| 1. |
- Clement, R. Carter, et al.
(författare)
-
A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Acta Orthopaedica. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 1745-3682 .- 1745-3674. ; 86:5, s. 523-533
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and purpose - Outcome measurement has been shown to improve performance in several fields of healthcare. This understanding has driven a growing interest in value-based healthcare, where value is defined as outcomes achieved per money spent. While low back pain (LBP) constitutes an enormous burden of disease, no universal set of metrics has yet been accepted to measure and compare outcomes. Here, we aim to define such a set. Patients and methods - An international group of 22 specialists in several disciplines of spine care was assembled to review literature and select LBP outcome metrics through a 6-round modified Delphi process. The scope of the outcome set was degenerative lumbar conditions. Results - Patient-reported metrics include numerical pain scales, lumbar-related function using the Oswestry disability index, health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, and questions assessing work status and analgesic use. Specific common and serious complications are included. Recommended follow-up intervals include 6, 12, and 24 months after initiating treatment, with optional follow-up at 3 months and 5 years. Metrics for risk stratification are selected based on preexisting tools. Interpretation - The outcome measures recommended here are structured around specific etiologies of LBP, span a patient's entire cycle of care, and allow for risk adjustment. Thus, when implemented, this set can be expected to facilitate meaningful comparisons and ultimately provide a continuous feedback loop, enabling ongoing improvements in quality of care. Much work lies ahead in implementation, revision, and validation of this set, but it is an essential first step toward establishing a community of LBP providers focused on maximizing the value of the care we deliver.
|
|
| 2. |
- Clift, A. K., et al.
(författare)
-
Incidence of Second Primary Malignancies in Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumours
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Neuroendocrinology. - : S. Karger AG. - 0028-3835 .- 1423-0194. ; 102:1-2, s. 26-32
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: An association between neuroendocrine tumours (NET) and increased risk of developing second primary malignancies (SPM) has been recognised. Methods: This was a retrospective review of our institutional prospectively maintained database of NET patients. We identified patients who had been diagnosed with both neuroendocrine and any additional malignancies via examination of patient notes. Results: Clinical data for 169 patients were analysed. After exclusion of patients known to have hereditary tumour predisposition syndromes, 29 SPM were identified in 26 patients (15.38%), the commonest being colorectal (n = 6), breast and renal carcinomas (both n = 5). SPM were classified as previous, synchronous or subsequent relative to NET diagnosis. Rates of SPM in pancreatic and small-bowel NET patients were comparable (15.7 vs. 19.6%, p = 0.78). A personyear methodology was used to compare observed numbers of SPM against expected values generated from age-and sex-specific incidence tables, with standardised incidence ratios (SIR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. SPM incidence was significantly elevated in the synchronous subset (SIR 2.732, CI 1.177-5.382) whilst significantly fewer NET patients had a cancer history compared to the general population (SIR 0.4, CI 0.241-0.624). No overall differences were evident between observed and expected incidences of subsequent SPM (SIR 0.36, CI 0.044-1.051). The incidence of synchronous colorectal cancers was markedly elevated (SIR 13.079, CI 4.238-30.474). Conclusions: Our data support the use of colonoscopy in the diagnostic work-up of NET patients in anticipation of a colorectal SPM. The mechanistic underpinnings of this clinical phenomenon require further genetic investigation, and consideration of this knowledge in patient management pathways is warranted. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Jones, Robert P., et al.
(författare)
-
Patterns of Recurrence After Resection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma : A Secondary Analysis of the ESPAC-4 Randomized Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial
- 2019
-
Ingår i: JAMA Surgery. - : AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. - 2168-6254 .- 2168-6262. ; 154:11, s. 1038-1048
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Importance: The patterns of disease recurrence after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with adjuvant chemotherapy remain unclear.Objective: To define patterns of recurrence after adjuvant chemotherapy and the association with survival.Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospectively collected data from the phase 3 European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer 4 adjuvant clinical trial, an international multicenter study. The study included 730 patients who had resection and adjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Data were analyzed between July 2017 and May 2019.Interventions: Randomization to adjuvant gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus capecitabine.Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival, recurrence, and sites of recurrence.Results: Of the 730 patients, median age was 65 years (range 37-81 years), 414 were men (57%), and 316 were women (43%). The median follow-up time from randomization was 43.2 months (95% CI, 39.7-45.5 months), with overall survival from time of surgery of 27.9 months (95% CI, 24.8-29.9 months) with gemcitabine and 30.2 months (95% CI, 25.8-33.5 months) with the combination (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98; P=.03). The 5-year survival estimates were 17.1% (95% CI, 11.6%-23.5%) and 28.0% (22.0%-34.3%), respectively. Recurrence occurred in 479 patients (65.6%); another 78 patients (10.7%) died without recurrence. Local recurrence occurred at a median of 11.63 months (95% CI, 10.05-12.19 months), significantly different from those with distant recurrence with a median of 9.49 months (95% CI, 8.44-10.71 months) (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45; P=.04). Following recurrence, the median survival was 9.36 months (95% CI, 8.08-10.48 months) for local recurrence and 8.94 months (95% CI, 7.82-11.17 months) with distant recurrence (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09; P=.27). The median overall survival of patients with distant-only recurrence (23.03 months; 95% CI, 19.55-25.85 months) or local with distant recurrence (23.82 months; 95% CI, 17.48-28.32 months) was not significantly different from those with only local recurrence (24.83 months; 95% CI, 22.96-27.63 months) (P=.85 and P=.35, respectively). Gemcitabine plus capecitabine had a 21% reduction of death following recurrence compared with monotherapy (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98; P=.03).Conclusions and Relevance: There were no significant differences between the time to recurrence and subsequent and overall survival between local and distant recurrence. Pancreatic cancer behaves as a systemic disease requiring effective systemic therapy after resection.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00058201, EudraCT 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN 96397434. This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial investigates patterns of recurrence after adjuvant chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer and the association with survival.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Neoptolemos, John P., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4) : a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 389:10073, s. 1011-1024
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The ESPAC-3 trial showed that adjuvant gemcitabine is the standard of care based on similar survival to and less toxicity than adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Other clinical trials have shown better survival and tumour response with gemcitabine and capecitabine than with gemcitabine alone in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and capecitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer.Methods: We did a phase 3, two-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised clinical trial at 92 hospitals in England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, France, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had undergone complete macroscopic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (R0 or R1 resection). We randomly assigned patients (1: 1) within 12 weeks of surgery to receive six cycles of either 1000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine alone administered once a week for three of every 4 weeks (one cycle) or with 1660 mg/m(2) oral capecitabine administered for 21 days followed by 7 days' rest (one cycle). Randomisation was based on a minimisation routine, and country was used as a stratification factor. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured as the time from randomisation until death from any cause, and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Toxicity was analysed in all patients who received trial treatment. This trial was registered with the EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434.Findings: Of 732 patients enrolled, 730 were included in the final analysis. Of these, 366 were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine and 364 to gemcitabine plus capecitabine. The Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee requested reporting of the results after there were 458 (95%) of a target of 480 deaths. The median overall survival for patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group was 28.0 months (95% CI 23.5-31.5) compared with 25.5 months (22.7-27.9) in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio 0.82 [95% CI 0.68-0.98], p=0.032). 608 grade 3-4 adverse events were reported by 226 of 359 patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group compared with 481 grade 3-4 adverse events in 196 of 366 patients in the gemcitabine group.Interpretation: The adjuvant combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine should be the new standard of care following resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Robles-Zurita, Jose, et al.
(författare)
-
SCOT : a comparison of cost-effectiveness from a large randomised phase III trial of two durations of adjuvant Oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy for colorectal cancer
- 2018
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Cancer. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0007-0920 .- 1532-1827. ; 119:11, s. 1332-1338
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study is an international, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy, toxicity, and cost-effectiveness of 3 months (3 M) versus the usually given 6 months (6 M) of adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer.METHODS: In total, 6088 patients with fully resected high-risk stage II or stage III colorectal cancer were randomised and followed up for 3-8 years. The within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis from a UK health-care perspective is presented using the resource use data, quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), time on treatment (ToT), disease-free survival after treatment (DFS) and overall survival (OS) data. Quality-adjusted partitioned survival analysis and Kaplan-Meier Sample Average Estimator estimated QALYs and costs. Probabilistic sensitivity and subgroup analysis was undertaken.RESULTS: The 3M arm is less costly (-4881; pound 95% CI: -6269; pound -3492) pound and entails (non-significant) QALY gains (0.08; 95% CI: -0.086; 0.230) due to a better significant quality of life. The net monetary benefit was significantly higher in 3M under a wide range of monetary values of a QALY. The subgroup analysis found similar results for patients in the CAPOX regimen. However, for the FOLFOX regimen, 3M had lower QALYs than 6M (not statistically significant).CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 3M dominates 6M with no significant detrimental impact on QALYs. The results provide the economic case that a 3M treatment strategy should be considered a new standard of care.
|
|
