Search

Background: Worldwide, almost one million new cases of stomach cancer were diagnosed in 2012, making it the fifth most common cancer, and the third leading cause of cancer deaths. The current tumor node metastasis (TNM) staging system represents a consensus between the East and the West, and will serve as a strong foundation upon which to build future evidence. In this review article, we first discuss the definition and optimal surgery for locally advanced gastric cancer, followed by the general principles when considering a pre vs. postoperative radiotherapy (RT) strategy. We then provide a synthesis of the existing randomized trial evidence in an attempt clarify the role of pre and postoperative RT in the management of locally advanced gastric cancer., Methods: A Medline search 1966-Jun 2014 was undertaken. Randomized trials including patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (using established definitions), comparing RT [with or without chemotherapy (CT)], with surgery alone or other treatment modalities were included. Systematic reviews and evidence based practice guidelines that include this body of primary studies were preferentially discussed. Medline, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrial.gov, Guidelines Clearinghouse were searched., Results: Sixteen randomized trials, three systematic reviews and one practice guideline were included as the evidence base. In this group of studies, two reports compared postoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with surgery alone. Driven predominantly by INT0116, they established the role of postoperative CRT to provide a survival benefit in a patient group that underwent surgery with predominantly D0-1 dissections. Preoperative RT (four studies) showed promise for survival benefit but the risks of bias in these trials were high. Postoperative CRT compared with CT alone (eight trials) showed no survival benefit with the addition of radiation although some evidence of activity can be observed with improved local regional control., Conclusions and Future Directions: Technical expertise to enable the delivery of high quality RT to complex target volumes as is required in gastric cancer, and surgical standards to ensure the delivery of high quality surgery, have matured in recent years. Six trials with large sample sizes are currently ongoing to better define the role of preoperative CRT (two studies) and postoperative CRT (four studies), when used in conjunction with high quality surgery and RT, and contemporary CT regimens. The moderate likelihood of locoregional recurrences and the favorable therapeutic ratio with using RT preoperatively in other settings, provide optimism that preoperative CRT would have a pivotal role to play in locally advanced gastric cancer. Active accrual into ongoing trials is strongly encouraged.

Purpose: To explore patients' and caregivers' views on follow-up care after palliative radiotherapy., Methodology: A qualitative study design was used. Patients receiving palliative radiotherapy or their caregivers were eligible to participate following informed consent. Participants attended a single interview. The interviews were guided by a set of open-ended questions designed to explore the participants' understanding of the purpose and preference for follow-up care after palliative radiotherapy. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes were identified in the transcripts and described with consideration of the individual participant's demographics and cancer experiences., Results: Nine participants (five patients and four caregivers) of eleven approached consented, and were interviewed. The median age of the participants was 60 years (range, 47-80 years). All participants had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤1. Median time from the patient's initial cancer diagnosis to the study interview was 4.5 years (range, 3-35 years). Follow-up appointments were expected to provide an evaluation of treatment outcomes, complications, and current situations. Scheduled appointments were appreciated by some as they provided a dedicated opportunity to ask questions of their health care team. The receiving radiation oncology team's contact information was felt to be helpful because the patients could ask treatment-related questions. Many participants were comfortable with and expected the medical oncologist or referral physician to provide follow-up care for patients who received palliative radiotherapy., Conclusions: Palliative patients have diverse physical and emotional care needs. Within this study sample, participants valued follow-up because it provided an evaluation of their clinical status. They also viewed their established primary oncologist as the most appropriate person to provide follow-up care, supplemented by an efficient way of contacting their radiation oncology team as needed., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Reduction of respiratory motion is desirable to reduce the volume of normal tissues irradiated, to improve concordance of planned and delivered doses, and to improve image guided radiation therapy (IGRT). We hypothesized that pretreatment lorazepam would lead to a measurable reduction of liver motion., Methods and Materials: Thirty-three patients receiving upper abdominal IGRT were recruited to a double-blinded randomized controlled crossover trial. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 study arms: arm 1 received lorazepam 2 mg by mouth on day 1, followed by placebo 4 to 8 days later; arm 2 received placebo on day 1, followed by lorazepam 4 to 8 days later. After tablet ingestion and daily radiation therapy, amplitude of liver motion was measured on both study days. The primary outcomes were reduction in craniocaudal (CC) liver motion using 4-dimensional kV cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and the proportion of patients with liver motion ≤5 mm. Secondary endpoints included motion measured with cine magnetic resonance imaging and kV fluoroscopy., Results: Mean relative and absolute reduction in CC amplitude with lorazepam was 21% and 2.5 mm respectively (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-3.9, P=.001), as assessed with CBCT. Reduction in CC amplitude to ≤5 mm residual liver motion was seen in 13% (95% CI 1%-25%) of patients receiving lorazepam (vs 10% receiving placebo, P=NS); 65% (95% CI 48%-81%) had reduction in residual CC liver motion to ≤10 mm (vs 52% with placebo, P=NS). Patients with large respiratory movement and patients who took lorazepam ≥60 minutes before imaging had greater reductions in liver CC motion. Mean reductions in liver CC amplitude on magnetic resonance imaging and fluoroscopy were nonsignificant., Conclusions: Lorazepam reduces liver motion in the CC direction; however, average magnitude of reduction is small, and most patients have residual motion >5 mm., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To develop a cone-beam computed tomography (CT)-enabled one-step simulation-to-treatment process for the treatment of bone metastases., Methods and Materials: A three-phase prospective study was conducted. Patients requiring palliative radiotherapy to the spine, mediastinum, or abdomen/pelvis suitable for treatment with simple beam geometry (≤2 beams) were accrued. Phase A established the accuracy of cone-beam CT images for the purpose of gross tumor target volume (GTV) definition. Phase B evaluated the feasibility of implementing the cone-beam CT-enabled planning process at the treatment unit. Phase C evaluated the online cone-beam CT-enabled process for the planning and treatment of patients requiring radiotherapy for bone metastases., Results: Eighty-four patients participated in this study. Phase A (n = 9) established the adequacy of cone-beam CT images for target definition. Phase B (n = 45) established the quality of treatment plans to be adequate for clinical implementation for bone metastases. When the process was applied clinically in bone metastases (Phase C), the degree of overlap between planning computed tomography (PCT) and cone-beam CT for GTV and between PCT and cone-beam CT for treatment field was 82% ± 11% and 97% ± 4%, respectively. The oncologist's decision to accept the plan under a time-pressured environment remained of high quality, with the cone-beam CT-generated treatment plan delivering at least 90% of the prescribed dose to 100% ± 0% of the cone-beam CT planning target volume (PTV). With the assumption that the PCT PTV is the gold-standard target, the cone-beam CT-generated treatment plan delivered at least 90% and at least 95% of dose to 98% ± 2% and 97% ± 5% of the PCT PTV, respectively. The mean time for the online planning and treatment process was 32.7 ± 4.0 minutes. Patient satisfaction was high, with a trend for superior satisfaction with the cone-beam CT-enabled process., Conclusions: The cone-beam CT-enabled palliative treatment process is feasible and is ready for clinical implementation for the treatment of bone metastases using simple beam geometry, providing a streamlined one-step process toward palliative radiotherapy., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of a virtual consultation (VC) process in determining treatment strategy for patients with malignant epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC)., Methods and Materials: A prospective clinical database was maintained for patients with MESCC. A virtual consultation process (involving exchange of key predetermined clinical information and diagnostic imaging) facilitated rapid decision-making between oncologists and spinal surgeons. Diagnostic imaging was reviewed retrospectively (by R.R.) for surgical opinions in all patients. The primary outcome was the accuracy of virtual consultation opinion in predicting the final treatment recommendation., Results: After excluding 20 patients who were referred directly to the spinal surgeon, 125 patients were eligible for virtual consultation. Of the 46 patients who had a VC, surgery was recommended in 28 patients and actually given to 23. A retrospective review revealed that 5/79 patients who did not have a VC would have been considered surgical candidates. The overall accuracy of the virtual consultation process was estimated at 92%., Conclusion: The VC process for MESCC patients provides a reliable means of arriving at a multidisciplinary opinion while minimizing patient transfer. This can potentially shorten treatment decision time and enhance clinical outcomes., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Brain metastases represent a significant healthcare problem. It is estimated that 20% to 40% of patients with cancer will develop metastatic cancer to the brain during the course of their illness. The burden of brain metastases impacts on quality and length of survival. Presenting symptoms include headache (49%), focal weakness (30%), mental disturbances (32%), gait ataxia (21%), seizures (18%), speech difficulty (12%), visual disturbance (6%), sensory disturbance (6%) and limb ataxia (6%).Brain metastases may spread from any primary site. The most common primary site is the lung, followed by the breast then gastrointestinal sites. Eighty-five per cent of brain metastases are found in the cerebral hemispheres, 10% to 15% in the cerebellum and 1% to 3% in the brainstem. Brain radiotherapy is used to treat cancer participants who have brain metastases from various primary malignancies.This is an update to the original review published in Issue 3, 2006., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in adult participants with multiple metastases to the brain., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 3, 2011), MEDLINE and EMBASE to July 2011., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing WBRT either alone or with other treatments in adults with newly diagnosed multiple metastases to the brain from any primary cancer. Trials of prophylactic WBRT were excluded as well as trials that dealt with surgery or WBRT, or both, for the treatment of single brain metastasis., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and abstracted information. Adverse effects information was also collected from the trials., Main Results: Nine RCTs involving 1420 participants were added in this updated review. This updated review now includes a total of 39 trials involving 10,835 participants.Eight published reports (nine RCTs) showed no benefit of altered dose-fractionation schedules as compared to the control fractionation (3000 cGy in 10 fractions daily) of WBRT for overall survival. These studies also showed no improvement in symptom control nor neurologic improvement among the different dose-fractionation schemes as compared to 3000 cGy in 10 daily fractions of WBRT. This updated review includes two trials comparing 4000 cGy in 20 fractions given twice daily versus 2000 cGy in 4 or 5 daily fractions. Overall, there was no survival advantage (hazard ratio (HR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.56, P = 0.25) with the use of 4000 cGy in 20 fractions given twice daily compared to 2000 cGy in 4 or 5 daily fractions.The addition of radiosensitizers in six RCTs did not confer additional benefit to WBRT in either the overall survival times (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.18, P = 0.11) or brain tumour response rates (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.26, P = 0.46).Two RCTs found no benefit in overall survival (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.39, P = 0.24) with the use of WBRT and radiosurgery boost as compared to WBRT alone for selected participants with multiple brain metastases (up to four brain metastases). Overall, there was a statistically significant improvement in local brain control (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.61, P = 0.0003) favouring the WBRT and radiosurgery boost arm. Only one trial of radiosurgery boost with WBRT reported an improved Karnofsky performance score outcome and improved ability to reduce the dexamethasone dose.In this updated review, a total of three RCTs reported on selected patients (with up to three or four brain metastases) treated with radiosurgery alone versus WBRT and radiosurgery. Based on two trials, there was no difference in overall survival (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.35, P = 0.88). The addition of WBRT when added to radiosurgery significantly improved locally treated brain metasatases control (HR 2.61, 95% CI 1.68 to 4.06, P < 0.0001) and distant brain control (HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.99, P < 0.00001). On the other hand, one trial concluded that patients treated with WBRT and radiosurgery boost were significantly more likely to show a decline in learning and memory function as compared to those treated with radiosurgery alone.One RCT examined the use of WBRT and prednisone versus prednisone alone and produced inconclusive results., Authors' Conclusions: None of the RCTs with altered WBRT dose-fractionation schemes as compared to standard (3000 cGy in 10 daily fractions or 2000 cGy in 4 or 5 daily 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.Radiosurgery boost with WBRT may improve local disease control in selected participants as compared to WBRT alone, although survival remains unchanged for participants with multiple brain metastases.This updated review now includes a total of three RCTs examining the use of radiosurgery alone versus WBRT and radiosurgery. The addition of WBRT to radiosurgery improves local and distant brain control but there is no difference in overall survival. Patients treated with radiosurgery alone were found to have better neurocognitive outcomes in one trial as compared to patients treated with WBRT and radiosurgery.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, is appropriate for some participants, particularly those with advanced disease and poor performance status.

Purpose: To describe the degree of interobserver and intraobserver variability in target and field definition when using three-dimensional (3D) volume- vs. two-dimensional (2D) field-based planning., Methods and Materials: Standardized case scenario and diagnostic imaging for 9 palliative cases (3 bone metastases, 3 palliative lung cancer, and 3 abdominal pelvis soft-tissue disease) were presented to 5 study radiation oncologists. After a decision on what the intended anatomic target should be, observers created two sets of treatment fields, first using a 2D field-based and then a 3D volume-based planning approach. Percent overlap, under-coverage, and over-coverage were used to describe interobserver and intraobserver variations in target definition., Results: The degree of interobserver variation for 2D and 3D planning was similar with a degree of overlap of 76% (range, 56%-85%) and 74% (range, 55%-88%), respectively. When comparing the treatment fields defined by the same observer using the two different planning methods, the mean degree of overlap was 78%; over-coverage, 22%; and under-coverage, 41%. There was statistically significantly more under-coverage when field-based planning was used for bone metastases (33%) vs. other anatomic sites (16%) (p = 0.02). In other words, 2D planning is more likely to result in geographic misses in bone metastases compared with other areas., Conclusions: In palliative radiotherapy clinically significant interobserver and intraobserver variation existed when using both field- and volume-based planning approaches. Strategies that would reduce this variability deserve further investigation., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: External beam radiotherapy (RT) is commonly indicated for the palliation of symptomatic bone metastases, but there is evidence of underutilization of this treatment modality in palliative care for cancer populations. This study was conducted to investigate factors that influenced the use of palliative RT services at a regional comprehensive cancer center., Methods and Materials: A cohort of patients with radiographically confirmed bone metastases and first-time users of palliative RT between 2003 and 2005 was retrospectively reviewed from the time of initial diagnosis of bone metastases to death or last follow-up. Type of radiation treatment service provider used (rapid access or routine access) and patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors were analyzed for their influences on the number of treatment courses given over the duration of disease., Results: A total of 887 patients received 1,354 courses of palliative RT for bone metastases at a median interval of 4.0 months between courses. Thirty-three percent of patients required more than one RT course. Increased age and travel distance reduced the likelihood and number of treatment courses, while service through a rapid access clinic was independently associated with an increase in subsequent use of palliative RT., Conclusions: A rapid access service model for palliative RT facilitated access to RT. Travel distance and other factors remained substantial barriers to use of palliative RT services. The pattern of practice suggests an unmet need for symptom control in patients with bone metastases., (2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic dexamethasone for the control of radiation induced emesis (RIE) when added to ondansetron during days 1 to 5 of fractionated radiotherapy. The study had two hypotheses: ondansetron and dexamethasone could provide superior control of RIE over ondansetron alone during the prophylactic period and; the combination could provide sustained control of RIE during subsequent fractions of radiotherapy., Patients and Methods: Between May 2001 to Jan 2004, 211 patients receiving radiotherapy (> or = 15 fractions) to the upper abdomen were randomly assigned to receive ondansetron 8 mg bid with either dexamethasone 4 mg daily or placebo during fractions 1 to 5. Rescue antiemetics were provided., Results: During the prophylactic period there was a trend for improved complete control of nausea in the dexamethasone arm (50% v 38%; P = .06) while complete and partial control of emesis, average nausea score, and use of rescue medications were similar in the two groups. During the overall study period patients receiving dexamethasone had better complete control of emesis (23% v 12%; P = .02) and a lower average nausea score (0.28 v 0.39; P = .03); there was a trend towards less use of rescue medications with dexamethasone (70% v 80%; P = .09); other outcomes were similar on the two arms. Quality of life analysis showed a significant difference in appetite., Conclusion: The addition of dexamethasone to ondansetron as prophylaxis provides a modest improvement in protection against RIE during moderately emetogenic fractionated radiotherapy. It is a potentially useful addition to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists in this setting.

Background: The management of brain metastases is a significant health care problem. An estimated 20-40% of cancer patients will develop metastatic cancer to the brain during the course of their illness., Methods: A systematic review of randomized trials on adult cancer patients with single or multiple brain metastases from cancer of any histology was conducted. Eligible studies investigated external beam radiotherapy or radiosurgery in one of the study arms. Outcomes of interest included survival, intracranial progression-free duration, response of brain metastases to therapy, quality of life, symptom control, neurological function, and toxicity., Results: Twenty-seven trials were included in this systematic review of the evidence. Pooled results from three randomized trials of surgical excision combined with whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) showed no improvement in overall survival as compared to WBRT alone in patients with single brain metastasis. One randomized study of postoperative WBRT following excision of a single brain metastasis versus surgery alone detected a significant reduction in intracranial tumour recurrence rates but no corresponding difference in overall survival. Nine trials of altered dose-fractionation schedules compared to a standard control fractionation schedule (3000 cGy in 10 fractions) of WBRT showed no difference in probability of survival at 6 months. The addition of radiosensitizers, as assessed in five trials, did not confer additional benefit to WBRT in terms of overall survival or the frequency of brain metastases response. Three trials examined the use of WBRT and radiosurgery boost versus WBRT alone in selected patients with brain metastases. Overall survival did not improve for patients with multiple brain metastases. However, one trial reported an improvement in survival for patients with single brain metastasis treated with WBRT and radiosurgery boost. One older randomized trial examined the use of WBRT versus supportive care alone (using oral prednisone). Results were not conclusive., Conclusion: For patients with a single brain metastasis, good performance status, and minimal or no evidence of extracranial disease, surgical excision and postoperative WBRT improves survival (as compared to WBRT alone). There may be a small survival advantage associated with the use of radiosurgery boost and WBRT as compared to WBRT alone in selected patients with a single brain metastasis. There is no difference in overall survival or in neurologic function improvement with the use of altered whole brain dose-fractionation schedules as compared to standard fractionation schedules (3000 cGy in 10 fractions or 2000 cGy in 5 fractions). There is no survival benefit associated with the use of radiosurgery boost and WBRT versus WBRT alone in patients with multiple brain metastases. Currently, neither chemotherapy nor radiosensitizers show a clear benefit in the objective parameters of survival and progression-free survival. For patients with poor performance status and active extracranial disease, steroids and supportive care are an option.

Background: This practice guideline was developed to provide recommendations to clinicians in Ontario on the preferred standard radiotherapy fractionation schedule for the treatment of painful bone metastases., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed and published elsewhere. The Supportive Care Guidelines Group, a multidisciplinary guideline development panel, formulated clinical recommendations based on their interpretation of the evidence. In addition to evidence from clinical trials, the panel also considered patient convenience and ease of administration of palliative radiotherapy. External review of the draft report by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey, and final approval was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee., Results: Meta-analysis did not detect a significant difference in complete or overall pain relief between single treatment and multifraction palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases. Fifty-nine Ontario practitioners responded to the mailed survey (return rate 62%). Forty-two percent also returned written comments. Eighty-three percent of respondents agreed with the interpretation of the evidence and 75% agreed that the report should be approved as a practice guideline. Minor revisions were made based on feedback from the external reviewers and the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. The Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee approved the final practice guideline report., Conclusion: For adult patients with single or multiple radiographically confirmed bone metastases of any histology corresponding to painful areas in previously non-irradiated areas without pathologic fractures or spinal cord/cauda equine compression, we conclude that: Where the treatment objective is pain relief, a single 8 Gy treatment, prescribed to the appropriate target volume, is recommended as the standard dose-fractionation schedule for the treatment of symptomatic and uncomplicated bone metastases. Several factors frequently considered in clinical practice when applying this evidence such as the effect of primary histology, anatomical site of treatment, risk of pathological fracture, soft tissue disease and cord compression, use of antiemetics, and the role of retreatment are discussed as qualifying statements.Our systematic review and meta-analysis provided high quality evidence for the key recommendation in this clinical practice guideline. Qualifying statements addressing factors that should be considered when applying this recommendation in clinical practice facilitate its clinical application. The rigorous development and approval process result in a final document that is strongly endorsed by practitioners as a practice guideline.

Background: Carcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. A clinical practice guideline was developed based on a systematic review investigating neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer., Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was developed and clinical recommendations were drafted. External review of the practice guideline report by practitioners in Ontario, Canada was obtained through a mailed survey, and incorporated. Final approval of the practice guideline was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee., Results: The systematic review was developed and recommendations were drafted, and the report was mailed to Ontario practitioners for external review. Ninety percent of respondents agreed with both the evidence summary and the draft recommendations, while only 69% approved of the draft recommendations as a practice guideline. Based on the external review, a revised document was created. The revised practice guideline was submitted to the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee for review. All 11 members of the PGCC returned ballots. Eight PGCC members approved the practice guideline report as written and three members approved the guideline conditional on specific concerns being addressed. After these recommended changes were made, the final practice guideline report was approved., Conclusion: In consideration of the systematic review, external review, and subsequent Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee revision suggestions, and final approval, the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group recommends the following:For adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice.

Purpose: To make recommendations regarding combined radiotherapy (RT) and chemotherapy (RTCT), compared with RT alone, when a nonsurgical approach is used for patients with localized esophageal carcinoma., Materials and Methods: The Medline, Cancerlit, Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology proceedings were searched for evidence. Evidence was evaluated by two members of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group and methodologists., Results: Pooling seven randomized trials detected a statistically significant survival benefit at 1 year for concomitant RTCT compared with RT alone (1-year mortality odds ratio 0.61; 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.84; p <0.00001). Local control also significantly improved with concomitant RTCT compared with RT alone for the available data (odds ratio 0.52; 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.89; p = 0.004), but a significant increase in adverse effects, including life-threatening toxicities, was shown., Conclusions: Concomitant RT and cisplatin-based CT is recommended over RT alone. Patients should be aware of the increased acute toxicity associated with this approach, and this recommendation should only be made after consideration of the potential risks and benefits and the patient's general condition. Sequential RTCT is not recommended as standard practice.

Purpose: To measure patient-based minimal clinically important effect sizes (minimal incremental benefit that an individual would require to accept one treatment option over another) for pain relief between two contrasting palliative radiotherapy regimens for painful pelvic recurrences from rectal cancer., Methods and Materials: Forty-three patients with a history of cancer pain without prior pelvic radiotherapy participated in decision aid-facilitated trade-off exercises. The clinical scenario and treatment options of a 5-day vs. a 20-day course of radiotherapy were described. The duration of pain relief for the 20-day regimen was increased until the respondents' preferences switched to the 20-day regimen. The exercises were repeated for different probabilities of benefit and pain intensity at the time of decision making., Results: When the probability of pain relief was unchanged, the median switch point for the duration of pain relief was 6.7 and 7.2 months for severe and mild pain, respectively. The cumulative percentage frequency curve for the switch points approximated a sigmoid distribution., Conclusion: Determining the minimal clinically important effect sizes for symptom relief for palliative therapies is feasible. This type of information can be used to incorporate patient values into clinical trial designs. Modification of this method can be used to improve our understanding of shared (physician and patient) decision making.

Our primary objective was to determine the content and format that is most suitable for educational events targeting patients and carers who are living with advanced cancer. Secondary objectives included examining the differences in information needs between patients and their carers, and providing an estimate of the rate of participation in educational events targeting such patients and carers. Out-patients receiving palliative radiotherapy at Toronto Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center and their carers were invited to complete the Advanced Cancer Information Needs Survey. One hundred forty-four respondents participated in the survey. The participants identified the management of pain, fatigue, and home palliative care resources as the areas in which information was most needed. Carers displayed greater interest, and the range of topics in which they continue to seek additional information is wider. Thirty-one percent of respondents said they would participate in an educational event. A 'one-on-one' interview approach and short written materials were the preferred sources of information. Our study examined potential content areas and preferred format for proposed educational events targeting patients and carers living with advanced cancer. We also highlighted the reasons for, and potential limitations of this approach. The investment of future effort in evaluating the impact of 1 on 1 interviews and 'short written materials' on the informational needs of patients and carers living with advanced cancer is warranted.