Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of insufficiency fractures and avascular necrosis associated with pelvic radiotherapy in adults.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic radiotherapy is a treatment delivered to an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 people annually across high-income countries. Fractures due to normal stresses on weakened bone due to radiotherapy are termed insufficiency fractures. Pelvic radiotherapy-related interruption of the blood supply to the hip is termed avascular necrosis and is another recognised complication. The reported incidences of insufficiency fractures are 2.7% to 89% and risk of developing avascular necrosis is 0.5%. These complications lead to significant morbidity in terms of pain, immobility and consequently risk of infections, pressure sores and mortality. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for preventing insufficiency fractures and avascular necrosis in adults over 18 years of age undergoing pelvic radiotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: We performed electronic literature searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and DARE to 19 April 2017. We also searched trial registries. Further relevant studies were identified through handsearching of citation lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non RCTs with concurrent comparison groups including quasi-RCTs, cluster RCTs, prospective cohort studies and case series of 30 or more participants were screened. We included studies assessing the effect of pharmacological interventions in adults over 18 years of age undergoing radical pelvic radiotherapy as part of anticancer treatment for a primary pelvic malignancy. We excluded studies involving radiotherapy for bone metastases. We assessed use of pharmacological interventions at any stage before or during pelvic radiotherapy. Interventions included calcium or vitamin D (or both) supplementation, bisphosphonates, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, hormone replacement therapy (oestrogen or testosterone), denosumab and calcitonin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors to obtain missing data. Data were to be pooled using the random-effects model if study comparisons were similar, otherwise results were to be reported narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs (1167 participants). The first RCT compared zoledronic acid with placebo in 96 men undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer.The second RCT had four treatment arms, two of which evaluated zoledronic acid plus adjuvant androgen suppression compared with androgen suppression only in 1071 men undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer.Both studies were at a moderate to high risk of bias and all evidence was judged to be of very low certainty.The studies provided no evidence on the primary outcomes of the review and provided limited data in relation to secondary outcomes, such that meta-analyses were not possible. Both studies focused on interventions to improve bone health in relation to androgen deprivation rather than radiation-related insufficiency fractures and avascular necrosis. Few fractures were described in each study and those described were not specific to insufficiency fractures secondary to radiotherapy. Both studies reported that zoledronic acid in addition to androgen deprivation and pelvic radiotherapy led to improvements in BMD; however, the changes in BMD were measured and reported differently. There was no available evidence regarding adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence relating to interventions to prevent insufficiency fractures and avascular necrosis associated with pelvic radiotherapy in adults is of very low certainty. This review highlights the need for prospective clinical trials using interventions prior to and during radiotherapy to prevent radiation-related bone morbidity, insufficiency fractures and avascular necrosis. Future trials could involve prospective assessment of bone health including BMD and bone turnover markers prior to pelvic radiotherapy. The interventions for investigation could begin as radiotherapy commences and remain ongoing for 12 to 24 months. Bone turnover markers and BMD could be used as surrogate markers for bone health in addition to radiographic imaging to report on presence of insufficiency fractures and development of avascular necrosis. Clinical assessments and patient reported outcomes would help to identify any associated adverse effects of treatment and quality of life outcomes.

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic cancers.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of people survive cancer but a significant proportion have gastrointestinal side effects as a result of radiotherapy (RT), which impairs their quality of life (QoL). OBJECTIVES: To determine which prophylactic interventions reduce the incidence, severity or both of adverse gastrointestinal effects among adults receiving radiotherapy to treat primary pelvic cancers. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in September 2016 and updated them on 2 November 2017. We also searched clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to prevent adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy among adults receiving radiotherapy to treat primary pelvic cancers, including radiotherapy techniques, other aspects of radiotherapy delivery, pharmacological interventions and non-pharmacological interventions. Studies needed a sample size of 20 or more participants and needed to evaluate gastrointestinal toxicity outcomes. We excluded studies that evaluated dosimetric parameters only. We also excluded trials of interventions to treat acute gastrointestinal symptoms, trials of altered fractionation and dose escalation schedules, and trials of pre- versus postoperative radiotherapy regimens, to restrict the vast scope of the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. We used the random-effects statistical model for all meta-analyses, and the GRADE system to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 92 RCTs involving more than 10,000 men and women undergoing pelvic radiotherapy. Trials involved 44 different interventions, including radiotherapy techniques (11 trials, 4 interventions/comparisons), other aspects of radiotherapy delivery (14 trials, 10 interventions), pharmacological interventions (38 trials, 16 interventions), and non-pharmacological interventions (29 trials, 13 interventions). Most studies (79/92) had design limitations. Thirteen studies had a low risk of bias, 50 studies had an unclear risk of bias and 29 studies had a high risk of bias. Main findings include the following:Radiotherapy techniques: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) versus 3D conformal RT (3DCRT) may reduce acute (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.88; participants = 444; studies = 4; I2 = 77%; low-certainty evidence) and late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.65; participants = 332; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Conformal RT (3DCRT or IMRT) versus conventional RT reduces acute GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.82; participants = 307; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; high-certainty evidence) and probably leads to less late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.09; participants = 517; studies = 3; I2 = 44%; moderate-certainty evidence). When brachytherapy (BT) is used instead of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in early endometrial cancer, evidence indicates that it reduces acute GI toxicity (grade 2+) (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18; participants = 423; studies = 1; high-certainty evidence).Other aspects of radiotherapy delivery: There is probably little or no difference in acute GI toxicity grade 2+ with reduced radiation dose volume (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.81; participants = 211; studies = 1; moderate-certainty evidence) and maybe no difference in late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.97; participants = 107; studies = 1; low-certainty evidence). Evening delivery of RT may reduce acute GI toxicity (diarrhoea) grade 2+ during RT compared with morning delivery of RT (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; participants = 294; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in acute (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.62 to 7.93, participants = 110; studies = 1) and late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.65; participants = 81; studies = 1) between a bladder volume preparation of 1080 mls and that of 540 mls (low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence on balloon and hydrogel spacers suggests that these interventions for prostate cancer RT may make little or no difference to GI outcomes.Pharmacological interventions: Evidence for any beneficial effects of aminosalicylates, sucralfate, amifostine, corticosteroid enemas, bile acid sequestrants, famotidine and selenium is of a low or very low certainty. However, evidence on certain aminosalicylates (mesalazine, olsalazine), misoprostol suppositories, oral magnesium oxide and octreotide injections suggests that these agents may worsen GI symptoms, such as diarrhoea or rectal bleeding.Non-pharmacological interventions: Low-certainty evidence suggests that protein supplements (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.74; participants = 74; studies = 1), dietary counselling (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.60; participants = 74; studies = 1) and probiotics (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.82; participants = 923; studies = 5; I2 = 91%) may reduce acute RT-related diarrhoea (grade 2+). Dietary counselling may also reduce diarrhoeal symptoms in the long term (at five years, RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.78; participants = 61; studies = 1). Low-certainty evidence from one study (108 participants) suggests that a high-fibre diet may have a beneficial effect on GI symptoms (mean difference (MD) 6.10, 95% CI 1.71 to 10.49) and quality of life (MD 20.50, 95% CI 9.97 to 31.03) at one year. High-certainty evidence indicates that glutamine supplements do not prevent RT-induced diarrhoea. Evidence on various other non-pharmacological interventions, such as green tea tablets, is lacking.Quality of life was rarely and inconsistently reported across included studies, and the available data were seldom adequate for meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Conformal radiotherapy techniques are an improvement on older radiotherapy techniques. IMRT may be better than 3DCRT in terms of GI toxicity, but the evidence to support this is uncertain. There is no high-quality evidence to support the use of any other prophylactic intervention evaluated. However, evidence on some potential interventions shows that they probably have no role to play in reducing RT-related GI toxicity. More RCTs are needed for interventions with limited evidence suggesting potential benefits.

Practice guidance on the management of acute and chronic gastrointestinal problems arising as a result of treatment for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients with chronic gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms after cancer therapies which have a moderate or severe impact on quality of life is similar to the number diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease annually. However, in contrast to patients with inflammatory bowel disease, most of these patients are not referred for gastroenterological assessment. Clinicians who do see these patients are often unaware of the benefits of targeted investigation (which differ from those required to exclude recurrent cancer), the range of available treatments and how the pathological processes underlying side effects of cancer treatment differ from those in benign GI disorders. This paper aims to help clinicians become aware of the problem and suggests ways in which the panoply of syndromes can be managed. METHODS: A multidisciplinary literature review was performed to develop guidance to facilitate clinical management of GI side effects of cancer treatments. RESULTS: Different pathological processes within the GI tract may produce identical symptoms. Optimal management requires appropriate investigations and coordinated multidisciplinary working. Lactose intolerance, small bowel bacterial overgrowth and bile acid malabsorption frequently develop during or after chemotherapy. Toxin-negative Clostridium difficile and cytomegalovirus infection may be fulminant in immunosuppressed patients and require rapid diagnosis and treatment. Hepatic side effects include reactivation of viral hepatitis, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, steatosis and steatohepatitis. Anticancer biological agents have multiple interactions with conventional drugs. Colonoscopy is contraindicated in neutropenic enterocolitis but endoscopy may be life-saving in other patients with GI bleeding. After cancer treatment, simple questions can identify patients who need referral for specialist management of GI symptoms. Other troublesome pelvic problems (eg, urinary, sexual, nutritional) are frequent and may also require specialist input. The largest group of patients affected by chronic GI symptoms are those who have been treated with pelvic radiotherapy. Their complex symptoms, often caused by more than one diagnosis, need systematic investigation by gastroenterologists when empirical treatments fail. All endoscopic and surgical interventions after radiotherapy are potentially hazardous as radiotherapy may induce significant local ischaemia. The best current evidence for effective treatment of radiation-induced GI bleeding is with sucralfate enemas and hyperbaric oxygen therapy. CONCLUSIONS: All cancer units must develop simple methods to identify the many patients who need help and establish routine referral pathways to specialist gastroenterologists where patients can receive safe and effective treatment. Early contact with oncologists and/or specialist surgeons with input from the patient's family and friends often helps the gastroenterologist to refine management strategies. Increased training in the late effects of cancer treatment is required.