Citations

AbstractBackgroundLittle research has been done in teledermatology to examine the effects of standardized templates and subject‐specific learning modules.MethodsWe performed a prospective study examining the effects of standardized templates and standardized cutaneous oncology learning modules on teledermatology referrals at Mayo Clinic. This data was then compared to previous teledermatology referrals before standardized templates were adopted.ResultsA total of 42 teledermatology consultations were performed during the 4‐month study period. The use of standardized templates resulted in an absolute reduction in face‐to‐face referrals. Teledermatology consultation increased the absolute diagnostic and management concordance by 26.2% (P = 0.02) and 33.3% (P < 0.01), respectively, and decreased the absolute diagnostic and management discordance by 19.1% (P = 0.03) and 31.0% (P < 0.01), respectively. The largest knowledge gaps were identified in cutaneous oncology. Educational intervention improved theoretical referral rates and confidence in diagnosis and management overall.ConclusionThe implementation of standardized intake templates reduces the rate of face‐to‐face referrals. Teledermatology improves primary care‐based dermatological care and reduces theoretical referral rates.

Abstract Background and study aims Precise staging in T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is critical in determining candidacy for curative endoscopic resection. High-frequency endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has demonstrated suboptimal accuracy in T1 EAC staging due to insufficient spatial resolution. Volumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE) allows for high-resolution wide-field visualization of the esophageal microstructure. We aimed to investigate the role of VLE in staging T1 EAC. Patients and methods Patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) were prospectively enrolled and only T1 EAC cases were included. EMR specimens were imaged using second-generation VLE immediately after resection. VLE images were analyzed for signal intensity by depth and signal attenuation (dB/mm) in both cross-sectional and en-face orientation. A decision tree model was constructed to combine measured VLE parameters and delineate diagnostic thresholds. Results Thirty EMR scans were obtained – 15 T1a specimens from 9 patients and 15 T1b specimens from 11 patients. T1b specimen VLE scans exhibited higher signal intensity (P < 0.0001) and higher signal attenuation compared to T1a specimens (P = 0.03). A combination of signal attenuation and signal intensity at 150 µm depth yielded optimal diagnostic thresholds and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77. VLE signal attenuation was significantly associated with grade of differentiation, irrespective of EAC stage. Conclusions VLE signal intensity and signal attenuation are quantitatively distinct in T1a and T1b EAC and associated with grade of differentiation. This is the first study examining the role of VLE for staging of T1 EAC and demonstrates promising diagnostic performance. With further in vivo validation, VLE may serve a role in staging superficial EAC.

AbstractDrug screening during pre-transplant evaluations can have major implications for patient care, particularly because drug abuse has been associated with poor transplant outcomes. Although urine drug screening is usually preferred, serum testing is available for situations such as anuria due to end stage renal disease. However, there are few studies evaluating serum drug screening in specific populations such as patients undergoing kidney transplant evaluation. All serum drug screens ordered between January 2015 and November 2017 on patients being evaluated for renal transplant were compared against a large population of serum drug screens ordered from other institutions. Cocaine screening and confirmation results were evaluated to determine false positives. Cocaine screens were positive in 23 of 537 (4.3%) pre-transplant samples, and 211 of 5,115 (4.1%) comparison samples. Confirmation testing demonstrated that 14 (60.9%) pre-transplant samples were false positives, which was significantly (P < 0.01) higher than the rate of false positives in the comparison group (47/211, 22.3%). No common medication or other cross-reacting substance could be identified in the pre-transplant cohort to explain the false-positive results. Although serum cocaine screening had a low overall false-positive rate, the proportion of false positives was significantly higher in pre-transplant patients. Given the poor transplant outcomes associated with drug abuse, failure to properly interpret screening results as being false positives could negatively affect patient care. All members of the transplant team should recognize the importance of confirmation testing in this setting, to avoid unintended consequences due to false-positive screening results.

73 Background: This study evaluated the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on survival in gastric and esophageal cancer patients, and examined the impact of these cancers on glycemic control in DM. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed gastric and esophageal cancers with DM (n = 92) were identified from the Institutional Cancer Registry and matched to 92 gastric and esophageal cancer patients without DM according to age, gender and year of cancer diagnosis (2006 to 2016). The electronic medical record provided information on DM and cancer therapies and laboratory results. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by Cox regression analysis using stratification for matched pairs. Mixed models were used to compare hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and glucose during the year following cancer diagnosis. Results: Mean age of the entire cohort was 68 years, 91% were white, 78% were men, and 53% had stage III/IV disease. Adenocarcinoma (79%) was the most common histologic type. BMI was significantly different between DM and non-DM patients (p = 0.006). Alcohol use at time of cancer diagnosis was more prevalent in non-DM patients vs. DM (p = 0.018). Among those with DM, mean HbA1c during the year following cancer diagnosis was 6.8%. Mean glucose was significantly different between DM and non-DM patients (149 mg/dL vs. 116 mg/dL, p < 0.001). For glucose, there was a significant interaction effect (p = 0.005) as DM patients demonstrated a decrease in glucose values over time compared to non-DM patients. Median follow-up time was 35 months. Three year OS was estimated at 46% (95% CI: 36-58%) for DM patients versus 52.0% (95% CI: 41-64%) in non-DM (p = 0.25). Hazard ratio (stratification for matched pairs) was 1.95 (95% CI: 1.14 – 3.43; p = 0.02). Three year PFS was estimated at 40% (95% CI: 31-53%) for DM patients versus 50% (95% CI: 40-63%) for non-DM patients (p = 0.12). Hazard ratio (stratification for matched pairs) was 1.74 (95% CI: 1.04-2.90; p = 0.03). Conclusions: Gastric and esophageal cancer and its treatment did not affect glycemic control. Risks of death and progression are greater in DM patients as compared to non-DM.

355 Background: In this study, we sought to determine the prognostic factors impacting survival of patients with NELM who underwent LT at Mayo Clinic. Methods: We performed a three-site retrospective analysis of patients with unresectable NELM treated with LT from 1990 -2017. Cases were identified from clinical databases at Mayo Clinic. Data on demographics, timing of diagnosis and transplant, extent of liver involvement, and tumor grade, were extracted. Extent of liver involvement was calculated using previously validated standardized volumetry with high defined as > 25% increase in the weight of the extracted liver at the time of the transplant as compared to the standard liver volume. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: We identified 37 patients. Median age at LT was 47 (range 17.0-64.0), male: female (73% vs. 27%, respectively). Primary tumor site was in the pancreas in 51.3% and in the small bowels in 43.2%; 78.4% had NELM at presentation. While primary tumor resection was done at the time of LT in 5 (13.9%) cases, most patients (80.6%) had ˃6-months interval between primary tumor resection and LT surgery. Prior to LT, 25 (74.3%) patients received somatostatin analogues and 18 (61.3%) had liver-directed therapy. Median time from diagnosis to transplant was 33.6 months (0-246). High extent of liver involvement was identified in 12 patients (33.3%). Disease-Free Survival (DFS) at 3, 5, and 10 years was 56.8%, 43.1%, and 22.4% respectively. Overall-survival (OS) at 3, 5, and 10 years was 86.9%, 79.6%, and 52.6% respectively. High extent of liver involvement at the time of transplantation was associated with inferior DFS and OS and patients˃45 years-old at the time of transplantation had worse DFS. Patients whose disease met the OPTN (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network) criteria for NELM transplantation had significantly better DFS and OS with median 10-year OS of 80.7 % vs. 17%. Conclusions: LT is a reasonable therapeutic option for selected patients with unresectable NELM with 10-year OS of 52.6%. High extent of liver involvement was associated with worse long-term outcomes while meeting OPTN criteria resulted in best outcomes.

239 Background: The aim of this case-control study was to determine the impact of DM on survival in pancreatic cancer patients, and to examine the impact of pancreatic cancer on glycemic control in DM. Methods: Ninety-two patients with newly diagnosed pancreatic cancer from 2007 to 2015 with DM were identified from the institutional Cancer Registry and matched to ninety-two pancreatic cancer patients without DM according to age, gender, and year of pancreatic cancer diagnosis. The file was linked to the electronic medical record to obtain information on DM and pancreatic cancer therapies, and laboratory results. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by Cox regression analysis. Mixed models were used to compare hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and glucose over time. Results: Mean age of the entire pancreatic cancer cohort was 70 years, most (92%) were white, most common (88%) histology was adenocarcinoma, and majority (41%) were stage IV. No differences in age, race/ethnicity, histology, or tumor stage were detected between patients with and without DM, although DM patients had higher body mass index (P = 0.014). Mean ca 19-9 (U/ml) was 804 for diabetics, and 395 for non-diabetics. Among those with DM the mean HbA1c during the year following cancer diagnosis was 7.3%. Time (days since diagnosis) was significant in DM patients (p = 0.014) as HbA1c decreased over time. Mean glucose during the year following diagnosis among DM patients was significantly higher compared to non-DM patients [160.6 (SD = 38.0) versus 117.2 (SD = 19.0); p < 0.001]. Both groups had a decline in glucose over time (p = 0.008). In Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (median follow-up time of 11.9 months), 2 year overall survival was estimated at 15% [95% CI: 8-24%] for DM patients versus 26% [95% CI: 17-36%] in non-DM patients. Hazard ratio (for matched pairs) was 1.15 (95% CI: 0.75-1.77; p = 0.51). Conclusions: DM did not adversely impact survival in patients with pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer did not affect glycemic control. Elevated ca 19-9 in diabetic patients may be an unreliable marker for gauging disease progression.