Ovarian Cancer and Us - best viewed in FIREFOX

Google Search: this blog, links from posts and the web.....

Loading...

Monday, May 14, 2012

Dr Rob Lamberts blog: Zen and the Art of Not Thinking Magically - Don't assume anything



Zen and the Art of Not Thinking Magically:

By Rob Lamberts, MD

Don’t assume anything.

Assumptions can kill.  Assuming something regarding your own health care can cost you money, cause you pain, and yes, even kill you.  Here’s my list of potentially harmful assumptions:

1.  No news is good news
If you have a test done and don’t hear anything about the result, do not assume it is fine.  This assumption kills people.  I have too many patients with too much information flying at me every day for me to catch every important detail.  Sometimes things are missed, but sometimes the results don’t come to our office.   We have trained our patients to expect an email or letter with their results within a certain amount of time, so they sometimes call when the test results don’t come in.  I tell them to do so in the clinical summary sheet I hand out at the end of each visit, but the assumption remains.
Always know what tests are being run, and always get the results of those tests (in writing, if possible).

2.  The doctor will think I am stupid
I often have patients apologizing to me.  They apologize when they have a “weird” symptom, when they “ask too many questions,” when they stop taking a medication due to side-effects, and when they are really, really worried about something.  They seem afraid that I am going to roll my eyes and think of them as “one of those patients” – the kind that I complain about to my office staff.
I hate it when people apologize.  Apologies assume there is some standard or expectation that a person is not meeting, and the only expectations that I have of my patients is:

a. they have or want to prevent medical problems
b. They want my help.

Why should I get mad at people for either of these things, as it is the job of a doctor to help people who need them.  I know there are doctors out there who treat patients like bad kids or like they are morons, but those doctors are out of step with reality.  They are the morons.  I don’t apologize to the barber that my hair grew.  I don’t apologize to my accountant for having tax questions.  Understand your position as the paying customer; get what you paid for.

One warning on this one: viewing yourself as a customer cuts both ways.  If you have the right to get what you pay for, the doctor has the right to be paid for what they give you.  People often think docs should do what they do out of pure charity and kindness, which is wrong.  I may expect the mechanic to be kind and charitable, but I should also expect to pay them for what they do.  This means that expecting your doctor to spend 30 minutes with you and only charge you for a 5-minute visit is not fair to the doctor (or his wife and kids).

3.  Doctors don’t want to be questioned
I hope I am not unusual in this, but I would rather have patients question what I do than to accept everything I say.
Patients’ questions help me in several ways.  First, they let me know what I am not explaining well enough.  I think people follow instructions better when they understand them, so if you don’t understand what I said, ask.  Second, questions build my credibility.  If I can explain the reason for my recommendations, I am more trusted.  If I fear questions, then it looks like I am hiding something.  Third, and most importantly, questions sometimes lead to better care.  Sometimes patients ask me about something I haven’t considered.  Sometimes the questions make me think things through and see my faulty logic.  Sometimes questions make me look for information and learn something.
Good doctoring has a whole lot of teaching in it.  Teaching is not a goal in itself, however; the goal is to get the person being taught to understand.  If you don’t understand what’s being done, why you got a prescription, or what your diagnosis is, ask.  If you wonder about another possible diagnosis, ask.  If your doctor doesn’t like you asking questions, ask for a copy of your records and find another doctor.

4.  Standard care is the right care.
Much of what doctors do is based on, or at least consistent with science; but a lot of care goes on despite that science says otherwise.  A group of physician organizations recently banded together and published the Choosing Wisely Campaign, a set of “things patients and physicians should question.”  The groups urge doctors and patients to choose care that is:
  • Supported by evidence
  • Not duplicative of other tests or procedures already received
  • Free from harm
  • Truly necessary
Here’s a sample of things done frequently that the Choosing Wisely campaign suggests questioning:
  • Getting an x-ray for people with uncomplicated back pain
  • Using antibiotics for sinusitis lasting less than 7 days
  • Routine EKG’s on average (lower-risk) people
  • Routine screening stress-tests
  • Use of anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID’s) in people with high blood pressure, heart disease, kidney problems, or diabetes.
There are many more recommendations on the site, but the reason this campaign was launched was because of how often these rules are broken.  I must admit, I have had to change my habits in the light of some of these recommendations.

5.  My doctors talk to each other
I am a primary care doctor, so I am supposed to be the hub of a patient’s care.  If a patient of mine goes in the hospital, has surgery, sees a specialist, or goes to the emergency room, I am supposed to be notified.  Unfortunately, this is probably not even true in of 50% of these situations.  Even when patients ask specifically to have records sent to me, they often aren’t there.
Specialists also have this problem, often getting consults without a clear reason.  Often this is a problem at the referring physician’s end, but we have had numerous specialists turn down offers to access our records.  We have also offered access to our records by hospitalists and ER doctors, only to be been turned down.  Many doctors prefer to give care with only information they gather.  It is rare that any doctor has all of the information that may be helpful.
An exception to this is the integrated care system run by a hospital (usually), in which doctors all share medical records.  Clearly the sharing of information in that setting is better than in my world, but being under the care of a hospital gives other disadvantages I will discuss later.

6.  My doctor has accurate records
Not only do I not have much of the information that comes from other doctors, but the information I do have in my records are not always accurate.  The biggest culprit in our office is old information that doesn’t get taken off.  It takes a large amount of time to make sure a person’s records are accurate, and there are no insurance companies willing to pay for improved accuracy.  So accuracy only happens when doctors take time away from reimbursed patient care and work to organize the records.  Again, our office makes a valiant effort at keeping things accurate, but I have found that it takes a huge amount of time, planning, and energy to keep records updated.
I personally don’t think this will change until the patient becomes responsible to keep their own records.  Nobody will ever care about a patient’s records as much as the patient does.  In the mean-time, I recommend that you keep an updated list of your medications, surgeries, problems, and even your family/home situation and bring it with you to visits.

7.  I will be notified when things are due
Are you due for a colonoscopy, thyroid lab tests, a follow-up CT scan, or a diabetic eye exam?  Most people don’t know exactly when things are due, and many assume they will be notified when this is the case.  Gastroenterologists do often call when the follow-up colonoscopy is due, and mammography facilities sometimes call for a follow-up, but these are exceptions to this rule.  Doctors often say “repeat test in six months,” and then expect the patient to call to schedule after six months.  Even patients coming into the office may not be reminded of overdue tests, mainly due to the disorganization of medical records (#3 above).  If you think you might be due for something, ask.  Even asking the question, “are there any tests or labs I am due to get done?” can help remind providers to check for these things.  Remember, it is incredibly hard to keep records organize, so don’t assume your doctor’s office will act anything like Jiffy-Lube.

8.  Hospitals care
The commercials boast of how local hospitals are “there for you when you need them most,” and “your advocate for your health.”  This is horse hockey.  The people in the hospital may be caring and kind.  The doctors, nurses, and even administrators may want you to be healthy.  But the hospital is a business which requires people to be sick and have lots of procedures done to be profitable.  Most health care dollars are spent in hospitals, and many times those dollars do no good to the patient.  I’ve seen end-stage cancer patients get heart catheterization, people with dementia spend weeks in the ICU, and countless other procedures are done with no benefit (other than income to the hospital).
Don’t be fooled.  Your goal is to stay healthy and stay out of the hospital;  your doing so is bad for the business of hospitals.

9.  More is better
I have patients frequently asking for tests they don’t need.  Shouldn’t people get yearly lab panels?  Shouldn’t kids get their cholesterol checked?  What about those screening mobile tests for carotid artery plaques or PAD?  It’s hard to make my patients understand that in saying “no” to tests, I am being a better doctor.  I talked about this in an earlier post, but it bears repeating.  If someone has a high chance of having a condition, screening for it is useless (doing a strep test on someone with an obvious strep throat).  If someone has a very low chance of having a condition, screening for it won’t reduce the risk (CA-125 screening for ovarian cancer, for example).  Having more information is often not helpful, can lead to unnecessary worry or further testing, and costs a lot of money for no gain.  I don’t want more information, I want the right information.

10.  New is better
What about that new drug advertised on TV?  What about the surgery done by robots?  Should I take that antidepressant for pain?  Do I have low-T?  Should I go to the hospital with the brand new 200 gazillion dollar heart pavilion? Always look at advertising with a skeptical eye.  The main reason businesses spend money on advertising is that they want to make more money when you use the thing they advertised.  The 200 gazillion dollars for the heart pavilion has to come from somewhere.  There’s a reason why you first heard of “low T” on television and not from your doctor: the company who wants to fix your T wants your money.  Robotic surgery is surely cool, but it is also really expensive to buy that machine, and hospitals need you to want the “cool” surgery so they can pay for those machines.
Sometimes “new and improved” is a truthful boast, but usually it is a means into your wallet.

Rob Lamberts, MD, is a primary care physician practicing somewhere in the southeastern United States. He blogs regularly at More Musings (of a Distractible Kind). Where this post first appeared.

ESO: e-grandround May 24th: Biomarkers and candidate therapeutics in ovarian cancer pipeline



Biomarkers and candidate therapeutics in ovarian cancer pipeline

e-grandround

Biomarkers and candidate therapeutics in ovarian cancer pipeline CME accredited

e-grandround GR197 - 24 May 2012 - 18:15-19:00 CET

Expert: Hani Gabra, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
Discussant: Margaret Hutka, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, United Kingdom

The live session starts in about 9 days

Access to the live session is open 15 minutes before the start of the session
Submit your question in advance

An In Vitro Diagnostic Multivariate Index Assay (IVDMIA) for Ovarian Cancer: Harvesting the Power of Multiple Biomarkers (OVA1)



An In Vitro Diagnostic Multivariate Index Assay (IVDMIA) for Ovarian Cancer: Harvesting the Power of Multiple Biomarkers

Dr. Zhang is the inventor of the OVA1 algorithm, and as such is entitled to royalty payments from the sale of OVA1® through a license agreement between Johns Hopkins University and Vermillion, Inc.

Main Points
  • The advantages of an in vitro diagnostic multivariate index assay (IVDMIA) in comparison to a single biomarker assay are based on the premise that the single-valued index, with its aggregated information from complementary biomarkers, will outperform each of its component biomarkers used individually.
  • The ability of multivariate models to capture complex patterns in high-dimensional data also means that non-disease-related artifacts that happen to confound the samples used to train the models will also be captured.
  • The inclusion of biomarkers in an IVDMIA requires that they are complementary, and that they collectively outperform a single marker with respect to the test’s intended use.
  • OVA1® (Vermillion, Inc., Austin, TX) combines results from five tests—CA-125 II, prealbumin, apolipoprotein A-1, β2-microglobulin, and transferrin—into a single-valued index between 0 and 10; a higher value corresponds to a higher risk of malignancy.
  • The addition of OVA1 to clinical assessment brings significant improvement in sensitivity. This is, however, at the cost of a reduced specificity. During the construction of the OVA1 multivariate model and the choice of cutoff values, a conscious decision was made to emphasize the need for a high sensitivity. This decision took into consideration the need to mitigate the safety concern of OVA1 with respect to its predefined intended use. Because OVA1 is to be used prior to the decision to refer to a specialist, a high sensitivity minimizes the risk of false-negative results for patients who actually have malignant diseases.

paywalled - Contraception - Reproductive factors in relation to ovarian cancer: a case–control study in Northern Vietnam



ScienceDirect.com - Contraception - Reproductive factors in relation to ovarian cancer: a case–control study in Northern Vietnam

Abstract

Background

Ovarian cancer, one of the most common cancers in women and the most serious gynecologic cancer, is known to be influenced by reproductive factors, but these factors have not previously been examined in Vietnamese women.

PLoS ONE: European American Stratification in Ovarian Cancer Case Control Data: The Utility of Genome-Wide Data for Inferring Ancestry



Blogger's Note: interesting article includes migration of peoples from Europe to North America/s; ovarian cancer and genome

PLoS ONE: European American Stratification in Ovarian Cancer Case Control Data: The Utility of Genome-Wide Data for Inferring Ancestry

paywalled: Limited prognostic value of tissue protein expression levels of cyclin E in Danish ovarian cancer patients: from the Danish ‘MALOVA’ ovarian cancer study



Limited prognostic value of tissue protein expression levels of cyclin E in Danish ovarian cancer patients: from the Danish ‘MALOVA’ ovarian cancer study

The primary objective of this study was to assess the expression of cyclin E in tumour tissues from 661 patients with epithelial ovarian tumours. The second was to evaluate whether cyclin E tissue expression levels correlate with clinico-pathological parameters and prognosis of the disease. Using tissue arrays (TA), we analysed the cyclin E expression levels in tissues from 168 women with borderline ovarian tumours (BOT) (147 stage I, 4 stage II, 17 stage III) and 493 Ovarian cancer (OC) patients (127 stage I, 45 stage II, 276 stage III, 45 stage IV). Using a 10% cut-off level for cyclin E overexpression, 20% of the BOTs were positive with a higher proportion of serous than mucinous tumours. Sixty-two per cent of the OCs were positive for cyclin E expression with the highest percentage found in clear cell carcinomas

Results based on univariate and multivariate survival analyses with a 10% cut-off value showed that cyclin E had no independent prognostic value. In conclusion, we found cyclin E expression in tumour tissue to be of limited prognostic value to Danish OC patients.

open access: original paper - Intra-operative frozen section analysis for suspected early-stage ovarian cancer: 11 years of Gateshead Cancer Centre experience - Cross - 2011 - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology - Wiley Online Library



Intra-operative frozen section analysis for suspected early-stage ovarian cancer: 11 years of Gateshead Cancer Centre experience - Cross - 2011 - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology - Wiley Online Library

Intra-operative frozen section analysis for suspected early-stage ovarian cancer: 11 years of Gateshead Cancer Centre experience

  1. PA Cross1, et al
Article first published online: 6 SEP 2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03129.x

Correspondence: re - Intra-operative frozen section analysis for suspected early-stage ovarian cancer - Twigg - 2012 - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology - Wiley Online Library



Intra-operative frozen section analysis for suspected early-stage ovarian cancer - Twigg - 2012 - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Volume 119, Issue 7, page 896, June 2012
Sir,
We read with interest the article by Cross et al.1 on the use of intra-operative frozen section for suspected early ovarian cancer. We would like to commend the authors for their work in providing these data and we recognise the need for mechanisms that can be used to address the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidelines CG122, which recommend assessment of the para-aortic lymph nodes in women with early ovarian cancer.2
However, there are a number of areas of practice that we feel need to be examined further before frozen section procedures can be used to alter the management of women with suspected early-stage ovarian cancer.
First, we are perplexed that the authors deemed it necessary to undertake para-aortic lymphadenectomy for women with borderline ovarian tumours. These are by nature an unpredictable class of tumour with mostly good outcomes and little in the way of nonsurgical treatment options when there is disseminated disease. Further, they are usually early-stage tumours and so the utility of a para-aortic lymph node dissection is questionable. If the authors had described the rate of disease in lymph nodes and the difference in outcome this provided for the woman with positive nodes their data would lend stronger support for more widespread implementation.
Accepting this and examining the authors data for ‘all comers’ (Table 1) we calculate that 28.8% (415) of women had an appropriate para-aortic lymph node dissection on the basis of the frozen section prediction, which represents the real-world scenario for the gynaecological oncology surgeon waiting in theatre for a frozen section analysis to be phoned back.
If the authors changed their protocol to only using dissection in women with malignancy on frozen section, 63.8% (918) of women would appropriately not undergo a para-aortic dissection. The total number of women correctly triaged by frozen section analysis would be 92.6%. Of the remainder, 7% would not undergo a para-aortic dissection that should and 0.35% would have a dissection they do not need. Such a protocol change compares with the authors’ figures who, when including a policy of para-aortic dissection for borderline tumours on frozen section, overtreated 8% of the women and undertreated 1.3%.
The answer to deciding which strategy one would wish to take up must come down to the differences in outcome for these women, defined by morbidity and mortality comparisons from overtreatment or undertreatment by surgery or chemotherapy, respectively, and any subsequent influence this has on overall survival. Unfortunately the authors do not provide this information, and only allude to data in preparation that indicate their ability to increase the stage of a woman’s disease. However, this figure can be calculated from their data in Table 1 to equate to 82 women (5.7%) who had a frozen section showing borderline disease but whose final paraffin section report showed a malignancy. Until other centres can validate their techniques and such practice can be shown to translate into a survival benefit for women, it is unlikely that their data will change surgical practice in women with early ovarian cancer.

References

  • 1
    Cross P, Naik R, Patel A, Nayar A, Hemming J, Williamson S, et al. Intra-operative frozen section analysis for suspected early-stage ovarian cancer: 11 years of Gateshead Cancer Centre experience. BJOG 2012;119:194201.
  • 2
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The recognition and initial management of ovarian cancer. [http://www.nice.org.uk/CG122]. Accessed 20 January 2012.