the general population of men and women between the ages of 50 and 69 years; and (2) to estimate the proportion of individuals in this age group at high absolute risk of cardiovascular disease events on the basis of pre-existing cardiovascular disease or as defined by the Framingham equation. Participants were drawn from the practice lists of 17 general practices in Cork and Kerry using stratified random sampling. A total of 1018 people attended for screening (490 men, 48%) from 1473 who were invited, a response rate of 69.1%. Cardiovascular disease risk factors and glucose intolerance are common in the population of men and women aged between 50 and 69 years. Almost half the participants were overweight and a further quarter met current international criteria for obesity, one of the highest recorded prevalence rates for obesity in a European population sample. Forty per cent of the population reported minimal levels of physical activity and 19% were current cigarette smokers. Approximately half the sample had blood pressure readings consistent with international criteria for the diagnosis of hypertension, but only 38% of these individuals were known to be hypertensive. Eighty per cent of the population sample had a cholesterol concentration in excess of 5 mmol/l. Almost 4% of the population had Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, of whom 30% were previously undiagnosed. A total of 137 participants (13.5%) had a history or ECG findings consistent with established cardiovascular disease. Of the remaining 881 individuals in the primary prevention population, a total of 20 high-risk individuals (19 male) had a risk of a coronary heart disease event 30% over ten years according to the Framingham risk equation, giving an overall population prevalence of 2.0% (95% CI 1.3 - 3.0). At a risk level 20% over ten years, an additional 91 individuals (8.9%) were identified. Thus a total of 24.4% of the population were at risk either through pre-existing CVD (13.5%) or an estimated 10-year risk exceeding 20% according to the Framingham risk equation (10.9%). Thus a substantial proportion of middle-aged men are at high risk of CVD. The findings emphasise the scale of the CVD epidemic in Ireland and the need for ongoing monitoring of risk factors at the population level and the need to develop preventive strategies at both the clinical and societal level.

Effect of primary care physicians' use of estimated glomerular filtration rate on the timing of their subspecialty referral decisions.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers' suboptimal recognition of the severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD) may contribute to untimely referrals of patients with CKD to subspecialty care. It is unknown whether U.S. primary care physicians' use of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) rather than serum creatinine to estimate CKD severity could improve the timeliness of their subspecialty referral decisions. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 154 United States primary care physicians to assess the effect of use of eGFR (versus creatinine) on the timing of their subspecialty referrals. Primary care physicians completed a questionnaire featuring questions regarding a hypothetical White or African American patient with progressing CKD. We asked primary care physicians to identify the serum creatinine and eGFR levels at which they would recommend patients like the hypothetical patient be referred for subspecialty evaluation. We assessed significant improvement in the timing [from eGFR < 30 to ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73m(2)) of their recommended referrals based on their use of creatinine versus eGFR. RESULTS: Primary care physicians recommended subspecialty referrals later (CKD more advanced) when using creatinine versus eGFR to assess kidney function [median eGFR 32 versus 55 mL/min/1.73m(2), p < 0.001]. Forty percent of primary care physicians significantly improved the timing of their referrals when basing their recommendations on eGFR. Improved timing occurred more frequently among primary care physicians practicing in academic (versus non-academic) practices or presented with White (versus African American) hypothetical patients [adjusted percentage(95% CI): 70% (45-87) versus 37% (reference) and 57% (39-73) versus 25% (reference), respectively, both p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians recommended subspecialty referrals earlier when using eGFR (versus creatinine) to assess kidney function. Enhanced use of eGFR by primary care physicians' could lead to more timely subspecialty care and improved clinical outcomes for patients with CKD.

Characteristics of primary care office visits to nurse practitioners, physician assistants and physicians in United States Veterans Health Administration facilities, 2005 to 2010: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND: Primary care, an essential determinant of health system equity, efficiency, and effectiveness, is threatened by inadequate supply and distribution of the provider workforce. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been a frontrunner in the use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Evaluation of the roles and impact of NPs and PAs in the VHA is critical to ensuring optimal care for veterans and may inform best practices for use of PAs and NPs in other settings around the world. The purpose of this study was to characterize the use of NPs and PAs in VHA primary care and to examine whether their patients and patient care activities were, on average, less medically complex than those of physicians. METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of administrative data from VHA primary care encounters between 2005 and 2010. Patient and patient encounter characteristics were compared across provider types (PA, NP, and physician). RESULTS: NPs and PAs attend about 30% of all VHA primary care encounters. NPs, PAs, and physicians fill similar roles in VHA primary care, but patients of PAs and NPs are slightly less complex than those of physicians, and PAs attend a higher proportion of visits for the purpose of determining eligibility for benefits. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a highly successful nationwide primary care system relies on NPs and PAs to provide over one quarter of primary care visits, and that these visits are similar to those of physicians with regard to patient and encounter characteristics. These findings can inform health workforce solutions to physician shortages in the USA and around the world. Future research should compare the quality and costs associated with various combinations of providers and allocations of patient care work, and should elucidate the approaches that maximize quality and efficiency.

Specialist and primary care physicians' views on barriers to adequate preparation of patients for renal replacement therapy: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Early preparation for renal replacement therapy (RRT) is recommended for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), yet many patients initiate RRT urgently and/or are inadequately prepared. METHODS: We conducted audio-recorded, qualitative, directed telephone interviews of nephrology health care providers (n = 10, nephrologists, physician assistants, and nurses) and primary care physicians (PCPs, n = 4) to identify modifiable challenges to optimal RRT preparation to inform future interventions. We recruited providers from public safety-net hospital-based and community-based nephrology and primary care practices. We asked providers open-ended questions to assess their perceived challenges and their views on the role of PCPs and nephrologist-PCP collaboration in patients' RRT preparation. Two independent and trained abstractors coded transcribed audio-recorded interviews and identified major themes. RESULTS: Nephrology providers identified several factors contributing to patients' suboptimal RRT preparation, including health system resources (e.g., limited time for preparation, referral process delays, and poorly integrated nephrology and primary care), provider skills (e.g., their difficulty explaining CKD to patients), and patient attitudes and cultural differences (e.g., their poor understanding and acceptance of their CKD and its treatment options, their low perceived urgency for RRT preparation; their negative perceptions about RRT, lack of trust, or language differences). PCPs desired more involvement in preparation to ensure RRT transitions could be as "smooth as possible", including providing patients with emotional support, helping patients weigh RRT options, and affirming nephrologist recommendations. Both nephrology providers and PCPs desired improved collaboration, including better information exchange and delineation of roles during the RRT preparation process. CONCLUSIONS: Nephrology and primary care providers identified health system resources, provider skills, and patient attitudes and cultural differences as challenges to patients' optimal RRT preparation. Interventions to improve these factors may improve patients' preparation and initiation of optimal RRTs.