Excess of cardiovascular mortality among node-negative breast cancer patients irradiated for inner-quadrant tumors

Background: Radiotherapy of the left breast is associated with higher cardiovascular mortality linked to cardiotoxic effect of irradiation. Radiotherapy of inner quadrants can be associated with greater heart irradiation, but no study has evaluated the effect of inner-quadrant irradiation on cardiovascular mortality. Patients and methods: We identified 1245 women, the majority with breast-conserving surgery, irradiated for primary node-negative breast cancer from 1980 to 2004 registered at the Geneva Cancer Registry. We compared breast cancer-specific and cardiovascular mortality between inner-quadrant (n = 393) versus outer-quadrant tumors (n = 852) by multivariate Cox regression analysis. Results: After a mean follow-up of 7.7 years, 28 women died of cardiovascular disease and 91 of breast cancer. Patients with inner-quadrant tumors had a more than doubled risk of cardiovascular mortality compared with patients with outer-quadrant tumors (adjusted hazard ratio 2.5; 95% confidence interval 1.1-5.4). Risk was particularly increased in the period with higher boost irradiation. Patients with left-sided breast cancer had no excess of cardiovascular mortality compared with patients with right-sided tumors. Conclusions: Radiotherapy of inner-quadrant breast cancer is associated with an important increase of cardiovascular mortality, a possible result of higher irradiation of the heart. For patients with inner-quadrant tumors, the heart should be radioprotecte

Projecting the fiscal impact of South Africa’s contraceptive needs: Scaling up family planning post 2020

Background. Evidence-informed priority setting is vital to improved investment in public health interventions. This is particularly important as South Africa (SA) makes the shift to universal health coverage and institution of National Health Insurance.Objectives. To measure the financial impact of increasing the demand for modern contraceptive methods in the SA public health sector. We estimated the total cost of providing contraceptives, and specifically the budgetary impact of premature removals of long-acting reversible contraceptives.Methods. We created a deterministic model in Microsoft Excel to estimate the costs of contraception provision over a 5-year time horizon (2018 - 2023) from a healthcare provider perspective. Only direct costs of service provision were considered, including drugs, supplies and personnel time. Costs were not discounted owing to the short time horizon. Scenario analyses were conducted to test uncertainty.Results. The base-case cost of current contraceptive use in 2018 was estimated to be ZAR1.64 billion (ZAR29 per capita). Injectable contraceptives accounted for ~47% of total costs. To meet the total demand for family planning, SA would have to spend ~30% more than the estimate for current contraceptive use. In the year 2023, the ‘current use’ of modern contraceptives would increase to ZAR2.2 billion, and fulfilling the total demand for family planning would require ZAR2.9 billion. The base-case cost of implantable contraceptives was estimated at ZAR54 million. Assuming a normal removal rate, the use of implants is projected to increase by 20% during the 5-year period between 2019 and 2023, with an estimated 46% increase in costs. The cost of early removal of Implanon NXT is estimated at ZAR75 million, with total contraception costs estimated at ZAR102 million in 2019, compared with ZAR56 million when a normal removal rate is applied.Conclusions. The costs of scaling up modern contraceptives in SA are substantial. Early and premature removals of implantable contraceptives are costly to the nation and must be minimised. The government should consider conducting appropriate health technology assessments to inform the introduction of new public health interventions as SA makes the shift to universal health coverage by means of National Health Insurance.

Occupational injury history and universal precautions awareness: a survey in Kabul hospital staff

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health staff in Afghanistan may be at high risk of needle stick injury and occupational infection with blood borne pathogens, but we have not found any published or unpublished data.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Our aim was to measure the percentage of healthcare staff reporting sharps injuries in the preceding 12 months, and to explore what they knew about universal precautions. In five randomly selected government hospitals in Kabul a total of 950 staff participated in the study. Data were analyzed with Epi Info 3.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventy three percent of staff (72.6%, 491/676) reported sharps injury in the preceding 12 months, with remarkably similar levels between hospitals and staff cadres in the 676 (71.1%) people responding. Most at risk were gynaecologist/obstetricians (96.1%) followed by surgeons (91.1%), nurses (80.2%), dentists (75.4%), midwives (62.0%), technicians (50.0%), and internist/paediatricians (47.5%). Of the injuries reported, the commonest were from hollow-bore needles (46.3%, n = 361/780), usually during recapping. Almost a quarter (27.9%) of respondents had not been vaccinated against hepatitis B. Basic knowledge about universal precautions were found insufficient across all hospitals and cadres.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Occupational health policies for universal precautions need to be implemented in Afghani hospitals. Staff vaccination against hepatitis B is recommended.</p

Tuberculosis Trends in Saudis and Non-Saudis in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – A 10 Year Retrospective Study (2000–2009)

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a public health problem in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), which has a very large labour force from high TB endemic countries. Understanding the epidemiological and clinical features of the TB problem, and the TB burden in the immigrant workforce, is necessary for improved planning and implementation of TB services and prevention measures

SUBMIT: Systemic therapy with or without up front surgery of the primary tumor in breast cancer patients with distant metastases at initial presentation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Five percent of all patients with breast cancer have distant metastatic disease at initial presentation. Because metastatic breast cancer is considered to be an incurable disease, it is generally treated with a palliative intent. Recent non-randomized studies have demonstrated that (complete) resection of the primary tumor is associated with a significant improvement of the survival of patients with primary metastatic breast cancer. However, other studies have suggested that the claimed survival benefit by surgery may be caused by selection bias. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial will be performed to assess whether breast surgery in patients with primary distant metastatic breast cancer will improve the prognosis.</p> <p>Design</p> <p>Randomization will take place after the diagnosis of primary distant metastatic breast cancer. Patients will either be randomized to up front surgery of the breast tumor followed by systemic therapy or to systemic therapy, followed by delayed local treatment of the breast tumor if clinically indicated.</p> <p>Patients with primary distant metastatic breast cancer, with no prior treatment of the breast cancer, who are 18 years or older and fit enough to undergo surgery and systemic therapy are eligible. Important exclusion criteria are: prior invasive breast cancer, surgical treatment or radiotherapy of this breast tumor before randomization, irresectable T4 tumor and synchronous bilateral breast cancer. The primary endpoint is 2-year survival. Quality of life and local tumor control are among the secondary endpoints.</p> <p>Based on the results of prior research it was calculated that 258 patients are needed in each treatment arm, assuming a power of 80%. Total accrual time is expected to take 60 months. An interim analysis will be performed to assess any clinically significant safety concerns and to determine whether there is evidence that up front surgery is clinically or statistically inferior to systemic therapy with respect to the primary endpoint.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The SUBMIT study is a randomized controlled trial that will provide evidence on whether or not surgery of the primary tumor in breast cancer patients with metastatic disease at initial presentation results in an improved survival.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01392586">NCT01392586</a>.</p

Resection of the primary tumour versus no resection prior to systemic therapy in patients with colon cancer and synchronous unresectable metastases (UICC stage IV): SYNCHRONOUS - a randomised controlled multicentre trial (ISRCTN30964555)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Currently, it remains unclear, if patients with colon cancer and synchronous unresectable metastases who present without severe symptoms should undergo resection of the primary tumour prior to systemic chemotherapy. Resection of the primary tumour may be associated with significant morbidity and delays the beginning of chemotherapy. However, it may prevent local symptoms and may, moreover, prolong survival as has been demonstrated in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. It is the aim of the present randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of primary tumour resection prior to systemic chemotherapy to prolong survival in patients with newly diagnosed colon cancer who are not amenable to curative therapy.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The SYNCHRONOUS trial is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, superiority trial with a two-group parallel design. Colon cancer patients with synchronous unresectable metastases are eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria are primary tumour-related symptoms, inability to tolerate surgery and/or systemic chemotherapy and history of another primary cancer. Resection of the primary tumour as well as systemic chemotherapy is provided according to the standards of the participating institution. The primary endpoint is overall survival that is assessed with a minimum follow-up of 36 months. Furthermore, it is the objective of the trial to assess the safety of both treatment strategies as well as quality of life.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The SYNCHRONOUS trial is a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of primary tumour resection before beginning of systemic chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN30964555">ISRCTN30964555</a></p

Survival Impact of Primary Tumor Resection in De Novo Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients (GEICAM/El Alamo Registry)

The debate about surgical resection of primary tumor (PT) in de novo metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients persists. We explored this approach's outcomes in patients included in a retrospective registry, named El Álamo, of breast cancer patients diagnosed in Spain (1990-2001). In this analysis we only included de novo MBC patients, 1415 of whom met the study's criteria. Descriptive, Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were carried out. Median age was 63.1 years, 49.2% of patients had single-organ metastasis (skin/soft tissue [16.3%], bone [33.8%], or viscera [48.3%]). PT surgery (S) was performed in 44.5% of the cases. S-group patients were younger, had smaller tumors, higher prevalence of bone and oligometastatic disease, and lower prevalence of visceral involvement. With a median follow-up of 23.3 months, overall survival (OS) was 39.6 versus 22.4 months (HR = 0.59, p < 0.0001) in the S- and non-S groups, respectively. The S-group OS benefit remained statistically and clinically significant regardless of metastatic location, histological type, histological grade, hormone receptor status and tumor size. PT surgery (versus no surgery) was associated with an OS benefit suggesting that loco-regional PT control may be considered in selected MBC patients. Data from randomized controlled trials are of utmost importance to confirm these results

Prophylaxis is the new standard of care in patients with haemophilia

Randomised controlled clinical trial evidence on prophylaxis as optimal care for patients with haemophilia was generated more than a decade ago. However, this knowledge has not translated into clinical practice in South Africa (SA) owing to many barriers to prophylaxis. These include the high treatment burden imposed by prophylaxis (frequent injections two to four times a week), the need for intravenous access to administer replacement clotting factor therapies, and the higher volume of clotting factor required compared with episodic treatment. The recently introduced non-factor therapies in haemophilia care have addressed many of these barriers. For example, emicizumab, which is currently the only globally approved non-factor therapy, can be administered subcutaneously less frequently (weekly, fortnightly or every 4 weeks) and has led to global adoption of prophylaxis as the standard of care in haemophilia by the bleeding disorders community. Haemophilia A is the most prevalent clotting factor deficiency in SA, with >2 000 people diagnosed to date. However, only a few of these patients are currently on prophylaxis. In this ‘In Practice’ article, we review the rationale for prophylaxis, outline its goals and benefits, and provide evidence-based guidance on which haemophilia patients should be prioritised for emicizumab prophylaxis. This consensus guidance facilitates the adoption of prophylaxis as a national policy and the new standard of care in haemophilia in SA.http://www.samj.org.zadm2022HaematologyPaediatrics and Child Healt