Treatment of Anal High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions to Prevent Anal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of anal cancer is substantially higher among persons living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) than in the general population. Similar to cervical cancer, anal cancer is preceded by high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). Treatment for cervical HSIL reduces progression to cervical cancer; however, data from prospective studies of treatment for anal HSIL to prevent anal cancer are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3 trial at 25 U.S. sites. Persons living with HIV who were 35 years of age or older and who had biopsy-proven anal HSIL were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive either HSIL treatment or active monitoring without treatment. Treatment included office-based ablative procedures, ablation or excision under anesthesia, or the administration of topical fluorouracil or imiquimod. The primary outcome was progression to anal cancer in a time-to-event analysis. Participants in the treatment group were treated until HSIL was completely resolved. All the participants underwent high-resolution anoscopy at least every 6 months; biopsy was also performed for suspected ongoing HSIL in the treatment group, annually in the active-monitoring group, or any time there was concern for cancer. RESULTS: Of 4459 participants who underwent randomization, 4446 (99.7%) were included in the analysis of the time to progression to cancer. With a median follow-up of 25.8 months, 9 cases were diagnosed in the treatment group (173 per 100,000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 90 to 332) and 21 cases in the active-monitoring group (402 per 100,000 person-years; 95% CI, 262 to 616). The rate of progression to anal cancer was lower in the treatment group than in the active-monitoring group by 57% (95% CI, 6 to 80; P = 0.03 by log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with biopsy-proven anal HSIL, the risk of anal cancer was significantly lower with treatment for anal HSIL than with active monitoring. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02135419.).

A multicentre evaluation of an opioid patient-provider agreement.

The role of the patient-provider agreement (PPA) is to set forth respective roles and responsibilities for opioid therapy with the goal of improving outcomes, reducing risks, and improving patient education. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Safe Use Initiative Opioid PPA Working Group convened to develop a PPA and test it for acceptability as an educational and shared decision-making tool in opioid therapy. This multicentre study evaluated the utility of the PPA, how readily patients understood it, its ability to educate patients in an unbiased way about opioid treatment and the feasibility of incorporating a PPA in clinical practice. A total of 117 patients and 14 providers at urban centres were included (mean patient age: 56 years) with 85% of patients treated for pain for >3 months. Most patients reported the PPA to be 'somewhat helpful' or 'very helpful' in deciding a course of treatment (96%) and 'easy to understand' (97%). Both patients and prescribers (89% and 92%, respectively) found the PPA was neutral in terms of presenting opioid therapy. Most centres found the PPA could be administered in ≤10 min and 72% of prescribers said this PPA could be readily incorporated into their practice. This PPA was perceived by both patients and prescribers as helpful in deciding a course of treatment and unbiased in terms of presentation of the risks and benefits of opioid therapy.

Opioid, NSAID, and OTC Analgesic Medications for Dental Procedures: PEARL Network Findings.

OBJECTIVE: Dental treatment is often categorized as a moderately or severely painful experience; however, no clinical data reported by the patient and dentist currently exists to support this degree of pain. This has contributed possibly to the overprescribing of analgesics, in particular the opioid class of medications. The primary objective of the study was to document the dentists' postprocedural prescriptions and recommendations for analgesic medications and their effectiveness for a 5-day period. Medications prescribed or recommended in the patient-reported outcomes included: opioid, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics. Met hods : This study used both dentist and patient responses to evaluate the use of opioid, NSAID, and OTC recommended or prescribed analgesics following one of seven classes of dental procedures encompassing over 22 specific coded procedures thought to elicit pain. The patient-centered study included a 5-day postprocedural patient follow-up assessment of the medication's effectiveness in relieving pain. RESULTS: Baseline questionnaires were completed by 2765 (99.9%) of 2767 eligible patients, and 2381 (86%) patients responded to the Day 5 follow-up questionnaires. CONCLUSION: The data suggest NSAIDs, both OTC and prescribed dosages, may be a sufficient analgesic to treat most postoperative dental pain. Clinical judgment as to the use of an opioid should include the physiological principles related to the pharmacology of pain and inflammation and may include a central effect. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02929602.

A pilot study of dentists' assessment of caries detection and staging systems applied to early caries: PEARL Network findings.

The International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS II) and the Caries Classification System (CCS) are caries stage description systems proposed for adoption into clinical practice. This pilot study investigated clinicians' training in and use of these systems for detection of early caries and recommendations for individual tooth treatment. Patient participants (N = 8) with a range of noncavitated lesions (CCS ranks 2 and 4 and ICDAS II ranks 2-4) identified by a team of calibrated examiners were recruited from the New York University College of Dentistry clinic. Eighteen dentists-8 from the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network and 10 recruited from the Academy of General Dentistry-were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 5 dentists used only visual-tactile (VT) examination, 7 were trained in the ICDAS II, and 6 were trained in the CCS. Lesion stage for each tooth was determined by the ICDAS II and CCS groups, and recommended treatment was decided by all groups. Teeth were assessed both with and without radiographs. Caries was detected in 92.7% (95% CI, 88%-96%) of the teeth by dentists with CCS training, 88.8% (95% CI, 84%-92%) of the teeth by those with ICDAS II training, and 62.3% (95% CI, 55%-69%) of teeth by the VT group. Web-based training was acceptable to all dentists in the CCS group (6 of 6) but fewer of the dentists in the ICDAS II group (5 of 7). The modified CCS translated clinically to more accurate caries detection, particularly compared to detection by untrained dentists (VT group). Moreover, the CCS was more accepted than was the ICDAS II, but dentists in both groups were open to the application of these systems. Agreement on caries staging requires additional training prior to a larger validation study.

Person-centric clinical trials: defining the N-of-1 clinical trial utilizing a practice-based translational network.

A person-centric clinical trial is inclusive of both the investigator and the person and as such represents point-of-use data generated at the practice level and encompasses both health and disease. Raising the clinical encounter to a research encounter and providing an infrastructure to support a level of quality assurance creates a synergy for efficiency for healthcare delivery. The interface of translational studies and clinical research poses an opportunity, whereby person-centricity can support transparency, facilitate informed consent, improve safety, enhance recruitment and compliance, improve dissemination of results, implement change and help close the translational gap. The model represents robust clinical data from persons of record allowing for improved interpretation of drug/device side-effects and for regulatory reviewers to expedite the approval process.

Practice-Based Research Network Infrastructure Design for Institutional Review Board Risk Assessment and Generalizability of Clinical Results.

Data from clinical studies generated by Practice Based Research Networks should be generalizable to the profession. For nationally representative data a broad recruitment of practitioners may pose added risks to IRB's. Infrastructure must assure data integrity while minimizing risk to assure that the clinical results are generalizable. The PEARL Network is an interdisciplinary dental/medical PBRN conducting a broad range of clinical studies. The infrastructure is designed to support the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and create a data audit trail to ensure data integrity for generalizability. As the PBRN concept becomes of greater interest, membership may expand beyond the local community, and the issue of geography versus risk management becomes of concern to the IRB. The PEARL Network describes how it resolves many of the issues related to recruiting on a National basis while maintaining study compliance to ensure patient safety and minimize risk to the IRB.

Practice based research networks impacting periodontal care: PEARL Initiative.

In 2005, the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research /National Institutes of Health funded the largest initiative to date to affect change in the delivery of oral care. This commentary provides the background for the first study related to periodontics in a Practice Based Research Network (PBRN). It was conducted in the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research & Learning (PEARL) Network. The PEARL Network is headquartered at New York University College of Dentistry. The basic tenet of the PBRN initiative is to engage clinicians to participate in clinical studies, where they will be more likely to accept the results and to incorporate the findings into their practices. This process may reduce the translational gap that exists between new findings and the time it takes for them to be incorporated into clinical practice. The cornerstone of the PBRN studies is to conduct comparative effectiveness research studies to disseminate findings to the profession and improve care. This is particularly important because the majority of dentists practice independently. Having practitioners generate clinical data allows them to contribute in the process of knowledge development and incorporate the results in their practice to assist in closing the translational gap. With the advent of electronic health systems on the horizon, dentistry may be brought into the mainstream health care paradigm and the PBRN concept can serve as the skeletal framework for advancing the profession provided there is consensus on the terminology used.

Periodontal diagnosis affected by variation in terminology.

BACKGROUND: The randomized case presentation (RCP) study is designed to assess the degree of diagnostic accuracy for described periodontal cases. This is to lay the basis for practitioner calibration in the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network for future clinical studies. METHODS: The RCP consisted of 10 case scenarios ranging from periodontal health to gingivitis and mild, moderate, and severe periodontitis. Respondents were asked to diagnose the described cases. Survey diagnoses were compared to two existing classifications of periodontal disease status. The RCP was administered via a proprietary electronic data capture system maintained by the PEARL Data Coordinating Center. Standard analytic techniques, including frequency counts and cross-tabulations, were used for categorical data with mean and standard deviation and median values reported for continuous data elements. RESULTS: Demonstrable variations in periodontal assessment for health, gingivitis, and mild, moderate, and severe periodontitis were found among the 130 PEARL general practitioners who participated in the RCP survey. The highest agreement for diagnosis among dentists was for severe periodontitis (88%) and the lowest for gingivitis (55%). The highest percentage of variation was found in cases with health and gingivitis. CONCLUSIONS: There was variation among PEARL practitioners in periodontal diagnosis that may affect treatment outcomes. Our findings add clinical support to recent publications suggesting a need for standardization of terminology in periodontitis diagnosis.

Advantages of the dental practice-based research network initiative and its role in dental education.

Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) provide a novel venue in which providers can increase their knowledge base and improve delivery of care through participation in clinical studies. This article describes some aspects of our experience with a National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research-supported PBRN and discusses the role it can play in dental education. PBRNs create a structured pathway for providers to advance their professional development by participating in the process of collecting data through clinical research. This process allows practitioners to contribute to the goals of evidence-based dentistry by helping to provide a foundation of evidence on which to base clinical decisions as opposed to relying on anecdotal evidence. PBRNs strengthen the professional knowledge base by applying the principles of good clinical practice, creating a resource for future dental faculty, training practitioners on best practices, and increasing the responsibility, accountability, and scope of care. PBRNs can be the future pivotal instruments of change in dental education, the use of electronic health record systems, diagnostic codes, and the role of comparative effectiveness research, which can create an unprecedented opportunity for the dental profession to advance and be integrated into the health care system.

gp100 peptide vaccine and interleukin-2 in patients with advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Stimulating an immune response against cancer with the use of vaccines remains a challenge. We hypothesized that combining a melanoma vaccine with interleukin-2, an immune activating agent, could improve outcomes. In a previous phase 2 study, patients with metastatic melanoma receiving high-dose interleukin-2 plus the gp100:209-217(210M) peptide vaccine had a higher rate of response than the rate that is expected among patients who are treated with interleukin-2 alone. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, phase 3 trial involving 185 patients at 21 centers. Eligibility criteria included stage IV or locally advanced stage III cutaneous melanoma, expression of HLA*A0201, an absence of brain metastases, and suitability for high-dose interleukin-2 therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive interleukin-2 alone (720,000 IU per kilogram of body weight per dose) or gp100:209-217(210M) plus incomplete Freund's adjuvant (Montanide ISA-51) once per cycle, followed by interleukin-2. The primary end point was clinical response. Secondary end points included toxic effects and progression-free survival. RESULTS: The treatment groups were well balanced with respect to baseline characteristics and received a similar amount of interleukin-2 per cycle. The toxic effects were consistent with those expected with interleukin-2 therapy. The vaccine-interleukin-2 group, as compared with the interleukin-2-only group, had a significant improvement in centrally verified overall clinical response (16% vs. 6%, P=0.03), as well as longer progression-free survival (2.2 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 3.9 vs. 1.6 months; 95% CI, 1.5 to 1.8; P=0.008). The median overall survival was also longer in the vaccine-interleukin-2 group than in the interleukin-2-only group (17.8 months; 95% CI, 11.9 to 25.8 vs. 11.1 months; 95% CI, 8.7 to 16.3; P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced melanoma, the response rate was higher and progression-free survival longer with vaccine and interleukin-2 than with interleukin-2 alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00019682.).

Attitudes and expectations of treating deep caries: a PEARL Network survey.

A survey was conducted within a practice-based dental research network to determine dentists' treatment methods for deep caries lesions and whether the dentists' intended treatment approaches were influenced by their expectations for pulpal exposure. The survey further examined how general dentistry practices have adopted scientific evidence of caries classification, excavation, and capping techniques. Dentists were queried regarding liner use, hypersensitivity considerations, point of endodontic therapy, and anticipated vitality outcomes from Class I resin-based composite restorations over three to five years. Of the 93 practitioner-investigators who were in the network at the time of the survey, 85 (92%) completed it. Of those who responded, 62% said that they would remove all caries when presented with a case in which one would expect pulpal exposure, while 18% would partially remove caries and 21% would initiate endodontic treatment; 17% reported that they would utilize an antimicrobial agent before a liner or bonding agent during restoration. The outcomes projected for tooth vitality over the next three to five years were equivalent regardless of the caries removal approach or the use of a liner/bonding agent. When beginning the preparation, the method of treatment did not change if a pulpal exposure was anticipated, other than a threefold increase in immediate endodontic treatment. When dentists were given a direct pulp cap scenario, the projected use of a liner/bonding agent changed little while the vitality projections decreased. Overall survey findings indicate that approximately 20% of network dentists favor partial caries removal techniques and that deep caries treatment outcome studies are warranted, given the various treatments employed.

Phase II multicenter trial of bevacizumab plus fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with advanced refractory colorectal cancer: an NCI Treatment Referral Center Trial TRC-0301.

PURPOSE: To provide bevacizumab (BV) -based therapy to patients with advanced colorectal cancers (CRC) who had exhausted standard chemotherapy options, and to evaluate the response to BV combined with fluorouracil (FU) and leucovorin (LV) in this patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, single-arm treatment trial conducted under the National Cancer Institute Treatment Referral Center network nationwide. Patients were treated with BV 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks combined with FU/LV; FU was administered by bolus or continuous infusion. Eligibility criteria included advanced CRC that had progressed after irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2, and absence of thromboembolism. The primary end point was objective response rate (RR) in the first 100 assessable patients. All patients received follow-up for toxicity and survival. RESULTS: Due to rapid accrual, a total of 350 patients were enrolled at 32 participating sites nationwide by October 2003. In the initially planned cohort of 100 assessable patients, the objective RR was 4% (95% CI, 1.1% to 9.9%) by investigators' assessment and 1% (95% CI, 0% to 5.5%) based on independent review; median progression-free survival was 3.5 months and median overall survival was 9.0 months. The safety profile was similar to prior BV trials in CRC. Grade 3 to 4 hemorrhage occurred in 5% of patients, including 3.8% with bleeding in the GI tract. Other adverse events such as hypertension, thrombosis, and bowel perforation were also observed at rates consistent with other studies. CONCLUSION: For patients with advanced CRC that had progressed after both irinotecan-based and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimens, the combination of BV and FU/LV was associated with rare objective responses.