Prognostic significance of mesenteric tumor nodules in patients with stage III colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tumor nodules are occasionally found in adjacent mesentery of colorectal cancer specimens and are felt to reflect a worse prognosis. The clinical significance of mesenteric tumor nodules was investigated. METHODS: A review of 786 patients with stage III colorectal cancer referred between 1995 and 1999 was undertaken. TNM staging was standardized by considering mesenteric nodules separately and not assigning them to T or N categories. Survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: Mesenteric tumor nodules were found in 116 (14.8%) patients: 48 (41.4%) with colon cancer and 68 (58.6%) rectal cancer. Mean age at surgery was 63 years. Adjuvant chemotherapy was given to 84.8% of colon cancer patients. Two (2.9%) rectal cancer patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and 63 (92.6%) received adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy and/or radiation). In the cohort with mesenteric nodules, the median time to progression was 23.1 months, the median 5-year disease-free survival was 35%, and the median overall survival (OS) was 47.9 months, with 44% OS at 5 years. In the 19 (16.4%) patients with mesenteric nodules and no lymph nodes the 5-year OS was 60% (SEER stage II 5-year survival 82.5%), whereas in 97 patients who were lymph node-positive the 5-year OS was 40% (SEER 5-year survival stage IIIc 44.3%; stage IV 8.1%). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to SEER survival data, the presence of mesenteric nodules appears to worsen the prognosis of any T/N0 disease to that of overall stage III disease. Mesenteric nodules with any T/N+ disease had prognosis similar to that of stage IIIC disease, but the prognosis was better than M1 disease. .

Time to treat: a system redesign focusing on decreasing the time from suspicion of lung cancer to diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple investigations often result in a lengthy process from the onset of lung cancer-related symptoms until diagnosis. An unpublished chart audit indicated suboptimal delays in patients' courses from onset of symptoms until diagnosis of cancer. METHODS: The Time to Treat Program was designed for patients with clinical or radiographic suspicion of lung cancer. Pre- and postimplementation data on median wait times were compared. RESULTS: From April 2005 to January 2007, 430 patients were referred. After Time to Treat Program implementation, the median time from suspicion of lung cancer to referral for specialist consultation decreased from 20 days to 6 days, and the median time from such referral to the actual consultation date decreased from 17 days to 4 days. The median time from specialist consultation to computed tomography scan decreased from 52 days to 3 days, and the median time from computed tomography scan to diagnosis decreased from 39 days to 6 days. Overall, the median time from suspicion of lung cancer to diagnosis decreased from 128 days to 20 days. Of all patients in the Time to Treat Program, 33% were eventually diagnosed with lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Time to Treat Program was effective in shortening the time from suspicion of lung cancer to diagnosis and reduced time intervals at each step in the process. Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer may allow increased treatment options for patients and may improve outcomes.

Thromboembolism and anticoagulant management in hemodialysis patients: a practical guide to clinical management.

The need for anticoagulation in dialysis patients is common and the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation in this population is high. While direct data are lacking on the management of anticoagulation in dialysis patients, careful weighing of risks and benefits on the basis of evidence from other populations is crucial. VTE should be managed with adjusted dose warfarin for most patients. Placement of an inferior vena cava filter is a reasonable option for those patients with unacceptable bleeding risks. Studies are ongoing to assess the safety of some low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), which may potentially be useful for long-term anticoagulation in hemodialysis patients. In atrial fibrillation the available data on risk of bleeding, risk of stroke, and patient preferences should all be taken into account when considering long-term anticoagulation. We have constructed an evidence model to help quantitate the risks and benefits for an individual patient. The impact of dialysis on risk of bleeding is such that the risk of bleeding will outweigh the benefit in many patients, and anticoagulation will not be used: in some of these patients aspirin therapy may be an alternative. Finally, in the area of prevention of graft and access thrombosis, some randomized controlled trials are available, but none have to date shown benefit from anticoagulation for primary or secondary prevention of thrombosis, and the risk of bleeding in these studies was high.