Abstracts
Abstract submission is online. You are able to cut and paste your abstract into the online system. The link used for submission will first ask you to load your personal details on your ‘dashboard’. This is the same site for registration and accommodation if required and is an enduring page that will last for future meetings. You should keep all emails sent to you from this page. Once submitting, a number of specific background questions will be asked. The reviewers can see your answers to these questions. Once you have made your submission, you can return and edit it until the reviewers commence scoring. It is accessed from your dashboard.
ABSTRACT SUBMISSION DEADLINE – is Monday 2nd August 2010
BEFORE YOU START – HAVE YOU READ THE GUIDELINES BELOW
The committee has re-written the guidelines below to assist you prepare your submission and maximise its chances of acceptance.
ABSTRACT CATEGORIES
Abstracts for the 2010 COSA meeting are invited to be submitted under one of the following categories:
• Basic and Translational Research
• Supportive Care
• Clinical Science
• Education and Professional Development
• Epidemiology
• Health Services
• Tumour Stream 1: Breast
• Tumour Stream 2: Gynae
• Tumour Stream 3: Urogenital
• Tumour Stream 4: Colorectal
• Trials in Progress
• Service Provision – this section is for descriptive processes/services which does not necessarily present research data
Notes:
The tumour streams vary from year to year.
The Service Provision Category is for non scientific abstracts. They do not need to follow the normal abstract format and are only considered for poster submission and they are still eligible for poster awards.
The Trials in Progress category is intended to facilitate awareness of and to encourage discussion of new clinical research and promote the exchange of ideas on clinical trial design. Please note: This special category will not include oral presentations.
CRITERIA USED BY THE REVIEWERS IN ASSESSING ABSTRACTS
The following information is provided to help you prepare a submission which is in line with the reviewer expectations
1. Abstracts are to be between 250 and 300 words in length. If they are structured with sub headings, they must be Aims, Methods, Results, Conclusions. The titles are to be concise, with only the first word starting with a capital letter.
2. Reports of completed studies are preferred and will be given preference in selecting oral presentations, especially over abstracts which do not report results but indicate that they will be reported at the meeting or mere descriptions of trial methodology.
3. Abstracts reporting quantitative studies should contain the planned accrual target and the actual number of patients recruited, levels of significance and confidence intervals of results. Abstracts of qualitative research should indicate how they chose their sample size (e.g. data saturation) and the methodology of analysis.
4. This year the abstracts will be “blinded” to the reviewers. They will not be able to see the authoring or organsiation information and so submitters must not assume that there will be knowledge of the previous work of a group or strength of a research group or researcher.
5. Images are not accepted in abstracts.
GOOD ABSTRACT – BAD ABSTRACT
The committee has provided two versions of an abstract below. The first would be considered favourably by the reviewers, not so the second. Note the correct use of Title Case in the first one’s heading and authoring, and the lack of detail and uncorrected spelling in the second.
A randomized double blind study of Kryptonite (KN) versus Panaceam (P) for Metastatic SUPERficial Cancers
L. Luther. L. Lang, T. Al Ghul.
Lexcorp Hospital, Metropolis, New York State, USA
Preclinical studies suggest that Kryptonite causes apoptosis in SUPERficial cancer cells. Phase I /II studies have established the maximum tolerated dose as 12.5 mg/m2 q 3 weeks and suggested activity at doses above 10 mg/m2. Panaceam is the standard therapy with recorded response rates of 20%. This study used simple randomization to allocate consenting patients (pts) with previously untreated metastatic SUPERficial cancers who had a performance status of ECOG 2 or less to being treated with KN 10 mg/m2 IV q 3 w or P 3mg/m2 IV q 3 w. Patients were treated until maximum response, evaluated weekly for toxicity and every 12 weeks for response when the QOL C-30 to measure quality of life was also administered. The 2 arms of the study were well matched for demographic characteristics and tumour characteristics. The median age was 61. The planned accrual target was reached with 223 pts on KN and 216 on P. Two patients in each group withdrew before treatment. At a median follow up of 18 months at which time > 70% on each arm had died there was no difference in survival (p=0.44, Hazard ratio 1.056, 95% CI 0.847- 1.317) The median time to progression was 4.7 months KN vs. 3.6 months P (p=0.44 HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.889-1.311). The response rates for KN 19.3% vs. 16.7% P (NS). There were no differences in the QOL scores between the drugs except for more vomiting on KN p=0.001 Odds ratio 2.11 (95% CI 1.35-3.28). There was less leucopenia and mucositis on KN (p<0.01). This study demonstrates equivalent efficacy for KN and P in terms of survival, time to progression and response but less leucopenia and myelosuppression and demonstrates that KN represents and effective alternative to P for SUPERficial cancers.
A Randomized Study Of Kryptonite (KN) Versus Panaceam (P) For Metastatic SUPERficial Cancers
L. LUTHER, L. LANE, J OLSEN.
Lexcorp Hospital, Metropolis, New York State, USA
Metastatic SUPERficial cancers are difficult to treat and are uniformly fatal once they relapse after intial removal by surgery or present with metastatic cacner. We planned a study comparing Kryponite with Panaceam after initial reports of response to KN in early studies in metastatic SUPERficial cancer. Patients with metastatic SUPERficial cancer who had not previously had treatment were randomly allocated to receive KN 10 mg/m2 IV q 3 w or P 3mg/m2 IV q 3 w. Accrual to the study has been slow because of competing protocols. We report the first 100 patients who were treated. The mean age is 61 and there were 55 males and 45 females. The patients on the KN arm had a response of 19.8% versus only 12.7% on P which is trending towards statistical significance. Not enough patients have died to compare survivals or time to progression on KN and P. Both drugs were relatively well tolerated and were given as outpatient therapy. Patients on KN had less grade 3 and 4 side effects, particularly less bone marrow suppression and mouth ulcers. Quality of life data is being recorded using the QOL C-30. This study shows promising results for KN in SUPERficial cancers. Results will be updated at the meeting, as accrual continues.
DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATION
Most of the submitted abstracts will be allocated posters as there will only be a limited number of “best of the best” for oral presentations. The best posters will be selected for specific poster presentation sessions with a discussant. There will be significant awards for the best poster presentations and posters, as well as for the best oral presentations.
Notifications will be sent on the 31st of August, which is before the early bird discounted registration deadline. However you can register at any time.
Accepted abstracts will be published int he delegate proceedings as long as the presenting author is registered. The abstracts will also be published online.
PRIZES
$2000 is awarded to the best oral presentation in each of the categories.
$2000 awarded to the best poster presentation in each of the 4 categories.
2 x $500 prizes awarded in each category below:
• Most novel research presented by poster
• Best communication of results by poster
• Best poster by a young researcher
The committee thanks Roche for their on going support in providing a grant for presentation prizes.
PREPARING YOUR ORAL PRESENTATION AND POSTER
For detailed instructions, please visit the Policies and Processes page listed on the menu.
COSA | Cosa June 15, 2010 | 
Comments (0)