Search

Background Salvage radiotherapy (SRT) is utilized for biochemical progression of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP). Objective To report the outcomes of the SAKK 09/10 trial comparing conventional and dose-intensified SRT. Design, setting, and participants SAKK 09/10 was a randomized, multicenter, phase 3 trial that recruited men with biochemical progression after RP. Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to conventional-dose (64 Gy) or dose-intensified SRT (70 Gy) to the prostate bed without hormonal therapy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary endpoint was freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP). Secondary endpoints included clinical progression-free survival (PFS), time to hormonal treatment, overall survival (OS), acute and late toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0), and quality of life (QoL). Results and limitations Between February 2011 and April 2014, 350 patients were randomly assigned to 64 Gy (n = 175) or 70 Gy (n = 175). Median prostate-specific antigen at randomization was 0.3 ng/ml. After median follow-up of 6.2 yr, the median FFBP was 8.2 yr in the 64 Gy arm and 7.6 in the 70 Gy arm (log-rank p = 0.4), with a hazard ratio of 1.14 (95% confidence interval 0.82–1.60). The 6-year FFBP rates were 62% and 61%, respectively. No significant differences in clinical PFS, time to hormonal treatment, or OS were observed. Late grade 2 and 3 genitourinary toxicity was observed in 35 (21%) and 13 (7.9%) patients in the 64 Gy arm, and 46 (26%) and seven (4%) in the 70 Gy arm, respectively (p = 0.8). Late grade 2 and 3 gastrointestinal toxicity was observed in 12 (7.3%) and seven patients (4.2%) in the 64 Gy arm, and 35 (20%) and four (2.3%) in the 70 Gy arm, respectively (p = 0.009). There were no significant differences in QoL. Conclusions Conventional-dose SRT to the prostate bed is sufficient in patients with early biochemical progression of prostate cancer after RP. Patient summary The optimal radiation therapy dose for patients who have increased tumor markers after surgery for prostate cancer is unclear. We found that administering a higher dose only increased the gastrointestinal side effects without providing any benefits to the patient. This clinical trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01272050.

• We conducted a Swiss survey on patterns of practice during COVID-19 pandemic. • Dedicated IT solutions were implemented in all radiation-oncology departments. • Upfront endocrine treatments for breast and prostate cancer were privileged. • Use of hypofractionation for breast, rectal cancer and palliation was increased.

Background KRAS mutation occurs in ∼40% of locally advanced rectal cancers (LARCs). The multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib has radiosensitising effects and might improve outcomes for standard preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with KRAS-mutated LARC. Methods Adult patients with KRAS-mutated T3/4 and/or N1/2M0 LARC were included in this phase I/II study. The phase I dose-escalation study of capecitabine plus sorafenib and radiotherapy was followed by a phase II study assessing efficacy and safety. Primary end-points were to: establish the maximum tolerated dose of the regimen in phase I; determine the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in phase II defined as Dworak regression grade 3 and 4. Results Fifty-four patients were treated at 18 centres in Switzerland and Hungary; 40 patients were included in the single-arm phase II study. Recommended doses from phase I comprised radiotherapy (45 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks) with capecitabine 825 mg/m2 twice daily × 33 plus sorafenib 400 mg/d. Median daily dose intensity in phase II was radiotherapy 100%, capecitabine 98.6%, and sorafenib 100%. The pCR rate (Dworak 3/4) was 60% (95% CI, 43.3–75.1%) by central independent pathologic review. Sphincter preservation was achieved in 89.5%, R0 resection in 94.7%, and downstaging in 81.6%. The most common grade 3 toxicities during phase II included diarrhoea (15.0%), skin toxicity outside radiotherapy field (12.5%), pain (7.5%), skin toxicity in radiotherapy field, proctitis, fatigue and cardiac ischaemia (each 5%). Conclusions Combining sorafenib and standard chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine is highly active in patients with KRAS-mutated LARC with acceptable toxicity and deserves further investigation. www.clinicaltrials.gov : NCT00869570 .

In many human hematologic and solid malignancies, intrinsic or acquired treatment resistance remains a major obstacle for successful cancer therapy. The molecular understanding of how tumor cells respond to chemotherapy and ionizing radiation is rapidly evolving. Induction of programmed cell death, apoptosis, is one important strategy for successful cancer therapy. This has been shown convincingly for oncogene-transformed normal cells as well as tumor cells of lymphoid origin. However, the relevance of apoptosis in solid human malignancies is less clear. Loss of apoptosis might be linked to specific mutations in the often tissue-specific apoptotic pathways due to aberrations in the stress-related signal transduction cascades. Restoration of a dysfunctional apoptotic program in cancer tissue where apoptosis has been identified as an important mechanism for tissue homeostasis is one rational approach for innovative cancer therapy. In this review, we focus on the relevance of the tumor suppressor p53 for apoptosis-induction and successful cancer therapy outlining the importance of an intact caspase machinery for apoptosis execution. Strategies are discussed to overcome treatment resistance and a high apoptotic threshold in human malignancies where apoptosis is the dominant mode of cell death and the status of p53 is an important determinant for apoptosis induction.

Introduction : The incidence of ductal carcinoma of the breast (DCIS) increased in Europe and the US up to 10-fold over the last 20 years [8]. This could be linked to more vigorous screening mammography, as well as changes of histopathologic and diagnostic criteria for breast lesions during the last decades [31,26]. Optimal screening for DCIS, the diagnostic procedures and best treatment is still controversial. For many DCIS patients lumpectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy are a valid treatment option. There is need for better prognostic factors in DCIS, which indicate the need for therapy and tailor the intensity of treatment. Recently prognostic factors based on clinical and pathological findings for DCIS were established and are currently validated. Molecular mechanisms involved in DCIS formation, DCIS progression to invasive breast cancer, and predicting DCIS treatment response are rapidly emerging [46]. Results and conclusion : Here we discuss some of the known molecular mechanisms of DCIS and how they could be further exploited as prognostic factors for screening and tailoring DCIS therapy. This review will summarize relevant molecular mechanism of DCIS carcinogenesis including dysregulation of the cell cycle clock and changes of the apoptotic threshold. In particular, recently published molecular and cellular abnormalities in DCIS, potentially relevant for treatment decision, will be discussed.