PURPOSE We report the clinical outcomes of a randomized trial comparing prophylactic whole-pelvic nodal radiotherapy to prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) in high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS This phase III, single center, randomized controlled trial enrolled eligible patients undergoing radical radiotherapy for node-negative prostate adenocarcinoma, with estimated nodal risk ≥ 20%. Randomization was 1:1 to PORT (68 Gy/25# to prostate) or whole-pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT, 68 Gy/25# to prostate, 50 Gy/25# to pelvic nodes, including common iliac) using computerized stratified block randomization, stratified by Gleason score, type of androgen deprivation, prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis, and prior transurethral resection of the prostate. All patients received image-guided, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and minimum 2 years of androgen deprivation therapy. The primary end point was 5-year biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), and secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS From November 2011 to August 2017, a total of 224 patients were randomly assigned (PORT = 114, WPRT = 110). At a median follow-up of 68 months, 36 biochemical failures (PORT = 25, WPRT = 7) and 24 deaths (PORT = 13, WPRT = 11) were recorded. Five-year BFFS was 95.0% (95% CI, 88.4 to 97.9) with WPRT versus 81.2% (95% CI, 71.6 to 87.8) with PORT, with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.23 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.52; P < .0001). WPRT also showed higher 5-year DFS (89.5% v 77.2%; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.73; P = .002), but 5-year OS did not appear to differ (92.5% v 90.8%; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.41 to 2.05; P = .83). Distant metastasis-free survival was also higher with WPRT (95.9% v 89.2%; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.82; P = .01). Benefit in BFFS and DFS was maintained across prognostic subgroups. CONCLUSION Prophylactic pelvic irradiation for high-risk, locally advanced prostate cancer improved BFFS and DFS as compared with PORT, but OS did not appear to differ.

Summary We describe the initial management and subsequent recovery of a 61 year‐old male patient following attempted suicide by oral ingestion of a potentially fatal overdose of quetiapine and sertraline. Intravenous Intralipid® was given soon after initiation of basic resuscitation. There was a rapid improvement in the patient’s level of consciousness. No other clinical signs of drug toxicity were observed. Intralipid may have reversed the deep coma associated with ingestion and prevented other manifestations of drug toxicity occurring, thus expediting this patient's recovery.

Background Regimens for palliation in patients with head and neck cancer recommended by the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have low applicability (less than 1-3%) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of their cost. In a previous phase 2 study, patients with head and neck cancer who received metronomic chemotherapy had better outcomes when compared with those who received intravenous cisplatin, which is commonly used as the standard of care in LMICs. We aimed to do a phase 3 study to substantiate these findings. MethodsWe did an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial at the Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India. We enrolled adult patients (aged 18-70 years) who planned to receive palliative systemic treatment for relapsed, recurrent, or newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1 and measurable disease, as defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants to receive either oral metronomic chemotherapy, consisting of 15 mg/m² methotrexate once per week plus 200 mg celecoxib twice per day until disease progression or until the development of intolerable side-effects, or 75 mg/m² intravenous cisplatin once every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was done by use of a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with a block size of four, and patients were stratified by primary tumour site and previous cancer-directed treatment. The primary endpoint was median overall survival. Assuming that 6-month overall survival in the intravenous cisplatin group would be 40%, a non-inferiority margin of 13% was defined. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. All patients who completed at least one cycle of the assigned treatment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India, CTRI/2015/11/006388, and is completed. Findings Between May 16, 2016, and Jan 17, 2020, 422 patients were randomly assigned: 213 to the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 209 to the intravenous cisplatin group. All 422 patients were included in the intention-totreat analysis, and 418 patients (211 in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 207 in the intravenous cisplatin group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. At a median follow-up of 15•73 months, median overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis population was 7•5 months (IQR 4•6-12•6) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group compared with 6•1 months (3•2-9•6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0•773 [95% CI 0•615-0•97, p=0•026]). In the per-protocol analysis population, median overall survival was 7•5 months (4•7-12•8) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 6•1 months (3•4-9•6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0•775 [95% CI 0•616-0•974, p=0•029]). Grade 3 or highe...