NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide recommendations for individuals with a prostate who opt to participate in an early detection program after receiving the appropriate counseling on the pros and cons. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines with regard to the testing protocol, use of multiparametric MRI, and management of negative biopsy results to optimize the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and minimize the detection of indolent disease.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2016.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide recommendations for prostate cancer screening in healthy men who have elected to participate in an early detection program. The NCCN Guidelines focus on minimizing unnecessary procedures and limiting the detection of indolent disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Prostate Cancer Early Detection Panel's most significant discussions for the 2016 guideline update, which included issues surrounding screening in high-risk populations (ie, African Americans, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers), approaches to refine patient selection for initial and repeat biopsies, and approaches to improve biopsy specificity.

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2015.

Prostate cancer represents a spectrum of disease that ranges from nonaggressive, slow-growing disease that may not require treatment to aggressive, fast-growing disease that does. The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide a set of sequential recommendations detailing a screening and evaluation strategy for maximizing the detection of prostate cancer that is potentially curable and that, if left undetected, represents a risk to the patient. The guidelines were developed for healthy men who have elected to participate in the early detection of prostate cancer, and they focus on minimizing unnecessary procedures and limiting the detection of indolent disease.

Acute ischaemic colitis associated with oral phenylephrine decongestant use.

In this case, the authors have presented for the first time that ischaemic colitis may be associated with phenylephrine use. Since phenylephrine is the more common active ingredient in over-the-counter (OTC) cold medications, other presentations may follow this case. A MEDLINE search was performed for all case reports or case series of ischaemic colitis secondary to pseudoephedrine or phenylephrine use published between 1966 and 2013. The search resulted in four case reports and one case series describing patients with acute onset ischaemic colitis with exposure to pseudoephedrine immediately prior to onset. However, we found no case reports of ischaemic colitis associated with phenylephrine use. We present this case as an unexpected clinical outcome of phenylephrine, which has not been associated with ischaemic colitis in the literature. Also, this case serves as a reminder of the important clinical lesson to question all patients' use of OTC and prescribed medications.

Association of consultation between generalists and cardiologists with quality and outcomes of heart failure care.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate roles for generalists and cardiologists in the care of patients with heart failure (HF) are unknown. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to determine whether consultation between generalists and cardiologists was associated with better quality and outcomes of HF care. METHODS: We studied left ventricular function evaluation (LVFE) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) use and 90-day readmission and 90-day mortality rates in patients with HF who were hospitalized. Patient care was categorized into cardiologist (solo), generalist (solo), or consultative cares. The processes and outcomes of care were compared by care category using logistic regression analyses fit with generalized linear mixed models to adjust for hospital-related clustering. RESULTS: Of the 1075 patients studied, 13% received cardiologist care, 55% received generalist care, and 32% received consultative care. More patients who received consultative care (75%) received LVFE than patients who received generalist care (36%) and cardiologist care (53%; P <.001). Fewer patients who received solo care (54% each) received ACEI compared with 71% of patients who received consultative care (P <.001). After multivariable adjustment, consultative care was associated with higher odds of LVFE than generalist care (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 6.06; 95% CI, 3.97-9.26) or cardiologist care (adjusted OR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.70-5.13) care. Consultation was also associated with higher odds of ACEI use compared with generalist (adjusted OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.42-4.12) or cardiologist (adjusted OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.14-4.72) care. Compared with patients who received generalist care, patients who received consultative care had lower odds of 90-day readmission (adjusted OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.86). CONCLUSION: Collaboration between generalists and cardiologists, rather than solo care by either, was associated with better HF processes and outcomes of care.