BACKGROUND: Palliation of malign biliary obstruction is important which is commonly carried out by percutaneous biliary stenting. Our primary aim with this study was assessment of performance of wall stents, and nitinol stents for the palliation of malign biliary obstruction.
METHODS: The medical records of 157 patients who underwent biliary stenting in our department between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2005, were retrospectively analyzed. Technical success, treatment success, mortality in the first 30 days, minor, and major complications were evaluated and compared among the wall stent, and the nitinol stent groups in all patients which constituted the primary study endpoints. Additionally, stent patency, and mean patient survival times after stent implantation were evaluated in patients for whom follow-up information could be obtained.
RESULTS: A total of 213 metallic stents were placed in 157 patients. Wall stent was placed in 83 of the patients with mean age, and SD of 60.4 and 13.5. Nitinol stent was placed in 74 of the patients with mean age of 57.8, and SD of 15.5. Gender ratio was equal in both groups. Biliary stent dysfunction was observed in 13 patients in each of nitinol, and wall stent groups throughout the study period. There was no statistical difference among re-occlusion rates (p = 0.91). For the nitinol stent group median primary patency time was 119 days (90-185 days CI 95%), and for the wall stent group median primary patency time was 81 days (60-150 days CI 95%).
CONCLUSIONS: Nitinol stents, and wall stents are safe options that can be safely used in the percutaneous treatment of malignant biliary obstruction with similar treatment and therapeutic success, low complication rates, and patency times that can extend beyond expected survival times.

UNASSIGNED: Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) stent placement and systemic-pulmonary surgical shunt procedure can both be performed as palliation for infants with duct-dependent pulmonary circulation. The aim of this meta-analysis and literature review was to compare outcomes and study populations between the 2 methods as well as review the technical considerations and complications of PDA stenting.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic search was conducted using the PubMed database and meta-analysis was performed. Risk ratio and mean difference were used to compare the reported outcomes of studies across patients receiving PDA stent and surgical shunt.
UNASSIGNED: In total, 1094 patients from 8 comparative observational studies were included. The PDA stent group had a lower mortality rate and a shorter hospital length of stay than the systemic-pulmonary surgical shunt group, although at the expense of increased reintervention rates. There were higher proportions of patients with single-ventricle physiology and single-source pulmonary blood flow in the surgical shunt group.
UNASSIGNED: PDA stenting appears to be a noninferior or possibly superior method of palliation for duct-dependent pulmonary circulation compared with systemic-pulmonary surgical shunt, recognizing, however, that patients receiving surgical shunt more often had single-ventricle physiology or single-source pulmonary blood flow in this meta-analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.jscai.2022.100392.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.jscai.2023.101051.].

Background: Hybrid stage I palliation (HS1P) has been utilized for patients with single ventricle (SV) congenital heart disease (CHD). To date, reports on the use of HS1P for other indications including biventricular (BiV) CHD have been limited. Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent HS1P with an anticipated physiologic outcome of BiV repair, or with an undetermined SV versus BiV outcome. Patient characteristics and outcomes from birth through definitive repair or palliation were collected and reported with descriptive statistics. Results: Nineteen patients underwent HS1P with anticipated BiV repair. Extracardiac and intracardiac risk factors (ICRF) were common. Ultimately, 13 (68%) patients underwent BiV repair, 1 (5%) underwent SV palliation, and 5 (26%) died prior to further palliation or repair. Resolution of ICRF tracked with BiV outcome (6/6, 100%), persistence of ICRF tracked with SV outcome or death (3/3, 100%). Twenty patients underwent HS1P with an undetermined outcome. Ultimately, 13 (65%) underwent BiV repair, 6 (30%) underwent SV palliation, and 1 (5%) underwent transplant. There were no deaths. Intracardiac risk factors were present in 15 of 20 patients (75%); BiV repair only occurred when all ICRF resolved (67%). Post-HS1P complications and reinterventions occurred frequently in both groups, through all phases of care. Conclusions: Hybrid stage 1 palliation can be used to defer BiV repair and to delay decision between SV palliation and BiV repair. Resolution of ICRF was associated with ultimate outcome. In this high-risk group, complications are common, and mortality especially in the marginal BiV patient is high.

UNASSIGNED: The optimal treatment strategy for symptomatic young infants with tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) is unclear. We sought to compare the outcomes of staged repair (SR) (shunt palliation followed by second-stage complete repair) versus primary repair (PR) at 2 institutions that have exclusively adopted each strategy.
UNASSIGNED: We performed propensity score-matched comparison of 143 infants under 4 months of age who underwent shunt palliation at one institution between 1993 and 2021 with 122 infants who underwent PR between 2004 and 2018 at another institution. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, durations of perioperative support and hospital stays, and reinterventions. Median follow-up was 8.3 years (interquartile range, 8.1-13.4 years).
UNASSIGNED: After the initial procedure, hospital mortality (shunt, 2.8% vs PR, 2.5%; P = .86) and 10-year survival (shunt, 95%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 90%-98% vs PR, 90%; 95% CI, 81%-95%; P = .65) were similar. The SR group had a greater risk of early reinterventions but similar rates of late reinterventions. Propensity score matching yielded 57 well-balanced pairs. In the matched cohort, the SR group had similar freedom from reintervention (55%; 95% CI, 39%-68% vs 59%; 95% CI, 43%-71%; P = .85) and greater survival (98%; 95% CI, 88%-99.8% vs 85%; 95% CI, 69%-93%; P = .02) at 10 years, as the result of more noncardiac-related mortalities in the PR group.
UNASSIGNED: In symptomatic young infants with TOF operated at 2 institutions with exclusive treatment protocols, the SR strategy was associated with similar cardiac-related mortality and reinterventions as the PR strategy at medium-term follow-up.

With improving rates of survival among patients with metastatic malignancies, the request for palliative re-irradiation and re-re-irradiation continues to grow despite an absence of standardized guidelines. With only limited data regarding extra-cranial third-course palliative radiation, many radiation oncologists may feel uncomfortable proceeding with third-course irradiation of the same site. The review explores the available modern data regarding re-re-irradiation. A literature review identified four modern peer-reviewed studies investigating palliative, extra-cranial third-course irradiation with external beam radiation. These studies were retrospective, small, and heterogenous. While they reported comparable rates of pain palliation to first course irradiation and low rates of acute toxicity, interpretation is complicated by heterogeneous treatment parameters and insufficient reporting of cumulative dose equivalents and time intervals. With limited data available, it is critical to prioritize patient safety and quality of life in palliative radiotherapy. Patient selection should be meticulous, considering factors such as initial treatment response and predicted life expectancy. Conformal radiation techniques, strict immobilization, and daily image guidance should be employed to minimize toxicity to organs at risk (OARs). Long-term follow-up is essential for identifying and managing late toxicities effectively. Despite the scarcity of data, retrospective series suggest that extra-cranial third course irradiation can provide effective pain palliation comparable to first-course irradiation with tolerable rates of toxicity. However, careful consideration of patient prognosis and adherence to established principles of palliative radiotherapy are essential in decision-making. Further research and long-term follow-up are needed to refine treatment strategies and ensure safe and efficacious care delivery in this complex clinical scenario.

In \"graying\" populations with extended lifespans and survivable forms of cancer, palliative services become increasingly important but may be difficult to introduce into public discourse, public policy, and healthcare systems. Latin America (LATAM) faces many challenges as it introduces and, in some cases, develops its palliative care programs; though the challenges faced here are in many ways universal ones, LATAM approaches may be unique and based on the region\'s specific culture, politics, and economics. This narrative review based on a literature search identified 10 main themes that can be interpreted as challenges and opportunities for palliative care in LATAM. These challenges are integrating palliation into healthcare systems; public policy and funding; therapeutic obstinacy; changing demographics; access to services; analgesia; the role of religion, spirituality, and folk medicine; social determinants of palliative care; low health literacy; and limited clinician training. Some of the LATAM nations have palliative programs and palliative care training in place while others are developing these systems. Integrating this care into existing healthcare and reimbursement systems has been a challenge. A notable challenge in LATAM is also access to care since palliative programs tend to cluster in metropolitan areas and create hardships for rural citizens to access them. The better-defined role of familial caregivers and telehealth may be important factors in the expansion of palliative care in LATAM and beyond.

OBJECTIVE: Many cancer patients develop bone metastases, however the prognosis of overall survival differs. To provide an optimal treatment for these patients, especially towards the end of life, a reliable prediction of survival is needed. The goal of this study was to find new clinical factors in relation to overall survival.
METHODS: Prospectively 22 clinical factors were collected from 734 patients. The Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models were used.
RESULTS: Most patients were diagnosed with lung cancer (29%), followed by prostate (19.8%) and breast cancer (14.7%). Median overall survival was 6.4months. Fourteen clinical factors showed significance in the univariate analyses. In the multivariate analyses 6 factors were found to be significant for the overall survival: Karnofsky performance status, primary tumor, gender, total organs affected, morphine use and systemic treatment options after radiotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Morphine use and systemic treatment options after radiotherapy, Karnofsky performance status, primary tumor, gender and total organs affected are strong prediction factors on overall survival after palliative radiotherapy in patients with bone metastasis. These factors are easily applicable in the clinic.

Indications for re-irradiation are increasing both for palliation and potentially curative attempts to achieve durable local control. This has been in part driven by the technological advances in the last decade including image-guided brachytherapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy. These enable high dose focal irradiation to be delivered to a limited target volume with minimal normal tissue re-irradiation. The European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) have collaboratively developed a comprehensive consensus on re-irradiation practices, aiming to standardise definitions, reporting, and clinical decision-making processes. The document introduces a universally applicable definition for re-irradiation, categorised into two primary types based on the presence of geometric overlap of irradiated volumes and concerns for cumulative dose toxicity. It also identifies \"repeat organ irradiation\" and \"repeat irradiation\" for cases without such overlap, emphasising the need to consider toxicity risks associated with cumulative doses. Additionally, the document presents detailed reporting guidelines for re-irradiation studies, specifying essential patient and tumour characteristics, treatment planning and delivery details, and follow-up protocols. These guidelines are designed to improve the quality and reproducibility of clinical research, thus fostering a more robust evidence base for future re-irradiation practices. The consensus underscores the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration and shared decision-making, highlighting performance status, patient survival estimates, and response to initial radiotherapy as critical factors in determining eligibility for re-irradiation. It advocates for a patient-centric approach, with transparent communication about treatment intent and potential risks. Radiobiological considerations, including the application of the linear-quadratic model, are recommended for assessing cumulative doses and guiding re-irradiation strategies. By providing these comprehensive recommendations, the ESTRO-EORTC consensus aims to enhance the safety, efficacy, and quality of life for patients undergoing re-irradiation, while paving the way for future research and refinement of treatment protocols in the field of oncology.

BACKGROUND: Dedicated palliative radiation oncology programs (PROPs) within radiation oncology (RO) practices have been shown to improve quality and decrease costs of radiation therapy (RT) in advanced cancer patients. Despite this, relatively few PROPs currently exist, highlighting an unmet need to understand characteristics of the few existing PROPs and the potential barriers and facilitators that exist in starting and maintaining a successful PROP. We sought to assess the attributes of existing PROPs, the facilitators and barriers to establishing these programs, and the resources needed to create and maintain a successful program.
METHODS: A 15-item online survey was sent to 157 members of the Society of Palliative Radiation Oncology (SPRO) in July 2019.
RESULTS: Of the 157 members, 48 (31%) responded. Most practiced in an academic center (71% at main center and 15% at satellite) and 75% were from a larger group practice (≥6 physicians). Most (89%) believed the development and growth of a dedicated PROPs was either important (50%) or most important (39%) to the field of RO. Only 36% of respondents had a PROP, 38% wanted to establish one, and 13% were currently developing one. Of those with PROPs (N=16), 75% perceived an increase in the number of referrals for palliative RT since starting the program. A majority had an ability to refer to an outside palliative care specialist (64%), an outpatient RO service (53%), and specialized clinical processes for managing palliative radiotherapy patients (53%), with 41% having an inpatient RO consult service. Resources considered most essential were access to specialist-level palliative care, advanced practice provider support, a radiation oncologist with an interest in palliative care, having an outpatient palliative RO clinic, an emphasis on administering short radiation courses, and opportunities for educational development. Of those with a PROP or those who have tried to start one, the greatest perceived barriers to initiating a PROP were committed resources (83%), blocked out clinical time (61%), challenges coordinating management of patients (61%), and support from leaders/colleagues (61%). Perceived barriers to sustaining a PROP were similar. For those without a PROP, the perceived most important resources for starting one included access to palliative care specialist by referral (83%), published guidelines with best practices (80%), educational materials for referring physicians and patients (80%), educational sessions for clinical staff (83%), and standardized clinical pathways (80%).
CONCLUSIONS: PROPs are not widespread, exist mainly within academic centers, are outpatient, have access to palliative care specialists by referral, and have specialized clinical processes for palliative radiation patients. Lack of committed resources was the single most important perceived barrier for initiating or maintaining a PROP. Best practice guidelines, educational resources, access to palliative care specialists and standardized pathways are most important for those who wish to develop a PROP. These insights can inform discussions and help align resources to develop, grow, and maintain a successful PROP.