Search

We aimed to further the understanding of the low rates of sun protection in young women at risk for skin cancer. Six-hundred-sixty-one daily diary entries were received via text message over 14 days from 56 young women at moderate to high risk of developing skin cancer. Women reported whether or not they used sun protection and also listed what their reasons were for using protection or not using sun protection each day. Multi-level modeling was used to examine the influence of study variables when predicting daily sun protection or lack of protection. The number of days in which sun protection was reported was positively associated with “habit” and “prevention” as reasons for protection and negatively associated with “not-needed” and “unprepared” as reasons for non-protection. Self-reported sun protection increased over the 14-day study period. Results of this study suggest the potential value of interventions aimed at motives for sun-protection behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study was conducted to compare the clinical stage derived from 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) to that of integrated PET/computed tomography (CT) in restaged breast cancer patients.Procedures: Fifty-eight female patients (age range 29-80 years, mean age +/-SD, 53.3 +/- 11.7 years) underwent PET/CT restaging for breast cancer. Two experienced nuclear medicine physicians interpreted PET images. A radiologist was added for reading PET/CT studies. A patient-based analysis was performed. Histopathological findings, correlative imaging studies, changes in number, size, and hypermetabolic activity of suspicious lesions and/or patient outcome served as standard of reference for determining the diagnostic accuracy of both modalities.Results: PET staged 79.3% (46/58) of the patients correctly, overstaged seven (12.1%), and understaged five patients (8.6%). Integrated PET/CT staged 89.7% (52/58) of the patients correctly, overstaged four (6.9%), and understaged two patients (3.4%). The staging accuracy of PET/CT was not significantly better than that of PET alone (p = 0.059). Lesions exhibiting mild hypermetabolic activity, benign inflammatory lesions, and physiological variants largely explained incorrect PET findings.Conclusion: Integrated PET/CT only marginally improves the restaging accuracy over PET alone (p = 0.059) in breast cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To evaluate the anatomic site(s) of initial disease progression in patients with castration resistant metastatic prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the presence or absence of pre-treatment visceral metastases while on systemic therapy., Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of mCRPC patients who have baseline and at least one follow up bone scan and CT chest, abdomen and pelvis (CAP). Disease progression was determined by RECIST and/or ≥ 30% increase in automated bone scan lesion area score. Kaplan-Meier plot was used to estimate the median progression free survival and log-rank tests were used to compare anatomic sites., Results: Of 203 patients, 61 (30%) had pre-treatment visceral metastases. Patients with baseline visceral disease were 1.5 times more likely to develop disease progression (HR = 1.53; 95% CI, 1.03-2.26). Disease progression was a result of worsening bone scan disease (42% (16/38)) versus visceral (32% (12/38)) or lymph node disease (3% (1/38)) by CT or a combination thereof (23% (9/38)). Median time to progression (TTP) did not differ by anatomic location of initial progression (p = 0.86). Development of new lesions occurred in 50% of those visceral patients with soft tissue only progression and was associated with a significantly longer TTP (3.1 months (2.8-4.3 months) than those with worsening of pre-existing lesions (1.8 months (1.6-2.7 months); p = 0.04., Conclusions: Patients with pre-treatment visceral metastases in mCRPC are more likely to experience disease progression of bone disease with the initial anatomic site of progression similar to those without baseline visceral involvement., (© 2022. The Author(s).)