Uptake of Genetic Testing Among Patients with Cancer At Risk for Lynch Syndrome in the National Health Interview Survey.

Lynch syndrome is the most common inherited cancer syndrome that increases the risk of developing colorectal and endometrial cancer. Universal screening guidelines were first recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2009 and are updated annually by multiple societies. Therefore, one would expect genetic testing rates to increase over time. But testing remains underutilized among those with colorectal or endometrial cancer, even though early detection can improve prognosis and survival rates. In this study, we aimed to understand differences in genetic testing uptake among those with colorectal cancer or endometrial cancer from 2005, 2010, 2015, using data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We examined genetic testing uptake across cancer-type, age (≤50 or ≥51), sex, race, insurance, and education using a χ2 statistical analysis. Despite an upward genetic testing trend in 2010, we found no significant differences in genetic testing uptake over time. In 2010, non-White individuals experienced the highest increase from 2005 in comparison with White individuals. However, genetic testing rates declined for both groups by 2015. Our findings show that genetic testing for colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer did not increase over a 10-year period in spite of guidelines that recommend testing.Prevention Relevance: Genetic testing uptake for colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer has not increased over a 10-year period in spite of universal screening guidelines. More genetic testing education is needed at the provider and patient level to improve screening strategies for cancer patients who are most at risk for Lynch syndrome

National variation in the delivery of radiation oncology procedures in the non‐facility‐based setting

PURPOSE: Though utilization of medical procedures has been shown to vary considerably across the United States, similar efforts to characterize variation in the delivery of radiation therapy (RT) procedures have not been forthcoming. Our aim was to characterize variation in the delivery of common RT procedures in the Medicare population. We hypothesized that delivery would vary significantly based on provider characteristics. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was linked to the CMS Physician Compare (PC) database by physician NPI to identify and sum all treatment delivery charges submitted by individual radiation oncologists in the non‐facility‐based (NFB) setting in 2016. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was carried out to determine provider characteristics (gender, practice rurality, practice region, and years since graduation) that predicted for the delivery of 3D conformal RT (3DCRT), intensity modulated RT (IMRT), stereotactic body RT (SBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy delivery in the Medicare patient population. The overall significance of categorical variables in the multivariable logistic regression model was assessed by the likelihood ratio test (LRT). RESULTS: In total, 1,802 physicians from the NFB practice setting were analyzed. Male gender predicted for greater LDR brachytherapy delivery (OR 8.19, 95% CI 2.58–26.05, p < 0.001), but not greater delivery of other technologies. Metropolitan practice was the only predictor for greater HDR brachytherapy utilization (OR 12.95, 95% CI 1.81–92.60, p = 0.01). Practice region was predictive of the delivery of 3DCRT, SRS and SBRT (p < 0.01, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). With the Northeast as the reference region, 3DCRT was more likely to be delivered by providers in the South (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.09–1.62, p < 0.01) and the West (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11–1.71, p < 0.01). At the same time, SRS use was less likely in the Midwest (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55–0.91, p < 0.01), South (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40–0.61, p < 0.001), and West (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34–0.55, p < 0.001). SBRT, on the other hand, was more commonly utilized in the Midwest (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.13–6.13, p = 0.03), South (OR 3.44, 95% CI 1.58–7.49, p < 0.01), and West (OR 4.87, 95% CI 2.21–10.72, p < 0.001). HDR brachytherapy use was also more likely in the Midwest (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.11–3.49, p = 0.02) and West (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.08–3.24, p = 0.03). While the degree held by the billing physician did not predict for delivery of a given procedure, greater years since graduation was related to decreased likelihood of SBRT use (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96–0.99, p < 0.001) and increased likelihood of LDR brachytherapy use (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00–1.04, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial geographic variation in the use of specific RT technologies was identified. The degree to which this variation reflects effective care, preference‐sensitive care, or supply‐sensitive care warrants further investigation

Advances in progenitor cell therapy using scaffolding constructs for central nervous system injury.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Current clinical therapy is focused on optimization of the acute/subacute intracerebral milieu, minimizing continued cell death, and subsequent intense rehabilitation to ameliorate the prolonged physical, cognitive, and psychosocial deficits that result from TBI. Adult progenitor (stem) cell therapies have shown promise in pre-clinical studies and remain a focus of intense scientific investigation. One of the fundamental challenges to successful translation of the large body of pre-clinical work is the delivery of progenitor cells to the target location/organ. Classically used vehicles such as intravenous and intra arterial infusion have shown low engraftment rates and risk of distal emboli. Novel delivery methods such as nanofiber scaffold implantation could provide the structural and nutritive support required for progenitor cell proliferation, engraftment, and differentiation. The focus of this review is to explore the current state of the art as it relates to current and novel progenitor cell delivery methods