Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Radiotherapy (RT) is a recognised treatment for PC and high-dose conformal radiotherapy (CRT) is the recommended standard of care for localised or locally advanced tumours. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) allows better dose distributions in RT. OBJECTIVE: This report evaluates the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IMRT for the radical treatment of PC. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (1950-present), EMBASE (1980-present), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982-present), BIOSIS (1985-present), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1991-present), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1991-present), the Science Citation Index (1900-present) and the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment) (1991-present). MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations was searched to identify any studies not yet indexed on MEDLINE. Current research was identified through searching the UK Clinical Research Network, National Research Register archive, the Current Controlled Trials register and the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Register. In addition, abstracts of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, and European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology conferences were browsed. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic literature review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IMRT in PC was conducted. Comparators were three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) or radical prostatectomy. Outcomes sought were overall survival, biochemical [prostate-specific antigen (PSA)] relapse-free survival, toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Fifteen electronic bibliographic databases were searched in January 2009 and updated in May 2009, and the reference lists of relevant articles were checked. Studies only published in languages other than English were excluded. An economic model was developed to examine the cost-effectiveness of IMRT in comparison to 3DCRT. Four scenarios were modelled based on the studies which reported both PSA survival and late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. In two scenarios equal PSA survival was assumed for IMRT and 3DCRT, the other two having greater PSA survival for the IMRT cohort. As there was very limited data on clinical outcomes, the model estimates progression to clinical failure and PC death from the surrogate outcome of PSA failure. RESULTS: No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of IMRT versus 3DCRT in PC were available, but 13 non-randomised studies comparing IMRT with 3DCRT were found, of which five were available only as abstracts. One abstract reported overall survival. Biochemical relapse-free survival was not affected by treatment group, except where there was a dose difference between groups, in which case higher dose IMRT was favoured over lower dose 3DCRT. Most studies reported an advantage for IMRT in GI toxicity, attributed to increased conformality of treatment compared with 3DCRT, particularly with regard to volume of rectum treated. There was some indication that genitourinary toxicity was worse for patients treated with dose escalated IMRT, although most studies did not find a significant treatment effect. HRQoL improved for both treatment groups following radiotherapy, with any group difference resolved by 6 months after treatment. No comparative studies of IMRT versus prostatectomy were identified. No comparative studies of IMRT in PC patients with bone metastasis were identified. LIMITATIONS: The strength of the conclusions of this review are limited by the lack of RCTs, and any comparative studies for some patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: The comparative data of IMRT versus 3DCRT seem to support the theory that higher doses, up to 81 Gy, can improve biochemical survival for patients with localised PC, concurring with data on CRT. The data also suggest that toxicity can be reduced by increasing conformality of treatment, particularly with regard to GI toxicity, which can be more easily achieved with IMRT than 3DCRT. Whether differences in GI toxicity between IMRT and 3DCRT are sufficient for IMRT to be cost-effective is uncertain, depending on the difference in incidence of GI toxicity, its duration and the cost difference between IMRT and 3DCRT.

An evidence-based guideline for children presenting with acute breathing difficulty.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop an evidence-based guideline for use primarily by junior clinicians to assist with the management of children presenting to the hospital with an acute breathing difficulty. METHODS: An overview of the literature provided a framework of clinical questions for the management of a child with an acute breathing difficulty on which to base a systematic literature review. Relevant articles were appraised by the research fellow and graded according to their quality. A national panel of 50 clinicians was provided, by post, with the clinical questions, research papers, appraisals and the grades of recommendations generated. They were asked to check the grades allocated to the recommendations and the accuracy of the language used. They were also provided with all the clinical questions for which there was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion but for which a consensus recommendation was required. A Delphi method was used to formalise the consensus process. For all recommendations, panel members were asked to rate their level of agreement on a 1-9-point Likert scale. The results of the first round were fed back, and appropriate alterations to the recommendations made or additional recommendations included. The process of rating was repeated, and the final guideline was developed based on the consensus reached. RESULTS: Following two iterative rounds, the guideline was completed as a full technical document, with a series of key recommendations and an algorithm. It was based on 10 grade A (evidence from systematic review or meta-analyses), 5 grade B, 17 grade C and 31 grade D (consensus or expert opinion) recommendations. CONCLUSION: We have developed an evidence-based guideline that has subsequently been successfully implemented in the paediatric emergency departments and disseminated nationally. Results showing the effect of the guideline upon practice will be published separately.

The impact of presenting problem based guidelines for children with medical problems in an accident and emergency department.

AIMS: To evaluate the impact of presenting problem based guidelines in managing children with either diarrhoea (with or without vomiting) or seizure (with or without fever). METHODS: This prospective observational study with an intervention was based on a paediatric accident and emergency (A&E) department in Nottingham. All patients (either GP or self referred) were acute attenders aged 0-15 years, with a medical presenting problem during 4 months in the spring of 1997 and 1999. Five hundred and thirty-one diarrhoea attendances (292 before guideline implementation and 239 after) and 411 seizure attendances (212 before guideline implementation and 199 after) were recorded. Evidence based and consensus ratified guidelines developed for the study were implemented using care pathway documentation. Process (documentation, time in the department, investigations, treatment) and outcome (admission to hospital, returns to A&E) data were collected from case notes. RESULTS: The percentage of children investigated with blood tests fell significantly (haematology requests in diarrhoea presentations from 11% to 4%, biochemistry in seizure presentations from 29% to 17%). Intravenous infusions in diarrhoea presenters fell (9% to 1%), and more appropriate oral fluids were used. Management time in A&E was reduced (diarrhoea presenters: median of 55-40 minutes, seizure presenters: 80-55 minutes, but remained static for other presenting problems). Marked improvements in documentation were seen. Admission rates for diarrhoea attenders increased (27% to 34%) but remained the same for seizure (69% v 73%). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a presenting problem based guideline as a care pathway was associated with improvements in the quality of care by: improved documentation; reduced invasive investigations; more appropriate treatment, and reduced time spent in A&E.

An evidence and consensus based guideline for the management of a child after a seizure.

OBJECTIVE: An evidence and consensus based guideline for the management of the child who presents to hospital having had a seizure. It does not deal with the child who is still seizing. The guideline is intended for use by junior doctors, and was developed for this common problem (5% of all paediatric medical attenders) where variation in practice occurs. OPTIONS: Assessment, investigations (biochemistry, lumbar puncture, serum anticonvulsant levels, EEG in particular), and/or admission are examined. OUTCOMES: The guideline aims to direct junior doctors in recognising those children who are at higher risk of serious intracranial pathology including infection, and conversely to recognise those children at low risk who are safe to go home. EVIDENCE: A systematic review of the literature was performed. Articles were identified using the electronic data bases Medline (from 1966 to June 1998), Embase (from 1980 to June 1998) and Cochrane (to June 1998), and selected if they investigated the specified clinical question. Personal reviews were excluded. Selected articles were appraised, graded, and synthesised qualitatively. Statements of recommendation were made. CONSENSUS: An anonymous, postal Delphi consensus development was used. A national panel of 30 medical and nursing staff regularly caring for these children were asked to grade their agreement with the statements generated. They were sent the relevant original publications, the appraisals, and literature review. On the second and third rounds they were asked whether they wished to re-grade their agreement in the light of other panellists' responses. Consensus was defined as 83% of panellists agreeing with the statement. Recommendations in brief: For afebrile seizures all children should have their blood pressure recorded, but no other investigations are routine although a seizing or somnolent child should have blood glucose measured; all children under 1 year should be admitted. For seizures with fever, clinical signs indicating the need to treat as meningitis are given. Children should be admitted if they are under 18 months old, have had a complex seizure, or after pretreatment with antibiotics. VALIDATION: The guideline has undergone implementation and evaluation in a paediatric accident and emergency department, the results of which will be published separately. Only one alteration was made to the guideline as a result of this validation process, which is included here.