Continuous Hyperfractionated Accelerated Radiotherapy (CHART) for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): 7 Years' Experience From Nine UK Centres.

AIM: Continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) remains an option to treat non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; NICE, 2011). We have previously published treatment outcomes from 1998-2003 across five UK centres. Here we update the UK CHART experience, reporting outcomes and toxicities for patients treated between 2003 and 2009. MATERIALS AND METHODS: UK CHART centres were invited to participate in a retrospective data analysis of NSCLC patients treated with CHART from 2003 to 2009. Nine (of 14) centres were able to submit their data into a standard database. The Kaplan-Meier method estimated survival and the Log-rank test analysed the significance. RESULTS: In total, 849 patients had CHART treatment, with a median age of 71 years (range 31-91), 534 (63%) were men, 55% had undergone positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) and 26% had prior chemotherapy; 839 (99%) patients received all the prescribed treatment. The median overall survival was 22 months with 2 and 3 year survival of 47% and 32%, respectively. Statistically significant differences in survival were noted for stage IA versus IB (33.2 months versus 25 months; P = 0.032) and IIIA versus IIIB (20 months versus 16 months; P = 0.018). Response at 3 months and outcomes were significantly linked; complete response showing survival of 34 months against 19 months, 15 months and 8 months for partial response, stable and progressive disease, respectively (P < 0.001). Age, gender, performance status, prior chemotherapy and PET-CT did not affect the survival outcomes. Treatment was well tolerated with <5% reporting ≥grade 3 toxicity. CONCLUSION: In routine practice, CHART results for NSCLC remain encouraging and we have been able to show an improvement in survival compared with the original trial cohort. We have confirmed that CHART remains deliverable with low toxicity rates and we are taking a dose-escalated CHART regimen forward in a randomised phase II study of sequential chemoradiotherapy against other accelerated dose-escalated schedules.

Prevention of anastrozole induced bone loss with monthly oral ibandronate: Final 5 year results from the ARIBON trial.

PURPOSE: The ARIBON trial is a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study designed to evaluate the impact of ibandronate on bone mineral density (BMD) in women taking anastrozole for adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. METHODS: 131 postmenopausal women with early breast cancer were recruited to the study. Of these, 13 had osteoporosis, 50 osteopenia and 68 normal BMD. Patients with osteoporosis at baseline were treated with monthly oral ibandronate 150 mg for 5 years; osteopenic patients were randomised to receive either ibandronate or placebo for two years and offered open label ibandronate depending upon the results of their 2-year BMD result. RESULTS: Of the 20 patients with osteopenia who were randomised to ibandronate and evaluable at the 2 year visit, 17/20 were not offered a bisphosphonate and the improvements in BMD accrued during the first 2 years were lost both at the LS (-3.21%) and TH (-5.0%). Of the 16 patients randomised to placebo 8/16 with high rates of bone loss during years 0-2 received ibandronate over the next 3 years with improvements in BMD of +5.01 and +1.19 at the LS and TH respectively. The 8 patients who were not offered a bisphosphonate experienced relatively little change in BMD throughout the 5 years of the study (LS +0.15%, TH -2.72%). BMD increased steadily in the 9/13 patients initially identified as having osteoporosis (LS +9.65%, TH +2.72%). CONCLUSIONS: Monthly oral ibandronate provides an option to clinicians considering use of a bisphosphonate to prevent bone loss during aromatase inhibitor therapy.

Current management of treatment-induced bone loss in women with breast cancer treated in the United Kingdom.

New therapeutic options in breast cancer have improved survival but consequently increase the relevance of late complications. Ovarian suppression/ablation and aromatase inhibitors (AI) in the adjuvant setting have improved outcome, but have clinically important adverse effects on bone health. However, investigation and management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) is poorly defined with no national guidance. In 2004, a questionnaire was sent to over 500 breast surgeons and oncologists who treat breast cancer within the United Kingdom. The questionnaire evaluated access to bone densitometry and specialist expertise as well as attitudes to investigation of CTIBL and anticipated changes in the use of AI for postmenopausal early breast cancer. A total of 354 completed questionnaires were received, 47 from clinicians not currently treating breast cancer. Of the 307 evaluable questionnaires, 164 (53%) were from breast surgeons, 112 (36%) from clinical oncologists and 31 (10%) from medical oncologists. Although most respondents recognised that CTIBL was the responsibility of the treating breast team, investigations for CTIBL are limited even though most had adequate access to bone densitometry; 98 (32%) had not requested a DXA scan in the last 6 months and 224 (73%) had requested fewer than five scans. In all, 235 (76%) were not routinely investigating patients on AI for bone loss. A total of 277 (90%) felt that their practice would benefit from national guidelines to manage these patients, and the majority (59%) had little or no confidence in interpreting DXA results and advising on treatment. This questionnaire has highlighted clear deficiencies in management of CTIBL in early breast cancer. The development of national guidelines for the management of these patients and educational initiatives for breast teams are urgently required.

Expanding the guidelines for electronic communication with patients: application to a specific tool.

In 1998, the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) published a white paper entitled "Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Electronic Mail with Patients," which outlined a practical framework for this interaction. Interest in the use of other Internet-based tools, such as the World Wide Web, to enhance clinical communication is increasing. In such systems, static information can be made centrally available to patients and interactive tools such as messaging systems, schedules, and individualized care regimens can be integrated within the site. Site-specific guidelines are needed to address potential problems inherent in the particular services being offered. This article presents advice on developing site-specific guidelines, with examples, based on experience gained in developing and refining guidelines for the use of PatientWeb at the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Neurology.

Information exchange in an epilepsy forum on the World Wide Web.

The Partners Healthcare Epilepsy Service hosts an epilepsy 'Webforum'. In this paper, we describe our observations regarding who uses it, what kind of information is exchanged, how much misinformation is present and how we can better serve our patients. We examined a sample of 155 posts to the forum and 342 responses to those posts. The individual making the post and the type of questions were categorized. We also determined whether any information was objectively inaccurate. The principal users were care-givers (49%) and patients (34%). Eighty percent of the primary posts were questions. Answers were given largely by patients (38%) and care-givers (34%). The most commonly asked questions were about treatment options (31%) and the natural history of the illness (28%). In 20% of the questions, the user incidentally remarked that a health-care provider had not met their information needs. Six percent of the information was objectively inaccurate. The Web can serve as an effective means for the exchange of information between individuals with a common medical condition. We found that a small amount of misinformation is exchanged and that health-care providers are sometimes perceived as unable or unwilling to supply important health-related information.