Search

Background: After brain metastasis resection, whole brain radiotherapy decreases local recurrence, but might cause cognitive decline. We did this study to determine if stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to the surgical cavity improved time to local recurrence compared with that for surgical resection alone.Methods: In this randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients at a single tertiary cancer centre in the USA. Eligible patients were older than 3 years, had a Karnofsky Performance Score of 70 or higher, were able to have an MRI scan, and had a complete resection of one to three brain metastases (with a maximum diameter of the resection cavity ≤4 cm). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a block size of four to either SRS of the resection cavity (within 30 days of surgery) or observation. Patients were stratified by histology of the primary tumour, metastatic tumour size, and number of metastases. The primary endpoint was time to local recurrence in the resection cavity, assessed by blinded central review of brain MRI scans by the study neuroradiologist in the modified intention-to-treat population that analysed patients by randomised allocation but excluded patients found ineligible after randomisation. Participants and other members of the treatment team (excluding the neuroradiologist) were not masked to treatment allocation. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00950001, and is closed to new participants.Findings: Between Aug 13, 2009, and Feb 16, 2016, 132 patients were randomly assigned to the observation group (n=68) or SRS group (n=64), with 128 patients available for analysis; four patients were ineligible (three from the SRS group and one from the observation group). Median follow-up was 11·1 months (IQR 4·8-20·4). 12-month freedom from local recurrence was 43% (95% CI 31-59) in the observation group and 72% (60-87) in the SRS group (hazard ratio 0·46 [95% CI 0·24-0·88]; p=0·015). There were no adverse events or treatment-related deaths in either group.Interpretation: SRS of the surgical cavity in patients who have had complete resection of one, two, or three brain metastases significantly lowers local recurrence compared with that noted for observation alone. Thus, the use of SRS after brain metastasis resection could be an alternative to whole-brain radiotherapy.Funding: National Institutes of Health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Do oral contraceptives (OCs) and progestins impact live birth rate of IVF when used for cycle scheduling in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)?Summary Answer: OCs used for scheduling IVF cycle were associated with lowered rates of pregnancy and live birth after fresh embryo transfer, whereas progestins used for this purpose yield higher rates of pregnancy and live birth than OCs.What Is Known Already: Due to oligo-menorrhea in PCOS, OCs and progestin are extensively used to schedule the start of an IVF cycle in women with PCOS. Little is known about the effect of such pretreatments on outcomes, especially, the rate of live birth.Study Design, Size, Duration: This was a nested cohort study and secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial, which was designed to compare live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer vs frozen embryo transfer (FET) in women with PCOS (Frefro-PCOS). A total of 1508 women were enrolled from 14 centers between June 2013 and May 2014.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: At the discretion of local investigators, subjects were instructed to wait for spontaneous menses (Control group, n = 323), or were prescribed progestins (P group, n = 283) or OCs (OCs group, n = 902) to induce menstruation prior to the start of ovarian stimulation. GnRH antagonist protocol was initiated at Day 2 or 3 of induced or spontaneous menses cycle. The rates of pregnancy, pregnancy loss and live birth after either fresh embryo transfer or FET were compared among these three groups.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: With fresh embryo transfer, women with OC-induced menses had lower rates of clinical pregnancy (48.8% vs 63.6%, relative rate (RR): 0.77, 95% CI: 0.66-0.89) and live birth (36.1% vs 48.1%, RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.61-0.92) than women with spontaneous menses. With freeze-all and deferred FET, women with OC-induced menses had a similar pregnancy rate but a higher pregnancy loss rate (27.7% vs 13.0%, RR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.28-3.52) after FET than women with spontaneous menses. The live birth rate after FET in women with OC-induced menses, progestin-induced menses and spontaneous menses was 49.4%, 50.7% and 60.2%, respectively (P = 0.06). Progestin-induced menses was associated with similar rates of pregnancy, pregnancy loss and live birth after transfer of either fresh or frozen embryos compared with spontaneous menses. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that OCs used for menses induction was associated with lower rate of live birth.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: The methods for menses induction were not assigned randomly, thus selection bias was highly likely because of the study design and significant differences that were observed in the baseline characteristics of the women in the different groups. The mean BMI in this study population was relatively normal; the applicability of this result to obese PCOS women needs to be evaluated in further study.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Our results suggest that either waiting for a spontaneous menses or using progestin is a better option than using OCs to induce menses in women with PCOS prior to ovarian stimulation using GnRH antagonist protocol for IVF. Further randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm our findings.Study Funding/competing Interests: This study was funded by National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) (2012CB944700), the State Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (81430029), National Natural Science Foundation of China (81471428) and Thousand Talents Program (Drs Legro and Zhang H). Dr Legro reports receiving consulting fees from Euroscreen, Kindex, Bayer and Millendo Pharmaceuticals and research funding from Ferring. Others report no disclosures.Trial Registration Number: Frefro-PCOS was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01841528. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]