Olfactory and gustatory sensory changes to tobacco smoke in pregnant smokers

Models of smoking behavior change include addiction, social, and behavioral concepts. The purpose of this study was to explore the prevalence of two biologic factors, olfactory and gustatory responses to tobacco smoke, as potentially powerful contributors to smoking behavior change among pregnant women. Data were obtained from 209 pregnant smokers. The majority of women reported olfactory (62%) and gustatory (53%) aversions to tobacco. Aversions first appeared during the first trimester of pregnancy. Women who experienced olfactory aversions were more likely also to experience gustatory aversions. Olfactory aversions were associated with women smoking less. Aversions to tobacco smoke are common among pregnant smokers, are associated with women smoking less, and could help explain pregnant women’s smoking patterns

Local recurrence after surgery for non–small cell lung cancer: A recursive partitioning analysis of multi-institutional data

OBJECTIVE: To define subgroups at high risk of local recurrence (LR) after surgery for non-small cell lung cancer using a recursive partitioning analysis (RPA). METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved study included patients who underwent upfront surgery for I-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer at Duke Cancer Institute (primary set) or at other participating institutions (validation set). The 2 data sets were analyzed separately and identically. Disease recurrence at the surgical margin, ipsilateral hilum, and/or mediastinum was considered an LR. Recursive partitioning was used to build regression trees for the prediction of local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) from standard clinical and pathological factors. LRFS distributions were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The 1411 patients in the primary set had a 5-year LRFS rate of 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.81), and the 889 patients in the validation set had a 5-year LRFS rate of 76% (95% CI, 0.72-0.80). The RPA of the primary data set identified 3 terminal nodes based on stage and histology. These nodes and their 5-year LRFS rates were as follows: (1) stage I/adenocarcinoma, 87% (95% CI, 0.83-0.90); (2) stage I/squamous or large cell, 72% (95% CI, 0.65-0.79); and (3) stage II-IIIA, 62% (95% CI, 0.55-0.69). The validation RPA identified 3 terminal nodes based on lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and stage: (1) no LVI/stage IA, 82% (95% CI, 0.76-0.88); (2) no LVI/stage IB-IIIA, 73% (95% CI, 0.69-0.80); and (3) LVI, 58% (95% CI, 0.47-0.69). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of LR was similar in the primary and validation patient data sets. There was discordance between the 2 data sets regarding the clinical factors that best segregate patients into risk groups

Proactive recruitment of cancer patients' social networks into a smoking cessation trial

This report describes the characteristics associated with successful enrollment of smokers in the social networks (i.e., family and close friends) of patients with lung cancer into a smoking cessation intervention

Nicotine Replacement and Behavioral Therapy for Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy

This study examines whether adding nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for pregnant smokers increases rates of smoking cessation

The lung cancer exercise training study: a randomized trial of aerobic training, resistance training, or both in postsurgical lung cancer patients: rationale and design

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Lung Cancer Exercise Training Study (LUNGEVITY) is a randomized trial to investigate the efficacy of different types of exercise training on cardiorespiratory fitness (VO_2peak), patient-reported outcomes, and the organ components that govern VO_2peakin post-operative non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Using a single-center, randomized design, 160 subjects (40 patients/study arm) with histologically confirmed stage I-IIIA NSCLC following curative-intent complete surgical resection at Duke University Medical Center (DUMC) will be potentially eligible for this trial. Following baseline assessments, eligible participants will be randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (1) aerobic training alone, (2) resistance training alone, (3) the combination of aerobic and resistance training, or (4) attention-control (progressive stretching). The ultimate goal for all exercise training groups will be 3 supervised exercise sessions per week an intensity above 70% of the individually determined VO_2peakfor aerobic training and an intensity between 60 and 80% of one-repetition maximum for resistance training, for 30-45 minutes/session. Progressive stretching will be matched to the exercise groups in terms of program length (i.e., 16 weeks), social interaction (participants will receive one-on-one instruction), and duration (30-45 mins/session). The primary study endpoint is VO_2peak. Secondary endpoints include: patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (e.g., quality of life, fatigue, depression, etc.) and organ components of the oxygen cascade (i.e., pulmonary function, cardiac function, skeletal muscle function). All endpoints will be assessed at baseline and postintervention (16 weeks). Substudies will include genetic studies regarding individual responses to an exercise stimulus, theoretical determinants of exercise adherence, examination of the psychological mediators of the exercise - PRO relationship, and exercise-induced changes in gene expression.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>VO_2peakis becoming increasingly recognized as an outcome of major importance in NSCLC. LUNGEVITY will identify the optimal form of exercise training for NSCLC survivors as well as provide insight into the physiological mechanisms underlying this effect. Overall, this study will contribute to the establishment of clinical exercise therapy rehabilitation guidelines for patients across the entire NSCLC continuum.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>NCT00018255</p

Evaluating the evidence: statistical methods in randomized controlled trials in the urological literature.

PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials potentially provide the highest level of evidence to inform clinical decision making. Appropriate use of statistical methods is a critical aspect of all clinical research, including randomized controlled trials. We report the first formal evaluation to our knowledge of the statistical methods of randomized controlled trials published in the urological literature in 1996 and 2004. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All human subjects randomized controlled trials published in 4 leading urology journals in 1996 and 2004 were identified for formal review. A standardized evaluation form was developed based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Each article was evaluated by 2 independent reviewers with formal training in research design and biostatistics who were blinded to study authors and institution. Discrepancies were settled by consensus. RESULTS: A total of 152 randomized controlled trials were reviewed (65 in 1996, 87 in 2004). The median sample size (IQR) per arm of parallel design randomized controlled trials published in 1996 and 2004 was 36 (11, 96) and 50 (26, 134) study subjects, respectively (p = 0.157). Sample size justifications were provided by 19% of studies in 1996 and 47% of studies in 2004 (p = 0.001). Of randomized controlled trials 16 (25%) vs 32 (37%) identified a single primary outcome variable (p = 0.110). Effect size estimates for primary or secondary outcome variables were provided by 5% vs 13% (p = 0.090) and the precision of the effect was detailed by 5% vs 10% of randomized controlled trials (p = 0.195). CONCLUSIONS: This formal review suggests that statistical analysis in urological randomized controlled trials has improved. However, considerable deficiencies remain. Ongoing education in applied statistics may further improve urological randomized controlled trial reporting

A critical assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in the urology literature.

PURPOSE: Randomized, controlled trials are the gold standard for evidence based assessment of therapeutic interventions. In 1996 the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement was published in an effort to standardize the reporting of clinical trials. To our knowledge we report the first systematic assessment of randomized, controlled trial quality in the urology literature by Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All human subject randomized, controlled trials published in 4 leading urology journals in 1996 and 2004 were identified for formal review. A standardized evaluation form was developed based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Each article was evaluated by 2 independent reviewers and discrepancies were settled by consensus. A Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials criteria summary score was calculated on a scale of 0 to 22. RESULTS: A total of 152 randomized, controlled trials met inclusion criteria. The mean+/-SEM Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials summary score was 10.2+/-0.3 (median 10.3) and 12.0+/-0.3 (median 12.2) in 1996 and 2004, respectively, with a mean difference of 1.8 (95% CI 1.0, 2.6; p=0.001). Reporting of important methodological criteria, eg sample size justification and randomization implementation, improved from 1996 to 2004. Improvement notwithstanding, reporting of key methodological criteria remained consistently below 50% in 2004. CONCLUSIONS: This formal review suggests that randomized, controlled trial reporting in the urology literature has improved since the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement in 1996. Certain areas, such as reporting of trial methods, continue to meet Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials criteria in fewer than half of publications. Ongoing graduate and postgraduate education in trial design and evidence based practice may result in further improvement in randomized, controlled trial reporting

Effect of addition of adjuvant paclitaxel on radiotherapy delivery and locoregional control of node-positive breast cancer: cancer and leukemia group B 9344

PURPOSE: We compared radiotherapy (RT) delivery and locoregional control in patients with node-positive breast cancer randomly assigned on Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9344 to receive adjuvant doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) with patients assigned to receive AC followed by paclitaxel (AC+T). METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant AC versus AC+T chemotherapy. RT was required if breast-conserving surgery was performed but was elective after mastectomy. Information about RT delivery was retrospectively collected. Cumulative incidence of locoregional recurrence (LRR), use of elective RT, and RT delivery were compared between treatment arms. RESULTS: For patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and RT, the 5-year cumulative incidence of isolated LRR was 9.7% in the AC arm and 3.7% in the AC+T arm (P = .04) and of LRR as any component of failure was 12.9% versus 6.1%, respectively (P = .04). Although LRR rates in patients who did not receive postmastectomy RT were lower in the AC+T arm, the difference was not statistically significant. Despite the lack of protocol guidelines, RT use did not differ between arms, nor did RT dose, treatment interruption, or completion. CONCLUSION: Despite the delay to RT during additional chemotherapy, adjuvant AC+T afforded better local control than AC alone in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Addition of paclitaxel did not adversely affect delivery or ability to tolerate RT, as indicated by similar rates of completion of timely, full-dose RT between arms