Citations

PURPOSE Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the fourth most common cancer in Africa, has a dismal overall survival of only 3 months like in sub-Saharan Africa. This is affected by the low gross domestic product and human development index, absence of coherent guidelines, and other factors. METHODS An open forum for HCC-experienced health care workers from Africa and the rest of the world was held in October 2021. Participants completed a survey to help assess the real-life access to screening, diagnoses, and treatment in the North and Southern Africa (NS), East and West Africa (EW), Central Africa (C), and the rest of the world. RESULTS Of 461 participants from all relevant subspecialties, 372 were from Africa. Most African participants provided hepatitis B vaccination and treatment for hepatitis B and C. More than half of the participants use serum alpha-fetoprotein and ultrasound for surveillance. Only 20% reported using image-guided diagnostic liver biopsy. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer is the most used staging system (52%). Liver transplant is available for only 28% of NS and 3% EW. C reported a significantly lower availability of resection. Availability of local therapy ranged from 94% in NS to 62% in C. Sorafenib is the most commonly used systemic therapy (66%). Only 12.9% reported access to other medications including immune checkpoint inhibitors. Besides 42% access to regorafenib in NS, second-line treatments were not provided. CONCLUSION Similarities and differences in the care for patients with HCC in Africa are reported. This reconfirms the major gaps in access and availability especially in C and marginally less so in EW. This is a call for concerted multidisciplinary efforts to achieve and sustain a reduction in incidence and mortality from HCC in Africa.

PURPOSE Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) support high-quality cancer care. Little is known about the impact of information technology (IT) tools on the operational and technical aspects of MTBs. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network EHR Oncology Advisory Group formed a workgroup to investigate the impact of IT tools such as EHRs and virtual conferencing on MTBs. METHODS The workgroup created a cross-sectional survey for oncology clinicians (eg, pathology, medical, surgical, radiation, etc) participating in MTBs at 31 National Comprehensive Cancer Network member institutions. A standard invitation e-mail was shared with each EHR Advisory Group Member with a hyperlink to the survey, and each member distributed the survey to MTB participants at their institution or identified the appropriate person at their institution to do so. The survey was open from February 26, 2022, to April 26, 2022. Descriptive statistics were applied in the analysis of responses, and a qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended responses was completed. RESULTS Individuals from 27 institutions participated. Almost all respondents (99%, n = 764 of 767) indicated that their MTBs had participants attending virtually. Most indicated increased attendance (69%, n = 514 of 741) after virtualization with the same or improved quality of discussion (75%, n = 557 of 741) compared with in-person MTBs. Several gaps between the current and ideal state emerged regarding EHR integration: 57% (n = 433 of 758) of respondents noted the importance of adding patients for MTB presentation via the EHR, but only 40% (n = 302 of 747) reported being able to do so most of the time. Similarly, 87% (n = 661 of 760) indicated the importance of documenting recommendations in the EHR, but only 53% (n = 394 of 746) reported this occurring routinely. CONCLUSION Major gaps include the lack of EHR integration for MTBs. Clinical workflows and EHR functionalities could be improved to further optimize EHRs for MTB management and documentation.

Background: Vertebral body tethering and other non-fusion techniques for the treatment of pediatric idiopathic scoliosis are increasing in popularity. There is limited physician consensus on this topic as the result of a paucity of published data regarding which patients most benefit from non-fusion strategies. Thus, much of the decision-making is left to patients and parents, who must select a treatment based on their goals and values and the information available from health-care providers, the internet, and social media. We sought to understand patient and family preferences regarding the attributes of fusion versus non-fusion surgery that drive these choices. Methods: Patients and families were recruited from 7 pediatric spine centers and were asked to complete a survey-based choice experiment that had been jointly developed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate patient preferences. Choices between experimentally designed alternatives were analyzed to estimate the relative importance of outcomes and requirements associated with the choice options (attributes). The attributes included appearance, confidence in the planned correction, spinal motion, device failure, reoperation, and recovery period. The inclusion criteria were (1) an age of 10 to 21 years and (2) a diagnosis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in patients who were considering, or who had already undergone, treatment with fusion or non-fusion surgery. Preference weights were estimated from the expected changes in choice given changes in the attributes. Results: A total of 344 respondents (124 patients, 92 parents, and 128 parent/patient dyads) completed the survey. One hundred and seventy-three patients were enrolled prior to surgery, and 171 were enrolled after surgery. Appearance and motion were found to be the most important drivers of choice. For the entire cohort, fusion was preferred over non-fusion. For patients who were considering surgery, the most important attributes were preservation of spinal motion and appearance. Conclusions: Patients and families seeking treatment for idiopathic scoliosis value appearance and preservation of spinal motion and, to a lesser extent, reoperation rates when considering fusion versus non-fusion surgery.

Abstract Background and Aims This post hoc analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis stratified by corticosteroid use from the ulcerative colitis Phase 3 clinical trial programme. Methods Patients were randomised [1:2] to 8 weeks’ placebo or upadacitinib 45 mg once daily; Week 8 responders were re-randomised [1:1:1] to 52 weeks’ placebo or upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg daily. Corticosteroid dose was kept stable during induction but tapered according to a protocol-defined schedule [or investigator discretion] during maintenance Weeks 0–8. Efficacy outcomes and exposure-adjusted, treatment-emergent adverse event [TEAE] rates were assessed for induction and maintenance stratified by corticosteroid use at induction baseline. Results Overall, 377/988 [38%] patients were receiving corticosteroids at induction baseline [placebo, n = 133; upadacitinib 45 mg, n = 244] and 252 [37%] of the 681 clinical responders who entered maintenance were on corticosteroids at induction baseline [n = 84 for each treatment]. Similar proportions of patients receiving upadacitinib achieved clinical remission per Adapted Mayo Score with and without baseline corticosteroids at Weeks 8 and 52. The total proportion of patients re-initiating corticosteroids was higher with placebo [24/84;29%] vs upadacitinib 15 mg [16/81; 20%)] and 30 mg [11/81; 14%]. During induction, patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline had higher rates of TEAEs, serious TEAEs, and serious infections vs those not receiving corticosteroids; however, TEAE rates were similar during maintenance after corticosteroid withdrawal. Conclusions Upadacitinib is an effective steroid-sparing treatment in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT02819635; NCT03653026