Discover Top Posts Tagged with #massgeneralnews

Personalized Radiation Shields May Protect Normal Tissues During Cancer Treatments

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

Dr. Byrne James Donald Byrne, Ph.D., M.D. Department of Radiation Oncology Massachusetts General Hospital Boston, Massachusetts MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? Response: Radiation therapy is used as a treatment for more than half of all cancer patients and can be highly effective at shrinking tumors and killing cancer cells. But radiation treatment can also damage healthy tissue, including tissue in the mouth and gastrointestinal tract. This tissue injury can lead to oral mucositis, esophagitis, and proctitis — painful and sometimes debilitating tissue damage. It’s estimated that these injuries occur in over 200,000 patients in the U.S. each year. Our goal was to develop personalized shields that blocked radiation from affecting healthy GI tissue. MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings? What is the material in the shields? Would it be costly or difficult to make on a personalized basis? Response: The devices work by using high atomic number (Z) materials to shield the surrounding healthy tissue. We used patients’ CT scans to personalize these devices so that they could comfortably and reliably fit to areas that are at risk for damage. The devices were tested in rats and pigs. In rats, we found that the devices provided a significant reduction in damage to the oral cavity and rectum. Feasibility testing in pigs revealed excellent reproducibility of placement in pigs. We also tested these devices in simulations of human patients, where we found that the devices could reduce radiation to areas in the mouth by 30 percent for head and neck cancer patients, and in the gastrointestinal tract by 15 percent in prostate cancer patients, without reducing radiation dose to the tumor. As a part of the study, we created a clinical workflow for seamless integration of the devices into radiation therapy. MedicalResearch.com: What should readers take away from your report? Response: We have created a platform of personalized radiation shields that has the potential to profoundly impact patients undergoing radiation therapy. Additional studies will be necessary to translate the devices into everyday clinical use. MedicalResearch.com: Is there anything else you would like to add? Response: This work was accomplished through the efforts of a large multi-disciplinary team. Moreover, the work would not have been possible without the support of our sponsors, including the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Joint Center for Radiation Therapy, and the MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering. Citation: Byrne, J. D., Young, C. C., Chu, J. N., Pursley, J., Chen, M. X., Wentworth, A. J., Feng, A., Kirtane, A. R., Remillard, K. A., Hancox, C. I., Bhagwat, M. S., Machado, N., Hua, T., Tamang, S. M., Collins, J. E., Ishida, K., Hayward, A., Becker, S. L., Edgington, S. K., Schoenfeld, J. D., Jeck, W. R., Hur, C., Traverso, G., Personalized Radiation Attenuating Materials for Gastrointestinal Mucosal Protection. Adv. Sci. 2021, 2100510. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202100510 The information on MedicalResearch.com is provided for educational purposes only, and is in no way intended to diagnose, cure, or treat any medical or other condition. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health and ask your doctor any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. In addition to all other limitations and disclaimers in this agreement, service provider and its third party providers disclaim any liability or loss in connection with the content provided on this website. Read the full article

#coloncancer #@medresearchnews #MassGeneralNews #radiation

Symptoms Alone Do Not Accurately Identify COVID-19 Infection in Kids

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Lael Yonker, MD Pediatric Pulmonology Director, MGH Cystic Fibrosis Center Principal Investigator, Pediatric COVID biorepository Mucosal Immunology and Biology Research Center Massachusetts General Hospital MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Response: Children were initially felt to be spared from the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we show that children can become sick from SARS-CoV-2 infection, and even if the initial illness is mild, some go on to develop a severe inflammatory illness after the initial illness. We also show that children can carry very high levels of virus early in the course of infection, suggesting they may play a larger role in spreading the virus than previously thought. MedicalResearch.com: What should readers take away from your report? Response: As schools resume, measures should be taken to mitigate the possibility of children spreading the infection. Symptom assessment alone does not accurately identify COVID-19 in kids. Social distancing, mask wearing and frequent hand washing will be important measures to incorporate as schools reopen to miminze risks. MedicalResearch.com: What recommendations do you have for future research as a result of this work? Response: Research should focus on how children transmit the virus and what can be done to mitigate spread. Read the full article

#children #COVID-19 #healthcare #MassGeneralNews #medicalresearch #pandemic #pediatrics #school #testing

Symptoms Alone Do Not Accurately Identify COVID-19 Infection in Kids

#children #COVID-19 #healthcare #MassGeneralNews #medicalresearch #pandemic #pediatrics #school #testing

MGH Study Finds Majority of COVID-19 Patients on Ventilators Do Not Die

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

Dr. Alladina Jehan Alladina MD Massachusetts General Hospital Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Boston, Massachusetts MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? Response: During the pandemic, clinicians around the world have shared anecdotal experiences to help inform care of patients with COVID-19. However, these anecdotes and observations, without careful analysis, can bias clinicians; many clinicians have even recommended experimental therapies based on this information alone. To that end, the goal of our study was to rigorously examine the respiratory failure experienced by critically ill patients with COVID-19 and understand their response to the standards of care for respiratory failure. MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings? Response: The most important finding was that mortality among our group of mechanically ventilated patients is not nearly as high as has been reported – just under 17% with a minimum of 30 days of follow up. That means that the majority of even the sickest patients with coronavirus do get better with existing evidence-based and guideline-supported treatment for respiratory failure. We also found that most of our mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 had acute respiratory distress syndrome or ARDS, a lung disease that is well known to critical care physicians and one that we know how to treat. MedicalResearch.com: What should readers take away from your report? Response: I would emphasize that contrary to what is being publicized in the media, the majority of our patients on ventilators did not die. In fact, the majority not only were successfully extubated but also were able to leave the intensive care unit. While COVID-19 is clearly a devastating disease that has affected us all in some way, our data should provide some hope that patients can get better with diligent adherence to evidence-based therapies and quality measures that we know from prior research improve patient outcomes. I hope that both patients and clinicians will not be adversely influenced by premature data suggesting extraordinarily high adverse outcomes and mortality in mechanically ventilated patients when, in fact, it seems thus far that mortality may not be substantially different compared to patients with respiratory failure from other causes in the pre-COVID era. MedicalResearch.com: What recommendations do you have for future research as a result of this work? Response: The biology of SARS-CoV-2 and pathophysiology of COVID-19 infection need to be better understood to guide informed treatment decisions going forward. I am particularly interested to learn more about different subclasses or phenotypes of respiratory failure that likely exist within the spectrum of disease that we are seeing. As we continue to gather data on more patients, it will be important to characterize these subclasses and most importantly study if they respond differently to treatment. MedicalResearch.com: Is there anything else you would like to add? Response: This pandemic is a time of high anxiety and strong emotions for many, particularly for those affected directly by the disease but also for providers caring for patients. There is a tendency to rely on anecdotes and a sense of urgency to do something. While I am certain that the biology of the novel coronavirus will continue to be unraveled and am quite hopeful that we will find interventions to both prevent and treat the disease, until that time we must resist the urge to try new and unproven therapies at the expense of best supportive care and evidence-based medicine. I have no disclosures. Citation: Respiratory Pathophysiology of Mechanically Ventilated Patients with COVID-19: A Cohort Study https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202004-1163LE PubMed: 32348678 Published Online: April 29, 2020 David R. Ziehr ; Jehan Alladina , Camille R Petri ; Jason H. Maley ; Ari Moskowitz , Benjamin D Medoff , Kathryn A Hibbert , B. Taylor Thompson , and C. Corey Hardin American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine The information on MedicalResearch.com is provided for educational purposes only, and is in no way intended to diagnose, cure, or treat any medical or other condition. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health and ask your doctor any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. In addition to all other limitations and disclaimers in this agreement, service provider and its third party providers disclaim any liability or loss in connection with the content provided on this website. Read the full article

#atscommunity #coronavirus #COVID-19 #healthcare #MassGeneralNews #medicalresearch #ventilators

Fewer Than 25% of Diabetics Achieve ADA Diabetes Care Goals

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Dr. Kazemian Pooyan Kazemian, Ph.D. Instructor in Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? Response: Advances in diabetes care can meaningfully improve outcomes only if they effectively reach the populations at risk. However, it is not known if recent innovations in diabetes treatment and care models have reached the United States population at risk. MedicalResearch.com: What are the objectives of this study? Response: Treatment of diabetes is generally focused on meeting four targets: controlling blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol level, as well as promoting smoking cessation. In this study, we used 2005-2016 nationally representative survey and examination data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). We conducted statistical analyses to evaluate (1) what proportion of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes achieve diabetes treatment targets, (2) whether this has improved over the past 15 years, and (3) whether there are age, gender, and racial disparities in the achievement of diabetes treatment targets in the U.S. MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings? Response: We found that among U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes, only 23% achieve a controlled level of blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol, and do not smoke tobacco. In other words, fewer than one in four American adults with diagnosed diabetes achieve the diabetes care targets recommended by the American Diabetes Association. Moreover, our results suggest that achievement of none of the diabetes care targets improved over time since 2005. We further found that certain populations demonstrated persistent disparities in meeting diabetes care targets over the study period. In particular, younger age adults (18-44), females, and non-white adults with diabetes had lower odds of achieving diabetes care targets. MedicalResearch.com: What should readers take away from your report? Response: Despite major advances in diabetes drug discovery and movement to develop innovative care delivery models over the past two decades, achievement of diabetes care targets has not improved in the United States since 2005. MedicalResearch.com: What recommendations do you have to improve diabetes outcomes in the U.S. as a result of this study? Response: Insurance coverage was the strongest indicator of diagnosis, linkage to diabetes care, and achievement of diabetes treatment targets. Therefore, by making health care more affordable, accessible, and efficient, we can take an important step toward improving diabetes outcomes in the United States. Our findings indicate an immediate need for better approaches to diabetes care delivery, including a continued focus on reaching underserved populations with persistent disparities in care. Moreover, we should continue monitoring the achievement of diabetes care targets on a national level because it can shed light on the population-level steps required to improve diabetes care in the United States. No disclosures for me and my co-authors. Citation: Kazemian P, Shebl FM, McCann N, Walensky RP, Wexler DJ. Evaluation of the Cascade of Diabetes Care in the United States, 2005-2016. JAMA Intern Med. Published online August 12, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2396 The information on MedicalResearch.com is provided for educational purposes only, and is in no way intended to diagnose, cure, or treat any medical or other condition. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health and ask your doctor any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. In addition to all other limitations and disclaimers in this agreement, service provider and its third party providers disclaim any liability or loss in connection with the content provided on this website. Read the full article

#ADA #diabetes #MassGeneralNews #medicalresearch

Antibody–Drug Conjugate in Refractory Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

Dr. Bardia Aditya Bardia, MBBS, MPH Director, Precision Medicine, Center for Breast Cancer, Attending Physician Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center Harvard Medical School Boston, MA 02114 MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? Response: Metastatic triple negative breast cancer is associated with aggressive tumor biology, and tends to affect younger patients and African Amerians. The response rate with standard chemotherapy regimens in patients with pre-treated metastatic TNBC ranges from 10-15%, and median progression-free survival ranges from 3-4 months. The median survival of metastatic TNBC is around 12 months and has not changed in the past 20 years. Thus, treatment of metastatic triple negative breast cancer represents an unmet clinical need. MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings? Response: In this study of patients with metastatic triple negative breast cancer, who were heavily pre-treated, the overall response rate was 33.3 % based on local assessment and 34.3% based on blinded independent central review (BICR). The median duration of response of 7.7 months (local assessment) and 9.1 months (BICR), and median PFS of 5.5 months was noted. Efficacy was observed in patients who had received prior taxanes and anthracyclines, suggesting a lack of cross-resistance to previous cytotoxic chemotherapy. Treatment duration with sacituzumab govitecan (5.1 months) was longer than with the immediate prior anti-tumor therapy (2.5 months), providing further evidence of clinical activity in patients with difficult-to-treat mTNBC. The major adverse effects, included neutropenia (low white blood cell count), nausea, and diarrhea, which were reversible and manageable with supportive therapy and dose-interruptions/reductions. Peripheral neuropathy, which is a common adverse event with chemotherapy such as taxanes, platinums, and Eribulin, was not observed with this study, likely because of the SN-38 payload which targets topi-isomerase-I, as opposed to microtubules. Taxanes and Eribulin target microtubules which likely contributes towards peripheral neuropathy. MedicalResearch.com: What should readers take away from your report? Response: Future studies are needed to evaluate combination therapy with sacituzumab govitecan based backbone, as well as evaluate efficacy of sacituzumab govitecan monotherapy in other solid tumors. Disclosures: Consulting or advisory roles with Genentech/Roche, Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Radius Health, Spectrum Pharma, and Taiho Pharma; institutional research funding from Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech, Merck, Radius Health, Immunomedics, Mersana Pharma; and a research grant from Biotheranostics. Citation: Sacituzumab Govitecan-hziy in Refractory Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Aditya Bardia, M.D., Ingrid A. Mayer, M.D., Linda T. Vahdat, M.D., M.B.A., Sara M. Tolaney, M.D., M.P.H., Steven J. Isakoff, M.D., Ph.D., Jennifer R. Diamond, M.D., Joyce O’Shaughnessy, M.D., Rebecca L. Moroose, M.D., Alessandro D. Santin, M.D., Vandana G. Abramson, M.D., Nikita C. Shah, M.D., Hope S. Rugo, M.D., et al February 21, 2019 N Engl J Med 2019; 380:741-751 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814213 The information on MedicalResearch.com is provided for educational purposes only, and is in no way intended to diagnose, cure, or treat any medical or other condition. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health and ask your doctor any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. In addition to all other limitations and disclaimers in this agreement, service provider and its third party providers disclaim any liability or loss in connection with the content provided on this website. Read the full article

#HarvardMed #MassGeneralNews #metastaticbreastcancer #NEJM #TripleNegativeBreastCancer