Are there biological differences between screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme?

Background: We measured biomarkers of tumour growth and vascularity in interval and screen-detected colorectal cancers (CRCs) in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in order to determine whether rapid tumour growth might contribute to interval CRC (a CRC diagnosed between a negative guaiac stool test and the next scheduled screening episode). Methods: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections from 71 CRCs (screen-detected 43, interval 28) underwent immunohistochemistry for CD31 and Ki-67, in order to measure the microvessel density (MVD) and proliferation index (PI), respectively, as well as microsatellite instability (MSI) testing. Results: Interval CRCs were larger (P=0.02) and were more likely to exhibit venous invasion (P=0.005) than screen-detected tumours. There was no significant difference in MVD or PI between interval and screen-detected CRCs. More interval CRCs displayed MSI-high (14%) compared with screen-detected tumours (5%). A significantly (P=0.005) higher proportion (51%) of screen-detected CRC resection specimens contained at least one polyp compared with interval CRC (18%) resections. Conclusions: We found no evidence of biological differences between interval and screen-detected CRCs, consistent with the low sensitivity of guaiac stool testing as the main driver of interval CRC. The contribution of synchronous adenomas to occult blood loss for screening requires further investigation

Alendronate and atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials

Bone and mineral researc

Social Networks among Elderly Women: Implications for Health Education Practice

The general aim of the present study was to examine and help clarify the properties of the distinctions between social networks and social support, their relationship to health status, and their impli cations for health education practice. More specifically, a secondary data analysis was conducted with 130 white women, community resi dents, between the ages of 60 and 68, which examined the relationship between psychological well-being and social network characteristics. These characteristics are categorized along three broad dimensions: structure—links in the overall network (size and density); interaction— nature of the linkages themselves (frequency, homogeneity, content, reciprocity, intensity, and dispersion); and functions which networks provide (affective support and instrumental support). A combination was made and relative strength investigated of several network char acteristics representative of the quality of interactions (i. e., reciprocal affective support, intensity, and affective support) and those repre senting the quantity of interactions (i.e., size, density, and frequency).Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/67277/2/10.1177_109019818301000304.pd

A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the contribution of mr imaging to the diagnosis of foetal brain abnormalities In Utero.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review was undertaken to define the diagnostic performance of in utero MR (iuMR) imaging when attempting to confirm, exclude or provide additional information compared with the information provided by prenatal ultrasound scans (USS) when there is a suspicion of foetal brain abnormality. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched as well as relevant journals and conference proceedings. Reference lists of applicable studies were also explored. Data extraction was conducted by two reviewers independently to identify relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Inclusion criteria were original research that reported the findings of prenatal USS and iuMR imaging and findings in terms of accuracy as judged by an outcome reference diagnosis for foetal brain abnormalities. RESULTS: 34 studies met the inclusion criteria which allowed diagnostic accuracy to be calculated in 959 cases, all of which had an outcome reference diagnosis determined by postnatal imaging, surgery or autopsy. iuMR imaging gave the correct diagnosis in 91 % which was an increase of 16 % above that achieved by USS alone. CONCLUSION: iuMR imaging makes a significant contribution to the diagnosis of foetal brain abnormalities, increasing the diagnostic accuracy achievable by USS alone. KEY POINTS: • Ultrasound is the primary modality for monitoring foetal brain development during pregnancy • iuMRI used together with ultrasound is more accurate for detecting foetal brain abnormalities • iuMR imaging is most helpful for detecting midline brain abnormalities • The moderate heterogeneity of reviewed studies may compromise findings

Effects of discontinuing oral bisphosphonate treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis on bone turnover markers and bone density

The antiresorptive potency varies between different bisphosphonates. We investigated the effect of stopping oral bisphosphonate treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis (ibandronate, alendronate, risedronate) on BTMs and BMD. After stopping treatment, all three groups showed an increase in BTMs and a decrease in hip BMD; however, none returned to pre-treatment baseline values. INTRODUCTION: Bisphosphonates (BPs) continue to suppress bone turnover markers (BTMs) after treatment has stopped, leading to the suggestion that a pause in treatment could be considered for low-risk patients. Indirect comparisons suggest that after cessation of treatment, the effects on bone may differ between drugs. We investigated the effects of stopping oral BP treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis on BTMs and bone mineral density (BMD). METHODS: We studied postmenopausal osteoporotic women who had previously taken part in a 2-year randomised study of three oral BPs (ibandronate, alendronate, or risedronate). At the end of the study, women with hip BMD T-score > - 2.5 and considered clinically appropriate to discontinue treatment were invited to participate in a further 2-year observational study. Biochemical response was assessed using BTMs, and BMD was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. RESULTS: All BTMs increased after treatment withdrawal but remained below the pre-treatment baseline with less suppression of BTMs for the risedronate group compared to alendronate and ibandronate up to 48 weeks. There was no difference between the BP groups 96 weeks after stopping treatment. The change in BMD during the 96 weeks after stopping treatment was - 1.6% (95% CI - 1.9 to - 1.2, P < 0.001) for the total hip and - 0.6% (95% CI - 1.1 to - 0.2, P = 0.17) at the lumbar spine with no difference between the three BP groups (P = 0.85 and P = 0.48, respectively). CONCLUSION: For all treatment groups, there was an increase in BTMs and a decrease in hip BMD after stopping BPs for 2 years; however, none returned to pre-treatment baseline values

Effect of Duration and Intermittency of Rifampin on Tuberculosis Treatment Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In a systematic review of randomized controlled trials on tuberculosis treatment, Dick Menzies and colleagues find shorter courses of rifampin to be associated with poorer treatment outcomes

Optimal pharmacotherapy pathway in adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: the OPTION-DM RCT

Background: The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared. Objectives: To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. Design: A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis. Setting: Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK. Participants: Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0–10). Interventions: Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using overencapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory – Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0–10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients’ preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A withintrial cost–utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective. Results: A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of –0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval –0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of –0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval –0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval –0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6–16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval –0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; p = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin –0.002 (95% confidence interval –0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline –0.006 (95% confidence interval –0.002 to 0.014) qualityadjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin −£113 (95% confidence interval −£381 to £90), ABSTRACT NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk viii amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval −£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval −£13 to £398)]. Limitations: Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable. Future work: Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief. Conclusions: The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients’ preference in terms of side effects. Trial registration: The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Systematic review of the relationship between family history and lung cancer risk

We performed a systematic review of 28 case–control, 17 cohort and seven twin studies of the relationship between family history and risk of lung cancer and a meta-analysis of risk estimates. Data from both case–control and cohort studies show a significantly increased lung cancer risk associated with having an affected relative. Risk appears to be greater in relatives of cases diagnosed at a young age and in those with multiple affected family members. Increased lung cancer risk was observed in association with an affected spouse and twin studies, while limited, favour shared environmental exposures. The limitations of the currently published epidemiological studies to infer genetic susceptibility are discussed

Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): Explanation and Elaboration

The REMARK “elaboration and explanation” guideline, by Doug Altman and colleagues, provides a detailed reference for authors on important issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker prognostic studies