Background: Assess clinical outcomes of focal radiotherapy (RT) in patients with limited brain metastasis (LBM) with whole brain RT (WBRT) avoidance. Methods: Patients diagnosed with LBM were entered into a database between January 2010 and February 2017. Patients were recommended WBRT avoidance with focal therapy and three-monthly magnetic resonance imaging. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, initial-site failure (ISF), distant brain relapse (DBF), leptomeningeal disease and rate of WBRT. Analysis involved Kaplan-Meier survival estimate with log-rank tests and Cox-regression analysis. Results: One hundred and sixty-six patients were managed with median follow-up of 13 months and median overall survival of 15 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 10.8-19.2). Eighty-three patients had central nervous system (CNS) relapse with median progression-free survival of 11 months (95% CI 6.7-15.3), of which most failures were DBF (83.1%) with 27 ISF (32.5%). Of the ISFs, 12 (43%) had surgery alone, six had chemotherapy alone and nine received RT. Surgery or chemotherapy alone compared with RT had a significantly higher incidence of ISF with a hazard ratio of 4.96 (P < 0.0001, 95% CI 2.10-11.83) and 6.54 (P = 0.001, 95% CI 2.26-18.87), respectively. WBRT was utilized in only 24 patients, with 83% patients free of WBRT at 12 months. On univariate analysis, number of metastases (P = 0.04), symptomatic extracranial disease (P = 0.04) and early CNS relapse within 6 months (P < 0.01) had worse survival. No grade 3-4 toxicity events were noted in 129 patients undergoing RT. Conclusion: Focal RT has a low rate of ISF with low toxicity in patients with LBMs. CNS progression was mainly DBF with low rates of salvage WBRT.
Treatment-related toxicity is an important component in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) management decision-making. Our aim was to evaluate and compare the toxicity rates of curative and palliative radiotherapy with and without chemotherapy. This meta-analysis provides better quantitative estimates of the toxicities compared to individual trials. A systematic review of randomised trials with > 50 unresectable NSCLC patients, treated with curative or palliative conventional radiotherapy (RT) with or without chemotherapy. Data was extracted for oesophagitis, pneumonitis, cardiac events, pulmonary fibrosis, myelopathy and neutropenia by any grade, grade ≥ 3 and treatment-related deaths. Mantel–Haenszel fixed-effect method was used to obtain pooled risk ratio. Forty-nine trials with 8609 evaluable patients were included. There was significantly less grade ≥ 3 acute oesophagitis (6.4 vs 22.2%, p < 0.0001) and any grade oesophagitis (70.4 vs 79.0%, p = 0.04) for sequential CRT compared to concurrent CRT, with no difference in pneumonitis (grade ≥ 3 or any grade), neutropenia (grade ≥ 3), cardiac events (grade ≥ 3) or treatment-related deaths. Although the rate of toxicity increased with intensification of treatment with RT, the only significant difference between treatment regimens was the rate of oesophagitis between the use of concurrent and sequential CRT. This can aid clinicians in radiotherapy decision making for NSCLC.
AimTo develop a priority set of quality indicators (QIs) for use by colorectal cancer (CRC) multidisciplinary teams (MDTs).MethodsThe review search strategy was executed in four databases from 2009–August 2019. Two reviewers screened abstracts/manuscripts. Candidate QIs and characteristics were extracted using a tailored abstraction tool and assessed for scientific soundness. To prioritize candidate indicators, a modified Delphi consensus process was conducted. Consensus was sought over two rounds; (1) multidisciplinary expert workshops to identify relevance to Australian CRC MDTs, and (2) an online survey to prioritize QIs by clinical importance.ResultsA total of 93 unique QIs were extracted from 118 studies and categorized into domains of care within the CRC patient pathway. Approximately half the QIs involved more than one discipline (52.7%). One‐third of QIs related to surgery of primary CRC (31.2%). QIs on supportive care (6%) and neoadjuvant therapy (6%) were limited. In the Delphi Round 1, workshop participants (n = 12) assessed 93 QIs and produced consensus on retaining 49 QIs including six new QIs. In Round 2, survey participants (n = 44) rated QIs and prioritized a final 26 QIs across all domains of care and disciplines with a concordance level > 80%. Participants represented all MDT disciplines, predominantly surgical (32%), radiation (23%) and medical (20%) oncology, and nursing (18%), across six Australian states, with an even spread of experience level.ConclusionThis study identified a large number of existing CRC QIs and prioritized the most clinically relevant QIs for use by Australian MDTs to measure and monitor their performance.
Summary Peer review is a part of high quality care within radiation oncology, designed to achieve the best outcomes for patients. We discuss the importance of and evidence for peer review in clinical practice. The Royal Australia and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) has evolved a Peer Review Assessment Tool (PRAT) since 1999. We report the results of a RANZCR faculty survey conducted in radiation oncology facilities across Australia and New Zealand to guide the 2019 PRAT revision process, and discuss the development and implementation of the 2019 PRAT. Peer‐review processes are now mandated as a component of Australian and International Quality Standards. Several practical recommendations might address challenges for effective implementation of peer review process in routine clinical practice. This includes prioritising tumour sites and treatment techniques for peer review within the time and resources constraints of each institution, improving resource allocation, ensuring optimal timing and duration for peer review meetings, and adopting multi‐centre virtual peer review meeting where necessary.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.