Prostate cancer image guided radiotherapy: Why the commotion over rectal volume and motion?

Introduction: Distended rectums on pre-radiotherapy scans are historically associated with poorer outcomes in patients treated with two-dimensional IGRT. Subsequently, strict rectal tolerances and preparation regimes were implemented. Contemporary IGRT, daily online registration to the prostate, corrects interfraction motion but intrafraction motion remains. We re-examine the need for rectal management strategies when using contemporary IGRT by quantifying rectal volume and its effect on intrafraction motion. Materials and methods: Pre and during radiotherapy rectal volumes and intrafraction motion were retrospectively calculated for 20 patients treated in 5-fractions and 20 treated in 20-fractions. Small (rectal volume at planning-CT ≤ median), and large (volume > median) subgroups were formed, and rectal volume between timepoints and subgroups compared. Rectal volume and intrafraction motion correlation was examined using Spearman's rho. Intrafraction motion difference between small and large subgroups and between fractions with rectal volume < or ≥ 90 cm3 were assessed. Results: Median rectal volume was 74 cm3, 64 cm3 and 65 cm3 on diagnostic-MRI, planning-CT and treatment imaging respectively (ns). No significant correlation was found between patient's rectal volume at planning-CT and median intrafraction motion, nor treatment rectal volume and intrafraction motion for individual fractions. No significant difference in intrafraction motion between small and large subgroups presented and for fractions where rectal volume breached 90 cm3, motion during that fraction was not significantly greater. Conclusion: Larger rectal volumes before radiotherapy and during treatment did not cause greater intrafraction motion. Findings support the relaxation of strict rectal diameter tolerances and do not support the need for rectal preparation when delivering contemporary IGRT to the prostate.

Characteristics of patients with diabetes hospitalised for COVID-19 infection-a brief case series report.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetes has been shown to be a risk factor for corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection. The characteristics of patients with diabetes vulnerable to this infection are less specified. We aim to present the characteristics of patients with diabetes admitted to hospital with COVID-19. DESIGN: A retrospective case series. SETTING: A single clinical centre in the UK. METHODS: We have retrospectively collected the demographics, medical characteristics and outcome of all patients with diabetes admitted to hospital over two-week period with COVID-19 infection. All cases were diagnosed by a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of pharyngeal and nasal swabs. RESULTS: A total of 71 COVID-19 patients were admitted during the study period of whom 16 (22.5%) patients had diabetes and were included in this case series. There was no significant difference between patients with compared to those without diabetes regarding age, gender or clinical presentation. However, comorbidities were more common in patients with diabetes specially hypertension {75% v 36.4%, a difference of 38.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.5-58.3} and chronic kidney disease (37.5 v 5.5, a difference of 32% (1.6-51.6). Patients with diabetes were significantly more obese than those without diabetes (56.2% v 21.8% a difference of 34.4%, 95% CI 7.7-61.1). About one third (31.3%) of patients with diabetes were frail. Mean {standard deviation (SD)} duration of diabetes was 10 (2.8) years and mean (SD) HbA1c was 60.3 (15.6) mmol/mol. The use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was common (37.5%, 25% and 18.8% respectively). There was no significant difference in the outcomes between patients with compared to those without diabetes. CONCLUSION: Patients with diabetes hospitalised for COVID-19 were significantly more obese and had high prevalence of comorbidities than those without diabetes. Other features of patients with diabetes and COVID-19 infection included long duration of diabetes, less tight glycaemic control and common use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs and NSAIDs.

Chinese and British Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19-a Comparative Case Series Analysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic initially started in China then spread to Europe. It is not known whether COVID-19 affects patients differently across the two continents. We aimed to describe our cohort of patients admitted to a single British centre with COVID-19 in comparison to a Chinese cohort of similar size and admitted over a similar time period to Chinese centres. We present a comparison of 62 Chinese and 71 British cases hospitalised for COVID-19. Cases in both sites were confirmed by a positive RT-PCR of nasopharyngeal swabs. Comparison analysis highlighted some differences between both populations. The most striking difference is the significantly older age of the British population (72% of the British ≥ 66 years compared to only 3% of the Chinese patients, difference of 69%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 68.3% to 69.7%, respectively) and the associated significant premorbid conditions (85% of patients vs 32%, difference of 53%, 95% CI 52 to 54%, respectively). Gastrointestinal and general symptoms were more common clinical presentation in the British while respiratory symptoms were more prominent in the Chinese cohort. Mortality was significantly higher in the British cohort 14% compared to none in the Chinese cohort (difference of 14%, 95% CI 13.7 to 14.3%). We conclude that COVID-19 does present differently in these two cohorts, but the apparent differences in the clinical presentations could be explained by the inherent differences in the demographics and case mix between both countries.

Colorectal cancer screening interventions in 2 health care systems serving disadvantaged populations: Screening uptake and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of the current study were to assess changes in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake and the cost-effectiveness of implementing multiple evidence-based interventions (EBIs). EBIs were implemented at 2 federally qualified health centers that participated in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Clinic Quality Improvement for Population Health initiative. METHODS: Interventions included patient and provider reminder systems (health system 1), provider assessment and feedback (health systems 1 and 2), and numerous support activities (health systems 1 and 2). The authors evaluated health system 1 from July 2013 to June 2015 and health system 2 from July 2014 to June 2017. Evaluation measures included annual CRC screening uptake, EBIs implemented, funds received and expended by each health system to implement EBIs, and intervention costs to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and health systems. RESULTS: CRC screening uptake increased by 18 percentage points in health system 1 and 10 percentage points in health system 2. The improvements in CRC screening uptake, not including the cost of the screening tests, were obtained at an added cost ranging from $24 to $29 per person screened. CONCLUSIONS: In both health systems, the multicomponent interventions implemented likely resulted in improvements in CRC screening. The results suggest that significant increases in CRC screening uptake can be achieved in federally qualified health centers when appropriate technical support and health system commitment are present. The cost estimates of the multicomponent interventions suggest that these interventions and support activities can be implemented in a cost-effective manner.

Isolated metastatic primary peritoneal carcinoma to the breast: a rare site of disease recurrence.

Primary breast carcinoma is a common pathology in the UK. It can present with metastatic deposits but it is rare that lesions in the breast are the sole primary or secondary presentation for metastatic cancer from other sources. We present a case of a primary peritoneal cancer recurring after optimal treatment with a new breast lesion and the diagnostic difficulties that this can cause.

Model for outcomes assessment of antihistamine use for seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Drug selection for optimal treatment of common medical conditions may be difficult and involve many diverse factors. OBJECTIVE: The efficacy, safety, quality of life, and cost of treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis with cetirizine, chlorpheniramine, or terfenadine were compared in a prospective, two-phase, randomized, single-blind clinical trial conducted in a managed care setting. METHODS: In phase I, which lasted 2 weeks, patients were randomized to receive one of the study drugs. In phase II, which lasted 4 weeks, the initial treatment was continued unless patients were dissatisfied, in which case they could be randomly assigned to receive another study drug. In both phases pseudoephedrine could be taken as needed. Patients kept daily diaries of symptoms and costs, and study drugs were evaluated at the end of each phase for efficacy, safety, and effect on quality of life by means of a validated questionnaire. A multiattribute outcomes assessment model for formulary decision making was used to rank the antihistamines. RESULTS: Physicians' and patients' assessments in phases I and II indicated that cetirizine and chlorpheniramine were significantly more effective than terfenadine (p < 0.05). Incidence of sedation in phase I and phase II was 40.5% and 16.7% for chlorpheniramine, 11.6% and 9.8% for cetirizine, and 6.7% and 5.1% for terfenadine, respectively. At the end of phase I, 28.9% of the patients treated with chlorpheniramine, 50% of the patients treated with terfenadine, and 69.4% of the patients treated with cetirizine were satisfied with their therapy and chose not to switch their medication. Quality of life scores improved most after treatment with cetirizine and least after treatment with terfenadine. CONCLUSION: The result of this trial indicate that antihistamine selection is best made with the use of a multiattribute evaluation that includes quality of life. In this study cetirizine was favored by patients and physicians most often, followed by chlorpheniramine and then terfenadine.