166 research outputs found
Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy
This paper reports on the reasons why patients agreed to or declined entry into randomized trials of cancer following discussions conducted by clinicians in both District General and University Hospitals. Two hundred and four patients completed a 16-item questionnaire following the consultation, of these 112 (55%) were women with breast cancer. Overall results showed that 147 (72.1%) patients accepted entry to a randomized clinical trial (RCT). The main reasons nominated for participating in a trial were that βothers will benefitβ (23.1%) and βtrust in the doctorβ (21.1%). One of the main reasons for declining trial entry was that patients were βworried about randomizationβ (19.6%). There was a significantly higher acceptance rate for trials providing active treatment in every arm 98 (80.6%) compared with those trials with a no treatment arm 46 (60.5%), Ο2test P = 0.003. The study outlines a number of factors that appear to influence a patientβs decision to accept or decline entry into an RCT of cancer therapy. An important factor is whether or not the trial offers active treatment in all arms of the study. Communication that promotes trust and confidence in the doctor is also a powerful motivating influence. Β© 2000 Cancer Research Campaig
Psychological Factors in chronic edema: a caseβcontrol study
Objective: To examine psychological health and perceived social support in patients with chronic oedema (CO).
Methods: A random sample of patients who had been previously identified within a chronic oedema (CO) service in an urban area of south west London were group matched for age and gender with community controls in a case control study.
Results: One hundred and seven cases and 102 controls (women 82%) were identified. CO was caused by cancer or its treatment in 51 (48%) of cases and affected the leg in 65 (61%); the arm 41(38%) and the limb and midline in 15 (14%). Length of time with CO was long with 50 (47%) suffering for > 10 years. Cases were more likely to be single or divorced/separated (p=0.041) and have reduced mobility (p <0.001).
SF36 scores showed cases had significantly poorer overall HRQOL in particular: physical functioning (p=0.003); role physical (p <0.001) general health (p=0.026); vitality (p=0.015); social function (p=0.007) and role emotional (p=0.041). EQ5D health index scores were significantly reduced in cases by 13 points (P= <0.001, 95% CI 5.8, 21.6) compared with controls with a similar pattern for the VAS scale (p< 0.00 95% CI 7.6, 17.1).
The MOS scale showed cases had similar size social networks to the control group (5.8/6.6 p=0.49) but had lower total perceived social support scores (67.8/76.1 p=0.018). Cases had reduced support in all 5 domains with tangible and affectionate support significantly reduced for cases compared to controls.
Cases used significantly fewer coping strategies (COPE scale) than controls with regard to: active coping (p=0.024); planning (p<0.001) and use of instrumental support (p=0.006). Significantly higher levels of coping were used by cases for the following domains: restraint (p=0.031), positive reinterpretation and growth (p<0.001); acceptance (<0.001); denial (p<0.001); mental disengagement (p<0.001); 3 behavioural disengagement (<0.001): substance abuse (p=0.010) and humour (p<0.001).
Conclusions: Patients with CO have poorer health and greater impact on many aspects of HRQOL. While the size of social networks they report appear preserved, the levels of perceived social support are reduced. The pattern of use of coping strategies was complex with evidence of reduced problem solving combined with enhanced emotion focused coping such as acceptance and reinterpretation indicating illness adjustment. Deficits in the ability to function socially combined with perceived reduction in support and reduced mental health and emotional scores within the SF36 scale indicate the risk of developing psychological issues such as depression. Systems of care should offer an environment to address these issues
Long-Term Follow-Up of the Intergroup Exemestane Study
Purpose: The Intergroup Exemestane Study, an investigator-led study of 4,724 postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer (clinical trial information: ISRCTN11883920), has previously demonstrated that a switch from adjuvant endocrine therapy after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen to exemestane was associated with clinically relevant improvements in efficacy. Here, we report the final efficacy analyses of this cohort. Patients and Methods: Patients who remained disease free after 2 to 3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen were randomly assigned to continue tamoxifen or switch to exemestane to complete a total of 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. Given the large number of nonβbreast cancerβrelated deaths now reported, breast cancerβfree survival (BCFS), with censorship of intercurrent deaths, was the primary survival end point of interest. Analyses focus on patients with estrogen receptor-positive or unknown tumors (n = 4,599). Results: At the time of the data snapshot, median follow-up was 120 months. In the population that was estrogen receptor positive or had unknown estrogen receptor status, 1,111 BCFS events were observed with 508 (22.1%) of 2,294 patients in the exemestane group and 603 (26.2%) of 2,305 patients in the tamoxifen group. The data corresponded to an absolute difference (between exemestane and tamoxifen) at 10 years of 4.0% (95% CI, 1.2% to 6.7%), and the hazard ratio (HR) of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.92) favored exemestane. This difference remained in multivariable analysis that was adjusted for nodal status, prior use of hormone replacement therapy, and prior chemotherapy (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.90; P < .001). A modest improvement in overall survival was seen with exemestane; the absolute difference (between exemestane and tamoxifen) at 10 years in the population that was estrogen receptor positive or had unknown estrogen receptor status was 2.1% (95% CI, β0.5% to 4.6%), and the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.01; P = .08). For the intention-to-treat population, the absolute difference was 1.6% (95% CI, β0.9% to 4.1%); the HR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.03, P = .15). No statistically significant difference was observed in the proportion of patients who reported a fracture event in the post-treatment period. Conclusion: The Intergroup Exemestane Study and contemporaneous studies have established that a strategy of switching to an aromatase inhibitor after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen can lead to sustained benefits in terms of reduction of disease recurrence and breast cancer mortality
The development of a structured rating schedule (the BAS) to assess skills in breaking bad news
Evaluation of the current knowledge limitations in breast cancer research: a gap analysis
BACKGROUND
A gap analysis was conducted to determine which areas of breast cancer research, if targeted by researchers and funding bodies, could produce the greatest impact on patients.
METHODS
Fifty-six Breast Cancer Campaign grant holders and prominent UK breast cancer researchers participated in a gap analysis of current breast cancer research. Before, during and following the meeting, groups in seven key research areas participated in cycles of presentation, literature review and discussion. Summary papers were prepared by each group and collated into this position paper highlighting the research gaps, with recommendations for action.
RESULTS
Gaps were identified in all seven themes. General barriers to progress were lack of financial and practical resources, and poor collaboration between disciplines. Critical gaps in each theme included: (1) genetics (knowledge of genetic changes, their effects and interactions); (2) initiation of breast cancer (how developmental signalling pathways cause ductal elongation and branching at the cellular level and influence stem cell dynamics, and how their disruption initiates tumour formation); (3) progression of breast cancer (deciphering the intracellular and extracellular regulators of early progression, tumour growth, angiogenesis and metastasis); (4) therapies and targets (understanding who develops advanced disease); (5) disease markers (incorporating intelligent trial design into all studies to ensure new treatments are tested in patient groups stratified using biomarkers); (6) prevention (strategies to prevent oestrogen-receptor negative tumours and the long-term effects of chemoprevention for oestrogen-receptor positive tumours); (7) psychosocial aspects of cancer (the use of appropriate psychosocial interventions, and the personal impact of all stages of the disease among patients from a range of ethnic and demographic backgrounds).
CONCLUSION
Through recommendations to address these gaps with future research, the long-term benefits to patients will include: better estimation of risk in families with breast cancer and strategies to reduce risk; better prediction of drug response and patient prognosis; improved tailoring of treatments to patient subgroups and development of new therapeutic approaches; earlier initiation of treatment; more effective use of resources for screening populations; and an enhanced experience for people with or at risk of breast cancer and their families. The challenge to funding bodies and researchers in all disciplines is to focus on these gaps and to drive advances in knowledge into improvements in patient care
RAZOR: A Phase II Open Randomized Trial of Screening Plus Goserelin and Raloxifene Versus Screening Alone in Premenopausal Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.
Background: Ovarian suppression in premenopausal women is known to reduce breast cancer risk. This study aimed to assess uptake and compliance with ovarian suppression using the luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue, goserelin, with add-back raloxifene, as a potential regimen for breast cancer prevention.Methods: Women at β₯30% lifetime risk breast cancer were approached and randomized to mammographic screening alone (C-Control) or screening in addition to monthly subcutaneous injections of 3.6 mg goserelin and continuous 60 mg raloxifene daily orally (T-Treated) for 2 years. The primary endpoint was therapy adherence. Secondary endpoints were toxicity/quality of life, change in bone density, and mammographic density.Results: A total of 75/950 (7.9%) women approached agreed to randomization. In the T-arm, 20 of 38 (52%) of women completed the 2-year period of study compared with the C-arm (27/37, 73.0%). Dropouts were related to toxicity but also the wish to have established risk-reducing procedures and proven chemoprevention. As relatively few women completed the study, data are limited, but those in the T-arm reported significant increases in toxicity and sexual problems, no change in anxiety, and less cancer worry. Lumbar spine bone density declined by 7.0% and visually assessed mammographic density by 4.7% over the 2-year treatment period.Conclusions: Uptake is somewhat lower than comparable studies with tamoxifen for prevention with higher dropout rates. Raloxifene may preserve bone density, but reduction in mammographic density reversed after treatment was completed.Impact: This study indicates that breast cancer risk reduction may be possible using LHRH agonists, but reducing toxicity and preventing bone changes would make this a more attractive option. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(1); 58-66. Β©2017 AACR.Funding for the study was provided by Eli Lilly and drug supplies by Lilly and Astrazeneca
Economic evaluation of fulvestrant as an extra step in the treatment sequence for ER-positive advanced breast cancer
Drug therapies for advanced breast cancer in hormone-receptor-positive disease include both hormonal and chemotherapies. Current UK practice is to minimise toxicity by using sequential hormonal agents for as long as clinically appropriate. A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost effectiveness of different sequences of therapies, particularly exploring the effects of adding an additional hormonal agent, fulvestrant, to the treatment pathway. A systematic review was undertaken and a panel of seven UK oncologists validated assumptions used for treatment efficacy, treatment pathways and resources used. Fulvestrant was found to be a cost-effective treatment option when added to the treatment sequence as a second- or third-line hormonal therapy for advanced disease. For a cohort of 1000 patients, fulvestrant as a second-line hormone therapy provided an additional 47 life years and 41 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at an additional cost of Β£301β359. This equated to Β£6500 per life years gained and Β£7500 per QALY. When used as a third-line option, the fulvestrant arm was dominant providing an increase in health benefit of 27 QALYs for the whole cohort, at a mean overall cost reduction of Β£430 per patient. Sensitivity analyses showed these results to be robust, demonstrating that fulvestrant is an economically viable additional endocrine option in the United Kingdom for the treatment of hormone responsive advanced breast cancer
Disclosure of cancer diagnosis and quality of life in cancer patients: should it be the same everywhere?
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence suggests that truth telling and honest disclosure of cancer diagnosis could lead to improved outcomes in cancer patients. To examine such findings in Iran, this trial aimed to study the various dimensions of quality of life in patients with gastrointestinal cancer and to compare these variables among those who knew their diagnosis and those who did not.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A consecutive sample of patients with gastrointestinal cancer being treated in Cancer Institute in Tehran, Iran was prospectively evaluated. A psychologist interviewed patients using the Iranian version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Patients were categorized into two groups: those who knew their diagnosis and those who did not. Independent sample t-test was used for group comparisons.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In all 142 patients were interviewed. A significant proportion (52%) of patients did not know their cancer diagnosis and 48% of patients were aware that they had cancer. They were quite similar in most characteristics. The comparison of quality of life between two groups indicated that those knew their diagnosis showed a significant lower degree of physical (P = 0.001), emotional (P = 0.01) and social functioning (P < 0.001), whereas the global quality of life and other functional scales including role functioning and cognitive functioning did not show significant result. There were no statistically significant differences between symptoms scores between two groups, except for fatigue suggesting a higher score in patients who knew their diagnosis (P = 0.01). The financial difficulties were also significantly higher in patients who knew their cancer diagnosis (P = 0.005). Performing analysis of variance while controlling for age, educational status, cancer site, and knowledge of cancer diagnosis, the results showed that the knowledge of cancer diagnosis independently still contributed to the significant differences observed between two groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Contrary to expectation the findings indicated that patients who did not know their cancer diagnosis had a better physical, social and emotional quality of life. It seems that due to cultural differences between countries cancer disclosure guidelines perhaps should be differing.</p
Tissue Microenvironments Define and Get Reinforced by Macrophage Phenotypes in Homeostasis or during Inflammation, Repair and Fibrosis
Current macrophage phenotype classifications are based on distinct in vitro culture conditions that do not adequately mirror complex tissue environments. In vivo monocyte progenitors populate all tissues for immune surveillance which supports the maintenance of homeostasis as well as regaining homeostasis after injury. Here we propose to classify macrophage phenotypes according to prototypical tissue environments, e.g. as they occur during homeostasis as well as during the different phases of (dermal) wound healing. In tissue necrosis and/or infection, damage- and/or pathogen-associated molecular patterns induce proinflammatory macrophages by Toll-like receptors or inflammasomes. Such classically activated macrophages contribute to further tissue inflammation and damage. Apoptotic cells and antiinflammatory cytokines dominate in postinflammatory tissues which induce macrophages to produce more antiinflammatory mediators. Similarly, tumor-associated macrophages also confer immunosuppression in tumor stroma. Insufficient parenchymal healing despite abundant growth factors pushes macrophages to gain a profibrotic phenotype and promote fibrocyte recruitment which both enforce tissue scarring. Ischemic scars are largely devoid of cytokines and growth factors so that fibrolytic macrophages that predominantly secrete proteases digest the excess extracellular matrix. Together, macrophages stabilize their surrounding tissue microenvironments by adapting different phenotypes as feed-forward mechanisms to maintain tissue homeostasis or regain it following injury. Furthermore, macrophage heterogeneity in healthy or injured tissues mirrors spatial and temporal differences in microenvironments during the various stages of tissue injury and repair. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Base
- β¦