The impact of virtual simulation in palliative radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background and purpose: Radiotherapy is widely used to palliate local symptoms in non-small-cell lung cancer. Using conventional X-ray simulation, it is often difficult to accurately localize the extent of the tumour. We report a randomized, double blind trial comparing target localization with conventional and virtual simulation.Methods: Eighty-six patients underwent both conventional and virtual simulation. The conventional simulator films were compared with digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) produced from the computed tomography (CT) data. The treatment fields defined by the clinicians using each modality were compared in terms of field area, position and the implications for target coverage.Results: Comparing fields defined by each study arm, there was a major mis-match in coverage between fields in 66.2% of cases, and a complete match in only 5.2% of cases. In 82.4% of cases, conventional simulator fields were larger (mean 24.5+/-5.1% (95% confidence interval)) than CT-localized fields, potentially contributing to a mean target under-coverage of 16.4+/-3.5% and normal tissue over-coverage of 25.4+/-4.2%.Conclusions: CT localization and virtual simulation allow more accurate definition of the target volume. This could enable a reduction in geographical misses, while also reducing treatment-related toxicity.

PAD combination therapy (PS-341/bortezomib, doxorubicin and dexamethasone) for previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma

Summary Bortezomib (formerly PS-341) has significant activity in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (MM), its efficacy is increased with the addition of dexamethasone and it demonstrates synergy with doxorubicin, thus providing the rationale for combination therapy with bortezomib, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (PAD). Patients with untreated MM received four 21-d cycles of PAD, comprising bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11, along with dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1–4, 8–11 and 15–18 during cycle 1 and days 1–4 during cycles 2–4. During days 1–4, patients also received 0, 4·5 or 9 mg/m2 of doxorubicin at dose levels 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Following peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) collection, patients received high-dose melphalan (MEL200) with PBSC transplantation (PBSCT). After PAD induction alone, 20 of 21 patients (95%) achieved at least a partial response (PR), including complete response (CR) in five patients (24%). Twenty of 21 had PBSC mobilized, and 18 of 20 received MEL200/PBSCT. In an intention-to-treat analysis, response rates were: CR 43%, near CR 14%, very good PR 24%, PR 14% and stable disease 5%. PAD was effective, did not prejudice subsequent PBSC collection, and should be further evaluated in prospective randomized trials.