Prostate cancer - what about oligometastatic disease and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy? - a narrative review

Background and Objective: Oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC) encompasses a heterogenous group of clinical entities defined by the timing of the development of metastases. These include de novo oligometastatic, oligorecurrent and oligoprogressive prostate cancer (PrCa). We describe the evidence supporting the use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) to the oligometastases to improve patient outcomes in each of these settings. Methods: Published clinical trials relevant to ‘OMPC’ and ‘SABR’ where used for this narrative review. Key Content and Findings: The driving force behind this narrative review is the constantly evolving field of OMPC with an increasing number of salvage radiotherapy options changing the current treatment paradigm. We now have evidence to support that disease control can be optimised with SABR as shown in several practice changing trials including ‘ORIOLE’, ‘STOMP’ for PrCa and ‘SABR-COMET’ showing a survival advantage with a tumour agnostic salvage approach. We also describe the challenges with data interpretation and cost implications. Challenges include the small sample size for most reported trials, in combination with a lack of cost-efficiency analysis. Conclusions: SABR is a promising treatment approach for OMPC with a proven clinical benefit in some clinical settings and its use will expand in the future

Parental rating of sleep in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Objective: Sleep problems have often been associated with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Parents of those with ADHD and children with ADHD report sleep difficulties more frequently than healthy children and their parents. The primary objective of this paper is to describe sleep patterns and problems of 5 to 11-year-old children suffering from ADHD as described by parental reports and sleep questionnaires. Method: The study included 321 children aged 5–11 years (average age 8.4 years); 45 were diagnosed with ADHD, 64 had other psychiatric diagnoses, and 212 were healthy. One hundred and ninety-six of the test subjects were boys and 125 were girls. A semi-structured interview (Kiddie-SADS-PL) was used to DSM-IV diagnose ADHD and comorbidity in the clinical group. Sleep difficulties were rated using a structured sleep questionnaire (Children Sleep Behaviour Scale). Results: Children diagnosed with ADHD had a significantly increased occurrence of sleep problems. Difficulties relating to bedtime and unsettled sleep were significantly more frequent in the ADHD group than in the other groups. Children with ADHD showed prolonged sleep onset latency, but no difference was shown regarding numbers of awakenings per night and total sleep time per night. Comorbid oppositional defiant disorder appeared not to have an added effect on problematic behaviour around bedtime. Conclusion: Parents of children with ADHD report that their children do not sleep properly more often than other parents. The ADHD group report problems with bedtime resistance, problems with sleep onset latency, unsettled sleep and nightmares more often than the control groups. It may therefore be relevant for clinicians to initiate a closer examination of those cases reporting sleep difficulties

A comparison of sunlight exposure in men with prostate cancer and basal cell carcinoma

Ultraviolet radiation exposure increases basal cell carcinoma (BCC) risk, but may be protective against prostate cancer. We attempted to identify exposure patterns that confer reduced prostate cancer risk without increasing that of BCC. We used a questionnaire to assess exposure in 528 prostate cancer patients and 442 men with basal cell carcinoma, using 365 benign prostatic hypertrophy patients as controls. Skin type 1 (odds ratio (OR)=0.47, 95% CI=0.26–0.86), childhood sunburning (OR=0.38, 95% CI=0.26–0.57), occasional/frequent sunbathing (OR=0.21, 95% CI=0.14–0.31), lifetime weekday (OR=0.85, 95% CI=0.80–0.91) and weekend exposure (OR=0.79, 95% CI=0.73–0.86) were associated with reduced prostate cancer risk. Skin type 1 (OR=4.00, 95% CI=2.16–7.41), childhood sunburning (OR=1.91, 95% CI=1.36–2.68), regular foreign holidays (OR=6.91, 95% CI=5.00-9.55) and weekend (OR=1.17, 95% CI=1.08–1.27) but not weekday exposure were linked with increased BCC risk. Combinations of one or two parameters were associated with a progressive decrease in the ORs for prostate cancer risk (OR=0.54–0.25) with correspondingly increased BCC risk (OR=1.60–2.54). Our data do not define exposure patterns that reduce prostate cancer risk without increasing BCC risk

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival. METHODS: We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0–2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86–107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61–74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8–86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6–52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53–0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9–81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3–59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55–0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83–1·32]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3–5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial). INTERPRETATION: Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas

The rationale and design of the antihypertensives and vascular, endothelial, and cognitive function (AVEC) trial in elderly hypertensives with early cognitive impairment: Role of the renin angiotensin system inhibition

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prior evidence suggests that the renin angiotensin system and antihypertensives that inhibit this system play a role in cognitive, central vascular, and endothelial function. Our objective is to conduct a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial, the antihypertensives and vascular, endothelial, and cognitive function (AVEC), to compare 1 year treatment of 3 antihypertensives (lisinopril, candesartan, or hydrochlorothiazide) in their effect on memory and executive function, cerebral blood flow, and central endothelial function of seniors with hypertension and early objective evidence of executive or memory impairments.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The overall experimental design of the AVEC trial is a 3-arm double blind randomized controlled clinical trial. A total of 100 community eligible individuals (60 years or older) with hypertension and early cognitive impairment are being recruited from the greater Boston area and randomized to lisinopril, candesartan, or hydrochlorothiazide ("active control") for 12 months. The goal of the intervention is to achieve blood pressure control defined as SBP < 140 mm Hg and DBP < 90 mm Hg. Additional antihypertensives are added to achieve this goal if needed. Eligible participants are those with hypertension, defined as a blood pressure 140/90 mm Hg or greater, early cognitive impairment without dementia defined (10 or less out of 15 on the executive clock draw test or 1 standard deviation below the mean on the immediate memory subtest of the repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status and Mini-Mental-Status-exam >20 and without clinical diagnosis of dementia or Alzheimer's disease). Individuals who are currently receiving antihypertensives are eligible to participate if the participants and the primary care providers are willing to taper their antihypertensives. Participants undergo cognitive assessment, measurements of cerebral blood flow using Transcranial Doppler, and central endothelial function by measuring changes in cerebral blood flow in response to changes in end tidal carbon dioxide at baseline (off antihypertensives), 6, and 12 months. Our outcomes are change in cognitive function score (executive and memory), cerebral blood flow, and carbon dioxide cerebral vasoreactivity.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The AVEC trial is the first study to explore impact of antihypertensives in those who are showing early evidence of cognitive difficulties that did not reach the threshold of dementia. Success of this trial will offer new therapeutic application of antihypertensives that inhibit the renin angiotensin system and new insights in the role of this system in aging.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00605072</p

EEG Biofeedback as a Treatment for Substance Use Disorders: Review, Rating of Efficacy, and Recommendations for Further Research

Electroencephalographic (EEG) biofeedback has been employed in substance use disorder (SUD) over the last three decades. The SUD is a complex series of disorders with frequent comorbidities and EEG abnormalities of several types. EEG biofeedback has been employed in conjunction with other therapies and may be useful in enhancing certain outcomes of therapy. Based on published clinical studies and employing efficacy criteria adapted by the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback and the International Society for Neurofeedback and Research, alpha theta training—either alone for alcoholism or in combination with beta training for stimulant and mixed substance abuse and combined with residential treatment programs, is probably efficacious. Considerations of further research design taking these factors into account are discussed and descriptions of contemporary research are given

Correction to: Serum sodium and intracranial pressure changes after desmopressin therapy in severe traumatic brain injury patients : a multi-centre cohort study

Following publication of the original article [1], we were notified that the collaborators’ names part of the “The TBI Collaborative” group has not been indexed in Pubmed. Below the collaborators names full list

Multiple novel prostate cancer susceptibility signals identified by fine-mapping of known risk loci among Europeans

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous common prostate cancer (PrCa) susceptibility loci. We have fine-mapped 64 GWAS regions known at the conclusion of the iCOGS study using large-scale genotyping and imputation in 25 723 PrCa cases and 26 274 controls of European ancestry. We detected evidence for multiple independent signals at 16 regions, 12 of which contained additional newly identified significant associations. A single signal comprising a spectrum of correlated variation was observed at 39 regions; 35 of which are now described by a novel more significantly associated lead SNP, while the originally reported variant remained as the lead SNP only in 4 regions. We also confirmed two association signals in Europeans that had been previously reported only in East-Asian GWAS. Based on statistical evidence and linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure, we have curated and narrowed down the list of the most likely candidate causal variants for each region. Functional annotation using data from ENCODE filtered for PrCa cell lines and eQTL analysis demonstrated significant enrichment for overlap with bio-features within this set. By incorporating the novel risk variants identified here alongside the refined data for existing association signals, we estimate that these loci now explain ∼38.9% of the familial relative risk of PrCa, an 8.9% improvement over the previously reported GWAS tag SNPs. This suggests that a significant fraction of the heritability of PrCa may have been hidden during the discovery phase of GWAS, in particular due to the presence of multiple independent signals within the same regio

Predictors of the experience of a Cytosponge test: analysis of patient survey data from the BEST3 trial

Availability of data and materials: The trial protocol, statistical analysis plan, and statistical report are available via the University of Cambridge data repository (https://www.data.cam.ac.uk/repository). Datasets will be available from R Fitzgerald ([email protected]) on request.Copyright © The Author(s) 2023. Background: The Cytosponge is a cell-collection device, which, coupled with a test for trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), can be used to diagnose Barrett’s oesophagus, a precursor condition to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST3, a large pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial, investigated whether offering the Cytosponge-TFF3 test would increase detection of Barrett’s. Overall, participants reported mostly positive experiences. This study reports the factors associated with the least positive experience. Methods: Patient experience was assessed using the Inventory to Assess Patient Satisfaction (IAPS), a 22-item questionnaire, completed 7–14 days after the Cytosponge test. Study cohort: All BEST3 participants who answered ≥ 15 items of the IAPS (N = 1458). Statistical analysis: A mean IAPS score between 1 and 5 (5 indicates most negative experience) was calculated for each individual. ‘Least positive’ experience was defined according to the 90th percentile. 167 (11.4%) individuals with a mean IAPS score of ≥ 2.32 were included in the ‘least positive’ category and compared with the rest of the cohort. Eleven patient characteristics and one procedure-specific factor were assessed as potential predictors of the least positive experience. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using backwards selection was conducted to identify factors independently associated with the least positive experience and with failed swallow at first attempt, one of the strongest predictors of least positive experience. Results: The majority of responders had a positive experience, with an overall median IAPS score of 1.7 (IQR 1.5–2.1). High (OR = 3.01, 95% CI 2.03–4.46, p < 0.001) or very high (OR = 4.56, 95% CI 2.71–7.66, p < 0.001) anxiety (relative to low/normal anxiety) and a failed swallow at the first attempt (OR = 3.37, 95% CI 2.14–5.30, p < 0.001) were highly significant predictors of the least positive patient experience in multivariable analyses. Additionally, sex (p = 0.036), height (p = 0.032), alcohol intake (p = 0.011) and education level (p = 0.036) were identified as statistically significant predictors. Conclusion: We have identified factors which predict patient experience. Identifying anxiety ahead of the procedure and discussing particular concerns with patients or giving them tips to help with swallowing the capsule might help improve their experience. Trial registration ISRCTN68382401.The BEST3 trial was funded by Cancer Research UK (C14478/A21047), National Institute for Health Research covering service support costs, the UK National Health Service funding excess treatment costs and Medtronic providing funding for Cytosponge devices and TFF3 antibodies. RCF is funded by a Programme Grant from the Medical Research Council (RG84369) and is CI for the BEST3 trial and the Innovate UK funded DELTA study. JO was supported by PDS’s Cancer Research UK programme Grant (C8162/A16892) and is currently supported by the Barts Charity (EMSG1K1R). RM was supported by PDS’ Cancer Research UK Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials Unit funding (Grant No.: C8162/A25356). SGS is supported by a Yorkshire Cancer Research Fellowship. JW is funded by a Cancer Research UK career development fellowship (C7492/A17219). BG was funded as part of the DELTA study by Innovate UK (Grant No. 41162). FW is supported by the Cancer Research UK CanTest Grant [C8640/A23385]. RL is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the US National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute