Novel frenatins from the skin of the Australasian Giant White-lipped tree frog, Litoria infrafrenata: cloning of precursor cDNAs and identification in defensive skin secretion.

The Australasian anuran amphibian genus Litoria, contains many phenotypically-diverse species as a result of radial evolution of an ancestral species into different biotopes much in the manner of the indigenous marsupial mammals. In common with members of the Central/South American genus Phyllomedusa, their specialized skin granular glands are factories for the production of a plethora of biologically-active peptides. Here we report a more detailed study of those present in the defensive skin secretion of the Australasian giant white-lipped tree frog, Litoria infrafrenata, and, for the first time, we have identified three novel frenatins by deduction of primary structures from cDNAs that were cloned from a library constructed from lyophilized skin secretion using a recently-developed technique. All open-reading frames consisted of a putative signal peptide and an acidic pro-region followed by a single copy of a frenatin peptide. Processed peptides corresponding in molecular mass to the deduced molecular masses of frenatins (named 1.1, 3, 3.1 and 4.1) were identified in the same secretion sample using HPLC and mass spectroscopy. The application of this technique thus permits parallel peptidomic and transcriptomic analyzes on the same lyophilized skin secretion sample circumventing sacrifice of specimens from endangered herpetofauna.

Dimensions of religious and national identity among Irish adolescents growing up in two jurisdictions

This poster explores the impact of growing up in different socio-political environments in the border areas of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) and Northern Ireland (NI) on adolescents’ evaluations of their religious and national identities. The vast majority of the population of the Republic of Ireland are Catholic and Irish whereas in Northern Ireland, the majority are Protestant and British. 713 adolescents (NI= 415; RoI=298), who categorised their religious identity as Catholic and their nationality as Irish completed the Collective Self – Esteem (CSE) scale (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990) with reference to either their religious (N=350) or national identity (n=363). The overall rating of CSE for the Irish identity was significantly higher than the rating of CSE for the Catholic Identity. This result was modified by a significant interaction - adolescents in the Republic of Ireland rated the CSE of their Irish nationality higher than those in Northern Ireland (20.99 vs. 19.95), whereas adolescents in Northern Ireland rated the CSE of their Catholic religious identity higher than their peers in the Republic of Ireland (19.97 vs 18.87). Further analysis of the CSE subscales revealed differing patterns of relationships according to the scale. The evaluation of the Public Collective Self-Esteem of national and religious identities were significantly higher in the Republic of Ireland than in Northern Ireland, however Private Collective Self-esteem did not differ according to jurisdiction. These findings are discussed in relation to the social context and current theoretical accounts of collective identification processes.

Establishing a population-based patient-reported outcomes study (PROMs) using national cancer registries across two jurisdictions: The Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience (PiCTure) study

Objective: To establish an international patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) study among prostate cancer survivors, up to 18 years postdiagnosis, in two countries with different healthcare systems and ethical frameworks. Design: A cross-sectional, postal survey of prostate cancer survivors sampled and recruited via two population-based cancer registries. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) evaluated patients for eligibility to participate. Questionnaires contained validated instruments to assess health-related quality of life and psychological well-being, including QLQ-C30, QLQPR-25, EQ-5D-5L, 21-question Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the Decisional Regret Scale. Setting: Republic of Ireland (RoI) and Northern Ireland (NI). Primary outcome measures: Registration completeness, predictors of eligibility and response, data missingness, unweighted and weighted PROMs. Results: Prostate cancer registration was 80% (95% CI 75% to 84%) and 91% (95% CI 89% to 93%) complete 2 years postdiagnosis in NI and RoI, respectively. Of 12 322 survivors sampled from registries, 53% (n=6559) were classified as eligible following HCP screening. In the multivariate analysis, significant predictors of eligibility were: being ≤59 years of age at diagnosis (p<0.001), short-term survivor (<5 years postdiagnosis; p<0.001) and from RoI (p<0.001). 3348 completed the questionnaire, yielding a 54% adjusted response rate. 13% of men or their families called the study freephone with queries for assistance with questionnaire completion or to talk about their experience. Significant predictors of response in multivariate analysis were: being ≤59 years at diagnosis (p<0.001) and from RoI (p=0.016). Mean number of missing questions in validated instruments ranged from 0.12 (SD 0.71; EQ-5D-5L) to 3.72 (SD 6.30; QLQ-PR25). Weighted and unweighted mean EQ-5D-5L, QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25 scores were similar, as were the weighted and unweighted prevalences of depression, anxiety and distress. Conclusions: It was feasible to perform PROMs studies across jurisdictions, using cancer registries as sampling frames; we amassed one of the largest, international, population-based data set of prostate cancer survivors. We highlight improvements which could inform future PROMs studies, including utilising general practitioners to assess eligibility and providing a freephone service.

Explaining variation in cancer survival between 11 jurisdictions in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: a primary care vignette survey

OBJECTIVES: The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) is a collaboration between 6 countries and 12 jurisdictions with similar primary care-led health services. This study investigates primary care physician (PCP) behaviour and systems that may contribute to the timeliness of investigating for cancer and subsequently, international survival differences.

DESIGN: A validated survey administered to PCPs via the internet set out in two parts: direct questions on primary care structure and practice relating to cancer diagnosis, and clinical vignettes, assessing management of scenarios relating to the diagnosis of lung, colorectal or ovarian cancer.

PARTICIPANTS: 2795 PCPs in 11 jurisdictions: New South Wales and Victoria (Australia), British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario (Canada), England, Northern Ireland, Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis compared the cumulative proportion of PCPs in each jurisdiction opting to investigate or refer at each phase for each vignette with 1-year survival, and conditional 5-year survival rates for the relevant cancer and jurisdiction. Logistic regression was used to explore whether PCP characteristics or system differences in each jurisdiction affected the readiness to investigate.

RESULTS: 4 of 5 vignettes showed a statistically significant correlation (p<0.05 or better) between readiness to investigate or refer to secondary care at the first phase of each vignette and cancer survival rates for that jurisdiction. No consistent associations were found between readiness to investigate and selected PCP demographics, practice or health system variables.

CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a correlation between the readiness of PCPs to investigate symptoms indicative of cancer and cancer survival rates, one of the first possible explanations for the variation in cancer survival between ICBP countries. No specific health system features consistently explained these findings. Some jurisdictions may consider lowering thresholds for PCPs to investigate for cancer-either directly, or by specialist referral, to improve outcomes.

An investigation of routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 international jurisdictions, as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: survey development and implementation

Objectives This paper describes the methods used in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 Survey (ICBPM4) which examines time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 jurisdictions. We present the study design with defining and measuring time intervals, identifying patients with cancer, questionnaire development, data management and analyses.
Design and setting Recruitment of participants to the ICBPM4 survey is based on cancer registries in each jurisdiction. Questionnaires draw on previous instruments and have been through a process of cognitive testing and piloting in three jurisdictions followed by standardised translation and adaptation. Data analysis focuses on comparing differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis in the jurisdictions.
Participants Our target is 200 patients with symptomatic breast, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer in each jurisdiction. Patients are approached directly or via their primary care physician (PCP). Patients’ PCPs and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) are surveyed, and ‘data rules’ are applied to combine and reconcile conflicting information. Where CTS information is unavailable, audit information is sought from treatment records and databases.
Main outcomes Reliability testing of the patient questionnaire showed that agreement was complete (κ=1) in four items and substantial (κ=0.8, 95% CI 0.333 to 1) in one item. The identification of eligible patients is sufficient to meet the targets for breast, lung and colorectal cancer. Initial patient and PCP survey response rates from the UK and Sweden are comparable with similar published surveys. Data collection was completed in early 2016 for all cancer types.
Conclusion An international questionnaire-based survey of patients with cancer, PCPs and CTSs has been developed and launched in 10 jurisdictions. ICBPM4 will help to further understand international differences in cancer survival by comparing time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis.