PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Kenneth McQuaid

Publications and source records attributed to Kenneth McQuaid.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

New-onset diabetes and pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although many individuals with pancreatic cancer have diabetes, the association between new-onset diabetes mellitus and the subsequent incidence of pancreatic cancer is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to estimate the incidence of pancreatic cancer subsequent to a new diabetes diagnosis and to evaluate factors associated with a subsequent pancreatic cancer diagnosis. We used the Veterans Health Administration National Patient Care Database to assemble a cohort of 1,421,794 US veterans without prior diabetes or pancreatic cancer diagnoses. We recorded coding for new diabetes diagnoses (> or =2 International Classification of Diseases-9 codes for diabetes within a 12-month period), pancreatic cancer, age, sex, race, and common gastrointestinal symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 36,631 (2.6%) of the 1,421,794 veterans were diagnosed with new-onset diabetes in 1999; 149 subsequently received a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer incidence in patients with new-onset diabetes (83.8/100,000 person-years) was 2.2-fold higher (95% confidence interval, 1.84-2.56) than in nondiabetics, and was highest during the first 2 years after diabetes diagnosis. One additional pancreatic cancer was diagnosed for every 332 new diabetics over 6 years. A subsequent pancreatic cancer diagnosis (among new-onset diabetics) was associated independently with younger age groups, changes in bowel habits, constipation, epigastric pain, and malnutrition. CONCLUSIONS: New-onset diabetes was associated with a significantly increased rate of pancreatic cancer diagnosis, particularly in the first 2 years after diabetes diagnosis. Factors associated with pancreatic cancer diagnosis included younger age groups and the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms. The absolute incidence of pancreatic cancer was low.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Prospective comparison of patient experience with colon imaging tests.

PURPOSE: Patient experience varies with the currently available colon imaging tests, including air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy. We examined differences in patient experience with colon imaging tests and whether they varied with gender, age, and race. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with fecal occult blood, hematochezia, iron-deficiency anemia, or a family history of colon cancer underwent air contrast barium enema followed 7 to 14 days later by computed tomographic colonography and colonoscopy. Validated patient experience questionnaires that measured the experience for each test and a separate questionnaire that obtained an overall summary measure were administered after testing. Eleven patient experiences including pain, embarrassment, difficulty with bowel preparation, and satisfaction with tests were examined. RESULTS: A total of 614 subjects completed all 3 imaging tests. The test most patients were willing to repeat was colonoscopy; it also was reported to be the least painful procedure. Patients were least satisfied with air contrast barium enema, and fewer would undergo air contrast barium enema compared with computed tomographic colonography or colonoscopy. There were limited racial and gender differences in perceptions of the tests. Younger adults perceived air contrast barium enema to be more painful than older adults. CONCLUSION: Taking into account a wide variety of patient experience measures, patients preferred colonoscopy to air contrast barium enema and computed tomographic colonography. This finding has important implications for physicians considering different colon imaging tests.

Barium Sulfate↗
PubMed2004

A critical review of the diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus: the AGA Chicago Workshop.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus (BE) are controversial. We conducted a critical review of the literature in BE to provide guidance on clinically relevant issues. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of 18 participants evaluated the strength and the grade of evidence for 42 statements pertaining to the diagnosis, screening, surveillance, and treatment of BE. Each member anonymously voted to accept or reject statements based on the strength of evidence and his own expert opinion. RESULTS: There was strong consensus on most statements for acceptance or rejection. Members rejected statements that screening for BE has been shown to improve mortality from adenocarcinoma or to be cost-effective. Contrary to published clinical guidelines, they did not feel that screening should be recommended for adults over age 50, regardless of age or duration of heartburn. Members were divided on whether surveillance prolongs survival, although the majority agreed that it detects curable neoplasia and can be cost-effective in selected patients. The majority did not feel that acid-reduction therapy reduces the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma but did agree that nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs are associated with a cancer risk reduction and are of promising (but unproven) value. Participants rejected the notion that mucosal ablation with acid suppression prevents adenocarcinoma in BE but agreed that this may be an appropriate strategy in a subgroup of patients with high-grade dysplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this review of BE, the opinions of workshop members on issues pertaining to screening and surveillance are at variance with published clinical guidelines.

Adenocarcinoma↗