Radiotherapy for benign disease; assessing the risk of radiation-induced cancer following exposure to intermediate dose radiation

Most radiotherapy (RT) involves the use of high doses (>50 Gy) to treat malignant disease. However, low to intermediate doses (approximately 3–50 Gy) can provide effective control of a number of benign conditions, ranging from inflammatory/proliferative disorders (e.g. Dupuytren''s disease, heterotopic ossification, keloid scarring, pigmented villonodular synovitis) to benign tumours (e.g. glomus tumours or juvenile nasopharyngeal angiofibromas). Current use in UK RT departments is very variable. This review identifies those benign diseases for which RT provides good control of symptoms with, for the most part, minimal side effects. However, exposure to radiation has the potential to cause a radiation-induced cancer (RIC) many years after treatment. The evidence for the magnitude of this risk comes from many disparate sources and is constrained by the small number of long-term studies in relevant clinical cohorts. This review considers the types of evidence available, i.e. theoretical models, phantom studies, epidemiological studies, long-term follow-up of cancer patients and those treated for benign disease, although many of the latter data pertain to treatments that are no longer used. Informative studies are summarized and considered in relation to the potential for development of a RIC in a range of key tissues (skin, brain etc.). Overall, the evidence suggests that the risks of cancer following RT for benign disease for currently advised protocols are small, especially in older patients. However, the balance of risk vs benefit needs to be considered in younger adults and especially if RT is being considered in adolescents or children.     

Dermatologic Surgical Research and the Institutional Review Board

BACKGROUND: Dermatologic surgical techniques have transformed cosmetic surgery over the last two decades. Many of the advances in cutaneous laser surgery, botulinum toxin injections, tumescent liposuction, and the latest filler agents have been evaluated on willing volunteers as part of organized trials under the auspices of an Institutional Review Board (IRB). OBJECTIVES: To review the developmental history of today's IRB and to provide relevance to cosmetic dermatologic research. RESULTS: Although an IRB must evaluate the "voluntariness" of a proposed research protocol, the risk-benefit ratio, particularly of elective cosmetic dermatologic surgical human studies, is of even greater importance. CONCLUSION: As more dermatologic surgeons become involved in clinical research, an understanding of the function and purpose of the IRB has become increasingly important. Research relating to cosmetic dermatologic procedures raises challenging and perplexing problems for an IRB.     

Guardianship: A medicolegal review for clinicians

Guardianship may pose an ethical dilemma for physicians, who must balance protecting vulnerable patients from potential safety concerns with respecting their autonomy. Older adults with dementia are particularly susceptible to loss of independence and the ability to participate in medical decision making. To have the capacity for medical decision making, individuals must understand relevant information, appreciate their circumstances, demonstrate reasoning, and express a consistent choice free from coercion. Although capacity assessments are usually task-specific, geriatricians and other specialists may be asked to comment on capacity more globally. These determinations may be used to support a Petition for the Appointment of a Guardian of a Legally Incapacitated Adult, the legal process of pursuing guardianship in probate court. Assigned guardians may be known to the incapacitated individual (e.g., a family member or friend) or may be professional guardians with no prior relationship to the ward. Guardians are encouraged to use substituted decision-making, taking into account the ward's previously expressed values and preferences. Although a number of viable alternatives to guardianship exist, numerous systemic barriers may prevent these from being fully explored. The ongoing need for guardianship should be periodically revisited and reassessed. Data about guardians and wards is shockingly sparse, as there are no centralized databases. Laws and regulations for guardianships vary significantly between states. Physicians can serve as important allies and advocates for patients with cognitive impairment at risk of incapacity, can help preserve their autonomy for as long as possible, and ensure appropriate protections are in place if the patient does lose their decision-making ability.