Biomedical subjects

Richard J Stephens

Publications and source records attributed to Richard J Stephens.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

The quality of life of men with locally advanced prostate cancer during neoadjuvant hormone therapy: data from the Medical Research Council RT01 trial (ISRCTN 47772397).

OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' quality of life (QoL) during neoadjuvant hormone therapy (HT) using data from the Medical Research Council RT01 trial of standard- (64 Gy/32-fraction) and high- (74 Gy/37-fraction) dose radiotherapy (RT, both given conformally). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of the 843 patients randomized to the RT01 trial, 316 completed the Functional Assessment Of Cancer Therapy core questionnaire with its additional prostate subscale, and the Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire with the University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index before HT and again before starting RT. Three predefined QoL hypotheses were generated to focus the analyses. RESULTS: For the three primary QoL analyses there was evidence that sexual functioning deteriorated, urinary function did not change, and there was a slight decline in physical well-being after > or = 3 months of HT. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. Exploratory analyses also suggested that role functioning deteriorated, sleep was more disturbed, and there was an increase in fatigue. However, overall QoL was not reported to be affected and patients indicated an improvement in attitude and satisfaction with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this group of men, many of whom reported reduced sexual functioning before treatment, the additional decline during HT seemed to be generally accepted as the price to pay for an appropriate cancer treatment. Nevertheless, these changes need to be discussed with patients before HT is commenced.

Aged↗

PubMed2006

A comparison of statistical tests for detecting differential expression using Affymetrix oligonucleotide microarrays.

Signal quantification and detection of differential expression are critical steps in the analysis of Affymetrix microarray data. Many methods have been proposed in the literature for each of these steps. The goal of this paper is to evaluate several signal quantification methods (GCRMA, RSVD, VSN, MAS5, and Resolver) and statistical methods for differential expression (t test, Cyber-T, SAM, LPE, RankProducts, Resolver RatioBuild). Our particular focus is on the ability to detect differential expression via statistical tests. We have used two different datasets for our evaluation. First, we have used the HG-U133 Latin Square spike in dataset developed by Affymetrix. Second, we have used data from an in-house rat liver transcriptomics study following 30 different drug treatments generated using the Affymetrix RAE230A chip. Our overall recommendation based on this study is to use GCRMA for signal quantification. For detection of differential expression, GCRMA coupled with Cyber-T or SAM is the best approach, as measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The integrated pipeline in Resolver RatioBuild combining signal quantification and detection of differential expression is an equally good alternative for detecting differentially expressed genes. For most of the differential expression algorithms we considered, the performance using MAS5 signal quantification was inferior to that of the other methods we evaluated.

Animals↗

PubMed2005

Ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide with midcycle vincristine versus standard chemotherapy in patients with small-cell lung cancer and good performance status: clinical and quality-of-life results of the British Medical Research Council multicenter randomized LU21 trial.

PURPOSE: Ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide, and vincristine, alone and in combination, are highly active against small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). This trial was designed to investigate whether survival could be improved by a regimen of all four drugs (ICE-V) compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with SCLC and good performance status, and to assess the patients' quality of life (QL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of either ICE-V at 4-week intervals without dose reduction or standard chemotherapy administered according to local practice. The recommended standard control regimens were cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide; and cisplatin and etoposide. RESULTS: A total of 402 patients were randomly assigned, and 350 (87%) patients have died. Overall survival was longer in the ICE-V group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.91; P = .0049), median survival was 15.6 months in the ICE-V group and 11.6 months in the control group, and 2-year survival rates were 20% and 11%, respectively. There was no evidence that the relative survival benefit for ICE-V was less in extensive-stage than in limited-stage patients. An increased rate of septicemia was reported in the ICE-V group (15% v 7% in the control group), but this did not result in an increase in reported treatment-related deaths (four patients [2%] in both groups). The findings on QL were broadly similar in both groups, with some benefit in favor of ICE-V. CONCLUSION: Compared with standard chemotherapy, the ICE-V regimen improves overall survival without QL penalties, despite an increased but manageable level of toxicity.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

A randomised controlled trial of pre-operative chemotherapy followed, if feasible, by resection versus radiotherapy in patients with inoperable stage T3, N1, M0 or T1-3, N2, M0 non-small cell lung cancer.

The majority of patients with stage T3, N1, M0 or T1-3, N2, M0 non-small cell lung cancer are considered inoperable, and receive radical radiotherapy. This randomised trial aimed to assess whether, in this group of inoperable patients, a policy of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (with mitomycin, ifosfamide and cisplatin (MIC) or mitomycin, vinblastine and cisplatin (MVP)) followed, if feasible, by surgery (CT-S), would result in better outcomes than radical radiotherapy (RT). The trial closed due to poor accrual, with only 48 patients randomised in 3 years. Only 4 of the 24 patients in the CT-S group had a complete resection, and of these, the 2 patients who had a pneumonectomy both died 12 days after surgery. There was no evidence of an improved survival in the CT-S group (median survival 13.8 months, compared with 11.3 months for the RT group), but because the trial failed to recruit we were unable to reach any reliable conclusions about these two treatment options.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Implementing the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) RT01 trial (ISRCTN 47772397): methods and practicalities of a randomised controlled trial of conformal radiotherapy in men with localised prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiotherapy is the most frequently used treatment for men with localised prostate cancer. Conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) is a relatively new development. MRC RT01 was set-up to explore optimum CFRT dose. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RT01 was an international multi-centre randomised controlled trial for men with T1b-T3a, N0, M0 prostate cancer that evolved from a single-centre pilot trial of similar design. All men received at least 3 months of pre-radiotherapy hormone treatment, before randomisation to standard (64 Gy) or high dose (74 Gy) radical CFRT. Accrual was completed in December 2001 with 843 men randomised from 25 centres in less than 4 years. RT01 has been a catalyst for implementing CFRT across UK. In addition to the Trial Management Group, independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee and independent Trial Steering Committee, a Quality of Life and Health Economics (QL/HE) group, a radiotherapy Quality Assurance (QA) Group and a Radiography Trial Implementation Group were set up. The QL/HE group ensured implementation, compliance, analysis and interpretation of the QL and HE data in the trial. The inauguration of QA and Radiography groups facilitated inter-centre collaboration. The QA Group ensured procedures were in place before and during trial participation, and monitored quality and consistency with systems including a physics questionnaire, a clinical examples exercise, a standard operating procedure document, designing and building a phantom, and convening a complications modelling subgroup. The Radiography group agreed and implemented technique improvements. RESULTS: More centres participated than initially predicted, enabling recruitment better than scheduled. The trial expedited the implementation of CFRT in many UK radiotherapy centres. Additionally, the QA and Radiography groups helped ensure smooth initiation and established consistency in planning, dosimetry and delivery of prostate CFRT services at participating UK centres. Considerable data has been collected; a series of papers will be produced, although mature clinical trial results are not anticipated until 2006-2008.

Humans↗

PubMed2003

Intrahepatic arterial versus intravenous fluorouracil and folinic acid for colorectal cancer liver metastases: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The liver is the most frequent site for metastases of colorectal cancer, which is the second largest contributor to cancer deaths in Europe. We did a randomised trial to compare an intrahepatic arterial (IHA) fluorouracil and folinic acid regimen with the standard intravenous de Gramont fluorouracil and folinic acid regimen for patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum, with metastases confined to the liver. METHODS: We randomly allocated 290 patients from 16 centres to receive either intravenous chemotherapy (folinic acid 200 mg/m2, fluorouracil bolus 400 mg2 and 22-h infusion 600 mg/m2, day 1 and 2, repeated every 14 days), or IHA chemotherapy designed to be equitoxic (folinic acid 200 mg/m2, fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 over 15 mins and 22-h infusion 1600 mg/m2, day 1 and 2, repeated every 14 days). The primary endpoint was overall survival, and analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: 50 (37%) patients allocated to IHA did not start their treatment, and another 39 (29%) had to stop before receiving six cycles of treatment because of catheter failure. The IHA group received a median of two cycles (0-6), compared with 8.5 (6-12) for the intravenous group. 45 (51%) IHA patients who did not start or did not receive six cycles switched to intravenous treatment. In both groups, grade 3 or 4 toxicity was uncommon. Median overall survival was 14.7 months for the IHA group and 14.8 months for the intravenous group (hazard ratio 1.04 [95% CI 0.80-1.33], log-rank test p=0.79). Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival. INTERPRETATION: Our results showed no evidence of an advantage in progression-free survival or overall survival for the IHA group; thus continued use of this regimen cannot be recommended outside of a clinical trial.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed2002

Immediate versus delayed palliative thoracic radiotherapy in patients with unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer and minimal thoracic symptoms: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer unsuitable for resection or radical radiotherapy, and with minimal thoracic symptoms, should be given palliative thoracic radiotherapy immediately or as needed to treat symptoms. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 23 centres in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and South Africa. PARTICIPANTS: 230 patients with previously untreated, non-small cell lung cancer that is locally too advanced for resection or radical radiotherapy with curative intent, with minimal thoracic symptoms, and with no indication for immediate thoracic radiotherapy. INTERVENTIONS: All patients were given supportive treatment and were randomised to receive palliative thoracic radiotherapy either immediately or delayed until needed to treat symptoms. The recommended regimens were 17 Gy in two fractions one week apart or 10 Gy as a single dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary--patients alive and without moderate or severe cough, chest pain, haemoptysis, or dyspnoea six months from randomisation, as recorded by clinicians. Secondary--quality of life, adverse events, survival. RESULTS: From December 1992 to May 1999, 230 patients were randomised. 104/115 of the patients in the immediate treatment group received thoracic radiotherapy (90 received one of the recommended regimens). In the delayed treatment group, 48/115 (42%) patients received thoracic radiotherapy (29 received one of the recommended regimens); 64 (56%) died without receiving thoracic radiotherapy; the remaining three (3%) were alive at the end of the study without having received the treatment. For patients who received thoracic radiotherapy, the median time to start was 15 days in the immediate treatment group and 125 days in the delayed treatment group. The primary outcome measure was achieved in 28% of the immediate treatment group and 26% of patients from the delayed treatment group (27/97 and 27/103, respectively; absolute difference 1.6%, 95% confidence interval -10.7% to 13.9%). No evidence of a difference was observed between the two treatment groups in terms of activity level, anxiety, depression, and psychological distress, as recorded by the patients. Adverse events were more common in the immediate treatment group. Neither group had a survival advantage (hazard ratio 0.95, 0.73 to 1.24; P=0.71). Median survival was 8.3 months and 7.9 months, and the survival rates were 31% and 29% at 12 months, for the immediate and delayed treatment groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: In minimally symptomatic patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer, no persuasive evidence was found to indicate that giving immediate palliative thoracic radiotherapy improves symptom control, quality of life, or survival when compared with delaying until symptoms require treatment.

Adult↗