Explore the vast range of titles available.

The vast area of swamp and wetlands of the Southern Sudan, the Sudd, absorbs and dissipates by evaporation about half the inflow from the upper catchment of the White Nile. Canalization has been under engineering investigation to reduce this loss. This book looks at the Jonglei Canal and its impact.

Background Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. SABR delivers precise, high-dose, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and achieves excellent rates of local control for primary tumors or metastases. A recent randomized phase II trial evaluated SABR in a group of patients with a small burden of oligometastatic disease (mostly with 1–3 metastatic lesions), and found that SABR was associated with benefits in progression-free survival and overall survival. The goal of this phase III trial is to assess the impact of SABR in patients with 4–10 metastatic cancer lesions. Methods One hundred and fifty-nine patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between the control arm (consisting of standard of care palliative-intent treatments), and the SABR arm (consisting of standard of care treatment + SABR to all sites of known disease). Randomization will be stratified by two factors: histology (Group 1: prostate, breast, or renal; Group 2: all others), and type of pre-specified systemic therapy (Group 1: immunotherapy/targeted; Group 2: cytotoxic; Group 3: observation). SABR is to be completed within 2 weeks, allowing for rapid initiation of systemic therapy. Recommended SABR doses are 20 Gy in 1 fraction, 30 Gy in 3 fractions, or 35 Gy in 5 fractions, chosen to minimize risks of toxicity. The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, time to development of new metastatic lesions, quality of life, and toxicity. Translational endpoints include assessment of circulating tumor cells, cell-free DNA, and tumor tissue as prognostic and predictive markers, including assessment of immunological predictors of response and long-term survival. Discussion This study will provide an assessment of the impact of SABR on clinical outcomes and quality of life, to determine if long-term survival can be achieved for selected patients with 4–10 oligometastatic lesions. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03721341 . Date of registration: October 26, 2018.

Introduction Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a burdensome adverse event frequently associated with chemotherapy treatment of cancer. Evidence suggests that cannabinoid CB2 receptors are present in brainstem neurons, and thus, there may exist a role for cannabinoids to counter CINV. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of oral cannabinoids compared with other treatments as documented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods A literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE up until December 31, 2018; Embase Classic and Embase up until 2018 week 53; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up until November 2018. Study data were extracted and included in this meta-analysis if they reported on at least one of the following efficacy endpoints: no nausea and no vomiting, no nausea, and no vomiting. The Mantel-Haenszel method and random effects analysis model were used, to generate odds ratio (OR) and accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results In the setting of prophylactic treatment against both nausea and vomiting, oral cannabinoid was more efficacious than placebo or other studied antiemetic treatments. When controlling for vomiting, oral cannabinoid was equally as efficacious as others. Against nausea, oral cannabinoid was equally as effective as other treatments. A greater percentage of patients administered oral cannabinoid for CINV experienced dysphoria, euphoria, and sedation. Conclusion Although there exists some evidence suggesting that oral cannabinoids may have a role in controlling for emesis from a neurophysiological perspective, these conclusions are currently not mirrored in the published RCTs to date. However, there exists only a limited number of RCTs, comparisons with older treatment regimens and a lack of standard reporting practice across published literature. Further RCTs should investigate the efficacy and safety of oral cannabinoids, to secure a better picture of the efficacy of oral cannabinoids against CINV.

Non-invasive and minimally invasive ablative treatments, including stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, and cryoablation, have emerged as key treatment options for managing renal cell carcinoma, especially for patients who are unsuitable for surgery. We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of these emerging treatment methods in patients with localised renal cell carcinoma. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and the Cochrane Library for publications between Jan 1, 2000, and March 1, 2024. Eligible articles were observational studies and randomised controlled trials including at least five adult patients (age ≥18 years) with primary and localised renal cell carcinoma treated with SBRT, radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, or cryoablation and that reported on local control outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and then full texts of eligible studies were independently evaluated by the same reviewers, with disagreements resolved via discussion or consultation with a third reviewer. Summary estimates were extracted from published reports manually using a standardised data extraction form. The primary endpoint was local control rate at 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years after start of treatment. A meta-analysis was conducted using a DerSimonian and Laird model to summarise local control rates. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test. We also recorded the frequency and severity of adverse events after treatment on the basis of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 5.0) and Clavien-Dindo complication index. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024511840. We identified 6668 records, of which 330 were assessed via full-text review, and 133 were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. The eligible studies included data for 8910 patients (mean age 67·9 years [SD 7·3], 2518 [31·4%] of 8018 patients with available data were female and 5500 [68·6%] were male). Local control rates for SBRT were 99% (95% CI 97–100; I2=6%) at 1 year, 97% (95–99; I2=0%) at 2 years, and 95% (89–98; I2=42%) at 5 years; for radiofrequency ablation were 96% (94–98; I2=73%) at 1 year, 95% (92–98; I2=77%) at 2 years, and 92% (88–96; I2=78%) at 5 years; for microwave ablation were 97% (95–99; I2=74%) at 1 year, 95% (92–98; I2=77%) at 2 years, and 86% (75–94; I2=66%) at 5 years; and for cryoablation were 95% (93–96; I2=61%) at 1 year, 94% (91–96; I2=69%) at 2 years, and 90% (87–93; I2=74%) at 5 years. The proportion of patients who reported grade 3–4 adverse events was 3% (121 of 3726) after cryoablation, 2% (39 of 2503) after radiofrequency ablation, 1% (22 of 2069) after microwave ablation, and 2% (11 of 612) after SBRT. Risk of bias was moderate in most studies (70 [53%] of 133) and no publication bias was observed. All investigated ablative methods continue to represent effective treatment choices in renal cell carcinoma, and these findings support multi-disciplinary discussions of these treatment methods, along with surgery and surveillance, to individualise treatment decisions in these patients. Future research should aim to conduct randomised controlled trials across larger patient populations to further elucidate the long-term oncological and survival outcomes associated with these treatments. None.

The role of metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) remains unclear. Prostate Cancer Study 9 (PCS-9) aimed to evaluate the benefits of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in addition to standard systemic therapy in patients with oligometastatic CRPC. This open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial was conducted across 13 Canadian academic and community oncology centres. Male patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and histologically confirmed oligometastatic CRPC (≤5 metastases), who had progressed on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), were randomly assigned (1:1) to ADT–enzalutamide (ENZA; 160 mg once daily) or ADT–ENZA–SBRT to all oligometastatic sites. Randomisation was completed by sequentially numbered, sealed opaque envelopes, and stratified by the location of the metastasis. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02685397, and was halted and completed at the phase 2 stage. Between Oct 18, 2016, and July 31, 2023, 102 male patients were randomly assigned to ADT–ENZA (n=49) or ADT–ENZA–SBRT (n=53); after excluding one patient per treatment group due to early withdrawal and insufficient data, 48 patients in the ADT–ENZA group and 52 patients in the ADT–ENZA–SBRT group were included in the final analysis. Most patients were White (80 [80%]) and median age was 73·0 years (IQR 67·0–79·5). At a median follow-up of 4·8 years (IQR 3·4–5·0), ADT–ENZA–SBRT significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival compared with ADT–ENZA alone (median radiographic progression-free survival, 4·6 years [95% CI 3·7–not reached] vs 2·3 years [1·4–3·7]; hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·27–0·86]; p=0·014). The most common grade 3 treatment related adverse event was impotence (eight [57%] of 14 patients in the ADT–ENZA group and nine [75%] of 12 patients in the ADT–ENZA–SBRT group). There were no grade 4 toxicities and no treatment-related deaths. These results demonstrate that SBRT, when combined with ADT–ENZA, prolongs disease control in oligometastatic CRPC by doubling median radiographic progression-free survival, with similar toxicity profiles between the groups. These findings support integrating SBRT into the treatment paradigm for oligometastatic CRPC. Jewish General Hospital (Astellas Canada).

Background Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. SABR delivers precise, high-dose, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and achieves excellent rates of local control. Survival outcomes for patients with oligometastatic disease treated with SABR appear promising, but conclusions are limited by patient selection, and the lack of adequate controls in most studies. The goal of this multicenter randomized phase II trial is to assess the impact of a comprehensive oligometastatic SABR treatment program on overall survival and quality of life in patients with up to 5 metastatic cancer lesions, compared to patients who receive standard of care treatment alone. Methods After stratification by the number of metastases (1-3 vs. 4-5), patients will be randomized between Arm 1: current standard of care treatment, and Arm 2: standard of care treatment + SABR to all sites of known disease. Patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio to Arm 1:Arm 2, respectively. For patients receiving SABR, radiotherapy dose and fractionation depends on the site of metastasis and the proximity to critical normal structures. This study aims to accrue a total of 99 patients within four years. The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include quality of life, toxicity, progression-free survival, lesion control rate, and number of cycles of further chemotherapy/systemic therapy. Discussion This study will provide an assessment of the impact of SABR on clinical outcomes and quality of life, to determine if long-term survival can be achieved for selected patients with oligometastatic disease, and will inform the design of a possible phase III study. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01446744

Introduction Although there have been reports of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) beyond 120 h, its overall prevalence has not been systematically examined. The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to report on the prevalence of this long-delayed CINV. Methods This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022346963). PubMed (Medline), Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception until August 2022. Articles were included if they reported on CINV > 120 h after initiation of the chemotherapy regimen and patients received a single-agent highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) antineoplastic agent for 1 day alone or in combination with low/minimal emetogenic chemotherapy. For all eligible articles, individual study authors were contacted and requested to provide individual patient-level data of demographics, emetogenicity of chemotherapy regimens, and daily incidence of nausea and vomiting. Forward stepwise logistic regression identified predictors for the incident day’s CINV based on prior day’s CINV episodes, controlling for patient demographics, and stratified by regimen emetogenicity. Results A total of 2048 patients from 2 studies were included in this individual patient data meta-analysis: 1333 patients (65%) received HEC and 715 (35%) received MEC. Among those receiving HEC, 325 (24%) experienced acute, 652 (49%) delayed, and 393 (31%) long-delayed nausea; 107 (8%) experienced acute, 179 (14%) delayed, and 79 (6%) long-delayed vomiting. Among those receiving MEC, 48 (7%) experienced acute, 272 (38%) delayed, and 167 (24%) long-delayed nausea; 12 (2%) experienced acute, 97 (14%) delayed, and 42 (6%) long-delayed vomiting. Nausea in the long-delayed phase was as severe as in the delayed phase. Patients experiencing nausea and vomiting on days 4 and 5 were at significant risk of experiencing long-delayed CINV. Conclusion While not as prevalent as delayed nausea and vomiting, long-delayed CINV affects a significant proportion of patients and severity is similar. Patients with delayed CINV, specifically on days 4–5, are at risk of experiencing long-delayed CINV.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Depending on the extent of disease and competing comorbidities for mortality, multiple liver-directed therapy options exist for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Advancements in radiation oncology have led to the emergence of stereotactic body radiation therapy as a promising liver-directed therapy, which delivers high doses of radiation with a steep dose gradient to maximize local tumor control and minimize radiation-induced treatment toxicity. In this study, we review the current clinical data as well as the unresolved issues and controversies regarding stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: (1) Is there a radiation dose–response relationship with hepatocellular carcinoma? (2) What are the optimal dosimetric predictors of radiation-induced liver disease, and do they differ for patients with varying liver function? (3) How do we assess treatment response on imaging? (4) How does stereotactic body radiation therapy compare to other liver-directed therapy modalities, including proton beam therapy? Based on the current literature discussed, this review highlights future possible research and clinical directions.

IntroductionThe aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in defined hematology oncology settings including (1) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) settings (2) at 5 mg and 10 mg doses, and (3) for response rates for use in the acute, delayed, and overall settings post-MEC and HEC.MethodsOvid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through April 23, 2020. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response, in the acute (0–24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24–120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0–120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of no nausea and no emesis, for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of no serious adverse events (i.e., no grade 3 or 4 toxicities), as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO. Fragility indices were also calculated for each statistically significant endpoint, to quantitatively assess the robustness of the summary estimate. A cumulative meta-analysis was conducted for each efficacy meta-analysis with more than 5 studies, also using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model.ResultsThree studies reported on olanzapine for the rescue of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); 22 studies reported on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting. For studies reporting on HEC patients, olanzapine-containing regimens were statistically and clinically superior in seven of nine efficacy endpoints in the prophylaxis setting. When olanzapine is administered at a 10-mg dose, it is statistically and clinically superior to control patients in eight of nine endpoints among adults. Olanzapine may be effective in the MEC setting and when administered at 5-mg doses, but the paucity of data leads to notable uncertainty.ConclusionFurther RCTs are needed in the setting of MEC patients and administration of olanzapine at a lower 5-mg dose, which may be given to reduce the sedative effect of olanzapine at 10 mg.

Replication-competent virus vector vaccines might have advantages compared with non-replicating vector vaccines. We tested the safety and immunogenicity of an oral adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine candidate (Ad4-H5-Vtn) expressing the haemagglutinin from an avian influenza A H5N1 virus. We did this phase 1 study at four sites in the USA. We used a computer-generated randomisation list (block size eight, stratified by site) to assign healthy volunteers aged 18–40 years to receive one of five doses of Ad4-H5-Vtn (107 viral particles [VP], 108 VP, 109 VP, 1010 VP, 1011 VP) or placebo (3:1). Vaccine or placebo was given on three occasions, about 56 days apart. Participants, investigators, and study-site personnel were masked to assignment throughout the study. Subsequently, volunteers received a boost dose with 90 μg of an inactivated parenteral H5N1 vaccine. Primary immunogenicity endpoints were seroconversion by haemagglutination-inhibition (HAI), defined as a four-times rise compared with baseline titre, and HAI geometric mean titre (GMT). We solicited symptoms of reactogenicity daily for 7 days after each vaccination and recorded symptoms that persisted beyond 7 days as adverse events. Primary analysis was per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01006798. We enrolled 166 participants (125 vaccine; 41 placebo) between Oct 19, 2009, and Sept 9, 2010. HAI responses were low: 13 of 123 vaccinees (11%, 95% CI 6–17) and three of 41 placebo recipients (7%, 2–20) seroconverted. HAI GMT was 6 (95% CI 5–7) for vaccinees, and 5 (5–6) for placebo recipients. However, when inactivated H5N1 vaccine became available, one H5N1 boost was offered to all participants. In this substudy, HAI seroconversion occurred in 19 of 19 participants in the 1011 VP cohort (100%; 95% CI 82–100) and eight of 22 placebo recipients (36%; 17–59); 17 of 19 participants in the 1011 VP cohort (89%; 67–99) achieved seroprotection compared with four of 22 placebo recipients (18%; 5–40); GMT was 135 (89–205) with 1011 VP, compared with 13 (7–21) with placebo. The cumulative frequency of abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and nasal congestion after all three vaccinations was significantly higher in vaccinees than placebo recipients (21 [16·8%] of 125 vs one [2·4%] of 41, p=0·017; 24 [19·2%] of 125 vs two [4·9%] of 41, p=0·027; 41 [32·8%] of 125 vs six [14·6%] of 41, p=0·028; respectively). No serious treatment-related adverse events occurred. Oral Ad4 vector priming might enhance the efficacy of poorly immunogenic vaccines such as H5N1. Wellcome Trust Foundation, PaxVax.