Using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory questionnaire to quantify the health benefits of lymphoedema treatment in patients with head and neck cancer (2020)

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
*Halliday E.; *Ahsan S.F.; Gittins J.

Citation:
Applied Cancer Research; Dec 2020; vol. 40 (no. 1)

Abstract:
Background: Lymphoedema is a common side effect after treatment for head and neck cancer. Our treatment protocol involves staging the degree of lymphoedema and then offering treatment comprising skin care, manual lymphatic drainage, simple lymphatic drainage, compression and elastic therapeutic tape. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory is a validated post-interventional questionnaire applicable to otorhinolaryngology interventions which measures changes in health status. The aim of this study was to quantify the health benefits of lymphoedema treatment using the Glasgow Inventory Benefit questionnaire, in patients with a history of treated head and neck cancer. Method(s): Any patient who had undergone treatment with curative intent of a primary head and neck malignancy who had been referred for lymphoedema treatment within a 6 month period was eligible for inclusion. Patients completed a questionnaire after finishing the course of lymphoedema treatment. Result(s): A total of 15 patients completed the questionnaire. Ten patients (67%) demonstrated some level of improvement in quality of life, while two (13%) reported no benefit and three (20%) reported negative improvements. The average score for the total Glasgow Benefit Inventory scale was + 7.2. The greatest benefit was demonstrated with the physical benefit subscale (+ 13.1). The average general benefit score was + 9.0. Conclusion(s): Lymphoedema treatment involves techniques which can fairly easily be taught to patients to complete at home. In this study, there were mild improvements in patient reported quality of life using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory in the majority of patients. Clinical interest has increased in lymphoedema recently, but there is still limited information about the effectiveness of treatments and future research should look to address these issues.

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

Selection of endogenous control genes for normalising gene expression data derived from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour tissue (2020)

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
Smith T.A.D.; AbdelKarem O.A.; Irlam-Jones J.J.; Lane B.; Valentine H.; Bibby B.A.S.; Choudhury A.; West C.M.L.; *Denley H.

Citation:
Scientific reports; Oct 2020; vol. 10 (no. 1)

Abstract:
Quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) data are normalised using endogenous control genes. We aimed to: (1) demonstrate a pathway to identify endogenous control genes for qPCR analysis of formalinfixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue using bladder cancer as an exemplar; and (2) examine the influence of probe length and sample age on PCR amplification and co-expression of candidate genes on apparent expression stability. RNA was extracted from prospective and retrospective samples and subject to qPCR using TaqMan human endogenous control arrays or single tube assays. Gene stability ranking was assessed using coefficient of variation (CoV), GeNorm and NormFinder. Co-expressed genes were identified from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) using the on-line gene regression analysis tool GRACE. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were lower for prospective (19.49+/-2.53) vs retrospective (23.8+/-3.32) tissues (p<0.001) and shorter vs longer probes. Co-expressed genes ranked as the most stable genes in the TCGA cohort by GeNorm when analysed together but ranked lower when analysed individually omitting co-expressed genes indicating bias. Stability values were<1.5 for the 20 candidate genes in the prospective cohort. As they consistently ranked in the top ten by CoV, GeNorm and Normfinder, UBC, RPLP0, HMBS, GUSB, and TBP are the most suitable endogenous control genes for bladder cancer qPCR.

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

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; Vol. 133(12) p. 1038-1040

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; Dec 2019 30(12) p. 1992-2003

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]

See Erratum – The authors regret that Fig.2F has been incorrectly titled. The correct title is “Failure-free survival high burden M1”.

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