-
Acta Oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) 2003A systematic review of radiation therapy trials in several tumour types was performed by The Swedish Council of Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). The... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
A systematic review of radiation therapy trials in several tumour types was performed by The Swedish Council of Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). The procedures for evaluation of the scientific literature are described separately (Acta Oncol 2003; 42: 357-365). This synthesis of the literature on radiation therapy for urinary bladder cancer is based on data from 3 meta-analyses and 33 randomized trials. The studies include 4333 patients. The results were compared with those of a similar overview from 1996 including 15,042 patients. The conclusions reached can be summarized as these points: There is moderate evidence for an overall survival benefit with preoperative radiotherapy followed by cystectomy compared to curative radiotherapy based on early studies (1964-1986). Since that time surgical as well as radiation techniques have developed considerably. Therefore, the conclusion may not be relevant to modern treatment of invasive urinary bladder carcinoma. There is only one small study reporting on curative radiotherapy where increased dose per fraction is compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy to the same total dose. Thus, no conclusions can be drawn concerning optimal fraction dose. A meta-analysis based on two studies on hyperfractionated radiotherapy gives moderate evidence of a survival benefit at 5 and 10 years and an increased local control rate compared with conventional fractionation. The documentation of local control and overall survival rate after split-course radiation treatment compared to continuous therapy is conflicting. No firm conclusions can be drawn. Four small and early studies have compared radiation treatment using neutrons with photon treatment. The reports favour therapy with photons with respect to overall treatment results. There is moderate evidence for this conclusion. There is fairly strong evidence in early studies that radiation treatment in combination with hyperbaric oxygen does not confer a treatment benefit compared to radiation in normal atmosphere. There is no indication of a treatment benefit with the addition of either hyperthermia or misonidazole. A large number of phase II studies, suggesting an increased possibility for bladder preservation with concomitant chemoradiotherapy compared to radiotherapy alone, have been reviewed in a previous SBU report on chemotherapy. Only one small randomized study has been reported where concomitant chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin is compared to radiation alone. No conclusion on the therapeutic benefit of combined treatment can be drawn. Large randomized studies are needed. There is some evidence that preoperative radiotherapy followed by cystectomy does not confer any significant survival benefit compared to cystectomy alone. There is moderate evidence that palliative radiotherapy of invasive bladder carcinoma can rapidly induce tumour-related symptom relief. There is moderate evidence that palliative hypofractionated radiotherapy, 3 fractions during one week, gives the same relief of symptoms as 10 fractions during 2 weeks.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Brachytherapy; Carcinoma, Transitional Cell; Cystectomy; Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Prognosis; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Survival Analysis; Sweden; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
PubMed: 14596515
DOI: 10.1080/02841860310014408 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2006Brain radiotherapy is used to treat cancer patients who have brain metastases resulting from various primary malignancies. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Brain radiotherapy is used to treat cancer patients who have brain metastases resulting from various primary malignancies.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in adult patients with multiple metastases to the brain.
SEARCH STRATEGY
CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, and CINAHL were searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which adult patients with multiple metastases to the brain from any primary cancer and treated with WBRT were included. Trials of prophylactic WBRT were excluded as well as trials that dealt with surgery or WBRT, or both, for the treatment of a single brain metastasis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently abstracted information for each predetermined outcome: overall survival at six months, intracranial progression-free duration, local brain response, local brain control, quality of life, symptom control, neurological function, and the proportion of patients able to reduce the daily dexamethasone dose. Adverse effects were also collected.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight published reports (nine trials) showed no benefit of altered dose-fractionation schedules as compared to control fractionation (3000 cGy in 10 fractions) of WBRT on the probability of survival at six months. These studies also showed no difference in symptom control nor neurologic improvement among the different dose-fractionation schemes. The addition of radiosensitizers, in five RCTs, did not confer additional benefit to WBRT in either overall median survival times or brain tumor response rates. The addition of the radiosensitizer motexafin gadolinium did not improve quality of life nor time to neurologic progression overall. For the radiosensitizer misonidazole, there was no improvement in Karnofsky performance score outcomes. Three RCTs found no benefit in overall survival with the use of WBRT and a radiosurgery boost as compared to WBRT alone for selected patients with multiple brain metastases (up to four brain metastases). Overall, however, there was a statistically significant improvement in local brain control favoring the whole brain radiotherapy and radiosurgery boost arm. Only one trial of radiosurgery boost with WBRT reported an improved Karnofsky performance score outcome and improved ability to reduce dexamethasone dose. One RCT examined the use of WBRT and prednisone versus prednisone alone and produced inconclusive results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
None of the RCTs with altered dose-fractionation schemes as compared to standard delivery (3000 cGy in ten fractions) found a benefit in terms of overall survival, neurologic function, or symptom control. The use of radiosensitizers or chemotherapy in conjunction with WBRT remains experimental. A radiosurgery boost with WBRT may improve local disease control in selected patients, although survival remains unchanged. The benefit of WBRT as compared to supportive care alone has not been studied in RCTs. It may be that supportive care alone, without WBRT, may be appropriate for some patients, particularly those with advanced disease and poor performance status.
Topics: Adult; Brain Neoplasms; Combined Modality Therapy; Cranial Irradiation; Dose Fractionation, Radiation; Humans; Radiation-Sensitizing Agents; Radiosurgery; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 16856022
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003869.pub2 -
SAGE Open Medicine 2020In this study, we evaluated the use and the contribution of radiopharmaceuticals to the field of lung neoplasms imaging using positron emission tomography/computed... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
In this study, we evaluated the use and the contribution of radiopharmaceuticals to the field of lung neoplasms imaging using positron emission tomography/computed tomography.
METHODS
We conducted review of the current literature at PubMed/MEDLINE until February 2020. The search language was English.
RESULTS
The most widely used radiopharmaceuticals are the following:Experimental/pre-clinical approaches: (18)F-Misonidazole (18F-MISO) under clinical development, D(18)F-Fluoro-Methyl-Tyrosine (18F-FMT), 18F-FAMT (L-[3-18F] (18)F-Fluorothymidine (18F-FLT)), (18)F-Fluoro-Azomycin-Arabinoside (18F-FAZA), (68)Ga-Neomannosylated-Human-Serum-Albumin (68Ga-MSA) (23), (68)Ga-Tetraazacyclododecane (68Ga-DOTA) (as theranostic agent), (11)C-Methionine (11C-MET), 18F-FPDOPA, αβ integrin, Ga-RGD, Cu-DOTA-RGD, F-Alfatide, Folate Radio tracers, and immuno-positron emission tomography radiopharmaceutical agents.Clinically approved procedures/radiopharmaceuticals agents: (18)F-Fluoro-Deoxy-Glucose (18F-FDG), (18)F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) (bone metastases), and (68)Ga-Tetraazacyclododecane (68Ga-DOTA). The quantitative determination and the change in radiopharmaceutical uptake parameters such as standard uptake value, metabolic tumor volume, total lesion glycolysis, FAZA tumor to muscle ratio, standard uptake value tumor to liver ratio, standard uptake value tumor to spleen ratio, standard uptake value maximum ratio, and the degree of hypoxia have prognostic and predictive (concerning the therapeutic outcome) value. They have been associated with the assessment of overall survival and disease free survival. With the positron emission tomography/computed tomography radiopharmaceuticals, the sensitivity and the specificity of the method have increased.
CONCLUSION
In terms of lung cancer, positron emission tomography/computed tomography may have clinical application and utility (a) in personalizing treatment, (b) as a biomarker for the estimation of overall survival, disease free survival, and (c) apply a cost-effective patient approach because it reveals focuses of the disease, which are not found with the other imaging methods.
PubMed: 33062275
DOI: 10.1177/2050312120961594 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2006Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: April 2004.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment for cancer; interventions - agents prescribed to prevent oral mucositis; outcomes - prevention of mucositis, pain, amount of analgesia, dysphagia, systemic infection, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Information regarding methods, participants, interventions and outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios (RR) calculated using random-effects models.
MAIN RESULTS
Two hundred and two studies were eligible. One hundred and thirty two were excluded for various reasons, usually as there was no useable information on mucositis. Of the 71 useable studies all had data for mucositis comprising 5217 randomised patients. Interventions evaluated were: acyclovir, allopurinol mouthrinse, aloe vera, amifostine, antibiotic pastille or paste, benzydamine, beta carotene, calcium phosphate, camomile, chlorhexidine, clarithromycin, folinic acid, glutamine, GM-CSF, honey, hydrolytic enzymes, ice chips, iseganan, keratinocyte GF, misonidazole, oral care, pentoxifylline, povidone, prednisone, propantheline, prostaglandin, sucralfate, traumeel and zinc sulphate. Of the 29 interventions included in trials, 10 showed some evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis. Interventions where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis finding a significant difference when compared with a placebo or no treatment were: amifostine which provided minimal benefit in preventing moderate and severe mucositis RR = 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.95) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.97), antibiotic paste or pastille demonstrated a moderate benefit in preventing mucositis RR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.97), hydrolytic enzymes reduced moderate and severe mucositis with RRs = 0.52 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.74) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.52), and ice chips prevented mucositis at all levels RR = 0.63 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.91), 0.43 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.81), 0.27 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.68). Other interventions showing some benefit with only one study were: benzydamine, calcium phosphate, honey, oral care protocols, povidone and zinc sulphate. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient experiencing moderate or severe mucositis over a baseline incidence of 60% for amifostine is 10 (95% CI 7 to 33), antibiotic paste or pastille 13 (95% CI 8 to 56), hydrolytic enzyme 4 (95% CI 3 to 6) and ice chips 5 (95% CI 3 to 19). When the baseline incidence is 40%/90% the NNTs for amifostine are 16/7, for antibiotic paste or pastille 19/7, for hydrolytic enzyme 5/3 and for ice chips 7/3. The general reporting of RCTs was poor. However, the assessments of the quality of the randomisation improved when the authors provided additional information.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Several of the interventions were found to have some benefit at preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for well designed and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Candidiasis, Oral; Cryotherapy; Humans; Ice; Mouth Mucosa; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomatitis
PubMed: 16625538
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000978.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2007Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: June 2006: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment for cancer; interventions - agents prescribed to prevent oral mucositis; outcomes - prevention of mucositis, pain, amount of analgesia, dysphagia, systemic infection, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Information regarding methods, participants, interventions and outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios (RR) calculated using random-effects models.
MAIN RESULTS
Two hundred and seventy-seven studies were eligible. One hundred and eighty-eight were excluded for various reasons, usually as there was no useable information on mucositis. Of the 89 useable studies all had data for mucositis comprising 7523 randomised patients. Interventions evaluated were: acyclovir, allopurinol mouthrinse, aloe vera, antibiotic pastille or paste, benzydamine, beta carotene, calcium phosphate, camomile, Chinese medicine, chlorhexidine, etoposide, folinic acid, glutamine, granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), histamine gel, honey, hydrolytic enzymes, ice chips, iseganan, keratinocyte GF, misonidazole, pilocarpine, pentoxifylline, povidone, prednisone, propantheline anticholinergic, prostaglandin, sucralfate, systemic antibiotic clarithromycin, traumeel, zinc sulphate. Of the 33 interventions included in trials, 12 showed some evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis. Interventions where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis finding a significant difference when compared with a placebo or no treatment were: amifostine which provided minimal benefit in preventing mild and moderate mucositis RRs = 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.98); Chinese medicine showed a benefit at all three dichotomies of mucositis with RR values of 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.96), 0.44 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.59) and 0.16 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35) for increasing levels of mucositis severity; hydrolytic enzymes reduced moderate and severe mucositis with RRs = 0.52 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.74) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.52); and ice chips prevented mucositis at all levels RRs = 0.64 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.82), 0.38 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.62), and 0.24 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.48). Other interventions showing some benefit with only one study were: benzydamine, calcium phosphate, etoposide bolus, honey, iseganan, oral care, zinc sulphate. The general reporting of RCTs, especially concealment of randomisation, was poor. However, the assessments of the quality of the randomisation improved when the authors provided additional information.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Several of the interventions were found to have some benefit at preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for well designed and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Candidiasis, Oral; Cryotherapy; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Ice; Mouth Mucosa; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomatitis
PubMed: 17943748
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000978.pub3