Upfront consolidation treatment with 131I-mIbG followed by myeloablative chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in high-risk neuroblastoma.

IMPORTANCE: 131I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (131I-mIBG) has a significant targeted antitumor effect for neuroblastoma. However, currently there is a paucity of data for the use of 131I-mIBG as a "front-line" therapeutic agent in those patients with newly diagnosed high-risk neuroblastoma as part of the conditioning regimen for myeloablative chemotherapy (MAC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of upfront consolidation treatment with 131I-mIBG plus MAC and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in high-risk neuroblastoma patients. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center study was conducted from 2003-2019 on newly diagnosed high-risk neuroblastoma patients without progressive disease (PD) after the completion of induction therapy. They received 131I-mIBG infusion and MAC followed by HSCT. RESULTS: A total of 24 high-risk neuroblastoma patients were enrolled with a median age of 3.0 years at diagnosis. After receiving this sequential consolidation treatment, 3 of 13 patients who were in partial response (PR) before 131I-mIBG treatment achieved either complete response (CR) (n = 1) or very good partial response (VGPR) (n = 2) after HSCT. With a median follow-up duration of 13.0 months after 131I-mIBG therapy, the 5-year event-free survival and overall survival rates estimated were 29% and 38% for the entire cohort, and 53% and 67% for the patients who were in CR/VGPR at the time of 131I-mIBG treatment. INTERPRETATION: Upfront consolidation treatment with 131I-mIBG plus MAC and HSCT is feasible and tolerable in high-risk neuroblastoma patients, however the survival benefit of this 131I-mIBG regimen is only observed in the patients who were in CR/VGPR at the time of 131I-mIBG treatment.

Feasibility of psychoeducational interventions in managing chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting (CANV) in pediatric oncology patients.

PURPOSE: Childhood cancer patients often suffer from Chemotheraphy-Associated Nausea and Vomiting (CANV). To alleviate CANV, relaxation techniques and patient education were combined to develop a multidimensional psychoeducational intervention package. The aim of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility of the two major components, namely, (1) relaxation, and (2) patient education, of a psychoeducational intervention, prior to the commencement of the main study. METHODS: A pre-test-post-test control group design was adopted. Twenty patients were allocated equally to the relaxation group (10 participants) and to the educational group (10 participants). Twenty historical matched control cases were identified to form the control groups. Besides, a process evaluation was adopted to assess the feasibility of the study. RESULTS: In relation to episodes of vomiting on day 3, a significant difference was detected from the results (X(2) = 8.54, p = 0.036), in that fewer patients in the relaxation group experienced vomiting. A significant difference was not found in both the use of antiemetics and body weight between the groups. All subjects in the intervention groups adhered to the intervention and completed the questionnaire without difficulty. Patients and parents perceived the intervention as being moderately useful. CONCLUSIONS: Although the beneficial effect of relaxation and education in alleviating CANV was not well-supported statistically, the findings from descriptive data suggest that these interventions promoted the intake of antiemetics as a preventive method. Both interventions and instruments were well-received by the patients and also by their parents.

Pressurised irrigation versus swabbing method in cleansing wounds healed by secondary intention: a randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Wound cleansing should create an optimal healing environment by removing excess debris, exudates, foreign and necrotic material which are commonly present in the wounds that heal by secondary intention. At present, there is no research evidence for whether pressurised irrigation has better wound healing outcomes compared with conventional swabbing practice in cleansing wound. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the differences between pressurised irrigation and swabbing method in cleansing wounds that healed by secondary intention in relation to wound healing outcomes and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The study took place in four General Outpatient Clinics in Hong Kong. METHODS: Two hundred and fifty six patients with wounds healing by secondary intention were randomly assigned by having a staff independent of the study opening a serially numbered, opaque and sealed envelope to either pressurised irrigation (n=122) or swabbing (n=134). Staff undertaking study-related assessments was blinded to treatment assignment. Patients' wounds were followed up for 6 weeks or earlier if wounds had healed to determine wound healing, infection, symptoms, satisfaction, and cost effectiveness. The primary outcome was time-to-wound healing. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01885273. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis showed that pressurised irrigation group was associated with a shorter median time-to-wound healing than swabbing group [9.0 days (95% CI: 7.4-13.8) vs. 12.0 (95% CI: 10.2-13.8); p=0.007]. Pressurised irrigation group has significantly more patients experiencing lower grade of pain during wound cleansing (93.4% vs. 84.2%; p=0.02), and significantly higher median satisfaction with either comfort or cleansing method (MD 1 [95% CI: 5-6]; p=0.002; MD 1 [95% CI: 5-6]; p<0.001) than did swabbing group. Wound infection was reported in 4 (3.3%) patients in pressurised irrigation group and in 7 (5.2%) patients in swabbing group (p=0.44). Cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that pressurised irrigation in comparison with swabbing saved per patient HK$ 110 (95% CI: -33 to 308) and was a cost-effective cleansing method at no extra direct medical cost with a probability of 90%. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomised controlled trial to compare the pressurised irrigation and swabbing. Pressurised irrigation is more cost-effective than swabbing in shortening time that wound heals by secondary intention with better patient tolerance. Use of pressurised irrigation for wound cleansing is supported by this trial.