<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_467"
                     title="FDA Unveils New Safety Plan for Medical Imaging"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/tb/18398?impressionId=1265790239279"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON  --  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it wants to issue new safety requirements for manufacturers of computed tomography (CT) and fluoroscopic devices to reduce unnecessary radiation from medical imaging.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The FDA&apos;s plan focuses on three procedures with high radiation doses: CT, nuclear medicine studies, and fluoroscopy. These are the greatest contributors to total radiation exposure within the U.S. population, the FDA said. That&apos;s because they require much higher radiation doses than other radiographic procedures, such as standard X-rays, dental X-rays, and mammography.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The amount of radiation Americans are exposed to from medical imaging has dramatically increased over the past 20 years,&quot; Jeffrey Shuren, MD, director of the FDA&apos;s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a prepared statement. &quot;The goal of FDA&apos;s initiative is to support the benefits associated with medical imaging while minimizing the risks.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While the three procedures have led to early diagnosis of disease, they expose patients to ionizing radiation that may increase lifetime cancer risk  --  although there is debate within the medical community about the extent of the danger.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Radiologist Joseph Schoepf, MD, director of Cardiovascular Imaging at the Medical University of South Carolina, lauded the FDA&apos;s initiative and said it would restore the public&apos;s trust in imaging.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It is important to note, however, that an increase in cancer mortality [from radiation] has not been observed,&quot; he added. &quot;On the contrary, cancer mortality has dramatically decreased over the past decades, in step with increased utilization of medical imaging.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Archives of Internal Medicine &lt;/em&gt;recently published results from two studies indicating that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/17530&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/17530&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; title=&quot;CT&amp;#8200;Scans&amp;#8200;May&amp;#8200;Deliver&amp;#8200;Higher-than-Expected&amp;#8200;Radiation&amp;#8200;Doses&quot;&gt;CT scans deliver much higher doses of radiation &lt;/a&gt;than previously thought. The FDA has noted that a patient would have to get 400 standard chest X-rays to be exposed to the same level of radiation as just one CT abdomen scan.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an accompanying editorial, the journal&apos;s editor, Rita Redberg, MD, wrote that the studies &quot;make us question if we have gotten carried away in our enthusiasm&quot; for CT.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It&apos;s becoming clear, she said, that the large doses of radiation from CT scans will lead to additional cancers, which must be taken into account when physicians consider CT for their patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By working with healthcare providers and other federal agencies, the FDA says it hopes to promote safer use of medical imaging and increase patient awareness of their radiation exposure. Part of that involves pushing providers to justify their radiation procedures and optimize the radiation dose in each one.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Schoepf, who serves on several American College of Radiology committees that discuss the proper used of various imaging procedures, approved of the FDA&apos;s goal but cautioned against restrictions that would hinder clinicians.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;There is indeed a need for enhanced transparency, better patient education, more dialogue between patients and their healthcare providers, and increased involvement of the patient in the decision process leading up to an imaging study,&quot; Schoepf said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;&quot;What is often forgotten in this discussion is that serious injury or death, resulting from missing a potentially life-threatening diagnosis if no imaging is performed, is a much greater, more imminent, and very real risk.&quot;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its statement, the FDA said it wants to boost efforts to develop at least one national registry of radiation doses that will capture information from a variety of imaging studies that can be used to establish benchmarks for healthcare facilities to use with patients.&lt;/p&gt;


 &lt;p&gt;Donald Frush, MD, a radiologist at Duke Medical Center and expert in CT radiation doses in children, said that radiation doses for CT examination vary widely, depending on the size of the patient and the body area scanned, among other things.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;&quot;However, sometimes this variation is not necessary, and the dose may be excessive,&quot; Frush said.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The ACR launched a similar registry about a year ago, according to spokesman Shawn Farley. The database is intended as a guide so a radiologist can quickly see how levels of radiation delivered in other practices and hospitals compare to what he or she is delivering.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Now that the FDA has come out in favor of doing that, we&apos;re hoping that will put a little more weight behind the process and make more facilities want to take part in this,&quot; Farley told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;


 &lt;p&gt;Schoepf noted that European governments already require a permanent record of radiation exposure for each patient.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;As a result, manufacturers of radiation equipment, most of whom sell their products in Europe, already have that capability, he said. So it shouldn&apos;t be difficult to implement the same standard in the U.S.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;&quot;Radiation exposure should be no secret,&quot; Schoepf said.&lt;/p&gt;


&lt;p&gt;The FDA will hold a public meeting March 30 and 31 to hear comments on what types of safety requirements to establish for manufacturers of CT and fluoroscopic devices. Requirements might include: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;That the radiation device display, record, and report equipment settings and radiation dose&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Alerting users when the dose exceeds the optimal dose for most patients&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Increased training for users&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Ability to capture and transmit radiation dose information to a patient&apos;s electronic medical record in addition to national dose registries &lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This article was developed in collaboration with ABC News. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; mce_src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_376"
                     title="Stress of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis May Be Deadly (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.008"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/ProstateCancer/tb/18268?impressionId=1265790239279"
                     
      Men have a slightly, but statistically significant, increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease in the year after learning they have prostate cancer, researchers found.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The risk was greatest in the first month after diagnosis (standardized mortality ratio 2.05, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.22), Lorelei Mucci, PhD, of Brigham and Women&apos;s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues reported online in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the National Cancer Institute&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The study, which covered diagnoses made from 1979 through 2004, also found an overall increased risk of suicide in the year following a prostate cancer diagnosis (SMR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.6), although the association was not significant after screening for prostate specific antigen (PSA) became widespread.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The findings&lt;em&gt;&lt;/em&gt; are &quot;one additional piece in weighing the pros and cons of PSA screening,&quot; Mucci said in an interview.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;She also said that, &quot;not only do [clinicians] need to be treating the cancer, but they need to be thinking about the social support and other support that men may need to deal with this stressful event.&quot;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A previous study by Mucci&apos;s group that looked at a Swedish population found similarly increased risks of suicide and cardiovascular death following a prostate cancer diagnosis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because PSA testing is more extensive in the U.S., increasing the number of early-stage and indolent cancers detected, the researchers wanted to see whether the results would carry over.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, they looked at data from 342,497 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer from 1979 through 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The number of diagnoses steadily increased throughout the study period  --  from 6,106 in 1979 to 17,688 in 2004.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the percentage of cancers that were metastatic dropped from 18.2% in the pre-PSA period (1979 to 1986) to 5% in the period of widespread testing (1993 to 2004).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During the study, 148 men committed suicide within one year of learning their diagnosis, higher than the 105.2 that would be expected in the general U.S. male population.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The elevated risk was only evident prior to 1993, when PSA testing became more widely used. The authors suggested that this was likely because of the potentially lower degree of stress associated with the diagnosis of indolent prostate cancer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;So that&apos;s reassuring,&quot; Mucci said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, another 6,845 men died of cardiovascular disease, which was also higher than the expected 6,282.9.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Contrary to the findings regarding suicide, the risk of cardiovascular death in the first month after hearing a diagnosis was significantly increased throughout the study period.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Prostate cancer patients who were not married at the time of diagnosis had higher relative risks of both suicide and cardiovascular death than married patients.The authors suggested that this may be because &quot;having someone close to confide in might alleviate the psychological stress experienced from receiving a cancer diagnosis.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They also observed a clear trend between higher relative risks for suicide and cardiovascular death among patients diagnosed with a metastatic tumor, which clearly would be more stressful than diagnosis of a clinically localized tumor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This finding might further explain the decreasing excess risks that have been observed in the PSA era, in which the proportion of advanced tumors was small (i.e., 18.2% metastatic tumors in the pre-PSA era and 5.0% in the PSA era),&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Risk of cardiovascular death was magnified for patients with metastatic tumors (SMR 3.22, 95% CI 2.68 to 3.84) compared with those with local or regional tumors (SMR 1.57, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.74)(&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Prostate cancer patients who were not married at the time of diagnosis had higher relative risks of both suicide and cardiovascular death than married patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors acknowledged some limitations of the study, including the lack of a cancer-free group as reference and the lack of information on physical or mental health status, other prevalent disorders or comorbid illness at diagnosis, and prostate cancer treatment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study received funding from the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_364"
                     title="ADT for Prostate Cancer Raises Heart Risks"
                     score="0.008"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Urology/ProstateCancer/tb/18250?impressionId=1265790239279"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer can exacerbate cardiac risk factors and may increase the risk of heart attack and cardiac death, according to an advisory supported by four medical organizations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the groups did not offer specific guidelines for clinicians on when to employ ADT therapy or avoid it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clinical trials have shown that ADT increases body weight, decreases lean mass and increases fat mass, reduces insulin sensitivity, and triggers or worsens dyslipidemia.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Several studies have demonstrated a significant increase in cardiovascular death in prostate cancer patients treated with hormonal therapy or bilateral orchiectomy, although some studies have shown no association between ADT and increased cardiovascular risk, according to a report that will appear in the Feb. 16 issue of &lt;em&gt;Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some evidence also suggests ADT may predispose men to metabolic syndrome.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Based on current data, it was appropriate to conclude that there may be a relationship between ADT therapy in patients with prostate cancer and future cardiovascular risk,&quot; Glenn N. Levine, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston and chair of the advisory writing committee, said in a statement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The writing committee comprised representatives of the American Heart Association, American Urological Association, and American Cancer Society. Additionally, the American Society for Radiation Oncology endorsed the advisory.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors&apos; review of literature showed that ADT increased cardiovascular risk in 1% to 6% of various studies&apos; patient populations. With that in mind, &quot;the decision about whether to initiate ADT should be based on weighing the benefits of therapy with this potential modest risk,&quot; Levine said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The decision to initiate ADT should remain with the physician who has responsibility for treating a patient with prostate cancer, the authors wrote. That includes patients with known cardiac disease.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It is the consensus of the writing group that there is no clear indication for patients for whom ADT is believed to be beneficial to be referred to internists, endocrinologists, or cardiologists for evaluation before initiation of ADT,&quot; the authors said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The decision as to whether or not to initiate ADT in patients with cardiac disease, in whom the benefits of therapy would be weighed against any possible risks, is most appropriately made by the physician treating the patient for prostate cancer.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the potential adverse metabolic effects warrant periodic evaluation by a patient&apos;s primary care physician, they added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Noting a lack of clinical guidance for follow-up of patients treated with ADT, the advisory authors concluded that at least an annual assessment of blood glucose and lipids seems reasonable. They also called for prospective assessment of cardiovascular risk factors before and after ADT is begun in future clinical trials.&lt;/p&gt;

    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_336"
                     title="In Prostate CA, Sexual Decline After Radiation Has Limit (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.004"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/ProstateCancer/tb/18214?impressionId=1265790239279"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Sexual function declines in the first two years after external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer but stabilizes thereafter, according to data from a prospective cohort study.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All parameters of sexual function declined significantly (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&lt;0.05) in the first two years after external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), Richard Valicenti, MD, of the University of California Davis, and colleagues found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But for years two through six of follow-up, none of the evaluated parameters of sexual function changed significantly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pretreatment sexual function was the strongest predictor of sexual function at any time after EBRT, the investigators reported in the January issue of the &lt;em&gt;International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Their findings debunk the perception that sexual function declines continually after radiation therapy for prostate cancer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The results of this study allow patients and their partners to have a fuller understanding of the long-term sexual side effects of EBRT, and what they can expect after treatment should aid in deciding on a treatment course,&quot; Valicenti said in a statement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reported rates of impotency after EBRT for prostate cancer have ranged from 8% to 85%, a variation the authors attributed to the different instruments used to assess sexual function. Moreover, many studies included men who received androgen deprivation therapy in addition to EBRT, possibly masking the contributions of radiation therapy to changes in sexual function.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Several recent studies have suggested that rates of sexual dysfunction increase with follow-up. However, few studies included pretreatment assessment of sexual function or conducted serial assessments of sexual function after EBRT, the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To shed more light on the question, the investigators prospectively followed 143 men who completed a sexual function questionnaire prior to EBRT for prostate cancer and at each follow-up visit. The questionnaire assessed four domains of sexual function: sexual drive, erectile function, ejaculatory function, and overall satisfaction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The mean age of the patients was 69, median Gleason score was 6, and median total radiation dose was 73.8 Gy (range of 66.6 to 79.2 Gy).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During a median four-years of follow-up, the study participants completed a total of 1,187 questionnaires. Some patients were followed for as long as eight years after EBRT.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Baseline scores for sexual drive and erectile function were significantly associated with patient age (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.003 and &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.004, respectively). Ejaculatory function was significantly associated with age, race, and marital status (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.05).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Scores on all four domains of sexual function, as well as the total score, declined significantly in the first two years after EBRT (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.05) compared with baseline values.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Investigators grouped the patients according to baseline sexual function. Analysis of scores for patients above and below the median sexual function value showed that differences in sexual function persisted over time. Regression analysis showed that baseline score was the best predictor of later scores for all of the domains assessed (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A separate analysis of scores from years two through six showed no significant changes in any of the domains: sexual drive, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.067; erectile function, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.5; ejaculatory function, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.6; and overall satisfaction, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.44.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Baseline scores indicated that 74.1% of the study participants were sexually potent before EBRT. Among those who were potent before treatment, 74.4% remained potent at one year and 70.4% at two years after EBRT. The one- and two-year potency rates differed significantly from baseline, but the investigators found no statistically significant change in potency from years two through six.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Our data have indicated that the widely held opinion that sexual function has a slow, progressive decline after EBRT might be incorrect,&quot; the authors wrote in conclusion. &quot;Most sexual function decline in men undergoing EBRT for prostate cancer occurred in the first two years after treatment and all domains of sexual function, including erectile dysfunction, then appeared to stabilize.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors reported no relevant disclosures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_267"
                     title="Public-Private Divide Found in Prostate Cancer Treatment (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.001"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/ProstateCancer/tb/18118?impressionId=1265790239279"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Treatment that men receive for prostate cancer may depend less on their condition and more on where they are treated, a new study found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Moreover, men treated by private hospitals were nearly two and a half times more likely to receive radiation therapy (OR 2.36; 95% CI 1.37 to 4.07) and more than four and a half times more likely to receive primary androgen deprivation therapy (OR 4.71; 95% CI 2.15 to 10.36) than surgery, which was the predominant treatment at county hospitals, according to findings published Jan. 25 in &lt;em&gt;Cancer&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients in private hospitals were also more likely to be white.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This is the first study to compare prostate cancer treatments between private and public institutions, and it reveals a novel variable influencing treatment choice: healthcare venue,&quot; J. Kellogg Parsons, MD, MHS, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Men treated at county hospitals were significantly more likely to undergo surgery, whereas those treated by private providers were more likely to undergo radiotherapy or primary androgen deprivation, irrespective of age, race, comorbidity status, clinical tumor stage, Gleason sum, and D&apos;Amico risk stratification.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;A likely explanation for this imparity is that the initial provider in the county hospitals was always a urologist, whereas at the private venues the initial providers were a mix of urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists,&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the U.S. in 2009, more than 190,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer and more than 27,000 men died from the disease, according to the National Cancer Institute. Although life expectancy, other illnesses, cancer severity, and patient preference may play a role in treatment choice, the common treatments for localized prostate cancer  --  surgery, radiation, and hormone therapy  --  all have pros and cons, and experts differ on which option is more effective.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Parsons and colleagues explored whether treatment location might play a role in determining what therapy a patient receives. They analyzed the records of 559 men enrolled in a state-funded public assistance program for low-income patients, known as Improving Access, Counseling and Treatment for Californians with Prostate Cancer (IMPACT), who received prostate cancer treatment between 2001 and 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers noted that a limitation of the study was the population included in the IMPACT database -- generally patients with more severe cancer than in the general U.S. population; thus the findings may not reflect patients from other regions and socioeconomic groups.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of the participants, 315 received treatment from county hospitals and 244 received care from private facilities. No significant difference existed between the two groups in terms of age and tumor characteristics, yet the patients received varying therapies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;In this economically disadvantaged cohort, prostate cancer treatments differed significantly between county hospitals and private providers,&quot; the authors wrote. &quot;These data reveal substantial variations in treatment patterns between different types of healthcare institutions that  --  given the implications for health policy and quality of care  --  merit further scrutiny.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To help patients make informed decisions, develop appropriate expectations, and avoid making decisions they will regret, the authors proposed that patients with localized prostate cancer be provided access to multiple care providers so that they will be exposed to a variety of opinions and information about their disease.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers did not report specific support for this analysis but the IMPACT program is supported by the state of California.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The reseachers reported no financial conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>