Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Cancer Screening’ Category


That is the question…

Anyone who follows healthcare news, as I do , cannot help being impressed with the number of scientific and non-scientific items that mention the applicability of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (‘MRI’) to medical procedures.

A very important aspect that is worthwhile noting is that the promise MRI bears to improve patients’ screening – pre-clinical diagnosis, better treatment choice, treatment guidance and outcome follow-up – is based on new techniques that enables MRI-based tissue characterisation.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an imaging device that relies on the well-known physical phenomena named “Nuclear Magnetic Resonance”. It so happens that, due to its short relaxation time, the 1H isotope (spin ½ nucleus) has a very distinctive response to changes in the surrounding magnetic field. This serves MRI imaging of the human body well as, basically, we are 90% water. The MRI device makes use of strong magnetic fields changing at radio frequency to produce cross-sectional images of organs and internal structures in the body. Because the signal detected by an MRI machine varies depending on the water content and local magnetic properties of a particular area of the body, different tissues or substances can be distinguished from one another in the scan’s resulting image.

The main advantages of MRI in comparison to X-ray-based devices such as CT scanners and mammography systems are that the energy it uses is non-ionizing and it can differentiate soft tissues very well based on differences in their water content.

In the last decade, the basic imaging capabilities of MRI have been augmented for the purpose of cancer patient management, by using magnetically active materials (called contrast agents) and adding functional measurements such as tissue temperature to show internal structures or abnormalities more clearly.

 

In order to increase the specificity and sensitivity of MRI imaging in cancer detection, various imaging strategies have been developed. The most discussed in MRI related literature are:

  • T2 weighted imaging: The measured response of the 1H isotope in a resolution cell of a T2-weighted image is related to the extent of random tumbling and the rotational motion of the water molecules within that resolution cell. The faster the rotation of the water molecule, the higher the measured value of the T2 weighted response in that resolution cell. For example, prostate cancer is characterized by a low T2 response relative to the values typical to normal prostatic tissue [5].

T2 MRI pelvis with Endo Rectal Coil ( DATA of Dr. Lance Mynders, MAYO Clinic)

  • Dynamic Contrast Enhanced (DCE) MRI involves a series of rapid MRI scans in the presence of a contrast agent. In the case of scanning the prostate, the most commonly used material is gadolinium [4].

Axial MRI  Lava DCE with Endo Rectal ( DATA of Dr. Lance Mynders, MAYO Clinic)

  • Diffusion weighted (DW) imaging: Provides an image intensity that is related to the microscopic motion of water molecules [5].

DW image of the left parietal glioblastoma multiforme (WHO grade IV) in a 59-year-old woman, Al-Okaili R N et al. Radiographics 2006;26:S173-S189

  • Multifunctional MRI: MRI image overlaid with combined information from T2-weighted scans, dynamic contrast-enhancement (DCE), and diffusion weighting (DW) [5].

Source AJR: http://www.ajronline.org/content/196/6/W715/F3

  • Blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) MRI: Assessing tissue oxygenation. Tumors are characterized by a higher density of micro blood vessels. The images that are acquired follow changes in the concentration of paramagnetic deoxyhaemoglobin [5].

In the last couple of years, medical opinion leaders are offering to use MRI to solve almost every weakness of the cancer patients’ pathway. Such proposals are not always supported by any evidence of feasibility. For example, a couple of weeks ago, the British Medical Journal published a study [1] concluding that women carrying a mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes who have undergone a mammogram or chest x-ray before the age of 30 are more likely to develop breast cancer than those who carry the gene mutation but who have not been exposed to mammography. What is published over the internet and media to patients and lay medical practitioners is: “The results of this study support the use of non-ionising radiation imaging techniques (such as magnetic resonance imaging) as the main tool for surveillance in young women with BRCA1/2 mutations.”.

Why is ultrasound not mentioned as a potential “non-ionising radiation imaging technique”?

Another illustration is the following advert:

An MRI scan takes between 30 to 45 minutes to perform (not including the time of waiting for the interpretation by the radiologist). It requires the support of around 4 well-trained team members. It costs between $400 and $3500 (depending on the scan).

The important question, therefore, is: Are there, in the USA, enough MRI  systems to meet the demand of 40 million scans a year addressing women with radiographically dense  breasts? Toda there are approximately 10,000 MRI systems in the USA. Only a small percentage (~2%) of the examinations are related to breast cancer. A

A rough calculation reveals that around 10000 additional MRI centers would need to be financed and operated to meet that demand alone.

References

  1. Exposure to diagnostic radiation and risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: retrospective cohort study (GENE-RAD-RISK), BMJ 2012; 345 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5660 (Published 6 September 2012), Cite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e5660 – http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e5660
  1. http://www.auntminnieeurope.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=wom&pag=dis&itemId=607075
  1. Ahmed HU, Kirkham A, Arya M, Illing R, Freeman A, Allen C, Emberton M. Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6(4):197-206.
  1. Puech P, Potiron E, Lemaitre L, Leroy X, Haber GP, Crouzet S, Kamoi K, Villers A. Dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 2009;74(5):1094-9.
  1. Advanced MR Imaging Techniques in the Diagnosis of Intraaxial Brain Tumors in Adults, Al-Okaili R N et al. Radiographics 2006;26:S173-S189 ,

http://radiographics.rsna.org/content/26/suppl_1/S173.full

  1. Ahmed HU. The Index Lesion and the Origin of Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009 Oct; 361(17): 1704-6
Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

Gender of a person can affect the kinds of cancer-causing mutations they develop, according to a genomic analysis spanning nearly 2,000 tumours and 28 types of cancer. The results show striking differences in the cancer-causing mutations found in people who are biologically male versus those who are biologically female — not only in the number of mutations lurking in their tumours, but also in the kinds of mutations found there.

 

Liver tumours from women were more likely to carry mutations caused by a faulty system of DNA mending called mismatch repair, for instance. And men with any type of cancer were more likely to exhibit DNA changes thought to be linked to a process that the body uses to repair DNA with two broken strands. These biases could point researchers to key biological differences in how tumours develop and evolve across sexes.

 

The data add to a growing realization that sex is important in cancer, and not only because of lifestyle differences. Lung and liver cancer, for example, are more common in men than in women — even after researchers control for disparities in smoking or alcohol consumption. The source of that bias, however, has remained unclear.

In 2014, the US National Institutes of Health began encouraging researchers to consider sex differences in preclinical research by, for example, including female animals and cell lines from women in their studies. And some studies have since found sex-linked biases in the frequency of mutations in protein-coding genes in certain cancer types, including some brain cancers and advanced melanoma.

 

But the present study is the most comprehensive study of sex differences in tumour genomes so far. It looks at mutations not only in genes that code for proteins, but also in the vast expanses of DNA that have other functions, such as controlling when genes are turned on or off. The study also compares male and female genomes across many different cancers, which can allow researchers to pick up on additional patterns of DNA mutations, in part by increasing the sample sizes.

 

Researchers analysed full genome sequences gathered by the International Cancer Genome Consortium. They looked at differences in the frequency of 174 mutations known to drive cancer, and found that some of these mutations occurred more frequently in men than in women, and vice versa. When they looked more broadly at the loss or duplication of DNA segments in the genome, they found 4,285 sex-biased genes spread across 15 chromosomes.

 

There were also differences found when some mutations seemed to arise during tumour development, suggesting that some cancers follow different evolutionary paths in men and women. Researchers also looked at particular patterns of DNA changes. Such patterns can, in some cases, reflect the source of the mutation. Tobacco smoke, for example, leaves behind a particular signature in the DNA.

 

Taken together, the results highlight the importance of accounting for sex, not only in clinical trials but also in preclinical studies. This could eventually allow researchers to pin down the sources of many of the differences found in this study. Liver cancer is roughly three times as common in men as in women in some populations, and its incidence is increasing in some countries. A better understanding of its aetiology may turn out to be really important for prevention strategies and treatments.

 

References:

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00562-7?utm_source=Nature+Briefing

 

https://www.nature.com/news/policy-nih-to-balance-sex-in-cell-and-animal-studies-1.15195

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26296643

 

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/507939v1

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25985759

 

Read Full Post »


Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

Protein kinase C (PKC) isozymes function as tumor suppressors in increasing contexts. These enzymes are crucial for a number of cellular activities, including cell survival, proliferation and migration — functions that must be carefully controlled if cells get out of control and form a tumor. In contrast to oncogenic kinases, whose function is acutely regulated by transient phosphorylation, PKC is constitutively phosphorylated following biosynthesis to yield a stable, autoinhibited enzyme that is reversibly activated by second messengers. Researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine found that another enzyme, called PHLPP1, acts as a “proofreader” to keep careful tabs on PKC.

 

The researchers discovered that in pancreatic cancer high PHLPP1 levels lead to low PKC levels, which is associated with poor patient survival. They reported that the phosphatase PHLPP1 opposes PKC phosphorylation during maturation, leading to the degradation of aberrantly active species that do not become autoinhibited. They discovered that any time an over-active PKC is inadvertently produced, the PHLPP1 “proofreader” tags it for destruction. That means the amount of PHLPP1 in patient’s cells determines his amount of PKC and it turns out those enzyme levels are especially important in pancreatic cancer.

 

This team of researchers reversed a 30-year paradigm when they reported evidence that PKC actually suppresses, rather than promotes, tumors. For decades before this revelation, many researchers had attempted to develop drugs that inhibit PKC as a means to treat cancer. Their study implied that anti-cancer drugs would actually need to do the opposite — boost PKC activity. This study sets the stage for clinicians to one day use a pancreatic cancer patient’s PHLPP1/PKC levels as a predictor for prognosis, and for researchers to develop new therapeutic drugs that inhibit PHLPP1 and boost PKC as a means to treat the disease.

 

The ratio — high PHLPP1/low PKC — correlated with poor prognoses: no pancreatic patient with low PKC in the database survived longer than five-and-a-half years. On the flip side, 50 percent of the patients with low PHLPP1/high PKC survived longer than that. While still in the earliest stages, the researchers hope that this information might one day aid pancreatic diagnostics and treatment. The researchers are next planning to screen chemical compounds to find those that inhibit PHLPP1 and restore PKC levels in low-PKC-pancreatic cancer cells in the lab. These might form the basis of a new therapeutic drug for pancreatic cancer.

 

References:

 

https://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2019-03-20-two-enzymes-linked-to-pancreatic-cancer-survival.aspx?elqTrackId=b6864b278958402787f61dd7b7624666

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30904392

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29513138

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18511290

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28476658

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28283201

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24231509

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28112438

 

Read Full Post »

Immunoediting can be a constant defense in the cancer landscape


Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

There are many considerations in the cancer immunoediting landscape of defense and regulation in the cancer hallmark biology. The cancer hallmark biology in concert with key controls of the HLA compatibility affinity mechanisms are pivotal in architecting a unique patient-centric therapeutic application. Selection of random immune products including neoantigens, antigens, antibodies and other vital immune elements creates a high level of uncertainty and risk of undesirable immune reactions. Immunoediting is a constant process. The human innate and adaptive forces can either trigger favorable or unfavorable immunoediting features. Cancer is a multi-disease entity. There are multi-factorial initiators in a certain disease process. Namely, environmental exposures, viral and / or microbiome exposure disequilibrium, direct harm to DNA, poor immune adaptability, inherent risk and an individual’s own vibration rhythm in life.

 

When a human single cell is crippled (Deranged DNA) with mixed up molecular behavior that is the initiator of the problem. A once normal cell now transitioned into full threatening molecular time bomb. In the modeling and creation of a tumor it all begins with the singular molecular crisis and crippling of a normal human cell. At this point it is either chop suey (mixed bit responses) or a productive defensive and regulation response and posture of the immune system. Mixed bits of normal DNA, cancer-laden DNA, circulating tumor DNA, circulating normal cells, circulating tumor cells, circulating immune defense cells, circulating immune inflammatory cells forming a moiety of normal and a moiety of mess. The challenge is to scavenge the mess and amplify the normal.

 

Immunoediting is a primary push-button feature that is definitely required to be hit when it comes to initiating immune defenses against cancer and an adaptation in favor of regression. As mentioned before that the tumor microenvironment is a “mixed bit” moiety, which includes elements of the immune system that can defend against circulating cancer cells and tumor growth. Personalized (Precision-Based) cancer vaccines must become the primary form of treatment in this case. Current treatment regimens in conventional therapy destroy immune defenses and regulation and create more serious complications observed in tumor progression, metastasis and survival. Commonly resistance to chemotherapeutic agents is observed. These personalized treatments will be developed in concert with cancer hallmark analytics and immunocentrics affinity and selection mapping. This mapping will demonstrate molecular pathway interface and HLA compatibility and adaptation with patientcentricity.

References:

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/immunoediting-cancer-landscape-john-catanzaro/

 

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)31609-9

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309432057_Circulating_tumor_cell_clusters_What_we_know_and_what_we_expect_Review

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4190561/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5840207/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5593672/

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00414/full

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5593672/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4190561/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4388310/

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cancer-hallmark-analytics-omics-data-pathway-studio-review-catanzaro/

 

Read Full Post »

Immunotherapy may help in glioblastoma survival


Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

Glioblastoma is the most common primary malignant brain tumor in adults and is associated with poor survival. But, in a glimmer of hope, a recent study found that a drug designed to unleash the immune system helped some patients live longer. Glioblastoma powerfully suppresses the immune system, both at the site of the cancer and throughout the body, which has made it difficult to find effective treatments. Such tumors are complex and differ widely in their behavior and characteristics.

 

A small randomized, multi-institution clinical trial was conducted and led by researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles involved patients who had a recurrence of glioblastoma, the most common central nervous system cancer. The aim was to evaluate immune responses and survival following neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab (checkpoint inhibitor) in 35 patients with recurrent, surgically resectable glioblastoma. Patients who were randomized to receive neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, with continued adjuvant therapy following surgery, had significantly extended overall survival compared to patients that were randomized to receive adjuvant, post-surgical programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade alone.

 

Neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade was associated with upregulation of T cell– and interferon-γ-related gene expression, but downregulation of cell-cycle-related gene expression within the tumor, which was not seen in patients that received adjuvant therapy alone. Focal induction of programmed death-ligand 1 in the tumor microenvironment, enhanced clonal expansion of T cells, decreased PD-1 expression on peripheral blood T cells and a decreasing monocytic population was observed more frequently in the neoadjuvant group than in patients treated only in the adjuvant setting. These findings suggest that the neoadjuvant administration of PD-1 blockade enhanced both the local and systemic antitumor immune response and may represent a more efficacious approach to the treatment of this uniformly lethal brain tumor.

 

Immunotherapy has not proved to be effective against glioblastoma. This small clinical trial explored the effect of PD-1 blockade on recurrent glioblastoma in relation to the timing of administration. A total of 35 patients undergoing resection of recurrent disease were randomized to either neoadjuvant or adjuvant pembrolizumab, and surgical specimens were compared between the two groups. Interestingly, the tumoral gene expression signature varied between the two groups, such that those who received neoadjuvant pembrolizumab displayed an INF-γ gene signature suggestive of T-cell activation as well as suppression of cell-cycle signaling, possibly consistent with growth arrest. Although the study was not powered for efficacy, the group found an increase in overall survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant pembrolizumab compared with adjuvant pembrolizumab of 13.7 months versus 7.5 months, respectively.

 

In this small pilot study, neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade followed by surgical resection was associated with intratumoral T-cell activation and inhibition of tumor growth as well as longer survival. How the drug works in glioblastoma has not been totally established. The researchers speculated that giving the drug before surgery prompted T-cells within the tumor, which had been impaired, to attack the cancer and extend lives. The drug didn’t spur such anti-cancer activity after the surgery because those T-cells were removed along with the tumor. The results are very important and very promising but would need to be validated in much larger trials.

 

References:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/02/11/immunotherapy-may-help-patients-with-kind-cancer-that-killed-john-mccain/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e1b2e6fffccc

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30742122

 

https://www.practiceupdate.com/content/neoadjuvant-anti-pd-1-immunotherapy-promotes-immune-responses-in-recurrent-gbm/79742/37/12/1

 

https://www.esmo.org/Oncology-News/Neoadjuvant-PD-1-Blockade-in-Glioblastoma

 

https://neurosciencenews.com/immunotherapy-glioblastoma-cancer-10722/

 

Read Full Post »


Reporter: Gail S. Thornton

This article appeared on the web site of Harley Street Concierge, one of the U.K.’s leading independent providers of clinical, practical and emotion support for cancer patients. 

Cancer at Work: An Interview With Barbara Wilson

Whether you’re supporting an employee through cancer at work. Or you’re a cancer patient struggling to get the support you need. Either way, this Q and A with Barbara Wilson will help you out. Read on for a glimpse into Barbara’s personal experience with breast cancer. Find out where companies are falling short of supporting employees. Discover what you need to do if you’re feeling unsupported at work. And learn what’s unacceptable for Barbara in a modern and civilised society.

In a 2013 interview about cancer at work, you expressed amazement at “the lack of understanding there is about cancer. And what the impact is on individuals”. How would you say this has improved in the last 4 years? And what do you feel still needs to change?

There’s greater awareness and understanding about cancer at work. More organisations are aware of the difficulties people face. But many organisations don’t appreciate that recovery isn’t straightforward or quick. They also tend to rely on generic return to work policies. And these are inappropriate when it comes to supporting people recovering from cancer. A lot still depends on how far the local line manager is prepared to support an employee. And whether they’ll bend rules if need be about leave or sick pay.

You were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005 and given the all clear in 2010. What did you learn about yourself through treatment and recovery?

 

I learned that I wasn’t immortal or superhuman! And also that life is precious and so it’s important to make the best of it. That doesn’t actually mean counting off things on your bucket list. Or living each day as if it’s your last. It’s about appreciating what you have, family, friends and the sheer joy of being alive.

“Life is precious. It’s about appreciating what you have, family, friends and the sheer joy of being alive.”

It’s a common misperception that people in remission want more family time or to travel the world. What reasons do your clients share with you for wanting to get back to work?

Yes. Before I had cancer, I remember asking a terminally ill employee why she still wanted to work. And she worked until a fortnight before her death. The simple answer is that it’s about feeling normal. Using your brain. Being with friends and colleagues rather than on your own. And losing yourself in your work. There are also financial reasons. But typically – and I can say this based on my own experience – it’s about being ‘you’ again rather than a cancer patient.

“I remember asking a terminally ill employee why she still wanted to work. And she worked until a fortnight before her death. Typically – and I can say this based on my own experience – it’s about being ‘you’ again rather than a cancer patient.”

You share tips for employers and HR professionals in this article for Macmillan. And you set out how to support a colleague during and after cancer treatment. What would you say to an employee who isn’t feeling supported by their employer or colleagues in this way?

In my experience there are two main reasons why people often aren’t supported.

1. Bosses and colleagues don’t understand the full impact of cancer treatment. They won’t understand what fatigue is or chemo brain or peripheral neuropathy. So they often expect people to get ‘back to normal’ work after 6 to 8 weeks. But recovery can take many months. This isn’t helped by the person often looking fit and well.

2. People don’t like talking about cancer at work. They feel awkward. And as a result often decide to say nothing. We advise people to be open from the outset. To understand their right to reasonable adjustments. And their responsibility to update their employer about their recovery and support needs. Employees recovering from cancer often have to take the lead. They have to guide their colleagues about the specific help they need. You can’t expect others to do it for you. It sounds wrong but that’s how it is.

“Bosses and colleagues often expect people to get ‘back to normal’ work after 6 to 8 weeks. But recovery can take many months. “

More than 100,000 people had to wait more than 2 weeks to see a cancer specialist in the UK last year. 25,153 had to wait more than 62 days to start treatment. What’s your reaction to these statistics?

It’s shocking. The worry for patients and their families during this period is totally debilitating. And on top of this it means that the cancer is growing unchecked. Where the cancer is aggressive, the delay may threaten lives. And it will certainly add to the overall costs of care. We really have to address this. It’s just not acceptable in a modern and civilised society.

“The worry for patients and their families during this period is totally debilitating. We really have to address this.”

Finally, can you tell us more about Working With Cancer?

Working With Cancer is a social enterprise and was established in June 2014. We support people affected by cancer to lead fulfilling and rewarding working lives. That means helping people to successfully return to work or remain in work. Or sometimes it’s about helping people to find work – depending on their personal needs. We work with corporate, charities and other third sector organisations to support people throughout the UK.

We coach people diagnosed with cancer to re-establish their working lives. And we train employers to understand how to manage work and cancer. We’ll advise teams about how to support a colleague affected by cancer. And we help carers juggle work whilst supporting their loved ones. Working With Cancer also helps organisations to update or improve their policies.

Barbara Wilson - Cancer at Work

About Barbara Wilson

Barbara Wilson is a senior HR professional with almost 40 years’ experience.  Roles include Group Head of Strategic HR at Catlin Group Ltd. Deputy Head of HR at Schroders Investment Management. And Chief of Staff to the Group HR Director at Barclays. After a breast cancer diagnosis, Barbara launched Working With Cancer. It’s a Social Enterprise providing coaching, training and consultancy to employers, employees, carers and health professionals.

 

For more information about Working With Cancer, click here to visit the websiteFollow this link to connect with Barbara on Twitter. Email admin@workingwithcancer.co.uk. Or call 07508 232257 or 07919 147784.

 

SOURCE

https://harleystreetconcierge.com/cancer-at-work/

Other posts on the JP Morgan 2019 Healthcare Conference on this Open Access Journal include:

2018

Top 10 Cancer Research Priorities

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2018/12/24/top-10-cancer-research-priorities/

Innovation + Technology = Good Patient Experience

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2018/12/24/innovation-technology-good-patient-experience/

2017

Inspiring Book for ALL Cancer Survivors, ALL Cancer Patients and ALL Cardiac Patients – The VOICES of Patients, Hospitals CEOs, Health Care Providers, Caregivers and Families: Personal Experience with Critical Care and Invasive Medical Procedures

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2017/10/24/inspiring-book-for-all-cancer-survivors-all-cancer-patients-and-all-cardiac-patients-the-voices-of-patients-hospitals-ceos-health-care-providers-caregivers-and-families-personal-experience-with/

2016

Funding Opportunities for Cancer Research

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/12/08/funding-opportunities-for-cancer-research/

2012

The Incentive for “Imaging based cancer patient’ management”

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/08/27/the-incentive-for-imaging-based-cancer-patient-management/

Read Full Post »


The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) identified top 10 research priorities for people living with cancer to consider to improve treatment and quality of life. 

Reporter: Gail S. Thornton

By 2030 four million people in the UK will be living with the long-term consequences of cancer, but currently there is very little research on the problems they face and how these can be tackled. To help them live better lives, more focused research is needed.

To determine priorities for research that will help people live better with and beyond cancer, NCRI partnered with the James Lind Alliance on a Priority Setting Partnership. The two-year project involved two UK-wide surveys which attracted more than 3500 responses from patients, carers, and health and social care professionals. From these, we identified 26 key questions and distilled these down to 10 top research priorities.

This is the first time that clear research priorities have been identified in this area.

Questions 1 – 10 Questions 11 – 26

SOURCE

https://www.ncri.org.uk/lwbc/

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »