Solid-State Dynamic Nuclear Polarization at 263 GHz: Spectrometer Design and Experimental Results

Dynamic Nuclear Polarization (DNP) experiments transfer polarization from electron spins to nuclear spins with microwave irradiation of the electron spins for enhanced sensitivity in nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Design and testing of a spectrometer for magic angle spinning (MAS) DNP experiments at 263 GHz microwave frequency, 400 MHz 1H frequency is described. Microwaves are generated by a novel continuous-wave gyrotron, transmitted to the NMR probe via a transmission line, and irradiated on a 3.2 mm rotor for MAS DNP experiments. DNP signal enhancements of up to 80 have been measured at 95 K on urea and proline in water–glycerol with the biradical polarizing agent TOTAPOL. We characterize the experimental parameters affecting the DNP efficiency: the magnetic field dependence, temperature dependence and polarization build-up times, microwave power dependence, sample heating effects, and spinning frequency dependence of the DNP signal enhancement. Stable system operation, including DNP performance, is also demonstrated over a 36 h period.National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (NIH grant EB-002804)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (NIH grant EB-002026

Strengthening organizational performance through accreditation research - a framework for twelve interrelated studies: the ACCREDIT project study protocol

Background: Service accreditation is a structured process of recognising and promoting performance and adherence to standards. Typically, accreditation agencies either receive standards from an authorized body or develop new and upgrade existing standards through research and expert views. They then apply standards, criteria and performance indicators, testing their effects, and monitoring compliance with them. The accreditation process has been widely adopted. The international investments in accreditation are considerable. However, reliable evidence of its efficiency or effectiveness in achieving organizational improvements is sparse and the value of accreditation in cost-benefit terms has yet to be demonstrated. Although some evidence suggests that accreditation promotes the improvement and standardization of care, there have been calls to strengthen its research base. In response, the ACCREDIT (Accreditation Collaborative for the Conduct of Research, Evaluation and Designated Investigations through Teamwork) project has been established to evaluate the effectiveness of Australian accreditation in achieving its goals. ACCREDIT is a partnership of key researchers, policymakers and agencies.FindingsWe present the framework for our studies in accreditation. Four specific aims of the ACCREDIT project, which will direct our findings, are to: (i) evaluate current accreditation processes; (ii) analyse the costs and benefits of accreditation; (iii) improve future accreditation via evidence; and (iv) develop and apply new standards of consumer involvement in accreditation. These will be addressed through 12 interrelated studies designed to examine specific issues identified as a high priority. Novel techniques, a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, and randomized designs relevant for health-care research have been developed. These methods allow us to circumvent the fragmented and incommensurate findings that can be generated in small-scale, project-based studies. The overall approach for our research is a multi-level, multi-study design.DiscussionThe ACCREDIT project will examine the utility, reliability, relevance and cost effectiveness of differing forms of accreditation, focused on general practice, aged care and acute care settings in Australia. Empirically, there are potential research gains to be made by understanding accreditation and extending existing knowledge; theoretically, this design will facilitate a systems view of accreditation of benefit to the partnership, international research communities, and future accreditation designers

Mortality Among Adults With Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy or Immunotherapy and Infected With COVID-19

Importance: Large cohorts of patients with active cancers and COVID-19 infection are needed to provide evidence of the association of recent cancer treatment and cancer type with COVID-19 mortality. // Objective: To evaluate whether systemic anticancer treatments (SACTs), tumor subtypes, patient demographic characteristics (age and sex), and comorbidities are associated with COVID-19 mortality. // Design, Setting, and Participants: The UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project (UKCCMP) is a prospective cohort study conducted at 69 UK cancer hospitals among adult patients (≥18 years) with an active cancer and a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. Patients registered from March 18 to August 1, 2020, were included in this analysis. // Exposures: SACT, tumor subtype, patient demographic characteristics (eg, age, sex, body mass index, race and ethnicity, smoking history), and comorbidities were investigated. // Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was all-cause mortality within the primary hospitalization. // Results: Overall, 2515 of 2786 patients registered during the study period were included; 1464 (58%) were men; and the median (IQR) age was 72 (62-80) years. The mortality rate was 38% (966 patients). The data suggest an association between higher mortality in patients with hematological malignant neoplasms irrespective of recent SACT, particularly in those with acute leukemias or myelodysplastic syndrome (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.30-3.60) and myeloma or plasmacytoma (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04-2.26). Lung cancer was also significantly associated with higher COVID-19–related mortality (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.11-2.25). No association between higher mortality and receiving chemotherapy in the 4 weeks before COVID-19 diagnosis was observed after correcting for the crucial confounders of age, sex, and comorbidities. An association between lower mortality and receiving immunotherapy in the 4 weeks before COVID-19 diagnosis was observed (immunotherapy vs no cancer therapy: OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.31-0.86). // Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study of patients with active cancer suggest that recent SACT is not associated with inferior outcomes from COVID-19 infection. This has relevance for the care of patients with cancer requiring treatment, particularly in countries experiencing an increase in COVID-19 case numbers. Important differences in outcomes among patients with hematological and lung cancers were observed

Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT randomised controlled trial according to treatment received

Background The ProtecT trial reported intention-to-treat analysis of men with localised prostate cancer randomly allocated to active monitoring (AM), radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy. Objective To report outcomes according to treatment received in men in randomised and treatment choice cohorts. Design, setting, and participants This study focuses on secondary care. Men with clinically localised prostate cancer at one of nine UK centres were invited to participate in the treatment trial comparing AM, radical prostatectomy, and radiotherapy. Intervention Two cohorts included 1643 men who agreed to be randomised and 997 who declined randomisation and chose treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Analysis was carried out to assess mortality, metastasis and progression and health-related quality of life impacts on urinary, bowel, and sexual function using patient-reported outcome measures. Analysis was based on comparisons between groups defined by treatment received for both randomised and treatment choice cohorts in turn, with pooled estimates of intervention effect obtained using meta-analysis. Differences were estimated with adjustment for known prognostic factors using propensity scores. Results and limitations According to treatment received, more men receiving AM died of PCa (AM 1.85%, surgery 0.67%, radiotherapy 0.73%), whilst this difference remained consistent with chance in the randomised cohort (p = 0.08); stronger evidence was found in the exploratory analyses (randomised plus choice cohort) when AM was compared with the combined radical treatment group (p = 0.003). There was also strong evidence that metastasis (AM 5.6%, surgery 2.4%, radiotherapy 2.7%) and disease progression (AM 20.35%, surgery 5.87%, radiotherapy 6.62%) were more common in the AM group. Compared with AM, there were higher risks of sexual dysfunction (95% at 6 mo) and urinary incontinence (55% at 6 mo) after surgery, and of sexual dysfunction (88% at 6 mo) and bowel dysfunction (5% at 6 mo) after radiotherapy. The key limitations are the potential for bias when comparing groups defined by treatment received and changes in the protocol for AM during the lengthy follow-up required in trials of screen-detected PCa. Conclusions Analyses according to treatment received showed increased rates of disease-related events and lower rates of patient-reported harms in men managed by AM compared with men managed by radical treatment, and stronger evidence of greater PCa mortality in the AM group. Patient summary More than 95 out of every 100 men with low or intermediate risk localised prostate cancer do not die of prostate cancer within 10 yr, irrespective of whether treatment is by means of monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy. Side effects on sexual and bladder function are better after active monitoring, but the risks of spreading of prostate cancer are more common

Functional and quality of life outcomes of localised prostate cancer treatments (prostate testing for cancer and treatment [ProtecT] study)

Objective To investigate the functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes of treatments for localised prostate cancer and inform treatment decision-making. Patients and Methods Men aged 50–69 years diagnosed with localised prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen testing and biopsies at nine UK centres in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial were randomised to, or chose one of, three treatments. Of 2565 participants, 1135 men received active monitoring (AM), 750 a radical prostatectomy (RP), 603 external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and 77 low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT, not a randomised treatment). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed annually for 6 years were analysed by initial treatment and censored for subsequent treatments. Mixed effects models were adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores. Results Treatment-received analyses revealed different impacts of treatments over 6 years. Men remaining on AM experienced gradual declines in sexual and urinary function with age (e.g., increases in erectile dysfunction from 35% of men at baseline to 53% at 6 years and nocturia similarly from 20% to 38%). Radical treatment impacts were immediate and continued over 6 years. After RP, 95% of men reported erectile dysfunction persisting for 85% at 6 years, and after EBRT this was reported by 69% and 74%, respectively (P < 0.001 compared with AM). After RP, 36% of men reported urinary leakage requiring at least 1 pad/day, persisting for 20% at 6 years, compared with no change in men receiving EBRT or AM (P < 0.001). Worse bowel function and bother (e.g., bloody stools 6% at 6 years and faecal incontinence 10%) was experienced by men after EBRT than after RP or AM (P < 0.001) with lesser effects after BT. No treatment affected mental or physical QoL. Conclusion Treatment decision-making for localised prostate cancer can be informed by these 6-year functional and QoL outcomes

L-Dopa Pharmacokinetic Profile with Effervescent Melevodopa/Carbidopa versus Standard-Release Levodopa/Carbidopa Tablets in Parkinson’s Disease: A Randomised Study

Objectives. To characterize the pharmacokinetic profile of levodopa (L-dopa) and carbidopa after repeated doses of the effervescent tablet of melevodopa/carbidopa (V1512; Sirio) compared with standard-release L-dopa/carbidopa in patients with fluctuating Parkinson’s disease. Few studies assessed the pharmacokinetics of carbidopa to date. Methods. This was a single-centre, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two-period crossover study. Patients received V1512 (melevodopa 100 mg/carbidopa 25 mg) or L-dopa 100 mg/carbidopa 25 mg, 7 doses over 24 hours (Cohort 1), 4 doses over 12 hours (Cohort 2), or 2 doses over 12 hours in combination with entacapone 200 mg (Cohort 3). Pharmacokinetic parameters included area under the plasma-concentration time curve (AUC), maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), and time to Cmax (tmax). Results. Twenty-five patients received at least one dose of study medication. L-dopa absorption tended to be quicker and pharmacokinetic parameters less variable after V1512 versus L-dopa/carbidopa, both over time and between patients. Accumulation of L-dopa in plasma was less noticeable with V1512. Carbidopa exposure and interpatient variability was lower when V1512 or L-dopa/carbidopa was given in combination with entacapone. Both treatments were well tolerated. Conclusions. V1512 provides a more reliable L-dopa pharmacokinetic profile versus standard-release L-dopa/carbidopa, with less drug accumulation and less variability. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00491998