Who wants to join preventive trials? – Experience from the Estonian Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy Trial [ISRCTN35338757]

BACKGROUND: The interest of patients in participating in randomized clinical trials involving treatments has been widely studied, but there has been much less research on interest in preventive trials. The objective of this study was to find out how many women would be interested in a trial involving postmenopausal hormone therapy (PHT) and how the women's background characteristics and opinions correlated to their interest. METHODS: The data come from recruitment questionnaires (n = 2000) sent to women in Estonia in 1998. A random sample of women aged 45 to 64 was drawn from the Population Registry. The trial is a two-group randomized trial comparing estrogen-progestogen therapy with placebo or no drugs. A brief description of the study was attached to the questionnaires. Women were not told at this stage of the recruitment which group they would be assigned to, however, they were told of the chance to receive either hormone, placebo or no treatment. RESULTS: After two reminders, 1312 women (66%) responded. Eleven percent of the women approached (17% of the respondents) were interested in joining the trial, and 8% wanted more information before deciding. When the 225 women who stated clearly that they were interested in joining and the 553 women who said they were not interested were compared, it was found that interested women were younger and, adjusting for age, that more had given birth; in other respects, the sociodemographic characteristics and health habits of the interested women were similar to those of the non-interested women. The interested women had made more use of more health services, calcium preparations and PHT, they were more often overweight, and more had chronic diseases and reported symptoms. Interested women's opinions on the menopause were more negative, and they favoured PHT more than the non-interested women. CONCLUSION: Unlike the situation described in previous reports on preventive trials, in this case Estonian women interested in participating in a PHT trial were not healthier than other women. This suggests that trials involving PHT are more similar to treatment trials than to preventive trials. In a randomized controlled trial, more information should be obtained from those women who decline to participate

Dose escalation of a curcuminoid formulation

BACKGROUND: Curcumin is the major yellow pigment extracted from turmeric, a commonly-used spice in India and Southeast Asia that has broad anticarcinogenic and cancer chemopreventive potential. However, few systematic studies of curcumin's pharmacology and toxicology in humans have been performed. METHODS: A dose escalation study was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose and safety of a single dose of standardized powder extract, uniformly milled curcumin (C(3 )Complex™, Sabinsa Corporation). Healthy volunteers were administered escalating doses from 500 to 12,000 mg. RESULTS: Seven of twenty-four subjects (30%) experienced only minimal toxicity that did not appear to be dose-related. No curcumin was detected in the serum of subjects administered 500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, 6,000 or 8,000 mg. Low levels of curcumin were detected in two subjects administered 10,000 or 12,000 mg. CONCLUSION: The tolerance of curcumin in high single oral doses appears to be excellent. Given that achieving systemic bioavailability of curcumin or its metabolites may not be essential for colorectal cancer chemoprevention, these findings warrant further investigation for its utility as a long-term chemopreventive agent

Association of MC1R Variants and host phenotypes with melanoma risk in CDKN2A mutation carriers: a GenoMEL study

<p><b>Background</b> Carrying the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) germline mutations is associated with a high risk for melanoma. Penetrance of CDKN2A mutations is modified by pigmentation characteristics, nevus phenotypes, and some variants of the melanocortin-1 receptor gene (MC1R), which is known to have a role in the pigmentation process. However, investigation of the associations of both MC1R variants and host phenotypes with melanoma risk has been limited.</p> <p><b>Methods</b> We included 815 CDKN2A mutation carriers (473 affected, and 342 unaffected, with melanoma) from 186 families from 15 centers in Europe, North America, and Australia who participated in the Melanoma Genetics Consortium. In this family-based study, we assessed the associations of the four most frequent MC1R variants (V60L, V92M, R151C, and R160W) and the number of variants (1, ≥2 variants), alone or jointly with the host phenotypes (hair color, propensity to sunburn, and number of nevi), with melanoma risk in CDKN2A mutation carriers. These associations were estimated and tested using generalized estimating equations. All statistical tests were two-sided.</p> <p><b>Results</b> Carrying any one of the four most frequent MC1R variants (V60L, V92M, R151C, R160W) in CDKN2A mutation carriers was associated with a statistically significantly increased risk for melanoma across all continents (1.24 × 10−6 ≤ P ≤ .0007). A consistent pattern of increase in melanoma risk was also associated with increase in number of MC1R variants. The risk of melanoma associated with at least two MC1R variants was 2.6-fold higher than the risk associated with only one variant (odds ratio = 5.83 [95% confidence interval = 3.60 to 9.46] vs 2.25 [95% confidence interval = 1.44 to 3.52]; Ptrend = 1.86 × 10−8). The joint analysis of MC1R variants and host phenotypes showed statistically significant associations of melanoma risk, together with MC1R variants (.0001 ≤ P ≤ .04), hair color (.006 ≤ P ≤ .06), and number of nevi (6.9 × 10−6 ≤ P ≤ .02).</p> <p><b>Conclusion</b> Results show that MC1R variants, hair color, and number of nevi were jointly associated with melanoma risk in CDKN2A mutation carriers. This joint association may have important consequences for risk assessments in familial settings.</p&gt

Risk prediction tools for cancer in primary care.

Numerous risk tools are now available, which predict either current or future risk of a cancer diagnosis. In theory, these tools have the potential to improve patient outcomes through enhancing the consistency and quality of clinical decision-making, facilitating equitable and cost-effective distribution of finite resources such as screening tests or preventive interventions, and encouraging behaviour change. These potential uses have been recognised by the National Cancer Institute as an 'area of extraordinary opportunity' and an increasing number of risk prediction models continue to be developed. The data on predictive utility (discrimination and calibration) of these models suggest that some have potential for clinical application; however, the focus on implementation and impact is much more recent and there remains considerable uncertainty about their clinical utility and how to implement them in order to maximise benefits and minimise harms such as over-medicalisation, anxiety and false reassurance. If the potential benefits of risk prediction models are to be realised in clinical practice, further validation of the underlying risk models and research to assess the acceptability, clinical impact and economic implications of incorporating them in practice are needed.This is the final version of the article. It was first available from NPG via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.40

The utility of Aspirin in dukes C and high risk dukes B colorectal cancer - The ASCOLT study: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>High quality evidence indicates that aspirin is effective in reducing colorectal polyps; and numerous epidemiological studies point towards an ability to prevent colorectal cancer. However the role of Aspirin as an adjuvant agent in patients with established cancers remains to be defined. Recently a nested case-control study within the Nurses Health cohort suggested that the initiation of Aspirin <it>after </it>the diagnosis of colon cancer reduced overall colorectal cancer specific mortality. Although this data is supportive of Aspirin's biological activity in this disease and possible role in adjuvant therapy, it needs to be confirmed in a randomized prospective trial.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>We hypothesize through this randomized, placebo-controlled adjuvant study, that Aspirin in patients with dukes C or high risk dukes B colorectal cancer (ASCOLT) can improve survival in this patient population over placebo control. The primary endpoint of this study is Disease Free Survival and the secondary Endpoint is 5 yr Overall Survival. This study will randomize eligible patients with Dukes C or high risk Dukes B colorectal cancer, after completion of surgery and standard adjuvant chemotherapy (+/- radiation therapy for rectal cancer patients) to 200 mg Aspirin or Placebo for 3 years. Stratification factors include study centre, rectal or colon cancer stage, and type of adjuvant chemotherapy (exposed/not exposed to oxaliplatin). After randomization, patient will be followed up with 3 monthly assessments whilst on study drug and for a total of 5 years. Patients with active peptic ulcer disease, bleeding diathesis or on treatment with aspirin or anti-platelet agents will be excluded from the study.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study aims to evaluate Aspirin's role as an adjuvant treatment in colorectal cancer. If indeed found to be beneficial, because aspirin is cheap, accessible and easy to administer, it will positively impact the lives of many individuals in Asia and globally.</p> <p>Trials Registration</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00565708">NCT00565708</a></p

Predictors of colorectal cancer screening in diverse primary care practices

BACKGROUND: To explain why rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening including fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy (CS), and barium enema (BE), are low, this study assessed determinants of CRC screening from medical records. METHODS: Data were abstracted from patients aged ≥64 years selected from each clinician from 30 diverse primary care practices (n = 981). Measurements included the rates of annual FOBT, ever receiving FOBT, ever receiving FS/CS/BE under a combination variable, endoscopy/barium enema (EBE). RESULTS: Over five years, 8% had received annual FOBT, 53% had ever received FOBT and 22% had ever received EBE. Annual FOBT was negatively associated with female gender, odds ratio (OR) = .23; 95% confidence interval = .12–.44 and positively associated with routinely receiving influenza vaccine, OR = 2.55 (1.45–4.47); and more office visits: 3 to <5 visits/year, OR = 2.78 (1.41–5.51), and ≥5 visits/year, OR = 3.35 (1.52-7.42). Ever receiving EBE was negatively associated with age ≥75 years, OR = .66 (.46–.95); being widowed, OR = .59 (.38–.92); and positively associated with more office visits: 3 to <5 visits/year, OR = 1.83 (1.18–2.82) and ≥5 visits/year, OR = 2.01 (1.14–3.55). CONCLUSION: Overall CRC screening rates were low, but were related to the number of primary care office visits. FOBT was related to immunization status, suggesting the possible benefit of linking these preventive services

Uptake in cancer screening programmes:a priority in cancer control

Achieving adequate levels of uptake in cancer screening requires a variety of approaches that need to be shaped by the characteristics of both the screening programme and the target population. Strategies to improve uptake typically produce only incremental increases. Accordingly, approaches that combine behavioural, organisational and other strategies are most likely to succeed. In conjunction with a focus on uptake, providers of screening services need to promote informed decision making among invitees. Addressing inequalities in uptake must remain a priority for screening programmes. Evidence informing strategies targeting low-uptake groups is scarce, and more research is needed in this area. Cancer screening has the potential to make a major contribution to early diagnosis initiatives in the United Kingdom, and will best be achieved through uptake strategies that emphasise wide coverage, informed choice and equitable distribution of cancer screening services

Regular use of analgesics is a risk factor for renal cell carcinoma

Phenacetin-based analgesics have been linked to the development of renal pelvis cancer and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The relationship between non-phenacetin types of analgesics and kidney cancer is less clear, although laboratory evidence suggests that these drugs possess carcinogenic potential. A population-based case–control study involving 1204 non-Asian RCC patients aged 25–74 and an equal number of sex-, age- and race-matched neighbourhood controls was conducted in Los Angeles, California, to investigate the relationship between sustained use of analgesics and risk of RCC according to major formulation categories. Detailed information on medical and medication histories, and other lifestyle factors was collected through in-person interviews. Regular use of analgesics was a significant risk factor for RCC in both men and women (odds ratio (OR) = 1.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.4–1.9 for both sexes combined). Risks were elevated across all four major classes of analgesics (aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents other than aspirin, acetaminophen and phenacetin). Within each class of analgesics, there was statistically significant increasing risk with increasing level of exposure. Although there was some minor variability by major class of formulation, in general individuals in the highest exposure categories exhibited approximately 2.5-fold increase in risk relative to non- or irregular users of analgesics. Subjects who took one regular-strength (i.e. 325 mg) aspirin a day or less for cardiovascular disease prevention were not at an increased risk of RCC (OR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.6–1.4). © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

The development of a web- and a print-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening

Background Whether early detection and treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) will reduce disease-related mortality remains uncertain. As a result, tools are needed to facilitate informed decision making. While there have been several decision aids (DAs) developed and tested, very few have included an exercise to help men clarify their values and preferences about PCa screening. Further, only one DA has utilized an interactive web-based format, which allows for an expansion and customization of the material. We describe the development of two DAs, a booklet and an interactive website, each with a values clarification component and designed for use in diverse settings. Methods We conducted two feasibility studies to assess men\u27s (45-70 years) Internet access and their willingness to use a web- vs. a print-based tool. The booklet was adapted from two previous versions evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the website was created to closely match the content of the revised booklet. Usability testing was conducted to obtain feedback regarding draft versions of the materials. The tools were also reviewed by a plain language expert and the interdisciplinary research team. Feedback on the content and presentation led to iterative modifications of the tools. Results The feasibility studies confirmed that the Internet was a viable medium, as the majority of men used a computer, had access to the Internet, and Internet use increased over time. Feedback from the usability testing on the length, presentation, and content of the materials was incorporated into the final versions of the booklet and website. Both the feasibility studies and the usability testing highlighted the need to address men\u27s informed decision making regarding screening. Conclusions Informed decision making for PCa screening is crucial at present and may be important for some time, particularly if a definitive recommendation either for or against screening does not emerge from ongoing prostate cancer screening trials. We have detailed our efforts at developing print- and web-based DAs to assist men in determining how to best meet their PCa screening preferences. Following completion of our ongoing RCT designed to test these materials, our goal will be to develop a dissemination project for the more effective tool