Search

The role of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) in stage III N2 NSCLC is controversial. We analyzed decision-making for PORT among European radiation oncology experts in lung cancer. Twenty-two experts were asked before and after presentation of the results of the LungART trial to describe their decision criteria for PORT in the management of pN+ NSCLC patients. Treatment strategies were subsequently converted into decision trees and analyzed. Following decision criteria were identified: extracapsular nodal extension, incomplete lymph node resection, multistation lymph nodes, high nodal tumor load, poor response to induction chemotherapy, ineligibility to receive adjuvant chemotherapy, performance status, resection margin, lung function and cardiopulmonary comorbidities. The LungART results had impact on decision-making and reduced the number of recommendations for PORT. The only clear indication for PORT was a R1/2 resection. Six experts out of ten who initially recommended PORT for all R0 resected pN2 patients no longer used PORT routinely for these patients, while four still recommended PORT for all patients with pN2. Fourteen experts used PORT only for patients with risk factors, compared to eleven before the presentation of the LungART trial. Four experts stated that PORT was never recommended in R0 resected pN2 patients regardless of risk factors. After presentation of the LungART trial results at ESMO 2020, 82% of our experts still used PORT for stage III pN2 NSCLC patients with risk factors. The recommendation for PORT decreased, especially for patients without risk factors. Cardiopulmonary comorbidities became more relevant in the decision-making for PORT.

BACKGROUND: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is a common treatment option for brain metastases secondary to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data from the QUARTZ trial suggest that WBRT can be omitted in selected patients and treated with optimal supportive care alone. Nevertheless, WBRT is still widely used to treat brain metastases secondary to NSCLC. We analysed decision criteria influencing the selection for WBRT among European radiation oncology experts. METHODS: Twenty-two European radiation oncology experts in lung cancer as selected by the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) for previous projects and by the Advisory Committee on Radiation Oncology Practice (ACROP) for lung cancer were asked to describe their strategies in the management of brain metastases of NSCLC. Treatment strategies were subsequently converted into decision trees and analysed for agreement and discrepancies. RESULTS: Eight decision criteria (suitability for SRS, performance status, symptoms, eligibility for targeted therapy, extra-cranial tumour control, age, prognostic scores and "Zugzwang" (the compulsion to treat)) were identified. WBRT was recommended by a majority of the European experts for symptomatic patients not suitable for radiosurgery or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. There was also a tendency to use WBRT in the ALK/EGFR/ROS1 negative NSCLC setting. CONCLUSION: Despite the results of the QUARTZ trial WBRT is still widely used among European radiation oncology experts.

Background: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is a common treatment option for brain metastases secondary to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data from the QUARTZ trial suggest that WBRT can be omitted in selected patients and treated with optimal supportive care alone. Nevertheless, WBRT is still widely used to treat brain metastases secondary to NSCLC. We analysed decision criteria influencing the selection for WBRT among European radiation oncology experts. Methods: Twenty-two European radiation oncology experts in lung cancer as selected by the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) for previous projects and by the Advisory Committee on Radiation Oncology Practice (ACROP) for lung cancer were asked to describe their strategies in the management of brain metastases of NSCLC. Treatment strategies were subsequently converted into decision trees and analysed for agreement and discrepancies. Results: Eight decision criteria (suitability for SRS, performance status, symptoms, eligibility for targeted therapy, extra-cranial tumour control, age, prognostic scores and “Zugzwang” (the compulsion to treat)) were identified. WBRT was recommended by a majority of the European experts for symptomatic patients not suitable for radiosurgery or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. There was also a tendency to use WBRT in the ALK/EGFR/ROS1 negative NSCLC setting. Conclusion: Despite the results of the QUARTZ trial WBRT is still widely used among European radiation oncology experts., SCOPUS: ar.j, DecretOANoAutActif, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

In the multidisciplinary management of early-stage extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type (ENKTCL), with curative intent, radiation therapy is the most efficacious modality and is an essential component of a combined-modality regimen. In the past decade, utilization of upfront radiation therapy and non–anthracycline-based chemotherapy has improved treatment and prognosis. This guideline mainly addresses the heterogeneity of clinical features, principles of risk-adapted therapy, and the role and appropriate design of radiation therapy. Radiation therapy methods (including target volume definition, dose and delivery methods) are crucial for optimizing cure for patients with early-stage ENKTCL. The application of the principles of involved site radiation therapy in this lymphoma entity often leads to a more extended clinical target volume (CTV) than in other lymphoma types because it usually presents with primary tumor invasion, multifocal lesions, or extensive submucosal infiltration beyond the macroscopic disease. The CTV varies across different primary sites and is classified mainly into nasal, nonnasal upper aerodigestive tract (UADT), and extra-UADT entities. This review is a consensus of the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group regarding the approach to radiation therapy, target-volume definition, optimal dose, and dose constraints in ENKTCL treatment.

Contains fulltext : 227440.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Radiotherapy (RT) plays a major role in the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Therefore, the ACROP committee was asked by ESTRO to provide recommendations on target volume delineation for standard clinical scenarios in definitive (chemo)-radiotherapy (CRT), adjuvant RT for stages I-III SCLC and consolidation thoracic RT for stage IV disease. The aim of these guidelines is to standardise and optimise the process of RT treatment planning for clinical practice and prospective studies. The process for the development of the guidelines included the evaluation of a structured questionnaire followed by a consensus discussion, voting and writing process within the committee. Firstly, we provide recommendations for both the imaging to be performed as part of the diagnostic work-up and for the RT planning process. Secondly, recommendations are made for target volume delineation including delineation of the primary gross tumour volume (GTV) and lymph node GTV and clinical tumour volume (CTV) expansion in the context of definitive and adjuvant RT. With regard to internal target volume (ITV) and planning target volume (PTV) definitions, we make recommendations about the management of geometric uncertainties and target motion. Finally, we provide our opinions on organ at risk (OAR) delineation and organisational issues to be considered.

Nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) is an uncommon histologic variant, and the optimal treatment of stage I-II NLPHL is undefined. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study including patients ‡16 years of age with stage I-II NLPHL diagnosed from 1995 through 2018 who underwent all forms of management, including radiotherapy (RT), combined modality therapy (CMT; RT1chemotherapy [CT]), CT, observation after excision, rituximab and RT, and single-agent rituximab. End points were progression-free survival (PFS), freedom from transformation, and overall survival (OS) without statistical comparison between management groups. We identified 559 patients with median age of 39 years: 72.3% were men, and 54.9% had stage I disease. Median follow-up was 5.5 years (interquartile range, 3.1-10.1). Five-year PFS and OS in the entire cohort were 87.1% and 98.3%, respectively. Primary management was RT alone (n 5 257; 46.0%), CMT (n 5 184; 32.9%), CT alone (n 5 47; 8.4%), observation (n 5 37; 6.6%), rituximab and RT (n 5 19; 3.4%), and rituximab alone (n 5 15; 2.7%). The 5-year PFS rates were 91.1% after RT, 90.5% after CMT, 77.8% after CT, 73.5% after observation, 80.8% after rituximab and RT, and 38.5% after rituximab alone. In the RT cohort, but not the CMT cohort, variant immunoarchitectural pattern and number of sites >2 were associated with worse PFS (P <.05). Overall, 21 patients (3.8%) developed large-cell transformation, with a significantly higher transformation rate in those with variant immunoarchitectural pattern (P 5.049) and number of involved sites >2 (P 5.0006). OS for patients with stage I-II NLPHL was excellent after all treatments.

The International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group (ILROG) guidelines for using radiation therapy (RT) in hematologicalmalignancies are widely used in many countries. The emergency situation created by the COVID-19 pandemic may result in limitations of treatment resources. Furthermore, in recognition of the need to also reduce the exposure of patients and staff to potential infection with COVID-19, the ILROG task force has made recommendations for alternative radiation treatment schemes. The emphasis is on maintaining clinical efficacy and safety by increasing thedose per fractionwhile reducing the number of daily treatments. The guidance is informed by adhering to acceptable radiobiological parameters and clinical tolerability. The options for delaying or omitting RT in some hematological categories are also discussed.

Involved node radiation therapy for lymphoma was introduced with the aim of using the smallest effective treatment volume, individualized to the patient's disease distribution, to avoid the potentially unnecessary normal tissue exposure and toxicity risks associated with traditional involved field radiation therapy. The successful implementation of involved node radiation therapy requires optimal imaging and precise coregistration of baseline imaging with the radiation therapy planning computed tomography scan. Limitations of baseline imaging, changes in patient position, and anatomic changes after chemotherapy may make this difficult in routine practice. Involved site radiation therapy (ISRT) was introduced by the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group as a slightly larger treated volume, intended to allow for commonly encountered uncertainties. In addition to imaging considerations, the optimal ISRT treatment volume also depends on disease histology, stage, nodal or extranodal location, and the type and efficacy of systemic therapy, which in turn influence the distribution of macroscopic and potential subclinical disease. This article presents a systematic overview of ISRT, updating key evidence and highlighting differences in the application of ISRT across the lymphoma clinical spectrum.

Radiotherapy (RT) plays a major role in the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Therefore, the ACROP committee was asked by ESTRO to provide recommendations on target volume delineation for standard clinical scenarios in definitive (chemo)-radiotherapy (CRT), adjuvant RT for stages I-III SCLC and consolidation thoracic RT for stage IV disease. The aim of these guidelines is to standardise and optimise the process of RT treatment planning for clinical practice and prospective studies. The process for the development of the guidelines included the evaluation of a structured questionnaire followed by a consensus discussion, voting and writing process within the committee. Firstly, we provide recommendations for both the imaging to be performed as part of the diagnostic work-up and for the RT planning process. Secondly, recommendations are made for target volume delineation including delineation of the primary gross tumour volume (GTV) and lymph node GTV and clinical tumour volume (CTV) expansion in the context of definitive and adjuvant RT. With regard to internal target volume (ITV) and planning target volume (PTV) definitions, we make recommendations about the management of geometric uncertainties and target motion. Finally, we provide our opinions on organ at risk (OAR) delineation and organisational issues to be considered., SCOPUS: ar.j, DecretOANoAutActif, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Raffaele Nuzzi,1 Marta Trossarello,1 Sara Bartoncini,2 Paola Marolo,1 Pierfrancesco Franco,2 Cristina Mantovani,2 Umberto Ricardi2 1Department of Surgical Sciences, Ophthalmology/Eye Clinic, University of Turin, Turin, Italy; 2Department of Oncology, University of Turin, Turin, ItalyCorrespondence: Raffaele NuzziDipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Ophthalmology/Eye Clinic, University of Turin, Oculistica U, Via Cherasco 23, Turin 10126, ItalyTel +39 368 203 493Email raffaele.nuzzi@unito.itAim of the Study: The study aims to quantify the incidence of ocular complications in patients irradiated on the head and neck area in our medical center, stratified by type of neoplasm and radiation dose received.Materials and Methods: From an existing database of patients radio-treated in our center, we selected 25 patients irradiated in the 2011– 2018 period. The patients had been treated for orbital lymphoma, nasopharyngeal carcinoma and cranial base meningioma. The selected patients received an ophthalmologic evaluation which included a complete ophthalmological and orthoptic assessment.Results: Our results showed a significantly higher incidence of DES (dry eye syndrome) and corneal complications for eyes receiving a Dmax higher than 40 Gy, as well as for cataract incidence in eyes that had received a Dmax to the lens higher than 5 Gy. We found an overall thinning of the RNFL (retinal nerve fiber layer) in eyes that had received a Dmax higher than 50 Gy, as well as a greater MD (mean deviation) from normal visual field values.Conclusion: In conclusion, we can say that the study confirms the presence of a correlation between the received radiation dose and the onset of eye complications, despite the small sample.Keywords: eye, radiotherapy, orbital lymphoma, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, meningioma, secondary/iatrogenic pathology

Background Recognizing the rapidly increasing interest and evidence in using metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDRT) for oligometastatic disease (OMD), ESTRO and ASTRO convened a committee to establish consensus regarding definitions of OMD and define gaps in current evidence. Methods A systematic literature review focused on curative intent MDRT was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Subsequent consensus opinion, using a Delphi process, highlighted the current state of evidence and the limitations in the available literature. Results Available evidence regarding the use of MDRT for OMD mostly derives from retrospective, single-centre series, with significant heterogeneity in patient inclusion criteria, definition of OMD, and outcomes reported. Consensus was reached that OMD is largely independent of primary tumour, metastatic location and the presence or length of a disease-free interval, supporting both synchronous and metachronous OMD. In the absence of clinical data supporting a maximum number of metastases and organs to define OMD, and of validated molecular biomarkers, consensus supported the ability to deliver safe and clinically meaningful radiotherapy with curative intent to all metastatic sites as a minimum requirement for defining OMD in the context of radiotherapy. Systemic therapy induced OMD was identified as a distinct state of OMD. High-resolution imaging to assess and confirm OMD is crucial, including brain imaging when indicated. Minimum common endpoints such as progression-free and overall survival, local control, toxicity and quality-of-life should be reported; uncommon endpoints as deferral of systemic therapy and cost were endorsed. Conclusion While significant heterogeneity exists in the current OMD definitions in the literature, consensus was reached on multiple key questions. Based on available data, OMD can to date be defined as 1–5 metastatic lesions, a controlled primary tumor being optional, but where all metastatic sites must be