Hippocampal avoidance whole-brain radiotherapy without memantine in preserving neurocognitive function for brain metastases: a phase II blinded randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Hippocampal avoidance whole-brain radiotherapy (HA-WBRT) shows potential for neurocognitive preservation. This study aimed to evaluate whether HA-WBRT or conformal WBRT (C-WBRT) is better for preserving neurocognitive function.

METHODS

This single-blinded randomized phase II trial enrolled patients with brain metastases and randomly assigned them to receive HA-WBRT or C-WBRT. Primary endpoint is decline of the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) delayed recall at 4 months after treatment. Neurocognitive function tests were analyzed with a mixed effect model. Brain progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

From March 2015 to December 2018, seventy patients were randomized to yield a total cohort of 65 evaluable patients (33 in the HA-WBRT arm and 32 in the C-WBRT arm) with a median follow-up of 12.4 months. No differences in baseline neurocognitive function existed between the 2 arms. The mean change of HVLT-R delayed recall at 4 months was -8.8% in the HA-WBRT arm and +3.8% in the C-WBRT arm (P = 0.31). At 6 months, patients receiving HA-WBRT showed favorable perpetuation of HVLT-R total recall (mean difference = 2.60, P = 0.079) and significantly better preservation of the HVLT-R recognition-discrimination index (mean difference = 1.78, P = 0.019) and memory score (mean difference = 4.38, P = 0.020) compared with patients undergoing C-WBRT. There were no differences in Trail Making Test Part A or Part B or the Controlled Oral Word Association test between the 2 arms at any time point. There were no differences in brain PFS or OS between arms as well.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving HA-WBRT without memantine showed better preservation in memory at 6-month follow-up, but not in verbal fluency or executive function.

Over-, under- and misuse of pain treatment in Germany

BACKGROUND

The HTA-report (Health Technology Assessment) deals with over- and undertreatment of pain therapy. Especially in Germany chronic pain is a common reason for the loss of working hours and early retirement. In addition to a reduction in quality of life for the affected persons, chronic pain is therefore also an enormous economic burden for society.

OBJECTIVES

Which diseases are in particular relevant regarding pain therapy?What is the social-medical care situation regarding pain facilities in Germany?What is the social-medical care situation in pain therapy when comparing on international level?Which effects, costs or cost-effects can be seen on the micro-, meso- and macro level with regard to pain therapy?Among which social-medical services in pain therapy is there is an over- or undertreatment with regard to the micro-, meso- and macro level?Which medical and organisational aspects that have an effect on the costs and/or cost-effectiveness have to be particularly taken into account with regard to pain treatment/chronic pain?What is the influence of the individual patient's needs (micro level) in different situations of pain (e. g. palliative situation) on the meso- and macro level?Which social-medical and ethical aspects for an adequate treatment of chronic pain on each level have to be specially taken into account?Is the consideration of these aspects appropriate to avoid over- or undertreatment?Are juridical questions included in every day care of chronic pain patients, mainly in palliative care?On which level can appropriate interventions prevent over- or undertreatment?

METHODS

A systematic literature research is done in 35 databases. In the HTA, reviews, epidemiological and clinical studies and economic evaluations are included which report about pain therapy and in particular palliative care in the years 2005 till 2010.

RESULTS

47 studies meet the inclusion criteria. An undertreatment of acupuncture, over- and misuse with regard to opiate prescription and an overuse regarding unspecific chest pain and chronic low back pain (LBP) can be observed. The results show the benefit and the cost-effectiveness of interdisciplinary as well as multi-professional approaches, multimodal pain therapy and cross-sectoral integrated medical care. Only rough values can be determined about the care situation regarding the supply of pain therapeutic and palliative medical facilities as the data are completely insufficient.

DISCUSSION

Due to the broad research question the HTA-report contains inevitably different outcomes and study designs which partially differ qualitatively very strong from each other. In the field of palliative care hospices for in-patients and palliative wards as well as hospices for out-patients are becoming more and more important. Palliative care is a basic right of all terminally ill persons.

CONCLUSION

Despite the relatively high number of studies in Germany the HTA-report shows a massive lack in health care research. Based on the studies a further expansion of out-patient pain and palliative care is recommended. Further training for all involved professional groups must be improved. An independent empirical analysis is necessary to determine over or undertreatment in pain care.

Informative value of Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA)

Background

“Patient-Reported Outcome” (PRO) is used as an umbrella term for different concepts for measuring subjectively perceived health status e. g. as treatment effects. Their common characteristic is, that the appraisal of the health status is reported by the patient himself. In order to describe the informative value of PRO in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) first an overview of concepts, classifications and methods of measurement is given. The overview is complemented by an empirical analysis of clinical trials and HTA-reports on rheumatoid arthritis and breast cancer in order to report on type, frequency and consequences of PRO used in these documents.

Methods

For both issues systematic reviews of the literature have been performed. The search for methodological literature covers the publication period from 1990 to 2009, the search for clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis and breast cancer covers the period 2005 to 2009. Both searches were performed in the medical databases of the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI). The search for HTA-reports and methodological papers of HTA-agencies was performed in the CRD-Databases (CRD = Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) and by handsearching the websites of INAHTA member agencies (INAHTA = International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment). For all issues specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCT) was assessed by a modified version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. For the methodological part information extraction from the literature is structured by the report’s chapters, for the empirical part data extraction sheets were constructed. All information is summarized in a qualitative manner.

Results

Concerning the methodological issues the literature search retrieved 158 documents (87 documents related to definition or classification, 125 documents related to operationalisation of PRO). For the empirical analyses 225 RCT (rheumatoid arthritis: 77; breast cancer: 148) and 40 HTA-reports and method papers were found.

The analysis of the methodological literature confirms the role of PRO as an umbrella term for a variety of different concepts. The newest classification system facilitates the description of PRO measures by construct, target population and the method of measurement. Steps of operationalisation involve defining a conceptual framework, instrument development, exploration of measurement properties or, possibly, the modification of existing instruments.

Seven out of 59 RCT analysing the effects of antibody therapy for rheumatoid arthritis define PRO as the primary endpoint, 38 trials utilize composite measures (ACR, DAS) and ten trials report clinical or radiological parameters as the primary endpoint. Six out of 123 chemotherapy trials for breast cancer define PRO as the primary endpoint, while 98 trials report clinical endpoints (survival, tumour response, progression) in their primary analyses. Discrepancies in the number of trials result from inaccurate specifications of endpoints in the publications. This distribution is reflected in the HTA-reports: while almost all reports on rheumatoid arthritis refer to PRO, this is only the case in about half of the reports on breast cancer.

Conclusions

As definition and classification of PRO are concerned, coherent concepts are found in the literature. Their operationalisation and implementation must be guided by scientific principles. The type and frequency of PRO used in clinical trials largely depend on the disease analysed. The HTA-community seems to pursue the utilization of PRO proactively – in case of missing data the need for further research is stated.