Characterisation and classification of oligometastatic disease: a European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus recommendation.

Oligometastatic disease has been proposed as an intermediate state between localised and systemically metastasised disease. In the absence of randomised phase 3 trials, early clinical studies show improved survival when radical local therapy is added to standard systemic therapy for oligometastatic disease. However, since no biomarker for the identification of patients with true oligometastatic disease is clinically available, the diagnosis of oligometastatic disease is based solely on imaging findings. A small number of metastases on imaging could represent different clinical scenarios, which are associated with different prognoses and might require different treatment strategies. 20 international experts including 19 members of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer OligoCare project developed a comprehensive system for characterisation and classification of oligometastatic disease. We first did a systematic review of the literature to identify inclusion and exclusion criteria of prospective interventional oligometastatic disease clinical trials. Next, we used a Delphi consensus process to select a total of 17 oligometastatic disease characterisation factors that should be assessed in all patients treated with radical local therapy for oligometastatic disease, both within and outside of clinical trials. Using a second round of the Delphi method, we established a decision tree for oligometastatic disease classification together with a nomenclature. We agreed oligometastatic disease as the overall umbrella term. A history of polymetastatic disease before diagnosis of oligometastatic disease was used as the criterion to differentiate between induced oligometastatic disease (previous history of polymetastatic disease) and genuine oligometastatic disease (no history of polymetastatic disease). We further subclassified genuine oligometastatic disease into repeat oligometastatic disease (previous history of oligometastatic disease) and de-novo oligometastatic disease (first time diagnosis of oligometastatic disease). In de-novo oligometastatic disease, we differentiated between synchronous and metachronous oligometastatic disease. We did a final subclassification into oligorecurrence, oligoprogression, and oligopersistence, considering whether oligometastatic disease is diagnosed during a treatment-free interval or during active systemic therapy and whether or not an oligometastatic lesion is progressing on current imaging. This oligometastatic disease classification and nomenclature needs to be prospectively evaluated by the OligoCare study.

Pediatric acute kidney injury in the ICU: an independent evaluation of pRIFLE criteria.

OBJECTIVE: The present study was undertaken to evaluate the practicability of the proposed pediatric RIFLE (pRIFLE) criteria in a patient population at risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) and to analyze the prevalence and association of AKI as defined by pRIFLE with mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective, descriptive cohort study. SETTING: Single-center, 9-bed PICU facility. PATIENTS: Children with respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation for more than 4 days admitted between January 2002 and December 2006. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Data of 103 patients were studied. Median age was 4.5 years (range 1 month-17 years). Six patients received renal replacement therapy. Seventeen patients (17%) died. Sixty patients (58%) developed AKI by pRIFLE. Mean time to attainment of the first RIFLE stratum was 1.9 +/- 1.6 days. By pRIFLE, 34 of the 60 patients fulfilled the maximum AKI criteria on the first day after admission based on the estimated creatinine clearance criterion. Patients with AKI according to the pRIFLE scoring system had five times higher mortality than patients without AKI (25 vs. 5%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a high incidence of significant AKI in a PICU population at risk, which was associated with high mortality. Pediatric RIFLE criteria may guide in the early identification of patients at risk for AKI and in the initiation of therapy.

Validation and Modification of a Prediction Model for Acute Cardiac Events in Patients With Breast Cancer Treated With Radiotherapy Based on Three-Dimensional Dose Distributions to Cardiac Substructures.

Purpose A relationship between mean heart dose (MHD) and acute coronary event (ACE) rate was reported in a study of patients with breast cancer (BC). The main objective of our cohort study was to validate this relationship and investigate if other dose-distribution parameters are better predictors for ACEs than MHD. Patients and Methods The cohort consisted of 910 consecutive female patients with BC treated with radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery. The primary end point was cumulative incidence of ACEs within 9 years of follow-up. Both MHD and various dose-distribution parameters of the cardiac substructures were collected from three-dimensional computed tomography planning data. Results The median MHD was 2.37 Gy (range, 0.51 to 15.25 Gy). The median follow-up time was 7.6 years (range, 0.1 to 10.1 years), during which 30 patients experienced an ACE. The cumulative incidence of ACE increased by 16.5% per Gy (95% CI, 0.6 to 35.0; P = .042). Analysis showed that the volume of the left ventricle receiving 5 Gy (LV-V5) was the most important prognostic dose-volume parameter. The most optimal multivariable normal tissue complication probability model for ACEs consisted of LV-V5, age, and weighted ACE risk score per patient (c-statistic, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.91). Conclusion A significant dose-effect relationship was found for ACEs within 9 years after RT. Using MHD, the relative increase per Gy was similar to that reported in the previous study. In addition, LV-V5 seemed to be a better predictor for ACEs than MHD. This study confirms the importance of reducing exposure of the heart to radiation to avoid excess risk of ACEs after radiotherapy for BC.

Shared decision making in the safety net: where do we go from here?

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is an interactive process between clinicians and patients in which both share information, deliberate together, and make clinical decisions. Clinics serving safety net patients face special challenges, including fewer resources and more challenging work environments. The use of SDM within safety net institutions has not been well studied. METHODS: We recruited a convenience sample of 15 safety net primary care clinicians (13 physicians, 2 nurse practitioners). Each answered a 9-item SDM questionnaire and participated in a semistructured interview. From the transcribed interviews and questionnaire data, we identified themes and suggestions for introducing SDM into a safety net environment. RESULTS: Clinicians reported only partially fulfilling the central components of SDM (sharing information, deliberating, and decision making). Most clinicians expressed interest in SDM by stating that they "selected a treatment option together" with patients (8 of 15 in strong or complete agreement), but only a minority (3 of 15) "thoroughly weighed the different treatment options" together with patients. Clinicians attributed this gap to many barriers, including time pressure, overwhelming visit content, patient preferences, and lack of available resources. All clinicians believed that lack of time made it difficult to practice SDM. CONCLUSIONS: To increase use of SDM in the safety net, efficient SDM interventions designed for this environment, team care, and patient engagement in SDM will need further development. Future studies should focus on adapting SDM to safety net settings and determine whether SDM can reduce health care disparities.