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]

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.)