Paediatric radiation therapy without anaesthesia - Are the children moving?

PURPOSE: Children who require radiation therapy (RT) should ideally be treated awake, without anaesthesia, if possible. Audiovisual distraction is a known method to facilitate awake treatment, but its effectiveness at keeping children from moving during treatment is not known. The aim of this study was to evaluate intrafraction movement of children receiving RT while awake. METHODS: In this prospective study, we measured the intrafraction movement of children undergoing treatment with fractionated RT, using pre- and post-RT cone beam CT (CBCT) with image matching on bony anatomy. Study CBCTs were acquired at first fraction, weekly during RT, and at last fraction. The primary endpoint was the magnitude of vector change between the pre- and post-RT scans. Our hypothesis was that 90 % of CBCT acquisitions would have minimal movement, defined as <3 mm for head-and-neck (HN) treatments and <5 mm for non-HN treatments. RESULTS: A total of 65 children were enrolled and had evaluable data across 302 treatments with CBCT acquisitions. Median age was 11 years (range, 2-18; 1st and 3rd quartiles 7 and 14 years, respectively). Minimal movement was observed in 99.4 % of HN treatments and 97.2 % of non-HN treatments. The study hypothesis of >90 % of evaluations having minimal movement was met. Children who were age >11 years moved less at initial evaluation but tended to move more as a course of radiation progressed, as compared to children who were younger. CONCLUSION: Children receiving RT with audiovisual distraction while awake had small magnitudes of observed intrafraction movement, with minimal movement in >97 % of observed RT fractions. This study validates methods of anaesthesia avoidance using audiovisual distraction for selected children.

Efficacy of the Rehabilitation Planning Consult for Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Survivors of head and neck cancer may have significant lasting impairments and poor access to rehabilitation. To address this, our group developed and evaluated a rehabilitation planning consult (RPC). The RPC is conducted through an initial consultation and a single follow-up session with a rehabilitation professional. During the initial consultation, rehabilitation needs are determined and the survivor sets individualized goals and plans. They then implement their plans independently and are facilitated to evaluate and modify plans as necessary during the follow-up session. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used a waitlist control design to compare the proportion of participants attaining a minimally importantly different change in quality of life (QOL) on the Short Form 36 Physical Health Summary Score from baseline to 3 months after study enrollment, between patients randomized to receive (n = 77) or wait 14 ± 3 weeks to receive (n = 76) the RPC. Additional outcomes included goal attainment indicators measured using the Brief Rehabilitation Assessment for Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer (BRASH). RESULTS: Of 153 participants recruited, 95 (62%) completed the intervention; 57 were in the immediate (RPC) group and 38 were in the waiting list control (WLC) group. No significant between-group differences were seen in the proportion of patients achieving a minimally important improvement (2.5 units) on the Physical Health Summary Score from baseline to 3 months after recruitment. No between-group differences were seen on any secondary QOL indicators. Among the 67 (RPC n = 42, WLC n = 22) participants who set individualized rehabilitation goals, BRASH scores on goal performance and satisfaction with goal performance were significantly better in the RPC group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the RPC may provide benefit in patients' individualized domains of choice among those who set goals, without affecting overall QOL. Future work could refine the subset of patients who benefit and explore the optimal timing and intensity of the intervention.

Quality of care provided to prostate cancer (PC) patients for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis induced by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the quality of care (QOC) and use of validated risk algorithms provided in a specialized osteoporosis clinic to men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) who are at risk of bone loss and fragility fractures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Charts for 100 consecutive men (mean age 73.0 years) on ADT referred to a tertiary osteoporosis clinic in Toronto, Canada between 2010 and 2014 were reviewed. The following QOC issues were examined: (a) bone health services provided, i.e., screening, preventing, and treating osteoporosis; and (b) use of national guidelines and fracture risk assessment tools for targeting appropriate therapy. RESULTS: The median (IQR) duration of ADT was 21.4 (26.9) months at the baseline visit. Nineteen patients had their first bone mineral density test before starting ADT and 34 during the first year of use. At initial consultation, 83 and 30 patients were taking inadequate amounts of calcium and vitamin D, respectively. A validated fracture risk assessment tool was used in all patients; 42 had a moderate 10-year fracture risk and 12 were high risk. Sixteen (72.7 %) of sedentary patients were advised to increase physical activity. Sixty-four (77.1 %) and 28 (93.3 %) of patients not taking appropriate amounts of calcium and vitamin D, respectively, were recommended to adjust their intake to guideline levels. All patients at high fracture risk were recommended a bisphosphonate. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of referred patients had moderate to high fracture risk. The osteoporosis clinic recommended guideline-based bone health care for the vast majority of men on ADT.

Phase II, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of methylphenidate for reduction of fatigue levels in patients with prostate cancer receiving LHRH-agonist therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether methylphenidate can alleviate fatigue, as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: Fatigue subscale, in men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) for a minimum of 6 months, and to assess changes in global fatigue and quality of life (QoL) as measured by the Bruera Global Fatigue Severity Scale (BFS) and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), respectively. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We performed a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with the aim of recruiting 128 participants. Men treated with a LHRH agonist for PCa were screened between February 2008 and June 2012 for fatigue at our outpatient clinics using the BFS. Participants were randomised to receive either 10 mg daily of methylphenidate or placebo. Change in fatigue levels and in SF-36 scores between both groups were compared using linear regression, adjusted for baseline scores. RESULTS: The study was closed prematurely because of poor accrual. Of the 790 subjects screened, 24 men were randomised to methylphenidate or placebo (12 per group). After 10 weeks, the improvement in mean [sd] fatigue score was greater in the methylphenidate than in the placebo arm (+7.7 [7.7] vs +1.4 [7.6]; P = 0.022). The within-group analysis showed a significant improvement in fatigue scores in the methylphenidate arm (P = 0.008) but not in the placebo arm (P = 0.82). The use of methylphenidate also resulted in a significantly greater improvement in QoL as measured by the physical and mental component summary scores than did the use of placebo (P = 0.04 for both component scores). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the beneficial effect of methylphenidate on fatigue and QoL among men with LHRH-induced fatigue. Clinicians should be aware of these benefits and should consider discussing these findings with patients who have high levels of fatigue.