Trends in radiation dose for low grade gliomas across the United States

Journal of Neuro-Oncology - Adjuvant radiation is often used in patients with low grade gliomas with high-risk characteristics with a recommended dose of 45–54 Gy. We used the...     

‘It felt like there was always someone there for us’: Supporting children affected by domestic violence and abuse who are identified by general practice

One in five children in the UK are affected by domestic violence and abuse. However, primary care clinicians (GPs and nurses) struggle to effectively identify and support children and young people living in homes where it is present. The IRIS+ (Enhanced Identification and Referral to Improve Safety) training and advocacy support intervention aimed to improve how clinicians respond to children and young people affected by domestic violence and abuse. IRIS+ training was delivered as part of a feasibility study to four general practices in an urban area in England (UK). Our mixed method design included interviews and questionnaires about the IRIS+ intervention with general practice patients, including children and young people as well as with clinicians and advocacy service providers. We collected the number of identifications and referrals by clinicians of children experiencing domestic violence and abuse through a retrospective search of medical and agency records 10 months after the intervention. Forty-nine children exposed to domestic violence and abuse were recorded in medical records. Thirty-five children were referred to a specialist domestic violence and abuse support service over a period of 10 months. Of these, 22 received direct or indirect support. The qualitative findings indicated that children benefitted from being referred by clinicians to the service. However, several barriers at the patient and professional level prevented children and young people from being identified and supported. Some of these barriers can be addressed through modifications to professional training and guidance, but others require systematic and structural changes to the way health and social care services work with children affected by domestic violence and abuse.     

Biomechanical comparison of stemless humeral components in total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare initial fixation strength between various stemless and stemmed humeral components and to correlate implant fixation strength with bone mineral density (BMD).MethodsFive humeral stem designs were investigated: Stemless-A (four hollow fins), Stemless-B (central body, three solid fins), Stemless-C (central screw, peripheral rim-fit), Short stem (50 mm), and Standard stem (130 mm). Fifty cadaveric human humerii were obtained and divided into five groups. BMD within the humeral head was determined for all samples. The mean BMD was similar between groups. The 25 samples with the lowest and highest BMDs were categorized as “Low” and “High,” respectively, with a BMD threshold of 0.35 g/cm², creating BMD subgroups. After implantation, each sample underwent a standardized biomechanical testing protocol, with axial loading followed by torsional loading. Sensors attached to the specimen recorded micromotion throughout testing. Axial loading consisted of cyclic loading for 100 cycles at 3 peak forces (220, 520, and 820 N). Torsional loading consisted of 100 cycles of internal/external rotation at 0.1 Hz at 6 peak torques, or until failure (±2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, and 15 Nm). Failure was defined as the torque at which any bone fracture, implant detachment from anchor/stem, or an excess of 50° internal/external rotation occurred. Groups and BMD subgroups were compared.ResultsAt maximal axial loading, Stemless-B demonstrated greater micromotion (540 μm) than Stemless-C (192 μm) (P = .003). Stemless-B and Stemless-A (387 μm) also had greater micromotion than Short stem (118 μm, P < .001, P = .03) and Standard stem (85 μm, P < .001, P = .01). When comparing low-BMD samples at maximal axial loading, these differences were accentuated, but comparison of high-BMD samples showed no significant differences between groups. Torsional testing demonstrated that Standard stem failed at greater torque (7.2 Nm) than Stemless-B (2.3 Nm, P < .001), Stemless-A (1.9 Nm, P < .001), and Stemless-C (3.9 Nm, P = .01). When comparing torsional testing results of low-BMD samples, both Standard stem and Short stem failed at greater torque than Stemless-B (P = .02, P = .003) and Stemless-A (P = .03, P = .004) but failed at a similar torque to Stemless-C. Torsional testing of high-BMD samples showed that Standard stem failed at a greater torque than all stemless designs.ConclusionStemless humeral implants should be used with caution in low-BMD settings (<0.35 g/cm²). A central screw and peripheral rim-fit stemless anchor design demonstrated greater fixation strength at low BMD when compared with other designs, while all stemless designs performed similarly at high BMD.Level of evidenceBasic Science Study; Cadaveric Study     

Phase I Study of Afatinib and Selumetinib in Patients with KRAS-Mutated Colorectal,Non-Small Cell Lung,and Pancreatic Cancer

Lessons Learned

• Afatinib and selumetinib can be combined in continuous and intermittent dosing schedules, albeit at lower doses than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose for continuous and intermittent schedules is afatinib 20 mg once daily and selumetinib 25 mg b.i.d.
• Because the anticancer activity was limited, further development of this combination is not recommended until better biomarkers for response and resistance are defined.

BackgroundAntitumor effects of MEK inhibitors are limited in KRAS‐mutated tumors because of feedback activation of upstream epidermal growth factor receptors, which reactivates the MAPK and the phosphoinositide 3‐kinase–AKT pathway. Therefore, this phase I trial was initiated with the pan‐HER inhibitor afatinib plus the MEK inhibitor selumetinib in patients with KRAS mutant, PIK3CA wild‐type tumors.MethodsAfatinib and selumetinib were administered according to a 3+3 design in continuous and intermittent schedules. The primary objective was safety, and the secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsTwenty‐six patients were enrolled with colorectal cancer (n = 19), non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 6), and pancreatic cancer (n = 1). Dose‐limiting toxicities occurred in six patients, including grade 3 diarrhea, dehydration, decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, and mucositis. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was 20 mg afatinib once daily (QD) and 25 mg selumetinib b.i.d. (21 days on/7 days off) for continuous afatinib dosing and for intermittent dosing with both drugs 5 days on/2 days off. Efficacy was limited with disease stabilization for 221 days in a patient with NSCLC as best response.ConclusionAfatinib and selumetinib can be combined in continuous and intermittent schedules in patients with KRAS mutant tumors. Although target engagement was observed, the clinical efficacy was limited.