Search

Radical treatment of localised prostate cancer is recognised to be an unnecessary intervention or overtreatment in many men. Consequently, there has been a rapid uptake in the use of focal ablative therapies. However, there are several biological and practical concerns about such approaches as they have yet to be proved as robust treatment options. In particular, the multifocal nature of prostate cancer argues against unifocal treatment, while limitations in imaging can preclude the accurate identification of the number, location, and extent of prostate cancer foci. To date, a number of ablative options have reported results on mainly low-risk disease. Most series are relatively immature, with a lack of consistent follow-up, and the morbidity of retreatment is often not considered. The authors consider focal therapy to be an investigational modality, and encourage prospective recording of outcomes and recruitment of suitable patients., Patient Summary: Focal therapy of prostate cancer is the targeted destruction of cancer within a specific part of the prostate gland, sparing the rest of the prostate and nearby tissue. This procedure could potentially reduce side effects when compared with established standard treatments, such as surgery or radiotherapy, which treat the entire prostate. Studies show that for most men with low-risk cancer, active surveillance is the preferred treatment option. However, the available data regarding all forms of focal therapy are still poor and inconclusive. Consequently, due to both the lack of clear results associated with focal therapy and the difficulties in detecting all cancerous areas of the prostate, focal therapy should be considered an investigational modality only., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background/purpose: To reduce inequalities among SIOPE-affiliated countries, standard and optional levels to deliver 'Good Clinical Practice' compliant treatment in pediatric radiation oncology have been published. The aim of this project was to map the availability of pediatric radiotherapy resources across SIOPE-affiliated radiotherapy departments., Materials/methods: An online survey with 34 questions was distributed to 246 radiotherapy departments across 35 SIOPE-affiliated countries. In addition to demographic data, 15 general items related to the organization of the radiotherapy process, and 10 radiotherapy-specific items were defined. For each of the 25 items, sum scores were calculated per center and country. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze associations., Results: Between March-June 2019, 121 departments (49 %) out of 31 countries (89 %) completed the survey. At center level, involvement of core disciplines in tumor boards (28 %), and integration of dedicated pediatric radiation therapy technologists (24 %) are limited, while rare & complex brachytherapy procedures are performed in many centers (23 %). For general and radiotherapy-specific items respectively, a relevant variation of sum scores was observed across countries (Δ general : ≤10 points; Δ RT&#95;specific : ≤5 points) and among centers within a country (Δ general : ≤9 points; Δ RT&#95;specific : ≤6 points). Sum scores for general and radiotherapy-specific items were higher in countries with a high-income (p < 0.01) and higher health development index (p < 0.01). A larger annual number of irradiated pediatric patients was associated with higher sum scores for general items (p < 0.01)., Conclusion: This survey demonstrates the disparities in organization of pediatric radiotherapy departments between SIOPE-affiliated countries and centers within the same country. Investment is needed to reduce inequalities in pediatric radiotherapy care., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prostate brachytherapy (BT) techniques have evolved over the past century. This paper aimed to preserve our collective memory of history and the early development of its technique. We searched articles in PubMed and Google Scholar using keywords referring to authors, dates, and BT technical details, including different radioactive sources and country-specific publications. We reviewed the work published by Holm and Aronowitz. The digital library Internet Archives was used to retrieve original journal articles, science newspaper printings, and government reports, which allowed us to situate the development of BT in its sociopolitical context in Europe and the USA. Our search was conducted in English, French, and German languages. Summary: Early BT methods were developed by European physicians with early access to radium. Technical advancements were made by HH Young, who brought this practice to the USA, where Barringer pioneered the use of radon seeds and low-dose interstitial brachytherapy. While centralized radiotherapy centers, such as Memorial Hospital in New York, emerged for training and research, the high cost of radium and opposing interests made brachytherapy harder to implement in Germany. After World War II, the introduction of man-made radioisotopes allowed experiments with colloidal solutions and new seeds, including I-125. In the 1980s, transrectal ultrasound allowed for more accurate radioactive seed insertion and replaced the transrectal finger guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aims: This paper details the considerations and calculations made by this centre for the implementation of the biologically equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) radiobiology calculations recommended by the Gynaecological Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie – European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, in converting our cervix, body of uterus and vaginal vault low dose rate (LDR) treatment prescription schedules for caesium-137 to equivalent pulsed dose rate (PDR) protocols using iridium-192. Materials and methods: The assumptions made in order to calculate the EQD2 for both the LDR and the corresponding PDR schedules are detailed. The source geometries and prescription points are discussed for all standard treatment schedules. The prescription point for vaginal vault treatments has been altered to a 5 mm depth rather than the applicator surface, and the prescribed dose for all applicator sizes has been normalised at this depth. Results: The calculated PDR schedules are presented, with corresponding target and organ at risk values given for LDR and PDR versions of standard treatment schedules. A standard 32.5 Gy point A cervix prescription used in Manchester with LDR has been converted to 2 × 19 Gy for PDR. Conclusions: PDR schedules have been calculated to correspond with our established LDR treatments in terms of EQD2 dose to the target. There is a theoretical improvement in the therapeutic ratio due to a reduction in the calculated EQD2 to organs at risk. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Simple Summary: There are various society-specific guidelines addressing adjuvant brachytherapy (BT) after surgery for endometrial cancer (EC). However, these recommendations are not uniform. Against this background, clinicians need to make decisions despite gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. We analysed decision criteria influencing the selection for adjuvant radiotherapy among European radiation oncology experts. For this, GEC-ESTRO provided 19 European radiation oncology experts on gynaecological brachytherapy for decision-making analyses. The manuscript presents patterns in decision-making among these experts and demonstrates areas of consensus/discrepancies. We also analysed dose prescription and techniques of brachytherapy. This analysis is of special value as the objective approach enabled us to obtain an unbiased description of decision-making among the specialists (the study was not aimed to create or enforce a consensus). The manuscript provides valuable insight into clinical decision-making with a high impact on treatment selection, as expected differences between experts were observed. With this manuscript we are able to visualize and quantify these. This information is relevant for interdisciplinary discussions. Background: There are various society-specific guidelines addressing adjuvant brachytherapy (BT) after surgery for endometrial cancer (EC). However, these recommendations are not uniform. Against this background, clinicians need to make decisions despite gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. We explored factors influencing decision-making for adjuvant BT in clinical routine among experienced European radiation oncologists in the field of gynaecological radiotherapy (RT). We also investigated the dose and technique of BT. Methods: Nineteen European experts for gynaecological BT selected by the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie and the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology provided their decision criteria and technique for postoperative RT in EC. The decision criteria were captured and converted into decision trees, and consensus and dissent were evaluated based on the objective consensus methodology. Results: The decision criteria used by the experts were tumour extension, grading, nodal status, lymphovascular invasion, and cervical stroma/vaginal invasion (yes/no). No expert recommended adjuvant BT for pT1a G1-2 EC without substantial LVSI. Eighty-four percent of experts recommended BT for pT1a G3 EC without substantial LVSI. Up to 74% of experts used adjuvant BT for pT1b LVSI-negative and pT2 G1–2 LVSI-negative disease. For 74–84% of experts, EBRT + BT was the treatment of choice for nodal-positive pT2 disease and for pT3 EC with cervical/vaginal invasion. For all other tumour stages, there was no clear consensus for adjuvant treatment. Four experts already used molecular markers for decision-making. Sixty-five percent of experts recommended fractionation regimens of 3 × 7 Gy or 4 × 5 Gy for BT as monotherapy and 2 × 5 Gy for combination with EBRT. The most commonly used applicator for BT was a vaginal cylinder; 82% recommended image-guided BT. Conclusions: There was a clear trend towards adjuvant BT for stage IA G3, stage IB, and stage II G1–2 LVSI-negative EC. Likewise, there was a non-uniform pattern for BT dose prescription but a clear trend towards 3D image-based BT. Finally, molecular characteristics were already used in daily decision-making by some experts under the pretext that upcoming trials will bring more clarity to this topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]