An Easy-to-Use Prognostic Model for Survival Estimation for Patients with Symptomatic Long Bone Metastases

BACKGROUND: A survival estimation for patients with symptomatic long bone metastases (LBM) is crucial to prevent overtreatment and undertreatment. This study analyzed prognostic factors for overall survival and developed a simple, easy-to-use prognostic model. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study of 1,520 patients treated for symptomatic LBM between 2000 and 2013 at the radiation therapy and/or orthopaedic departments was performed. Primary tumors were categorized into 3 clinical profiles (favorable, moderate, or unfavorable) according to an existing classification system. Associations between prognostic variables and overall survival were investigated using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox regression models. The discriminatory ability of the developed model was assessed with the Harrell C-statistic. The observed and expected survival for each survival category were compared on the basis of an external cohort. RESULTS: Median overall survival was 7.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7 to 8.1 months). On the basis of the independent prognostic factors, namely the clinical profile, Karnofsky Performance Score, and presence of visceral and/or brain metastases, 12 prognostic categories were created. The Harrell C-statistic was 0.70. A flowchart was developed to easily stratify patients. Using cutoff points for clinical decision-making, the 12 categories were narrowed down to 4 categories with clinical consequences. Median survival was 21.9 months (95% CI, 18.7 to 25.1 months), 10.5 months (95% CI, 7.9 to 13.1 months), 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.9 to 5.3 months), and 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 2.6 months) for the 4 categories. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a model to easily stratify patients with symptomatic LBM according to their expected survival. The simplicity and clarity of the model facilitate and encourage its use in the routine care of patients with LBM, to provide the most appropriate treatment for each individual patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Task Force 7: Training Guidelines for Research in Pediatric Cardiology

Aim of the study. The aim of the study was to analyze the benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with vulvar cancer and a single positive node without extra capsular spread. Materials and methods. The Study population comprised data of 75 patients with vulvar cancer and one lymph node metastasis. The patients were treated in three different university centers in Amsterdam, Groningen and Rotterdam between 1984 and 2005. Results. Out of 75 patients, 31 (41%) were treated with adjuvant radiotherapy. Both disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were comparable between the groups who did and who did not receive adjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.45-2.14, p=0.97 and HR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.42-2.47, p = 0.96). Conclusion. We could not demonstrate any beneficial effect of adjuvant radiotherapy in the group Of patients with one intra capsular metastasis. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Aberrant Insertion of the Right Subclavian Artery: an Unusual Cause of Dysphagia in an Adult

Contains fulltext : 79615.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access

Genetic evolution of uveal melanoma guides the development of an inflammatory microenvironment

Experimental cancer immunology and therap

Oncology patients were found to understand and accept the Trials within Cohorts design

Background and Objective: The Trials within Cohorts design aims to reduce recruitment difficulties and disappointment bias in pragmatic trials. On cohort enrollment, broad informed consent for randomization is asked, after which cohort participants can be randomized to interventions or serve as controls without further notification. We evaluated patients' recollection, understanding, and acceptance of broad consent in a clinical oncology setting. Methods: We surveyed 610 patients with cancer participating in ongoing TwiCs; 482 patients (79%) responded, of which 312 patients shortly after cohort enrollment, 108 patients after randomization to an intervention (12-18 months after cohort enrollment), and a random sample of 62 cohort participants who had not been selected for interventions (1-6 months after cohort enrollment). Results: Shortly after providing cohort consent, 76% of patients (238/312) adequately remembered whether they had given broad consent for randomization. Of patients randomly offered interventions, 76% (82/108) remembered giving broad consent for randomization; 41% (44/108) understood they were randomly selected, 44% (48/108) were not interested in selection procedures, and 10% (11/108) did not understand selection was random. Among patients not selected for interventions, 42% (26/62) understood selection was random; 89% felt neutral regarding the scenario of "not being selected for an intervention while your data were being used in comparison with patients receiving interventions,"10% felt reassured (6/62) and 2% scared/insecure (2/62). Conclusion: Patients adequately remember giving broad consent for randomization shortly after cohort enrollment and after being offered an intervention, but recollection is lower in those never selected for interventions. Patients are acceptant of serving as control without further notifications. (c) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)