Brachytherapy for Organ and Function Preservation in Soft-Tissue Sarcomas in Adult and Paediatric Patients

Adjuvant radiotherapy is an integral component in the management of soft-tissue sarcomas. Brachytherapy is a very convenient and conformal way of delivering adjuvant radiotherapy in such tumours, which spares the surrounding normal tissue. Randomised studies have established the efficacy of brachytherapy in the adjuvant setting, with a 5-year local control of 80-85%. High dose rate, low dose rate and pulsed dose rate have shown equivalent local control, but high dose rate has gained popularity owing to patient convenience, radiation safety and flexibility in dose optimisation. Freehand insertion perioperative brachytherapy (intraoperative placement and postoperative treatment) is the most commonly used technique in soft-tissue sarcomas, with intraoperative radiotherapy and radioactive seed placement being the less commonly used techniques. Brachytherapy can be used as monotherapy or in combination with external beam radiotherapy, such as in cases of close/positive margins for safe dose escalation. Although the quantum of side-effects with external beam radiotherapy has considerably reduced with the evolution of technology and the introduction of intensity modulation (intensity-modulated radiotherapy), brachytherapy still scores better in terms of dose conformality, especially in recurrent tumours (previously irradiated) and when used to treat paediatric and geriatric patients.

Thoughtflow: Standards and Tools for Provenance Capture and Workflow Definition to Support Model-Informed Drug Discovery and Development

Pharmacometric analyses are complex and multifactorial. It is essential to check, track, and document the vast amounts of data and metadata that are generated during these analyses (and the relationships between them) in order to comply with regulations, support quality control, auditing, and reporting. It is, however, challenging, tedious, error-prone, and time-consuming, and diverts pharmacometricians from the more useful business of doing science. Automating this process would save time, reduce transcriptional errors, support the retention and transfer of knowledge, encourage good practice, and help ensure that pharmacometric analyses appropriately impact decisions. The ability to document, communicate, and reconstruct a complete pharmacometric analysis using an open standard would have considerable benefits. In this article, the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) Drug Disease Model Resources (DDMoRe) consortium proposes a set of standards to facilitate the capture, storage, and reporting of knowledge (including assumptions and decisions) in the context of model-informed drug discovery and development (MID3), as well as to support reproducibility: "Thoughtflow." A prototype software implementation is provided.

Pharmacometrics Markup Language (PharmML): Opening New Perspectives for Model Exchange in Drug Development

The lack of a common exchange format for mathematical models in pharmacometrics has been a long-standing problem. Such a format has the potential to increase productivity and analysis quality, simplify the handling of complex workflows, ensure reproducibility of research, and facilitate the reuse of existing model resources. Pharmacometrics Markup Language (PharmML), currently under development by the Drug Disease Model Resources (DDMoRe) consortium, is intended to become an exchange standard in pharmacometrics by providing means to encode models, trial designs, and modeling steps.

Drug and disease model resources: a consortium to create standards and tools to enhance model-based drug development

Model-based drug development (MBDD) is accepted as a vital approach in understanding patients' drug-related benefit and risk by integrating quantitative information integration from diverse sources collected throughout drug development.¹ This perspective introduces the activities of the Drug and Disease Model Resources (DDMoRe) consortium, founded in 2011 through the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (IMI-JU)² as a European public–private partnership to address a lack of common tools, languages, and standards for modeling and simulation (M&S) to improve model-based knowledge integration.

Outcomes of elective surgery undertaken in independent sector treatment centres and NHS providers in England: audit of patient outcomes in surgery

OBJECTIVE

To compare characteristics of patients and outcomes after elective surgery in independent sector treatment centres (ISTCs) and NHS providers.

DESIGN

Follow-up study with outcomes reported by patients three to six months after surgery.

SETTING

25 ISTCs and 72 NHS providers in England. Population Consecutive patients undergoing hip or knee replacement (5671 in ISTCs and 14,292 in NHS), inguinal hernia repair (640 and 2023, respectively), or surgery for varicose veins (248 and 1336, respectively).

MAIN OUTCOMES

Symptoms and disability reported by patients (Oxford hip and knee scores on a 48 point scale; Aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire) and quality of life (EuroQol EQ-5D score).

RESULTS

Patients in ISTCs were healthier than those in NHS providers, had less severe preoperative symptoms, and were more affluent, though the differences were small. With adjustment, patients undergoing joint replacements in NHS providers had poorer outcomes: difference of -1.7 (95% confidence interval -2.5 to -0.9) on the Oxford hip score and -0.9 (-1.6 to -0.2) on the Oxford knee score. They more often reported complications: odds ratio 1.3 (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 1.5) for hip and 1.4 (1.2 to 1.6) for knee. There were no significant differences in outcomes after surgery for hernia or varicose veins, except that NHS patients more often reported poor results after hernia repair (1.4, 1.0 to 1.9) and additional surgery after varicose vein surgery (2.8, 1.2 to 6.8).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing surgery in ISTCs were slightly healthier and had less severe conditions than those undergoing surgery in NHS providers. Some outcomes were better in ISTCs, but differences were small compared with the impact ISTCs could have on the provision of elective services.

The case for nonpharmacologic therapy of osteoarthritis

This paper reviews the most commonly used nonpharmaceutical treatments for osteoarthritis, summarizing the available evidence. Four general areas are reviewed: aids and appliances, exercise and physiotherapy, education and behavioral change, and alternative and complementary therapies. The results of this review indicate that the use of nonpharmaceutical interventions in osteoarthritis is essential for good management of the disease. However, further research is required to improve the evidence base of the use of nonpharmacologic interventions in and the overall management of osteoarthritis.

Exploring the priorities of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perceived importance of symptoms, treatment preferences, and research priorities of people with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

METHODS

Results of a focus group were used to facilitate the design of a questionnaire, distributed to 112 people with knee OA.

RESULTS

Pain, disability, and instability in the joint were the most important symptoms, and anxiety about knee OA caused distress to many people. Oral drugs (90%), physical therapy (62%), and aids and adaptations (56%) were the most commonly used treatments. Surgery, oral drugs, and intra-articular injections were perceived as the most efficacious interventions. Patients' highest priorities for research were surgery and educational interventions, despite the fact that few had had surgery and education was not perceived as very effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of a patient-centered approach to care leads professionals to ignore key symptoms and issues for individuals, and to a preoccupation with pharmaceutical interventions, rather than the treatment options that their patients prefer.

Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have suggested that research agendas can be biased. To determine whether there is a mismatch between available research evidence and the research preferences of consumers we examined research on interventions for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee joint.

METHODS

We searched published and unpublished studies on interventions in this condition to assess the structure of the evidence base. Focus groups and a postal survey of research consumers were then undertaken to examine their views and research priorities.

FINDINGS

Review of published and unpublished reports showed that the evidence base was dominated by studies of pharmaceutical (550, 59%) and surgical (238, 26%) interventions. 24 (36%) of 67 survey respondents ranked knee replacement as the highest priority for research, whereas 14 (21%) chose education and advice as their first choice.

INTERPRETATION

There is a mismatch between the amount of published work on different interventions, and the degree of interest of consumers. We suggest that broadening of the research agenda would be more in line with current treatment patterns and consumer views. If this mismatch is not addressed, then evidence-based medicine will not be representative of consumer needs.

Commissioning health services research: an iterative method

The standard linear method of commissioning research involves many stages, some lengthy. While assessment criteria are usually explicit, their weighting and interaction are not. Output is assessed on completion. This method is suitable where the research question is clear-cut. However, it has drawbacks when the research question and the form and scope of the research are not clear at the outset, as is often the case with research on the delivery and organisation of services. Also, it does not encourage potential users of the research to develop a sense of ownership. An alternative method is proposed by which the scope, form and content of research are not specified in advance but are developed iteratively. A programme director, advised by a group of potential users and research commissioners, has devolved authority to commit funding for the stages of the work as it unfolds, predicated on evolving need. There are foreseeable but avoidable risks of the group over-identifying with the researchers, of research management becoming cumbersome, and of unproductive friction between research groups when they are required to work together. The iterative method, being new and untried, is itself an organisational change requiring evaluation. However, from our local experience, it provides for productive dialogue between research commissioners, researchers and potential users.