Incremental Value of Biventricular Strain in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis.

(1) Background: Left ventricular global longitudinal (LVGLS) and right ventricular free wall strain (RVFWS) demonstrated separate prognostic values in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, studies evaluating the combined assessment of LVGLS and RVFWS have shown contradictory results. This study explored the prognostic value of combining LVGLS and RVFWS in a large group of severe AS patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. (2) Methods: Patients were classified into three groups: preserved (LVGLS ≥ 15% AND RVFWS > 20%), single-ventricle impaired (LVGLS < 15% OR RVFWS ≤ 20%), or biventricular-impaired strain group (LVGLS < 15% AND RVFWS ≤ 20%). The cut-off values were based on previously published data and spline analyses. The endpoint was all-cause mortality. (3) Results: Of the 712 patients included (age 80 ± 7 years, 53% men), 248 (35%) died. The single-ventricle impaired and biventricular-impaired (vs. preserved) strain groups showed significantly lower 5-year survival rates (68% and 55% vs. 77%, respectively, p < 0.001). Through multivariable analysis, single-ventricle impaired (HR 1.762; 95% CI: 1.114-2.788; p = 0.015) and biventricular-impaired strain groups (HR 1.920; 95% CI: 1.134-3.250; p = 0.015) were independently associated with all-cause mortality. These findings were confirmed with a sensitivity analysis in patients with preserved LV ejection fraction. (4) Conclusions: In patients with severe AS, biventricular strain allows better risk stratification, even if LV ejection fraction is preserved.

Patient- versus physician-reported outcomes in prostate cancer patients receiving hypofractionated radiotherapy within a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The risk of developing acute radiotherapy(RT)-induced side effects may increase with hypofractionated RT. To detect treatment-related side effects, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might be more reliable than physician-reported outcomes. Therefore, we tried to evaluate the rate of agreement between urinary and gastrointestinal (GI) side effects and the prevalence of side effects reported by patients and by physicians. METHODS: Data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing two hypofractionated RT schedules were used. Urinary (nocturia, incontinence, frequency, dysuria, and urgency) and GI (obstruction, diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, bloating, hemorragia, and incontinence) symptoms measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 and PR-25 were used for PROs. The same symptoms were scored by the physician using the Common Terminology Criteria Adverse Events v4.0. Outcomes were reported at baseline, end of treatment, month 1, and month 3. PROs and physician-reported outcomes were converted in two categories (0 = no symptoms; 1 = symptoms of any severity) and were correlated using the kappa (κ) correlation statistics. Values below 0.40 were considered low agreement. In addition, the prevalence of symptoms was calculated. RESULTS: Data from 160 patients were used. The mean value for Cohen's κ was 0.31 (ranging between 0.04 and 0.55) and 0.23 (ranging between 0.04 and 0.47) for urinary and GI symptoms, respectively. Except for three symptoms at baseline, all symptoms reported by patients were higher than those reported by physicians. CONCLUSION: There is low agreement between symptoms reported by patients and physicians, with high rates of underreporting by the physician.

4 Weeks Versus 5 Weeks of Hypofractionated High-dose Radiation Therapy as Primary Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Interim Safety Analysis of a Randomized Phase 3 Trial.

PURPOSE: Hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) for localized prostate cancer is safe and effective. The question that remains is which hypofractionation schedule to implement. We compared 2 different HFRT regimens in the present study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From June 2013 to July 2016, 160 patients with prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1), within this single-center phase III trial, to 56 Gy (16 fractions of 3.5 Gy; arm A) or 67 Gy (25 fractions of 2.68 Gy; arm B). Randomization was performed using computer-generated permuted blocks, stratified by previous transurethral resection of the prostate and the presence of a dominant intraprostatic lesion. Treatment allocation was not masked, and the clinicians were not blinded. The primary endpoint was acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity scale. An interim analysis of acute toxicity was planned at 160 patients to prove the safety of both treatment regimens. If ≥22 of 72 patients had grade ≥2 GI toxicity, the study arm would be rejected. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01921803). RESULTS: In arm A, 20 patients (26%) and 1 patient (1%) developed acute grade 2 and grade 3 GI toxicity. In arm B, 16 patients (20%) reported acute grade 2 GI toxicity. In arm A, 42 (55%) and 5 (6%) patients developed acute grade 2 and grade 3 urinary toxicity. In arm B, 40 (49%) and 7 (9%) patients reported acute grade 2 and grade 3 urinary toxicity. Toxicity peaked during radiation therapy and resolved in the months after radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: With acute grade ≥2 GI toxicity reported in 21 of 77 patients in arm A and 16 of 82 patients in arm B, both treatment arms can be considered safe.