MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 10 consecutive patients treated with IMRT from June-October 2011 in Penang General Hospital were collected retrospectively for analysis. For each patient, dose volume histograms were generated for both the IMRT and 3DCRT plans using a total dose of 70Gy. Comparison of the plans was accomplished by comparing the target volume coverage (5 measures) and sparing of organs at risk (17 organs) for each patient using both IMRT and 3DCRT. The means of each comparison target volume coverage measures and organs at risk measures were obtained and tested for statistical significance using the paired Student t-test.
RESULTS: All 5 measures for target volume coverage showed marked dosimetric superiority of IMRT over 3DCRT. V70 and V66.5 for PTV70 showed an absolute improvement of 39.3% and 24.1% respectively. V59.4 and V56.4 for PTV59.4 showed advantages of 18.4% and 16.4%. Moreover, the mean PTV70 dose revealed a 5.1 Gy higher dose with IMRT. Only 4 out of 17 organs at risk showed statistically significant difference in their means which were clinically meaningful between the IMRT and 3DCRT techniques. IMRT was superior in sparing the spinal cord (less 5.8Gy), V30 of right parotid (less 14.3%) and V30 of the left parotid (less 13.1%). The V55 of the left cochlea was lower with 3DCRT (less 44.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: IMRT is superior to 3DCRT due to its dosimetric advantage in target volume coverage while delivering acceptable doses to organs at risk. A total dose of 70Gy with IMRT should be considered as a standard of care for radical treatment of NPC.
METHODS: This retrospective study covered all NPC patients who underwent radical IMRT treatment at the Penang General Hospital from June 2011 to February 2012. Patients of any age and stage of disease with histologically proven diagnosis were included. Information was collected on patient demographics, clinical stage, treatment received, including any neoadjuvant and/or concurrent chemotherapy, acute toxity and completion of IMRT within the OTT.
RESULTS: A total of 26 NPC patients were treated with IMRT during the study period; 88.5% had stage III/IV disease. 45.2% received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy while 50.0% were given concurrent chemo-irradiation. All patients completed the treatment and 92.3% within the 7 weeks OTT. Xerostomia was present in all patients with 92.3% having grade 2. Severe grade III/IV acute toxicity occurred in 73.1% of patients, the commonest of which was oral mucositis (57.6%). This was followed by dysphagia which occurred in 53.8%, skin reactions in 42.3% and weight loss in 19.2%. However, haematological toxicity was mild with only one patient having leucopaenia.
CONCLUSION: IMRT treatment for NPC is feasible in our center. More importantly, it can be delivered within the 7 weeks OTT in the majority of patients. Severe grade 3/4 toxicity is very common (73.1%) and thus maximal nutritional and analgesic support is required throughout the treatment.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective study used data from 5 consecutive patients with NPC who were treated with bolus for large neck nodes using IMRT from November 2011-January 2012 in our institute. All these patients were treated radically with IMRT according to our institution's protocol. Re-planning with IMRT without bolus for these patients with exactly the same target volumes were done for comparison. Comparison of the plans was done by comparing the V70 of PTV70-N, V66.5 of PTV70-N, V65.1 of PTV70-N and the surface dose of the PTV70-N.
RESULTS: The mean size of the largest diameter of the enlarged lymph nodes for the 5 patients was 3.9 cm. The mean distance of the GTV-N to the skin surface was 0.6 cm. The mean V70 of PTV70-N for the 5 patients showed an absolute advantage of 10.8% (92.4% vs. 81.6%) for the plan with bolus while the V66.5 of PTV70-N had an advantage of 8.1% (97.0% vs. 88.9%). The mean V65.1 also had an advantage of 7.1% (97.6% vs. 90.5%). The mean surface dose for the PTV70-N was also much higher at 61.1 Gy for the plans with bolus compared to only 23.5 Gy for the plans without bolus.
CONCLUSION: Neck node bolus technique should be strongly considered in the treatment of NPC with enlarged lymph nodes treated with IMRT. It yields a superior dosimetry compared to non-bolus plans with acceptable skin toxicity.
METHODS: An online questionnaire was circulated to different countries/cities in Asia-Oceania. The primary objective was to evaluate the coverage of HPV vaccination and cervical screening programs. The secondary objectives were to study the structures of these programs. Five case scenarios were set to understand how the respondents manage the abnormal screening results.
RESULTS: Fourteen respondents from 10 countries/cities had participated. Cervical cancer ranked the first in Myanmar and Nepal. About 10%-15% did not have national vaccination or screening program. The estimated coverage rate for vaccination and screening varied from less than 1% to 70%, which the coverage ran in parallel with the incidence and mortality rates of cervical cancer. All regions approved HPV vaccines, although only four provided free or subsidized programs for nonavalent vaccine. Cervical cytology remained the most common screening tool, and 20%-30% relied heavily on visual inspection using acetic acid. The screening age groups varied in different regions. From the case scenarios, it was noted that some respondents tended to offer more frequent screening tests or colposcopy than recommended by international guidelines.
CONCLUSION: This study revealed discrepancy in the practice of cervical cancer prevention in Asia-Oceania especially access to HPV vaccines. There is an urgent need for a global collaboration to eliminate cervical cancer by public education, reforming services, and medical training.
METHODS: Based on evidence in the literature and expert interviews, 19 statements were formulated for key challenges in the treatment of men with castration-sensitive and -resistant prostate cancer in clinical practice. A modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus among experts in the panel and develop clinical practice recommendations.
RESULTS: The majority of the panel preferred a risk-based stratification and recommended abiraterone or enzalutamide as first-line therapy for symptomatic chemotherapy naïve patients. Abiraterone is preferred over enzalutamide as a first-line treatment in these patients. However, the panel did not support the use of abiraterone in high risk lymph-node positive only (N+M0) or in non-metastatic (N0M0) patients. In select patients, low dose abiraterone with food may be used to optimize clinical outcomes. Androgen receptor gene splice variant status may be a useful guide to therapy. In addition, generic versions of approved therapies may improve access to treatment to a broader patient population. The choice of treatment, as well as sequencing are guided by both patient and disease characteristics, preferences, drug access, cost, and compliance.
CONCLUSION: Expert recommendations are key to guidance for the optimal management of mPC. Appropriate choice, timing, and sequence of treatment options can help to tailor therapy to maximize outcomes in men with mPC.
METHODS: A pragmatic, multi-centre, open-labelled, randomised trial. Eligible patients with MPE and an IPC will be randomised 1:1 to either regular topical mupirocin prophylaxis or no mupirocin (standard care). For the interventional arm, topical mupirocin will be applied around the IPC exit-site after each drainage, at least twice weekly. Weekly follow-up via phone calls or in person will be conducted for up to 6 months. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients who develop an IPC-related (pleural, skin, or tract) infection between the time of catheter insertion and end of follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include analyses of infection (types and episodes), hospitalisation days, health economics, adverse events, and survival. Subject to interim analyses, the trial will recruit up to 418 participants.
DISCUSSION: Results from this trial will determine the efficacy of mupirocin prophylaxis in patients who require IPC for MPE. It will provide data on infection rates, microbiology, and potentially infection pathways associated with IPC-related infections.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Sir Charles Gairdner and Osborne Park Health Care Group Human Research Ethics Committee has approved the study (RGS0000005920). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12623000253606. Registered on 9 March 2023.
METHODS: Demographics, diagnosis, comorbidities, disease activity, treatments and PROMIS instrument data were analysed. Primary outcomes were PROMIS Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) scores. Factors affecting GPH and GMH scores in IIMs were identified using multivariable regression analysis.
RESULTS: We analysed responses from 1582 IIM, 4700 non-IIM AIRD and 545 nrAID patients and 3675 controls gathered through 23 May 2022. The median GPH scores were the lowest in IIM and non-IIM AIRD patients {13 [interquartile range (IQR) 10-15] IIMs vs 13 [11-15] non-IIM AIRDs vs 15 [13-17] nrAIDs vs 17 [15-18] controls, P
METHODS: The first and second COVAD patient self-reported e-surveys were circulated from March to December 2021, and February to June 2022 (ongoing). We collected data on demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 infection and vaccination history, reasons for hesitancy, and patient reported outcomes. Predictors of hesitancy were analysed using regression models in different groups.
RESULTS: We analysed data from 18 882 (COVAD-1) and 7666 (COVAD-2) respondents. Reassuringly, hesitancy decreased from 2021 (16.5%) to 2022 (5.1%) (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.30, P
METHODS: A validated patient self-reporting e-survey was circulated by the COVAD study group to collect data on COVID-19 infection and vaccination in 2022. BIs were defined as COVID-19 occurring ≥14 days after 2 vaccine doses. We compared BIs characteristics and severity among IIMs, other autoimmune rheumatic and non-rheumatic diseases (AIRD, nrAID), and healthy controls (HC). Multivariable Cox regression models assessed the risk factors for BI, severe BI and hospitalisations among IIMs.
RESULTS: Among 9449 included response, BIs occurred in 1447 (15.3%) respondents, median age 44 years (IQR 21), 77.4% female, and 182 BIs (12.9%) occurred among 1406 IIMs. Multivariable Cox regression among IIMs showed age as a protective factor for BIs [Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.98, 95%CI = 0.97-0.99], hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine use were risk factors (HR = 1.81, 95%CI = 1.24-2.64, and HR = 3.79, 95%CI = 1.69-8.42, respectively). Glucocorticoid use was a risk factor for severe BI (HR = 3.61, 95%CI = 1.09-11.8). Non-White ethnicity (HR = 2.61, 95%CI = 1.03-6.59) was a risk factor for hospitalisation. Compared with other groups, patients with IIMs required more supplemental oxygen therapy (IIM = 6.0% vs AIRD = 1.8%, nrAID = 2.2%, and HC = 0.9%), intensive care unit admission (IIM = 2.2% vs AIRD = 0.6%, nrAID, and HC = 0%), advanced treatment with antiviral or monoclonal antibodies (IIM = 34.1% vs AIRD = 25.8%, nrAID = 14.6%, and HC = 12.8%), and had more hospitalisation (IIM = 7.7% vs AIRD = 4.6%, nrAID = 1.1%, and HC = 1.5%).
CONCLUSION: Patients with IIMs are susceptible to severe COVID-19 BI. Age and immunosuppressive treatments were related to the risk of BIs.
METHODS: Delayed-onset (>7 days) vaccine-related adverse events (AE), disease flares (DF), and AID-related treatment modifications were analyzed upon diagnosis of AID versus healthy controls (HC) and the pregnancy/breastfeeding status at the time of at least one dose of vaccine.
RESULTS: Among the 9201 participants to the self-administered online survey, 6787 (73.8%) were women. Forty pregnant and 52 breastfeeding patients with AID were identified, of whom the majority had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine (100% and 96.2%, respectively). AE were reported significantly more frequently in pregnant than in non-pregnant patients (overall AE 45% vs 26%, p= 0.01; minor AE 40% vs 25.9%, p= 0.03; major AE 17.5% vs 4.6%, p< 0.01), but no difference was found in comparison with pregnant HC. No difference was observed between breastfeeding patients and HC with respect to AE. Post-vaccination DF were reported by 17.5% of pregnant and 20% of breastfeeding patients, and by 18.3% of age- and disease-matched non-pregnant and non-breastfeeding patients (n = 262). All pregnant/breastfeeding patients who experienced a DF were managed with glucocorticoids; 28.6% and 20% of them required initiation or change in immunosuppressants, respectively.
CONCLUSION: This study provides reassuring insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccines administered to women with AID during the gestational and post-partum periods, helping overcome hesitant attitudes, as the benefits for the mother and the fetus by passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks.