Palliative chemotherapy or best supportive care? A prospective study explaining patients' treatment preference and choice

Item does not contain fulltextIn palliative cancer treatment, the choice between palliative chemotherapy and best supportive care may be difficult. In the decision-making process, giving information as well as patients' values and preferences become important issues. Patients, however, may have a treatment preference before they even meet their medical oncologist. An insight into the patient's decision-making process can support clinicians having to inform their patients. Patients (n=207) with metastatic cancer, aged 18 years or older, able to speak Dutch, for whom palliative chemotherapy was a treatment option, were eligible for the study. We assessed the following before they consulted their medical oncologist: (1) socio-demographic characteristics, (2) disease-related variables, (3) quality-of-life indices, (4) attitudes and (5) preferences for treatment, information and participation in decision-making. The actual treatment decision, assessed after it had been made, was the main study outcome. Of 207 eligible patients, 140 patients (68%) participated in the study. At baseline, 68% preferred to undergo chemotherapy rather than wait watchfully. Eventually, 78% chose chemotherapy. Treatment preference (odds ratio (OR)=10.3, confidence interval (CI) 2.8-38.0) and a deferring style of decision-making (OR=4.9, CI 1.4-17.2) best predicted the actual treatment choice. Treatment preference (total explained variance=38.2%) was predicted, in turn, by patients' striving for length of life (29.5%), less striving for quality of life (6.1%) and experienced control over the cause of disease (2.6%). Patients' actual treatment choice was most strongly predicted by their preconsultation treatment preference. Since treatment preference is positively explained by striving for length of life, and negatively by striving for quality of life, it is questionable whether the purpose of palliative treatment is made clear. This, paradoxically, emphasises the need for further attention to the process of information giving and shared decision-making

A fresh look at the evolution and diversification of photochemical reaction centers

In this review, I reexamine the origin and diversification of photochemical reaction centers based on the known phylogenetic relations of the core subunits, and with the aid of sequence and structural alignments. I show, for example, that the protein folds at the C-terminus of the D1 and D2 subunits of Photosystem II, which are essential for the coordination of the water-oxidizing complex, were already in place in the most ancestral Type II reaction center subunit. I then evaluate the evolution of reaction centers in the context of the rise and expansion of the different groups of bacteria based on recent large-scale phylogenetic analyses. I find that the Heliobacteriaceae family of Firmicutes appears to be the earliest branching of the known groups of phototrophic bacteria; however, the origin of photochemical reaction centers and chlorophyll synthesis cannot be placed in this group. Moreover, it becomes evident that the Acidobacteria and the Proteobacteria shared a more recent common phototrophic ancestor, and this is also likely for the Chloroflexi and the Cyanobacteria. Finally, I argue that the discrepancies among the phylogenies of the reaction center proteins, chlorophyll synthesis enzymes, and the species tree of bacteria are best explained if both types of photochemical reaction centers evolved before the diversification of the known phyla of phototrophic bacteria. The primordial phototrophic ancestor must have had both Type I and Type II reaction centers

Malnutrition and refeeding syndrome prevention in head and neck cancer patients: from theory to clinical application

International audiencePURPOSE: The goal of this review is to raise awareness about refeeding syndrome (RFS) and to give a comprehensive presentation of recent guidelines and latest scientific data about nutritional management among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients while focusing on RFS prevention.METHODS: A review of literature for nutritional assessment and RFS management was conducted. Electronic searches of Medline, Cochrane, PubMed and Embase databases for articles published in peer-reviewed journals were conducted from February to September 2017 using the keywords: "nutrition assessment", "head and neck cancer", "refeeding syndrome" and "guidelines". Articles, reviews, book references as well as national and international guidelines in English and French were included.RESULTS: The prevalence of malnutrition is high in HNC patients and a large number of them will need artificial nutritional support or refeeding intervention. RFS is characterized by fluid and electrolyte imbalance associated with clinical manifestations induced by rapid refeeding after a period of malnutrition or starvation. Regarding risk factors for malnutrition and RFS, HNC patients are particularly vulnerable. However, RFS remains unrecognized among head and neck surgeons and medical teams. Practical data are summarized to help organizing nutritional assessment and refeeding interventions. It also summarizes preventive measures to reduce RFS incidence and morbidity in HNC population.CONCLUSION:Nutritional assessment and early refeeding interventions are crucial for HNC patients care. As prevention is the key for RFS management, early identification of patients with high risks is crucial and successful nutritional management requires a multidisciplinary approach

Management of Diseases Caused by Pectobacterium and Dickeya Species

Management of soft rot Pectobacteriaceae (SRP) is a challenge as there are no control agents available and no effective resistance present in commercial cultivars. In addition, many species of SRP have a broad host range and spread via rotten plant material takes place readily. In this chapter, the possibilities for disease management are outlined. Management is mainly based on seed certification to limit the risks of using infected planting material, and on hygiene and cultivation practices that reduce cross-contamination within and between seed lots. Balanced nutrition also supports the suppressiveness of crops against SRP. Experimental data show that inoculum in seed tubers can be reduced by thermotherapy and the use of biocides. Under controlled conditions, application of seed potatoes with biocontrol agents has showed promising results but few data are present on the efficacy of biocontrol in the field. Resistance in wild Solanum species against SRP has been found but to date no genes have been transferred to cultivars. However, new breeding technologies, such as CRISPR/CAS 9 and the use of true potato seed (TPS), will give us new perspectives on the generation of resistant cultivars