Using CPAP in COVID-19 patients outside of the intensive care setting: a comparison of survival and outcomes between dialysis and non-dialysis dependent patients.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is a novel coronavirus associated with high mortality rates. The use of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) has been recognised as a management option for severe COVID-19 (NHS, Specialty guides for patient management during the coronavirus pandemic Guidance for the role and use of non-invasive respiratory support in adult patients with coronavirus (confirmed or suspected), https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng159 ). We offered ward-based CPAP to COVID-19, dialysis patients not suitable for escalation to ICU. The aim of the study was to evaluate the use of CPAP for COVID-19 dialysis patients compared to non-dialysis COVID-19 patients outside of the intensive care setting. We further aimed to investigate factors associated with improved outcomes. METHODS: Data was collected from a single centre (Royal Preston Hospital, UK), from March to June 2020. Treatment outcomes were compared for dialysis and non-dialysis dependent patients who received CPAP with limitations on their escalation and resuscitation status. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox regression models were used to compare outcomes. The primary study outcome was 30 day mortality. Confounders including length of admission, systemic anticoagulation and ultrafiltration volumes on dialysis were also analysed. RESULTS: Over the study period, 40 dialysis patients tested positive for COVID-19, with 30 requiring hospital admission. 93% (n = 28) required supplementary oxygen and 12% (n = 9) required CPAP on the ward. These patients were compared to a serial selection of 14 non-dialysis patients treated with CPAP during the same period. Results showed a significant difference in 30 day survival rates between the two groups: 88.9% in the dialysis group vs. 21.4% in the non-dialysis group. Statistical modelling showed that anticoagulation was also an important factor and correlated with better outcomes. CONCLUSION: This is to the best of our knowledge, the largest series of COVID-19 dialysis patients treated with CPAP in a ward-based setting. In general, dialysis dependent patients have multiple co-morbidities including cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus making them vulnerable to COVID-19 and not always suitable for treatment in ICU. We showed a significantly lower 30 day mortality rate with the use of CPAP in the dialysis group (11.1%) compared to the non-dialysis group (78.6%). Despite a small sample size, we believe this study provides impetus for further work clarifying the role of CPAP in treating COVID-19 dialysis dependent patients.

Nutrition and Exercise Rehabilitation in Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (NERO): a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory management of obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) focusses on the control of sleep-disordered breathing rather than the treatment of obesity. Currently, there are no data from randomised trials of weight loss targeted rehabilitation programmes for patients with OHS. INTERVENTION: A 3-month multimodal hybrid inpatient-outpatient motivation, exercise and nutrition rehabilitation programme, in addition to non invasive ventilation (NIV), would result in greater per cent weight loss compared with standard care. METHODS: A single-centre pilot randomised controlled trial allocated patients to either standard care or standard care plus rehabilitation. Primary outcome was per cent weight loss at 12 months with secondary exploratory outcomes of weight loss, exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at the end of the rehabilitation programme to assess the intervention effect. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (11 male, 59.8±12.7 years) with a body mass index of 51.1±7.7 kg/m2 were randomised. At 12 months, there was no between-group difference in per cent weight loss (mean difference -5.9% (95% CI -14.4% to 2.7%; p=0.17)). At 3 months, there was a greater per cent weight loss (mean difference -5% (95% CI -8.3% to -1.4%; p=0.007)), increased exercise capacity (6 min walk test 60 m (95% CI 29.5 to 214.5) vs 20 m (95% CI 11.5 to 81.3); p=0.036) and HRQL (mean difference SF-36 general health score (10 (95% CI 5 to 21.3) vs 0 (95% CI -5 to 10); p=0.02)) in the rehabilitation group. CONCLUSION: In patients with OHS, a 3-month comprehensive rehabilitation programme, in addition to NIV, resulted in improved weight loss, exercise capacity and QOL at the end of the rehabilitation period, but these effects were not demonstrated at 12 months, in part, due to the limited retention of patients at 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Pre-results; NCT01483716.

Incidence of alopecia in brain tumour patients treated with pencil scanning proton therapy and validation of existing NTCP models.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiation-induced alopecia (RIA) is one of the most frequent and upsetting cosmetic side effects after radiotherapy (RT) for brain cancer. We report the incidence of RIA in a cohort of brain tumours patients treated with Proton Therapy (PT) and externally validate published NTCP models of grade 2 (G2) RIA for their implementation in clinical practice. METHODS: Data for patients treated for brain tumours with scanning beam PT between 2018 and 2022 were extracted. Acute, late and permanent RIA events were evaluated according to CTCAE 5.0. Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) and multivariable logistic regression (MLR) published models were computed from the relative dose-surface histogram of the scalp. External validity of models was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: In the 264 patients analysed, rates of any grade acute (≤90 days after PT completion), late (>90 days) and permanent RIA (persisting for> 12 months) were 61.8 %, 24.7 % and 14.4 %, respectively. In our independent cohort, LKB- and MLR-NTCP showed a good discrimination for G2 RIA (0.71≤ROC-AUC≤0.83) while model calibration was unsatisfactory possibly due to a different outcome evaluation between training and validation cohorts, as well as differences in clinical and treatment related variables between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the reasonable sensitivity and specificity of the NTCP models for RIA in the validation cohort, our study emphasizes the significance of differences between the cohorts utilized for model development and validation. Specifically, variations in the reporting of clinical outcomes inevitably jeopardize the validation of NTCP models. A standardize and objective RIA scoring system is essential.

Identifying paediatric patients at risk of severe hearing impairment after treatment for malignancies of the H&N/CNS with proton therapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A risk calculation model was presented in 2021 by Keilty et al. for determining the likelihood of severe hearing impairment (HI) for paediatric patients treated with photon radiation therapy. This study aimed to validate their risk-prediction model for our cohort of paediatric patients treated with proton therapy (PT) for malignancies of the head and neck (H&N) or central nervous system (CNS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-institution study which extracted data on all patients aged ≤ 18 years treated with PT between Feb 2010 - Feb 2022 for malignancies of the H&N/CNS. The factors required for input into the Keilty model were extracted: age at PT, time since end of PT, mean cochlea dose, and platinum chemotherapy doses. Validation was performed using the statistical software R v 4.3.1, which analysed event discrimination and model calibration. RESULTS: 587 patients met the criteria. Validation of the model demonstrated excellent discriminative ability, with an "optimal" cut-off value of 16% at a specificity and sensitivity of 82%. However, model calibration was less satisfactory, indicating an overestimation of risk of severe hearing loss (HI) by the model as compared to clinically observed events in our cohort, possibly linked to differences in event scoring between the model developers and this study, and short follow-up time in this study. CONCLUSION: The published (photon-based) model of Keilty et al. was validated in a PT context, demonstrating a high discriminative ability to determine patients at high risk versus low risk for severe HI. However the overall observed risk was lower than model predictions.

Radiotherapy intensification for atypical and malignant meningiomas: A systematic review.

Background: The outcomes of nonbenign (WHO Grades 2 and 3 [G2, G3]) meningiomas are suboptimal and radiotherapy (RT) dose intensification strategies have been investigated. The purpose of this review is to report on clinical practice and outcomes with particular attention to RT doses and techniques. Methods: The PICO criteria (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) were used to frame the research question, directed at outlining the clinical outcomes in patients with G2-3 meningiomas treated with RT. The same search strategy was run in Embase and MEDLINE and, after deduplication, returned 1 807 records. These were manually screened for relevance and 25 were included. Results: Tumor outcomes and toxicities are not uniformly reported in the selected studies since different endpoints and time points have been used by different authors. Many risk factors for worse outcomes are described, the most common being suboptimal RT. This includes no or delayed RT, low doses, and older techniques. A positive association between RT dose and progression-free survival (PFS) has been highlighted by analyzing the studies in this review (10/25) that report the same endpoint (5y-PFS). Conclusions: This literature review has shown that standard practice RT leads to suboptimal tumor control rates in G2-3 meningiomas, with a significant proportion of disease recurring after a relatively short follow-up. Randomized controlled trials are needed in this setting to define the optimal RT approach. Given the increasing data to suggest a benefit of higher RT doses for high-risk meningiomas, novel RT technologies with highly conformal dose distributions are preferential to achieve optimal target coverage and organs at risk sparing.

Online learning in proton radiation therapy: the future in the post-Covid-19 pandemic era?

Objective: The Covid-19 pandemic placed unprecedented strain on medical education and led to a vast increase in online learning. Subsequently, the Christie International Proton School moved from face-to-face to online. Delegate feedback and current literature were studied to determine benefits, challenges, and potential solutions, for online proton therapy education. Methods: The course was converted to a 6-week online course with twice weekly 2-h sessions. Feedback was studied pre-, during-, and post-course regarding demographics, learning objectives, proton therapy knowledge, ease of engagement, technical difficulties, and course format. Statistical analyses were performed for proton therapy knowledge pre- and post-course. Results: An increase in delegate attendance was seen with increased international and multidisciplinary diversity. Learner objectives included treatment planning, clinical applications, physics, and centre development. Average learner reported scores of confidence in proton therapy knowledge improved significantly from 3, some knowledge, to 4, adequate knowledge after the course (p<0.0001). There were minimal reported difficulties using the online platform, good reported learner engagement, and shorter twice weekly sessions were reported conducive for learning. Recordings for asynchronous learning addressed time zone difficulties. Conclusion: The obligatory switch to online platforms has catalysed a paradigm shift towards online learning with delegates reporting educational benefit. We propose solutions to challenges of international online education, and a pedagogical model for online proton therapy education. Advances in knowledge: Online education is an effective method to teach proton therapy to international audiences. The future of proton education includes a hybrid of online and practical face-to-face learning depending on the level of cognitive skill required.