Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colod cancer

The use of adjuvant chemotherapy following resection for all patients with stage III colon cancer is now part of the standard of care around the world. Recent trials have led to changes in the standard regimens, which now include the use of oxaliplatin (Eloxatin) for most patients with stage III colon cancer. The addition of oxaliplatin has resulted in a 23% reduction in the risk of recurrence compared with fluorouracil/leucovorin alone, with a small but statistically significant survival benefit. Unfortunately, no adequately powered trial has determined whether adjuvant chemotherapy is beneficial for stage II patients, and its use is much more controversial. Most investigators agree that adjuvant chemotherapy has some activity against stage H disease. However, its impact on progression-free and overall survival remains highly controversial. Despite the lack of data, there is growing acceptance of an informal classification system, which stratifies stage II patients by risk on the basis of clinical data, as a guide for deciding whether to use adjuvant therapy. The only phase III clinical trial for stage H patients currently ongoing in the United States uses molecular classification as the basis for patient randomization.

Right adolescent idiopathic thoracic curve (Lenke 1 A and B): does cost of instrumentation and implant density improve radiographic and cosmetic parameters?

In adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) there has been a shift towards increasing the number of implants and pedicle screws, which has not been proven to improve cosmetic correction. To evaluate if increasing cost of instrumentation correlates with cosmetic correction using clinical photographs. 58 Lenke 1A and B cases from a multicenter AIS database with at least 3 months follow-up of clinical photographs were used for analysis. Cosmetic parameters on PA and forward bending photographs included angular measurements of trunk shift, shoulder balance, rib hump, and ratio measurements of waist line asymmetry. Pre-op and follow-up X-rays were measured for coronal and sagittal deformity parameters. Cost density was calculated by dividing the total cost of instrumentation by the number of vertebrae being fused. Linear regression and spearman`s correlation were used to correlate cost density to X-ray and photo outcomes. Three independent observers verified radiographic and cosmetic parameters for inter/interobserver variability analysis. Average pre-op Cobb angle and instrumented correction were 54A degrees (SD 12.5) and 59% (SD 25) respectively. The average number of vertebrae fused was 10 (SD 1.9). The total cost of spinal instrumentation ranged from $6,769 to $21,274 (Mean $12,662, SD $3,858). There was a weak positive and statistically significant correlation between Cobb angle correction and cost density (r = 0.33, p = 0.01), and no correlation between Cobb angle correction of the uninstrumented lumbar spine and cost density (r = 0.15, p = 0.26). There was no significant correlation between all sagittal X-ray measurements or any of the photo parameters and cost density. There was good to excellent inter/intraobserver variability of all photographic parameters based on the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 0.74-0.98). Our method used to measure cosmesis had good to excellent inter/intraobserver variability, and may be an effective tool to objectively assess cosmesis from photographs. Since increasing cost density only improves mildly the Cobb angle correction of the main thoracic curve and not the correction of the uninstrumented spine or any of the cosmetic parameters, one should consider the cost of increasing implant density in Lenke 1A and B curves. In the area of rationalization of health care expenses, this study demonstrates that increasing the number of implants does not improve any relevant cosmetic or radiographic outcomes.