Does deprivation affect breast cancer management?

We evaluated whether social deprivation affected decision-making for breast cancer surgery. Of 3419 patients, 53.6% had mastectomy and this was predicted by deprivation, age, tumour size and hospital, all of which retained significance on multivariate analysis, except deprivation. Pathological characteristics and surgical decision-making determined choice of operation not deprivation.

Lung cancer--management and outcome in Glasgow, 1991-92.

Current practice and outcome for patients with lung cancer were determined by retrospective case note review of a random sample of all lung cancer cases registered for a calendar year and augmented by review of all surgical and radical radiotherapy cases. A total of 262 patients - 231 patients less than 75 years of age and 31 patients more than 75 years of age - represented 83% of the random sample. Eighty-three per cent of patients were seen within 2 weeks of referral. One-third reported symptoms occurring for less than 1 month and one-third had experienced symptoms for more than 3 months. The median time interval from first hospital contact until the making of a management decision was 18 days. The median interval from first contact to surgery was 63 days, and to starting radical radiotherapy 70 days. Histological confirmation was obtained in 69% of patients. Ten per cent of all lung cancer patients were calculated to have received chemotherapy. Five per cent of the whole cohort had definitive surgery and 64% of these were judged to be free of the disease at 3 years. Overall survival was 9% at 3 years, with no differences relating to cell type or area of residence. Many areas of good practice have been identified, but the lack of tumour staging or performance status data, the low proportion receiving chemotherapy or definitive surgery and the poor outcome after radical radiotherapy indicate the need for prospective audit and feedback of results. The long time interval from management decision to surgery and radiotherapy suggests organizational issues which need attention.

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of ramipril and digoxin added to maintenance diuretic treatment in patients with chronic heart failure.

The efficacy and safety of ramipril were compared with that of digoxin in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study of 35 patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), New York Heart Association (NYHA) grades II to IV, stabilized on diuretic maintenance therapy. Major assessments were conducted at baseline and at the end of each 10-week treatment period: primary efficacy variables were total exercise duration (modified Bruce, treadmill), NYHA grade, and clinical signs and symptoms (by visual analogue score) of heart failure. Twenty-seven patients completed the study. There were two deaths (one on each study drug) and six patient withdrawals (one on ramipril and five on digoxin). Although the NYHA grade was significantly better on ramipril than on digoxin, there were no other important differences in the relief of either signs or symptoms of heart failure. A significant order effect was observed with the exercise testing data and therefore only data in the first active treatment period were analyzed; no significant differences were noted. There were fewer reports of adverse effects, and no clinically significant episodes of hyperkalemia or renal impairment on ramipril. We conclude that ramipril seems to be better tolerated and marginally more effective than digoxin in the management of patients with moderate to severe chronic CHF, stabilized on maintenance diuretic therapy.