Search

Background: This first mixed-methods UK trial examined the feasibility and acceptability of a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate whether Family Focussed Treatment for Adolescents with Bipolar Disorder (FFT-A) UK version can improve family functioning and well-being as part of the management of Paediatric Bipolar Disorder (PBD). Method: The trial used a randomised, parallel group, non-blinded design where participants received FFT-A UK (16 sessions over 6 months) immediately or after 12 months (delayed arm). Measures of family functioning, well-being and quality of life of the young person and the main carer (most commonly a parent) were completed at baseline, 6 and 12-months in both arms. Primary outcome measures included rates of eligibility, consent and retention along with estimates of variability in the measures and assessment of the intervention delivery. Qualitative interviews allowed assessment of participants' views about FFT-A and the trial processes. Results: Twenty-seven of 36 young persons with PBD and their families consented; of these, 14 families were randomised to the immediate and 13 to the delayed arm. Two families from the immediate arm withdrew consent and discontinued participation. Quantitative measures were completed by 22 families (88%) at 6-months and 21 families (84%) at 12-months. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 30 participants (9 young people, 15 parents and 6 other family members). Nine families attended 3 post-trial focus groups. Conclusion: It was feasible to recruit and retain to this trial. The results highlighted that trial design and measures were acceptable to participants. A benefit in family relationships was reported by participants which they attributed to the intervention in qualitative interviews. Families recommended that future modifications include definitive trial(s) recruiting participants in the age range 15–25 years as it felt this was the age range with maximum need. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN59769322. Registered 20 January 2014, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN59769322 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

These guidelines update previous guidance published in 2005. They have been revised by a group who are members of the UK and Ireland Neuroendocrine Tumour Society with endorsement from the clinical committees of the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Society for Endocrinology, the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (and its Surgical Specialty Associations), the British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology and others. The authorship represents leaders of the various groups in the UK and Ireland Neuroendocrine Tumour Society, but a large amount of work has been carried out by other specialists, many of whom attended a guidelines conference in May 2009. We have attempted to represent this work in the acknowledgements section. Over the past few years, there have been advances in the management of neuroendocrine tumours, which have included clearer characterisation, more specific and therapeutically relevant diagnosis, and improved treatments. However, there remain few randomised trials in the field and the disease is uncommon, hence all evidence must be considered weak in comparison with other more common cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We assessed the activity of gemcitabine (G) and cisplatin/gemcitabine (C/G) in patients with locally advanced (LA) or metastatic (M) (advanced) biliary cancers (ABC) for whom there is no standard chemotherapy.Methods: Patients, aged > or =18 years, with pathologically confirmed ABC, Karnofsky performance (KP) > or =60, and adequate haematological, hepatic and renal function were randomised to G 1000 mg m(-2) on D1, 8, 15 q28d (Arm A) or C 25 mg m(-2) followed by G 1000 mg m(-2) D1, 8 q21d (Arm B) for up to 6 months or disease progression.Results: In total, 86 patients (A/B, n=44/42) were randomised between February 2002 and May 2004. Median age (64/62.5 years), KP, primary tumour site, earlier surgery, indwelling biliary stent and disease stage (LA: 25/38%) are comparable between treatment arms. Grade 3-4 toxicity included (A/B, % patients) anaemia (4.5/2.4), leukopenia (6.8/4.8), neutropenia (13.6/14.3), thrombocytopenia (9.1/11.9), lethargy (9.1/28.6), nausea/vomiting (0/7.1) and anorexia (2.3/4.8). Responses (WHO criteria, % of evaluable patients: A n=31 vs B n=36): no CRs; PR 22.6 vs 27.8%; SD 35.5 vs 47.1% for a tumour control rate (CR+PR+SD) of 58.0 vs 75.0%. The median TTP and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) (the primary end point) were greater in the C/G arm (4.0 vs 8.0 months and 45.5 vs 57.1% in arms A and B, respectively).Conclusion: Both regimens seem active in ABC. C/G is associated with an improved tumour control rate, TTP and 6-month PFS. The study has been extended (ABC-02 study) and powered to determine the effect on overall survival and the quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background No prognostic classification is currently used for patients treated with systemic therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). Methods We retrospectively analysed data from patients treated with sorafenib for HCC from five centres in France and in the United Kingdom (UK). The training set comprised data from two centres and the validation set from three. Variables independently associated with Overall Survival (OS) in the training set were used to build the SAP (Sorafenib Advanced HCC Prognosis) score. The score was tested in the validation set, then compared with other prognostication systems. Results The training set and validation set included 370 and 468 patients respectively. In the training set, variables independently associated with OS in multivariable analysis were: performance status (PS) >0, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) >400 ng/ml, tumour size >7 cm, bilirubin >17 μmol/l and albumin <36 g/l. The SAP score was built giving one point to each abnormal variable, and three classes were constructed. The SAP score was significantly associated with OS in the training set, with median OS of 14.9 months for SAP A, 7.2 months for SAP B and 2.5 months for SAP C ( P < 0.001). In the validation set, the SAP score was significantly associated with OS, and showed greater discriminative abilities than Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) and albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) scores. However, the hepatoma arterial embolisation prognostic (HAP) score showed greater discriminative abilities than the SAP score. Conclusion In European patients treated with sorafenib, the HAP was the most discriminant prognostic score and may facilitate stratification in trials and inform clinical decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Sorafenib is the current standard treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We carried out a national audit of UK patients treated with sorafenib as standard-of-care and those treated with systemic therapy in first-line trials. Materials and methods Sorafenib-treated and trial-treated patients were identified via the Cancer Drugs Fund and local databases. Data were collected retrospectively from medical records according to a standard case report form. The primary outcome measure was overall survival, estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method. Results Data were obtained for 448 sorafenib-treated patients from 15 hospitals. The median age was 68 years (range 17–89) and 75% had performance status ≤ 1. At baseline, 77% were Child-Pugh A and 16.1% Child-Pugh B; 38% were albumin–bilirubin grade 1 (ALBI-1) and 48% ALBI-2; 23% were Barcelona Clinic Liver Classification B (BCLC-B) and 72% BCLC-C. The median time on sorafenib was 3.6 months, with a mean daily dose of 590 mg. The median overall survival for 448 evaluable sorafenib-treated patients was 8.5 months. There were significant differences in overall survival comparing Child-Pugh A versus Child-Pugh B (9.5 versus 4.6 months), ALBI-1 versus ALBI-2 (12.9 versus 5.9 months) and BCLC-B versus BCLC-C (13.0 versus 8.3 months). For trial-treated patients ( n = 109), the median overall survival was 8.1 months and this was not significantly different from the sorafenib-treated patients. Conclusion For Child-Pugh A patients with good performance status, survival outcomes were similar to those reported in global randomised controlled trials. Patients with ALBI grade > 1, Child-Pugh B or poor performance status seem to derive limited benefit from sorafenib treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The optimal management for patients with unresectable locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (LAPC) is unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with or without induction chemotherapy. Materials and methods: We conducted a multi-centre retrospective analysis of 48 patients with biopsy‑proven LAPC treated with CRT in four regional oncology centres in the UK between March 2000 and October 2007. The prescribed radiotherapy dose was 4500–5040cGy in 25–28 fractions and was given concurrent with gemcitabine (n =37), gemcitabine/cisplatin (n =9), 5-fluorouracil (n =1) or capecitabine (n =1). Results: Four patients (8.3%) did not complete the intended treatment due to CRT‑related toxicities. The disease control rate (Objective response rate (ORR) and stable disease (SD)) was 81.3%. The median overall survival was 17 months (range 5–66 months). In subgroup analysis, a trend towards improved survival was seen in patients who completed the intended treatment (17.1 months vs 11.0 months, P =0.06) and in patients undergoing surgery (27 months vs 16 months, P =0.023). Conclusions: This is the largest reported series from the UK focussing on patients who received CRT for pancreas cancer. It shows that it is possible to deliver pancreatic CRT with acceptable toxicity. Induction chemotherapy followed by gemcitabine-based CRT shows promising activity and should be evaluated in phase III studies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Deaths from the majority of cancers are falling globally, but the incidence and mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing in the United Kingdom and in other Western countries. HCC is a highly fatal cancer, often diagnosed late, with an incidence to mortality ratio that approaches 1. Despite there being a number of treatment options, including those associated with good medium to long-term survival, 5-year survival from HCC in the UK remains below 20%. Sex, ethnicity and deprivation are important demographics for the incidence of, and/or survival from, HCC. These clinical practice guidelines will provide evidence-based advice for the assessment and management of patients with HCC. The clinical and scientific data underpinning the recommendations we make are summarised in detail. Much of the content will have broad relevance, but the treatment algorithms are based on therapies that are available in the UK and have regulatory approval for use in the National Health Service., 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.)

Background: Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is commonly diagnosed using non-invasive radiological criteria (NIRC) defined by the European Association for the Study of the Liver or the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. In 2017, The National Institute for Clinical Excellence mandated histological confirmation of disease to authorise the use of sorafenib in the UK., Methods: This was a prospective multicentre audit in which patients suitable for sorafenib were identified at multidisciplinary meetings. The primary analysis cohort (PAC) was defined by the presence of Child-Pugh class A liver disease and performance status 0-2. Clinical, radiological and histological data were reported locally and collected on a standardised case report form., Results: Eleven centres reported 418 cases, of which 361 comprised the PAC. Overall, 76% had chronic liver disease and 66% were cirrhotic. The diagnostic imaging was computed tomography in 71%, magnetic resonance imaging in 27% and 2% had both. Pre-existing histology was available in 45 patients and 270 underwent a new biopsy, which confirmed HCC in 93.4%. Alternative histological diagnoses included cholangiocarcinoma (CC) and combined HCC-CC. In cirrhotic patients, NIRC criteria had a sensitivity of 65.4% and a positive predictive value of 91.4% to detect HCC. Two patients (0.7%) experienced mild post-biopsy bleeding., Conclusion: The diagnostic biopsy is safe and feasible for most patients eligible for systemic therapy., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are detectable in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and are accurate prognostic markers although the optimum threshold has not been defined., Objective: This work aims to define optimal prognostic CTC thresholds in PanNET and midgut NETs., Patients and Methods: CellSearch was used to enumerate CTCs in 199 patients with metastatic pancreatic (PanNET) (90) or midgut NETs (109). Patients were followed for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for a minimum of 3 years or until death., Results: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for progression at 12 months in PanNETs and midgut NETs identified the optimal CTC threshold as 1 or greater and 2 or greater, respectively. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, these thresholds were predictive for 12-month progression with an odds ratio (OR) of 6.69 (P < .01) for PanNETs and 5.88 (P < .003) for midgut NETs. The same thresholds were found to be optimal for predicting death at 36 months, with an OR of 2.87 (P < .03) and 5.09 (P < .005) for PanNETs and midgut NETs, respectively. In multivariate Cox hazard regression analysis for PFS in PanNETs, 1 or greater CTC had a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.6 (P < .01), whereas 2 or greater CTCs had an HR of 2.25 (P < .01) in midgut NETs. In multivariate analysis OS in PanNETs, 1 or greater CTCs had an HR of 3.16 (P < .01) and in midgut NETs, 2 or greater CTCs had an HR of 1.73 (P < .06)., Conclusions: The optimal CTC threshold to predict PFS and OS in metastatic PanNETs and midgut NETs is 1 and 2, respectively. These thresholds can be used to stratify patients in clinical practice and clinical trials., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)