PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of S-Detect when applied to breast ultrasonography (US), and the agreement with an experienced radiologist specializing in breast imaging.MethodsFrom June to August 2015, 192 breast masses in 175 women were included. US features of the breast masses were retrospectively analyzed by a radiologist who specializes in breast imaging and S-Detect, according to the fourth edition of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon and final assessment categories. Final assessments from S-Detect were in dichotomized form: possibly benign and possibly malignant. Kappa statistics were used to analyze the agreement between the radiologist and S-Detect. Diagnostic performance of the radiologist and S-Detect was calculated, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, accuracy, and area under the receiving operator characteristics curve.ResultsOf the 192 breast masses, 72 (37.5%) were malignant, and 120 (62.5%) were benign. Benign masses among category 4a had higher rates of possibly benign assessment on S-Detect for the radiologist, 63.5% to 36.5%, respectively (P=0.797). When the cutoff was set at category 4a, the specificity, PPV, and accuracy was significantly higher in S-Detect compared to the radiologist (all P<0.05), with a higher area under the receiver operator characteristics curve of 0.725 compared to 0.653 (P=0.038). Moderate agreement (k=0.58) was seen in the final assessment between the radiologist and S-Detect.ConclusionS-Detect may be used as an additional diagnostic tool to improve the specificity of breast US in clinical practice, and guide in decision making for breast masses detected on US.
S-Detect is a clinically feasible diagnostic tool that can be used to improve the specificity, PPV, and accuracy of breast US, with a moderate degree of agreement in final assessments, regardless of the experience of the radiologist.
Background. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) causes various types of postoperative pain, and the pain pattern has not been evaluated in detail to date. This prospective observational study investigated the types of postoperative pain, intensity in the course of time, and pain characteristics during the first postoperative 72 hr after TLH.Methods. Sixty four female patients undergoing TLH were enrolled, which finally 50 patients were included for the data analyses. The locations of pain included overall pain, abdominal visceral and incisional pains, shoulder pain, and perineal pain. Assessments were made at rest and in motion, and pain level was scored with the use of the 100 mm visual analog scale. The pain was assessed at baseline, and at postoperative 30 min, 1 hr, 3 hr, 6 hr, 24 hr, 48 hr, and 72 hr.Results. Overall, visceral, and incisional pains were most intense on the day of operation and then decreased following surgery. In contrast, shoulder pain gradually increased, peaking at postoperative 24 hr. Shoulder pain developed in 90% of all patients (44/50). It was not more aggravated in motion than at rest, in comparison with other pains, and right shoulder pain was more severe than left shoulder pain (p=0.006). In addition, the preoperative exercise habit of patients increased the threshold of shoulder pain. Most patients (46/50) had perineal pain, which was more severe than abdominal pain in approximately 30% of patients (17/50).Conclusion. Pain after TLH showed considerably different duration, severity, and characteristics, compared with other laparoscopic procedures. Shoulder pain was most intense at postoperative 24 hr, and the intensity was associated with the prior exercise habit of patients and the high level of analgesic request.
Background: Despite the importance of persons with dementia (PWDs) engaging in advance care planning (ACP) at a time when they are still competent to appoint a surrogate decision maker and meaningfully participate in ACP discussions, studies of ACP in PWDs are rare. Objective: We conducted an intervention development study to adapt an efficacious ACP intervention, SPIRIT (sharing patient's illness representations to increase trust), for PWDs in early stages (recent Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA] score ‡13) and their surrogates and assess whether SPIRIT could help PWDs engage in ACP. Design: A formative expert panel review of the adapted SPIRIT, followed by a randomized trial with qualitative interviews, was conducted. Patient-surrogate dyads were randomized to SPIRIT in person (in a private room in a memory clinic) or SPIRIT remote (via videoconferencing from home). Setting/Subjects: Twenty-three dyads of PWDs and their surrogates were recruited from an outpatient brain health center. Participants completed preparedness outcome measures (dyad congruence on goals of care, patient decisional conflict, and surrogate decision-making confidence) at baseline and two to three days postintervention, plus a semistructured interview. Levels of articulation of end-of-life wishes of PWDs during SPIRIT sessions were rated (3 = expressed wishes very coherently, 2 = somewhat coherently, and 1 = unable to express coherently). Results: All 23 were able to articulate their end-of-life wishes very or somewhat coherently during the SPIRIT session; of those, 14 PWDs had moderate dementia. While decision-making capacity was higher in PWDs who articulated their wishes very coherently, MoCA scores did not differ by articulation levels. PWDs and surrogates perceived SPIRIT as beneficial, but the preparedness outcomes did not change pre-post. Conclusions: SPIRIT engaged PWDs and surrogates in meaningful ACP discussions, but requires testing of efficacy and long-term outcomes.
Background: The present study assessed whether early palliative care (EPC) targeting pain and depression and automated symptom monitoring could improve symptoms in patients with advanced pancreatobiliary cancer. Methods: Patients diagnosed with pathologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic or biliary tract cancer who had cancer-related pain (brief pain inventory (BPI) worst pain score >3) and/or depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies—Depression Scale (CES-D) >16) were randomized within 8 weeks after diagnosis to receive EPC or on-demand palliative care (n = 144 each). EPC included (1) nursing assessment of pain and depression, (2) pain control based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, (3) depression control by psychoeducation and/or consultation with a psychiatric specialist, and (4) patient education. The primary end points were ≥50% reductions from baseline to week 4 in pain and depression scores. Results: The proportion of patients in the EPC and usual care groups with ≥50% reductions in pain (29.5% vs. 25.2%; p = 0.4194) and depression (30.8% vs. 36.8%; p = 0.5732) scores from baseline to week 4 did not differ significantly. The proportion of patients with BPI worst pain score ≤3 was significantly higher (51.1% vs. 38.9%, p = 0.0404) and the reduction in pain intensity score significantly greater (1.5 vs. 1.0 points, p = 0.0318) in the EPC than in the usual care group. At 4 weeks, patients in the EPC group reported significant increases in global health status, role of functioning, nausea and vomiting, and pain scores on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) general questionnaire. Conclusions: Although the primary outcome was not met, this trial indicates that EPC may improve early pain relief in patients with advanced pancreatobiliary cancers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.