Refining the role of laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound in the staging of presumed pancreatic head and ampullary tumours

Laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound have been validated previously as staging tools for pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to identify if assessment of vascular involvement with abdominal computed tomography (CT) would allow refinement of the selection criteria for laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS). The details of patients staged with LUS and abdominal CT were obtained from the unit's pancreatic cancer database. A CT grade (O, A-F) of vascular involvement was recorded by a single radiologist. Of 152 patients, who underwent a LUS, 56 (37%) had unresectable disease. Three of 26 (12%) patients with CT grade O, 27 of 88 (31%) patients with CT grade A to D, 17 of 29 (59%) patients with CT grade E and all nine patients with CT grade F were found to have unresectable disease. In all, 24% of patients with tumours <3 cm were found to have unresectable disease. In those patients with tumours considered unresectable, local vascular involvement was found in 56% of patients and vascular involvement with metastatic disease in 17%, while 20% of patients had liver metastases alone and 5% had isolated peritoneal metastases. The remaining patient was deemed unfit for resection. Selective use of laparoscopic ultrasound is indicated in the staging of periampullary tumours with CT grades A to D

GRADE Guidelines 30: the GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modeled evidence—An overview in the context of health decision-making

Objectives: The objective of the study is to present the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) conceptual approach to the assessment of certainty of evidence from modeling studies (i.e., certainty associated with model outputs). / Study Design and Setting: Expert consultations and an international multidisciplinary workshop informed development of a conceptual approach to assessing the certainty of evidence from models within the context of systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and health care decisions. The discussions also clarified selected concepts and terminology used in the GRADE approach and by the modeling community. Feedback from experts in a broad range of modeling and health care disciplines addressed the content validity of the approach. / Results: Workshop participants agreed that the domains determining the certainty of evidence previously identified in the GRADE approach (risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, reporting bias, magnitude of an effect, dose–response relation, and the direction of residual confounding) also apply when assessing the certainty of evidence from models. The assessment depends on the nature of model inputs and the model itself and on whether one is evaluating evidence from a single model or multiple models. We propose a framework for selecting the best available evidence from models: 1) developing de novo, a model specific to the situation of interest, 2) identifying an existing model, the outputs of which provide the highest certainty evidence for the situation of interest, either “off-the-shelf” or after adaptation, and 3) using outputs from multiple models. We also present a summary of preferred terminology to facilitate communication among modeling and health care disciplines. / Conclusion: This conceptual GRADE approach provides a framework for using evidence from models in health decision-making and the assessment of certainty of evidence from a model or models. The GRADE Working Group and the modeling community are currently developing the detailed methods and related guidance for assessing specific domains determining the certainty of evidence from models across health care–related disciplines (e.g., therapeutic decision-making, toxicology, environmental health, and health economics)

Subgroup Analysis of Trials Is Rarely Easy (SATIRE): a study protocol for a systematic review to characterize the analysis, reporting, and claim of subgroup effects in randomized trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Subgroup analyses in randomized trials examine whether effects of interventions differ between subgroups of study populations according to characteristics of patients or interventions. However, findings from subgroup analyses may be misleading, potentially resulting in suboptimal clinical and health decision making. Few studies have investigated the reporting and conduct of subgroup analyses and a number of important questions remain unanswered. The objectives of this study are: 1) to describe the reporting of subgroup analyses and claims of subgroup effects in randomized controlled trials, 2) to assess study characteristics associated with reporting of subgroup analyses and with claims of subgroup effects, and 3) to examine the analysis, and interpretation of subgroup effects for each study's primary outcome.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We will conduct a systematic review of 464 randomized controlled human trials published in 2007 in the 118 Core Clinical Journals defined by the National Library of Medicine. We will randomly select journal articles, stratified in a 1:1 ratio by higher impact versus lower impact journals. According to 2007 ISI total citations, we consider the <it>New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine</it>, and <it>BMJ </it>as higher impact journals. Teams of two reviewers will independently screen full texts of reports for eligibility, and abstract data, using standardized, pilot-tested extraction forms. We will conduct univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine the association of pre-specified study characteristics with reporting of subgroup analyses and with claims of subgroup effects for the primary and any other outcomes.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>A clear understanding of subgroup analyses, as currently conducted and reported in published randomized controlled trials, will reveal both strengths and weaknesses of this practice. Our findings will contribute to a set of recommendations to optimize the conduct and reporting of subgroup analyses, and claim and interpretation of subgroup effects in randomized trials.</p

The Lancet Breast Cancer Commission: tackling a global health, gender, and equity challenge

Breast cancer is an increasing global health, gender, socioeconomic, and equity challenge. In 2020, 2·3 million women were diagnosed with breast cancer and there were 685 000 deaths worldwide.1 Not only is breast cancer the highest incident cancer globally, but it is also the most prevalent, causing more disability-adjusted life-years lost than any other malignancy. Tackling breast cancer is a formidable task for health-care systems, policy makers, and other stakeholders. The numbers of people with metastatic breast cancer who go uncounted are concerning. Cancer registries record patients initially presenting with de-novo metastatic breast cancer, but data on those who develop metastases after a diagnosis of early breast cancer are scarce. In a world focused on breast cancer cure, these uncounted people living with metastatic disease face abandonment and stigma

Epigenetic targeting of Hedgehog pathway transcriptional output through BET bromodomain inhibition

Hedgehog signaling drives oncogenesis in several cancers and strategies targeting this pathway have been developed, most notably through inhibition of Smoothened. However, resistance to Smoothened inhibitors occurs via genetic changes of Smoothened or other downstream Hedgehog components. Here, we overcome these resistance mechanisms by modulating GLI transcription via inhibition of BET bromodomain proteins. We show the BET bromodomain protein, BRD4, regulates GLI transcription downstream of SMO and SUFU and chromatin immunoprecipitation studies reveal BRD4 directly occupies GLI1 and GLI2 promoters, with a substantial decrease in engagement of these sites upon treatment with JQ1, a small molecule inhibitor targeting BRD4. Globally, genes associated with medulloblastoma-specific GLI1 binding sites are downregulated in response to JQ1 treatment, supporting direct regulation of GLI activity by BRD4. Notably, patient- and GEMM-derived Hedgehog-driven tumors (basal cell carcinoma, medulloblastoma and atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor) respond to JQ1 even when harboring genetic lesions rendering them resistant to Smoothened antagonists