http://ovariancancerandus.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
The aim of this study was to investigate all putative pathogenic variants tested for at the Division of Genetics, Hunter Area Pathology Service (HAPS), Pathology North, in Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, to establish whether previous variant classification is in accordance with that performed in the InSiGHT collaboration.
.....Health care spending per person in any given year is highly uneven. The concentration of health care utilization among small numbers of patients is well established. In the United States, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reported that 1% of users in 2008 accounted for 20% of expenditures and that 5% of users accounted for nearly 50% of expenditures.1 Data from Canada in 1972 and 1996, and again in 2009, showed that high-cost users (individuals with the highest 5% of costs) consumed 65% of combined hospital and nursing home costs, 64% of acute care days and 84% of combined acute and post-acute home care resources, respectively.2–4.....
= too late:
....The Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services recommended efficiencies be found in health care for high-cost users in Ontario.12 Finding efficiencies does not necessitate reducing necessary care or total health care spending. Appropriate and high-value care must not be reduced or compromised. Results from our study suggest that causes and solutions vary by age. Results from randomized controlled trials of integrated care programs have had success primarily among high-risk older adults.13–16 But integrated care models are expensive and need to be targeted carefully to people who have utilization patterns that would benefit from coordination and integration over time, such as frail older patients with multiple chronic medical and functional impairments.



![]()
|
Two major factors may contribute to the smaller number of PRO labeling instances in oncology drug development. First, oncology studies are significantly more likely to be small, single arm, and open label. Thus, these studies may not be perceived to be candidates for inclusion of PROs because of potential bias introduced by the open-label design.1 Second, given that most oncology drugs are marketed first in the United States, oncology trials are likely to go through various regulatory pathways designed to speed up the development and regulatory process in the United States.22 Pressed for time and given the challenges involved in integrating PROs in clinical trials, sponsors may be unlikely to prioritize PRO end points.23,2
In conclusion, the small number of PRO labeling instances granted by the FDA OHOP is a reflection of the difficulties faced by regulators and the industry to capture the patient’s voice in oncology drug development. However, recent developments within the FDA, and particularly within OHOP, to better capture PROs in oncology studies for the purpose of product labeling is encouraging. Sponsors should also make every effort to capture PROs in cancer drug development, and product labeling should not be the only goal for including PROs in drug development. PROs should be included in development programs to capture a comprehensive evaluation of the study participants’ experience, which can provide useful information on the impact of the new therapy for patients, regulators, health care providers, caregivers, and payers who need to choose between competing therapies.
Looking back, I realize that waiting for bad news is actually worse than receiving bad news.
Over the next several hours, a parade of medical professionals entered the room, each starting the conversation with “I’m sorry.” It seemed everyone was sorry, including the emergency department attending physician, the overnight admitting team, the medical intensive care team....
Data regarding ovarian leiomyosarcomas are scarce, only few cases have been reported so far in the literature (1, 2, 5).
Despite its limitations, this study demonstrates that the use of mTORi is associated with a significant risk of developing all- and high-grade metabolic complications. The risk of adverse metabolic events does not differ by type of Rapamycin analog, type of malignancy treated, or when monotherapy or concomitant therapy is utilized. Early detection and effective management of HGL, HTG, and HCE may allow for more extensive use of mTORi therapy, especially in cancer patients with pre-existing metabolic comorbidities, and should limit treatment related toxicity.
Cancer is becoming an ever-expanding presence in our society, and we would benefit from reconciling its ability to scare and isolate with its ubiquity and survivability. No longer the big ‘C’, cancer must be appraised realistically. An increasing focus and reflection on cancer in the mainstream media is a good way of destigmatising and desensitising issues among the general public, while also bringing comfort, hope, and perhaps, some useful advice to patients and survivors alike.
Compared to women without diabetes, women with diabetes had a 13% higher risk of developing invasive cancer. These women also face increased risk that ranges from 20% to nearly double the chances of being diagnosed with the following cancers: colon, liver, pancreas, endometrial and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Results also show that metformin use was associated with better survival in diabetes patients diagnosed with ovarian, colorectal and breast cancer.
The researchers say future studies are needed to further clarify the long-term impact of metformin on cancer risk and survival.
Consider a similar situation, the now-famous case of biotechnology company Myriad Genetics’ patents on the BRCA genes, which confer increased susceptibility for breast and ovarian cancer.
And in the future, we should seriously consider the importance of the patent system – almost by default – in shaping the moral dimensions of science and technology.
....There are several clinically important questions that will need to be addressed. If certain genomic drivers are seen at similar (or greater) frequencies in benign conditions compared with malignant diseases, are we therapeutically targeting the right genetic driver? Are there underlying intact tumor suppressors in benign conditions that prevent driver mutations from promoting tumorigenesis? Can we reliably use genomic alterations as a screening tool for early detection of cancer or as a marker for prevention or treatment response such as with liquid biopsies? Finally, the role of certain driver mutations in tumor initiation and premalignancy, rather than progression and malignancy, merits exploration.TP53 Mutations in Cancer
TP53 mutations can result in both gain of function and loss of function; the latter is mostly associated with a dominant-negative effect over wild-type p53 (139). Mutations are especially frequent in serous ovarian (95% of patients) and serous endometrial carcinomas (89%) (134). Furthermore, patients with germline TP53 mutations have Li-Fraumeni syndrome that is associated with a high incidence of cancer (140).
| 0–4 years | 5–9 years | 10–14 years | 15–19 years | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Males | 7 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 31 | ||||
| Females | 5.8 | 2.4 | 7.8 | 25.3 |
| Malignant Germ Cell Elements | Location |
|---|---|
| Seminoma | T |
| Dysgerminoma | O |
| Germinoma | E |
| Yolk sac tumor (endodermal sinus tumor) | E, O, T |
| Choriocarcinoma | E, O, T |
| Embryonal carcinoma | E, T |
| Mixed germ cell tumors | E, O, T |