Conectar
by Hemant Mahajan, Poppy Alice Carson Mallinson, Judith Lieber, Santhi Bhogadi, Santosh Kumar Banjara, Anoop Shah, Vipin Gupta, Gagandeep Kaur Walia, Bharati Kulkarni, Sanjay Kinra
Background and AimCardiovascular diseases (CVDs) represent a growing public-health challenge in India, where nearly one in four deaths is CVD-related. Accurate risk stratification underpins targeted prevention, yet laboratory-dependent tools are often impractical in resource-limited settings. The World Health Organization (WHO) and GLOBORISK initiatives both offer non-laboratory-based 10-year CVD risk algorithms alongside their laboratory-based counterparts. We aimed to compare laboratory- and non-laboratory-based WHO and GLOBORISK CVD risk scores, assess their concordance, and examine relationships with sub-clinical atherosclerosis in a rural Indian cohort.
Materials and MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 2,465 adults (1,184 men, 1,281 women) aged 40−74 years from the third wave (2010−12) of the Andhra Pradesh Children and Parents Study (APCAPS). Participants with prior CVD were excluded. Ten-year CVD risk was calculated using sex-specific WHO (South Asia) and India-calibrated GLOBORISK models, both laboratory-based (age, sex, smoking, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, total cholesterol) and non-laboratory-based (age, sex, smoking, systolic blood pressure, BMI) algorithms. Categorical agreement was quantified via percentage agreement and quadratic weighted kappa (κ); continuous agreement by Bland-Altman analysis. We also evaluated linear associations between each risk score (categorical and continuous) and three sub-clinical atherosclerosis markers: carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT), pulse-wave velocity (PWV), and augmentation index (AIx), through sex-stratified multi-level linear regression with random intercept at the household level, adjusting for multiple testing (p Results
Median WHO-CVD-risk was 6.0% (IQR 4% − 9%) in men and 3.0% (2% − 4%) in women for both lab and non-lab models; median GLOBORISK-CVD-risk was 12.0% (9% − 16%) for lab-model vs. 15.0% (10% − 16%) for non-lab-model in men and 5.0% (3% − 9%) for lab-model vs. 5.0% (3% − 9%) for non-lab-model in women. Categorical agreement was substantial to almost perfect: WHO κ = 0.82 (overall), GLOBORISK κ = 0.72. Bland-Altman analyses demonstrated mean differences Conclusion
Non-laboratory-based WHO and GLOBORISK CVD risk scores exhibit high overall agreement with laboratory-based models and correlate strongly with subclinical atherosclerosis in rural India. However, modest underestimation in high-risk subgroups (diabetics, hypercholesterolemia) warrants cautious interpretation. These findings support the feasibility of non-lab risk assessment in resource-constrained settings, while underscoring the need for prospective validation against hard cardiovascular outcomes prior to large-scale implementation.
Most oral cancers in India present in advanced stages and tend to have poor oncological outcomes. Chemotherapy has been associated with improved oncological outcomes in various cancers, but its role in oral cancer is still not well-defined in curative settings beyond radiosensitisation. Despite an excellent response rate, neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials have failed to show an oncological advantage. Earlier studies were limited by their heterogeneous patient population, including all head and neck subsites, and included both inoperable cancer and early-stage operable cases. Due to such patient selection, the intended results were never met. Patients with biologically aggressive diseases (advanced nodal disease) may derive greater benefit from induction chemotherapy (ICT). Therefore, we aim to determine the oncological advantage of adding ICT to oral squamous cell cancer with advanced nodal disease (N2–N3).
The study is an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, with an allocation ratio of 1:1, being conducted at seven leading cancer centres in India. The primary objective is to compare survival outcomes with and without ICT before surgery in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and advanced nodal disease, specifically focusing on 2-year disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary objectives include assessing overall survival (OS), clinical and pathological response rates, treatment compliance, treatment completion rates, adverse events, treatment-related toxicity (using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, V.5.0), quality of life (measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck) and postoperative complications (using the modified Clavien-Dindo classification).
The study population consists of patients with operable OSCC and advanced nodal disease (N2–N3), adequate organ function, aged 18–65 years and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0–2. The treatment arms are the standard arm Surgery arm (SURG), which involves surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy, and the experimental arm (ICT), in which patients will receive two cycles of ICT using either cisplatin, docetaxel and 5-fluorouracil or cisplatin, docetaxel and capecitabine, followed by surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy. The sample size was calculated to detect an HR of 0.67 with 80% power. A total of 184 events are required, and with an accrual rate of 15 patients per month, 300 patients will be recruited. DFS analysis will occur 32 months after the trial begins, and follow-up will continue for 5 years. OS analysis will be conducted when 184 deaths are observed. Taking 10% of the withdrawal of consent, a total of 346 patients need to be included.
This trial aims to establish the potential superiority of ICT or definitively determine its futility in OSCC with advanced nodal disease. A positive outcome could provide practice-changing data, particularly for Indian patients, whereas negative results could halt the use of ICT in this setting, directing research efforts towards more effective treatment strategies.
CTRI/2024/03/064586; NCT06737822; Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) number: AIIMS/IEC/2023/4622 (lead site).
FreshRSS 