A comparison between accelerated hypofractionation and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Results of a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has become standard for inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, there is no randomized evidence demonstrating benefit over more fractionated radiotherapy. We compared accelerated hypofractionation (AH) and SABR using a propensity score-matched analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1997-2007, 119 patients (T1-3N0M0 NSCLC) were treated with AH (48-60Gy, 12-15 fractions). Prior to SABR, this represented our institutional standard. From 2008-2012, 192 patients (T1-3N0M0 NSCLC) were treated with SABR (48-52Gy, 4-5 fractions). A total of 114 patients (57 per cohort) were matched (1:1 ratio, caliper: 0.10) using propensity scores.

RESULTS: Median follow-up (range) for the AH cohort was 36.3 (2.5-109.1) months, while that for the SABR group was 32.5 (0.3-62.6)months. Three-year overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) rates were 49.5% vs. 72.4% [p=0.024; hazard ratio (HR): 2.33 (1.28, 4.23), p=0.006] and 71.9% vs. 89.3% [p=0.077; HR: 5.56 (1.53, 20.2), p=0.009], respectively. On multivariable analysis, tumour diameter and PET staging were predictive for OS, while the only predictive factor for LC was treatment cohort.

CONCLUSIONS: OS and LC were improved with SABR, although OS is more closely related to non-treatment factors. This represents one of the few studies comparing AH to SABR for early-stage lung cancer.

Psychological distress in mothers of children admitted to a nutritional rehabilitation unit in Malawi - a comparison with other paediatric wards

In a previous study we found a very high prevalence of psychological distress in mothers of children admitted to a nutritional rehabilitation unit (NRU) in Malawi, Africa. The objective of this study was to compare the prevalence and severity of maternal distress within the NRU with that in other paediatric wards. Given the known association between poor maternal psychological well-being and child undernutrition in low- and middle-income countries, we hypothesised that distress would be higher among NRU mothers. Mothers of consecutive paediatric inpatients in a NRU, a high-dependency (and research) unit and an oncology ward were assessed for psychological distress using the Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ). Two hundred sixty-eight mothers were interviewed (90.3% of eligible). The prevalence of SRQ score ≥8 was 35/150 {23.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 16.8- 30.9%]} on the NRU, 13/84 [15.5% (95% CI 8.5-25.0%)] on the high-dependency unit and 7/34 [20.6% (95% CI 8.7-37.9%)] on the oncology ward (χ(2)  = 2.04, P = 0.36). In linear regression analysis, the correlates of higher SRQ score were child diarrhoea on admission, child diagnosed with tuberculosis, and maternal experience of abuse by partner; child height-for-age z-score fell only just outside significance (P = 0.05). In summary, we found no evidence of greater maternal distress among the mothers of severely malnourished children within the NRU compared with mothers of paediatric inpatients with other severe illnesses. However, in support of previous research findings, we found some evidence that poor maternal psychological well-being is associated with child stunting and diarrhoea.

Bouyid v Belgium: The “minimum level of severity” and Human Dignity's Role in Article 3 ECHR

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights recently delivered an important judgment on Article 3 ECHR in the case of Bouyid v Belgium. In Bouyid, the Grand Chamber was called upon to consider whether slaps inflicted on a minor and an adult in police custody were in breach of Article 3 ECHR, which provides that ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. Overruling the Chamber judgment in the case, the Grand Chamber ruled by 14 votes to 3 that there had been a substantive violation of Article 3 in that the applicants had been subjected to degrading treatment by members of the Belgian police; it found that there had been a breach of the investigative duty under Article 3 also. In this comment, I focus on the fundamental basis of disagreement between the majority of the Grand Chamber and those who found themselves in dissent, on the question of whether there had been a substantive breach of Article 3. The crux of the disagreement lay in the understanding and application of the test of ‘minimum level of severity’, which the ECtHR has established as decisive of whether a particular form of ill-treatment crosses the Article 3 threshold, seen also in light of Article 3’s absolute character, which makes it non-displaceable – that is, immune to trade-offs of the type applicable in relation to qualified rights such as privacy and freedom of expression. I consider the way the majority of the Grand Chamber unpacked and applied the concept of dignity – or ‘human dignity’ – towards finding a substantive breach of Article 3, and briefly distil some of the principles underpinning the understanding of human dignity emerging in the Court’s analysis.