5728 research outputs found
Sort by
Improving tumour target coverage in spine stereotactic radiotherapy
No full textSpine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has high rates of local control. Local
control failure rates are higher in cases with epidural disease and radioresistant
histologies. A limiting factor is the proximity of the spinal cord and the competing risk
of radiation myelitis. The overlap of the target and spinal cord planning margins is
often a deciding factor in target coverage and epidural dose. The aim of this thesis
was to develop solutions to improve target coverage in spine SBRT.
Chapter 2-4 were designed as a step-wise approach to developing spine SBRT on the
MR-linac platform for the purposes of utilising adaptive radiotherapy to improve target
coverage. Chapter 2 developed an imaging protocol with observer analysis of image
structure clarity relevant to spine SBRT. Chapter 3 explored the capabilities of the
platform and software to generate spine SBRT radiotherapy plans of equal quality and
matching clinical goals compared to CyberKnife (Accuray, Sunnyvale), the current
radiotherapy platform used at RMH. Chapter 4 simulated an online adaptive MR-linac
workflow to show that standard spine SBRT workflows exceed the reported dose to
the spinal cord by up to 27% in up to 80% of cases. Adaptive MR-linac workflows
achieved small gains in PTV coverage we seen in a 3/5 of cases.
Chapter 5 and 6 looked at positioning patients for CyberKnife based treatments in the
prone setup to improve target coverage in posteriorly based vertebral tumours. 15
cases were retrospectively replanned in Chapter 5 to identify patient anatomical
factors to guide a prospective study in chapter 6. The incomplete study was unable to
show a benefit from prone treatment to improve PTV coverage to allow
recommendations for clinical adoption.
Chapter 7 utilised data from prior chapters to calculate spine planning risk volume
(PRV) margins around the spinal cord. Reduced margins are expected to reduce the
overlap of target and spinal cord planning volumes and improve coverage. A 1.75mm
MR-linac spine PRV was recommended which is a reduction on current RMH margins
and importantly was a markedly smaller margin than other standard radiotherapy
platforms. A smaller CyberKnife supine PRV margin was achieved but in the prone
position a smaller margin could not be recommended
EFOMP policy statement NO. 19: Dosimetry in nuclear medicine therapy - Molecular radiotherapy.
No full textThe European Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom (BSS Directive) includes optimisation of treatment with radiotherapeutic procedures based on patient dosimetry and verification of the absorbed doses delivered. The present policy statement summarises aspects of three directives relating to the therapeutic use of radiopharmaceuticals and medical devices, and outlines the steps needed for implementation of patient dosimetry for radioactive drugs. To support the transition from administrations of fixed activities to personalised treatments based on patient-specific dosimetry, EFOMP presents a number of recommendations including: increased networking between centres and disciplines to support data collection and development of codes-of-practice; resourcing to support an infrastructure that permits routine patient dosimetry; research funding to support investigation into individualised treatments; inter-disciplinary training and education programmes; and support for investigator led clinical trials. Close collaborations between the medical physicist and responsible practitioner are encouraged to develop a similar pathway as is routine for external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. EFOMP's policy is to promote the roles and responsibilities of medical physics throughout Europe in the development of molecular radiotherapy to ensure patient benefit. As the BSS directive is adopted throughout Europe, unprecedented opportunities arise to develop informed treatments that will mitigate the risks of under- or over-treatments
Phase Ia/b Study of Giredestrant ± Palbociclib and ± Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Agonists in Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative, Locally Advanced/Metastatic Breast Cancer.
No full textPURPOSE: Giredestrant is an investigational next-generation, oral, selective estrogen receptor antagonist and degrader for the treatment of estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. We present the primary analysis results of the phase Ia/b GO39932 study (NCT03332797). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with ER+, HER2-negative locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer previously treated with endocrine therapy received single-agent giredestrant (10, 30, 90, or 250 mg), or giredestrant (100 mg) ± palbociclib 125 mg ± luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist. Detailed cardiovascular assessment was conducted with giredestrant 100 mg. Endpoints included safety (primary), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy. RESULTS: As of January 28, 2021, with 175 patients enrolled, no dose-limiting toxicity was observed, and the MTD was not reached. Adverse events (AE) related to giredestrant occurred in 64.9% and 59.4% of patients in the single-agent ± LHRH agonist and giredestrant + palbociclib ± LHRH agonist cohorts, respectively (giredestrant-only-related grade 3/4 AEs were reported in 4.5% of patients across the single-agent cohorts and 3.1% of those with giredestrant + palbociclib). Dose-dependent asymptomatic bradycardia was observed, but no clinically significant changes in cardiac-related outcomes: heart rate, blood pressure, or exercise duration. Clinical benefit was observed in all cohorts (48.6% of patients in the single-agent cohort and 81.3% in the giredestrant + palbociclib ± LHRH agonist cohort), with no clear dose relationship, including in patients with ESR1-mutated tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Giredestrant was well tolerated and clinically active in patients who progressed on prior endocrine therapy. Results warrant further evaluation of giredestrant in randomized trials in early- and late-stage ER+ breast cancer
The comprehensive English National Lynch Syndrome Registry: development and description of a new genomics data resource.
No full textBACKGROUND: Lynch Syndrome (LS) is a cancer predisposition syndrome caused by constitutional pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes. To date, fragmentation of clinical and genomic data has restricted understanding of national LS ascertainment and outcomes, and precluded evaluation of NICE guidance on testing and management. To address this, via collaboration between researchers, the National Disease Registration Service (NDRS), NHS Genomic Medicine Service Alliances (GMSAs), and NHS Regional Clinical Genetics Services, a comprehensive registry of LS carriers in England has been established. METHODS: For comprehensive ascertainment of retrospectively identified MMR pathogenic variant (PV) carriers (diagnosed prior to January 1, 2023), information was retrieved from all clinical genetics services across England, then restructured, amalgamated, and validated via a team of trained experts in NDRS. An online submission portal was established for prospective ascertainment from January 1, 2023. The resulting data, stored in a secure database in NDRS, were used to investigate the demographic and genetic characteristics of the cohort, censored at July 25, 2023. Cancer outcomes were investigated via linkage to the National Cancer Registration Dataset (NCRD). FINDINGS: A total of 11,722 retrospective and 570 prospective data submissions were received, resulting in a comprehensive English National Lynch Syndrome Registry (ENLSR) comprising 9030 unique individuals. The most frequently identified pathogenic MMR genes were MSH2 and MLH1 at 37.2% (n = 3362) and 29.1% (n = 2624), respectively. 35.9% (n = 3239) of the ENLSR cohort received their LS diagnosis before their first cancer diagnosis (presumptive predictive germline test). Of these, 6.3% (n = 204) developed colorectal cancer, at a median age of initial diagnosis of 51 (IQR 40-62), compared to 73 years (IQR 64-80) in the general population (p < 0.0001). INTERPRETATION: The ENLSR represents the first comprehensive national registry of PV carriers in England and one of the largest cohorts of MMR PV carriers worldwide. The establishment of a secure, centralised infrastructure and mechanism for routine registration of newly identified carriers ensures sustainability of the data resource. FUNDING: This work was funded by the Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK and Bowel Cancer UK. The funder of this study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report
Patient-Reported Outcomes in OlympiA: A Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Adjuvant Olaparib in gBRCA1/2 Mutations and High-Risk Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Early Breast Cancer.
No full textPURPOSE: The OlympiA randomized phase III trial compared 1 year of olaparib (OL) or placebo (PL) as adjuvant therapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2, high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer after completing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy ([N]ACT), surgery, and radiotherapy. The patient-reported outcome primary hypothesis was that OL-treated patients may experience greater fatigue during treatment. METHODS: Data were collected before random assignment, and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The primary end point was fatigue, measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale. Secondary end points, assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, Core 30 item, included nausea and vomiting (NV), diarrhea, and multiple functional domains. Scores were compared between treatment groups using mixed model for repeated measures. Two-sided P values <.05 were statistically significant for the primary end point. All secondary end points were descriptive. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and thirty-eight patients (NACT: 746, ACT: 792) contributed to the analysis. Fatigue severity was statistically significantly greater for OL versus PL, but not clinically meaningfully different by prespecified criteria (≥3 points) at 6 months (diff OL v PL: NACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]; P = .022; ACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.3 to -0.2]; P = .017) and 12 months (NACT: -1.6 [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.3]; P = .017; ACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]; P = .025). There were no significant differences in fatigue severity between treatment groups at 18 and 24 months. NV severity was worse in patients treated with OL compared with PL at 6 months (NACT: 6.0 [95% CI, 4.1 to 8.0]; ACT: 5.3 [95% CI, 3.4 to 7.2]) and 12 months (NACT: 6.4 [95% CI, 4.4 to 8.3]; ACT: 4.5 [95% CI, 2.8 to 6.1]). During treatment, there were some clinically meaningful differences between groups for other symptoms but not for function subscales or global health status. CONCLUSION: Treatment-emergent symptoms from OL were limited, generally resolving after treatment ended. OL- and PL-treated patients had similar functional scores, slowly improving during the 24 months after (N)ACT and there was no clinically meaningful persistence of fatigue severity in OL-treated patients
A unified workflow for classifying patterns of locoregional failure using radiotherapy treatment planning dose distributions.
No full textOBJECTIVES: This work describes a unified workflow for classifying patterns of locoregional recurrence (LRR) using radiotherapy planning dose distributions. This approach aims to incorporate dose parameters into LRR classifications and facilitate application across different treatment sites and dose prescriptions to standardise classification terminology. METHODS: The relapse diagnostic CT (rCT) and manually delineated relapse gross tumour volume (rGTV) were co-registered with the radiotherapy planning CT (pCT) using deformable image registration (DIR). The DIR accuracy was quantified using the target registration error (TRE) using the absolute centroid distance between cancer site-specific regions of interest (ROIs). Dosimetric structures were delineated for planning regions receiving 95% of the dose prescribed to high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk CTVs, relative to the cancer site or trial. The mapped rGTV was compared relative to each dose structure and classified into one of five categories: central and peripheral high-dose (Type A, Type B), central and peripheral elective-dose (Type C, Type D), and extraneous dose (Type E) failures. RESULTS: The unified workflow was successfully implemented on two different patient use cases, one from the IMPORT HIGH breast cancer trial, one from the VoxTox head-and-neck study, classifying LRR as Type A and Type E failures, respectively. CONCLUSION: This workflow for classifying LRR is applicable across different cancer sites, despite differences in treatment protocol, target dose, and dose delivery. This provides a basis for utilising radiotherapy dose distributions to analyse patterns of failure irrespective of trial design or cancer-site. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Standardised classifications of LRR that are correlated with the planning dose distribution could provide insight into the underlying causes of LRR burden post-radiotherapy and allow for critical evaluation of the current concepts of defined clinical tumour volumes and optimal PTV dose regions
Online Provision of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Health Information: A Search Engine Driven Systematic Web-Based Analysis.
No full textBRCA genetic testing is available for UK Jewish individuals but the provision of information online for BRCA is unknown. We aimed to evaluate online provision of BRCA information by UK organisations (UKO), UK Jewish community organisations (JCO), and genetic testing providers (GTP). Google searches for organisations offering BRCA information were performed using relevant sets of keywords. The first 100 website links were categorised into UKOs/JCOs/GTPs; additional JCOs were supplemented through community experts. Websites were reviewed using customised questionnaires for BRCA information. Information provision was assessed for five domains: accessibility, scope, depth, accuracy, and quality. These domains were combined to provide a composite score (maximum score = 5). Results were screened (n = 6856) and 45 UKOs, 16 JCOs, and 18 GTPs provided BRCA information. Accessibility was high (84%,66/79). Scope was lacking with 35% (28/79) addressing >50% items. Most (82%, 65/79) described BRCA-associated cancers: breast and/or ovarian cancer was mentioned by 78%(62/79), but only 34% (27/79) mentioned ≥1 pancreatic, prostate, melanoma. Few websites provided carrier frequencies in the general (24%,19/79) and Jewish populations (20%,16/79). Only 15% (12/79) had quality information with some/minimal shortcomings. Overall information provision was low-to-moderate: median scores UKO = 2.1 (IQR = 1), JCO = 1.6 (IQR = 0.9), and GTP = 2.3 (IQR = 1) (maximum-score = 5). There is a scarcity of high-quality BRCA information online. These findings have implications for UK Jewish BRCA programmes and those considering BRCA testing
A three-arm randomised phase II study of the MEK inhibitor selumetinib alone or in combination with paclitaxel in metastatic uveal melanoma.
No full textAIMS: The MAPK pathway is constitutively activated in uveal melanoma (UM). Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886), a MEK inhibitor, has shown limited activity as monotherapy in metastatic UM. Pre-clinical studies support synergistic cytotoxic activity for MEK inhibitors combined with taxanes, and here we sought to assess the clinical efficacy of combining selumetinib and paclitaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-seven patients with metastatic UM who had not received prior chemotherapy were randomised to selumetinib alone, or combined with paclitaxel with or without interruption in selumetinib two days before paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). After amendment, the combination arms were combined for analysis and the sample size adjusted to detect a hazard ratio (HR): 0.55, 80% power at 1-sided 5% significance level. RESULTS: The median PFS in the combination arms was 4.8 months (95% CI: 3.8 - 5.6) compared with 3.4 months (2.0 - 3.9) in the selumetinib arm (HR 0.62 [90% CI 0.41 - 0.92], 1-sided p-value = 0.022). ORR was 14% and 4% in the combination and monotherapy arms respectively. Median OS was 9 months for the combination and was not significantly different from selumetinib alone (10 months) with HR of 0.98 [90% CI 0.58 - 1.66], 1-sided p-value = 0.469. Toxicity was in keeping with the known profiles of the agents involved. CONCLUSIONS: SelPac met its primary endpoint, demonstrating an improvement in PFS for combination selumetinib and paclitaxel. No improvement in OS was observed, and the modest improvement in PFS is not practice changing
Genetics of prostate cancer: a review of latest evidence.
No full textProstate cancer (PrCa) is a largely heritable and polygenic disease. It is the most common cancer in people with prostates (PwPs) in Europe and the USA, including in PwPs of African descent. In the UK in 2020, 52% of all cancers were diagnosed at stage I or II. The National Health Service (NHS) long-term plan is to increase this to 75% by 2028, to reduce absolute incidence of late-stage disease. In the absence of a UK PrCa screening programme, we should explore how to identify those at increased risk of clinically significant PrCa.Incorporating genomics into the PrCa screening, diagnostic and treatment pathway has huge potential for transforming patient care. Genomics can increase efficiency of PrCa screening by focusing on those with genetic predisposition to cancer-which when combined with risk factors such as age and ethnicity, can be used for risk stratification in risk-based screening (RBS) programmes. The goal of RBS is to facilitate early diagnosis of clinically significant PrCa and reduce overdiagnosis/overtreatment in those unlikely to experience PrCa-related symptoms in their lifetime. Genetic testing can guide PrCa management, by identifying those at risk of lethal PrCa and enabling access to novel targeted therapies.PrCa is curable if diagnosed below stage III when most people do not experience symptoms. RBS using genetic profiling could be key here if we could show better survival outcomes (or reduction in cancer-specific mortality accounting for lead-time bias), in addition to more cost efficiency than age-based screening alone. Furthermore, PrCa outcomes in underserved communities could be optimised if genetic testing was accessible, minimising health disparities