Mocht u kanker-actueel de moeite waard vinden en ons willen ondersteunen om kanker-actueel online te houden dan kunt u ons machtigen voor een periodieke donatie via donaties: https://kanker-actueel.nl/NL/donaties.html of doneer al of niet anoniem op - rekeningnummer NL79 RABO 0372931138 t.n.v. Stichting Gezondheid Actueel in Amersfoort. Onze IBANcode is NL79 RABO 0372 9311 38   
Elk bedrag is welkom. En we zijn een ANBI instelling dus uw donatie of gift is in principe aftrekbaar voor de belasting.

En als donateur kunt u ook korting krijgen bij verschillende bedrijven: 

https://kanker-actueel.nl/NL/voordelen-van-ops-lidmaatschap-op-een-rijtje-gezet-inclusief-hoe-het-kookboek-en-de-recepten-op-basis-van-uitgangspunten-van-houtsmullerdieet-te-downloaden-enof-in-te-zien.html

21 januari 2017: lees ook dit artikel: 

https://kanker-actueel.nl/NL/hyperbare-zuurstof-geeft-uitstekende-resultaten-op-het-herstel-van-beschadigingen-door-bestralingen-en-geeft-ook-veel-pijnverlichting-767-tot-926-procent-betere-kwaliteit-van-leven.html

4 april 2016: lees ook dit artikel: 

https://kanker-actueel.nl/NL/hyperbare-zuurstoftherapie-verbetert-in-de-meeste-gevallen-bij-meer-dan-de-helft-volledig-chronische-weefselbeschadiging-veroorzaakt-door-bestraling.html 

en dit artikel: 

https://kanker-actueel.nl/NL/hyperbare-zuurstoftherapie-na-bestraling-geeft-significant-betere-kwaliteit-van-leven-bij-patienten-die-bestraald-zijn-voor-kanker-in-mond-en-neusgebied.html

Op de website van het Instituut voor hyperbare zuurstof behandelingen staat uitstekende informatie over hyperbare zuurstof behandelingen: 

http://www.ivhg.nl/ 

4 april 2016: Bron: Lancet Oncol. 2016 Feb;17(2):224-33. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00461-1. Epub 2015 Dec 17.

Hyperbare zuurstof toegepast bij patiënten die 12 maanden na te zijn bestraald voor kanker in het bekkengebied en wel vrij waren van kanker maar nog steeds veel last hadden van maag en darmproblemen veroorzaakt door de bestraling geeft tot verrassing geen statistisch significante verbetering van deze klachten in vergelijking met geen hyperbare zuurstof. 

Dit blijkt uit een gerandomiseerde fase III sham studie bij totaal 84 patiënten die bestraald waren in het bekkengebied. (n = 55 patienten voor hyperbare zuurstof vs n = 22 patienten voor sham)

De resultaten zijn toch wel verrassend omdat er vanuit wordt gegaan dat hyperbare zuurstof een meerwaarde betekent voor mensen die problemen hebben in bestraald gebied. Echter in deze studie blijkt dit dus niet zo te zijn. Hert zwakke aan deze studie is m.i. dat ze de resultaten laten afhangen van vragenlijsten die door de patienten zelf zijn ingevuld. Dat is natuurlijk wel goed maar op zo weinig patienten en met vragen over specifieke vragen over welbevinden vind ik dit persoonlijk wel wat weinig patienten (55 vs 22) om tot een juiste conclusie te kunnen komen en dit een Fase III studie te noemen.

The two primary clinical endpoints of the study were the change in gastrointestinal symptoms score using the IBDQ and the change in rectal bleeding score (Question 22) in the IBDQ between baseline and 12 months (panel). Secondary clinical endpoints were adverse effects (bowel dysfunction) assessed according to LENT SOMA scales of radiation injury, clinical assessments of gastrointestinal symptoms according to the 11 questions selected from the CTCAE gastrointestinal scale (version 4), and patient self-assessments of quality of life recorded by the EORTC QLQ-C30 core questionnaire and QLQ-CR38 colorectal module between baseline and 12 months.

Subjective parameter score of the 4-point rectal and intestinal LENT SOMA scoring scales5

Score of 1Score of 2Score of 3Score of 4
Rectal*
Stool frequency 2–4 per day 5–8 per day >8 per day Uncontrolled diarrhoea
Sphincter control Occasional Intermittent Persistent Refractory
Pain Occasional and minimal Intermittent and tolerable Persistent and intense Refractory and excruciating
Tenesmus Occasional urgency Intermittent urgency Persistent urgency Refractory
Mucosal loss Occasional Intermittent Persistent Refractory
Intestinal
Stool frequency 2–4 per day 5–8 per day >8 per day Refractory diarrhoea
Stool consistency Bulky Loose Mucous, dark, watery ··
Pain Occasional and minimal Intermittent and tolerable Persistent and intense Refractory/rebound
Constipation 3–4 per week Only twice per week Only once per week No stool in 10 days

LENT SOMA=Late Effects in Normal Tissues Subjective, Objective, Management and Analytic scales.

*The possible range of summed results for the five questions is 0–20, where 0 indicates that no symptoms are present and 20 represents the worst possible symptomatology.
The possible range of summed results for the four questions is 0–15, where 0 indicates that no symptoms are present and 15 represents the worst possible symptomatology (there is no grade 4 stool consistency).

Maar goed het studierapport is wel heel gedetailleerd omschreven

Het volledige studierapport: Hyperbaric oxygen for patients with chronic bowel dysfunction after pelvic radiotherapy (HOT2): a randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled phase 3 trial is gratis in te zien met duidelijke grafieken en omschrijvingen hoe te werk is gegaan.

Ik vertaal dit dus maar niet. Hieronder wel het abstract van de studie.

hyperbare zuurstofkamer

Foto van hyperbare zuurstofkamer voor meerdere personen

We found no evidence that patients with radiation-induced chronic gastrointestinal symptoms, including those patients with rectal bleeding, benefit from hyperbaric oxygen therapy. These findings contrast with evidence used to justify current practices, and more level 1 evidence is urgently needed.

Lancet Oncol. 2016 Feb;17(2):224-33. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00461-1. Epub 2015 Dec 17.

Hyperbaric oxygen for patients with chronic bowel dysfunction after pelvic radiotherapy (HOT2): a randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled phase 3 trial.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Hyperbaric oxygen has been used as a therapy for patients experiencing chronic intestinal syndromes after pelvic radiotherapy for decades, yet the evidence to support the use of this therapy is based almost exclusively on non-randomised studies. We aimed to provide conclusive results for the clinical benefits of hyperbaric oxygen in patients with chronic bowel dysfunction after radiotherapy for pelvic malignancies.

METHODS:

HOT2 was a double-blind, sham-controlled, phase 3 randomised study of patients (≥18 years) with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms for 12 months or more after radiotherapy and which persisted despite at least 3 months of optimal medical therapy and no evidence of cancer recurrence. Participants were stratified by participating hyperbaric centre and randomly assigned (2:1) by a computer-generated list (block size nine or 12) to receive treatment with hyperbaric oxygen therapy or sham. Participants in the active treatment group breathed 100% oxygen at 2·4 atmospheres of absolute pressure (ATA) and the control group breathed 21% oxygen at 1·3 ATA; both treatment groups received 90-min air pressure exposures once daily for 5 days per week for a total of 8 weeks (total of 40 exposures). Staff at the participating hyperbaric medicine facilities knew the allocated treatment, but patients, clinicians, nurse practitioners, and other health-care professionals associated with patients' care were masked to treatment allocation. Primary endpoints were changes in the bowel component of the modified Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) score and the IBDQ rectal bleeding score 12 months after start of treatment relative to baseline. The primary outcome was analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population, excluding patients who did not provide IBDQ scores within a predetermined time-frame. All patients have completed 12 months of follow-up and the final analysis is complete. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN86894066.

FINDINGS:

Between Aug 14, 2009, and Oct 23, 2012, 84 participants were randomly assigned: 55 to hyperbaric oxygen and 29 to sham control. 75 (89%) participants received 40 pressure exposures, all participants returned the IBDQ at baseline, 75 (89%) participants returned the IBDQ at 2 weeks post-treatment, and 79 (94%) participants returned the IBDQ at 12 months post-start of treatment. Patients were excluded from analyses of co-primary endpoints if they had missing IBDQ scores for intestinal function or rectal bleeding at baseline or at 12 months. In an analysis of 46 participants in the active treatment group and 23 participants in the control group, we found no significant differences in the change of IBDQ bowel component score (median change from baseline to 12 months of 4 (IQR -3 to 11) in the treatment group vs 4 (-6 to 9) in the sham group; Mann-Whitney U score 0·67, p=0·50). In an analysis of 29 participants in the active treatment group and 11 participants in the sham group with rectal bleeding at baseline, we also found no significant differences in the change of IBDQ rectal bleeding score (median change from baseline to 12 months of 3 [1 to 3] in the treatment group vs 1 [1 to 2] in the sham group; U score 1·69, p=0·092). Common adverse events in both groups were eye refractive changes (three [11%] of 28 patients in the control group vs 16 [30%] of 53 patients in the treatment group), increased fatigue (three [11%] vs two [4%]), and ear pain (six [21%] vs 15 [28%]). Eight serious adverse events were reported in eight patients: two were reported in two patients in the control group (tonsillitis requiring surgery [grade 3]; recurrent cancer of the vulva [grade 4]) and six serious adverse events were reported in six patients in the treatment group (malignant spinal cord compression requiring surgery [grade 3]; malignant paraortic lymph node involvement requiring surgery [grade 3]; recurrence of vomiting and dehydration [grade 3]; diarrhoea and fever associated with Campylobacter infection [grade 3]; recurrence of abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhoea, and urinary tract infection [grade 3]; aneurysm [grade 4]), none of which were deemed treatment-related.

INTERPRETATION:

We found no evidence that patients with radiation-induced chronic gastrointestinal symptoms, including those patients with rectal bleeding, benefit from hyperbaric oxygen therapy. These findings contrast with evidence used to justify current practices, and more level 1 evidence is urgently needed.

FUNDING:

Cancer Research UK and National Health Service (NHS) funding to the National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and the Institute of Cancer Research.

Copyright © 2016 Glover et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

PMID:
26703894
[PubMed - in process]
PMCID:
PMC4737893

Referentielijst bij hyperbare zuurstof studie

References

1. Andreyev J. Gastrointestinal symptoms after pelvic radiotherapy: a new understanding to improve management of symptomatic patients. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:1007–1017. [PubMed]
2. Feldmeier JJ, Hampson NB. A systematic review of the literature reporting the application of hyperbaric oxygen prevention and treatment of delayed radiation injuries: an evidence based approach. Undersea Hyperb Med. 2002;29:4–30. [PubMed]
3. Bennett MH, Feldmeier J, Hampson N, Smee R, Milross C. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for late radiation tissue injury. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;5 CD005005. [PubMed]
4. Clarke RE, Tenorio LM, Hussey JR. Hyperbaric oxygen treatment of chronic refractory radiation proctitis: a randomized and controlled double-blind crossover trial with long-term follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72:134–143. [PubMed]
5. Pavy JJ, Denekamp J, Letschert J. EORTC Late Effects Working Group. Late effects toxicity scoring: the SOMA scale. Radiother Oncol. 1995;35:11–15. [PubMed]
6. Andreyev HJ, Benton BE, Lalji A. Algorithm-based management of patients with gastrointestinal symptoms in patients after pelvic radiation treatment (ORBIT): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382:2084–2092. [PubMed]
7. Andreyev HJ, Davidson SE, Gillespie C, Allum WH, Swarbrick E. Practice guidance on the management of acute and chronic gastrointestinal problems arising as a result of treatment for cancer. Gut. 2012;61:179–192. [PubMed]
8. Olopade F, Norman A, Blake P. A modified Inflammatory Bowel Disease questionnaire and the Vaizey Incontinence questionnaire are simple ways to identify patients with significant gastrointestinal symptoms after pelvic radiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:1663–1670. [PubMed]
9. Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, Curran D, Groenvold M. EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. 2nd edn. EORTC Quality of Life Study Group; Brussels: 1999. pp. 1–77.
10. Sprangers MA, te Velde A, Aaronson NK. The construction and testing of the EORTC colorectal cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire module (QLQ-CR38). European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Study Group on Quality of Life. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:238–247. [PubMed]
11. Cheung WY, Garratt AM, Russell IT, Williams JG. The UK IBDQ—a British version of the inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire. development and validation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:297–306. [PubMed]
12. Wedlake LJ, Silia F, Benton B. Evaluating the efficacy of statins and ACE-inhibitors in reducing gastrointestinal toxicity in patients receiving radiotherapy for pelvic malignancies. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:2117–2124. [PubMed]
13. Rubin P, Constine LS, Fajardo LF, Phillips TL, Wasserman TH. RTOG Late Effects Working Group. Overview. Late Effects of Normal Tissues (LENT) scoring system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31:1041–1042. [PubMed]
14. Hlavaty T, Persoons P, Vermeire S. Evaluation of short-term responsiveness and cutoff values of inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire in Crohn's disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2006;12:199–204. [PubMed]
15. Khalid U, McGough C, Hackett C. A modified inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire and the Vaizey Incontinence questionnaire are more sensitive measures of acute gastrointestinal toxicity during pelvic radiotherapy than RTOG grading. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64:1432–1441. [PubMed]
16. Wedlake LJ, Thomas K, Lalji A. Predicting late effects of pelvic radiotherapy: is there a better approach? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78:1163–1170. [PubMed]
17. Henson CC, Davidson SE, Ang Y. Structured gastroenterological intervention and improved outcome for patients with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms following pelvic radiotherapy. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:2255–2265. [PubMed]
18. Fajardo LF, Berthrong M. Radiation injury in surgical pathology. Part I. Am J Surg Pathol. 1978;2:159–199. [PubMed]
19. Thackham JA, McElwain DL, Long RJ. The use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy to treat chronic wounds: a review. Wound Repair Regen. 2008;16:321–330. [PubMed]
20. Knighton DR, Silver IA, Hunt TK. Regulation of wound-healing angiogenesis—effect of oxygen gradients and inspired oxygen concentration. Surgery. 1981;90:262–270. [PubMed]
21. Marx RE, Johnson RP, Kline SN. Prevention of osteoradionecrosis: a randomized prospective clinical trial of hyperbaric oxygen versus penicillin. J Am Dent Assoc. 1985;111:49–54. [PubMed]
22. Thom SR, Bhopale VM, Velazquez OC, Goldstein LJ, Thom LH, Buerk DG. Stem cell mobilization by hyperbaric oxygen. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2006;290:H1378–H1386. [PubMed]
23. Ritchie K, Baxter S, Craig J, Macpherson K, Mandava L, McIntosh H. The clinical and cost effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy. NHS Quality Improvement Scotland HTA programme: systematic review 2. NHS Quality Imporovement Scotland; Edinburgh: 2008.
24. Review of interim funded service: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment of chronic non-diabetic wounds and non-neurological soft tissue radiation injuries. MSAC application 1054.1. Assessment report. Commonwealth of Australia; Canberra: 2011.
25. Gibson RJ, Keefe DM, Lalla RV. Systematic review of agents for the management of gastrointestinal mucositis in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:313–326. [PubMed]
26. Pasquier D, Hoelscher T, Schmutz J. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the treatment of radio-induced lesions in normal tissues: a literature review. Radiother Oncol. 2004;72:1–13. [PubMed]

Plaats een reactie ...

Reageer op "hyperbare zuurstof geeft geen significante verbetering van bloedingen in buik en bekken bij operatie in bestraald gebied"


Gerelateerde artikelen
 

Gerelateerde artikelen

hyperbare zuurstoftherapie >> hyperbare zuurstof geeft geen >> Hyperbare zuurstoftherapie >> Hyperbare zuurstoftherapie >> Hyperbare zuurstof geeft uitstekende >>