Dataset Information

Natural History and Risk Stratification of Recurrent Crohn's Disease After Ileocolonic Resection: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prediction of endoscopic postoperative recurrence (POR) and prophylactic treatment based on clinical risk profile have thus far been inconclusive. This study aimed to examine the association between clinical risk profile and the development of endoscopic POR in a Crohn's disease population without postoperative treatment and to identify individual risk factors of endoscopic POR.

Methods

Medical records of 142 patients with Crohn's disease during follow-up after ileocecal or ileocolonic resection without prophylactic treatment at 3 referral centers were reviewed. Endoscopic POR was defined as a modified Rutgeerts score ≥i2b. Clinical risk profiles were distilled from current guidelines. Both uni- and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to assess the relationship between risk profiles and endoscopic POR.

Results

Endoscopic POR was observed in 68 out of 142 (47.9%) patients. Active smoking postsurgery (odds ratio [OR], 3.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-7.34; P = 0.02), a Montreal classification of A3 (OR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.07-8.69; P = 0.04), and previous bowel resections (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.07-6.22; P = 0.03) were significantly associated with endoscopic POR. No significant association was observed between endoscopic POR and any guideline defined as a high-/low-risk profile. However, patients with a combination of any 3 or more European Crohns & Colitis Organisation- (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.30-18.29; P = 0.02) or British Society of Gastroenterology-defined (OR 3.16; 95% CI, 1.05-9.49; P = 0.04) risk factors showed increased odds of developing endoscopic POR.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that patients with a combination of any 3 or more European Crohns & Colitis Organisation- or British Society of Gastroenterology-defined risk factors would probably benefit from immediate prophylactic treatment.

SUBMITTER: Joustra V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8730683 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines include clear recommendations for the appropriate resection margins in non-acral cutaneous melanoma, the required margin for acral melanoma is controversial. In this retrospective study, we aimed to investigate whether narrow-margin excision is warranted for thick acral melanoma. Records from 277 melanoma patients with stage T3-T4 disease who underwent radical surgery in three centers in China from September 2010 to October 2018 were reviewed. Clinicopathologic data, including age, gender, excision margin (1-2 cm versus ≥ 2 cm), Clark level, Breslow thickness, ulceration, N stage and adjuvant therapy, were included for survival analysis. The patients were followed up until death or March 31, 2021. Log-rank and Cox regression analyses were used to identify prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and local and in-transit recurrence-free survival (LITRFS). Among all enrolled patients, 207 (74.7%) had acral melanoma, and 70 (25.3%) had non-acral cutaneous melanoma. No significant difference in baseline characteristics was identified between non-acral and acral melanoma, except for age (p = 0.004), gender (p = 0.009) and ulceration (p = 0.048). In non-acral melanoma, a resection margin of 1-2 cm was a poor independent prognostic factor for OS [p = 0.015; hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI), 0.26 (0.009-0.77)] and LITRFS [p = 0.013; HR (95% CI), 0.19 (0.05-0.71)] but not for DFS [p = 0.143; HR (95% CI), 0.51 (0.21-1.25)]. Forty-three (20.8%) patients in the acral melanoma group had a 1-2-cm resection margin. The resection margin was not correlated with patients' OS (p = 0.196 by log-rank analysis, p = 0.865 by multivariate survival analysis), DFS (p = 0.080 by log-rank analysis, p = 0.758 by multivariate survival analysis) or LITRFS (p = 0.354 by log-rank analysis) in acral melanoma. As recommended in the NCCN guidelines, a resection margin ≥ 2 cm is required for non-acral cutaneous melanoma. Meanwhile, a narrow resection margin (1-2 cm) may be safe for patients with acral melanoma.

Project description:ImportanceScreening for medication abortion eligibility typically includes ultrasonography or pelvic examination. To reduce physical contact during the COVID-19 pandemic, many clinicians stopped requiring tests before medication abortion and instead screened patients for pregnancy duration and ectopic pregnancy risk by history alone. However, few US-based studies have been conducted on the outcomes and safety of this novel model of care.ObjectiveTo evaluate the outcomes and safety of a history-based screening, no-test approach to medication abortion care.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included patients obtaining a medication abortion without preabortion ultrasonography or pelvic examination between February 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, at 14 independent, Planned Parenthood, academic-affiliated, and online-only clinics throughout the US.ExposuresMedications for abortion provided without preabortion ultrasonography or pelvic examination and dispensed to patients in person or by mail.Main outcomes and measuresEffectiveness, defined as complete abortion after 200 μg of mifepristone and up to 1600 μg of misoprostol without additional intervention, and major abortion-related adverse events, defined as hospital admission, major surgery, or blood transfusion.ResultsThe study included data on 3779 patients with eligible abortions. The study participants were racially and ethnically diverse and included 870 (23.0%) Black patients, 533 (14.1%) Latinx/Hispanic patients, 1623 (42.9%) White patients, and 327 (8.7%) who identified as multiracial or with other racial or ethnic groups. For most (2626 [69.5%]), it was their first medication abortion. Patients lived in 34 states, and 2785 (73.7%) lived in urban areas. In 2511 (66.4%) abortions, the medications were dispensed in person; in the other 1268 (33.6%), they were mailed to the patient. Follow-up data were obtained for 2825 abortions (74.8%), and multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Across the sample, 12 abortions (0.54%; 95% CI, 0.18%-0.90%) were followed by major abortion-related adverse events, and 4 patients (0.22%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.45%) were treated for ectopic pregnancies. Follow-up identified 9 (0.40%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.84%) patients who had pregnancy durations of greater than 70 days on the date the mifepristone was dispensed that were not identified at screening. The adjusted effectiveness rate was 94.8% (95% CI, 93.6%-95.9%). Effectiveness was similar when medications were dispensed in person (95.4%; 95% CI, 94.1%-96.7%) or mailed (93.3%; 95% CI, 90.7%-95.9%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, screening for medication abortion eligibility by history alone was effective and safe with either in-person dispensing or mailing of medications, resulting in outcomes similar to published rates of models involving ultrasonography or pelvic examination. This approach may facilitate more equitable access to this essential service by increasing the types of clinicians and locations offering abortion care.