Use of palliative radiotherapy in brain and bone metastases (VARA II study).

INTRODUCTION Metastases are detected in 20% of patients with solid tumours at diagnosis and a further 30% after diagnosis. Radiation therapy (RT) has proven effective in bone (BM) and brain (BrM) metastases. The objective of this study was to analyze the variability of RT utilization rates in clinical practice and the accessibility to medical technology in our region. PATIENTS AND METHODS We reviewed the clinical records and RT treatment sheets of all patients undergoing RT for BM and/or BrM during 2007 in the 12 public hospitals in an autonomous region of Spain. Data were gathered on hospital type, patient type and RT treatment characteristics. Calculation of the rate of RT use was based on the cancer incidence and the number of RT treatments for BM, BrM and all cancer sites. RESULTS Out of the 9319 patients undergoing RT during 2007 for cancer at any site, 1242 (13.3%; inter-hospital range, 26.3%) received RT for BM (n = 744) or BrM (n = 498). These 1242 patients represented 79% of all RT treatments with palliative intent, and the most frequent primary tumours were in lung, breast, prostate or digestive system. No significant difference between BM and BrM groups were observed in: mean age (62 vs. 59 yrs, respectively); gender (approximately 64% male and 36% female in both); performance status (ECOG 0-1 in 70 vs. 71%); or mean distance from hospital (36 vs. 28.6 km) or time from consultation to RT treatment (13 vs. 14.3 days). RT regimens differed among hospitals and between patient groups: 10 × 300 cGy, 5 × 400 cGy and 1x800cGy were applied in 32, 27 and 25%, respectively, of BM patients, whereas 10 × 300cGy was used in 49% of BrM patients. CONCLUSIONS Palliative RT use in BM and BrM is high and close to the expected rate, unlike the global rate of RT application for all cancers in our setting. Differences in RT schedules among hospitals may reflect variability in clinical practice among the medical teams.

Selective use of postoperative neck radiotherapy in oral cavity and oropharynx cancer: a prospective clinical study.

BACKGROUND In cervical postoperative radiotherapy, the target volume is usually the same as the extension of the previous dissection. We evaluated a protocol of selective irradiation according to the risk estimated for each dissected lymph node level. METHODS Eighty patients with oral/oropharyngeal cancer were included in this prospective clinical study between 2005 and 2008. Patients underwent surgery of the primary tumor and cervical dissection, with identification of positive nodal levels, followed by selective postoperative radiotherapy. Three types of selective nodal clinical target volume (CTV) were defined: CTV0, CTV1, and CTV2, with a subclinical disease risk of <10%, 10-25%, and 25% and a prescribed radiation dose of <35 Gy, 50 Gy, and 66-70 Gy, respectively. The localization of node failure was categorized as field, marginal, or outside the irradiated field. RESULTS A consistent pattern of cervical infiltration was observed in 97% of positive dissections. Lymph node failure occurred within a high-risk irradiated area (CTV1-CTV2) in 12 patients, marginal area (CTV1/CTVO) in 1 patient, and non-irradiated low-risk area (CTV0) in 2 patients. The volume of selective lymph node irradiation was below the standard radiation volume in 33 patients (mean of 118.6 cc per patient). This decrease in irradiated volume was associated with greater treatment compliance and reduced secondary toxicity. The three-year actuarial nodal control rate was 80%. CONCLUSION This selective postoperative neck irradiation protocol was associated with a similar failure pattern to that observed after standard neck irradiation and achieved a significant reduction in target volume and secondary toxicity.

Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A

In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION: Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS: Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.