Radiotherapeutic management of brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The management of brain metastases is a significant health care problem. An estimated 20-40% of cancer patients will develop metastatic cancer to the brain during the course of their illness. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized trials on adult cancer patients with single or multiple brain metastases from cancer of any histology was conducted. Eligible studies investigated external beam radiotherapy or radiosurgery in one of the study arms. Outcomes of interest included survival, intracranial progression-free duration, response of brain metastases to therapy, quality of life, symptom control, neurological function, and toxicity. RESULTS: Twenty-seven trials were included in this systematic review of the evidence. Pooled results from three randomized trials of surgical excision combined with whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) showed no improvement in overall survival as compared to WBRT alone in patients with single brain metastasis. One randomized study of postoperative WBRT following excision of a single brain metastasis versus surgery alone detected a significant reduction in intracranial tumour recurrence rates but no corresponding difference in overall survival. Nine trials of altered dose-fractionation schedules compared to a standard control fractionation schedule (3000 cGy in 10 fractions) of WBRT showed no difference in probability of survival at 6 months. The addition of radiosensitizers, as assessed in five trials, did not confer additional benefit to WBRT in terms of overall survival or the frequency of brain metastases response. Three trials examined the use of WBRT and radiosurgery boost versus WBRT alone in selected patients with brain metastases. Overall survival did not improve for patients with multiple brain metastases. However, one trial reported an improvement in survival for patients with single brain metastasis treated with WBRT and radiosurgery boost. One older randomized trial examined the use of WBRT versus supportive care alone (using oral prednisone). Results were not conclusive. CONCLUSION: For patients with a single brain metastasis, good performance status, and minimal or no evidence of extracranial disease, surgical excision and postoperative WBRT improves survival (as compared to WBRT alone). There may be a small survival advantage associated with the use of radiosurgery boost and WBRT as compared to WBRT alone in selected patients with a single brain metastasis. There is no difference in overall survival or in neurologic function improvement with the use of altered whole brain dose-fractionation schedules as compared to standard fractionation schedules (3000 cGy in 10 fractions or 2000 cGy in 5 fractions). There is no survival benefit associated with the use of radiosurgery boost and WBRT versus WBRT alone in patients with multiple brain metastases. Currently, neither chemotherapy nor radiosensitizers show a clear benefit in the objective parameters of survival and progression-free survival. For patients with poor performance status and active extracranial disease, steroids and supportive care are an option.

Clinical practice guideline on the optimal radiotherapeutic management of brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: An evidence-based clinical practice guideline on the optimal radiotherapeutic management of single and multiple brain metastases was developed. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. The Supportive Care Guidelines Group formulated clinical recommendations based on their interpretation of the evidence. External review of the report by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey, and final approval was obtained from Cancer Care Ontario's Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee (PGCC). RESULTS: One hundred and nine Ontario practitioners responded to the survey (return rate 44%). Ninety-six percent of respondents agreed with the interpretation of the evidence, and 92% agreed that the report should be approved. Minor revisions were made based on feedback from external reviewers and the PGCC. The PGCC approved the final practice guideline report. CONCLUSIONS: For adult patients with a clinical and radiographic diagnosis of brain metastases (single or multiple) we conclude that: surgical excision should be considered for patients with good performance status, minimal or no evidence of extracranial disease, and a surgically accessible single brain metastasis. Postoperative whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) should be considered to reduce the risk of tumour recurrence for patients who have undergone resection of a single brain metastasis. Radiosurgery boost with WBRT may improve survival in select patients with unresectable single brain metastases. The whole brain should be irradiated for multiple brain metastases. Standard dose-fractionation schedules are 3000 cGy in 10 fractions or 2000 cGy in 5 fractions. Radiosensitizers are not recommended outside research studies. In select patients, radiosurgery may be considered as boost therapy with WBRT to improve local tumour control. Radiosurgery boost may improve survival in select patients. Chemotherapy as primary therapy or chemotherapy with WBRT remains experimental. Supportive care is an option but there is a lack of Level 1 evidence as to which subsets of patients should be managed with supportive care alone. Qualifying statements addressing factors to consider when applying these recommendations are provided in the full report. The rigorous development, external review and approval process has resulted in a practice guideline that is strongly endorsed by Ontario practitioners.

Radiotherapy fractionation for the palliation of uncomplicated painful bone metastases - an evidence-based practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: This practice guideline was developed to provide recommendations to clinicians in Ontario on the preferred standard radiotherapy fractionation schedule for the treatment of painful bone metastases. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed and published elsewhere. The Supportive Care Guidelines Group, a multidisciplinary guideline development panel, formulated clinical recommendations based on their interpretation of the evidence. In addition to evidence from clinical trials, the panel also considered patient convenience and ease of administration of palliative radiotherapy. External review of the draft report by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey, and final approval was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. RESULTS: Meta-analysis did not detect a significant difference in complete or overall pain relief between single treatment and multifraction palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases. Fifty-nine Ontario practitioners responded to the mailed survey (return rate 62%). Forty-two percent also returned written comments. Eighty-three percent of respondents agreed with the interpretation of the evidence and 75% agreed that the report should be approved as a practice guideline. Minor revisions were made based on feedback from the external reviewers and the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. The Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee approved the final practice guideline report. CONCLUSION: For adult patients with single or multiple radiographically confirmed bone metastases of any histology corresponding to painful areas in previously non-irradiated areas without pathologic fractures or spinal cord/cauda equine compression, we conclude that: Where the treatment objective is pain relief, a single 8 Gy treatment, prescribed to the appropriate target volume, is recommended as the standard dose-fractionation schedule for the treatment of symptomatic and uncomplicated bone metastases. Several factors frequently considered in clinical practice when applying this evidence such as the effect of primary histology, anatomical site of treatment, risk of pathological fracture, soft tissue disease and cord compression, use of antiemetics, and the role of retreatment are discussed as qualifying statements.Our systematic review and meta-analysis provided high quality evidence for the key recommendation in this clinical practice guideline. Qualifying statements addressing factors that should be considered when applying this recommendation in clinical practice facilitate its clinical application. The rigorous development and approval process result in a final document that is strongly endorsed by practitioners as a practice guideline.

Strategies to enhance venous thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients (SENTRY): a pilot cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common preventable cause of mortality in hospitalized medical patients. Despite rigorous randomized trials generating strong recommendations for anticoagulant use to prevent VTE, nearly 40% of medical patients receive inappropriate thromboprophylaxis. Knowledge-translation strategies are needed to bridge this gap. METHODS: We conducted a 16-week pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) to determine the proportion of medical patients that were appropriately managed for thromboprophylaxis (according to the American College of Chest Physician guidelines) within 24 hours of admission, through the use of a multicomponent knowledge-translation intervention. Our primary goal was to determine the feasibility of conducting this study on a larger scale. The intervention comprised clinician education, a paper-based VTE risk assessment algorithm, printed physicians' orders, and audit and feedback sessions. Medical wards at six hospitals (representing clusters) in Ontario, Canada were included; three were randomized to the multicomponent intervention and three to usual care (i.e., no active strategies for thromboprophylaxis in place). Blinding was not used. RESULTS: A total of 2,611 patients (1,154 in the intervention and 1,457 in the control group) were eligible and included in the analysis. This multicomponent intervention did not lead to a significant difference in appropriate VTE prophylaxis rates between intervention and control hospitals (appropriate management rate odds ratio = 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.50, 1.28; p = 0.36; intra-class correlation coefficient: 0.022), and thus was not considered feasible. Major barriers to effective knowledge translation were poor attendance by clinical staff at education and feedback sessions, difficulty locating preprinted orders, and lack of involvement by clinical and administrative leaders. We identified several factors that may increase uptake of a VTE prophylaxis strategy, including local champions, support from clinical and administrative leaders, mandatory use, and a simple, clinically relevant risk assessment tool. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals allocated to our multicomponent intervention did not have a higher rate of medical inpatients appropriately managed for thromboprophylaxis than did hospitals that were not allocated to this strategy.

Barriers and potential solutions toward optimal prophylaxis against deep vein thrombosis for hospitalized medical patients: a survey of healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis remains underused in hospitalized medical patients despite strong recommendations that at-risk patients should receive prophylaxis. To understand this gap between knowledge and practice, we surveyed clinicians' perceptions about the importance of DVT prophylaxis, barriers to guideline implementation, and interventions to optimize prophylaxis. METHODS: Paper- and electronic mail-based surveys were sent to 1553 internists, nurses, pharmacists, and physiotherapists in Ontario, Canada. Responses were scored on 7-point Likert scales. An important barrier to optimal DVT prophylaxis was 1 with a mean score ≥5, and interventions with high potential success or feasibility were those with mean scores ≥5. RESULTS: DVT prophylaxis was perceived as important by all clinician groups but this did not appear to translate into knowledge about underutilization of current DVT prophylaxis strategies. Physicians and pharmacists recognized the underuse of DVT prophylaxis in medical patients, while nurses and physiotherapists tended to perceive prophylaxis strategies as appropriate. Lack of clear indications and contraindications for prophylaxis and concerns about bleeding risks were perceived as important barriers. Preprinted orders were considered the most potentially successful and feasible way to optimize prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable barrier to optimal DVT prophylaxis utilization may be that those healthcare providers best able to conduct a daily assessment of patients' need for prophylaxis underrecognize the problem that prophylaxis is underutilized in this population. Interventions to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice should consider preprinted orders outlining DVT risk factors, and educating front-line care providers prior to implementation of a top-down approach.

Safety of uninterrupted anticoagulation in patients requiring elective coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and metaanalysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are receiving vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy pose challenges when they require surgery or invasive procedures because the risk for bleeding during the procedure must be balanced against the risk of an atherothrombotic event if the VKA is interrupted. However, it may be possible to safely perform some procedures, such as coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), without VKA interruption. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review and metaanalysis to assess the safety of a periprocedural management strategy of uninterrupted VKA (U-VKA) vs interrupted VKA (I-VKA) with or without bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin in patients undergoing elective coronary angiography with or without PCI. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the review. Most were of moderate to very low quality. A strategy of U-VKA appears to confer approximately one-half the risk (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26-0.73) of experiencing an access site bleeding complication within 1 week of the procedure compared with a strategy of I-VKA. The U-VKA strategy was associated with a pooled access site bleeding complication rate of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.0-7.0), and although high heterogeneity precluded pooling of such a rate in the I-VKA group, these rates ranged from 2% to 14%. CONCLUSION: Although it appears that coronary angiography with or without PCI can be safely performed without interrupting VKA, the low methodologic quality of existing studies precludes any definitive conclusions. Randomized trials assessing different anticoagulation strategies are needed to establish evidence-based practice guidelines in this setting.

The management of dyspnea in cancer patients: a systematic review.

GOALS OF WORK: The goal of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of four drug classes (opioids, phenothiazines, benzodiazepines, and systemic corticosteroids) for relieving dyspnea experienced by advanced cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to July 2006. Search sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Four reviewers selected evidence using predefined criteria: controlled trials not limited to cancer and involving the specified drug classes for dyspnea treatment. MAIN RESULTS: Three systematic reviews, one with meta-analysis, two practice guidelines, and 28 controlled trials were identified. Most examined the effect of opioids, generally morphine, on dyspnea. Although the results of individual trials were mixed, the systematic review with meta-analysis detected a significant benefit for dyspnea with systemic opioids; two small placebo-controlled trials in cancer patients found systemic morphine reduced dyspnea, and dihydrocodeine also significantly reduced dyspnea in four placebo-controlled trials. Nebulized morphine was not effective in controlling dyspnea in any study or the meta-analysis. No controlled trials examined systemic corticosteroids in the treatment of cancer patients, and of the other non-opioid drugs examined, only oral promethazine, a phenothiazine, showed some benefit in the relief of dyspnea. Studies varied in methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic opioids, administered orally or parenterally, can be used to manage dyspnea in cancer patients. Oral promethazine may also be used, as a second-line agent if systemic opioids cannot be used or in addition to systemic opioids. Nebulized morphine, prochlorperazine, and benzodiazepines are not recommended for the treatment of dyspnea, and promethazine must not be used parenterally.

The use of chemotherapy in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma: a systematic review and practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: This clinical practice guideline, based on a systematic review, was developed to determine which chemotherapeutic agents (or combinations of agents) show the highest response rates, improved survival, quality of life, or symptom control in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: A thorough systematic search of the literature was conducted for published articles and conference proceedings for applicable abstracts. Relevant trials, published as articles and abstracts, were selected and assessed. External feedback was obtained from Ontario clinicians, and the guideline was approved by the provincial Lung Cancer Disease Site Group. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen studies were eligible, including eight randomized trials and 111 phase II trials. The pooled response rates from phase II trials suggest that response rates with combination chemotherapy are higher than with single agents. Data from the largest randomized controlled trial demonstrated that chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed significantly improves response rates (41% versus 17%, p < 0.001), time to progression (5.7 months versus 3.9 months, p = 0.001), and overall survival (median, 12.1 months versus 9.3 months, hazard ratio = 0.77, p = 0.020) in comparison to single-agent cisplatin. A second trial demonstrated cisplatin and raltitrexed significantly improved median survival compared to single-agent cisplatin (11.4 months versus 8.8 months; hazard ratio = 0.76, p = 0.0483). Overall response rate (24% versus 14%, p = 0.056) was greater in the combination treatment arm, but this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: There is good evidence to recommend chemotherapy with pemetrexed and cisplatin for adult patients with symptomatic advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma. Such treatment should be administered with supplementation of vitamin B12 and folic acid. If pemetrexed is not available, cisplatin plus raltitrexed is a reasonable alternative.

The prevention and management of acute skin reactions related to radiation therapy: a systematic review and practice guideline.

GOALS OF WORK: To develop a practice guideline report on the questions: What are the optimal methods to prevent acute skin reactions (occurring within the first 6 months of irradiation) related to radiation therapy? What are the optimal methods to manage acute skin reactions related to radiation therapy? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cancer Care Ontario's Supportive Care Guidelines Group (SCGG) conducted a systematic review of literature on this topic. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated to guide clinical decision making, and a formal external review process was conducted to validate the relevance of these opinions for Ontario practitioners. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-eight trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. Of the twenty-three trials that evaluated preventative methods, washing was the only practice which significantly prevented skin reaction. Some evidence suggested topical steroid creams and calendula ointment might be effective. None of the five trials evaluating skin reaction management detected a positive effect using steroid cream, sucralfate cream, or dressings. CONCLUSIONS: Skin washing, including gentle washing with water alone with or without mild soap, should be permitted in patients receiving radiation therapy to prevent acute skin reaction. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute specific topical or oral agents for the prevention or management of acute skin reaction. In the expert opinion from the SCGG, the use of a plain, non-scented, lanolin-free hydrophilic cream may be helpful in preventing radiation skin reactions. In addition, a low dose (i.e., 1%) corticosteroid cream may be beneficial in the reduction of itching and irritation.