Radiotherapy for non-cancer diseases: benefits and long-term risks.

PURPOSE: The discovery of X-rays was followed by a variety of attempts to treat infectious diseases and various other non-cancer diseases with ionizing radiation, in addition to cancer. There has been a recent resurgence of interest in the use of such radiotherapy for non-cancer diseases. Non-cancer diseases for which use of radiotherapy has currently been proposed include refractory ventricular tachycardia, neurodegenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer's disease and dementia), and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia, all with ongoing clinical studies that deliver radiation doses of 0.5-25 Gy in a single fraction or in multiple daily fractions. In addition to such non-cancer effects, historical indications predominantly used in some countries (e.g. Germany) include osteoarthritis and degenerative diseases of the bones and joints. This narrative review gives an overview of the biological rationale and ongoing preclinical and clinical studies for radiotherapy proposed for various non-cancer diseases, discusses the plausibility of the proposed biological rationale, and considers the long-term radiation risks of cancer and non-cancer diseases. CONCLUSIONS: A growing body of evidence has suggested that radiation represents a double-edged sword, not only for cancer, but also for non-cancer diseases. At present, clinical evidence has shown some beneficial effects of radiotherapy for ventricular tachycardia, but there is little or no such evidence of radiotherapy for other newly proposed non-cancer diseases (e.g. Alzheimer's disease, COVID-19 pneumonia). Patients with ventricular tachycardia and COVID-19 pneumonia have thus far been treated with radiotherapy when they are an urgent life threat with no efficient alternative treatment, but some survivors may encounter a paradoxical situation where patients were rescued by radiotherapy but then get harmed by radiotherapy. Further studies are needed to justify the clinical use of radiotherapy for non-cancer diseases, and optimize dose to diseased tissue while minimizing dose to healthy tissue.

Impact of web application support versus standard management on adherence with adjuvant hormone therapy in patients treated for breast cancer: the WEBAPPAC study.

BACKGROUND: Non-metastatic breast cancer treatment is mainly based on surgery, with or without chemotherapy, radiotherapy and/or hormone therapy. To reduce the risk of hormone receptor positive (HR+) disease recurrence, hormone therapy is prescribed for at least 5 years. It may induce adverse drug reactions (ADRs) as joint pain, sexual dysfunction, weight increase, fatigue, mood disorders and vasomotor symptoms. Around 30-40% of patients withhold hormone therapy within 5 years after initiation. Based on encouraging results of mobile health in patient follow-up, we developed a web-application addressed for breast cancer patients initiating adjuvant hormonal therapy and aimed to assess its impact on hormone therapy adherence, ADRs management, and health-related quality of life. METHODS: The WEBAPPAC trial is a randomized, open-label, prospective, single-center phase 3 study aiming to assess the interest of a web-application support as compared to standard management among breast cancer patients initiating hormone therapy. The main endpoint is the proportion of patients with hormone therapy adherence failure within 18 months after treatment start, in each arm. Eligible patients will be 1:1 randomized between the WEBAPPAC web-application support (experimental arm,) or standard support (control arm), with stratification on type of hormone therapy (Aromatase inhibitor or Tamoxifen). We plan to enroll 438 patients overall. Failure to hormone therapy will be assessed using the Morisky 8-item self-questionnaire (MMSA8), patient adherence logbook, and medical consultations. Secondary outcomes include hormone therapy adherence at 6 months, pain (Visual Analogue Scale and Brief Pain Inventory), quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 self-questionnaires), anxiety and depression (Hospital and Depression Scale), and return to work and/or daily activities. The user experience with the WEBAPPAC web-application will be assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire. DISCUSSION: Hormone therapy discontinuation or adherence failure in breast cancer patients may be indirectly related to an increased risk of recurrence. A better control of medication adherence, through the detection of side effects and some proposed actions trying to reduce them, appears therefore essential to limit the risk of disease recurrence. The WEBAPPAC web-application thus aims better monitoring and allowing higher level of responsiveness in case of ADRs, thus improving treatment adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04554927, registered September 18, 2020. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 2.1 dated from December 21, 2021.

Detection, resection and cure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18F-choline PET in primary hyperparathyroidism.

INTRODUCTION: Primary hyperparathyroidism (pHPT) is a common endocrine disorder caused by an autonomous overproduction of parathyroid hormone (PTH) by a parathyroid gland. Over the last decade, 18F-choline (FCH) PET has emerged as a highly performant imaging technique for guiding parathyroidectomy. As cure is the goal of surgery, the main aims of this study were to summarize patient-based sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and cure rate of FCH PET guided surgery in the surgical management of pHPT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis according to the PRISMA Guidelines. A literature search was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane databases, last updated November 2022. Original articles on choline PET in patients with pHPT mentioning patient-based sensitivity, PPV and cure rate were retained. Quality of included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 Tool. Patient-based sensitivity, PPV and cure rate were pooled by using a random-effects model. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three studies including 1716 patients were included for quantitative assessment. FCH PET showed a pooled patient-based sensitivity of 93.8% (95% CI: 89.8-96.3) and PPV of 97% (95% CI: 92.8-98.8) in patients with pHPT. Parathyroid surgery was performed in 1129 patients. The pooled cure rate of PET-guided surgery was 92.8% (95% CI: 87.4-96.0). Heterogeneity was shown to be moderate for all effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: FCH PET showed a high patient-based sensitivity, PPV and cure rate of PET guided surgery in patients with pHPT.

Abscopal Response in Metastatic Melanoma: Real-World Data of a Retrospective, Multicenter Study.

Objective: To evaluate the incidence of the abscopal response (AR) in patients with metastatic melanoma requiring palliative radiotherapy (RT). Patients and methods: Patients treated for metastatic melanoma between January 1998 and February 2020 in four oncology departments were screened. Patients with progression under immune checkpoint inhibitors or without ongoing systemic treatment, and requiring palliative RT were considered. The AR was defined as an objective response according to RECIST and/or iRECIST for at least one non-irradiated metastasis at distance (≥10 cm) from the irradiated lesion. Primary endpoint was the rate of AR. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), local control (LC) of the irradiated lesion, and toxicity as assessed by CTCAE v5. Results: Over the period considered, 118 patients were included and analyzed. Fifteen patients (12.7%) had an AR. With a median follow-up of 7.7 months (range, 0.2−242.2), median OS and PFS after RT were significantly longer in patients with an AR compared to those without: 28 vs. 6.6 months (p < 0.01) and not reached vs. 3.2 months, respectively. No grade ≥2 toxicity was reported. Patients who developed an AR were more likely to be treated with immunotherapy (93.3% vs. 55.9%, p = 0.02). In multivariate analysis, they had a higher number of irradiated metastases treated concomitantly (HR = 16.9, p < 0.01) and a higher rate of mild infections during RT (HR = 403.5, p < 0.01). Conclusions: AR in metastatic melanoma seems to be highly prognostic of overall survival, although it is a rare phenomenon. It may be promoted by multiple concomitant treatments with RT and immunotherapy and by acute inflammatory events such as infection.

Female Authors in Nuclear Medicine Journals: A Survey from 2014 to 2020.

Despite the feminization of the medical workforce, women do not have the same career perspectives as men. In nuclear medicine, little information is available on the sex gap regarding prominent author positions in scientific articles. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate recent trends in the sex distribution of first and last authorship of articles published in nuclear medicine journals. Methods: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of first and last author sex of articles published from 2014 to 2020 in 15 nuclear medicine journals. Manuscript title, article type, journal impact factor, date of publication, and first and last name and country of provenance of first and last authors were noted. The Gender API software was used to determine author sex. All statistics were descriptive. Results: Women represented 32.8% of first authors and 19.6% of last authors. Female authorship increased from 28.2% (428 of 1,518 articles) in 2014 to 35.5% (735 of 2,069 articles; relative increase, 72%) in 2020 (P < 0.001) for first authors and from 15.6% (237 of 1,518 articles) in 2014 to 20.5% (424 of 2,069 articles; relative increase, 79%) in 2020 (P < 0.001) for last authors. Parity was forecast for 2035 for first authors and 2052 for last authors. Female authorship increased in Europe for first authors (P = 0.014) and last authors (P < 0.001), in high-ranking journals for first authors (P = 0.004) and last authors (P < 0.001), and in other journal ranks for last authors (P = 0.01). Female first and last authorship rose for original articles (P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively) and case reports (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). Regarding collaborations, the proportion of articles produced by male first and last authors decreased from 62.2% in 2014 to 52.9% in 2020 in favor of female first and last authors (odds ratio, 1.07; P < 0.001), male first and female last authors (odds ratio, 1.05; P < 0.001), and female first and male last authors (odds ratio, 1.03; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Female first and last authorship in nuclear medicine journals increased substantially from 2014 to 2020, in particular in high-ranking journals, in Europe, and for original articles and case reports. Male-to-male collaborations decreased by 10% in favor of all other collaborations. Parity can be foreseen in a few decades.

Author Gender Inequality in Medical Imaging Journals and the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background Early reports show the unequal effect the COVID-19 pandemic might have on men versus women engaged in medical research. Purpose To investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on scientific publishing by female physicians in medical imaging. Materials and Methods The authors conducted a descriptive bibliometric analysis of the gender of the first and last authors of manuscripts submitted to the top 50 medical imaging journals from March to May 2020 (n = 2480) compared with the same period of the year in 2018 (n = 2238) and 2019 (n = 2355). Manuscript title, date of submission, first and last names of the first and last authors, journal impact factor, and author country of provenance were recorded. The Gender-API software was used to determine author gender. Statistical analysis comprised χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression. Results Percentages of women listed as first and last authors were 31.6% (1172 of 3711 articles) and 19.3% (717 of 3711 articles), respectively, in 2018-2019 versus 32.3% (725 of 2248 articles) and 20.7% (465 of 2248 articles) in 2020 (P = .61 and P = .21, respectively). For COVID-19-related articles, 35.2% (89 of 253 articles) of first authors and 20.6% (52 of 253 articles) of last authors were women. No associations were found between first- and last-author gender, year of publication, and region of provenance. First and last authorship of high-ranking articles was not in favor of North American women whatever the year (odds ratio [OR], 0.79 [P = .05] and 0.72 [P = .02], respectively). Higher rates of female last authorship of high-ranking articles were observed in Europe (P = .003) and of female first authorship of low-ranking publications in Asia in 2020 (OR, 1.38; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.92; P = .06). Female first and last authorship of COVID-19-related articles was overrepresented for lowest-rank publications (P = .02 and P = .01, respectively). Conclusion One in three first authors and one in five last authors were women in 2018-2019 and 2020, respectively. Although the first 2020 lockdown did not diminish the quantity of women-authored publications, the impact on the quality was variable. ©RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Robbins and Khosa in this issue.