| 1. |
- Dahl, Olav, et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluation of the stage classification of anal cancer by the TNM 8th version versus the TNM 7th version
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Acta Oncologica. - 0284-186X .- 1651-226X. ; 59:9, s. 1016-1023
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The UICC TNM 7th edition introduced stage groups for anal cancer which in 2019 has not yet come into general use. The new TNM 8th edition from 2016 defines 7 sub-stages. Background data for these changes are lacking. We aimed to investigate whether the new classification for anal cancer reliably predict the prognosis in the different stages.Patients and methods: The Nordic Anal Cancer Group (NOAC) conducted a large retrospective study of all anal cancers in Norway, Sweden and most of Denmark in 2000–2007. From the Nordic cohort 1151 anal cancer patients with follow-up data were classified by the TNM 4th edition which has identical T, N and M definitions as the TNM 7th edition, and therefore also can be classified by the TNM 7th stage groups. We used the Nordic cohort to translate the T, N and M stages into the TNM 8th stages and sub-stages. Overall survival for each stage was assessed.Results: Although the summary stage groups for TNM 8th edition discriminates patients with different prognosis reasonably well, the analyses of the seven sub-stages show overlapping overall survival: HR for stage IIA 1.30 (95%CI 0.80–2.12) is not significantly different from stage I (p = .30) and HR for stage IIB 2.35 (95%CI 1.40–3.95) and IIIA 2.48 (95%CI 1.43–4.31) are also similar as were HRs for stage IIIB 3.41 (95%CI 1.99–5.85) and IIIC 3.22 (95%CI 1.99–5.20). Similar overlapping was shown for local recurrence and distant spread.Conclusion: The results for the sub-stages calls for a revision of the staging system. We propose a modification of the TNM 8th edition for staging of anal cancer into four stages based on the T, N and M definitions of the TNM 8th classification.
|
|
| 2. |
- Dahlborg, Elisabeth, 1974-, et al.
(författare)
-
The struggle between welfare state models and prevailing healthcare policy in Scandinavian healthcare legislative documents
- 2021
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Health Governance. - 2059-4631. ; :1, s. 51-64
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose The paper aims to compare and discuss the findings of discursive constructions of patients in legal texts from the three Scandinavian countries. Since traditional welfare state systems in Scandinavia are being challenged by new governance systems, new questions are being raised about patient positions and agency, carrying with them potential ethical dilemmas for healthcare professionals.Design/methodology/approachThe methodology of the paper is inspired by critical discourse analysis. Comprehensively analysing the findings of previous discourse studies on how "the patient" is constructed in central policy texts, this study compares the position of the patient in Norway, Sweden and Denmark.FindingsThe paper reveals ideological struggles across the Scandinavian countries, operating at a political level, a legislative level and a healthcare level. It is shown that national governance systems still exert hegemonic power by strongly influencing patients' degree of choice and autonomy. The discursive struggle between welfare state governance and other governance systems in Scandinavia indicates a shift towards a commercial healthcare market although a traditional welfare model is advocated by professionals and researchersResearch limitations/implicationsBecause of the specific conditions of Scandinavian healthcare policy, the findings lack generalisability. The research approach should therefore be explored further in additional contexts.Practical implicationsThe findings of this study can inform policymakers, professionals and patients of the ideological values underlying seemingly objective shifts in national policy.Originality/valueA comparative critical discourse analysis can expose patterns in the Scandinavian approaches to patient rights.
|
|
| 3. |
- Jensen, Lars Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and standard treatment in patients with locally advanced colon cancer: The NeoCol trial.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 41:17_SUPPL
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- LBA3503Background: Locally advanced colon cancer presents a therapeutic challenge regarding improving survival and minimizing side effects by optimizing the timing of surgical and systemic treatments. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a widely accepted approach in numerous cancers as it aims to eliminate micrometastases and reduce tumor size. Our study aimed to assess the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on locally advanced colon cancer compared to standard initial surgery. Methods: This was a randomized, controlled, phase III clinical trial. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven colon cancer were eligible for inclusion if staged as T4 or T3 with invasion depth >= 5 mm, N0-2, and M0 according to CT scan evaluation. Patients were randomly assigned to either standard upfront surgery or surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with either 3 cycles of CAPOX (oxaliplatin, capecitabine every 3 weeks) or 4 cycles of FOLFOX (oxaliplatin, 5FU every 2 weeks). Adjuvant chemotherapy was chosen based on the pathological stage of the cancer according to guidelines. The primary endpoint, disease-free survival (DFS), was analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. The sample size was set at 125 patients per arm, based on a projected increase in two-year disease-free survival from 80% to 90%, with a two-sided significance level of 5%, power of 80%, 3 years of inclusion, 2 years of follow-up, and a 10% drop-out rate. Results: Nine centers in 3 countries included 122 patients in the standard group and 126 patients in the neoadjuvant group from 10/2013 to 11/2021. Forty-four % were female, the median age was 66 years, and 91% had a performance status (PS) of 0, while 9% had a PS of 1. Seventy-three % of the tumors were classified as T3, with a median outgrowth of 11 mm, while 26% were classified as T4 on the baseline CT scan. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The median number of chemotherapy cycles was lower in the neoadjuvant group, 3 (IQR 1-7) vs. 4 (0-8). There were slightly more postoperative complications in the standard group regarding ileus, anastomotic leakage, and length of stay. Postoperatively, more patients in the standard arm had an indication of adjuvant chemotherapy, 88 vs. 72 (p = 0.02). DFS at 2 years was similar in the two arms (p = 0.95, logrank), as was overall survival (OS) (p = 0.95, logrank). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and standard upfront surgery showed no significant difference in DFS and OS in patients with colon cancer. However, neoadjuvant chemotherapy seemed to have more favorable outcomes in terms of chemotherapy cycles, postoperative complications, and downstaging. CT scan alone may not be sufficient in identifying high-risk patients preoperatively. These findings suggest that neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be considered a viable treatment option for patients with locally advanced colon cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT01918527.
|
|
