Search

Background: Recent studies have reported improvement of outcomes (progression‐free survival, overall survival, and prolongation of androgen deprivation treatment‐free survival) with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in non‐small cell lung cancer and prostate cancer. The aim of this retrospective, multicenter study (MITO RT‐01) was to define activity and safety of SBRT in a very large, real‐world data set of patients with metastatic, persistent, and recurrent ovarian cancer (MPR‐OC). Materials and Methods: The endpoints of the study were the rate of complete response (CR) to SBRT and the 24‐month actuarial local control (LC) rate on "per‐lesion" basis. The secondary endpoints were acute and late toxicities and the 24‐month actuarial late toxicity‐free survival. Objective response rate (ORR) included CR and partial response (PR). Clinical benefit (CB) included ORR and stable disease (SD). Toxicity was evaluated by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales, according to center policy. Logistic and Cox regression were used for the uni‐ and multivariate analysis of factors predicting clinical CR and actuarial outcomes. Results: CR, PR, and SD were observed in 291 (65.2%), 106 (23.8%), and 33 (7.4%) lesions, giving a rate of CB of 96.4%. Patient aged ≤60 years, planning target volume (PTV) ≤18 cm3, lymph node disease, and biologically effective dose α/β10 > 70 Gy were associated with higher chance of CR in the multivariate analysis. With a median follow‐up of 22 months (range, 3–120), the 24‐month actuarial LC rate was 81.9%. Achievement of CR and total dose >25 Gy were associated with better LC rate in the multivariate analysis. Mild toxicity was experienced in 54 (20.7%) patients; of 63 side effects, 48 were grade 1, and 15 were grade 2. The 24‐month late toxicity‐free survival rate was 95.1%. Conclusions: This study confirms the activity and safety of SBRT in patients with MPR‐OC and identifies clinical and treatment parameters able to predict CR and LC rate. Implications for Practice: This study aimed to define activity and safety of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in a very large, real life data set of patients with metastatic, persistent, recurrent ovarian cancer (MPR‐OC). Patient age <60 years, PTV <18 cm3, lymph node disease, and biologically effective dose α/β10 >70 Gy were associated with higher chance of complete response (CR). Achievement of CR and total dose >25 Gy were associated with better local control (LC) rate. Mild toxicity was experienced in 20.7% of patients. In conclusion, this study confirms the activity and safety of SBRT in MPR‐OC patients and identifies clinical and treatment parameters able to predict CR and LC rate. Traditional management of recurrent ovarian cancer is system chemotherapy. This article considers an alternative, focusing on the activity and safety of stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with ovarian cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine whether a boost to the tumor bed after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (RT) to the whole breast affects local control and disease-free survival. Methods and Materials: A total of 1,138 patients with pT1 to pT2 breast cancer underwent adjuvant RT at the University of Florence. We analyzed only patients with a minimum follow-up of 1 year (range, 1–20 years), with negative surgical margins. The median age of the patient population was 52.0 years (±7.9 years). The breast cancer relapse incidence probability was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences between patient subgroups were compared by the log rank test. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the risk of breast cancer relapse. Results: On univariate survival analysis, boost to the tumor bed reduced breast cancer recurrence (p < 0.0001). Age and tamoxifen also significantly reduced breast cancer relapse (p = 0.01 and p = 0.014, respectively). On multivariate analysis, the boost and the medium age (45–60 years) were found to be inversely related to breast cancer relapse (hazard ratio [HR], 0.27; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.14–0.52, and HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37–0.99, respectively). The effect of the boost was more evident in younger patients (HR, 0.15 and 95% CI, 0.03–0.66 for patients <45 years of age; and HR, 0.31 and 95% CI, 0.13–0.71 for patients 45–60 years) on multivariate analyses stratified by age, although it was not a significant predictor in women older than 60 years. Conclusion: Our results suggest that boost to the tumor bed reduces breast cancer relapse and is more effective in younger patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Simple Summary: This is a safety and efficacy analysis from a very large dataset of patients affected by localized prostate cancer having received radiotherapy with or without concomitant androgen deprivation therapy in twelve academic and non-academic Italian Institutions. The aim of this retrospective "real life" study was to provide additional data on clinical presentation, diagnostic workup, radiation therapy management and toxicity as collected within the framework of POP III. Though the usual limitations for a retrospective analysis apply, it nevertheless may expand the current knowledge in this area showing the progress of radiation therapy techniques and clinical outcomes in the period between 2004 and 2011 after a significant period of follow up. Background and purpose: Two previous "Patterns Of Practice" surveys (POP I and POP II), including more than 4000 patients affected by prostate cancer treated with radical external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) between 1980 and 2003, established a "benchmark" Italian data source for prostate cancer radiotherapy. This report (POP III) updates the previous studies. Methods: Data on clinical management and outcome of 2525 prostate cancer patients treated by EBRT from 2004 to 2011 were collected and compared with POP II and, when feasible, also with POP I. This report provides data on clinical presentation, diagnostic workup, radiation therapy management, and toxicity as collected within the framework of POP III. Results: More than 50% of POP III patients were classified as low or intermediate risk using D'Amico risk categories as in POP II; 46% were classified as ISUP grade group 1. CT scan, bone scan, and endorectal ultrasound were less frequently prescribed. Dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT), intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), image guided radiotherapy (IGRT), and hypofractionated RT were more frequently offered during the study period. Treatment was commonly well tolerated. Acute toxicity improved compared to the previous series; late toxicity was influenced by prescribed dose and treatment technique. Five-year overall survival, biochemical relapse free survival (BRFS), and disease specific survival were similar to those of the previous series (POP II). BRFS was better in intermediate- and high-risk patients treated with ≥ 76 Gy. Conclusions: This report highlights the improvements in radiotherapy planning and dose delivery among Italian Centers in the 2004–2011 period. Dose-escalated treatments resulted in better biochemical control with a reduction in acute toxicity and higher but acceptable late toxicity, as not yet comprehensively associated with IMRT/IGRT. CTV-PTV margins >8 mm were associated with increased toxicity, again suggesting that IGRT—allowing for tighter margins—would reduce toxicity for dose escalated RT. These conclusions confirm the data obtained from randomized controlled studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]