Advancing primary and community care for persons with spinal cord injury: Key findings from a Canadian summit

Context: Persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) experience significant challenges when they access primary care and community services.

Design: A provincial summit was held to direct research, education, and innovation for primary and community care for SCI.

Setting: Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Participants: Key stakeholders (N?=?95) including persons with SCI and caregivers, clinicians from primary care, rehabilitation, and specialized care, researchers, advocacy groups, and policy makers.

Methods: A one-day facilitated meeting that included guest speakers, panel discussions and small group discussions was held to generate potential solutions to current issues related to SCI care and to foster collaborative relationships to advance care for SCI. Perspectives on SCI management were shared by primary care, neurosurgery, rehabilitation, and members of the SCI community

Outcome Measures: Discussions were focused on five domains: knowledge translation and dissemination, application of best practices, communication, research, and patient service accessibility.

Results: Summit participants identified issues and prioritized solutions to improve primary and community care including the creation of a network of key stakeholders to enable knowledge creation and dissemination; an online repository of SCI resources, integrated health records, and a clinical network for SCI care; development and implementation of strategies to improve care transitions across sectors; implementation of effective care models and improved access to services; and utilization of empowerment frameworks to support self-management.

Conclusions: This summit identified priorities for further collaborative efforts to advance SCI primary and community care and will inform the development of a provincial SCI strategy aimed at improving the system of care for SCI.     

Does a high Mandard score really define a poor response to chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma?

Background A high Mandard score implies a non-response to chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma. However, some patients exhibit tumour volume reduction and a nodal response despite a high score. This study examines survival and recurrence patterns in these patients.Methods Clinicopathological factors were analysed using multivariable Cox regression assessing time to death and recurrence. Computed tomography-estimated tumour volume change was examined in a subgroup of consecutive patients.Results Five hundred and fifty-five patients were included. Median survival was 55 months (Mandard 1–3) and 21 months (Mandard 4 and 5). In the Mandard 4 and 5 group (332 patients), comparison between complete nodal responders and persistent nodal disease showed improved survival (90 vs 18 months), recurrence rates (locoregional 14.75 vs 28.74%, systemic 24.59 vs 48.42%) and circumferential resection margin positivity (22.95 vs 68.11%). Complete nodal response independently predicted improved survival (hazard ratio 0.34 (0.16–0.74). Post-chemotherapy tumour volume reduction was greater in patients with a complete nodal response (−16.3 vs −7.7 cm³, p = 0.033) with no significant difference between Mandard groups.Conclusion Patients with a complete nodal response to chemotherapy have significantly improved outcomes despite a poor Mandard score. High Mandard score does not correspond with a non-response to chemotherapy in all cases and patients with nodal downstaging may still benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.Subject terms: Oesophageal cancer, Surgical oncology     

Symptoms During or Shortly After Isolated Carpal Tunnel Release and Problems Within 24?hours After Surgery

This study used the National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery (NSAS) database to measure the incidence of and risk factors for symptoms in the ambulatory surgery center and problems within 24 h after isolated carpal tunnel release (CTR). The NSAS contained records on 400,000 adult patients with carpal tunnel syndrome who were treated with CTR in 2006, based on ICD-9 codes. The type of anesthesia used and factors associated with symptoms and problems were sought in bivariate and multivariable statistical analyses. The mean duration of the procedure was 16 ± 8.8 min. Only 5 % were performed under local anesthesia without sedation, 45 % with IV sedation, 28 % regional anesthesia, and 19 % general anesthesia. Symptoms in the ambulatory surgery center or a problem within 24 h after discharge were recorded in 10 % of patients, all of them minor and transient, including difficulties with pain and its treatment. The strongest risk factors were male sex, age of 45 years and older, and participation of an anesthesiologist. Local anesthesia and regional anesthesia were associated with more perioperative symptoms and postoperative problems. Most CTR are performed with some sedation in the United States. CTR is a safe procedure: one in 10 patients will experience a minor issue in the perioperative or immediate postoperative period.     

A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.