Patterns of care in recurrent glioblastoma in Switzerland: a multicentre national approach based on diagnostic nodes

Despite moderate improvements in outcome of glioblastoma after first-line treatment with chemoradiation recent clinical trials failed to improve the prognosis of recurrent glioblastoma. In the absence of a standard of care we aimed to investigate institutional treatment strategies to identify similarities and differences in the pattern of care for recurrent glioblastoma. We investigated re-treatment criteria and therapeutic pathways for recurrent glioblastoma of eight neuro-oncology centres in Switzerland having an established multidisciplinary tumour-board conference. Decision algorithms, differences and consensus were analysed using the objective consensus methodology. A total of 16 different treatment recommendations were identified based on combinations of eight different decision criteria. The set of criteria implemented as well as the set of treatments offered was different in each centre. For specific situations, up to 6 different treatment recommendations were provided by the eight centres. The only wide-range consensus identified was to offer best supportive care to unfit patients. A majority recommendation was identified for non-operable large early recurrence with unmethylated MGMT promoter status in the fit patients: here bevacizumab was offered. In fit patients with late recurrent non-operable MGMT promoter methylated glioblastoma temozolomide was recommended by most. No other majority recommendations were present. In the absence of strong evidence we identified few consensus recommendations in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma. This contrasts the limited availability of single drugs and treatment modalities. Clinical situations of greatest heterogeneity may be suitable to be addressed in clinical trials and second opinion referrals are likely to yield diverging recommendations.

The role of patch testing in the management of oral lichenoid reactions.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The distinction of oral lichenoid reactions from oral lichen planus may be difficult in a clinical setting. Our aims were to ascertain the utility of patch testing to confirm the association of oral lichenoid reactions with dental restorations and to identify the benefits of replacement of restorations, primarily made of amalgam. METHODS Patients seen in an oral medicine unit over a 10-year period diagnosed with oral lichenoid reactions, with oral lichen planus resistant to treatment or with atypical lichenoid features were included in this study. All had been subjected to skin patch testing. Histopathology reports blinded to patch test results were scrutinized. Patch-test-positive subjects were advised to have their restorations replaced. All were followed up to determine disease resolution for at least 3 months thereafter. RESULTS Among 115 patients, 67.8% patients reacted positive to a dental material and nearly a quarter to mercury or amalgam. No correlation was found between pathology and skin patch testing results (P = 0.44). A total of 87 patients were followed up in clinic, and among 26 patch-test-positive patients who had their amalgam fillings replaced, moderate to complete resolution was noted in 81%. CONCLUSIONS Skin patch testing is a valuable tool to confirm clinically suspected oral lichenoid reactions. Pathology diagnoses of oral lichenoid reactions did not correlate with patch test results. Prospective studies are needed to ascertain that a clinically suspected oral lichenoid reaction with a positive patch test result may resolve after the replacement of amalgam fillings.