Commentary: Bringing together lived experience, clinical and research expertise - a commentary on the May 2022 debate (should CAMH professionals be diagnosing personality disorder in adolescence?).

BACKGROUND: There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that the Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD, or similar Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, EUPD) construct is harmful. We provide a commentary on the ideas expressed in the May Debate issue, highlighting both concerns and alternatives. METHOD: We bring together lived experience, clinical and research expertise. This commentary was written collaboratively drawing on all these sources of evidence. RESULTS: We outline evidence that the BPD construct is invalid, harmful, not necessary for effective treatment and a potential block to the development and evaluation of alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: We ask readers to consider these concerns, perspectives and ideas.

How frequently are atypical antipsychotics used to treat OCD in a British community mental health team?

Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is a condition with a prevalence of around 1-2% (3-4% in some studies) with a recognised protocol for its treatment produced by the national institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE). NICE recommends that all patients with OCD are first offered treatment with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) concentrating on exposure and response prevention (ERP) before proceeding to selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Treatment may later be augmented with clomipramine and/or an antipsychotic. This study focuses on the biological treatment received after, or in parallel to, the psychological. We aimed to collate and evaluate the levels of biological treatment currently received by OCD outpatients in the Bedford East catchment area of SEPT. In particular we wished to establish how many of the patients were receiving an atypical antipsychotic as well as maximal SSRIs. Hence we have attempted to assess the types of treatment received by patients under our care, and the difficulties associated with the treatment of this illness.

Is there a role for consolidative stereotactic body radiation therapy following first-line systemic therapy for metastatic lung cancer? A patterns-of-failure analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The pattern of failure (POF) after first-line systemic therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unknown. We evaluate the POF in this setting to estimate the potential value of consolidative stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of consecutive NSCLC patients presenting to the University of Colorado, Denver (UCD) between January 2005 and June 2008 were reviewed. Patients with measurable advanced stage NSCLC who received first-line systemic therapy and follow-up at UCD were eligible. In these patients, sites of disease at maximal response were evaluated for theoretical SBRT eligibility, based on institutional criteria. All patients were followed to extracranial progression. The POF was categorized as local (L) for lesions known prior to treatment or distant (D) for new lesions. RESULTS: Among 387 consecutive lung cancer patients (all stages), 64 met the eligibility criteria and 34 were SBRT-eligible. Among all eligible patients, first extra-cranial progression was L-only in 64%, D-only in 9% and L + D in 27%. Among SBRT-eligible patients, POF was L-only in 68%, D-only in 14% and L + D in 18%. In SBRT-eligible patients, time to first progression was 3.0 months in those with L-only failure versus 5.7 month in those with any D failure (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.22-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: The predominant POF in patients with advanced NSCLC after first-line systemic therapy is local-only. The current analysis suggests that SBRT could improve time to progression in a substantial proportion of patients. The estimated increase in time to progression using this approach would be approximately 3 months.