Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome: Assessment of the perspectives of patients with colorectal cancer regarding benefits and barriers.

BACKGROUND: Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, the most common form of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC), has been recommended among all patients newly diagnosed with CRC. However, there is limited literature regarding patient perspectives of tumor screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with CRC who are not selected for screening based on family history criteria. METHODS: A total of 145 patients aged 39 to 87 years were administered surveys assessing perceived risk, patient perspectives, and potential benefits of and barriers to tumor screening for Lynch syndrome. Associations between patient-specific and cancer-specific factors and survey responses were analyzed. RESULTS: The majority of participants perceived their risk of developing Lynch syndrome as being low, with 9 participants (6.2%) anticipating an abnormal screening result. However, most participants endorsed the potential benefits of screening for themselves and their families, with 84.8% endorsing ≥6 benefits and 50.3% endorsing all 8 benefits. Participants also endorsed few potential barriers to screening, with 89.4% endorsing ≤4 of 9 potential barriers. A common barrier was worry about the cost of additional testing and surveillance, which was endorsed by 54.5% of participants. The level of distress associated with tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, which was very low, was not associated with age or CRC stage. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study indicate that patients with CRC overall have a positive attitude toward tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, endorse the benefits of screening, and experience low levels of distress. These findings provide insight into patient attitudes toward tumor screening for Lynch syndrome among unselected patients with CRC to inform educational approaches that assist in patient decision-making and guide the successful implementation of screening programs.

Acanthamoeba, fungal, and bacterial keratitis: a comparison of risk factors and clinical features.

PURPOSE: To determine risk factors and clinical signs that may differentiate between bacterial, fungal, and acanthamoeba keratitis among patients presenting with presumed infectious keratitis. DESIGN: Hospital-based cross-sectional study. METHODS: We examined the medical records of 115 patients with laboratory-proven bacterial keratitis, 115 patients with laboratory-proven fungal keratitis, and 115 patients with laboratory-proven acanthamoeba keratitis seen at Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, India, from 2006-2011. Risk factors and clinical features of the 3 organisms were compared using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 95 patients with bacterial keratitis, 103 patients with fungal keratitis, and 93 patients with acanthamoeba keratitis who had medical records available for review, 287 (99%) did not wear contact lenses. Differentiating features were more common for acanthamoeba keratitis than for bacterial or fungal keratitis. Compared to patients with bacterial or fungal keratitis, patients with acanthamoeba keratitis were more likely to be younger and to have a longer duration of symptoms, and to have a ring infiltrate or disease confined to the epithelium. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors and clinical examination findings can be useful for differentiating acanthamoeba keratitis from bacterial and fungal keratitis.

Prior elicitation and Bayesian analysis of the Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial.

PURPOSE: To elicit expert opinion on the use of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy in bacterial corneal ulcers. To perform a Bayesian analysis of the Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial (SCUT), using expert opinion as a prior probability. METHODS: The SCUT was a placebo-controlled trial assessing visual outcomes in patients receiving topical corticosteroids or placebo as adjunctive therapy for bacterial keratitis. Questionnaires were conducted at scientific meetings in India and North America to gauge expert consensus on the perceived benefit of corticosteroids as adjunct treatment. Bayesian analysis, using the questionnaire data as a prior probability and the primary outcome of SCUT as a likelihood, was performed. For comparison, an additional Bayesian analysis was performed using the results of the SCUT pilot study as a prior distribution. RESULTS: Indian respondents believed there to be a 1.21 Snellen line improvement, and North American respondents believed there to be a 1.24 line improvement with corticosteroid therapy. The SCUT primary outcome found a non-significant 0.09 Snellen line benefit with corticosteroid treatment. The results of the Bayesian analysis estimated a slightly greater benefit than did the SCUT primary analysis (0.19 lines verses 0.09 lines). CONCLUSION: Indian and North American experts had similar expectations on the effectiveness of corticosteroids in bacterial corneal ulcers; that corticosteroids would markedly improve visual outcomes. Bayesian analysis produced results very similar to those produced by the SCUT primary analysis. The similarity in result is likely due to the large sample size of SCUT and helps validate the results of SCUT.