Search

The role of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in combination with radiotherapy (RT) in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) remains controversial, particularly in patients receiving dose-escalated RT (DERT). We compared outcomes between patients with IRPC treated with ADT and two different doses of RT vs. RT alone.From December 2000 to September 2010, 600 patients with IRPC were randomised to a three-arm trial consisting of 6 months of ADT plus RT 70 Gy (ADT + RT70) vs. ADT plus a DERT of 76 Gy (ADT + DERT76) vs. DERT of 76 Gy alone (DERT76). Primary end-point was biochemical failure (BF), and secondary end-points were overall survival (OS) and toxicity. RT toxicity was assessed by Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria.With a median follow-up of 11.3 years (interquartile range: 10.9-11.7), patients receiving DERT76 alone, compared with patients receiving ADT + RT70 and ADT + DERT76, had higher rates of BF (32%, 18% and 14%, respectively, p 0.001), higher rates of prostate cancer progression (12%, 4.5% and 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.001) and more deaths due to prostate cancer (6.5%, 3.0% and 1.5%, respectively, p = 0.03) with no significant difference seen between ADT + RT70 and ADT + DERT76. There was no significant difference in OS between the 3 arms. A higher dose of RT (76 Gy) increased late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity grade ≥ II compared with lower dose (70 Gy) (16% vs 5.3%, p 0.001) with no statistical difference for late genitourinary toxicity.In IRPC, the addition of 6 months of ADT to RT70 or DERT76 significantly improves BF and appears to decrease the risk of death from prostate cancer compared with DERT76 alone with no difference in OS. In the setting of IRPC, ADT plus RT 70 Gy yields effective disease control with a better GI toxicity profile. Clinicaltrials.gov#NCT00223145.

BACKGROUND Both locoregional and distant disease control remains poor in the treatment of Stage III nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). This trial was conducted to evaluate the tolerance and responses of patients with NSCLC given a neoadjuvant regimen of cisplatin and vinorelbine chemotherapy followed by accelerated thoracic radiotherapy. METHODS Forty-two patients with Stage IIIA and IIIB NSCLC were entered into the study. Treatment consisted of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 given on Days 1 and 29 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 given weekly for 5 weeks, with a planned 50% dose reduction to 15 mg/m2 planned for Week 2. This was followed by thoracic irradiation of 60 gray (Gy) in 30 fractions of 2 Gy over 4 weeks (once daily during Weeks 1 and 2 and twice daily during Weeks 3 and 4). RESULTS With a median follow-up time of 12.2 months (27–65 months for survivors), the median survival was 12.2 months (16.6 months for patients with no prior weight loss and 7.8 months for those with prior weight loss). The response rate after induction chemotherapy was 46.1%, increasing to 74.4% after radiation therapy (8 complete responses and 21 partial responses). The rate of progression was 13 of 18 (72%) for those who responded to chemotherapy (4 distant, 9 local) and 18 of 21 (86%) for those who did not respond to chemotherapy (14 distant, 7 local). The most frequent acute Grade 3 toxicity was nausea (21.4%). CONCLUSIONS Accelerated thoracic irradiation after induction chemotherapy is well tolerated and yields therapeutic results that compare favorably with those reported for other regimens of chemotherapy and standard fractionated radiotherapy. The data from this study suggest that the responses of patients with clinically apparent disease to induction chemotherapy might indicate a likelihood of controlling microscopic distant metastases. Cancer 1999;85:2562–9. © 1999 American Cancer Society.

Vascular changes after radiotherapy of the central nervous system are well known. Recently, pro-liferative vascular lesions have been reported. We present the case of an 18-year-old male who developed a cavernous hemangioma 5 years after radiotherapy for a low-grade glioma at the same site in the brain. Short review of the literature and hypothesis follow the case presentation.