Radiotherapy intensification for atypical and malignant meningiomas:A systematic review

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of nonbenign (WHO Grades 2 and 3 [G2, G3]) meningiomas are suboptimal and radiotherapy (RT) dose intensification strategies have been investigated. The purpose of this review is to report on clinical practice and outcomes with particular attention to RT doses and techniques.METHODS: The PICO criteria (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) were used to frame the research question, directed at outlining the clinical outcomes in patients with G2-3 meningiomas treated with RT. The same search strategy was run in Embase and MEDLINE and, after deduplication, returned 1 807 records. These were manually screened for relevance and 25 were included.RESULTS: Tumor outcomes and toxicities are not uniformly reported in the selected studies since different endpoints and time points have been used by different authors. Many risk factors for worse outcomes are described, the most common being suboptimal RT. This includes no or delayed RT, low doses, and older techniques. A positive association between RT dose and progression-free survival (PFS) has been highlighted by analyzing the studies in this review (10/25) that report the same endpoint (5y-PFS).CONCLUSIONS: This literature review has shown that standard practice RT leads to suboptimal tumor control rates in G2-3 meningiomas, with a significant proportion of disease recurring after a relatively short follow-up. Randomized controlled trials are needed in this setting to define the optimal RT approach. Given the increasing data to suggest a benefit of higher RT doses for high-risk meningiomas, novel RT technologies with highly conformal dose distributions are preferential to achieve optimal target coverage and organs at risk sparing.</p

Laboratory sample turnaround times: do they cause delays in the ED?

Objectives Blood tests are requested for approximately 50% of patients attending the emergency department (ED). The time taken to obtain the results is perceived as a common reason for delay. The objective of this study was therefore to investigate the turnaround time (TAT) for blood results and whether this affects patient length of stay (LOS) and to identify potential areas for improvement. Methods A time-in-motion study was performed at the ED of the John Radcliffe Hospital (JRH), Oxford, UK. The duration of each of the stages leading up to receipt of 101 biochemistry and haematology results was recorded, along with the corresponding patient's LOS. Results The findings reveal that the mean time for haematology results to become available was 1 hour 6 minutes (95% CI: 29 minutes to 2 hours 13 minutes), while biochemistry samples took 1 hour 42 minutes (95% CI: 1 hour 1 minute to 4 hours 21 minutes), with some positive correlation noted with the patient LOS, but no significant variation between different days or shifts. Conclusions With the fastest 10% of samples being reported within 35 minutes (haematology) and 1 hour 5 minutes (biochemistry) of request, our study showed that delays can be attributable to laboratory TAT. Given the limited ability to further improve laboratory processes, the solutions to improving TAT need to come from a collaborative and integrated approach that includes strategies before samples reach the laboratory and downstream review of results