Highlights from the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 48th Annual Meeting

*For a PDF of the full article, click on the link to the left of this introduction.

Highlights from the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 48th Annual Meeting

*For a PDF of the full article, click on the link to the left of this introduction.

Highlights from the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 48th Annual Meeting

*For a PDF of the full article, click on the link to the left of this introduction.

BOSTON – Younger age of deceased liver donors appeared to improve patient and graft survival when donors and recipients were both of younger age, but not when younger donor livers went to older recipients, according to a secondary analysis of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network national database from 2002 to 2011.

"Matching younger recipients with younger donors appears to be the best strategy in order to maximize life years after liver transplantation. However, before this can be considered for allocation policy, much more work needs to be done," including analyses specific to United Network for Organ Sharing regions, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease groups, and modeling of the potential life-years saved with a change in allocation policy, said lead investigator Dr. Neehar D. Parikh of the Comprehensive Transplant Center at Northwestern University, Chicago.

The risk of recipient death is known to increase with advancing donor age, beginning at ages older than 40 years and especially with donors older than 60 years. Also, advancing recipient age has been shown, with some controversy, to affect outcomes negatively, Dr. Parikh said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Dr. Parikh and his colleagues’ study of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database analyzed 26,849 cases of liver transplantation in which the donor was younger than the recipient, 782 cases in which they were the same age, and 12,107 cases in which the donor was older than the recipient. They also looked at outcomes of patients aged 18-40 years and those 60 years or older, based on the donor age.

As would be expected, recipients had progressively younger mean ages as the donor age increased: 56 years for recipients with younger donors, 52 years for same-age donors, and 48 years for older donors. Hepatitis C virus seropositivity was lowest in recipients who had an older donor (41%), followed by same-age recipient-donor pairs (51%), and recipients who had a younger donor (50%).

In Kaplan-Meier analyses, patient survival at 1 year was significantly worse for those who received a liver from a donor with an older age (86%) or the same age (86%) than from a younger donor (87.4%). Similar results were seen at 3 years between recipients of livers from older (74.5%), same age (73.5%), and younger donors (77.9%).

Older donor age increased the risk for patient death by 14% and graft failure by 13%, in comparison with younger donor age in an adjusted analysis.

For every 10-year increase in patient age for younger donors, the risk of patient mortality increased by 24% and graft failure by 17%. For every 10 years the donor was younger than the recipient, however, there was a 27% decline in the risk of patient mortality and 30% decrease in the risk of graft failure. A small but significance beneficial interaction was found between young donor age and young recipient age on both outcomes.

In contrast, for every 10 years the donor was older than the recipient, the risk of patient mortality increased 9% and the risk of graft failure increased by 22%, and there was no significant interaction between recipient and donor age.

When compared against donor and recipient pairs who were both aged 18-40 years, the risk of patient mortality and graft failure increased significantly for all other combinations of donor and recipient pairs: recipients aged 18-40 years and donors aged 60 years or older (hazard ratios of 1.76 and 1.49, respectively), recipients aged 60 years older and donors aged 18-40 years (HRs of 1.67 and 1.83), and recipients and donors both aged 60 years or older (HRs of 2.12 and 1.87). These results were consistent at both 1 and 3 years.

The overall results "suggest that there is something intrinsic about being older or having an older graft that cannot be remediated by graft or patient age factors," Dr. Parikh said.

The results might be explained in livers from older donors by impaired liver regeneration and increased susceptibility to ischemic reperfusion injury, while older recipients might have decreased circulating stem cells and more competing risks that are not adequately risk adjusted in the available data in older recipients, he said.

One audience member noted that there is still a "huge survival advantage" in all patient populations that receive younger donor livers and that allocating organs based on age is a slippery slope.

Dr. Parikh and his colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures.

BOSTON – Younger age of deceased liver donors appeared to improve patient and graft survival when donors and recipients were both of younger age, but not when younger donor livers went to older recipients, according to a secondary analysis of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network national database from 2002 to 2011.

"Matching younger recipients with younger donors appears to be the best strategy in order to maximize life years after liver transplantation. However, before this can be considered for allocation policy, much more work needs to be done," including analyses specific to United Network for Organ Sharing regions, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease groups, and modeling of the potential life-years saved with a change in allocation policy, said lead investigator Dr. Neehar D. Parikh of the Comprehensive Transplant Center at Northwestern University, Chicago.

The risk of recipient death is known to increase with advancing donor age, beginning at ages older than 40 years and especially with donors older than 60 years. Also, advancing recipient age has been shown, with some controversy, to affect outcomes negatively, Dr. Parikh said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Dr. Parikh and his colleagues’ study of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database analyzed 26,849 cases of liver transplantation in which the donor was younger than the recipient, 782 cases in which they were the same age, and 12,107 cases in which the donor was older than the recipient. They also looked at outcomes of patients aged 18-40 years and those 60 years or older, based on the donor age.

As would be expected, recipients had progressively younger mean ages as the donor age increased: 56 years for recipients with younger donors, 52 years for same-age donors, and 48 years for older donors. Hepatitis C virus seropositivity was lowest in recipients who had an older donor (41%), followed by same-age recipient-donor pairs (51%), and recipients who had a younger donor (50%).

In Kaplan-Meier analyses, patient survival at 1 year was significantly worse for those who received a liver from a donor with an older age (86%) or the same age (86%) than from a younger donor (87.4%). Similar results were seen at 3 years between recipients of livers from older (74.5%), same age (73.5%), and younger donors (77.9%).

Older donor age increased the risk for patient death by 14% and graft failure by 13%, in comparison with younger donor age in an adjusted analysis.

For every 10-year increase in patient age for younger donors, the risk of patient mortality increased by 24% and graft failure by 17%. For every 10 years the donor was younger than the recipient, however, there was a 27% decline in the risk of patient mortality and 30% decrease in the risk of graft failure. A small but significance beneficial interaction was found between young donor age and young recipient age on both outcomes.

In contrast, for every 10 years the donor was older than the recipient, the risk of patient mortality increased 9% and the risk of graft failure increased by 22%, and there was no significant interaction between recipient and donor age.

When compared against donor and recipient pairs who were both aged 18-40 years, the risk of patient mortality and graft failure increased significantly for all other combinations of donor and recipient pairs: recipients aged 18-40 years and donors aged 60 years or older (hazard ratios of 1.76 and 1.49, respectively), recipients aged 60 years older and donors aged 18-40 years (HRs of 1.67 and 1.83), and recipients and donors both aged 60 years or older (HRs of 2.12 and 1.87). These results were consistent at both 1 and 3 years.

The overall results "suggest that there is something intrinsic about being older or having an older graft that cannot be remediated by graft or patient age factors," Dr. Parikh said.

The results might be explained in livers from older donors by impaired liver regeneration and increased susceptibility to ischemic reperfusion injury, while older recipients might have decreased circulating stem cells and more competing risks that are not adequately risk adjusted in the available data in older recipients, he said.

One audience member noted that there is still a "huge survival advantage" in all patient populations that receive younger donor livers and that allocating organs based on age is a slippery slope.

Dr. Parikh and his colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures.

BOSTON – Younger age of deceased liver donors appeared to improve patient and graft survival when donors and recipients were both of younger age, but not when younger donor livers went to older recipients, according to a secondary analysis of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network national database from 2002 to 2011.

"Matching younger recipients with younger donors appears to be the best strategy in order to maximize life years after liver transplantation. However, before this can be considered for allocation policy, much more work needs to be done," including analyses specific to United Network for Organ Sharing regions, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease groups, and modeling of the potential life-years saved with a change in allocation policy, said lead investigator Dr. Neehar D. Parikh of the Comprehensive Transplant Center at Northwestern University, Chicago.

The risk of recipient death is known to increase with advancing donor age, beginning at ages older than 40 years and especially with donors older than 60 years. Also, advancing recipient age has been shown, with some controversy, to affect outcomes negatively, Dr. Parikh said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Dr. Parikh and his colleagues’ study of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database analyzed 26,849 cases of liver transplantation in which the donor was younger than the recipient, 782 cases in which they were the same age, and 12,107 cases in which the donor was older than the recipient. They also looked at outcomes of patients aged 18-40 years and those 60 years or older, based on the donor age.

As would be expected, recipients had progressively younger mean ages as the donor age increased: 56 years for recipients with younger donors, 52 years for same-age donors, and 48 years for older donors. Hepatitis C virus seropositivity was lowest in recipients who had an older donor (41%), followed by same-age recipient-donor pairs (51%), and recipients who had a younger donor (50%).

In Kaplan-Meier analyses, patient survival at 1 year was significantly worse for those who received a liver from a donor with an older age (86%) or the same age (86%) than from a younger donor (87.4%). Similar results were seen at 3 years between recipients of livers from older (74.5%), same age (73.5%), and younger donors (77.9%).

Older donor age increased the risk for patient death by 14% and graft failure by 13%, in comparison with younger donor age in an adjusted analysis.

For every 10-year increase in patient age for younger donors, the risk of patient mortality increased by 24% and graft failure by 17%. For every 10 years the donor was younger than the recipient, however, there was a 27% decline in the risk of patient mortality and 30% decrease in the risk of graft failure. A small but significance beneficial interaction was found between young donor age and young recipient age on both outcomes.

In contrast, for every 10 years the donor was older than the recipient, the risk of patient mortality increased 9% and the risk of graft failure increased by 22%, and there was no significant interaction between recipient and donor age.

When compared against donor and recipient pairs who were both aged 18-40 years, the risk of patient mortality and graft failure increased significantly for all other combinations of donor and recipient pairs: recipients aged 18-40 years and donors aged 60 years or older (hazard ratios of 1.76 and 1.49, respectively), recipients aged 60 years older and donors aged 18-40 years (HRs of 1.67 and 1.83), and recipients and donors both aged 60 years or older (HRs of 2.12 and 1.87). These results were consistent at both 1 and 3 years.

The overall results "suggest that there is something intrinsic about being older or having an older graft that cannot be remediated by graft or patient age factors," Dr. Parikh said.

The results might be explained in livers from older donors by impaired liver regeneration and increased susceptibility to ischemic reperfusion injury, while older recipients might have decreased circulating stem cells and more competing risks that are not adequately risk adjusted in the available data in older recipients, he said.

One audience member noted that there is still a "huge survival advantage" in all patient populations that receive younger donor livers and that allocating organs based on age is a slippery slope.

Dr. Parikh and his colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures.

BOSTON – Acetaminophen toxicity is the most frequent cause of acute liver failure in the United States and its usually milder presentation, along with comorbid psychosocial issues, explain why fewer patients with the etiology undergo liver transplantation, compared with other causes, according to a 10-year retrospective study of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Acute Liver Failure database.

Dr. K. Rajender Reddy and his colleagues in the National Institutes of Health Acute Liver Failure Study Group set out to determine factors that could help clinicians to improve their selection of acute liver failure patients for liver transplantation listing and their decision to proceed with transplantation.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, Dr. Reddy reported that of 1,144 patients who had at least 1 year of follow-up in the database, 491 (43%) had an acetaminophen etiology for acute liver failure, but only 26% of all patients listed for transplantation had an acetaminophen etiology and just 14% of all transplants occurred in patients with acetaminophen toxicity as the underlying cause.

In comparison, patients with other etiologies had higher listing and transplantation rates, with the highest being for autoimmune hepatitis (62% of all patients listed and 50% of all transplanted).

Overall during 2000-2010, 697 patients were not listed and not transplanted (group A), 177 were listed and not transplanted (group B), and 270 were listed and transplanted (group C). After 2 years of follow-up, patient survival was highest in group C (82%), followed by group A (47%) and group B (41%). Survival at 21 days followed the same pattern (C, 89%; A, 58%; B, 45%). Patients in groups A and B with acetaminophen etiology had greater 21-day survival than did those without an acetaminophen etiology.

Patients in group A had significantly higher rates of positive toxicology screens than did groups B and C (43% vs. 35% and 19%, respectively) and history of illicit drug use (10% vs. 4% and 2%).

Comparisons between patients who died in group B and all patients in group C could not find significant risk factors to explain the higher mortality in group B, including longer wait list times and variations in survival and transplant rates by geographic location, although greater coma severity may have contributed to the higher mortality, said Dr. Reddy, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Reddy said that he had no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases to the National Institutes of Health Acute Liver Failure Study Group.

BOSTON – Acetaminophen toxicity is the most frequent cause of acute liver failure in the United States and its usually milder presentation, along with comorbid psychosocial issues, explain why fewer patients with the etiology undergo liver transplantation, compared with other causes, according to a 10-year retrospective study of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Acute Liver Failure database.

Dr. K. Rajender Reddy and his colleagues in the National Institutes of Health Acute Liver Failure Study Group set out to determine factors that could help clinicians to improve their selection of acute liver failure patients for liver transplantation listing and their decision to proceed with transplantation.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, Dr. Reddy reported that of 1,144 patients who had at least 1 year of follow-up in the database, 491 (43%) had an acetaminophen etiology for acute liver failure, but only 26% of all patients listed for transplantation had an acetaminophen etiology and just 14% of all transplants occurred in patients with acetaminophen toxicity as the underlying cause.

In comparison, patients with other etiologies had higher listing and transplantation rates, with the highest being for autoimmune hepatitis (62% of all patients listed and 50% of all transplanted).

Overall during 2000-2010, 697 patients were not listed and not transplanted (group A), 177 were listed and not transplanted (group B), and 270 were listed and transplanted (group C). After 2 years of follow-up, patient survival was highest in group C (82%), followed by group A (47%) and group B (41%). Survival at 21 days followed the same pattern (C, 89%; A, 58%; B, 45%). Patients in groups A and B with acetaminophen etiology had greater 21-day survival than did those without an acetaminophen etiology.

Patients in group A had significantly higher rates of positive toxicology screens than did groups B and C (43% vs. 35% and 19%, respectively) and history of illicit drug use (10% vs. 4% and 2%).

Comparisons between patients who died in group B and all patients in group C could not find significant risk factors to explain the higher mortality in group B, including longer wait list times and variations in survival and transplant rates by geographic location, although greater coma severity may have contributed to the higher mortality, said Dr. Reddy, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Reddy said that he had no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases to the National Institutes of Health Acute Liver Failure Study Group.

BOSTON – Acetaminophen toxicity is the most frequent cause of acute liver failure in the United States and its usually milder presentation, along with comorbid psychosocial issues, explain why fewer patients with the etiology undergo liver transplantation, compared with other causes, according to a 10-year retrospective study of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Acute Liver Failure database.

Dr. K. Rajender Reddy and his colleagues in the National Institutes of Health Acute Liver Failure Study Group set out to determine factors that could help clinicians to improve their selection of acute liver failure patients for liver transplantation listing and their decision to proceed with transplantation.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, Dr. Reddy reported that of 1,144 patients who had at least 1 year of follow-up in the database, 491 (43%) had an acetaminophen etiology for acute liver failure, but only 26% of all patients listed for transplantation had an acetaminophen etiology and just 14% of all transplants occurred in patients with acetaminophen toxicity as the underlying cause.

In comparison, patients with other etiologies had higher listing and transplantation rates, with the highest being for autoimmune hepatitis (62% of all patients listed and 50% of all transplanted).

Overall during 2000-2010, 697 patients were not listed and not transplanted (group A), 177 were listed and not transplanted (group B), and 270 were listed and transplanted (group C). After 2 years of follow-up, patient survival was highest in group C (82%), followed by group A (47%) and group B (41%). Survival at 21 days followed the same pattern (C, 89%; A, 58%; B, 45%). Patients in groups A and B with acetaminophen etiology had greater 21-day survival than did those without an acetaminophen etiology.

Patients in group A had significantly higher rates of positive toxicology screens than did groups B and C (43% vs. 35% and 19%, respectively) and history of illicit drug use (10% vs. 4% and 2%).

Comparisons between patients who died in group B and all patients in group C could not find significant risk factors to explain the higher mortality in group B, including longer wait list times and variations in survival and transplant rates by geographic location, although greater coma severity may have contributed to the higher mortality, said Dr. Reddy, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Reddy said that he had no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases to the National Institutes of Health Acute Liver Failure Study Group.

BOSTON – Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease without cirrhosis appears to be a significant contributor to the rise in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in the past two decades, according to a study linking population-based data from the National Cancer Institute with Medicare enrollment and claim files during 1993-2007.

"Our data suggest a unique underlying pathophysiology for development of HCC [hepatocellular carcinoma] in noncirrhotic NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]," Dr. Rubayat Rahman said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The finding may help to explain the rise in the incidence of the malignancy, which has had no clear explanation, added Dr. Rahman of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Missouri, Columbia.

Of 17,895 HCC cases in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, 2,863 (16%) had only NAFLD without any other risk factors or etiologies for HCC. The linked database covers 30% of the U.S. Medicare population. SEER itself contains data from 18 cancer registries covering 28% of the U.S. population, and 93% of the individuals in the database who are at least 65 years are matched to a Medicare enrollment file.

At 16%, NAFLD was third most common risk factor for HCC after infection (44%) and alcoholic diseases (19%) – 21% were other causes – but it was the second most common risk factor after infection in Asians and Pacific islanders, said Dr. Rahman.

Cirrhosis was not present in 36% of the NAFLD-related HCC cases; of those, 18% had only steatosis and not nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or other adverse changes in pathology. Patients without cirrhosis more often had early-stage disease (stage I or II) than did those with cirrhosis (62% vs. 44%), as well as favorable grades (I or II, 76% vs. 56%).

Although the annual percentage change of NAFLD-related HCC with cirrhosis has increased since 1993, 1999 marked a point when the annual growth of NAFLD-related cases of HCC without cirrhosis outpaced those with cirrhosis. The average number of cases per year of NAFLD-related HCC without cirrhosis grew significantly from 51 in 1993-2000 to 88 in 2001-2007, compared with no change in cases with cirrhosis.

Three components of the metabolic syndrome – body-mass index greater than 30 kg/m², type 2 diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia – occurred in significantly greater proportions of patients with NAFLD-related HCC without cirrhosis than in those with cirrhosis. The odds of developing HCC for each of those three components among noncirrhotic NAFLD patients was higher than for those with cirrhotic NAFLD, although the overall odds of developing HCC were higher among patients with cirrhotic NAFLD (odds ratio, 16.5) than in those with noncirrhotic NAFLD (OR, 3.1).

One audience member expressed concern about determining the presence of cirrhosis or NASH in the data without a systematic assessment of histopathology performed in a centralized way, but Dr. Rahman noted that the Medicare-matched SEER data have CPT procedural codes and ICD-9 diagnostic codes for diagnoses made through liver biopsy. Another attendee also suggested caution in calling NAFLD a risk factor for cancer alone because the people in the database have a higher rate of cancer, and the database does not include the peak of NASH at age 55 years.

None of the study investigators had relevant financial disclosures.

BOSTON – Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease without cirrhosis appears to be a significant contributor to the rise in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in the past two decades, according to a study linking population-based data from the National Cancer Institute with Medicare enrollment and claim files during 1993-2007.

"Our data suggest a unique underlying pathophysiology for development of HCC [hepatocellular carcinoma] in noncirrhotic NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]," Dr. Rubayat Rahman said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The finding may help to explain the rise in the incidence of the malignancy, which has had no clear explanation, added Dr. Rahman of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Missouri, Columbia.

Of 17,895 HCC cases in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, 2,863 (16%) had only NAFLD without any other risk factors or etiologies for HCC. The linked database covers 30% of the U.S. Medicare population. SEER itself contains data from 18 cancer registries covering 28% of the U.S. population, and 93% of the individuals in the database who are at least 65 years are matched to a Medicare enrollment file.

At 16%, NAFLD was third most common risk factor for HCC after infection (44%) and alcoholic diseases (19%) – 21% were other causes – but it was the second most common risk factor after infection in Asians and Pacific islanders, said Dr. Rahman.

Cirrhosis was not present in 36% of the NAFLD-related HCC cases; of those, 18% had only steatosis and not nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or other adverse changes in pathology. Patients without cirrhosis more often had early-stage disease (stage I or II) than did those with cirrhosis (62% vs. 44%), as well as favorable grades (I or II, 76% vs. 56%).

Although the annual percentage change of NAFLD-related HCC with cirrhosis has increased since 1993, 1999 marked a point when the annual growth of NAFLD-related cases of HCC without cirrhosis outpaced those with cirrhosis. The average number of cases per year of NAFLD-related HCC without cirrhosis grew significantly from 51 in 1993-2000 to 88 in 2001-2007, compared with no change in cases with cirrhosis.

Three components of the metabolic syndrome – body-mass index greater than 30 kg/m², type 2 diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia – occurred in significantly greater proportions of patients with NAFLD-related HCC without cirrhosis than in those with cirrhosis. The odds of developing HCC for each of those three components among noncirrhotic NAFLD patients was higher than for those with cirrhotic NAFLD, although the overall odds of developing HCC were higher among patients with cirrhotic NAFLD (odds ratio, 16.5) than in those with noncirrhotic NAFLD (OR, 3.1).

One audience member expressed concern about determining the presence of cirrhosis or NASH in the data without a systematic assessment of histopathology performed in a centralized way, but Dr. Rahman noted that the Medicare-matched SEER data have CPT procedural codes and ICD-9 diagnostic codes for diagnoses made through liver biopsy. Another attendee also suggested caution in calling NAFLD a risk factor for cancer alone because the people in the database have a higher rate of cancer, and the database does not include the peak of NASH at age 55 years.

None of the study investigators had relevant financial disclosures.

BOSTON – Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease without cirrhosis appears to be a significant contributor to the rise in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in the past two decades, according to a study linking population-based data from the National Cancer Institute with Medicare enrollment and claim files during 1993-2007.

"Our data suggest a unique underlying pathophysiology for development of HCC [hepatocellular carcinoma] in noncirrhotic NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]," Dr. Rubayat Rahman said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The finding may help to explain the rise in the incidence of the malignancy, which has had no clear explanation, added Dr. Rahman of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Missouri, Columbia.

Of 17,895 HCC cases in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, 2,863 (16%) had only NAFLD without any other risk factors or etiologies for HCC. The linked database covers 30% of the U.S. Medicare population. SEER itself contains data from 18 cancer registries covering 28% of the U.S. population, and 93% of the individuals in the database who are at least 65 years are matched to a Medicare enrollment file.

At 16%, NAFLD was third most common risk factor for HCC after infection (44%) and alcoholic diseases (19%) – 21% were other causes – but it was the second most common risk factor after infection in Asians and Pacific islanders, said Dr. Rahman.

Cirrhosis was not present in 36% of the NAFLD-related HCC cases; of those, 18% had only steatosis and not nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or other adverse changes in pathology. Patients without cirrhosis more often had early-stage disease (stage I or II) than did those with cirrhosis (62% vs. 44%), as well as favorable grades (I or II, 76% vs. 56%).

Although the annual percentage change of NAFLD-related HCC with cirrhosis has increased since 1993, 1999 marked a point when the annual growth of NAFLD-related cases of HCC without cirrhosis outpaced those with cirrhosis. The average number of cases per year of NAFLD-related HCC without cirrhosis grew significantly from 51 in 1993-2000 to 88 in 2001-2007, compared with no change in cases with cirrhosis.

Three components of the metabolic syndrome – body-mass index greater than 30 kg/m², type 2 diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia – occurred in significantly greater proportions of patients with NAFLD-related HCC without cirrhosis than in those with cirrhosis. The odds of developing HCC for each of those three components among noncirrhotic NAFLD patients was higher than for those with cirrhotic NAFLD, although the overall odds of developing HCC were higher among patients with cirrhotic NAFLD (odds ratio, 16.5) than in those with noncirrhotic NAFLD (OR, 3.1).

One audience member expressed concern about determining the presence of cirrhosis or NASH in the data without a systematic assessment of histopathology performed in a centralized way, but Dr. Rahman noted that the Medicare-matched SEER data have CPT procedural codes and ICD-9 diagnostic codes for diagnoses made through liver biopsy. Another attendee also suggested caution in calling NAFLD a risk factor for cancer alone because the people in the database have a higher rate of cancer, and the database does not include the peak of NASH at age 55 years.

None of the study investigators had relevant financial disclosures.

Pediatric primary care and emergency providers often feel ill prepared or lacking in resources, time, or training to effectively manage concussion in children and educate families about the condition and recovery, according to a survey published in the November 2012 issue of Pediatrics.

The findings come from a survey assessing what practicing physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants know about concussion as well as their treatment practices and any perceived obstacles to managing the condition, reported by Dr. Mark R. Zonfrillo of the center for injury research and prevention at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania and his associates (Pediatrics 2012;130:1-6).

An online survey using multiple-choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions was sent to 276 providers in the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Care Network and Emergency Department e-mail lists. The 53% response rate included 145 responding providers with a diverse range of experience. Sixty-one percent were pediatric primary care providers, and 39% were pediatric emergency care providers.

©nycshooter/iStockphoto.com

A total of 91% of respondents reported having cared for at least one patient with concussion in the past 3 months. Most of these providers (134, or 92%) referred at least one patient to a concussion specialist after the first exam, usually either because they were uncomfortable with managing the concussion (49%) or because they did not have the necessary resources to manage it (47%). In addition, 30% of primary care providers and 68% of emergency providers said their "setting is not always appropriate for management," the investigators said.

Both primary care providers and emergency providers were highly likely to refer concussion patients to sports medicine doctors or clinics (67% vs. 75%, respectively); primary care respondents were twice as likely as emergency providers to refer patients to neurologists (46% vs. 22%). Emergency providers also were likely to refer to a trauma surgeon or clinic (83%), while primary care providers rarely did (13%).

Past studies have found that approximately 100,000-140,000 U.S. children go to the emergency department each year for concussion, but parents and children may underreport concussion symptoms, and many youth sports coaches have misconceptions about them.

In the two scenarios presented in the survey – one of a patient with a subtle concussion and the other of a patient with more obvious symptoms – almost all respondents determined that both hypothetical patients had a concussion. However, some respondents did not recognize some of the symptoms of concussion, including abnormal eye tracking (17%), difficulty concentrating (11%), vestibular disturbance (9%), worsening school performance (6%), and sensitivity to light or noise (6%). "These more subtle signs of concussion may present in isolation and thus may be the only indication that a child has sustained the injury," the authors wrote.

A total of 104 providers reported they did not have access to a provider decision support tool relating to concussion, and 96% of these believed one would be helpful. All 57 respondents who said they didn’t have discharge instructions related to concussion said support tools would be helpful.

Doctors cited a lack of training most often when it came to obstacles to educating families about the diagnosis and recommending time off before returning to school or sports. Further, 69% of primary care providers and 77% of emergency providers said they don’t have enough time to complete formal neurocognitive testing for concussed patients.

The study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Department of Pediatrics Chair’s Initiative. The authors said they had no relevant financial disclosures.

Pediatric primary care and emergency providers often feel ill prepared or lacking in resources, time, or training to effectively manage concussion in children and educate families about the condition and recovery, according to a survey published in the November 2012 issue of Pediatrics.

The findings come from a survey assessing what practicing physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants know about concussion as well as their treatment practices and any perceived obstacles to managing the condition, reported by Dr. Mark R. Zonfrillo of the center for injury research and prevention at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania and his associates (Pediatrics 2012;130:1-6).

An online survey using multiple-choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions was sent to 276 providers in the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Care Network and Emergency Department e-mail lists. The 53% response rate included 145 responding providers with a diverse range of experience. Sixty-one percent were pediatric primary care providers, and 39% were pediatric emergency care providers.

©nycshooter/iStockphoto.com

A total of 91% of respondents reported having cared for at least one patient with concussion in the past 3 months. Most of these providers (134, or 92%) referred at least one patient to a concussion specialist after the first exam, usually either because they were uncomfortable with managing the concussion (49%) or because they did not have the necessary resources to manage it (47%). In addition, 30% of primary care providers and 68% of emergency providers said their "setting is not always appropriate for management," the investigators said.

Both primary care providers and emergency providers were highly likely to refer concussion patients to sports medicine doctors or clinics (67% vs. 75%, respectively); primary care respondents were twice as likely as emergency providers to refer patients to neurologists (46% vs. 22%). Emergency providers also were likely to refer to a trauma surgeon or clinic (83%), while primary care providers rarely did (13%).

Past studies have found that approximately 100,000-140,000 U.S. children go to the emergency department each year for concussion, but parents and children may underreport concussion symptoms, and many youth sports coaches have misconceptions about them.

In the two scenarios presented in the survey – one of a patient with a subtle concussion and the other of a patient with more obvious symptoms – almost all respondents determined that both hypothetical patients had a concussion. However, some respondents did not recognize some of the symptoms of concussion, including abnormal eye tracking (17%), difficulty concentrating (11%), vestibular disturbance (9%), worsening school performance (6%), and sensitivity to light or noise (6%). "These more subtle signs of concussion may present in isolation and thus may be the only indication that a child has sustained the injury," the authors wrote.

A total of 104 providers reported they did not have access to a provider decision support tool relating to concussion, and 96% of these believed one would be helpful. All 57 respondents who said they didn’t have discharge instructions related to concussion said support tools would be helpful.

Doctors cited a lack of training most often when it came to obstacles to educating families about the diagnosis and recommending time off before returning to school or sports. Further, 69% of primary care providers and 77% of emergency providers said they don’t have enough time to complete formal neurocognitive testing for concussed patients.

The study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Department of Pediatrics Chair’s Initiative. The authors said they had no relevant financial disclosures.

Pediatric primary care and emergency providers often feel ill prepared or lacking in resources, time, or training to effectively manage concussion in children and educate families about the condition and recovery, according to a survey published in the November 2012 issue of Pediatrics.

The findings come from a survey assessing what practicing physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants know about concussion as well as their treatment practices and any perceived obstacles to managing the condition, reported by Dr. Mark R. Zonfrillo of the center for injury research and prevention at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania and his associates (Pediatrics 2012;130:1-6).

An online survey using multiple-choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions was sent to 276 providers in the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Care Network and Emergency Department e-mail lists. The 53% response rate included 145 responding providers with a diverse range of experience. Sixty-one percent were pediatric primary care providers, and 39% were pediatric emergency care providers.

©nycshooter/iStockphoto.com

A total of 91% of respondents reported having cared for at least one patient with concussion in the past 3 months. Most of these providers (134, or 92%) referred at least one patient to a concussion specialist after the first exam, usually either because they were uncomfortable with managing the concussion (49%) or because they did not have the necessary resources to manage it (47%). In addition, 30% of primary care providers and 68% of emergency providers said their "setting is not always appropriate for management," the investigators said.

Both primary care providers and emergency providers were highly likely to refer concussion patients to sports medicine doctors or clinics (67% vs. 75%, respectively); primary care respondents were twice as likely as emergency providers to refer patients to neurologists (46% vs. 22%). Emergency providers also were likely to refer to a trauma surgeon or clinic (83%), while primary care providers rarely did (13%).

Past studies have found that approximately 100,000-140,000 U.S. children go to the emergency department each year for concussion, but parents and children may underreport concussion symptoms, and many youth sports coaches have misconceptions about them.

In the two scenarios presented in the survey – one of a patient with a subtle concussion and the other of a patient with more obvious symptoms – almost all respondents determined that both hypothetical patients had a concussion. However, some respondents did not recognize some of the symptoms of concussion, including abnormal eye tracking (17%), difficulty concentrating (11%), vestibular disturbance (9%), worsening school performance (6%), and sensitivity to light or noise (6%). "These more subtle signs of concussion may present in isolation and thus may be the only indication that a child has sustained the injury," the authors wrote.

A total of 104 providers reported they did not have access to a provider decision support tool relating to concussion, and 96% of these believed one would be helpful. All 57 respondents who said they didn’t have discharge instructions related to concussion said support tools would be helpful.

Doctors cited a lack of training most often when it came to obstacles to educating families about the diagnosis and recommending time off before returning to school or sports. Further, 69% of primary care providers and 77% of emergency providers said they don’t have enough time to complete formal neurocognitive testing for concussed patients.

The study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Department of Pediatrics Chair’s Initiative. The authors said they had no relevant financial disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Gout does occur in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, though at a lower rate than in the general population, Dr. Adlene Jebakumar said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

This finding comes from a review of a population-based cohort of 813 people diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) between 1980 and 2007. Diagnoses were made either clinically including typical monosodium urate crystal positivity in synovial fluid or 1977 criteria developed by an ACR precursor organization, the American Rheumatology Association criteria. All subjects were longitudinally followed through their complete community medical records until April 2012 or they died or moved away.

Of the study cohort, 537 (66%) were rheumatoid factor positive; 33% had rheumatoid nodules, and 53% had erosive joint disease. During 9,771 total person-years of follow-up (mean 12 years per RA patient), 22 patients developed gout as defined by clinical criteria. The great toe was the most common site of gout (12 of 22 patients). The 25-year cumulative incidence of gout diagnosed by clinical criteria was 5.3%. Typical intracellular monosodium urate crystals were present in 9 of 22 patients with acute gout; all had developed gout after the RA incidence date. The 25-year cumulative incidence of gout diagnosed by clinical criteria including presence of urate crystals is 1.3%. The prevalence of gout in RA on Jan 1, 2008, was 1.9% (11 of 582 patients) as opposed to expected prevalence of 5.2% (or 30 patients) based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data using age and sex-specific prevalence rates.

Risk factors for gout in RA were: older age (hazard ratio, 1.5/10-year increase; P = .04), male sex (HR, 3.18; P = .03) and obesity (HR, 3.5; P = .03). The presence of erosive RA joint disease reduced the risk of gout (HR, 0.24; P = .03). Gout has become more common in patients diagnosed with RA in recent years (1995-2007) than in previous years (1980-1994; HR, 5.6; P = .007).

Dr. Eric L. Matteson noted in an interview that when an RA patient develops a hot and tender big toe, rheumatologists are likely to presume it is an RA flare. In part, this is because there is a myth in rheumatology that patients with RA cannot get gout, Dr. Eric L. Matteson noted in an interview. The literature contains reports of only 30 such cases. In fact, as the study findings show, that hot and tender toe may be gout. The best course of action is to aspirate the toe joint and look at the synovial fluid for crystals.

The treatment of gout in an RA patient can involve administration of prednisone, anakinra, allopurinol, or febuxostat. Drug-drug interactions between the agents used to treat gout and those for RA may be a problem in some cases.

Some of the treatments used in RA may explain why there are so few gout flares in RA patients. High doses of aspirin, which are an RA treatment, significantly lower uric acid levels. In what he described as being speculation, Dr. Matteson, chair of the department of rheumatology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., suggested that the "push away" from use of NSAIDs long term and in high doses to help manage RA may be resulting in more gout flares in these patients.

Dr. Jebakumar and Dr. Matteson reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

WASHINGTON – Gout does occur in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, though at a lower rate than in the general population, Dr. Adlene Jebakumar said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

This finding comes from a review of a population-based cohort of 813 people diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) between 1980 and 2007. Diagnoses were made either clinically including typical monosodium urate crystal positivity in synovial fluid or 1977 criteria developed by an ACR precursor organization, the American Rheumatology Association criteria. All subjects were longitudinally followed through their complete community medical records until April 2012 or they died or moved away.

Of the study cohort, 537 (66%) were rheumatoid factor positive; 33% had rheumatoid nodules, and 53% had erosive joint disease. During 9,771 total person-years of follow-up (mean 12 years per RA patient), 22 patients developed gout as defined by clinical criteria. The great toe was the most common site of gout (12 of 22 patients). The 25-year cumulative incidence of gout diagnosed by clinical criteria was 5.3%. Typical intracellular monosodium urate crystals were present in 9 of 22 patients with acute gout; all had developed gout after the RA incidence date. The 25-year cumulative incidence of gout diagnosed by clinical criteria including presence of urate crystals is 1.3%. The prevalence of gout in RA on Jan 1, 2008, was 1.9% (11 of 582 patients) as opposed to expected prevalence of 5.2% (or 30 patients) based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data using age and sex-specific prevalence rates.

Risk factors for gout in RA were: older age (hazard ratio, 1.5/10-year increase; P = .04), male sex (HR, 3.18; P = .03) and obesity (HR, 3.5; P = .03). The presence of erosive RA joint disease reduced the risk of gout (HR, 0.24; P = .03). Gout has become more common in patients diagnosed with RA in recent years (1995-2007) than in previous years (1980-1994; HR, 5.6; P = .007).

Dr. Eric L. Matteson noted in an interview that when an RA patient develops a hot and tender big toe, rheumatologists are likely to presume it is an RA flare. In part, this is because there is a myth in rheumatology that patients with RA cannot get gout, Dr. Eric L. Matteson noted in an interview. The literature contains reports of only 30 such cases. In fact, as the study findings show, that hot and tender toe may be gout. The best course of action is to aspirate the toe joint and look at the synovial fluid for crystals.

The treatment of gout in an RA patient can involve administration of prednisone, anakinra, allopurinol, or febuxostat. Drug-drug interactions between the agents used to treat gout and those for RA may be a problem in some cases.

Some of the treatments used in RA may explain why there are so few gout flares in RA patients. High doses of aspirin, which are an RA treatment, significantly lower uric acid levels. In what he described as being speculation, Dr. Matteson, chair of the department of rheumatology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., suggested that the "push away" from use of NSAIDs long term and in high doses to help manage RA may be resulting in more gout flares in these patients.

Dr. Jebakumar and Dr. Matteson reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

WASHINGTON – Gout does occur in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, though at a lower rate than in the general population, Dr. Adlene Jebakumar said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

This finding comes from a review of a population-based cohort of 813 people diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) between 1980 and 2007. Diagnoses were made either clinically including typical monosodium urate crystal positivity in synovial fluid or 1977 criteria developed by an ACR precursor organization, the American Rheumatology Association criteria. All subjects were longitudinally followed through their complete community medical records until April 2012 or they died or moved away.

Of the study cohort, 537 (66%) were rheumatoid factor positive; 33% had rheumatoid nodules, and 53% had erosive joint disease. During 9,771 total person-years of follow-up (mean 12 years per RA patient), 22 patients developed gout as defined by clinical criteria. The great toe was the most common site of gout (12 of 22 patients). The 25-year cumulative incidence of gout diagnosed by clinical criteria was 5.3%. Typical intracellular monosodium urate crystals were present in 9 of 22 patients with acute gout; all had developed gout after the RA incidence date. The 25-year cumulative incidence of gout diagnosed by clinical criteria including presence of urate crystals is 1.3%. The prevalence of gout in RA on Jan 1, 2008, was 1.9% (11 of 582 patients) as opposed to expected prevalence of 5.2% (or 30 patients) based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data using age and sex-specific prevalence rates.

Risk factors for gout in RA were: older age (hazard ratio, 1.5/10-year increase; P = .04), male sex (HR, 3.18; P = .03) and obesity (HR, 3.5; P = .03). The presence of erosive RA joint disease reduced the risk of gout (HR, 0.24; P = .03). Gout has become more common in patients diagnosed with RA in recent years (1995-2007) than in previous years (1980-1994; HR, 5.6; P = .007).

Dr. Eric L. Matteson noted in an interview that when an RA patient develops a hot and tender big toe, rheumatologists are likely to presume it is an RA flare. In part, this is because there is a myth in rheumatology that patients with RA cannot get gout, Dr. Eric L. Matteson noted in an interview. The literature contains reports of only 30 such cases. In fact, as the study findings show, that hot and tender toe may be gout. The best course of action is to aspirate the toe joint and look at the synovial fluid for crystals.

The treatment of gout in an RA patient can involve administration of prednisone, anakinra, allopurinol, or febuxostat. Drug-drug interactions between the agents used to treat gout and those for RA may be a problem in some cases.

Some of the treatments used in RA may explain why there are so few gout flares in RA patients. High doses of aspirin, which are an RA treatment, significantly lower uric acid levels. In what he described as being speculation, Dr. Matteson, chair of the department of rheumatology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., suggested that the "push away" from use of NSAIDs long term and in high doses to help manage RA may be resulting in more gout flares in these patients.

Dr. Jebakumar and Dr. Matteson reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

Click here to

listen to Dr. Siegal

Click here to

listen to Dr. Siegal

Click here to

listen to Dr. Siegal

Click here to listen to

Jonathan Turner discuss efficiency

Click here to listen to

Jonathan Turner discuss efficiency

Click here to listen to

Jonathan Turner discuss efficiency

A number of national organizations are helping hospitals and hospitalists get a better handle on their efficiency. One such group, a Charlotte, N.C.-based performance improvement alliance of 2,600 hospitals called Premier, recently completed the third year of its ongoing collaborative, QUEST (QUality, Efficiency, Safety, and Transparency). Three-year results found 157 charter-member hospitals saving an estimated 25,000 patient lives (based on 29% lower mortality rates than risk-adjusted national averages) and $4.5 billion in costs, compared with hospitals not participating in the initiative.

The high-performing hospitals in the collaborative use an efficiency dashboard to pinpoint and quantify saving opportunities, says Richard Bankowitz, MD, MBA, FACP, an internist and medical information specialist who serves as Premier’s enterprisewide chief medical officer. Collaborators participate in education and training, consultation, conference calls, a national meeting, and an online performance-improvement portal, with a commitment to transparently share their data and a focus on quality in areas of mortality rates, harm avoidance, readmissions, costs, and patient-reported experience.

“We’ve shown quite a lot of improvement,” Dr. Bankowitz says. “We’ve been able to look at hospitals that appear to have excellent readmissions rates or nursing strategies, and then try to figure out their secrets.”

Even the best-performing hospitals have opportunities to pinpoint and eliminate inefficiency. “But we need to be more than efficient,” he adds. “We also need to be effective. Having perfect efficiency in providing unnecessary procedures doesn’t do anybody any good.”

Numerous tools and methods are freely available, he says, but he also encourages hospitalist groups to stay focused on what provides value and will impact efficiency in hospitals.

“Look for processes of care that bring value, versus waste,” he says. “Have we ever stepped back and thought about the way we provide care as a whole—from end to end? Really look at the utilization—of tests, of consultations, of pharmaceuticals—and consider all of the inputs. Are they really adding value? Do you know which patients account for the most costs?”

He also encourages hospitalists to pull together interdisciplinary quality teams and focus on the patients who are more frequently admitted or problematic and costly, such as heart-failure patients. “Get the team to design a process of care that includes inpatient, outpatient, and the skilled nursing facility,” he says, adding there is potential for waste in transitions of care.

Hospitals are in an increasingly tough position, Dr. Bankowitz admits. “They’re no longer able to just cut their way out of financial problems. Hospitalists have an important role,” he notes. “They can take more of a systems view, seeing care processes from end to end.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance author in Oakland, Calif.

A number of national organizations are helping hospitals and hospitalists get a better handle on their efficiency. One such group, a Charlotte, N.C.-based performance improvement alliance of 2,600 hospitals called Premier, recently completed the third year of its ongoing collaborative, QUEST (QUality, Efficiency, Safety, and Transparency). Three-year results found 157 charter-member hospitals saving an estimated 25,000 patient lives (based on 29% lower mortality rates than risk-adjusted national averages) and $4.5 billion in costs, compared with hospitals not participating in the initiative.

The high-performing hospitals in the collaborative use an efficiency dashboard to pinpoint and quantify saving opportunities, says Richard Bankowitz, MD, MBA, FACP, an internist and medical information specialist who serves as Premier’s enterprisewide chief medical officer. Collaborators participate in education and training, consultation, conference calls, a national meeting, and an online performance-improvement portal, with a commitment to transparently share their data and a focus on quality in areas of mortality rates, harm avoidance, readmissions, costs, and patient-reported experience.

“We’ve shown quite a lot of improvement,” Dr. Bankowitz says. “We’ve been able to look at hospitals that appear to have excellent readmissions rates or nursing strategies, and then try to figure out their secrets.”

Even the best-performing hospitals have opportunities to pinpoint and eliminate inefficiency. “But we need to be more than efficient,” he adds. “We also need to be effective. Having perfect efficiency in providing unnecessary procedures doesn’t do anybody any good.”

Numerous tools and methods are freely available, he says, but he also encourages hospitalist groups to stay focused on what provides value and will impact efficiency in hospitals.

“Look for processes of care that bring value, versus waste,” he says. “Have we ever stepped back and thought about the way we provide care as a whole—from end to end? Really look at the utilization—of tests, of consultations, of pharmaceuticals—and consider all of the inputs. Are they really adding value? Do you know which patients account for the most costs?”

He also encourages hospitalists to pull together interdisciplinary quality teams and focus on the patients who are more frequently admitted or problematic and costly, such as heart-failure patients. “Get the team to design a process of care that includes inpatient, outpatient, and the skilled nursing facility,” he says, adding there is potential for waste in transitions of care.

Hospitals are in an increasingly tough position, Dr. Bankowitz admits. “They’re no longer able to just cut their way out of financial problems. Hospitalists have an important role,” he notes. “They can take more of a systems view, seeing care processes from end to end.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance author in Oakland, Calif.

A number of national organizations are helping hospitals and hospitalists get a better handle on their efficiency. One such group, a Charlotte, N.C.-based performance improvement alliance of 2,600 hospitals called Premier, recently completed the third year of its ongoing collaborative, QUEST (QUality, Efficiency, Safety, and Transparency). Three-year results found 157 charter-member hospitals saving an estimated 25,000 patient lives (based on 29% lower mortality rates than risk-adjusted national averages) and $4.5 billion in costs, compared with hospitals not participating in the initiative.

The high-performing hospitals in the collaborative use an efficiency dashboard to pinpoint and quantify saving opportunities, says Richard Bankowitz, MD, MBA, FACP, an internist and medical information specialist who serves as Premier’s enterprisewide chief medical officer. Collaborators participate in education and training, consultation, conference calls, a national meeting, and an online performance-improvement portal, with a commitment to transparently share their data and a focus on quality in areas of mortality rates, harm avoidance, readmissions, costs, and patient-reported experience.

“We’ve shown quite a lot of improvement,” Dr. Bankowitz says. “We’ve been able to look at hospitals that appear to have excellent readmissions rates or nursing strategies, and then try to figure out their secrets.”

Even the best-performing hospitals have opportunities to pinpoint and eliminate inefficiency. “But we need to be more than efficient,” he adds. “We also need to be effective. Having perfect efficiency in providing unnecessary procedures doesn’t do anybody any good.”

Numerous tools and methods are freely available, he says, but he also encourages hospitalist groups to stay focused on what provides value and will impact efficiency in hospitals.

“Look for processes of care that bring value, versus waste,” he says. “Have we ever stepped back and thought about the way we provide care as a whole—from end to end? Really look at the utilization—of tests, of consultations, of pharmaceuticals—and consider all of the inputs. Are they really adding value? Do you know which patients account for the most costs?”

He also encourages hospitalists to pull together interdisciplinary quality teams and focus on the patients who are more frequently admitted or problematic and costly, such as heart-failure patients. “Get the team to design a process of care that includes inpatient, outpatient, and the skilled nursing facility,” he says, adding there is potential for waste in transitions of care.

Hospitals are in an increasingly tough position, Dr. Bankowitz admits. “They’re no longer able to just cut their way out of financial problems. Hospitalists have an important role,” he notes. “They can take more of a systems view, seeing care processes from end to end.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance author in Oakland, Calif.

Almost one-third of general surgery residents required remediation over an 11-year period, most often because of a deficiency in medical knowledge, judging from findings in a retrospective study of remediation and attrition rates among general surgery residents at six academic surgical residency programs in California.

The high remediation rate identified in this study "begs the question of whether we are falling short in the education of surgical residents," said Dr. Arezou Yaghoubian of the department of surgery, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, and associates (Arch. Surg. 2012;147:829-33).

They conducted the study to determine which of the six Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies (patient care, medical knowledge, practice-based learning, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, and system-based practice), most often require remediation and to identify predictors of remediation. There is a scarcity of data on how well surgical residency programs have been achieving these competencies, and this information may provide insight into how to modify the surgical curriculum more effectively in this new era of limited hours, they said.

In the study of 348 general surgery residents at the six training programs between 1999 and 2010, the most common reason for remediation was medical knowledge in 74%, followed by interpersonal and communication skills in 24%, patient care in 22%, professionalism in 18%, system-based practice in 14%, and practice-based learning in 8%.

Of the 107 residents who required remediation, 27 required remediation more than once. Almost 16% of the residents left their programs, but most (53 of 55 residents) left voluntarily. The other two failed remediation and had to leave the program.

Monthly meetings with faculty was the most common form of remediation, in 79%, followed by specific reading assignments (72%), required attendance at review courses and/or conferences (27%), evaluation by a therapist, psychologist, or psychiatrist (12%), and having to repeat a clinical year (6.5%).

More than half of the remediations were initiated during the first 2 postgraduate years (25% in the first and 35% in the second year), followed by 21% during the third year, 16% during the fourth year, and 4% during the fifth year.

A predictor of remediation was having received honors during the third-year surgery clerkship (58% of those who were subject to remediation vs. 45% of those who were not remediated, a statistically significant difference), which, the authors noted, was counterintuitive.

United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 1 and/or step 2 scores and American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) scores at postgraduate years 1 through 4 were also predictive of remediation. The median USMLE step 1 and step 2 scores were 225 and 223 among the residents subject to remediation, vs. 232 for step 1 and step 2 scores among those who were not remediated, statistically significant differences.

The ABSITE scores during postgraduate years 1 through 4 were significantly lower among those who were subject to remediation, but the differences in median scores in years 5 through 7 were not significantly different.

But remediation was not a predictor of attrition. The only predictor of attrition was the ABSITE score at the third postgraduate year, which was a median of 34 among those who left the program and 62 among those who stayed.

Possible explanations for the high remediation rate is that residents are not well prepared for the demands of a surgical residency, they need to be more efficient with their time because of the 80-hour work week, and they may not necessarily be spending their increased time outside of the hospital studying at home, the authors said. Possible reasons for the attrition rate among the residents, an "ongoing concern" in general surgery, may be marital, family, and personal issues and a need for a less stressful environment, they added.

Acknowledging the study's limitations, including the retrospective design and lack of information on how many residents passed the American Board of Surgery boards, the authors concluded that the high remediation rate "should give surgical educators pause as we should closely examine the potential sources of these deficiencies."

They called on surgical societies to "take the initiative to encourage the restructuring of medical school education, such that future surgeons are better prepared to enter surgical residencies," and for residency programs to "determine whether current educational methods are adequate to prepare future surgeons."

The authors reported they had no financial disclosures.

Almost one-third of general surgery residents required remediation over an 11-year period, most often because of a deficiency in medical knowledge, judging from findings in a retrospective study of remediation and attrition rates among general surgery residents at six academic surgical residency programs in California.

The high remediation rate identified in this study "begs the question of whether we are falling short in the education of surgical residents," said Dr. Arezou Yaghoubian of the department of surgery, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, and associates (Arch. Surg. 2012;147:829-33).

They conducted the study to determine which of the six Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies (patient care, medical knowledge, practice-based learning, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, and system-based practice), most often require remediation and to identify predictors of remediation. There is a scarcity of data on how well surgical residency programs have been achieving these competencies, and this information may provide insight into how to modify the surgical curriculum more effectively in this new era of limited hours, they said.

In the study of 348 general surgery residents at the six training programs between 1999 and 2010, the most common reason for remediation was medical knowledge in 74%, followed by interpersonal and communication skills in 24%, patient care in 22%, professionalism in 18%, system-based practice in 14%, and practice-based learning in 8%.

Of the 107 residents who required remediation, 27 required remediation more than once. Almost 16% of the residents left their programs, but most (53 of 55 residents) left voluntarily. The other two failed remediation and had to leave the program.

Monthly meetings with faculty was the most common form of remediation, in 79%, followed by specific reading assignments (72%), required attendance at review courses and/or conferences (27%), evaluation by a therapist, psychologist, or psychiatrist (12%), and having to repeat a clinical year (6.5%).

More than half of the remediations were initiated during the first 2 postgraduate years (25% in the first and 35% in the second year), followed by 21% during the third year, 16% during the fourth year, and 4% during the fifth year.

A predictor of remediation was having received honors during the third-year surgery clerkship (58% of those who were subject to remediation vs. 45% of those who were not remediated, a statistically significant difference), which, the authors noted, was counterintuitive.

United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 1 and/or step 2 scores and American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) scores at postgraduate years 1 through 4 were also predictive of remediation. The median USMLE step 1 and step 2 scores were 225 and 223 among the residents subject to remediation, vs. 232 for step 1 and step 2 scores among those who were not remediated, statistically significant differences.

The ABSITE scores during postgraduate years 1 through 4 were significantly lower among those who were subject to remediation, but the differences in median scores in years 5 through 7 were not significantly different.

But remediation was not a predictor of attrition. The only predictor of attrition was the ABSITE score at the third postgraduate year, which was a median of 34 among those who left the program and 62 among those who stayed.

Possible explanations for the high remediation rate is that residents are not well prepared for the demands of a surgical residency, they need to be more efficient with their time because of the 80-hour work week, and they may not necessarily be spending their increased time outside of the hospital studying at home, the authors said. Possible reasons for the attrition rate among the residents, an "ongoing concern" in general surgery, may be marital, family, and personal issues and a need for a less stressful environment, they added.

Acknowledging the study's limitations, including the retrospective design and lack of information on how many residents passed the American Board of Surgery boards, the authors concluded that the high remediation rate "should give surgical educators pause as we should closely examine the potential sources of these deficiencies."

They called on surgical societies to "take the initiative to encourage the restructuring of medical school education, such that future surgeons are better prepared to enter surgical residencies," and for residency programs to "determine whether current educational methods are adequate to prepare future surgeons."

The authors reported they had no financial disclosures.

Almost one-third of general surgery residents required remediation over an 11-year period, most often because of a deficiency in medical knowledge, judging from findings in a retrospective study of remediation and attrition rates among general surgery residents at six academic surgical residency programs in California.

The high remediation rate identified in this study "begs the question of whether we are falling short in the education of surgical residents," said Dr. Arezou Yaghoubian of the department of surgery, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, and associates (Arch. Surg. 2012;147:829-33).

They conducted the study to determine which of the six Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies (patient care, medical knowledge, practice-based learning, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, and system-based practice), most often require remediation and to identify predictors of remediation. There is a scarcity of data on how well surgical residency programs have been achieving these competencies, and this information may provide insight into how to modify the surgical curriculum more effectively in this new era of limited hours, they said.

In the study of 348 general surgery residents at the six training programs between 1999 and 2010, the most common reason for remediation was medical knowledge in 74%, followed by interpersonal and communication skills in 24%, patient care in 22%, professionalism in 18%, system-based practice in 14%, and practice-based learning in 8%.

Of the 107 residents who required remediation, 27 required remediation more than once. Almost 16% of the residents left their programs, but most (53 of 55 residents) left voluntarily. The other two failed remediation and had to leave the program.

Monthly meetings with faculty was the most common form of remediation, in 79%, followed by specific reading assignments (72%), required attendance at review courses and/or conferences (27%), evaluation by a therapist, psychologist, or psychiatrist (12%), and having to repeat a clinical year (6.5%).

More than half of the remediations were initiated during the first 2 postgraduate years (25% in the first and 35% in the second year), followed by 21% during the third year, 16% during the fourth year, and 4% during the fifth year.

A predictor of remediation was having received honors during the third-year surgery clerkship (58% of those who were subject to remediation vs. 45% of those who were not remediated, a statistically significant difference), which, the authors noted, was counterintuitive.

United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 1 and/or step 2 scores and American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) scores at postgraduate years 1 through 4 were also predictive of remediation. The median USMLE step 1 and step 2 scores were 225 and 223 among the residents subject to remediation, vs. 232 for step 1 and step 2 scores among those who were not remediated, statistically significant differences.

The ABSITE scores during postgraduate years 1 through 4 were significantly lower among those who were subject to remediation, but the differences in median scores in years 5 through 7 were not significantly different.

But remediation was not a predictor of attrition. The only predictor of attrition was the ABSITE score at the third postgraduate year, which was a median of 34 among those who left the program and 62 among those who stayed.

Possible explanations for the high remediation rate is that residents are not well prepared for the demands of a surgical residency, they need to be more efficient with their time because of the 80-hour work week, and they may not necessarily be spending their increased time outside of the hospital studying at home, the authors said. Possible reasons for the attrition rate among the residents, an "ongoing concern" in general surgery, may be marital, family, and personal issues and a need for a less stressful environment, they added.

Acknowledging the study's limitations, including the retrospective design and lack of information on how many residents passed the American Board of Surgery boards, the authors concluded that the high remediation rate "should give surgical educators pause as we should closely examine the potential sources of these deficiencies."

They called on surgical societies to "take the initiative to encourage the restructuring of medical school education, such that future surgeons are better prepared to enter surgical residencies," and for residency programs to "determine whether current educational methods are adequate to prepare future surgeons."

The authors reported they had no financial disclosures.