Search

Introduction: Since radical treatments in low risk prostate cancer do not improve overall survival in comparison to active surveillance, preserving quality of life (QOL) remains the key objective. Active surveillance of indolent prostate cancer avoids curative treatment side-effects but necessitates repeated biopsies. Focal stereotactic body radiation therapy (focal SBRT) may be an alternative. This non-randomized Phase-II trial examined the feasibility and safety of focal SBRT for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer., Methods: Patients were recruited in 2016-2019 if they had: localized CAPRA ≤ 3 prostate adenocarcinoma; an isolated PIRADS≥4 macroscopic tumor on MRI; WHO Performance Status 0-1; and no major urinary symptoms. 36.25 Gy (80% isodose prescription) were delivered in 5 fractions every other day. Primary outcome was delay between focal SBRT and salvage-treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes were: acute/late genitourinary/rectal toxicity; biological, clinical and MRI local control; and change in QOL measures., Results: Over a median follow-up of 36 months, salvage prostatectomy in the 24 eligible patients was never required. Three-year biochemical progression-free survival was 96%. The single biochemical recurrence was a small (2-mm) Gleason 6 (3 + 3) lesion in the non-irradiated lobe. All 19 patients with ≥1 post-treatment MRI evaluations demonstrated complete radiological response. Acute/late grade ≥3 toxicities did not occur: all acute toxicities were grade-1 genitourinary (38% patients), grade-2 genitourinary (8%), or grade-1 rectal (13%) toxicities. There was one (4%) late grade-1 genitourinary toxicity. QOL was unchanged at last follow-up, as shown by IPSS (2.86 to 3.29, p>0.05), U-QOL (0.71 to 0.67, p>0.05), and IIEF5 (the 14 initially potent patients maintained potency (IIEF5 > 16))., Conclusion: Focal SBRT is feasible, well-tolerated, and preserves QOL. This innovative robotized approach challenges active surveillance., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Nguyen, Donneaux, Louis, Bodgal, Philippi, Biver, Frederick, Harzé, Lasar, Vogin and Nickers.)

Background: Study RTOG 9802 in high-risk diffuse low-grade gliomas (DLGGs) showed the potential synergistic effect on survival of the procarbazine, CCNU, and vincristine (PCV) radiotherapy (RT) combination. Limited data on long-term neurocognitive impact and quality of life (QoL) have yet been reported., Patients and Methods: We described a monocentric series of patients treated at first line by the combination of PCV immediately followed by RT between January 01, 1982 and January 01, 2017. Radiological data were collected and included volume, velocity of diametric expansion (VDE), and MRI aspects. Long-term neurocognitive and QoL were analyzed., Results: Twenty patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The median response rate was 65.1% (range, 9.6%-99%) at the time of maximal VDE decrease corresponding to a median volume reduction of 79.7 cm 3 (range, 3.1 to 174.2 cm 3 ), which occurred after a median period of 7.2 years (range, 0.3-21.9) after the end of RT. An ongoing negative VDE was measured in 13/16 patients after the end of RT, with a median duration of 6.7 years (range, 9 months-21.9 years). The median follow-up since radiological diagnosis was 17.5 years (range, 4.8 to 29.5). Estimated median survival was 17.4 years (95% CI: 12; NR). After a long-term follow-up, substantial neurotoxicity was noticed with dementia in six progression-free patients (30%), leading to ventriculo-peritoneal shunt procedures in three, and premature death in five. Thirteen patients (65%) were unable to work with disability status. Successive longitudinal neurocognitive assessments for living patients showed verbal episodic memory deterioration., Conclusions: PCV-RT combination seems to have not only an oncological synergy but also a long-term neurotoxic synergy to consider before initial therapeutic decision., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Blonski, Obara, Brzenczek, Pouget, Dillier, Meyer, Lavigne, Forthoffer, Broussois, Gauchotte, Baron, Rech, Mézières, Gaudeau, Verger, Vogin, Anxionnat, Moureaux and Taillandier.)

Autophagy is a highly regulated multi-step process that occurs at the basal level in almost all cells. Although the deregulation of the autophagy process has been described in several pathologies, the role of autophagy in cancer as a cytoprotective mechanism is currently well established and supported by experimental and clinical evidence. Our understanding of the molecular mechanism of the autophagy process has largely contributed to defining how we can harness this process to improve the benefit of cancer therapies. While the role of autophagy in tumor resistance to chemotherapy is extensively documented, emerging data point toward autophagy as a mechanism of cancer resistance to radiotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Therefore, manipulating autophagy has emerged as a promising strategy to overcome tumor resistance to various anti-cancer therapies, and autophagy modulators are currently evaluated in combination therapies in several clinical trials. In this review, we will summarize our current knowledge of the impact of genetically and pharmacologically modulating autophagy genes and proteins, involved in the different steps of the autophagy process, on the therapeutic benefit of various cancer therapies. We will also briefly discuss the challenges and limitations to developing potent and selective autophagy inhibitors that could be used in ongoing clinical trials., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Xiao, Benoit, Hasmim, Duhem, Vogin, Berchem, Noman and Janji.)

Background: To report survival, spontaneous prognostic factors, and treatment efficacy in a French monocentric cohort of diffuse low-grade glioma (DLGG) patients over 35 years of follow-up., Methods: A monocentric retrospective study of 339 patients diagnosed with a new DLGG between 01/01/1982 and 01/01/2017 was created. Inclusion criteria were patient age ≥18 years at diagnosis and histological diagnosis of WHO grade II glioma (according to 1993, 2007, and 2016 WHO classifications). The survival parameters were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with a 95% confidence interval. Differences in survival were tested for statistical significance by the log-rank test. Factors were considered significant when p ≤ 0.1 and p ≤ 0.05 in the univariate and multivariate analyses, respectively., Results: A total of 339 patients were included with a median follow-up of 8.7 years. The Kaplan-Meier median overall survival was 15.7 years. At the time of radiological diagnosis, Karnofsky Performance Status score and initial tumor volume were significant independent prognostic factors. Oncological prognostic factors were the extent of resection for patients who underwent surgery and the timing of radiotherapy for those concerned. In this study, patients who had delayed radiotherapy (provided remaining low grade) did not have worse survival compared with patients who had early radiotherapy. The functional capabilities of the patients were preserved enough so that they could remain independent during at least three quarters of the follow-up., Conclusion: This large monocentric series spread over a long time clarifies the effects of different therapeutic strategies and their combination in the management of DLGG., (Copyright © 2020 Obara, Blonski, Brzenczek, Mézières, Gaudeau, Pouget, Gauchotte, Verger, Vogin, Moureaux, Duffau, Rech and Taillandier.)