Search

Background. The specific role of 18F-flurodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in staging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) remains to be validated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess the accuracy of staging FDG-PET/CT for newly diagnosed NPC. Methods. We searched various biomedical databases and conference proceedings for relevant studies. We determined the pooled sensitivities and specificities, diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves using the hierarchical regression model. Results. 15 relevant studies including 851 patients were identified. Five addressed primary tumor (T), nine addressed regional lymph nodes (N) and seven addressed distant metastasis (M). The combined sensitivity estimate for FDG-PET/CT in T classification was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.95). For N classification, combined sensitivity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.76-0.91), specificity was 0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.97), DOR was 82.4 (23.2-292.6) and Q*-index was 0.90. For M classification, the combined sensitivity estimate was 0.87 (95% CI 0.74-1.00), specificity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-1.00), DOR was 120.9 (43.0-340.0) and Q*-index was 0.89. Conclusion. FDG-PET/CT showed good accuracy in N and M but not T classification for newly diagnosed NPC. FDG-PET/CT, together with Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the nasopharynx, should be part of the routine staging investigations

Background. The specific role of 18F-flurodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in staging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) remains to be validated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess the accuracy of staging FDG-PET/CT for newly diagnosed NPC. Methods. We searched various biomedical databases and conference proceedings for relevant studies. We determined the pooled sensitivities and specificities, diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves using the hierarchical regression model. Results. 15 relevant studies including 851 patients were identified. Five addressed primary tumor (T), nine addressed regional lymph nodes (N) and seven addressed distant metastasis (M). The combined sensitivity estimate for FDG-PET/CT in T classification was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.95). For N classification, combined sensitivity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.76-0.91), specificity was 0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.97), DOR was 82.4 (23.2-292.6) and Q*-index was 0.90. For M classification, the combined sensitivity estimate was 0.87 (95% CI 0.74-1.00), specificity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-1.00), DOR was 120.9 (43.0-340.0) and Q*-index was 0.89. Conclusion. FDG-PET/CT showed good accuracy in N and M but not T classification for newly diagnosed NPC. FDG-PET/CT, together with Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the nasopharynx, should be part of the routine staging investigations [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To provide a comprehensive assessment of various fractionation schemes in radiation therapy for breast cancer, with a focus on side effects, cosmesis, quality of life, risks of recurrence, and survival outcomes., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis., Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to 23 October 2023)., Study Selection: Included studies were randomised controlled trials focusing on conventional fractionation (CF; daily fractions of 1.8-2 Gy, reaching a total dose of 50-50.4 Gy over 5-6 weeks), moderate hypofractionation (MHF; fraction sizes of 2.65-3.3 Gy for 13-16 fractions over 3-5 weeks), and/or ultra-hypofractionation (UHF; schedule of only 5 fractions)., Data Extraction: Two independent investigators screened studies and extracted data. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach, respectively., Data Synthesis: Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was analysed using Cochran's Q test and I 2 statistic. Network meta-analysis was used to integrate all available evidence., Main Outcome Measures: The pre-specified primary outcome was grade ≥2 acute radiation dermatitis and late radiation therapy related side effects; secondary outcomes included cosmesis, quality of life, recurrence, and survival metrics., Results: From 1754 studies, 59 articles representing 35 trials (20 237 patients) were assessed; 21.6% of outcomes showed low risk of bias, whereas 78.4% had some concerns or high risk, particularly in outcome measurement (47.4%). The RR for grade ≥2 acute radiation dermatitis for MHF compared with CF was 0.54 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.61; P<0.001) and 0.68 (0.49 to 0.93; P=0.02) following breast conserving therapy and mastectomy, respectively. Hyperpigmentation and grade ≥2 breast shrinkage were less frequent after MHF than after CF, with RRs of 0.77 (0.62 to 0.95; P=0.02) and 0.92 (0.85 to 0.99; P=0.03), respectively, in the combined breast conserving therapy and mastectomy population. However, in the breast conserving therapy only trials, these differences in hyperpigmentation (RR 0.79, 0.60 to 1.03; P=0.08) and breast shrinkage (0.94, 0.83 to 1.07; P=0.35) were not statistically significant. The RR for grade ≥2 acute radiation dermatitis for UHF compared with MHF was 0.85 (0.47 to 1.55; P=0.60) for breast conserving therapy and mastectomy patients combined. MHF was associated with improved cosmesis and quality of life compared with CF, whereas data on UHF were less conclusive. Survival and recurrence outcomes were similar between UHF, MHF, and CF., Conclusions: MHF shows improved safety profile, cosmesis, and quality of life compared with CF while maintaining equivalent oncological outcomes. Fewer randomised controlled trials have compared UHF with other fractionation schedules, but its safety and oncological effectiveness seem to be similar with short term follow-up. Given the advantages of reduced treatment time, enhanced convenience for patients, and potential cost effectiveness, MHF and UHF should be considered as preferred options over CF in appropriate clinical settings, with further research needed to solidify these findings., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023460249., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; IC has received consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Menarini StemLine and is a clinical board member of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (unpaid); JQC has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and honorariums from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Well Doc Alberta, Merck, La Roche-Posay, Knight, Seagen, Oncology Education, and Gilead; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) gene are a heterogeneous population who often develop brain metastases (BM). The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic brain metastases is unclear given the activity of newer-generation targeted therapies in the central nervous system. We present a protocol for an individual patient data (IPD) prospective meta-analysis to evaluate whether the addition of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) before osimertinib treatment will lead to better control of intracranial metastatic disease. This is a clinically relevant question that will inform practice., Methods: Randomised controlled trials will be eligible if they include participants with BM arising from EGFR- mutant NSCLC and suitable to receive osimertinib both in the first-line and second-line settings (P); comparisons of SRS followed by osimertinib versus osimertinib alone (I, C) and intracranial disease control included as an endpoint (O). Systematic searches of Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsychInfo, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform's Search Portal will be undertaken. An IPD meta-analysis will be performed using methodologies recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The primary outcome is intracranial progression-free survival, as determined by response assessment in neuro-oncology-BM criteria. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, time to whole brain radiotherapy, quality of life, and adverse events of special interest. Effect differences will be explored among prespecified subgroups., Ethics and Dissemination: Approved by each trial's ethics committee. Results will be relevant to clinicians, researchers, policymakers and patients, and will be disseminated via publications, presentations and media releases., Prospero Registration: CRD42022330532., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SL: research funding and honoraria from AstraZeneca. YYS: honoraria from AstraZeneca and Janssen. AGS: research grants (institution) from Elekta AB, Varian, Seagen and BrainLAB; consulting fees from Varian, Elekta (Gamma Knife Icon), BrainLAB, Merck, Abbvie and Roche; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Elekta AB, Varian, BrainLAB, Accuray and Seagen. MBP: speaker fees from AZ, BMS, MSD and Roche. AN: research grants from Varian Medical Systems. RAS: advisory board with Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lily, Merck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Taiho, Takeda, Thermo Fisher and Yuhan Corporation; research grant from Astra-Zeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. FHJ: clinical trial funding, received honoraria and participated in advisory boards for Astra Zeneca; received payments and honoraria from BeiGene and MSD for lectures and presentations; supported by the Peter Mac Foundation and the Victorian Cancer Agency. BJS: advisory board/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Merck, Bristol Mysers Squibb, Janssen, Amgen and Eli Lilly. IWKT: honorarium from Elekta and MSD. CH: advisory boards with Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, EMD Serono, Janssen, Jazz, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and Takeda; research grants from AstraZeneca, EMD Serono and Roche. CKL: advisory board with Amgen, Astra Zeneca, GSK, Merck KGA, Norvatis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Yuhan; research funding (institution) from Astra Zeneca, Roche, Merck KGA and Amgen. KPR, AP, MD, DBS, AGS, JT, CNL, WYK, YH, YLEA, JL, CY, MCL and APT have no competing interests. CH, SL, FHJ, CKL, YYS, RAS and IWKT are study chairs on the included trials., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)