https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.2307%2F3343168.pdf

Development as Freedom

Importance Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose. Objective To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. Process The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category. Evidence Synthesis Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects. Recommendations There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. Conclusions and Relevance The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.

/pdf/cdc-guideline-for-prescribing-opioids-for-chronic-pain-j4r6nt5nmj.pdf

CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain—United States, 2016

/pdf/cdc-guideline-for-prescribing-opioids-for-chronic-pain-48d7kdjqlr.pdf

CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain

This guideline provides recommendations for primary care clinicians who are prescribing opioids for chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. The guideline addresses 1) when to initiate or continue opioids for chronic pain; 2) opioid selection, dosage, duration, follow-up, and discontinuation; and 3) assessing risk and addressing harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, and recommendations are made on the basis of a systematic review of the scientific evidence while considering benefits and harms, values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from experts, stakeholders, the public, peer reviewers, and a federally chartered advisory committee. It is important that patients receive appropriate pain treatment with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of treatment options. This guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death. CDC has provided a checklist for prescribing opioids for chronic pain (http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/38025) as well as a website (http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribingresources.html) with additional tools to guide clinicians in implementing the recommendations.

/pdf/cdc-guideline-for-prescribing-opioids-for-chronic-pain-176rugcvk3.pdf

CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016.

Radiomics, the high-throughput mining of quantitative image features from standard-of-care medical imaging that enables data to be extracted and applied within clinical-decision support systems to improve diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive accuracy, is gaining importance in cancer research. Radiomic analysis exploits sophisticated image analysis tools and the rapid development and validation of medical imaging data that uses image-based signatures for precision diagnosis and treatment, providing a powerful tool in modern medicine. Herein, we describe the process of radiomics, its pitfalls, challenges, opportunities, and its capacity to improve clinical decision making, emphasizing the utility for patients with cancer. Currently, the field of radiomics lacks standardized evaluation of both the scientific integrity and the clinical relevance of the numerous published radiomics investigations resulting from the rapid growth of this area. Rigorous evaluation criteria and reporting guidelines need to be established in order for radiomics to mature as a discipline. Herein, we provide guidance for investigations to meet this urgent need in the field of radiomics.

/pdf/radiomics-the-bridge-between-medical-imaging-and-1kj818dbl4.pdf

Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine


 Background: Mammographic screening programmes reduce breast cancer mortality, but detect many small tumours with favourable biological features which may not progress during a woman’s lifetime. Screen-detected cancers are treated with standard surgery and adjuvant therapies, with associated morbidities. There is a need to reduce overtreatment of good prognosis tumours and numerous studies have evaluated the omission of radiotherapy in this context. However, there is little evidence to support surgical de-escalation, although percutaneous minimally invasive treatment approaches have been described. Vacuum-assisted excision (VAE) is in widespread use for management of benign lesions and lesions of uncertain malignant potential. SMALL (ISRCTN 12240119) is designed to determine the feasibility of using this approach for treatment of small invasive tumours detected within the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme (BSP). Methods: SMALL is a phase III multicentre randomised trial comparing standard surgery with VAE for screen-detected good prognosis cancers. The main eligibility criteria are age ≥47 years, unifocal grade 1 tumours with maximum diameter 15mm, which are strongly ER/PR+ve and HER2-ve, with negative clinical/radiological axillary staging. Patients are randomised 2:1 in favour of VAE or surgery; with no axillary surgery in the VAE arm. Completeness of excision is assessed radiologically, and if excision is incomplete, patients undergo open surgery. Adjuvant radiotherapy and endocrine therapy are mandated in the VAE arm but may be omitted following surgery. Co-primary end-points are: 1. Non-inferiority comparison of the requirement for a second procedure following excision 2. Single arm analysis of local recurrence (LR) at 5 years following VAE Recruitment of 800 patients will permit demonstration of 10% non-inferiority of VAE for requirement of a second procedure. This ensures sufficient patients for single arm analysis of LR rates, where expected LR free survival is 99% at 5 years, with an undesirable survival probability after VAE of 97%. To ensure that the trial as a whole only has 5% alpha, the significance level for each co-primary outcome is set at 2.5% with 90% power. The Data Monitoring Committee will monitor LR events to ensure these do not exceed 3% per year. Secondary outcome measures include time to ipsilateral recurrence, overall survival, complications, quality of life and health economic analysis. A novel feature of SMALL is the integration of a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI), which aims to optimise recruitment to the study. Recruitment challenges are identified by analysing recruiter/patient interviews and audio-recordings of trial discussions, and by review of trial screening logs, eligibility and recruitment data and study documentation. Solutions to address these are developed collaboratively, including individual/group recruiter feedback and recruitment tips documents. Results: SMALL opened in December 2019, but recruitment halted in 2020 for 5 months due to COVID-19. At 7st July 2022, 142 patients had been randomised from 26 centres, with a randomisation rate of approximately 45%, and a per site recruitment rate of 0.4-0.5 patients/month, approaching the feasibility recruitment target of 144 patients. Drawing from preliminary QRI findings and insights from patient representatives, a recruitment tips document has been circulated (on providing balanced information about treatments, encouraging recruiters to engage with patient preferences, and explaining randomisation). Individual recruiter feedback has commenced, with wider feedback delivered across sites via recruitment training workshops. Conclusion: Despite pandemic-related challenges, SMALL has an excellent recruitment rate to date and is expected to have a global impact on treatment of breast cancer within mammographic screening programmes. SMALL is funded by the UK NIHR HTA programme, award 17/42/32
 Citation Format: Stuart A. McIntosh, Charlotte E. Coles, David Dodwell, Kenneth Elder, Jessica Foster, Claire Gaunt, Amanda Kirkham, Iain Lyburn, Jenna Morgan, Sangeetha Paramasivan, Sarah E. Pinder, Sarah Pirrie, Shelley Potter, Tracy Roberts, Nisha Sharma, Hilary Stobart, Elizabeth Southgate, Sian Taylor-Phillips, Matthew Wallis, Daniel Rea. SMALL: Open Surgery versus Minimally invasive vacuum-Assisted excision for smaLL screen-detected breast cancer – a UK phase III randomised multi-centre trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr OT3-20-02.

Abstract OT3-20-02: SMALL: Open Surgery versus Minimally invasive vacuum-Assisted excision for smaLL screen-detected breast cancer – a UK phase III randomised multi-centre trial

Tracy E Roberts

Papers

Abstract OT3-20-02: SMALL: Open Surgery versus Minimally invasive vacuum-Assisted excision for smaLL screen-detected breast cancer – a UK phase III randomised multi-centre trial