Search

Background and Purpose: In patients with recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT), STereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation (STAR) shows promising results. The STOPSTORM.eu consortium was established to investigate and harmonise STAR treatment in Europe. The primary goals of this benchmark study were to standardise contouring of organs at risk (OAR) for STAR, including detailed substructures of the heart, and accredit each participating centre., Materials and Methods: Centres within the STOPSTORM.eu consortium were asked to delineate 31 OAR in three STAR cases. Delineation was reviewed by the consortium expert panel and after a dedicated workshop feedback and accreditation was provided to all participants. Further quantitative analysis was performed by calculating DICE similarity coefficients (DSC), median distance to agreement (MDA), and 95th percentile distance to agreement (HD95)., Results: Twenty centres participated in this study. Based on DSC, MDA and HD95, the delineations of well-known OAR in radiotherapy were similar, such as lungs (median DSC = 0.96, median MDA = 0.1 mm and median HD95 = 1.1 mm) and aorta (median DSC = 0.90, median MDA = 0.1 mm and median HD95 = 1.5 mm). Some centres did not include the gastro-oesophageal junction, leading to differences in stomach and oesophagus delineations. For cardiac substructures, such as chambers (median DSC = 0.83, median MDA = 0.2 mm and median HD95 = 0.5 mm), valves (median DSC = 0.16, median MDA = 4.6 mm and median HD95 = 16.0 mm), coronary arteries (median DSC = 0.4, median MDA = 0.7 mm and median HD95 = 8.3 mm) and the sinoatrial and atrioventricular nodes (median DSC = 0.29, median MDA = 4.4 mm and median HD95 = 11.4 mm), deviations between centres occurred more frequently. After the dedicated workshop all centres were accredited and contouring consensus guidelines for STAR were established., Conclusion: This STOPSTORM multi-centre critical structure contouring benchmark study showed high agreement for standard radiotherapy OAR. However, for cardiac substructures larger disagreement in contouring occurred, which may have significant impact on STAR treatment planning and dosimetry evaluation. To standardize OAR contouring, consensus guidelines for critical structure contouring in STAR were established., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: In breast cancer (BC) patients, the involvement of four or more lymph nodes (LN) is an indication of regional irradiation. The optimal treatment strategy remains unclear when fewer nodes are involved and lymphadenectomy is not performed. We designed a clinical trial to show the non-inferiority of Incidental (INC) compared to intentional (INT) irradiation of axillary nodes in patients with early-stage BC and low burden LN involvement., Materials and Methods: BC patients, cN0 (n = 487) undergoing breast conservation surgery and sentinel node biopsy, with total tumor load assessed by OSNA (One-Step Nucleic Acid Amplification) of 250-15,000 copies mRNA CK19/µL in sentinel LN were randomized to receive INC or INT nodal irradiation. The primary endpoint was 5-year disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints were locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant recurrence (DR), and acute and chronic toxicity (CT)., Results: Five-years DFS were 93.7% (INC) and 93.8% (INT) (difference 0.1% [one-sided 95% CI < 5.7%]; non-inferiority p = 0.075). Cumulative Incidences of LRR were 3.5% (INC) and 3.4% (INT) (difference of 0.1% [<4.8%]; p = 0.021), and 5% (INC) and 3.5% (INT) (difference 1.4% [<6.0%]; non-inferiority p = 0.101) for DR. CT was more Incident with INT (26.9%) than with INC (19.2%), though the difference was not statistically significant (HR 1.39 [95% CI: 0.92, 2.10]; p = 0.11)., Conclusion: Intentional does not outperform incidental irradiation by more than 5.7% in terms of 5-year DFS, 4.8% for LRR, and 6% for DR., Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02335957., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study aims to assess the effects of non-adherence to external beam radiation therapy in cancer patients receiving treatment with a curative., Methods: This retrospective cohort study collected health records data for all cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy with curative intent in 2016 in Catalonia, Spain. Adherence was defined as having received at least 90% of the total dose prescribed. A logistic regression model was used to assess factors related to non-adherence, and its association with one-year survival was evaluated using Cox regression., Results: The final sample included 8721 patients (mean age 63.6 years): breast cancer was the most common tumour site (38.1%), followed by prostate and colon/rectum. Treatment interruptions prolonged the total duration of therapy in 70.7% of the patients, and 1.0% were non-adherent. Non-adherence was associated with advanced age, female gender, and some localization of primary tumour (head and neck, urinary bladder, and haematological cancers). The risk of death in non-adherent patients was higher than in adherent patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.63, 95% confidence interval 0.97-2.74), after adjusting for the potential confounding effect of age, gender, tumour site and comorbidity., Conclusion: Non-adherence to radiotherapy, as measured by the received dose, is very low in our setting, and it may have an impact on one-year survival., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest None., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: Radiation oncology guidelines favour hypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy (HWBRT) over more conventional schemes in the conservative treatment of breast cancer, but its adoption still varies in clinical practice. This study assessed the patterns of HWBRT adoption in Catalonia (Spain)., Material and Methods: We used a mixed-methods approach based on an explanatory sequential design, first collecting and analysing quantitative data on HWBRT use (>2.5Gy per fraction) in 11 public radiotherapy centres (2005-2015) and then performing 25 semi-structured interviews with all department heads and reference radiation oncologist/s., Results: Of the 34,859 patients fulfiling the study criteria over the study period, just 12% were hypofractionated, reaching a percentage of 29% in 2015 (p<0.001). Our analysis showed a narrowing age gap between patients receiving conventional fractionation and hypofractionation in centres leading adoption. However, there were important differences in clinicians' interpretation of evidence (e.g. regarding the perceived risk of long-term toxicity) and selection of patients for specific indications, both within and between departments., Conclusions: Differences observed in the rate of adoption of HWBRT could not be tackled only using a rational, evidence-based approach. Factors related to the management of radiotherapy departments play a major role in the diffusion of therapeutic strategies., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCR) followed or preceded by full-dose chemotherapy seems to be a standard treatment for unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gemcitabine is a strong radiosensitizer, and a phase I study confirmed the feasibility of CCR with low-dose gemcitabine administered twice-weekly in NSCLC patients. Consequently, we designed a prospective, multicentric, phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of this approach, following induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and gemcitabine. We included patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC, no pleural effusion, adequate pulmonary, renal, liver and hematological functions, Karnofsky index >70 and planned treated volume (PTV) <2200cm3. Treatment consisted of 3 cycles of cisplatin (100mg/m2, d1) and gemcitabine (1250mg/m2, d1 and 8) q3w, followed by CCR (gemcitabine 50mg/m2 on Mondays and Thursdays and radiotherapy 68.4Gy, 1.8Gyqd). After the inclusion of 22 patients (group A), an unacceptable toxicity was detected. Thus, cisplatin dose was reduced to 70mg/m2, and gemcitabine dose was adjusted to 35mg/m2 during CCR. Another 34 patients (33 eligible, group B) were included. Five patients in group A and 6 patients in group B discontinued the study treatment during induction. Thus, 17 and 27 patients, respectively initiated CCR. Hematological toxicity (grades III and IV) was particularly relevant in group A during this phase, with 35 and 23% of thrombopenia and neutropenia, respectively. Nonhematological grades III-IV toxicity of chemoradiation was significant and similar in groups A and B: esophagitis 35.2 and 33.3% and pneumonitis 23.5 and 25.9%, respectively. 40.9% of patients in group A vs. 57.5% in group B completed treatment. Overall response (intention-to-treat analysis) was 68.1% in group A and 63.5% in group B. Median survival was 17.7 months for the whole group with a mean follow-up of 41.2 months. 20% of patients were alive at 3 years. Long-term results of this schedule are encouraging. However, nonhematological toxicity of chemoradiation is substantial and different strategies should be tested to minimize it.

Short term clinical results of bone marrow transplantation on 66 patients conditioned with fractionated total body irradiation (12 Gy in 6 fractions and 3 days) are presented here. An acute toxic effects incident, similar to that obtained previously, a 27.6% interstitial pneumonitis associated with acute severe graft versus host disease in 77% of cases, 19.2% relapses, and 41% total crude survival with an actuarial probability of surviving for more than two years of 46% for ALL, 64% for AML and 28% for CML, are the results obtained since now.