Search

Even under the best of circumstances, placement testing is subjective. The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 1985) and the updated ACTFL Writing (Breiner-Sanders, Swender, & Terry, 2001) and Speaking (ACTFL, 1999) Proficiency Guidelines are yet another example. The core of the problem is the use of purely descriptive guidelines in lieu of measurement guidelines that incorporate empirical evidence into the scales.

Background Locally advanced oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) presents a significant clinical challenge despite being partially responsive to standard treatment modalities. This study investigates the prognostic implications of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in these tumors, focusing on its association with treatment outcomes and the immune microenvironment.Methods We assessed tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in 132 patients with OCSCC to evaluate their impact on survival. Multiplex immunohistochemistry staining for CD3, CD68, CD11c, PD-L1, and P40 was used to explore correlations with clinical outcomes in patients with early-stage (n=22) and locally advanced (n=36) OCSCC. These initial findings were validated through differential gene expression analysis, gene set enrichment, and immune cell deconvolution in a The Cancer Genome Atlas cohort of 163 locally advanced OCSCC tumors. Additionally, single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) on a smaller cohort (n=10) further characterized the PD-L1hi or PD-L1lo cancer cells in these tumors.Results Elevated PD-L1 expression was associated with poor outcomes in patients with locally advanced OCSCC undergoing standard adjuvant therapy, irrespective of “hot” or “cold” classification based on TILs assessment. PD-L1hi tumors exhibited an active immune response phenotype, enriched with M1 macrophages, CD8+ T cells and T regulatory cells in the tumor microenvironment. Notably, the negative impact of PD-L1 expression on outcomes was primarily attributed to its expression by cancer cells, rather than immune cells. Furthermore, scRNA-seq revealed that immune interactions were not essential for PD-L1 upregulation in cancer cells, instead, complex regulatory networks were involved. Additionally, PD-L1lo locally advanced tumors exhibited more complex pathway enrichment and diverse T-cell populations compared with those in the early-stage.Conclusion Our findings underscore the prognostic significance of PD-L1 expression in locally advanced OCSCC, and unveil the complex interplay between PD-L1 expression, immune responses, and molecular pathways in the tumor microenvironment. This study provides insights that may inform future therapeutic strategies, including the possibility of tailored immunotherapeutic approaches for patients with PD-L1hi locally advanced OCSCC.

Abstract Background Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a significant unmet need amongst cancer survivors and is consistently associated with psychological distress and impaired quality of life. Psychological interventions for FCR, such as ConquerFear, have demonstrated efficacy in reducing FCR and improving emotional wellbeing. Unfortunately, there are barriers to the uptake of evidence-based FCR treatments in clinical practice. A stepped-care FCR treatment model may overcome these barriers and has demonstrated potential in people with advanced melanoma. This study aims to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of a stepped-care FCR treatment model (Fear-Less) in people with other cancer types, who have completed treatment with curative intent. Methods Sixty people with early-stage cancer (defined as individuals who have received treatment with curative intent and with no metastatic disease) will be screened for FCR using the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory—Short Form (FCRI-SF). Individuals reporting moderate FCR (FCRI-SF between 13 and 21) will be offered a clinician-guided self-management resource; those reporting high FCR (FCRI-SF ≥ 22) will be offered individual therapy according to the ConquerFear protocol. Participants will complete purpose-built evaluation surveys assessing their FCR screening and intervention experiences. Clinicians will also complete a survey regarding their experiences of the treatment model. Fear-Less will be evaluated in terms of (1) acceptability (i.e., patient and clinician experience), (2) feasibility (i.e., referral uptake, treatment adherence, and time taken to screen and deliver interventions), and (3) impact (i.e., pre- to post-intervention FCR changes). Discussion The Fear-Less stepped-care model is a novel framework for screening FCR and stratifying survivors to the appropriate level of treatment. Our study will provide an indication of whether Fear-Less is a feasible and acceptable FCR model of care amongst survivors with early-stage disease and inform further investigations of this model. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR); ACTRN12622000818730 .

Objective: Women with insulin-requiring gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at high risk of developing diabetes within a few years postpartum. We implemented this phase II study to test the hypothesis that vildagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, is superior to placebo in terms of reducing the risk of postpartum diabetes. Methods: Women with insulin-requiring GDM were randomized to either placebo or 50 mg vildagliptin twice daily for 24 months followed by a 12-month observation period (EudraCT: 2007-000634-39). Both groups received lifestyle counseling. The primary efficacy outcomes were the diagnosis of diabetes (American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria) or impaired fasting glucose (IFG)/impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). Results: Between 2008 and 2015, 113 patients (58 vildagliptin, 55 placebo) were randomized within 2.2–10.4 (median 8.6) months after delivery. At the interim analysis, nine diabetic events and 28 IFG/IGT events had occurred. Fifty-two women withdrew before completing the treatment phase. Because of the low diabetes rate, the study was terminated. Lifestyle adherence was similar in both groups. At 24 months, the cumulative probability of postpartum diabetes was 3% and 5% (hazard ratio: 1.03; 95% confidence interval: 0.15–7.36) and IFG/IGT was 43% and 22% (hazard ratio: 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.26–1.19) in the placebo and vildagliptin groups, respectively. Vildagliptin was well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events. Conclusions: The study did not show significant superiority of vildagliptin over placebo in terms of reducing the risk of postpartum diabetes. However, treatment was safe and suggested some improvements in glycemic control, insulin resistance, and β-cell function. The study identified critical issues in performing clinical trials in the early postpartum period in women with GDM hampering efficacy assessments. With this knowledge, we have set a basis for which properly powered trials could be performed in women with recent GDM. Trial registration number at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01018602. Keywords: Gestational diabetes mellitus, Prevention, Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, Postpartum diabetes, Randomized controlled trial, Life-style