Dose distribution in the thyroid gland following radiation therapy of breast cancer-a retrospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>To relate the development of post-treatment hypothyroidism with the dose distribution within the thyroid gland in breast cancer (BC) patients treated with loco-regional radiotherapy (RT).</p> <p>Methods and materials</p> <p>In two groups of BC patients postoperatively irradiated by computer tomography (CT)-based RT, the individual dose distributions in the thyroid gland were compared with each other; Cases developed post-treatment hypothyroidism after multimodal treatment including 4-field RT technique. Matched patients in Controls remained free for hypothyroidism. Based on each patient's dose volume histogram (DVH) the volume percentages of the thyroid absorbing respectively 20, 30, 40 and 50 Gy were then estimated (V20, V30, V40 and V50) together with the individual mean thyroid dose over the whole gland (MeanTotGy). The mean and median thyroid dose for the included patients was about 30 Gy, subsequently the total volume of the thyroid gland (VolTotGy) and the absolute volumes (cm³) receiving respectively < 30 Gy and ≥ 30 Gy were calculated (Vol < 30 and Vol ≥ 30) and analyzed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>No statistically significant inter-group differences were found between V20, V30, V40 and V50Gy or the median of MeanTotGy. The median VolTotGy in Controls was 2.3 times above VolTotGy in Cases (ρ = 0.003), with large inter-individual variations in both groups. The volume of the thyroid gland receiving < 30 Gy in Controls was almost 2.5 times greater than the comparable figure in Cases.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We concluded that in patients with small thyroid glands after loco-radiotherapy of BC, the risk of post-treatment hypothyroidism depends on the volume of the thyroid gland.</p

Error Rates, Decisive Outcomes and Publication Bias with Several Inferential Methods

Correction to this article published Hopkins, W.G. & Batterham, A.M. Sports Med (2016) 46: 923. doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0530-

Comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials using clinical risk-benefit analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To demonstrate the use of risk-benefit analysis for comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials, we applied this approach to the evaluation of five anticoagulants to prevent thrombosis in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using a cost-effectiveness approach from a clinical perspective (i.e. risk benefit analysis) we compared thromboprophylaxis with warfarin, low molecular weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, fondaparinux or ximelagatran in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery, with sub-analyses according to surgery type. Proportions and variances of events defining risk (major bleeding) and benefit (thrombosis averted) were obtained through a meta-analysis and used to define beta distributions. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted and used to calculate incremental risks, benefits, and risk-benefit ratios. Finally, net clinical benefit was calculated for all replications across a range of risk-benefit acceptability thresholds, with a reference range obtained by estimating the case fatality rate - ratio of thrombosis to bleeding.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The analysis showed that compared to placebo ximelagatran was superior to other options but final results were influenced by type of surgery, since ximelagatran was superior in total knee replacement but not in total hip replacement.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Using simulation and economic techniques we demonstrate a method that allows comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials with multiple arms by determining the option with the best risk-benefit profile. It can be helpful in clinical decision making since it incorporates risk, benefit, and personal risk acceptance.</p

Piloting online self-audit of methadone treatment in Irish general practice: results, reflections and educational outcomes

Background: Work based learning underpins the training and CPD of medical practitioners. Medical audit operates on two levels; individual self-assessment and professional/practice development. In Ireland, annual practice improvement audit is an essential requirement for the successful completion of continuous professional development (CPD) as determined by the regulatory body, the Irish Medical Council. All general practice (GP) doctors providing methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) in Ireland have a contractual obligation to partake in a yearly methadone practice audit. The Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP) as national training provider is tasked to facilitate this annual audit process. The purpose of this audit is to assess the quality of care provided to patients against an agreed set of national standards, enhance learning, and promote practice improvement and reflective practice. The aim was to present an online MTP self-audit and evaluate results from a 12-month pilot among GPs providing MMT in Ireland. Method A mixed method study describing three phases (design and development, pilot/implementation and evaluation) of a new online self –audit tool was conducted. Descriptive and thematic analysis of audit and evaluation data was conducted. Results: Survey Monkey is a suitable software package for the development and hosting of an easy to use online audit for MMT providing doctors. Analysis of the audit results found that the majority of GPs scored 80% or over for the 25 identified essential criteria for MMT provision. The evaluation of the GP audit experience underscores the positive outcomes of the online self-audit in terms of improving practice systems, encouraging reflective practice, enhanced patient care and doctor commitment to continued provision of MMT in addiction clinics and in primary care. Conclusions: Results from this audit demonstrate a high level of compliance with best practise MMT guidelines by Irish GPs providing MMT. The online self-audit process was well received and encouraged reflective practice. The audit process hinged on the individual GP’s ability to review and critically analyse their professional practice, and manage change. This model of audit could be adapted and used to monitor the management of other chronic illnesses in general practice

Multidimensional individualised Physical ACTivity (Mi-PACT) - a technology-enabled intervention to promote physical activity in primary care: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

© 2015 Peacock et al. Background: Low physical activity is a major public health problem. New cost-effective approaches that stimulate meaningful long-term changes in physical activity are required, especially within primary care settings. It is becoming clear that there are various dimensions to physical activity with independent health benefits. Advances in technology mean that it is now possible to generate multidimensional physical activity 'profiles' that provide a more complete representation of physical activity and offer a variety of options that can be tailored to the individual. Mi-PACT is a randomised controlled trial designed to examine whether personalised multidimensional physical activity feedback and self-monitoring alongside trainer-supportive sessions increases physical activity and improves health outcomes in at-risk men and women. Methods/Design: We aim to recruit 216 patients from within primary care aged 40 to 70years and at medium or high risk of cardiovascular disease and/or type II diabetes mellitus. Adopting an unequal allocation ratio (intervention: control) of 2:1, participants will be randomised to one of two groups, usual care or the intervention. The control group will receive usual care from their general practitioner (GP) and standardised messages about physical activity for health. The intervention group will receive physical activity monitors and access to a web-based platform for a 3-month period to enable self-monitoring and the provision of personalised feedback regarding the multidimensional nature of physical activity. In addition, this technology-enabled feedback will be discussed with participants on 5 occasions during supportive one-to-one coaching sessions across the 3-month intervention. The primary outcome measure is physical activity, which will be directly assessed using activity monitors for a 7-day period at baseline, post intervention and at 12months. Secondary measures (at these time-points) include weight loss, fat mass, and markers of metabolic control, motivation and well-being. Discussion: Results from this study will provide insight into the effects of integrated physical activity profiling and self-monitoring combined with in-person support on physical activity and health outcomes in patients at risk of future chronic disease. Trial registration:ISRCTN18008011Trial registration date: 31 July 201

Can we avoid high levels of dose escalation for high-risk prostate cancer in the setting of androgen deprivation?

Thomas P Shakespeare,1,2 Shea W Wilcox,1 Noel J Aherne1,2 1Department of Radiation Oncology, North Coast Cancer Institute, 2Rural Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia Aim: Both dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (DE-EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improve outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. However, there is little evidence specifically evaluating DE-EBRT for patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving ADT, particularly for EBRT doses &gt;74&nbsp;Gy. We aimed to determine whether DE-EBRT &gt;74&nbsp;Gy improves outcomes for patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving long-term ADT. Patients and methods: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer were treated on an institutional protocol prescribing 3&ndash;6&nbsp;months neoadjuvant ADT and DE-EBRT, followed by 2&nbsp;years of adjuvant ADT. Between 2006 and 2012, EBRT doses were escalated from 74&nbsp;Gy to 76&nbsp;Gy and then to 78&nbsp;Gy. We interrogated our electronic medical record to identify these patients and analyzed our results by comparing dose levels. Results: In all, 479 patients were treated with a 68-month median follow-up. The 5-year biochemical disease-free survivals for the 74&nbsp;Gy, 76&nbsp;Gy, and 78&nbsp;Gy groups were 87.8%, 86.9%, and 91.6%, respectively. The metastasis-free survivals were 95.5%, 94.5%, and 93.9%, respectively, and the prostate cancer-specific survivals were 100%, 94.4%, and 98.1%, respectively. Dose escalation had no impact on any outcome in either univariate or multivariate analysis. Conclusion: There was no benefit of DE-EBRT &gt;74&nbsp;Gy in our cohort of high-risk prostate patients treated with long-term ADT. As dose escalation has higher risks of radiotherapy-induced toxicity, it may be feasible to omit dose escalation beyond 74&nbsp;Gy in this group of patients. Randomized studies evaluating dose escalation for high-risk patients receiving ADT should be considered. Keywords: radiotherapy, IMRT, dose, dose escalation, dose de-escalation, androgen deprivation therapy, prostate cance

Can we avoid dose escalation for intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the setting of short-course neoadjuvant androgen deprivation?

Thomas P Shakespeare,1,2 Shea W Wilcox,1 Noel J Aherne1,2 1Department of Radiation Oncology, North Coast Cancer Institute, 2Faculty of Medicine, Rural Clinical School, The University of New South Wales, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia Background: Both dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (DE-EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improve the outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Despite this, there are only few reports evaluating DE-EBRT for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer receiving neoadjuvant ADT, and virtually no studies investigating dose escalation &gt;74&nbsp;Gy in this setting. We aimed to determine whether DE-EBRT &gt;74&nbsp;Gy improved the outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who received neoadjuvant ADT. Findings: In our institution, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with neoadjuvant ADT and DE-EBRT, with doses sequentially increasing from 74&nbsp;Gy to 76&nbsp;Gy and then to 78&nbsp;Gy between 2006 and 2012. We identified 435 patients treated with DE-EBRT and ADT, with a median follow-up of 70&nbsp;months. For the 74&nbsp;Gy, 76&nbsp;Gy, and 78&nbsp;Gy groups, five-year biochemical disease-free survival rates were 95.0%, 97.8%, and 95.3%, respectively; metastasis-free survival rates were 99.1%, 100.0%, and 98.6%, respectively; and prostate cancer-specific survival rate was 100% for all three dose levels. There was no significant benefit for dose escalation either on univariate or multivariate analysis for any outcome. Conclusion: There was no benefit for DE-EBRT &gt;74&nbsp;Gy in our cohort of intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant ADT. Given the higher risks of toxicity associated with dose escalation, it may be feasible to omit dose escalation in this group of patients. Randomized studies evaluating dose de-escalation should be considered. Keywords: radiotherapy, IMRT, dose, dose escalation, dose de-escalation, androgen deprivation therapy, prostate cance

Long-term outcomes from dose-escalated image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy with androgen deprivation: encouraging results for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer

Shea W Wilcox,1,4 Noel J Aherne,2,4 Linus C Benjamin,1 Bosco Wu,1 Thomaz de Campos Silva,3 Craig S McLachlan,4 Michael J McKay,3,5 Andrew J Last,1 Thomas P Shakespeare1&ndash;4 1North Coast Cancer Institute, Port Macquarie, NSW, Australia; 2North Coast Cancer Institute, Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia; 3North Coast Cancer Institute, Lismore, NSW, Australia; 4The University of New South Wales, Rural Clinical School, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 5The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Purpose: Dose-escalated (DE) radiotherapy in the setting of localized prostate cancer has been shown to improve biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) in several studies. In the same group of patients, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been shown to confer a survival benefit when combined with radiotherapy doses of up to 70 Gy; however, there is currently little long-term data on patients who have received high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with ADT. We report the long-term outcomes in a large cohort of patients treated with the combination of DE image-guided IMRT (IG-IMRT) and ADT. Methods and materials: Patients with localized prostate cancer were identified from a centralized database across an integrated cancer center. All patients received DE IG-IMRT, combined with ADT, and had a minimum follow up of 12 months post-radiotherapy. All relapse and toxicity data were collected prospectively. Actuarial bDFS, metastasis-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and multivariate analyses were calculated using the SPSS v20.0 statistical package. Results: Seven hundred and eighty-two eligible patients were identified with a median follow up of 46 months. Overall, 4.3% of patients relapsed, 2.0% developed distant metastases, and 0.6% died from metastatic prostate cancer. At 5-years, bDFS was 88%, metastasis-free survival was 95%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 98%. Five-year grade 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity was 2.1% and 3.4%, respectively. No grade 3 or 4 late toxicities were reported. Pretreatment prostate specific antigen (P=0.001) and Gleason score (P=0.03) were significant in predicting biochemical failure on multivariate analysis. Conclusion: There is a high probability of tumor control with DE IG-IMRT combined with androgen deprivation, and this is a technique with a low probability of significant late toxicity. Our long term results corroborate the safety and efficacy of treating with IG-IMRT to high doses and compares favorably with published series for the treatment of prostate cancer. Keywords: dose-escalation, image-guided radiotherapy, treatment related toxicity, biochemical disease-free survival&nbsp

Androgen Receptor Status in Triple Negative Breast Cancer: Does It Correlate with Clinicopathological Characteristics?

Alex L Dubrava,1,2 Pan Su Pyae Kyaw,1,2 Joseph Newman,1,2 Jarrad Pringle,1,2 Justin Westhuyzen,3 Gina La Hera Fuentes,2 Thomas P Shakespeare,1,2 Renukadas Sakalkale,2,4 Noel J Aherne1– 3 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Mid North Coast Cancer Centre, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia; 2Coffs Harbour Rural Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Coffs Harbour Health Campus, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia; 3School of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia; 4Coffs Harbour Base Hospital Pathology, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, AustraliaCorrespondence: Noel J Aherne, Department of Radiation Oncology, Mid North Coast Cancer Centre, Coffs Harbour Hospital, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, 2450, Australia, Tel + 61 2 6656 5125, Fax +61 2 6656 5855, Email [email protected]: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a breast carcinoma subtype that neither expresses estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptors (PR) nor the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Patients with TNBC have been shown to have poorer outcomes mainly owing to the limited treatment options available. However, some studies have shown TNBC tumors expressing androgen receptors (AR), raising hopes of its prognostic role.Patients and Methods: This retrospective study investigated the expression of AR in TNBC and its relationship with known patient demographics, tumor and survival characteristics. From the records of 205 TNBC patients, 36 had available archived tissue samples eligible for AR staining. For statistical purposes, tumors were classified as either “positive” or “negative” for AR expression. The nuclear expression of AR was scored by measuring the percentage of stained tumor cells and its staining intensity.Results: AR was expressed by 50% of the tissue samples in our TNBC cohort. The relationship between AR status with age at the time of TNBC diagnosis was statistically significant, with all AR positive TNBC patients being greater than 50 years old (vs 72.2% in AR negative TNBC). Also, the relationship between AR status and type of surgery received was statistically significant. There were no statistically significant associations between AR status with other tumor characteristics including “TNM status”, tumor grade or treatments received. There was no statistically significant difference in median survival between AR negative and AR positive TNBC patients (3.5 vs 3.1 years; p = 0.581). The relationship between OS time and AR status (p = 0.581), type of surgery (p = 0.061) and treatments (p = 0.917) were not statistically significant.Conclusion: The androgen receptor may be an important prognostic marker in TNBC, with further research warranted. This research may benefit future studies investigating receptor-targeted therapies in TNBC.Keywords: triple negative, breast cancer, androgen recepto