ABSTRACT
Aims: Evaluate effectiveness and safety of multiple HyperArc courses and patterns of progression in patients affected by BMs with intracranial progression. Methods: 56 patients were treated for 702 BMs with 197 (range 2-8) HyperArc courses in case of exclusive intracranial progression. Primary end-point was the overall survival (OS), secondary end-points were intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS), toxicity, local control (LC), neurological death (ND), and whole-brain RT (WBRT)-free survival. Site of progression was evaluated against isodoses levels (0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 20, and 24 Gy.). Results: The 1-year OS was 70 %, and the median was 20.8 months (17-36). At the univariate analysis (UVA) biological equivalent dose (BED) > 51.3 Gy and non-melanoma histology significantly correlated with OS. The median time to iPFS was 4.9 months, and the 1-year iPFS was 15 %. Globally, 538 new BMs occurred after the first HA cycle in patients with extracranial disease controlled. 96.4 % of them occurred within the isodoses range 0-7 Gy as follows: 26.6 % (0 Gy), 16.5 % (1 Gy), 16.5 % (2 Gy), 20.1 % (3 Gy), 13.1 % (5 Gy), 3.4 % (7 Gy) (p = 0.00). Radionecrosis occurred in 2 metastases (0.28 %). No clinical toxicity of grade 3 or higher occurred during follow-up. One- and 2-year LC was 90 % and 79 %, respectively. At the UVA BED > 70 Gy and non-melanoma histology were significant predictors of higher LC. The 2-year WBRT-free survival was 70 %. After a median follow-up of 17.4 months, 12 patients deceased by ND. Conclusion: Intracranical relapses can be safely and effectively treated with repeated HyperArc, with the aim to postpone or avoid WBRT. Diffuse dose by volumetric RT might reduce microscopic disease also at relatively low levels, potentially acting as a virtual CTV. Neurological death is not the most common cause of death in this population, which highlights the impact of extracranial disease on overall survival.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Peripheral neuropathy is a dose-limiting adverse effect of oxaliplatin. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the prevention of oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN). METHOD: Cancer patients receiving oxaliplatin based chemotherapy were randomized into two arms. Duloxetine 60 mg capsule was given in the first 14 days of each chemotherapy cycle to one arm and placebo was similarly given to another. We compared the two arms based on the incidence of neuropathy and the results of the nerve conduction study (NCS). Grade of complained neuropathy was recorded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). RESULTS: Thirty-two patients mostly rectal cancer (90.6%) were randomized to duloxetine and placebo arms. Highest grade of neuropathy in each cycle was not significantly different between the two groups. Six weeks after treatment incidence of neuropathy of any grade was 52.9 in duloxetine arm compared to 76.9% in placebo arm (P: 0.26). Patients in the duloxetine arm had a lower percentage of chemotherapy cycles (mean) in which they reported distal paresthesia (51% vs. 84%, P = 0.01) and throat discomfort (37% vs. 69%, P = 0.01). Results of NCS were mostly comparable between the two arms except for the velocity in two of the examined nerve which was significantly higher in duloxetine group. Duloxetine was safe and well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: Although a definite conclusion might be difficult to draw but administering duloxetine for 14 days in each chemotherapy cycle could not decrease the incidence of acute OIPN based on CTCAE grading system.
Subject(s)
Peripheral Nervous System Diseases , Humans , Oxaliplatin , Duloxetine Hydrochloride/therapeutic use , Peripheral Nervous System Diseases/chemically induced , Peripheral Nervous System Diseases/prevention & control , Peripheral Nervous System Diseases/drug therapy , Double-Blind MethodABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Studies dating back to a century ago have reported using low-dose radiation therapy for the treatment of viral and bacterial pneumonia. In the modern era, since the COVID-19 pandemic began, several groups worldwide have researched the applicability of whole lung irradiation (WLI) for the treatment of COVID-19. We aimed to bring together the results of these experimental studies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis searching PubMed and Scopus databases for clinical trials incorporating WLI for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Required data were extracted from each study. Using the random-effects model, the overall pooled day 28 survival rate, survival hazard ratio, and intubation-free days within 15 days after WLI were calculated, and forest plots were produced. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified, and eventually, 5 were included for meta-analysis. The overall survival hazard ratio was calculated to be 0.85 (0.46-1.57). The pooled mean difference of intubation-free days within 15 days after WLI was 1.87, favoring the WLI group (95% confidence interval, -0.02 to 3.76). The overall day 28 survival rate of patients receiving WLI for the 9 studies with adequate follow-up data was 74% (95% confidence interval, 61-87). Except for 2 studies, the other 8 studies were assessed to have moderate to high risk of bias, and there were many differences among the designs of the studies, included patients, primary endpoints, outcome measurement methods, and reporting of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a mild improvement in intubation-free days, WLI had no significant effect on patients' overall survival. Currently, we cannot recommend routine use of WLI for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19.
