Surveillance for radiation-related late effects in childhood cancer survivors: The impact of using volumetric dosimetry

BACKGROUND

Radiation-related screening guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer currently use irradiated regions (IR) to determine risk for late effects. However, contemporary radiotherapy techniques utilize volumetric dosimetry (VD) to determine organ-specific exposures, which could inform need for late effect surveillance.

METHODS

This cross-sectional cohort study involved patients treated for cancer using computerized tomography-planned irradiation at Children's Hospital Los Angeles from 2000-2016. Organs at risk were identified using both VD and IR. Under each method, Children's Oncology Group Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines were applied to determine radiation-related potential late effects and their correlative recommended screening practices. Patients served as their own controls. Mean number of potential late effects per patient and recommended screening practices per patient per decade of follow-up were compared using paired t-tests; comparisons were adjusted for diagnosis and gender using random effects, repeated measure linear regression.

RESULTS

In this cohort (n = 132), median age at end of treatment was 10.6 years (range, 1.4-20.4). Brain tumor was the most common diagnosis (45%) and head/brain the most common irradiated region (61%). Under IR and VD, the mean number of potential late effects flagged was 24.4 and 21.7, respectively (-11.3%, p < 0.001); concordance between the two methods was 6.1%. Under VD, the difference in mean number of recommended screening practices per patient was -7.4% in aggregate but as large as -37.0% for diagnostic imaging and procedures (p < 0.001 for both).

CONCLUSION

Use of VD rather than IR is feasible and enhances precision of guideline-based screening for radiation-related late effects in long-term childhood cancer survivors.

Care delivery and self management strategies for adults with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Researchers have criticised epilepsy care for adults for its lack of impact, stimulating the development of various service models and strategies to respond to perceived inadequacies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention beyond that of usual care in adults with epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (9 December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to June 2013), EMBASE (1988 to June 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to December 2013) and CINAHL (1937 to December 2013). In addition, we contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, controlled or matched trials, cohort studies or other prospective studies with a control group, and time series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted all data, and assessed the quality of all included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Our review included 18 different studies of 16 separate interventions, which we classified into seven distinct groups. Most of the studies have methodological weaknesses, and many results from other analyses within studies need to be interpreted with caution because of study limitations. Consequently, there is currently limited evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and quality of life in people with epilepsy. It was not possible to combine study results in a meta-analysis because of the heterogeneity of outcomes, study populations, interventions and time scales across the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Two intervention types, the specialist epilepsy nurse and self management education, have some evidence of benefit. However, we did not find clear evidence that other service models substantially improve outcomes for adults with epilepsy. It is also possible that benefits are situation specific and may not apply to other settings. These studies included only a small number of service providers whose individual competence or expertise may have had a significant impact on outcomes. At present it is not possible to advocate any single model of service provision.