Variation in the Diagnostic Evaluation among Persons with Hematuria: Influence of Gender, Race and Risk Factors for Bladder Cancer.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether race, gender and number of bladder cancer risk factors are significant predictors of hematuria evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used self-reported data from SCCS (Southern Community Cohort Study) linked to Medicare claims data. Evaluation of subjects diagnosed with incident hematuria was considered complete if imaging and cystoscopy were performed within 180 days of diagnosis. Exposures of interest were race, gender and risk factors for bladder cancer. RESULTS: Of the 1,412 patients evaluation was complete in 261 (18%). On our adjusted analyses African American patients were less likely than Caucasian patients to undergo any aspect of evaluation, including urology referral (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.93), cystoscopy (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.89) and imaging (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.95). Women were less likely than men to be referred to a urologist (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.76). Also, although all patients with 2 or 3 risk factors had 31% higher odds of urology referral (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.02-1.69), adjusted analyses indicated that this effect was only apparent among men. CONCLUSIONS: Only 18% of patients with an incident hematuria diagnosis underwent complete hematuria evaluation. Gender had a substantial effect on referral to urology when controlling for socioeconomic factors but otherwise it had an unclear role on the quality of evaluation. African American patients had markedly lower rates of thorough evaluation than Caucasian patients. Number of risk factors predicted referral to urology among men but it was otherwise a poor predictor of evaluation. There is opportunity for improvement by increasing the completion of hematuria evaluations, particularly in patients at high risk and those who are vulnerable.

Validity and reliability of the Patient-Reported Arthralgia Inventory: validation of a newly-developed survey instrument to measure arthralgia.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for a survey instrument to measure arthralgia (joint pain) that has been psychometrically validated in the context of existing reference instruments. We developed the 16-item Patient-Reported Arthralgia Inventory (PRAI) to measure arthralgia severity in 16 joints, in the context of a longitudinal cohort study to assess aromatase inhibitor-associated arthralgia in breast cancer survivors and arthralgia in postmenopausal women without breast cancer. We sought to evaluate the reliability and validity of the PRAI instrument in these populations, as well as to examine the relationship of patient-reported morning stiffness and arthralgia. METHODS: We administered the PRAI on paper in 294 women (94 initiating aromatase inhibitor therapy and 200 postmenopausal women without breast cancer) at weeks 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 52, as well as once in 36 women who had taken but were no longer taking aromatase inhibitor therapy. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha was 0.9 for internal consistency of the PRAI. Intraclass correlation coefficients of test-retest reliability were in the range of 0.87-0.96 over repeated PRAI administrations; arthralgia severity was higher in the non-cancer group at baseline than at subsequent assessments. Women with joint comorbidities tended to have higher PRAI scores than those without (estimated difference in mean scores: -0.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.5, -0.2; P<0.001). The PRAI was highly correlated with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endocrine Subscale item "I have pain in my joints" (reference instrument; Spearman r range: 0.76-0.82). Greater arthralgia severity on the PRAI was also related to decreased physical function (r=-0.47, 95% CI -0.55, -0.37; P<0.001), higher pain interference (r=0.65, 95% CI 0.57-0.72; P<0.001), less active performance status (estimated difference in location (-0.6, 95% CI -0.9, -0.4; P<0.001), and increased morning stiffness duration (r=0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.69; P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: We conclude that the psychometric properties of the PRAI are satisfactory for measuring arthralgia severity.

Should mesenteric tumor deposits be included in staging of well-differentiated small intestine neuroendocrine tumors?

Well-differentiated small intestine neuroendocrine tumors can give rise to mesenteric tumor deposits, which are not included in the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for small intestine neuroendocrine tumors, and their impact on patient prognosis is unknown. Seventy-two small intestine neuroendocrine tumors resections were identified in our files with slides, reports, and follow-up data available. Cases were assessed for T-category and for the presence of mesenteric tumor deposits, lymph node metastases, lymphovascular invasion, and liver metastases. Mesenteric tumor deposits were defined as discrete mesenteric tumor nodules ≥1 mm with an irregular growth profile. Similar lesions clearly resulting from extranodal extension or direct contiguous spread by the primary lesion were excluded. Forty-three of the 72 cases had mesenteric tumor deposits (60%). The deposits were significantly associated with lymphovascular invasion (P=0.001), pT3 or pT4 disease (P=0.001), nodal metastases (P=0.040), and liver metastases (P<0.001) at the time of surgery. In addition, four of six cases with tumor deposits and no nodal disease had liver disease. Tumor deposits were associated with an increased incidence of disease progression and death due to the disease (P=0.001). Finally, the presence of tumor deposits at the time of surgery was associated with an increase in hazard of progression or death due to disease (hazard ratio: 4.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.3, 12.5; P=0.016). Mesenteric tumor deposits are present in the majority of cases of small intestine neuroendocrine tumors and are indicators of poor prognosis for this disease. Therefore, they may have a place in staging of small intestine neuroendocrine tumors, perhaps as analogous to lymph node disease.