Search

BACKGROUND: Comparisons of the relation of diet with coronary heart disease (CHD) between countries with similar socioeconomic environments have been few. Patients in Australia and New Zealand (n = 9014) who participated in a large secondary prevention trial had significantly different CHD mortality rates. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to ascertain the effects of nutrient consumption on cardiovascular disease risk in patients from the 2 countries. DESIGN: Nutrient consumption patterns were surveyed in a subgroup of 1077 patients on 3 occasions over 4 y during an intervention trial with a statin. RESULTS: Within the entire cohort of 9014 patients, the New Zealanders had significantly (40%) more cardiovascular deaths than did the Australians. In the subgroup of 1077 patients, the New Zealanders were found at entry to have eaten significantly more total (69.34 +/- 12.35 compared with 66.45 +/- 12.9 g/d) and saturated (26.23 +/- 8.41 compared with 24.37 +/- 7.36 g/d) fat (P < 0.001 for each) and to have significantly (4%) higher concentrations of LDL cholesterol (3.96 +/- 0.74 compared with 3.8 +/- 0.76 mmol/L; P < 0.001) than did the Australians. At baseline, patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting had diets that were significantly different from those of patients without previous coronary artery bypass grafting. Relations between nutrients and plasma lipids confirmed the direct effects of saturated fatty acids on LDL cholesterol and of alcohol on plasma triacylglycerol and HDL cholesterol. Dietary counseling throughout the trial led to significant improvements in compliance with guidelines. However, neither the baseline nor the improved 1-y nutrient intakes predicted future changes in cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION: Differences in CHD mortality and in LDL-cholesterol concentrations between 2 populations with similar socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds were consistent with the amounts and types of fats eaten. Copyright © 2005 American Society for Clinical Nutrition [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide optimal evidence to assess the benefits of new treatments. However, clinicians routinely rely on cross-trial comparisons to assess competing treatments when head-to-head randomised comparisons are unavailable. We investigate the validity of cross-trial comparisons using individual patient data (IPD) where patients received the same treatment protocol. We also examine the extent to which statistical adjustment for baseline characteristics can account for inter-trial differences in outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used pooled IPD of 378 women with advanced breast cancer assigned to oral cyclophosphamide, intravenous methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) in the control arms of three first-line treatment RCTs (ANZ8101, ANZ8614 and ANZ0001) conducted between 1982 and 2001. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) across trials. Proportional hazard models were constructed to estimate the hazard rates across trials after adjustment for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: The distribution of baseline characteristics varied across trials. There was a statistically significant difference in survival among women treated with CMF in these trials (logrank p=0.009). The median OS were 17.7, 10.3 and 10.1 months for 0001, 8101 and 8614, respectively. The hazard ratios for survival, adjusted for baseline characteristics differences, were 1.44 (8614) and 1.45 (8101) compared to 0001 (p=0.03). PFS did not differ across trials (logrank p=0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Caution should be exercised when interpreting results from historical cross-trial comparisons even if the adjustment of baseline prognostic characteristics can be performed. Cross-trial comparisons have some role in hypothesis-generating, identifying and prioritising promising treatments for further investigation; however RCTs are still essential to guide sound clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Preferences of women who had completed adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer were compared with those of their partners by determining the smallest benefits they judged sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile. METHODS: Forty-six women and their partners were interviewed separately, 3-34 months after completing adjuvant chemotherapy. Preferences were elicited using four sets of validated, hypothetical trade-off scenarios about the possible benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival times (5 and 15 years) and survival rates (65% and 85% at 5 years). Agreement within couples was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Associations between baseline characteristics, preferences, and agreement within couples were assessed with linear regression after normal score transformation. RESULTS: The mean age of the women was 57 years and of their partners' was 60. Most couples were married (91%). Benefits of an extra 1 day or 0.1% were judged sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile by 59-72% of women and 54-59% of partners. Agreement was exact in 35-41% of couples and approximate in 59-83%. Agreement was better for scenarios with a worse prognosis (ICC 0.67 and 0.35) than for scenarios with a better prognosis (ICC 0.13 and 0.05). Having dependent children was associated with partners requiring larger benefits but patients requiring smaller benefits to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile (interaction P=0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients' and partners' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy differed and were influenced by considerations other than length and quality of life. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians who are aware of these differences can tailor discussions to ensure that all interested parties understand and agree on the goals and benefits of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Depression, anxiety, fatigue, and impaired wellbeing are common, important, and closely related in advanced cancer. We aimed to identify the effects of an established antidepressant on these symptoms and survival in patients with advanced cancer who did not have major depression as assessed by clinicians. METHODS: Between July, 2001, and February, 2006, 189 patients with advanced cancer were randomly assigned sertraline 50 mg (n=95), or placebo (n=94), once per day. The primary outcome was depression as assessed by the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D); the main secondary outcomes were: anxiety as assessed by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scales (HADS-A); overall quality of life and fatigue as assessed by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General and Fatigue scales (FACT-G and FACT-F, respectively); and clinicians' ratings of quality of life by use of Spizter's Quality of Life Index (SQLI). Multiple measures were used for corroboration of the most important outcomes. Primary analyses were done by intention to treat and were based on scale scores at 4 weeks and 8 weeks. The benefits of sertraline compared with placebo are expressed on a range from +100 (ie, maximum benefit) to -100 (ie, maximum harm); a difference of 10 was deemed clinically significant. This clinical trial is registered at Current Controlled Trials website http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN72466475. FINDINGS: Sertraline had no significant effect (scale, benefit over placebo [95% CI]) on depression (CES-D 0.4 [-2.6 to 3.4]), anxiety (HADS-A 2.0 [-1.5 to 5.5]), fatigue (FACT-F 0.3 [-4.3 to 4.9]), overall quality of life (FACT-G 1.7 [-1.3 to 4.7]), or clinicians' ratings (SQLI 2.0 [-2.5 to 6.5]), and the 95% CI ruled out a clinically significant benefit for all main outcomes. Sertraline was discontinued more often and earlier than was placebo (hazard ratio 1.46 [1.03-2.06], p=0.03). Recruitment was stopped after the first planned interim analysis in February 2006 (n=150) showed that survival was longer in patients assigned placebo than in patients assigned sertraline (unadjusted hazard ratio 1.60 [95% CI 1.04-2.45], log-rank p=0.04; adjusted hazard ratio 1.62 [1.06-2.41], Cox model p=0.02). However, at the final analysis in July 2006 of all patients (n=189) and with longer follow-up, survival did not differ significantly between the treatment groups (unadjusted hazard ratio 1.35 [0.95-1.91], log-rank p=0.09; adjusted hazard ratio 1.27 [0.87-1.84], Cox model p=0.20). The trial was closed because it had ruled out a significant benefit of sertraline. INTERPRETATION: Sertraline did not improve symptoms, wellbeing, or survival in patients with advanced cancer who do not have major depression, and should be reserved for those with a proven indication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Resection remains the best treatment for carcinoma of the oesophagus in terms of local control, but local recurrence and distant metastasis remain an issue after surgery. We aimed to assess whether a short preoperative chemoradiotherapy regimen improves outcomes for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. METHODS: 128 patients were randomly assigned to surgery alone and 128 patients to surgery after 80 mg/m(2) cisplatin on day 1, 800 mg/m(2) fluorouracil on days 1-4, with concurrent radiotherapy of 35 Gy given in 15 fractions. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, tumour response, toxic effects, patterns of failure, and quality of life. Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Neither progression-free survival nor overall survival differed between groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82 [95% CI 0.61-1.10] and 0.89 [0.67-1.19], respectively). The chemoradiotherapy-and-surgery group had more complete resections with clear margins than did the surgery-alone group (103 of 128 [80%] vs 76 of 128 [59%], p=0.0002), and had fewer positive lymph nodes (44 of 103 [43%] vs 69 of 103 [67%], p=0.003). Subgroup analysis showed that patients with squamous-cell tumours had better progression-free survival with chemoradiotherapy than did those with non-squamous tumours (HR 0.47 [0.25-0.86] vs 1.02 [0.72-1.44]). However, the trial was underpowered to determine the real magnitude of benefit in this subgroup. INTERPRETATION: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin and fluorouracil does not significantly improve progression-free or overall survival for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer compared with surgery alone. However, further assessment is warranted of the role of chemoradiotherapy in patients with squamous-cell tumours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]