Effectiveness and safety of continuous low-molecular-weight heparin versus switching to direct oral anticoagulants in cancer-associated venous thrombosis.

Given the existing uncertainty regarding the effectiveness and safety of switching from low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with cancer-associated venous thrombosis (CAT), we conducted a comprehensive population-based cohort study utilizing electronic health database in Hong Kong. A total of 4356 patients with CAT between 2010 and 2022 were included, with 1700 (39.0%) patients switching to DOAC treatment. Compared to continuous LMWH treatment, switching to DOACs was associated with a significantly lower risk of hospitalization due to venous thromboembolism (HR: 0.49 [95% CI = 0.35-0.68]) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.67 [95% CI = 0.61-0.74]), with no significant difference in major bleeding (HR: 1.04 [95% CI = 0.83-1.31]) within six months. These findings provide reassurance regarding the effectiveness and safety of switching from LMWH to DOACs among patients with CAT, including vulnerable patient groups.

Re-irradiation practice and ESTRO/EORTC consensus recommendations: 2023 ASTRO education panel.

Indications for re-irradiation are increasing both for palliation and potentially curative attempts to achieve durable local control. This has been in part driven by the technological advances in the last decade including image-guided brachytherapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy. These enable high dose focal irradiation to be delivered to a limited target volume with minimal normal tissue re-irradiation. The European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) have collaboratively developed a comprehensive consensus on re-irradiation practices, aiming to standardise definitions, reporting, and clinical decision-making processes. The document introduces a universally applicable definition for reirradiation, categorised into two primary types based on the presence of geometric overlap of irradiated volumes and concerns for cumulative dose toxicity. It also identifies "repeat organ irradiation" and "repeat irradiation" for cases without such overlap, emphasising the need to consider toxicity risks associated with cumulative doses. Additionally, the document presents detailed reporting guidelines for re-irradiation studies, specifying essential patient and tumour characteristics, treatment planning and delivery details, and followup protocols. These guidelines are designed to improve the quality and reproducibility of clinical research, thus fostering a more robust evidence base for future re-irradiation practices. The consensus underscores the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration and shared decision-making, highlighting performance status, patient survival estimates, and response to initial radiotherapy as critical factors in determining eligibility for re-irradiation. It advocates for a patient-centric approach, with transparent communication about treatment intent and potential risks. Radiobiological considerations, including the application of the linear-quadratic model, are recommended for assessing cumulative doses and guiding re-irradiation strategies. By providing these comprehensive recommendations, the ESTRO-EORTC consensus aims to enhance the safety, efficacy, and quality of life for patients undergoing re-irradiation, while paving the way for future research and refinement of treatment protocols in the field of oncology.

Re-treatment of bone metastases for pain control: 2023 ASTRO education panel.

Bone metastases are a common and debilitating consequence of advanced cancer, often necessitating palliative radiation therapy (RT) for pain relief. Reirradiation (reRT) of bone metastases is often considered after lack of pain relief following an initial course of RT, after a partial but unsatisfying pain response to an initial course of radiotherapy, or after pain recurrence following a complete or partial pain response to an initial course of RT. The NCIC CTG SC.20 trial, a landmark multicenter, randomized, non-blinded, controlled non-inferiority trial, addressed the critical question of optimal dose fractionation for reRT in this patient population. This trial compared the efficacy and toxicity of a single 8 Gy fraction to multiple fractions totaling 20 Gy in 850 patients with painful bone metastases requiring reRT. The primary endpoint was overall pain response at 2 months, with secondary endpoints of quality of life (QoL) measures, functional interference, and toxicity profiles assessed using patient-reported questionnaires and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30. The intention-to-treat analysis revealed no significant difference in pain response between the two arms, meeting the pre-specified non-inferiority criteria. The per-protocol analysis suggested a potential benefit for a subset of patients receiving multiple fractions, although this was not statistically robust. Acute toxicities were more prevalent in the multiple fractions arm, with implications for patient comfort and healthcare utilization. Importantly, responders to reRT reported significant improvements in functional interference and QoL. The trial's findings support the use of a patient-centric approach to palliative RT, highlighting the viability of a single 8 Gy fraction as a less toxic and more convenient treatment option, albeit with consideration for individual patient circumstances. These results have significant implications for clinical practice, potentially reducing healthcare burdens while optimizing patient convenience during palliative care for painful bone metastases.

Reirradiation of metastases of the central nervous system: part 2-metastatic epidural spinal cord compression.

An increasing number of patients irradiated for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) experience an in-field recurrence and require a second course of radiotherapy. Reirradiation can be performed with conventional radiotherapy or highly-conformal techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). When using conventional radiotherapy, a cumulative biologically effective dose (BED) ≤120 calculated with an α/ß value of 2 Gy (Gy2) was not associated with radiation myelopathy in a retrospective study of 124 patients and is considered safe. In that study, conventional reirradiation led to improvements of motor deficits in 36% of patients and stopped further symptomatic progression in another 50% (overall response 86%). In four other studies, overall response rates were 82-89%. In addition to the cumulative BED or equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2), the interval between both radiotherapy courses <6 months and a BED per course ≥102 Gy2 (corresponding to an EQD2 ≥51 Gy2) were identified as risk factors for radiation myelopathy. Without these risk factors, a BED >120 Gy2 may be possible. Scoring tools have been developed that can assist physicians in estimating the risk of radiation myelopathy and selecting the appropriate dose-fractionation regimen of re-treatment. Reirradiation of MESCC may also be performed with highly-conformal radiotherapy. With IMRT or VMAT, rates of pain relief and improvement of neurologic symptoms of 60-93.5% and 42-73%, respectively, were achieved. One-year local control rates ranged between 55% and 88%. Rates of myelopathy or radiculopathy and vertebral compression fractures were 0% and 0-9.3%, respectively. With SBRT, rates of pain relief were 65-86%. Two studies reported improvements in neurologic symptoms of 0% and 82%, respectively. One-year local control rates were 74-83%. Rates of myelopathy or radiculopathy and vertebral compression fractures were 0-4.5% and 4.5-13.8%, respectively. For SBRT, a cumulative maximum EQD2 to thecal sac ≤70 Gy2, a maximum EQD2 of SBRT ≤25 Gy2, a ratio ≤0.5 of thecal sac maximum EQD2 of SBRT to maximum cumulative EQD2, and an interval between both courses ≥5 months were associated with a lower risk of myelopathy. Additional prospective trials are required to better define the options of reirradiation of MESCC.

2020 ASCO, 2023 NCCN, 2023 MASCC/ESMO, and 2019 CCO: a comparison of antiemetic guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common toxicity that may impair the quality of life of patients with various malignancies ranging from early to end stages. In light of frequent changes to the guidelines for optimal management of CINV, we undertook this narrative review to compare the most recent guidelines published by ASCO (2020), NCCN (2023), MASCC/ESMO (2023), and CCO (2019). The processes undertaken by each organization to evaluate existing literature were also described. Although ASCO, NCCN, MASCC/ESMO, and CCO guidelines for the treatment and prevention of CINV share many fundamental similarities, the literature surrounding low and minimal emetic risk regimens is lacking. Current data regarding adherence to these guidelines is poor and warrants further investigation to improve care.

Reirradiation of metastases of the central nervous system: part 1-brain metastasis.

Because of improved survival of cancer patients, more patients irradiated for brain metastases develop intracerebral recurrences requiring subsequent courses of radiotherapy. Five studies focused on reirradiation with whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) after initial WBRT for brain metastases. Following the second WBRT course, improvement of clinical symptoms was found in 31-68% of patients. Rates of neurotoxicity, such as encephalopathy or cognitive decline, were reported in two studies (1.4% and 32%). In another study, severe or unexpected adverse events were not observed. Survival following the second WBRT course was generally poor, with median survival times of 2.9-4.1 months. The survival prognosis of patients receiving two courses of WBRT can be estimated by a scoring tool considering five prognostic factors. Three studies investigated reirradiation with single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SF-SRS) following primary WBRT. One-year local control rates were 74-91%, and median survival times ranged between 7.8 and 14 months. Rates of radiation necrosis (RN) after reirradiation were 0-6%. Seven studies were considered that investigated re-treatment with SF-SRS or fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (FSRT) following initial SF-SRS or FSRT. One-year local control rates were 60-88%, and the median survival times ranged between 8.3 and 25 months. During follow-up after reirradiation, rates of overall (asymptomatic or symptomatic) RN ranged between 12.5% and 30.4%. Symptomatic RN occurred in 4.3% to 23.9% of cases (patients or lesions). The risk of RN associated with symptoms and/or requiring surgery or corticosteroids appears lower after reirradiation with FSRT when compared to SF-SRS. Other potential risk factors of RN include the volume of overlap of normal tissue receiving 12 Gy at the first course and 18 Gy at the second course of SF-SRS, maximum doses ≥40 Gy of the first or the second SF-SRS courses, V12 Gy >9 cm3 of the second course, initial treatment with SF-SRS, volume of normal brain receiving 5 Gy during reirradiation with FSRT, and systemic treatment. Cumulative EQD2 ≤100-120 Gy2 to brain, <100 Gy2 to brainstem, and <75 Gy2 to chiasm and optic nerves may be considered safe. Since most studies were retrospective in nature, prospective trials are required to better define safety and efficacy of reirradiation for recurrent or progressive brain metastases.

Stroke Risk in Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer.

Importance: Survivors of head and neck cancers (HNC) have increased risk of stroke. A comprehensive report using standardized methods is warranted to characterize the risk and to inform on survivorship strategy. Objective: To determine the stroke risk in subpopulations of survivors of HNC in Singapore. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national, registry-based, cross-sectional study aimed to estimate stroke risk in subgroups of the HNC population between January 2005 and December 2020. Participants were identified from the Singapore Cancer Registry, the Singapore Stroke Registry, and the Registry of Birth and Deaths using relevant International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM) codes. HNC subgroups were defined based on patient demographic, disease, and treatment factors. Data were analyzed from September 2022 to September 2023. Exposure: Diagnosis of HNC. Main Outcomes and Measures: Both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke were studied. The age-standardized incidence rate ratio (SIRR) and age-standardized incidence rate difference (SIRD) were reported. The Singapore general population (approximately 4 million) served as the reference group for these estimations. Results: A total of 9803 survivors of HNC (median [IQR] age at diagnosis, 58 [49-68] years; 7166 [73.1%] male) were identified. The most common HNC subsites were nasopharynx (4680 individuals [47.7%]), larynx (1228 individuals [12.5%]), and tongue (1059 individuals [10.8%]). A total of 337 individuals (3.4%) developed stroke over a median (IQR) follow-up of 42.5 (15.0-94.5) months. The overall SIRR was 2.46 (95% CI, 2.21-2.74), and the overall SIRD was 4.11 (95% CI, 3.37-4.85) strokes per 1000 person-years (PY). The cumulative incidence of stroke was 3% at 5 years and 7% at 10 years after HNC diagnosis. The SIRR was highest among individuals diagnosed at younger than 40 years (SIRR, 30.55 [95% CI, 16.24-52.35]). All population subsets defined by age, sex, race and ethnicity, HNC subsites (except tongue), stage, histology, and treatment modalities had increased risk of stroke compared with the general population. The SIRR and SIRD were significantly higher among individuals who had a primary radiation treatment approach (SIRR, 3.01 [95% CI, 2.64-3.43]; SIRD, 5.12 [95% CI, 4.18-6.29] strokes per 1000 PY) compared with a primary surgery approach (SIRR, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.31-2.05]; SIRD, 1.84 [95% CI, 0.923.67] strokes per 1000 PY). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of survivors of HNC, elevated stroke risks were observed across different age, subsites, and treatment modalities, underscoring the importance of early screening and intervention.

Risk of COVID-19 death for people with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis prior to COVID-19-vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

While previous reviews found a positive association between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death, most early studies did not distinguish long-term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher-quality evidence on risk of COVID-19-related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre-COVID-19-vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk-of-bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. Random-effects meta-regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36-1.61, I2 = 0; people with COVID-19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41-1.77, I2 = 0.58; inpatients with COVID-19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34-2.06, I2 = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68-2.68, I2 = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta-regression suggested risk of COVID-19-related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.20) at 5 years post-cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID-19-vaccination, risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment.

Quality of life issues in patients with bone metastases: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Bones are frequent sites of metastatic disease, observed in 30-75% of advanced cancer patients. Quality of life (QoL) is an important endpoint in studies evaluating the treatments of bone metastases (BM), and many patient-reported outcome tools are available. The primary objective of this systematic review was to compile a list of QoL issues relevant to BM and its interventions. The secondary objective was to identify common tools used to assess QoL in patients with BM, and the QoL issues they fail to address. METHODS: A search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases between 1946 and 27 January 2023 with the keywords "bone metastases", "quality of life", and "patient reported outcomes". Specific QoL issues in original research studies and the QoL tools used were extracted. RESULTS: The review identified the QoL issues most prevalent to BM in the literature. Physical and functional issues observed in patients included pain, interference with ambulation and daily activities, and fatigue. Psychological symptoms, such as helplessness, depression, and anxiety were also common. These issues interfered with patients' relationships and social activities. Items not mentioned in existing QoL tools were related to newer treatments of BM, such as pain flare, flu-like symptoms, and jaw pain due to osteonecrosis. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights that QoL issues for patients with BM have expanded over time due to advances in BM-directed treatments. If they are relevant, additional treatment-related QoL issues identified need to be validated prospectively by patients and added to current assessment tools.

Quality of life in patients with malignant spinal cord compression: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC) is an oncological emergency that may result in a devastating combination of malignancy and disability. Existing quality of life (QoL) questionnaires commonly used in MSCC literature (EORTC QLQ-C30, BM-22, Brief Pain Inventory, and Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes) may not capture all the commonly reported symptoms and lack specificity to MSCC. The primary objective of this systematic review is to determine unmet patient needs and underreported QoL issues and compile a comprehensive list of QoL issues. The secondary objective of this review is to compile all existing QoL tools and questionnaires and determine whether any QoL issues are not addressed in the existing tools currently used in the literature. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases between 1946 and February 6, 2023, to compile all QoL issues and existing questionnaires used to assess QoL in patients with MSCC. All study designs were included given that they discussed QoL issues specific to patients with MSCC. RESULTS: The results of this systematic review identified the most frequently discussed QoL issues in the literature studying MSCC. This included direct symptoms of MSCC such as back pain, paralysis, limb weakness/numbness, and urinary/bowel incontinence. Indirect symptoms coming from radiotherapy treatment such as dysphagia, painful swallowing, mouth pain, dry mouth, diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea/vomiting were also noted. Other symptoms resulting from corticosteroid treatment included difficulty sleeping, blurring of vision, weight gain, and mood disturbance. Patients also experienced psychosocial issues such as anxiety, depression, emotional distress, low self-esteem, concerns about dependence on others, concerns about getting home, and fear about their prognosis and future. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the QoL issues specific to patients with MSCC and QoL tools capturing these issues. Relevance of QoL issues identified in this systematic review must be prospectively validated by patients and healthcare professionals with experience in treating MSCC.

Latest clinical research in leptomeningeal disease (LMD)-a narrative review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) is associated with poor survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There is an urgent need for clinical research in this area to improve the outcomes. The purpose of this study is to summarize the areas of active clinical research in LMD, identify the knowledge gap, and suggest future research directions. METHODS: A narrative review of clinical trials in LMD was conducted based on a search in clinicatrials.gov using the search term "leptomeningeal" under "condition or disease". Clinical trials in patients with LMD arising from solid malignancy that were labelled as "not yet recruiting", "recruiting", "enrolling by invitation" or "active, not recruiting" were included. Studies which were deemed to have significant impact on future research direction in LMD were selected for discussion. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS: A total of 38 clinical trials were included. Of these 38 trials, 19 are discussed in this review, with focus on their research questions and impact on future research directions. Most of the studies that were not selected for discussion focused on biomarker-driven interventions. Four key areas of research were identified, namely the (I) diagnosis, response assessment or molecular profiling of LMD (n=2); (II) advances in radiotherapy (n=3); (III) intrathecal treatment (n=13); (IV) novel drug carrier for systemic treatment (n=1). The research questions in the 19 discussed clinical trials included the tumour microenvironment of LMD, the role of novel molecular techniques in LMD, combination of radiotherapy with drugs, and cell-based immunotherapy. Among these 19 studies, 11 were phase 1 trials, 3 were phase 2 or phase 1/2 trials, 2 were phase 3 or phase 2/3 trials and the study phase was not reported in the remaining 3 studies. The existing knowledge gaps are discussed, including the lack of primary site-specific prognostic tools, cost-effectiveness studies, dedicated HRQoL assessment tools for LMD and sequencing of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The current clinical trials in LMD offer the promise to improve the diagnosis and treatment outcomes of patients with LMD. More research is needed to overcome the potential hurdles in the current treatment and bridge the knowledge gaps as identified in this review, to improve patients' quantity and quality of survival.

StrataXRT for the prevention and treatment of radiation dermatitis: a critical review.

PURPOSE: The primary objective is to systematically review primary studies, such as randomized control trials (RCTs), feasibility, exploratory, and case studies; and the secondary objective is to evaluate all secondary articles, such as reviews, guidelines, and editorials, relevant to the use of StrataXRT for the prevention and/or management of radiation dermatitis (RD) in cancer patients. METHODS: A literature search was conducted up to February 26, 2023, for articles investigating the use of StrataXRT for the prevention and treatment of RD, in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar. The keywords "StrataXRT", "dermatitis", "radiotherapy", and "radiation" were used to identify relevant articles. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles from 2018 to 2022 were identified to fulfill the inclusion criteria of this review, of which nine are primary studies and 18 are secondary papers. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the current literature studying the effects of StrataXRT, making it difficult to make cross-trial comparisons. There is a suggestion of the efficacy of StrataXRT in the prevention and treatment of RD. CONCLUSION: The findings of this review recommend further adequately powered RCTs with robust methodology including patient and clinician assessments to determine the efficacy of StrataXRT in preventing and treating RD. This is essential to improve the quality of life of patients and identify which groups of patients would benefit most from StrataXRT.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy for spinal metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare SBRT and cEBRT for treating spinal metastases through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched up to 6 May 2023 for RCTs comparing SBRT and cEBRT for spinal metastases. Overall and complete pain response, local progression, overall survival, quality of life and adverse events were extracted. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Results were reported as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Three RCTs were identified involving 642 patients. No differences were seen in overall pain response comparing SBRT and cEBRT (RR at 3 months: 1.12, 95% CI, 0.74-1.70, p = 0.59; RR at 6 months: 1.29, 95% CI, 0.97-1.72, p = 0.08). Only two of three studies presented complete pain response data. SBRT demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in complete pain response compared to cEBRT (RR at 3 months: 2.52; 95% CI, 1.58-4.01; P < 0.0001; RR at 6 months: 2.48; 95% CI, 1.23-4.99; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in local progression and overall survival. Adverse events were similar, except for any grade radiation dermatitis, which was significantly lower in SBRT arm (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.96, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: SBRT is a safe treatment option for spine metastases. It may provide better complete pain response compared to cEBRT. Additional trials are needed to determine the potential benefits of SBRT in specific patient subsets.

Palliative whole brain radiation therapy: an international state of practice.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in radiation delivery and systemic therapies have resulted in few remaining indications for palliative whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT). Most centers preferentially use stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and reserve WBRT for those with >15 lesions, leptomeningeal presentation, rapidly progressive disease, or limited estimated survival. Despite regional differences among preferred dose, fractionation, and treatment technique, we predict survival post-WBRT will remain poor-indicating appropriate application of WBRT in this era of SRT and improved systemic therapies. METHODS: A multi-center, international retrospective analysis of patients receiving WBRT in 2022 was performed. Primary end point was survival after WBRT. De-identified data were analyzed centrally. Patients receiving WBRT as part of a curative regimen, prophylactically, or as bridging therapy were excluded. The collected data consisted of patient parameters including prescription dose and fractionation, use of neurocognitive sparing techniques and survival after WBRT. Survival was calculated via the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Of 29,943 international RT prescriptions written at ten participating centers in 2022, 462 (1.5%) were for palliative WBRT. Participating centers were in the United States (n=138), the United Kingdom (n=111), Hong Kong (n=72), Italy (n=49), Belgium (n=45), Germany (n=27), Ghana (n=15), and Cyprus (n=5). Twenty-six different dose regimens were used. The most common prescriptions were for 3,000 cGy over 10 fractions (45.0%) and 2,000 cGy over 5 fractions (43.5%) with significant regional preferences (P<0.001). Prior SRT was delivered in 32 patients (6.7%), hippocampal avoidance (HA) was used in 44 patients (9.5%), and memantine was prescribed in 93 patients (20.1%). Survival ranged from 0 days to still surviving at 402 days post-treatment. The global median overall survival (OS) was 84 days after WBRT [95% confidence interval (CI): 68.0-104.0]. Actuarial survival at 7 days, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months were 95%, 78%, 48%, and 32%, respectively. Twenty-seven patients (5.8%) were unable to complete their prescribed WBRT. CONCLUSIONS: This moment-in-time analysis confirms that patients with poor expected survival are being appropriately selected for WBRT-illustrating the dwindling indications for WBRT-and demonstrates the variance in global practice. Since poor survival precludes patients from deriving benefit, memantine and HA are best suited in carefully selected cases.

Mepitel Film for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of Mepitel Film in preventing acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) across randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched on 5 March 2023 to identify relevant RCTs. RD assessment tools and outcomes were compared across studies. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated based on random-effects analysis using RevMan 5.4. RESULTS: Three RCTs conducted between 2018 and 2020 were included. Mepitel Film decreased RD severity when compared to Sorbolene or Biafine but not when compared to mometasone. A per-protocol analysis of two of the trials revealed that, overall, Mepitel Film significantly reduced the incidence of grade 2-3 RD (odds ratio (OR), 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.65; p = 0.005) and moist desquamation (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.46; p < 0.0001) and decreased average patient, researcher, and combined components of the Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale (the standardized mean difference (SMD) for patient ratings, - 2.56; 95% CI, - 3.15 to - 1.96, p < 0.00001; SMD for researcher ratings, - 3.47; 95% CI, - 6.63 to - 0.31, p = 0.03; SMD for combined scores, - 3.68; 95% CI, - 6.43 to - 0.92, p = 0.009). Noted issues with Mepitel Film included itchiness and poor adherence. CONCLUSION: While there were discrepancies across studies, Mepitel Film demonstrated a decrease in the incidence of grade 2-3 RD and moist desquamation. These findings emphasize the need for further examining Mepitel Film's efficacy across diverse patient groups and the importance of standardizing RD severity assessment methodologies and control arms.

Mepitel film for the prevention and treatment of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Mepitel film in preventing or treating acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in patients with breast cancer in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Embase, APA PsychInfo, Journals@Ovid Full Text, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Trials were searched until December 12, 2022, to identify RCTs on the use of Mepitel film for preventing or treating acute RD from breast cancer radiotherapy. Per-protocol analysis was used to compare outcomes, calculate pooled effect sizes, odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and to create forest plots using random effects analysis in RevMan 5.4. RESULTS: Three RCTs were included in this review. Mepitel film significantly reduced the incidence of grade 3 RD (OR 0.15 95% CI 0.06, 0.37, p<0.0001) and grade 2 or 3 RD (OR 0.16 95% CI 0.04, 0.65, p=0.01) as scored on either the CTCAE or the RTOG scale. Additionally, Mepitel film significantly reduced RISRAS mean scores assessed by patients and combined researcher and patient (standardized mean difference (SMD) -7.59, 95% CI -14.42, -0.76, p=0.03; SMD -15.36, 95% CI -30.01, -0.71 p=0.04) but not the researcher component of the assessment tool (SMD -17.55, 95% CI -36.94, 1.84, p=0.08). CONCLUSION: Mepitel film reduced the incidence of acute RD and improved patient-reported outcomes with minimal side effects, the main one being itchiness. Future research should assess the feasibility of Mepitel film with respect to specific patient-reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life issues associated with its use.

StrataXRT for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the overall efficacy of StrataXRT, a topical gel dressing, in preventing acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on April 25, 2023 in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of StrataXRT in preventing acute RD in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant RT to the breast or chest wall with or without regional nodes were included. Pooled incidence odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model, with analysis and forest plots generated in RevMan v5.4. RESULTS: The analysis included three RCTs with a total of 189 patients assessed using per-protocol analysis. Two RCTs compared StrataXRT to standard of care, while the third compared it with Mepitel film and was reported separately. In the former RCTs, the odds ratio (OR) for developing acute grade 3 RD favored StrataXRT at 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01-0.22; P < 0.0001). The OR for developing acute grades 2-3 RD was 0.32 (95% CI, 0.03-3.18; P = 0.33). The RCT comparing StrataXRT with Mepitel film showed insignificant ORs for grade 3 and grades 2-3 RD. One RCT reported significantly lower erythema index (P = 0.008) and melanin index (P = 0.015) in StrataXRT patients. The use of StrataXRT did not raise additional safety concerns. CONCLUSION: StrataXRT may help prevent severe acute RD in breast cancer RT patients. Further high quality, large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.

A critical appraisal of the four systematic reviews and meta-analysis on stereotactic body radiation therapy versus external beam radiotherapy for painful bone metastases and where we go from here.

Radiotherapy is an important treatment modality for pain control in patients with bone metastases. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), which allows delivering a much higher dose per fraction while sparing critical structures compared to conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT), has become more widely used, especially in the oligometastatic setting. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the pain response rate of SBRT and cEBRT for bone metastases have shown conflicting results, as have four recent systematic reviews with meta-analyses of these trials. Possible reasons for the different outcomes between these reviews include differences in methodology, which trials were included, and the endpoints examined and how they were defined. We suggest ways to improve analysis of these RCTs, particularly performing an individual patient-level meta-analysis since the trials included heterogeneous populations. The results of such studies will help guide future investigations needed to validate patient selection criteria, optimize SBRT dose schedules, include additional endpoints (such as the time to onset of pain response, durability of pain response, quality of life (QOL), and side effects of SBRT), and better assess the cost-effectiveness and trade-offs of SBRT compared to cEBRT. An international Delphi consensus to guide selection of optimal candidates for SBRT is warranted before more prospective data is available.