Multifocal MRI-Directed Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB) in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT)

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Conventionally fractionated MRI-directed radiation boosts in the treatment of prostate cancer have been shown to improve oncologic outcomes in the FLAME trial. Moreover, recent data has demonstrated local recurrences following SBRT predominately occur at the site of the dominant intraprostatic lesion. Modern protocols including HYPO-Flame have demonstrated early safety profiles of a 5-fraction intraprostatic SBRT boost. This study aims to determine if multifocal SIB treatment is associated with additional acute toxicity relative to unifocal boosts.

MATERIALS/METHODS

In this single-center retrospective analysis, we identified all patients who underwent SBRT with a SIB using a robotic radiosurgical platform. Fiducial markers and hydrogel rectal spacers were placed prior to simulation. All patients underwent treatment planning MRI with documented PI-RADS 3-5 lesions targeted for SIB delineation. Patients were treated to a prescription dose of 3500 to 3625 cGy in 5 fractions, or 1800 to 2100 cGy in 3 fractions in concert with pelvic nodal irradiation. The SIB prescription dose ranged from 4000 to 4200 cGy and 2100 to 2300 cGy for the 5- and 3-fraction regimens, respectively. Acute toxicity was defined as that occurring within 60 days of treatment completion using the CTCAE v. 5.0.

RESULTS

A total of 35 patients with a median age of 70 underwent SBRT SIB from 5/2022 to 1/2023 with the following risk distribution: low (3%), intermediate (66%), high (28%), and regional (3%). Most patients received rectal spacers (77%) and neoadjuvant ADT (71%) prior to treatment. The majority of patients underwent 5-fraction SBRT (74%) with the remainder receiving SBRT as a boost. Approximately half (51%) of the cohort was treated with a multifocal SIB to multiple PI-RADS lesions. Mean SIB dose was 4105 and 2377 cGy in 5- and 3-fractions, respectively. With a median follow up of 33 days, we identified no grade 3+ acute toxicities. Crude rate of grade 2 GU and GI toxicity was 51% and 6%, respectively, on par with prior unifocal publications. There was no difference in median SIB volume between uni- and multifocal boosts (1.47 vs. 1.72 cc, p = 0.57), nor was SIB volume associated with an increased risk of grade 2 GU toxicity (p = 0.28). Dominant lesion location was not associated with increased grade 2 GU toxicity (p = 0.29). No grade 2 GI toxicities occurred in the multifocal group. Finally, univariate analysis did not identify multifocal boost as a risk of grade 2 GU toxicity (35%) relative to unifocal (67%) boost (p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

In the first analysis of its kind in the literature, we demonstrate that multifocal MRI-directed intraprostatic SBRT SIB yields no acute high-grade toxicity and is not associated with a higher risk of low-grade GU and GI toxicity relative to unifocal boost. Longer follow is necessary to determine risk of late toxicity and oncologic efficacy.

Robotic SBRT in Prostate Cancer Patients Younger Than 50 Years Old-Updated Results

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) is a standard therapeutic option for men with prostate adenocarcinoma. The median age of prostate cancer in the US is 66 but patients as young as 35 have been reported. Many younger patients will have surgery rather than SBRT for localized prostate cancer but some will be treated with SBRT. There is a paucity of data on the outcomes of this younger subset. This study reports updated outcomes on patients younger than 50 treated with SBRT at a single institution and compares outcomes to older patients.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Between April 2006 and December 2022, 6,130 patients with prostate cancer were treated with inhomogeneous-dosed SBRT using a robotic linear accelerator. Information was available for 4,143 patients. 3568 (86.12%) of patients were treated with a median dose of 3500cGY (3500-3625) delivered over 5 consecutive fractions prescribed to the 83-85% isodose line, and the remaining 575 (13.88%) other patients receiving a median dose of 4500cGY (4500-5400) to the pelvis in conventional fractionation followed by a 3 fraction SBRT boost of 2100 cGY (1950-2100) over 3 consecutive fractions. Androgen deprivation Therapy (ADT) was prescribed in 1,035 (24.98%) of these cases. The mean age was 67.4 years old. 48 patients were younger than 50 years old (mean age 46.6). 4,095 patients were 50 or older. Patients were divided into prognostic D'Amico risk groups with 43.75%, 50.00%, 6.25% of patients falling in the low, intermediate, and high-risk stratifications in the younger cohort and 23.88%, 57.05%, 19.07% in the older cohort respectively. Pretreatment PSA was 1.72 - 43.2 (median: 5.4) in the younger group and 0.3 - 661 (median: 6.5) in the older group. In the younger group, Gleason scores were 6 in 47.92%, 7 in 47.92%, and 8-10 in 4.16%. 44 younger patients were treated with SBRT alone. 4 patients also received supplemental external beam radiation (median dose 4500cGY) and 5 patients (10.42%) received Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) as part of their treatment regimen. In the older group, Gleason scores were 6 in 29.84%, 7 in 54.14%, and 8-10 in 16.02%. 3522 were treated with SBRT alone. 573 patients also received supplemental external beam radiation (median dose 4500cGY) and 1030 patients (25.15%) received Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) as part of their treatment.

RESULTS

At 75 months the 6-year biochemical relapse free survival was 95.83% in younger patients compared to 98.41% in older patients using the Phoenix definition of biochemical failure. The 6-year median post treatment PSA was 0.3 in younger patients and 0.2 in the older patients. There were no significant differences in the risk stratification between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This represents the largest series evaluating outcomes in very young patients treated with definitive SBRT for prostate cancer. With updated 6-year follow up, SBRT remains an effective treatment for this younger subset of patients. Continued follow up will be required to see if these results remain durable.

The effect of distinct dietary interventions on proximal aortic stiffness; the DIRECT-PLUS randomized controlled trial

Background

Proximal aortic stiffness (PAS) reflects arterial aging and is strongly associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Plant-rich, specifically Mediterranean-style, diets are associated with reduced cardiovascular risk. The effect of dietary interventions on PAS remains unclear.

Methods

We randomized participants with abdominal-obesity/dyslipidemia to healthy-dietary-guidelines (HDG), Mediterranean, or green-Mediterranean diets combined with physical activity (PA). Both Mediterranean diets were similarly hypocaloric and included 28g/day walnuts. The green-Mediterranean group also consumed green tea (3–4 cups/day) and a Wolffia-globosa (Mankai) plant green-shake. PAS was estimated based on aortic-arch pulse-wave-velocity using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at baseline and after 18-months.

Results

Among 294 participants [age=51±10.6 years, body-mass-index 31.3±4.0 kg/m2, PAS = 6.1±2.7 m/sec, retention rate = 89.8%], 281 had valid PAS measurements. Higher PAS was mostly associated with aging, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and increased visceral adiposity (p<0.05 for all). After 18-months of intervention, all diet groups significantly reduced their PAS ([HDG: −4.8% (interquartile-range [IQR]: −22.3 to 8.7); Mediterranean: −7.3%, IQR (−20.8 to 11.9); green-Mediterranean: −14.0%, IQR (−27.0 to 2.4); p<0.05 for within-groups changes).

Green-Mediterranean dieters had significantly greater PAS reduction than HDG dieters (p=0.007), also after controlling for age, sex, baseline-PAS, and Δweight. Further adjustment to baseline dyslipidemia, diabetes, and hypertension also revealed significant differences in PAS reduction between green-Mediterranean and Mediterranean groups (p=0.027). Specifically, greater green tea consumption was associated with greater PAS regression (p=0.04). ΔPAS was significantly associated with improvements in Δlow-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and Δtotal-cholesterol (p<0.05, multivariable models). All lifestyle intervention showed aortic age regression as compared to the expected (1.8±0.14 years vs.: HDG: −2.9±7.5 years; MED: −4.1±7.4 years; green-MED:-4.9±8.0 years; p<0.001).

Conclusions

Higher PAS is strongly related to aging and is associated with traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Lifestyle intervention promotes PAS reduction. Green-Mediterranean diet may be associated with more remarkable aortic rejuvenation.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation); the Israel Ministry of Health

Communicating about Sexual Problems

Sexual side effects of cancer treatment are common and, unfortunately, often not discussed with patients and their partner. This may be due to personal factors of the health care provider, fear of offending the patient or lack of knowledge, time constraints, and perception of the importance to the patient based on age and severity of the cancer. Despite the barriers to communication about a sensitive topic, oncology care providers are well situated to initiate the conversation. This article will identify key issues related to communication about sexuality by oncology care providers with individuals with the most common kinds of cancer. Models for assessing sexuality in these patients are presented to facilitate communication about this important aspect of quality of life that is impacted by cancer treatment.

OP0229 THE GROUP FOR RESEARCH AND ASSESSMENT OF PSORIASIS AND PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (GRAPPA) TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 2021

Background:

Since the 2015 GRAPPA treatment recommendations were published, therapeutic options and management strategies for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have advanced considerably.

Objectives:

The goal of the GRAPPA recommendations update is to develop high quality, evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of PsA, including related conditions and comorbidities.

Methods:

GRAPPA rheumatologists, dermatologists and patient research partners (PRPs) updated overarching principles for the management of adults with PsA by consensus. Principles considering use of biosimilars and tapering/discontinuing of therapy were added to this update. Systematic literature searches based on data publicly available from three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL) were conducted from the end of the previous recommendations’ searches through August 2020. Additional abstract searches were performed for conference presentations in 2017-2020. Searches covered PsA treatments (peripheral arthritis, axial arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin, and nail disease). Additional searches were performed for related conditions (uveitis and IBD) and comorbidities evaluating their impact on safety and treatment outcomes. Individual groups assessed the risk of bias and applied the GRADE system to generate strong or conditional recommendations for therapies within the domain groups and for the management of comorbidities and related conditions. These recommendations were then incorporated into an overall treatment schema.

Results:

Updated, evidence-based treatment recommendations are shown (Table 1). Since 2015, many new medications have been incorporated. Additional results for older medications, such as methotrexate, have been published across PsA domains. Based on the evidence, the treatment recommendations developed by individual groups were incorporated into the overall schema including principles for management of arthritis, spondylitis, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin, and nail disease in PsA, and associated conditions (Figure 1). Choice of therapy for an individual should ideally address all of the domains that impact on that patient, supporting shared decision making with the patient involved. Additional consideration in the recommendations was given to key associated conditions and comorbidities as these often impact on therapy choice.

Conclusion:

These GRAPPA treatment recommendations provide up to date, evidence-based guidance to providers who manage and treat adult patients with PsA. These recommendations are based on domain-based strategy for PsA and supplemented by overarching principles developed by consensus of GRAPPA members.

IndicationStrongForConditional ForConditionalAgainstStrongAgainstInsufficient evidencePeripheral Arthritis DMARD NaïvecsDMARDs, TNFi, PDE4i, IL-12/23i, IL-17i, IL-23i, JAKiNSAIDs, oral CS, IA CS,IL-6i,Peripheral Arthritis DMARD IRTNFi, IL-12/23i, IL-17i, IL-23i, JAKiPDE4i, other csDMARD, NSAIDs, oral CS, IA CS,IL-6i,Peripheral ArthritisbDMARD IRTNFi, IL-17i, IL-23i, JAKi,NSAIDs, oral CS, IA CS, IL-12/23i, PDE4i, CTLA-4-IgIL-6i,Axial arthritis, Biologic NaïveNSAIDs, Physiotherapy, simple analgesia, TNFi, IL-17i, JAKiCS SIJ injections, bisphosphonatescsDMARDs, IL-6i,IL-12/23i, IL-23iAxial PsA, Biologic IRNSAIDs, Physiotherapy, simple analgesia, TNFi, IL-17i, JAKi csDMARDs, IL-6i,IL-12/23i, IL-23iEnthesitisTNFi, IL-12/23i, IL-17i, PDE4i, IL-23i, JAKiNSAIDs, physiotherapy, CS injections, MTXIL-6i,Other csDMARDsDactylitisTNFi IL-12/23i, IL-17i, IL-23i, JAKi, PDE4iNSAIDs, CS injections, MTXOther csDMARDsPsoriasisTopicals, phototherapy, csDMARDs, TNFi, IL-12/23i, IL-17i, IL-23i, PDE4i, JAKi AcitretinNail psoriasisTNFi, IL12/23i, IL17i, IL23i, PDE4iTopical CS, tacrolimus and calcipotriol combination or individual therapies, Pulsed dye laser, csDMARDs, acitretin, JAKiTopical Cyclosporine / Tazarotene, Fumarate, Fumaric Acid Esters, UVA and UVB Phototherapy, AlitretinoinIBDTNFi (not ETN), IL-12/23i, JAKiIL-17iUveitisTNFi (not ETN)

Disclosure of Interests:

Laura C Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis, Enrique Soriano Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb,GSK, Genzyme, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb,GSK, Genzyme, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Nadia Corp: None declared, Heidi Bertheussen Consultant of: Pfizer, Kristina Callis-Duffin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Stiefel Laboratories, UCB, Ortho Dermatologics, Inc, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Anaptys Bio, Boehringer Ingelheim., Cristiano Barbosa Campanholo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Jeffrey Chau: None declared, Lihi Eder Consultant of: Abbvie, UCB, Janssen, Eli Lily, Pfizer, Novartis, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, UCB, Janssen, Eli Lily, Pfizer, Novartis, Daniel Fernandez Consultant of: Abbvie, UCB, Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen and Brystol, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, UCB, Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen and Brystol, Oliver FitzGerald Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen and Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen and Pfizer Inc, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Amit Garg Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Asana Biosciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, InflaRx, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Viela Biosciences, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Jansen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Jansen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Niti Goel: None declared, Suzanne Grieb: None declared, Philip Helliwell Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, M Elaine Husni Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Lilly, UCB, Regeneron, and Pfizer, Deepak Jadon Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Healthcare Celltrion, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Healthcare Celltrion, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Healthcare Celltrion, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Arnon Katz: None declared, Dhruvkumar Laheru: None declared, John Latella: None declared, Ying Ying Leung Speakers bureau: Novartis, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Consultant of: Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim, Grant/research support from: Pfizer and conference support from AbbVie, Christine Lindsay Shareholder of: Amgen, Employee of: Aurinia pharmaceuticals, Ennio Lubrano Speakers bureau: Alfa-Sigma, Abbvie, Galapagos, Janssen Cilag, Lilly., Consultant of: Alfa-Sigma, Abbvie, Galapagos, Janssen Cilag, Lilly., Luis Mazzuoccolo Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Elli Lilly, Jansen, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Elli Lilly, Jansen, Roland McDonald: None declared, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Denis O’Sullivan: None declared, Alexis Ogdie Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis and Pfizer and Amgen, Wendy Olsder: None declared, Lori Schick: None declared, Ingrid Steinkoenig: None declared, Maarten de Wit Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Danielle van der Windt: None declared, Arthur Kavanaugh Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

Metabolic determinants of proximal aortic stiffness among healthy people with abdominal obesity

Funding Acknowledgements

Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): (1) the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; (2) Israel Ministry of Health

Background

Increased proximal aortic stiffness (PAS) is directly associated with cardiovascular risk. Likewise, metabolic syndrome (MS) and abdominal obesity are associated with cardiovascular risk. The direct association between MS determinants and PAS among a healthy population with abdominal obesity remains to be examined.

Purpose

To examine the association between MS determinants and PAS among healthy participants with abdominal obesity.

Methods

We utilized the cross-sectional baseline data of the DIRECT-PLUS study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03020186), where we recruited healthy participants with abdominal obesity/dyslipidemia. Along with anthropometric measurements and blood tests, all participants underwent magnetic-resonance-imaging from which PAS we assessed by calculating the aortic arch pulse-wave-velocity (from the ascending to the descending aorta). We defined MS according to the NCEP-ATP-III criteria.

Results

Of 282 participants who had a valid PAS estimation [mean-age: 51.0, 88.3% male, mean-body-mass-index: 31.2kg/m2, mean-waist circumference (WC): 109.5cm] 171 (60.9%) had MS. PAS was mainly associated with age (r = 0.735, p < 0.001). PAS was associated with an increased 10-year Framingham Risk Score (β=0.165,p = 0.008 after adjustment for age and gender). Participants with MS had higher PAS than non-MS participants (6.6m/sec vs. 5.4m/sec, p = 0.002 after adjusting for age and gender). PAS increased along with cumulative number of MS criteria (p-of-trend < 0.001). In multivariate models, adjusted for gender, age, and dichotomous-components of the MS, worse PAS remained significantly associated with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c; β=0.-116,p = 0.007) and increased blood-pressure (β=0.165,p < 0.001), but not with fasting-glucose, waist-circumference or plasma-triglycerides (p > 0.05 for all). In models adjusted for age, gender, and continuous determinants of MS, worse PAS remained associated with mean-arterial pressure (β=0.218,p < 0.001) and HDL-c (β=0.-126,p = 0.004).

Conclusions

Among a healthy population with abdominal obesity, reduced HDL-c levels and increased blood pressure might be the more dominant predictors of poor PAS state, out of the MS components.

SHARP Joint Action – Strengthening International Health Regulations and preparedness in the EU

Although the preparedness to health emergencies of biological, chemical, environmental and unknown origin across the Europe is at high level, gaps do exist across the EU Member States and European countries. The previous coronavirus epidemic, SARS in 2002, showed that countries responded largely individually to this emerging threat. EU wide, joint responses were not taken. SARS epidemic showed that strengthening of the common EU efforts was needed.

Many actions were taken, and since 2013 the European Commission Decision 1082/2013/EU on serious cross-border threats to health has provided a framework to improve preparedness and to strengthen the response capacities in Europe to health threats.

SHARP Joint Action is a 3-year collaborative action of 26 countries and 61 partners, co-funded by the EC and coordinated by the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland, and co-coordinated by Robert Koch Institute, Germany and National Institute of Infectious Diseases Lazzaro Spallanzani, Italy. SHARP started it's actions in June 2019, and it aims to strengthen implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the Decision 1082/2013/EU.

SHARP consists of ten work packages covering core public health capacities, including: IHR core capacity strengthening and assessment, preparedness and response planning, training, laboratory preparedness and responsiveness, chemical safety and threats, and case management, infection prevention and control preparedness.

Through this cross-sectoral approach, SHARP supports the Member States and partner countries in strengthening their capacities. In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, SHARP has also supported the EC and the Member States, and especially work packages for laboratory preparedness and responsiveness (WP7) and for case management and infection prevention and control preparedness (WP10) were activated. The activities regarding laboratory preparedness and response have been coordinated with the ECDC.

Can Linked Electronic Medical Record and Administrative Data Help Us Identify Those Living with Frailty?

Introduction

Frailty is a complex condition that affects many aspects of patients’ wellbeing and health outcomes.

Objectives

We used available Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and administrative data to determine definitions of frailty. We also examined whether there were differences in demographics or health conditions among those identified as frail in either the EMR or administrative data.

Methods

EMR and administrative data were linked in British Columbia (BC) and Manitoba (MB) to identify those aged 65 years and older who were frail. The EMR data were obtained from the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) and the administrative data (e.g. billing, hospitalizations) was obtained from Population Data BC and the Manitoba Population Research Data Repository. Sociodemographic characteristics, risk factors, prescribed medications, use and costs of healthcare are described for those identified as frail.

Results

Sociodemographic and utilization differences were found among those identified as frail from the EMR compared to those in the administrative data. Among those who were >65 years, who had a record in both EMR and administrative data, 5%-8% (n=191 of 3,553, BC; n=2,396 of 29,382, MB) were identified as frail. There was a higher likelihood of being frail with increasing age and being a woman. In BC and MB, those identified as frail in both data sources have approximately twice the number of contacts with primary care (n=20 vs. n=10) and more days in hospital (n=7.2 vs. n=1.9 in BC; n=9.8 vs. n=2.8 in MB) compared to those who are not frail; 27% (BC) and 14% (MB) of those identified as frail in 2014 died in 2015.

Conclusions

Identifying frailty using EMR data is particularly challenging because many functional deficits are not routinely recorded in structured data fields. Our results suggest frailty can be captured along a continuum using both EMR and administrative data.

Population Data Centre Profile: The Manitoba Centre for Health Policy

Objective

To profile the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy (MCHP), a population health data centre located at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada.

Approach

We describe how MCHP was established and funded, and how it continues to operate based on a foundation of trust and respect between researchers at the University of Manitoba and stakeholders in the Manitoba Government’s Department of Health. MCHP’s research priorities are jointly determined by its scientists’ own research interests and by questions put forward from Manitoba government ministries. Data governance, data privacy, data linkage processes and data access are discussed in detail. We also provide three illustrative examples of the MCHP Data Repository in action, demonstrating how studies using a variety of Repository datasets have had an impact on health and social policies and programs in Manitoba.

Discussion

MCHP has experienced tremendous growth over the last three decades. We discuss emerging research directions as the capacity for innovation at MCHP continues to expand, including a focus on natural language processing and other applications of artificial intelligence techniques, a leadership role in the new SPOR Canadian Data Platform, and a foray into social policy evaluation and analysis. With these and other exciting opportunities on the horizon, the future at MCHP looks exceptionally bright.

RNA sequencing of intestinal mucosa reveals novel pathways functionally linked to celiac disease pathogenesis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The early steps in the pathophysiology of celiac disease (CD) leading to loss of tolerance to gluten are poorly described. Our aim was to use RNA sequencing of duodenal biopsies in patients with active CD, CD in remission, and non-CD controls to gain insight into CD pathophysiology, identify additional genetic signatures linked to CD, and possibly uncover targets for future therapeutic agents.

METHODS

We performed whole transcriptome shotgun sequencing of intestinal biopsies in subjects with active and remission CD and non-CD controls. We also performed functional pathway analysis of differentially expressed genes to identify statistically significant pathways that are up or down regulated in subjects with active CD compared to remission CD.

RESULTS

We identified the upregulation of novel genes including IL12R, ITGAM and IGSF4 involved in the immune response machinery and cell adhesion process in the mucosa of subjects with active CD compared to those in remission. We identified a unique signature of genes, related to innate immunity, perturbed exclusively in CD irrespective of disease status. Finally, we highlight novel pathways of interest that may contribute to the early steps of CD pathogenesis and its comorbidities such as the spliceosome, pathways related to the innate immune response, and pathways related to autoimmunity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed previous findings based on GWAS and immunological studies pertinent to CD pathogenesis and describes novel genes and pathways that with further validation may be found to contribute to the early steps in the pathogenesis of CD, ongoing inflammation, and comorbidities associated with CD.