RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Barrier films or dressings were reported to be effective in preventing radiation dermatitis (RD) in breast cancer patients, but their comparative efficacy is unknown. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL Registry of Clinical Trials from inception to October 20, 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing barrier films or dressings to the standard of care (SOC) or other interventions were included. We estimated summary odds ratios and mean differences using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023475021). RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. Six interventions were analysed: 3M™ Moisturizing Double Barrier Cream (MDBC), 3M™ No Sting Barrier Film (BF), Hydrofilm® (HF), Mepitel® Film (MF), Silver Leaf Nylon Dressing and StrataXRT®. HF, MF and StrataXRT® reduced the incidence of moist desquamation compared to SOC (HF: OR = 0.08; p = 0.02; MF: OR = 0.31 p < 0.01; StrataXRT®: OR = 0.22, p = 0.04). The ranking of agents from most to least effective in preventing moist desquamation according to P-scores was HF (92.5%), MF (78.5%), StrataXRT® (70.1%), BF (46.4%), Silver Leaf Nylon Dressing (24.9%), MDBC (22.9%) and SOC (14.7%). Only four RCTs on HF and MF included patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments that allowed pooling for analysis. HF and MF were more effective in reducing pain, itchiness and burning sensation compared to SOC (p < 0.01 for all symptoms). CONCLUSION: HF and MF were effective in preventing RD in breast cancer. Future RCTs should compare these interventions to effective cream preparations, such as topical corticosteroids.
RESUMEN
Objective: This review aimed to summarize the benefits, side effects, physics measurements, and patient- and clinician-reported outcomes of Mepitel film (MF) in preventing radiation dermatitis (RD) for cancer patients. Methods: The online database PubMed was searched from inception to April 15, 2024 with the search terms "Mepitel film" or "Mepitel." Articles of any study design evaluating MF for the prevention of RD were included. Non-human studies were excluded. Results: The database search identified 119 articles and 13 of them were included in this review. Across these studies, MF was found to be beneficial in reducing RD and improved patient- and clinician-reported outcomes in breast and head and neck cancers. Side effects of MF included itchiness, acne, allergic reaction, tightness, discomfort, and poor film adherence, but patient dropouts were uncommon. MF did not cause a bolus effect or increased skin dose in physics measurements. Conclusions: MF is a safe and effective intervention for preventing acute RD. It should be recommended in breast cancer patients where the data is more robust. Further research is needed to evaluate MF's efficacy on patients with different skin tones, its cost-effectiveness, and identifying patients who most benefit from MF relative to other effective interventions.
RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Anticoagulantes , Hemorragia , Heparina de Bajo-Peso-Molecular , Neoplasias , Trombosis de la Vena , Humanos , Neoplasias/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias/complicaciones , Heparina de Bajo-Peso-Molecular/administración & dosificación , Heparina de Bajo-Peso-Molecular/efectos adversos , Heparina de Bajo-Peso-Molecular/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Anticoagulantes/administración & dosificación , Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Trombosis de la Vena/tratamiento farmacológico , Administración Oral , Hong Kong/epidemiología , Hemorragia/inducido químicamente , Resultado del Tratamiento , Tromboembolia Venosa/tratamiento farmacológico , Tromboembolia Venosa/etiología , Estudios de Cohortes , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Sustitución de Medicamentos , Anciano de 80 o más AñosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evidence and clinical guidelines support the use of adjuvant RT in high-risk low-grade gliomas. However, patients with oligodendroglioma have a more indolent disease course and delaying or avoiding RT is often considered to reduce treatment-related toxicities. As the optimal adjuvant management for oligodendroglioma is unclear, we aimed to assess the effect of adjuvant RT on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched from January 1990 to February 2023 for studies comparing adjuvant RT versus no adjuvant RT for patients with oligodendroglioma. RESULTS: This review found 17 eligible studies including 14 comparative retrospective studies and 3 randomized controlled trials. Using random-effects model, the results suggested that adjuvant RT improved OS by 28 % (HR 0.72, 95 % CI (0.56-0.93), I2 = 86 %), and PFS by 48 % (HR 0.52, (95 % CI 0.40-0.66), I2 = 48 %) compared to patients without adjuvant RT. Subgroup analysis showed that upfront adjuvant RT improved OS and PFS compared to salvage RT. There were no significant differences in OS and PFS between adjuvant RT versus adjuvant chemotherapy. There was improvement in PFS but not OS for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus adjuvant chemotherapy alone. Adjuvant RT improved OS in WHO Grade 3 but not WHO Grade 2 oligodendroglioma. CONCLUSION: Overall, adjuvant RT improved OS and PFS in patients with oligodendroglioma. In patients with low-risk features (e.g. Grade 2, gross total resection), alternative approaches and individualization of management such as adjuvant chemotherapy alone may be reasonable considering the lack of survival benefit. Future efforts should prospectively investigate these treatment regimens on molecularly-classified oligodendroglioma patients (defined by presence of IDH mutation and 1p/19q co-deletion), balancing between maximizing survival outcomes and reducing RT-related toxicities.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Encefálicas , Oligodendroglioma , Oligodendroglioma/radioterapia , Oligodendroglioma/mortalidad , Oligodendroglioma/terapia , Humanos , Neoplasias Encefálicas/radioterapia , Neoplasias Encefálicas/mortalidad , Radioterapia Adyuvante/métodos , Clasificación del TumorRESUMEN
Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have demonstrated clinical benefits and better patient adherence over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in treating patients with cancer-associated venous thrombosis (CAT). We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of DOACs against LMWH in patients with CAT from the perspective of the Hong Kong healthcare system. Methods: A Markov state-transition model was performed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for DOACs and LMWH in a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients with CAT over a 5-year lifetime horizon. The model was primarily based on the health states of no event, recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, and death. Transition probabilities, relative risks, and utilities were derived from the literature. Resource cost data were obtained from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results. Results: Relative to LMWH, DOACs were associated with increased QALYs (1.52 versus 1.50) at a lower medical cost of USD 2,232 versus 8,224 in five years. The cost of LMWH was the main contributor to the outcome. Out of 10,000 simulated cases, DOACs were dominant in 15.8% and cost-effective in 42.1%, at the willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 148,392 per additional QALY. Conclusions: DOACs were associated with greater QALY improvements and lower overall costs compared to LMWH. Accounting for uncertainty, DOACs were between cost-effective and dominant in 57.9% of cases. DOACs are a cost-effective alternative to LMWH in the management of CAT in Hong Kong.
RESUMEN
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 re-irradiation, 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 follow-up 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.
Asunto(s)
Reirradiación , Humanos , Reirradiación/métodos , Neoplasias/radioterapia , Consenso , Oncología por Radiación/normas , Cuidados Paliativos , Guías de Práctica Clínica como AsuntoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Óseas , Dolor en Cáncer , Manejo del Dolor , Cuidados Paliativos , Reirradiación , Humanos , Neoplasias Óseas/secundario , Neoplasias Óseas/radioterapia , Dolor en Cáncer/radioterapia , Cuidados Paliativos/métodos , Reirradiación/métodos , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Calidad de Vida , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Fraccionamiento de la Dosis de Radiación , Dimensión del DolorRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Antieméticos , Antineoplásicos , Neoplasias , Humanos , Antieméticos/farmacología , Calidad de Vida , Vómitos/inducido químicamente , Vómitos/prevención & control , Vómitos/tratamiento farmacológico , Náusea/inducido químicamente , Náusea/prevención & control , Náusea/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias/tratamiento farmacológico , Antineoplásicos/efectos adversosRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Reirradiación , Compresión de la Médula Espinal , Humanos , Compresión de la Médula Espinal/radioterapia , Compresión de la Médula Espinal/etiología , Reirradiación/métodos , Neoplasias de la Columna Vertebral/radioterapia , Neoplasias de la Columna Vertebral/secundario , Neoplasias de la Columna Vertebral/complicaciones , Radiocirugia/métodos , Neoplasias del Sistema Nervioso Central/radioterapiaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Encefálicas , Radiocirugia , Reirradiación , Humanos , Neoplasias Encefálicas/secundario , Neoplasias Encefálicas/radioterapia , Reirradiación/métodos , Radiocirugia/métodos , Radiocirugia/efectos adversos , Irradiación Craneana/métodos , Irradiación Craneana/efectos adversos , PronósticoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de Cabeza y Cuello , Accidente Cerebrovascular , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Femenino , Australia , Estudios Transversales , Sobrevivientes , Accidente Cerebrovascular/epidemiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Neoplasias de Cabeza y Cuello/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasias , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Prueba de COVID-19 , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Calidad de Vida , Compresión de la Médula Espinal , Humanos , Compresión de la Médula Espinal/etiología , Dolor , Pacientes , Columna VertebralRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Óseas , Calidad de Vida , Humanos , Neoplasias Óseas/secundario , Emociones , Ansiedad/terapia , Dolor/etiologíaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Oncología por Radiación , Radiodermatitis , Humanos , Calidad de Vida , Radiodermatitis/etiología , Radiodermatitis/prevención & controlRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias , Calidad de Vida , Humanos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Pronóstico , Microambiente TumoralRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Encefálicas , Radiocirugia , Humanos , Neoplasias Encefálicas/radioterapia , Estudios Retrospectivos , Memantina , Irradiación Craneana/métodos , Radiocirugia/métodos , EncéfaloRESUMEN
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.