Citations

Introduction Cumulative network meta-analysis (NMA) is a method to provide a global comparison of multiple treatments with real-time update to evidence users. Several studies investigated the ranking of cumulative NMA and the recommendations of practice guidelines. However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has evaluated the cumulative NMA ranking and prescription patterns. Here, we present a protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation to compare the results of cumulative NMA with the recommendations in postmenopausal osteoporosis practice guidelines and with the actual prescriptions. Method and analysis We will use the data of primary trials from the upcoming postmenopausal osteoporosis clinical practice guideline of the Endocrine Society. We will conduct cumulative NMA using all eligible trials and generate hierarchy of treatment rankings by using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. We will search practice guidelines in relevant society websites. Two review authors will extract the practice recommendations. We will use data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey, a US representative sample of the non-institutionalised population, to determine the prescription patterns. Ethics and dissemination Because all data will be retrieved from public databases, institutional review board approval is not required. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present key findings at conferences. Trial registration number UMIN000031894: Pre-results.

AbstractObjectiveChronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) disorders are among the most prevalent and disabling conditions worldwide. It would be advantageous to have common outcome measures when comparing results across different CMSP research studies.MethodsThe Veterans Health Administration appointed a work group to recommend core outcome measures for assessing pain intensity and interference as well as important secondary domains in clinical research. The work group used three streams of data to inform their recommendations: 1) literature synthesis augmented by three recently completed trials; 2) review and comparison of measures recommended by other expert groups; 3) two Delphi surveys of work group members.ResultsThe single-item numerical rating scale and seven-item Brief Pain Inventory interference scale emerged as the recommended measures for assessing pain intensity and interference, respectively. The secondary domains ranked most important included physical functioning and depression, followed by sleep, anxiety, and patient-reported global impression of change (PGIC). For these domains, the work group recommended the Patient-Reported Outcome Information System four-item physical function and sleep scales, the Patient Health Questionnaire two-item depression scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder two-item anxiety scale, and the single-item PGIC. Finally, a single-item National Health Interview Survey item was favored for defining chronic pain.ConclusionsTwo scales comprising eight items are recommended as core outcome measures for pain intensity and interference in all studies of chronic musculoskeletal pain, and brief scales comprising 13 additional items can be added when possible to assess important secondary domains.

Treatment planning for protons and heavier ions is adapting technologies originally developed for photon dose optimization, but also has to meet its particular challenges. Since the quality of the applied dose is more sensitive to geometric uncertainties, treatment plan robust optimization has a much more prominent role in particle therapy. This has led to specific planning tools, approaches, and research into new formulations of the robust optimization problems. Tools for solution space navigation and automatic planning are also being adapted to particle therapy. These challenges become even greater when detailed models of relative biological effectiveness ( RBE ) are included into dose optimization, as is required for heavier ions.

Abstract Background: Inflammation is linked to prostate cancer progression and is mediated by NF-κB. Tristetraprolin is a key node of NF-κB activation and we investigated its biological and prognostic role in lethal prostate cancer. Methods: In vitro assays assessed the function of tristetraprolin and the association between low mRNA tristetraprolin levels and lethal prostate cancer (metastatic disease or death) was assessed across independent prostatectomy cohorts: (i) nested case-control studies from Health Professionals Follow-up Study and Physicians’ Health Study, and (ii) prostatectomy samples from Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Tristetraprolin expression levels in prostatectomy samples from patients with localized disease and biopsies of metastatic castration–resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were assessed in a Cornell University cohort. Results: In vitro tristetraprolin expression was inversely associated with NF-κB–controlled genes, proliferation, and enzalutamide sensitivity. Men with localized prostate cancer and lower quartile of tumor tristetraprolin expression had a significant, nearly two-fold higher risk of lethal prostate cancer after adjusting for known clinical and histologic prognostic features (age, RP Gleason score, T-stage). Tristetraprolin expression was also significantly lower in mCRPC compared with localized prostate cancer. Conclusions: Lower levels of tristetraprolin in human prostate cancer prostatectomy tissue are associated with more aggressive prostate cancer and may serve as an actionable prognostic and predictive biomarker. Impact: There is a clear need for improved biomarkers to identify patients with localized prostate cancer in need of treatment intensification, such as adjuvant testosterone suppression, or treatment de-intensification, such as active surveillance. Tristetraprolin levels may serve as informative biomarkers in localized prostate cancer.

PurposeMetastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) can be a catastrophic manifestation of advanced cancer that causes immobilizing pain and significant neurologic impairment. Oncologists can protect their patients by having a high index of suspicion for MSCC when patients present with new or worsening back pain before motor, sensory, bowel, or bladder deficits develop. We provide an updated, evidence-based narrative review of the presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of MSCC.MethodsThis narrative review was conducted by searching MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant literature on the presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with MSCC. The article addresses the key elements of MSCC management germane to the medical oncologist, with special attention given to pain and symptom management, decision making with regard to surgery and radiation therapy, the importance of rehabilitative care, and the value of a multidisciplinary approach.ResultsMagnetic resonance imaging of the entire spine is recommended for the diagnosis of MSCC. Treatment includes glucocorticoid therapy, pain management, radiation therapy with or without surgery, and specialized rehabilitation. When formulating a treatment plan, clinicians should consider the patient’s care goals and psychosocial needs.ConclusionPrompt diagnosis and treatment of MSCC can reduce pain and prevent irreversible functional loss. Regular collaboration among multidisciplinary providers may streamline care and enhance achievement of treatment goals.