Search

Advances in diagnostics and treatment of childhood cancer during the past few decades have substantially increased survival, resulting in a growing population of survivors of childhood cancer. Somatic and mental late effects of the cancer and the treatment may impact the quality of life (QoL). Previous reviews of QoL in survivors of childhood cancer have shown contradictory findings across studies and the majority of studies included have been based on data from North America and may not be directly comparable to a European setting. The aim of our study was to critically evaluate and summarise the latest evidence on the QoL of childhood cancer survivors in Europe and to identify survivors at particular risk. The eligible studies were published between 2008 and 2022, conducted in Europe and included participants who had survived at least 5 years after diagnosis of a childhood cancer. The main outcome of interest was QoL of survivors which was measured with validated qualitative and quantitative QoL questionnaires. A systematic literature search conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINALH resulted in inclusion of 36 articles with a total of 14 342 survivors of childhood cancer. The majority of included studies found that childhood cancer survivors reported poorer QoL than comparisons. Female gender, treatment with haematopoietic stem cell transplantation and a brain tumour diagnosis were associated with lower QoL. With a growing population of childhood cancer survivors with many years ahead of them, targeted interventions and optimal follow-up care are important to improve the QoL of survivors., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

The energy absorbed from the radio-frequency fields of mobile telephones depends strongly on distance from the source. The authors' objective in this study was to evaluate whether gliomas occur preferentially in the areas of the brain having the highest radio-frequency exposure. The authors used 2 approaches: In a case-case analysis, tumor locations were compared with varying exposure levels; in a case-specular analysis, a hypothetical reference location was assigned for each glioma, and the distances from the actual and specular locations to the handset were compared. The study included 888 gliomas from 7 European countries (2000–2004), with tumor midpoints defined on a 3-dimensional grid based on radiologic images. The case-case analyses were carried out using unconditional logistic regression, whereas in the case-specular analysis, conditional logistic regression was used. In the case-case analyses, tumors were located closest to the source of exposure among never-regular and contralateral users, but not statistically significantly. In the case-specular analysis, the mean distances between exposure source and location were similar for cases and speculars. These results do not suggest that gliomas in mobile phone users are preferentially located in the parts of the brain with the highest radio-frequency fields from mobile phones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is continuing public and scientific interest in the possibility that exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) from mobile telephones or other wireless devices and applications might increase the risk of certain cancers or other diseases. The interest is amplified by the rapid world-wide penetration of such technologies. The evidence from epidemiological studies published to date have not been consistent and, in particular, further studies are required to identify whether longer term (well beyond 10 years) RF exposure might pose some health risk.Methods: The "Cosmos" study described here is a large prospective cohort study of mobile telephone users (ongoing recruitment of 250,000 men and women aged 18+ years in five European countries - Denmark, Finland, Sweden, The Netherlands, UK) who will be followed up for 25+ years. Information on mobile telephone use is collected prospectively through questionnaires and objective traffic data from network operators. Associations with disease risks will be studied by linking cohort members to existing disease registries, while changes in symptoms such as headache and sleep quality and of general well-being are assessed by baseline and follow-up questionnaires.Conclusions: A prospective cohort study conducted with appropriate diligence and a sufficient sample size, overcomes many of the shortcomings of previous studies. Its major advantages are exposure assessment prior to the diagnosis of disease, the prospective collection of objective exposure information, long-term follow-up of multiple health outcomes, and the flexibility to investigate future changes in technologies or new research questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Pivotal Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) constitute scientific evidence in support of therapeutic choices when a drug is authorized in the market. In RCTs, patients are selected in a rigorous manner, in order to avoid bias that may influence efficacy assessments. Therefore, patients who take the drug in Real Life Studies (RLSs) are not the same as those participating in RCTs, which, in turn, leads to low data transferability from RCTs to RLS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences between RCTs and RLS, in terms of patient baseline characteristics., Materials and Methods: Our study includes all oral target therapies for RCC (Renal Cell Carcinoma) marketed in Europe before March 31, 2019. For each treatment, we considered both RCTs and RLSs, the former gathered from Summary of Product Characteristics published on the European Medicine Agency (EMA) website, and the latter yielded by our search in relevant literature. For each drug considered, we then compared the baseline characteristics of patients included in the RCT samples with those of the samples included in the RLSs using the Chi-squared and Mann-Whitney tests., Results: We considered six medicines, for a total of 9 pivotal RCTs and 31 RLSs. RCTs reported the same type of patient baseline characteristics, whereas RLSs are more varied in reporting. Some patient baseline characteristics (metastases, previous treatments, etc.) were significantly different between RCTs and RLs. Other characteristics, such as ECOG Performance Status, brain metastases, and comorbidities, liver and kidney failure, are comprised in exclusion criteria of RCTs, though are included in RLS. Discussion and Conclusion: While evaluating equal treatments for the same indications, RCTs and RLSs do not always assess patients with the same characteristics. It would be necessary to produce evidence from RLSs so as to have an idea of treatment effectiveness in patients groups that are not eligible or underrepresented in RCTs.

Purpose: Biallelic germline mismatch repair (MMR) gene pathogenic variants (PVs) cause constitutional MMR deficiency (CMMRD), a highly penetrant childhood cancer syndrome phenotypically overlapping with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). CMMRD testing in suspected NF1 children without NF1/SPRED1 PVs enables inclusion of CMMRD positives into monitoring programs prior to tumor onset. However, testing is associated with potential harms and the prevalence of CMMRD among these children is unknown., Methods: Using a simple and scalable microsatellite instability (MSI) assay of non-neoplastic leukocyte DNA to detect CMMRD, we retrospectively screened >700 children suspected of sporadic NF1 but lacking NF1/SPRED1 PVs., Results: For three of seven MSI-positive patients germline MMR gene PVs confirmed the diagnosis of CMMRD. Founder variants NM_000535.5(PMS2):c.736_741delinsTGTGTGTGAAG, prevalent in Europe and North America, and NM_000179.2(MSH6):c.10C>G, affecting 1:400 French Canadians, represented two of five PVs. The prevalence of CMMRD was 3/735 (0.41%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08-1.19%)., Conclusion: Our empirical data provide reliable numbers for genetic counseling and confirm previous prevalence estimations, on which Care for CMMRD consortium guidelines are based. These advocate CMMRD testing of preselected patients rather than offering reflex testing to all suspected sporadic NF1 children lacking NF1/SPRED1 PVs. The possibility of founder effects should be considered alongside these testing guidelines.

Constitutional mismatch repair deficiency (CMMRD) syndrome is a distinct childhood cancer predisposition syndrome that results from biallelic germline mutations in one of the four MMR genes, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2. The tumour spectrum is very broad, including mainly haematological, brain and intestinal tract tumours. Patients show a variety of non-malignant features that are indicative of CMMRD. However, currently no criteria that should entail diagnostic evaluation of CMMRD exist. We present a three-point scoring system for the suspected diagnosis CMMRD in a paediatric/young adult cancer patient. Tumours highly specific for CMMRD syndrome are assigned three points, malignancies overrepresented in CMMRD two points and all other malignancies one point. According to their specificity for CMMRD and their frequency in the general population, additional features are weighted with 1-2 points. They include multiple hyperpigmented and hypopigmented skin areas, brain malformations, pilomatricomas, a second childhood malignancy, a Lynch syndrome (LS)-associated tumour in a relative and parental consanguinity. According to the scoring system, CMMRD should be suspected in any cancer patient who reaches a minimum of three points by adding the points of the malignancy and the additional features. The diagnostic steps to confirm or refute the suspected diagnosis are outlined. We expect that application of the suggested strategy for CMMRD diagnosis will increase the number of patients being identified at the time when they develop their first tumour. This will allow adjustment of the treatment modalities, offering surveillance strategies for second malignancies and appropriate counselling of the entire family., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)