An analysis of first-time enquirers to the CancerBACUP information service: variations with cancer site, demographic status and geographical location

A retrospective comparison of cancer incidence data and, where relevant, population data with 16 955first-time users (patients, relatives and friends) of a national cancer information service (CancerBACUP) during the period April1995 to March 1996 is presented. The number of events observed was compared with the number of events expected, were the nationalrates of cancer incidence and population demographics apply. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) (observed – expectedratios) were used to indicate any differences. Statistically significant differences (P< 0.001) in the observed andexpected sex, age and primary site distribution of patients enquired about were found. Statistically significant differences(P< 0.001) were also identified for the age, employment status, socioeconomic class and geographical location offirst-time enquirers (patients, relatives and friends). Enquiries about brain, testis and breast cancers and non-Hodgkin'slymphoma (NHL) were substantially higher than expected; enquiries about bladder, lung, stomach and colorectal cancers were muchlower than expected. As the service is provided via a freephone number, it is available to all, and users might be expected to berandomly distributed across the variables listed. The underlying reasons for the differences identified need to be investigated,and the role of information in the care of cancer patients should be formally evaluated. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

Prevalence of distressing symptoms in hospitalised patients on medical wards: A cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many patients with advanced, serious, non-malignant disease belong to the population generally seen on medical wards. However, little research has been carried out on palliative care needs in this group. The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of distressing symptoms in patients hospitalised in a Department of Internal Medicine, estimate how many of these patients might be regarded as palliative, and describe their main symptoms.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional (point prevalence) study. All patients hospitalised in the Departments of Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Medicine, and Cardiology were asked to do a symptom assessment by use of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). Patients were defined as "palliative" if they had an advanced, serious, chronic disease with limited life expectancy and symptom relief as the main goal of treatment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>222 patients were registered in all. ESAS was completed for 160 patients. 79 (35.6%) were defined as palliative and 43 of them completed ESAS. The patients in the palliative group were older than the rest, and reported more dyspnea (70%) and a greater lack of wellbeing (70%). Other symptoms reported by this group were dry mouth (58%), fatigue (56%), depression (41%), anxiety (37%), pain at rest (30%), and pain on movement (42%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>More than one third of the patients in a Department of Internal Medicine were defined as palliative, and the majority of the patients in this palliative group reported severe symptoms. There is a need for skills in symptom control on medical wards.</p

Schedule-dependent response of neuroblastoma cell lines to combinations of etoposide and cisplatin

The growth inhibitory effects of cisplatin and etoposide on neuroblastoma cell lines were investigated in several scheduled combinations. Results were analyzed using median effect and combination index analyses. In all schedules in which cisplatin was administered prior to etoposide a synergistic effect was observed. Conversely, an antagonistic effect was seen in all schedules where etoposide was administered before cisplatin

'Being there' for women with metastatic breast cancer: a pan-European patient survey

BACKGROUND: Understanding their experiences of diagnosis is integral to improving the quality of care for women living with advanced/metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: A survey, initiated in March 2011, was conducted in two stages. First, the views of 47 breast cancer-related patient groups in eight European countries were sought on standards of breast cancer care and unmet needs of patients. Findings were used to develop a patient-centric survey to capture personal experiences of advanced breast cancer to determine insights into the ‘trade-off' between extending overall survival and side effects associated with its treatment. The second online survey was open to women with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, or their carers, and responders were recruited through local patient groups. Data were collected via anonymous local language questionnaires. RESULTS: The online stage II survey received a total of 230 responses from 17 European countries: 94% of respondents had locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and 6% were adult carers. Although the overall experience of care was generally good/excellent (77%), gaps were still perceived in terms of treatment choice and information provision. Treatment choice for patients was felt to be lacking by 32% of responders. In addition, 68% of those who responded would have liked more information about future medical treatments and research, with 57% wishing to receive this information from their oncologist. Two-thirds (66%) of women with advanced breast cancer, or their carers, believed life-extending treatment to be important so that they can spend more time with family and friends, and 67% said that the treatment was worthwhile, despite potential associated side effects. CONCLUSION: These findings show a continuing need to provide women with advanced breast cancer with better information and emphasise the importance that these patients often place on prolonging survival

What differences are detected by superiority trials or ruled out by noninferiority trials? A cross-sectional study on a random sample of two-hundred two-arms parallel group randomized clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The smallest difference to be detected in superiority trials or the largest difference to be ruled out in noninferiority trials is a key determinant of sample size, but little guidance exists to help researchers in their choice. The objectives were to examine the distribution of differences that researchers aim to detect in clinical trials and to verify that those differences are smaller in noninferiority compared to superiority trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional study based on a random sample of two hundred two-arm, parallel group superiority (100) and noninferiority (100) randomized clinical trials published between 2004 and 2009 in 27 leading medical journals. The main outcome measure was the smallest difference in favor of the new treatment to be detected (superiority trials) or largest unfavorable difference to be ruled out (noninferiority trials) used for sample size computation, expressed as standardized difference in proportions, or standardized difference in means. Student t test and analysis of variance were used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The differences to be detected or ruled out varied considerably from one study to the next; e.g., for superiority trials, the standardized difference in means ranged from 0.007 to 0.87, and the standardized difference in proportions from 0.04 to 1.56. On average, superiority trials were designed to detect larger differences than noninferiority trials (standardized difference in proportions: mean 0.37 versus 0.27, <it>P </it>= 0.001; standardized difference in means: 0.56 versus 0.40, <it>P </it>= 0.006). Standardized differences were lower for mortality than for other outcomes, and lower in cardiovascular trials than in other research areas.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Superiority trials are designed to detect larger differences than noninferiority trials are designed to rule out. The variability between studies is considerable and is partly explained by the type of outcome and the medical context. A more explicit and rational approach to choosing the difference to be detected or to be ruled out in clinical trials may be desirable.</p

What differences are detected by superiority trials or ruled out by noninferiority trials? A cross-sectional study on a random sample of two-hundred two-arms parallel group randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND: The smallest difference to be detected in superiority trials or the largest difference to be ruled out in noninferiority trials is a key determinant of sample size, but little guidance exists to help researchers in their choice. The objectives were to examine the distribution of differences that researchers aim to detect in clinical trials and to verify that those differences are smaller in noninferiority compared to superiority trials. METHODS: Cross-sectional study based on a random sample of two hundred two-arm, parallel group superiority (100) and noninferiority (100) randomized clinical trials published between 2004 and 2009 in 27 leading medical journals. The main outcome measure was the smallest difference in favor of the new treatment to be detected (superiority trials) or largest unfavorable difference to be ruled out (noninferiority trials) used for sample size computation, expressed as standardized difference in proportions, or standardized difference in means. Student t test and analysis of variance were used. RESULTS: The differences to be detected or ruled out varied considerably from one study to the next; e.g., for superiority trials, the standardized difference in means ranged from 0.007 to 0.87, and the standardized difference in proportions from 0.04 to 1.56. On average, superiority trials were designed to detect larger differences than noninferiority trials (standardized difference in proportions: mean 0.37 versus 0.27, P = 0.001; standardized difference in means: 0.56 versus 0.40, P = 0.006). Standardized differences were lower for mortality than for other outcomes, and lower in cardiovascular trials than in other research areas. CONCLUSIONS: Superiority trials are designed to detect larger differences than noninferiority trials are designed to rule out. The variability between studies is considerable and is partly explained by the type of outcome and the medical context. A more explicit and rational approach to choosing the difference to be detected or to be ruled out in clinical trials may be desirable

Issues and challenges in international doctoral education

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/88184/1/ketefian-issues_challenges_international_doctoral.pd

Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree?

Oncologists traditionally assess their patients' ECOG performance status (PS), and few studies have evaluated the accuracy of these assessments. In this study, 101 patients attending a rapid access clinic at Papworth Hospital with a diagnosis of lung cancer were asked to assess their own ECOG PS score on a scale between 0 and 4. Patients' scores were compared to the PS assessment of them made by their oncologists. Of 98 patients with primary non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), weighted kappa statistics showed PS score agreement between patient and oncologist of 0.45. Both patient- and oncologist-assessed scores reflected survival duration (in NSCLC and SCLC) as well as disease stage (in NSCLC), with oncologist-assessed scores being only marginally more predictive of survival. There was no sex difference in patient assessment of PS scores, but oncologists scored female patients more pessimistically than males. This study showed that, with few exceptions, patients and oncologists assessed PS scores similarly. Although oncologists should continue to score PS objectively, it may benefit their clinical practice to involve their patients in these assessments

Safety of liver resection and effect on quality of life in patients with benign hepatic disease: Single center experience

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although liver resection has long been established for selected patients with benign hepatic disease, the success of surgical treatment of these patients cannot be evaluated exclusively through postoperative morbidity and mortality. Therefore, the aim of the study was to prove the safety of liver resection in the treatment of benign liver tumors and to evaluate the effect of surgical treatment on the patients' qauality of life.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 146 patients who underwent liver resection because of benign liver tumors were included in this study. Postoperative outcome was assessed and patients evaluated their quality of life before surgery and at the present time using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (QLQ C-30).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The rate of serious (> grade 2) complications was 4.1% with no postoperative death. The quality of life assessment revealed an overall improvement of general health status after resection (0.7 vs. 0.56, p < 0.001) and additionally a significant reduction of 6 out of 9 symptoms. Furthermore, compelling benefits in the patients' social and emotional coping could be detected after surgery.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Liver resection for benign liver disease is a safe procedure and leads to a significant improvement of quality of life in selected patients.</p