scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

James G. Gurney

Bio: James G. Gurney is an academic researcher from University of Memphis. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. The author has an hindex of 69, co-authored 180 publications receiving 19452 citations. Previous affiliations of James G. Gurney include University of Washington & St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
12 Jun 2013-JAMA
TL;DR: Among adult survivors of childhood cancer, the prevalence of adverse health outcomes was high, and a systematic risk-based medical assessment identified a substantial number of previously undiagnosed problems that are more prevalent in an older population.
Abstract: Importance Adult survivors of childhood cancer are known to be at risk for treatment-related adverse health outcomes. A large population of survivors has not been evaluated using a comprehensive systematic clinical assessment to determine the prevalence of chronic health conditions. Objective To determine the prevalence of adverse health outcomes and the proportion associated with treatment-related exposures in a large cohort of adult survivors of childhood cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants Presence of health outcomes was ascertained using systematic exposure–based medical assessments among 1713 adult (median age, 32 [range, 18-60] years) survivors of childhood cancer (median time from diagnosis, 25 [range, 10-47] years) enrolled in the St Jude Lifetime Cohort Study since October 1, 2007, and undergoing follow-up through October 31, 2012. Main Outcomes and Measures Age-specific cumulative prevalence of adverse outcomes by organ system. Results Using clinical criteria, the crude prevalence of adverse health outcomes was highest for pulmonary (abnormal pulmonary function, 65.2% [95% CI, 60.4%-69.8%]), auditory (hearing loss, 62.1% [95% CI, 55.8%-68.2%]), endocrine or reproductive (any endocrine condition, such as hypothalamic-pituitary axis disorders and male germ cell dysfunction, 62.0% [95% CI, 59.5%-64.6%]), cardiac (any cardiac condition, such as heart valve disorders, 56.4% [95% CI, 53.5%-59.2%]), and neurocognitive (neurocognitive impairment, 48.0% [95% CI, 44.9%-51.0%]) function, whereas abnormalities involving hepatic (liver dysfunction, 13.0% [95% CI, 10.8%-15.3%]), skeletal (osteoporosis, 9.6% [95% CI, 8.0%-11.5%]), renal (kidney dysfunction, 5.0% [95% CI, 4.0%-6.3%]), and hematopoietic (abnormal blood cell counts, 3.0% [95% CI, 2.1%-3.9%]) function were less common. Among survivors at risk for adverse outcomes following specific cancer treatment modalities, the estimated cumulative prevalence at age 50 years was 21.6% (95% CI, 19.3%-23.9%) for cardiomyopathy, 83.5% (95% CI, 80.2%-86.8%) for heart valve disorder, 81.3% (95% CI, 77.6%-85.0%) for pulmonary dysfunction, 76.8% (95% CI, 73.6%-80.0%) for pituitary dysfunction, 86.5% (95% CI, 82.3%-90.7%) for hearing loss, 31.9% (95% CI, 28.0%-35.8%) for primary ovarian failure, 31.1% (95% CI, 27.3%-34.9%) for Leydig cell failure, and 40.9% (95% CI, 32.0%-49.8%) for breast cancer. At age 45 years, the estimated cumulative prevalence of any chronic health condition was 95.5% (95% CI, 94.8%-98.6%) and 80.5% (95% CI, 73.0%-86.6%) for a serious/disabling or life-threatening chronic condition. Conclusions and Relevance Among adult survivors of childhood cancer, the prevalence of adverse health outcomes was high, and a systematic risk-based medical assessment identified a substantial number of previously undiagnosed problems that are more prevalent in an older population. These findings underscore the importance of ongoing health monitoring for adults who survive childhood cancer.

947 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The usefulness of vasoactive–inotropic score as an independent predictor of clinical outcome in infants after cardiac surgery may have important implications for future cardiothoracic intensive care unit research.
Abstract: Objective Inotrope score has been proposed as a marker of illness severity after pediatric cardiac surgery despite a lack of data to support its use as such. The goal of this study was to determine the association between inotropic/vasoactive support and clinical outcome in infants after cardiac surgery. Design Retrospective chart review. Setting Dedicated pediatric cardiothoracic intensive care unit at an academic, tertiary care medical center. Patients One hundred seventy-four patients 0 to 6 months of age admitted to the cardiothoracic intensive care unit after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass between August 2007 and June 2008. Forty-three percent were neonates, and 39% had functional single ventricle physiology. Interventions None. Measurements and main results Hourly doses of all vasoactive medications were recorded for the first 48 hrs after admission to the cardiothoracic intensive care unit and a vasoactive-inotropic score was calculated. The maximum vasoactive-inotropic score level over the first 48 hrs was a good predictor of poor clinical outcome (death, cardiac arrest, mechanical circulatory support, renal replacement therapy, and/or neurologic injury). After controlling for diagnosis, high maximum vasoactive-inotropic score was strongly associated with a poor outcome with an adjusted odds ratio of 8.1 (95% confidence interval, 3.4-19.2; p Conclusions The amount of cardiovascular support in the first 48 hrs after congenital heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass predicts eventual morbidity and mortality in young infants. The degree of support is best characterized by a maximum vasoactive-inotropic score obtained during this period. The usefulness of vasoactive-inotropic score as an independent predictor of clinical outcome in infants after cardiac surgery may have important implications for future cardiothoracic intensive care unit research.

806 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
24 Sep 2003-JAMA
TL;DR: Clinicians caring for adult survivors of childhood cancer should be aware of the substantial risk for adverse health status, especially among females, those withLow educational attainment, and those with low household incomes.
Abstract: ContextAdult survivors of childhood cancer are at risk for medical and psychosocial sequelae that may adversely affect their health status.ObjectivesTo compare the health status of adult survivors of childhood cancer and siblings and to identify factors associated with adverse outcomes.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsHealth status was assessed in 9535 adult participants of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, a cohort of long-term survivors of childhood cancer who were diagnosed between 1970 and 1986. A randomly selected cohort of the survivors' siblings (n = 2916) served as a comparison group.Main Outcome MeasuresSix health status domains were assessed: general health, mental health, functional status, activity limitations, cancer-related pain, and cancer-related anxiety/fears. The first 4 domains were assessed in the control group.ResultsSurvivors were significantly more likely to report adverse general health (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-3.0; P<.001), mental health (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1; P<.001), activity limitations (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.3-3.3; P<.001), and functional impairment (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 4.1-6.6; P<.001), compared with siblings. Forty-four percent of survivors reported at least 1 adversely affected health status domain. Sociodemographic factors associated with reporting at least 1 adverse health status domain included being female (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6; P<.001), lower level of educational attainment (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.8-2.2; P<.001), and annual income less than $20 000 (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1; P<.001). Relative to those survivors with childhood leukemia, an increased risk was observed for at least 1 adverse health status domain among those with bone tumors (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.8-2.5; P<.001), central nervous system tumors (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.5-2.0; P<.001), and sarcomas (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5; P = .01).ConclusionClinicians caring for adult survivors of childhood cancer should be aware of the substantial risk for adverse health status, especially among females, those with low educational attainment, and those with low household incomes.

773 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
15 Apr 1995-Cancer
TL;DR: The purpose of this report is to provide histology‐specific incidence rates within single‐year age groups, stratified by sex and race, among children.
Abstract: Background. Rates of cancer in children usually are presented in 5-year age groups, despite large variations of incidence within these groups. The purpose of this report is to provide histology-specific incidence rates within single-year age groups, stratified by sex and race, among children. Methods. Data from the National Cancer Institute's SEER Program were used to calculate incidence rates among children younger than 15 years of age at diagnosis. The SEER population denominator file was modified to allow calculation of rates within single years of age. Results. Large differences in rates within 5-year age groups were found for many histologic types. Retinobiastoma and Wilms' tumor, for instance, had up to eight-fold differences. Substantial differences also were observed for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, neuroblastoma, Hodgkin's disease, acute lymphoid leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, and osteosarcoma. In general, rates were higher among males than females, although female rates were often higher among young children. Rates of white children were generally higher than those of black children, especially during the first 5 years of life. Embryonal tumors comprised the majority of neoplasms during the first 2 years of life. Conclusion. Important demographic patterns of cancer incidence in children are obscured when data are summarized into 5-year age groups. Cancer 1995;75:2186–95.

539 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS), in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute, is the largest population-based registry focused exclusively on primary brain and other central nervous system (CNS) tumors in the US.
Abstract: The Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS), in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and National Cancer Institute (NCI), is the largest population-based registry focused exclusively on primary brain and other central nervous system (CNS) tumors in the United States (US) and represents the entire US population. This report contains the most up-to-date population-based data on primary brain tumors (malignant and non-malignant) and supersedes all previous CBTRUS reports in terms of completeness and accuracy. All rates (incidence and mortality) are age-adjusted using the 2000 US standard population and presented per 100,000 population. The average annual age-adjusted incidence rate (AAAIR) of all malignant and non-malignant brain and other CNS tumors was 23.79 (Malignant AAAIR=7.08, non-Malignant AAAIR=16.71). This rate was higher in females compared to males (26.31 versus 21.09), Blacks compared to Whites (23.88 versus 23.83), and non-Hispanics compared to Hispanics (24.23 versus 21.48). The most commonly occurring malignant brain and other CNS tumor was glioblastoma (14.5% of all tumors), and the most common non-malignant tumor was meningioma (38.3% of all tumors). Glioblastoma was more common in males, and meningioma was more common in females. In children and adolescents (age 0-19 years), the incidence rate of all primary brain and other CNS tumors was 6.14. An estimated 83,830 new cases of malignant and non-malignant brain and other CNS tumors are expected to be diagnosed in the US in 2020 (24,970 malignant and 58,860 non-malignant). There were 81,246 deaths attributed to malignant brain and other CNS tumors between 2013 and 2017. This represents an average annual mortality rate of 4.42. The 5-year relative survival rate following diagnosis of a malignant brain and other CNS tumor was 23.5% and for a non-malignant brain and other CNS tumor was 82.4%.

9,802 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The number of cancer survivors continues to increase because of both advances in early detection and treatment and the aging and growth of the population and for the public health community to better serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate to estimate the number of current and future cancer survivors.
Abstract: The number of cancer survivors continues to increase because of both advances in early detection and treatment and the aging and growth of the population. For the public health community to better serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate to estimate the number of current and future cancer survivors using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries. In addition, current treatment patterns for the most prevalent cancer types are presented based on information in the National Cancer Data Base and treatment-related side effects are briefly described. More than 15.5 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2016, and this number is projected to reach more than 20 million by January 1, 2026. The 3 most prevalent cancers are prostate (3,306,760), colon and rectum (724,690), and melanoma (614,460) among males and breast (3,560,570), uterine corpus (757,190), and colon and rectum (727,350) among females. More than one-half (56%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and almost one-half (47%) are aged 70 years or older. People with a history of cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs that require proactive assessment and management by primary care providers. Although there are a growing number of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based resources are needed to optimize care. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:271-289. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

5,516 citations

01 Mar 2007
TL;DR: An initiative to develop uniform standards for defining and classifying AKI and to establish a forum for multidisciplinary interaction to improve care for patients with or at risk for AKI is described.
Abstract: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex disorder for which currently there is no accepted definition. Having a uniform standard for diagnosing and classifying AKI would enhance our ability to manage these patients. Future clinical and translational research in AKI will require collaborative networks of investigators drawn from various disciplines, dissemination of information via multidisciplinary joint conferences and publications, and improved translation of knowledge from pre-clinical research. We describe an initiative to develop uniform standards for defining and classifying AKI and to establish a forum for multidisciplinary interaction to improve care for patients with or at risk for AKI. Members representing key societies in critical care and nephrology along with additional experts in adult and pediatric AKI participated in a two day conference in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in September 2005 and were assigned to one of three workgroups. Each group's discussions formed the basis for draft recommendations that were later refined and improved during discussion with the larger group. Dissenting opinions were also noted. The final draft recommendations were circulated to all participants and subsequently agreed upon as the consensus recommendations for this report. Participating societies endorsed the recommendations and agreed to help disseminate the results. The term AKI is proposed to represent the entire spectrum of acute renal failure. Diagnostic criteria for AKI are proposed based on acute alterations in serum creatinine or urine output. A staging system for AKI which reflects quantitative changes in serum creatinine and urine output has been developed. We describe the formation of a multidisciplinary collaborative network focused on AKI. We have proposed uniform standards for diagnosing and classifying AKI which will need to be validated in future studies. The Acute Kidney Injury Network offers a mechanism for proceeding with efforts to improve patient outcomes.

5,467 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)—was established as a successor to the IRPA/INIRC, which developed a number of health criteria documents on NIR as part of WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria Programme, sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Abstract: IN 1974, the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) formed a working group on non-ionizing radiation (NIR), which examined the problems arising in the field of protection against the various types of NIR. At the IRPA Congress in Paris in 1977, this working group became the International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee (INIRC). In cooperation with the Environmental Health Division of the World Health Organization (WHO), the IRPA/INIRC developed a number of health criteria documents on NIR as part of WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria Programme, sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Each document includes an overview of the physical characteristics, measurement and instrumentation, sources, and applications of NIR, a thorough review of the literature on biological effects, and an evaluation of the health risks of exposure to NIR. These health criteria have provided the scientific database for the subsequent development of exposure limits and codes of practice relating to NIR. At the Eighth International Congress of the IRPA (Montreal, 18–22 May 1992), a new, independent scientific organization—the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)—was established as a successor to the IRPA/INIRC. The functions of the Commission are to investigate the hazards that may be associated with the different forms of NIR, develop international guidelines on NIR exposure limits, and deal with all aspects of NIR protection. Biological effects reported as resulting from exposure to static and extremely-low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields have been reviewed by UNEP/ WHO/IRPA (1984, 1987). Those publications and a number of others, including UNEP/WHO/IRPA (1993) and Allen et al. (1991), provided the scientific rationale for these guidelines. A glossary of terms appears in the Appendix.

4,549 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
21 Jul 1979-BMJ
TL;DR: It is suggested that if assessment of overdoses were left to house doctors there would be an increase in admissions to psychiatric units, outpatients, and referrals to social services, but for house doctors to assess overdoses would provide no economy for the psychiatric or social services.
Abstract: admission. This proportion could already be greater in some parts of the country and may increase if referrals of cases of self-poisoning increase faster than the facilities for their assessment and management. The provision of social work and psychiatric expertise in casualty departments may be one means of preventing unnecessary medical admissions without risk to the patients. Dr Blake's and Dr Bramble's figures do not demonstrate, however, that any advantage would attach to medical teams taking over assessment from psychiatrists except that, by implication, assessments would be completed sooner by staff working on the ward full time. What the figures actually suggest is that if assessment of overdoses were left to house doctors there would be an increase in admissions to psychiatric units (by 19°U), outpatients (by 5O°'), and referrals to social services (by 140o). So for house doctors to assess overdoses would provide no economy for the psychiatric or social services. The study does not tell us what the consequences would have been for the six patients who the psychiatrists would have admitted but to whom the house doctors would have offered outpatient appointments. E J SALTER

4,497 citations