-
Frontiers in Oncology 2022This article is based on recommendations from the 12 WALT Congress, Nice, October 3-6, 2018, and a follow-up review of the existing data and the clinical observations of...
DISCLAIMER
This article is based on recommendations from the 12 WALT Congress, Nice, October 3-6, 2018, and a follow-up review of the existing data and the clinical observations of an international multidisciplinary panel of clinicians and researchers with expertise in the area of supportive care in cancer and/or PBM clinical application and dosimetry. This article is informational in nature. As with all clinical materials, this paper should be used with a clear understanding that continued research and practice could result in new insights and recommendations. The review reflects the collective opinion and, as such, does not necessarily represent the opinion of any individual author. In no event shall the authors be liable for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the proposed protocols.
OBJECTIVE
This position paper reviews the potential prophylactic and therapeutic effects of photobiomodulation (PBM) on side effects of cancer therapy, including chemotherapy (CT), radiation therapy (RT), and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).
BACKGROUND
There is a considerable body of evidence supporting the efficacy of PBM for preventing oral mucositis (OM) in patients undergoing RT for head and neck cancer (HNC), CT, or HSCT. This could enhance patients' quality of life, adherence to the prescribed cancer therapy, and treatment outcomes while reducing the cost of cancer care.
METHODS
A literature review on PBM effectiveness and dosimetry considerations for managing certain complications of cancer therapy were conducted. A systematic review was conducted when numerous randomized controlled trials were available. Results were presented and discussed at an international consensus meeting at the World Association of photobiomoduLation Therapy (WALT) meeting in 2018 that included world expert oncologists, radiation oncologists, oral oncologists, and oral medicine professionals, physicists, engineers, and oncology researchers. The potential mechanism of action of PBM and evidence of PBM efficacy through reported outcomes for individual indications were assessed.
RESULTS
There is a large body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of PBM for preventing OM in certain cancer patient populations, as recently outlined by the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). Building on these, the WALT group outlines evidence and prescribed PBM treatment parameters for prophylactic and therapeutic use in supportive care for radiodermatitis, dysphagia, xerostomia, dysgeusia, trismus, mucosal and bone necrosis, lymphedema, hand-foot syndrome, alopecia, oral and dermatologic chronic graft-versus-host disease, voice/speech alterations, peripheral neuropathy, and late fibrosis amongst cancer survivors.
CONCLUSIONS
There is robust evidence for using PBM to prevent and treat a broad range of complications in cancer care. Specific clinical practice guidelines or evidence-based expert consensus recommendations are provided. These recommendations are aimed at improving the clinical utilization of PBM therapy in supportive cancer care and promoting research in this field. It is anticipated these guidelines will be revised periodically.
PubMed: 36110957
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.927685 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Jul 2013To update guidance for health care providers about fertility preservation for adults and children with cancer. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To update guidance for health care providers about fertility preservation for adults and children with cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature published from March 2006 through January 2013 was completed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. An Update Panel reviewed the evidence and updated the recommendation language.
RESULTS
There were 222 new publications that met inclusion criteria. A majority were observational studies, cohort studies, and case series or reports, with few randomized clinical trials. After review of the new evidence, the Update Panel concluded that no major, substantive revisions to the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations were warranted, but clarifications were added.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As part of education and informed consent before cancer therapy, health care providers (including medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, gynecologic oncologists, urologists, hematologists, pediatric oncologists, and surgeons) should address the possibility of infertility with patients treated during their reproductive years (or with parents or guardians of children) and be prepared to discuss fertility preservation options and/or to refer all potential patients to appropriate reproductive specialists. Although patients may be focused initially on their cancer diagnosis, the Update Panel encourages providers to advise patients regarding potential threats to fertility as early as possible in the treatment process so as to allow for the widest array of options for fertility preservation. The discussion should be documented. Sperm and embryo cryopreservation as well as oocyte cryopreservation are considered standard practice and are widely available. Other fertility preservation methods should be considered investigational and should be performed by providers with the necessary expertise.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Communication; Cryopreservation; Decision Making; Embryo, Mammalian; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Fertility; Health Services Accessibility; Healthcare Disparities; Humans; Infertility; Infertility, Female; Infertility, Male; Interdisciplinary Communication; Male; Neoplasms; Oocytes; Ovary; Patient Care Team; Patient Education as Topic; Referral and Consultation; United States
PubMed: 23715580
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.2678 -
Reports of Practical Oncology and... 2020To assess the educational needs, role and perceptions in palliative care issues of radiation oncologists (ROs) and trainees. (Review)
Review
AIM
To assess the educational needs, role and perceptions in palliative care issues of radiation oncologists (ROs) and trainees.
BACKGROUND
1/3 of radiotherapy patients are treated with palliative intent. Conversely, education and role that ROs have in the palliative care process are not well established, neither in terms of how they perceive their competence nor whether it is important to improve training, research and attention in palliative care issues at radiotherapy congresses.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Literature systematic review in National Library of Medicine and Cochrane databases with 11 relevant issues to be identified. One doctor made first selection of articles, a second one confirmed their eligibility.
RESULTS
722 articles reviewed, 19 selected. 100% recognize the importance of palliative care in radiotherapy, 89.4% the need of training in palliative care for ROs, 68.4% the necessity of improving the resident programs, 63.1% the importance of skilled ROs in palliative care, 63.1% the need of better communication skills and pain management (47.3%), 52.6%, the perception of inadequate training in palliative care, 36.8% the lack of research and palliative care topics in radiotherapy meetings, 21% the absence of adequate guidelines regarding palliative care approaches, 42.1% the importance of the ROs in palliative care teams and 26.3% the lack of their involvement.
CONCLUSION
Palliative care has an important role in radiotherapy but it seems ROs still need more training. It is necessary to improve training programs, increment palliative care research in radiotherapy, giving more attention to palliative care themes at radiotherapy congresses. This could lead to a better integration of radiotherapists in multidisciplinary palliative care teams in the future.
PubMed: 33093812
DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2020.09.007 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Aug 2016To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.
METHODS
American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, gastroenterology, palliative care, and advocacy experts to conduct a systematic review of the literature from April 2004 to June 2015. Outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Twenty-four randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A multiphase computed tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed. Baseline performance status and comorbidity profile should be evaluated. Goals of care, patient preferences, treatment response, psychological status, support systems, and symptom burden should guide decisions for treatments. A palliative care referral should occur at first visit. FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin; favorable comorbidity profile) or gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (NAB) -paclitaxel (adequate comorbidity profile) should be offered to patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 to 1 based on patient preference and support system available. Gemcitabine alone is recommended for patients with ECOG PS 2 or with a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens; the addition of capecitabine or erlotinib may be offered. Patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 3 and poorly controlled comorbid conditions should be offered cancer-directed therapy only on a case-by-case basis; supportive care should be emphasized. For second-line therapy, gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with FOLFIRINOX, an ECOG PS 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or nanoliposomal irinotecan should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel, ECOG PS 0 to 1, and favorable comorbidity profile, and gemcitabine or fluorouracil should be offered to patients with either an ECOG PS 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/MetPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Communication; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Pain Management; Palliative Care; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Patient Care Planning; Patient Care Team; Symptom Assessment
PubMed: 27247222
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.1412 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Jun 2022Prognostic disclosure is essential to informed decision making in oncology, yet many oncologists are unsure how to successfully facilitate this discussion. This scoping... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Prognostic disclosure is essential to informed decision making in oncology, yet many oncologists are unsure how to successfully facilitate this discussion. This scoping review determines what prognostic communication models exist, compares and contrasts these models, and explores the supporting evidence.
METHOD
A protocol was created for this study using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols extension for Scoping Reviews. Comprehensive literature searches of electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane CENTRAL were executed to identify relevant publications between 1971 and 2020.
RESULTS
In total, 1532 articles were identified, of which 78 met inclusion criteria and contained 5 communication models. Three of these have been validated in randomised controlled trials (the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, the Four Habits Model and the ADAPT acronym) and have demonstrated improved objective communication measures and patient reported outcomes. All three models emphasise the importance of exploring patients' illness understanding and treatment preferences, communicating prognosis and responding to emotion.
CONCLUSION
Communicating prognostic estimates is a core competency skill in advanced cancer care. This scoping review highlights available communication models and identifies areas in need of further assessment. Such areas include how to maintain learnt communication skills for lifelong practice, how to assess patient and caregiver understanding during and after these conversations, and how to best scale these protocols at the institutional and national levels.
Topics: Caregivers; Communication; Disclosure; Humans; Medical Oncology; Prognosis
PubMed: 35144938
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003313 -
Biomedicines Jan 2022Glioblastoma is the most frequent malignant primitive brain tumor in adults. The treatment includes surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. During follow-up, combined... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Glioblastoma is the most frequent malignant primitive brain tumor in adults. The treatment includes surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. During follow-up, combined chemoradiotherapy can induce treatment-related changes mimicking tumor progression on medical imaging, such as pseudoprogression (PsP). Differentiating PsP from true progression (TP) remains a challenge for radiologists and oncologists, who need to promptly start a second-line treatment in the case of TP. Advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques such as diffusion-weighted imaging, perfusion MRI, and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging are more efficient than conventional MRI in differentiating PsP from TP. None of these techniques are fully effective, but current advances in computer science and the advent of artificial intelligence are opening up new possibilities in the imaging field with radiomics (i.e., extraction of a large number of quantitative MRI features describing tumor density, texture, and geometry). These features are used to build predictive models for diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic response.
METHOD
Out of 7350 records for MR spectroscopy, GBM, glioma, recurrence, diffusion, perfusion, pseudoprogression, radiomics, and advanced imaging, we screened 574 papers. A total of 228 were eligible, and we analyzed 72 of them, in order to establish the role of each imaging modality and the usefulness and limitations of radiomics analysis.
PubMed: 35203493
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10020285 -
Technology in Cancer Research &... 2021With the massive use of computers, the growth and explosion of data has greatly promoted the development of artificial intelligence (AI). The rise of deep learning (DL)...
With the massive use of computers, the growth and explosion of data has greatly promoted the development of artificial intelligence (AI). The rise of deep learning (DL) algorithms, such as convolutional neural networks (CNN), has provided radiation oncologists with many promising tools that can simplify the complex radiotherapy process in the clinical work of radiation oncology, improve the accuracy and objectivity of diagnosis, and reduce the workload, thus enabling clinicians to spend more time on advanced decision-making tasks. As the development of DL gets closer to clinical practice, radiation oncologists will need to be more familiar with its principles to properly evaluate and use this powerful tool. In this paper, we explain the development and basic concepts of AI and discuss its application in radiation oncology based on different task categories of DL algorithms. This work clarifies the possibility of further development of DL in radiation oncology.
Topics: Deep Learning; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Neoplasms; Organs at Risk; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Radiation Oncology; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
PubMed: 34142614
DOI: 10.1177/15330338211016386 -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2022The purpose of this study is to collect available evidence on the feasibility and efficacy of stereotactic arrhythmia radio ablation (STAR), including both photon...
AIM
The purpose of this study is to collect available evidence on the feasibility and efficacy of stereotactic arrhythmia radio ablation (STAR), including both photon radiotherapy (XRT) and particle beam therapy (PBT), in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), and to provide cardiologists and radiation oncologists with a practical overview on this topic.
METHODS
Three hundred and thirty-five articles were identified up to November 2021 according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses criteria; preclinical and clinical studies were included without data restrictions or language limitations. Selected works were analyzed for comparing target selection, treatment plan details, and the accelerator employed, addressing workup modalities, acute and long-term side-effects, and efficacy, defined either by the presence of scar or by the absence of AF recurrence.
RESULTS
Twenty-one works published between 2010 and 2021 were included. Seventeen studies concerned XRT, three PBT, and one involved both. Nine studies (1 and 8 ; doses ranging from 15 to 40 Gy) comprised a total of 59 animals, 12 (8 , 4 ; doses ranging from 16 to 50 Gy) focused on humans, with 9 patients undergoing STAR: average follow-up duration was 5 and 6 months, respectively. Data analysis supported efficacy of the treatment in the preclinical setting, whereas in the context of clinical studies the main favorable finding consisted in the detection of electrical scar in 4/4 patients undergoing specific evaluation; the minimum dose for efficacy was 25 Gy in both humans and animals. No acute complication was recorded; severe side-effects related to the long-term were observed only for very high STAR doses in 2 animals. Significant variability was evidenced among studies in the definition of target volume and doses, and in the management of respiratory and cardiac target motion.
CONCLUSION
STAR is an innovative non-invasive procedure already applied for experimental treatment of ventricular arrhythmias. Particular attention must be paid to safety, rather than efficacy of STAR, given the benign nature of AF. Uncertainties persist, mainly regarding the definition of the treatment plan and the role of the target motion. In this setting, more information about the toxicity profile of this new approach is compulsory before applying STAR to AF in clinical practice.
PubMed: 35592393
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.849201 -
Biomedical Engineering Online Nov 2023The contouring of organs at risk (OARs) in head and neck cancer radiation treatment planning is a crucial, yet repetitive and time-consuming process. Recent studies have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The contouring of organs at risk (OARs) in head and neck cancer radiation treatment planning is a crucial, yet repetitive and time-consuming process. Recent studies have applied deep learning (DL) algorithms to automatically contour head and neck OARs. This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize and analyze the performance of DL algorithms in contouring head and neck OARs. The objective is to assess the advantages and limitations of DL algorithms in contour planning of head and neck OARs.
METHODS
This study conducted a literature search of Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases, to include studies related to DL contouring head and neck OARs, and the dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of four categories of OARs from the results of each study are selected as effect sizes for meta-analysis. Furthermore, this study conducted a subgroup analysis of OARs characterized by image modality and image type.
RESULTS
149 articles were retrieved, and 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis after excluding duplicate literature, primary screening, and re-screening. The combined effect sizes of DSC for brainstem, spinal cord, mandible, left eye, right eye, left optic nerve, right optic nerve, optic chiasm, left parotid, right parotid, left submandibular, and right submandibular are 0.87, 0.83, 0.92, 0.90, 0.90, 0.71, 0.74, 0.62, 0.85, 0.85, 0.82, and 0.82, respectively. For subgroup analysis, the combined effect sizes for segmentation of the brainstem, mandible, left optic nerve, and left parotid gland using CT and MRI images are 0.86/0.92, 0.92/0.90, 0.71/0.73, and 0.84/0.87, respectively. Pooled effect sizes using 2D and 3D images of the brainstem, mandible, left optic nerve, and left parotid gland for contouring are 0.88/0.87, 0.92/0.92, 0.75/0.71 and 0.87/0.85.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of automated contouring technology based on DL algorithms is an essential tool for contouring head and neck OARs, achieving high accuracy, reducing the workload of clinical radiation oncologists, and providing individualized, standardized, and refined treatment plans for implementing "precision radiotherapy". Improving DL performance requires the construction of high-quality data sets and enhancing algorithm optimization and innovation.
Topics: Humans; Deep Learning; Organs at Risk; Head; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Algorithms; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
PubMed: 37915046
DOI: 10.1186/s12938-023-01159-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Cancer is a common disease and radiotherapy is one well-established treatment for some solid tumours. Hyperbaric oxygenation therapy (HBOT) may improve the ability of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer is a common disease and radiotherapy is one well-established treatment for some solid tumours. Hyperbaric oxygenation therapy (HBOT) may improve the ability of radiotherapy to kill hypoxic cancer cells, so the administration of radiotherapy while breathing hyperbaric oxygen may result in a reduction in mortality and recurrence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of administering radiotherapy for the treatment of malignant tumours while breathing HBO.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2017 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library Issue 8, 2017, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Database of Randomised Trials in Hyperbaric Medicine using the same strategies used in 2011 and 2015, and examined the reference lists of included articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing the outcome of malignant tumours following radiation therapy while breathing HBO versus air or an alternative sensitising agent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently evaluated the quality of and extracted data from the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 trials in this review (2286 participants: 1103 allocated to HBOT and 1153 to control).For head and neck cancer, there was an overall reduction in the risk of dying at both one year and five years after therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.98, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 11 and RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98, high-quality evidence), and some evidence of improved local tumour control immediately following irradiation (RR with HBOT 0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.85, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision). There was a lower incidence of local recurrence of tumour when using HBOT at both one and five years (RR at one year 0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78, high-quality evidence; RR at five years 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency between trials). There was also some evidence with regard to the chance of metastasis at five years (RR with HBOT 0.45 95% CI 0.09 to 2.30, single trial moderate quality evidence imprecision). No trials reported a quality of life assessment. Any benefits come at the cost of an increased risk of severe local radiation reactions with HBOT (severe radiation reaction RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.23, high-quality evidence). However, the available evidence failed to clearly demonstrate an increased risk of seizures from acute oxygen toxicity (RR 4.3, 95% CI 0.47 to 39.6, moderate-quality evidence).For carcinoma of the uterine cervix, there was no clear benefit in terms of mortality at either one year or five years (RR with HBOT at one year 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.11, high-quality evidence; RR at five years 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency between trials). Similarly, there was no clear evidence of a benefit of HBOT in the reported rate of local recurrence (RR with HBOT at one year 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06, high-quality evidence; RR at five years 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.13, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency between trials). We also found no clear evidence for any effect of HBOT on the rate of development of metastases at both two years and five years (two years RR with HBOT 1.05, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.31, high quality evidence; five years RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.26, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency). There were, however, increased adverse effects with HBOT. The risk of a severe radiation injury at the time of treatment with HBOT was 2.05, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.46, high-quality evidence. No trials reported any failure of local tumour control, quality of life assessments, or the risk of seizures during treatment.With regard to the treatment of urinary bladder cancer, there was no clear evidence of a benefit in terms of mortality from HBOT at one year (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.27, high-quality evidence), nor any benefit in the risk of developing metastases at two years (RR 2.0, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.91, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision). No trial reported on failure of local control, local recurrence, quality of life, or adverse effects.When all cancer types were combined, there was evidence for an increased risk of severe radiation tissue injury during the course of radiotherapy with HBOT (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.33, high-quality evidence) and of oxygen toxic seizures during treatment (RR with HBOT 6.76, 96% CI 1.16 to 39.31, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found evidence that HBOT improves local tumour control, mortality, and local tumour recurrence for cancers of the head and neck. These benefits may only occur with unusual fractionation schemes. Hyperbaric oxygenation therapy is associated with severe tissue radiation injury. Given the methodological and reporting inadequacies of the included studies, our results demand a cautious interpretation. More research is needed for head and neck cancer, but is probably not justified for uterine cervical or bladder cancer. There is little evidence available concerning malignancies at other anatomical sites.
Topics: Bronchial Neoplasms; Combined Modality Therapy; Esophageal Neoplasms; Female; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Male; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasms; Radiation Tolerance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Neoplasms; Time Factors; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 29637538
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005007.pub4