Ability of Bottle Cap Color to Facilitate Accurate Patient-Physician Communication Regarding Medication Identity in Patients with Glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of patient-physician communication regarding topical ophthalmic medication use based on bottle cap color, particularly among individuals who may have acquired color vision deficiency from glaucoma. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, clinical study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥18 years with primary open-angle, primary angle-closure, pseudoexfoliation, or pigment dispersion glaucoma, bilateral visual acuity of ≥20/400, and no concurrent conditions that may affect color vision. METHODS: A total of 100 patients provided color descriptions of 11 distinct medication bottle caps. Color descriptors were then presented to 3 physicians. Physicians matched each color descriptor to the medication they thought the descriptor was describing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of patient-physician agreement, occurring when all 3 physicians accurately matched the color descriptor to the correct medication. Multivariate regression models evaluated whether patient-physician agreement decreased with degree of better-eye visual field (VF) damage, color descriptor heterogeneity, or color vision deficiency, as determined by the Hardy-Rand-Rittler (HRR) score and Lanthony D15 color confusion index (D15 CCI). RESULTS: Subjects had a mean age of 69 (±11) years, with VF mean deviation of -4.7 (±6.0) and -10.9 (±8.4) decibels (dB) in the better- and worse-seeing eyes, respectively. Patients produced 102 unique color descriptors to describe the colors of the 11 bottle caps. Among individual patients, the mean number of medications demonstrating agreement was 6.1/11 (55.5%). Agreement was less than 15% for 4 medications (prednisolone acetate [generic], betaxolol HCl [Betoptic; Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, TX], brinzolamide/brimonidine [Simbrinza; Alcon Laboratories Inc.], and latanoprost [Xalatan; Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY]). Lower HRR scores and higher D15 CCI (both indicating worse color vision) were associated with greater VF damage (P < 0.001). Extent of color vision deficiency and color descriptor heterogeneity significantly predicted agreement in multivariate models (odds of agreement = 0.90 per 1 point decrement in HRR score, P < 0.001; odds of agreement = 0.30 for medications exhibiting high heterogeneity [≥11 descriptors], P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Physician understanding of patient medication use based solely on bottle cap color is frequently incorrect, particularly in patients with glaucoma who may have color vision deficiency. Errors based on communication using bottle cap color alone may be common and could lead to confusion and harm.

KRAS G>A mutation favors poor tumor differentiation but may not be associated with prognosis in patients with curatively resected duodenal adenocarcinoma.

KRAS mutations have been found in duodenal adenocarcinomas and may have prognostic significance. The purpose of this study was to classify clinicopathological characteristics, microsatellite instability and KRAS mutations and identify possible prognostic role of KRAS mutations in duodenal adenocarcinomas. Demographics, tumor characteristics and survival were recorded for 78 patients with duodenal adenocarcinomas (Stages I-III). KRAS mutations were detected in 27 (34.6%) cases, of which the majority (74.1%) were G>A transitions. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that KRAS G>A mutation was significantly associated with late stage (p = 0.025) and poor tumor differentiation (p = 0.035), when compared with wild-type and other than G>A mutations. KRAS G>A mutation carriers were at increased risk for distant relapse (p = 0.022) and had significantly shorter overall survival (OS; log-rank p = 0.045) and a trend toward shorter relapse-free survival (RFS; log-rank p = 0.062) when compared with those who did not carry the KRAS G>A mutation. In multivariate analyses, there was a significant correlation between ≥ 3 positive lymph nodes and poor OS (p < 0.001) and RFS (p = 0.001) and KRAS G>A mutation carriers demonstrated no effect on clinical outcome. In conclusion, KRAS G>A mutation correlates significantly with late stage and poor tumor differentiation in duodenal adenocarcinoma. Among patients who undergo a curative resection of duodenal adenocarcinoma, KRAS G>A mutation carriers will more likely experience distant relapse but may not exhibit a poor prognosis. The number of positive lymph nodes should be incorporated in future staging systems.

CpG island methylator phenotype-positive tumors in the absence of MLH1 methylation constitute a distinct subset of duodenal adenocarcinomas and are associated with poor prognosis.

PURPOSE: Little information is available on genetic and epigenetic changes in duodenal adenocarcinomas. The purpose was to identify possible subsets of duodenal adenocarcinomas based on microsatellite instability (MSI), DNA methylation, mutations in the KRAS and BRAF genes, clinicopathologic features, and prognosis. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Demographics, tumor characteristics, and survival were available for 99 duodenal adenocarcinoma patients. Testing for KRAS and BRAF mutations, MSI, MLH1 methylation, and CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) status was conducted. A Cox proportional hazard model was built to predict survival. RESULTS: CIMP(+) was detected in 27 of 99 (27.3%) duodenal adenocarcinomas and was associated with MSI (P = 0.011) and MLH1 methylation (P < 0.001), but not with KRAS mutations (P = 0.114), as compared with CIMP(-) tumors. No BRAF V600E mutation was detected. Among the CIMP(+) tumors, 15 (55.6%) were CIMP(+)/MLH1-unmethylated (MLH1-U). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that tumors classified by CIMP, CIMP/MLH1 methylation status, or CIMP/MSI status could predict overall survival (OS; P = 0.047, 0.002, and 0.002, respectively), whereas CIMP/MLH1 methylation status could also predict time-to-recurrence (TTR; P = 0.016). In multivariate analysis, CIMP/MLH1 methylation status showed a significant prognostic value in both OS (P < 0.001) and TTR (P = 0.023). Patients with CIMP(+)/MLH1-U tumors had the worst OS and TTR. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed existence of CIMP in duodenal adenocarcinomas. The combination of CIMP(+)/MLH1-U seems to be independently associated with poor prognosis in patients with duodenal adenocarcinomas. This study also suggests that BRAF mutations are not involved in duodenal tumorigenesis, MSI, or CIMP development.