The Impact of HIV on Non-AIDS defining gastrointestinal malignancies: A review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among people living with HIV (PLWH). Although gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are not associated with HIV, their incidence is rising among PLWH, and yet little is known about how HIV affects their presentation, treatment and outcomes. METHODS: We searched PubMed using "HIV" and "cancer", "esophageal cancer", "gastric cancer", "stomach cancer", "gastroesophageal cancer", "colorectal cancer", "colon cancer", or "rectal cancer". We included studies comparing an HIV-positive group (n ≥ 4) to an HIV-negative group, with respect to clinical presentation, treatment, or mortality of GI cancers. RESULTS: Of 18 articles that met inclusion criteria, 17 were retrospective, and 13 described patients in the United States. At diagnosis with colorectal, but not pancreatic, gastric, or esophageal cancer, PLWH were younger than patients who were HIV-negative. PLWH did not present with more advanced stage GI cancers than patients who were HIV-negative. Compared to HIV-negative controls, PLWH with colorectal cancer had a higher proportion of right-sided versus left-sided colon cancers and a higher proportion of rectal versus colon cancers. Among patients diagnosed with colorectal or pancreatic cancer, PLWH were less likely to receive cancer treatment than other patients; no studies examined the association of HIV status with treatment for esophageal or gastric cancer. PLWH with GI malignancies had higher all-cause mortality compared to patients who were HIV-negative, but evidence for cancer-specific mortality was limited and mixed. CONCLUSION: PLWH with GI malignancies were less likely to receive cancer treatment and had higher all-cause mortality than patients who were HIV-negative. Most of the studies focused on colorectal cancer; more studies are needed in pancreatic, gastric and esophageal cancer. Future studies should investigate the effects of HIV on cancer-specific mortality, especially among patients in low- and middle-income countries, including those with high HIV prevalence.

YouTube Videos as a Source of Information About Clinical Trials: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are essential to the advancement of cancer treatment but fewer than 5% of adult cancer patients enroll in a trial. A commonly cited barrier to participation is the lack of understanding about clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: Since the internet is a popular source of health-related information and YouTube is the second most visited website in the world, we examined the content of the top 115 YouTube videos about clinical trials to evaluate clinical trial information available through this medium. METHODS: YouTube videos posted prior to March 2017 were searched using selected keywords. A snowballing technique was used to identify videos wherein sequential screening of the autofill search results for each set of keywords was conducted. Video characteristics (eg, number of views and video length) were recorded. The content was broadly grouped as related to purpose, phases, design, safety and ethics, and participant considerations. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess associations between video type (cancer vs noncancer) and video characteristics and content. RESULTS: In total, 115 videos were reviewed. Of these, 46/115 (40.0%) were cancer clinical trials videos and 69/115 (60.0%) were noncancer/general clinical trial videos. Most videos were created by health care organizations/cancer centers (34/115, 29.6%), were oriented toward patients (67/115, 58.3%) and the general public (68/115, 59.1%), and were informational (79/115, 68.7%); altruism was a common theme (31/115, 27.0%). Compared with noncancer videos, cancer clinical trials videos more frequently used an affective communication style and mentioned the benefits of participation. Cancer clinical trial videos were also much more likely to raise the issue of costs associated with participation (odds ratio [OR] 5.93, 95% CI 1.15-29.46) and advise patients to communicate with their physician about cancer clinical trials (OR 4.94, 95% CI 1.39-17.56). CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, YouTube clinical trial videos provided information on many aspects of trials; however, individual videos tended to focus on selected topics with varying levels of detail. Cancer clinical trial videos were more emotional in style and positive in tone and provided information on the important topics of cost and communication. Patients are encouraged to verify and supplement YouTube video information in consultations with their health care professionals to obtain a full and accurate picture of cancer clinical trials to make an adequately informed decision about participation.