ORCID Profile
0000-0002-6796-431X
Current Organisations
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf
,
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen
,
Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 04-06-2015
DOI: 10.1111/BJU.12891
Abstract: To investigate whether mortality is increased for patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mCaP) admitted over the weekend. Using the Nationwide Inpatient S le (NIS) between 1998 and 2009, admitted patients with a diagnosis of prostate cancer and concomitant metastases were identified. Rates of in-hospital mortality, complications, use of imaging and procedures were assessed. Adjusted logistic regression models examined associations of mortality and complications. A weighted s le of 534,011 patients with mCaP was identified, including 81.7% weekday and 18.3% weekend admissions. Of these, 8.6% died after a weekday vs 10.9% after a weekend admission (P < 0.001). Patients admitted over the weekend were more likely to be treated at rural (17.8% vs 15.7%), non-teaching (57.6% vs 53.7%) and low-volume hospitals (53.4% vs 49.4%) (all P < 0.001) compared with weekday admissions. They presented higher rates of organ failure (25.2% vs 21.3%), and were less likely to undergo an interventional procedure (10.6% vs 11.4%) (all P < 0.001). More patients admitted over the weekend had pneumonia (12.2% vs 8.8%), pyelonephritis (18.3% vs 14.1%) and sepsis (4.5% vs. 3.5%) (all P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, weekend admission was associated with an increased likelihood of complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% confidence Interval [CI] 1.11-1.19) and mortality (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.14-1.27). In patients with mCaP weekend admissions are associated with a significant increase in mortality and morbidity. Our findings suggest that weekend patients may present with more acute medical issues alternatively, the quality of care over the weekend may be inferior.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 20-03-2015
DOI: 10.1093/JNCI/DJV054
Abstract: Racial disparities in cancer survival outcomes have been primarily attributed to underlying biologic mechanisms and the quality of cancer care received. Because prior literature shows little difference exists in the socioeconomic status of non-Hispanic whites and Asian Americans, any difference in cancer survival is less likely to be attributable to inequalities of care. We sought to examine differences in cancer-specific survival between whites and Asian Americans. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program was used to identify patients with lung (n = 130 852 [16.9%]), breast (n = 313 977 [40.4%]), prostate (n = 166 529 [21.4%]), or colorectal (n = 165 140 [21.3%]) cancer (the three leading causes of cancer-related mortality within each sex) diagnosed between 1991 and 2007. Fine and Gray's competing risks regression compared the cancer-specific mortality (CSM) of eight Asian American groups (Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Japanese, Korean, other Asian, South Asian [Indian/Pakistani], and Vietnamese) to non-Hispanic white patients. All P values were two-sided. In competing risks regression, the receipt of definitive treatment was an independent predictor of CSM (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 0.40 HR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.58 HR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.62 and HR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.25 to 0.29) for prostate, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers respectively, all P < .001). In adjusted analyses, most Asian subgroups (except Hawaiians and Koreans) had lower CSM relative to white patients, with hazard ratios ranging from 0.54 (95% CI = 0.38 to 0.78) to 0.88 (95% CI = 0.84 to 0.93) for Japanese patients with prostate and Chinese patients with lung cancer, respectively. Despite adjustment for potential confounders, including the receipt of definitive treatment and tumor characteristics, most Asian subgroups had better CSM than non-Hispanic white patients. These findings suggest that underlying genetic/biological differences, along with potential cultural variations, may impact survival in Asian American cancer patients.
Publisher: Canadian Urological Association Journal
Date: 13-10-2014
DOI: 10.5489/CUAJ.2170
Abstract: Introduction: Robotic and laparoscopic surgical training is an integral part of resident education in urology, yet the effect of resident involvement on outcomes of minimally-invasive urologic procedures remains largely unknown. We assess the impact of resident participation on surgical outcomes using a large multi-institutional prospective database.Methods: Relying on the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Participant User Files (2005-2011), we abstracted the 3 most frequently performed minimally-invasive urologic oncology procedures. These included radical prostatectomy, radical nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to assess the impact of trainee involvement (PGY 1-2: junior, PGY 3-4: senior, PGY ≥5: chief) versus attending-only on operative time, length-of-stay, 30-day complication, reoperation and readmission rates.Results: A total of 5459 minimally-invasive radical prostatectomies,1740 minimally-invasive radical nephrectomies and 786 minimally-invasive partial nephrectomies were performed during the study period, for which data on resident surgeon involvement was available. In multivariable analyses, resident involvement was not associated with increased odds of overall complications, reoperation, or readmission rates for minimally-invasive prostatectomy, radical and partial nephrectomy. However, operative time was prolonged when residents were involved irrespective of the type of procedure. Length-of-stay was decreased with senior resident involvement in minimally-invasive partial nephrectomies (odds ratio [OR] 0.49, p = 0.04) and prostatectomies (OR 0.68, p = 0.01). The major limitations of this study include its retrospective observational design, inability to adjust for the case complexity and surgeon/hospital characteristics, and the lack of information regarding the minimally-invasive approach utilized (whether robotic or laparoscopic).Conclusions: Resident involvement is associated with increased operative time in minimally-invasive urologic oncology procedures. However, it does not adversely affect the complication, reoperation or readmission rates, as well as length-of-stay.
Location: United States of America
No related grants have been discovered for Marianne Schmid.