| 1. |
- Aughton, Karen, et al.
(författare)
-
hENT1 Predicts Benefit from Gemcitabine in Pancreatic Cancer but Only with Low CDA mRNA
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Cancers. - : MDPI. - 2072-6694. ; 13:22
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) based treatments can be selected for pancreatic cancer. Equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) predicts adjuvant gemcitabine treatment benefit over 5-FU. Cytidine deaminase (CDA), inside or outside of the cancer cell, will deaminate gemcitabine, altering transporter affinity. ESPAC-3(v2) was a pancreatic cancer trial comparing adjuvant gemcitabine and 5-FU. Tissue microarray sections underwent in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. Analysis of both CDA and hENT1 was possible with 277 patients. The transcript did not correlate with protein levels for either marker. High hENT1 protein was prognostic with gemcitabine; median overall survival was 26.0 v 16.8 months (p = 0.006). Low CDA transcript was prognostic regardless of arm; 24.8 v 21.2 months with gemcitabine (p = 0.02) and 26.4 v 14.6 months with 5-FU (p = 0.02). Patients with low hENT1 protein did better with 5-FU, but only if the CDA transcript was low (median survival of 5-FU v gemcitabine; 29.3 v 18.3 months, compared with 14.2 v 14.6 with high CDA). CDA mRNA is an independent prognostic biomarker. When added to hENT1 protein status, it may also provide treatment-specific predictive information and, within the frame of a personalized treatment strategy, guide to either gemcitabine or 5FU for the individual patient.Simple Summary:Recent clinical trials suggest that combination therapies that include either gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) both give significant survival benefits for pancreatic cancer patients. The tumor level of the nucleoside transporter hENT1 is prognostic in patients treated with adjuvant gemcitabine but not adjuvant 5-FU. This work shows for the first time that hENT1 is only predictive of benefit from gemcitabine over 5-FU in patients with low levels of CDA transcript. A choice between adjuvant 5-FU based combination therapies (such as FOLFIRINOX) and gemcitabine-based therapy (e.g., GemCap) could be made based on a combination of hENT1 protein and CDA mRNA measured in a resected tumor.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pulkki-Brännström, Anni-Maria, et al.
(författare)
-
Participatory learning and action cycles with women s groups to prevent neonatal death in low-resource settings : A multi-country comparison of cost-effectiveness and affordability
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Health Policy and Planning. - : Oxford University Press. - 0268-1080 .- 1460-2237. ; 16:35
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- WHO recommends participatory learning and action cycles with women's groups as a cost-effective strategy to reduce neonatal deaths. Coverage is a determinant of intervention effectiveness, but little is known about why cost-effectiveness estimates vary significantly. This article reanalyses primary cost data from six trials in India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Malawi to describe resource use, explore reasons for differences in costs and cost-effectiveness ratios, and model the cost of scale-up. Primary cost data were collated, and costing methods harmonized. Effectiveness was extracted from a meta-analysis and converted to neonatal life-years saved. Cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated from the provider perspective compared with current practice. Associations between unit costs and cost-effectiveness ratios with coverage, scale and intensity were explored. Scale-up costs and outcomes were modelled using local unit costs and the meta-analysis effect estimate for neonatal mortality. Results were expressed in 2016 international dollars. The average cost was $203 (range: $61-$537) per live birth. Start-up costs were large, and spending on staff was the main cost component. The cost per neonatal life-year saved ranged from $135 to $1627. The intervention was highly cost-effective when using income-based thresholds. Variation in cost-effectiveness across trials was strongly correlated with costs. Removing discounting of costs and life-years substantially reduced all cost-effectiveness ratios. The cost of rolling out the intervention to rural populations ranges from 1.2% to 6.3% of government health expenditure in the four countries. Our analyses demonstrate the challenges faced by economic evaluations of community-based interventions evaluated using a cluster randomized controlled trial design. Our results confirm that women's groups are a cost-effective and potentially affordable strategy for improving birth outcomes among rural populations.
|
|
