Amanda Arrington

Dr. Amanda Arrington


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

6Years (2021-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
4 November 2022 in Journal of Clinical Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CNCole Arthur Nipper
Cole Arthur Nipper
KLKelvin Lim
Kelvin Lim
CRCarlos Riveros
Carlos Riveros
EHEnshuo Hsu
Enshuo Hsu
SRSanjana Ranganathan
Sanjana Ranganathan
RSRaj Satkunasivam
Raj Satkunasivam
While studies have demonstrated an association between preoperative hypoalbuminemia and adverse clinical outcomes, the optimal serum albumin threshold for risk-stratification in the broader surgical population remains poorly defined. We sought define the optimal threshold of preoperative serum albumin concentration for risk-stratification of adverse post-operative outcomes. Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database, we identified 842,672 patients that had undergone a common surgical procedure in one of eight surgical specialties. An optimal serum albumin concentration threshold for risk-stratification was determined using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the odds of adverse surgical events; a priori defined subgroup analyses were performed. A serum albumin threshold of 3.4 g/dL optimally predicted adverse surgical outcomes in the broader cohort. After multivariable analysis, patients with hypoalbuminemia had increased odds of death within 30 days of surgery (odds ratio [OR] 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.94–2.08). Hypoalbuminemia was associated with greater odds of primary adverse events among patients with disseminated cancer (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.88–2.20) compared to patients without disseminated cancer (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.44–1.51). The standard clinical threshold for hypoalbuminemia is the optimal threshold for preoperative risk assessment.

25 November 2021 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LDLeslie K. Dennis
Leslie K. Dennis
CHChiu-Hsieh Hsu
Chiu-Hsieh Hsu
Amanda ArringtonAmanda Arrington
Amanda Arrington
Cancer screening is an important way to reduce the burden of cancer. The COVID-19 pandemic created delays in screening with the potential to increase cancer disparities in the United States (U.S.). Data from the 2014–2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey were analyzed to estimate the percentages of adults who reported cancer screening in the last 12 months consistent with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation for cervical (ages 21–65), breast (ages 50–74), and colorectal cancer (ages 50–75) prior to the pandemic. Cancer screening percentages for 2020 (April–December excluding January–March) were compared to screening percentages for 2014–2019 to begin to look at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Screening percentages for 2020 were decreased from those for 2014–2019 including several underserved racial groups. Decreases in mammography and colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy were higher among American Indian/Alaskan Natives, Hispanics, and multiracial participants, but decreases in pap test were also highest among Hispanics, Whites, Asians, and African-Americans/Blacks. Decreases in mammograms among women ages 40–49 were also seen. As the 2020 comparison is conservative, the 2021 decreases in cancer screening are expected to be much greater and are likely to increase cancer disparities substantially.

31 March 2023 in Current Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LDLeslie K. Dennis
Leslie K. Dennis
HBHeidi E Brown
Heidi E Brown
Amanda ArringtonAmanda Arrington
Amanda Arrington
Little is known about the epidemiology of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) and mucosal melanoma (MM). Using the United States (US) National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program data, we compared MCC and MM with cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) with respect to incidence rates and prognostic factors to better understand disease etiologies. We describe the proportional incidences of the three cancers along with their survival rates based on 20 years of national data. The incidence rates in 2000–2019 were 203.7 per 1,000,000 people for CMM, 5.9 per 1,000,000 people for MCC and 0.1 per 1,000,000 people for MM. The rates of these cancers increased over time, with the rate of MM tripling between 2000–2009 and 2010–2019. The incidences of these cancers increased with age and rates were highest among non-Hispanic Whites. Fewer MCCs and MMS were diagnosed at the local stage compared with CMM. The cases in the 22 SEER registries in California were not proportional to the 2020 population census but instead were higher than expected for CMM and MCC and lower than expected for MM. Conversely, MM rates were higher than expected in Texas and New York. These analyses highlight similarities in the incidence rates of CMM and MCC—and differences between them and MM rates—by state. Understanding more about MCC and MM is important because of their higher potential for late diagnosis and metastasis, which lead to poor survival.

1 May 2021 in Southern Medical Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TWThao Wolbert
Thao Wolbert
RBRahman Barry
Rahman Barry
TGTodd Gress
Todd Gress
Amanda ArringtonAmanda Arrington
Amanda Arrington
ETErrington Thompson
Errington Thompson
MPMph
Mph
Objectives: The age-appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rate in the rural Appalachian area is low compared with the national rate, which may account for the overall higher incidence of CRC in this area. The purpose of this study was to explore potential barriers to CRC screening in the West Virginia Appalachian area. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was designed to identify...