Comparative Effectiveness of Bladder-preserving Tri-modality Therapy Versus Radical Cystectomy for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer

Introduction

There are limited randomized data comparing radical cystectomy (RC) with bladder-sparing tri-modality therapy (TMT) in the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Both strategies are thought to have similar survival outcomes with different morbidity profiles. We compare the effectiveness of TMT and RC using decision-analytic modeling and the endpoint of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

Quality of life in Greek family members living with leg ulcer patients

Leg ulcers have been shown to have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life (QoL). Little is known, however, about the secondary impact of the disease on the QoL of the relatives and partners of patients with leg ulcers. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of chronic leg ulcers on the lives of both patients and their family members. Two hundred sixteen patients with leg ulcers and their family members were recruited. All patients entered were evaluated for QoL using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scale, and family members were similarly evaluated using the Family Dermatology Life Quality Index (FDLQI).The study included 56 female and 52 male patients, and 50 female and 58 male family members. The FDLQI score for the latter group was 14.37 ± 2.46 with over 96% of family members reporting a large effect on their QoL due to their relative's disease. The DLQI score in patients with leg ulcers was 13.18 ± 2.88. A significant positive and high correlation between DLQI and FDLQI scores (r = 0.71, p < 0.001) was documented, while DLQI contributed significantly to the prediction of FDLQI (standardized β = 0.71, p < 0.001). Our study results indicate that the QoL of the family was also affected by the patient's condition of chronic leg ulcers and clearly associated with that of the patients.     

What are Journals for?

‘The secret is comprised in three words – work, finish, publish.’Michael FaradayThere are many reasons doctors want to publish their work. For most at an early stage in their career, this may be to add a line to their curriculum vitae and advance their careers but for academics, publishing is an expectation. Many will believe they have something important to say, and wish to provoke debate and discussion; others wish to share knowledge and experiences, which in medicine can lead to a satisfying change in clinical practice. All serve to register one’s idea and educate others. However, for some, the reason is as basic as money. As we celebrate the 350th anniversary of the first academic publication, perhaps we have come full circle when it comes to why people publish?Publishing is a flourishing business. There were approximately 28,100 active scholarly peer-reviewed journals in mid-2012, collectively publishing about 1.8–1.9 million articles per year. The number of articles published each year and the number of journals have both grown steadily for more than two centuries, by about 3% and 3.5% per year respectively.¹ Journals have a responsibility to refine and define information and act as a scientific filter. Many of us will receive daily invitations in our email inbox from eclectic and new journals that are likely to take anything – is the filter now too porous? But this industry is like any other commercial activity and the supply still far outstrips the demand. Perhaps the internet revolution has merely fuelled our hunger to publish more?The launch of this exciting and innovative series about publishing coincides with the 350th celebration of the publication of the first academic journal. In the age of social media, the first question is ‘What are journals for?’, which Simon Rallison sets out to answer. Simon is Director of Publications at the Physiological Society, and was previously a journal publisher with Earthscan, Springer and Blackwell.Writing is hard work and, through this series, I hope the reader will get some useful insight into this service industry for academia.Jyoti ShahCommissioning EditorIn an age of the internet and social media, why are we still using (admittedly with refinements and improvements) a form of publication dating from 1665? What exactly is a journal in the 21st century and what role does it have to perform? Surprisingly, the academic journal has not evolved since it was invented 350 years ago.¹ The first issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society was published in 1665, the brainchild of Henry Oldenburg and Robert Hooke. Since then, journals have digitised and now offer greater opportunity for research communication – but are authors taking advantage of what journals can offer? The academic and research community is generally very conservative about what it reads and how it views journals. There are, however, also frequent misunderstandings about the operation of journals.     

Prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of neutropenic fever in patients undergoing autologous stem-cell transplantation: results of a single institution, randomized phase 2 trial

One hundred and fifty-seven patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) for hematopoietic malignancies and solid tumors were randomly assigned to receive (Group A) or not (Group B) prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin, orally, and vancomycin, intravenously. Prophylactic antibiotics were given from day 0 until resolution of neutropenia or the appearance of a febrile event. Furthermore, patients in both groups received once a day fluconazole, orally. The primary end-point of our study was the incidence of neutropenic febrile episodes attributed to infection. One hundred and twelve (71.3%) patients developed neutropenic fever, 50 (56.2%) in Group A and 62 (91.2%) in Group B (P < 0.001) with the majority (82%) of patients developing fever of unknown origin. Patients on prophylactic antibiotics had a significantly lower rate of bacteremias (5.6%) than did those randomized to no prophylaxis (29.4%) (P = 0.005) and, when developing neutropenic fever, they had a lower probability of response to first-line empirical antibiotics (P = 0.025). Prophylactic administration of ciprofloxacin and vancomycin reduced the incidence of neutropenic fever in patients receiving HDT with ASCT, however, without affecting the total interval of hospitalization, time to engraftment, or all-cause mortality. Therefore, our results do not support the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing HDT and ASCT.     

A fuzzy logic model for differential diagnosis of lower urinary tract dysfunctions

Lower urinary tract dysfunctions (LUTD) restrict quality of life, resulting in decreased work productivity and emotional well‐being. However, most people are not diagnosed because they do not seek medical treatment. In addition, some facilities do not adequately train health professionals in the evaluation, diagnosis and treatment of these conditions. The study's objective was to develop a decision support system modelled on fuzzy logic that defines LUTD using the terminology of the International Continence Society. This methodological study aimed to develop a model that uses the maximum–minimum composition (max–min) of fuzzy relations that can perform differential diagnoses of LUTD. The model was tested in 100 cases (50 men and 50 women), and the data were obtained from medical records containing the clinical data and results of urodynamic studies. All medical records were reviewed by a specialist in urology. The model was capable of determining a diagnosis in full (62%) or partial (36%) agreement with the medical report. Agreement between the model and the medical report was excellent (kappa = 0·98, p ? 0·001, CI = 0·88–1) or substantial (kappa = 0·53, p ? 0·001, CI = 0·45–0·60), considering overestimative accordance (where accordance is assumed when at least one diagnosis is equal) and underestimative accordance (where accordance is assumed when all diagnoses are equal), respectively. The proposed model based on the max–min composition of fuzzy relationships is very simple and performed well. However, more tests are recommended before the model is used as a decision support system.