| 1. |
- Skripcak, Tomas, et al.
(författare)
-
Creating a data exchange strategy for radiotherapy research : Towards federated databases and anonymised public datasets
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Radiotherapy and Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-8140 .- 1879-0887. ; 113:3, s. 303-309
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Disconnected cancer research data management and lack of information exchange about planned and ongoing research are complicating the utilisation of internationally collected medical information for improving cancer patient care. Rapidly collecting/pooling data can accelerate 'translational research in radiation therapy and oncology. The exchange of study data is one of the fundamental principles behind data aggregation and data mining. The possibilities of reproducing the original study results, performing further analyses on existing research data to generate new hypotheses or developing computational models to support medical decisions (e.g. risk/benefit analysis of treatment options) represent just a fraction of the potential benefits of medical data-pooling. Distributed machine learning and knowledge exchange from federated databases can be considered as one beyond other attractive approaches for knowledge generation within "Big Data". Data interoperability between research institutions should be the major concern behind a wider collaboration. Information captured in electronic patient records (EPRs) and study case report forms (eCRFs), linked together with medical imaging and treatment planning data, are deemed to be fundamental elements for large multi-centre studies in the field of radiation therapy and oncology. To fully utilise the captured medical information, the study data have to be more than just an electronic version of a traditional (un-modifiable) paper CRF. Challenges that have to be addressed are data interoperability, utilisation of standards, data quality and privacy concerns, data ownership, rights to publish, data pooling architecture and storage. This paper discusses a framework for conceptual packages of ideas focused on a strategic development for international research data exchange in the field of radiation therapy and oncology.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lacas, Benjamin, et al.
(författare)
-
Role of radiotherapy fractionation in head and neck cancers (MARCH) : an updated meta-analysis
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 18:9, s. 1221-1237
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in squamous cell Carcinomas of Head and neck (MARCH) showed that altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with improved overall and progression-free survival compared with conventional radiotherapy, with hyperfractionated radiotherapy showing the greatest benefit. This update aims to confirm and explain the superiority of hyperfractionated radiotherapy over other altered fractionation radiotherapy regimens and to assess the benefit of altered fractionation within the context of concomitant chemotherapy with the inclusion of new trials. Methods For this updated meta-analysis, we searched bibliography databases, trials registries, and meeting proceedings for published or unpublished randomised trials done between Jan 1, 2009, and July 15, 2015, comparing primary or postoperative conventional fractionation radiotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy (comparison 1) or conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone (comparison 2). Eligible trials had to start randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1970, and completed accrual before Dec 31, 2010; had to have been randomised in a way that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment; and had to include patients with non-metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx undergoing first-line curative treatment. Trials including a non-conventional radiotherapy control group, investigating hypofractionated radiotherapy, or including mostly nasopharyngeal carcinomas were excluded. Trials were grouped in three types of altered fractionation: hyperfractionated, moderately accelerated, and very accelerated. Individual patient data were collected and combined with a fixed-effects model based on the intention-to-treat principle. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Findings Comparison 1 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy vs altered fractionation radiotherapy) included 33 trials and 11 423 patients. Altered fractionation radiotherapy was associated with a significant benefit on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·90–0·98; p=0·0033), with an absolute difference at 5 years of 3·1% (95% CI 1·3–4·9) and at 10 years of 1·2% (−0·8 to 3·2). We found a significant interaction (p=0·051) between type of fractionation and treatment effect, the overall survival benefit being restricted to the hyperfractionated group (HR 0·83, 0·74–0·92), with absolute differences at 5 years of 8·1% (3·4 to 12·8) and at 10 years of 3·9% (−0·6 to 8·4). Comparison 2 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone) included five trials and 986 patients. Overall survival was significantly worse with altered fractionation radiotherapy compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (HR 1·22, 1·05–1·42; p=0·0098), with absolute differences at 5 years of −5·8% (−11·9 to 0·3) and at 10 years of −5·1% (−13·0 to 2·8). Interpretation This update confirms, with more patients and a longer follow-up than the first version of MARCH, that hyperfractionated radiotherapy is, along with concomitant chemoradiotherapy, a standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers. The comparison between hyperfractionated radiotherapy and concomitant chemoradiotherapy remains to be specifically tested. Funding Institut National du Cancer; and Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Valentini, Vincenzo, et al.
(författare)
-
Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Management : 2nd European Rectal Cancer Consensus Conference (EURECA-CC2)
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Radiotherapy and Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-8140 .- 1879-0887. ; 92:2, s. 148-163
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: During the first decade of the 21st century a number of important European randomized studies were published. In order to help shape clinical practice based on best scientific evidence from the literature, the International Conference on 'Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Treatment: Looking for an European Consensus' (EURECA-CC2) was organized in Italy under the endorsement of European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), and European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO). METHODS: Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. The document was available to all Committee members as a web-based document customized for the consensus process. Eight chapters were identified: epidemiology, diagnostics, pathology, surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, treatment toxicity and quality of life, follow-up, and research questions. Each chapter was subdivided by a topic, and a series of statements were developed. Each member commented and voted, sentence by sentence thrice. Sentences upon which an agreement was not reached after voting round # 2 were openly debated during a Consensus Conference in Perugia (Italy) from 11 December to 13 December 2008. A hand-held televoting system collected the opinions of both the Committee members and the audience after each debate. The Executive Committee scored percentage consensus based on three categories: "large consensus", "moderate consensus", and "minimum consensus". RESULTS: The total number of the voted sentences was 207. Of the 207, 86% achieved large consensus, 13% achieved moderate consensus, and only 3 (1%) resulted in minimum consensus. No statement was disagreed by more than 50% of the members. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the members, and the majority was voted on by >85%. CONCLUSIONS: This Consensus Conference represents an expertise opinion process that may help shape future programs, investigational protocols, and guidelines for staging and treatment of rectal cancer throughout Europe.
|
|
