Citations

Targeted neonatal echocardiography (TNE) has been increasingly used at the bedside in neonatal care to provide an enhanced understanding of physiology, affecting management in hemodynamically unstable patients. Traditional methods of bedside assessment, including blood pressure, heart rate monitoring, and capillary refill are unable to provide a complete picture of tissue perfusion and oxygenation. TNE allows for precision medicine, providing a tool for identifying pathophysiology and to continually reassess rapid changes in hemodynamics. A relationship with cardiology is integral both in training as well as quality assurance. It is imperative that congenital heart disease is ruled out when utilizing TNE for hemodynamic management, as pathophysiology varies substantially in the assessment and management of patients with congenital heart disease. Utilizing TNE for longitudinal hemodynamic assessment requires extensive training. As the field continues to grow, guidelines and protocols for training and indications are essential for ensuring optimal use and providing a platform for quality assurance.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with prostate cancer suffer significant sexual dysfunction after treatment which negatively affects them and their partners psychologically, and strain their relationships.AimWe convened an international panel with the aim of developing guidelines that will inform clinicians, patients and partners about the impact of prostate cancer therapies (PCT) on patients’ and partners’ sexual health, their relationships, and about biopsychosocial rehabilitation in prostate cancer (PC) survivorship.MethodsThe guidelines panel included international expert researchers and clinicians, and a guideline methodologist. A systematic review of the literature, using the Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsychINFO, LGBT Life, and Embase databases was conducted (1995–2022) according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Study selection was based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Each statement was assigned an evidence strength (A-C) and a recommendation level (strong, moderate, conditional) based on benefit/risk assessment, according to the nomenclature of the American Urological Association (AUA). Data synthesis included meta-analyses of studies deemed of sufficient quality (3), using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR).OutcomesGuidelines for sexual health care for patients with prostate cancer were developed, based on available evidence and the expertise of the international panel.ResultsThe guidelines account for patients’ cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity. They attend to the unique needs of individuals with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. The guidelines are based on literature review, a theoretical model of sexual recovery after PCT, and 6 principles that promote clinician-initiated discussion of realistic expectations of sexual outcomes and mitigation of sexual side-effects through biopsychosocial rehabilitation. Forty-seven statements address the psychosexual, relationship, and functional domains in addition to statements on lifestyle modification, assessment, provider education, and systemic challenges to providing sexual health care in PC survivorship.Clinical ImplicationsThe guidelines provide clinicians with a comprehensive approach to sexual health care for patients with prostate cancer.Strengths & LimitationsThe strength of the study is the comprehensive evaluation of existing evidence on sexual dysfunction and rehabilitation in prostate cancer that can, along with available expert knowledge, best undergird clinical practice. Limitation is the variation in the evidence supporting interventions and the lack of research on issues facing patients with prostate cancer in low and middle-income countries.ConclusionThe guidelines document the distressing sexual sequelae of PCT, provide evidence-based recommendations for sexual rehabilitation and outline areas for future research.

97 Background: In order to maintain safety, clinical trial activities have been modified during the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of the TBCRC 057 survey, we assessed how pandemic-related modifications to trial activities affect breast cancer patients’ willingness to participate in clinical trials. Methods: US residents with breast cancer were eligible to complete the online survey 8/6/21 – 9/30/21. Respondents rated whether each of 11 modifications to clinical trial activities would affect their decision to participate in a trial during or after the pandemic. Items evaluated modifications that involved changing the location of trial activities to closer to home, switching trial activities to telemedicine and making the trial schedule more flexible and convenient. Response options were “much less likely to participate”, “somewhat less likely to participate”, “would not affect my decision whether or not to participate”, “somewhat more likely to participate” and “much more likely to participate”. Current trial participants were asked to consider how modifications would affect their decision to participate in another trial. Results are reported descriptively. Results: Among 385 respondents, median age was 52 (range 25-85), 88.6% were non-Hispanic White, 52.5% had metastatic disease, 93% were receiving active treatment, 48.6% received care at an academic center and 9.6% were current trial participants. Changing location of trial activities was viewed favorably, with 70.2%, 64.6% and 54.1% of respondents indicating they would be much or somewhat more likely to participate if they could complete trial blood tests, x-ray tests or doctor visits closer to home, respectively. Similarly, the option to complete trial activities electronically was viewed favorably, with 59.6%, 58.6% and 60.9% of respondents indicating they would be much or somewhat more likely to participate if they could complete trial doctor visits, consent and questionnaires via telemedicine, respectively. With regard to modifications to make the trial schedule more flexible and convenient, respondent feedback was also favorable. 71.4%, 67.7% and 82.4% of respondents indicated that requiring study site visits no more than once per 3 weeks, widening windows for trial activities and offering home delivery of oral study medications, respectively, would make them much or somewhat more likely to participate. Finally, 30.4% and 51.7% indicated that the flexibility to opt-out of research-only blood tests and biopsies, respectively, would make them much or somewhat more likely to participate. Conclusions: Patients view modifications to trial activities implemented during the pandemic favorably. Trials should be flexible and the option to conduct study activities close to home or electronically when possible should be maintained during the pandemic and beyond.

What is the agreement of commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) assays during a time of low coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevalence and no vaccine availability? Serological tests produced concordant results in a time of low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and no vaccine availability, driven largely by the proportion of samples that were negative by two immunoassays. The CDC recommends two sequential tests for positivity for future pandemic preparedness.

PURPOSE: Financial hardship (FH) in cancer care is a growing challenge for patients, their caregivers, and health care providers with impact on morbidity and mortality. In this study, we report on a standardized approach to describe the prevalence and predictors for FH as part of routine clinical workflow. We also report on the association of FH with survival in our cancer patient population. METHODS: This study includes patients who completed a FH screen at least once between 2018 and 2020. Demographics, disease state, and mortality data were extracted from the medical records. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine association of sociodemographic and disease variables with FH. By using propensity score weighting to account for differences in demographic and clinical factors between patients with and without FH, we then fit Cox proportional hazards models to examine the relationship between FH and survival. RESULTS: The study cohort included 31,154 patients. FH was reported by 14% (n = 4,250) of the patients. A significantly higher likelihood of having FH ( P < .001 for all) was reported by racial/ethnic minority patients; those who were unemployed/disabled, single, or divorced; patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods; and those who were self-pay or had government insurance. Older age, being retired, and living farther from the cancer center were associated with significantly less likelihood of endorsing FH. Patients who endorsed FH had a lower survival (hazard ratio for mortality 1.46). CONCLUSION: Our study identified key groups more likely to report FH in a relatively affluent population at a large cancer center and showed an adverse association between FH and survival. Further research is needed to develop clinical care pathways for patients at high risk for worse financial and clinical outcomes.

Brain metastases are a devastating sequela of common primary cancers (e.g., lung, breast, and skin) and have limited effective therapeutic options. Previously, systemic chemotherapy failed to demonstrate significant benefit in patients with brain metastases, but in recent decades, targeted therapies and more recently immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have yielded promising results in preclinical and clinical studies. Furthermore, there is significant interest in harnessing the immunomodulatory effects of radiotherapy (RT) to synergize with ICIs. Herein, we discuss studies evaluating the impact of RT dose and fractionation on the immune response, early studies supporting the synergistic interaction between RT and ICIs, and ongoing clinical trials assessing the benefit of combination therapy in patients with brain metastases.

Background Physician burnout is of growing concern. Burnout among physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) physicians has shown a significant increase, positioning PM&R as one of the most “burned out” of specialties. Little has been written about potential factors contributing to physiatrist burnout or potential interventions. Objective To determine the prevalence of burnout among physiatrists and identify risk factors for burnout and potential strategies to decrease burnout among physiatrists. Design Prospective cross‐sectional survey. Setting National survey of board certified physiatrists. Participants: One thousand five hundred thirty‐six physiatrists certified by the American Board of PM&R. Outcome The Mini‐Z Burnout Survey, 1 question from the Maslach Burnout Scale on callousness toward patients, and several potential drivers of burnout. The probability of burnout, identified by question 3 on the Mini‐Z, was the dependent variable. Other questions on the Mini‐Z were explored as independent variables using logistic regression. Results Seven hundred seventy physiatrists (50.7%) fulfilled the definition of burnout. Only 38% of physiatrists reported not becoming more callous toward patients. The top 3 causes of burnout identified by physiatrists were increasing regulatory demands, workload and job demands, and practice inefficiency and lack of resources. Higher burnout rate was associated with high levels of job stress and working more hours per week. Lower burnout rates were associated with higher job satisfaction, control over workload, professional values aligned with those of department leaders, and sufficient time for documentation. There was no significant association between burnout and sex, years in practice, practice focus, or practice area. Conclusion Burnout is a significant problem among PM&R physicians and is pervasive throughout the specialty. Opportunities exist to address major contributing drivers of burnout relating to practice patterns and efficiency of care within PM&R. These opportunities are, to varying degrees, under the control of hospital leaders, practice administrators, and practitioners.