Dataset Information

Cancer stage at presentation for incarcerated patients at a single urban tertiary care center.

ABSTRACT: Patients who are incarcerated are a vulnerable patient population and may suffer from less access to routine cancer screenings compared to their non-incarcerated counterparts. Therefore, a thorough evaluation of potential differences in cancer diagnosis staging is needed. We sought to examine whether there are differences in cancer stage at initial diagnosis between non-incarcerated and incarcerated patients by pursuing a retrospective chart review from 2010-2017 for all patients who were newly diagnosed with cancer at an urban safety net hospital. Incarceration status was determined by insurance status. Our primary outcome was incarceration status at time of initial cancer diagnosis. Overall, patients who were incarcerated presented at a later cancer stage for all cancer types compared to the non-incarcerated (+.14 T stage, p = .033; +.23 N stage, p < .001). Incarcerated patients were diagnosed at later stages for colorectal (+0.93 T stage, p < .001; +.48 N stage, p < .001), oropharyngeal (+0.37 N stage, p = .003), lung (+0.60 N stage, p = .018), skin (+0.59 N stage, p = 0.014), and screenable cancers (colorectal, prostate, lung) as a whole (+0.23 T stage, p = 0.002; +0.17 N stage, p = 0.008). Incarcerated patients may benefit from more structured screening protocols in order to improve the stage at presentation for certain malignancies.

SUBMITTER: Sunthankar KI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7491712 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cancer stage at presentation for incarcerated patients at a single urban tertiary care center.

Sunthankar Kathryn I KI Griffith Kevin N KN Talutis Stephanie D SD Rosen Amy K AK McAneny David B DB Kulke Matthew H MH Tseng Jennifer F JF Sachs Teviah E TE

PloS one 20200915 9

Patients who are incarcerated are a vulnerable patient population and may suffer from less access to routine cancer screenings compared to their non-incarcerated counterparts. Therefore, a thorough evaluation of potential differences in cancer diagnosis staging is needed. We sought to examine whether there are differences in cancer stage at initial diagnosis between non-incarcerated and incarcerated patients by pursuing a retrospective chart review from 2010-2017 for all patients who were newly ...[more]

PMID: 32931490

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPalliative sedation (PS) is an intervention to treat refractory symptoms and to relieve suffering at the end of life. Its prevalence and practice patterns vary widely worldwide. The aim of our study was to evaluate the frequency, clinical indications and outcomes of PS in advanced cancer patients admitted to our tertiary comprehensive cancer center.MethodsWe retrospectively studied the use of PS in advanced cancer patients who died between March 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2014. PS was defined as the use of continuous infusion of midazolam or neuroleptics for refractory symptoms in the end of life. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of our institution (project number 2481-15).ResultsDuring the study period, 552 cancer patients died at the institution and 374 met the inclusion criteria for this study. Main reason for exclusion was death in the Intensive Care Unit. Among all included patients, 54.2% (n?=?203) received PS. Patients who received PS as compared to those not sedated were younger (67.8 vs. 76.4 years-old, p?<?0.001) and more likely to have a diagnosis of lung cancer (23% vs. 14%, p?=?0.028). The most common indications for sedation were dyspnea (55%) and delirium (19.7%) and the most common drugs used were midazolam (52.7%) or midazolam and a neuroleptic (39.4%). Median initial midazolam infusion rate was 0.75 mg/h (interquartile range - IQR - 0.6-1.5) and final rate was 1.5 mg/h (IQR 0.9-3.0). Patient survival (length of hospital stay from admission to death) of those who had PS was more than the double of those who did not (33.6 days vs 16 days, p?<?0.001). The palliative care team was involved in the care of 12% (n?=?25) of sedated patients.ConclusionsPS is a relatively common practice in the end-of-life of cancer patients at our hospital and it is not associated with shortening of hospital stay. Involvement of a dedicated palliative care team is strongly recommended if this procedure is being considered. Further research is needed to identify factors that may affect the frequency and outcomes associated with PS.

Project description:Hypertensive crisis is a medical emergency that can cause acute damage to multiple end-organs. However, relatively little is known on the etiology, treatment, and outcomes of hypertensive crisis in Korean children. The aim of this study was to determine the etiologies and efficacy of drugs for hypertensive crisis in children during the past 5 years at a single center in Korea.We analyzed data from 51 children with hypertensive crisis during the period between January 1, 2010 and April 1, 2014. The patients were divided into two groups: those diagnosed with a hypertensive emergency (hypertension with organ injury, n = 31) and those diagnosed with a hypertensive urgency (hypertension without organ injury, n = 20). Baseline etiologies and risk factors were compared between the two groups. In addition, systolic and diastolic blood pressures were evaluated at 1, 2, 4, and 5 hours after the administration of intravenous antihypertensive drugs.Kidney injury and cancer were the common causes in patients with hypertensive crisis. Cardiovascular complications (cardiac hypertrophy) (p = 0.002), central nervous system complications (p = 0.004), and retinopathy (p = 0.034) were more frequently observed in children with hypertensive emergency than those with hypertensive urgency. However, the proportion of renal complications was similar in both groups. Hydralazine was most commonly used in both groups to control acute increasing blood pressure at first. However, it was often ineffective for controlling abrupt elevated blood pressure. Therefore, intravenous antihypertensive drugs were changed from hydralazine to nicardipine, labetalol, or nitroprusside to control the high blood pressure in 45.1 % of the patients. Particularly, in patients with hypertensive crisis, there was no significant difference in reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressure and in improvement of clinical outcomes between nicardipine and labetalol administration.Close blood pressure monitoring and careful examinations should be mandatory in children with underlying disease, especially renal diseases and cancer. Furthermore, both nicardipine and labetalol may be effective antihypertensive drug in lowering high blood pressure in children with hypertensive crisis.

Dataset Information

Cancer stage at presentation for incarcerated patients at a single urban tertiary care center.

Publications

Cancer stage at presentation for incarcerated patients at a single urban tertiary care center.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets