scholarly journals Pathogenic mutations and overall survival in 3,084 patients with cancer: the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group Precision Medicine Initiative

Oncotarget ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Elena Fountzilas ◽  
Vassiliki Kotoula ◽  
Georgia-Angeliki Koliou ◽  
Eleni Giannoulatou ◽  
Helen Gogas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Oncology Group ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Pathogenic Mutations ◽  
Precision Medicine Initiative

scholarly journals Phase II Evaluation of Sorafenib in Advanced and Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: Southwest Oncology Group Study S0420

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (20) ◽  
pp. 3330-3335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen K. Williamson ◽  
James Moon ◽  
Chao H. Huang ◽  
Perry P. Guaglianone ◽  
Michael LeBlanc ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Response Probability ◽  
Oncology Group ◽  
Southwest Oncology Group

Purpose We conducted a phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single-agent sorafenib in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). The primary end point was response probability (ie, confirmed complete and partial response [PR]). Patients and Methods Chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic, persistent, or recurrent SCCHN who received one induction or fewer or received an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen, who had adequate organ function, and who had a performance status ≤ 1 were eligible. Sorafenib was administered orally at 400 mg twice daily on a continuous basis in 28-day cycles. Responses were evaluated according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). Results Sorafenib was generally well tolerated. Of the 41 eligible patients assessed for adverse events, one experienced a grade 4 adverse event as a result of an asymptomatic pulmonary embolus. The most common grades 2 to 3 adverse events were fatigue, anorexia, stomatitis/oral pain, abdominal pain, hand-foot syndrome, weight loss, and hypertension. There was one confirmed PR and two unconfirmed PRs. The estimated confirmed response probability was 2% (95% CI, 0% to 13%). The estimated median progression-free survival was 4 months (95% CI, 2 to 4 months), and the estimated median overall survival was 9 months (95% CI, 7 to 14 months). Conclusion Sorafenib was well tolerated. Although response was poor, progression-free and overall survival times compare favorably with previous Southwest Oncology Group, phase II, single-agent trials.

scholarly journals A Survey of U.S Adults’ Opinions about Conduct of a Nationwide Precision Medicine Initiative® Cohort Study of Genes and Environment

PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e0160461 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Kaufman ◽  
Rebecca Baker ◽  
Lauren C. Milner ◽  
Stephanie Devaney ◽  
Kathy L. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Genes And Environment ◽  
Precision Medicine Initiative

Survival Advantage From Higher-Dose Radiation Therapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Treated on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Trials

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (14) ◽  
pp. 2740-2746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Valicenti ◽  
Jiandong Lu ◽  
Miljenko Pilepich ◽  
Sucha Asbell ◽  
David Grignon
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Radiation Dose ◽  
Radiation Therapy Oncology Group ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Disease Specific Survival ◽  
Oncology Group ◽  
Dose Radiation ◽  
Disease Specific

PURPOSE: We evaluated the effect of external-beam radiation therapy on disease-specific survival (death from causes related to prostate cancer) and overall survival in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: From 1975 to 1992, 1,465 men with clinically localized prostate cancer received radiation therapy on four Radiation Therapy Oncology Group phase III randomized trials and were pooled for this analysis. No one received androgen-deprivation therapy with his initial treatment. All original histology had central pathologic review for grading using the Gleason classification system. Total delivered radiation dose ranged from 60 to 78 Gy (median, 68.4 Gy). The median follow-up time was 8 years. RESULTS: A Cox regression model revealed that Gleason score was an independent predictor of disease-specific survival and overall survival. The 10-year disease-specific survival rates by Gleason score were as follows: score of 2 through 5, 85%; score of 6, 79%; score of 7, 62%; and score of 8 through 10, 43%. Stratifying outcome by this important prognostic factor revealed that higher radiation dose was a significant predictor for improved disease-specific survival and overall survival only for those patients whose cancers had Gleason scores of 8 through 10 (P < .05). After adjusting for clinical T stage, nodal status, and age, treating with a higher radiation dose was associated with a 29% lower relative risk of death from prostate cancer and 27% reduced mortality rate (P < .05). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that higher-dose radiation therapy can significantly reduce the risk of dying from prostate cancer in men with clinically localized disease. This survival benefit is restricted to men with poorly differentiated cancers.

scholarly journals Prognostic and clinicopathological significance of pretreatment mean platelet volume in cancer: a meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e037614
Author(s):  
Xin Chen ◽  
Jing Li ◽  
Xunlei Zhang ◽  
Yushan Liu ◽  
Jindong Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Mean Platelet Volume ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Clinicopathological Parameters ◽  
Platelet Volume ◽  
Poor Overall Survival ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Clinicopathological Significance

ObjectiveOur study aimed to evaluate the prognostic and clinicopathological significance of pretreatment mean platelet volume (MPV) on cancer by using meta-analysis of published studies.DesignMeta-analysis.Data sourcesRelevant studies available before 22 December 2019 were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE.Eligibility criteriaAll published studies that assessed the prognostic and clinicopathological significance of pretreatment MPV on cancer were included.Data extraction and synthesisStudies were identified and extracted by two reviewers independently. The HR/OR and its 95% CIs of survival outcomes and clinicopathological parameters were calculated.ResultsA total of 38 eligible studies (41 subsets) with 9894 patients with cancer were included in the final meta-analysis. MPV level was not significantly associated with both overall survival (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.14) and disease-free survival (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.73) of patients with cancer. Neither advanced nor mixed-stage tumour patients showed significant association between MPV and overall survival (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.94, HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09). However, high MPV had the strongest relationship with poor overall survival (HR 2.01; 95% CI 1.08 to 3.41) in gastric cancer, followed by pancreatic cancer (HR 1.54; 95% CI 1.31 to 1.82). Whereas in the subgroup using receiver operating characteristic curve method to define cut-off values, low MPV was significantly related to poor overall survival (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.95). In addition, MPV had no significant association with age (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.02), sex (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.09), depth of cancer invasion (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04) and tumour stage (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07).ConclusionsPretreatment MPV level is of no clearly prognostic significance in cancers and no significant association with clinicopathological parameters of patients with cancers.

scholarly journals Two Threats to Precision Medicine Equity

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supp) ◽  
pp. 629-640
Author(s):  
Dayna Bowen Matthew
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Research Effort ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Product ◽  
Great Promise ◽  
Sequencing Technologies ◽  
Legal Duty ◽  
Precision Medicine Initiative

In January 2015, President Barack Obama unveiled the “Precision Medicine Initiative,” a nationwide research effort to help bring an effective, preventive, and therapeutic approach to medicine. The purpose of the initiative is to bring a precise understanding of the genetic and environmental determi­nants of disease into clinical settings across the United States.1 The announcement was coupled with $216 million provided in the President’s proposed budget for a million-person national research cohort including public and private partnerships with academic medical centers, research­ers, foundations, privacy experts, medical ethicists, and medical product innovators. The Initiative promises to expand the use of precision medicine in cancer research and modernize regulatory approval processes for genome sequencing technologies. In response, Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in December 2016, authorizing a total of $1.5 billion over 10 years for the program.2 Although the Precision Medicine Initiative heralds great promise for the future of disease treatment and eradication, its implementation and development must be carefully guided to ensure that the millions of federal dollars expended will be spent equitably. This commentary discusses two key threats to the Precision Medicine Initia­tive’s ability to proceed in a manner consis­tent with the United States Constitutional requirement that the federal government shall not “deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.”3 In short, this com­mentary sounds two cautionary notes, in order to advance precision medicine equity. First, achieving precision medicine equity will require scientists and clinicians to fulfill their intellectual, moral, and indeed legal duty to work against abusive uses of preci­sion medicine science to advance distorted views of racial group variation.Precision medicine scientists must decisively denounce and distinguish this Initiative from the pseudo-science of eugenics – the im­moral and deadly pseudo-science that gave racist and nationalist ideologies what Troy Duster called a “halo of legitimacy” during the first half of the 20th century.4 Second, to combat the social threat to precision medicine, scientists must incorporate a comprehensive, ecological understanding of the fundamental social and environ­mental determinants of health outcomes in all research. Only then will the Precision Medicine Initiative live up to its potential to improve and indeed transform health care delivery for all patients, regardless of race, color, or national origin.Ethn Dis: 2019;29(Suppl 3):629-640; doi:10.18865/ed.29.S3.629

scholarly journals The Need for a Privacy Standard for Medical Devices That Transmit Protected Health Information Used in the Precision Medicine Initiative for Diabetes and Other Diseases

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Klonoff ◽  
W. Nicholson Price
Keyword(s):  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Sensor Data ◽  
Willingness To Participate ◽  
Genomic Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
Important Concern ◽  
Privacy Standard ◽  
Precision Medicine Initiative

Privacy is an important concern for the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) because success of this initiative will require the public to be willing to participate by contributing large amounts of genetic/genomic information and sensor data. This sensitive personal information is intended to be used only for specified research purposes. Public willingness to participate will depend on the public’s level of trust that their information will be protected and kept private. Medical devices may constantly provide information. Therefore, assuring privacy for device-generated information may be essential for broad participation in the PMI. Privacy standards for devices should be an important early step in the development of the PMI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document