Search

Copyright of Strahlentherapie und Onkologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: The best results in glioblastoma (GBM) are obtained through aggressive treatment comprising maximally radical but safe resection followed by chemoradiotherapy. However, certain patients will undergo only stereotactic biopsy. This paper aims to evaluate life expectancy in GBM patients who underwent only stereotactic biopsy, including the effect of subsequent oncological treatment., Patients and Methods: Patients with confirmed GBM histology who had undergone stereotactic biopsy between June 2006 and December 2016 were retrospectively selected. Each patient had received a CT scan, followed by an MRI scan with a contrast agent. None of the patients were amenable to microsurgical resection., Results: Of the 60 patients, 41 (69%) received no subsequent oncological treatment, while 14 (23%) underwent isolated radiotherapy. Mean survival time of all patients was 2.8 months. Those who received no additional treatment had an average survival time of 2.3 months; patients who received any type of oncological treatment was 3.7 months. Of these, those receiving radiotherapy alone had a mean survival of 3.1 months. Patients who received oncological treatment with the Stupp protocol had a survival time of 6.6 months., Conclusion: Diagnostic and surgical advances related to GBM treatment mean that radical resections can be performed even in eloquent brain areas. However, patients not indicated for resection will experience a major reduction in life expectancy. Patients who underwent stereotactic biopsy and received some form of oncological treatment experienced slightly increased overall survival relative to patients with a natural disease course. Patients with favorable clinical factors reacted better to treatment., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Purpose: This paper compares individual radiation therapy techniques used for prostate cancer and their benefits in clinical practice., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 921 patients with localized prostate tumors treated between 1997 and 2012. We divided the patients into four groups according to the selected treatment technique (conformal radiation therapy [3DCRT], intensity-modulated radiation therapy [IMRT], image-guided radiation therapy [IGRT], and volumetric-modulated arc therapy [VMAT]) and evaluated the incidence of acute and chronic gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity., Results: The incidence of grade 2 or greater acute GU and GI toxicity was significantly higher among techniques other than IGRT (p˂0.001). We found the same results in the case of grade 3 or greater acute GU toxicity (p˂0.001). Grade 3 or higher acute GI toxicity occurred only in one patient treated by 3DCRT. Cumulative late GI toxicity of grade 2 or higher and grade 3 or higher was recorded over 3 years significantly more frequently among non-IGRT techniques as compared to IGRT (p˂0.001). As regards GU toxicity, we found significantly higher incidence only for grade 2 or higher (p˂0.001), not for grade 3 or higher. No occurrence of grade 4 toxicity was recorded. The greatest incidence of patients without acute and chronic GI/GU toxicity was recorded in connection with VMAT., Conclusion: IGRT demonstrated a pronounced reduction in acute and chronic GU and GI toxicity as compared to non-IGRT techniques in the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Purpose: To investigate the setup margins in prostate cancer treatment without using daily online repositioning methods., Methods: We analysed the data from patients treated with curative-intend radiotherapy. Each patient underwent a series of pretreatment online localizations during daily setup using conebeam CT. The skin-prostate shifts and bone-prostate shifts were recorded in anteroposterior (AP), craniocaudal (CC), and laterolateral (LL)direction. The safety margins based on van Herk equation (2.5Σ+0.7σ) were calculated and the correlations between margins and various patient characteristics and prostate locations were investigated., Results: A total of 307 patients were included, representing 11,726 localisations resulting in 70,356 shifts. The man skin-prostate setup inaccuracy was 0.8 ± 5.4mm in AP, 1.3 ± 4.8mm for CC, and 0.1 ± 5.6mm in LL direction. The man bone-prostate setup inaccuracy was 0.4 ± 3.3mm in AP, 0.1 ± 2.5mm for CC, and 0.1 ± 1.4mm in LL direction. According to van Herk equation, clinical target volume (CTV)-planning target volume (PTV) margins of 11.4, 10.6, and 11.8 mm (AP, CC, and LL, respectively) would be required for setup using skin markers and margins of 7.0, 4.7, and 2.1mm would be necessary for setup using bone structures. The average rectal area < 11cm(2) and volume of bladder > 300 cm(3) were associated with smaller CTV-PTV margins for setup using bone structures. The largest margins (15.8 mm in LL direction) were needed in patients with body mass index (BMI) > 35 using skin markers., Conclusions: Our results confirm that the commonly used CTV-PTV margins are inadequate.

Acute toxicity has been evaluated in head and neck cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy using simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT). The basis of the treatment protocol is an irradiation in 30 fractions with a total dose: 66 Gy to the region of macroscopic tumor, 60 Gy to the region of high-risk subclinical disease and 54 Gy to the region of low-risk subclinical disease. Between December 2003 and September 2005, 38 patients with carcinoma of different locations in the head and neck region were irradiated. Five patients underwent concurrent chemotherapy (weekly cisplatin). Acute toxicity was evaluated according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity scale for skin, mucous membrane, salivary glands, pharynx and esophagus and larynx. All 38 patients completed the therapy without urgency of interruption due to acute toxicity of radiotherapy. No patient experienced grade 4 toxicity. More severe toxicity was observed in patients with concurrent chemotherapy. The results confirm that the irradiation according to our SIB-IMRT protocol is a therapy with acceptable toxicity and there is a space for radiobiological enhancement of this regimen by concurrent chemotherapy, e.g. weekly cisplatin.

Background: Interstitial low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy allows conservative treatment of T1-T2 penile carcinoma. High dose-rate (HDR) is often considered to be dangerous for interstitial implants because of a higher risk of complications, but numerous reports suggest that results may be comparable to LDR. Nevertheless, there are no data in the literature available regarding HDR interstitial brachytherapy for carcinoma of the penis., Case Report: A 64-year-old man with T1 N0 M0 epidermoid carcinoma of the glans is reported. Interstitial HDR brachytherapy was performed using the stainless hollow needle technique and a breast template for fixation and good geometry. The dose delivered was 18 x 3 Gy twice daily., Results: After 232 days from brachytherapy, the patient was without any evidence of the tumor, experienced no serious radiation-induced complications, and had a fully functional organ., Conclusion: HDR interstitial brachytherapy is feasible in selected case of penis carcinoma, when careful planning and small single fractions are used.