Dose-Escalated Radiation Alone or in Combination With Short-Term Total Androgen Suppression for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Patient-Reported Outcomes From NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0815 Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of a phase III trial evaluating total androgen suppression (TAS) combined with dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to dose-escalated RT alone (arm 1) or RT plus TAS (arm 2) consisting of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist with oral antiandrogen for 6 months. The primary PRO was the validated Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50). Secondary PROs included Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-fatigue and EuroQOL five-dimensions scale questionnaire (EQ-5D). PRO change scores, calculated for each patient as the follow-up score minus baseline score (at the end of RT and at 6, 12, and 60 months), were compared between treatment arms using a two-sample t test. An effect size of 0.50 standard deviation was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: For the primary PRO instrument (EPIC), the completion rates were ≥86% through the first year of follow-up and 70%-75% at 5 years. For the EPIC hormonal and sexual domains, there were clinically meaningful (P < .0001) deficits in the RT + TAS arm. However, there were no clinically meaningful differences by 1 year between arms. There were also no clinically meaningful differences at any time points between arms for PROMIS-fatigue, EQ-5D, and EPIC bowel/urinary scores. CONCLUSION: Compared with dose-escalated RT alone, adding TAS demonstrated clinically meaningful declines only in EPIC hormonal and sexual domains. However, even these PRO differences were transient, and there were no clinically meaningful differences between arms by 1 year.

Chiropractic and self-care for back-related leg pain: design of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is a common variation of low back pain (LBP), with lifetime prevalence estimates as high as 40%. Often disabling, BRLP accounts for greater work loss, recurrences, and higher costs than uncomplicated LBP and more often leads to surgery with a lifetime incidence of 10% for those with severe BRLP, compared to 1-2% for those with LBP.In the US, half of those with back-related conditions seek CAM treatments, the most common of which is chiropractic care. While there is preliminary evidence suggesting chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is beneficial for patients with BRLP, there is insufficient evidence currently available to assess the effectiveness of this care. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a two-site, prospective, parallel group, observer-blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT). A total of 192 study patients will be recruited from the Twin Cities, MN (n = 122) and Quad Cities area in Iowa and Illinois (n = 70) to the research clinics at WHCCS and PCCR, respectively.It compares two interventions: chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus home exercise program (HEP) to HEP alone (minimal intervention comparison) for patients with subacute or chronic back-related leg pain. DISCUSSION: Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is a costly and often disabling variation of the ubiquitous back pain conditions. As health care costs continue to climb, the search for effective treatments with few side-effects is critical. While SMT is the most commonly sought CAM treatment for LBP sufferers, there is only a small, albeit promising, body of research to support its use for patients with BRLP.This study seeks to fill a critical gap in the LBP literature by performing the first full scale RCT assessing chiropractic SMT for patients with sub-acute or chronic BRLP using important patient-oriented and objective biomechanical outcome measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00494065.

Continuous 28-day iododeoxyuridine infusion and hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy for malignant glioma: a phase I clinical study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the maximal tolerated dose of a continuous 28-day iododeoxyuridine (IUdr) infusion combined with hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HART); to analyze the percentage of IUdr-thymidine replacement in peripheral granulocytes as a surrogate marker for IUdr incorporation into tumor cells; to measure the steady-state serum IUdr levels; and to assess the feasibility of continuous IUdr infusion and HART in the management of malignant glioma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were required to have biopsy-proven malignant glioma. Patients received 100 (n = 4), 200 (n = 3), 300 (n = 3), 400 (n = 6), 500 (n = 4), 625 (n = 5), or 781 (n = 6) mg/m(2)/d of IUdr by continuous infusion for 28 days. HART was started 7 days after IUdr initiation. The total dose was 70 Gy (1.2 Gy b.i.d. for 25 days with a 10-Gy boost [2.0 Gy for 5 Saturdays]). Weekly assays were performed to determine the percentage of IUdr-DNA replacement in granulocytes and serum IUdr levels using standard high performance liquid chromatography methods. Standard Phase I toxicity methods were used. RESULTS: Between June 1994 and August 1999, 31 patients were enrolled. No patient had Grade 3 or worse HART toxicity. Grade 3 or greater IUdr toxicity predominantly included neutropenia (n = 3), thrombocytopenia (n = 3), and elevated liver function studies (n = 3). The maximal tolerated dose was 625 mg/m(2)/d. Thymidine replacement in the peripheral granulocytes peaked at 3 weeks and increased with the dose (maximal thymidine replacement 4.9%). The steady-state plasma IUdr level increased with the dose (maximum, 1.5 microM). CONCLUSION: In our study, continuous long-term IUdr i.v. infusion had a maximal tolerated dose of 625 mg/m(2)/d. Granulocyte incorporation data verified the concept that prolonged IUdr infusion results in IUdr-DNA replacement that corresponds to a high degree of cell labeling. IUdr steady-state plasma levels increased with increasing dose and attained levels needed for clinical radiosensitization. Continuous IUdr infusion and HART were both feasible and well tolerated.