Central Giant Cell Granuloma of the Mandible: A Case Report.

This article presents a clinical case of a central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) resembling a periapical lesion of endodontic origin. A 39-year-old, otherwise healthy male patient was referred to the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery for its diagnosis and subsequent management. The patient presented with an asymptomatic, progressively increasing intraoral swelling associated with the mandibular left para-symphysis region. On radiographic evaluation, a unilocular radiolucent lesion involving 33-34 teeth was noted. An incisional biopsy presented a giant cell lesion, following which surgical curettage was done. Histopathological examination was in accordance with the diagnosis of CGCG. Therefore, it is imperative for clinicians to accurately diagnose and rule out similarly presenting lesions.

Central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (CAVA): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hickman-type tunnelled catheters (Hickman), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and totally implanted ports (PORTs) are used to deliver systemic anticancer treatment (SACT) via a central vein. We aimed to compare complication rates and costs of the three devices to establish acceptability, clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the devices for patients receiving SACT. METHODS: We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (Cancer and Venous Access [CAVA]) of three central venous access devices: PICCs versus Hickman (non-inferiority; 10% margin); PORTs versus Hickman (superiority; 15% margin); and PORTs versus PICCs (superiority; 15% margin). Adults (aged ≥18 years) receiving SACT (≥12 weeks) for solid or haematological malignancy from 18 oncology units in the UK were included. Four randomisation options were available: Hickman versus PICCs versus PORTs (2:2:1), PICCs versus Hickman (1:1), PORTs versus Hickman (1:1), and PORTs versus PICCs (1:1). Randomisation was done using a minimisation algorithm stratifying by centre, body-mass index, type of cancer, device history, and treatment mode. The primary outcome was complication rate (composite of infection, venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, inability to aspirate blood, mechanical failure, and other) assessed until device removal, withdrawal from study, or 1-year follow-up. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN44504648. FINDINGS: Between Nov 8, 2013, and Feb 28, 2018, of 2714 individuals screened for eligibility, 1061 were enrolled and randomly assigned, contributing to the relevant comparison or comparisons (PICC vs Hickman n=424, 212 [50%] on PICC and 212 [50%] on Hickman; PORT vs Hickman n=556, 253 [46%] on PORT and 303 [54%] on Hickman; and PORT vs PICC n=346, 147 [42%] on PORT and 199 [58%] on PICC). Similar complication rates were observed for PICCs (110 [52%] of 212) and Hickman (103 [49%] of 212). Although the observed difference was less than 10%, non-inferiority of PICCs was not confirmed (odds ratio [OR] 1·15 [95% CI 0·78-1·71]) potentially due to inadequate power. PORTs were superior to Hickman with a complication rate of 29% (73 of 253) versus 43% (131 of 303; OR 0·54 [95% CI 0·37-0·77]). PORTs were superior to PICCs with a complication rate of 32% (47 of 147) versus 47% (93 of 199; OR 0·52 [0·33-0·83]). INTERPRETATION: For most patients receiving SACT, PORTs are more effective and safer than both Hickman and PICCs. Our findings suggest that most patients receiving SACT for solid tumours should receive a PORT within the UK National Health Service. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Venous access devices for the delivery of long-term chemotherapy: the CAVA three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Venous access devices are used for patients receiving long-term chemotherapy. These include centrally inserted tunnelled catheters or Hickman-type devices (Hickman), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and centrally inserted totally implantable venous access devices (PORTs). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of these devices for the central delivery of chemotherapy. DESIGN: An open, multicentre, randomised controlled trial to inform three comparisons: (1) peripherally inserted central catheters versus Hickman, (2) PORTs versus Hickman and (3) PORTs versus peripherally inserted central catheters. Pre-trial and post-trial qualitative research and economic evaluation were also conducted. SETTING: This took place in 18 UK oncology centres. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) receiving chemotherapy (≥ 12 weeks) for either a solid or a haematological malignancy were randomised via minimisation. INTERVENTIONS: Hickman, peripherally inserted central catheters and PORTs. PRIMARY OUTCOME: A composite of infection (laboratory confirmed, suspected catheter related and exit site infection), mechanical failure, venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, inability to aspirate blood and other complications in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Overall, 1061 participants were recruited to inform three comparisons. First, for the comparison of peripherally inserted central catheters (n = 212) with Hickman (n = 212), it could not be concluded that peripherally inserted central catheters were significantly non-inferior to Hickman in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.71). The use of peripherally inserted central catheters compared with Hickman was associated with a substantially lower cost (-£1553) and a small decrement in quality-adjusted life-years gained (-0.009). Second, for the comparison of PORTs (n = 253) with Hickman (n = 303), PORTs were found to be statistically significantly superior to Hickman in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.77). PORTs were found to dominate Hickman with lower costs (-£45) and greater quality-adjusted life-years gained (0.004). This was alongside a lower complications rate (difference of 14%); the incremental cost per complication averted was £1.36. Third, for the comparison of PORTs (n = 147) with peripherally inserted central catheters (n = 199), PORTs were found to be statistically significantly superior to peripherally inserted central catheters in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.83). PORTs were associated with an incremental cost of £2706 when compared with peripherally inserted central catheters and a decrement in quality-adjusted life-years gained (-0.018) PORTs are dominated by peripherally inserted central catheters: alongside a lower complications rate (difference of 15%), the incremental cost per complication averted was £104. The qualitative work showed that attitudes towards all three devices were positive, with patients viewing their central venous access device as part of their treatment and recovery. PORTs were perceived to offer unique psychological benefits, including a greater sense of freedom and less intrusion in the context of personal relationships. The main limitation was the lack of adequate power (54%) in the non-inferiority comparison between peripherally inserted central catheters and Hickman. CONCLUSIONS: In the delivery of long-term chemotherapy, peripherally inserted central catheters should be considered a cost-effective option when compared with Hickman. There were significant clinical benefits when comparing PORTs with Hickman and with peripherally inserted central catheters. The health economic benefits were less clear from the perspective of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. However, dependent on the willingness to pay, PORTs may be considered to be cost-effective from the perspective of complications averted. FUTURE WORK: The deliverability of a PORTs service merits further study to understand the barriers to and methods of improving the service. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN44504648. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NHIR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

For patients who need long-term chemotherapy delivered through a vein, there are currently three options: (1) a Hickman-type device, which is a flexible tube (central line) inserted underneath the skin on the chest into a large vein; (2) a peripherally inserted central catheter, which is a long line tube inserted into a vein in the arm and passed through a large vein in the chest; and (3) a totally implantable device, which is a small chamber (accessed externally by a needle) that sits underneath the skin, usually in the chest, and goes into a large vein. The Cancer And Venous Access (CAVA) trial compared these devices in > 1000 patients and looked at complications, quality of life, acceptability and value for money. We found that totally implantable devices halved the risk of complications compared with the other two options (which had similar complication rates to each other). We found that patients' quality of life was similar for all three devices, although a quality-of-life measure specific to these devices showed some emotional and psychological benefits in favour of totally implantable devices. All three devices work, although the totally implantable devices are associated with fewer complications and are less intrusive for patients. In the CAVA trial, we found that totally implantable devices are the most costly device to use, followed by the Hickman-type device, with the peripherally inserted central device being the cheapest. This is partly because of the tendency for totally implantable devices to remain in patients for a longer period of time than the other two options. The costs could potentially be reduced by training nurse-led teams to insert totally implantable devices, as already happens with the other two devices. Totally implantable devices can be considered value for money depending on how people value avoiding complications and the quality-of-life benefits for patients.

Uterine artery pulsatility index and serum BMP-9 predict resistance to methotrexate therapy in gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is the most common first-line chemotherapy for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). Uterine artery pulsatility index (UAPI) is an ultrasound marker for tumor vascularity that has been associated with an increased risk of methotrexate resistance. The combination of circulating angiogenic factor levels with UAPI data may improve the capacity of this model to predict chemoresistance. METHODS: This was a single-center cohort study of women newly diagnosed between January 2008 and June 2012 with low-risk GTN during postmolar surveillance and treated with single-agent methotrexate at Charing Cross Hospital, a UK national center for treatment of gestational trophoblastic disease. Two hundred seventeen women underwent an ultrasound for UAPI measurement prior to initiation of chemotherapy. To examine serologic markers of methotrexate resistance among this cohort, we performed a case-control study using archived serum from 76 patients who could be matched based on prognostic risk score. Serum samples were examined by immunoassay to measure 8 different angiogenic factors (VEGF-A, FGF-basic, PLGF-1, PDGF-BB, EGF, ANGPT2, BMP-9, and ENG). Receiver-operator characteristic area under the curve (AUC) values were calculated for the ability of each analyte to correctly classify patients as methotrexate sensitive (MTX-S) or resistant (MTX-R). RESULTS: Total human chorionic gonadotropin levels were similar between the MTX-S and MTX-R groups. UAPI values were significantly higher in MTX-S (median 1.30 [interquartile range {IQR} = 0.80-1.90]) compared to MTX-R patients (median 0.875 [IQR = 0.60-1.30]; P < 0.0001) with AUC 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.76; P < 0.0001). In univariate analysis, only BMP-9 concentrations were significantly different between groups, lower among MTX-S (median of 225 ng/L, IQR = 170-287) compared to MTX-R patients (median 280 ng/L [IQR = 200-339]; P= 0.03). Combining UAPI with BMP-9 concentration improved prediction for chemoresistance with AUC 0.77 (95% confidence interval 0.66-0.88; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Circulating levels of BMP-9 are elevated in newly diagnosed women with low-risk GTN destined to fail primary methotrexate therapy. A combined test using serum BMP-9 plus UAPI might improve prediction of MTX-R in low-risk GTN.

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer- or venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a collective term for two conditions: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A proportion of people with VTE have no underlying or immediately predisposing risk factors and the VTE is referred to as unprovoked. Unprovoked VTE can often be the first clinical manifestation of an underlying malignancy. This has raised the question of whether people with an unprovoked VTE should be investigated for an underlying cancer. Treatment for VTE is different in cancer and non-cancer patients and a correct diagnosis would ensure that people received the optimal treatment for VTE to prevent recurrence and further morbidity. Furthermore, an appropriate cancer diagnosis at an earlier stage could avoid the risk of cancer progression and lead to improvements in cancer-related mortality and morbidity. This is an update of a review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT of the lower limb or PE) is effective in reducing cancer or VTE-related mortality and morbidity and to determine which tests for cancer are best at identifying treatable cancers early. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 11 July 2018. We also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which people with an unprovoked VTE were allocated to receive specific tests for identifying cancer or clinically indicated tests only were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality and VTE-related mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: No new studies were identified for this 2018 update. In total, four studies with 1644 participants are included. Two studies assessed the effect of extensive tests including computed tomography (CT) scanning versus tests at the physician's discretion, while the other two studies assessed the effect of standard testing plus positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scanning versus standard testing alone. For extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, the quality of the evidence, as assessed according to GRADE, was low due to risk of bias (early termination of the studies). When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, the quality of evidence was moderate due to a risk of detection bias. The quality of the evidence was downgraded further as detection bias was present in one study with a low number of events.When comparing extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, pooled analysis on two studies showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on cancer-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.67; 396 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.26; low-quality evidence). One study (201 participants) showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced at diagnosis in extensively tested participants than in participants in the control group. In total, 9/13 participants diagnosed with cancer in the extensively tested group had a T1 or T2 stage malignancy compared to 2/10 participants diagnosed with cancer in the control group (OR 5.00, 95% CI 1.05 to 23.76; P = 0.04; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in detection of advanced stages between extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion: one participant in the extensively tested group had stage T3 compared with four participants in the control group (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.28; P = 0.22; low-quality evidence). In addition, extensively tested participants were diagnosed earlier than control group (mean: 1 month with extensive tests versus 11.6 months with tests at physician's discretion to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Extensive testing did not increase the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.93; 396 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.50; low-quality evidence). Neither study measured all-cause mortality, VTE-related morbidity and mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life.When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT screening versus standard testing alone, standard testing plus PET/CT screening was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.04; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.66; moderate-quality evidence), cancer-related mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.52; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.25; moderate-quality evidence) or VTE-related morbidity (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.17; 854 participants; 1 study; P = 0.96; moderate-quality evidence). Regarding stage of cancer, there was no clear difference for detection of early (OR 1.78, 95% 0.51 to 6.17; 394 participants; 1 study; P = 0.37; low-quality evidence) or advanced (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.17; 394 participants; 1 study; P = 1.00; low-quality evidence) stages of cancer. There was also no clear difference in the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.20; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.09; moderate-quality evidence). Time to cancer diagnosis was 4.2 months in the standard testing group and 4.0 months in the standard testing plus PET/CT group (P = 0.88). Neither study measured VTE-related mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Specific testing for cancer in people with unprovoked VTE may lead to earlier diagnosis of cancer at an earlier stage of the disease. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer- or VTE-related morbidity and mortality. The results could be consistent with either benefit or no benefit. Further good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made.

Power Doppler Quantification in Assessing Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia.

PURPOSE: The FIGO score cannot accurately stratify low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) patients who develop chemoresistance to single agent methotrexate chemotherapy. Tumour vascularisation is a key risk factor and its quantification may provide non-invasive way of complementing risk assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 187 FIGO-staged, low-risk GTN patients were prospectively recruited. Power Doppler ultrasound was analysed using a quantification program. Four diagnostic indicators were obtained comprising the number of colour pixels (NCP), mean dB, power Doppler quantification (PDQ), and percentage of colour pixels (%CP). Each indicator performance was assessed to determine if they could distinguish the subset of low-risk patients who became chemoresistant. RESULTS: There were 111 non-resistant and 76 resistant patients. NCP performed best at distinguishing these two groups where the non-resistant group had an average 3435 (±â€Š2060) pixels and the resistant group 6151 (±â€Š3192) pixels (p < 0.001). PDQ and %CP showed significant differences (p < 0.001) but had poorer performance (area under ROC curves were 72 % and 67 % respectively compared with 75 % for NCP). The mean dB index was not significantly different (p = 0.133). CONCLUSION: Power Doppler ultrasound quantification shows potential for non-invasive assessment of tumour vascularity and can distinguish low-risk GTN patients who become chemoresistant from those who have an uncomplicated course with first line treatment.

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer- and venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a collective term for two conditions: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A proportion of people with VTE have no underlying or immediately predisposing risk factors and the VTE is referred to as unprovoked. Unprovoked VTE can often be the first clinical manifestation of an underlying malignancy. This has raised the question of whether people with an unprovoked VTE should be investigated for an underlying cancer. Treatment for VTE is different in cancer and non-cancer patients and a correct diagnosis would ensure that people received the optimal treatment for VTE to prevent recurrence and further morbidity. Furthermore, an appropriate cancer diagnosis at an earlier, potentially curative stage could avoid the risk of cancer progression and thus lead to improvements in cancer-related mortality and morbidity. This is an update of a review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT of the lower limb or PE) is effective in reducing cancer and VTE-related mortality and morbidity and to determine which tests for cancer are best at identifying treatable cancers early. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (16 February 2017). In addition, the CIS searched the Cochrane Register of Studies CENTRAL (2017, Issue 1). We searched trials registries (February 2017) and checked the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which people with an unprovoked VTE were allocated to receive specific tests for cancer or clinically indicated tests only were eligible for inclusion in this review. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality and VTE-related mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed quality and extracted data. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies with 1644 participants met the inclusion criteria (two studies in the original review and two in this update). Two studies assessed the effect of extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion) while the other two studies assessed the effect of standard testing plus positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scanning versus standard testing alone. For extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion, the quality of the evidence was low due to risk of bias (early termination of the studies). When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, the quality of evidence was moderate due to a risk of detection bias. The quality of the evidence was downgraded further when detection bias was present in one study with a low number of events.When comparing extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion, pooled analysis on two studies showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either a benefit or no benefit on cancer-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.67; 396 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.26; low quality evidence). One study (201 participants) showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced in extensively tested participants than in participants in the control group. In total, 9/13 participants diagnosed with cancer in the extensively tested group had a T1 or T2 stage malignancy compared to 2/10 participants diagnosed with cancer in the control group (OR 5.00, 95% CI 1.05 to 23.76; P = 0.04; low quality evidence). There was no clear difference in detection of advanced stages between extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion: one participant in the extensively tested group had stage T3 compared with four participants in the control group (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.28; P = 0.22; low quality evidence). In addition, extensively tested participants were diagnosed earlier than control group (mean: 1 month with extensive tests versus 11.6 months with tests at physician's discretion to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Extensive testing did not increase the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.93; 396 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.50; low quality evidence). Neither study measured all-cause mortality, VTE-related morbidity and mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life.When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT screening versus standard testing alone, standard testing plus PET/CT screening was consistent with either a benefit or no benefit on all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.04; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.66; moderate quality evidence), cancer-related mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.52; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.25; moderate quality evidence) or VTE-related morbidity (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.17; 854 participants; 1 study; P = 0.96; moderate quality evidence). With regards to stage of cancer, there was no clear difference for detection of early (OR 1.78, 95% 0.51 to 6.17; 394 participants; 1 study; P = 0.37; low quality evidence) or advanced (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.17; 394 participants; 1 study; P = 1.00; low quality evidence) stages of cancer. There was also no clear difference in the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.20; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.09; moderate quality evidence). Time to cancer diagnosis was 4.2 months in the standard testing group and 4.0 months in the standard testing plus PET/CT group (P = 0.88). Neither study measured VTE-related mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Testing for cancer in people with unprovoked VTE may lead to earlier diagnosis of cancer at an earlier stage of the disease. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer and VTE-related morbidity and mortality. The results could be consistent with either benefit or no benefit. Further good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made.

Continuous magnesium infusions in the management of systemic anti-cancer therapy-related hypomagnesaemia.

Background Hypomagnesaemia is a relatively-common side effect of some systemic anti-cancer therapies (SACT). Oral and intravenous magnesium (given as injections or short infusions) have problems arising from their poor tolerability, and need for frequent administrations, respectively. Objective Assessing the effectiveness and safety of weekly continuous magnesium infusions (CMI) in the management of SACT-related hypomagnesaemia. Methods CMIs (initiated at 10 mmol/day and up-titrated subject to response) were prescribed to patients with ≥3 magnesium readings <0.5 mmol/L despite intravenous replacement with bolus-or-short-infusions (BSI). Efficacy (compared to BSI): (a) reduction in the number of moderate/severe hypomagnesaemia episodes, and (b) increase in mean magnesium serum levels. SAFETY: non-occurrence of grade ≥3 toxicities (according to the common terminology criteria for adverse events v4). Results Three patients were treated (mean age: 62-years), pre-SACT levels were 0.629 ± 0.121 mmol/L. EFFICACY: (a) 1 versus 18 episodes; (b) 0.639 ± 0.093 mmol/L versus 0.533 ± 0.191 mmol/L. All comparisons were statistically significant in favour of CMI (p < 0.001). No magnesium-related grade ≥2 side effects were observed. Conclusion CMIs resulted in a marked reduction in the number of episodes of hypomagnesaemia and higher magnesium levels, with no significant side effects. CMIs represent a potential option for the management of SACT-related hypomagnesaemia, although further research in an expanded cohort is required.

Phase II study of TP300 in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: TP300, a recently developed synthetic camptothecin analogue, is a highly selective topoisomerase I inhibitor. A phase I study showed good safety and tolerability. As camptothecins have proven active in oesophago-gastric adenocarcinomas, in this phase II study we assessed the efficacy and safety of TP300 in patients with gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) adenocarcinomas. METHODS: Eligible patients had metastatic or locally advanced gastric or Siewert Types II or III GOJ inoperable adenocarcinoma. Patients were chemotherapy naïve unless this had been administered in the perioperative setting. TP300 was administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks (a cycle) for up to 6 cycles at a starting dose of 8 mg/m2 with intra-patient escalation to 10 mg/m2 from cycle 2 in the absence of dose-limiting toxicity. Tumour responses (RECIST 1.1) were assessed every 6 weeks. Toxicity was recorded by NCI-CTCAE version 3.0. Using a modified two-stage Simon design (Stage I and II), a total of 43 patients were to be included providing there were 3 of 18 patients with objective response in Stage I of the study. RESULTS: In Stage I of the study 20 patients (14 males, 6 females), median age 67 years (range 40 - 82), performance status ECOG 0/1, with GC [14] or GOJ carcinoma [6] were enrolled. Of the 16 evaluable patients, 11 received the planned dose increase to 10 mg/m2 at cycle 2, 2 decreased to 6 mg/m2, and 3 continued on 8 mg/m2. There were no objective responses after 2 cycles of treatment. Twelve patients had stable disease for 1 - 5 months and 4 had progressive disease. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 4.1 months (CI [1.6 - 4.9]), median time to progression (TTP) was 2.9 months (CI [1.4 - 4.2]). Grade 3/4 toxicities (worst grade all cycles) included 7 patients (35 %) with neutropenia, 4 patients (20 %) with anaemia, 2 patients (10 %) with thrombocytopenia, and 3 patients (15 %) with fatigue. This study was terminated at the end of Stage I due to a lack of the required (3/18) responders. CONCLUSIONS: This study of TP300 showed good drug tolerability but it failed to demonstrate sufficient efficacy as measured by radiological response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU-CTR 2009-012097-12 2009-09-03.

An Association of Cancer Physicians' strategy for improving services and outcomes for cancer patients.

The Association of Cancer Physicians in the United Kingdom has developed a strategy to improve outcomes for cancer patients and identified the goals and commitments of the Association and its members.

Dose-Finding Quantitative 18F-FDG PET Imaging Study with the Oral Pan-AKT Inhibitor GSK2141795 in Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies.

UNLABELLED: AKT (a serine/threonine-specific protein kinase) regulates many cellular processes contributing to cytotoxic drug resistance. This study's primary objective examined the relationship between GSK2141795, an oral, pan-AKT inhibitor, and (18)F-FDG PET markers of glucose metabolism in tumor tissue to determine whether (18)F-FDG PET could be used to guide personalized dosing of GSK2141795. Biomarker analysis of biopsies was also undertaken. METHODS: Twelve patients were enrolled in 3 cohorts; all underwent dynamic (18)F-FDG PET scans and serial pharmacokinetic sampling at baseline, week 2, and week 4 with tumor biopsies before treatment and at week 4. Response was evaluated by RECIST v1.1 and Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup criteria. Biopsy samples were analyzed for mutations and protein expression. RESULTS: GSK2141795 did not significantly influence blood glucose levels. No dose-response relationship was observed between GSK2141795 pharmacokinetics and (18)F-FDG PET pharmacodynamic measures; however, an exposure-response relationship was seen between maximum drug concentrations and maximal decrease in (18)F-FDG uptake in the best-responding tumor. This relationship also held for pharmacokinetic parameters of exposure and 1,5-anhydroglucitol (a systemic measure of glucose metabolism). Phospho-AKT upregulation at week 4 in biopsies confirmed AKT inhibition by GSK2141795. Single-agent activity was observed with a clinical benefit rate of 27% (3/11) and 30% (3/10) CA125 response in the study's platinum-resistant ovarian patients. AKT pathway activation by PIK3CA/PIK3R1 mutation did not correlate with clinical activity, whereas RAS/RAF pathway mutations did segregate with resistance to AKT inhibition. CONCLUSION: GSK2141795 demonstrated an exposure-response relationship with decreased (18)F-FDG uptake and is active and tolerable. This study's design integrating (18)F-FDG PET, pharmacokinetics, and biomarker analyses demonstrates the potential for clinical development for personalized treatment.

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer- and venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality and morbidity in patients with unprovoked VTE.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a collective term for two conditions: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A proportion of patients with VTE have no underlying or immediately predisposing risk factors and the VTE is referred to as unprovoked. Unprovoked VTE can often be the first clinical manifestation of an underlying malignancy. This has raised the question of whether patients with an unprovoked VTE should be investigated for an underlying cancer. Treatment for VTE is different in cancer and non-cancer patients and a correct diagnosis would ensure that patients received the optimal treatment for VTE to prevent recurrence and further morbidity. Furthermore, an appropriate cancer diagnosis at an earlier, potentially curative stage could avoid the risk of cancer progression and thus lead to improvements in cancer-related mortality and morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in patients with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) is effective in reducing cancer and VTE-related mortality and morbidity and to establish which tests for cancer are most useful. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched January 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) (2014, Issue 12). Clinical trials databases were searched. The reference lists of relevant articles were also checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which patients with an unprovoked VTE were allocated to receive specific tests for cancer or clinically indicated tests only were eligible for inclusion in this review. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality and VTE-related mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Selection of the studies, quality assessment and data extraction were completed independently by two review authors. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies with a combined total of 396 patients met the inclusion criteria for this review. Both studies assessed the effect of testing for cancer versus clinically indicated tests only in patients with an unprovoked VTE. The quality of the evidence was moderate because although the studies were judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias, there was concern that the studies were small as reflected in the wide confidence intervals (CIs). Pooled analysis showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either a benefit or no benefit on cancer-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.67, P = 0.26). One study showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced in patients belonging to the extensive screening group than in patients of the control group (64% versus 20%, P = 0.047) and that tested patients were diagnosed earlier than untested patients (mean 1 month versus 11.6 months to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Standard deviations were not provided for time to diagnosis, so it was not possible to perform an independent statistical analysis on this association. Neither study measured all-cause mortality, VTE-related morbidity and mortality, side effects of anticoagulation, side effects of cancer tests or patient satisfaction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Testing for cancer in patients with idiopathic VTE leads to earlier diagnosis of cancer at an earlier stage of the disease. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in patients with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer and VTE-related morbidity and mortality. The results are imprecise and could be consistent with either harm or benefit. Further good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made.

A novel radiotracer to image glycogen metabolism in tumors by positron emission tomography.

The high rate of glucose uptake to fuel the bioenergetic and anabolic demands of proliferating cancer cells is well recognized and is exploited with (18)F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG-PET) to image tumors clinically. In contrast, enhanced glucose storage as glycogen (glycogenesis) in cancer is less well understood and the availability of a noninvasive method to image glycogen in vivo could provide important biologic insights. Here, we demonstrate that (18)F-N-(methyl-(2-fluoroethyl)-1H-[1,2,3]triazole-4-yl)glucosamine ((18)F-NFTG) annotates glycogenesis in cancer cells and tumors in vivo, measured by PET. Specificity of glycogen labeling was demonstrated by isolating (18)F-NFTG-associated glycogen and with stable knockdown of glycogen synthase 1, which inhibited (18)F-NFTG uptake, whereas oncogene (Rab25) activation-associated glycogen synthesis led to increased uptake. We further show that the rate of glycogenesis is cell-cycle regulated, enhanced during the nonproliferative state of cancer cells. We demonstrate that glycogen levels, (18)F-NFTG, but not (18)F-FDG uptake, increase proportionally with cell density and G1-G0 arrest, with potential application in the assessment of activation of oncogenic pathways related to glycogenesis and the detection of posttreatment tumor quiescence.

Management and survival of patients with FIGO high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: the U.K. experience, 1995-2010.

OBJECTIVE: To present survival rates of high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) (FIGO score > 7) patients treated between 1995 and 2010 in the U.K. Death due to GTN is largely confined to patients with high-risk disease. In the U.K. a national system ensures that all patients are treated at only 2 specialist centers: Charing Cross Hospital (CXH) in London and Weston Park Hospital (WPH) in Sheffield. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 196 high-risk patients were identified using the CXH and WPH GTN databases, based on the risk score at the time of presentation. RESULTS: In all, 140 CXH and 56 WPH high-risk patients were treated with EMA/CO (etoposide, methotrexate, actinomycin D alternating with cyclophosphamide and vincristine) and MEA (methotrexate, etoposide, actinomycin D), respectively. The FIGO score at presentation ranged from 6-23. Eight patients (7from WPH and 1 from CXH) who were treated prior to 2002 as high-risk based on their pre-2002 scoring scored a 6 using FIGO 2002. Two (1%) patients died within 4 weeks of starting treatment (early death), 12 (6%) relapsed, and 9 patients subsequently died due to drug resistance. The overall survival was 94%, with a median follow-up of 4.69 years. CONCLUSION: In the context of a national trophoblastic disease service, patients with high-risk GTN have an excellent prognosis with EMA/CO or MEA.

Intravenous versus oral dexamethasone premedication in preventing Paclitaxel infusion hypersensitivity reactions in gynecological malignancies.

OBJECTIVE: Dexamethasone premedication is required with paclitaxel to prevent infusion-related hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Both oral dexamethasone (PO-D; 20 mg 12 and 6 hours before paclitaxel) and intravenous dexamethasone (IV-D; 20 mg 30 minutes before paclitaxel) regimens are used. The optimal premedication regimen and management of patients after HSR are unclear. METHODS: Data on HSRs in women receiving paclitaxel, 175 mg/m², every 3 weeks at Imperial College Healthcare Trust from May 2011 to February 2012 were obtained from the pharmacy database. During this period, dexamethasone premedication for paclitaxel was administered orally (PO-D; 20 mg 12 and 6 hours before paclitaxel) from May to August 2011, then changed to intravenous dexamethasone (IV-D; 20 mg 30 minutes before paclitaxel) for 3 months, and then reverted to PO-D from November 2011. There were 93 and 55 patients who received PO-D and IV-D before paclitaxel, respectively. Hypersensitivity reaction rates were pooled with those from published studies for analysis. Gynecologic oncology centers in the UK and Canada were surveyed regarding premedication and post-HSR management. A Markov Monte-Carlo simulation model compared costs and benefits of different strategies. RESULTS: Hypersensitivity reaction rates with PO-D and IV-D were 5.4% (5/93) versus 14.5% (8/55) (P = 0.07) in Imperial College Healthcare Trust patients, and 6.8% (20/290) versus 14.1% (30/212) (P = 0.009) on pooled analysis with data from 2 additional studies (502 patients), respectively. However, IV-D is the most common premedication regimen used in the UK and Canada (48.5% and 34.2% of centers). Post-HSR paclitaxel on a desensitization protocol is a cost-effective alternative to discontinuing paclitaxel altogether. CONCLUSION: Oral dexamethasone seems to be superior to IV-D in preventing HSRs. Post-HSR patients should be considered for desensitization.

Discordance between cancer prevalence and training: a need for an increase in oncology education.

The impact of cancer on healthcare is increasing. Therefore, it is key that all doctors receive oncology training. This study surveyed UK undergraduate medical schools to determine the extent of oncology training provided by their curricula. Data on foundation year (FY) and core medical training (CMT) programmes were obtained and analysed for the proportion of oncology posts. Of the responding medical schools, five (36%) had a defined period dedicated to oncology (mean 2 weeks). Four foundation schools were in London, with 10,094 FY posts in 1699 programmes. Of these, 1.5% of post and 8.7% of programmes were in oncology. For CMT offered by the London deanery specialty schools, 11% of CMT post and 48% of programmes included oncology. Oncology was included in 11% posts and 48% programmes offered by the London Deanery specialty schools. Our results show that < 50% of junior doctors receive dedicated undergraduate or postgraduate oncology training. An increase in oncology training is therefore urgently required.

A study to evaluate the cause of bone demineralization in gynecological cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: An association between treatment for gynecological cancers and risk of osteoporosis has never been formally evaluated. Women treated for these cancers are now living longer than ever before, and prevention of treatment-induced morbidities is important. We aimed to distinguish, in gynecological cancer survivors, whether cancer therapy has additional detrimental effects on bone health above those attributable to hormone withdrawal. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan results from 105 women; 64 had undergone bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) followed by chemotherapy or radiotherapy for gynecological malignancies, and 41 age-matched women had undergone BSO for benign etiologies. All were premenopausal prior to surgery. RESULTS: The median age at DEXA scan for the cancer group was 42 years, and 66% had received hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) following their cancer treatment. For the benign group, the median age was 40 years, and 87% had received HRT. Thirty-nine percent of cancer survivors had abnormal DEXA scan results compared to 15% of the control group, with the majority demonstrating osteopenia. The mean lumbar spine and femoral neck bone mineral densities (BMDs) were significantly lower in cancer patients. A history of gynecological cancer treatment was associated with significantly lower BMD in a multivariate logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: Women treated for gynecological malignancies with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy have significantly lower BMDs than age-matched women who have undergone oophorectomy for noncancer indications. Prospective evaluation of BMD in gynecological cancer patients is recommended to facilitate interventions that will reduce the risk of subsequent fragility fractures.

Feasibility of trials in ovarian cancer by line of therapy and platinum sensitivity.

BACKGROUND: To rapidly evaluate the significant numbers of novel therapies entering clinical development requires maximization of clinical trial capacity. To enable this, we evaluated the profile of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in clinical practice, compared with those targeted in clinical trials. METHODS: Patients with EOC treated between March-September 2009 (cohort A, n = 115 patients) and January-July 2012 (cohort B, n = 109 patients), in the North West London Cancer Network with a catchment of 1.2 million, were identified. Patient characteristics were compared with phase II/III EOC studies identified using clinicaltrials.gov (85 trials; 54,603 patients). RESULTS: In cohort A, comparing the proportion of patients in clinical practice with those in trials, 40% versus 55% (P = 0.0006) were chemotherapy-naive, 20% versus 9% (P < 0.0001) had platinum-resistant disease (platinum-free interval, <6 months), 16.2% versus 39% (P < 0.0001) were receiving second line, and 43.8% versus 5% (P < 0.0001) third-line chemotherapy or greater, respectively. Ninety-eight percent of treated patients had a performance status of 2 or less. These results were validated in cohort B, U.K. National Cancer Research Network and U.S. Gynecologic Oncology Group trial databases. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide the data to enable EOC trial portfolios to be balanced to clinical practice and suggest an increase in emphasis on trials for patients with platinum-resistant disease and third-line chemotherapy or greater, to address an area of clinical need and maximize recruitment.