Demographic variation in incidence of adult glioma by subtype, United States, 1992-2007

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We hypothesized that race/ethnic group, sex, age, and/or calendar period variation in adult glioma incidence differs between the two broad subtypes of glioblastoma (GBM) and non-GBM. Primary GBM, which constitute 90-95% of GBM, differ from non-GBM with respect to a number of molecular characteristics, providing a molecular rationale for these two broad glioma subtypes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We utilized data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program for 1992-2007, ages 30-69 years. We compared 15,088 GBM cases with 9,252 non-GBM cases. We used Poisson regression to calculate adjusted rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The GBM incidence rate increased proportionally with the 4^thpower of age, whereas the non-GBM rate increased proportionally with the square root of age. For each subtype, compared to non-Hispanic Whites, the incidence rate among Blacks, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and American Indians/Alaskan Natives was substantially lower (one-fourth to one-half for GBM; about two-fifths for non-GBM). Secondary to this primary effect, race/ethnic group variation in incidence was significantly less for non-GBM than for GBM. For each subtype, the incidence rate was higher for males than for females, with the male/female rate ratio being significantly higher for GBM (1.6) than for non-GBM (1.4). We observed significant calendar period trends of increasing incidence for GBM and decreasing incidence for non-GBM. For the two subtypes combined, we observed a 3% decrease in incidence between 1992-1995 and 2004-2007.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The substantial difference in age effect between GBM and non-GBM suggests a fundamental difference in the genesis of primary GBM (the driver of GBM incidence) versus non-GBM. However, the commonalities between GBM and non-GBM with respect to race/ethnic group and sex variation, more notable than the somewhat subtle, albeit statistically significant, differences, suggest that within the context of a fundamental difference, some aspects of the complex process of gliomagenesis are shared by these subtypes as well. The increasing calendar period trend of GBM incidence coupled with the decreasing trend of non-GBM incidence may at least partly be due to a secular trend in diagnostic fashion, as opposed to real changes in incidence of these subtypes.</p

Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone as neoadjuvant treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer: study protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parallel-arms, randomized controlled study (PelvEx II)

Background A resection with clear margins (R0 resection) is the most important prognostic factor in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, this is achieved in only 60 per cent of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the addition of induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation improves the R0 resection rate in LRRC. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study will enrol 364 patients with resectable LRRC after previous partial or total mesorectal resection without synchronous distant metastases or recent chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatment. Patients will be randomized to receive either induction chemotherapy (three 3-week cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), four 2-week cycles of FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) or FOLFORI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan)) followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (experimental arm) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery alone (control arm). Tumours will be restaged using MRI and, in the experimental arm, a further cycle of CAPOX or two cycles of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI will be administered before chemoradiotherapy in case of stable or responsive disease. The radiotherapy dose will be 25 × 2.0 Gy or 28 × 1.8 Gy in radiotherapy-naive patients, and 15 × 2.0 Gy in previously irradiated patients. The concomitant chemotherapy agent will be capecitabine administered twice daily at a dose of 825 mg/m2 on radiotherapy days. The primary endpoint of the study is the R0 resection rate. Secondary endpoints are long-term oncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, toxicity, postoperative complications, costs, and quality of life. Discussion This trial protocol describes the PelvEx II study. PelvEx II, designed as a multicentre, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study, is the first randomized study to compare induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery with neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery alone in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, with the aim of improving the number of R0 resections

A disease-specific Quality of Life questionnaire for primary aldosteronism.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a primary aldosteronism (PA) disease-specific Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) questionnaire. METHODS: We included newly diagnosed patients with PA (n = 26), and patients with PA after adrenalectomy (n = 25) or treated with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (n = 25). According to the guidelines for developing HRQoL questionnaires from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC): Phase I: systematic literature review followed by focus group meetings with patients (n = 13) resulting in a list of 94 HRQoL issues. Relevance of issues was rated by 18 other patients and by health care professionals (n = 15), resulting in 30 remaining issues. Phase II: selected issues were converted into questions. Phase III: the provisional questionnaire was pre-tested by a third group of patients (n = 45) who also completed the EORTC core Quality of Life questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Psychometric testing resulted in a final selection of questions with their scale structure. RESULTS: After the collection and selection of HRQoL issues a provisional questionnaire consisting of 30 items was formed. Of these items, 26 could be assigned to one of the four scales 'physical and mental fatigue', 'anxiety and stress', 'fluid balance' and 'other complaints' cumulatively accounting for 68% of variation in all items. All scales had good reliability and validity. There was a significant correlation of all four scales with the QLQ-C30 in most cases. CONCLUSIONS: We developed the first PA-specific HRQoL questionnaire (PA-QoL) using standard, methodologically proven guidelines. After completion of the final validation (phase IV, international field testing), the questionnaire can be implemented into clinical practice

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome in a patient taking phenytoin and levetiracetam: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome is a potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction with rash, fever, and internal organ involvement, often hepatitis, occurring most commonly two to eight weeks after initiation of a medication. The present case is an example of severe and potentially life-threatening hepatitis as a manifestation of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We report a case of anti-epileptic-induced drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome in an 18-year-old African-American man who presented with a five-day history of rash, periorbital and upper extremity edema, hepatitis and fever. Laboratory findings revealed an atypical lymphocytosis, eosinophilia, and elevated serum transaminases. No drug allergies were reported at the time of presentation, but phenytoin and levetiracetam therapy had been initiated five weeks prior to hospital admission for new-onset seizures. Both medications were discontinued on hospital admission, and after three days of high-dose corticosteroid therapy the patient experienced resolution of both his symptoms and laboratory markers of inflammation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Given the significant mortality attributed to drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome, medical personnel should be aware of the potential for this severe hypersensitivity reaction and should ensure close follow-up and offer anticipatory guidance when beginning any new medication, particularly anti-epileptic therapy. Early recognition of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome and initiation of appropriate therapy are imperative in limiting morbidity.</p