Sort by
Minimum Stimulus Strategy: A step-by-step diagnostic approach to BPPV

Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV) is among the most common vestibular disorders, characterized by brief vertigo spells triggered by head position changes with abrupt onset and rapid decrease. BPPV is ascribed to otoconial matter dislodged from utricular macula and attached to the cupula of the affected semicircular canal (cupulolithiasis) or free-floating within its lumen (canalolithiasis).According to the vestibulo-ocular reflex pathophysiology, each cupular deflection, either exciting or inhibiting the corresponding ampullary afferents, generates the contraction of specific extraocular muscles couples leading to pathognomonic nystagmus.The Upright BPPV Protocol (UBP) is a diagnostic approach to BPPV conducted in the sitting position slowly bending the patient's head along the spatial axes, aiming to move canaliths by gravity within the involved semicircular canal, under continuous nystagmus monitoring by video-Frenzel goggles.UBP starts with the evaluation of pseudo-spontaneous nystagmus in the primary gaze position and continues with the upright Head Pitch Test (uHPT) by forward and backward head bendings along the pitch plane. The uHPT can indicate whether horizontal or vertical semicircular canal is involved. If horizontal canal is suspected, the upright Head Roll Test (uHRT) usually provides the diagnosis of the involved side and arm by tilting the patient's head rightward and leftward along the roll plane. Conversely, canalolithiasis involving the posterior semicircular canal can be diagnosed with the uHPT alone. Nevertheless, if necessary, the diagnostic sensitivity can be increased by head movements along the right anterior – left posterior (RALP) and left anterior – right posterior (LARP) canal planes (uRALP/uLARP test).Following the UBP, most BPPV form can be diagnosed in upright position, allowing clinicians to proceed immediately with proper physical treatment and avoiding unpleasant maneuvers to patients.

Relevant
Recovery of Regular Daily Physical Activities Prevents Residual Dizziness after Canalith Repositioning Procedures.

Objective: Residual dizziness is a disorder of unknown pathophysiology, which may occur after repositioning procedures for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. This study evaluates the relationship between regular daily physical activity and the development of residual dizziness after treatment for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Study Design: Prospective observational cohort study. Setting: Academic university hospital. Methods: Seventy-one patients admitted with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo involving the posterior semicircular canal were managed with Epley’s procedure. Three days after successful treatment, the patients underwent a telephone interview to investigate vertigo relapse. If the patients no longer complained of vertigo, they were asked about symptoms consistent with residual dizziness. Subsequently, they were asked about the recovery of physical activities they regularly performed prior to the onset of vertigo. Results: Sixty-nine patients (age: 57.79 ± 15.05) were enrolled: five (7.24%) reported vertigo relapse whereas twenty-one of sixty-four non-relapsed patients (32.81%) reported residual dizziness. A significant difference in the incidence of residual dizziness was observed considering the patients’ age (p = 0.0003). Of the non-relapsed patients, 46 (71.88%) recovered their regular dynamic daily activities after treatment and 9 (19.57%) reported residual dizziness, while 12 of the 18 patients (66.67%) who did not resume daily activity reported residual symptoms (p = 0.0003). A logistic regression analysis showed a significant association between daily activity resumption and lack of residual dizziness (OR: 14.01, 95% CI limits 3.14–62.47; p = 0.001). Conclusions: Regardless of age, the resumption of regular daily physical activities is associated with a lack of residual dizziness.

Open Access
Relevant
Critical impact of radiotherapy protocol compliance and quality in the treatment of retroperitoneal sarcomas: Results from the 62092-22092 STRASS trial.

11566 Background: The EORTC 22092-62092 STRASS trial failed to detect a superiority of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma as compared to surgery alone. As radiotherapy (RT) was the experimental treatment, a comprehensive quality assurance program (RTQA) has been included in the study protocol in order to detect and correct potential RT deviations. We report here the overall trial RTQA results and its potential impact on patient’s outcomes in this international phase III trial. Methods: Plans from all patients randomized to the experimental preoperative RT arm were submitted to a multidisciplinary RTQA team, consisting of medical physicists and radiation-oncologists. Target volume parameters and tumor dose coverage were prospectively reviewed by the RTQA team but not all plans were made compliant. In order to evaluate the impact on oncological outcomes, a composite endpoint, overall RT compliance status, was created; patients were classified into two major groups: RT compliant (RC) group and non-compliant (NRC) group, defining whether RT was as concisely per protocol or not. This composite endpoint combined the information related to PTV coverage, target delineation, total dose received and overall treatment time. Both abdominal recurrence-free survival (ARFS) and OS were compared between RC and NRC patients using Cox’s proportional hazard model adjusted for age, sex, WHO performance status, tumor grade, histological subtype and tumor size at baseline (millimeters). Results: After final review, 75.2% (94 out of 125) of patients had compliant RT plans (65.6% were already compliant at first submission to RTQA team and 9.6% were made compliant after review). Most patients in the NRC (77.4%) had deviations linked to incorrect target volume delineations. 3-year ARFS was 67.2% (95% Confidence interval (CI): 58.0 – 77.8%) and 48.4% (34.3 – 68.2%) for RC and NRC group, respectively (adjusted HR: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.38 – 5.07, p = 0.003). Corresponding OS at 3 years was 89.9% (95% CI: 83.6 – 96.3%) and 75.4% (95% CI: 61.9 – 91.8%) in the RC and NRC group with a trend in favor of RC (adjusted HR: 2.76, 95% CI: 0.91 – 8.43, p = 0.074). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first RTQA evaluation of a phase III sarcoma trial. The data suggests a significant benefit in terms of ARFS and a trend for OS in favor of the RT compliant group. RTQA in prospective clinical trials, investigating new RT techniques, dose levels and indications, continues to be an important and integral part of trial designing. Funding Source: EORTC, EORTC Cancer Research Fund, EUROSARC FP7 278472 and Kom op tegen Kanker (Stand up to Cancer), the Flemish Cancer Society.

Relevant