Post-Discharge Survival Outcomes of Patients with Advanced Cancer from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Investigational Cancer Therapeutics (Phase I Trials) Inpatient Unit.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer who progress on standard therapy are potential candidates for phase I clinical trials. Due to their aggressive disease and complex comorbid conditions, these patients often need inpatient admission. This study assessed the outcomes of such patients after they were discharged to hospice care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with solid tumor malignancies who were discharged to hospice care from the inpatient service. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three patients were included in the study cohort. All patients had metastatic disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥3. The median survival after discharge to hospice from an inpatient setting was 16 days, with a survival rate of 5% at 3 months after discharge. The median survival after the last cancer treatment was 46 days, with survival of 17% at 3 months, and 5% at 6 months. Patients with lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) >618 IU/L had a median post-discharge survival of 11 days versus 20 days for patients with LDH ≤618 IU/L. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic cancer participating in phase I trials who have poor performance status and require inpatient admission have a very short survival after discharge to hospice. A high LDH level predicts an even shorter survival.

Analgesia for patients undergoing shockwave lithotripsy for urinary stones - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first line treatment modality for a significant proportion of patients with upper urinary tracts stones. Simple analgesics, opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are all suitable agents but the relative efficacy and tolerability of these agents is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of the different types of analgesics used for the control of pain during SWL for urinary stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and also hand-searched reference lists of relevant articles (Figure-1). Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) comparing the use of any opioid, simple analgesic or NSAID during SWL were included. These were compared with themselves, each-other or placebo. We included any route or form of administration (bolus, PCA). We excluded agents that were used for their sedative qualities. Data were extracted and assessed for quality independently by three reviewers. Meta-analyses have been performed where possible. When not possible, descriptive analyses of variables were performed. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and measurements on continuous scales are reported as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Overall, we included 9 RCTs (539 participants from 6 countries). Trial agents included 7 types of NSAIDs, 1 simple analgesic and 4 types of opioids. There were no significant differences in clinical efficacy or tolerability between a simple analgesic (paracetamol) and an NSAID (lornoxicam). When comparing the same simple analgesic with an opioid (tramadol), both agents provided safe and effective analgesia for the purpose of SWL with no significant differences. There were no significant differences in pain scores between NSAIDs or opioids in three studies. Adequate analgesia could be achieved more often for opioids than for NSAIDs (RR 0.358; 95% CI 043 to 0.77, P=0.0002) but consumed doses of rescue analgesia were similar between NSAIDs and opioids in two studies (P=0.58, >0.05). In terms of tolerability, there is no difference in post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) between the groups (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.17, P=0.55). One study compared outcomes between two types of NSAIDs (diclofenac versus dexketoprofen). There were no significant differences in any of our pre-defined outcomes measures. CONCLUSION: Simple analgesics, NSAIDs and opioids can all reduce the pain associated with shock wave lithotripsy to a level where the procedure is tolerated. Whilst there are no compelling differences in safety or efficacy of simple analgesics and NSAIDs, analgesia is described as adequate more often for opioids than NSAIDs.

Methylation-dependent regulation of hypoxia inducible factor-1 alpha gene expression by the transcription factor Kaiso.

Low oxygen tension (hypoxia) is a common characteristic of solid tumors and strongly correlates with poor prognosis and resistance to treatment. In response to hypoxia, cells initiate a cascade of transcriptional events regulated by the hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1) heterodimer. Since the oxygen-sensitive HIF-1α subunit is stabilized during hypoxia, it functions as the regulatory subunit of the protein. To date, while the mechanisms governing HIF-1α protein stabilization and function have been well studied, those governing HIF1A gene expression are not fully understood. However, recent studies have suggested that methylation of a HIF-1 binding site in the HIF1A promoter prevents its autoregulation. Here we report that the POZ-ZF transcription factor Kaiso modulates HIF1A gene expression by binding to the methylated HIF1A promoter in a region proximal to the autoregulatory HIF-1 binding site. Interestingly, Kaiso's regulation of HIF1A occurs primarily during hypoxia, which is consistent with the finding that Kaiso protein levels peak after 4 h of hypoxic incubation and return to normoxic levels after 24 h. Our data thus support a role for Kaiso in fine-tuning HIF1A gene expression after extended periods of hypoxia.

Laparoscopic treatment of isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis for managing chronic pelvic pain in women: study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial (ESPriT1).

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis (where endometrial-like tissue is found outside the uterus) affects ~ 176 million women worldwide and can lead to debilitating pelvic pain. Three subtypes of endometriosis exist, with ~ 80% of women having superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE). Endometriosis is diagnosed by laparoscopy and, if SPE is found, gynaecologists usually remove it surgically. However, many women get limited pain relief from surgical removal of SPE. We plan to undertake a future large trial where women who have only SPE found at initial laparoscopy are randomly allocated to have surgical removal (excision or ablation) of SPE, or not. Ultimately, we want to determine whether surgical removal improves overall symptoms and quality of life, or whether surgery is of no benefit, exacerbates symptoms, or even causes harm. The primary objective of this feasibility study is to determine what proportion of women with suspected SPE undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy will agree to randomisation. The secondary objectives are to determine if there are differences in key prognostic parameters between eligible women that agree to be randomised and those that decline; how many women having laparoscopy for investigation of chronic pelvic pain are eligible for the trial; the range of treatment effects and variability in outcomes and the most acceptable methods of recruitment, randomisation and assessment tools. METHODS: We will recruit up to 90 women with suspected SPE undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy over a 9-month recruitment period in four Scottish hospitals and randomise them 1:1 to either diagnostic laparoscopy alone (with a sham port to achieve blinding of the allocation) or surgical removal of endometriosis. Baseline characteristics, e.g. age, index of social deprivation, ethnicity, and intensity/duration of pain will be collected. Participants will be followed up by online questionnaires assessing pain, physical and emotional function at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. DISCUSSION: Recruitment to a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of surgery for endometriosis may be challenging because of preconceived ideas about treatment success amongst patients and clinicians. We have designed this study to assess feasibility of recruitment and to inform the design of our future definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincicalTrials.gov, NCT04081532 STATUS: Recruiting.

Underactivation of the adiponectin-adiponectin receptor 1 axis in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: implications for progression.

Energy-sensing pathways, normally coordinated by 5' AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), are dysregulated in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Obesity can accentuate the pre-existing pro-tumorigenic metabolic machinery in RCC cells through its associated obesogenic hormonal milieu, characterized by lower circulating levels of adiponectin. In RCC patients, low adiponectin levels associate clinically with more aggressive disease. We investigated the adiponectin signaling pathway in RCC, focusing on adiponectin receptor 1 (AdipoR1) and associated activation of AMPK. AdipoR1 protein in RCC and normal surrounding renal tissues was determined by Western blot analysis and immunohistochemistry. Anti-tumorigenic effects of adiponectin in RCC cells in vitro were investigated via VEGF and MMP ELISA and invasion assays. Using in vivo models of RCC, the effect of AdipoR1-knockdown (shRNA) on tumor latency, growth and dissemination were determined. AdipoR1 protein was significantly reduced in clear cell RCC specimens. Adiponectin treatment inhibited VEGF, MMP-2 and MMP-9 secretion and activity and invasive and migratory capacities of RCC cells. AMPKα1-knockdown (shRNA) attenuated adiponectin's effects. In cells stably expressing AdipoR1-specific shRNA, AMPK activation by adiponectin was significantly reduced compared to cells expressing control shRNA. In vivo, AdipoR1 knockdown increased the growth, dissemination and angiogenesis of RCC. These findings suggest that deficiencies in the entire adiponectin hormonal axis (the hormone and its receptor) result in underactivation of AMPK leading to increased angiogenic and invasive capacities of RCC. The established link between obesity and RCC can therefore be further explained by the adiponectin deficiency in obese individuals together with reduced AdipoR1 protein in RCC.

Analgesia for patients undergoing shockwave lithotripsy for urinary stones – a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT Background Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first line treatment modality for a significant proportion of patients with upper urinary tracts stones. Simple analgesics, opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are all suitable agents but the relative efficacy and tolerability of these agents is uncertain. Objectives To determine the efficacy of the different types of analgesics used for the control of pain during SWL for urinary stones. Materials and Methods We searched the Cochrane Renal Group’s Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and also hand-searched reference lists of relevant articles (Figure-1). Randomised controlled trials (RCT’s) comparing the use of any opioid, simple analgesic or NSAID during SWL were included. These were compared with themselves, each-other or placebo. We included any route or form of administration (bolus, PCA). We excluded agents that were used for their sedative qualities. Data were extracted and assessed for quality independently by three reviewers. Meta-analyses have been performed where possible. When not possible, descriptive analyses of variables were performed. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and measurements on continuous scales are reported as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals. Results Overall, we included 9 RCTs (539 participants from 6 countries). Trial agents included 7 types of NSAIDs, 1 simple analgesic and 4 types of opioids. There were no significant differences in clinical efficacy or tolerability between a simple analgesic (paracetamol) and an NSAID (lornoxicam). When comparing the same simple analgesic with an opioid (tramadol), both agents provided safe and effective analgesia for the purpose of SWL with no significant differences. There were no significant differences in pain scores between NSAIDs or opioids in three studies. Adequate analgesia could be achieved more often for opioids than for NSAIDs (RR 0.358; 95% CI 043 to 0.77, P=0.0002) but consumed doses of rescue analgesia were similar between NSAIDs and opioids in two studies (P=0.58, >0.05). In terms of tolerability, there is no difference in post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) between the groups (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.17, P=0.55). One study compared outcomes between two types of NSAIDs (diclofenac versus dexketoprofen). There were no significant differences in any of our pre-defined outcomes measures. Conclusion Simple analgesics, NSAIDs and opioids can all reduce the pain associated with shock wave lithotripsy to a level where the procedure is tolerated. Whilst there are no compelling differences in safety or efficacy of simple analgesics and NSAIDs, analgesia is described as adequate more often for opioids than NSAIDs.