Se afișează postările cu eticheta Unnecessary. Afișați toate postările
Se afișează postările cu eticheta Unnecessary. Afișați toate postările

marți, 13 decembrie 2011

Costly Diagnostic MRI Tests Unnecessary For Many Back Pain Patients

Main Category: Back Pain
Also Included In: MRI / PET / Ultrasound
Article Date: 13 Dec 2011 - 1:00 PST

email icon email to a friend   printer icon printer friendly   write icon opinions  
not yet ratednot yet rated
Johns Hopkins-led research suggests that routine MRI imaging does nothing to improve the treatment of patients who need injections of steroids into their spinal columns to relieve pain. Moreover, MRI plays only a small role in a doctor's decision to give these epidural steroid injections (ESIs), the most common procedure performed at pain clinics in the United States.

With greater focus on runaway health care costs, the study's findings, appearing online in the Archives of Internal Medicine, highlight one element of the problem: the indiscriminate use of an expensive imaging tool that shows little clinical benefit.

"Our results suggest that MRI is unlikely to avert a procedure, diminish complications or improve outcomes," says study leader Steven P. Cohen, M.D., an associate professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. "Considering how frequently these epidural injections are performed, not routinely ordering an MRI before giving one may save significant time and resources."

Cohen adds that, "if we're trying to cut back on unnecessary medical costs, we should stop routinely doing MRIs on almost everyone who comes to us needing ESIs." A single MRI costs roughly $1,500.

The patients in Cohen's study were all treated at one of several pain clinics in the United States for sciatica, a condition in which the roots of the sciatic nerve that branches out from the bottom of the spinal column is pinched or compressed, causing severe pain and tingling in the lower back that shoots down the leg. The most common treatment in the United States and worldwide is an epidural steroid injection, which puts cortisone directly into the outermost part of the spinal canal in the lower back, delivering its anti-inflammatory benefits as close as possible to the source of pain.

Cohen and his colleagues treated 132 patients split into two groups. Both groups received MRIs, but the treating doctor only reviewed the films in one group. The first group received epidural steroids with the placement of the needle based solely on a physical exam and how and where the patient described his or her pain. The doctors who examined these patients did not review the MRI before giving the injections, but a physician not involved in the exams or treatments later did. In the second group, physicians determined treatment based on both an examination and imaging results, looking at the MRI to determine where to place the needle and whether to give an injection at all.

After three months, researchers reported no difference in how patients in both groups said they felt. In the group whose doctors didn't see the MRI, 23 (35 percent) reported "overall success" after three months. In the group whose doctors saw the MRI results before administering an injection, 24 (41%) reported a positive outcome.

In the first group, whose doctors were not privy to the MRI results, the independent evaluator agreed with the treating doctor in 66 percent of patients. In 18 of the other 22 cases, the independent evaluator believed an ESI was warranted, only in a different location along the bottom of the spine. Cohen says this discrepancy probably didn't change the outcome because research has shown that the steroid medication reaches across many levels as long as it is injected in the general vicinity. In every case, the doctor opted for some type of injection.

In the second group, the treating doctor who had the benefit of seeing the MRI results decided not to perform an epidural steroid injection in only five cases, only to have three of those patients get an ESI within the following six months anyway.

All in all, Cohen says, the treatment barely varied whether or not MRI was used to guide decision-making.

Cohen says that part of the problem in using MRI to diagnose lower back pain is that there is not a good correlation between abnormal findings and symptoms.

"If you look at 100 middle-aged people who have never had back pain, two-thirds of them would have abnormalities on MRI," he says. "This makes it difficult to use imaging to guide injections."

People who complain about back and leg pain but have a normal finding on an MRI and who go on to get an ESI anyway may not get relief because the pain may have originated somewhere besides the spine. Patients with abnormal MRIs who get ESI also may not receive benefit because their abnormal findings have nothing to do with their pain. In these cases, the abnormal findings are what doctors call a "red herring".

Overall, Cohen emphasizes, ESIs are not a magic bullet. Many studies affirm that they provide only short-term benefit to only a subset of people who get them.

Other Hopkins researchers involved with this study include Paul J. Christo, M.D., M.B.A.; Michael A. Erdek, M.D.; and David Cornblath, M.D.

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Source: Johns Hopkins Medicine
Visit our back pain section for the latest news on this subject. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Johns Hopkins Medicine. "Costly Diagnostic MRI Tests Unnecessary For Many Back Pain Patients." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 13 Dec. 2011. Web.
13 Dec. 2011. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



View the original article here

luni, 12 decembrie 2011

PSA Testing, Combined With Other Relevant Patient Data Can Reduce Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies

Editor's Choice
Main Category: Prostate / Prostate Cancer
Also Included In: Preventive Medicine
Article Date: 12 Dec 2011 - 7:00 PST

email icon email to a friend   printer icon printer friendly   write icon opinions  
not yet ratednot yet rated
A study published online by the journal Cancer reveals that up to one-quarter of men could avoid biopsies and their associated risks with prostate cancer screening that combines an adjusted blood test with other factors including, the patient's family history, overall weight as well as the size of the gland.

According to the team led by Martin G. Sanda, MD, Director of the Prostate Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Professor of Urology at Harvard Medical School, other factors such as prostate size should be taken into consideration when determining which patient should have a biopsy, instead of using "one-size-fits-all" levels of PSA.

Other factors, such as prostate size, can significantly improve the ability of PSA testing to detect aggressive prostate cancers for which treatment is appropriate, while avoiding identification of indolent cancers that do not require treatment.

A second investigation published online in the journal Urologic Oncology, also led by Sanda, reveals that another way to determine if a biopsy is needed is testing for the presence of absence of genes commonly found in the urine of men in conjunction with a PSA test.

The novel suggested methods follow the United States Preventative Services Task Force expert panel conclusion that the present PSA-based prostate cancer screening causes harm through treatment or additional invasive testing, such as biopsies, and saves few or no lives.

Sanda explains:

"That's because prostate cancers can vary in aggressiveness and more men die of other causes aside from that cancer, and because the PSA test alone can not determine how dangerous any particular cancer may be. The US Preventative Services Task Force threw the baby out with the bathwater by their blanket recommendation against prostate cancer screening."

Sanda notes that, instead, PSA screening can be improved to identify only aggressive cancer for which treatment is indicated by adjusting PSA results for other considerations, such as size of prostate, obesity, and family history.

According to results from the multi-center study PSAD levels of less than 0.1 - in comparison to the unadjusted level of between 2.5 and 4 - can be a significant indicator of a potential cancer. Physicians determine the density by a using a digital rectal exam, allowing them to consider other factors like benign prostatic hyperplasia, an enlargement of the gland that affects all men as they age.

The researchers discovered that combining PSAD with the digital exam, an examination of the patient's family history and a body mass index of 25 or less, would avoid biopsy in around one-quarter of biopsy-eligible men.

The researchers state:

"Urological practice, patient outcome and cost-effectiveness of health care would each benefit from new targeted strategies, such as nomograms (a predictive tool) that improve prediction of aggressive cancers, to enable selective identification of candidate for prostate biopsy that would improve the yield of clinically significant, histologically aggressive cancers warranting subsequent definitive treatment."

In an additional multi-center investigation published in Urologic Oncology, investigators explain that a test taken after a digital rectal exam that looks for two specific genetic biomarkers (TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3), could prevent biopsies in men whose PSA reading ranges between 2-10 and who poses both genes. This could potentially stop one-third of men undergoing unnecessary biopsies.

Sanda, explains:

"Urine testing for prostate cancer is
in its infancy".

Further research is currently underway thanks to a $3.1 million grant from the National Institutes of Health. The study is assessing novel blood and urine test for prostate cancer in over 2,400 men over the next 5 years with the aim of resolving over-diagnosis and over-treatment.

One of the main focuses of proposed study involves a community outreach effort led by BIDMC primary care physician J. Jacques Carter, MD, MPH, Medical Director of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute Prostate Cancer Screening and Education Program and an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. A vital component of this investigation will be African-American men, who seem to develop prostate cancer more prevalently, and who have a higher risk of dying from prostate cancer.

Written by: Petra Rattue

Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Visit our prostate / prostate cancer section for the latest news on this subject. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Petra Rattue. "PSA Testing, Combined With Other Relevant Patient Data Can Reduce Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 12 Dec. 2011. Web.
12 Dec. 2011. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



View the original article here