RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: 100% soybean oil emulsions (SO100) are associated with poor docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA) status in extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants. A multi-oil emulsion with 15% fish oil (FO15) contains more DHA and ARA than SO100. This study compares clinical outcomes, namely growth and fatty acids, in ELBW infants who received S0100 or FO15. METHODS: This observational study included ELBW infants born between 2014 and 2019 who received SO100 or FO15 for >7 days. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry was used to measure erythrocyte fatty acids. RESULTS: The mean ± SD gestational age was 27 ± 3 and 26 ± 2 weeks for SO100 (n = 43) and FO15 (n = 43), respectively (P = 0.2). DHA (-0.3 ± 0.10% per week, P = 0.026, for FO15 vs -0.2 ± 0.05% per week, P < 0.001, for SO100) and ARA (-0.8 ± 0.21% per week for FO15 vs -0.9 ± 0.17% per week for SO100; P < 0.001 for both) declined in both groups with no difference between groups (P interaction > 0.7 for both). After controlling for days to reach full feeds, the mean difference in weight z score trajectories was similar (Est = -0.08; 95% CI, -0.82 to 0.04; P = 0.2), and SO100 was associated with a nonsignificant increased odds for cholestasis (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.96-10.2; P = 0.059). There was no difference in other clinical comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with ELBW infants who received SO100, infants who received FO15 still demonstrated a decline in DHA and ARA. Growth and other clinical outcomes were unchanged.
Asunto(s)
Aceites de Pescado , Nutrición Parenteral , Recién Nacido , Humanos , Emulsiones/química , Nutrición Parenteral/métodos , Recien Nacido Prematuro , Aceite de Soja , Ácidos Docosahexaenoicos , Ácido AraquidónicoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Very-high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PC) is an aggressive subgroup with high risk of distant disease progression. Systemic treatment intensification with abiraterone or docetaxel reduces PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and distant metastasis (DM) in men receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether prostate-directed treatment intensification with the addition of brachytherapy (BT) boost to EBRT with ADT improves outcomes in this group is unclear. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This cohort study from 16 centers across 4 countries included men with VHR PC treated with either dose-escalated EBRT with ≥24 months of ADT or EBRT + BT boost with ≥12 months of ADT. VHR was defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria (clinical T3b-4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or ≥2 NCCN high-risk features), and results were corroborated in a subgroup of men who met Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) trials inclusion criteria (≥2 of the following: clinical T3-4, Gleason 8-10, or PSA ≥40 ng/mL). PCSM and DM between EBRT and EBRT + BT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression. RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 270 underwent EBRT and 101 EBRT + BT. After a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 6.7% and 5.9% of men died of PC and 16.3% and 9.9% had DM after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. There was no significant difference in PCSM (sHR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.57-3.75]; P = .42) or DM (sHR, 0.72, [95% CI, 0.30-1.71]; P = .45) between EBRT + BT and EBRT. Results were similar within the STAMPEDE-defined VHR subgroup (PCSM: sHR, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.48-5.81]; P = .42; DM: sHR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04]; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: In this VHR PC cohort, no difference in clinically meaningful outcomes was observed between EBRT alone with ≥24 months of ADT compared with EBRT + BT with ≥12 months of ADT. Comparative analyses in men treated with intensified systemic therapy are warranted.
Asunto(s)
Braquiterapia , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Braquiterapia/métodos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Estudios de Cohortes , Antagonistas de Andrógenos/uso terapéutico , Clasificación del Tumor , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
CONTEXT: The prognostic importance of local failure after definitive radiotherapy (RT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic impact of local failure and the kinetics of distant metastasis following RT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A pooled analysis was performed on individual patient data of 12 533 PCa (6288 high-risk and 6245 intermediate-risk) patients enrolled in 18 randomized trials (conducted between 1985 and 2015) within the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard (PH) models were developed to evaluate the relationship between overall survival (OS), PCa-specific survival (PCSS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and local failure as a time-dependent covariate. Markov PH models were developed to evaluate the impact of specific transition states. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The median follow-up was 11 yr. There were 795 (13%) local failure events and 1288 (21%) distant metastases for high-risk patients and 449 (7.2%) and 451 (7.2%) for intermediate-risk patients, respectively. For both groups, 81% of distant metastases developed from a clinically relapse-free state (cRF state). Local failure was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30), PCSS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.75-2.33), and DMFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.75-2.15, p < 0.01 for all) in high-risk patients. Local failure was also significantly associated with DMFS (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.36-1.81) but not with OS in intermediate-risk patients. Patients without local failure had a significantly lower HR of transitioning to a PCa-specific death state than those who had local failure (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.50, p < 0.001). At later time points, more distant metastases emerged after a local failure event for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Local failure is an independent prognosticator of OS, PCSS, and DMFS in high-risk and of DMFS in intermediate-risk PCa. Distant metastasis predominantly developed from the cRF state, underscoring the importance of addressing occult microscopic disease. However a "second wave" of distant metastases occurs subsequent to local failure events, and optimization of local control may reduce the risk of distant metastasis. PATIENT SUMMARY: Among men receiving definitive radiation therapy for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, about 10% experience local recurrence, and they are at significantly increased risks of further disease progression. About 80% of patients who develop distant metastasis do not have a detectable local recurrence preceding it.
Asunto(s)
Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Humanos , Masculino , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/patología , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Randomised trials have investigated various androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) intensification strategies in men receiving radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. This individual patient data meta-analysis of relevant randomised trials aimed to quantify the benefit of these interventions in aggregate and in clinically relevant subgroups. METHODS: For this meta-analysis, we performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries, the Web of Science, Scopus, and conference proceedings to identify trials with results published in English between Jan 1, 1962, and Dec 30, 2020. Multicentre randomised trials were eligible if they evaluated the use or prolongation of ADT (or both) in men with localised prostate cancer receiving definitive radiotherapy, reported or collected distant metastasis and survival data, and used ADT for a protocol-defined finite duration. The Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate (MARCAP) Consortium was accessed to obtain individual patient data from randomised trials. The primary outcome was metastasis-free survival. Hazard ratios (HRs) were obtained through stratified Cox models for ADT use (radiotherapy alone vs radiotherapy plus ADT), neoadjuvant ADT extension (ie, extension of total ADT duration in the neoadjuvant setting from 3-4 months to 6-9 months), and adjuvant ADT prolongation (ie, prolongation of total ADT duration in the adjuvant setting from 4-6 months to 18-36 months). Formal interaction tests between interventions and metastasis-free survival were done for prespecified subgroups defined by age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group, and radiotherapy dose. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021236855. FINDINGS: Our search returned 12 eligible trials that provided individual patient data (10 853 patients) with a median follow-up of 11·4 years (IQR 9·0-15·0). The addition of ADT to radiotherapy significantly improved metastasis-free survival (HR 0·83 [95% CI 0·77-0·89], p<0·0001), as did adjuvant ADT prolongation (0·84 [0·78-0·91], p<0·0001), but neoadjuvant ADT extension did not (0·95 [0·83-1·09], p=0·50). Treatment effects were similar irrespective of radiotherapy dose, patient age, or NCCN risk group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings provide the strongest level of evidence so far to the magnitude of the benefit of ADT treatment intensification with radiotherapy for men with localised prostate cancer. Adding ADT and prolonging the portion of ADT that follows radiotherapy is associated with improved metastasis-free survival in men, regardless of risk group, age, and radiotherapy dose delivered; however, the magnitude of the benefit could vary and shared decision making with patients is recommended. FUNDING: University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology.
Asunto(s)
Antagonistas de Andrógenos/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/terapia , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neoplasias de la Próstata/mortalidad , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
Importance: The optimal management strategy for high-risk prostate cancer and additional adverse clinicopathologic features remains unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with high-risk prostate cancer (as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) and at least 1 adverse clinicopathologic feature (defined as any primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy, clinical T3b-4 disease, ≥50% cores with biopsy results positive for prostate cancer, or NCCN ≥2 high-risk features) treated between 2000 and 2014 at 16 tertiary centers. Data were analyzed in November 2020. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (BT) with ADT. Guideline-concordant multimodal treatment was defined as RP with appropriate use of multimodal therapy (optimal RP), EBRT with at least 2 years of ADT (optimal EBRT), or EBRT with BT with at least 1 year ADT (optimal EBRT with BT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis was a secondary outcome. Differences were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression models. Results: A total of 6004 men (median [interquartile range] age, 66.4 [60.9-71.8] years) with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed, including 3175 patients (52.9%) who underwent RP, 1830 patients (30.5%) who underwent EBRT alone, and 999 patients (16.6%) who underwent EBRT with BT. Compared with RP, treatment with EBRT with BT (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.78, [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P = .03) or with EBRT alone (sHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92]; P = .01) was associated with significantly improved prostate cancer-specific mortality; there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between EBRT with BT and EBRT alone (sHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.67-1.18]; P = .43). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality were found across treatment cohorts among 2940 patients who received guideline-concordant multimodality treatment (eg, optimal EBRT alone vs optimal RP: sHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.52-1.09]; P = .14). However, treatment with EBRT alone or EBRT with BT was consistently associated with lower rates of distant metastasis compared with treatment with RP (eg, EBRT vs RP: sHR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.44-0.58]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among patients with high-risk prostate cancer and additional unfavorable clinicopathologic features receiving guideline-concordant multimodal therapy, prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes were equivalent among those treated with RP, EBRT, and EBRT with BT, although distant metastasis outcomes were more favorable among patients treated with EBRT and EBRT with BT. Optimal multimodality treatment is critical for improving outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.
Asunto(s)
Terapia Combinada/normas , Neoplasias de la Próstata/terapia , Radioterapia/normas , Anciano , California/epidemiología , Estudios de Cohortes , Terapia Combinada/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Prostatectomía/métodos , Prostatectomía/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/complicaciones , Neoplasias de la Próstata/mortalidad , Radioterapia/métodos , Radioterapia/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Persons with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRDs) require comprehensive care that spans health systems and community-based organizations. This study examined the clinical outcomes of a comprehensive dementia care program and identified subgroups who were more likely to benefit. DESIGN: Observational, baseline and 1 year after intervention. SETTING: Urban, academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 554 persons with dementia and their caregivers who had 1-year follow-up evaluations and data on clinical outcomes. INTERVENTION: Health system-based comprehensive dementia care management program using nurse practitioner dementia care managers. MEASUREMENTS: Patient measures included the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Functional Activities Questionnaire, Basic and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scales, the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia, and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) Severity. Caregiver measures included the Modified Caregiver Strain Index, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, NPI-Q Distress, and the Dementia Burden Scale-Caregiver). We used established minimal clinically important differences and lowest tertiles of baseline symptoms to define improving symptoms and maintaining low symptoms as clinical benefit for patients and caregivers. RESULTS: At year 1, persons with ADRD improved on all scales, except MMSE and functional status measures; caregivers improved on all scales. Using validated instruments, 314/543 (58%) of patients, 282/447 (63%) of caregivers, and 376/501 (75%) of patients or caregivers demonstrated clinical benefit. In adjusted multivariate models, at year 1, more behavioral symptoms and fewer depression symptoms at baseline were associated with patient improvement; and fewer baseline depression symptoms were associated with maintaining low behavioral symptoms. Male caregiver sex, higher baseline caregiver burden, and caring for patients with fewer baseline depression symptoms were associated with caregiver improvement. Male caregiver sex and patients with fewer depression symptoms, fewer behavioral symptoms, and more functional impairment at baseline were associated with caregivers maintaining low burden at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Health system-based comprehensive dementia care management is a promising approach to improving clinical outcomes, with benefits for both patients and caregivers. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2267-2273, 2019.