Does the revised cardiac risk index predict cardiac complications following elective lung resection?

Background: Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) score and Thoracic Revised Cardiac Risk Index (ThRCRI) score were developed to predict the risks of postoperative major cardiac complications in generic surgical population and thoracic surgery respectively. This study aims to determine the accuracy of these scores in predicting the risk of developing cardiac complications including atrial arrhythmias after lung resection surgery in adults. Methods: We studied 703 patients undergoing lung resection surgery in a tertiary thoracic surgery centre. Observed outcome measures of postoperative cardiac morbidity and mortality were compared against those predicted by risk. Results: Postoperative major cardiac complications and supraventricular arrhythmias occurred in 4.8% of patients. Both index scores had poor discriminative ability for predicting postoperative cardiac complications with an area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.59 (95% CI 0.51-0.67) for the RCRI score and 0.57 (95% CI 0.49-0.66) for the ThRCRI score. Conclusions: In our cohort, RCRI and ThRCRI scores failed to accurately predict the risk of cardiac complications in patients undergoing elective resection of lung cancer. The British Thoracic Society (BTS) recommendation to seek a cardiology referral for all asymptomatic pre-operative lung resection patients with > 3 RCRI risk factors is thus unlikely to be of clinical benefit

A bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons of systemic regimens for advanced pancreatic cancer

© 2014 Chan et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Background: For advanced pancreatic cancer, many regimens have been compared with gemcitabine (G) as the standard arm in randomized controlled trials. Few regimens have been directly compared with each other in randomized controlled trials and the relative efficacy and safety among them remains unclear

Meta-analysis of randomised adjuvant therapy trials for pancreatic cancer

The aim of this study was to investigate the worldwide evidence of the roles of adjuvant chemoradiation and adjuvant chemotherapy on survival in potentially curative resected pancreatic cancer. Five randomised controlled trials of adjuvant treatment in patients with histologically proven pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were identified, of which the four most recent trials provided individual patient data (875 patients). This meta-analysis includes previously unpublished follow-up data on 261 patients. The pooled estimate of the hazard ratio (HR) indicated a 25% significant reduction in the risk of death with chemotherapy (HR=0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64, 0.90, P-valuesstratified (Pstrat)=0.001) with median survival estimated at 19.0 (95% CI: 16.4, 21.1) months with chemotherapy and 13.5 (95% CI: 12.2, 15.8) without. The 2- and 5-year survival rates were estimated at 38 and 19%, respectively, with chemotherapy and 28 and 12% without. The pooled estimate of the HR indicated no significant difference in the risk of death with chemoradiation (HR=1.09, 95% CI: 0.89, 1.32, Pstrat=0.43) with median survivals estimated at 15.8 (95% CI: 13.9, 18.1) months with chemoradiation and 15.2 (95% CI: 13.1, 18.2) without. The 2- and 5-year survival rates were estimated at 30 and 12%, respectively, with chemoradiation and 34 and 17% without. Subgroup analyses estimated that chemoradiation was more effective and chemotherapy less effective in patients with positive resection margins. These results show that chemotherapy is effective adjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer but not chemoradiation. Further studies with chemoradiation are warranted in patients with positive resection margins, as chemotherapy appeared relatively ineffective in this patient subgroup

Targeted encouragement of GP consultations for possible cancer symptoms: a randomised controlled trial

This is the final version. Available on open access from the Royal College of General Practitioners via the DOI in this recordBackground For some common cancers, survival is lower in the UK than in comparable high-income countries. Aim To assess the effectiveness of a targeted postal intervention (to promote awareness of cancer symptoms and earlier help seeking) on patient consultation rates. Design and setting A two-arm randomised controlled trial was carried out on patients aged 50-84 years registered at 23 general practices in rural and urban areas of Greater London, Greater Manchester, and the North East of England. Method Patients who had not had a consultation at their general practice in the previous 12 months and had at least two other risk factors for late presentation with cancer were randomised to intervention and control arms. The intervention consisted of a posted letter and leaflet. Primary outcome was the number of consultations at the practice with patients randomised to each arm in the 6 months subsequent to posting the intervention. All patients with outcome data were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. Results In total, 1513 patients were individually randomised to the intervention (n = 783) and control (n = 730) arms between Nov 2016 — May 2017; outcome data were available for 749 and 705 patients, respectively, with a statistically significantly higher rate of consultation in the intervention arm compared with the control arm: 436 versus 335 consultations (relative risk 1.40, 95% confidence interval = 1.11 to 1.77, P = 0.004). There was, however, no difference in the numbers of patients consulting. Conclusion Targeted interventions of this nature can change behaviour; there is a need to develop interventions that can be more effective at engaging patients with primary care. This study demonstrates that targeted interventions promoting both awareness of possible cancer symptoms and earlier health seeking, can change behaviour. There is a need to develop and test interventions that can be more effective at engaging the most at-risk patients.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

First-line treatment for advanced ovarian cancer: paclitaxel, platinum and the evidence

Four large randomised trials of paclitaxel in combination with platinum against a platinum-based control treatment have now been published in full, representing around 88% (3588 out of 4057) of patients randomised into the eight known trials of this question. There is substantial heterogeneity in the results of these four trials. Four main explanations for this heterogeneity have been proposed: differences in the extent and timing of ‘crossover’ to taxanes in the control groups; differences in the types of patient included; differences in the effectiveness of the research regimens used; differences in the effectiveness of the control regimens used. In this study we examine whether any of these explanations is consistent with the pattern of results seen in these trials. Each explanation suggests that a particular characteristic of each trial was responsible for the results observed. For each explanation the trials were split into groups according to that characteristic, in order to partition the total heterogeneity into that seen ‘within’ and ‘between’ groups of trials. If a particular explanation was consistent with the pattern of results, we would expect to see relatively little heterogeneity within each group of trial results viewed in this way, with most of the heterogeneity being between groups which are dissimilar with respect to the key characteristic. Heterogeneity ‘within’ and ‘between’ groups was formally compared using the F-ratio. If any explanation appeared to be consistent with the results of the trials, it was considered whether the explanation was also consistent with other evidence available about these regimens. Only one explanation appeared to be consistent with the pattern of results seen in these trials, and that was differences in effectiveness of the control arms used in these trials. This suggests that the very positive results in favour of paclitaxel/cisplatin seen in two of the trials may have been due to the use of a suboptimal control arm. There is no direct evidence about the relative effectiveness of the control arms used in these trials, but indirect evidence is consistent with the conclusion that the cyclophosphamide/cisplatin regimen used in two of the trials may be less effective than the control regimens used in the other trials. Specific concerns about the choice of a cyclophosphamide/cisplatin control arm in the first of these trials to report were raised before the results of the other trials were known, i.e. before any heterogeneity had been observed. Further investigation of this question would be useful. In the meantime, given all of the randomised evidence on the efficacy and toxicity associated with the regimens used in these trials, we conclude that single agent carboplatin is a safe and effective first-line treatment for women with advanced ovarian cancer

Surgery, with or without tamoxifen, vs tamoxifen alone for older women with operable breast cancer: Cochrane review

The published literature comparing surgery, with or without adjuvant endocrine therapy, with endocrine therapy alone in older women with operable breast cancer was systematically reviewed.The design used is Cochrane review. Randomised controlled trials retrieved from the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register on 29 June 2005. Eligible studies recruited women aged 70 years or over with operable breast cancer, fit for surgery under general anaesthia. The studies compared surgery (either mastectomy or wide local excision, with or without endocrine therapy) to endocrine therapy alone. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Double data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken. Seven eligible trials were identified of which six had published time-to-event data. The quality of the allocation concealment was adequate in three studies and unclear in the remainder. In each case the endocrine therapy used was tamoxifen. When surgery alone was compared to endocrine therapy alone, there was no significant difference in OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74–1.30, P=0.9), but a significant difference in PFS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39–0.77, P=0.0006). When surgery with adjuvant endocrine therapy was compared to endocrine therapy alone, there was no significant difference in OS (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73–1.00, P=0.06), but a significant difference in PFS (HR 0.65 (95% CI 0.53–0.81, P=0.0001) for surgery plus endocrine therapy vs primary endocrine. The regimens have different side effect profiles with one study suggesting increased psychosocial morbidity at 3 months in the surgical arm, which resolves by 2 years. Primary endocrine therapy with tamoxifen is associated with inferior local disease control but non-inferior survival to surgery for breast cancer in older women. Trials are needed to evaluate appropriate selection criteria for its use in terms of patient co-morbidity and quality of life. Trials are needed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of aromatase inhibitors as primary therapy for this population

Pemetrexed plus Platinum as the First-Line Treatment Option for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

To compare the efficacy and toxicities of pemetrexed plus platinum with other platinum regimens in patients with previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: A meta-analysis was performed using trials identified through PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Two investigators independently assessed the quality of the trials and extracted data. The outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and different types of toxicity. Hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using RevMan software. Results: Four trials involving 2,518 patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC met the inclusion criteria. Pemetrexed plus platinum chemotherapy (PPC) improved survival compared with other platinum-based regimens (PBR) in patients with advanced NSCLC (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.83–1.00, p = 0.04), especially in those with non-squamous histology (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.77–0.98, p = 0.02). No statistically significant improvement in either PFS or RR was found in PPC group as compared with PBR group (HR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.94–1.13, p = 0.57; OR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95–1.39, p = 0.15, respectively). Compared with PBR, PPC led to less grade 3–4 neutropenia and leukopenia but more grade 3–4 nausea. However, hematological toxicity analysis revealed significant heterogeneities. Conclusion: Our results suggest that PPC in the first-line setting leads to a significant survival advantage with acceptable toxicities for advanced NSCLC patients, especially those with non-squamous histology, as compared with other PRB. PPC could be considered as the first-line treatment option for advanced NSCLC patients, especially those with non-squamous histology

Vitamin D supplementation and breast cancer prevention : a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

In recent years, the scientific evidence linking vitamin D status or supplementation to breast cancer has grown notably. To investigate the role of vitamin D supplementation on breast cancer incidence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing vitamin D with placebo or no treatment. We used OVID to search MEDLINE (R), EMBASE and CENTRAL until April 2012. We screened the reference lists of included studies and used the “Related Article” feature in PubMed to identify additional articles. No language restrictions were applied. Two reviewers independently extracted data on methodological quality, participants, intervention, comparison and outcomes. Risk Ratios and 95% Confident Intervals for breast cancer were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. In sensitivity analysis, we assessed the impact of vitamin D dosage and mode of administration on treatment effects. Only two randomized controlled trials fulfilled the pre-set inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis included 5372 postmenopausal women. Overall, Risk Ratios and 95% Confident Intervals were 1.11 and 0.74–1.68. We found no evidence of heterogeneity. Neither vitamin D dosage nor mode of administration significantly affected breast cancer risk. However, treatment efficacy was somewhat greater when vitamin D was administered at the highest dosage and in combination with calcium (Risk Ratio 0.58, 95% Confident Interval 0.23–1.47 and Risk Ratio 0.93, 95% Confident Interval 0.54–1.60, respectively). In conclusions, vitamin D use seems not to be associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer development in postmenopausal women. However, the available evidence is still limited and inadequate to draw firm conclusions. Study protocol code: FARM8L2B5L

Adjuvant therapy for locally advanced renal cell cancer: A systematic review with meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many adjuvant trials have been undertaken in an attempt to reduce the risk of recurrence among patients who undergo surgical resection for locally advanced renal cancer. However, no clear benefit has been identified to date. This systematic review was conducted to examine the exact role of adjuvant therapy in renal cancer setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Randomized controlled trials were searched comparing adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy, vaccine, immunotherapy, biochemotherapy) versus no active treatment after surgery among renal cell cancer patients. Outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and severe toxicities. Risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was measured by I². Different strategies of adjuvant treatment were evaluated separately.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Ten studies (2,609 patients) were included. Adjuvant therapy provided no benefits in terms of OS (HR 1.07; 95%CI 0.89 to 1.28; P = 0.48 I²= 0%) or DFS (HR 1.03; 95%CI 0.87 to 1.21; P = 0.77 I²= 15%) when compared to no treatment. No subgroup analysis (immunotherapy, vaccines, biochemotherapy and hormone therapy) had relevant results. Toxicity evaluation depicted a significantly higher frequency of serious adverse events in the adjuvant group.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This analysis provided no support for the hypothesis that the agents studied provide any clinical benefit for renal cancer patients although they increase the risk of toxic effects. Randomized trials are underway to test targeted therapies, which might open a new therapeutic frontier. Until these trials yield results, no adjuvant therapy can be recommended for patients who undergo surgical resection for renal cell cancer.</p