Search

Solute carrier organic anion (SLCO) transporters (OATP transporters) are involved in cellular uptake of drugs and hormones. Germline variants in SLCO1B3 and SLCO2B1 have been implicated in prostate cancer progression and therapy response, including to androgen deprivation and statin medications, but results have appeared heterogeneous. We conducted a cohort study of five single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in SLCO1B3 and SLCO2B1 with prior evidence among 3208 men with prostate cancer who participated in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study or the Physicians' Health Study, following participants prospectively after diagnosis over 32 years (median, 14 years) for development of metastases and cancer-specific death (lethal disease, 382 events). Results were suggestive of, but not conclusive for, associations between some SNPs and lethal disease and differences by androgen deprivation and statin use. All candidate SNPs were associated with SLCO mRNA expression in tumor-adjacent prostate tissue. We also conducted a systematic review and harmonized estimates for a dose-response meta-analysis of all available data, including 9 further studies, for a total of 5598 patients and 1473 clinical events. The A allele of the exonic SNP rs12422149 (14% prevalence), which leads to lower cellular testosterone precursor uptake via SLCO2B1, was associated with lower rates of prostate cancer progression (hazard ratio per A allele, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.69–0.93), with little heterogeneity between studies (I 2, 0.27). Collectively, the totality of evidence suggests a strong association between inherited genetic variation in SLCO2B1 and prostate cancer prognosis, with potential clinical use in risk stratification related to androgen deprivation therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There has been a recent focus among anesthesiologists on reducing the use of perioperative opioids in favor of multimodal analgesic regimens. Gabapentin has played an integral role in this evolution of practice. This comprehensive review assesses the current clinical evidence on the efficacy of perioperative gabapentin regarding postoperative pain and opioid requirements among the pediatric surgery population. Data Sources: Pubmed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science Review. Methods: This scoping review of the above databases includes all studies examining the use of gabapentin perioperatively in pediatric patients and its association with postoperative pain intensity and postoperative opioid consumption through July 2021. The inclusion criteria encompassed all studies evaluating gabapentin in the perioperative pediatric population through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies. Relevant metadata from each study were abstracted and descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results. Results: Fifteen papers met the inclusion criteria for this review, including 11 RCTs and 4 retrospective studies. Sample sizes ranged from 20 to 144 patients. Administered doses varied widely, mainly between 5 and 20 mg/kg. The studies included primarily orthopedic (10) and neck surgery cases (3). Seven papers had gabapentin provided preoperatively only, two postoperative only, and six both pre‐ and postoperatively. Of the studies assessing postoperative pain, 6/11 studies saw a decrease in postoperative pain in at least one period for the gabapentin group. Of the studies considering opioid requirements, 6/10 reported a reduction, 1/10 an increase, and 3/10 no difference in opioid requirements for the gabapentin groups. Yet, most of these pain and opioid requirement findings were only significant at one to two time points in the study follow‐up periods, and the actual decreases had minimal clinical significance. Conclusions: The current data on perioperative gabapentin in pediatric patients are insufficient to support the routine use of gabapentin in pediatric patients. Additional high‐quality RCTs with more standardized protocols for gabapentin administration and outcome measures are necessary to provide more definitive conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Li‐Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), a rare cancer predisposition syndrome caused by germline mutations in the TP53 gene, is associated with significant lifetime risk of developing cancer and warrants extensive and long‐term surveillance. There are psychosocial impacts on individuals and families living with this condition, from the initial diagnosis throughout multiple stages across the lifespan, but these impacts have not been systematically reviewed and organized. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesize and characterize the literature on psychosocial screening and outcomes, educational needs, support services, and available interventions for patients and families with LFS. A systematic search of six databases was most recently conducted in August 2020: (PubMed/MEDLINE (NLM), EMBASE (Elsevier), Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (OVID), and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics). A total of 15 757 titles were screened, and 24 articles included. Several important themes were identified across studies: factors associated with TP53 genetic testing, LFS surveillance, psychological outcomes, and communication. Findings related to these themes were organized into age‐specific categories (age agnostic/across the lifespan, childhood, adolescence and young adulthood, and adulthood). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Oral cancer is typically related to environmental carcinogen exposure including tobacco and alcohol. Other less investigated risk factors may be related to a suppressed or dysregulated immune state, and in oral cancer, various levels of immune dysregulation have been found to affect survival and recurrence rates. The rationale for this systematic review was to investigate the possible role that a growing chronic host condition like an autoimmune disease may play in this disease. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was carried out using four electronic databases in order to identify original research of any analytic study design type that investigated the relationship between autoimmune disease and oral cancer. Out of 1,947 identified records, 24 observational studies were included for qualitative synthesis. Results: The studies varied in end points ranging from overall survival (OS), standardized incidence ratio (SIR), and hazard ratio (HR). Due to the heterogenous sampling of studies even within the same study design group, a meta‐analysis was not employed. The current state of the literature is varied and heterogenous in both study design and endpoints. Conclusion: Major limitations existed introducing significant bias especially in determining cancer risk such as lack of information surrounding known etiologic risk factors such as alcohol and tobacco consumption. Despite these limitations, a signal was seen between autoimmune disease and oral cancer outcomes and risk. Future studies investigating the relationship between autoimmune disease and oral cancer in a more focused and quantitative manner are therefore needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) sought to empower patients and caregivers to be more proactive in requesting ethics consultations., Methods: Functionality was developed on MSK's electronic patient portal that allowed patients and/or caregivers to request ethics consultations. The Ethics Consultation Service (ECS) responded to all requests, which were documented and analysed., Results: Of the 74 requests made through the portal, only one fell under the purview of the ECS. The others were primarily requests for assistance with coordinating clinical care, hospital resources or frustrations with the hospital or clinical team., Discussion: To better empower patients and caregivers to engage Ethics, healthcare organisations and ECSs must first provide them with accessible, understandable and iterative educational resources., Conclusion: After 19.5 months, the 'Request Ethics Consultation' functionality on the patient portal was suspended. Developing resources on the role of Ethics for our patients and caregivers remains a priority., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Digital technologies create opportunities for improvement of consenting processes in clinical care. Yet little is known about the prevalence, characteristics or outcomes of shifting from paper to electronic consenting, or e-consent, in clinical settings. Thus questions remain around e-consent's impact on efficiency, data integrity, user experience, care access, equity and quality. Our objective was to scope all known findings on this critical topic., Materials and Methods: Through an international, systematic scoping review, we identified and assessed all published findings on clinical e-consent in the scholarly and grey literatures, including consents for telehealth encounters, procedures and health information exchanges. From each relevant publication, we abstracted data on study design, measures, findings and other study features., Main Outcome Measures: Metrics describing or evaluating clinical e-consent, including preferences for paper versus e-consenting; efficiency (eg, time, workload) and effectiveness (eg, data integrity, care quality). User characteristics were captured where available., Results: A total of 25 articles published since 2005, most from North America or Europe, report on the deployment of e-consent in surgery, oncology and other clinical settings. Experimental designs and other study characteristics vary, but nearly all focus on procedural e-consents. Synthesis reveals relatively consistent findings around improved efficiency and data integrity with, and user preferences for, e-consent. Care access and quality issues are less frequently explored, with disparate findings., Discussion and Conclusion: The literature is nascent and largely focused on issues that are immediate and straightforward to measure. As virtual care pathways expand, more research is urgently needed to ensure that care quality and access are advanced, not compromised, by e-consent., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Clinical ethics consultations exist to support patients, families and clinicians who are facing ethical or moral challenges related to patient care. They provide a forum for open communication, where all stakeholders are encouraged to express their concerns and articulate their viewpoints. Ethics consultations can be requested by patients, caregivers or members of a patient's clinical or supportive team. Although patients and by extension their families (especially in cases of decisional incapacity) are the common denominators in most ethics consultations, these constituents are the least likely to request them. At many healthcare organisations in the USA, ethics consultations are overwhelmingly requested by physicians and other clinicians. We believe it is vital that healthcare institutions bridge the knowledge gaps and power imbalances over access to ethics consultation services through augmented policies, procedures and infrastructure. With enhanced education and support, patients and families may use ethics consultation to elevate their voices and prioritise their unique characteristics and preferences in the delivery of their healthcare. Empowering patients and families to request ethics consultation can only strengthen the patient/family-clinician relationship, enhance the shared decision-making model of care and ultimately lead to improved patient-centred care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Evaluate the quality of exercise randomised controlled trial (RCT) reporting and conduct in clinical populations (ie, adults with or at risk of chronic conditions) and compare with matched pharmacological RCTs., Design: Systematic review., Data Sources: Embase (Elsevier), PubMed (NLM) and CINAHL (EBSCO)., Study Selection: RCTs of exercise in clinical populations with matching pharmacological RCTs published in leading clinical, medical and specialist journals with impact factors ≥15., Review Methods: Overall RCT quality was evaluated by two independent reviewers using three research reporting guidelines (ie, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT; pharmacological RCTs)/CONSORT for non-pharmacological treatments; exercise RCTs), CONSORT-Harms, Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and two risk of bias assessment (research conduct) tools (ie, Cochrane Risk of Bias, Jadad Scale). We compared research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs with matched pharmacological RCTs, and examined factors associated with quality in exercise and pharmacological RCTs, separately., Findings: Forty-eight exercise RCTs (11 658 patients; median sample n=138) and 48 matched pharmacological RCTs were evaluated (18 501 patients; median sample n=160). RCTs were conducted primarily in cardiovascular medicine (43%) or oncology (31%). Overall quality score (composite of all research reporting and conduct quality scores; primary endpoint) for exercise RCTs was 58% (median score 46 of 80; IQR: 39-51) compared with 77% (53 of 68; IQR: 47-58) in the matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.001). Individual quality scores for trial reporting and conduct were lower in exercise RCTs compared with matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.03). Factors associated with higher overall quality scores for exercise RCTs were journal impact factor (≥25), sample size (≥152) and publication year (≥2013)., Conclusions and Relevance: Research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs is inferior to matched pharmacological RCTs. Suboptimal RCT reporting and conduct impact the fidelity, interpretation, and reproducibility of exercise trials and, ultimately, implementation of exercise in clinical populations., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018095033., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)