KettleBell Ultra

This project will consist of an attachment to an average kettlebell that will track the number of repetitions that the user has performed. The device will send this data over Bluetooth to a smart phone application so the user can track their workout accurately

Scoping review of values elicitation tools for treatment decisions in hepatocellular carcinoma

Background Treatment choices in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) involve consideration of tradeoffs between the benefits, toxicities, inconvenience, and costs. Stated preference elicitation methods have been used in the medical field to help evaluate complex treatment decision-making. The aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review to assess the evidence base for the use of preference elicitation tools or willingness to pay/willingness to accept methods for HCC treatment decision-making from both the patient and provider perspective. Methods We performed a scoping review to identify abstracts or manuscripts focused on the role preference elicitation tools or willingness to pay/willingness to accept methods for HCC treatment options among patients, caregivers, and/or providers. Two researchers independently screened full-text references and resolved conflicts through discussion. We summarized key findings, including the type and setting of preference-elicitation tools used for HCC treatment decisions. Results Ten published abstracts or manuscripts evaluated the role of preference elicitation tools for HCC treatments. The studies revealed several attributes that are considered by patients and providers making HCC treatment decisions. Many of the studies reviewed suggested that while patients place the most value on extending their overall survival, they are willing to forgo overall survival to avoid risks of treatments and maintain quality of life. Studies of physicians and surgeons found that provider preferences are dependent on patient characteristics, provider specialty, and surgeon or hospital-related factors. Conclusion This scoping review explored both patient and physician preferences towards treatment modalities in all stages of HCC. The studies revealed a large scope of potential attributes that may be important to patients and that many patients are willing to forgo survival to maintain quality of life. Further research should explore both preference elicitation of currently available and emerging therapies for HCC as well as the use of this data to develop patient-facing tools to assist in navigating treatment options

Advancing patient-centric care: integrating patient reported outcomes for tolerability assessment in early phase clinical trials – insights from an expert virtual roundtable

Early phase clinical trials provide an initial evaluation of therapies’ risks and benefits to patients, including safety and tolerability, which typically relies on reporting outcomes by investigator and laboratory assessments. Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to inform risks (tolerability) and benefits (improvement in disease symptoms) is more common in later than early phase trials. We convened a two-day expert roundtable covering: (1) the necessity and feasibility of a universal PRO core conceptual model for early phase trials; (2) the practical integration of PROs in early phase trials to inform tolerability assessment, guide dose decisions, or as real-time safety alerts to enhance investigator-reported adverse events. Participants (n = 22) included: patient advocates, regulators, clinicians, statisticians, pharmaceutical representatives, and PRO methodologists working across diverse clinical areas. In this manuscript, we report major recommendations resulting from the roundtable discussions corresponding to each theme. Additionally, we highlight priority areas necessitating further investigation

Abiraterone in Metastatic Prostate Cancer without Previous Chemotherapy

BackgroundAbiraterone acetate, an androgen biosynthesis inhibitor, improves overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. We evaluated this agent in patients who had not received previous chemotherapy.MethodsIn this double-blind study, we randomly assigned 1088 patients to receive abiraterone acetate (1000 mg) plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily) or placebo plus prednisone. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival.ResultsThe study was unblinded after a planned interim analysis that was performed after 43% of the expected deaths had occurred. The median radiographic progression-free survival was 16.5 months with abiraterone-prednisone and 8.3 months with prednisone alone (hazard ratio for abiraterone-prednisone vs. prednisone alone, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.62; P<0.001). Over a median follow-up period of 22.2 months, overall survival was improved with abiraterone-prednisone (median not reached, vs. 27.2 months for prednisone alone; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93; P=0.01) but did not cross the efficacy boundary. Abiraterone-prednisone showed superiority over prednisone alone with respect to time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, opiate use for cancer-related pain, prostate-specific antigen progression, and decline in performance status. Grade 3 or 4 mineralocorticoid-related adverse events and abnormalities on liver-function testing were more common with abiraterone-prednisone.ConclusionsAbiraterone improved radiographic progression-free survival, showed a trend toward improved overall survival, and significantly delayed clinical decline and initiation of chemotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development, formerly Cougar Biotechnology; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00887198.)

Trial Design and Objectives for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3

Evolving treatments, disease phenotypes, and biology, together with a changing drug development environment, have created the need to revise castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) clinical trial recommendations to succeed those from prior Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Groups

The comparative effectiveness of decision aids in diverse populations with early stage prostate cancer: a study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial in the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Alliance A191402CD

Abstract Background Treatments for localized prostate cancer present challenging tradeoffs in the face of uncertain treatment benefits. These options are best weighed in a process of shared decision-making with the patient’s healthcare team. Minority men experience disparities in prostate cancer outcomes, possibly due in part to a lack of optimal communication during treatment selection. Decision aids facilitate shared decision-making, improve knowledge of treatment options, may increase satisfaction with treatment choice, and likely facilitate long-term quality of life. Methods/design This study will compare the effect of two evidence-based decision aids on patient knowledge and on quality of life measured one year after treatment, oversampling minority men. One decision aid will be administered prior to specialist consultation, preparing patients for a treatment discussion. The other decision aid will be administered within the consultation to facilitate transparent, preference-sensitive, and evidence-informed deliberations. The study will utilize a four-arm, block-randomized design to test whether each decision aid alone (Arms 1 and 2) or in combination (Arm 3) can improve patient knowledge and quality of life compared to usual care (Arm 4). The study, funded by the National Cancer Institute’s Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), will be deployed within select institutions that have demonstrated capacity to recruit minority populations into urologic oncology trials. Discussion Upon completion of the trial, we will have 1) tested the effectiveness of two evidence-based decision aids in enhancing patients’ knowledge of options for prostate cancer therapy and 2) estimated whether decision aids may improve patient quality of life one year after initial treatment choice. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03103321 . The trial registration date (on ClinicalTrials.gov) was April 6, 2017

La Montagne des langues et des peuples

Mosaïque de nations d’une exceptionnelle diversité linguistique, sociopolitique ou religieuse, l’espace du Caucase exige d’être abordé dans la très longue durée, du point de vue des imbrications enregistrées au fil du temps. Envahie par les Grecs, les Romains, les Byzantins, par des Mongols turcisés, hésitant longtemps entre christianisme, islam et bouddhisme, intégrée de force dans le monde russe, la région n’a cessé de combiner les strates culturelles. Déjà, la soixantaine de langues parlées dans ces montagnes et l’hypothèse d’un substrat préhistorique a fasciné des générations de savants. Mais encore : le Caucase a hanté l’imaginaire littéraire russe, de Lermontov à Pouchkine ou Griboïedov. Ses propres poètes comme le Géorgien Roustavéli ou l’Azerbaïdjanais de langue persane Nizami sont eux-mêmes au confluent de plusieurs littératures. Enfin, une histoire transculturelle du Caucase implique de revisiter ces lieux de mémoires croisées que sont les très cosmopolites Bakou ou Tbilissi. Ce livre repose sur la collaboration d’universitaires, français, russes et caucasiens. Les métissages observés doivent faire l’objet d’une histoire spécifique, véritable levier pour soulever le poids de la complexité régionale