2,143 research outputs found

    Program: 10th Biennial Symposium on Minorities, the Medically Underserved & Cancer. Celebrating 20 Years of Progress. Committed to Eliminating Disparities... the Journey Continues

    Get PDF
    Program details the events, speakers, attendees, and discussions during the 10th Biennial Symposium on Minorities, the Medically Underserved & Cancer presented by Intercultural Cancer Council and jointly sponsored by Baylor College of Medicine. The symposium took place April 19-23, 2006 at the OMNI Shoreham in Washington, DC. See more at Intercultural Cancer Council Records

    Cancer Facts: Elderly and Cancer

    Get PDF
    The fact sheet summarizes cancer facts related to the elderly population. The document is organized into seven sections: Who We Are, Causes/Etiology, Patient/Provider Communication, Screening, Disparities, Outcomes, and References. See more at Intercultural Cancer Council Records

    Program: 8th Biennial Symposium on Minorities, the Medically Underserved & Cancer. Awareness is Not Enough

    Get PDF
    Program details the events, speakers, attendees, and discussions during the 8th Biennial Symposium on Minorities, the Medically Underserved & Cancer presented by Intercultural Cancer Council and jointly sponsored by Baylor College of Medicine. The symposium took place February 6-10 at the OMNI Shoreham in Washington, DC. See more at Intercultural Cancer Council Records

    Adaptation of international guidelines on assessment and management of cancer pain for the Australian context

    Get PDF
    Aim: To develop clinical practice guidelines for screening, assessing and managing cancer pain in Australian adults. Methods: This three phase project utilised the ADAPTE approach to adapt international cancer pain guidelines for the Australian setting. A Working Party was established to define scope, screen guidelines for adaptation, and develop recommendations to support better cancer pain control through screening, assessment, pharmacological and non-pharmacological management, and patient education. Recommendations with limited evidence were referred to Expert Panels for advice before the draft guidelines were opened for public consultation via the Cancer Council Australia Cancer Guidelines Wiki platform in late 2012. All comments were reviewed by the Working Party and the guidelines revised accordingly. Results: Screening resulted in six international guidelines being included for adaptation - those developed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2008), National Health Service Quality Improvement Scotland (2009), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2012), European Society of Medical Oncology (2011), European Association for Palliative Care (2011, 2012) and National Institute of Clinical Excellence (2012). Guideline adaptation resulted in 55 final recommendations. The guidelines were officially launched in November 2013. Conclusion: International guidelines can be efficiently reconfigured for local contexts using the ADAPTE approach. Availability of the guidelines via the Cancer Council Australia Wiki is intended to promote uptake and enable recommendations to be kept up to date. Resources to support implementation will also be made available via the Wiki if found to be effective by a randomised controlled trial commencing in 2015

    Moving Forward in Human Cancer Risk Assessment

    Get PDF
    The goal of human risk assessment is to decide whether a given exposure level to a particular chemical or substance is acceptable to human health, and to provide risk management measures based on an evaluation and prediction of the effects of that exposure on human health. Within this framework, the current safety paradigm for assessing possible carcinogenic properties of drugs, cosmetics, industrial chemicals and environmental exposures relies mainly on in vitro genotoxicity testing followed by 2-year bioassays in mice and rats. This testing paradigm was developed 40 to 50 years ago with the initial premise that ¿mutagens are also carcinogens¿ and that the carcinogenic risk to humans can be extrapolated from the tumor incidence after lifetime exposure to maximally tolerated doses of chemicals in rodents. Genotoxicity testing is used as a surrogate for carcinogenicity testing and is required for initiation of clinical trials (Jacobs and Jacobson-Kram 2004) and for most industrial chemicals safety assessment. Although the carcinogenicity-testing paradigm has effectively protected patients and consumers from introduction of harmful carcinogens as drugs and other products, the testing paradigm is clearly not sustainable in the future. The causal link between genetic damage and carcinogenicity is well documented; however, the limitations of genotoxicity/carcinogenicity testing assays, the presence of additional non-genotoxic mechanisms, issues of species-specific effects, and the lack of mechanistic insights provide an enormous scientific challenge. The 2-year rodent carcinogenicity bioassays are associated with technical complexity, high costs, high animal burden as well as the uncertainty associated with extrapolating from rodents to humans. Additional frustrations exist because of the limited predictability of the 2-year bioassay and, in particular, with regard to the problem of the prediction of false positives. For instance, in the Carcinogenic Potency Project DataBase (CPDB) which includes results from chronic, long-term animal cancer tests with mice, rats, hamsters amounting to a total of 6540 individual experiments with 1547 chemicals, 751 of those chemicals or 51% have positive findings in rodent studies. Similarly, when one considers all chronically used human pharmaceuticals, some 50% induce tumors in rodents. Yet only 20 human pharmaceutical compounds have been identified as carcinogens in epidemiological studies, despite the fact that quite a large number of epidemiological studies have been carried out on these compounds, e.g. NSAID¿s, benzodiazepines, phenobarbital. This high incidence of tumors in bioassays has lead to questions concerning the human relevance of tumors induced in rodents (Knight et al. 2006; Ward 2008). In summary, dependency on the rodent model as a golden standard of cancer risk assessment is neglecting the high number of false positives and clearly has serious limitations. Consequently, there is a growing appeal for a paradigm change after "50 years of rats and mice". For instance, the current demands for volume of carcinogenic testing together with limitations of animal usage as initially stipulated by REACH (Combes et al. 2006) will require revolutionary change in the testing paradigm. For the purpose of developing a road map for this needed paradigm change in carcinogenicity testing, a workshop was held in August 2009 in Venice, Italy entitled ¿Genomics in Cancer Risk Assessment.¿ This workshop brought together toxicologists from academia and industry with governmental regulators and risk assessors from the US and the EU, for discussing the state-of-the-art in developing alternative testing strategies for genotoxicity and carcinogenicity, thereby focusing on the contribution from the ¿omics technologies. What follows is a highlight of the major conclusions and suggestions from this workshop as a path forward.JRC.DG.I.3-In-vitro method

    Use of a cancer registry is preferable to a direct-to-community approach for recruitment to a cohort study of wellbeing in women newly diagnosed with invasive breast cancer

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Breast cancer (BC) mortality is declining such that the number of survivors of BC in the community is increasing. BC survivors report a range of sequelae from their cancer and its management beyond the period of their immediate treatment. Previous studies to document these have generally been small, clinic-based or commenced years after diagnosis. We have recruited a large cohort of women newly diagnosed with invasive BC from the community who will be followed for five years in order to systematically document the physical, psychological and socio-economic consequences of BC and its treatment. The aim of this manuscript is to describe the issues encountered in the recruitment of this community-based study population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Women residing in the southern Australian state of Victoria newly diagnosed with invasive BC were recruited to this cohort study using two approaches: directly from the community using an advertising campaign and contemporaneously using an invitation to participate from the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Over the two and half year recruitment period, 2135 women were recruited and agreed to receive the enrollment questionnaire (EQ). Of these, 1684 women were eligible and completed an EQ, with the majority of participants having been recruited through the VCR (n = 1321). Only 16% of women contacted by the VCR actively refused participation following a letter of invitation and phone follow-up. The age distribution and tumour characteristics of participants are consistent with state-wide data and their residential postcodes include 400 of a possible 699. Recruitment through a direct community awareness program aimed at women with newly diagnosed invasive BC was difficult, labour-intensive and expensive. Barriers to the recruitment process were identified.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Most of the women in this study were recruited through a state-based cancer registry. Limitations to recruitment occurred because we required questionnaires to be completed within 12 months of diagnosis in a setting where there is several months delay in notification of new cases to the Registry. Characteristics of the cohort suggest that it is generally representative of women in the state of Victoria newly diagnosed with BC.</p

    Imputing missing covariate values for the Cox model

    Get PDF
    Multiple imputation is commonly used to impute missing data, and is typically more efficient than complete cases analysis in regression analysis when covariates have missing values. Imputation may be performed using a regression model for the incomplete covariates on other covariates and, importantly, on the outcome. With a survival outcome, it is a common practice to use the event indicator D and the log of the observed event or censoring time T in the imputation model, but the rationale is not clear
    corecore