David, Paru S.

Abstract Objective: Frequency of vasomotor symptoms (VMS) in older women and the contributing factors are largely undefined. We measured the frequency of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms (msVMS) in women ≥60 years of age and examined their characteristics to determine factors that may associate with VMS in older women. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was completed using the Menopause Health Questionnaire from the Data Registry on Experiences of Aging, Menopause, and Sexuality. Data were collected from women presenting for menopause consultation to Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, from January 1, 2006 to October 7, 2014. We created a binary variable where women were classified as having msVMS bother if they reported “quite a bit” or “extremely” compared with women reporting “not at all” or “a little bit.” Women with and without msVMS were evaluated by menopause type, self-rated heath, current tobacco, caffeine, and alcohol use, as well as pertinent medication use. Associations between participant characteristics and msVMS were evaluated using logistic regression and a multivariable model with age as a covariate. Interactions between participant characteristics and age were also assessed. Results: Of the 4,956 women presenting for menopause consultation, 921 (18%) were ≥60 years old. Of these, 379 (41.2%) reported msVMS bother. Women with msVMS were more likely to have a history of nonspontaneous menopause and report their health as fair, versus good or excellent. Women reporting current use of hormone therapy (HT) (21%) were less likely to report msVMS compared with those not taking HT (P < 0.001). Conclusions: A substantial number of women seen in a specialty menopause clinic were over age 60 years and reported msVMS, highlighting that VMS may be disruptive in women over a decade past the natural age of menopause.

AbstractBackgroundWe aimed to determine whether patients and providers were satisfied with teledermoscopy consultation for skin lesions.MethodsFrom 2010 to 2011, patients with clinically suspicious lesions were referred for teledermoscopy by internal medicine physicians. Lesions were digitally photographed using a dermatoscope accessory lens. Images were interpreted by an on‐call dermatologist. We conducted same day surveys of providers and patients after the evaluations.ResultsThe survey response rate was 100%. Of the 20 patients surveyed, all agreed that a teledermoscopic consult was convenient and helpful. Nineteen patients (95%) strongly agreed that teledermoscopy potentially was a cost‐saving tool. All providers thought the evaluations were helpful. Ninety‐five percent of providers and patients reported satisfaction with the ease of use of this technology.ConclusionsTeledermoscopy may give primary care providers the ability to consult with dermatologists when seeing patients in remote or medically underserved areas. This can streamline the referral process and decrease the number of referrals for benign lesions.

Background The study aims to compare methods of determining headache directionality (imploding, exploding, and/or ocular headaches) in women with migraine, investigate the concordance between physician assignment and patient self‐assignment of pain directionality, and evaluate whether patients assigned their headaches to the same direction when queried using different methods. Directionality of migraine headache pain (imploding, exploding, or ocular) may reflect differences in the underlying pathogenesis of individual migraine attacks among and within individuals. Emerging evidence suggests that directionality of pain in migraine sufferers may predict response to onabotulinumtoxin A . The best method of determining headache directionality in migraine sufferers has not been systematically explored. Methods We conducted a prospective cross‐sectional survey study of 198 female patients with migraine presenting to a W omen's H ealth C linic. Patients determined the directionality (imploding, exploding, and/or ocular) of their own migraine pain by choosing among 3 pictures graphically representing directionality and also by responding to a written question regarding directionality. Clinicians then classified directionality of migraine pain using structured interviews. Concordance between clinician assignment of directionality and patient self‐assignment was determined with K appa coefficients. Results Subjects were females between the ages of 18 and 77 years (mean 48 years). According to patient selection of representative pictures, 62 (31.6%) had imploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 36 (18.4%) had exploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 78 (39.8%) had ocular pain only, and 20 (10.2%) had imploding and exploding headaches with or without ocular pain. Two subjects did not respond. According to patient responses to a written question, 80 (41.0%) had imploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 53 (27.2%) had exploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 46 (23.6%) had ocular pain only, and 16 (8.2%) had imploding and exploding headaches with or without ocular pain. Three subjects did not respond. For physician assignment, 69 (34.9%) subjects had imploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 89 (45%) had exploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 14 (7.1%) had ocular pain only, and 26 (13.1%) had imploding and exploding headaches with or without ocular pain. The concordance ( K appa coefficient) between physician assignment of headache directionality with patient response to the written question was 0.33 (weak agreement), between physician assignment and patient assignment via selection of representative pictures was 0.35 (weak agreement), and between patient assignment via written question and via selection of representative pictures was 0.35 (weak agreement). Conclusions The assignment of headache directionality varied substantially depending upon the method of determination. The concordance between clinician assignment, patient‐self assignment via answering a written question, and patient self‐assignment via choosing a representative picture was weak. Improved methods of determining pain directionality are needed.

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in the United States with the second highest incidence of cancer-related death following lung cancer. The decision-making process regarding adjuvant therapy is a time intensive dialogue between the patient and her oncologist. There are multiple tools that help individualize the treatment options for a patient. Population-based analysis with Adjuvant! Online and genomic profiling with Oncotype DX are two commonly used tools in patients with early stage, node-negative breast cancer. This case report illustrates a situation in which the population-based prognostic and predictive information differed dramatically from that obtained from genomic profiling and affected the patient’s decision. In light of this case, we discuss the benefits and limitations of these tools.