Search

Background Central nervous system (CNS) prophylactic options for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are administered differently in most centers. Unfortunately, there is still not a consensus on which patients, which regimen, for how many cycles, and when prophy-laxis should be administered. Thus, this remains an unmet clinical need. Methods We administered a survey study under the Lymphoma Scientific Subcommittee of the Turkish Society of Haematology. The questions were directed to hematologists through the monkey survey system. Results The CNS International Prognostic Index score is a factor that clinicians frequently use when deciding on prophylaxis and is considered reliable. Although the perspective on anatomical risk factors is similar to that reported in the literature, breast involvement is still considered a critical risk factor in Turkey. Participants considered double or triple hit and double/triple expressor lymphoma as significant risk factors. Various methods have been used to demonstrate CNS relapses. Intrathecal prophylaxis is the preferred method. Conclusion There are diverse methodological and technical ideas. The controversial results reported in the literature on the effectiveness of CNS prophylaxis may explain this finding. Although CNS prophylactic methods for patients with DLBCL are still controversial, the effect of secondary CNS involvement on survival is inevitable. Standard practices followed by na-tional guidelines may be effective in reducing the variety of application methods and creat-ing homogeneous results for efficacy and survival follow-up studies., NA

Introduction: Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) is increasingly used to treat metastatic oligorecurrence and locoregional recurrences but limited evidence/guidance exists in the setting of pelvic re-irradiation. An international Delphi study was performed to develop statements to guide practice regarding patient selection, pre-treatment investigations, treatment planning, delivery and cumulative organs at risk (OARs) constraints. Materials and methods: Forty-one radiation oncologists were invited to participate in three online surveys. In Round 1, information and opinion was sought regarding participants’ practice. Guidance statements were developed using this information and in Round 2 participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement. In Round 3, any statements without consensus were re-presented unmodified, alongside a summary of comments from Round 2. Results: Twenty-three radiation oncologists participated in Round 1 and, of these, 21 (91%) and 22 (96%) completed Rounds 2 and 3 respectively. Twenty-nine of 44 statements (66%) achieved consensus in Round 2. The remaining 15 statements (34%) did not achieve further consensus in Round 3. Consensus was achieved for 10 of 17 statements (59%) regarding patient selection/pre-treatment investigations; 12 of 13 statements (92%) concerning treatment planning and delivery; and 7 of 14 statements (50%) relating to OARs. Lack of agreement remained regarding the minimum time interval between irradiation courses, the number/size of pelvic lesions that can be treated and the most appropriate cumulative OAR constraints. Conclusions: This study has established consensus, where possible, in areas of patient selection, pre-treatment investigations, treatment planning and delivery for pelvic SABR re-irradiation for metastatic oligorecurrence and locoregional recurrences. Further research into this technique is required, especially regarding aspects of p