Urologic, lymphedema, pelvic pain and gastrointestinal symptoms increase after radiotherapy in patients with primary uterine tumors: a prospective longitudinal Swedish cohort study

Purpose Radiotherapy (RT) causes an inflammatory reaction of the tissue which leads to fibrosis and reduced functioning of the pelvic organs. Few studies have shown significant relationships between side effects and RT in uterine tumors. Here, the urological, lymphedema, pelvic pain and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms were studied before and after RT in patients with primary uterine tumors using the EORTC QLQ-EN24, specifically designed for uterine cancer patients. Methods This prospective cohort study comprised patients with primary uterine tumors who received pelvic radiotherapy (RT). A total of 43 patients were included from May 2014 to February 2019. Patients completed the questionnaires for global health status and functioning before the start of RT and at 3 and 12 months after RT. Results We found a significant worsening of the urological symptoms 3 months after RT which persisted up to 12 months after RT compared to baseline values prior to start of RT (p = 0.007). An exacerbation of the urinary symptoms was seen in patients with vaginal brachytherapy/boost compared to patients with pelvic RT at 12 months after RT (p = 0.053). The severity of lymphedema symptoms increased from RT start to 12 months after RT (p = 0.019) and the pelvic pain were higher at 3 months after RT compared to before RT (p = 0.004). Also, the level of GI symptoms was significantly higher 12 months after RT compared to the RT start (p < 0.001). Conclusions The urologic, lymphedema, pelvic pain and GI symptoms all increase after RT (AU)

Urologic, lymphedema, pelvic pain and gastrointestinal symptoms increase after radiotherapy in patients with primary uterine tumors: a prospective longitudinal Swedish cohort study.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy (RT) causes an inflammatory reaction of the tissue which leads to fibrosis and reduced functioning of the pelvic organs. Few studies have shown significant relationships between side effects and RT in uterine tumors. Here, the urological, lymphedema, pelvic pain and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms were studied before and after RT in patients with primary uterine tumors using the EORTC QLQ-EN24, specifically designed for uterine cancer patients. METHODS: This prospective cohort study comprised patients with primary uterine tumors who received pelvic radiotherapy (RT). A total of 43 patients were included from May 2014 to February 2019. Patients completed the questionnaires for global health status and functioning before the start of RT and at 3 and 12 months after RT. RESULTS: We found a significant worsening of the urological symptoms 3 months after RT which persisted up to 12 months after RT compared to baseline values prior to start of RT (p = 0.007). An exacerbation of the urinary symptoms was seen in patients with vaginal brachytherapy/boost compared to patients with pelvic RT at 12 months after RT (p = 0.053). The severity of lymphedema symptoms increased from RT start to 12 months after RT (p = 0.019) and the pelvic pain were higher at 3 months after RT compared to before RT (p = 0.004). Also, the level of GI symptoms was significantly higher 12 months after RT compared to the RT start (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The urologic, lymphedema, pelvic pain and GI symptoms all increase after RT.

The location of lymphangiogenesis is an independent prognostic factor in rectal cancers with or without preoperative radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Lymphangiogenesis and angiogenesis are essential for tumour development and progression. The lymphatic vessel density (LVD) and blood vessel density (BVD) and their relationship to outcome have been studied extensively, however the clinical significance of the location of LVD/BVD in tumour is not known. In the present study, the location and degree of LVD/BVD and their relationship to preoperative radiotherapy (RT), clinicopathological, histopathological and biological factors were studied in rectal cancer patients participating in a Swedish clinical trial of preoperative RT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The location and degree of LVD/BVD were analysed in primary tumours (n = 138/140) and in their subgroups of non-RT (n = 74) and RT (n = 64/66). Further, the degree of LVD/BVD was examined in the corresponding distant normal mucosa (n = 35/31) and adjacent normal mucosa (n = 72/91). All sections were immunohistochemically examined by using D2-40 and CD34 antibodies. RESULTS: In the whole series of the patients, a higher LVD at the periphery was related to negative p53 expression (P = 0.03) and favourable survival independent of tumour-node-metastasis stage, differentiation and p53 expression (P = 0.03). LVD was increased in p53-negative tumours after RT (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: LVD at the periphery of the tumour was an independent prognostic factor in rectal cancer patients.

The potential for disinfection of separated faecal matter by urea and by peracetic acid for hygienic nutrient recycling.

No efficient, reliable, and scale independent disinfection methods for toilet waste are available today for safe recycling of plant nutrients. Therefore, two chemical treatment methods, addition of urea or of PAA (a quaternary mixture of 15% peracetic acid, 15% hydrogen peroxide and 30% acetic acid), were evaluated for disinfection of faecal matter.Degradation of the added urea resulted in 30 g of ammonia nitrogen per kilogram of treated matter and a pH increase to approximately 9.3. This produced an efficient disinfection of E. coli, Enterococcus spp., and Salmonella spp. within 3 weeks (>6log(10) reduction) and a reduction of the chemical resistant Salmonella typhimurium 28b phage, corresponding to a decimal reduction within 7.5 days. No viable Ascaris suum eggs were found after 50 days of treatment. No reduction of spore forming Clostridia spp. was observed. Urea treatment proved to be efficient for disinfection of source separated faecal matter in a scale independent method used for safe recycling of nutrients found in the faecal matter.PAA reduced all of the above indicator organisms within 12 h after application. For this faecal material, with a dry matter content of approximately 10%, an addition of 0.5-1% of PAA (active substance, corresponding to 3.3-6.7% of the Proxitane 15 used) was required before no viable organisms were found in the material. However, this was not tested for the A. suum. No viable spore-forming bacteria or phages were detected. A high rate of bacteria regrowth occurred at 0.15% dosage and 5 days of treatment. PAA is an efficient alternative for disinfection of separated faeces if a rapid treatment is needed.

Low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis using dalteparin in close proximity to surgery vs warfarin in hip arthroplasty patients: a double-blind, randomized comparison. The North American Fragmin Trial Investigators.

BACKGROUND: Based on the current understanding that venous thrombosis starts perioperatively, administration of just-in-time low-molecular-weight heparin immediately before or in close proximity after hip arthroplasty may be more effective than usual clinical practice. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind trial comparing subcutaneous dalteparin sodium given once daily immediately before or early after surgery with the use of postoperative warfarin sodium in 1472 patients undergoing elective hip arthroplasties. The primary end point was deep vein thrombosis detected using contrast venography performed after surgery (mean, 5. 7 days) in each group. RESULTS: The frequencies of deep vein thrombosis for patients with interpretable venograms receiving preoperative and postoperative dalteparin for all deep vein thrombosis were 36 (10.7%) of 337 (P<.001) and 44 (13.1%) of 336 (P<.001), respectively, vs 81 (24.0%) of 338 for warfarin; for proximal deep vein thrombosis, 3 (0.8%) of 354 (P =.04) and 3 (0.8%) of 358 (P =.03), respectively, vs 11 (3.0%) of 363. Relative risk reductions for the dalteparin groups ranged from 45% to 72%. Symptomatic thrombi were less frequent in the preoperative dalteparin group (5/337 patients [1.5%]) vs the warfarin group (15/338 patients [4.4%]) (P =.02). Serious bleeding was similar among groups. Increased major bleeding at the surgical site was observed for patients receiving preoperative dalteparin vs warfarin (P =.01). CONCLUSIONS: A modified dalteparin regimen in close proximity to surgery resulted in substantive risk reductions for all and proximal deep vein thrombosis, compared with warfarin therapy. Such findings have not been observed with low-molecular-weight heparin therapy commenced 12 hours preoperatively or 12 to 24 hours postoperatively vs oral anticoagulants. Increased major but not serious bleeding occurred in patients receiving preoperative dalteparin. Dalteparin therapy initiated postoperatively provided superior efficacy vs warfarin without significantly increased overt bleeding.

Low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis using dalteparin extended out-of-hospital vs in-hospital warfarin/out-of-hospital placebo in hip arthroplasty patients: a double-blind, randomized comparison. North American Fragmin Trial Investigators.

BACKGROUND: No randomized trials have directly evaluated the need for extended out-of-hospital thromboprophylaxis for patients who have hip arthroplasty in the United States or Canada. The uncertainty as to the need for extended prophylaxis in North American patients is complicated by early hospital discharge, resulting in a short thromboprophylaxis interval. METHODS: To resolve this uncertainty, we performed a randomized double-blind trial in 569 patients who underwent hip arthroplasty comparing the use of dalteparin sodium started immediately before surgery or early after surgery and extended out-of-hospital to an overall interval of 35 days with the use of warfarin sodium in-hospital and placebo out-of-hospital. RESULTS: For patients with interpretable venograms in the preoperative, postoperative, and combined dalteparin groups, new proximal vein thrombosis out-of-hospital was observed in 1.3%, 0. 7% (P =.04), and 1.0% (P =.02) of patients, respectively, compared with 4.8% in the in-hospital warfarin/out-of-hospital placebo group. The respective overall cumulative frequencies of all deep vein thrombosis were 30 (17.2%) of 174 patients (P<.001), 38 (22.2%) of 171 (P =.003), and 68 (19.7%) of 345 (P<.001) in the dalteparin groups compared with 69 (36.7%) of 188 for the in-hospital warfarin/out-of-hospital placebo group. For proximal deep vein thrombosis, the respective frequencies were 5 (3.1%) of 162 (P =.02), 3 (2.0%) of 151 (P =.007), and 8 (2.6%) of 313 (P =.002) compared with 14 (9.2%) of 153. No major bleeding occurred during the extended prophylaxis interval. CONCLUSIONS: Extended dalteparin prophylaxis resulted in significantly lower frequencies of deep vein thrombosis compared with in-hospital warfarin therapy. Despite in-hospital thromboprophylaxis, patients having hip arthroplasty in the United States and Canada remain at moderate risk out-of-hospital. The number needed to treat provides a public health focus; only 24 to 28 patients require extended prophylaxis to prevent 1 new out-of-hospital proximal vein thrombosis. Recent studies demonstrate that asymptomatic deep vein thrombi cause the postphlebitic syndrome; thus, extended out-of-hospital prophylaxis will lessen the burden to both the patient and society.