METHODS: Total 14 eligible articles published before March 2019 involving 35 studies, of which 21 studies (16,109 cases and 26,378 controls) for rs2205960 G > A, 8 studies (2,424 cases and 3,692 controls) for rs704840 T > G, and 6 studies (3,839 cases and 5,867 controls) for rs844648 G > A were included. Effects of the three respective polymorphisms on the susceptibility to ADs were estimated by pooling the odds ratios (ORs) with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) in allelic, dominant, recessive, heterozygous and homozygous models.
RESULTS: The overall analysis revealed that all the rs2205960 G > A, rs704840 T > G and rs844648 G > A polymorphisms could increase the risk of ADs in allelic, dominant, recessive, heterozygous and homozygous models. Furthermore, subgroup analysis showed that both rs2205960 G > A and rs704840 T > G were significantly associated with the susceptibility to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). What's more, statistically significant association between rs2205960 G > A polymorphism and primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS) susceptibility was also observed in allelic, dominant and heterozygous models.
CONCLUSIONS: This current meta-analysis suggested that all of the three TNFSF4 polymorphisms may be associated with ADs susceptibility in Asians.
MATERIALS/METHODS: Participants interested in a 12-week virtual training program completed a needs assessment survey via a data collection web application. The survey included demographics, practice characteristics, and interests in contouring and plan evaluation education and training. Herein we provide descriptive statistics of the reports from participant surveys.
RESULTS: Across Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Nepal, 116 participants (82 attendings, 33 residents, 1 other) responded from 23 participating medical institutions (20 public, 3 private). The average number of radiation oncologists per medical institution was 6.81 (range 1-30) and radiation oncology residents was 17.50 (range 2-56). In the 7 centers with residency programs, 0 (0%) indicated that residents were solely involved in contouring, 5 (71.4%) that residents were jointly involved in contouring with attendings, and 2 (28.6%) that attendings contour without residents. Commonly cited obstacles to providing radiotherapy included: patient financial barriers (61.4%), inadequate training (51.8%), too many patients (48.2%), lack of modern equipment (40.4%), shortage of staff (39.5%), and malfunctioning equipment (36.8%). The most common, top-rated obstacle was inadequate training (24.8%). The most seen disease sites were head and neck (38.2%) and breast (30.3%). Respondent time spent contouring the target was greatest for head and neck, pediatric, and lymphoma disease sites with 66 (56.9%), 59 (50.8%), and 46 (29.3%) indicating more than 1 hour, respectively. Respondent time spent contouring the normal tissues was greatest for head and neck, pediatric, and CNS disease sites with 51 (44%), 46 (39.7%), and 30 (26.1%) indicating more than 1 hour. For head and neck cases, 34 (29.3%) respondents typically contour 6-10 Organs at Risk (OARs), 47 (40.5%) contour 11-15 OARs, 18 (15.5%) contour 16-20 OARs, and 15 (12.9%) contour > 20 OARs. 85 (76.3%) respondents believe their practice would most benefit from head and neck contouring education, while 114 (98.3%) were interested in receiving contouring and plan evaluation training.
CONCLUSION: The biggest physician-reported obstacle to providing radiotherapy in Southeast Asian practices is inadequate training. There is both high need and interest for well-developed virtual training, particularly in head and neck contouring, which currently appears time-intensive and heterogeneous among practices.
METHODS: We developed, piloted and implemented multiple cultural adaptations and two methodological innovations to the commonly used GMB process in Fang Cheng Gang city, China. We included formal, ceremonial and policy maker engagement events before and between GMB workshops, and incorporated culturally tailored arrangements during participant recruitment (officials of the same seniority level joined the same workshop) and workshop activities (e.g., use of individual scoring activities and hand boards). We made changes to the commonly used GMB activities which enabled mapping of shared drivers of multiple health issues (in our case MIAIF) in a single causal loop diagram. We developed and used a 'hybrid' GMB format combining online and in person facilitation to reduce travel and associated climate impact.
RESULTS: Our innovative GMB process led to high engagement and support from decision-makers representing diverse governmental departments across the whole food systems. We co-identified and prioritised systemic drivers and intervention themes of MIAIF. The city government established an official Local Action Group for long-term, inter-departmental implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the co-developed interventions. The 'hybrid' GMB format enabled great interactions while reducing international travel and mitigating limitations of fully online GMB process.
CONCLUSIONS: Cultural and methodological adaptations to the common GMB process for an Asian LMIC setting were successful. The 'hybrid' GMB format is feasible, cost-effective, and more environmentally friendly. These cultural adaptations could be considered for other Asian settings and beyond to address inter-related, complex issues such as MIAIF.