Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLee, Caroline
dc.contributor.authorBayman, Neil A
dc.contributor.authorSwindell, Ric
dc.contributor.authorFaivre-Finn, Corinne
dc.date.accessioned2010-08-09T11:56:21Z
dc.date.available2010-08-09T11:56:21Z
dc.date.issued2009-11
dc.identifier.citationProphylactic radiotherapy to intervention sites in mesothelioma: a systematic review and survey of UK practice. 2009, 66 (2):150-6 Lung Canceren
dc.identifier.issn1872-8332
dc.identifier.pmid19628291
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.lungcan.2009.06.014
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/109279
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), who undergo chest instrumentation, may develop seeding at the site of intervention, leading to subcutaneous tumour. This is believed to be reduced by the common practice of prophylactic irradiation to intervention tracts (PIT). However, evidence to support PIT is currently inadequate and contentious. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a systematic search of published literature for articles relating to the incidence of chest wall intervention tract metastases and the use of PIT in mesothelioma. In addition, a survey of current practice was conducted in 54 UK oncology centres. RESULTS: Fourteen studies revealed an incidence of chest wall intervention tract metastases of 0-48% with a trend toward a higher rate of metastases for more invasive procedures. Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), two prospective non-randomised studies and five retrospective series met the eligibility criteria to evaluate the role of PIT in MPM. Of the three RCTs, two did not support the use of PIT. None of the RCTs included patients who had received systemic chemotherapy. Of the oncology centres responding to the survey, 75% practiced PIT, and 80% would be interested in a trial to determine the efficacy of PIT. CONCLUSIONS: No consensus has been reached to support the use of PIT. However, most centres in the UK still offer PIT. There was widespread interest in a randomised controlled trial to establish PIT efficacy in the era of effective systemic chemotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectLung Canceren
dc.subjectPleural Canceren
dc.subject.meshGreat Britain
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshLung Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshMesothelioma
dc.subject.meshPleural Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshPreventive Medicine
dc.subject.meshRadiography, Interventional
dc.subject.meshThoracic Wall
dc.titleProphylactic radiotherapy to intervention sites in mesothelioma: a systematic review and survey of UK practice.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK.en
dc.identifier.journalLung Canceren
html.description.abstractBACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), who undergo chest instrumentation, may develop seeding at the site of intervention, leading to subcutaneous tumour. This is believed to be reduced by the common practice of prophylactic irradiation to intervention tracts (PIT). However, evidence to support PIT is currently inadequate and contentious. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a systematic search of published literature for articles relating to the incidence of chest wall intervention tract metastases and the use of PIT in mesothelioma. In addition, a survey of current practice was conducted in 54 UK oncology centres. RESULTS: Fourteen studies revealed an incidence of chest wall intervention tract metastases of 0-48% with a trend toward a higher rate of metastases for more invasive procedures. Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), two prospective non-randomised studies and five retrospective series met the eligibility criteria to evaluate the role of PIT in MPM. Of the three RCTs, two did not support the use of PIT. None of the RCTs included patients who had received systemic chemotherapy. Of the oncology centres responding to the survey, 75% practiced PIT, and 80% would be interested in a trial to determine the efficacy of PIT. CONCLUSIONS: No consensus has been reached to support the use of PIT. However, most centres in the UK still offer PIT. There was widespread interest in a randomised controlled trial to establish PIT efficacy in the era of effective systemic chemotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record