Human immunodeficiency disease in new diagnoses of head and neck squamous cell cancer: are we testing? (2019)

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
*McNamara K.J.; Saunders T.F.C.; *Ahsan F.; *Fernandez C.

Citation:
Journal of Laryngology and Otology; Nov 2019 ; p. 1-3 [epub ahead of print]

Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus infected patients have a three-fold increased risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The British HIV Association recommends human immunodeficiency virus testing in all new diagnoses of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.
OBJECTIVE(S): This observational study aimed to examine the current routine practice of human immunodeficiency virus testing in patients with newly diagnosed head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and to address the importance of this test in promoting the early diagnosis and treatment of human immunodeficiency virus.
METHOD(S): All head and neck cancer multidisciplinary teams in England were questioned on their protocol for human immunodeficiency virus testing in new diagnoses of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.
RESULT(S): Only 1 out of 30 hospitals leading head and neck multidisciplinary teams (3.3 per cent) routinely offered human immunodeficiency virus testing in this high-risk patient group.
CONCLUSION(S): This observational study highlights that head and neck specialists are not aware of, and are consequently not complying with, routine human immunodeficiency virus testing as recommended by the British HIV Association guidelines.

Patients’ and partners’ views of care and treatment provided for metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer in the UK (2019)

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
Catt S, Matthews L, May S, Payne H, Mason M, Jenkins V.

Citation:
European Journal of Cancer Care. 2019 Nov;28(6):e13140.

Note:
14 of the 37 participants were recruited from the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital

Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: Documentations of the experiences of patients with advanced prostate cancer and their partners are sparse. Views of care and treatment received for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are presented here.
METHODS: Structured interviews conducted within 14 days of a systemic therapy for mCRPC starting and 3 months later explored the following: treatment decisions, information provision, perceived benefits and harms of treatment, and effects of these on patients’ and partners’ lives.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients and 33 partners recruited from UK cancer centres participated. The majority of patients (46%) reported pain was their worst symptom and many wanted to discuss its management (baseline-50%; 3 months-33%). Patients and partners believed treatment would delay progression (>75%), improve wellbeing (33%), alleviate pain (≈12%) and extend life (15% patients, 36% partners). At 3 months, most men (42%) said fatigue was the worst treatment-related side effect (SE), 27% experienced unexpected SEs and 54% needed help with SEs. Most patients received SE information (85% written; 75% verbally); many additionally searched the Internet (33% patients; 55% partners). Only 54% of patients said nurse support was accessible.
CONCLUSION: Pain and other symptom management are not optimal. Increased specialist nurse provision and earlier palliative care links are needed. Dedicated clinics may be justified.

Link to full-text

Altmetrics:

Addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapy in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: long-term survival results from the STAMPEDE trial (2019)

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
Clarke, N W; Ali, A; Ingleby, F C; Hoyle, A; Amos, C L; Attard, G; Brawley, C D; Calvert, J; Chowdhury, S; Cook, A; Cross, W; Dearnaley, D P; Douis, H; Gilbert, D; Gillessen, S; Jones, R J; Langley, R E; MacNair, A; Malik, Z; Mason, M D; Matheson, D; Millman, R; Parker, C C; Ritchie, A W S; Rush, H; Russell, J M; Brown, J; Beesley, S; Birtle, A; Capaldi, L; Gale, J; Gibbs, S; Lydon, A; Nikapota, A; Omlin, A; O’Sullivan, J M; Parikh, O; Protheroe, A; Rudman, S; *Srihari, N N; Simms, M; Tanguay, J S; Tolan, S; Wagstaff, J; Wallace, J; Wylie, J; Zarkar, A; Sydes, M R; Parmar, M K B; James, N D

Citation:
Annals of Oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology; Sep 2019 [epub ahead of print]

Abstract:
BACKGROUND STAMPEDE has previously reported that the use of upfront docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report on long-term outcomes stratified by metastatic burden for M1 patients.
METHODS We randomly allocated patients in 2 : 1 ratio to standard-of-care (SOC; control group) or SOC + docetaxel. Metastatic disease burden was categorised using retrospectively-collected baseline staging scans where available. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional.
RESULTS Between 05 October 2005 and 31 March 2013, 1086 M1 patients were randomised to receive SOC (n = 724) or SOC + docetaxel (n = 362). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) patients; 362 (44%) had low and 468 (56%) high metastatic burden. Median follow-up was 78.2 months. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% more than the previous report). There was good evidence of benefit of docetaxel over SOC on OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95, P = 0.009) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P = 0.827). Analysis of other outcomes found evidence of benefit for docetaxel over SOC in failure-free survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.81, P < 0.001) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P > 0.5 in each case). There was no evidence that docetaxel resulted in late toxicity compared with SOC: after 1 year, G3-5 toxicity was reported for 28% SOC and 27% docetaxel (in patients still on follow-up at 1 year without prior progression).
CONCLUSIONS The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront docetaxel persists at longer follow-up, with no evidence that benefit differed by metastatic burden. We advocate that upfront docetaxel is considered for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients regardless of metastatic burden.

Link to full-text [open access – no password required]

Altmetrics

Establishing a large prospective clinical cohort in people with head and neck cancer as a biomedical resource: head and neck 5000 (2015)

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
Ness A.R., Waylen A., Hurley K., Jeffreys M., Penfold C., Pring M., Leary S., Allmark C., Toms S., Ring S., Peters T.J., Hollingworth W., Worthington H., Nutting C., Fisher S., Rogers S.N., Thomas S.J., Rogers S., Thiruchelvam J.K., Abdelkader M., Anari S., Mehanna H., Sheehan T., Dyker K., McCaul J., Benson R., Stewart S., Hall C., Lester J., Homer J., Hamid A., Lamont A., Fresco L., Lester S., Cogill G., Roy A., Foran B., Bisase B., Balfour A., Evans A., Gollins S., Conway D., Gunasekaran S.P., Lees L., Lowe R., England J., Scrase C., Wight R., Sen M., Doyle M., Moule R., Goodchild K., Rowell N., Beaumont-Jewell D., Loo H.W., Jankowska P., Paleri V., Casasola R., Roques T., Tierney P., Hwang D., Dyson P., Andrade G., Tatla T., Christian J., Winter S., Baldwin A., Davies J., King E., Barnes D., Repanos C., Kim D., Richards S., Dallas N., McAlister K., Berry S., Cole N., Moss L., Palaniappan N., Evans M., Siva M., *Hari C. , Wood K., Simcock R., Waldron J., Hyde N., Ahmed I., Gahir D., O’Hara J., Carr R., Forster M., Thomas S., Wagstaff L., Mano J., Brammer C., Tyler J., Coatesworth A.

Citation:
BMC Cancer, December 2014, vol./is. 14/1, 1471-2407 (December 17, 2014)

Abstract:
Background: Head and neck cancer is an important cause of ill health. Survival appears to be improving but the reasons for this are unclear. They could include evolving aetiology, modifications in care, improvements in treatment or changes in lifestyle behaviour. Observational studies are required to explore survival trends and identify outcome predictors. Methods: We are identifying people with a new diagnosis of head and neck cancer. We obtain consent that includes agreement to collect longitudinal data, store samples and record linkage. Prior to treatment we give participants three questionnaires on health and lifestyle, quality of life and sexual history. We collect blood and saliva samples, complete a clinical data capture form and request a formalin fixed tissue sample. At four and twelve months we complete further data capture forms and send participants further quality of life questionnaires. Discussion: This large clinical cohort of people with head and neck cancer brings together clinical data, patient-reported outcomes and biological samples in a single co-ordinated resource for translational and prognostic research.

Link to full-text: http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4301458