Appropriateness of admissions of children with cancer to intensive care facilities in a resource-limited setting

Background: The increasing intensity of treatment of paediatric malignancies has led to improved survival rates, but often necessitates intensive supportive care. The decision to admit a child to the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) is based on the probability of both short-term and long-term survival in the context of severe resource constraints. Resource constraints in South Africa result in limited access of children with cancer to PICU facilities. Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine whether referrals by paediatric oncologists to a PICU in Johannesburg were appropriate by analysing indications for admission, underlying diagnoses, duration and costs of admissions, and overall outcomes. Methods: A retrospective review of consecutive PICU admissions over a 12-year period was performed. Data from all patients with histologically proven malignant conditions were included and analysed using descriptive statistical methods, Kaplan–Meier curves, log-rank analysis and Fisher’s exact test. Results: There were 5704 recorded admissions to PICU in the study period. Of these admissions, 120 (2.1%) were for patients with malignancies. The majority of PICU oncology admissions were for post-operative care, and the median duration of stay was 1 day (interquartile range: 1–3 days). The short-term mortality rate of oncology patients in PICU was 13.3% in comparison with 16.2% in the overall PICU population. The 4-year overall survival rate post PICU discharge was 54%. Conclusion: The documented short-term mortality rate indicates that referrals by paediatric oncologists are consistent with current PICU admission policies. Oncologists should assess the prognosis for survival before requesting admission to PICU, and, resources permitting, these patients should be accepted to PICU

A nested cohort study of 6,248 early breast cancer patients treated in neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy trials investigating the prognostic value of chemotherapy-related toxicities.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between chemotherapy-related toxicities and prognosis is unclear. Previous studies have examined the association of myelosuppression parameters or neuropathy with survival and reported conflicting results. This study aims to investigate 13 common chemotherapy toxicities and their association with relapse-free survival and breast cancer-specific survival. METHODS: Chemotherapy-related toxicities were collected prospectively for 6,248 women with early-stage breast cancer from four randomised controlled trials (NEAT; BR9601; tAnGo; Neo-tAnGo). Cox proportional-hazards modelling was used to analyse the association between chemotherapy-related toxicities and both breast cancer-specific survival and relapse-free survival. Models included important prognostic factors and stratified by variables violating the proportional hazards assumption. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis identified severe neutropenia (grades ≥3) as an independent predictor of relapse-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.76-0.97; P = 0.02). A similar trend was seen for breast cancer-specific survival (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.01; P = 0.06). Normal/low BMI patients experienced more severe neutropenia (P = 0.008) than patients with higher BMI. Patients with fatigue (grades ≥3) showed a trend towards reduced survival (breast cancer-specific survival: HR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.99-1.37; P = 0.06). In the NEAT/BR9601 sub-group analysis by treatment component, this effect was statistically significant (HR = 1.61; 95% CI, 1.13-2.30; P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: This large study shows a significant association between chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and increased survival. It also identifies a strong relationship between low/normal BMI and increased incidence of severe neutropenia. It provides evidence to support the development of neutropenia-adapted clinical trials to investigate optimal dose calculation and its impact on clinical outcome. This is important in populations where obesity may lead to sub-optimal chemotherapy doses

The Relationship between Common Genetic Markers of Breast Cancer Risk and Chemotherapy-Induced Toxicity: A Case-Control Study.

Ninety-four common genetic variants are confirmed to be associated with breast cancer. This study tested the hypothesis that breast cancer susceptibility variants may also be associated with chemotherapy-induced toxicity through shared mechanistic pathways such as DNA damage response, an association that, to our knowledge, has not been previously investigated. The study included breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy from the Pharmacogenetic SNPs (PGSNPS) study. For each patient, a breast cancer polygenic risk score was created from the 94 breast cancer risk variants, all of which were genotyped or successfully imputed in PGSNPS. Logistic regression was performed to test the association with two clinically important toxicities: taxane- related neuropathy (n = 1279) and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (n = 1676). This study was well powered (≥96%) to detect associations between polygenic risk score and chemotherapy toxicity. Patients with high breast cancer risk scores experienced less neutropenia compared to those with low risk scores (adjusted p-value = 0.06). Exploratory functional pathway analysis was performed and no functional pathways driving this trend were identified. Polygenic risk was not associated with taxane neuropathy (adjusted p-value = 0.48). These results suggest that breast cancer patients with high genetic risk of breast cancer, conferred by common variants, can safely receive standard chemotherapy without increased risk of taxane-related sensory neuropathy or chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and may experience less neutropenia. As neutropenia has previously been associated with improved survival and may reflect drug efficacy, these patients may be less likely to benefit from standard chemotherapy treatment.This work was supported by 1) PGSNPS: project and fellowship grants received by Jean Abraham from Cancer Research UK, C507/A6306 and C10097/A7484, http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/; 2) Neo-tAnGo funding: Cancer Research UK Research Grant (C57/A4180) and an additional unrestricted educational grant from Eli Lilly Limited who also provided free Gemzar®/gemcitabine; Bristol Myers Squibb Ltd provided free Taxol®/paclitaxel from January 2005 to June 2006 [EudraCT No: 2004-002356-34, ISRCTN 78234870, ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00070278]; 3) tAnGo funding: Unrestricted educational grants and free drug from Eli Lilly (GemzarTM) and Bristol Myers Squibb (TaxolTM); and 4) NEAT/BR9601 funding: Project grant from Cancer Research UK (formerly Cancer Research Campaign) 1996-2003: Unrestricted educational grant Pfizer (formerly Pharmacia). HME, JEA, and CC acknowledge funding from the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. JEA acknowledges funding from Addenbrookes Charitable Trust. LD acknowledges funding from Medical Research Council.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from the Public Library of Science via http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.015898

The UK clinical aptitude test and clinical course performance at Nottingham: a prospective cohort study

Background The UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) was introduced in 2006 as an additional tool for the selection of medical students. It tests mental ability in four distinct domains (Verbal Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, Abstract Reasoning, and Decision Analysis), and the results are available to students and admission panels in advance of the selection process. Our first study showed little evidence of any predictive validity for performance in the first two years of the Nottingham undergraduate course. The study objective was to determine whether the UKCAT scores had any predictive value for the later parts of the course, largely delivered via clinical placements. Methods Students entering the course in 2007 and who had taken the UKCAT were asked for permission to use their anonymised data in research. The UKCAT scores were incorporated into a database with routine pre-admission socio-demographics and subsequent course performance data. Correlation analysis was followed by hierarchical multivariate linear regression. Results The original study group comprised 204/254 (80%) of the full entry cohort. With attrition over the five years of the course this fell to 185 (73%) by Year 5. The Verbal Reasoning score and the UKCAT Total score both demonstrated some univariate correlations with clinical knowledge marks, and slightly less with clinical skills. No parts of the UKCAT proved to be an independent predictor of clinical course marks, whereas prior attainment was a highly significant predictor (p <0.001). Conclusions This study of one cohort of Nottingham medical students showed that UKCAT scores at admission did not independently predict subsequent performance on the course. Whilst the test adds another dimension to the selection process, its fairness and validity in selecting promising students remains unproven, and requires wider investigation and debate by other schools

New directions for patient-centred care in scleroderma : the Scleroderma Patient-centred Intervention Network (SPIN)

Systemic sclerosis (SSc), or scleroderma, is a chronic multisystem autoimmune disorder characterised by thickening and fibrosis of the skin and by the involvement of internal organs such as the lungs, kidneys, gastrointestinal tract, and heart. Because there is no cure, feasibly-implemented and easily accessible evidence-based interventions to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are needed. Due to a lack of evidence, however, specific recommendations have not been made regarding non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. behavioural/psychological, educational, physical/occupational therapy) to improve HRQoL in SSc. The Scleroderma Patient-centred Intervention Network (SPIN) was recently organised to address this gap. SPIN is comprised of patient representatives, clinicians, and researchers from Canada, the USA, and Europe. The goal of SPIN, as described in this article, is to develop, test, and disseminate a set of accessible interventions designed to complement standard care in order to improve HRQoL outcomes in SSc.The initial organisational meeting for SPIN was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Meetings, Planning, and Dissemination grant to B.D. Thombs (KPE-109130), Sclerodermie Quebec, and the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research of the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec. SPIN receives finding support from the Sclemderma Society of Ontario, the Scleroderma Society of Canada, and Sclerodermie Quebec. B.D. Thombs and M. Hudson are supported by New Investigator awards from the CIHR, and Etablissement de Jeunes Chercheurs awards from the Fonds de la Recherche en Sante Quebec (FRSQ). M. Baron is the director of the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group, which receives grant folding from the CIHR, the Scleroderma Society of Canada and its provincial chapters, Scleroderma Society of Ontario, Sclerodermie Quebec, and the Ontario Arthritis Society, and educational grants from Actelion Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer. M.D. Mayes and S. Assassi are supported by the NIH/NIAMS Scleroderma Center of Research Translation grant no. P50-AR054144. S.J. Motivala is supported by an NIH career development grant (K23 AG027860) and the UCLA Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology. D. Khanna is supported by a NIH/NIAMS K23 AR053858-04) and NIH/NIAMS U01 AR057936A, the National Institutes of Health through the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research Grant (AR052177), and has served as a consultant or on speakers bureau for Actelion, BMS, Gilead, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics

Comparing Breast Cancer Multiparameter Tests in the OPTIMA Prelim Trial: No Test Is More Equal Than the Others

Background: Previous reports identifying discordance between multiparameter tests at the individual patient level have been largely attributed to methodological shortcomings of multiple in silico studies. Comparisons between tests, when performed using actual diagnostic assays, have been predicted to demonstrate high degrees of concordance. OPTIMA prelim compared predicted risk stratification and subtype classification of different multiparameter tests performed directly on the same population. Methods: Three hundred thirteen women with early breast cancer were randomized to standard (chemotherapy and endocrine therapy) or test-directed (chemotherapy if Oncotype DX recurrence score &gt;25) treatment. Risk stratification was also determined with Prosigna (PAM50), MammaPrint, MammaTyper, NexCourse Breast (IHC4-AQUA), and conventional IHC4 (IHC4). Subtype classification was provided by Blueprint, MammaTyper, and Prosigna. Results: Oncotype DX predicted a higher proportion of tumors as low risk (82.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.8% to 86.4%) than were predicted low/intermediate risk using Prosigna (65.5%, 95% CI = 60.1% to 70.9%), IHC4 (72.0%, 95% CI = 66.5% to 77.5%), MammaPrint (61.4%, 95% CI = 55.9% to 66.9%), or NexCourse Breast (61.6%, 95% CI = 55.8% to 67.4%). Strikingly, the five tests showed only modest agreement when dichotomizing results between high vs low/intermediate risk. Only 119 (39.4%) tumors were classified uniformly as either low/intermediate risk or high risk, and 183 (60.6%) were assigned to different risk categories by different tests, although 94 (31.1%) showed agreement between four of five tests. All three subtype tests assigned 59.5% to 62.4% of tumors to luminal A subtype, but only 121 (40.1%) were classified as luminal A by all three tests and only 58 (19.2%) were uniformly assigned as nonluminal A. Discordant subtyping was observed in 123 (40.7%) tumors. Conclusions: Existing evidence on the comparative prognostic information provided by different tests suggests that current multiparameter tests provide broadly equivalent risk information for the population of women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancers. However, for the individual patient, tests may provide differing risk categorization and subtype information

OPTIMA: A prospective randomized trial to validate the predictive utility and cost-effectiveness of gene expression test-directed chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer

Background: Multi-parameter gene expression assays (MPAs) are widely used to estimate individual patient residual risk in hormone-sensitive HER2-negative node-negative early breast cancer, allowing patients with low risk to safely avoid chemotherapy. Evidence for MPA use in node-positive breast cancer is limited. OPTIMA (Optimal Personalised Treatment of early breast cancer usIng Multi-parameter Analysis) aims to validate MPA’s as predictors of chemotherapy sensitivity in a largely node-positive breast cancer population

The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort : protocol for a cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design to support trials of psychosocial and rehabilitation interventions in a rare disease context

Introduction: Psychosocial and rehabilitation interventions are increasingly used to attenuate disability and improve health-related quality of life (HRQL) in chronic diseases, but are typically not available for patients with rare diseases. Conducting rigorous, adequately powered trials of these interventions for patients with rare diseases is difficult. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) is an international collaboration of patient organisations, clinicians and researchers. The aim of SPIN is to develop a research infrastructure to test accessible, low-cost self-guided online interventions to reduce disability and improve HRQL for people living with the rare disease systemic sclerosis (SSc or scleroderma). Once tested, effective interventions will be made accessible through patient organisations partnering with SPIN. Methods and analysis: SPIN will employ the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design, in which patients consent to participate in a cohort for ongoing data collection. The aim is to recruit 1500– 2000 patients from centres across the world within a period of 5 years (2013–2018). Eligible participants are persons ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of SSc. In addition to baseline medical data, participants will complete patient-reported outcome measures every 3 months. Upon enrolment in the cohort, patients will consent to be contacted in the future to participate in intervention research and to allow their data to be used for comparison purposes for interventions tested with other cohort participants. Once nterventions are developed, patients from the cohort will be randomly selected and offered interventions as part of pragmatic RCTs. Outcomes from patients offered interventions will be compared with outcomes from trial-eligible patients who are not offered the interventions. Ethics and dissemination: The use of the cmRCT design, the development of self-guided online interventions and partnerships with patient organisations will allow SPIN to develop, rigourously test and effectively disseminate psychosocial and rehabilitation interventions for people with SSc.(undefined

BRCA2 polymorphic stop codon K3326X and the risk of breast, prostate, and ovarian cancers

Background: The K3326X variant in BRCA2 (BRCA2*c.9976A&gt;T; p.Lys3326*; rs11571833) has been found to be associated with small increased risks of breast cancer. However, it is not clear to what extent linkage disequilibrium with fully pathogenic mutations might account for this association. There is scant information about the effect of K3326X in other hormone-related cancers. Methods: Using weighted logistic regression, we analyzed data from the large iCOGS study including 76 637 cancer case patients and 83 796 control patients to estimate odds ratios (ORw) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for K3326X variant carriers in relation to breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer risks, with weights defined as probability of not having a pathogenic BRCA2 variant. Using Cox proportional hazards modeling, we also examined the associations of K3326X with breast and ovarian cancer risks among 7183 BRCA1 variant carriers. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The K3326X variant was associated with breast (ORw = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.40, P = 5.9x10- 6) and invasive ovarian cancer (ORw = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.43, P = 3.8x10-3). These associations were stronger for serous ovarian cancer and for estrogen receptor–negative breast cancer (ORw = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.2 to 1.70, P = 3.4x10-5 and ORw = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.76, P = 4.1x10-5, respectively). For BRCA1 mutation carriers, there was a statistically significant inverse association of the K3326X variant with risk of ovarian cancer (HR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.84, P = .013) but no association with breast cancer. No association with prostate cancer was observed. Conclusions: Our study provides evidence that the K3326X variant is associated with risk of developing breast and ovarian cancers independent of other pathogenic variants in BRCA2. Further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanism of action responsible for these associations