Is adjuvant chemotherapy of benefit for postmenopausal women who receive endocrine treatment for highly endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer? International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials VII and 12-93.

To compare the efficacy of chemoendocrine treatment with that of endocrine treatment (ET) alone for postmenopausal women with highly endocrine responsive breast cancer. In the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Trials VII and 12-93, postmenopausal women with node-positive, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive or ER-negative, operable breast cancer were randomized to receive either chemotherapy or endocrine therapy or combined chemoendocrine treatment. Results were analyzed overall in the cohort of 893 patients with endocrine-responsive disease, and according to prospectively defined categories of ER, age and nodal status. STEPP analyses assessed chemotherapy effect. The median follow-up was 13 years. Adding chemotherapy reduced the relative risk of a disease-free survival event by 19% (P = 0.02) compared with ET alone. STEPP analyses showed little effect of chemotherapy for tumors with high levels of ER expression (P = 0.07), or for the cohort with one positive node (P = 0.03). Chemotherapy significantly improves disease-free survival for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer, but the magnitude of the effect is substantially attenuated if ER levels are high.

Does introduction of thresholds in decision aids benefit the patient?: Comparison between findings-based and threshold-based diagnostic decision aids.

PURPOSE: To assess how different diagnostic decision aids perform in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and harm. METHODS: Four diagnostic decision aids were compared, as applied to a simulated patient population: a findings-based algorithm following a linear or branched pathway, a serial threshold-based strategy, and a parallel threshold-based strategy. Headache in immune-compromised HIV patients in a developing country was used as an example. Diagnoses included cryptococcal meningitis, cerebral toxoplasmosis, tuberculous meningitis, bacterial meningitis, and malaria. Data were derived from literature and expert opinion. Diagnostic strategies' validity was assessed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and harm related to mortality and morbidity. Sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation were performed. RESULTS: The parallel threshold-based approach led to a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 65%. Sensitivities of the serial threshold-based approach and the branched and linear algorithms were 47%, 47%, and 74%, respectively, and the specificities were 85%, 95%, and 96%. The parallel threshold-based approach resulted in the least harm, with the serial threshold-based approach, the branched algorithm, and the linear algorithm being associated with 1.56-, 1.44-, and 1.17-times higher harm, respectively. Findings were corroborated by sensitivity and Monte Carlo analyses. CONCLUSION: A threshold-based diagnostic approach is designed to find the optimal trade-off that minimizes expected harm, enhancing sensitivity and lowering specificity when appropriate, as in the given example of a symptom pointing to several life-threatening diseases. Findings-based algorithms, in contrast, solely consider clinical observations. A parallel workup, as opposed to a serial workup, additionally allows for all potential diseases to be reviewed, further reducing false negatives. The parallel threshold-based approach might, however, not be as good in other disease settings.

Risk-benefit balance assessment of SSRI antidepressant use during pregnancy and lactation based on best available evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Psychiatric disorders are among the leading causes of disability in Western societies. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most frequently prescribed antidepressant drugs during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Over the last decade, conflicting findings regarding the safety of SSRI drugs during pregnancy and lactation have questioned whether such treatments should be used during this period. AREAS COVERED: We discuss the main criteria that should be considered in the risk/benefit assessment of SSRI treatment in pregnant and/or breastfeeding patients (i.e., risks associated with SSRI use and with untreated depression as well as therapeutic benefits of SSRI and some alternative treatment strategies). For each criterion, available evidence has been synthesized and stratified by methodological quality as well as discussed for clinical impact. EXPERT OPINION: Currently, it is impossible for most of the evaluated outcomes to distinguish between the effects related to the mother's underlying disease and those inherent to SSRI treatment. In women suffering from major depression and responding to a pharmacological treatment, introduction or continuation of an SSRI should be encouraged in order to prevent maternal complications and to preserve maternal-infant bonding. The choice of the right drug depends above all on individual patient characteristics such as prior treatment response, diagnoses and comorbid conditions.

Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS: Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Non-functioning pituitary macro-incidentalomas benefit from early surgery before becoming symptomatic.

OBJECTIVE: Pituitary incidentalomas (PIs) constitute an increasingly clinical problem. While the therapeutic management is well defined for symptomatic non-functioning PIs (NFPIs), a controversy still exists for asymptomatic macro-NFPIs between surgery and a "wait and see" approach. The aim of this study is to compare surgical results between symptomatic and asymptomatic macro-NFPIs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on 76 patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic and asymptomatic macro-NFPIs operated on between 2001 and 2010. We compared age, tumor size and surgical results between these two patient groups. RESULTS: After the initial evaluation, 48 patients were found to be symptomatic. Gross total removal (GTR) rate was significantly higher in asymptomatic (82%) than in symptomatic patients (58%; p=0.03). Gross total removal was strongly associated with Knosp's classification (p=0.01). Postoperative endocrinological impairment was significantly associated with the existence of preoperative symptoms (p=0.03). It was 10 times less frequent in the asymptomatic group. In symptomatic patients, postoperative visual and endocrinological impairment were present in 49% and 78% versus 0% and 14% in asymptomatic patients respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The endocrinological and visual outcome was better in those patients who underwent surgery for asymptomatic tumors. The extent of tumor resection was also significantly greater in smaller tumors. It would therefore be appropriate to offer surgery to patients with asymptomatic macro-NFPIs.

Benefit of anti-HER2-coated paclitaxel-loaded immuno-nanoparticles in the treatment of disseminated ovarian cancer: Therapeutic efficacy and biodistribution in mice.

The benefit of polymeric immuno-nanoparticles (NPs-Tx-HER), consisting of paclitaxel (Tx)-loaded nanoparticles coated with anti-HER2 monoclonal antibodies (Herceptin, trastuzumab), in cancer treatment was assessed in a disseminated xenograft ovarian cancer model induced by intraperitoneal inoculation of SKOV-3 cells overexpressing HER2 antigens. The study was focused on the evaluation of therapeutic efficacy and biodistribution of NPs-Tx-HER compared to other Tx formulations. The therapeutic efficacy was determined by two methods: bioluminescence imaging and survival rate. The treatment regimen consisted in an initial dose of 20mg/kg Tx administered as 10mg/kg intravenously (IV) and 10mg/kg intraperitonealy (IP), followed by five alternative IP and IV injections of 10mg/kg Tx every 3 days. The bioluminescence study has clearly shown the superior anti-tumor activity of NPs-Tx-HER compared to free Tx. As a confirmation of these results, a significantly longer survival of mice was observed for NPs-Tx-HER treatment compared to free Tx, Tx-loaded nanoparticles coated with an irrelevant mAb (Mabthera, rituximab) or Herceptin alone, indicating the potential of immuno-nanoparticles in cancer treatment. The biodistribution pattern of Tx was assessed on healthy and tumor bearing mice after IV or IP administration. An equivalent biodistribution profile was observed in healthy mice for Tx encapsulated either in uncoated nanoparticles (NPs-Tx) or in NPs-Tx-HER. No significant difference in Tx biodistribution was observed after IV or IP injection, except for a lower accumulation in the lungs when NPs were administered by IP. Encapsulated Tx accumulated in the organs of the reticulo-endothelial system (RES) such as the liver and spleen, whereas free Tx had a non-specific distribution in all tested organs. Compared to free Tx, the single dose injection (IV or IP) of encapsulated Tx in mice bearing tumors induced a higher tumor accumulation. However, no difference in overall tumor accumulation between NPs-Tx-HER and NPs-Tx was observed. In conclusion, the encapsulation of Tx into NPs-Tx-HER immuno-nanoparticles resulted in an improved efficacy of drug in the treatment of disseminated ovarian cancer overexpressing HER2 receptors.

Brief intervention on tobacco use among young adults - do they benefit from booster sessions?

Introduction Le tabac représente un risque majeur pour la santé de chacun, avec un lien direct établi entre le risque de développer des pathologies et la durée de sa consommation. Les jeunes sont donc des cibles primordiales pour la prévention du tabac ; les quelques recherches effectuées dans ce groupe d'âge ne sont pas encore parvenues à identifier des moyens efficaces afin d'éviter le début de la cigarette ou d'arrêter une consommation préexistante. Les buts de cette étude sont d'identifier les effets de l'intervention motivationnelle brève et de définir la nécessité d'un booster dans cette catégorie particulière de la population que sont les jeunes hommes de 19 ans. Méthodes Cette étude a été menée d'octobre 2008 à septembre 2009 au centre de recrutement de Lausanne, Vaud. Les individus étaient invités à participer à une intervention motivationnelle brève ciblant simultanément le tabac, l'alcool et le cannabis, sans screening préalable. Les 823 volontaires ont été assignés de manière randomisée entre les groupes cas et témoin, avec dans le groupe intervention une nouvelle randomisation attribuant un booster téléphonique trois mois plus tard à certains cas. Ce travail se fixe uniquement sur les résultats concernant le tabac, six mois après l'intervention. Les effets (statut de fumeur et de fumeur quotidien, nombre de cigarettes fumées en moyenne, dépendance à la cigarette selon les critères de Fagerström) étaient analysés sur la base d'un questionnaire écrit au baseline, puis d'un contact téléphonique au follow-up à six mois ; ils ont été analysés séparément pour différents groupes : l'entier des participants, les fumeurs et les fumeurs quotidiens. Résultats Les interventions motivationnelles brèves n'ont aucun effet significatif sur la consommation de tabac. Elles ont cependant une tendance bénéfique sur le fait d'être de fumeur et fumeur quotidien, sur le nombre de cigarettes consommées en moyenne et la dépendance selon Fagerström chez tous les participants, ainsi que dans les sous-groupes de fumeurs et fumeurs quotidiens. Les résultats des boosters ne sont pas significatifs et entraînent des effets mitigés selon les analyses effectuées et les groupes observés. Discussion Les interventions motivationnelles brèves n'ont pas d'effet significatif mais semblent avoir une tendance favorable à une diminution de la consommation de tabac. Les boosters ne paraissent pas avoir d'impact bénéfique mais ces conclusions sont à pondérer avec le fait qu'aucun des résultats obtenus n'est significatif. Des recherches plus systématiques sont nécessaires pour mieux comprendre ces résultats décevants : en ce qui concernent les interventions, les causes à envisager sont le fait d'utiliser des volontaires sans screening préalable, de cibler l'intervention sur de multiples substances pendant un temps relativement court ou encore la difficulté de cibler les jeunes vis-à-vis des risques liés à la cigarette ; quant aux boosters, une augmentation de fréquence ou de durée pourrait représenter une alternative, afin de rendre cette session complémentaire efficace.

Decision curve analysis revisited: overall net benefit, relationships to ROC curve analysis, and application to case-control studies.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Decision curve analysis has been introduced as a method to evaluate prediction models in terms of their clinical consequences if used for a binary classification of subjects into a group who should and into a group who should not be treated. The key concept for this type of evaluation is the "net benefit", a concept borrowed from utility theory. METHODS: We recall the foundations of decision curve analysis and discuss some new aspects. First, we stress the formal distinction between the net benefit for the treated and for the untreated and define the concept of the "overall net benefit". Next, we revisit the important distinction between the concept of accuracy, as typically assessed using the Youden index and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and the concept of utility of a prediction model, as assessed using decision curve analysis. Finally, we provide an explicit implementation of decision curve analysis to be applied in the context of case-control studies. RESULTS: We show that the overall net benefit, which combines the net benefit for the treated and the untreated, is a natural alternative to the benefit achieved by a model, being invariant with respect to the coding of the outcome, and conveying a more comprehensive picture of the situation. Further, within the framework of decision curve analysis, we illustrate the important difference between the accuracy and the utility of a model, demonstrating how poor an accurate model may be in terms of its net benefit. Eventually, we expose that the application of decision curve analysis to case-control studies, where an accurate estimate of the true prevalence of a disease cannot be obtained from the data, is achieved with a few modifications to the original calculation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: We present several interrelated extensions to decision curve analysis that will both facilitate its interpretation and broaden its potential area of application.

An Analysis of the Benefit of Using HEV Genotype 3 Antigens in Detecting Anti-HEV IgG in a European Population

Introduction Quatre génotypes pathogènes de l'hépatite E (HEV) sont actuellement connus. Ils présentent des caractéristiques épidémiologiques différentes. Les génotypes 1 et 2 infectent uniquement l'homme et sont à l'origine d'épidémies dans des pays en voie de développement. Les génotypes 3 et 4 se présentent sous forme de zoonose, endémiques chez des cochons et autres mammifères dans des pays industrialisés. Ces derniers génotypes sont à l'origine de cas sporadiques d'hépatite E autochtones. La majorité des tests de sérologie actuellement commercialisés se basent sur des virus de génotype 1 et 2. Le bénéfice de l'utilisation d'un test sérologique basé sur le génotype 3 dans des pays industrialisés n'a pas été étudié jusqu'à présent. Dans cette étude, les performances de tests sérologiques basés sur des antigènes de plusieurs génotypes de l'HEV ont été comparées. Méthode Les tests ont été appliqués à deux populations distinctes: une population de 20 patients, chez qui une infection aiguë d'hépatite E, génotype 3, a été documentée par PCR sanguine, et une population de 550 donneurs de sang de la région de Lausanne. Le dépistage des IgGs anti-HEV a été effectué dans le sérum des deux populations par trois «Enzyme Immuno Assays» (EIA) à savoir MP Diagnostics, Dia.Pro et Fortress. Les échantillons positifs avec au moins un des EIA ont été testés par un «Immunodot Assay», le recomLine HEV IgG/IgM. Tous les EIA sont basés sur des antigènes des génotypes 1 et 2, alors que l'immunodot se base sur des antigènes des génotypes 1 et 3. Résultats Tous les échantillons des cas d'hépatite E documentés et 124 sur 550 échantillons des donneurs de sang étaient positifs avec au moins un des tests sérologique. Parmi les cas confirmés par PCR, 45 %, 65 %, 95 % et 55 % étaient respectivement positifs avec le test de MP Diagnostics, Dia.Pro, Fortress et recomLine. Parmi les échantillons positifs des donneurs de sang avec au moins un des tests, 120/124 (97 %) étaient positifs avec le test Fortress, 19/124 (15 %) étaient positifs avec tous les EIA et 51/124 (41 %) étaient positifs avec le recomLine. Parmi les cas d'hépatite E confirmés, 11/20 (55 %) étaient positifs avec le recomLine et parmi ceux-ci, une réactivité plus forte pour le génotype 3 était observée dans 1/11 (9 %) et une réactivité identique dans 5/11 (45.5 %) cas. Conclusions Même si le recomLine contient des protéines dérivées de l'HEV génotype 3, sa sensibilité est inférieure à l'EIA de Fortress dans les cas d'hépatite E aiguë de génotype 3. De plus, chez environ 45 % des patients, le recomLine ne parvient pas à identifier une infection comme étant causé par un virus du génotype 3. Dans la population de donneurs de sang, nous avons observe de grandes variations dans les séroprévalences mesurées, allant de 4.2 % à 21.8 % selon les tests sérologiques employés.

Populations with elevated mutation load do not benefit from the operation of sexual selection.

Theory predicts that if most mutations are deleterious to both overall fitness and condition-dependent traits affecting mating success, sexual selection will purge mutation load and increase nonsexual fitness. We explored this possibility with populations of mutagenized Drosophila melanogaster exhibiting elevated levels of deleterious variation and evolving in the presence or absence of male-male competition and female choice. After 60 generations of experimental evolution, monogamous populations exhibited higher total reproductive output than polygamous populations. Parental environment also affected fitness measures - flies that evolved in the presence of sexual conflict showed reduced nonsexual fitness when their parents experienced a polygamous environment, indicating trans-generational effects of male harassment and highlighting the importance of a common garden design. This cost of parental promiscuity was nearly absent in monogamous lines, providing evidence for the evolution of reduced sexual antagonism. There was no overall difference in egg-to-adult viability between selection regimes. If mutation load was reduced by the action of sexual selection in this experiment, the resultant gain in fitness was not sufficient to overcome the costs of sexual antagonism.

An analysis of the benefit of using HEV genotype 3 antigens in detecting anti-HEV IgG in a European population.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of using serological assays based on HEV genotype 3 in industrialised settings is unclear. We compared the performance of serological kits based on antigens from different HEV genotypes. METHODS: Taking 20 serum samples from patients in southwest France with acute HEV infection (positive PCR for HEV genotype 3) and 550 anonymised samples from blood donors in southwest Switzerland, we tested for anti-HEV IgG using three enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (MP Diagnostics, Dia.Pro and Fortress) based on genotype 1 and 2 antigens, and one immunodot assay (Mikrogen Diagnostik recomLine HEV IgG/IgM) based on genotype 1 and 3 antigens. RESULTS: All acute HEV samples and 124/550 blood donor samples were positive with ≥1 assay. Of PCR-confirmed patient samples, 45%, 65%, 95% and 55% were positive with MP Diagnostics, Dia.Pro, Fortress and recomLine, respectively. Of blood donor samples positive with ≥1 assay, 120/124 (97%), were positive with Fortress, 19/124 (15%) were positive with all EIAs and 51/124 (41%) were positive with recomLine. Of 11/20 patient samples positive with recomLine, stronger reactivity for HEV genotype 3 was observed in 1/11(9%), and equal reactivity for both genotypes in 5/11 (45.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Although recomLine contains HEV genotype 3, it has lower sensitivity than Fortress in acute HEV infection and fails to identify infection as being due to this genotype in approximately 45% of patients. In our single blood donor population, we observe wide variations in measured seroprevalence, from 4.2% to 21.8%, depending on the assay used.

Impact of engineered nanomaterials on health : considerations for benefit-risk assessment

Nanotechnology encompasses the design, characterisation, production and application of materials and systems by controlling shape and size at the nanoscale (nanometres). Nanomaterials may differ from other materials because of their relatively large specific surface area, such that surface properties become particularly important. There has been rapid growth in investment in nanotechnology by both the public and private sectors worldwide. In the EU, nanotechnology is expected to become an important strategic contributor to achieving economic gain and societal and individual benefits. At the same time there is continuing scientific uncertainty and controversy about the safety of nanomaterials. It is important to ensure that timely policy development takes this into consideration. Uncertainty about safety may lead to polarised public debate and to business unwillingness to invest further. A clear regulatory framework to address potential health and environmental impacts, within the wider context of evaluating and communicating the benefit-risk balance, must be a core part of Europe's integrated efforts for nanotechnology innovation. While a number of studies have been carried out on the effect of environmental nanoparticles, e.g. from combustion processes, on human health, there is yet no generally acceptable paradigm for safety assessment of nanomaterials in consumer and other products. Therefore, a working group was established to consider issues for the possible impact of nanomaterials on human health focussing specifically on engineered nanomaterials. This represents the first joint initiative between EASAC and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. The working group was given the remit to describe the state of the art of benefits and potential risks, current methods for safety assessment, and to evaluate their relevance, identify knowledge gaps in studying the safety of current nanomaterials, and recommend on priorities for nanomaterial research and the regulatory framework. This report focuses on key principles and issues, cross-referencing other sources for detailed information, rather than attempting a comprehensive account of the science. The focus is on human health although environmental effects are also discussed when directly relevant to health