A systematic review of personalized therapy in patients with advanced cancer

Background: An increased understanding of the pathogenesis of cancer at the molecular level has led to the development of personalized cancer therapy based on the mutation status of the tumor. Tailoring treatments to genetic signatures has improved treatment outcomes in patients with advanced cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis to provide a quantitative summary of the response to treatment on a phase I clinical trial matched to molecular aberration in patients with advanced solid tumors. ^ Methods: Original studies that reported the results of phase I clinical trials in patients with advanced cancer treated with matched anti-cancer therapies between January 2006 and November 2011 were identified through an extensive search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases. Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated for each study to assess the strength of an association between objective response rate (ORR) and mutation status. Random effects model was used to estimate the pooled OR and their 95% CI was derived. Funnel plot was used to assess publication bias. ^ Results: Thirteen studies published between January 2006 and November 2011that reported on responses to matched phase I clinical trials in patients with advanced cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Nine studies reported on the responses seen in 538 of the 835 patients with driver mutations responsive to therapy and seven studies on the responses observed in 234 of the 306 patients with mutation predictive for negative response. Random effects model was used to estimate pooled OR, which was 7.767(95% CI = 4.199 − 14.366; p-value=0.000) in patients with activating mutations that were responsive to therapy and 0.287 (95% CI = 0.119 − 0.694; p-value=0.009) in patients with mutation predictive of negative response. ^ Conclusion: It is evident from the meta-analysis that somatic mutations present in tumor tissue of patients are predictive of responses to therapy in patients with advanced cancer in phase I setting. Plethora of research and growing evidence base indicate that selection of patients based on mutation analysis of the tumor and personalizing therapy is a step forward in the war against cancer.^

"I understood what she meant when she said '21st century medicine'": A qualitative analysis of patient responses for plans for colorectal cancer screening following a recommendation from their physician

Although physician recommendation has been significantly associated with colorectal cancer screening (CRCS), it still does not motivate all patients to get CRCS. Although improved physician recommendation for CRCS has been shown to increase patient CRCS screening, questions remain about what elements of that discussion may lead to screening. The objective of this study is to describe patients' perceptions and interpretations about their physician's recommendation for CRCS during their annual wellness exam. A subset of patients (n=51) participating in a supplement study of a behavioral intervention trial designed to increase CRCS completed a follow-up, open-ended interview two to four weeks after their annual wellness visit. Using qualitative methods, transcripts of these interviews were analyzed. Findings suggest that most patients would follow their physician's recommendation for CRCS despite not engaging in much discussion. Patients may refrain from CRCS discussion because of a commitment to CRCS, awareness of screening guidelines, and trust in physician's honesty and beneficence. Yet many patients left their wellness exams with questions, refraining because of future plans to consult with their physicians, perceived time constraints or a lack of a patient-physician relationship. If patients are leaving their wellness exams with unanswered questions, interventions should prepare physicians for patient reticence, teaching physicians how to assure patients that CRCS is a primary care activity where all questions and concerns, including cost and scheduling, may be resolved.^

MEDICINE MAN IN TEXAS

The author George (Georgia?) Plunkett Red was the wife of Samuel Clark Red (1861-1940). Dr. Red was the son of Texas pioneer physician Dr. George Clark Red. Dr. Samuel Clark Red was “the county physician of Harris County, one of the organizers of the Harris County Medical Society, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, and president of the Texas Medical Association.” Not much is known about the author, but given her husband’s position and family history, it can be surmised that she was interested in history and had access to some of the children of other pioneer medical families. There is a brief bibliography for each of the chapters. Part Two of the book consists of biographies of physicians from Texas Counties. Merle Weir, "RED, SAMUEL CLARK," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fre09), accessed December 10, 2012. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

A History of Organized Medicine in Harris County, Texas

The item was written by the Historical Committee of the Harris County Medical Society and signed on October 28, 1948. A brief history of medicine in Texas is given before the focus shifts to the Harris County and Houston area. Information on the early years is taken from various sources such as Pat Ireland Nixon’s The Medical Story of Early Texas and the writings of George Plunkett (Mrs. S. C.) Red. Significant information comes from the Minutes of the Harris County Medical Society.

Clinical trials, informed consent, & emergency medicine: A systematic literature review

Background: In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates clinical trials. These regulations address good clinical practices as well as human subject protection (FDA, 2012). One of the most important legal and ethical concerns in clinical trials is informed consent. 21 CFR 50 governs human subjects research. Part 50.24 provides an emergency research exception to the informed consent requirement. Research was conducted to determine the appropriateness of this exception, whether the benefit justifies the exception, and its public health significance.^ Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted and articles were identified from peer-reviewed journals.^ Results: There is some variance in opinions regarding the appropriateness of the exception, but the literature reviewed found the study results of these trials justified the waiver.^ Conclusion: The exception to the informed consent requirement is likely appropriate and justified in emergency research when implemented within the specified guidelines.^