2018

Perplexing presentations in paediatric gastroenterology (2018)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
Pigott, Anna Jane; Saran, Shashwat; *Monaghan, Sean

Citation:
Paediatrics & Child Health; Nov 2018; vol. 28 (no. 11); p. 515-519

Abstract:
Abstract The nature of gastroenterological conditions often lead the clinician to rely on the history offered by the parents or carers to make a diagnosis and create a management plan. It is no coincidence that some of the most frequent presentations of fabricated or induced illness (FII) are with apparent gastroenterological complaints. This review details elements in the presenting history of vomiting, constipation, diarrhoea, blood in stool, faltering growth and abdominal pain that potentially make FII a more likely diagnosis, and proposes a management approach to a suspected presentation of FII.

Can Improving Working Partnerships with Primary Care Prevent Avoidable Emergency Admissions for Patients with Lung Cancer? (2018)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Conference abstract

Author(s):
Morley J.; Anderson V.; Beattie V.; Clayton K.; Denby D.; Eaton M.; Glover S.; Griffiths A.; Maddock N.; *McAdam J.; Morgan S.; Rees P.; Perkins T.; Phillips S.; Pugh B.; Roberts J.; Robinson W.; Rose P.

Citation:
Journal of Thoracic Oncology; Oct 2018; vol. 13 (no. 10)

Abstract:
Background: A literature search was performed. Primary Care Professionals (PCP'S) and National Lung Cancer Forum for Nurses (NLCFN) members were surveyed. Patients with a known diagnosis of lung cancer and their carers were interviewed following emergency care admissions. Lung Cancer Nurse Specialists (LCNS) from 15 NHS Trusts/Health Boards (HB) throughout the United Kingdom participated in data collection between May and August 2017. Method: A literature search (CINAHL, Embase, Proquest, PubMed, Medline) was performed. 120 PCP's from 7 CCG's/HB were surveyed to ask how and why they would contact a LCNS; any difficulties experienced contacting a LCNS and what support the LCNS could provide. 86 (72%) responded. 27 patients and their carers from 5 NHS/HB who were admitted as an emergency with a symptom related to their lung cancer were interviewed by a LCNS. A questionnaire was sent to all NLCFN members, asking "What do you do in your current practice to help prevent avoidable emergency hospital attendances?" Result: There was no published literature specific to the project aim. 46 (53%) PCP's knew how to contact the LCNS, 24 (28%) did not and 16 (19%) were unaware the service existed. PCP's reported that the LCNS could improve communication and provide education and specialist advice to help reduce avoidable emergency admissions. Following review by the LCNS, 25 (92%) of emergency admissions were deemed necessary. 2 (8%) patients contacted 999, with the rest seeking advice from the LCNS, Acute Oncology Service or GP prior to admission. 282 NLCFN members were surveyed with 59 respondents. Findings highlighted wide variations in practice, although a number of common themes were evident. Proactive communication with patients and HCP's and timely referrals and signposting were key to identifying and addressing potential problems as early as possible. Conclusion: This small data sample suggests that patients were admitted appropriately. The NLCFN survey highlighted the role of the LCNS in providing expert specialist knowledge and advice to patients and Health Care Professionals throughout the patients journey. PCP's expressed that they would like to know more about the role of the LCNS and would value better means of communication, advice and specialist support to improve patient care.

Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial (2018)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Randomised controlled trial

Author(s):
Parker, Christopher C; James, Nicholas D; Brawley, Christopher D; Clarke, Noel W; Hoyle, Alex P; Ali, Adnan; Ritchie, Alastair W S; Attard, Gerhardt; Chowdhury, Simon; Cross, William; Dearnaley, David P; Gillessen, Silke; Gilson, Clare; Jones, Robert J; Langley, Ruth E; Malik, Zafar I; Mason, Malcolm D; Matheson, David; Millman, Robin; Russell, J Martin; Thalmann, George N; Amos, Claire L; Alonzi, Roberto; Bahl, Amit; Birtle, Alison; Din, Omar; Douis, Hassan; Eswar, Chinnamani; Gale, Joanna; Gannon, Melissa R; Jonnada, Sai; Khaksar, Sara; Lester, Jason F; O'Sullivan, Joe M; Parikh, Omi A; Pedley, Ian D; Pudney, Delia M; Sheehan, Denise J; *Srihari, Narayanan Nair; Tran, Anna T H; Parmar, Mahesh K B; Sydes, Matthew R; Systemic Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Prostate cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) investigators

Citation:
Lancet, Volume 392, Issue 10162, 1–7 December 2018, Pages 2353-2366

Abstract:
BACKGROUND Based on previous findings, we hypothesised that radiotherapy to the prostate would improve overall survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer, and that the benefit would be greatest in patients with a low metastatic burden. We aimed to compare standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer, with and without radiotherapy. METHODS We did a randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 117 hospitals in Switzerland and the UK. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. We randomly allocated patients open label in a 1:1 ratio to standard of care (control group) or standard of care and radiotherapy (radiotherapy group). Randomisation was stratified by hospital, age at randomisation, nodal involvement, WHO performance status, planned androgen deprivation therapy, planned docetaxel use (from December, 2015), and regular aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. Standard of care was lifelong androgen deprivation therapy, with up front docetaxel permitted from December, 2015. Men allocated radiotherapy received either a daily (55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks) or weekly (36 Gy in six fractions over 6 weeks) schedule that was nominated before randomisation. The primary outcome was overall survival, measured as the number of deaths; this analysis had 90% power with a one-sided α of 2·5% for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·75. Secondary outcomes were failure-free survival, progression-free survival, metastatic progression-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and symptomatic local event-free survival. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, adjusted for stratification factors. The primary outcome analysis was by intention to treat. Two prespecified subgroup analyses tested the effects of prostate radiotherapy by baseline metastatic burden and radiotherapy schedule. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number CT00268476. FINDINGS Between Jan 22, 2013, and Sept 2, 2016, 2061 men underwent randomisation, 1029 were allocated the control and 1032 radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced, with a median age of 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median amount of prostate-specific antigen of 97 ng/mL (33-315). 367 (18%) patients received early docetaxel. 1082 (52%) participants nominated the daily radiotherapy schedule before randomisation and 979 (48%) the weekly schedule. 819 (40%) men had a low metastatic burden, 1120 (54%) had a high metastatic burden, and the metastatic burden was unknown for 122 (6%). Radiotherapy improved failure-free survival (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·68-0·84; p<0·0001) but not overall survival (0·92, 0·80-1·06; p=0·266). Radiotherapy was well tolerated, with 48 (5%) adverse events (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3-4) reported during radiotherapy and 37 (4%) after radiotherapy. The proportion reporting at least one severe adverse event (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or worse) was similar by treatment group in the safety population (398
[38%] with control and 380 [39%] with radiotherapy). INTERPRETATION Radiotherapy to the prostate did not improve overall survival for unselected patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Astellas, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Link to full-text [NHS OpenAthens account required]

Altmetrics

Steroid-induced diabetes and hyperglycaemia. Part 1: mechanisms and risks (2018)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
*Morris, David

Citation:
Diabetes & Primary Care; Aug 2018; vol. 20 (no. 4); p. 151-153

Abstract:
Glucocorticoids are prescribed widely in primary care for the treatment of a range of conditions. Courses of treatment are usually short, but around 22% of use continues for over 6 months. As well as their therapeutic actions, glucocorticoids have a powerful impact on glucose metabolism, contributing to hyperglycaemia and a predisposition to diabetes. In the first of two articles on steroid-induced hyperglycaemia and diabetes, the author outlines the scale of the problem and explains the mechanisms by which glucocorticoids induce hyperglycaemia. High-risk situations are identified, and the short- and long-term dangers summarised. The second article will appear in the next issue of this journal.