Scintigraphic evaluation of oesophageal transit during radiotherapy to the mediastinum

Background: To quantitatively evaluate radiation-induced impaired oesophageal transit with oesophageal transit scintigraphy and to assess the relationships between acute oesophagitis symptoms and dysmotility.\ud \ud Methods: Between January 1996 and November 1998, 11 patients affected by non-small-cell carcinoma of the lung not directly involving the oesophagus, requiring adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (RT) to the mediastinum were enrolled. Oesophageal transit scans with liquid and semisolid bolus were performed at three pre-defined times: before (T0) and during radiation at 10 Gy (T1) and 30 Gy (T2). Two parameters were obtained for evaluation: 1) mean transit time (MTT); and 2) ratio between peak activity and residual activity at 40 seconds (ER-40s). Acute radiation toxicity was scored according to the joint EORTC-RTOG criteria. Mean values with standard deviation were calculated for all parameters. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests and paired t-Tests for all values were performed.\ud \ud Results: An increase in the ER-40s from T0 to T1 or T2 was seen in 9 of 11 patients (82%). The mean ER-40s value for all patients increased from 0.8306 (T0) to 0.8612 (T1) and 0.8658 (T2). These differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05) in two paired t-Tests at T0 versus T2 time: overall mean ER-40s and upright ER-40s (p = 0.041 and p = 0.032, respectively). Seven patients (63%) showed a slight increase in the mean MTT value during irradiation but no statistically significant differences in MTT parameters were found between T0, T1 and T2 (p > 0.05).\ud \ud Conclusion: Using oesophageal scintigraphy we were able to detect early alterations of oesophageal transit during the third week of thoracic RT

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Methods In a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358. Results Between March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6–8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64–1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58–1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen. Conclusions No clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences