Search

Purpose: Patients sometimes report phosphene and phantosmia during radiation therapy (RT). However, the detail features and related factors are not well understood. Our prospective study aimed to investigate the characteristics of phantosmias and phosphenes, to identify factors that influence the occurrence, intensity and hedonic (pleasantness/unpleasantness) ratings of such sensations during RT. Methods: We included a total of 106 patients (37 women), who underwent RT in regions of the brain, ear, nose, throat (ENT), and other areas of the body for a duration of 43 ± 5 days. Medical history and treatment parameters were collected in a structured medical interview. Olfactory function was measured using the Sniffin' Stick Odor Identification Test at baseline. Phantosmia and phosphene were recorded weekly based on a self-report questionnaire. Results: There were 37% of the patients experiencing phantosmias, 51% experiencing phosphenes, and 29% simultaneously experiencing both sensations. Phosphenes were typically perceived as a flashily blue, white and/or purple light, phantosmias were typically perceived as a chemical-like, metallic or burnt smell. Younger age (F = 7.81, p < 0.01), radiation in the brain region (χ2 = 14.05, p = 0.02), absence of taste problems (χ2 = 10.28, p = 0.01), and proton RT (χ2 = 10.57, p = 0.01) were related to these abnormal sensations. History of chemical/dust exposure predicted lower intensity (B = −1.52, p = 0.02) and lower unpleasantness (B = 0.49, p = 0.03) of phantosmia. In contrast, disease (tumor) duration (B = 0.11, p < 0.01), food allergy (B = 2.77, p < 0.01), and epilepsy (B = −1.50, p = 0.02) influence phosphenes intensity. Analgesics intake predicted a higher pleasantness of the phosphenes (B = 0.47, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Phantosmias and phosphenes are common during RT. The treatment settings and individual arousal level influence the occurrence, intensity and hedonic of such abnormal sensations. Phantosmias and phosphenes may involve more central neural than peripheral mechanism, and they could be elicited with activation of areas that are not regarded to be part of the olfactory or visual network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The DEGRO Expert Commission on Prostate Cancer has revised the indication for radiation therapy of the primary prostate tumor in patients with synchronous distant metastases with low metastatic burden. Methods: The current literature in the PubMed database was reviewed regarding randomized evidence on radiotherapy of the primary prostate tumor with synchronous low metastatic burden. Results: In total, two randomized trials were identified. The larger study, the STAMPEDE trial, demonstrated an absolute survival benefit of 8% after 3 years for patients with low metastatic burden treated with standard of care (SOC) and additional radiotherapy (RT) (EQD2 ≤ 72 Gy) of the primary tumor. Differences in the smaller Horrad trial were not statistically significant, although risk reduction in the subgroup (< 5 bone metastases) was equal to STAMPEDE. The STOPCAP meta-analysis of both trials demonstrated the benefit of local radiotherapy for up to 4 bone lesions and an additional subanalysis of STAMPEDE also substantiated this finding in cases with M1a-only metastases. Conclusion: Therefore, due to the survival benefit after 3 years, current practice is changing. New palliative SOC is radiotherapy of the primary tumor in synchronously metastasized prostate cancer with low metastatic burden (defined as ≤ 4 bone metastases, with or without distant nodes) or in case of distant nodes only detected by conventional imaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to its low fractionation sensitivity, also known as "alpha/beta ratio," in relation to its surrounding organs at risk, prostate cancer is predestined for hypofractionated radiation schedules assuming an increased therapeutic ratio compared to normofractionated regimens. While moderate hypofractionation (2.2–4 Gy) has been proven to be non-inferior to normal fractionation in several large randomized trials for localized prostate cancer, level I evidence for ultrahypofractionation (>4 Gy) was lacking until recently. An accumulating body of non-randomized evidence has recently been strengthened by the publication of two randomized studies comparing ultrahypofractionation with a normofractionated schedule, i.e., the Scandinavian HYPO-RT trial by Widmark et al. and the first toxicity results of the PACE‑B trial. In this review, we aim to give a brief overview of the current evidence of ultrahypofractionation, make an overall assessment of the level of evidence, and provide recommendations and requirements that should be followed before introducing ultrahypofractionation into routine clinical use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To provide an overview on the available treatments to prevent and reduce gynecomastia and/or breast pain caused by antiandrogen therapy for prostate cancer.Methods: The German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) expert panel summarized available evidence published and assessed the validity of the information on efficacy and treatment-related toxicity.Results: Eight randomized controlled trials and one meta-analysis were identified. Two randomized trials demonstrated that prophylactic radiation therapy (RT) using 1 × 10 Gy or 2 × 6 Gy significantly reduced the rate of gynecomastia but not breast pain, as compared to observation. A randomized dose-finding trial identified the daily dose of 20 mg tamoxifen (TMX) as the most effective prophylactic dose and another randomized trial described that daily TMX use was superior to weekly use. Another randomized trial showed that prophylactic daily TMX is more effective than TMX given at the onset of gynecomastia. Two other randomized trials described that TMX was clearly superior to anastrozole in reducing the risk for gynecomastia and/or breast pain. One comparative randomized trial between prophylactic RT using 1 × 12 Gy and TMX concluded that prophylactic TMX is more effective compared to prophylactic RT and furthermore that TMX appears to be more effective to treat gynecomastia and/or breast pain when symptoms are already present. A meta-analysis confirmed that both prophylactic RT and TMX can reduce the risk of gynecomastia and/or breast pain with TMX being more effective; however, the rate of side effects after TMX including dizziness and hot flushes might be higher than after RT and must be taken into account. Less is known regarding the comparative effectiveness of different radiation fractionation schedules and more modern RT techniques.Conclusions: Prophylactic RT as well as daily TMX can significantly reduce the incidence of gynecomastia and/or breast pain. TMX appears to be an effective alternative to RT also as a therapeutic treatment in the presence of gynecomastia but its side effects and off-label use must be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This article aims to provide an overview of the role of combined radiation and androgen deprivation (ADT) therapy in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Materials and Methods: The current German, European, and NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guidelines as well as relevant literature in the PubMed database which provide information on sub-classification within the intermediate-risk group and the use of ADT in terms of oncological outcome were reviewed.Results: Different recommendations for risk-group assessment of patients with localized prostate cancer are available. Subdivision of intermediate risk into a favorable and an unfavorable group seems to be justified to allow for a more individualized therapy in a quite heterogenous group of patients. So far, multiple randomized trials have shown a benefit when radiation therapy (RT) is combined with ADT. The use of dose-escalated RT without ADT also appears to be an adequate therapy associated with a very low rate of cancer-specific deaths. Therefore, taking into account the increased rate of toxicity associated with ADT, dose-escalated RT alone might be justified, especially in favorable intermediate-risk patients.Conclusion: Dose-escalated RT alone appears to be an appropriate treatment in favorable intermediate-risk patients. Addition of short course ADT (4-6 months) might improve outcomes in unfavorable intermediate-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Strahlentherapie und Onkologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Aim: Overview on the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) added to salvage radiation therapy (SRT) for prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy.Methods: The German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) expert panel summarized available evidence published between January 2009 and May 2017, and assessed the validity of the information on outcome parameters including overall survival (OS) and treatment-related toxicity.Results: Two randomized controlled trials and nine relevant retrospective analyses were identified. The RTOG 9601 trial showed an OS improvement for the combination of 2 years of bicalutamide and SRT compared to SRT alone after a median follow-up of 13 years. This improvement appeared to be restricted to those patients with a prostate specific antigen (PSA) level before SRT of ≥0.7 ng/mL. The GETUG AFU-16 trial showed that after a median follow-up of 5 years, the addition of 6 months of goserelin to SRT improved progression-free survival (PFS; based on biochemical recurrence) as compared to SRT alone. ADT in both trials was not associated with increased major late toxicities. Results of retrospective series were inconsistent with a suggestion that the addition of ADT improved biochemical PFS especially in patients with high-risk factors such as Gleason Score ≥8 and in the group with initially negative surgical margins.Conclusions: ADT combined with SRT appears to improve OS in patients with a PSA level before SRT of ≥0.7 ng/mL. In patients without persistent PSA after prostatectomy and PSA levels of <0.7 ng/mL, ADT should not routinely be used, but may be considered in patients with additional risk factors such as Gleason Score ≥8 and negative surgical margins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]