VinCaP: a phase II trial of vinflunine in locally advanced and metastatic squamous carcinoma of the penis.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the first-line activity of vinflunine in patients with penis cancer. Cisplatin-based combinations are commonly used, but survival is not prolonged; many patients are unfit for such treatment or experience toxicity that outweighs clinical benefit. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with inoperable squamous carcinoma of the penis were recruited to a single-arm, Fleming-A'Hern exact phase II trial. Treatment comprised 4 cycles of vinflunine 320 mg/m2, given every 21 days. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR: objective responses plus stable disease) assessed after 4 cycles. Seven or more objective responses or disease stabilisations observed in 22 evaluable participants would exclude a CBR of <15%, with a true CBR of >40% being probable. RESULTS: Twenty-two participants were evaluable. Ten objective responses or disease stabilisations were confirmed. CBR was 45.5%, meeting the primary endpoint; partial response rate was 27.3%. Seven patients received >4 cycles of vinflunine. Dose reduction or treatment delay was required for 20% of cycles. In all, 68% of patients experienced at least one grade 3 adverse event. Two deaths on treatment were not caused by disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-specified clinical activity threshold was exceeded. Toxicity was in keeping with experience in other tumours. Vinflunine merits further study in this disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02057913.

Serious illness care Programme UK: assessing the 'face validity', applicability and relevance of the serious illness conversation guide for use within the UK health care setting.

BACKGROUND: When doctors have honest conversations with patients about their illness and involve them in decisions about their care, patients express greater satisfaction with care and lowered anxiety and depression. The Serious Illness Care Programme (the Programme), originally developed in the United States (U.S), promotes meaningful, realistic and focused conversations about patient's wishes, fears and worries for the future with their illness. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (the guide) provides a framework to structure these conversations. The aim of this paper is to present findings from a study to examine the 'face validity', acceptability and relevance of the Guide for use within the United Kingdom (UK) health care setting. METHODS: A multi-stage approach was undertaken, using three separate techniques: 1. Nominal Group Technique with clinician 'expert groups' to review the Serious Illness Conversation Guide: 14 'experts' in Oncology, Palliative Care and Communication Skills; 2. Cognitive Interviews with 6 patient and public representatives, using the 'think aloud technique'; to explore the cognitive processes involved in answering the questions in the guide, including appropriateness of language, question wording and format 3. Final stakeholder review and consensus. RESULTS: Nominal Group Technique Unanimous agreement the conversation guide could provide a useful support to clinicians. Amendments are required but should be informed directly from the cognitive interviews. Training highlighted as key to underpin the use of the guide. Cognitive interviews The 'holistic' attention to the person as a whole was valued rather than a narrow focus on their disease. Some concern was raised regarding the 'formality' of some wording however and suggestions for amendments were made. Final stakeholder review Stakeholders agreed amendments to 5/13 prompts and unanimously agreed the UK guide should be implemented as a part of the pilot implementation of the Serious Illness Care Programme UK. CONCLUSION: Use of the guide has the potential to benefit patients, facilitating a 'person-centred' approach to these important conversations, and providing a framework to promote shared decision making and care planning. Further research is ongoing, to understand the impact of these conversations on patients, families and clinicians and on concordance of care delivery with expressed patient wishes.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b-T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9-77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0-90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5-92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4-88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68-1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99-1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic effects of radiotherapy than do clinician-reported outcomes. We did a quality of life (QoL) substudy to assess PROs up to 24 months after conventionally fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP) trial. METHODS: The CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 57 UK hospitals took part in the QoL substudy. Men with localised prostate cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy were eligible for trial entry if they had histologically confirmed T1b-T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, an estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less than 30%, prostate-specific antigen concentration less than 30 ng/mL, and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a standard fractionation schedule of 74 Gy in 37 fractions or one of two hypofractionated schedules: 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted block sizes of six and nine, stratified by centre and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Treatment allocation was not masked. UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), including Short Form (SF)-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and SF-12 quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, pre-radiotherapy, 10 weeks post-radiotherapy, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial completed accrual on June 16, 2011, and the QoL substudy was closed to further recruitment on Nov 1, 2009. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint of the QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: 2100 participants in the CHHiP trial consented to be included in the QoL substudy: 696 assigned to the 74 Gy schedule, 698 assigned to the 60 Gy schedule, and 706 assigned to the 57 Gy schedule. Of these individuals, 1659 (79%) provided data pre-radiotherapy and 1444 (69%) provided data at 24 months after radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 50·0 months (IQR 38·4-64·2) on April 9, 2014, which was the most recent follow-up measurement of all data collected before the QoL data were analysed in September, 2014. Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19 fractions groups at 2 years showed no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men; moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59). We saw no differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months. INTERPRETATION: The incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy. If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findings will add to the growing evidence for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules becoming the standard treatment for localised prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Radiotherapy in the acute medical setting.

Radiotherapy is an effective treatment modality and an essential tool in the management of cancer. As the incidence of malignant disease rises it is inevitable that physicians will increasingly encounter patients who have presented acutely and require radiotherapy or with a complication from irradiation. This paper explores the basic principles of radiotherapy tailored to the perspective of the acute medical physician and how to manage acute complications. We also discuss the role of radiotherapy in the acutely ill patient and define the need for radiotherapy pathways to ensure that patients receive treatment in a timely manner.

Impact of Radiotherapy When Added to Androgen-Deprivation Therapy for Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Quality-of-Life Outcomes From the NCIC CTG PR3/MRC PR07 Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: The NCIC CTG PR3/MRC PR07 randomized phase III trial compared androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) alone versus ADT with radiotherapy (RT) for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. This article reports the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes of this trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1,205 patients were randomly allocated to either ADT alone or ADT with RT. HRQOL was assessed at baseline and every 6 months thereafter using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire and a prostate cancer-specific checklist or the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate questionnaire. Mean changes from baseline scores for five function domains and nine symptom domains were analyzed as those most relevant to ADT and RT. The proportions of patients with improved, stable, or worsened HRQOL scores according to instrument-specific minimal important differences were calculated. RESULTS: Baseline questionnaires were completed by 1,028 patients (88%). At 6 months, RT had a statistically significant impact on mean score for bowel symptoms (P = .02), diarrhea (P < .001), urinary function (P = .003), and erectile dysfunction (P = .008); by 3 years, however, there were no significant between-group differences in any domain. Generalized linear mixed modeling revealed no significant between-arm differences in any of the function scales but showed significant deterioration in both arms over time for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate total score, treatment outcome index, and physical and functional well-being. CONCLUSION: The addition of RT to ADT for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer significantly improved overall survival and had only modest and transient negative impact on relevant domains of HRQOL.

Final Report of the Intergroup Randomized Study of Combined Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Plus Radiotherapy Versus Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Alone in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We have previously reported that radiotherapy (RT) added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Here, we report the prespecified final analysis of this randomized trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NCIC Clinical Trials Group PR.3/Medical Research Council PR07/Intergroup T94-0110 was a randomized controlled trial of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Patients with T3-4, N0/Nx, M0 prostate cancer or T1-2 disease with either prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of more than 40 µg/L or PSA of 20 to 40 µg/L plus Gleason score of 8 to 10 were randomly assigned to lifelong ADT alone or to ADT+RT. The RT dose was 64 to 69 Gy in 35 to 39 fractions to the prostate and pelvis or prostate alone. Overall survival was compared using a log-rank test stratified for prespecified variables. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred five patients were randomly assigned between 1995 and 2005, 602 to ADT alone and 603 to ADT+RT. At a median follow-up time of 8 years, 465 patients had died, including 199 patients from prostate cancer. Overall survival was significantly improved in the patients allocated to ADT+RT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.85; P < .001). Deaths from prostate cancer were significantly reduced by the addition of RT to ADT (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P < .001). Patients on ADT+RT reported a higher frequency of adverse events related to bowel toxicity, but only two of 589 patients had grade 3 or greater diarrhea at 24 months after RT. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that the previously reported benefit in survival is maintained at a median follow-up of 8 years and firmly establishes the role of RT in the treatment of men with locally advanced prostate cancer.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary safety results from the CHHiP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity, implying a therapeutic advantage of hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned preliminary safety analysis of side-effects in stages 1 and 2 of a randomised trial comparing standard and hypofractionated radiotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised study and recruited men with localised prostate cancer between Oct 18, 2002, and Aug 12, 2006, at 11 UK centres. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive conventional or hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and all were given with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression. Computer-generated random permuted blocks were used, with risk of seminal vesicle involvement and radiotherapy-treatment centre as stratification factors. The conventional schedule was 37 fractions of 2 Gy to a total of 74 Gy. The two hypofractionated schedules involved 3 Gy treatments given in either 20 fractions to a total of 60 Gy, or 19 fractions to a total of 57 Gy. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse toxicity at 2 years on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale. The primary analysis included all patients who had received at least one fraction of radiotherapy and completed a 2 year assessment. Treatment allocation was not masked and clinicians were not blinded. Stage 3 of this trial completed the planned recruitment in June, 2011. This study is registered, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: 153 men recruited to stages 1 and 2 were randomly assigned to receive conventional treatment of 74 Gy, 153 to receive 60 Gy, and 151 to receive 57 Gy. With 50·5 months median follow-up (IQR 43·5-61·3), six (4·3%; 95% CI 1·6-9·2) of 138 men in the 74 Gy group had bowel toxicity of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years, as did five (3·6%; 1·2-8·3) of 137 men in the 60 Gy group, and two (1·4%; 0·2-5·0) of 143 men in the 57 Gy group. For bladder toxicities, three (2·2%; 0·5-6·2) of 138 men, three (2·2%; 0·5-6·3) of 137, and none (0·0%; 97·5% CI 0·0-2·6) of 143 had scores of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated high-dose radiotherapy seems equally well tolerated as conventionally fractionated treatment at 2 years. FUNDING: Stage 1 was funded by the Academic Radiotherapy Unit, Cancer Research UK programme grant; stage 2 was funded by the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK.

The acute oncologist's role in managing patients with cancer and other comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: An Acute Oncology Service (AOS) is paramount to providing timely and improved pathways of care for patients who are admitted to hospital with cancer-related problems or suspected cancer. OBJECTIVE: To establish an AOS pilot study to decide how best to implement such a service locally. METHODS: The AOS, which included collaboration between the oncology and palliative care teams at the Northern General Hospital in Sheffield, UK, ensured that the majority of oncology patients in the region received timely assessment by an oncologist if they became acutely unwell as a result of their cancer or its treatment. The AOS consisted of a thrice-weekly ward round, and daily telephone advice service. RESULTS: We report on patient data during the first 12 months of the pilot study. Delivery of the AOS enhanced communication between the services and provided inter-professional education and support, resulting in earlier oncological team involvement in the management of patients with cancer admitted under other teams, as well as provision of advice to patients and their caregivers and families. Provision of the AOS shortened the mean length of hospital stay by 6 days. Two case studies are presented to illustrate the typical challenges faced when managing these patients. CONCLUSIONS: Establishment of the AOS enabled effective collaboration between the oncology and other clinical teams to provide a rapid and streamlined referral pathway of patients to the AOS. Locally, this process has been supported by the development of acute oncology protocols, which are now in use across the local cancer network. Journal of Comorbidity 2012;2:10-17.

Combined androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether the addition of radiation therapy (RT) improves overall survival in men with locally advanced prostate cancer managed with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is unclear. Our aim was to compare outcomes in such patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients with: locally advanced (T3 or T4) prostate cancer (n=1057); or organ-confined disease (T2) with either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration more than 40 ng/mL (n=119) or PSA concentration more than 20 ng/mL and a Gleason score of 8 or higher (n=25), were randomly assigned (done centrally with stratification and dynamic minimisation, not masked) to receive lifelong ADT and RT (65-69 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles, 45 Gy to the pelvic nodes). The primary endpoint was overall survival. The results presented here are of an interim analysis planned for when two-thirds of the events for the final analysis were recorded. All efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat and were based on data from all patients. This trial is registered at controlledtrials.com as ISRCTN24991896 and Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00002633. RESULTS: Between 1995 and 2005, 1205 patients were randomly assigned (602 in the ADT only group and 603 in the ADT and RT group); median follow-up was 6·0 years (IQR 4·4-8·0). At the time of analysis, a total of 320 patients had died, 175 in the ADT only group and 145 in the ADT and RT group. The addition of RT to ADT improved overall survival at 7 years (74%, 95% CI 70-78 vs 66%, 60-70; hazard ratio [HR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·61-0·98, p=0·033). Both toxicity and health-related quality-of-life results showed a small effect of RT on late gastrointestinal toxicity (rectal bleeding grade >3, three patients (0·5%) in the ADT only group, two (0·3%) in the ADT and RT group; diarrhoea grade >3, four patients (0·7%) vs eight (1·3%); urinary toxicity grade >3, 14 patients (2·3%) in both groups). INTERPRETATION: The benefits of combined modality treatment--ADT and RT--should be discussed with all patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, US National Cancer Institute, and UK Medical Research Council.

Palliative prostate radiotherapy for symptomatic advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To report the results for the use of short-course palliative radiotherapy to the prostate for localised symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-eight patients were identified from radiotherapy records between 2003 and 2007. Data were collected retrospectively on patients' demographics, radiotherapy details and response. Symptoms and toxicity were scored, retrospectively, according to the following scale: 0=no symptoms, 1=mild symptoms, 2=moderate symptoms, and 3=severe symptoms. RESULTS: All the 58 patients had advanced prostate carcinoma. The median age at radiotherapy was 76.6 years (range 54-91). Fifty-six patients (97%) had hormone refractory disease. Twenty-seven patients (47%) had evidence of metastatic disease. 20 Gy in 5 fractions was the most commonly used fractionation. The most frequent baseline symptom was haematuria (54%). Eighty-nine percent (31/35) of the patients had a complete or partial resolution of symptoms at 4 months. Response rates for individual symptoms (including unknown responses) were: rectal symptoms (75%), pelvic pain (69%), urinary obstruction (54%) and haematuria (42%). A >50% reduction in PSA occurred in five patients. Toxicity was mild to moderate only and was self-limiting. CONCLUSION: Palliative radiotherapy to the prostate gland for local symptoms appears to be an effective means of palliation with minimal toxic side effects. Prospective studies are now required to assess its benefits in more detail.

Randomized trial of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous peripheral-blood stem-cell support compared with standard-dose chemotherapy in women with metastatic breast cancer: NCIC MA.16.

PURPOSE: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial to compare progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and quality of life in women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT; HDCT) compared with standard-dose therapy. PATIENT AND METHODS: Between April 1997 and December 2000, 386 women with MBC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were registered. After initial response to anthracycline- or taxane-based induction chemotherapy, 224 patients were randomly assigned: 112 to high-dose cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone, and carboplatin chemotherapy and ASCT (HDCT), and 112 to standard therapy (ST). Median age was 47 years (range, 25 to 67 years). Thirty two percent of women randomly assigned had estrogen and progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer, 42% had visceral metastases, and 58% had bone metastases. Complete remission rates before random assignment were 11% for those receiving HDCT and 12% for those receiving ST. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 48 months, 79 deaths were observed in the HDCT arm and 77 deaths were observed in the ST arm; seven patients (6%) in the HDCT arm died as a result of toxicity. The median OS was 24 months for the HDCT arm (95% CI, 21 to 35 months) and 28 months for ST (95% CI, 22 to 33 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.2; P = .43). PFS was 11 months for HDCT and 9 months for ST (HR, 0.6 in favor of HDCT; 95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9; P = .006). CONCLUSION: HDCT did not improve OS in women with MBC when used as consolidation after response to induction chemotherapy.

The difficulties of a randomized study in superior vena caval obstruction.

INTRODUCTION: Superior vena caval obstruction (SVCO) is a not uncommon complication of malignant disease. Treatment may consist of radiation (RT) to the mediastinum, systemic therapy for chemosensitive tumors, and supportive measures such as oxygen and steroids. Advances in interventional radiology have allowed the introduction of expandable stents into the superior vena cava (SVC), with the theoretical advantage of providing symptom relief within hours, rather than the days and weeks over which RT exerts its effect. Although small case series have supported the use of stents in SVCO, there are no randomized data. METHODS: We set up a randomized study at Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto. Patients were randomized to receive palliative RT to the mediastinum or immediate stenting of the SVC and then mediastinal RT within a week. The aim of the study was to compare symptom response between the two treatment arms. A second study, a prospective longitudinal study, was also set up to obtain information on symptom response and outcome regardless of the treatment given. RESULTS: In a 12-month period, we were unable to accrue any patients in the randomized study; of the 19 patients approached, 13 have agreed to participate in the longitudinal study. CONCLUSIONS: In this report, we present the problems that we have encountered with these studies.

Pain flare in patients with bone metastases after palliative radiotherapy--a nested randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Short-course radiotherapy is a common treatment for the palliation of painful osseous metastases. Pain flare can be problematic, but its incidence has previously not been well-documented. The objectives of this study were to determine (1) the incidence of pain flare after palliative radiation for painful osseous metastases, and (2) whether single-fraction radiotherapy increases the risk of pain flare. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients accrued to a prospective randomized control trial comparing 8 Gy in one fraction to 20 Gy in five fractions (the Canadian Bone Metastasis Study) were approached to fill out a daily pain and analgesia diary for the 7 days post-radiotherapy. Patients assessed their average pain at the index site using the Present Pain Intensity (PPI) scale of the McGill-Melzack pain questionnaire and recorded their daily analgesic medications, which were translated into an analgesic score. Pain flare was defined as a two-point increase in the PPI with no decrease in analgesic score or a 50% increase in analgesic score with no decrease in PPI on at least two consecutive days. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients agreed to fill out the diary and 44 (94%) completed it. Fifteen of 44 (34.1%) patients experienced a pain flare that lasted a median of 3 days. Ten of 23 (43.5%) and 5/21 (23.8%) of patients who received 8 Gy and 20 Gy had a pain flare, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pain flare is common after palliative radiotherapy for osseous metastases and patients receiving single fraction radiotherapy may be at higher risk. Further study is warranted to determine predictors and preventive interventions.

Concurrent cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy and radiotherapy for breast carcinoma: a well tolerated adjuvant regimen.

BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to assess the toxicity of concurrent adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT) for early breast carcinoma. METHODS: In the current study, the authors reviewed the records of 680 consecutive breast carcinoma patients who received adjuvant CMF at the Princess Margaret Hospital between 1980-1990. Surgery was comprised of mastectomy in 64% of patients, breast conservation in 35% of patients, and was unknown in 1% of patients. Two hundred two patients received concurrent CMF/RT that was defined as an overlap in CMF and RT administration of at least 21 days. Forty-seven patients received sequential CMF/RT (defined as no overlap or an overlap of < 7 days in CMF and RT administration). Other patients received CMF alone. Adverse effects of RT were graded retrospectively using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) system. Reasons for interruption or failure to complete RT were recorded. The magnitude of chemotherapy dose reductions and delays also were noted. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 44 years (range, 26-68 years) and 88% of the patients had lymph node-positive disease. RT was interrupted or discontinued due to side effects in 4% of patients (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.7-7.7%) and 0% (95% CI, 0-7.6%), respectively, of the concurrent and sequential groups (P = 0.36). The incidence of Grade 3 or Grade 4 RT toxicity was 1.5% (95% CI, 0.3-4.3%) and 2.1% (95% CI, 0.1-11.3%), respectively, for the concurrent and sequential groups (P = 0.57). The median relative dose intensity of chemotherapy for patients receiving concurrent CMF/RT, sequential CMF/RT, and CMF alone was 0.87, 0.84, and 0.85, respectively (P = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study demonstrate that the concurrent administration of CMF and RT is associated with a low risk of serious toxicity and is an acceptable adjuvant regimen for patients with breast carcinoma.

Palliative radiation for vertebral metastases: the effect of variation in prescription parameters on the dose received at depth.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of prescription parameters on the dose received by the spine during palliative radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a survey, members of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists were asked to define their prescription parameters for vertebral metastases. The depth of the spinal canal and vertebral body at 8 spinal levels was measured in 20 magnetic resonance imaging studies (MRIs). Survey results were applied to the measurements to assess the dose received at depth. The depth of spinal structures assessed at simulation and by diagnostic imaging was compared. RESULTS: Prescriptions were most commonly to D(max) 3 cm or 5 cm using 60Co-6MV photons delivering 8-30 Gy in 1-10 fractions. Mean depths from MRI were: posterior spinal canal, 5.5 cm; anterior spinal canal, 6.9 cm; and anterior vertebral body, 9.6 cm. Application of the prescription parameters from the survey to these measurements showed a wide range in the dose at depth with variation in technique. Depths measured at simulation correlated well with diagnostic imaging. CONCLUSION: The spinal canal and vertebral body lie >5 cm beneath the skin, and the dose received varies by up to 50% with changes in prescription depth. We suggest a suitable prescription point for vertebral metastases and a method for determining this at simulation.