European youth care sites serve different populations of adolescents with cannabis use disorder. Baseline and referral data from the INCANT trial

Background: MDFT (Multidimensional Family Therapy) is a family based outpatient treatment programme for adolescent problem behaviour. MDFT has been found effective in the USA in adolescent samples differing in severity and treatment delivery settings. On request of five governments (Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland), MDFT has now been tested in the joint INCANT trial (International Cannabis Need of Treatment) for applicability in Western Europe. In each of the five countries, study participants were recruited from the local population of youth seeking or guided to treatment for, among other things, cannabis use disorder. There is little information in the literature if these populations are comparable between sites/countries or not. Therefore, we examined if the study samples enrolled in the five countries differed in baseline characteristics regarding demographics, clinical profile, and treatment delivery setting.Methods: INCANT was a multicentre phase III(b) randomized controlled trial with an open-label, parallel group design. It compared MDFT with treatment as usual (TAU) at and across sites in Berlin, Brussels, Geneva, The Hague and Paris.Participants of INCANT were adolescents of either sex, from 13 through 18 years of age, with a cannabis use disorder (dependence or abuse), and at least one parent willing to take part in the treatment. In total, 450 cases/families were randomized (concealed) into INCANT.Results: We collected data about adolescent and family demographics (age, gender, family composition, school, work, friends, and leisure time). In addition, we gathered data about problem behaviour (substance use, alcohol and cannabis use disorders, delinquency, psychiatric co-morbidity).There were no major differences on any of these measures between the treatment conditions (MDFT and TAU) for any of the sites. However, there were cross-site differences on many variables. Most of these could be explained by variations in treatment culture, as reflected by referral policy, i.e., participants' referral source. We distinguished 'self-determined' referral (common in Brussels and Paris) and referral with some authority-related 'external' coercion (common in Geneva and The Hague). The two referral types were more equally divided in Berlin. Many cross-site baseline differences disappeared when we took referral source into account, but not all.Conclusions: A multisite trial has the advantage of being efficient, but it also carries risks, the most important one being lack of equivalence between local study populations. Our site populations differed in many respects. This is not a problem for analyses and interpretations if the differences somehow can be accounted for. To a major extent, this appeared possible in INCANT. The most important factor underlying the cross-site variations in baseline characteristics was referral source. Correcting for referral source made most differences disappear. Therefore, we will use referral source as a covariate accounting for site differences in future INCANT outcome analyses

Clinicopathological features and risk factors for developing colorectal neoplasia in Hodgkin’s lymphoma survivors

BACKGROUND: Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) survivors treated with abdominal radiotherapy and/or procarbazine have an increased risk of developing colorectal neoplasia. AIMS: We evaluated the clinicopathological characteristics and risk factors for developing (advanced) neoplasia (AN) in HL survivors. METHODS: In all, 101 HL survivors (median age 51 years, median age of HL diagnosis 25 years) underwent colonoscopy and 350 neoplasia and 44 AN (classified as advanced adenomas/serrated lesions or colorectal cancer), mostly right‐sided, were detected, as published previously. An average‐risk asymptomatic cohort who underwent screening colonoscopy were controls (median age 60 years). Clinicopathological characteristics of AN were evaluated in both groups. Mismatch repair (MMR) status was assessed using immunohistochemistry (MLH1/MSH2/MSH6/PMS2). Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the risk factors for AN in HL survivors, including age at HL diagnosis and interval between HL and colonoscopy. RESULTS: In 101 colonoscopies in HL survivors, AN was primarily classified based on polyp size ≥10 mm, whereas (high‐grade)dysplasia was more often seen in AN in controls. An interval between HL diagnosis and colonoscopy >26 years was associated with more AN compared with an interval of <26 years, with an odds ratio for AN of 3.8 (95% confidence interval 1.4–9.1) (p < 0.01). All 39 AN that were assessed were MMR proficient. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal neoplasia in HL survivors differ from average‐risk controls; classification AN was primarily based on polyp size (≥10 mm) in HL survivors. Longer follow‐up between HL diagnosis and colonoscopy was associated with a higher prevalence of AN in HL survivors

Infradiaphragmatic irradiation and high procarbazine doses increase colorectal cancer risk in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors are at increased risk of second malignancies, but few studies have assessed colorectal cancer (CRC) risk after HL treatment. We assessed long-term, subsite-specific CRC risk associated with specific radiation fields and chemotherapy regimens. In a Dutch cohort of 3121 5-year HL survivors treated between 1965 and 1995, subsite-specific CRC incidence was compared with general population rates. Treatment effects were quantified by Cox regression analyses. After a median follow-up of 22.9 years, 55 patients developed CRC. The standardized incidence ratios (SIR) was 2.4-fold increased (95% confidence interval (95%CI) 1.8-3.2), leading to 5.7 excess cases per 10 000 patient-years. Risk was still increased 30 years after HL treatment (SIR: 2.8; 95%CI: 1.6-4.6). The highest (SIR: 6.5, 95%CI: 3.3-11.3) was seen for transverse colon cancer (15.0 (95%CI: 4.3-40.8) after inverted-Y irradiation). A prescribed cumulative procarbazine dose >4.2 g m(-2) was associated with a 3.3-fold higher CRC risk (95%CI: 1.8-6.1) compared to treatment without procarbazine. Patients receiving >4.2 g m(-2) procarbazine and infradiaphragmatic radiotherapy had a hazard ratio of 6.8 (95%CI: 3.0-15.6) compared with patients receiving neither treatment, which is significantly higher than an additive joint effect (Padditivity=0.004). Colorectal cancer surveillance should be considered for HL survivors who received Infradiaphragmatic radiotherapy and a high cumulative procarbazine dos