Search

Background/aim: To evaluate if topical support therapy during static-intensity modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) course is able to equal the characteristic minimum risk for radiation proctitis of Image-guided volumetric modulated arc therapy (IG-VMAT) treatment among localized prostate cancer patients., Patients and Methods: Rectal toxicity data of the above patients were retrospectively collected throughout three different clinical periods at our Radiotherapy Deparment: from October 2011 to December 2012, prostate cancer patients were treated with sIMRT and in advance supported by means of daily topical corticosteroids; from January 2013 to November 2016, topical corticosteroids were replaced by daily hyaluronic acid enemas; from December 2016 to May 2018 eligible patients were treated with newly introduced IG-VMAT supported by only on-demand topical corticosteroids., Results: Among 359 eligible patients, IG-VMAT was proven generally more effective than sIMRT supported by topical medications in terms of proctitis reduction, although without clinical and practical relevance., Conclusion: Topical medications might have a role in radiation proctitis prevention., (Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Aim: To quantify the variability between radiation oncologists (ROs) when outlining axillary nodes in breast cancer., Material and Methods: For each participating center, three ROs with different levels of expertise, i.e., junior (J), senior (S) and expert (E), contoured axillary nodal levels (L1, L2, L3 and L4) on the CT images of three different patients (P) of an increasing degree of anatomical complexity (from P1 to P2 to P3), according to contouring guidelines. Consensus contours were generated using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) method., Results: Fifteen centers and 42 ROs participated. Overall, the median Dice similarity coefficient was 0.66. Statistically significant differences were observed according to the level of expertise (better agreement for J and E, worse for S); the axillary level (better agreement for L1 and L4, worse for L3); the patient (better agreement for P1, worse for P3). Statistically significant differences in contouring were found in 18% of the inter-center comparison. Less than a half of the centers could claim to have a good agreement between the internal ROs., Conclusions: The overall intra-institute and inter-institute agreement was moderate. Central lymph-node levels were the most critical and variability increased as the complexity of the patient's anatomy increased. These findings might have an effect on the interpretation of results from multicenter and even mono-institute studies.