Using Assessment Design Decision Framework in understanding the impact of rapid transition to remote education on student assessment in health-related colleges: A qualitative study.

Maintaining integrity and validity with online assessment is a significant issue that is well documented. Overt policies encouraging educators to adopt e-Learning and implement digital services coupled with the dramatic change in the education system in response to the challenges posed by COVID-19, has furthered the demand for evidence-based approaches for the planning and delivery of assessments. This study employed the Assessment Design Decision Framework (ADDF), a theoretical model that considers key aspects of assessment design, to retrospectively investigate from a multi-stakeholder perspective the assessments implemented following the rapid transition to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with faculty and students from the Colleges of Pharmacy, Medicine and Health Sciences. After inductive and deductive thematic analysis three major themes were identified. These reflected on the impact of sudden transition on assessment design and assessment plan; changing assessment environment; and faculty-student assessment related interactions which included feedback. The use of a comprehensive validated framework such as ADDF, to plan assessments can improve validity and credibility of assessments. The strengths of this study lie in the innovative adoption of the ADDF to evaluate assessment design decisions from both an educator and student perspective. Further, the data yielded from this study offers novel validation of the use of ADDF in circumstances necessitating rapid transition, and additionally identifies a need for greater emphasis to be attributed to the significance of timeliness of the various activities that are advocated within the framework

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Radium 223 dichloride for prostate cancer treatment

International audienceProstate cancer is the most common malignant disease in men. Several therapeutic agents have been approved during the last 10 years. Among them, radium-223 dichloride (Xofigo®) is a radioactive isotope that induces irreversible DNA double-strand breaks and consequently tumor cell death. Radium-223 dichloride is a calcium-mimetic agent that specifically targets bone lesions. Radium-223 dichloride has been approved for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with symptomatic bone metastases, without known visceral metastases. In this review, first we summarize the interplay between prostate tumor cells and bone microenvironment; then, we discuss radium-223 dichloride mechanism of action and present the results of the available clinical trials and future developments for this new drug

2008 french national guidelines for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: Report from the working group.

International audienceVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major therapeutic issue in cancer patients. Advances in this field and heterogeneities in clinical practices prompted us to establish guidelines in the management of VTE in cancer patients according to the SOR (Standards, Options and Recommendations) methodology. A literature review of the studies published on this topic between 1999 and 2007 was performed. The guidelines were developed from the analysis of 38 out of 418 publications selected. They were peer-reviewed by 65 independent experts. The treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, including those with intracranial malignancies, should be based on low-molecular-weight heparins administered at therapeutic doses for at least 3 months. In the event of recurrent VTE, pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic failure or contra-indication to anticoagulant treatment, the indications and usages of vena cava filters and thrombolytic drugs should be the same as in non-cancer patients

Prognostic Biomarkers Used for Localised Prostate Cancer Management: A Systematic Review

International audienceCONTEXT: Prostate cancer stratification is based on tumour size, pretreatment PSA level, and Gleason score, but it remains imperfect. Current research focuses on the discovery and validation of novel prognostic biomarkers to improve the identification of patients at risk of aggressive cancer or of tumour relapse. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review by the Intergroupe Coopérateur Francophone de Recherche en Onco-urologie (ICFuro) analysed new evidence on the analytical validity and clinical validity and utility of six prognostic biomarkers (PHI, 4Kscore, MiPS, GPS, Prolaris, Decipher). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: All available data for the six biomarkers published between January 2002 and April 2015 were systematically searched and reviewed. The main endpoints were aggressive prostate cancer prediction, additional value compared to classical prognostic parameters, and clinical benefit for patients with localised prostate cancer. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The preanalytical and analytical validations were heterogeneous for all tests and often not adequate for the molecular signatures. Each biomarker was studied for specific indications (candidates for a first or second biopsy, and potential candidates for active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, or adjuvant treatment) for which the level of evidence (LOE) was variable. PHI and 4Kscore were the biomarkers with the highest LOE for discriminating aggressive and indolent tumours in different indications. CONCLUSIONS: Blood biomarkers (PHI and 4Kscore) have the highest LOE for the prediction of more aggressive prostate cancer and could help clinicians to manage patients with localised prostate cancer. The other biomarkers show a potential prognostic value; however, they should be evaluated in additional studies to confirm their clinical validity. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed studies assessing the value of six prognostic biomarkers for prostate cancer. On the basis of the available evidence, some biomarkers could help in discriminating between aggressive and non-aggressive tumours with an additional value compared to the prognostic parameters currently used by clinicians

uPA/PAI-1, Oncotype DX™, Mammaprint®. Valeurs pronostique et prédictive pour une utilité clinique dans la prise en charge du cancer du sein

International audienceCONTEXT AND AIMS:Breast cancer prognosis and predictive biomarkers development would allow sparing some patients from chemotherapy or identifying patients for whom chemotherapy would be indicated. In this context, in 2009, the French National Cancer Institute, a National Health and Science Agency dedicated to cancer, in collaboration with the French society of senology and breast pathology (SFSPM) published a report on the assessment of the prognostic and the predictive clinical validity of tissular biomarkers, uPA/PAI-1, Oncotype DX™ and MammaPrint(®), in breast cancer management. They concluded that only the uPA/PAI-1 prognosis value reached the highest level of evidence (LOE I according to Hayes 1998 classification). In 2012, it was decided to update this report since new data have emerged and because information disparities among clinicians have been identified. This article aims to present the main conclusions together with the levels of evidence associated with those conclusions.METHODS:The updating process was based on literature published since 2009 appraisal and on multidisciplinary and independent experts' opinion. The levels of evidence (LOE) used are those of the classification defined by Simon in 2009 (updated Hayes 1998 classification): LOE IA and LOE IB: high level of evidence; LOE IIB and LOE IIC: intermediate level of evidence; LOE IIIC and LOE IV-VD: low level of evidence.CONCLUSIONS:Among patients without lymph-node involvement, uPA/PAI-1, invasion process biomarkers, reach the highest level of evidence for 10 years recurrence free survival prognosis (LOE IA according to Simon). The predictive value to anthracyclins chemotherapy remains to be confirmed. Oncotype DX™ and MammaPrint(®) prognosis and predictive value do not reach the LOE I level. This updating' process confirms the 2009 levels of evidence for all the three biomarkers prognosis value. Besides, concerning Oncotype DX™ and MammaPrint(®), new data do not allow to conclude neither to their complementary clinical information to other clinicopathological existing biomarkers nor to a favorable cost-efficiency ratio in therapeutic decision making and this because of the methodological weakness and uncertainty that are identified in the selected studies. Practically, beyond the prognosis and predictive biomarkers validity, the clinical utility of a new biomarker for chemotherapy indication depends on its clinical added information with regard to validated biomarkers (HR, HER2 and Ki67) and to clinicopathological parameters. Since they are the sole validated biomarkers of the invasion process, uPA/PAI-1 could complete clinical information of other clinicopathological factors and consequently could confer an added clinical value. However, data concerning the impact of this information on chemotherapy clinical indication are lacking.Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.IntroductionDans le cancer du sein, le développement des marqueurs biologiques pronostiques ou prédictifs a pour objectif de mieux identifier les patientes pour lesquelles un traitement par chimiothérapie pourrait être évité ou a contrario indiqué. Dans ce contexte, en 2009, l’Institut national du cancer (INCa), agence sanitaire et scientifique de l’État chargée de coordonner les actions de lutte contre le cancer, avait publié en partenariat avec la Société française de sénologie et de pathologie mammaire un rapport sur l’état des connaissances relatives aux biomarqueurs uPA/PAI-1, Oncotype DX™ et MammaPrint® dans la prise en charge du cancer du sein. Ce rapport avait montré que seule la valeur pronostique d’uPA/PAI-1 atteignait le plus haut niveau de preuve (LOE I selon la grille de Hayes 1998). En 2012, devant la parution de nouvelles publications et la divergence des messages diffusés sur les signatures moléculaires, il a été décidé d’actualiser le rapport de 2009. Cet article présente les principales conclusions accompagnées de leurs niveaux de preuve.MéthodeLe processus de mise à jour s’est appuyé sur l’analyse des données publiées depuis la recherche bibliographique de 2009, complétée par l’avis d’un groupe de travail multidisciplinaire indépendant. Les niveaux de preuve employés sont ceux de la classification définie par Simon en 2009 (grille de Hayes 1998 après mise à jour) : LOE IA et LOE IB : niveau de preuve élevé ; LOE IIB and LOE IIC : niveau de preuve intermédiaire ; LOE IIIC and LOE IV-VD : niveau de preuve faible.ConclusionsChez les patientes sans envahissement ganglionnaire (pN0), uPA/PAI-1, marqueurs d’invasion, ont un niveau de preuve élevé (LOE IA selon Simon) pour la valeur pronostique de la survie sans récidive à 10 ans. Il reste à confirmer leur valeur prédictive de réponse aux anthracyclines. Pour Oncotype DX™ et MammaPrint®, les valeurs pronostique et prédictive n’ont pas atteint à ce jour le niveau de preuve LOE I. Ce travail confirme les niveaux de preuve précédemment établis dans le rapport de 2009. Par ailleurs, les données ne permettent pas de conclure à une valeur ajoutée de Oncotype DX™ et MammaPrint® par rapport aux outils existants. Les données médico-économiques ne permettent pas de statuer sur le rapport coût/efficacité des stratégies utilisant ces tests dans la décision thérapeutique compte tenu d’un niveau de qualité insuffisant pour la plupart des études et d’une forte incertitude mise en évidence par les quelques études bien menées. En pratique, au-delà des niveaux de preuve attribuables à la valeur pronostique et prédictive d’un biomarqueur, l’utilité clinique d’un nouveau marqueur dans l’aide à la prescription d’une chimiothérapie repose sur sa valeur ajoutée par rapport aux marqueurs validés (RH, HER2 et les marqueurs de prolifération comme Ki67) et aux critères anatomo-cliniques. Puisqu’ils sont les seuls marqueurs validés à témoigner du processus d’invasion, uPA/PAI-1 peuvent apporter une information complémentaire et donc avoir une valeur ajoutée par rapport aux marqueurs existants. Les données de la littérature manquent pour apprécier le poids de cette valeur ajoutée dans la décision de prescrire ou non une chimiothérapie