ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In Australia, the uptake of the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) appears low despite clinical practice guideline recommendations. The aim of this study was to describe the knowledge and attitudes of general practitioners (GPs) to SLNB. METHOD: GPs were recruited at an annual conference and a skin cancer skills workshop, and using GP professional communications. A mixed methods approach comprised a cross-sectional questionnaire and, for a subset of participants, semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Overall, 231 GPs completed the questionnaire, of whom 23 were interviewed. One-third (32%) described themselves as quite or very familiar with the guidelines, and two-thirds (68%) thought that SLNB had an important role in the management of patients with melanoma. Of GPs who would discuss SLNB with eligible patients, <40% correctly identified that SLNB is recommended for patients with an invasive melanoma >1 mm thick. DISCUSSION: GPs were generally supportive of SLNB. Familiarity with the guidelines was low, particularly regarding which patients should be considered for SLNB.
Subject(s)
General Practitioners/standards , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Melanoma/therapy , Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy/methods , Adult , Aged , Australia , Clinical Competence/standards , Clinical Competence/statistics & numerical data , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , General Practitioners/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Qualitative Research , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Bevacizumab improves survival for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with chemotherapy, but no proven predictive markers exist. The VEGF-A splice form, VEGF(165)b, anti-angiogenic in animal models, binds bevacizumab. We tested the hypothesis that prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) would occur only in patients with low relative VEGF(165)b levels treated with bevacizumab. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Blinded tumor samples from the phase III trial of FOLFOX4 ± bevacizumab were assessed for VEGF(165)b and VEGF(total) by immunohistochemistry and scored relative to normal tissue. A predictive index (PI) was derived from the ratio of VEGF(165)b:VEGF(total) for 44 samples from patients treated with FOLFOX + bevacizumab (arm A) and 53 samples from patients treated with FOLFOX4 (arm B), and PFS, and overall survival (OS) analyzed on the basis of PI relative to median ratio. RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis of PFS showed significantly better outcome for individuals with VEGF(165)b:VEGF(total) ratio scores below median treated with FOLFOX4 + bevacizumab compared with FOLFOX4 alone (median, 8.0 vs. 5.2 months; P < 0.02), but no effect of bevacizumab on PFS in patients with VEGF(165)b:VEGF(total) ratio >median (5.9 vs. 6.3 months). These findings held after adjustment for other clinical and demographic features. OS was increased in arm A (median, 13.6 months) compared with arm B (10.6 months) in the low VEGF(165)b group, but this did not reach statistical significance. There was no difference in the high VEGF(165)b:VEGF(total) group between FOLFOX + bevacizumab (10.8 months) and FOLFOX alone (11.3 months). CONCLUSION: Low VEGF(165)b:VEGF(total) ratio may be a predictive marker for bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer, and individuals with high relative levels may not benefit.
