Sequential chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the management of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Experience of 370 consecutive cases

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>To investigate the outcome of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) after induction chemotherapy, with or without concomitant chemotherapy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Between August 2003 and March 2007, 370 patients with locoregionally advanced NPC were treated with IMRT. Presenting stages were stage IIB in 62, stage III in 197, and stage IVA/B in 111 patients. All patients except for 36 patients with cervical lymphadenopathy of 4 cm or less in diameter received 2 cycles of cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Forty-eight patients received cisplatin-based concurrent chemotherapy as well.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>With a median follow-up time of 31 months (range 5 to 61 months), the 3-year local control, regional control, metastasis-free survival (MFS), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 95%, 97%, 86%, 81% and 89%, respectively. Multivariate analyses revealed that both age (≤ 60 vs. >60) and N-classification are significant prognosticators for OS (P = 0.001, hazard ratio [HR] 2.395, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.432-4.003; P = 0.012, hazard ratio [HR] 2.614, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.235-5.533); And N-classification is the only significant predicative factor for MFS (P = 0.002, [HR] 1.99, 95% CI 1.279-3.098). T-classification and concurrent chemotherapy were not significant prognostic factors for local/regional control, MFS, DFS, or OS. Subgroup analysis revealed that concurrent chemotherapy provided no significant benefit to IMRT in locoregionally advanced NPC, but was responsible for higher rates of grade 3 or 4 acute toxicities (50% vs. 29.8%, P < 0.005). No grade 3 or 4 late toxicity including xerostomia was observed. However, two patients treated with IMRT and neoadjuvant but without concurrent and adjuvant chemotherapy died of treatment related complications.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>IMRT following neoadjuvant chemotherapy produced a superb outcome in terms of local control, regional control, MFS, DFS, and OS rates in patients with stage IIB to IVB NPC. Effective treatment strategy is urgently needed for distant control in patients diagnosed with locoregionally advanced NPC.</p

Surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy vs concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stage III/IV nonmetastatic squamous cell head and neck cancer: a randomised comparison

We compared concurrent combination chemotherapy and radiotherapy with surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with stage III/IV nonmetastatic squamous cell head and neck cancer. Patients with non-nasopharyngeal and nonsalivary resectable squamous cell head and neck cancer were randomised to receive either surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (60 Gy over 30 fractions) or concurrent combination chemotherapy and radiotherapy (66 Gy in 33 fractions). Combination chemotherapy comprised two cycles of i.v. cisplatin 20 mg m− 2 day− 1 and i.v. 5-fluorouracil 1000 mg m− 2 day− 1, both to run over 96 h given on days 1 and 28 of the radiotherapy. A total of 119 patients were randomised. At a median follow-up of 6 years, there was no significant difference in the 3-year disease-free survival rate between the surgery and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (50 vs 40% respectively). The overall organ preservation rate or avoidance of surgery to primary site was 45%. Those with laryngeal/hypopharyngeal disease subsite had a higher organ-preservation rate than the rest (68 vs 30%). Combination chemotherapy and concurrent irradiation with salvage surgery was not superior to conventional surgery and postoperative radiotherapy for resectable advanced squamous cell head and neck cancer. However, this form of treatment schedule with a view to organ-preservation can be attempted especially for those with laryngeal/hypopharyngeal and possibly oropharyngeal disease subsites

Racial and ethnic differences in personal cervical cancer screening amongst post-graduate physicians: Results from a cross-sectional survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Racial and ethnic disparities in cervical cancer screening have been attributed to socioeconomic, insurance, and cultural differences. Our objective was to explore racial and ethnic differences in adherence to cervical cancer screening recommendations among female post-graduate physicians.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a cross-sectional survey at one university hospital among a convenience sample of 204 female post-graduate physicians (52% of all potential participants), examining adherence to United States Preventive Services Task Force cervical cancer screening recommendations, perception of adherence to recommendations, and barriers to obtaining care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall, 83% of women were adherent to screening recommendations and 84% accurately perceived adherence or non-adherence. Women who self-identified as Asian were significantly less adherent when compared with women who self-identified as white (69% vs. 87%; Relative Risk [RR] = 0.79, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.64–0.97; P < 0.01). Women who self-identified as East Indian were significantly less likely to accurately perceive adherence or non-adherence when compared to women who self-identified as white (64% vs. 88%; RR = 0.73, 95% CI, 0.49–1.09, P = 0.04). Women who self-identified as Asian were significantly more likely to report any barrier to obtaining care when compared with women who self-identified as white (60% vs. 35%; RR = 1.75, 95% CI, 1.24–2.47; P = 0.001) and there was a non-significant tendency toward women who self-identified as East Indian being more likely to report any barrier to obtaining care when compared with women who self-identified as white (60% vs. 34%; RR = 1.74, 95% CI, 1.06–2.83; P = 0.06).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Among a small group of insured, highly-educated physicians who have access to health care, we found racial and ethnic differences in adherence to cervical cancer screening recommendations, suggesting that culture may play a role in cervical cancer screening.</p

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: A qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer screening rates are low among disadvantaged patients; few studies have explored barriers to screening in community health centers. The purpose of this study was to describe barriers to/facilitators of colorectal cancer screening among diverse patients served by community health centers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We identified twenty-three outpatients who were eligible for colorectal cancer screening and their 10 primary care physicians. Using in-depth semi-structured interviews, we asked patients to describe factors influencing their screening decisions. For each unscreened patient, we asked his or her physician to describe barriers to screening. We conducted patient interviews in English (n = 8), Spanish (n = 2), Portuguese (n = 5), Portuguese Creole (n = 1), and Haitian Creole (n = 7). We audiotaped and transcribed the interviews, and then identified major themes in the interviews.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Four themes emerged: 1) Unscreened patients cited lack of trust in doctors as a barrier to screening whereas few physicians identified this barrier; 2) Unscreened patients identified lack of symptoms as the reason they had not been screened; 3) A doctor's recommendation, or lack thereof, significantly influenced patients' decisions to be screened; 4) Patients, but not their physicians, cited fatalistic views about cancer as a barrier. Conversely, physicians identified competing priorities, such as psychosocial stressors or comorbid medical illness, as barriers to screening. In this culturally diverse group of patients seen at community health centers, similar barriers to screening were reported by patients of different backgrounds, but physicians perceived other factors as more important.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Further study of these barriers is warranted.</p

Conducting High-Value Secondary Dataset Analysis: An Introductory Guide and Resources

Secondary analyses of large datasets provide a mechanism for researchers to address high impact questions that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to study. This paper presents a guide to assist investigators interested in conducting secondary data analysis, including advice on the process of successful secondary data analysis as well as a brief summary of high-value datasets and online resources for researchers, including the SGIM dataset compendium (www.sgim.org/go/datasets). The same basic research principles that apply to primary data analysis apply to secondary data analysis, including the development of a clear and clinically relevant research question, study sample, appropriate measures, and a thoughtful analytic approach. A real-world case description illustrates key steps: (1) define your research topic and question; (2) select a dataset; (3) get to know your dataset; and (4) structure your analysis and presentation of findings in a way that is clinically meaningful. Secondary dataset analysis is a well-established methodology. Secondary analysis is particularly valuable for junior investigators, who have limited time and resources to demonstrate expertise and productivity

Early Initiation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Individuals with Affected First-degree Relatives

BACKGROUND: Several guidelines recommend initiating colorectal cancer screening at age 40 for individuals with affected first-degree relatives, yet little evidence exists describing how often these individuals receive screening procedures. OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of individuals in whom early initiation of colorectal cancer screening might be indicated and whether screening disparities exist. DESIGN: Population-based Supplemental Cancer Control Module to the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents, 5,564, aged 40 to 49 years were included within the analysis. MEASUREMENTS: Patient self-report of sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or fecal occult blood test. RESULTS: Overall, 279 respondents (5.4%: 95% C.I., 4.7, 6.2) reported having a first-degree relative affected with colorectal cancer. For individuals with a positive family history, 67 whites (27.9%: 95% C.I., 21.1, 34.5) and 3 African American (9.3%: 95% C.I., 1.7, 37.9) had undergone an endoscopic procedure within the previous 10 years (P-value = .03). After adjusting for age, family history, gender, educational level, insurance status, and usual source of care, whites were more likely to be current with early initiation endoscopic screening recommendations than African Americans (OR = 1.38: 95% C.I., 1.01, 1.87). Having an affected first-degree relative with colorectal cancer appeared to have a stronger impact on endoscopic screening for whites (OR = 3.21: 95% C.I., 2.31, 4.46) than for African Americans (OR = 1.05: 95% C.I., 0.15, 7.21). CONCLUSIONS: White participants with a family history are more likely to have endoscopic procedures beginning before age 50 than African Americans