Diagnostic criteria for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a Fleischner Society White Paper.

This Review provides an updated approach to the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), based on a systematic search of the medical literature and the expert opinion of members of the Fleischner Society. A checklist is provided for the clinical evaluation of patients with suspected usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP). The role of CT is expanded to permit diagnosis of IPF without surgical lung biopsy in select cases when CT shows a probable UIP pattern. Additional investigations, including surgical lung biopsy, should be considered in patients with either clinical or CT findings that are indeterminate for IPF. A multidisciplinary approach is particularly important when deciding to perform additional diagnostic assessments, integrating biopsy results with clinical and CT features, and establishing a working diagnosis of IPF if lung tissue is not available. A working diagnosis of IPF should be reviewed at regular intervals since the diagnosis might change. Criteria are presented to establish confident and working diagnoses of IPF

The uptake and effect of a mailed multi-modal colon cancer screening intervention: A pilot controlled trial

Abstract Background We sought to determine whether a multi-modal intervention, which included mailing a patient reminder with a colon cancer decision aid to patients and system changes allowing direct access to scheduling screening tests through standing orders, would be an effective and efficient means of promoting colon cancer screening in primary care practice. Methods We conducted a controlled trial comparing the proportion of intervention patients who received colon cancer screening with wait list controls at one practice site. The intervention was a mailed package that included a letter from their primary care physician, a colon cancer screening decision aid, and instructions for obtaining each screening test without an office visit so that patients could access screening tests directly. Major outcomes were screening test completion and cost per additional patient screened. Results In the intervention group, 15% (20/137) were screened versus 4% (4/100) in the control group (difference 11%; (95%; CI 3%;18% p = 0.01). The cost per additional patient screened was estimated to be $94. Conclusion A multi-modal intervention, which included mailing a patient reminder with a colon cancer decision aid to patients and system changes allowing patients direct access to schedule screening tests, increased colon cancer screening test completion in a subset of patients within a single academic practice. Although the uptake of the decision aid was low, the cost was also modest, suggesting that this method could be a viable approach to colon cancer screening

Ten years of marketing approvals of anticancer drugs in Europe: regulatory policy and guidance documents need to find a balance between different pressures

Despite important progress in understanding the molecular factors underlying the development of cancer and the improvement in response rates with new drugs, long-term survival is still disappointing for most common solid tumours. This might be because very little of the modest gain for patients is the result of the new compounds discovered and marketed recently. An assessment of the regulatory agencies' performance may suggest improvements. The present analysis summarizes and evaluates the type of studies and end points used by the EMEA to approve new anticancer drugs, and discusses the application of current regulations. This report is based on the information available on the EMEA web site. We identified current regulatory requirements for anticancer drugs promulgated by the agency and retrieved them in the relevant directory; information about empirical evidence supporting the approval of drugs for solid cancers through the centralised procedure were retrieved from the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR). We surveyed documents for drug applications and later extensions from January 1995, when EMEA was set up, to December 2004. We identified 14 anticancer drugs for 27 different indications (14 new applications and 13 extensions). Overall, 48 clinical studies were used as the basis for approval; randomised comparative (clinical) trial (RCT) and Response Rate were the study design and end points most frequently adopted (respectively, 25 out of 48 and 30 out of 48). In 13 cases, the EPAR explicitly reported differences between arms in terms of survival: the range was 0–3.7 months, and the mean and median differences were 1.5 and 1.2 months. The majority of studies (13 out of 27, 48%) involved the evaluation of complete and/or partial tumour responses, with regard to the end points supporting the 27 indications. Despite the recommendations of the current EMEA guidance documents, new anticancer agents are still often approved on the basis of small single arm trials that do not allow any assessment of an ‘acceptable and extensively documented toxicity profile' and of end points such as response rate, time to progression or progression-free survival which at best can be considered indicators of anticancer activity and are not ‘justified surrogate markers for clinical benefit'. Anticipating an earlier than ideal point along the drug approval path and the use of not fully validated surrogate end points in nonrandomised trials looks like a dangerous shortcut that might jeopardise consumers' health, leading to unsafe and ineffective drugs being marketed and prescribed. The present Note for Guidance for new anticancer agents needs revising. Drugs must be rapidly released for patients who need them but not be at the expense of adequate knowledge about the real benefit of the drugs

Integrating complex genomic datasets and tumour cell sensitivity profiles to address a 'simple' question: which patients should get this drug?

It is becoming increasingly apparent that cancer drug therapies can only reach their full potential through appropriate patient selection. Matching drugs and cancer patients has proven to be a complex challenge, due in large part to the substantial molecular heterogeneity inherent to human cancers. This is not only a major hurdle to the improvement of the use of current treatments but also for the development of novel therapies and the ability to steer them to the relevant clinical indications. In this commentary we discuss recent studies from Kuo et al., published this month in BMC Medicine, in which they used a panel of cancer cell lines as a model for capturing patient heterogeneity at the genomic and proteomic level in order to identify potential biomarkers for predicting the clinical activity of a novel candidate chemotherapeutic across a patient population. The findings highlight the ability of a 'systems approach' to develop a better understanding of the properties of novel candidate therapeutics and to guide clinical testing and application

New targets for therapy in breast cancer: Small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Over the past several years many advances have been made in our understanding of critical pathways involved in carcinogenesis and tumor growth. These advances have led to the investigation of small molecule inhibitors of the ErbB family of receptor tyrosine kinases across a broad spectrum of malignancies. In this article we summarize the rationale for targeting members of the ErbB family in breast cancer, and review the preclinical and clinical data for the agents that are furthest in development. In addition, we highlight directions for future research, such as exploration of the potential crosstalk between the ErbB and hormone receptor signal transduction pathways, identification of predictive markers for tumor sensitivity, and development of rational combination regimens that include the tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Men's values-based factors on prostate cancer risk genetic testing: A telephone survey

BACKGROUND: While a definitive genetic test for Hereditary Prostate Cancer (HPC) is not yet available, future HPC risk testing may become available. Past survey data have shown high interest in HPC testing, but without an in-depth analysis of its underlying rationale to those considering it. METHODS: Telephone computer-assisted interviews of 400 men were conducted in a large metropolitan East-coast city, with subsequent development of psychometric scales and their correlation with intention to receive testing. RESULTS: Approximately 82% of men interviewed expressed that they "probably" or "definitely" would get genetic testing for prostate cancer risk if offered now. Factor analysis revealed four distinct, meaningful factors for intention to receive genetic testing for prostate cancer risk. These factors reflected attitudes toward testing and were labeled "motivation to get testing," "consequences and actions after knowing the test result," "psychological distress," and "beliefs of favorable outcomes if tested" (α = 0.89, 0.73, 0.73, and 0.60, respectively). These factors accounted for 70% of the total variability. The domains of motivation (directly), consequences (inversely), distress (inversely), and positive expectations (directly) all correlated with intention to receive genetic testing (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Men have strong attitudes favoring genetic testing for prostate cancer risk. The factors most associated with testing intention include those noted in past cancer genetics studies, and also highlights the relevance in considering one's motivation and perception of positive outcomes in genetic decision-making