Recent Publications by CFE Educators

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence and predictors of urethral stricture development post radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

Published articles in PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, and Embase databases from January 2000 to April 2016 were queried. Inclusion criteria were any study that reported the prevalence of urethral strictures following external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT), or both as a primary treatment for PCa. Forty-six articles met our inclusion criteria. A summary estimate of the proportion of patients who developed a urethral stricture was derived via a random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 16,129 PCa patients underwent either EBRT (5681, 35.2%), BT (5849, 36.3%), or both (4599, 28.5%). Overall, 630 strictures were diagnosed at follow-up with a pooled estimate period prevalence of 2.2% (95% confidence interval, CI 1.9-2.6%) in a median follow-up time of 4 years (interquartile range, IQR 2.7-5). Of which, the pooled estimate prevalence was 1.5% (95% CI 0.9-2%) post EBRT, 1.9% (95% CI 1.3-2.4%) post BT, and 4.9% (95% CI 3.8-6%) post both EBRT and BT. Of 20 studies reporting a median time to stricture formation, the overall median time was 2.2 years (IQR 1.8-2.5, range 1.4-9). In a meta-regression analysis, receiving both EBRT and BT increased the estimated difference in proportion of stricture diagnoses by 3% (95% CI 1-6%), p = 0.018 compared to EBRT alone. An increase in median follow-up time was found to significantly increase the risk of developing urethral strictures (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

With a short-term follow-up, urethral strictures occur in 2.2% of men with PCa receiving radiotherapy. Receiving both EBRT and BT increased the risk of stricture formation. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the long-term natural history of stricture formation after RT.

INTRODUCTION

Physician communication is critical to patient care. However, integration of sound communication practice with clinical workflows has proven difficult. In this quality improvement initiative, medical students used the rapid improvement model to test interventions that could enhance patients' perception of listening by physicians as measured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey.

METHODS

Literature review and process analysis yielded 42 potential interventions, of which 24 were feasible for implementation. Small-scale testing established the 4 most promising interventions; pilot testing was subsequently undertaken on the entire Medicine service. Patient and physician feedback guided further refinement. The final intervention used a structured reminder embedded in the electronic health record to direct physicians to begin interviews by eliciting patient concerns.

RESULTS

Patient concerns elicited after implementation included pain symptoms (28%), disease or treatment course (16%), and discharge planning (10%). In the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey, physician listening scores rose from a 2014 average of 73.6% to 77% in 2015.

DISCUSSION

Among 24 tested interventions, an open-ended question was most feasible and had the greatest perceived impact by hospitalists and patients. A structured reminder embedded in required electronic medical record documentation facilitated the behavioral change without being overly burdensome to physicians and established a mechanism to enact change in practice.

CONCLUSION

Medical students used established improvement methods to promote patient-centered care and align patient and physician agendas, providing a strategy to improve hospitalized patients' perceptions of physician listening.

I recently diagnosed my first adolescent patient with new-onset HIV. As a primary care pediatrician, these cases are rare. I cried with the shock of the initial diagnosis, just as the patient did when I told him. One of my first thoughts was how could I have served him better. He had been inconsistent with condom use, and had several partners. I had encouraged safe sex practices, told him to talk to his partners about pregnancy prevention, and screened for sexually transmitted disease nearly every time he came into my office. However, there was one more thing I could have done that may have spared him this diagnosis in the first place. I could have prescribed HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP). This article is meant to introduce primary care pediatricians to the idea of HIV PrEP. The article reviews patient eligibility, how to prescribe HIV PrEP, as well as drug monitoring and follow-up. [Pediatr Ann. 2018;47(1):e2-e4.].

PURPOSE

Doses to small spinal cord isodose volume (such as those ranging from Dmax 0.0 cc to 0.5 cc) as well as to large volumes (such as those ranging from 0.5 cc to 3.0 cc) are critical parameters to guide safe practice of spine SBRT. We here report a mathematical formula that links the most probable dose volume limits together for common spine SBRT cases.Methods and materials: A dose ripple formula parameterized with equivalent dose radius (EDR) was derived to model spinal cord small-volume doses for a spine SBRT treatment. A cohort of spine SBRT cases (n=68), treated with either a robotic x-band linac or a conventional S-band linac, was selected to verify the model predictions. The mean prescription dose was 22± 4 Gy (range, 12-40 Gy) delivered in 2±1 fractions. The mean and median target volume was 39.4±42.5 cc and 30.3 cc (range, 0.24-264.2 cc), respectively. Direct correlations between the spinal cord Dmax and variable spinal cord doses of increasing isodose volumes (ranging from 0.0 cc to 3.0 cc) of different planning organ-at-risk volumes (PRVs) were investigated. The PRV structures for the study included the true cord, thecal sac and the true cord plus variable margins ranging from 1.0 mm to 3.0 mm.

RESULTS

No direct linear correlation was observed amongst the small volume doses to the spinal cord PRVs. However, strong linear correlations (R > 0.96) for all the studied PRVs were observed when correlating EDRs amongst isodose volumes ranging from 0.0 cc to 3.0 cc. In particular, EDR dependence was found to differ significantly for the thecal sac versus the spinal cord with or without 1-3 millimeter margins. With strong EDR correlation, the most probable relationship among the small-volume dose limits was derived for the spinal cord PRVs.

CONCLUSION

An analytical formula linked the most probable pin-point/small isodose volume doses with relatively large isodose volume doses of the spinal cord for spine SBRT. As a result, a small number of dose limits such as Dmax or D(0.35cc) are likely sufficient to surrogate the spinal cord dose tolerance for consistent treatment planning optimization and outcome analysis.