SummaryBackgroundWhole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and dexamethasone are widely used to treat brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although there have been no randomised clinical trials showing that WBRT improves either quality of life or overall survival. Even after treatment with WBRT, the prognosis of this patient group is poor. We aimed to establish whether WBRT could be omitted without a significant effect on survival or quality of life.MethodsThe Quality of Life after Treatment for Brain Metastases (QUARTZ) study is a non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised trial done at 69 UK and three Australian centres. NSCLC patients with brain metastases unsuitable for surgical resection or stereotactic radiotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to optimal supportive care (OSC) including dexamethasone plus WBRT (20 Gy in five daily fractions) or OSC alone (including dexamethasone). The dose of dexamethasone was determined by the patients' symptoms and titrated downwards if symptoms improved. Allocation to treatment group was done by a phone call from the hospital to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London using a minimisation programme with a random element and stratification by centre, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), gender, status of brain metastases, and the status of primary lung cancer. The primary outcome measure was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). QALYs were generated from overall survival and patients' weekly completion of the EQ-5D questionnaire. Treatment with OSC alone was considered non-inferior if it was no more than 7 QALY days worse than treatment with WBRT plus OSC, which required 534 patients (80% power, 5% [one-sided] significance level). Analysis was done by intention to treat for all randomly assigned patients. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN3826061.FindingsBetween March 2, 2007, and Aug 29, 2014, 538 patients were recruited from 69 UK and three Australian centres, and were randomly assigned to receive either OSC plus WBRT (269) or OSC alone (269). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups, and the median age of participants was 66 years (range 38–85). Significantly more episodes of drowsiness, hair loss, nausea, and dry or itchy scalp were reported while patients were receiving WBRT, although there was no evidence of a difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups. There was no evidence of a difference in overall survival (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·90–1·26), overall quality of life, or dexamethasone use between the two groups. The difference between the mean QALYs was 4·7 days (46·4 QALY days for the OSC plus WBRT group vs 41·7 QALY days for the OSC group), with two-sided 90% CI of −12·7 to 3·3.InterpretationAlthough the primary outcome measure result includes the prespecified non-inferiority margin, the combination of the small difference in QALYs and the absence of a difference in survival and quality of life between the two groups suggests that WBRT provides little additional ...

No abstract

We set out to test whether premature infants were able to be fed orally on feeding cues and be discharged home earlier than infants fed by traditional feeding regimens. Attainment of adequate growth, adverse events, and nursing time to provide care were also assessed. After screening, the recruited premature infants (< 36 wks post-conceptual age [PCA]) were divided into two feeding regimens. A control group of 40 infants was fed using an initial combination of scheduled gavage and bottle feeding and then graduating to demand feeds. The intervention group comprised 39 neonates who had gavage feeds discontinued at study entrance and fed orally on cues. Outcomes measured were: weight gain in grams/kg/day, length of stay (in days) after enrollment, PCA on entrance and at discharge, adverse events during feeding, number of cues per feed in the intervention group, and resource utilization using nurse/patient ratios. Differences between groups were evaluated using Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, and regression analysis. Two-tailed P values of < 0.05 were considered significant. There was no difference between groups in the mean weight gain; in the control group mean weight gain was 12.5 gm/kg/day and in the intervention group 12.1 gm/kg/day ( P = 0.83). The average length of stay in the control group of 14.5 days was significantly longer than the 10.0 days in the intervention group ( P = 0.009). This difference remained significant after adjusting for gestational age at birth in regression analysis. The average total number of adverse events in the control group (12.5 events) was significantly greater than in the intervention group (3.5 events; P = 0.007). The mean PCA on study entry was 34.4 wks in both groups and on exit 36.5 wks in the control group and 35.8 wks in the intervention group, a significant difference ( P = 0.02), The intervention group elicited 2.8 cues/feed. The nurse to patient ratios was equal in both groups throughout the study period. Cue-based feeding was possible for premature infants with similar weight gain as traditional feeding without affecting workload. Hospitalization and adverse events were decreased.

No abstract

IntroductionPalliative radiotherapy is effective in reducing symptom burden and improving quality of life in patients with symptomatic metastatic cancer and should be delivered in a timely manner. The aim of this study was to determine whether referring patients directly to a Palliative Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist (APRT) improves access to palliative radiotherapy and reduces time from referral to treatment.MethodsAt Radiation Oncology Mater Center (ROMC) in Brisbane, Australia a new referral pathway was developed which involved patients requiring palliative radiotherapy, being referred directly to the APRT from a single external hospital medical oncology and palliative care departments. Over a 5 months period, patient demographics and time in working days from referral to treatment were compared for consecutive palliative patients seen within our department. Patients were stratified by method of referral i.e. via the new referral pathway (NP) or via standard referral pathway (SP).ResultsBetween October 2014 and March 2015, a total of 150 patients were referred for palliative radiotherapy. Of these patients, 48 were referred and processed via the NP. There was a significant reduction in the number of days from referral to treatment for patients referred through the NP. Patients referred through the NP via the APRT had a mean and median wait time of 3.5 and 3 days respectively compared with 8.1 and 5 days for patients referred through the SP (P = <0.001). Patients were also more likely to have the treatment completed with less visits to the hospital (P < 0.001).ConclusionsThe new referral pathway utilising a dedicated palliative APRT decreased waiting times for patients receiving palliative radiotherapy and improved timely access to the radiotherapy service for both referrers and patients.