Modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) for Prognostication of Adult Oncology Patients With Palliative Intent in a Regional Victorian Hospital, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Accurate prognostication is essential in caring for palliative patients. Various prognostication tools have been validated in many settings in the past few years. Biomarkers of inflammation (albumin and C-reactive protein) are combined to calculate the modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), which has been found to be a simple prognostic tool in this population. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective cohort study was to evaluate mGPS as a prognostication tool for cancer patients admitted to an acute hospital in regional Australia. METHODS: Adult cancer patients admitted to an acute Australian regional hospital during 2017 who had albumin and C-reactive protein (CRP) tested were included. The mGPS was calculated based on their admission values and discharge values. Based on their score (0-2), groups were compared using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis for prognostication. Kaplan-Meier survival plots and median survival time from admission and discharge were constructed. RESULTS: A total of 170 patient records were reviewed of which 95 had admission and discharge mGPS scores available for analysis. Of those, 86 had died at the time of data analysis. The median survival for admission mGPS 0, 1, 2 was 168,156 and 74 days. For discharge mGPS 0, 1, 2 medians were 168,119 and 70 days. On multi variate analysis admission mGPS 2 showed Hazard ratio of 2.29 (95% CI 1.16-4.56, p -0.02) and discharge mGPS 2 of 2.07 (95% CI 0.95-4.50, p value 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, mGPS was able to differentiate cancer patients into various prognostic groups. Further studies in regional acute hospitals could validate this prospectively with a multi-center larger sample size.

Is there a difference in adenoma detection rates between gastroenterologists and surgeons?

AIM: To compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons at Box Hill Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. METHODS: A total of 300 colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons at Box Hill Hospital were retrospectively reviewed from May 2016 to June 2017. Exclusion criteria were: Patients ≤ 50 years old, colonoscopies with failure of caecal intubation, patients who previously had colon cancer and/or a colonic resection, history of polyposis syndromes or inflammatory bowel disease, or a colonoscopy within the last 10 years. Patient demographics, indications, symptoms and procedural-related outcomes were measured. RESULTS: The ADR was not significantly different between gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons (34% vs 34.67%; P = 0.90). The adjusted odds ratio correcting for gender, age, 1st degree relative with colorectal cancer, previous colonoscopy, trainee involvement and caecal or terminal ileum intubation rate was 1.19 (0.69-2.05). CONCLUSION: Both specialties at our institution exceed benchmark standards suggested by published Australian and American guidelines. An association between endoscopist specialty and ADR was not observed.