Dexamethasone for the Prevention of a Pain Flare After Palliative Radiation Therapy for Painful Bone Metastases: The Multicenter Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled 3-Armed Randomized Dutch DEXA Study.

PURPOSE: After radiation therapy for painful bone metastases, up to 44% of patients report a pain flare (PF). Our study compared 2 dose schedules of dexamethasone versus placebo to prevent PF. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial allocated patients with painful bone metastases from solid tumors randomly to receive 8 mg dexamethasone before radiation therapy followed by 3 daily doses (group A), 8 mg dexamethasone followed by 3 doses of placebo (group B), or 4 doses of placebo (group C). Patients reported worst pain scores, study medication side effects, and opioid intake before treatment and thereafter daily for 14 days and on day 28. PF was defined as at least a 2-point increase on a 0 to 10 pain scale with no decrease in opioid intake or a 25% or greater increase in opioid intake with no decrease in pain score, followed by a return to baseline or lower. The primary analysis was by intention to treat with patients who had missing data classified as having a PF. RESULTS: From January 2012 to April 2016, 295 patients were randomized. PF incidence was 38% for group A, 27% for group B, and 39% for group C (P = .07). Although patients in group B had the lowest PF incidence, a relatively high percentage did not return to baseline pain levels, indicating pain progression. The mean duration of PF was 2.1 days for group A, 4.5 days for group B, and 3.3 days for group C (P = .0567). Dexamethasone postponed PF occurrence; in group A 52% occurred on days 2 to 5 versus 73% in group B and 99% in group C (P = .02). Patients in group A reported lower mean pain scores on days 2 to 5 than those in group B or C (P < .001). Side effects were similar. CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence that dexamethasone reduced the incidence of radiation-induced PF. However, dexamethasone postponed the occurrence of PF and led to lower mean pain scores on days 2 to 5.

Cone-beam computed tomography imaging in stereotactic body radiotherapy allows for more than target localization.

Image-guidance plays a crucial role in positioning the target during stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Despite current limitations, on-line kilo-voltage cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) also has the potential to identify changes in target volume geometry and the location of important organs at risk. These capabilities could be enhanced by further technical improvements in CBCT, including image quality.

Selection bias influences reported contralateral breast cancer incidence and survival in high risk non-BRCA1/2 patients.

PURPOSE: The results of studies comparing survival in familial and sporadic breast cancer (BC) are inconsistent. A higher incidence of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) has been reported in familial BC. Ascertainment bias may influence both the reported familial CBC and survival. DESIGN: We assessed CBC incidence, distant disease free (DDFS) and overall survival (OS) in 327 BC patients who had > or =3 breast and/or ovarian cancers in the family but no BRCA1/2 gene mutation (non-BRCA1/2). They were matched to 327 sporadic controls for year and age at detection. To correct for ascertainment bias, we analyzed also separately the results (1) Of the 250 non-BRCA1/2 patients with DNA testing performed before diagnosis or within 2 years ('unselected') and (2) Of the 77 with testing > or =2 years after diagnosis (late-tested). RESULTS: Median follow-up of non-BRCA1/2 patients was 6.1 yrs. Ten years CBC incidence was 11% in non-BRCA1/2 versus 6% in sporadic patients (p = 0.002). At multivariate analysis CBC incidence was increased in late-tested non-BRCA1/2 (HR 4.6; p = 0.001) not in 'unselected' (HR 1.8; p = 0.1). Increased CBC occurred in non-BRCA1/2 patients mainly before genetic testing, suggesting ascertainment bias. Tumors were < or =T1 in 62% of non-BRCA1/2 versus 50% of sporadic patients (p = 0.003), node-negative in 55% versus 52% respectively (p = 0.5). After correction for stage and therapy, OS did not differ between 'unselected' non-BRCA1/2 and sporadic patients (HR 0.8; p = 0.3), but was improved in late-tested non-BRCA1/2. CONCLUSION: Overall survival and contralateral breast cancer incidence were similar in 'unselected' non-BRCA1/2- and sporadic patients. Reports of higher CBC incidence and better survival in non-BRCA1/2 patients may substantially be caused by DNA testing selection-bias.