Who chooses alternative sources of information about childhood vaccinations? A cross-sectional study

Introduction: Vaccine hesitancy can lead to problematic outcomes in terms of public health. A factor playing a fundamental role in this dynamic is the source of information considered by parents in the decision-making progress that leads to the acceptance or refusal of childhood vaccinations. This study aims to investigate the sources of information considered by the parents of children attending primary and secondary schools in two large Italian cities and to identify predictors that led to choosing alternative sources of information. Methods: An online questionnaire was administered to the parents of students attending elementary, middle, and high schools in Rome and Turin. Two validated tools were used: the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines Survey and the Vaccine Health Literacy of adults in Italian. Sources of information about vaccinations, trust toward the healthcare system, hesitancy and attitudes about COVID-19 vaccinations, were also investigated. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to identify predictors of the preferred sources of information on the topic. Results: Totally, 2,301 answers to the survey were collected from June to October 2021. Of these, 1,127 came from parents in Rome (49%) and 1,174 from parents based in Turin (51%) with a mean age of 47.7 years (±6.4). The majority of the respondents were mothers (81%), married (73%), with two or more children (70.5%). The multivariable logistic regression model results showed that fathers were more inclined than mothers to use alternative sources of information (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.29–2.00). Moreover, a higher level of vaccine hesitancy was a strong predictor for choosing alternative sources of information (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.73–3.46). The HLVa-it scores show that parents with a lower Vaccine Literacy (VL) were more inclined to use alternative sources of information. Discussion: Addressing health literacy issues and changing the official forms of communication could help improving vaccine acceptance. This study shows the importance of rebuilding a trusting relationship between patients and health care providers, which is fundamental in the fight against vaccine hesitancy

Inclusion of Older Patients with Cancer in Randomized Controlled Trials with Patient-Reported Outcomes:a Systematic Review

Objectives: Inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may be particularly important for older patients. The objectives of this systematic review were to quantify the frequency with which older patients are included in RCTs with PROs and to evaluate the quality of PRO reporting in those trials. Methods: All RCTs with PRO endpoints, published between January 2004 and February 2019, which included a patient sample with a mean/median age ≥70 years, were considered for this systematic review. The following cancer malignancies were considered: breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, gynaecological and bladder cancer. Quality of PRO reporting was evaluated using the International Society for Quality of Life Research-PRO standards. Studies meeting at least two-thirds of these criteria were considered to have high-quality PRO reporting. Results: Of 649 RCTs identified with a PRO endpoint, only 72 (11.1%) included older patients. Of these, 35 trials (48.6%) were conducted in patients with metastatic/advanced disease. PROs were primary endpoints in 20 RCTs (27.8%). Overall survival was the most frequently reported clinical outcome in studies of patients with metastatic/advanced cancer (n=28, 80%). One-third of the RCTs (n=24, 33.3%) were considered to have high-quality PRO reporting. Overall, the largest prevalence of RCTs with high-quality PRO reporting was observed in prostate and colorectal cancers. Conclusions: Our review indicates not only that PRO-RCT-based studies in oncology rarely include older patients but also that completeness of PRO reporting of many of them is often suboptimal

Effects on quality of life of weekly docetaxel-based chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: results of a single-centre randomized phase 3 trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To evaluate whether weekly schedules of docetaxel-based chemotherapy were superior to 3-weekly ones in terms of quality of life in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, aged ≤ 70 years, performance status 0-2, chemotherapy-naive for metastatic disease, were eligible. They were randomized to weekly or 3-weekly combination of docetaxel and epirubicin, if they were not treated with adjuvant anthracyclines, or docetaxel and capecitabine, if treated with adjuvant anthracyclines. Primary end-point was global quality of life change at 6-weeks, measured by EORTC QLQ-C30. With two-sided alpha 0.05 and 80% power for 35% effect size, 130 patients per arm were needed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From February 2004 to March 2008, 139 patients were randomized, 70 to weekly and 69 to 3-weekly arm; 129 and 89 patients filled baseline and 6-week questionnaires, respectively. Global quality of life was better in the 3-weekly arm (p = 0.03); patients treated with weekly schedules presented a significantly worsening in role functioning and financial scores (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001). Neutropenia and stomatitis were worse in the 3-weekly arm, where two toxic deaths were observed. Overall response rate was 39.1% and 33.3% in 3-weekly and weekly arms; hazard ratio of progression was 1.29 (95% CI: 0.84-1.97) and hazard ratio of death was 1.38 (95% CI: 0.82-2.30) in the weekly arm.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this trial, the weekly schedules of docetaxel-based chemotherapy appear to be inferior to the 3-weekly one in terms of quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00540800">NCT00540800</a>.</p

Pitfalls in assessing stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) in breast cancer

Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) are important prognostic and predictive biomarkers in triple-negative (TNBC) and HER2-positive breast cancer. Incorporating sTILs into clinical practice necessitates reproducible assessment. Previously developed standardized scoring guidelines have been widely embraced by the clinical and research communities. We evaluated sources of variability in sTIL assessment by pathologists in three previous sTIL ring studies. We identify common challenges and evaluate impact of discrepancies on outcome estimates in early TNBC using a newly-developed prognostic tool. Discordant sTIL assessment is driven by heterogeneity in lymphocyte distribution. Additional factors include: technical slide-related issues; scoring outside the tumor boundary; tumors with minimal assessable stroma; including lymphocytes associated with other structures; and including other inflammatory cells. Small variations in sTIL assessment modestly alter risk estimation in early TNBC but have the potential to affect treatment selection if cutpoints are employed. Scoring and averaging multiple areas, as well as use of reference images, improve consistency of sTIL evaluation. Moreover, to assist in avoiding the pitfalls identified in this analysis, we developed an educational resource available at www.tilsinbreastcancer.org/pitfalls.Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) are important prognostic and predictive biomarkers in triple-negative (TNBC) and HER2-positive breast cancer. Incorporating sTILs into clinical practice necessitates reproducible assessment. Previously developed standardized scoring guidelines have been widely embraced by the clinical and research communities. We evaluated sources of variability in sTIL assessment by pathologists in three previous sTIL ring studies. We identify common challenges and evaluate impact of discrepancies on outcome estimates in early TNBC using a newly-developed prognostic tool. Discordant sTIL assessment is driven by heterogeneity in lymphocyte distribution. Additional factors include: technical slide-related issues; scoring outside the tumor boundary; tumors with minimal assessable stroma; including lymphocytes associated with other structures; and including other inflammatory cells. Small variations in sTIL assessment modestly alter risk estimation in early TNBC but have the potential to affect treatment selection if cutpoints are employed. Scoring and averaging multiple areas, as well as use of reference images, improve consistency of sTIL evaluation. Moreover, to assist in avoiding the pitfalls identified in this analysis, we developed an educational resource available at www.tilsinbreastcancer.org/pitfalls.Peer reviewe

Report on computational assessment of Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes from the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group

Funder: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Cancer Institute (NCI)Funder: National Center for Research Resources under award number 1 C06 RR12463-01, VA Merit Review Award IBX004121A from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development Service, the DOD Prostate Cancer Idea Development Award (W81XWH-15-1-0558), the DOD Lung Cancer Investigator-Initiated Translational Research Award (W81XWH-18-1-0440), the DOD Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program (W81XWH-16-1-0329), the Ohio Third Frontier Technology Validation Fund, the Wallace H. Coulter Foundation Program in the Department of Biomedical Engineering and the Clinical and Translational Science Award Program (CTSA) at Case Western Reserve University.Funder: Susan G Komen Foundation (CCR CCR18547966) and a Young Investigator Grant from the Breast Cancer Alliance.Funder: The Canadian Cancer SocietyFunder: Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), Grant No. 17-194Abstract: Assessment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is increasingly recognized as an integral part of the prognostic workflow in triple-negative (TNBC) and HER2-positive breast cancer, as well as many other solid tumors. This recognition has come about thanks to standardized visual reporting guidelines, which helped to reduce inter-reader variability. Now, there are ripe opportunities to employ computational methods that extract spatio-morphologic predictive features, enabling computer-aided diagnostics. We detail the benefits of computational TILs assessment, the readiness of TILs scoring for computational assessment, and outline considerations for overcoming key barriers to clinical translation in this arena. Specifically, we discuss: 1. ensuring computational workflows closely capture visual guidelines and standards; 2. challenges and thoughts standards for assessment of algorithms including training, preanalytical, analytical, and clinical validation; 3. perspectives on how to realize the potential of machine learning models and to overcome the perceptual and practical limits of visual scoring

Pitfalls in assessing stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) in breast cancer

Abstract: Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) are important prognostic and predictive biomarkers in triple-negative (TNBC) and HER2-positive breast cancer. Incorporating sTILs into clinical practice necessitates reproducible assessment. Previously developed standardized scoring guidelines have been widely embraced by the clinical and research communities. We evaluated sources of variability in sTIL assessment by pathologists in three previous sTIL ring studies. We identify common challenges and evaluate impact of discrepancies on outcome estimates in early TNBC using a newly-developed prognostic tool. Discordant sTIL assessment is driven by heterogeneity in lymphocyte distribution. Additional factors include: technical slide-related issues; scoring outside the tumor boundary; tumors with minimal assessable stroma; including lymphocytes associated with other structures; and including other inflammatory cells. Small variations in sTIL assessment modestly alter risk estimation in early TNBC but have the potential to affect treatment selection if cutpoints are employed. Scoring and averaging multiple areas, as well as use of reference images, improve consistency of sTIL evaluation. Moreover, to assist in avoiding the pitfalls identified in this analysis, we developed an educational resource available at www.tilsinbreastcancer.org/pitfalls