Pilot randomised study of early intervention based on tumour markers in the follow-up of patients with primary breast cancer

Identification of Primary and Metastatic Lung Cancer-Related lncRNAs and Potential Targeted Drugs Based on ceRNA Network

Lung cancer metastasis is the leading cause of poor prognosis and death for patients. Long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been validated the close correlation with lung cancer metastasis, but few comprehensive analyses have reported the specific association between lncRNA and cancer metastasis, especially via both competing endogenous RNA (ceRNA) regulatory relationships and functional regulatory networks. Here, we constructed primary and metastatic ceRNA networks, identified 12 and 3 candidate lncRNAs for lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) and lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC) respectively and excavated some drugs that might have potential therapeutic effects on lung cancer progression. In summary, this study systematically analyzed the competitive relationships and regulatory mechanism of the repeatedly dysregulated lncRNAs in lung cancer carcinogenesis and metastasis, and provided a new idea for screening potential therapeutic drugs for lung cancer.

Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.

Top-down nanofabrication of silicon nanoribbon field effect transistor (Si-NR FET) for carcinoembryonic antigen detection

Sensitive and quantitative detection of tumor markers is highly required in the clinic for cancer diagnosis and consequent treatment. A field-effect transistor-based (FET-based) nanobiosensor emerges with characteristics of being label-free, real-time, having high sensitivity, and providing direct electrical readout for detection of biomarkers. In this paper, a top–down approach is proposed and implemented to fulfill a novel silicon nano-ribbon FET, which acts as biomarker sensor for future clinical application. Compared with the bottom–up approach, a top–down fabrication approach can confine width and length of the silicon FET precisely to control its electrical properties. The silicon nanoribbon (Si-NR) transistor is fabricated on a Silicon-on-Insulator (SOI) substrate by a top–down approach with complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS)-compatible technology. After the preparation, the surface of Si-NR is functionalized with 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (APTES). Glutaraldehyde is utilized to bind the amino terminals of APTES and antibody on the surface. Finally, a microfluidic channel is integrated on the top of the device, acting as a flowing channel for the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) solution. The Si-NR FET is 120 nm in width and 25 nm in height, with ambipolar electrical characteristics. A logarithmic relationship between the changing ratio of the current and the CEA concentration is measured in the range of 0.1–100 ng/mL. The sensitivity of detection is measured as 10 pg/mL. The top–down fabricated biochip shows feasibility in direct detecting of CEA with the benefits of real-time, low cost, and high sensitivity as a promising biosensor for tumor early diagnosis.

Use and Costs of Disease Monitoring in Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

The optimal frequency of monitoring patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is unknown; however, data suggest that intensive monitoring does not improve outcomes. We performed a population-based analysis to evaluate patterns and predictors of extreme use of disease-monitoring tests (serum tumor markers [STMs] and radiographic imaging) among women with MBC.

METHODS

The SEER-Medicare database was used to identify women with MBC diagnosed from 2002 to 2011 who underwent disease monitoring. Billing dates of STMs (carcinoembryonic antigen and/or cancer antigen 15-3/cancer antigen 27.29) and imaging tests (computed tomography and/or positron emission tomography) were recorded; if more than one STM or imaging test were completed on the same day, they were counted once. We defined extreme use as > 12 STM and/or more than four radiographic imaging tests in a 12-month period. Multivariable analysis was used to identify factors associated with extreme use. In extreme users, total health care costs and end-of-life health care utilization were compared with the rest of the study population.

RESULTS

We identified 2,460 eligible patients. Of these, 924 (37.6%) were extreme users of disease-monitoring tests. Factors significantly associated with extreme use were hormone receptor-negative MBC (odds ratio [OR], 1.63; 95% CI, 1.27 to 2.08), history of a positron emission tomography scan (OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.40 to 3.55), and more frequent oncology office visits (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.49 to 3.96). Medical costs per year were 59.2% higher in extreme users. Extreme users were more likely to use emergency department and hospice services at the end of life.

CONCLUSION

Despite an unknown clinical benefit, approximately one third of elderly women with MBC were extreme users of disease-monitoring tests. Higher use of disease-monitoring tests was associated with higher total health care costs. Efforts to understand the optimal frequency of monitoring are needed to inform clinical practice.