Comparing Radiotherapy Patient Flows in England and Italy

Research into radiotherapy patient flows in England and Italy investigated the degree of self-sufficiency in related service areas across each country. The respective results showed very different patterns, with there apparently being greater patient flow and less self-sufficiency for services in Italy, compared to England. However, close inspection suggested the results were not strictly comparable, despite the data, methodology and analyses being similar and entirely fitting in both cases. The respective studies were consequently compared for a range of criteria: how radiotherapy services are commissioned and provided; cultural expectations; base area definitions; data used; analyses undertaken; and research results. It was found that direct comparisons could not necessarily be drawn because cultural, conceptual, organisational and systemic factors in the delivery of services within each country influenced the results. Therefore, such factors should be taken into account when comparing health services in different countries, particularly in respect of patient flows and service self-sufficiency

Human papillomavirus 9-valent vaccine for cancer prevention: a systematic review of the available evidence.

In 2014, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new human papillomavirus 9-valent vaccine (9vHPV), targeting nine HPV types: HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, which are also targeted by the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (qHPV), plus five additional high cancer risk HPV types (HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58). The aim of the current study was to systematically retrieve, qualitatively and quantitatively pool, as well as critically appraise all available evidence on 9vHPV from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a systematic review of the literature on 9vHPV efficacy, immunogenicity and safety, as well as a systematic search of registered, completed, and ongoing RCTs. We retrieved and screened 227 records for eligibility. A total of 10 publications reported on RCTs' results on 9vHPV and were included in the review. Sixteen RCTs on 9vHPV have been registered on RCT registries. There is evidence that 9vHPV generated a response to HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18 that was non-inferior to qHPV. Vaccine efficacy against five additional HPV type-related diseases was directly assessed on females aged 16-26 years (risk reduction against high-grade cervical, vulvar or vaginal disease = 96·7%, 95% CI 80·9%-99·8%). Bridging efficacy was demonstrated for males and females aged 9-15 years and males aged 16-26 years (the lower bound of the 95% CIs of both the geometric mean titer ratio and difference in seroconversion rates meeting the criteria for non-inferiority for all HPV types). Overall, 9vHPV has been proved to be safe and well tolerated. Other RCTs addressed: 9vHPV co-administration with other vaccines, 9vHPV administration in subjects that previously received qHPV and 9vHPV efficacy in regimens containing fewer than three doses. The inclusion of additional HPV types in 9vHPV offers great potential to expand protection against HPV infection. However, the impact of 9vHPV on reducing the global burden of HPV-related disease will greatly depend on vaccine uptake, coverage, availability, and affordability

Rectal cancer in old age –is it appropriately managed? Evidence from population-based analysis of routine data across the English national health service

Background: There is significant debate as to where to draw the line between undertreating older rectal cancer patients and minimising treatment risks. This study sought to examine the use of radical rectal cancer treatments and associated outcomes in relation to age across the English NHS. Methods: Patient, tumour and treatment characteristics for all patients diagnosed with a first primary rectal cancer in England between 1st April 2009 and 31st December 2014 were obtained from the CORECT-R data repository. Descriptive analyses and adjusted logistic regression models were undertaken to examine any association between age and the use of major resection and post-surgical outcomes. Funnel plots were used to show variation in adjusted rates of major resection. Results: The proportion of patients who underwent a major surgical resection fell from 66.5% to 31.7%, amongst those aged <70 and aged ≥80 respectively. After adjustment, 30-day post-operative mortality, failure to rescue and prolonged length of stay were significantly higher among the oldest group when compared to the youngest. Patient reported outcomes were not significantly worse amongst older patients. Significant variation was observed in adjusted surgical resection rates in the oldest patients between NHS Trusts. The probability of death due to cancer was comparable across all age groups. Conclusions: Older patients who are selected for surgery have good outcomes, often comparable to their younger counterparts. Significant variation in the treatment of older patients could not be explained by differences in measured characteristics and required further investigation

Non-standard management of breast cancer increases with age in the UK: a population based cohort of women ⩾65 years

Evidence suggests that compared to younger women, older women are less likely to receive standard management for breast cancer. Whether this disparity persists once differences in tumour characteristics have been adjusted for has not been investigated in the UK. A retrospective cohort study involving case note review was undertaken, based on the North Western Cancer Registry database of women aged ⩾65 years, resident in Greater Manchester with invasive breast cancer registered over a 1-year period (n=480). Adjusting for tumour characteristics associated with age by logistic regression analyses, older women were less likely to receive standard management than younger women for all indicators investigated. Compared to women aged 65–69 years, women aged ⩾80 years with operable (stage 1–3a) breast cancer have increased odds of not receiving triple assessment (OR=5.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1–14.5), not receiving primary surgery (OR=43.0, 95% CI: 9.7–191.3), not undergoing axillary node surgery (OR=27.6, 95% CI: 5.6–135.9) and not undergoing tests for steroid receptors (OR=3.0, 95% CI: 1.7–5.5). Women aged 75–79 years have increased odds of not receiving radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery compared to women aged 65–69 years (OR=11.0, 95% CI: 2.0–61.6). These results demonstrate that older women in the UK are less likely to receive standard management for breast cancer, compared to younger women and this disparity cannot be explained by differences in tumour characteristics

Methods and timing of biliary drainage for acute cholangitis: Tokyo Guidelines

Biliary drainage is a radical method to relieve cholestasis, a cause of acute cholangitis, and takes a central part in the treatment of acute cholangitis. Emergent drainage is essential for severe cases, whereas patients with moderate and mild disease should also receive drainage as soon as possible if they do not respond to conservative treatment, and their condition has not improved. Biliary drainage can be achieved via three different routes/procedures: endoscopic, percutaneous transhepatic, and open methods. The clinical value of both endoscopic and percutaneous transhepatic drainage is well known. Endoscopic drainage is associated with a low morbidity rate and shorter duration of hospitalization; therefore, this approach is advocated whenever it is applicable. In endoscopic drainage, either endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) or tube stent placement can be used. There is no significant difference in the success rate, effectiveness, and morbidity between the two procedures. The decision to perform endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is made based on the patient’s condition and the number and diameter of common bile duct stones. Open drainage, on the other hand, should be applied only in patients for whom endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic drainage is contraindicated or has not been successfully performed. Cholecystectomy is recommended in patients with gallbladder stones, following the resolution of acute cholangitis with medical treatment, unless the patient has poor operative risk factors or declines surgery