| 1. |
- Bejanyan, Nelli, et al.
(författare)
-
Myeloablative Conditioning for Allogeneic Transplantation Results in Superior Disease-Free Survival for Acute Myelogenous Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes with Low/Intermediate but not High Disease Risk Index : A Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research Study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. - : Elsevier. - 2666-6375 .- 2666-6367. ; 27:1, s. 68.e1-68.e9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Compared with reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC), myeloablative conditioning (MAC) is generally associated with lower relapse risk after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, disease-specific risk factors in AML/MDS can further inform when MAC and RIC may yield differential outcomes. We analyzed HCT outcomes stratified by the Disease Risk Index (DRI) in 4387 adults (age 40 to 65 years) to identify the impact of conditioning intensity. In the low/ intermediate-risk DRI cohort, RIC was associated with lower nonrelapse mortality (NRM) (hazard ratio [HR],.74; 95% confidence interval [CI],.62 to.88; P <.001) but significantly greater relapse risk (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.76; P <.001) and thus inferior disease-free survival (DFS) (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.33; P =.001). In the high/ very high-risk DRI cohort, RIC was associated with marginally lower NRM (HR,.83; 95% CI,.68 to 1.00; P =.051) and significantly higher relapse risk (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.41; P =.002), leading to similar DFS using either RIC or MAC. These data support MAC over RIC as the preferred conditioning intensity for patients with AML/MDS with low/intermediate-risk DRI, but with a similar benefit as RIC in high/very high-risk DRI. Novel MAC regimens with less toxicity could benefit all patients, but more potent antineoplastic approaches are needed for the high/ very-high risk DRI group.
|
|
| 2. |
- Cornford, Philip, et al.
(författare)
-
EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.
- 2024
-
Ingår i: European urology. - 1873-7560.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines provide recommendations for the management of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). This paper aims to present a summary of the 2024 version of the EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised PCa.The panel performed a literature review of all new data published in English, covering the time frame between May 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated, and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is considered, a combination of targeted and regional biopsies should be performed. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography imaging is the most sensitive technique for identifying metastatic spread. Active surveillance is the appropriate management for men with low-risk PCa, as well as for selected favourable intermediate-risk patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A recommendation to consider hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term intensified hormonal treatment.The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.This article is the summary of the guidelines for "curable" prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is "found" through a multistep risk-based screening process. The objective is to find as many men as possible with a curable cancer. Prostate cancer is curable if it resides in the prostate; it is then classified into low-, intermediary-, and high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. These risk classes are the basis of the treatments. Low-risk prostate cancer is treated with "active surveillance", a treatment with excellent prognosis. For low-intermediary-risk active surveillance should also be discussed as an option. In other cases, active treatments, surgery, or radiation treatment should be discussed along with the potential side effects to allow shared decision-making.
|
|
| 3. |
- MacLennan, Steven, et al.
(författare)
-
Mapping European Association of Urology Guideline Practice Across Europe : An Audit of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use Before Prostate Cancer Surgery in 6598 Cases in 187 Hospitals Across 31 European Countries
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838. ; 83:5, s. 393-401
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Evidence-practice gaps exist in urology. We previously surveyed European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for strong recommendations underpinned by high-certainty evidence that impact patient experience for which practice variations were suspected. The recommendation "Do not offer neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) before surgery for patients with prostate cancer" was prioritised for further investigation. ADT before surgery is neither clinically effective nor cost effective and has serious side effects. The first step in improving implementation problems is to understand their extent. A clear picture of practice regarding ADT before surgery across Europe is not available.OBJECTIVE: To assess current ADT use before prostate cancer surgery in Europe.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was an observational cross-sectional study. We retrospectively audited recent ADT practices in a multicentre international setting. We used nonprobability purposive sampling, aiming for breadth in terms of low- versus high-volume, academic, versus community and public versus private centres.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Our primary outcome was adherence to the ADT recommendation. Descriptive statistics and a multilevel model were used to investigate differences between countries across different factors (volume, centre type, and funding type). Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with low, intermediate, and high risk, and for those with locally advanced prostate cancer. We also collected reasons for nonadherence.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We included 6598 patients with prostate cancer from 187 hospitals in 31 countries from January 1, 2017 to May 1, 2020. Overall, nonadherence was 2%, (range 0-32%). Most of the variability was found in the high-risk subgroup, for which nonadherence was 4% (range 0-43%). Reasons for nonadherence included attempts to improve oncological outcomes or preoperative tumour parameters; attempts to control the cancer because of long waiting lists; and patient preference (changing one's mind from radiotherapy to surgery after neoadjuvant ADT had commenced or feeling that the side effects were intolerable). Although we purposively sampled for variety within countries (public/private, academic/community, high/low-volume), a selection bias toward centres with awareness of guidelines is possible, so adherence rates may be overestimated.CONCLUSIONS: EAU guidelines recommend against ADT use before prostate cancer surgery, yet some guideline-discordant ADT use remains at the cost of patient experience and an additional payer and provider burden. Strategies towards discontinuation of inappropriate preoperative ADT use should be pursued.PATIENT SUMMARY: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is sometimes used in men with prostate cancer who will not benefit from it. ADT causes side effects such as weight gain and emotional changes and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and osteoporosis. Guidelines strongly recommend that men opting for surgery should not receive ADT, but it is unclear how well the guidance is followed. We asked urologists across Europe how patients in their institutions were treated over the past few years. Most do not use ADT before surgery, but this still happens in some places. More research is needed to help doctors to stop using ADT in patients who will not benefit from it.
|
|
