DOCSLIB.ORG

Improving Lung Cancer Survival Time to Move On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

. Heuvers E arlies arlies M Time to move on NG LUNG CANCER CANCER LUNG NG I VAL I IMPROV SURV Marlies E. Heuvers IMPROVING LUNG CANCER SURVIVAL Time to move on Improving lung cancer survival; Time to move on Marlies E. Heuvers ISBN: 978-94-6169-388-4 Improving lung cancer survival; time to move on Thesis, Erasmus University Copyright © M.E. Heuvers All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system of any nature, or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission of the author. Cover design: Lay-out and printing: Optima Grafische Communicatie, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Printing of this thesis was kindly supported by the the Department of Respiratory Medicine, GlaxoSmithKline, J.E. Jurriaanse Stichting, Boehringer Ingelheim bv, Roche, TEVA, Chiesi, Pfizer, Doppio Rotterdam. Improving Lung Cancer Survival; Time to move on Verbetering van de overleving van longkanker; tijd om verder te gaan Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam op gezag van de rector magnificus Prof. dr. H.G. Schmidt en volgens besluit van het College van Promoties. De openbare verdediging zal plaatsvinden op 11 juni 2013 om 13.30 uur door Marlies Esther Heuvers geboren te Hoorn Promotiecommissie Promotor: Prof. dr. H.C. Hoogsteden Copromotoren: dr. J.G.J.V. Aerts dr. J.P.J.J. Hegmans Overige leden: Prof. dr. R.W. Hendriks Prof. dr. B.H.Ch. Stricker Prof. dr. S. Sleijfer Ingenuas didicisse fideliter artes emollit mores, nec sinit esse feros. Ovidius, Epistulae ex Ponto 2.9.47 CONTENTS PART I GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE OF THE THESIS Chapter 1 General introduction lung cancer 11 Chapter 2 Aims and outline of the thesis 27 Chapter 3 Improving lung cancer survival; time to move on 31 PART II EVALUATING THE ROLE OF LUNG CANCER SCREENING Chapter 4 Generalizing lung cancer screening results 43 Chapter 5 Generalizability of results from the National Lung Screening Trial 47 PART III THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM IN LUNG CANCER Chapter 6 Patient-tailored modulation of the immune system may 57 revolutionize future lung cancer treatment Chapter 7 Elevated ILT3 expression on myeloid-derived suppressor cells in 83 peripheral blood of patients with non-small cell lung cancer Chapter 8 Arginase-1 mRNA expression correlates with myeloid-derived 99 suppressor cell levels in peripheral blood of patients with non-small cell lung cancer Chapter 9 Pre-treatment immune profile correlates to performance status 119 and stage of the disease of patients with non-small cell lung cancer Chapter 10 History of tuberculosis as an independent prognostic factor for 135 lung cancer survival PART IV GENERAL DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY Chapter 11 General discussion and summary 151 Dutch summary (Nederlandse samenvatting) 167 Acknowledgements (Dankwoord) 175 About the author 181 List of publications 185 PhD Portfolio 189 Part I General introduction and outline of the thesis Chapter 1 General introduction lung cancer Chapter 2 Aims and outline of the thesis Chapter 3 Improving lung cancer survival; time to move on Chapter 1 General introduction lung cancer General introduction lung cancer 13 GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1.1 Lung cancer In 1761, lung cancer was first described as a distinct disease based on autopsies by Giovanni Morgagni.1 In 1810, Gaspard Laurent Bayle described lung cancer in more detail in his book entitled Recherches sur la phthisie pulmonaire.2 At that time it was an extremely rare disease; in 1878, malignant lung tumors included only one percent of all cancers discovered during autopsies at the Institute of Pathology of the University of Dresden in Germany. Nowadays lung cancer is the major cause of cancer deaths worldwide.3 There are two major groups of lung cancer: non-small- cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer, accounting for approximately 85% and 15% of lung cancer cases, respectively.3 NSCLC can be divided into four histological subtypes: squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, large cell lung carcinoma and undifferentiated NSCLC. Squamous cell carcinoma mostly develops from bronchial epithelial cells in the central airway, while most tumors that are not related to smoking, like adenocarcinoma, develop from basal bronchial cells and type II pneumocytes and arise in the more peripheral parts of the lung.4 Although the subdivision of NSCLC has no direct treatment consequences in lim- ited disease, in advanced disease treatment choices depend on these histological differences.5 The 5-year survival of lung cancer is 73% for localized NSCLC and only 13% for metastasized disease.6 One of the reasons for this extremely poor survival is that most lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an advanced stage due to the relative lack of clinical symptoms during early stages. Metastatic NSCLC is currently an incurable disease for which standard chemotherapy provides only minor improvement in over- all survival. Less than 30% of unselected patients with advanced-stage NSCLC have a clinical response to platinum-based chemotherapy, which is in general considered to be the most effective first line treatment at this stage of the disease.7 1.2 Prognostic factors of lung cancer 1.2.1 Stage of disease Stage of lung cancer is an important prognostic factor. The 5-year survival rates sig- nificantly differ between the different subgroups (Table 1). The stage of lung cancer is determined based on the characteristics of the 7th revised tumor, node and metastases (TNM) criteria, established by the International Associations for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) (Table 2). These criteria have defined four major stages of lung cancer. The TNM classification can be subdivided in the clinical TNM stage (cTNM) and the pathological TNM stage (pTNM). The cTNM is based on the results of a chest X-ray, 14 Chapter 1 Table 1 Survival of non-small cell lung cancer according to stage of the disease70-72 Lung cancer stage Median survival (months) 5-year survival (%) IA 59 73 IB 48 58 IIA 30 46 IIB 24 36 IIIA 14 24 IIIB 9 9 IV 4 13 Table 2 Lung cancer staging according to the TNM descriptor and subgroups71,73 T/M Detailed T/M N0 N1 N2 N3 T1 (< 2 cm) T1a IA IIA IIIA IIIB T1 (> 2-3 cm) T1b IA IIA IIIA IIIB T2 (> 3-< 5 cm) T2a IB IIA IIIA IIIB T2 (> 5-7 cm) T2b IIA IIB IIIA IIIB T2 (> 7 cm) T3 IIB IIIA IIIA IIIB T3 invasion IIB IIIA IIIA IIIB T4 (same lobe nodules) IIB IIIA IIIA IIIB T4 (extension) T4 IIIA IIIA IIIB IIIB M1 (ipsilateral lung) IIIA IIIA IIIB IIIB T4 (pleural effusion) M1a IV IV IV IV M1 (contralateral lung) IV IV IV IV M1 (distant) M1b IV IV IV IV computer tomography (CT) scan of the chest and upper abdomen, a fluorodeoxyglu- cose- positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan, and/or a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain, while the pTNM is based on the pathological results of a surgical resection. Because the latter is most accurate, there can be differences between cTNM and pTNM. Treatment options are determined based on the stage of the disease. 1.2.2 World Healthy Organisation (WHO) performance status WHO performance status is next to the stage of lung cancer the most pivotal inde- pendent prognostic factor.8 It runs from 0 to 5, with 0 denoting perfect health and 5 death (Table 3). The 5-year survival rates are significantly different between the five categories.9,10 From this it can be concluded that patients will benefit from a diagnosis of lung cancer in an asymptomatic stage. General introduction lung cancer 15 Table 3 WHO performance score9 WHO-score Description 0 Asymptomatic (Fully active, able to carry on all activities without restriction) 1 Symptomatic but completely ambulatory (Restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature) 2 Symptomatic, <50% in bed during the day (Ambulatory and capable of all self care but unable to perform any work activities) 3 Symptomatic, >50% in bed, but not bedbound (Capable of only limited self-care) 4 Bedbound (Completely disabled. Not able to perform any self-care) 5 Death 1.3 Pathogenesis of lung cancer 1.3.1 Risk factors The most important risk factor for NSCLC is smoking, which account for approxi- mately 85% of all lung cancer cases.11 In 1929, the German physician Fritz Lickint already recognized the link between smoking and lung cancer, which led to an aggressive anti-smoking campaign. However, the first major epidemiological study about the link between lung cancer and smoking was published by sir Richard Doll and sir A. Bradford Hill in 1956.12 Smoking causes all types of lung cancer but is most strongly correlated with small-cell lung cancer and squamous-cell lung cancer. Adenocarcinoma is the most common type in never smokers.13 Environmental factors and genetic susceptibility interact to influence carcinogen- esis. Lung tissue injury, from tobacco smoke or other environmental factors, such as asbestos, initially occurs in the form of genetic and epigenetic changes, like muta- tions, loss of heterozygosity and promotor methylation. This can lead to changes in the lung tissue, such as inflammation. These changes can persist long term and can eventually lead to aberrant pathway activation and cellular function, like dysregu- lated proliferation and apoptosis. This can cause premalignant changes, including dysplasia and clonal patches and can eventually lead to angiogenesis, invasion and early-stage cancer.14,15 1.3.2 Genetic risk factors Epidemiologic studies show an association between family history and increased risk of lung cancer. Consequently, multiple studies have been performed on inherited predisposition to lung cancer including study of polymorphisms associated with lung cancer risk and familial linkage studies.
Recommended publications
  • Bbm:978-1-59745-385-1/1.Pdf

    Bbm:978-1-59745-385-1/1.Pdf

    INDEX A information bias .........................................................29 loss to follow-up bias ....................................... 175, 181 Accuracy minimizing methods of ................................... 181–182 clinical research data ................................................309 nonresponse bias ..............................................175, 181 diagnostic tests .................................................132–133 overmatching bias ....................................................176 Additive models, interaction in. See Interaction recall/memory bias ...........................................176–177 Address transparency .....................................................256 sampling bias ......................................................... 6, 29 ADL and Barthel index .................................................156 types of Alignment of research questions .................................... 300 confounding bias ................................................180 Allele-sharing method ...........................................191–194 information bias .........................................176–179 Allocation concealment ............................................... 6, 98 intervention (exposure) bias ................173, 179–180 Allocative efficiency ........................................237–239, 241 selection bias ...................................24, 25, 173–176 Alpha spending.............................................................. 117 Biomarkers Analyses confounding ....................................................
  • Working Memory, Cognitive Miserliness and Logic As Predictors of Performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test

    Working Memory, Cognitive Miserliness and Logic As Predictors of Performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test

    Working Memory, Cognitive Miserliness and Logic as Predictors of Performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test Edward J. N. Stupple ([email protected]) Centre for Psychological Research, University of Derby Kedleston Road, Derby. DE22 1GB Maggie Gale ([email protected]) Centre for Psychological Research, University of Derby Kedleston Road, Derby. DE22 1GB Christopher R. Richmond ([email protected]) Centre for Psychological Research, University of Derby Kedleston Road, Derby. DE22 1GB Abstract Most participants respond that the answer is 10 cents; however, a slower and more analytic approach to the The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) was devised to measure problem reveals the correct answer to be 5 cents. the inhibition of heuristic responses to favour analytic ones. The CRT has been a spectacular success, attracting more Toplak, West and Stanovich (2011) demonstrated that the than 100 citations in 2012 alone (Scopus). This may be in CRT was a powerful predictor of heuristics and biases task part due to the ease of administration; with only three items performance - proposing it as a metric of the cognitive miserliness central to dual process theories of thinking. This and no requirement for expensive equipment, the practical thesis was examined using reasoning response-times, advantages are considerable. There have, moreover, been normative responses from two reasoning tasks and working numerous correlates of the CRT demonstrated, from a wide memory capacity (WMC) to predict individual differences in range of tasks in the heuristics and biases literature (Toplak performance on the CRT. These data offered limited support et al., 2011) to risk aversion and SAT scores (Frederick, for the view of miserliness as the primary factor in the CRT.
  • 3. Studies of Colorectal Cancer Screening

    3. Studies of Colorectal Cancer Screening

    IARC HANDBOOKS COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING VOLUME 17 This publication represents the views and expert opinions of an IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer-Preventive Strategies, which met in Lyon, 14–21 November 2017 LYON, FRANCE - 2019 IARC HANDBOOKS OF CANCER PREVENTION 3. STUDIES OF COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING 3.1 Methodological considerations end-point of the RCT can be the incidence of the cancer of interest. Methods for colorectal cancer (CRC) screen- The observed effect of screening in RCTs is ing include endoscopic methods and stool-based dependent on, among other things, the partic- tests for blood. The two primary end-points for ipation in the intervention group and the limi- endoscopic CRC screening are (i) finding cancer tation of contamination of the control group. at an early stage (secondary prevention) and Low participation biases the estimate of effect (ii) finding and removing precancerous lesions towards its no-effect value, and therefore it must (adenomatous polyps), to reduce the incidence be evaluated and reported. Screening of controls of CRC (primary prevention). The primary by services outside of the RCT also dilutes the end-point for stool-based tests is finding cancer effect of screening on CRC incidence and/or at an early stage. Stool-based tests also have some mortality. If the screening modality being eval- ability to detect adenomatous polyps; therefore, a uated is widely used in clinical practice in secondary end-point of these tests is reducing the the region or regions where the RCT is being incidence of CRC. conducted, then contamination may be consid- erable, although it may be difficult and/or costly 3.1.1 Randomized controlled trials of to estimate its extent.
  • Bias and Politics

    Bias and Politics

    Bias and politics Luc Bonneux Koninklijke Nederlandse Academie van Wetenschappen NIDI / Den Haag What is bias? ! The assymmetry of a bowling ball. The size and form of the assymmetry will determine its route ! A process at any state of inference tending to produce results that depart systematically from the true values (Fletcher et al, 1988) ! Bias is SYSTEMATIC error Random versus systematic ! Random errors will cancel each other out in the long run (increasing sample size) ! Random error is imprecise ! Systematic errors will not cancel each other out whatever the sample size. Indeed, they will only be strenghtened ! Systematic error is inaccurate Types of bias ! Selection ! Intervention arm is systematically different from control arm ! Information (misclassification) ! Differential errors in measurement of exposure or outcome ! Confounding ! Distortion of exposure - case relation by third factor Experiment vs observation ! Randomisation disperses unknown variables at random between comparison groups ! Observational studies are ALLWAYS biased by known and unknown factors ! But you can understand and MITIGATE their effects Selection bias ! “Selective differences between comparison groups that impacts on relationship between exposure and outcome” Selection bias 1: Reverse causation ! “People engaging in vigorous activities are healthier than lazy ones.” ! “Bedridden people are less healthy than the ones engaging in vigorous activity” Lazy people include those that are unable to exercise because they are unhealthy Selection bias 2 ! Publicity
  • Lecture Notes 2018

    Lecture Notes 2018

    USMLE ® • UP-TO-DATE ® STEP 2 CK STEP Updated annually by Kaplan’s all-star faculty STEP2 CK • INTEGRATED Lecture Notes 2018 Notes Lecture Packed with bridges between specialties and basic science Lecture Notes 2018 • TRUSTED Psychiatry, Epidemiology, Ethics, Used by thousands of students each year to ace the exam USMLE Patient Safety Psychiatry, Epidemiology, Ethics, Patient Ethics, Epidemiology, Psychiatry, Safety Tell us what you think! Visit kaptest.com/booksfeedback and let us know about your book experience. ISBN: 978-1-5062-2821-1 kaplanmedical.com 9 7 8 1 5 0 6 2 2 8 2 1 1 USMLE® is a joint program of The Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc. and the National Board of Medical Examiners. USMLE® is a joint program of the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), neither of which sponsors or endorses this product. 978-1-5062-2821-1_USMLE_Step2_CK_Psychiatry_Course_CVR.indd 1 6/15/17 10:24 AM ® STEP 2 CK Lecture Notes 2018 USMLE Psychiatry, Epidemiology, Ethics, Patient Safety USMLE® is a joint program of The Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc. and the National Board of Medical Examiners. USMLE Step 2 CK Psychiatry.indb 1 6/13/17 3:30 PM USMLE® is a joint program of the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), neither of which sponsors or endorses this product. This publication is designed to provide accurate information in regard to the subject matter covered as of its publication date, with the understanding that knowledge and best practice constantly evolve.
  • BMJ Open Is Committed to Open Peer Review. As Part of This Commitment We Make the Peer Review History of Every Article We Publish Publicly Available

    BMJ Open Is Committed to Open Peer Review. As Part of This Commitment We Make the Peer Review History of Every Article We Publish Publicly Available

    BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035678 on 31 October 2020. Downloaded from BMJ Open is committed to open peer review. As part of this commitment we make the peer review history of every article we publish publicly available. When an article is published we post the peer reviewers’ comments and the authors’ responses online. We also post the versions of the paper that were used during peer review. These are the versions that the peer review comments apply to. The versions of the paper that follow are the versions that were submitted during the peer review process. They are not the versions of record or the final published versions. They should not be cited or distributed as the published version of this manuscript. BMJ Open is an open access journal and the full, final, typeset and author-corrected version of record of the manuscript is available on our site with no access controls, subscription charges or pay-per-view fees (http://bmjopen.bmj.com). If you have any questions on BMJ Open’s open peer review process please email [email protected] http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on September 28, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. BMJ Open BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035678 on 31 October 2020. Downloaded from Primary care practitioner diagnostic action when the patient may have cancer: a vignette survey in 20 European countries ForJournal: peerBMJ Open review only Manuscript ID bmjopen-2019-035678 Article Type: Original research Date Submitted by the 20-Nov-2019 Author: Complete List of Authors: Harris, Michael;
  • Bias and Confounding • Describe the Key Types of Bias

    Bias and Confounding • Describe the Key Types of Bias

    M1 - PopMed OBJECTIVES Bias and Confounding • Describe the key types of bias • Identify sources of bias in study design, data collection and analysis Saba Masho, MD, MPH, DrPH Department of Epidemiology and Community Health • Identify confounders and methods for [email protected] controlling confounders 1 2 Bias Types: • Bias is any systematic error in an epidemiologic study that results in an 1. Selection incorrect estimate of association between risk factor and outcome. 2. Information/measurement • It is introduced in the design of the study including, data collection, analysis, 3. Confounding interpretation, publication or review of data. • It is impossible to correct for bias during the analysis and may also be hard to evaluate. Thus, studies need to be carefully designed. 3 4 SELECTION BIAS SELECTION BIAS • A systematic error that arises in the process of selecting the study populations • May also occur when membership in one group differs systematically from the general population or • May occur when different criteria is used to select control group, called membership bias cases/controls or exposed/non exposed – E.g. selecting cases from inner hospitals and controls from – E.g. A study in uterine cancer excluding patients with sub-urban hospitals hysterectomy from cases but not from control • The differences in hospital admission between cases • Detection bias: occurs when the risk factor under and controls may conceal an association in a study, investigation requires thorough diagnostic this is called “Berkson’s bias” or “admission
  • Education, Faculty of Medicine, Thinking and Decision Making

    Education, Faculty of Medicine, Thinking and Decision Making

    J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2011; 41:155–62 Symposium review doi:10.4997/JRCPE.2011.208 © 2011 Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh Better clinical decision making and reducing diagnostic error P Croskerry, GR Nimmo 1Clinical Consultant in Patient Safety and Professor in Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; 2Consultant Physician in Intensive Care Medicine, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK This review is based on a presentation given by Dr Nimmo and Professor Croskerry Correspondence to P Croskerry, at the RCPE Patient Safety Hot Topic Symposium on 19 January 2011. Department of Emergency Medicine and Division of Medical ABSTRACT A major amount of our time working in clinical practice involves Education, Faculty of Medicine, thinking and decision making. Perhaps it is because decision making is such a Dalhousie University, QE II – commonplace activity that it is assumed we can all make effective decisions. Health Sciences Centre, Halifax Infirmary, Suite 355, 1796 Summer However, this is not the case and the example of diagnostic error supports this Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H assertion. Until quite recently there has been a general nihilism about the ability 2Y9, Canada to change the way that we think, but it is now becoming accepted that if we can think about, and understand, our thinking processes we can improve our decision tel. +1 902 225 0360 making, including diagnosis. In this paper we review the dual process model of e-mail [email protected] decision making and highlight ways in which decision making can be improved through the application of this model to our day-to-day practice and by the adoption of de-biasing strategies and critical thinking.
  • Screening for Disease Stanley H

    Screening for Disease Stanley H

    Screening for Disease Stanley H. Weiss, MD, FACP, FACE Professor of Medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School Professor of Epidemiology at Rutgers School of Public Health PI & Director, Essex-Passaic Wellness Coalition Immediate Past Chair, International Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology Cancer Liaison Physician and Oncology Committee Vice-chair, University Hospital, Newark, NJ Executive Board, New Jersey Public Health Association Due Diligence In medicine as in life, it is essential to critically assess what you are told. Statements that on their face may seem reasonable, and indeed even may be true, can be misleading… Those who know me, are well aware that I am quite allergic to furry animals. This led to a problem with having pets in our home, despite my wife and children being animal lovers. As a child, my daughter was very much in love with the following wonderful and adorable creature, to which I have never demonstrated any allergic reaction… So, let me re-state this quite plainly: (Image of unicorns A live unicorn has deleted due to never led me to copyright.) sneeze. I think we can all concur on the (likely) truth of this statement. Why not just test/screen everyone for everything? 1. The test must provide useful information, that is actionable. 2. Harm may be caused, not just benefit. 3. There are costs, even for something that appears trivial. 4. Society makes decisions on resource allocation. 5. Individuals may have different preferences, and come to different conclusions – esp. wrt what is worthwhile for them (such as when they must pay out-of-pocket for non-covered tests).
  • Bias Miguel Delgado-Rodrı´Guez, Javier Llorca

    Bias Miguel Delgado-Rodrı´Guez, Javier Llorca

    635 J Epidemiol Community Health: first published as 10.1136/jech.2003.008466 on 13 July 2004. Downloaded from GLOSSARY Bias Miguel Delgado-Rodrı´guez, Javier Llorca ............................................................................................................................... J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:635–641. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.008466 The concept of bias is the lack of internal validity or Ahlbom keep confounding apart from biases in the statistical analysis as it typically occurs when incorrect assessment of the association between an the actual study base differs from the ‘‘ideal’’ exposure and an effect in the target population in which the study base, in which there is no association statistic estimated has an expectation that does not equal between different determinants of an effect. The same idea can be found in Maclure and the true value. Biases can be classified by the research Schneeweiss.5 stage in which they occur or by the direction of change in a In this glossary definitions of the most com- estimate. The most important biases are those produced in mon biases (we have not been exhaustive in defining all the existing biases) are given within the definition and selection of the study population, data the simple classification by Kleinbaum et al.2 We collection, and the association between different have added a point for biases produced in a trial determinants of an effect in the population. A definition of in the execution of the intervention. Biases in data interpretation, writing, and citing will not the most common biases occurring in these stages is given. be discussed (see for a description of them by ..........................................................................
  • Phenomenon of Disease

    Phenomenon of Disease

    4. The Phenomenon of Disease Concepts in defining, classifying, detecting, and tracking disease and other health states. The concept of natural history – the spectrum of development and manifestations of pathological conditions in individuals and populations. Definition and classification of disease Although the public health profession is sometimes inclined to refer to the health care system as a "disease care system", others have observed that public health also tends to be preoccupied with disease. One problem with these charges is that both "health" and "disease" are elusive concepts. Defining health and disease Rene Dubos (Man Adapting, p348) derided dictionaries and encyclopedias of the mid-20th century for defining "disease as any departure from the state of health and health as a state of normalcy free from disease or pain". In their use of the terms "normal" and "pathological", contemporary definitions (see table) have not entirely avoided an element of circularity. Rejecting the possibility of defining health and disease in the abstract, Dubos saw the criteria for health as conditioned by the social norms, history, aspirations, values, and the environment, a perspective that remains the case today (Temple et al., 2001). Thus diseases that are very widespread may come to be considered as "normal" or an inevitable part of life. Dubos observed that in a certain South American tribe, pinta (dyschromic spirochetosis) was so common that the Indians regarded those without it as being ill. Japanese physicians have regarded chronic bronchitis and asthma as unavoidable complaints, and in the mid-19th century U.S., Lemuel Shattuck wrote that tuberculosis created little alarm because of its constant presence (Dubos, 251).
  • Chapter C: Presenting Probabilities

    Chapter C: Presenting Probabilities

    Presenting Probabilities 2012 UPDATED CHAPTER C: PRESENTING PROBABILITIES SECTION 1: AUTHORS/AFFILIATIONS Lyndal Trevena University of Sydney Australia (co-lead) Brian Zikmund- University of Michigan USA Fisher (co-lead) Adrian Edwards Cardiff University School of Medicine UK Danielle Vrije Universiteit (Free University) Medical Center The Timmermans Netherlands Ellen Peters The Ohio State University USA Isaac Lipkus Duke University School of Nursing USA John King University of Vermont USA Margaret Lawson Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Canada Mirta Galesic Max Planck Institute for Human Development Germany Paul Han Maine Medical Center Research Institute USA StevenWoloshin Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical USA Practice Suzanne Linder The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center USA Wolfgang Max Planck Institute for Human Development Germany Gaissmaier Elissa Ozanne University of California USA Suggested Citation: Trevena L, Zikmund-Fisher B, Edwards A, Gaissmaier W, Galesic M, Han P, King J, Lawson M, Linder S, Lipkus I, Ozanne E, Peters E, Timmermans D, Woloshin S. (2012). Presenting probabilities. In Volk R & Llewellyn-Thomas H (editors). 2012 Update of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's Background Document. Chapter C. http://ipdas.ohri.ca/resources.html. Presenting Probabilities SECTION 2: CHAPTER SUMMARY What is this quality dimension? Medical decisions have outcomes that may have been quantified through research. To assist patients and health professionals in balancing the benefits and harms of these options, decision aids aim to communicate estimates of the likelihoods of these outcomes based on the best available evidence. What is the theoretical rationale for including this quality dimension? When considering decision options and the likelihoods of their outcomes, estimates of both the changes and the outcome frequencies associated with each option need to be conveyed in a way that maximizes patients’ understanding and thereby facilitates informed decision making.