Background:The incorporation of chemotherapy and radiation, either sequentially or concurrently, has been increasingly used for organ preservation in patients with advanced laryngeal cancer. Traditional outcome measures of clinical response such as locoregional control and survival have been similar for patients treated with chemoradiotherapy and those treated with total laryngectomy (TL). The impact of concurrent chemoradiotherapy for laryngeal preservation on the overall quality of life (QOL) of patients has not been clearly evaluated, particularly in direct comparison with TL.Objective: To compare the QOL of patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy with those treated with TL.

In recent years, a shift in focus has seen researchers seek to identify the priorities and preferences of key stakeholders to shape the direction of future research for those on the autism spectrum. The process of synthesising the views, knowledge and expertise of key stakeholders with either a lived or shared experience of autism is invaluable and can inform future research to ensure that it is meaningful and has the greatest impact. A number of studies have reported on the research priorities of groups within the autism community, but to date, these studies stand alone and priorities have not been considered collectively. This systematic review identified seven studies that reported on key stakeholders’ priorities for autism research. Studies were synthesised according to (a) the target participant group and method of recruitment, (b) the methodology used to elucidate the viewpoint of stakeholders, (c) the country of stakeholders and (d) commonly identified priorities. Common features across studies note the importance of prioritising initiatives that will result in real-world changes in the lives of the autism community and more research across the lifespan. There is an identified need for more diverse stakeholder voices to influence the identification of priorities for future research foci. Continued inclusion of the autistic and autism communities in priority-setting research is imperative for achieving significant outcomes in autism research and to progress the field in an effective and socio-ethical way. Lay abstract It has become very important in autism research to ask the autistic community about what kinds of research they think should be done in order to improve the lives of people with autism. Many studies have reported on research goals from people within the autism community, such as parents of people on the autism spectrum, and practitioners and clinicians who support people on the autism spectrum. So far, the research goals from all of these studies have not been considered together, which is important so that all autism research can be working towards the same goals. We reviewed seven studies that looked at the priorities for autism research from key people within the autism community. Each of the reviewed studies are described according to (a) the types of people involved in the study, (b) the way the research goals from each group of people were identified, (c) the country where they were from and (d) the most common research goals from across all of the studies. Within these seven studies, research that will lead to real-world changes in the daily lives of the autism community and a greater focus on skill training for people with autism across their lives were found to be very important. From this review, we found that it is also very important to include a range of different people from the autism community when deciding what autism research goals should be focused on so that future research can be more helpful for the autism community.

No abstract

Even in the early stages of cognitive deterioration, specific behavioural changes can be identified that are not present in those without cognitive deterioration. The differing effects of cognitive deterioration on behavioural excesses and deficits are discussed in relation to potentially differing underlying neuropathological causes.

Growing attention has focused on associations between religious involvement and health outcomes for cancer patients. Unfortunately, research has been hampered by lack of measures suitable for use in oncology settings. This study examined the performance of one recently developed measure, the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire (SCSORF). Initial investigations with cancer patients in a bone marrow transplant program and with non-oncology patients yielded promising results. This study provided additional information about temporal stability and convergent validity. The measure was evaluated in two well-defined samples: (1) 95 breast cancer patients, and (2) 53 healthy young adults. Most of the cancer patients had recent diagnoses and localized or regional disease. In each sample, the instrument demonstrated high test-retest reliability (r's=0.82-0.93) and internal consistency (r's=0.95-0.97). It displayed strong correlations with measures of intrinsic religiosity (r's=0.67-0.82, p<0.0001), and moderate correlations with organizational religiosity (r's=0.61-069, p<0.0001), non-organizational religiosity (r's=0.52-0.55, p<0.0001), comfort from religion (r=0.58, p<0.0001), and ratings of self as religious (r=0.58, p<0.0001). Among cancer patients, scores were significantly associated with optimism (r=0.30, p<0.01), but not with openness of family communication about cancer or perceived social support. These data build on previous findings with cancer patients, and suggest that the SCSORF may be a useful measure of religious faith in oncology settings.