16 research outputs found

    Primary Intraocular Lymphoma: Another Great Masquerader

    No full text

    International radiation oncology trainee decision making in the management of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

    No full text
    Purpose: This study explored international radiation oncology trainee decision making in the management of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). Methods: Radiation oncology trainees who were members of the national radiation oncology associations of the USA, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, France, Spain and Singapore completed a Web-based survey. Respondents estimated the risks of nausea and vomiting associated with six standardised radiotherapy-only clinical case vignettes modelled after international anti-emetic guidelines and then committed to prophylactic, rescue or no therapy as an initial management approach for each case. Results: One hundred and seventy-six trainees from 11 countries responded. Only 28 % were aware of any anti-emetic guideline. In general, risk estimates and management approaches for the high-risk and minimal risk cases varied less and were more in line with guideline standards than were estimates and approaches for the moderate- and low-risk cases. Prophylactic therapy was the most common approach for the high-risk and a moderate-risk case (83 and 71 % of respondents respectively), while rescue therapy was the most common approach for a second moderate-risk case (69 %), two low-risk cases (69 and 76 %) and a minimal risk case (68 %). A serotonin receptor antagonist was the most commonly recommended prophylactic agent. On multivariate analysis, a higher estimated risk of nausea predicted for recommending prophylactic therapy, and a lower estimated risk of nausea predicted for recommending rescue therapy. Conclusions: Radiation oncology trainee risk estimates and recommended management approaches for RINV clinical case vignettes varied and matched guideline standards more often for high-risk and minimal risk cases than for moderate- and low-risk cases. Risk estimates of nausea specifically were strong predictors of management decisions

    Is more better? The impact of extended adjuvant temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a secondary analysis of EORTC and NRG Oncology/RTOG.

    No full text
    Radiation with concurrent and adjuvant (6 cycles) temozolomide (TMZ) is the established standard of postsurgical care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). This regimen has been adopted with variations, including extending TMZ beyond 6 cycles. The optimal duration of maintenance therapy remains controversial. We performed pooled analysis of individual patient data from 4 randomized trials for newly diagnosed GBM. All patients who were progression free 28 days after cycle 6 were included. The decision to continue TMZ was per local practice and standards, and at the discretion of the treating physician. Patients were grouped into those treated with 6 cycles and those who continued beyond 6 cycles. Progression-free and overall survival were compared, adjusted by age, performance status, resection extent, and MGMT methylation. A total of 2214 GBM patients were included in the 4 trials. Of these, 624 qualified for analysis 291 continued maintenance TMZ until progression or up to 12 cycles, while 333 discontinued TMZ after 6 cycles. Adjusted for prognostic factors, treatment with more than 6 cycles of TMZ was associated with a somewhat improved progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80 [0.65-0.98], P = .03), in particular for patients with methylated MGMT (n = 342, HR 0.65 [0.50-0.85], P < .01). However, overall survival was not affected by the number of TMZ cycles (HR = 0.92 [0.71-1.19], P = .52), including the MGMT methylated subgroup (HR = 0.89 [0.63-1.26], P = .51). Continuing TMZ beyond 6 cycles was not shown to increase overall survival for newly diagnosed GBM
    corecore