Methods: A double-blinded randomised control trial involving 200 participants between the ages of 20 to 65 years old breast cancer patients was performed. Apart from those who refused participation, patients with chronic diseases and extreme baseline depression scores were also excluded. The control group received standard care twice a week from the social welfare services team facilitator compared to the intervention group that received additional psycho-education intervention programme (PEIP). The coping strategies were measured using the Brief-COPE inventory consisting of 28 items. It was administered on the second and 12th week of trial. The primary end point was compared between pre- and post-intervention. The effect of the intervention between groups, time, and covariates was measured using the generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) analysis.
Results: The mean (SD) of adaptive coping score among the intervention group increased from 5.63 (1.3) at baseline to 6.42 (1.3) at post-intervention. The mean avoidant coping score was 3.87 (1.1) at baseline but reduced to 3.69 (0.8) post-intervention. GLMM showed that women who received the intervention reported significantly higher usage of the adaptive coping strategies after attending the programme (B=0.921, p <0.001).
Conclusion: PEIP significantly improved knowledge of breast cancer patients. Thus, this programme may be considered as a part of the healthcare services in Jordan towards improving the adaptive coping strategies among breast cancer patients, which may point towards the potential for these services to increase adaptive coping strategies among patients in Jordan.
Implications for Public Health: PEIP may be considered as psychosocial intervention in public health and healthcare setting to address rising concerns on quality of care among breast cancer patients.
Materials and Methods: A total of 93 paediatric patients, aged between 2 months to 8 years, who underwent spica casting for an isolated femur fracture between January 2008 and March 2019, were identified retrospectively. They were separated into inpatient or outpatient cohort based on the location of spica cast application. Five patients with metaphyseal fractures and four with un-displaced fractures were excluded. There were 13 and 71 patients in the outpatient and inpatient cohort respectively who underwent spica casting for their diaphyseal and displaced femur fractures. Variables between cohorts were compared.
Results: There were no significant differences in gender, fracture pattern, and mechanism of injury between cohorts. Spica casting as inpatients delayed the time from assessment to casting (23.55 ± 29.67h vs. 6.75 ± 4.27h, p<0.05), increased average hospital stay (41.2 ± 31.1h vs. 19.2 ± 15.0h, p<0.05) and average hospital charges (US$1857.14 vs US$775.49, p<0.05). Excluding the un-displaced fractures, there were no significant differences in the period of cast immobilisation and median follow-up length. Both cohorts had a similar proportion of unacceptable reduction and revision casting rate.
Conclusion: Both cohorts presented similar spica casting outcomes of fracture reduction and follow-up period. With spica cast application in operating theatre reporting higher hospital charges and prolonged hospital stay, the outpatient clinic should always be considered for hip spica application.
METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3, multicentre randomised trial, patients aged 21-80 years with cT3 or cT4 gastric cancer undergoing curative resection were enrolled at 22 centres from South Korea, China, Japan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Patients were randomly assigned to receive surgery and EIPL (EIPL group) or surgery alone (standard surgery group) via a web-based programme in random permuted blocks in varying block sizes of four and six, assuming equal allocation between treatment groups. Randomisation was stratified according to study site and the sequence was generated using a computer program and concealed until the interventions were assigned. After surgery in the EIPL group, peritoneal lavage was done with 1 L of warm (42°C) normal 0·9% saline followed by complete aspiration; this procedure was repeated ten times. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done assuming intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02140034.
FINDINGS: Between Sept 16, 2012, and Aug 3, 2018, 800 patients were randomly assigned to the EIPL group (n=398) or the standard surgery group (n=402). Two patients in the EIPL group and one in the standard surgery group withdrew from the trial immediately after randomisation and were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. At the third interim analysis on Aug 28, 2019, the predictive probability of overall survival being significantly higher in the EIPL group was less than 0·5%; therefore, the trial was terminated on the basis of futility. With a median follow-up of 2·4 years (IQR 1·5-3·0), the two groups were similar in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio 1·09 [95% CI 0·78-1·52; p=0·62). 3-year overall survival was 77·0% (95% CI 71·4-81·6) for the EIPL group and 76·7% (71·0-81·5) for the standard surgery group. 60 adverse events were reported in the EIPL group and 41 were reported in the standard surgery group. The most common adverse events included anastomotic leak (ten [3%] of 346 patients in the EIPL group vs six [2%] of 362 patients in the standard surgery group), bleeding (six [2%] vs six [2%]), intra-abdominal abscess (four [1%] vs five [1%]), superficial wound infection (seven [2%] vs one [<1%]), and abnormal liver function (six [2%] vs one [<1%]). Ten of the reported adverse events (eight in the EIPL group and two in the standard surgery group) resulted in death.
INTERPRETATION: EIPL and surgery did not have a survival benefit compared with surgery alone and is not recommended for patients undergoing curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
FUNDING: National Medical Research Council, Singapore.