Current clinical guidelines for the management of radiotherapy patients having either a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (both CIEDs: Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices) do not cover modern radiotherapy techniques and do not take the patient’s perspective into account. Available data on the frequency and cause of CIED failure during radiation therapy are limited and do not converge. The Dutch Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology (NVRO) initiated a multidisciplinary task group consisting of clinical physicists, cardiologists, radiation oncologists, pacemaker and ICD technologists to develop evidence based consensus guidelines for the management of CIED patients. CIED patients receiving radiotherapy should be categorised based on the chance of device failure and the clinical consequences in case of failure. Although there is no clear cut-off point nor a clear linear relationship, in general, chances of device failure increase with increasing doses. Clinical consequences of device failures like loss of pacing, carry the most risks in pacing dependent patients. Cumulative dose and pacing dependency have been combined to categorise patients into low, medium and high risk groups. Patients receiving a dose of less than 2 Gy to their CIED are categorised as low risk, unless pacing dependent since then they are medium risk. Between 2 and 10 Gy, all patients are categorised as medium risk, while above 10 Gy every patient is categorised as high risk. Measures to secure patient safety are described for each category. This guideline for the management of CIED patients receiving radiotherapy takes into account modern radiotherapy techniques, CIED technology, the patients’ perspective and the practical aspects necessary for the safe management of these patients. The guideline is implemented in The Netherlands in 2012 and is expected to find clinical acceptance outside The Netherlands as well.
This analysis of patients recruited from the top 9 accruing centers in the CREST trial suggests that future studies evaluating more intensive thoracic and extra-thoracic radiotherapy in ES-SCLC should focus on patients with fewer than 3 distant metastases.
IntroductionThere is a lack of data on the efficacy and safety of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in elderly, limited-stage, patients with SCLC.MethodsWe compared outcomes of patients 70 years of age or older versus younger patients within the Concurrent Once-daily Versus twice-daily RadioTherapy (CONVERT) trial. Patients were randomized to receive 45 Gy/30 twice-daily fractions/19 days or 66 Gy/33 once-daily fractions/45 days concurrently with platinum-based chemotherapy. Overall survival and progression-free survival were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier methodology and Cox proportional hazards regression.ResultsOf 547 patients randomized between April 2008 and November 2013, 57 did not receive protocol treatment and were excluded. Of the 490 patients included, 67 (14%) were 70 years of age or older (median age: 73 years; range: 70–82). Fewer older patients received the optimal number of radiotherapy fractions (73% versus 85%; p = 0.03); however, chemotherapy compliance was similar in both groups (p = 0.24). Neutropenia grade 3/4 occurred more frequently in the elderly (84% versus 70%; p = 0.02) but rates of neutropenic sepsis (4% versus 7%; p = 0.07) and death (3% versus 1.4%; p = 0.67) were similar in both groups. With a median follow-up of 46 months; median survival in the elderly versus younger groups was 29 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21–39) versus 30 months (95% CI: 26–35), respectively; (hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.84–1.59; p = 0.38). Median time to progression in the elderly versus younger groups was 18 months (95% CI: 13–31) versus 16 months (95% CI: 14–19), respectively (hazard ratio: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.76–1.41; p = 0.81).ConclusionsConcurrent chemoradiotherapy with modern radiotherapy techniques should be a treatment option for fit, older patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.