Surgery or radiotherapy for stage I lung cancer? An intention-to-treat analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery is the standard of care for early-stage lung cancer, with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) a lower morbidity alternative for patients with limited physiological reserve. Comparisons of outcomes between these treatment options are limited by competing comorbidities and differences in pre-treatment pathological information. This study aims to address these issues by assessing both overall and cancer-specific survival for presumed stage I lung cancer on an intention-to-treat basis. METHODS: This retrospective intention-to-treat analysis identified all patients treated for presumed stage I lung cancer within a single large UK centre. Overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and combined cancer and treatment-related survival were assessed with adjustment for confounding variables using Cox proportional hazards and Fine-Gray competing risks analyses. RESULTS: 468 patients (including 316 surgery and 99 SABR) were included in the study population. Compared with surgery, SABR was associated with inferior overall survival on multivariable Cox modelling (SABR HR 1.84 (95% CI 1.32-2.57)), but there was no difference in cancer-specific survival (SABR HR 1.47 (95% CI 0.80-2.69)) or combined cancer and treatment-related survival (SABR HR 1.27 (95% CI 0.74-2.17)). Combined cancer and treatment-related death was no different between SABR and surgery on Fine-Gray competing risks multivariable modelling (subdistribution hazard 1.03 (95% CI 0.59-1.81)). Non-cancer-related death was significantly higher in SABR than surgery (subdistribution hazard 2.16 (95% CI 1.41-3.32)). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, no difference in cancer-specific survival was observed between SABR and surgery. Further work is needed to define predictors of outcome and help inform treatment decisions.

Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants are increasingly used for a wide range of indications. However, data are conflicting about the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with these drugs. We compared the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants, warfarin, and low-molecular-weight heparin. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from database inception to April 1, 2016, for prospective and retrospective studies that reported the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with use of a direct oral anticoagulant compared with warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin for all indications. We also searched the Cochrane Library for systematic reviews and assessment evaluations, the National Health Service (UK) Economic Evaluation Database, and ISI Web of Science for conference abstracts and proceedings (up to April 1, 2016). The primary outcome was the incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding, with all gastrointestinal bleeding as a secondary outcome. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis to produce incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). FINDINGS: We identified 38 eligible articles, of which 31 were included in the primary analysis, including 287 692 patients exposed to 230 090 years of anticoagulant drugs. The risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants did not differ from that with warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin (factor Xa vs warfarin IRR 0·78 [95% CrI 0·47-1·08]; warfarin vs dabigatran 0·88 [0·59-1·36]; factor Xa vs low-molecular-weight heparin 1·02 [0·42-2·70]; and low-molecular-weight heparin vs dabigatran 0·67 [0·20-1·82]). In the secondary analysis, factor Xa inhibitors were associated with a reduced risk of all severities of gastrointestinal bleeding compared with warfarin (0·25 [0.07-0.76]) or dabigatran (0.24 [0.07-0.77]). INTERPRETATION: Our findings show no increase in risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin. These findings support the continued use of direct oral anticoagulants. FUNDING: Leeds Teaching Hospitals Charitable Foundation.

Managing inflammatory bowel disease in pregnancy: current perspectives.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) affects many women of childbearing age. The course of IBD is closely related to pregnancy outcomes with poorly controlled IBD increasing the risk of prematurity, low weight for gestation, and fetal loss. As such, women with IBD face complex decision making weighing the risks of active disease versus those of medical treatments. This review summarizes the current evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of IBD treatments during pregnancy and lactation aiming to provide up-to-date guidance for clinicians. Over 50% of women have poor IBD- and pregnancy-related knowledge, which is associated with views contrary to medical evidence and voluntary childlessness. This review highlights the effects of poor patient knowledge and critically evaluates interventions for improving patient knowledge and outcomes.