Search

Objective Primary uterine leiomyosarcomas (ULMS) are rare, and the optimal treatment is controversial. We aimed to assess the outcome and prognostic factors in a multicenter population of women treated for primary ULMS. Methods We retrospectively collected data of 110 women treated in 19 institutions of the Rare Cancer Network (RCN). Inclusion criteria consisted of a pathology report confirming the diagnosis of ULMS, aged 18-80 years, complete International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage information, complete information on treatment, and a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Local control (LC) and locoregional control (LRC), overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate analysis was implemented using the log rank test, and multivariate analysis using the Cox model. Results All patients underwent surgery. Seventy-five patients (68%) received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT), including brachytherapy in 18 (16%). Seventeen patients (15%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 58 (range, 6-240) months. Five-year OS and DFS rates were 50% and 34%, and LC and LRC rates were 88% and 72%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, independent favorable prognostic factors were younger age, FIGO stage I, small tumor size, previous uterine disease, and no vascular invasion for OS and DFS. FIGO stage was the only favorable factor influencing LRC. Adjuvant local or systemic treatments did not improve the outcomes. Eight patients treated with RT presented a grade 3 acute toxicity, and only one patient with grade 3 late toxicity. Conclusions In this large population of primary ULMS patients, we found good results in terms of LC and LRC. Nevertheless, OS remains poor, mainly due to the occurrence of distant metastases. An early diagnosis seemed to improve the prognosis of the patients. Adjuvant local or systemic treatments, or more aggressive surgical procedures such as the Wertheim procedure, did not seem to impact the outcome.

New imaging modalities may be useful to identify prostate cancer patients with small volume, limited nodal relapse ("oligo-recurrent") potentially amenable to local treatments (radiotherapy, surgery) with the aim of long-term control of the disease, even in a condition traditionally considered prognostically unfavorable. This report reviews the new diagnostic tools and the main published data about the role of surgery and radiation therapy in this particular subgroup of patients. © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

To evaluate the impact of mobile devices and apps on the daily clinical activity of young radiation oncologists.A web-based questionnaire was sent to 382 young (≤ 40 years) members of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology (AIRO). The 14 items investigated the diffusion of mobile devices (smartphones and/or tablets), their impact on daily clinical activity, and possible differences perceived by the participants over time.A total of 158 questionnaires were available for statistical evaluation (response rate 41%). Up to 75% of respondents declared they used an electronic device during their clinical activity. Conversely, 82% considered the impact of smartphones/tables on daily practice low to moderate. Daily device use increased significantly from 2009 to 2012, with high daily use rates rising from 5% to 39.9%. Fulfillment of professional needs was declared by less than 42% of respondents and compliance with app indications by 32%. Almost all physicians desired in 2012 a comprehensive website concerning a variety of apps covering radiation oncologists' needs.Mobile devices are widely used by young Italian radiation oncologists in their daily clinical practice, while the indications so obtained are not always followed. Nevertheless, it would be important to verify the consistency of information found within apps, in order to avoid potential errors that might be detrimental to patients.

Radiotherapy (RT) has an established role in the treatment of prostate cancer patients. Despite the large number of patients treated with RT, some issues about optimal techniques, doses, volumes, timing, and association with androgen deprivation are still subject of debate. The aim of this survey was to determine the patterns of choice of Italian radiation oncologists in two different clinical cases of prostate cancer patients treated with radical RT.During the 2010 Italian Association of Radiation Oncology (AIRO) National congress, four different clinical cases were presented to attending radiation oncologists. Two of them were prostate cancer cases that could be treated by RT +/- hormonal therapy (HT), different for T stage of primary tumour according to TNM, preoperative diagnostic procedures for staging, initial prostate specific antigen (iPSA), and Gleason Score sum of biopsy. For each clinical case, radiation oncologists were asked to: (a) give indication to pretreatment procedures for staging; (b) give indication to treatment; (c) define specifically, where indicated, total dose, type of fractionation, volumes of treatment, type of technique, type of image-guided setup control; (d) indicate if HT should be prescribed; (e) define criteria that particularly influenced prescription. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed.Three hundred questionnaires were given to radiation oncologists attending the congress, 128 questionnaires were completed and considered for this analysis (41%). Some important differences were shown in prescribing and delivering RT, particularly with regards to treatment volumes and fractionation.Despite the results of clinical trials, several differences still exist among Italian radiation oncologists in the treatment of prostate cancer patients. These patients probably deserve a more uniform approach, based on upto-date, detailed, and evidence-based recommendations.

Radiotherapy (RT) has an established role in the postoperative treatment of prostate cancer patients with extracapsular extension, positive surgical margins or a detectable post-operative prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Despite the large number of patients treated with postoperative RT, some issues about optimal technique, doses, volumes, timing and association with androgen deprivation are still subject of debate. The aim of this survey was to determine the patterns of choice of Italian radiation oncologists in two different clinical cases of postoperative prostate cancer patients.During the 2010 National Congress of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology (AIRO), four clinical cases were presented to the attending radiation oncologists. Two of them were cases of postoperative prostate cancer, differing in T stage of the primary tumour according to the TNM classification, preoperative staging procedures, preoperative PSA (iPSA), Gleason score of biopsies and definitive pathological specimen after surgery and postoperative PSA. For each clinical case, the radiation oncologists were asked to: (a) give indication to new pre-treatment procedures for staging; b) give indication to postoperative treatment; (c) to define specifically, where indicated, the total dose, type of fractionation, treatment volumes, type of technique, type of image-guided setup control; (d) indicate whether adjuvant hormonal therapy should be prescribed; (e) define criteria that mostly influenced the prescription. A descriptive statistical analysis was then performed.A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed amongst radiation oncologists attending the congress; 128 were completed and considered for this analysis (41%). Some important differences were shown in prescribing and performing postoperative radiotherapy, and some significant differences with international guidelines and data available from the literature were also reviewed and discussed.Despite the results of clinical trials, significant differences still exist among Italian radiation oncologists in deciding postoperative treatment in prostate cancer patients. These patients probably deserve a more uniform approach based on updated, detailed and evidence-based recommendations.

The European SocieTy for Radiation and Oncology -Advisory Committee on Radiation Oncology Practice (ESTRO-ACROP) endorsed a project to provide guidelines (GL) for the identification and delineation of clinically negative lymph-nodal stations (LNs) involved in upper gastrointestinal clinical scenarios. The presented GL is focused on preoperative (or definitive) setting. The project aim is to improve the consistency of clinical target volume (CTV) delineation by providing: a description of the anatomical boundaries of the LNs; a radiological computed tomography-based atlas depicting the LNs areas; a free, web-based, interactive example case for independent training of radiation oncologists on LNs delineation according to the presented GL, by both qualitative and quantitative analysis (through the FALCON EduCase platform). This project was carried out with the intention to facilitate and improve uniformity of future upper gastrointestinal guidelines on nodal CTV delineation. We report methodology and results from the collaboration of a working group panel selected by the ESTRO-ACROP. ispartof: RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY vol:164 pages:92-97 ispartof: location:Ireland status: published

Objective To perform a critical review focusing on the applicability in clinical daily practice of data from three randomized controlled trials (RCTs): SWOG 8794, EORTC 22911, and ARO/AUO 96-02. Methods and materials An analytical framework, based on the identified population, interventions, comparators, and outcomes (PICO) was used to refine the search of the evidence from the three large randomized trials regarding the use of radiation therapy after prostatectomy as adjuvant therapy (ART). Results With regard to the inclusion criteria: (1) Population: in the time since they were designed, in two among three trial (SWOG 8794 and EORTC 22911) patients had a detectable PSA at the time of randomization, thus representing de facto a substantial proportion of patients who eventually received salvage RT (SRT) at non-normalised PSA levels rather than ART. (2) Interventions: although all the trials showed the benefit of postoperative ART compared to a wait-and-see approach, the dose herein employed would be now considered inadequate; (3) Comparators: the comparison arm in all the 3 RCTs was an uncontrolled observation arm, where patients who subsequently developed biochemical failure were treated in various ways, with up to half of them receiving SRT at PSA well above 1 ng/mL, a level that would be now deemed inappropriate; (4) Outcomes: only in one trial (SWOG 8794) ART was found to significantly improve overall survival compared to observation, with a ten-year overall survival rate of 74% vs. 66%, although this might be partly the result of imbalanced risk factors due to competing event risk stratification. Conclusions ART has a high level of evidence due to three RCTs with at least 10-year follow-up recording a benefit in biochemical PFS, but its penetrance in present daily clinics should be reconsidered. While the benefit of ART or SRT is eagerly expected from ongoing randomized trials, a dynamic risk-stratified approach should drive the decisions making process.

Currently, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has a well-defined role when administered together with radiotherapy (RT): neo-adjuvant and concurrent combination for intermediate risk-disease and adjuvant therapy for high risk disease. Evidence of this association was generated by randomized trials designed and led approximately 30 years ago; thus the question which arises is how relevant and portable are these data in our current clinical practice? In the present review, we examine the pitfalls of these published randomized controlled trials, their relevance to present daily clinics, where high-dose external beam RT or brachytherapy is applied, as well as the adoption of ADT in patients with concomitant cardiovascular disorders. © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

In the last decades, new technologies have been introduced in the daily clinical practice of the radiation oncologist: 3D-Conformal radiotherapy (RT) became almost universally available, thereafter, intensity modulated RT (IMRT) gained large diffusion, due to its potential impact in improving the clinical outcomes, and more recently, helical and volumetric arc IMRT with image-guided RT are becoming more and more diffused and used for prostate cancer patients. The conventional dose-fractionation results to be the best compromise between the efficacy and the safety of the treatment, but combining new techniques, modern RT allows to overcame one of the major limits of the 'older' RT: the impossibility of delivering higher total doses and/or high dose/fraction. The evidences regarding radiobiology, clinical and technological evolution of RT in prostate cancer have been reported and discussed.

The recent paper by Gandaglia et al. evaluated the 8-year cancer specific mortality (CSM) associated with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) in 19064 patients with prostate cancer (PCa) [1]. Their complex and elegant matched pair analysis compares 9532 patients treated with IMRT and 9532 patients submitted to initial observation in the period 2001-2007. The authors conclude that IMRT is associated with lower CSM, but this gain is observed only in high risk group patients. These results are somewhat analogous to the effect seen for surgery over watchful waiting especially in non-low risk patients, recently reported by Bill-Axelsson et al [2]. The major interest of this article is that it is the first published study clearly showing better CSM for PCa patients treated with IMRT. The message brought to the scientific community via a highly accessed oncology journal sounds like a positive input in favour of the use of radiotherapy over observation in PCa patients, particularly if delivered with the modern technique of IMRT. Up to now, no randomized controlled phase III trials comparing IMRT against observation or older radiotherapy techniques are available. The absence of randomised data does not imply the absence of evidence: indeed other forms of comparative effectiveness research such as the proposed propensity-matched population-based analysis using SEER-Medicare database can inform clinical practice as well, provided that this methodology adhere to strict criteria. We believe that the comparisons herein discussed present some important limitations which might have affected the proposed title and conclusions. Firstly, the prescribed radiation dose was not reported and it was not included as covariate in statistical analysis. This information has always a crucial role in the interpretation of the results of studies concerning radiotherapy, in particular for high risk PCa, where higher doses are needed and recommended [3]. IMRT is a sophisticated technique allowing dose escalation, while maintaining equal (or reducing) toxicity, when compared to standard 3-dimensional conformal technique [4,5]. The absence of any information about dose prescription, when IMRT is the key point of the data interpretation, makes impossible to discern whether improved outcomes are related to IMRT by itself, rather than its inherently associated capability of allowing dose escalation. Secondly, 52.6% of the IMRT population also received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT, vs 26.4% in the observation group), but no further data as the duration time, the type of drug and the category risk of patients receiving it are reported. Moreover, ADT was not considered as covariate in statistical evaluation. ADT has already showed a major impact on the overall survival of intermediate and high risk PCa [3], and then it could potentially influence the results, in particular for the population that seem to benefit from IMRT. This is a crucial factor able to

To analyse the impact of age and co-morbidities on compliance and outcomes in GBM patients enrolled in three prospective phase II trials. GBM patients (≥ 18 years) were treated with radiotherapy (60 Gy) or enrolled in a Fractionated Stereotactic Conformal-Radiotherapy Phase II trial (69.4 Gy). Concomitant and adjuvant chemotherapy with Temozolomide (TMZ) was administered. Charlson Index Co-morbidity (CCI) was used to assess co-morbidity. Toxicity was evaluated according to RTOG score. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Maier. Influence of age and co-morbidity was evaluated using log-rank test. From 2001 to 2008, 146 patients were enrolled: 56 (38.4 %) aged over 65 and 90 under 65. CCI ≥ 1 was observed in 41 % of elderly and 22 % of young group. Patients' compliance was 97.9 % for radio-chemotherapy. Acute toxicity was mild with no difference between the groups. Global median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 12 and 18 months, respectively. Age, surgery and radiation dose correlated with survival (p = 0.01, p = 0.04 and p = 0.03). CCI ≤ 2 did not show any influence on OS. Our data show that elderly with a good performance status and few co-morbidity may be treated as younger patients; moreover, age confirms a negative impact on survival while CCI ≤ 2 did not correlated with OS.