57 research outputs found

    Does cancer research focus on areas of importance to patients?

    Get PDF
    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.The majority of research ideas are proposed by clinicians or scientists and little is currently known about which areas of research patients feel are important. We performed a 4 week pilot patient survey at the Royal Marsden (a specialist cancer centre) to investigate patients' views on priorities for cancer research. A total of 780 patients completed the survey and the top research priorities were identified as: detection and prevention of cancer, scientific understanding, curative treatment and personalised treatment. The top research priorities were remarkably consistent across age, gender and a variety of tumour types. We believe that patients' views should be considered alongside those of clinicians and researchers when devising research proposals and strategies.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

    Toward a New Approach to Evaluating Significance in Recent-Past Preservation Planning with a Case Study of 1960s Properties in Philadelphia County

    Get PDF
    In evaluating a stock of recent-past buildings, it is important to stay alert to the ways in which recent-past heritage is more difficult to assess, and what we might be prone to do to make it easier to assess. It is not enough to involve numerous people in the process and to articulate our method of analysis. We as preservation professionals must also consciously strive to avoid cognitive shortcuts. We must set evaluative standards and choose priorities, without simply dismissing a great portion of the built environment as “crap” or accepting self-evidence as a measure of significance. Complexity should not be a cause for despair. We must lead the public in a more self-reflexive view of built heritage, without getting stuck in never-ending philosophizing and debating. The field would benefit from a more systematic, methodical approach to championing pluralism in heritage and recognizing the polysemy in cultural objects, which nonetheless helps to uncover priorities of highest significance. In sum, prior to, and in addition to, preservation advocacy efforts to publicize and popularize buildings of the recent-past, preservation planning efforts must establish better methods for identifying resources and assessing their significance. In light of the issues and caveats just introduced, this study asks: what is an optimal inventory method for a municipal/county-level commission or nonprofit organization to identify priorities for preservation planning for the recent-past

    Mismatch Repair Deficiency, Microsatellite Instability, and Survival: An Exploratory Analysis of the Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) Trial

    Get PDF
    Importance: Mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency (MMRD) and microsatellite instability (MSI) are prognostic for survival in many cancers and for resistance to fluoropyrimidines in early colon cancer. However, the effect of MMRD and MSI in curatively resected gastric cancer treated with perioperative chemotherapy is unknown. Objective: To examine the association among MMRD, MSI, and survival in patients with resectable gastroesophageal cancer randomized to surgery alone or perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy in the Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary post hoc analysis of the MAGIC trial included participants who were treated with surgery alone or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery for operable gastroesophageal cancer from July 1, 1994, through April 30, 2002. Tumor sections were assessed for expression of the MMR proteins mutL homologue 1, mutS homologue 2, mutS homologue 6, and PMS1 homologue 2. The association among MSI, MMRD, and survival was assessed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Interaction between MMRD and MSI status and overall survival (OS). Results: Of the 503 study participants, MSI results were available for 303 patients (283 with microsatellite stability or low MSI [median age, 62 years; 219 males (77.4%)] and 20 with high MSI [median age, 66 years; 14 males (70.0%)]). A total of 254 patients had MSI and MMR results available. Patients treated with surgery alone who had high MSI or MMRD had a median OS that was not reached (95% CI, 11.5 months to not reached) compared with a median OS among those who had neither high MSI nor MMRD of 20.5 months (95% CI, 16.7-27.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.15-1.15; P\u2009=\u2009.09). In contrast, patients treated with chemotherapy plus surgery who had either high MSI or MMRD had a median OS of 9.6 months (95% CI, 0.1-22.5 months) compared with a median OS among those who were neither high MSI nor MMRD of 19.5 months (95% CI, 15.4-35.2 months; hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.08-4.42; P\u2009=\u2009.03). Conclusions and Relevance: In the MAGIC trial, MMRD and high MSI were associated with a positive prognostic effect in patients treated with surgery alone and a differentially negative prognostic effect in patients treated with chemotherapy. If independently validated, MSI or MMRD determined by preoperative biopsies could be used to select patients for perioperative chemotherapy

    Sequence variation in mature microRNA-608 and benefit from neo-adjuvant treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer patients

    Get PDF
    Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in microRNA genes have been associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, survival and response to treatment. Conflicting results are available on the association between rs4919510, a SNP in mature miR-608 and clinical outcome in CRC. Here, we analyzed the association between rs4919510 and benefit from perioperative treatment in a randomised phase II trial of neoadjuvant Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin (CAPOX) followed by chemo-radiotherapy, surgery and adjuvant CAPOX ± Cetuximab in high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). A total of 155/164 (94.5%) patients were assessable. 95 (61.3%) were homozygous for CC, 55 (35.5%) heterozygous (CG) and 5 (3.2%) homozygous for GG. Median follow-up was 64.9 months. In the CAPOX arm the 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 54.6% and 60.7% for CC and 82.0% and 82.1% for CG/GG, respectively (HR PFS 0.13, 95% CI: 0.12-0.83, P = 0.02; HR OS 0.38, 95% CI: 0.14-1.01, P = 0.05). In the CAPOX-C arm PFS and OS were 73.2 and 82.2%, respectively for CC carriers and 64.6 and 73.1% for CG/GG carriers (HR PFS 1.38, 95% CI: 0.61-3.13, P = 0.44; HR OS 1.34, 95% CI: 0.52-3.48, P = 0.55). An interaction was found between study treatment and rs4919510 genotype for both PFS (P = 0.02) and OS (P = 0.07). This is the first study investigating rs4919510 in LARC. The CC genotype appeared to be associated with worse prognosis compared to the CG/GG genotype in patients treated with chemotherapy and chemo-radiotherapy alone. Addition of Cetuximab to chemotherapy and chemo-radiotherapy in CC carriers appeared to improve clinical outcome

    Visualising harms in publications of randomised controlled trials: consensus and recommendations

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: To improve communication of harm in publications of randomised controlled trials via the development of recommendations for visually presenting harm outcomes. DESIGN: Consensus study. SETTING: 15 clinical trials units registered with the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, an academic population health department, Roche Products, and The BMJ. PARTICIPANTS: Experts in clinical trials: 20 academic statisticians, one industry statistician, one academic health economist, one data graphics designer, and two clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME: measures A methodological review of statistical methods identified visualisations along with those recommended by consensus group members. Consensus on visual recommendations was achieved (at least 60% of the available votes) over a series of three meetings with participants. The participants reviewed and critically appraised candidate visualisations against an agreed framework and voted on whether to endorse each visualisation. Scores marginally below this threshold (50-60%) were revisited for further discussions and votes retaken until consensus was reached. RESULTS: 28 visualisations were considered, of which 10 are recommended for researchers to consider in publications of main research findings. The choice of visualisations to present will depend on outcome type (eg, binary, count, time-to-event, or continuous), and the scenario (eg, summarising multiple emerging events or one event of interest). A decision tree is presented to assist trialists in deciding which visualisations to use. Examples are provided of each endorsed visualisation, along with an example interpretation, potential limitations, and signposting to code for implementation across a range of standard statistical software. Clinician feedback was incorporated into the explanatory information provided in the recommendations to aid understanding and interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Visualisations provide a powerful tool to communicate harms in clinical trials, offering an alternative perspective to the traditional frequency tables. Increasing the use of visualisations for harm outcomes in clinical trial manuscripts and reports will provide clearer presentation of information and enable more informative interpretations. The limitations of each visualisation are discussed and examples of where their use would be inappropriate are given. Although the decision tree aids the choice of visualisation, the statistician and clinical trial team must ultimately decide the most appropriate visualisations for their data and objectives. Trialists should continue to examine crude numbers alongside visualisations to fully understand harm profiles

    MicroRNAs as biomarkers for trastuzumab-based therapy in HER2-positive advanced oesophago-gastric cancer patients

    Get PDF
    BackgroundThis study aimed to identify microRNAs (miRs) as circulating biomarkers of resistance to first-line trastuzumab-based therapy in advanced HER2-positive oesophago-gastric cancer patients.MethodsA high-throughput 1015 Exiqon miRCURY LNA™ microRNA inhibitor library screen was performed in trastuzumab-treated HER2-positive NCI-N87 and HER2-negative FLO-1 oesophago-gastric cancer cell lines. NanoString nCounter® miR analysis was performed in NCI-N87, FLO-1, and MAGIC trial (ISRCTN93793971) formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) oesophago-gastric cancer patient samples. MiR-148a-3p copies in plasma samples were quantified using digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) from HER2-positive oesophago-gastric cancer patients treated with standard-of-care trastuzumab-based therapy within the FOrMAT (NCT02112357) and PLATFORM (NCT02678182) clinical trials. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) for plasma miR-148a-3p HIGH (>median) versus LOW (≤median). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and 3-month progression-free rates (PFRs) miR-148a-3p HIGH versus LOW. PLATFORM sensitivity analysis normalised miR-148a-3p (NmiR-148a-3p).ResultsThe inhibition of miR-148a-3p reduced NCI-N87 relative cell viability (<0.6) and expression was high (>242) in NCI-N87 and HER2-positive MAGIC trial patients (n=5). Normalised-miR-148a-3p (NmiR-148a-3p) LOW versus HIGH demonstrated a statistically significant difference in 3-month PFRs (n=23; OR, 0.11 [0.02–0.78]; p=0.027; aOR, 0.03 [0.001–0.71], p=0.029) but no difference in OS or PFS. There was no statistically significant relationship between miR-148-3p LOW versus HIGH for OS (PLATFORM, n=62; hazard ratio [HR], 0.98 [0.57–1.66]; p=0.933; FOrMAT, n=8; HR, 0.54 [0.13–2.31]; p=0.322), PFS (n=62; HR, 1.08 [0.65–1.81]; p=0.759; FOrMAT, n=8; HR, 1.26 [0.31–5.07]; p=0.714), or PFRs (PLATFORM, n=31; odds ratio [OR], 0.67 [0.2–2.8]; p=0.577).ConclusionNormalised miR-148a-3p may be a relevant biomarker for trastuzumab-based therapy in advanced HER2-positive oesophago-gastric cancer patients

    Visualising harms in Randomised Controlled Trial publications: a consensus and recommendations

    Get PDF
    Objective: To improve communication of harm in RCT publications we identified researchers’ recommendations for visualising harm outcomes. Design: Consensus study evaluating visualisation methods. Setting: 15 UKCRC registered CTUs, an academic population health department, Roche Product Ltd and the BMJ. Participants: Experts in clinical trials: 20 academic statisticians, one industry statistician, one academic health economist, a data graphics designer and two clinicians. Data sources: Visualisations were primarily identified via a methodological review of statistical methods developed specifically to analyse harm outcomes, these were considered alongside visualisations recommended by consensus group members. Interventions: None Main outcomes measured: Consensus for visualisations to recommend achieved over a series of three meetings with participants. Participants reviewed and critically appraised candidate visualisations against an agreed framework. Appraisals were summarised and presented back to participants to inform discussions. After discussions participants voted on whether to endorse each visualisation. Eligibility criteria: Visualisation receiving at least 60% of the available votes were endorsed. Scores marginally below this threshold (50-60%) were revisited for further discussions and votes retaken until a consensus was reached. Results: Twenty-eight visualisations were considered, of which ten are recommended to researchers to consider in publications of main research findings. The choice of visualisations to present will depend on outcome type e.g., binary, count, time-to-event or continuous and the scenario e.g., summarising multiple emerging events or one event of interest. A decision tree to assist trialists decide which visualisations to use is presented. Examples of each endorsed visualisation, along with example interpretation, potential limitations and signposting to code for implementation across a range of standard statistical software are provided. Clinician feedback was incorporated into the explanatory information provided in the recommendations to aid understanding and interpretation. Conclusions: Visualisations provide a powerful tool to communicate harms in clinical trials, offering an alternative perspective to the traditional frequency tables. Increasing the use of visualisations for harm outcomes in clinical trial manuscripts and reports will provide clearer presentation of harm information and thus enable informative interpretation, especially valuable for assessing the profile of harm. Whilst we endorse each of the visualisations presented, we also note their limitations and provide examples of where their use would be inappropriate. Though the decision tree aids the choice of visualisation the statistician and clinical trial team must ultimately decide the most appropriate visualisations for their data and objectives. We recommend trialists continue to examine crude numbers alongside visualisations to fully understand harm profiles
    corecore