Search

While HC2 and GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA were pivotal in test validation of new HPV assays, they represent the first generation of comparator tests based upon technologies that are not in widespread use anymore. In the current guideline, criteria for second-generation comparator tests are presented that include more detailed resolution of HPV genotypes. Second-generation comparator tests should preferentially target only the 12 genotypes classified as carcinogenic (IARC-group I), and show consistent non-inferior sensitivity for CIN2+ and CIN3+ and specificity for ≤CIN1 compared to one of the first-generations comparators, in at least three validation studies using benchmarks of 0.95 for relative sensitivity and 0.98 for relative specificity. Validation should take into account used storage media and other sample handling procedures. Meta-analyses were conducted to identify the assays that fulfill these stringent criteria. Four tests fulfilled the new criteria: (1) RealTime High-Risk HPV Test (Abbott), (2) Cobas-4800 HPV test (Roche Molecular System), (3) Onclarity HPV Assay (BD Diagnostics), and (4) Anyplex II HPV HR Detection (Seegene), each evaluated in three to six studies. Whereas the four assays target 14 carcinogenic genotypes, the first two identify separately HPV16 and 18, the third assay identifies five types separately and the fourth identifies all the types separately.

Item does not contain fulltext

01 juli 2023, Contains fulltext : 294344.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Host-cell DNA methylation analysis can be used to triage women with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive self-collected cervicovaginal samples, but current data are restricted to under-/never-screened women and referral populations. This study evaluated triage performance in women who were offered primary HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening. METHODS: Self-collected samples from 593 HPV-positive women who participated in a primary HPV self-sampling trial (IMPROVE study; NTR5078), were tested for the DNA methylation markers ASCL1 and LHX8 using quantitative multiplex methylation-specific PCR (qMSP). The diagnostic performance for CIN3 and cervical cancer (CIN3 + ) was evaluated and compared with that of paired HPV-positive clinician-collected cervical samples. RESULTS: Significantly higher methylation levels were found in HPV-positive self-collected samples of women with CIN3 + than control women with no evidence of disease (P values <0.0001). The marker panel ASCL1/LHX8 yielded a sensitivity for CIN3 + detection of 73.3% (63/86; 95% CI 63.9-82.6%), with a corresponding specificity of 61.1% (310/507; 95% CI 56.9-65.4%). The relative sensitivity for detecting CIN3+ was 0.95 (95% CI 0.82-1.10) for self-collection versus clinician-collection, and the relative specificity was 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: The ASCL1/LHX8 methylation marker panel constitutes a feasible direct triage method for the detection of CIN3 + in HPV-positive women participating in routine screening by self-sampling.

Item does not contain fulltext, Methylation of host-cell deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) has been proposed as a promising biomarker for triage of high-risk (hr) human papillomavirus (HPV) positive women at screening. Our study aims to validate recently identified host-cell DNA methylation markers for triage in an hrHPV-positive cohort derived from primary HPV-based cervical screening in The Netherlands. Methylation markers ASCL1, LHX8, ST6GALNAC5, GHSR, ZIC1 and SST were evaluated relative to the ACTB reference gene by multiplex quantitative methylation-specific PCR (qMSP) in clinician-collected cervical samples (n = 715) from hrHPV-positive women (age 29-60 years), who were enrolled in the Dutch IMPROVE screening trial (NTR5078). Primary clinical end-point was cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) or cancer (CIN3+). The single-marker and bi-marker methylation classifiers developed for CIN3 detection in a previous series of hrHPV-positive clinician-collected cervical samples were applied. The diagnostic accuracy was visualised using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and assessed through area under the ROC curve (AUC). The performance of the methylation markers to detect CIN3+ was determined using the predefined threshold calibrated at 70% clinical specificity. Individual methylation makers showed good performance for CIN3+ detection, with highest AUC for ASCL1 (0.844) and LHX8 (0.830). Combined as a bi-marker panel with predefined threshold, ASCL1/LHX8 yielded a CIN3+ sensitivity of 76.9% (70/91; 95% CI 68.3-85.6%) at a specificity of 74.5% (465/624; 95% CI 71.1-77.9%). In conclusion, our study shows that the individual host-cell DNA methylation classifiers and the bi-marker panel ASCL1/LHX8 have clinical utility for the detection of CIN3+ in hrHPV-positive women invited for routine screening.

Contains fulltext : 242774.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 232068.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), the use of 3-day dexamethasone (DEX) is often recommended. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two DEX-sparing regimens with 3-day DEX, focusing on delayed nausea. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, randomized, phase III study was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of two DEX-sparing regimens: ondansetron + DEX on day 1 + metoclopramide on days 2-3 (MCP arm), and palonosetron + DEX on day 1 (PAL arm) versus ondansetron on day 1 + DEX on days 1-3 (DEX arm) in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving MEC. Primary efficacy endpoint was total control (TC; no emetic episodes, no use of rescue medication, no nausea) in the delayed phase. Noninferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the noninferiority margin set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included no vomiting, no rescue medication, no (significant) nausea, impact of CINV on quality of life, and antiemetics-associated side effects. RESULTS: Treatment arms were comparable for 189 patients analyzed: predominantly male (55.7%), median age 65.0 years, colorectal cancer (85.7%), and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (81.5%). MCP demonstrated noninferiority to DEX for delayed TC (MCP 56.1% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -11.3%, 23.5%). PAL also demonstrated noninferiority to DEX (PAL 55.6% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -12.0%, 23.2%). There were no statistically significant differences for all secondary endpoints between treatment arms. CONCLUSION: This study showed that DEX-sparing regimens are noninferior to multiple-day DEX in terms of delayed TC rate in patients undergoing MEC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT02135510. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) remains one of the most troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. In particular

Objectives: The aim was to evaluate the cross-sectional and long-term triage performance of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis in human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening. Methods: We conducted a post hoc analysis within a Dutch population-based HPV-positive study cohort of women aged 30–60 years (n = 979). Cross-sectional cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3+ sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value as well as cumulative CIN3+ or cervical cancer risks after 9 and 14 years were compared for three baseline triage strategies: (1) cytology, (2) FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis and (3) combined FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation with cytology. Results: CIN3+ sensitivity of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis was similar to that of cytology (71.3% vs 76.0%, ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05), at a lower specificity (78.3% vs 87.0%, ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.94). Combining FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis with cytology resulted in a CIN3+ sensitivity of 84.6% (95% CI 78.3 to 90.8) at a specificity of 69.6% (95% CI 66.5 to 72.7). Similar 9- and 14-year CIN3+ risks for baseline cytology-negative women and baseline FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation-negative women were observed, with risk differences of –0.42% (95% CI –2.1 to 1.4) and –0.07% (95% CI –1.9 to 1.9), respectively. The 14-year cumulative cervical cancer incidence was significantly lower for methylation-negative women compared to cytology-negative women (risk difference 0.98%, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.0). Discussion: FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis has a good triage performance on baseline screening samples, with a cross-sectional CIN3+ sensitivity and long-term triage-negative CIN3+ risk equalling cytology triage. Therefore, FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis appears to be a good and objective alternative to cytology in triage scenarios in HPV-based cervical screening.

Contains fulltext : 220817.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Treatment of delirium often includes haloperidol. Second-generation antipsychotics like olanzapine have emerged as an alternative with possibly fewer side effects. The aim of this multicenter, phase III, randomized clinical trial was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine with haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible adult patients (>/=18 years) with advanced cancer and delirium (Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 [DRS-R-98] total score >/=17.75) were randomized 1:1 to receive either haloperidol or olanzapine (age-adjusted, titratable doses). Primary endpoint was delirium response rate (DRR), defined as number of patients with DRS-R-98 severity score <15.25 and >/=4.5 points reduction. Secondary endpoints included time to response (TTR), tolerability, and delirium-related distress. RESULTS: Between January 2011 and June 2016, 98 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. DRR was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31-59) for olanzapine and 57% (95% CI, 43-71) for haloperidol (Delta DRR -12%; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4; p = .23). Mean TTR was 4.5 days (95% CI, 3.2-5.9 days) for olanzapine and 2.8 days (95% CI, 1.9-3.7 days; p = .18) for haloperidol. Grade >/=3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 5 patients (10.2%) and 10 patients (20.4%) in the olanzapine and haloperidol arm, respectively. Distress rates were similar in both groups. The study was terminated early because of futility. CONCLUSION: Delirium treatment with olanzapine in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer did not result in improvement of DRR or TTR compared with haloperidol. Clinical trial identification number. NCT01539733. Dutch Trial Register. NTR2559. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Guidelines recommend that pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment in adults with cancer should be limited to patients who have distressing delirium symptoms. It was s

Contains fulltext : 229520.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND & AIMS: A low muscle mass before start of treatment and loss of muscle mass during chemotherapy is related to adverse outcomes in patients with cancer. In this randomized controlled trial, the effect of nutritional counseling on change in muscle mass and treatment outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer during first-line chemotherapy was studied. METHODS: Patients scheduled for first-line chemotherapy (n = 107) were randomly assigned to individualized nutritional counseling by a dietitian (NC) or usual care (UC). NC was aimed at sufficient protein- and energy intake, supported by oral supplements or enteral feeding if indicated. Furthermore, physical activity was encouraged. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (T0) and the time of the first (T1) and second (T2) regular follow-up computed tomography scans. The proportion of patients with a clinically relevant decrease in skeletal muscle area of ≥6.0 cm(2), measured by computed tomography, was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included body weight, quality of life, treatment toxicity and progression free and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were enrolled (mean age, 65 years (SD, 11 years), 63% male). Mean change in skeletal muscle area from T0 till T1 was -2.5 (SD, 9.5) cm(2), with no difference between NC versus UC (p = 0.891). The proportion of patients with a clinically relevant decrease in skeletal muscle area of ≥6.0 cm(2) did not differ (NC 30% versus UC 31%, p = 0.467). NC compared with UC had a significant positive effect on body weight (B coefficient 1.7, p = 0.045), progression free survival (p = 0.039) and overall survival (p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: NC of patients undergoing chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer had no effect on muscle mass. However, we found that NC may increase body weight and improve progression free survival and overall survival compared to UC in this group of patients. These findings need further evaluation in future clinical trial

Objectives: The aim was to evaluate the cross-sectional and long-term triage performance of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis in human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening. Methods: We conducted a post hoc analysis within a Dutch population-based HPV-positive study cohort of women aged 30–60 years (n = 979). Cross-sectional cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3+ sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value as well as cumulative CIN3+ or cervical cancer risks after 9 and 14 years were compared for three baseline triage strategies: (1) cytology, (2) FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis and (3) combined FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation with cytology. Results: CIN3+ sensitivity of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis was similar to that of cytology (71.3% vs 76.0%, ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05), at a lower specificity (78.3% vs 87.0%, ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.94). Combining FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis with cytology resulted in a CIN3+ sensitivity of 84.6% (95% CI 78.3 to 90.8) at a specificity of 69.6% (95% CI 66.5 to 72.7). Similar 9- and 14-year CIN3+ risks for baseline cytology-negative women and baseline FAM19A4/miR124

Clinical criteria/Family history-based BRCA testing misses a large proportion of BRCA carriers who can benefit from screening/prevention. We estimate the cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA testing in general population women across different countries/health systems. A Markov model comparing the lifetime costs and effects of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing all general population women ≥30 years compared with clinical criteria/FH-based testing. Separate analyses are undertaken for the UK/USA/Netherlands (high-income countries/HIC), China/Brazil (upper-middle income countries/UMIC) and India (low-middle income countries/LMIC) using both health system/payer and societal perspectives. BRCA carriers undergo appropriate screening/prevention interventions to reduce breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Outcomes include OC, BC, and additional heart disease deaths and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic/one-way sensitivity analyses evaluate model uncertainty. For the base case, from a societal perspective, we found that population-based BRCA testing is cost-saving in HIC (UK-ICER = $-5639/QALY; USA-ICER = $-4018/QALY; Netherlands-ICER = $-11,433/QALY), and it appears cost-effective in UMIC (China-ICER = $18,066/QALY; Brazil-ICER = $13,579/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in LMIC (India-ICER = $23,031/QALY). From a payer perspective, population-based BRCA testing is highly cost-effective in HIC (UK-ICER = $21,191/QALY, USA-ICER = $16,552/QALY, Netherlands-ICER = $25,215/QALY), and it is cost-effective in UMIC (China-ICER = $23,485/QALY, Brazil-ICER = $20,995/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in LMIC (India-ICER = $32,217/QALY). BRCA testing costs below $172/test (ICER = $19,685/QALY), which makes it cost-effective (from a societal perspective) for LMIC/India. Population-based BRCA testing can prevent an additional 2319 to 2666 BC and 327 to 449 OC cases per million women than the current clinical strategy.