Browsing by Author "Ceppa, DuyKhanh"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Case Volume-to-Outcome Relationship in Minimally-Invasive Esophagogastrectomy(Elsevier, 2019) Salfity, Hai; Timsina, Lava; Su, Katherine; Ceppa, DuyKhanh; Birdas, Thomas; Surgery, School of MedicineBackground Outcomes after open esophagectomy (OE) have been shown to depend on institution case volume. We aim to determine whether a similar relationship exists for minimally-invasive esophagogastrectomy (MIE). Methods Patients who had OE or MIE (excluding robotic procdures) between 2010 and 2013 in the National Cancer Database were included. Outcomes included 30- and 90-day mortality, length-of-stay, hospital readmission, margin positivity, and number of lymph nodes harvested. Logistic and linear regression were used to adjust for possible confounders including age, gender, tumor size, Charlson score, induction therapy, and type of institution (academic vs. community-based). Results We identified 2371 patients in the MIE group and 6285 patients in the OE group. In multivariate analysis, high case volume was an independent predictor for lower 30-day, 90-day mortality, shorter length-of-stay, and higher rate of negative-margin resection in OE (P<0.001) but not MIE. After quartile ranking of institutions based on volume, MIE outcomes were found to be better in institutions in the highest volume quartile compared to those in the lowest (p< 0.0001). Conclusions In this dataset, MIE postoperative outcomes, unlike OE, did not correlate with hospital case volume. Volume-outcome relationships may be affected by surgical approach. The effect of case volume on long-term outcomes after MIE warrants further study.Item Development and Usability Testing of a Computer-Tailored Decision Support Tool for Lung Cancer Screening: Study Protocol(JMIR, 2017) Carter-Harris, Lisa; Comer, Robert Skipworth; Goyal, Anurag; Vode, Emilee Christine; Hanna, Nasser; Ceppa, DuyKhanh; Rawl, Susan M.; School of NursingBackground: Awareness of lung cancer screening remains low in the screening-eligible population, and when patients visit their clinician never having heard of lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Therefore, methods to effectively support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are essential. To facilitate shared decision making about lung cancer screening, effective methods to prepare patients to have these important discussions with their clinician are needed. Objective: Our objective is to develop a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument version 4.0 that will support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions. Methods: Using a 3-phase process, we will develop and test a prototype of a computer-tailored decision support tool in a sample of lung cancer screening-eligible individuals. In phase I, we assembled a community advisory board comprising 10 screening-eligible individuals to develop the prototype. In phase II, we recruited a sample of 13 screening-eligible individuals to test the prototype for usability, acceptability, and satisfaction. In phase III, we are conducting a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer. Outcomes tested include lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), perception of being prepared to engage in a patient-clinician discussion about lung cancer screening, occurrence of a patient-clinician discussion about lung cancer screening, and stage of adoption for lung cancer screening. Results: Phases I and II are complete. Phase III is underway. As of July 15, 2017, 60 participants have been enrolled into the study, and have completed the baseline survey, intervention, and first follow-up survey. We expect to have results by December 31, 2017 and to have data analysis completed by March 1, 2018. Conclusions: Results from usability testing indicate that the computer-tailored decision support tool is easy to use, is helpful, and provides a satisfactory experience for the user. At the conclusion of phase III (pilot RCT), we will have preliminary effect sizes to inform a future fully powered RCT on changes in (1) knowledge about lung cancer and screening, (2) perceived risk of lung cancer, (3) perceived benefits of lung cancer screening, (4) perceived barriers to lung cancer screening, (5) self-efficacy for lung cancer screening, and (6) perceptions of being adequately prepared to engage in a discussion with their clinician about lung cancer screening.Item Global Cardiothoracic Surgery in an Academic Career: Lessons from Brazil(Brazilian Society of Cardiovascular Surgery, 2023-08-04) Nina, Vinicius; Farkas, Emily; Ceppa, DuyKhanh; Marath, Aubyn; Surgery, School of MedicineItem The impact of social determinants of health on management of stage I non-small cell lung cancer(Elsevier, 2022-06) Namburi, Niharika; Timsina, Lava; Ninad, Nehal; Ceppa, DuyKhanh; Birdas, Thomas; Surgery, School of MedicineBACKGROUND: Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) can be important contributors in health care outcomes. We hypothesized that certain SDOH independently impact the management and outcomes of stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). STUDY DESIGN: Patients with clinical stage I NSCLC were identified from the National Cancer Database. The impact of SDOH factors on utilization of surgery, perioperative outcomes and overall survival were examined, both in bivariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 236,140 patients were identified. In multivariate analysis, SDOH marginalization were associated with less frequent use of surgery, lower 5-year survival and, in surgical patients, more frequent use of open surgery and lower 90-day postoperative survival. CONCLUSION: SDOH disparities have a significant impact in the management and outcomes of stage I NSCLC. We identified SDOH patient groups particularly impacted by such disparities, in which higher utilization of surgery and minimally invasive approaches may lead to improved outcomes.Item Low Rates of Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Among a Safety-net Emergency Department Population(Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, 2022-08-11) Pettit, Nicholas; Ceppa, DuyKhanh; Monahan, Patrick; Emergency Medicine, School of MedicineIntroduction: A suspected diagnosis of cancer through an emergency department (ED) visit is associated with poor clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to explore the rate at which ED patients attend cancer screenings for lung, colorectal (CRC), and breast cancers based on national guidelines set forth by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Methods: This was a prospective cohort study. Patients were randomly approached in the Eskenazi Hospital ED between August 2019-February 2020 and were surveyed to determine whether they would be eligible and had attended lung, CRC, and breast cancer screenings, as well as their awareness of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Patients who were English-speaking and ≥18 years old, and who were not critically ill or intoxicated or being seen for acute decompensated psychiatric illness were offered enrollment. Enrolled subjects were surveyed to determine eligibility for lung, colorectal, and breast cancer screenings based on guidelines set by the USPSTF. No cancer screenings were actually done during the ED visit. Results: A total of 500 patients were enrolled in this study. More participants were female (54.4%), and a majority were Black (53.0%). Most participants had both insurance (80.2%) and access to primary care (62.8%). Among the entire cohort, 63.0% identified as smokers, and 62.2% (140/225) of the 50- to 80-year-old participants qualified for lung cancer screening. No patients were screened for lung cancer in this cohort (0/225). Only 0.6% (3/500) were aware that LDCT was the preferred method for screening. Based on pack years, 35.5% (32/90) of the patients who were 40-49 years old and 6.7% (6/90) of those 30-39 years old would eventually qualify for screening. Regarding CRC screening, 43.6% (218/500) of the entire cohort was eligible. However, of those patients only 54% (118/218) had been screened. Comparatively, 77.7% (87/112) of the eligible females had been screened for breast cancer, but only 54.5% (61/112) had been screened in the prior two years. Conclusion: Many ED patients are not screened for lung/colorectal/breast cancers even though many are eligible and have reported access to primary care. This study demonstrates an opportunity and a need to address cancer screening in the ED.