How to think about health promotion ethics

Health promotion ethics is moral deliberation about health promotion and its prac­ tice. Although academics and practitioners have been writing about ethics, and especially values, in health promotion for decades, health promotion ethics is now regaining attention within the broader literature on public health ethics. Health promotion is difficult to define, and this has implications for health promotion ethics. Health promotion can be approached in two complementary ways: as a normative ideal, and as a practice. We consider the normative ideal of health promotion to be that aspect of public health practice that is particularly concerned with the equity of social arrangements: it imagines that social arrangements can be altered to make things better for everyone, whatever their health risks, and seeks to achieve this in collaboration with citizens.This raises two main ethical questions. First: what is a good society? And then: what should health promotion contribute to a good society? The practice of health promotion varies widely. Discussion of its ethical implications has addressed four main issues: the potential for health promotion to limit or increase the freedom of individuals; health promotion as a source of collective benefit; the possibility that health promotion strategies might “blame the victim” or stigmatise those who are disabled, sick or at higher risk of disease; and the importance of distributing the benefits of health promotion fairly. Different people will make different moral evaluations on each of these issues in a way that is informed by, and informs, their vision of a good society and their understanding of the ends of health promotion. We conclude that future work in health promotion ethics will require thoughtfully connecting social and political philosophy with an applied, empirically informed ethics of practice. Key Words:Ethics, health education, health promotion, moral philosophy, political philosophy, public healthNHMR

A CT-based radiomics classification model for the prediction of histological type and tumour grade in retroperitoneal sarcoma (RADSARC-R): a retrospective multicohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Retroperitoneal sarcomas are tumours with a poor prognosis. Upfront characterisation of the tumour is difficult, and under-grading is common. Radiomics has the potential to non-invasively characterise the so-called radiological phenotype of tumours. We aimed to develop and independently validate a CT-based radiomics classification model for the prediction of histological type and grade in retroperitoneal leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma. METHODS: A retrospective discovery cohort was collated at our centre (Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK) and an independent validation cohort comprising patients recruited in the phase 3 STRASS study of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in retroperitoneal sarcoma. Patients aged older than 18 years with confirmed primary leiomyosarcoma or liposarcoma proceeding to surgical resection with available contrast-enhanced CT scans were included. Using the discovery dataset, a CT-based radiomics workflow was developed, including manual delineation, sub-segmentation, feature extraction, and predictive model building. Separate probabilistic classifiers for the prediction of histological type and low versus intermediate or high grade tumour types were built and tested. Independent validation was then performed. The primary objective of the study was to develop radiomic classification models for the prediction of retroperitoneal leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma type and histological grade. FINDINGS: 170 patients recruited between Oct 30, 2016, and Dec 23, 2020, were eligible in the discovery cohort and 89 patients recruited between Jan 18, 2012, and April 10, 2017, were eligible in the validation cohort. In the discovery cohort, the median age was 63 years (range 27-89), with 83 (49%) female and 87 (51%) male patients. In the validation cohort, median age was 59 years (range 33-77), with 46 (52%) female and 43 (48%) male patients. The highest performing model for the prediction of histological type had an area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) of 0·928 on validation, based on a feature set of radiomics and approximate radiomic volume fraction. The highest performing model for the prediction of histological grade had an AUROC of 0·882 on validation, based on a radiomics feature set. INTERPRETATION: Our validated radiomics model can predict the histological type and grade of retroperitoneal sarcomas with excellent performance. This could have important implications for improving diagnosis and risk stratification in retroperitoneal sarcomas. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group, the National Institutes for Health, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research

Prognostic factors for soft tissue sarcoma patients with lung metastases only who are receiving first-line chemotherapy An exploratory, retrospective analysis of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (EORTC-STBSG)

Experimentele farmacotherapi

Randomised phase 2 study comparing the efficacy and safety of the oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor nintedanib with single agent ifosfamide in patients with advanced, inoperable, metastatic soft tissue sarcoma after failure of first-line chemotherapy: EORTC-1506-STBSG "ANITA"

Purpose: EORTC-1506-STBSG was a prospective, multicentric, randomised, open-label phase 2 trial to assess the efficacy and safety of second-line nintedanib versus ifosfamide in patients with advanced, inoperable metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS). The primary end-point was progression-free survival.Patients/methods: Patients with a variety of STS subtypes were randomised 1:1 to nintedanib (200 mg b.i.d. p.o. until disease progression) or ifosfamide (3 g/m(2) i.v. days 1-3, every 21 days for <= 6 cycles). A Korn design was applied aiming to detect an improvement in median progression-free survival (mPFS) from 3 to 4.5 months (HR = 0.667). An interim look was incorporated to stop the trial for futility if <19 of the first 36 patients treated with nintedanib were progression-free at week 12.Results: At the interim analysis, among the first 36 eligible and evaluable patients randomised for nintedanib, only 13 (36%) were progression-free at week 12. The trial was closed for further accrual as per protocol. In total, 80 patients were randomised (40 per treatment group). The mPFS was 2.5 months (95% CI: 1.5-3.4) for nintedanib and 4.4 months (95% CI: 2.9-6.7) on ifosfamide (adjusted HR = 1.56 [80% CI: 1.14-2.13], p = 0.070). The median overall survival was 13.7 months (95% CI: 9.4-23.4) on nintedanib and 24.1 months (95% CI: 10.9-NE) on ifosfamide (adjusted HR = 1.65 [95%CI:0.89-3.06], p = 0.111). The clinical benefit rate for nintedanib and ifosfamide was 50% versus 62.5% (p = 0.368), respectively. Common treatment-related adverse events (all grades) were diarrhoea (35.9% of patients), fatigue (25.6%) and nausea (20.5%) for nintedanib; and fatigue (52.6%), nausea (44.7%) and vomiting, anorexia and alopecia (28.9% each) for ifosfamide.Conclusion: The trial was stopped for futility. The activity of nintedanib did not warrant further exploration in non-selected, advanced STSs. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Experimentele farmacotherapi

Final analysis of the randomized trial on imatinib as an adjuvant in localized gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) from the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG), the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG), UNICANCER, French Sarcoma Group (FSG), Italian Sarcoma Group (AGITG), UNICANCER, French Sarcoma Group (FSG), Italian Sarcoma Group (ISG), and Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas (GEIS)

Background: In 2004, we started an intergroup randomized trial of adjuvant imatinib versus no further therapy after R0-R1 surgery in localized, high/intermediate-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) patients. Interim analysis results were published in 2015 upon recommendation from an independent data review committee. We report the final outcome of the study.Patients and methods: This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III trial carried out at 112 hospitals in 12 countries. Patients were randomized to 2 years of imatinib, 400 mg daily, or no further therapy after surgery. The primary endpoint was imatinib failure-free survival (IFFS), while relapse-free survival (RFS), relapse-free interval (RFI), overall survival (OS) and toxicity were secondary endpoints. Adjusting for the interim analyses, results on IFFS were assessed on a 4.3% significance level; for the other endpoints, 5% was used.Results: Nine hundred and eight patients were randomized between January 2005 and October 2008: 454 to imatinib and 454 to observation; 835 patients were eligible. With a median follow-up of 9.1 years, 5 (10)-year IFFS was 87% (75%) in the imatinib arm versus 83% (74%) in the control arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95.7% confidence interval (CI) (0.65; 1.15), P = 0.31]; RFS was 70% versus 63% at 5 years and 63% versus 61% at 10 years, [HR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.57; 0.89), P = 0.002]; OS was 93% versus 92% at 5 years and 80% versus 78% at 10 years [HR 0.88, 95% CI (0.65; 1.21), P = 0.43]. Among 526 patients with high-risk GIST by local pathology, 10-year IFFS and RFS were 69% versus 61%, and 48% versus 43%, respectively.Conclusions: With 9.1 years of follow-up, a trend toward better long-term IFFS in imatinib-treated patients was observed in the high-risk subgroup. Although the difference was not statistically significant and the surrogacy value of such an endpoint is not validated, this may be seen as supporting the results reported by the Scandinavian/German trial, showing a sustained small but significant long-term OS benefit in high-risk GIST patients treated with 3 years of adjuvant imatinib.Experimentele farmacotherapi

Doxorubicin plus dacarbazine, doxorubicin plus ifosfamide, or doxorubicin alone as a first‐line treatment for advanced leiomyosarcoma: A propensity score matching analysis from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group

Background The optimal treatment for advanced leiomyosarcoma is still debated. Given histotype‐specific prospective controlled data lacking, this study retrospectively evaluated doxorubicin plus dacarbazine, doxorubicin plus ifosfamide, and doxorubicin alone as first‐line treatments for advanced/metastatic leiomyosarcoma treated at European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (EORTC‐STBSG) sites. Methods The inclusion criteria were a confirmed histological diagnosis, treatment between January 2010 and December 2015, measurable disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2, and an age ≥ 18 years. The endpoints were progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and overall response rate (ORR). PFS was analyzed with methods for interval‐censored data. Patients were matched according to their propensity scores, which were estimated with a logistic regression model accounting for histology, grade, age, sex, performance status, tumor site, and tumor extent. Results Three hundred three patients from 18 EORTC‐STBSG sites were identified. One hundred seventeen (39%) received doxorubicin plus dacarbazine, 71 (23%) received doxorubicin plus ifosfamide, and 115 (38%) received doxorubicin. In the 2:1:2 propensity score–matched population (205 patients), the estimated median PFS was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2‐9.7 months), 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.2‐10.1 months), and 4.8 months (95% CI, 2.3‐6.0 months) with ORRs of 30.9%, 19.5%, and 25.6% for doxorubicin plus dacarbazine, doxorubicin plus ifosfamide, and doxorubicin alone, respectively. PFS was significantly longer with doxorubicin plus dacarbazine versus doxorubicin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52‐0.99). Doxorubicin plus dacarbazine was associated with longer OS (median, 36.8 months; 95% CI, 27.9‐47.2 months) in comparison with both doxorubicin plus ifosfamide (median, 21.9 months; 95% CI, 16.7‐33.4 months; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.40‐1.06) and doxorubicin (median, 30.3 months; 95% CI, 21.0‐36.3 months; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43‐0.99). Adjusted analyses retained an effect for PFS but not for OS. None of the factors selected for multivariate analysis had a significant interaction with the received treatment for both PFS and OS. Conclusions This is the largest retrospective study of first‐line treatment for advanced leiomyosarcoma. In the propensity score–matched population, doxorubicin and dacarbazine showed favorable activity in terms of both ORR and PFS and warrants further evaluation in prospective trials

Pazopanib in advanced desmoplastic small round cell tumours: a multi-institutional experience

Contains fulltext : 136490.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: We retrospectively reviewed data from nine pre-treated metastatic desmoplastic small round cell tumour (DSRCT) patients who received pazopanib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three patients received pazopanib within the EORTC phase II 62043, three in the EORTC phase III 62072, and three in the context of UK named patient program. RESULTS: Nine patients were retrieved from the databases, the median age was 30 years (range: 21-47), they were all males. All had received prior chemotherapy. At the time of treatment start, 4 patients (44%) had ECOG PS 0, 4 (44%) PS 1, 1 (11%) PS 2. Best response was partial response (PR) in 2/9 (22%) patients, stable disease (SD) in 5/9 (56%) and progressive disease (PD) in 2/9 (22%) with a clinical benefit rate (PR + SD > 12 weeks) of 78%. Median PFS and OS were 9.2 (95%CI: 0-23.2) and 15.4 (95%CI: 1.5-29.3) months respectively. With a median follow-up of 20 months, 2/9 (22%) patients are still alive, all progressed. The most common toxicities included neutropenia (G1-2 45%; G3-4 11%), anaemia (G1-2 45%), fatigue (G1-2 67%), diarrhoea (G1-2 45%; G3-4 11%), nausea (G1-2 45%), hypertension (G1-2 45%) and increase in liver enzymes (G1-2 34%; G3-4 11%). Three patients (34%) required a dose reduction. One of the patients discontinued treatment because of persistent increase in total bilirubin level, one due to patient's choice. CONCLUSION: In this series, pazopanib showed interesting activity in DSRCT patients who progressed after prior chemotherapy without major toxicity