[Assessment of hematopoiesis regeneration in patients with solid tumors after radiotherapy]. / Ocena regeneracji ukladu krwiotwórczego u chorych na nowotwory lite leczonych promieniowaniem jonizujacym.

The myelotoxicity is one of the most severe adverse events of radiotherapy. Increase of CD34+ cells level in peripheral blood as result of raised output of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) can be result of hematopoiesis regeneration after radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to determine the hematopoiesis regeneration using analysis of CD34+ cells level in peripheral blood and serum concentration of G-CSF in patients treated with radiotherapy according to irradiated body region and irradiation field size. Two groups of irradiated patients were examined. Group I consisted of 11 patients (mean age 56) with gynecological malignancies (teletherapy dose 40-50 Gy for pelvic area and brachytherapy with Cs). Group II consisted of 10 patients (mean age 58) with head and neck malignancies (teletherapy only 50-70 Gy). Every patient was evaluated 3 times: before radiotherapy, in the day of ending and 14 days after therapy. 3 ml of blood for CD34 and serum for G-CSF estimation were collected. Blood cells were stained with monoclonal antibody specific for CD34 antigen and analysed by flow cytometry. G-CSF level was estimated by ELISA. After radiotherapy in both groups statistically significant leukopenia (p < 0.001) was observed. There was no difference between two groups in levels of CD34+ cells before and in the last day of therapy but there was significant increase of CD34+ cells in group I compared with group II 14 days after treatment (p < 0.01). Decrease of CD34+ cells during radiotherapy and after its ending in all patients was observed but only in group II was statistically significant. Positive correlation between amount of leukocytes and CD34+ cells percentage was stated. There were no statistically significant differences in serum G-CSF concentration within particular groups and between group I and II. Our results indicate that evaluation of CD34+ cells level in peripheral blood is useful in prediction of hematopoiesis regeneration after radiotherapy. G-CSF serum concentration is not prognostic factor in these groups of patients.

Fractionated half-body irradiation (HBI) for the rapid palliation of widespread, symptomatic, metastatic bone disease: a randomized Phase III trial of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

PURPOSE: To find the fastest and most effective/efficient method to economically deliver fractionated half-body irradiation (HBI) for widespread (WS), symptomatic, metastatic bone cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Phase III trial with 3 HBI arms: (Arm A) Control (15 Gy/5 fractions/5 days); (Arm B) Hyperfractionation (HF) (8 Gy/2 fractions/1 day); (Arm C) Accelerated HF (12 Gy/4 fractions/2 days). Six countries randomized 156 patients (all with WS bone metastases): 51, 56, and 49 patients to Arms A, B, and C, respectively. There were 72 (46%) breast, 50 (32%) prostate, 9 (6%) lung, and 25 (16%) miscellaneous primary tumors. Initial performance status (PS) was 1-2 in 101 (65%) and PS 3-4 in 55 (35%). The lower, upper, and middle halves of the body were treated 79, 68, and 9 times. RESULTS: Pain relief was seen in 91% of patients (45% complete [CR] and 46% partial [PR]) within 3-8 days. Overall (OS), median (MST), and pain-free (PFS) survival was 174, 150, and 122 days. Breast tumors had a higher OS (279 days) than that of other primary tumors, but when analyzed by treatment, was not significantly different than prostate tumors in Arm A. No survival differences were found in patients with PS 1-2 vs. 3-4, CR vs. PR, bone with/without visceral metastases, or by the number of metastases (< or > 15 bone lesions). Quality of life (QOL) assessed by the percent of the remaining life free of pain was 71%; furthermore significant improvements in PS, pain, and narcotic scores were seen after HBI. Toxicity was very acceptable (41% none, 50% mild/moderate, 12% severe but transitory); more was seen with upper HBI. CONCLUSION: In terms of response, time to response, OS, MST, PFS, QOL, and toxicity, schedules for Arms A and C were similar for all but prostate primaries. Schedule for Arm B, which delivered the lowest biologic dose in the shortest time, had significantly worse results in pain relief, OS, MST, PFS, and QOL. Results indicate that, for most primary tumor types (except prostate), delivering two HBI daily doses of 3 Gy in 2 consecutive days is as effective as delivering a daily dose of 3 Gy for 5 consecutive days. Thus, this is a faster and much more convenient HBI schedule for the palliation of pain in widespread cancer.

Ondansetron versus a chlorpromazine and dexamethasone combination for the prevention of nausea and vomiting: a prospective, randomised study to assess efficacy, cost effectiveness and quality of life following single-fraction radiotherapy.

Lower hemibody radiotherapy is an effective palliative treatment for patients with wide-spread bone metastases, but is frequently associated with the unpleasant side effects of nausea and vomiting. Patients often require admission to hospital for at least an overnight stay, with its inevitable costs. This study has investigated the clinical efficacy and safety profile of ondansetron, a 5HT3 receptor antagonist, and compared it to a standard antiemetic combination, chlorpromazine and dexamethasone. Sixty-six patients were randomised to receive antiemetic prophylaxis with either oral ondansetron or a combination of chlorpromazine and dexamethasone (33 patients in each arm): 60 were treated with lower abdominal radiotherapy (8 Gy mid-plane dose) and 6 with radiotherapy to the upper lumbar spine (12.5 Gy incident dose). Patients were assessed for severity of nausea and vomiting and for whether they would use the same antiemetic again. Quality of life was assessed using the Functional Living Index Cancer (FLIC) and Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) quality-of-life questionnaires. A detailed cost-benefit analysis was also performed. Ondansetron scored highly as an antiemetic, being significantly better at controlling emesis on all four study days (P < 0.001) and significantly better at controlling nausea on day 1 (P < 0.001) than the standard combination of chlorpromazine and dexamethasone. Quality of life was better in the ondansetron-treated group, and ondansetron was found to be safe with no significant adverse effects. As a result, 98% of patients and investigators would use ondansetron again. Cost-benefit analysis revealed that, when complete control of emesis is the aim, ondansetron is not unduly expensive compared to the standard antiemetic regimen. As ondansetron was clearly effective in patients receiving hemibody irradiation it seems it would be prudent to adopt it for use in such patients routinely. The use of ondansetron would allow them to be treated as outpatients, with the attendant financial and psychosocial benefits of such an approach.