Search

Objectives: Exercise has been reported to alleviate disease as well as treatment impact in patients with lung cancer. Nevertheless, there is limited information available regarding the perception of lung cancer dedicated healthcare professionals' and their advice on exercise. Materials and Methods: An online survey exploring healthcare professionals' practice patterns, perceptions, barriers, and facilitators of exercise in patients with lung cancer was conducted within members of the EORTC Lung Cancer Group (LCG).Results: One hundred forty-one healthcare providers completed the survey, mainly medical and radiation oncologists. Overall, 63% of the study participants declared that they frequently assessed exercise level in their patients, and 43% of them reinforced the importance of exercise. However, only 10% referred patients to an exercise program or specialist. Although the majority of the respondents had a positive perception regarding the benefits and safety of exercise (even in patients with advanced disease and/or bone metastasis), two-thirds of clinicians reported not having adequate training about exercise counselling. Moreover, 53% reported to lack of knowledge of guidelines referring to exercise in patients with cancer. Several obstacles and facilitators to improve exercise promotion in lung cancer care were identified.Conclusion: Healthcare providers recognize the relevance and feasibility of exercise as part of cancer treatment intervention, but specific pathways to do the referral are frequently missing. Future structured and well-designed strategies and initiatives are needed to support an effective referral in order to implement exercise interventions routinely in clinical practice.

Background: Recent years have witnessed a considerable increase in clinical trials of new investigational agents for Fabry disease (FD). Several trials investigating different agents are currently in progress; however, lack of standardisation results in challenges to interpretation and comparison. To facilitate the standardisation of investigational programs, we have developed a common framework for future clinical trials in FD. Methods and findings: A broad consensus regarding clinical outcomes and ways to measure them was obtained via the Delphi methodology. 35 FD clinical experts from 4 continents, representing 3389 FD patients, participated in 3 rounds of Delphi procedure. The aim was to reach a consensus regarding clinical trial design, best treatment comparator, clinical outcomes, measurement of those clinical outcomes and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Consensus results of this initiative included: the selection of the adaptative clinical trial as the ideal study design and agalsidase beta as ideal comparator treatment due to its longstanding use in FD. Renal and cardiac outcomes, such as glomerular filtration rate, proteinuria and left ventricular mass index, were prioritised, whereas neurological outcomes including cerebrovascular and white matter lesions were dismissed as a primary or secondary outcome measure. Besides, there was a consensus regarding the importance of patient-related outcomes such as general quality of life, pain, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Also, unity about lysoGb3 and Gb3 tissue deposits as useful surrogate markers of the disease was obtained. The group recognised that cardiac T1 mapping still has potential but requires further development before its widespread introduction in clinical trials. Finally, patients with end-stage renal disease or renal transplant should be excluded unless a particular group for them is created inside the clinical trial. Conclusion: This consensus will help to shape the future of clinical trials in

Background: The importance of sex and gender as modulators of disease biology and treatment outcomes is well known in other disciplines of medicine, such as cardiology, but remains an undervalued issue in oncology. Considering the increasing evidence for their relevance, European Society for Medical Oncology decided to address this topic and organized a multidisciplinary workshop in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 30 November and 1 December 2018., Design: Twenty invited faculty members and 40 selected physicians/scientists participated. Relevant content was presented by faculty members on the basis of a literature review conducted by each speaker. Following a moderated consensus session, the final consensus statements are reported here., Results: Clinically relevant sex differences include tumour biology, immune system activity, body composition and drug disposition and effects. The main differences between male and female cells are sex chromosomes and the level of sexual hormones they are exposed to. They influence both local and systemic determinants of carcinogenesis. Their effect on carcinogenesis in non-reproductive organs is largely unknown. Recent evidence also suggests differences in tumour biology and molecular markers. Regarding body composition, the difference in metabolically active, fat-free body mass is one of the most prominent: in a man and a woman of equal weight and height, it accounts for 80% of the man's and 65% of the woman's body mass, and is not taken into account in body-surface area based dosing of chemotherapy., Conclusion: Sex differences in cancer biology and treatment deserve more attention and systematic investigation. Interventional clinical trials evaluating sex-specific dosing regimens are necessary to improve the balance between efficacy and toxicity for drugs with significant pharmacokinetic differences. Especially in diseases or disease subgroups with significant differences in epidemiology or outcomes, men and women with non-sex-related cancers should be considered as biologically distinct groups of patients, for whom specific treatment approaches merit consideration.

BACKGROUND: Higher serum urate levels are associated with an increased risk of diabetic kidney disease. Lowering of the serum urate level with allopurinol may slow the decrease in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in persons with type 1 diabetes and early-to-moderate diabetic kidney disease. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes, a serum urate level of at least 4.5 mg per deciliter, an estimated GFR of 40.0 to 99.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, and evidence of diabetic kidney disease to receive allopurinol or placebo. The primary outcome was the baseline-adjusted GFR, as measured with iohexol, after 3 years plus a 2-month washout period. Secondary outcomes included the decrease in the iohexol-based GFR per year and the urinary albumin excretion rate after washout. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 267 patients were assigned to receive allopurinol and 263 to receive placebo. The mean age was 51.1 years, the mean duration of diabetes 34.6 years, and the mean glycated hemoglobin level 8.2%. The mean baseline iohexol-based GFR was 68.7 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 in the allopurinol group and 67.3 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 in the placebo group. During the intervention period, the mean serum urate level decreased from 6.1 to 3.9 mg per deciliter with allopurinol and remained at 6.1 mg per deciliter with placebo. After washout, the between-group difference in the mean iohexol-based GFR was 0.001 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.9 to 1.9; P = 0.99). The mean decrease in the iohexol-based GFR was -3.0 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 per year with allopurinol and -2.5 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 per year with placebo (between-group difference, -0.6 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 per year; 95% CI, -1.5 to 0.4). The mean urinary albumin excretion rate after washout was 40% (95% CI, 0 to 80) higher with allopurinol than with placebo. The frequency of serious adverse events was simi