Management of women who present with T4 breast cancer.

The purpose of this study was to review the clinical presentation and outcome of women who present with large or locally invasive (T4) breast carcinoma. This retrospective study was conducted at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, a state tertiary care referral institution. One hundred twenty-nine women between the ages of 28 and 85 years (mean, 55 years) presented with T4 breast carcinoma. Follow-up was available for 128 women. Only 23 women have survived (18%), 5 of whom (21.7%) have metastatic disease. Mean survival for those who died was 21.6 months, compared to 76.3 months for survivors. Survival was not influenced by tumor characteristics (P > 0.5), but was strongly influenced by nodal status (P < 0.001) and by the presence of metastases at the time of diagnosis (P < 0.001). Survival was strongly related to mode of therapy (P < 0.01), but this was principally related to very high mortality rates in women who received no therapy (100%), surgery only (92.3%), or chemotherapy only (95%). The best survival was seen in women who received chemotherapy prior to surgery (40%); their survival was superior to that of women treated initially by surgery, followed by chemotherapy (16.3%, P = 0.04). However, when women who presented with metastatic disease were excluded, survival was not different between these two groups (P = 0.18). Despite public education efforts and the wide availability of screening programs for breast carcinoma, many women still present with locally advanced disease. Outcome can be favorable in the absence of node involvement or metastatic disease, even in the presence of large, fungating tumors. Multimodality therapy gives the best results, but early surgery may be required for progression of disease during chemotherapy or because of extensive ulceration at initial presentation.

Incurable colorectal carcinoma: the role of surgical palliation.

About 20 per cent of patients with carcinoma of the colon or rectum present with metastatic disease. Surgeons are frequently asked to consider resection or other operative procedures in these patients for palliation. We performed this review to determine whether patients presenting with known metastatic colorectal cancer derive benefit from surgical intervention. We performed a retrospective review of all patients with M1 carcinoma of the colon or rectum who were identified from the University of Mississippi Medical Center Cancer Registry from April 1985 through February 2003. Patients who underwent hepatic and/or pulmonary resection with curative intent were excluded from analysis, as were patients with metachronous metastases. Eighty patients with M1 colorectal cancer who did not undergo surgery with curative intent were identified, and in 74 of these, complete medical records and follow-up were available. Forty-nine of the 74 patients (66%) underwent an operation, and 25 were managed nonoperatively. Indications for surgery included bowel obstruction, active hemorrhage, severe anemia from gastrointestinal bleeding with requirement for blood transfusions, intractable pain, and perforation of the colon. Average survival was 11.2 months for operative patients versus 6.5 months for nonoperative patients (P < 0.05). Thirty-six patients who underwent resectional procedures had a postoperative hospitalization of 7.5 days and a median survival of 11.5 months. Thirteen patients who had a nonresectional procedure had an average postoperative stay of 9 days and a median survival of 4 months. Median survival in those who did not undergo an operation was 4.8 months. Although metastatic colorectal carcinoma cannot usually be cured by surgical intervention, many patients who present with metastatic disease will benefit from palliative operations with relatively short hospitalizations and reasonable survival. Those who are not candidates for resection of the primary tumor have shorter survival times. Surgery can alleviate many of the distressing symptoms in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

Comparison of continuous vs intermittent nasogastric enteral feeding in trauma patients: perceptions and practice.

Enteral nutrition support (ENS) may be administered by continuous administration or by intermittent bolus, but few studies have compared the advantages and limitations associated with these methods in the trauma patient population. The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate the impact of continuous vs intermittent nasogastric enteral feeding on gastrointestinal tolerance, pulmonary aspiration, and nutritional indices. A survey of medical and surgical intensive care unit nursing staff was performed to assess perceptions and attitudes toward these 2 delivery methods. Eighteen trauma patients [Injury Severity Score (ISS) > or = 20] were enrolled in the study; 9 received continuous ENS (CENS) and 9 received intermittent bolus ENS (IENS). Interruption of ENS delivery occurred in more IENS than CENS patients due to elevated residuals and emesis. Diarrhea occurred in more patients (5/9 vs 2/9) and for a longer duration (14/65 vs 6/49 ENS days) in the IENS group compared with the CENS group. Aspiration was detected in 1 IENS patient. Method of nutrient delivery did not seem to influence urine urea nitrogen (UUN) measurements or prealbumin concentrations. Nurses surveyed in the study (n = 25) preferred CENS (84%) compared with IENS (12%). Data from this study suggest that CENS through a nasoenteric feeding tube may facilitate nutrient intake with less gastrointestinal complications in severely injured trauma patients compared with IENS. In addition, the majority of nurses surveyed preferred the continuous method for nutrient delivery.