Using a Modified Lymphocyte Genome Sensitivity (LGS) Test or TumorScan Test to Detect Cancer at an Early Stage in Each Individual

YesOur previous case-control study observed isolated lymphocytes from 208 individuals and determined the differences in the sensitivity to genomic damage of lymphocytes derived from cancer patients, pre/suspect cancer patients and healthy volunteers using the Comet assay (Anderson et al, 2014). We adapted the LGS technique using a slightly different method and examined 700 more blood samples from 598 patients with cancer or suspected cancer and 102 healthy individuals. To help increase the sensitivity of the test and detect cancer at the level of each individual, we joined with the IMSTAR team who analysed our cells with their fully automated Pathfinder™ cell reader-analyser system. With this reading and analysis system 4,000 to 10,000 cells were able to be read per slide. The new test which is called TumorScan is a highly sensitive test to detect any cancer at an early stage through the response of the white blood cells to UV treatment. These patient blood samples have also been collected at the stage before confirming diagnosis and treatment. There were four of these individuals with cancer who had received anti-cancer treatment. The results from these patients showed a reverse pattern compared to non-treated cancer patients and followed the pattern seen in healthy individuals. The results are consistent with the early results as reported in the above 2014 paper. Given the results from these samples were in a particularly challenging subgroup, whose cancer status was difficult to distinguish, the data suggest that the technique using the TumorScan system could exceed the area under the ROC curve >93% obtained in the earlier study on a group basis, whereas this present study was to detect cancer at an early stage in each individual.Department of Research and Knowledge Transfer at the University of Bradford, Bradford, U

Epidemiology: Cancer survival: global variation and long-term trends.

Two recently published studies provide state-of-the-art evidence on the varying pace of improvement in survival across different cancers, and regarding inequalities in cancer survival between countries and regions. These studies offer rich and contrasting data that can guide policy priorities and research initiatives, and showcase the need for further development of population-based cancer surveillance across the globe.The work of G.L. is supported by a Cancer Research UK Clinician Scientist Fellowship award (A18180).This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from NPG via http://www.nature.com/nrclinonc/journal/v12/n4/full/nrclinonc.2015.36.html

Changes over time in socioeconomic inequalities in breast and rectal cancer survival in England and Wales during a 32-year period (1973-2004): the potential role of health care.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival are well documented but they vary for different cancers and over time. Reasons for these differences are poorly understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For England and Wales, we examined trends in socioeconomic survival inequalities for breast cancer in women and rectal cancer in men during the 32-year period 1973-2004. We used a theoretical framework based on Victora's 'inverse equity' law, under which survival inequalities could change with the advent of successive new treatments, of varying effectiveness, which are disseminated with different speed among patients of different socioeconomic groups. We estimated 5-year relative survival for patients of different deprivation quintiles and examined trends in survival inequalities in light of major treatment innovations. RESULTS: Inequalities in breast cancer survival (921,611 cases) narrowed steadily during the study (from -10% to -6%). In contrast, inequalities in rectal cancer survival (187,104 cases) widened overall (form -5% to -11%) with fluctuating periods of narrowing inequality. CONCLUSIONS: Trends in socioeconomic differences in tumour or patient factors are unlikely explanations of observed changes over time in survival inequalities. The sequential introduction into clinical practice of new treatments of progressively smaller incremental benefit may partly explain the reduction in inequality in breast cancer survival

Ranking hospitals on avoidable death rates derived from retrospective case record review: methodological observations and limitations

This is the final version. Available from BMJ Pubishing Group via the DOI in this record.Reducing the number of avoidable deaths in hospital is the focus of many quality improvement initiatives worldwide.1 Comparing indicators of avoidable mortality between different hospitals could help to target improvement efforts, but optimally defining and measuring hospital deaths that could be deemed preventable remains a challenge.2 Unlike performance comparisons based on hospital standardised mortality ratio (HSMR), a new policy initiative announced by the UK Government will rank hospitals for avoidable mortality based on case reviews of 2000 deaths in English hospitals each year. Although this initiative aims to overcome limitations of current policies, two statistical properties of the proposed approach mean that it is unsuitable for classifying hospital performance.Cancer Research UK Clinician Scientist Fellowship awar

Progress and priorities in reducing the time to cancer diagnosis

Key developments in early diagnosis research and policy since the publication of the highly cited BJC review “Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment associated with poorer outcomes?” by Neal et al. in 2015 are summarised. Progress achieved since 2015 is described and priorities for further research identified

Pre-referral GP consultations in patients subsequently diagnosed with rarer cancers: a study of patient-reported data.

BACKGROUND: Some patients with cancer experience multiple pre-diagnostic consultations in primary care, leading to longer time intervals to specialist investigations and diagnosis. Patients with rarer cancers are thought to be at higher risk of such events, but concrete evidence of this is lacking. AIM: To examine the frequency and predictors of repeat consultations with GPs in patients with rarer cancers. DESIGN AND SETTING: Patient-reported data on pre-referral consultations from three English national surveys of patients with cancer (2010, 2013, and 2014), pooled to maximise the sample size of rarer cancers. METHOD: The authors examined the frequency and crude and adjusted odds ratios for ≥3 (versus 1-2) pre-referral consultations by age, sex, ethnicity, level of deprivation, and cancer diagnosis (38 diagnosis groups, including 12 rarer cancers without prior relevant evidence). RESULTS: Among 7838 patients with 12 rarer cancers, crude proportions of patients with ≥3 pre-referral consultations ranged from >30.0% to 60.0% for patients with small intestine, bone sarcoma, liver, gallbladder, cancer of unknown primary, soft-tissue sarcoma, and ureteric cancer. The range was 15.0-30.0% for patients with oropharyngeal, anal, parotid, penile, and oral cancer. The overall proportion of responders with any cancer who had ≥3 consultations was 23.4%. Multivariable logistic regression indicated concordant patterns, with strong evidence for variation between rarer cancers (P <0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with rarer cancers experience pre-referral consultations at frequencies suggestive of middle-to-high diagnostic difficulty. The findings can guide the development of new diagnostic interventions and 'safety-netting' approaches for symptomatic presentations encountered in patients with rarer cancers.This work was supported by a Cancer Research UK Clinician Scientist Fellowship (A18180) to Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Inequalities in reported cancer patient experience by socio-demographic characteristic and cancer site: evidence from respondents to the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

Patient experience is a critical dimension of cancer care quality. Understanding variation in experience among patients with different cancers and characteristics is an important first step for designing targeted improvement interventions. We analysed data from the 2011/2012 English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n = 69,086) using logistic regression to explore inequalities in care experience across 64 survey questions. We additionally calculated a summary measure of variation in patient experience by cancer, and explored inequalities between patients with cancers treated by the same specialist teams. We found that younger and very old, ethnic minority patients and women consistently reported worse experiences across questions. Patients with small intestine/rarer lower gastrointestinal, multiple myeloma and hepatobiliary cancers were most likely to report negative experiences whereas patients with breast, melanoma and testicular cancer were least likely (top-to-bottom odds ratio = 1.91, P < 0.0001). There were also inequalities in experience among patients with cancers treated by the same specialty for five of nine services (P < 0.0001). Specifically, patients with ovarian, multiple myeloma, anal, hepatobiliary and renal cancer reported notably worse experiences than patients with other gynaecological, haematological, gastrointestinal and urological malignancies respectively. Initiatives to improve cancer patient experience across oncology services may be suitably targeted on patients at higher risk of poorer experience.This is the final version, originally published by Wiley in the European Journal of Cancer Care (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecc.12267/abstract)

Cost-effectiveness of primary offer of IVF vs. primary offer of IUI followed by IVF (for IUI failures) in couples with unexplained or mild male factor subfertility.

BACKGROUND: In unexplained and mild male factor subfertility, both intrauterine insemination (IUI) and in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) are indicated as first line treatments. Because the success rate of IUI is low, many couples failing IUI subsequently require IVF treatment. In practice, it is therefore important to examine the comparative outcomes (live birth-producing pregnancy), costs, and cost-effectiveness of primary offer of IVF, compared with primary offer of IUI followed by IVF for couples failing IUI. METHODS: Mathematical modelling was used to estimate comparative clinical and cost effectiveness of either primary offer of one full IVF cycle (including frozen cycles when applicable) or "IUI + IVF" (defined as primary IUI followed by IVF for IUI failures) to a hypothetical cohort of subfertile couples who are eligible for both treatment strategies. Data used in calculations were derived from the published peer-reviewed literature as well as activity data of local infertility units. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness ratios for IVF, "unstimulated-IUI (U-IUI) + IVF", and "stimulated IUI (S-IUI) + IVF" were 12,600 pounds sterling, 13,100 pound sterling and 15,100 pound sterling per live birth-producing pregnancy respectively. For a hypothetical cohort of 100 couples with unexplained or mild male factor subfertility, compared with primary offer of IVF, 6 cycles of "U-IUI + IVF" or of "S-IUI + IVF" would cost an additional 174,200 pounds sterling and 438,000 pounds sterling, representing an opportunity cost of 54 and 136 additional IVF cycles and 14 to 35 live birth-producing pregnancies respectively. CONCLUSION: For couples with unexplained and mild male factor subfertility, primary offer of a full IVF cycle is less costly and more cost-effective than providing IUI (of any modality) followed by IVF.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are