Brachytherapy: An emblematic example of extreme hypofractionated regimen

In order to provide more convenient irradiation regimens for patient comfort, radiation facility organization and health expenses, new hypofractionated protocols have been evaluated. Moderately (dose/fraction: 2.3 to 3 Gy), then ultra (dose/fraction: 5.2 to 6.1 Gy) hypofractionated irradiations were first validated. The current question is: is it possible to go forward using extreme hypofractionated regimens (EHR) based on 1 to 3 fractions. Different irradiation techniques are under investigation. However, brachytherapy remains the smartest way to deliver a high dose in a small volume. We report prospective and retrospective study results which evaluated EHR for breast and prostate brachytherapy. While oncological outcome and toxicity profile appear extremely encouraging for low-risk breast cancer after a 1 to 4 fractions (6.25 to 20 Gy/fraction), the use of a single fraction of 19 to 23 Gy appears debatable for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy represents an emblematic example of EHR but longer follow-up and more mature results are awaited in order to specify the right indications and refine the EQD2 calculation method including new biological and technical factors.     

Thrombosis and thromboembolism: Brighton collaboration case definition and guidelines for data collection,analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data

This is a Brighton Collaboration case definition of thrombosis and thromboembolism to be used in the evaluation of adverse events following immunization, and for epidemiologic studies for the assessment of background incidence or hypothesis testing. The case definition was developed by a group of experts convened by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in the context of active development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The case definition format of the Brighton Collaboration was followed to develop a consensus definition and defined levels of certainty, after an exhaustive review of the literature and expert consultation. The document underwent peer review by the Brighton Collaboration Network and by selected expert reviewers prior to submission.     

Glycaemic control for patients with severe acute brain injury: Protocol for a systematic review

Background

Hyperglycaemia is common in patients with acute brain injury admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Many studies have found associations between development of hyperglycaemia and increased mortality in hospitalised patients. However, the optimal target for blood glucose control is unknown. We want to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to explore the beneficial and harmful effects of restrictive versus liberal glucose control on patient outcomes in adults with severe acute brain injury.

Methods

We will systematically search medical databases including CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and trial registries. We will search the following websites for ongoing or unpublished trials: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ , http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ , www.eudraCT.com , http://centerwatch.com/ , The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and CINAHL. Two authors will independently review and select trials and extract data. We will include randomised trials comparing levels of glucose control in our analyses and observational studies will be included to address potential harms. The primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality, functional outcome and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events including hypoglycaemia, length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, and explorative outcomes including intracranial pressure and infection. Trial Sequential Analysis will be used to investigate the risk of type I error due to repetitive testing and to further explore imprecision. Quality of trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Discussion

The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice.     

The apex angle of the rocker sole affects the posture and gait stability of healthy individuals

BackgroundRocker sole (RS) shoes have been linked to impaired postural control. However, which features of RS design affect balance is unclear.Research questionWhich RS design features affect standing balance and gait stability?MethodsThis study utilized an intervention and cross-over design. Twenty healthy young adults (10 males and 10 females) participated in this study. Standing balance and gait stability were measured using a single force platform and three-dimensional motion analysis system, respectively. The experimental conditions included the control shoe and five RS shoes in the combination of apex position (%) and apex angle (degree) for RS50-95, RS60-95, RS70-95, RS60-70, and RS60-110. The main outcome measures were the area surrounding the maximal rectangular amplitude, mean path length, average displacement of the center of pressure along the lateral and anterior/posterior directions, and maximal center of pressure excursion as the standing balance and lateral margin of stability as the gait stability. Statistical analyses were conducted using a two-way split-plot analysis of variance with repeated measures (with RS design as the within-subject factor and sex as the between-subject factor) and the Bonferroni post hoc test (α = .05).ResultsRegarding the mean path length, RS60-70 was significantly longer than the control shoe, and it showed a significantly increased lateral margin of stability. Thus, RS60-70 was shown to affect standing balance, limit of stability, and gait stability of the frontal plane during gait.SignificanceThese results suggest that the apex angle of the RS design feature affects standing balance and gait stability, and RS60-70 is detrimental to stability. Therefore, when RS with a small apex angle is prescribed, it is necessary to consider the patient’s balance ability.