BACKGROUND: Primary tumors of the spinal cord, spinal meninges, and cauda equina are relatively rare, and a paucity of populationbased data exist on tumors in these sites. This study intends to augment the current literature by examining incidence of these tumors on a national level.

During the past decade, the overall burden of uterine cancer has been stable, although there have been changes in underlying histologies (e.g., endometrial). Changes in trends for underlying histologies may be masked when reviewing trends irrespective of histologic subtypes. Our findings suggest the need to examine trends of uterine cancer by histologic subtype in order to better understand the burden of endometrial cancer in relation to these subtypes to help women at increased risk for developing more aggressive types of endometrial cancer (e.g., type II).

Background Baby boomers are at increased risk for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and related cancer; therefore, one‐time HCV screening is recommended. Methods To assess prevalence of, and factors associated with providers ordering HCV screening, we examined a retrospective cohort of electronic medical records for patient visits from 01 August 2015 until 31 July 2017 in a large health system. HCV screening ordered was examined by patient age, gender, race/ethnicity, provider specialty, and number of clinical visits, stratified by birth cohort: born ≤1945, 1945‐1965 (baby boomers), 1966‐1985, and ≥1985. Multivariable regression identified factors independently associated with HCV screening ordered among average risk baby boomers. Results A total of 65 114 patients ages ≥18 years were evaluated. Among baby boomers HCV screening test order increased threefold between the two study years (4.0%‐12.9%). Odds of screening test ordered were significantly higher for non‐Hispanic Blacks (multivariable adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=1.36; 95% CI = 1.19‐1.55), males (aOR = 1.44; 95% CI = 1.33‐1.57), and having a clinic visit with a primary care provider alone or with specialty care (aOR = 3.25‐4.16). Medicare (aOR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.80‐0.99), Medicaid (aOR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80‐0.99), and an unknown provider type (aOR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.08‐0.33), were associated with lower odds of screening tests ordered. Conclusions While the proportion of baby boomers with an HCV screening test ordered increased during the study, the rate of screening remains far below national goals. Data from this study indicate that providers are not ordering HCV screening universally for all of their baby boomer patients. Continued efforts to increase HCV screening are needed to reduce the incidence of HCV‐related morbidity and mortality.

No abstract

BackgroundThe Michigan Prevention Research Center, the University of Michigan Schools of Nursing, Public Health, and Medicine, and the Michigan Department of Community Health propose a multidisciplinary academic-clinical practice three-year project to increase breast cancer screening among young breast cancer survivors and their cancer-free female relatives at greatest risk for breast cancer.Methods/designThe study has three specific aims: 1) Identify and survey 3,000 young breast cancer survivors (diagnosed at 20–45 years old) regarding their breast cancer screening utilization. 2) Identify and survey survivors’ high-risk relatives regarding their breast cancer screening utilization. 3) Test two versions (Targeted vs. Enhanced Tailored) of an intervention to increase breast cancer screening among survivors and relatives. Following approval by human subjects review boards, 3,000 young breast cancer survivors will be identified through the Michigan Cancer Registry and mailed an invitation letter and a baseline survey. The baseline survey will obtain information on the survivors’: a) current breast cancer screening status and use of genetic counseling; b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening; c) family health history. Based on the family history information provided by survivors, we will identify up to two high-risk relatives per survivor. Young breast cancer survivors will be mailed consent forms and baseline surveys to distribute to their selected high-risk relatives. Relatives’ baseline survey will obtain information on their: a) current breast cancer screening status and use of genetic counseling; and b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening. Young breast cancer survivors and high-risk relatives will be randomized as a family unit to receive two versions of an intervention aiming to increase breast cancer screening and use of cancer genetic services. A follow-up survey will be mailed 9 months after the intervention to survivors and high-risk relatives to evaluate the efficacy of each intervention version on: a) use of breast cancer screening and genetic counseling; b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening; c) self-efficacy in utilizing cancer genetic and screening services; d) family support related to screening; e) knowledge of breast cancer genetics; and f) satisfaction with the intervention.DiscussionThe study will enhance efforts of the state of Michigan surrounding cancer prevention, control, and public health genomics.Trial registrationNCT01612338

Author contributions are as follows: ML Kasting-conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and critically revising article for important intellectual content, approved final version of manuscript to be published. AR Giuliano-conception and design, interpretation of data, drafting and critically revising the article for important intellectual content, approved final version of manuscript to be published. RR Reich-acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critically revising the article for content, approved final version of manuscript to be published. RG Roetzheim-interpretation of data analysis, critically revising article for intellectual content, approved final version of manuscript to be published. LM Duong-data analysis and interpretation, critically revising the article for important intellectual content, approved final version of manuscript to be published. E Thomas-interpretation of data, revising article critically for important intellectual content, approved final version of manuscript to be published. DR Nelson-interpretation of data, revising article critically for important intellectual content, approved final version of manuscript to be published. EA Shenkman-interpretation of data, revising article critically for important intellectual content, approved final version of manuscript to be published. ST Vadaparampil-conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and critically revising article for important intellectual content, approved final version of manuscript to be published.

Background This article investigated whether robotic‐assisted liver surgery versus laparoscopic liver surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has similar or different short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes. Methods A total of 3049 patients from the National Cancer Database who received minimally invasive surgery (ie, robotic or laparoscopic surgery) for stage I HCC cancers between 2010 to 2015, of which 123 had robotic and 2926 had laparoscopic surgeries performed, were identified. Logistic regression was applied to evaluate short‐term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards models were applied to estimate all‐cause mortality at 1‐year, 3‐years, and 5‐years after surgery, adjusting for potential confounders. Propensity score‐matched analyses were conducted to compare long‐term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries. Results Robotic surgery was associated with improved overall survival, with 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year survival rates (SRs) of 0.92, 0.75, and 0.63 compared with laparoscopic surgery SRs of 0.86, 0.60, and 0.45, respectively (P value <.01). Multivariate analyses showed that robotic compared with laparoscopic surgery had significantly lower 5‐year total mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 and 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45%‐0.93% for intent‐to‐treat; HR, 0.62 and 95% CI, 0.42%‐0.91% for end‐treatment analyses). Similar results were found in propensity score matched analyses; robotic surgery was associated with improved overall survival compared with laparoscopic surgery (HR, 0.64 and 95% CI, 0.43%‐0.96% for intent‐to‐treat; HR, 0.59 and 95% CI, 0.39%‐0.90% for end‐treatment). Conclusions Robotic surgery is not inferior to laparoscopic surgery in treating early‐stage HCC and may be associated with improved long‐term survival.

Background: Basic and clinical scientific research at the University of South Florida (USF) have intersected to support a multi-faceted approach around a common focus on rare iron-related diseases. We proposed a modified version of the National Center for Biotechnology Information’s (NCBI) Hackathon-model to take full advantage of local expertise in building “Iron Hack”, a rare disease-focused hackathon. As the collaborative, problem-solving nature of hackathons tends to attract participants of highly-diverse backgrounds, organizers facilitated a symposium on rare iron-related diseases, specifically porphyrias and Friedreich’s ataxia, pitched at general audiences. Methods: The hackathon was structured to begin each day with presentations by expert clinicians, genetic counselors, researchers focused on molecular and cellular biology, public health/global health, genetics/genomics, computational biology, bioinformatics, biomolecular science, bioengineering, and computer science, as well as guest speakers from the American Porphyria Foundation (APF) and Friedreich’s Ataxia Research Alliance (FARA) to inform participants as to the human impact of these diseases. Results: As a result of this hackathon, we developed resources that are relevant not only to these specific disease-models, but also to other rare diseases and general bioinformatics problems. Within two and a half days, “Iron Hack” participants successfully built collaborative projects to visualize data, build databases, improve rare disease diagnosis, and study rare-disease inheritance. Conclusions: The purpose of this manuscript is to demonstrate the utility of a hackathon model to generate prototypes of generalizable tools for a given disease and train clinicians and data scientists to interact more effectively.