Effects of a treatment gap during adjuvant chemotherapy in node-positive breast cancer: results of International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Trials 13-93 and 14-93.

BACKGROUND: The International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) conducted two complementary randomized trials to assess whether a treatment-free gap during adjuvant chemotherapy influenced outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1993 to 1999, IBCSG Trials 13-93 and 14-93 enrolled 2215 premenopausal and postmenopausal women with axillary node-positive, operable breast cancer. All patients received cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan, C) plus either doxorubicin (Adriamycin, A) or epirubicin (E) for four courses followed immediately (No Gap) or after a 16-week delay (Gap) by classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) for three courses. The median follow-up was 7.7 years. RESULTS: The Gap and No-Gap groups had similar disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). No identified subgroup showed a statistically significant difference, but exploratory subgroup analysis noted a trend towards decreased DFS for Gap compared with No Gap for women with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative tumors not receiving tamoxifen, especially evident during the first 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: A 16-week gap between adjuvant AC/EC and CMF provided no benefit and may have increased early recurrence rates in patients with ER-negative tumors.

Basic indicators for better governance in international sport (BIBGIS) : an assessment tool for international sport governing bodies

This working paper presents the Basic Indicators for Better Governance in International Sport (BIBGIS) as a tool to assess and measure the state of governance of international sport governing bodies. The working paper is organised as follows. We start by presenting different definitions of governance and some examples of principles of good governance in sport and critique them. We then introduce our approach which is based on a limited number of indicators divided among seven dimensions and apply it to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and other international sport governing bodies. Although our approach can also be used to benchmark the governance of different sport organisations, we demonstrate that it faces limitations. We conclude with suggested next steps for future BIBGIS developments.

Interaction between tobacco and alcohol use and the risk of head and neck cancer: pooled analysis in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The magnitude of risk conferred by the interaction between tobacco and alcohol use on the risk of head and neck cancers is not clear because studies have used various methods to quantify the excess head and neck cancer burden. METHODS: We analyzed individual-level pooled data from 17 European and American case-control studies (11,221 cases and 16,168 controls) participating in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology consortium. We estimated the multiplicative interaction parameter (psi) and population attributable risks (PAR). RESULTS: A greater than multiplicative joint effect between ever tobacco and alcohol use was observed for head and neck cancer risk (psi = 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-3.04). The PAR for tobacco or alcohol was 72% (95% confidence interval, 61-79%) for head and neck cancer, of which 4% was due to alcohol alone, 33% was due to tobacco alone, and 35% was due to tobacco and alcohol combined. The total PAR differed by subsite (64% for oral cavity cancer, 72% for pharyngeal cancer, 89% for laryngeal cancer), by sex (74% for men, 57% for women), by age (33% for cases <45 years, 73% for cases >60 years), and by region (84% in Europe, 51% in North America, 83% in Latin America). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that the joint effect between tobacco and alcohol use is greater than multiplicative on head and neck cancer risk. However, a substantial proportion of head and neck cancers cannot be attributed to tobacco or alcohol use, particularly for oral cavity cancer and for head and neck cancer among women and among young-onset cases.

Enterococcal endocarditis in the beginning of the 21st century: analysis from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis-Prospective Cohort Study.

Enterococci are reportedly the third most common group of endocarditis-causing pathogens but data on enterococcal infective endocarditis (IE) are limited. The aim of this study was to analyse the characteristics and prognostic factors of enterococcal IE within the International Collaboration on Endocarditis. In this multicentre, prospective observational cohort study of 4974 adults with definite IE recorded from June 2000 to September 2006, 500 patients had enterococcal IE. Their characteristics were described and compared with those of oral and group D streptococcal IE. Prognostic factors for enterococcal IE were analysed using multivariable Cox regression models. The patients' mean age was 65 years and 361/500 were male. Twenty-three per cent (117/500) of cases were healthcare related. Enterococcal IE were more frequent than oral and group D streptococcal IE in North America. The 1-year mortality rate was 28.9% (144/500). E. faecalis accounted for 90% (453/500) of enterococcal IE. Resistance to vancomycin was observed in 12 strains, eight of which were observed in North America, where they accounted for 10% (8/79) of enterococcal strains, and was more frequent in E. faecium than in E. faecalis (3/16 vs. 7/364 , p 0.01). Variables significantly associated with 1-year mortality were heart failure (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.7--3.5, p <0.0001), stroke (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3--2.8, p 0.001) and age (HR 1.02 per 1-year increment, 95% CI 1.01--1.04, p 0.002). Surgery was not associated with better outcome. Enterococci are an important cause of IE, with a high mortality rate. Healthcare association and vancomycin resistance are common in particular in North America.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the GRADE system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost), or clearly do not. Weak recommendations indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include: early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures prior to antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for post-operative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B) targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization ( 2C ); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper GI bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSION: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

History of diabetes and risk of head and neck cancer: a pooled analysis from the international head and neck cancer epidemiology consortium.

BACKGROUND: A history of diabetes is associated with an increased risk of several types of cancers. Whether diabetes is a risk factor for head and neck cancer (HNC) has received little attention. METHODS: We pooled data from 12 case-control studies including 6,448 cases and 13,747 controls, and estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations between diabetes and HNC, adjusted for age, education level, sex, race/ethnicity, study center, cigarette smoking, alcohol use and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: We observed a weak association between diabetes and the incidence of HNC overall (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.95-1.24). However, we observed a modest association among never smokers (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.22-2.07), and no association among ever smokers (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83-1.11); likelihood ratio test for interaction p=0.001. CONCLUSIONS: A history of diabetes was weakly associated with HNC overall, but we observed evidence of effect modification by smoking status, with a positive association among those who never smoked cigarettes. Impact: This study suggests that glucose metabolism abnormalities may be a HNC risk factor in subgroups of the population. Prospective studies incorporating biomarkers are needed to improve our understanding of the relationship between diabetes and HNC risk, possibly providing new strategies in the prevention of HNC.

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding international differences from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

Osteoporosis is a serious worldwide epidemic. Increased risk of fractures is the hallmark of the disease and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and economic burden. FRAX® is a web-based tool developed by the Sheffield WHO Collaborating Center team, that integrates clinical risk factors, femoral neck BMD, country specific mortality and fracture data and calculates the 10 year fracture probability in order to help health care professionals identify patients who need treatment. However, only 31 countries have a FRAX® calculator at the time paper was accepted for publication. In the absence of a FRAX® model for a particular country, it has been suggested to use a surrogate country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates the index country. More specific recommendations for clinicians in these countries are not available. In North America, concerns have also been raised regarding the assumptions used to construct the US ethnic specific FRAX® calculators with respect to the correction factors applied to derive fracture probabilities in Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in comparison to Whites. In addition, questions were raised about calculating fracture risk in other ethnic groups e.g., Native Americans and First Canadians. In order to provide additional guidance to clinicians, a FRAX® International Task Force was formed to address specific questions raised by physicians in countries without FRAX® calculators and seeking to integrate FRAX® into their clinical practice. The main questions that the task force tried to answer were the following: The Task Force members conducted appropriate literature reviews and developed preliminary statements that were discussed and graded by a panel of experts at the ISCD-IOF joint conference. The statements approved by the panel of experts are discussed in the current paper.

The policy relevance of wear emissions from road transport, now and in the future : an international workshop report and consensus statement

Road transport emissions are a major contributor to ambient particulate matter concentrations and have been associated with adverse health effects. Therefore, these emissions are targeted through increasingly stringent European emission standards. These policies succeed in reducing exhaust emissions, but do not address "nonexhaust" emissions from brake wear, tire wear, road wear, and suspension in air of road dust. Is this a problem? To what extent do nonexhaust emissions contribute to ambient concentrations of PM10 or PM2.5? In the near future, wear emissions may dominate the remaining traffic-related PM10 emissions in Europe, mostly due to the steep decrease in PM exhaust emissions. This underlines the need to determine the relevance of the wear emissions as a contribution to the existing ambient PM concentrations, and the need to assess the health risks related to wear particles, which has not yet received much attention. During a workshop in 2011, available knowledge was reported and evaluated so as to draw conclusions on the relevance of traffic-related wear emissions for air quality policy development. On the basis of available evidence, which is briefly presented in this paper, it was concluded that nonexhaust emissions and in particular suspension in air of road dust are major contributors to exceedances at street locations of the PM10 air quality standards in various European cities. Furthermore, wear-related PM emissions that contain high concentrations of metals may (despite their limited contribution to the mass of nonexhaust emissions) cause significant health risks for the population, especially those living near intensely trafficked locations. To quantify the existing health risks, targeted research is required on wear emissions, their dispersion in urban areas, population exposure, and its effects on health. Such information will be crucial for environmental policymakers as an input for discussions on the need to develop control strategies.

Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Stents are an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis, but previous trials have not established equivalent safety and efficacy. We compared the safety of carotid artery stenting with that of carotid endarterectomy. METHODS: The International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) is a multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Randomisation was by telephone call or fax to a central computerised service and was stratified by centre with minimisation for sex, age, contralateral occlusion, and side of the randomised artery. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up by independent clinicians not directly involved in delivering the randomised treatment. The primary outcome measure of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been analysed yet. The main outcome measure for the interim safety analysis was the 120-day rate of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470. FINDINGS: The trial enrolled 1713 patients (stenting group, n=855; endarterectomy group, n=858). Two patients in the stenting group and one in the endarterectomy group withdrew immediately after randomisation, and were not included in the ITT analysis. Between randomisation and 120 days, there were 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4.0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared with 27 (3.2%) events in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% CI 0.77-2.11). The incidence of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction was 8.5% in the stenting group compared with 5.2% in the endarterectomy group (72 vs 44 events; HR 1.69, 1.16-2.45, p=0.006). Risks of any stroke (65 vs 35 events; HR 1.92, 1.27-2.89) and all-cause death (19 vs seven events; HR 2.76, 1.16-6.56) were higher in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group. Three procedural myocardial infarctions were recorded in the stenting group, all of which were fatal, compared with four, all non-fatal, in the endarterectomy group. There was one event of cranial nerve palsy in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group. There were also fewer haematomas of any severity in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (31 vs 50 events; p=0.0197). INTERPRETATION: Completion of long-term follow-up is needed to establish the efficacy of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. In the meantime, carotid endarterectomy should remain the treatment of choice for patients suitable for surgery. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

FRAX(®) Clinical Task Force of the 2010 Joint International Society for Clinical Densitometry & International Osteoporosis Foundation Position Development Conference.

The World Health Organization fracture risk assessment tool, FRAX(®), is an advance in clinical care that can assist in clinical decision-making. However, with increasing clinical utilization, numerous questions have arisen regarding how to best estimate fracture risk in an individual patient. Recognizing the need to assist clinicians in optimal use of FRAX(®), the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) in conjunction with the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) assembled an international panel of experts that ultimately developed joint Official Positions of the ISCD and IOF advising clinicians regarding FRAX(®) usage. As part of the process, the charge of the FRAX(®) Clinical Task Force was to review and synthesize data surrounding a number of recognized clinical risk factors including rheumatoid arthritis, smoking, alcohol, prior fracture, falls, bone turnover markers and glucocorticoid use. This synthesis was presented to the expert panel and constitutes the data on which the subsequent Official Positions are predicated. A summary of the Clinical Task Force composition and charge is presented here.