Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Language
      Language
      Clear All
      Language
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
89 result(s) for "Vaidya, Jayant S"
Sort by:
Design and development of a portable multiwavelength LED-based diffuse reflectance spectroscopy tool for rapid breast cancer identification
Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer among women worldwide, emphasizing the need for rapid and accurate diagnostic tools to improve patient outcomes and survival rates. In this study, we developed a diagnostic tool—a multispectral pen based on diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS)—to enable real-time ex vivo differentiation between malignant and adjacent normal human breast tissues, primarily based on lipid and collagen absorbers. Diffuse reflectance was observed to be higher, while reduced absorbance was lower for malignant tissue compared to adjacent normal tissue across 62 samples (50 formalin-fixed and 12 fresh tissues). Clinical data from 31 patients, with paired adjacent normal and malignant samples per patient, revealed significantly lower mean reduced absorbance values for malignant tissue at three wavelengths: 850 nm (0.13 ± 0.02 vs. 0.28 ± 0.02), 940 nm (0.19 ± 0.01 vs. 0.37 ± 0.02), and 1050 nm (0.25 ± 0.03 vs. 0.43 ± 0.03) with  p  < 0.0001 across formalin-fixed tissue samples. Using a CatBoost machine learning model, the tool achieved an accuracy of 90%, a sensitivity of 80%, and a specificity of 100% in distinguishing malignant from normal tissues. Limitations include a small sample size and limited patient diversity. Future work aims to integrate the DRS technology with machine learning algorithms to provide real-time intraoperative margin assessment, and testing in a larger study.
Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (TARGIT-A trial): an international, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial
After breast-conserving surgery, 90% of local recurrences occur within the index quadrant despite the presence of multicentric cancers elsewhere in the breast. Thus, restriction of radiation therapy to the tumour bed during surgery might be adequate for selected patients. We compared targeted intraoperative radiotherapy with the conventional policy of whole breast external beam radiotherapy. Having safely piloted the new technique of single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy with Intrabeam, we launched the TARGIT-A trial on March 24, 2000. In this prospective, randomised, non-inferiority trial, women aged 45 years or older with invasive ductal breast carcinoma undergoing breast-conserving surgery were enrolled from 28 centres in nine countries. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive targeted intraoperative radiotherapy or whole breast external beam radiotherapy, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy. Neither patients nor investigators or their teams were masked to treatment assignment. Postoperative discovery of predefined factors (eg, lobular carcinoma) could trigger addition of external beam radiotherapy to targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (in an expected 15% of patients). The primary outcome was local recurrence in the conserved breast. The predefined non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 2·5% in the primary endpoint. All randomised patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00983684. 1113 patients were randomly allocated to targeted intraoperative radiotherapy and 1119 were allocated to external beam radiotherapy. Of 996 patients who received the allocated treatment in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy group, 854 (86%) received targeted intraoperative radiotherapy only and 142 (14%) received targeted intraoperative radiotherapy plus external beam radiotherapy. 1025 (92%) patients in the external beam radiotherapy group received the allocated treatment. At 4 years, there were six local recurrences in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and five in the external beam radiotherapy group. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of local recurrence in the conserved breast at 4 years was 1·20% (95% CI 0·53–2·71) in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy and 0·95% (0·39–2·31) in the external beam radiotherapy group (difference between groups 0·25%, −1·04 to 1·54; p=0·41). The frequency of any complications and major toxicity was similar in the two groups (for major toxicity, targeted intraoperative radiotherapy, 37 [3·3%] of 1113 vs external beam radiotherapy, 44 [3·9%] of 1119; p=0·44). Radiotherapy toxicity (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3) was lower in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy group (six patients [0·5%]) than in the external beam radiotherapy group (23 patients [2·1%]; p=0·002). For selected patients with early breast cancer, a single dose of radiotherapy delivered at the time of surgery by use of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy should be considered as an alternative to external beam radiotherapy delivered over several weeks. University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).
Effects of awareness of breast cancer overdiagnosis among women with screen-detected or incidentally found breast cancer: a qualitative interview study
ObjectivesTo explore experiences of women who identified themselves as having a possible breast cancer overdiagnosis.DesignQualitative interview study using key components of a grounded theory analysis.SettingInternational interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer and aware of the concept of overdiagnosis.ParticipantsTwelve women aged 48–77 years from the UK (6), USA (4), Canada (1) and Australia (1) who had breast cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ n=9, (invasive) breast cancer n=3) diagnosed between 2004 and 2019, and who were aware of the possibility of overdiagnosis. Participants were recruited via online blogs and professional clinical networks.ResultsMost women (10/12) became aware of overdiagnosis after their own diagnosis. All were concerned about the possibility of overdiagnosis or overtreatment or both. Finding out about overdiagnosis/overtreatment had negative psychosocial impacts on women’s sense of self, quality of interactions with medical professionals, and for some, had triggered deep remorse about past decisions and actions. Many were uncomfortable with being treated as a cancer patient when they did not feel ‘diseased’. For most, the recommended treatments seemed excessive compared with the diagnosis given. Most found that their initial clinical teams were not forthcoming about the possibility of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and many found it difficult to deal with their set management protocols.ConclusionThe experiences of this small and unusual group of women provide rare insight into the profound negative impact of finding out about overdiagnosis after breast cancer diagnosis. Previous studies have found that women valued information about overdiagnosis before screening and this knowledge did not reduce subsequent screening uptake. Policymakers and clinicians should recognise the diversity of women’s perspectives and ensure that women are adequately informed of the possibility of overdiagnosis before screening.
Qualitative exploration of patients’ experiences with Intrabeam TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT-IORT) and External-Beam RadioTherapy Treatment (EBRT) for breast cancer
ObjectiveTo gather a deep qualitative understanding of the perceived benefits and impacts of External-Beam RadioTherapy (EBRT) and TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT-IORT) using Intrabeam to assess how the treatments affected patient/care partner experiences during their cancer treatment and beyond.Design and participantsA patient-led working group was established to guide study design and to help validate findings. Patients with experience of receiving EBRT or TARGIT-IORT were purposively sampled by Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. These patients had been offered both regimens as per their clinical features and eligibility. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 29 patients and care partners with lived experience of either EBRT (n=12, 5-day FAST-Forward regimen and n=3, 3-week regimen) or TARGIT-IORT (n=14). Thematic analysis was then carried out by two coders generating 11 themes related to EBRT or TARGIT-IORT.SettingSemistructured interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom during February and March 2023.ResultsA number of procedural grievances were noted among EBRT patients. EBRT was perceived as being disruptive to normal routines (work, home and travel) and caused discomfort from side effects. TARGIT-IORT was perceived by patients and care partners as the safer option and efficient with minimal if any disruptions to quality of life. The need for timely accessible information to reduce anxieties was noted in both cohorts.ConclusionsThis qualitative study found that patients perceived EBRT as being greatly disruptive to their lives. In contrast, the one-off feature of TARGIT-IORT given while they are asleep during surgery gives them the feeling of stamping out the cancer without conscious awareness. These insights can help healthcare staff and policy-makers further justify the incorporation of the treatment favoured by these patient perceptions (TARGIT-IORT) more widely in routine practice. Further research is planned to explore TARGIT-IORT in more diverse populations and in the 35 countries where it is an established treatment option.
NSAID analgesic ketorolac used perioperatively may suppress early breast cancer relapse: particular relevance to triple negative subgroup
To explain a bimodal relapse hazard among early stage breast cancer patients treated by mastectomy we postulated that relapses within 4 years of surgery resulted from something that happened at about the time of surgery to provoke sudden exits from dormant phases to active growth. Relapses at 10 months appeared to be surgery-induced angiogenesis of dormant avascular micrometastases. Another relapse mode with peak about 30 months corresponded to sudden growth from a single cell. Late relapses were not synchronized to surgery. This hypothesis could explain a wide variety of breast cancer observations. We have been looking for new data that might provide more insight concerning the various relapse modes. Retrospective data reported in June 2010 study of 327 consecutive patients compared various perioperative analgesics and anesthetics in one Belgian hospital and one surgeon. Patients were treated with mastectomy and conventional adjuvant therapy. Follow-up was average 27.3 months with range 13–44 months. Updated hazard as of September 2011 for this series is now presented. NSAID ketorolac, a common analgesic used in surgery, is associated with far superior disease-free survival in the first few years after surgery. The expected prominent early relapse events are all but absent. In the 9–18 month period, there is fivefold reduction in relapses. If this observation holds up to further scrutiny, it could mean that the simple use of this safe and effective anti-inflammatory agent at surgery might eliminate most early relapses. Transient systemic inflammation accompanying surgery could be part of the metastatic tumor seeding process and could have been effectively blocked by perioperative anti-inflammatory agents. In addition, antiangiogenic properties of NSAIDs could also play a role. Triple negative breast cancer may be the ideal group with which to test perioperative ketorolac to prevent early relapses.
Cosmetic outcome as rated by patients, doctors, nurses and BCCT.core software assessed over 5 years in a subset of patients in the TARGIT-A Trial
Background The purpose of this research was to assess agreement between four rating systems of cosmetic outcome measured in a subset of patients with early breast cancer participating in the randomised TARGIT-A trial. TARGIT-A compared risk-adapted single-dose intra-operative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) to whole breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Methods Patients, their Radiation Oncologist and Research Nurse completed a subjective cosmetic assessment questionnaire before radiotherapy and annually thereafter for five years. Objective data previously calculated by the validated BCCT.core software which utilizes digital photographs to score symmetry, colour and scar was also used. Agreement was assessed by the Kappa statistic and longitudinal changes were assessed by generalized estimating equations. Results Overall, an Excellent-Good (EG) cosmetic result was scored more often than a Fair-Poor (FP) result for both treatment groups across all time points, with patients who received TARGIT-IORT scoring EG more often than those who received EBRT however this was statistically significant at Year 5 only. There was modest agreement between the four rating systems with the highest Kappa score being moderate agreement which was between nurse and doctor scores at Year 1 with Kappa = 0.46 ( p  < 0.001), 95% CI (0.24, 0.68). Conclusion Despite similar overall findings between treatment groups and rating systems, the inter-rater agreement was only modest. This suggests that the four rating systems utilized may not necessarily be used interchangeably and it is arguable that for an outcome such as cosmetic appearance, the patient’s point of view is the most important. Trial Registration TARGIT-A ISRCTN34086741 , Registered 21 July 2004, retrospectively registered.
Organic Nanodelivery Systems as a New Platform in the Management of Breast Cancer: A Comprehensive Review from Preclinical to Clinical Studies
Breast cancer accounts for approximately 25% of cancer cases and 16.5% of cancer deaths in women, and the World Health Organization predicts that the number of new cases will increase by almost 70% over the next two decades, mainly due to an ageing population. Effective diagnostic and treatment strategies are, therefore, urgently required for improving cure rates among patients since current therapeutic modalities have many limitations and side effects. Nanomedicine is evolving as a promising approach for cancer management, including breast cancer, and various types of organic and inorganic nanomaterials have been investigated for their role in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Following an overview on breast cancer characteristics and pathogenesis and challenges of the current treatment strategies, the therapeutic potential of biocompatible organic-based nanoparticles such as liposomes and polymeric micelles that have been tested in breast cancer models are reviewed. The efficacies of different drug delivery and targeting strategies are documented, ranging from synthetic to cell-derived nanoformulations together with a summary of the interaction of nanoparticles with externally applied energy such as radiotherapy. The clinical translation of nanoformulations for breast cancer treatment is summarized including those undergoing clinical trials.
Rethinking neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer
As evidence questioning the rationale behind neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer grows, Jayant Vaidya and colleagues say we must reconsider the current treatment options
Long term survival and local control outcomes from single dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy during lumpectomy (TARGIT-IORT) for early breast cancer: TARGIT-A randomised clinical trial
To determine whether risk adapted intraoperative radiotherapy, delivered as a single dose during lumpectomy, can effectively replace postoperative whole breast external beam radiotherapy for early breast cancer. Prospective, open label, randomised controlled clinical trial. 32 centres in 10 countries in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, the United States, and Canada. 2298 women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma up to 3.5 cm in size, cN0-N1, eligible for breast conservation and randomised before lumpectomy (1:1 ratio, blocks stratified by centre) to either risk adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Random allocation was to the EBRT arm, which consisted of a standard daily fractionated course (three to six weeks) of whole breast radiotherapy, or the TARGIT-IORT arm. TARGIT-IORT was given immediately after lumpectomy under the same anaesthetic and was the only radiotherapy for most patients (around 80%). TARGIT-IORT was supplemented by EBRT when postoperative histopathology found unsuspected higher risk factors (around 20% of patients). Non-inferiority with a margin of 2.5% for the absolute difference between the five year local recurrence rates of the two arms, and long term survival outcomes. Between 24 March 2000 and 25 June 2012, 1140 patients were randomised to TARGIT-IORT and 1158 to EBRT. TARGIT-IORT was non-inferior to EBRT: the local recurrence risk at five year complete follow-up was 2.11% for TARGIT-IORT compared with 0.95% for EBRT (difference 1.16%, 90% confidence interval 0.32 to 1.99). In the first five years, 13 additional local recurrences were reported (24/1140 11/1158) but 14 fewer deaths (42/1140 56/1158) for TARGIT-IORT compared with EBRT. With long term follow-up (median 8.6 years, maximum 18.90 years, interquartile range 7.0-10.6) no statistically significant difference was found for local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.41, P=0.28), mastectomy-free survival (0.96, 0.78 to 1.19, P=0.74), distant disease-free survival (0.88, 0.69 to 1.12, P=0.30), overall survival (0.82, 0.63 to 1.05, P=0.13), and breast cancer mortality (1.12, 0.78 to 1.60, P=0.54). Mortality from other causes was significantly lower (0.59, 0.40 to 0.86, P=0.005). For patients with early breast cancer who met our trial selection criteria, risk adapted immediate single dose TARGIT-IORT during lumpectomy was an effective alternative to EBRT, with comparable long term efficacy for cancer control and lower non-breast cancer mortality. TARGIT-IORT should be discussed with eligible patients when breast conserving surgery is planned. ISRCTN34086741, NCT00983684.
Intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer
Postoperative radiotherapy, which forms part of breastconserving therapy, may not need to encompass the whole breast. Apart from the consumption of huge resources and patients' time, postoperative radiotherapy deters many women from receiving the benefits of breast-conserving surgery, forcing them to choose a mastectomy instead. If radiotherapy could be given in the operating theatre immediately after surgery, many of these disadvantages could be overcome. One striking fact about local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery is that most occurs in the area of breast immediately next to the primary tumour; this is despite the finding that two-thirds of mastectomy samples have microscopic tumours distributed throughout the breast, even when radiotherapy is omitted. Thus, only the area adjacent to the tumour may need treatment with radiotherapy. On the basis of this premise, clinical scientists have used new technology to administer radiotherapy to the area at greatest risk of local recurrence, with the aim of completing the whole local treatment in one sitting. In this review, we have elaborated on the rationale and different methods of delivery of intraoperative radiotherapy. If this approach is validated by the results of current randomized trials, it could save time, money, and breasts.