Disease-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in neoadjuvant trials of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: Pooled analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Disease-free survival (DFS) is increasingly being used as surrogate end-point for overall survival (OS) in cancer trials. So far, there has been no validation of the surrogacy of DFS for OS for neoadjuvant treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: The study uses individual patient data (IPD) from eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 1126 patients) comparing neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery with surgery alone for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Correlation between OS time and DFS time was calculated to evaluate individual-level surrogacy. For each trial, survival curves using the Kaplan-Meier method were plotted and hazard ratios (HRs) on the treatment effects were calculated for OS and DFS separately. Those HRs were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. Observed HRs were compared with predicted HRs for OS using results from an error-in-variables linear regression model accounting for the uncertainty about the estimated effect. The strength of the association was quantified by the coefficient of determination to assess trial-level surrogacy. The surrogate threshold effect was calculated to determine the minimum treatment effect on DFS necessary to predict a non-zero treatment effect on OS. RESULTS: A strong correlation between OS time and DFS time was observed, indicating a high individual-level surrogacy. For all RCTs, estimated HRs for OS and DFS were highly similar. In the meta-analysis, the overall HR for OS was virtually identical to that for DFS. The estimated coefficient of determination r2 for the association between HRs for OS and DFS was 0.912 (95% confidence interval: 0.75-1.0), indicating a very good fit of the regression model and thus a strong trial-level surrogacy between OS and DFS. The surrogate threshold effect based on the regression analysis was 0.79. DISCUSSION: Based on strong correlations between DFS and OS, as well as a strong correlation of the treatment effects of the two end-points in the error-in-variable regression, DFS seems an appropriate surrogate marker for OS in randomised trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Person-directed, non-pharmacological interventions for sleepiness at work and sleep disturbances caused by shift work.

BACKGROUND: Shift work is often associated with sleepiness and sleep disorders. Person-directed, non-pharmacological interventions may positively influence the impact of shift work on sleep, thereby improving workers' well-being, safety, and health. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of person-directed, non-pharmacological interventions for reducing sleepiness at work and improving the length and quality of sleep between shifts for shift workers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, Web of Knowledge, ProQuest, PsycINFO, OpenGrey, and OSH-UPDATE from inception to August 2015. We also screened reference lists and conference proceedings and searched the World Health Organization (WHO) Trial register. We contacted experts to obtain unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including cross-over designs) that investigated the effect of any person-directed, non-pharmacological intervention on sleepiness on-shift or sleep length and sleep quality off-shift in shift workers who also work nights. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors screened titles and abstracts for relevant studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors to obtain missing information. We conducted meta-analyses when pooling of studies was possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 relevant trials (with 556 review-relevant participants) which we categorised into three types of interventions: (1) various exposures to bright light (n = 10); (2) various opportunities for napping (n = 4); and (3) other interventions, such as physical exercise or sleep education (n = 3). In most instances, the studies were too heterogeneous to pool. Most of the comparisons yielded low to very low quality evidence. Only one comparison provided moderate quality evidence. Overall, the included studies' results were inconclusive. We present the results regarding sleepiness below. Bright light Combining two comparable studies (with 184 participants altogether) that investigated the effect of bright light during the night on sleepiness during a shift, revealed a mean reduction 0.83 score points of sleepiness (measured via the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS) (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.3 to -0.36, very low quality evidence). Another trial did not find a significant difference in overall sleepiness on another sleepiness scale (16 participants, low quality evidence).Bright light during the night plus sunglasses at dawn did not significantly influence sleepiness compared to normal light (1 study, 17 participants, assessment via reaction time, very low quality evidence).Bright light during the day shift did not significantly reduce sleepiness during the day compared to normal light (1 trial, 61 participants, subjective assessment, low quality evidence) or compared to normal light plus placebo capsule (1 trial, 12 participants, assessment via reaction time, very low quality evidence). Napping during the night shiftA meta-analysis on a single nap opportunity and the effect on the mean reaction time as a surrogate for sleepiness, resulted in a 11.87 ms reduction (95% CI 31.94 to -8.2, very low quality evidence). Two other studies also reported statistically non-significant decreases in reaction time (1 study seven participants; 1 study 49 participants, very low quality evidence).A two-nap opportunity resulted in a statistically non-significant increase of sleepiness (subjective assessment) in one study (mean difference (MD) 2.32, 95% CI -24.74 to 29.38, 1 study, 15 participants, low quality evidence). Other interventionsPhysical exercise and sleep education interventions showed promise, but sufficient data to draw conclusions are lacking. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the methodological diversity of the included studies, in terms of interventions, settings, and assessment tools, their limited reporting and the very low to low quality of the evidence they present, it is not possible to determine whether shift workers' sleepiness can be reduced or if their sleep length or quality can be improved with these interventions.We need better and adequately powered RCTs of the effect of bright light, and naps, either on their own or together and other non-pharmacological interventions that also consider shift workers' chronobiology on the investigated sleep parameters.

Preoperative chemo(radio)therapy versus primary surgery for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: systematic review with meta-analysis combining individual patient and aggregate data.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is poor. There is conflicting evidence regarding effects of preoperative chemotherapy on survival and other outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis with aggregate and individual patient data (IPD) to assess the effect of preoperative chemotherapy for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma on survival and other outcomes. Two independent reviewers identified eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy+/-radiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. IPD was solicited from all trials. Meta-analyses were performed using the two stage method. RESULTS: We identified 14 RCTs (2422 patients). For eight RCTs (1049 patients; 43.3%) we obtained IPD. Preoperative chemotherapy was associated with longer overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.89; p<0.0001). There were larger treatment effects in tumours of the gastroesophageal junction and for chemoradiotherapy compared to chemotherapy, but the tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Preoperative chemotherapy was associated with longer disease-free survival, higher likelihood of R0 resection and more favourable post-treatment tumour stage, but not perioperative complications. CONCLUSION: Preoperative chemotherapy for locoregional gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma increases survival compared to surgery alone. It should be offered to all eligible patients. There appear to be larger survival advantages in tumours of the gastroesophageal junction and for chemoradiotherapy, but these findings require prospective confirmation.

Perioperative chemo(radio)therapy versus primary surgery for resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach, gastroesophageal junction, and lower esophagus.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of patients with locally advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, gastroesophageal (GE) junction, and stomach) is poor. There is conflicting evidence regarding the effects of perioperative chemotherapy on survival and other outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of perioperative chemotherapy for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma on survival and other clinically relevant outcomes in the overall population of participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and in prespecified subgroups. SEARCH METHODS: We performed computerized searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness (DARE), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) from The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966 to May 2011), EMBASE (1980 to May 2011), and LILACS (Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud), combining the Cochrane highly sensitive search strategy with specific search terms. Moreover, we handsearched several online databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs which randomized patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, in the absence of distant metastases, to receive either chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy followed by surgery, or surgery alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors identified eligible trials. We solicited individual patient data (IPD) from all selected trials. We performed meta-analyses based on intention-to-treat populations using the two-stage method to combine IPD with aggregate data from RCTs for which IPD were unavailable. We combined data from all trials providing IPD in a Cox proportional hazards model to assess the effect of several covariables on overall survival. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 RCTs with 2422 eligible patients. For eight RCTs with 1049 patients (43.3%), we were able to obtain IPD. Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.89). This corresponds to a relative survival increase of 19% or an absolute survival increase of 9% at five years. This survival advantage was consistent across most subgroups. There was a trend towards a more pronounced treatment effect for tumors of the GE junction compared to other sites, and for combined chemoradiotherapy as compared to chemotherapy in tumors of the esophagus and GE junction. Resection with negative margins was a strong predictor of survival. Multivariable analysis showed that tumor site, performance status, and age have an independent significant effect on survival. Moreover, there was a significant interaction of the effect of perioperative chemotherapy with age (larger treatment effect in younger patients). Perioperative chemotherapy also showed a significant effect on several secondary outcomes. It was associated with longer disease-free survival, higher rates of R0 resection, and more favorable tumor stage upon resection, while there was no association with perioperative morbidity and mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative chemotherapy for resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma increases survival compared to surgery alone. It should thus be offered to all eligible patients. There is a trend to a larger survival advantage for tumors of the GE junction as compared to other sites and for chemoradiotherapy as compared to chemotherapy in esophageal and GE junction tumors. Likewise, there is an interaction between age and treatment effect, with younger patients having a larger survival advantage, and no survival advantage for elderly patients.

Menopausal hormone therapy and risk of clinical breast cancer subtypes.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease with subtypes that may vary in their etiologies. Menopausal hormone therapy has been associated more strongly with lobular and tubular than ductal histologic types and with tumors that are smaller, hormone receptor-positive, and of lower grade. At the same time, correlations have been observed between histology and clinical characteristics. To identify those tumor subtypes most strongly associated with hormone therapy use, it is necessary to disentangle these interrelationships. METHODS: Based on 3,464 postmenopausal breast cancer cases and 6,657 controls from the population-based Mammary carcinoma Risk factor Investigation study, we used polytomous logistic regression to evaluate associations between hormone therapy use and risk of invasive breast cancer subtypes. We assessed variations in risk for selected tumor characteristics among histologic and hormone receptor subtypes, both overall and for specific hormone therapy regimens. RESULTS: Lobular and mixed types showed less variation by prognostic factors than did ductal tumors. Current hormone therapy use had the strongest associations with prognostic variables in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and/or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive ductal tumors and in lobular tumors regardless of ER/PR status, with little effect on ER/PR-negative ductal tumors. The observed associations varied minimally by hormone therapy type or regimen. CONCLUSION: Current hormone therapy use was associated with more favorable breast cancer characteristics for ductal tumors but had less effect on prognostic characteristics in women with lobular tumors. Both histologic type and estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status seem to be important in explaining the role of hormone therapy in the etiology of breast cancer subtypes.

Manganese superoxide dismutase Ala-9Val polymorphism, environmental modifiers, and risk of breast cancer in a German population.

OBJECTIVE: A functional polymorphism at codon 16 (Alanine-to-Valine) of manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD) has been hypothesized to increase the risk of breast cancer and to modify the effects of oxidative stress. However, study findings have been inconsistent and sample sizes often small. METHODS: We used a large population-based age-matched case-control study in German Caucasian women up to age 50 to assess breast cancer risk associated with this polymorphism and to investigate interaction with other known risk factors related to oxidative stress, including alcohol intake, cigarette smoking, and diet. Data on a total of 614 cases and 1,080 controls were evaluated using multivariate conditional logistic models. RESULTS: No main effect between genotype and breast cancer was observed. However, risk was significantly increased for Ala carriers who consumed > or =19 g of alcohol per day, compared to women homozygous for the Val allele who did not drink (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-3.9; p = 0.13 for interaction). No significant effect modification was observed for smoking or diet. CONCLUSIONS: The MnSOD Ala-9Val polymorphism may contribute to an increase in breast cancer risk in the context of high alcohol consumption, however the polymorphism is not an overall risk factor for breast cancer in this primarily premenopausal population.

The impact of female genital cutting on first delivery in southwest Nigeria.

To date, data linking obstetric morbidity to female genital cutting in populations with less severe types of cutting have been limited to case reports and speculation. In this cross-sectional study, 1,107 women at three hospitals in Edo State, Nigeria, reported on their first-delivery experiences. Fifty-six percent of the sample had undergone genital cutting. Although univariate analyses suggest that genital cutting is associated with delivery complications and procedures, multivariate analyses controlling for sociodemographic factors and delivery setting show no difference between cut and noncut women's likelihood of reporting first-delivery complications or procedures. Whereas a clinical association between genital cutting and obstetric morbidity may occur in populations that have undergone more severe forms of cutting, in this setting, apparent associations between cutting and obstetric morbidity appear to reflect confounding by social class and by the conditions under which delivery takes place.