Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility, efficacy and toxicity of fiducial marker implantation and tracking in CyberKnife® stereotactic radiation therapy (SBRT) applied to extracranial locations., Materials and Method: This is a retrospective, single-centre, observational study to collect the data of all patients treated by stereotactic radiation therapy with fiducial marker tracking at extracranial locations, conducted between June 2014 and November 2017. Information regarding the implantation procedure, the types of toxicity related to marker implantation and the number of markers implanted/tracked during treatment were collected. Complication rates were evaluated using the CTCAE v4 [Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events] scale. The technical success rate was based on the ability to optimally track the tumor throughout all treatment fractions., Results: Out of 2505 patients treated by stereotactic radiation therapy, 25% received treatment with fiducial marker tracking. The total number of implantation procedures was 616 and 1543 fiducial markers were implanted. The implantation-related complication rate was 3%, with 16 Grade 1 events and 4 Grade 2 events. The number of treated patients and the number of implanted markers has gradually increased since the technique was first implemented. The median treatment time was 27 min (range 10-76). 1295 fiducials were effectively tracked throughout all treatment fractions, corresponding to a technical success rate of 84%. The difference between the number of fiducials implanted and those tracked during treatment decreased significantly as the site's experience increased., Conclusion: Fiducial marker implantation and tracking is feasible, well-tolerated, and technically effective technique in SBRT for extracranial tumors.

Tumor characteristics are used today to evaluate the possibility of mutation and to target mutation screening in families with high risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. We studied the breast tumor profile associated to the c.3481&#95;3491del11 French founder effect mutation on the BRCA1 gene to an attempt to identify any particularity or difference when comparing it to that related to other BRCA1 mutations. Within the population who were referred to our oncogenetic clinic at the Lorraine Oncology Institute in France and who underwent genetic testing between 1994 and 2012, we identified 404 women carrying a BRCA1 mutation. Interestingly, 45% (180/404) women had the germline c.3481&#95;3491del11 mutation. These included 91 patients affected by first breast cancer. Clinical and pathologic data were retrieved from medical files. Descriptive statistics were conducted using the SPSS software (version 20.0). For the entire cohort of 91 women, the mean age was 43.64 years (SD 10.04). Tumors were identified in 37.4% of cases aged < 40 years. Estrogen receptor status and progesterone receptor status were reported to 67 patients. Seventy-four percent were ER negative. Hormonal receptors status was negative in 68.6% of tumors. HER2 status was available for 32 tumors. The triple-negative subtype was found in 21 cases, which accounts for 65.6% of the patients. High tumor grade was found in 81% of triple negative breast cancer patients. Based on our results compared to those of previous international studies, we concluded that the breast cancer associated to the c.3481&#95;3491del11 is not different from that associated to other BRCA1 mutations. A larger cohort with complete information on the breast cancer pathologic characteristics and including other BRCA1 mutations would allow us to statistically compare the breast tumor profile associated to the c.3481&#95;3491del11 to that related to other BRCA1 mutations.

The aim of the current analysis is to evaluate any differences of breast or ovarian cancer age at diagnosis between mothers and daughters carrying the c.3481&#95;3491del11 mutation in the BRCA1 gene. A study cohort of 38 women carrying the c.3481&#95;3491del11 mutation and affected by first breast or ovarian cancer who reported a first breast or ovarian cancer in their mother carrying the c.3481&#95;3491del11 mutation, was identified in 37 different families including members with breast and/or ovarian cancer at the Oncology Institute of Lorraine. Twelve mothers underwent genetic testing. Twenty-five pairs of the 38 mothers-daughters pairs with c.3481&#95;3491del11 mutation were affected by breast cancer and 13 pairs by ovarian cancer. Clinical and genetic data were collected from medical files and family pedigrees. Analyses were conducted for each cancer type. We investigated an early breast cancer detection effect due to early screening programs and also an increased breast tumor aggression. Since major improvements in breast cancer clinical management and imaging techniques appeared after 1980, we compared the age at breast cancer diagnosis and the age at death in mothers and daughters before and after 1980, first, in the group of women including mothers and daughters taken together and then in mothers and daughters separately. The mean age at breast cancer diagnosis was 45.28 ± 10.27 years in mothers and 39.80 ± 7.79 years in daughters (p = 0.026). The difference of age at ovarian cancer diagnosis in mother-daughter pairs was 8.62 ± 12.76 years (p = 0.032). When considering the group of women including mothers and daughters taken together, no significant difference of age at breast cancer diagnosis was found between women affected before 1980 and those affected after 1980 (p = 0.577). However, the age at death increased in these women after 1980 (p = 0.026). Comparison of age at breast cancer diagnosis in mothers and daughters separately, showed that daughters were affected at an earlier age after 1980 (p = 0.002). Daughters had a poor prognosis and died earlier than mothers after 1980. Our results may have reflected genetic anticipation in c.3481&#95;3491del11 mutation breast and ovarian cancer families. In order to confirm our findings, a larger cohort would provide more precision to the difference of ages at breast or ovarian cancer diagnosis between mothers and daughters and more powerful statistical analyses. Increased aggression in daughters' tumors compared to those of mothers could be also considered as a parameter of genetic anticipation. Complete information on tumor profile and proliferation would allow us to study genetic anticipation by comparing the tumor phenotypes between mothers and daughters in the future.