Search

BackgroundCurrent standard treatment concepts in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) are based on former studies using 2D and 3D treatment plans. However, modern radiation techniques allow for a more precise and individual dose application. Therefore, in a clearly defined patient population, de-intensified risk-adapted radiation is investigated.MethodsPatients with newly diagnosed HNSCC after surgery (with resection margins ≥1 mm and cM0) with the following tumor stages (TNM 7th Edition) were eligible for the study: oral cavity, oropharynx, or larynx: pT1–3, pN0–pN2b; hypopharynx: pT1–2, pN1. The patients should have either a low risk of local recurrence [≤pT2, resection margin ≥5 mm, no peritumoral lymphangiosis (L0), and no perineural invasion] or contralateral lymph node metastasis (≤3 ipsilateral lymph node metastases, in case of well-lateralized oropharyngeal or oral cavity cancer contralateral cN0, otherwise pN0). Patients were assigned to three different treatment regimes with reduction of the treated volume, radiation dose, or both, according to tumor stage and results of surgery performed. The primary objective was to show an LRR of

Our study aimed to identify predictors for the effectiveness of tumor regression in lung cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment and cancer resections. Patients admitted between 2016 and 2022 were included in the study. Based on the histology of the tumor, patients were categorized into a lung adenocarcinoma group (LUAD) and squamous cell carcinoma group (SQCA). Ninety-five patients with non-small-cell lung cancer were included in the study. A total of 58 (61.1%) and 37 (38.9%) patients were included in the LUAD and SQCA groups, respectively. Additionally, 9 (9.5%), 56 (58.9%), and 30 (31.6%) patients were categorized with a tumor regression score of I, II, and III, respectively. In multivariable analyses, histology of the primary tumor (SQCA), lymph node size in the preoperative CT scan (>1.7 cm), and absolute tumor size reduction after neoadjuvant treatment (>2.6 cm) independently predict effectiveness of tumor regression (OR [95% confidence interval, p-value] of 6.88 [2.40–19.77, p < 0.0001], 3.13 [1.11–8.83, p = 0.0310], and 3.76 [1.20–11.81, p = 0.0233], respectively). Age > 70 years, extended resection > one lobe, and tumor recurrence or metastasis were identified as significant independent predictors of reduced overall survival. Assessment of tumor size before and after neoadjuvant treatment might help to identify high-risk patients with decreased survival and to improve patient management and care.

Although 2D cell cultures are commonly used to predict therapy response, it has become clear that 3D cultures may better mimic the in vivo situation and offer the possibility of tailoring translational clinical approaches. Here, we compared the response of 2D and 3D colorectal cancer (CRC) cell lines to irradiation and chemotherapy. Classic 2D cultures and 3D spheroids of CRC cell lines (CaCo2, Colo205, HCT116, SW480) were thoroughly established, then irradiated with doses of 1, 4, or 10 Gy, using a clinical-grade linear accelerator. The response was assessed by immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, and TUNEL assays. Upon irradiation, CRC 3D spheroids were morphologically altered. After irradiation with 10 Gy, annexin V/PI staining revealed a 1.8- to 4-fold increase in the apoptosis rate in the 2D cell cultures (95% CI 3.24±0.96), and a 1.5- to 2.4-fold increase in the 3D spheroids (95% CI 1.56±0.41). Irradiation with 1 Gy caused 3- and 4-fold increases in TUNEL positive cells in the CaCo2 and HCT116 (p = 0.01) 2D cultures, respectively, compared with a 2-fold increase in the 3D spheroids. Furthermore, the 2D and 3D cultures responded differently to chemotherapy; the 3D cultures were more resistant to 5-FU and cisplatin, but not to doxorubicin and mitomycin C, than the 2D cultures. Taken together, CRC cells cultured as 3D spheroids displayed markedly higher resistance to irradiation therapy and selected chemotherapeutic drugs than 2D cultures. This in vitro difference must be considered in future approaches for determining the ideal in vitro systems that mimic human disease.

Organ preservation after a clinical complete response to radiochemotherapy is currently one of the most discussed topics in the management of rectal cancer. However, the patients' perspective has only been poorly studied so far. In this multicenter study, we examined 49 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The willingness to participate in an organ preservation study and the acceptance of the associated aspects such as intensified radiochemotherapy protocols, the need for close follow-up examinations and local regrowth rates were assessed. Attitudes were correlated with baseline quality of life parameters and psychological scales for “fear of progression”, “locus of control”, “depression”, and the “willingness to take risks”. A total of 83% of patients would consider the deferral of surgery in case of a clinical complete response (cCR). Three monthly follow-up studies and a 25% local regrowth rate are considered acceptable by 95% and 94% respectively. While 41% would be willing to exchange cure rates for a non-operative treatment strategy, a potentially more toxic radiochemotherapy in order to increase the probability of a cCR was the aspect with the lowest acceptance (55%). Psychological factors, in particular “locus of control” and “willingness to take risks”, influenced patient preferences regarding most of the assessed parameters. While in general a broad acceptance of an organ-preserving treatment can be expected, patient preferences and concerns regarding different aspects of this strategy vary widely and require specific consideration during shared decision making.

(1) Background: The optimal chemotherapy (CHT) regimen for concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) is not well defined. In this secondary analysis of the international randomized PET-Plan trial, we evaluate the efficacy of different CHT. (2) Methods: Patients with inoperable NSCLC were randomized at a 1:1 ratio regarding the target volume definition and received isotoxically dose-escalated cCRT using cisplatin 80 mg/m2 (day 1, 22) and vinorelbin 15 mg/m2 (day 1, 8, 22, 29) (P1) or cisplatin 20 mg/m2 (day 1–5, 29–33) and vinorelbin 12.5 mg/m2 (day 1, 8, 15, 29, 36, 43) (P2) or carboplatin AUC1 (day 1–5, 29–33) and vinorelbin 12.5 mg/m2 (day 1, 8, 15, 29, 36, 43) (P3) or other CHT at the treating physician’s discretion. (3) Results: Between 05/2009 and 11/2016, 205 patients were randomized and 172 included in the per-protocol analysis. Patients treated in P1 or P2 had a better overall survival (OS) compared to P3 (p = 0.015, p = 0.01, respectively). Patients treated with carboplatin had a worse OS compared to cisplatin (HR 1.78, p = 0.03), but the difference did not remain significant after adjusting for age, ECOG, cardiac function creatinine and completeness of CHT. (4) Conclusions: Carboplatin doublets show no significant difference compared to cisplatin, after adjusting for possibly relevant factors, probably due to existing selection bias.

Background and Purpose: Different radiotherapy techniques are being used for postmastectomy irradiation. A retrospective analysis of patterns of locoregional failure (LRF) after modified radical mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection followed by locoregional radiotherapy with or without systemic treatment was performed. Main emphasis was focused on the comparison of two postmastectomy radiotherapy techniques. Patients and Methods: 287 evaluable patients with locally advanced disease and/or adverse pathologic features (pT3 17% of patients, pT4 35%, multicentricity 25%, pN more than three positive nodes and/or pN1biii 70%, “close margins” 29%, infiltration of pectoral fascia 20%) with or without adjuvant chemo-hormonal treatment were included between 1989 and 2000. Median age was 61 years (range 24–88 years). All patients had modified radical mastectomy and axillary lymphonodectomy level I–II(III) for primary breast cancer. Median total dose of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy to the chest wall was 50 Gy (range 46–56 Gy). A local boost to the tumor bed of 10 Gy was applied in 72 patients. 80% of the patients received supraclavicular and 60% ipsilateral internal mammary lymph node irradiation of 50 Gy. 19% of the patients received adjuvant chemo-hormonal therapy, 38% hormonal therapy, and 27% chemotherapy. The median follow-up of patients at risk was 43 months (average 54 months). Results: The 5-year locoregional tumor control (LRC), LRC first event, disease-free, and overall survival were 85%, 91%, 61%, and 70% (Kaplan-Meier analysis), respectively. Cox regression analysis showed that stage III (relative risk [RR] 1.7), more than three involved axillary lymph nodes (RR 5.1), and infiltration of the pectoral fascia (RR 3.2) increased the risk of locoregional failure, while positive estrogen receptor status (RR 0.3) was associated with a reduced risk. No statistically significant differences in LRC were observed for patients treated either with the electron-rotation technique (LRC 92%) or with the photon-based technique (LRC 89%; p = 0.9). A subgroup analysis of tumors resected with “close margins” showed a higher LRF rate of 25% after electronbeam-rotation irradiation (n = 180) compared to an LRF of 13% with tangential opposed 6-MV photon fields (n = 107; p < 0.05). Large primary tumors of ? 5 cm developed LRF in 29% of patients treated with electron-beam-rotation irradiation and in 17% of patients with photon-based irradiation (p = 0.1). Conclusion: In locally advanced breast cancer, the LRC after postmastectomy irradiation with both techniques is comparable with published data from randomized studies. The tangential opposed photon field technique seems to be beneficial after marginal resection (histopathologic ”close margins“) of the primary tumor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]