A randomized controlled trial of sublingual Misoprostol - 600µg versus intravenous Oxytocin - 10IU in prevention of post partum hemorrhage during cesarean section

Background: Mortality related to pregnancy and childbirth causes half a million women around the world to die annually. About 35% of these deaths are from postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). Prevention of PPH has been advised by the WHO by the use of Oxytocin 10 IU IM or IV and Misoprostol 600 µg in low resource settings in vaginal delivery. However there have been only a few reports on the use of Misoprostol during cesarean section. The best route and dose of Misoprostol is still being debated.Methods: One hundred women with term singleton pregnancy undergoing elective or emergency cesarean section under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive either Misoprostol 600µg sublingually or intravenous oxytocin 10 IU soon after delivery of the baby. Estimated blood loss and comparative change in preoperative hemoglobin to post operative hemoglobin levels and side effects were evaluated.Results: Blood loss was found to be more in Misoprostol than Oxytocin. Eight patients of the Misoprostol group required additional oxytocics. Oxytocin group did not receive any additional drugs. No surgical intervention was made in either of the groups.  The most common side effect with Misoprostol was shivering (46%) and in Oxytocin group fever (4%).Conclusions: Sublingual Misoprostol of 600µg works to prevent postpartum bleeding. In our study Oxytocin was more effective than Misoprostol in preventing PPH during cesarean section. Late onset of action of Misoprostol in comparison to Oxytocin may render suturing of the uterus difficult due to pooling of blood. In settings in which use of Oxytocin is not feasible, Misoprostol might be a suitable alternative for post-partum hemorrhage

Biomarker Testing for People With Advanced Lung Cancer in England

Introduction: Optimal management of people with advanced NSCLC depends on accurate identification of predictive markers. Yet, real-world data in this setting are limited. We describe the impact, timeliness, and outcomes of molecular testing for patients with advanced NSCLC and good performance status in England. // Methods: In collaboration with Public Health England, patients with stages IIIB to IV NSCLC, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, in England, between June 2017 and December 2017, were identified. All English hospitals were invited to record information. // Results: A total of 60 of 142 invited hospitals in England participated in this study and submitted data on 1157 patients. During the study period, 83% of patients with advanced adenocarcinoma underwent molecular testing for three recommended predictive biomarkers (EGFR, ALK, and programmed death-ligand 1). A total of 80% of patients with nonsquamous carcinomas on whom biomarker testing was performed had adequate tissue for analysis on initial sampling. First-line treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor was received by 71% of patients with adenocarcinoma and a sensitizing EGFR mutation and by 59% of those with an ALK translocation. Of patients with no driver mutation and a programmed death-ligand 1 expression of greater than or equal to 50%, 47% received immunotherapy. // Conclusions: We present a comprehensive data set for molecular testing in England. Although molecular testing is well established in England, timeliness and uptake of targeted therapies should be improved

Predictors of patient preference for either whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) or CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) may be more efficient in staging cancers, but can be harder for patients to tolerate. We examined predictors of patient preference for WB-MRI vs. CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer. METHODS: Patients recruited prospectively to two multicentre trials comparing diagnostic accuracy of WB-MRI with standard staging scans were sent two questionnaires: the first, administered at trial registration, captured demographics, educational level and comorbidities; the second, administered after staging completion, measured emotional distress (GHQ-12), positive mood (PANAS), perceived scan burden, patients' beliefs about WB-MRI, and preference for either WB-MRI or CT (colorectal trial), WB-MRI or PET-CT (lung trial). Preference for WB-MRI or CT/ PET-CT was analysed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Baseline and post-staging questionnaires were completed by 97 and 107 patients, respectively. Overall, 56/107 (52%) preferred WB-MRI over standard scans and were more likely to have no additional comorbidities, higher positive mood, greater awareness of potential benefits of WB-MRI and lower levels of perceived WB-MRI scan burden. In adjusted analyses, only awareness of potential WB-MRI benefits remained a significant predictor (OR: 1.516, 95% CIs 1.006-2.284, P = 0.047). Knowledge that WB-MRI does not use radiation predicted preference (adjusted OR: 3.018, 95% CIs 1.099-8.288, P = 0.032), although only 45/107 (42%) patients were aware of this attribute. CONCLUSIONS: A small majority of patients undergoing staging of colorectal or lung cancer prefer WB-MRI to CT/ PET-CT. Raising awareness of the potential benefits of WB-MRI, notably lack of ionizing radiation, could influence preference

Whole-body MRI compared with standard pathways for staging metastatic disease in lung and colorectal cancer: the Streamline diagnostic accuracy studies.

BACKGROUND: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging is advocated as an alternative to standard pathways for staging cancer. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to compare diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, patient acceptability, observer variability and cost-effectiveness of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways in staging newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L) and colorectal cancer (Streamline C). DESIGN: The design was a prospective multicentre cohort study. SETTING: The setting was 16 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years with histologically proven or suspected colorectal (Streamline C) or non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L). INTERVENTIONS: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging. Standard staging investigations (e.g. computed tomography and positron emission tomography-computed tomography). REFERENCE STANDARD: Consensus panel decision using 12-month follow-up data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was per-patient sensitivity difference between whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard staging pathways for metastasis. Secondary outcomes included differences in specificity, the nature of the first major treatment decision, time and number of tests to complete staging, patient experience and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Streamline C - 299 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 67% (95% confidence interval 56% to 78%) and 63% (95% confidence interval 51% to 74%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -5% to 13%; p = 0.51). Specificity was 95% (95% confidence interval 92% to 97%) and 93% (95% confidence interval 90% to 96%) respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 6%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 96% and 95% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 8 days (95% confidence interval 6 to 9 days) and 13 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 15 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 5 days (95% confidence interval 3 to 7 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £216 (95% confidence interval £211 to £221) versus £285 (95% confidence interval £260 to £310). Streamline L - 187 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 50% (95% confidence interval 37% to 63%) and 54% (95% confidence interval 41% to 67%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -7% to 15%; p = 0.73). Specificity was 93% (95% confidence interval 88% to 96%) and 95% (95% confidence interval 91% to 98%), respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 7%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 98% and 99% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 13 days (95% confidence interval 12 to 14 days) and 19 days (95% confidence interval 17 to 21 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 6 days (95% confidence interval 4 to 8 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £317 (95% confidence interval £273 to £361) versus £620 (95% confidence interval £574 to £666). Participants generally found whole-body magnetic resonance imaging more burdensome than standard imaging but most participants preferred the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway if it reduced time to staging and/or number of tests. LIMITATIONS: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging was interpreted by practitioners blinded to other clinical data, which may not fully reflect how it is used in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: In colorectal and non-small-cell lung cancer, the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway has similar accuracy to standard staging pathways, is generally preferred by patients, improves staging efficiency and has lower staging costs. Future work should address the utility of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for treatment response assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN43958015 and ISRCTN50436483. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Should Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Be Considered for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Wild Type EGFR? Two Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Trials

Guidance concerning tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for patients with wild type epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after first-line treatment is unclear. We assessed the effect of TKIs as second-line therapy and maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy in two systematic reviews and meta-analyses, focusing on patients without EGFR mutations. Systematic searches were completed and data extracted from eligible randomized controlled trials. Three analytical approaches were used to maximize available data. Fourteen trials of second-line treatment (4388 patients) were included. Results showed the effect of TKIs on progression-free survival (PFS) depended on EGFR status (interaction hazard ratio [HR], 2.69; P = .004). Chemotherapy benefited patients with wild type EGFR (HR, 1.31; P < .0001), TKIs benefited patients with mutations (HR, 0.34; P = .0002). Based on 12 trials (85% of randomized patients) the benefits of TKIs on PFS decreased with increasing proportions of patients with wild type EGFR (P = .014). Six trials of maintenance therapy (2697 patients) were included. Results showed that although the effect of TKIs on PFS depended on EGFR status (interaction HR, 3.58; P < .0001), all benefited from TKIs (wild type EGFR: HR, 0.82; P = .01; mutated EGFR: HR, 0.24; P < .0001). There was a suggestion that benefits of TKIs on PFS decreased with increasing proportions of patients with wild type EGFR (P = .11). Chemotherapy should be standard second-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC and wild type EGFR. TKIs might be unsuitable for unselected patients. TKIs appear to benefit all patients compared with no active treatment as maintenance treatment, however, direct comparisons with chemotherapy are needed

Navigating diagnostic and treatment decisions in non-small cell lung cancer: expert commentary on the multidisciplinary team approach

Non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately one in five cancer‐related deaths, and management requires increasingly complex decision making by health care professionals. Many centers have therefore adopted a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, using the expertise of various specialists to provide the best evidence‐based, personalized treatment. However, increasingly complex disease staging, as well as expanded biomarker testing and multimodality management algorithms with novel therapeutics, have driven the need for multifaceted, collaborative decision making to optimally guide the overall treatment process. To keep up with the rapidly evolving treatment landscape, national‐level guidelines have been introduced to standardize patient pathways and ensure prompt diagnosis and treatment. Such strategies depend on efficient and effective communication between relevant multidisciplinary team members and have both improved adherence to treatment guidelines and extended patient survival. This article highlights the value of a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and staging, treatment decision making, and adverse event management in NSCLC

The accuracy of clinical staging of stage I-IIIa non-small cell lung cancer: An analysis based on individual participant data

BACKGROUND: Clinical staging of NSCLC helps determine prognosis and management of patients; few data exist on accuracy of clinical staging and the impact on treatment and survival of patients. We assessed whether participant or trial characteristics were associated with clinical staging accuracy as well as impact on survival. METHODS: We used individual participant data from RCTs, supplied for a meta-analysis of pre-operative chemotherapy (+/- radiotherapy) versus surgery alone (+/- radiotherapy) in NSCLC. We assessed agreement between clinical TNM (cTNM) stage at randomization and pathological TNM (pTNM) stage, for participants in the control group. RESULTS: Results are based on 698 patients who received surgery alone (+/- radiotherapy) with data for cTNM and pTNM stage. 46% of cases were cTNM stage I, 23% cTNM stage II and 31% cTNM stage IIIa. cTNM stage disagreed with pTNM stage in 48% of cases, with 34% clinically understaged and 14% clinically over-staged. Agreement was not associated with age (p=0.12), gender (p=0.62), histology (p=0.82), staging method (p=0.32) or year of randomisation (p=0.98). Poorer survival in understaged patients was explained by the underlying pTNM stage. Clinical staging failed to detect T4 disease in 10% of cases and misclassified nodal disease in 38%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates suboptimal agreement between clinical and pathological staging. Discrepancies between clinical and pathological T and N-staging could have led to different treatment decisions in 10% and 38% of cases respectively. There is therefore a need for further research into improving staging accuracy for patients with stage I-IIIa NSCLC

Lung Screen Uptake Trial: results from a single lung cancer screening round

The Lung Screen Uptake Trial tested a novel invitation strategy to improve uptake and reduce socioeconomic and smoking-related inequalities in lung cancer screening (LCS) participation. It provides one of the first UK-based 'real-world' LCS cohorts. Of 2012 invited, 1058 (52.6%) attended a 'lung health check'. 768/996 (77.1%) in the present analysis underwent a low-dose CT scan. 92 (11.9%) and 33 (4.3%) participants had indeterminate pulmonary nodules requiring 3-month and 12-month surveillance, respectively; 36 lung cancers (4.7%) were diagnosed (median follow-up: 1044 days). 72.2% of lung cancers were stage I/II and 79.4% of non-small cell lung cancer had curative-intent treatment

Patient experience and perceived acceptability of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for staging colorectal and lung cancer compared with current staging scans: a qualitative study

Objective To describe the experience and acceptability of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) staging compared with standard scans among patients with highly suspected or known colorectal or lung cancer. Design Qualitative study using one-to-one interviews with thematic analysis. Setting Patients recruited from 10 hospitals in London, East and South East England between March 2013 and July 2014. Participants 51 patients (31 male, age range 40–89 years), with varying levels of social deprivation, were recruited consecutively from two parallel clinical trials comparing the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of WB-MRI with standard scans for staging colorectal and lung cancer (‘Streamline-C’ and ‘Streamline-L’). WB-MRI was offered as an additional scan as part of the trials. Results In general WB-MRI presented a greater challenge than standard scans, although all but four patients completed the WB-MRI. Key challenges were enclosed space, noise and scan duration; reduced patient tolerance was associated with claustrophobia, pulmonary symptoms and existing comorbidities. Coping strategies facilitated scan tolerance and were grouped into (1) those intended to help with physical and emotional challenges, and (2) those focused on motivation to complete the scan, for example focusing on health benefit. Our study suggests that good staff communication could reduce anxiety and boost coping strategies. Conclusions Although WB-MRI was perceived as more challenging than standard scans, it was sufficiently acceptable and tolerated by most patients to potentially replace them if appropriate. Trial registration number ISRCTN43958015 and ISRCTN50436483