Options for early breast cancer follow-up in primary and secondary care : a systematic review

Background Both incidence of breast cancer and survival have increased in recent years and there is a need to review follow up strategies. This study aims to assess the evidence for benefits of follow-up in different settings for women who have had treatment for early breast cancer. Method A systematic review to identify key criteria for follow up and then address research questions. Key criteria were: 1) Risk of second breast cancer over time - incidence compared to general population. 2) Incidence and method of detection of local recurrence and second ipsi and contra-lateral breast cancer. 3) Level 1–4 evidence of the benefits of hospital or alternative setting follow-up for survival and well-being. Data sources to identify criteria were MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PSYCHINFO, ZETOC, Health Management Information Consortium, Science Direct. For the systematic review to address research questions searches were performed using MEDLINE (2011). Studies included were population studies using cancer registry data for incidence of new cancers, cohort studies with long term follow up for recurrence and detection of new primaries and RCTs not restricted to special populations for trials of alternative follow up and lifestyle interventions. Results Women who have had breast cancer have an increased risk of a second primary breast cancer for at least 20 years compared to the general population. Mammographically detected local recurrences or those detected by women themselves gave better survival than those detected by clinical examination. Follow up in alternative settings to the specialist clinic is acceptable to women but trials are underpowered for survival. Conclusions Long term support, surveillance mammography and fast access to medical treatment at point of need may be better than hospital based surveillance limited to five years but further large, randomised controlled trials are needed

A rapid high-performance semi-automated tool to measure total kidney volume from MRI in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a high-performance, rapid semi-automated method (Sheffield TKV Tool) for measuring total kidney volume (TKV) from magnetic resonance images (MRI) in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). METHODS: TKV was initially measured in 61 patients with ADPKD using the Sheffield TKV Tool and its performance compared to manual segmentation and other published methods (ellipsoidal, mid-slice, MIROS). It was then validated using an external dataset of MRI scans from 65 patients with ADPKD. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (mean age 45 ± 14 years, baseline eGFR 76 ± 32 ml/min/1.73 m2) with ADPKD had a wide range of TKV (258-3680 ml) measured manually. The Sheffield TKV Tool was highly accurate (mean volume error 0.5 ± 5.3% for right kidney, - 0.7 ± 5.5% for left kidney), reproducible (intra-operator variability - 0.2 ± 1.3%; inter-operator variability 1.1 ± 2.9%) and outperformed published methods. It took less than 6 min to execute and performed consistently with high accuracy in an external MRI dataset of T2-weighted sequences with TKV acquired using three different scanners and measured using a different segmentation methodology (mean volume error was 3.45 ± 3.96%, n = 65). CONCLUSIONS: The Sheffield TKV Tool is operator friendly, requiring minimal user interaction to rapidly, accurately and reproducibly measure TKV in this, the largest reported unselected European patient cohort with ADPKD. It is more accurate than estimating equations and its accuracy is maintained at larger kidney volumes than previously reported with other semi-automated methods. It is free to use, can run as an independent executable and will accelerate the application of TKV as a prognostic biomarker for ADPKD into clinical practice. KEY POINTS: • This new semi-automated method (Sheffield TKV Tool) to measure total kidney volume (TKV) will facilitate the routine clinical assessment of patients with ADPKD. • Measuring TKV manually is time consuming and laborious. • TKV is a prognostic indicator in ADPKD and the only imaging biomarker approved by the FDA and EMA

Leishmania major Survival in Selective Phlebotomus papatasi Sand Fly Vector Requires a Specific SCG-Encoded Lipophosphoglycan Galactosylation Pattern

Phlebotomine sand flies that transmit the protozoan parasite Leishmania differ greatly in their ability to support different parasite species or strains in the laboratory: while some show considerable selectivity, others are more permissive. In “selective” sand flies, Leishmania binding and survival in the fly midgut typically depends upon the abundant promastigote surface adhesin lipophosphoglycan (LPG), which exhibits species- and strain-specific modifications of the dominant phosphoglycan (PG) repeat units. For the “selective” fly Phlebotomus papatasi PpapJ, side chain galactosyl-modifications (scGal) of PG repeats play key roles in parasite binding. We probed the specificity and properties of this scGal-LPG PAMP (Pathogen Associated Molecular Pattern) through studies of natural isolates exhibiting a wide range of galactosylation patterns, and of a panel of isogenic L. major engineered to express similar scGal-LPG diversity by transfection of SCG-encoded β1,3-galactosyltransferases with different activities. Surprisingly, both ‘poly-scGal’ and ‘null-scGal’ lines survived poorly relative to PpapJ-sympatric L. major FV1 and other ‘mono-scGal’ lines. However, survival of all lines was equivalent in P. duboscqi, which naturally transmit L. major strains bearing ‘null-scGal’-LPG PAMPs. We then asked whether scGal-LPG-mediated interactions were sufficient for PpapJ midgut survival by engineering Leishmania donovani, which normally express unsubstituted LPG, to express a ‘PpapJ-optimal’ scGal-LPG PAMP. Unexpectedly, these “L. major FV1-cloaked” L. donovani-SCG lines remained unable to survive within PpapJ flies. These studies establish that midgut survival of L. major in PpapJ flies is exquisitely sensitive to the scGal-LPG PAMP, requiring a specific ‘mono-scGal’ pattern. However, failure of ‘mono-scGal’ L. donovani-SCG lines to survive in selective PpapJ flies suggests a requirement for an additional, as yet unidentified L. major-specific parasite factor(s). The interplay of the LPG PAMP and additional factor(s) with sand fly midgut receptors may determine whether a given sand fly host is “selective” or “permissive”, with important consequences to both disease transmission and the natural co-evolution of sand flies and Leishmania