Daniel D. Sjoberg

Observations on blood velocity in the middle cerebral artery using transcranial Doppler ultrasound and on the ipsilateral internal carotid artery flow volume were obtained during periods of transient, rapid blood flow variations in 7 patients. Five patients were investigated after carotid endarterectomy. A further 2 patients having staged carotid endarterectomy and open heart surgery were investigated during nonpulsatile cardiopulmonary bypass. The patient selection permitted the assumption that middle cerebral artery flow remained proportional to internal carotid artery flow. The integrated time-mean values from consecutive 5-second periods were computed. The arithmetic mean internal carotid artery flow varied from 167 to 399 ml/min in individual patients, with individual ranges between +/- 15% and +/- 35% of the mean flow. The mean middle cerebral artery blood velocity varied from 32 to 78 cm/sec. The relation between flow volume and blood velocity was nearly linear under these conditions. Normalization of the data as percent of the individual arithmetic means permitted a composite analysis of data from all patients. Linear regression of normalized blood velocity (V') on normalized flow volume (Q') showed V' = 1.05 Q' - 5.08 (r2 = 0.898).

PURPOSE: We determined the characteristics of Chinese men undergoing initial prostate biopsy and evaluated the relationship between prostate specific antigen levels and prostate cancer/high grade prostate cancer detection in a large Chinese multicenter cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 13,904 urology outpatients who had undergone biopsy for the indications of prostate specific antigen greater than 4.0 ng/ml or prostate specific antigen less than 4.0 ng/ml but with abnormal digital rectal examination results. The prostate specific antigen measurements were performed in accordance with the standard procedures at the respective institutions. The type of assay used was documented and recalibrated to the WHO standard. RESULTS: The incidence of prostate cancer and high grade prostate cancer was lower in the Chinese cohort than the Western cohorts at any given prostate specific antigen level. Around 25% of patients with a prostate specific antigen of 4.0 to 10.0 ng/ml were found to have prostate cancer compared to approximately 40% in U.S. clinical practice. Moreover, the risk curves were generally flatter than those of the Western cohorts, that is risk did not increase as rapidly with higher prostate specific antigen. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between prostate specific antigen and prostate cancer risk differs importantly between Chinese and Western populations, with an overall lower risk in the Chinese cohort. Further research should explore whether environmental or genetic differences explain these findings or whether they result from unmeasured differences in screening or benign prostate disease. Caution is required for the implementation of prostate cancer clinical decision rules or prediction models for men in China or other Asian countries with similar genetic and environmental backgrounds.

Poorly controlled symptoms are common and debilitating during cancer treatment and can affect functional status and quality of life, health care resource utilization, treatment adherence, and cancer survivorship. Historically, the patient experience, including symptoms during treatment, has not been tracked or documented in the patient health record. Measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including symptoms, is an essential component to cancer care focused on the illness impact to the patient and family. PROs can be useful at the individual level for monitoring and promoting symptom care both in the clinic and remotely and at the population level for aggregating population data for use in research and quality improvement initiatives. Implementation of PROs in cancer clinical care requires a carefully thought out process to overcome challenges related to integrating PROs into existing electronic health records and clinical work flow. Issues with implementing PRO collection may include making decisions about measurement tools, modes of delivery, frequency of measurement, and interpretation that are guided by a clarification of the purpose for collecting PROs. We focus on three aspects of PRO use: (1) improving care for individual patients, (2) analyzing aggregated data to improve care and outcomes overall, and (3) considerations in implementing PRO collection.