BACKGROUND: Predictive biomarker testing has a key role in the treatment decision-making for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and is mandated by (inter)national guidelines. The aim of this study was to establish guideline-adherent biomarker testing rates in the Netherlands in 2019 and to examine associations of demographical, clinical, and environmental factors with guideline-adherent testing.
METHODS: This study involved the integration of clinical data of the Netherlands Cancer Registry with pathology reports of the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank. Data extracted from these reports included sample type, diagnosis, and molecular testing status of predictive biomarkers. The study population comprised all patients diagnosed with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC in the Netherlands in 2019.
RESULTS: In the cohort of 3877 patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC under investigation, overall molecular testing rates for non-fusion predictive biomarkers (EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, ERBB2, MET) ranged from 73.9 to 89.0 %, while molecular testing for fusion-drivers (ALK, ROS1, RET, NTRK) ranged from 12.6 % to 63.9 %. Guideline-adherent testing of EGFR, KRAS, and ALK was performed in 85.2 % of patients, with regional rates spanning from 76.0 % to 90.8 %. Demographical and clinical factors associated with guideline-adherent biomarker testing included lower age (OR = 1.05 per one year decrease; p < 0.001), female sex (OR = 1.36; p = 0.002), diagnosis of adenocarcinoma (OR = 2.48; p < 0.001), availability of histological tumor material (OR = 2.46; p < 0.001), and clinical stage of metastatic disease (p = 0.002). Other factors associated with guideline-adherent biomarker testing included diagnosis at academic center (OR = 1.87; p = 0.002) and patient\'s region of residence (p < 0∙001).
CONCLUSIONS: Optimization of the chain-of-care of predictive biomarker testing in patients with NSCLC in the Netherlands is needed to provide adequate care for these patients.

Aligned with the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Head and Neck Cancers, in November 2021 the Commission on Cancer approved initiation of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) within 6 weeks of surgery for head and neck cancer (HNC) as its first and only HNC quality metric. Unfortunately, >50% of patients do not commence PORT within 6 weeks, and delays disproportionately burden racial and ethnic minority groups. Although patient navigation (PN) is a potential strategy to improve the delivery of timely, equitable, guideline-adherent PORT, the national landscape of PN for this aspect of care is unknown.
From September through November 2022, we conducted a survey of health care organizations that participate in the American Cancer Society National Navigation Roundtable to understand the scope of PN for delivering timely, guideline-adherent PORT for patients with HNC.
Of the 94 institutions that completed the survey, 89.4% (n=84) reported that at least part of their practice was dedicated to navigating patients with HNC. Sixty-eight percent of the institutions who reported navigating patients with HNC along the continuum (56/83) reported helping them begin PORT. One-third of HNC navigators (32.5%; 27/83) reported tracking the metric for time-to-PORT at their facility. When estimating the timeframe in which the NCCN and Commission on Cancer guidelines recommend commencing PORT, 44.0% (37/84) of HNC navigators correctly stated ≤6 weeks; 71.4% (60/84) reported that they did not know the frequency of delays starting PORT among patients with HNC nationally, and 63.1% (53/84) did not know the frequency of delays at their institution.
In this national landscape survey, we identified that PN is already widely used in clinical practice to help patients with HNC start timely, guideline-adherent PORT. To enhance and scale PN within this area and improve the quality and equity of HNC care delivery, organizations could focus on providing better education and support for their navigators as well as specialization in HNC.

The increasing use of non-tenofovir containing antiretroviral regimens calls for renewed attention to the prevention and management of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in people with HIV (PWH). We retrospectively assessed adherence to HBV guidelines, including complete HBV screening in PWH. In people with HIV/HBV co-infection, this included HBV therapy, screening for hepatitis delta virus (HDV) and on-therapy virologic response monitoring. HIV/HBV co-infection in PWH was defined as the presence of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) at the last measurement before study entry or detectable HBV-DNA for ≥6 months. After assessment, missing laboratory tests were performed to optimize HBV monitoring and screening for co-infections. Of all PWH under follow-up, 1484/1633 (90.9%) were adequately screened for HBV. After performing missing screening tests, 466 of 1618 PWH with complete screening results (28.8%) were non-immune for HBV infection. Fifty-one (3.2%) with HIV/HBV co-infection were identified. HBV treatment was adequate in 51/51 (100%). Screening for hepatitis A, C and delta virus antibodies and fibrosis was performed in 51/51 (100%), 49/51 (96.1%), 17/51 (35.3%) and 38/51 (74.5%). Annual HBV-DNA or HBsAg monitoring was done in 18/51 (35.3%) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in 2/9 (22.2%) of those indicated. Additional testing in those with missing data identified 4/34 (11.8%) persons with HDV antibodies and 3/30 (10%) with HBsAg seroclearance. Our study demonstrates the feasibility and added value of evaluating HBV care components and performing missing laboratory tests, identifying a large number of HBV vaccination candidates and HDV antibody screening, HBsAg monitoring and HCC surveillance as key areas for improvement.

BACKGROUND: Previous assessments of sex differences for patients with acute ischemic stroke were limited in a specific region or population, narrow scope, or small sample size.
METHODS: Patients with acute ischemic stroke hospitalized in the China Stroke Center Alliance hospitals were analyzed. Absolute standardized differences (ASDs) were used to assess sex differences in vascular risk factors, guideline-recommended in-hospital management measures and outcomes, including stroke severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale≥16), death/discharge against medical advice, major adverse cardiovascular events, pneumonia, and disability (modified Rankin Scale≥3).
RESULTS: Of 838,229 patients analyzed, 524351 (62.6%) were men and 313,878 (37.4%) were women. Compared with men, women were older (68.6 vs. 64.7 years), had higher prevalence of hypertension (67.7% vs. 62.4%), diabetes (24.7% vs. 19.5%), and atrial fibrillation (7.1% vs. 4.3%), but lower prevalence of smoking (4.5% vs. 56.6%) and drinking (2.6% vs 35.8%) (ASDs >10%). No sex differences were seen in guideline-directed management measures, indicated by risk-adjusted individual measures and the all-or-null summary measure (34.5% vs 34.9%, ASD = 1.0%). Compared to men, women tended to have strokes that were more severe at presentation (6.5% vs. 4.5%, ASD = 8.8%) and more disabilities at discharge (34.9% vs 30.5%, ASD =9.4%). However, all sex-related differences in outcomes were attenuated to null after risk adjustments (ASDs<2%).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to male patients, female patients had more vascular risk factors and received similar in-hospital care. They had strokes that were more severe at presentation and more disabilities at discharge, both of which may be explained by worse vascular risk profiles.

This study aims to assess age-related treatment patterns and primary reasons for adjusted treatment in patients with colorectal cancer.
Patients with colorectal cancer stage II or III diagnosed between 2015 and 2018 in the Netherlands were eligible for this study. Data were provided by the Netherlands Cancer Registry and included socio-demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and primary reasons for adjusted treatment. Treatment patterns and reasons for adjusted treatment were analysed according to age groups.
Of all 29,620 patients, 30% were aged <65 years (n = 8994), 34% between 65 and 75 years (n = 10,173), 27% between 75 and 85 years (n = 8102) and 8% were ≥85 years (n = 2349). Irrespective of cancer location or stage, older patients received less frequently a combination of surgery and (neo)adjuvant therapy compared to younger patients (decreasing from 55% to 1% in colon cancer patients, and from 71% to 23% in rectal cancer patients aged <65 years and ≥85 years respectively). Omission of surgical treatment increased with age in both patients with colon cancer (ranging from 1% in patients aged <65 years to 16% in those ≥85 years) and rectal cancer (ranging from 12% in patients aged <65 years to 56% in those ≥85 years). The most common reasons for adjusted treatment were patient preference (27%) and functional status (20%), both reasons increased with advancing age.
Guideline non-adherence increased with advancing age and omission of standard treatment was mainly based on patient preference and functional status. These findings provides insight in the treatment decision-making process in patients with colorectal cancer. Future research is necessary to further assess patient\'s role in the treatment decision-making process.

The impact on health care of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) is continuously rising. To investigate the perception of hemato-oncologists concerning the recommended MDS patient care in Switzerland, we conducted a web-based survey on diagnosis, risk-stratification and treatment. 43/309 physicians (13.9%) replied to 135 questions that were based on current guidelines between 3/2017 and 2/2018. Only questions with feedback-rates >50% were further analysed and ratios >90% defined \"high agreement\", 70-90% \"agreement\", 30-70% \"insufficient agreement\" and <30% \"disagreement\". For diagnosis, we found insufficient agreement on using flow-cytometry, classifying MDS precursor conditions, performing treatment response assessment after hypomethylating agents (HMA) and evaluating patients with suspected germ-line predisposition. For risk-stratification, we identified agreement on using IPSS-R but insufficient agreement for IPSS and patient-based assessments. For treatment, we observed disagreement on performing primary infectious prophylaxis in neutropenia but agreement on using only darbepoetin alfa in anaemic, lower-risk MDS patients. For thrombopoietin receptor agonists, insufficient agreement was found for the indication, preferred agent and triggering platelet count. Insufficient agreement was also found for immunosuppressive treatment in hypoplastic MDS and HMA dose adjustments. In conclusion, we identified areas for improvement in MDS patient care, in need of further clinical trials, information, and guiding documents.

Population-based cancer registry data from three Spanish areas were used to assess the patterns of care and adherence to guidelines for cutaneous malignant melanoma. We included 934 cases diagnosed in 2009-2013. Completeness of the pathology reports, imaging for detecting distant metastasis and the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) were analysed. The proportion of pathology reports that mentioned the essential pathological features required for T staging was 93%, ranging across geographic areas from 81% to 98% (p < 0.001). The percentage of low-risk patients who underwent no imaging studies, as proposed by guidelines, or only chest imaging ranged among areas from 0.6% to 84% (p < 0.001). Of the patients with clinically node-negative melanoma >1 mm thick and no distant metastases, 68% underwent SLNB, varying by area from 61% to 78% (p = 0.017). This study revealed wide geographic variation in different aspects of melanoma care. The use of a standardised structured pathology report could strengthen the completeness of reporting. Improvement strategies should also include efforts to reduce overuse of imaging in low-risk patients and to increase the adherence to guidelines recommendations on the use of SLNB.

To investigate documentation of antimicrobial allergy and to determine prescribing adherence to local antibiotic guidelines for inpatients with and without reported penicillin allergy treated for infection in a National Health Service (NHS) context.
Data were collected at two English hospital NHS trusts over two time-periods: June 2016 and February 2017.
Cohort study. Trust 1 data were sourced from prospective point prevalence surveys. Trust 2 data were extracted retrospectively from an electronic report.
Inpatients treated for urinary tract infection (UTI), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI). Data on allergy were collected, and antibiotic selection assessed for adherence to trust guidelines with differences between groups presented as adjusted ORs.
A total of 1497 patients were included, with 2645 antibiotics orders. Patients were treated for CAP (n=495; 33.1%), UTI (407; 27.2%), HAP (330; 22%) and SSTI (265; 17.7%). There were 240 (16%) patients with penicillin allergy. Penicillin allergy was recorded as allergy (n=52; 21.7%), side effect (27; 11.3%) and no documentation (161; 67.1%). Overall, 2184 (82.6%) antibiotic orders were guideline-adherent. Adherence was greatest for those labelled penicillin allergy (453 of 517; 87.6%) versus no allergy (1731 of 2128; 81.3%) (OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.73) p<0.001). Guideline-adherence for CAP was higher if penicillin allergy (151 of 163; 92.6%) versus no allergy (582 of 810; 71.9%) (OR 0.20 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.37) p<0.001). There was no difference in adherence between those with and without penicillin allergy for UTI, HAP or SSTI treatment.
A relatively high proportion of patients had a penicillin allergy and two thirds of these had no description of their allergy, which has important implications for patient safety. Patients with penicillin allergy treated for CAP, received more guideline adherent antibiotics than those without allergy. Future studies investigating the clinical impact of penicillin allergy should include data on adherence to antibiotic guidelines.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Since 2008, the German Cardiac Society certified 256 Chest Pain Units (CPUs). Little is known about adherence to recommended performance measures in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presenting to CPUs. We investigated guideline-adherence regarding critical time intervals and selected performance measures in German Chest Pain Units.
METHODS: From 2008 to 2014, 23,804 consecutive patients with suspected ACS were prospectively enrolled in the Chest Pain Unit registry of the German Cardiac Society.
RESULTS: Median time from symptom onset to first medical contact was 2 h in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 4 h in patients with unstable angina and non-STEMI (NSTEMI). In patients with STEMI, median time from hospital admission to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was 40 min and median time from first medical contact to PCI was 1 h 35 min. Primary PCI was performed in 94.7% of patients with STEMI, 70.0% of patients with NSTEMI and 37.4% of patients with unstable angina. PCI was performed during the first 24 h in 79.5% of patients with NSTEMI and the first 72 h in 89.0% of patients with unstable angina. Electrocardiograms were performed in 99.5% after a median of 6 min after admission and obtained within 10 min in 71%. Interestingly, 56.1% of patients were found to have non-ACS diagnoses, underlining the importance of access to additional diagnostic modalities including echocardiography, stress testing or computed tomography.
CONCLUSIONS: Guideline-adherence regarding critical time intervals and primary PCI rates is good in German Chest Pain Units. More than half of patients admitted with suspected ACS had non-ACS diagnoses. Improvements in pre-hospital time delays through public awareness programmes are warranted.