Search

Purpose/Objective(s) Currently, neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision is a standard treatment for patients with stage II and III rectal cancer. However, non-operative management of rectal cancer is an emerging approach to allow patients to preserve their anal sphincter. Factors that may help identify patients most likely to have a pathological complete response (pCR) would be helpful for physicians and patients considering a non-operative approach. Materials/Methods A total of 377 patients from our institution who had clinical stage II or III rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation were included in the analysis. Patients were grouped based on their pCR status. Clinical parameters including overall stage, gross tumor volume (GTV), and radiation dose were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis, with pCR being the dependent variable. A Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curve was generated in order to identify a tumor volume cutoff with the highest sensitivity for predicting pCR. Results The cohort had a median age at diagnosis of 61 years, 68% were male, and 85% presented with stage III disease. 68 of the 377 patients (18%) included in our analysis achieved pCR. A tumor volume of Conclusion Our analysis identified a GTV volume of

Background Palliative radiation therapists (PRTs) have been integrated in varying capacities into outpatient palliative radiation therapy (RT) services across Canada for over 2 decades. At our institution, PRTs have developed an essential role over 11 years within a palliative radiation oncology (PRO) clinic that focuses on integrating symptom management with radiation oncology assessment for palliative RT. PRTs have had direct clinical, technical, research, and administrative involvement as the clinic evolved from a pilot in 2007 supporting one half-day per week to the current model of five full clinical days. Methods Using collaborative reflection, we explored the PRTs' experience and insight. Twelve PRTs who contributed to the PRO clinic for varying lengths of time from 2007 through to 2016 were invited to participate in the development of a collective expression of the PRT experience. Seven PRTs consented to completing an electronic survey consisting of fifteen open-ended questions regarding individual roles and perspectives relating to our PRO clinic. Survey answers were enhanced by semistructured interviews when needed for clarification. Responses were contextualized within the operational changes to our multidisciplinary clinical model, from pilot to integrated service. Results/Discussion Five respondents answered all of the questions. From the narratives, PRT roles and responsibilities were outlined and their insights and reflections included to contextualize clinical changes. Four phases of the clinic were identified and elucidated. Beginning in January 2007, three PRTs staffed a multidisciplinary clinical pilot one half-day per week for single-fraction, symptomatic bone metastases. The clinic has now evolved through various iterations to the current model with four PRTs sharing a “navigator” role with two registered nurses five full clinic days per week. The range of PRT experiences, responsibilities, and challenges encountered reflected specific clinical and operational conditions. Conclusion As our clinical service model evolved from short-term pilot to fully integrated departmental service, so did the PRT role. PRTs contributing to RT as part of a multidisciplinary model support and advance nontraditional involvement in the holistic care of patients with advanced cancer.

Contains fulltext : 69589.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Various modalities including CT, positron emission tomography (PET), and EUS are being used for esophageal cancer staging. OBJECTIVE: We compared results of locoregional staging by CT, PET, and EUS with histologic staging. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Patients with esophageal cancer proven by endoscopy and biopsy underwent a CT scan of the chest and abdomen and a PET scan. Patients with no evidence of distant metastatic disease on CT and PET were referred for EUS for locoregional staging. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The tumor size (T) and lymph node (N) stage as determined by EUS were compared with surgical pathology or EUS-guided FNA cytology. The results of N staging with CT, PET, and EUS were compared with surgical pathology or EUS-FNA cytology. RESULTS: Between May 2005 and April 2006, 29 patients (24 men, mean age 68 years) underwent EUS. EUS was successful in 25 of 29 patients (86%). There were no EUS-related complications. Eleven of 16 patients with available lymph node histologic study had confirmed metastasis. Nodal metastasis was correctly identified by CT in 6 of 11 patients, by PET in 4 of 11 patients, and by EUS in 10 of 11 patients. Overall accuracy for N staging was 69% for CT, 56% for PET, and 81% for EUS. Fifteen patients had confirmed T staging by surgical pathologic examination. The percentage of agreement for T staging between EUS and surgical pathology was 80% (12/15 patients). LIMITATIONS: Single center, retrospective chart review. CONCLUSION: EUS is safe and accurate for tumor and node staging in esophageal cancer. The combination of CT plus EUS appears to be accurate for locoregional staging in esophageal cancer.

Purpose: Radiation therapy is an important treatment modality for oncology patients. DNA sequence variants have so far been identified in only a few genes in radiosensitive cancer patients. Patients known to be clinically radiosensitive were tested for mutation of a gene involved in DNA double-strand break repair and sister chromatid cohesion— hHR21. Methods and Materials: Clinically radiation-sensitive patients were accrued to the study after giving informed consent. Blood samples were obtained and lymphoblastoid cell lines established. Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed to amplify the hHR21 gene, and the DNA product was sequenced to identify any genetic abnormalities. Northern blot analysis, cell survival, and growth assays were performed on control cells and cells with hHR21 variants, and a restriction digest assay was developed to screen for carriers of a detected gene variant. Results: The DNA sequence of the hHR21 gene was determined in 19 radiation-sensitive cancer patients. In 6 of the 19 patients, a thymidine (T) to cytosine (C) transition was detected at position 1440 of the hHR21 open reading frame (T1440C). This variant did not alter the amino acid sequence and was likely to be a polymorphism. One patient with a particularly severe radiation reaction had a second sequence variant immediately adjacent to the first. This was a guanine (G) to adenine (A) transition (G1441A), resulting in a change of the amino acid sequence (glycine → arginine) in a portion of the protein conserved in evolution. This suggests that this DNA alteration may be biologically significant. Restriction digest with the HpaII enzyme confirmed the presence of both sequence variants on the same allele. Conclusions: We describe the first two DNA sequence variants ever found in the hHR21 gene, in patients with clinical radiation hypersensitivity. Although no direct evidence for the involvement of hHR21 alterations in the radiosensitivity of the cancer patients examined has been demonstrated, the possibility exists that homozygous mutations or other mutations of this gene could contribute to radiosensitivity. A simple test is described that could be applied to screening for these variants in relevant populations.

Background The efficacy of aloe extract in reducing radiation-induced skin injury is controversial. The purpose of the present 3-arm randomized trial was to test the efficacy of quality-tested aloe extract in reducing the severity of radiation-induced skin injury and, secondarily, to examine the effect of a moist cream versus a dry powder skin care regimen. Materials and Methods A total of 248 patients with breast cancer were randomized to powder, aloe cream, or placebo cream. Acute skin toxicity was scored weekly and after treatment at weeks 1, 2, and 4 using a modified 10-point Catterall scale. The patients scored their symptom severity using a 6-point Likert scale and kept an acute phase diary. Results The aloe formulation did not reduce acute skin toxicity or symptom severity. Patients with a greater body mass index were more likely to develop acute skin toxicity. A similar pattern of increased skin reaction toxicity occurred with both study creams compared with the dry powder regimen. Conclusion No evidence was found to support prophylactic application of quality aloe extract or cream to improve the symptoms or reduce the skin reaction severity. Our results support a dry skin care regimen of powder during radiation therapy.