Adjuvant Radiation Therapy Treatment Time Impacts Overall Survival in Gastric Cancer

Prolonged radiation therapy treatment time (RTT) is associated with worse survival in several tumor types. This study investigated whether delays during adjuvant radiation therapy impact overall survival (OS) in gastric cancer. The National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients with resected gastric cancer who received adjuvant radiation therapy with National Comprehensive Cancer Network--recommended doses (45 or 50.4 Gy) between 1998 and 2006. RTT was classified as standard (45 Gy: 33-36 days, 50.4 Gy: 38-41 days) or prolonged (45 Gy: >36 days, 50.4 Gy: >41 days). Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the association between the following factors and OS: RTT, interval from surgery to radiation therapy initiation, interval from surgery to radiation therapy completion, radiation therapy dose, demographic/pathologic and operative factors, and other elements of adjuvant multimodality therapy. Of 1591 patients, RTT was delayed in 732 (46%). Factors associated with prolonged RTT were non-private health insurance (OR 1.3, P=.005) and treatment at non-academic facilities (OR 1.2, P=.045). Median OS and 5-year actuarial survival were significantly worse in patients with prolonged RTT compared with standard RTT (36 vs 51 months, P=.001; 39 vs 47%, P=.005); OS worsened with each cumulative week of delay (P<.0004). On multivariable analysis, prolonged RTT was associated with inferior OS (hazard ratio 1.2, P=.002); the intervals from surgery to radiation therapy initiation or completion were not. Prolonged RTT was particularly detrimental in patients with node positivity, inadequate nodal staging (<15 nodes examined), and those undergoing a cycle of chemotherapy before chemoradiation therapy. Delays during adjuvant radiation therapy appear to negatively impact survival in gastric cancer. Efforts to minimize cumulative interruptions to <7 days should be considered

Responsibility for scientific misconduct in collaborative papers

This paper concerns the responsibility of co-authors in cases of scientific misconduct. Arguments in research integrity guidelines and in the bioethics literature concerning authorship responsibilities are discussed. It is argued that it is unreasonable to claim that for every case where a research paper is found to be fraudulent, each author is morally responsible for all aspects of that paper, or that one particular author has such a responsibility. It is further argued that it is more constructive to specify what task responsibilities come with different roles in a project and describe what kinds of situations or events call for some kind of action, and what the appropriate actions might be

Responsibility for scientific misconduct in collaborative papers

This paper concerns the responsibility of co-authors in cases of scientific misconduct. Arguments in research integrity guidelines and in the bioethics literature concerning authorship responsibilities are discussed. It is argued that it is unreasonable to claim that for every case where a research paper is found to be fraudulent, each author is morally responsible for all aspects of that paper, or that one particular author has such a responsibility. It is further argued that it is more constructive to specify what task responsibilities come with different roles in a project and describe what kinds of situations or events call for some kind of action, and what the appropriate actions might be

Risk of leptomeningeal carcinomatosis in patients with brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery

© 2017, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature. There is limited available literature examining factors that predispose patients to the development of LMC after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases. We sought to evaluate risk factors that may predispose patients to LMC after SRS treatment in this case–control study of patients with brain metastases who underwent single-fraction SRS between 2011 and 2016. Demographic and clinical information were collected retrospectively for 19 LMC cases and 30 controls out of 413 screened patients with brain metastases. Risk factors of interest were evaluated by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses and overall survival rates were evaluated by Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. About 5% of patients with brain metastases treated with SRS developed LMC. Patients with LMC (median 154 days, 95% CI 33–203 days) demonstrated a poorer overall survival than matched controls (median 417 days, 95% CI 121–512 days, p = 0.002). The most common primary tumor histologies that lead to the development of LMC were non-small cell lung cancer (36.8%), breast cancer (26.3%), and melanoma (21.1%). No association was found between the risk of LMC and the location of the brain lesion or total volume of brain metastases. Prior surgical resection of brain metastases before SRS was associated with a 6.5 times higher odds (95% CI 1.45–29.35, p = 0.01) of developing LMC post-radiosurgery compared to those with no prior resections of brain metastases. Additionally, adjuvant WBRT may help to reduce the risk of LMC and can be considered in decision-making for patients who have had brain metastasectomy