Search

Objective: To compare different stereotactic body techniques—intensity-modulated radiotherapy with photons and protons, applied to radiotherapy of prostatic cancer—with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) on the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL). Methods: Ten patients were selected for this planning study. Dosimetric results were compared between volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and intensity-modulated proton therapy both with two (IMPT 2F) and five fields (IMPT 5F) planning while applying the prescription schemes of 7.25 Gy/fraction to the prostate gland and 7.5 Gy/fraction to the DIL in 5 fractions. Results: Comparison of the coverages of the planning target volumes showed that small differences exist. The IMPT-2F-5F techniques allowed higher doses in the targets; conformal indexes resulted similar; homogeneity was better in the photon techniques (2%–5%). Regarding the organs at risk, all the techniques were able to maintain the dose well below the prescribed constraints: in the rectum, the IMPT-2F-5F and IMRT were more efficient in lowering the intermediate doses; in the bladder, the median dose was significantly better in the case of IMPT (2F–5F). In the urethra, the best sparing was achieved only by IMPT-5F. Conclusions: Stereotactic radiotherapy with SIB for localized prostate cancer is feasible with all the investigated techniques. Concerning IMPT, the two-beam technique does not seem to have a greater advantage compared to the standard techniques; the 5-beam technique seems more promising also accounting for the range uncertainty.

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility, in terms of acute toxicity and symptom control, of CyberKnife (Accuray, Sunnyvale, CA)-based stereotactic radiotherapy (CyberKnife-SRT) for metastatic orbital lesions. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with symptomatic metastases wholly located within the orbit. Palliative radiation treatment was performed using CyberKnife image-guided technology. Gross tumor volume was defined on a pre-radiotherapy magnetic resonance imaging. Acute and late toxicity was recorded according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Scale. Results: Between April 2012 and July 2016, 21 patients underwent CyberKnife-SRT for 24 orbital metastases from different primary tumors. Median treatment dose was 18 Gy (15–24 Gy) given in a median of 3 fractions (2–3 fractions) with a median dose of 6 Gy/fraction (5–10 Gy/fraction). Acute grade 1 toxicity was observed in eight cases. No local recurrence occurred after median follow-up of 6.2 months (1.1–30.0 months) among 16 lesions that underwent post-stereotactic radiotherapy magnetic resonance imaging. All patients reported decreasing pre-stereotactic radiotherapy symptoms without late toxicity. Follow-up >6 months (median 22.8 months) was available for nine lesions; complete and partial radiological response was registered in four and five of them, respectively. Conclusion: In our experience, CyberKnife-SRT is a well-tolerated treatment that offers high local and symptom control in patients with intraocular and periocular malignant lesions.

Introduction Of the different treatments for early prostate cancer, hypofractionated external-beam radiotherapy is one of the most interesting and studied options. Methods The main objective of this phase II clinical study is to evaluate the feasibility, in terms of the incidence of acute side effects, of a new ultra-hypofractionated scheme for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with the latest imaging and radiotherapy technology, allowing dose escalation to the dominant intraprostatic lesion identified by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Secondary endpoints of the study are the evaluation of the long-term tolerability of the treatment in terms of late side effects, quality of life, and efficacy (oncological outcome). Results The study is ongoing, and we expect to complete recruitment by the end of 2016. Conclusions Like in previous studies, we expect ultra-hypofractionated radiation treatment for prostate cancer to be well tolerated and effective. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01913717.

Aims and background To calculate peripheral radiation dose to the second primary site in patients who have developed a second malignancy after breast cancer radiotherapy (index cases) and to compare it with dose in the analogous anatomical site in radiotherapy-treated breast cancer patients who did not experience a second malignancy (controls). To evaluate the feasibility of Peridose-software peripheral dose calculation in retrospective case-control studies. Material and study design A case-control study on 12,630 patients who underwent adjuvant breast radiotherapy was performed. Minimum 5-year follow-up was required. Each index case was matched with 5 controls by 1) year of birth, 2) year of radiotherapy and 3) follow-up duration. Peridose-software was used to calculate peripheral dose. Results 195 second cancers were registered (0.019% of all patients treated with adjuvant irradiation). Several methodological limitations of the Peridose calculation were encountered including impossibility to calculate the peripheral dose in the patients treated with intraoperative or external electron beam radiotherapy, in case of second tumors located at Conclusions The calculated peripheral doses were low and the index-control differences were small. However, the small number of eligible patients precludes a reliable analysis of a potential dose-response relationship. Large patient series followed for a long period and further improvement in the methodology of the peripheral dose calculation are necessary in order to overcome the methodological challenges of the study.

In women with large and pendulous breasts postoperative radiotherapy in the supine position could represent a technical challenge because of the resulting dose inhomogeneity and the large amount of lung and heart receiving a high percentage of the prescribed dose. Breast-conserving surgery is therefore relatively contraindicated in these patients. Alternative positions for radiation therapy treatment have been proposed, and prone breast irradiation in particular has been recognized as a useful alternative to conventional treatment in the supine position. We report the case of a large-breasted patient treated in prone position in our radiation therapy division.