Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Radiotherapy (2)
- Benefit (1)
- Benign disorder (1)
- Cancer (1)
- Clinical studies (1)
- Complementary medicine (1)
- Costs (1)
- Economic evaluation (1)
- Effectivity (1)
- Evidence-based medicine (1)
Institute
- Medizin (4)
Background: In a previous analysis (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:828-835,2010), we assessed whether an adjuvant supplementation with selenium (Se) improves Se status and reduces the radiation-induced side-effects of patients treated by adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) for cervical and uterine cancer. Now, a potential relation between the planning target volume (PTV) of the RT and the Se effect concerning radiation induced diarrhoea was evaluated in detail.
Methods: Whole blood Se concentrations had been measured in patients with cervical (n=11) and uterine cancer (n=70) after surgical treatment, during, and at the end of RT. Patients with initial Se concentrations of less than 84 μg/l were categorized as Se-deficient and randomized before RT to receive Se (as sodium selenite) per os on the days of RT, or to receive no supplement during RT. Diarrhoea was graded according to the Common Toxicity Criteria system (CTC, Version 2a). The evaluation of the PTV of the RT was ascertained with the help of a specialised computer-assisted treatment planning software used for radiation planning procedure.
Results: A total of 81 patients had been randomized for the initial supplementation study, 39 of which received Se [selenium group, SeG] and 42 serving as controls [control group, CG]. Mean Se levels did not differ between SeG and CG upon study initiation, but were significantly higher in the SeG compared to the CG at the end of RT. The actuarial incidence of at least CTC 2 radiation induced diarrhoea in the SeG was 20.5% compared to 44.5% in the CG (p=0.04). The median PTV in both groups was 1302 ml (916–4608). With a PTV of <= 1302 ml (n=41) the actuarial incidence of at least CTC 2 diarrhoea in the SeG was 22.3% (4 of 18 patients) compared to 34.8% (8 of 23 patients) in the CG (p=0.50). In patients with a PTV of > 1302 ml (n=40) the actuarial incidence of at least CTC 2 diarrhoea in the SeG was 19.1% (4 of 21 patients) versus 52.6% (10 of 19 patients) in the CG (p=0.046).
Conclusions: Se supplementation during RT was effective to improve blood Se status in Se-deficient cervical and uterine cancer patients, and reduces episodes and severity of RT-induced diarrhoea. This effect was most pronounced and significant in patients with large PTV (> 1302 ml).
Considering the review by Puspitasari and colleagues, an additional discussion of the endpoints of the Se supplementation studies described would be helpful. In our view, selenium can safely be given to selenium-deficient cancer patients prior to and during radiotherapy. Therefore, in order to help the radiation oncologist in decision making, we strongly advocate to determine the selenium status prior to and during a potential adjuvant selenium supplementation, e.g. when trying to ease the side-effects of radiation treatment or in the aftercare situation when the selenium status may become insufficient.
Introduction: Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis (LCH) represents a rare benign disorder, previously designated as "Histiocytosis X", "Type II Histiocytosis" or "Langerhans Cell Granulomatosis". Clinical presentation includes osteolysis, ulcerations of skin and soft tissues but also involvement of the CNS is described.Because treatment concepts are not well defined the German Cooperative Group on Radiotherapy for Benign Diseases performed a retrospective analysis.
Methods and material: Eight closely cooperating centres collected patients' data of the past 45 years. As study endpoints disease free survival, recurrent disease, death and therapy related side effects were defined.
Results: A total of 80 patients with histologically proven LCH were irradiated within the past 45 years. According to the LCH classification of Greenberger et al. 37 patients had stage Ia, 21 patients stage Ib, 13 patients stage II and 9 patients stage IIIb and the median age was 29 years. The median Follow up was 54 months (range 9-134 months). A total of 39 patients had a surgical intervention and 23 patients a chemotherapy regimen.Radiation treatment was carried out with a median total dose of 15 Gy (range 3-50.4 Gy). The median single fraction was 2 Gy (range 1.8-3 Gy).Overall, 77% patients achieved a complete remission and 12.5% achieved a partial remission. The long-term control rate reached 80%. Within an actuarial overall 5-year survival of 90% no radiogenic side and late effects ≥EORTC/RTOG II° were observed.
Conclusion: In the present study a large collective of irradiated patients was analysed. Radiotherapy (RT) is a very effective and safe treatment option and even low RT doses show sufficient local control.
Objective: To analyze the financial burden of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in cancer treatment. Materials and Methods: Based on a systematic search of the literature (Medline and the Cochrane Library, combining the MeSH terms ‘complementary therapies', ‘neoplasms', ‘costs', ‘cost analysis', and ‘cost-benefit analysis'), an expert panel discussed different types of analyses and their significance for CAM in oncology. Results: Of 755 publications, 43 met our criteria. The types of economic analyses and their parameters discussed for CAM in oncology were cost, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Only a few articles included arguments in favor of or against these different methods, and only a few arguments were specific for CAM because most CAM methods address a broad range of treatment aim parameters to assess effectiveness and are hard to define. Additionally, the choice of comparative treatments is difficult. To evaluate utility, healthy subjects may not be adequate as patients with a life-threatening disease and may be judged differently, especially with respect to a holistic treatment approach. We did not find any arguments in the literature that were directed at the economic analysis of CAM in oncology. Therefore, a comprehensive approach assessment based on criteria from evidence-based medicine evaluating direct and indirect costs is recommended. Conclusion: The usual approaches to conventional medicine to assess costs, benefits, and effectiveness seem adequate in the field of CAM in oncology. Additionally, a thorough deliberation on the comparator, endpoints, and instruments is mandatory for designing studies.