Matched‐pair and propensity score comparisons of outcomes of patients with clinical stage I non–small cell lung cancer treated with resection or stereotactic radiosurgery

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98996/1/cncr28100.pd

Adaptation of international guidelines on assessment and management of cancer pain for the Australian context

Aim: To develop clinical practice guidelines for screening, assessing and managing cancer pain in Australian adults. Methods: This three phase project utilised the ADAPTE approach to adapt international cancer pain guidelines for the Australian setting. A Working Party was established to define scope, screen guidelines for adaptation, and develop recommendations to support better cancer pain control through screening, assessment, pharmacological and non-pharmacological management, and patient education. Recommendations with limited evidence were referred to Expert Panels for advice before the draft guidelines were opened for public consultation via the Cancer Council Australia Cancer Guidelines Wiki platform in late 2012. All comments were reviewed by the Working Party and the guidelines revised accordingly. Results: Screening resulted in six international guidelines being included for adaptation - those developed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2008), National Health Service Quality Improvement Scotland (2009), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2012), European Society of Medical Oncology (2011), European Association for Palliative Care (2011, 2012) and National Institute of Clinical Excellence (2012). Guideline adaptation resulted in 55 final recommendations. The guidelines were officially launched in November 2013. Conclusion: International guidelines can be efficiently reconfigured for local contexts using the ADAPTE approach. Availability of the guidelines via the Cancer Council Australia Wiki is intended to promote uptake and enable recommendations to be kept up to date. Resources to support implementation will also be made available via the Wiki if found to be effective by a randomised controlled trial commencing in 2015

Prostate cancer in black men: Is it time for personalized screening approaches?

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/137255/1/cncr30685_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/137255/2/cncr30685.pd

Multivariate analysis of febrile neutropenia occurrence in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma: data from the INC-EU Prospective Observational European Neutropenia Study

Myelosuppression, particularly febrile neutropenia (FN), are serious dose-limiting toxicities that occur frequently during the first cycle of chemotherapy. Identifying patients most at risk of developing FN might help physicians to target prophylactic treatment with colony-stimulating factor (CSF), in order to decrease the incidence, or duration, of myelosuppression and facilitate delivery of chemotherapy as planned. We present a risk model for FN occurrence in the first cycle of chemotherapy, based on a subgroup of 240 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) enroled in our European prospective observational study. Eligible patients had an International Prognostic Index of 0–3, and were scheduled to receive a new myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimen with at least four cycles. Clinically relevant factors significantly associated with cycle 1 FN were older age, increasing planned cyclophosphamide dose, a history of previous chemotherapy, a history of recent infection, and low baseline albumin (<35 g/l). Prophylactic CSF use and higher weight were associated with a significant protective effect. The model had high sensitivity (81%) and specificity (80%). Our model, together with treatment guidelines, may rationalise the clinical decision of whether to support patients with CSF primary prophylaxis based on their risk factor profile. Further validation is required

Molecular testing for Lynch syndrome in people with colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: Inherited mutations in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair (MMR) genes lead to an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), gynaecological cancers and other cancers, known as Lynch syndrome (LS). Risk-reducing interventions can be offered to individuals with known LS-causing mutations. The mutations can be identified by comprehensive testing of the MMR genes, but this would be prohibitively expensive in the general population. Tumour-based tests - microsatellite instability (MSI) and MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) - are used in CRC patients to identify individuals at high risk of LS for genetic testing. MLH1 (MutL homologue 1) promoter methylation and BRAF V600E testing can be conducted on tumour material to rule out certain sporadic cancers. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether testing for LS in CRC patients using MSI or IHC (with or without MLH1 promoter methylation testing and BRAF V600E testing) is clinically effective (in terms of identifying Lynch syndrome and improving outcomes for patients) and represents a cost-effective use of NHS resources. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted of the published literature on diagnostic test accuracy studies of MSI and/or IHC testing for LS, end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients and economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC patients. A model-based economic evaluation was conducted to extrapolate long-term outcomes from the results of the diagnostic test accuracy review. The model was extended from a model previously developed by the authors. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified that evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of MSI and/or IHC testing for identifying LS in CRC patients. For MSI testing, sensitivity ranged from 66.7% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 61.1% to 92.5%. For IHC, sensitivity ranged from 80.8% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 80.5% to 91.9%. When tumours showing low levels of MSI were treated as a positive result, the sensitivity of MSI testing increased but specificity fell. No end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients were identified. Nine economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC were identified. None of the included studies fully matched the decision problem and hence a new economic evaluation was required. The base-case results in the economic evaluation suggest that screening for LS in CRC patients using IHC, BRAF V600E and MLH1 promoter methylation testing would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for this strategy was £11,008 per QALY compared with no screening. Screening without tumour tests is not predicted to be cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: Most of the diagnostic test accuracy studies identified were rated as having a risk of bias or were conducted in unrepresentative samples. There was no direct evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes. No probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic review evidence suggests that MSI- and IHC-based testing can be used to identify LS in CRC patients, although there was heterogeneity in the methods used in the studies identified and the results of the studies. There was no high-quality empirical evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes and so an evidence linkage approach using modelling was necessary. Key determinants of whether or not screening is cost-effective are the accuracy of tumour-based tests, CRC risk without surveillance, the number of relatives identified for cascade testing, colonoscopic surveillance effectiveness and the acceptance of genetic testing. Future work should investigate screening for more causes of hereditary CRC and screening for LS in endometrial cancer patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033879. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Researc

Using the Patients Concerns Inventory for Distress Screening in Post-treatment Head and Neck Cancer Survivors, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery in press.

Purpose Cancer patients can experience significant distress during their cancer trajectory, which impacts upon clinical outcomes and quality of life. Screening for distress using holistic assessments can help identify and address unmet concerns/needs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between concerns and distress, and the impact of distress on clinic outcomes in post-treatment head and neck cancer patients. Methods 170 patients attending routine follow-up clinics were prospectively recruited. All patients completed the Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) and the Distress thermometer (DT) at preconsultation. Results The rate of significant distress (i.e. DT cut-off score ≥4) was 36% (62/170). Significantly distressed patients selected more items overall than patients without distress (mean, median (QR) of 5.40, 5 (2–8) vs 2.61, 2 (0–4), p < 0.001). Significant distress was most strongly associated with Physical and Functional well-being (p < 0.001) and Psychological and Emotional well-being domains (p = 0.001). On balance, very little difference was noted between cut-off points of either ≥4 or ≥5 PCI items of concern selected. Both cut-off points demonstrated an acceptable level of sensitivity, specificity and predictive values for significant distress. Consultations were longer with increasing numbers of concerns. Conclusions Just over one-third of patients are significantly distressed. They were more likely to express a higher number of concerns. A cutoff score ≥4 or ≥5 PCI items selected can identify those at risk of significant distress. Concerns causing significant distress were related to emotional/psychological issues and physical function

Recommendations for the implementation of distress screening programs in cancer centers: Report from the American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS), Association of Oncology Social Work (AOSW), and Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) joint task force

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/108593/1/cncr28750.pd