Hereditary Cancer Screening and Outcomes at an Urban Safety-Net Hospital.

PURPOSE: Patients with hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) have a high lifetime risk of developing cancer. Historically underserved populations have lower rates of genetic evaluation. We sought to characterize demographic factors that are associated with undergoing HCS evaluation in an urban safety-net patient population. METHODS: All patients who met inclusion criteria for this study from 2016 to 2021 at an urban safety-net hospital were included in this analysis. Inclusion criteria were pathologically confirmed breast, ovarian/fallopian tube, colon, pancreatic, and prostate cancers. Patients also qualified for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers or Lynch syndrome on the basis of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Demographic and oncologic data were collected through retrospective chart review. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were constructed. RESULTS: Of the 637 patients included, 40% underwent genetic testing. Variables associated with receiving genetic testing on univariable analysis included patients living at the time of data collection, female sex, Latinx ethnicity, Spanish language, family history of cancer, and referral for genetic testing. Patients identifying as Black, having Medicare, having pancreatic or prostate cancer, having stage IV disease, having Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) prognostic score ≥1, having medium or high Charlson comorbidity index, with current or previous cigarette use, and with previous alcohol use were negatively associated with testing. On multivariable modeling, family history of cancer was positively associated with testing. Patients identifying as Black, having colon or prostate cancer, and having ECOG score of 2 had significantly lower association with genetic testing. CONCLUSION: Uptake of HCS was lower in patients identifying as Black, those with colon or prostate cancer, and those with an ECOG score of 2. Efforts to increase HCS testing in these patients will be important to advance equitable cancer care.

Exploration of Patient Retention in Seeking a Second Opinion: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: It is common for cancer patients to seek a second opinion for a variety of reasons. Understanding what drives patients to choose to receive treatment with their second opinion provider may uncover opportunities to improve the second opinion process. Therefore, we sought to identify the patient, disease, and treatment characteristics that were associated with second opinion retention rates in patients seeking a second surgical opinion for breast, colon, and pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate patients who sought a second opinion within a large academic health-care system for breast, colon, and pancreatic cancer. Electronic medical records were reviewed for second opinions. Patient demographics and characteristics were collected and compared between the retained group and the nonretained groups. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients obtained second opinions for breast, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer. Patients that were offered a different treatment plan at their second opinion were more likely to be retained for systemic therapy (P = 0.009) for pancreatic cancer and any treatment for colon cancer (P = 0.003). Seeing a radiation oncologist (P = 0.007) or a plastic surgeon (P = 0.02) during the multidisciplinary consultation increased retention rates for breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons can better identify patients that are more likely to be retained after a second opinion by the individual patient characteristics and treatment factors. Understanding the factors that lead to retention for these three cancer types may help physicians provide the best possible resources for most patients presenting for second opinion evaluations.

Patient Satisfaction Using BREAST-Q and Breast Implant Illness after Breast Reconstruction in Transwomen.

Background: Gender-affirming breast augmentation comprises an increasing portion of breast augmentations performed by plastic surgeons. Satisfaction and breast implant illness (BII) symptoms in this population have not been well studied. This study aimed to evaluate satisfaction and BII symptoms in transwomen who received nontextured implants as part of their breast reconstruction. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of transwomen who underwent breast augmentation for gender-affirming surgery. We performed telephone survey evaluation using the BREAST-Q questionnaire preoperatively, 6 months and 1 year after breast implant placement. Survey evaluation asking about BII symptoms was also administered at the same time points. Results: Twenty-six patients completed the BREAST-Q survey, which demonstrated significantly improved satisfaction postoperatively at 6 and 12 months when compared with median preoperative scores for psychosocial (P < 0.001; P < 0.001), sexual (P < 0.001; P < 0.001), and overall satisfaction with breasts (P < 0.001; P < 0.001). Physical well-being of the chest decreased at 6 months (P < 0.001) but improved in comparison with 12 months (P < 0.001). Thirty-four patients completed the BII survey, with 18% reporting symptoms at 3 months and 29% at 1 year. Zero patients requested explantation. Conclusions: Transwomen exhibit a significant increase in breast, psychosocial, and sexual well-being after breast augmentation. However, patients experienced a decreased physical well-being, and many report symptoms associated with BII. These results can be used to better counsel these individuals preoperatively and set reasonable postoperative expectations. Further studies investigating long-term satisfaction in larger cohorts are needed.

The use of flaps for management of deep sternal wound complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many options are available for reconstruction after deep sternal wound infections. However, these options have not been critically appraised. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the existing evidence on sternal rewiring versus flap reconstruction and pectoralis major muscle flaps (PMFs) versus greater omental flaps (GOFs). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Outcomes of interest included mortality, treatment failure and length of hospital stay (LOS). RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. Nine studies compared flaps to rewiring, reporting on 618 patients. Patients treated with flaps had significantly lower mortality compared with patient treated with rewiring (Risk ratio [RR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.77, P < 0.01). Flap patients had significantly lower treatment failure compared with those who were treated with rewiring (RR 0.22, 95% CI: 0.14-0.37, P < 0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed in LOS between patients treated with flaps compared those treated with rewiring (standard mean difference -0.84, 95% CI: -1.91 to 0.24, P = 0.13). Five studies compared PMF with GOF, reporting on 599 patients. No statistically significant differences were found in mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.24-1.68, P = 0.36), LOS (standard mean difference -14.52, 95% CI: -42.00 to 12.96, P = 0.30) or treatment failure (RR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.31-6.07, P = 0.68) in patients treated with PMF compared with patients treated with GOF. CONCLUSIONS: Flap-based reconstruction demonstrated improved mortality and treatment outcomes compared to sternal rewiring. However, no significant differences were observed in outcomes between the PMF- and GOF-based reconstructions.

Risk factors associated with pressure ulcer recurrence after reconstruction: Analysis of a national database.

In this study, we sought to clarify the patient traits and comorbidities that are associated with pressure injury recurrence following pressure injury reconstruction. An insurance claims database, PearlDiver, was used to conduct a retrospective cohort study. The two cohorts included patients who underwent pressure injury reconstruction without recurrence and patients who experienced recurrence with subsequent reconstruction. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for recurrence after reconstruction. Recurrence was associated with hypoalbuminemia (p < 0.05), paraplegia (p < 0.05), and osteomyelitis (p < 0.05). In patients with osteomyelitis, primary closure was associated with recurrence (p < 0.05) while flap reconstruction was not (p > 0.05). Osteomyelitis was not associated with recurrence after flap reconstruction. Prior to reconstruction, patients with osteomyelitis and hypoalbuminemia should have their nutrition and infection optimised.