Background During the COVID-19 lockdown, referrals via the 2-week-wait urgent pathway for suspected cancer in England, UK, are reported to have decreased by up to 84%. We aimed to examine the impact of different scenarios of lockdown-accumulated backlog in cancer referrals on cancer survival, and the impact on survival per referred patient due to delayed referral versus risk of death from nosocomial infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Methods In this modelling study, we used age-stratified and stage-stratified 10-year cancer survival estimates for patients in England, UK, for 20 common tumour types diagnosed in 2008–17 at age 30 years and older from Public Health England. We also used data for cancer diagnoses made via the 2-week-wait referral pathway in 2013–16 from the Cancer Waiting Times system from NHS Digital. We applied per-day hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer progression that we generated from observational studies of delay to treatment. We quantified the annual numbers of cancers at stage I–III diagnosed via the 2-week-wait pathway using 2-week-wait age-specific and stage-specific breakdowns. From these numbers, we estimated the aggregate number of lives and life-years lost in England for per-patient delays of 1–6 months in presentation, diagnosis, or cancer treatment, or a combination of these. We assessed three scenarios of a 3-month period of lockdown during which 25%, 50%, and 75% of the normal monthly volumes of symptomatic patients delayed their presentation until after lockdown. Using referral-to-diagnosis conversion rates and COVID-19 case-fatality rates, we also estimated the survival increment per patient referred. Findings Across England in 2013–16, an average of 6281 patients with stage I–III cancer were diagnosed via the 2-week-wait pathway per month, of whom 1691 (27%) would be predicted to die within 10 years from their disease. Delays in presentation via the 2-week-wait pathway over a 3-month lockdown period (with an average presentational delay of 2 months per patient) would result in 181 additional lives and 3316 life-years lost as a result of a backlog of referrals of 25%, 361 additional lives and 6632 life-years lost for a 50% backlog of referrals, and 542 additional lives and 9948 life-years lost for a 75% backlog in referrals. Compared with all diagnostics for the backlog being done in month 1 after lockdown, additional capacity across months 1–3 would result in 90 additional lives and 1662 live-years lost due to diagnostic delays for the 25% backlog scenario, 183 additional lives and 3362 life-years lost under the 50% backlog scenario, and 276 additional lives and 5075 life-years lost under the 75% backlog scenario. However, a delay in additional diagnostic capacity with provision spread across months 3–8 after lockdown would result in 401 additional lives and 7332 life-years lost due to diagnostic delays under the 25% backlog scenario, 811 additional lives and 14 873 life-years l...
Genomic sequencing is rapidly transitioning into clinical practice, and implementation into healthcare systems has been supported by substantial government investment, totaling over US$4 billion, in at least 14 countries. These national genomic-medicine initiatives are driving transformative change under real-life conditions while simultaneously addressing barriers to implementation and gathering evidence for wider adoption. We review the diversity of approaches and current progress made by national genomic-medicine initiatives in the UK, France, Australia, and US and provide a roadmap for sharing strategies, standards, and data internationally to accelerate implementation.
ObjectivesTo estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care services and overall (direct and indirect) excess deaths in people with cancer.MethodsWe employed near real-time weekly data on cancer care to determine the adverse effect of the pandemic on cancer services. We also used these data, together with national death registrations until June 2020 to model deaths, in excess of background (pre-COVID-19) mortality, in people with cancer. Background mortality risks for 24 cancers with and without COVID-19-relevant comorbidities were obtained from population-based primary care cohort (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) on 3 862 012 adults in England.ResultsDeclines in urgent referrals (median=−70.4%) and chemotherapy attendances (median=−41.5%) to a nadir (lowest point) in the pandemic were observed. By 31 May, these declines have only partially recovered; urgent referrals (median=−44.5%) and chemotherapy attendances (median=−31.2%). There were short-term excess death registrations for cancer (without COVID-19), with peak relative risk (RR) of 1.17 at week ending on 3 April. The peak RR for all-cause deaths was 2.1 from week ending on 17 April. Based on these findings and recent literature, we modelled 40% and 80% of cancer patients being affected by the pandemic in the long-term. At 40% affected, we estimated 1-year total (direct and indirect) excess deaths in people with cancer as between 7165 and 17 910, using RRs of 1.2 and 1.5, respectively, where 78% of excess deaths occured in patients with ≥1 comorbidity.ConclusionsDramatic reductions were detected in the demand for, and supply of, cancer services which have not fully recovered with lockdown easing. These may contribute, over a 1-year time horizon, to substantial excess mortality among people with cancer and multimorbidity. It is urgent to understand how the recovery of general practitioner, oncology and other hospital services might best mitigate these long-term excess mortality risks.
Background: Cancer and multiple non-cancer conditions are considered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as high risk conditions in the COVID-19 emergency. Professional societies have recommended changes in cancer service provision to minimize COVID-19 risks to cancer patients and health care workers. However, we do not know the extent to which cancer patients, in whom multi-morbidity is common, may be at higher overall risk of mortality as a net result of multiple factors including COVID-19 infection, changes in health services, and socioeconomic factors. Methods: We report multi-center, weekly cancer diagnostic referrals and chemotherapy treatments until April 2020 in England and Northern Ireland. We analyzed population-based health records from 3,862,012 adults in England to estimate 1-year mortality in 24 cancer sites and 15 non-cancer comorbidity clusters (40 conditions) recognized by CDC as high-risk. We estimated overall (direct and indirect) effects of COVID-19 emergency on mortality under different Relative Impact of the Emergency (RIE) and different Proportions of the population Affected by the Emergency (PAE). We applied the same model to the US, using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program data. Results: Weekly data until April 2020 demonstrate significant falls in admissions for chemotherapy (45-66% reduction) and urgent referrals for early cancer diagnosis (70-89% reduction), compared to pre-emergency levels. Under conservative assumptions of the emergency affecting only people with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases) at COVID-19 PAE of 40%, and an RIE of 1.5, the model estimated 6,270 excess deaths at 1 year in England and 33,890 excess deaths in the US. In England, the proportion of patients with incident cancer with ≥1 comorbidity was 65.2%. The number of comorbidities was strongly associated with cancer mortality risk. Across a range of model assumptions, and across incident and prevalent cancer cases, 78% of excess deaths occur in cancer patients with ≥1 comorbidity. Conclusion: We provide the first estimates of potential excess mortality among people with cancer and multimorbidity due to the COVID-19 emergency and demonstrate dramatic changes in cancer services. To better inform prioritization of cancer care and guide policy change, there is an urgent need for weekly data on cause-specific excess mortality, cancer diagnosis and treatment provision and better intelligence on the use of effective treatments for comorbidities.
Summary. Activated protein C (APC) protects against sepsis in animal models and inhibits the lipopolysacharide (LPS)-induced elaboration of proinflammatory cytokines from monocytes. The molecular mechanism responsible for this property is unknown. We assessed the effect of APC on LPS-induced tumour necrosis factor a (TNF-a) production and on the activation of the central proinflammatory transcription factor nuclear factor-kB (NF-kB) in a THP-1 cell line. Cells were preincubated with varying concentrations of APC (200 mg/ml, 100 mg/ml and 20 mg/ml) before addition of LPS (100 ng/ml and 10 mg/ml). APC inhibited LPS-induced production of TNFa both in the presence and absence of fetal calf serum (FCS), although the effect was less marked with 10% FCS. APC also inhibited LPS-induced activation of NF-kB, with APC (200 mg/ ml) abolishing the effect of LPS (100 ng/ml). The ability of APC to inhibit LPS-induced translocation of NF-kB is likely to be a significant event given the critical role of the latter in the host inflammatory response.
Purpose: A number of independent gene expression profiling studies have identified transcriptional subtypes in colorectal cancer with potential diagnostic utility, culminating in publication of a colorectal cancer Consensus Molecular Subtype classification. The worst prognostic subtype has been defined by genes associated with stem-like biology. Recently, it has been shown that the majority of genes associated with this poor prognostic group are stromal derived. We investigated the potential for tumor misclassification into multiple diagnostic subgroups based on tumoral region sampled.Experimental Design: We performed multiregion tissue RNA extraction/transcriptomic analysis using colorectal-specific arrays on invasive front, central tumor, and lymph node regions selected from tissue samples from 25 colorectal cancer patients.Results: We identified a consensus 30-gene list, which represents the intratumoral heterogeneity within a cohort of primary colorectal cancer tumors. Using a series of online datasets, we showed that this gene list displays prognostic potential HR ¼ 2.914 (confidence interval 0.9286-9.162) in stage II/III colorectal cancer patients, but in addition, we demonstrated that these genes are stromal derived, challenging the assumption that poor prognosis tumors with stemlike biology have undergone a widespread epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Most importantly, we showed that patients can be simultaneously classified into multiple diagnostically relevant subgroups based purely on the tumoral region analyzed.Conclusions: Gene expression profiles derived from the nonmalignant stromal region can influence assignment of colorectal cancer transcriptional subtypes, questioning the current molecular classification dogma and highlighting the need to consider pathology sampling region and degree of stromal infiltration when employing transcription-based classifiers to underpin clinical decision making in colorectal cancer.
There are currently no approved targeted therapies for advanced KRAS mutant (KRASMT) colorectal cancer (CRC). Using a unique systems biology approach, we identified JAK1/2-dependent activation of STAT3 as the key mediator of resistance to MEK inhibitors in KRASMT CRC in vitro and in vivo. Further analyses identified acute increases in c-MET activity following treatment with MEK inhibitors in KRASMT CRC models, which was demonstrated to promote JAK1/2-STAT3-mediated resistance. Furthermore, activation of c-MET following MEK inhibition was found to be due to inhibition of the ERK-dependent metalloprotease ADAM17, which normally inhibits c-MET signaling by promoting shedding of its endogenous antagonist, soluble "decoy" MET. Most importantly, pharmacological blockade of this resistance pathway with either c-MET or JAK1/2 inhibitors synergistically increased MEK-inhibitor-induced apoptosis and growth inhibition in vitro and in vivo in KRASMT models, providing clear rationales for the clinical assessment of these combinations in KRASMT CRC patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.