Search

Palliative radiotherapy (PRT) is known to be effective in relieving cancer related symptoms. However, many studies and clinical practice show several barriers hindering its use and worsening the quality of patient support during PRT. Various solutions were proposed to overcome these barriers: training on PRT for supportive and palliative care specialists and training on palliative care for radiation oncologists, and introduction of pathways and organizational models specifically dedicated to PRT. Evidence on innovative organizational models and mutual training experiences is few and sparse. Therefore, the aim of this literature review is to present a quick summary of the information available on improving the PRT quality through training, new pathways, and innovative organizational models. The majority of studies on the integration of PRT with other palliative and supportive therapies present low levels of evidence being mostly retrospective analyses. However, it should be emphasized that all reports uniformly showed advantages coming from the integration of PRT with supportive therapies. To actively participate in the integration of PRT and palliative care, providing comprehensive support to the needs of patients with advanced cancer, radiation oncologists should not only plan PRT but also: (i) assess and manage symptoms and stress, (ii) rapidly refer patients to specialists in management of more complex symptoms, and (iii) participate in multidisciplinary palliative care teams. To this end, improved education in palliative care both in residency schools and during professional life through continuous medical education is clearly needed. In particular, effective training is needed for radiotherapy residents to enable them to provide patients with comprehensive palliative care. Therefore, formal teaching of adequate duration, interactive teaching methods, attendance in palliative care services, and education in advanced palliative care should be planned in post-graduated schools of radiotherapy.

Background: In our department, we provided guidelines to the radiation oncologists (ROs) regarding the omission, delay, or shortening of radiotherapy (RT). The purpose was to reduce the patients’ exposure to the hospital environment and to minimize the departmental overcrowding. The aim was to evaluate the ROs’ compliance to these guidelines. Methods: ROs were asked to fill out a data collection form during patients’ first visits in May and June 2020. The collected data included the ROs’ age and gender, patient age and residence, RT purpose, treated tumor, the dose and fractionation that would have been prescribed, and RT changes. The chi-square test and binomial logistic regression were used to analyze the correlation between the treatment prescription and the collected parameters. Results: One hundred and twenty-six out of 205 prescribed treatments were included in this analysis. Treatment was modified in 61.1% of cases. More specifically, the treatment was omitted, delayed, or shortened in 7.9, 15.9, and 37.3% of patients, respectively. The number of delivered fractions was reduced by 27.9%. A statistically significant correlation (p = 0.028) between younger patients’ age and lower treatment modifications rate was recorded. Conclusion: Our analysis showed a reasonably high compliance of ROs to the pandemic-adapted guidelines. The adopted strategy was effective in reducing the number of admissions to our department.

Abstract Background It has been hypothesized that radiotherapy (RT) techniques delivering radiations to larger volumes (IMRT, VMAT) are potentially associated with a higher risk of second primary tumors. The aim of this study was to analyse the impact of RT technique (3D-CRT vs IMRT/VMAT) on the incidence of second tumors in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Methods A retrospective study on 2526 previously irradiated PCa patients was performed. Patients were treated with 3D-CRT (21.3%), IMRT (68.1%), or VMAT (10.6%). Second tumors incidence was analysed in 3 categories: pelvic, pelvic and abdominal, and “any site”. The correlation with RT technique was analysed using log-rank test and Cox’s proportional hazard method. Results With a median follow-up of 72 months (range: 9–185), 92 (3.6%) cases of second tumors were recorded with 48 months (range: 9–152) median interval from RT. Actuarial 10-year second tumor free survival (STFS) was 87.3%. Ten-year STFS in patients treated with 3D-CRT and IMRT/VMAT was 85.8 and 84.5%, respectively (p: .627). A significantly higher 10-year cumulative incidence of second tumors in the pelvis was registered in patients treated with IMRT/VMAT compared to 3D-CRT (10.7% vs 6.0%; p: .033). The lower incidence of second pelvic cancers in patients treated with 3D-CRT was confirmed at multivariable analysis (HR: 2.42, 95%CI: 1.07–5.47, p: .034). Conclusions The incidence of second pelvic tumors after RT of PCa showed a significant correlation with treatment technique. Further analyses in larger series with prolonged follow-up are needed to confirm these results.

AimThe efficacy of low-dose fractionated radiotherapy (LDFRT) and chemotherapy (CHT) combination has large preclinical but little clinical evidence. Therefore, the aim of this review was to collect and analyze the clinical results of LDRT plus concurrent CHT in patients with advanced cancers.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed using the PRISMA methodology. Only studies based on the combination of LDFRT (< 1 Gy/fraction) and CHT were included. Endpoints of the analysis were tumor response, toxicity, and overall survival, with particular focus on any differences between LDFRT-CHT and CHT alone.ResultsTwelve studies (307 patients) fulfilled the selection criteria and were included in this review. Two studies were retrospective, one was a prospective pilot trial, six were phase II studies, two were phase I trials, and one was a phase I/II open label study. No randomized controlled trials were found. Seven out of eight studies comparing clinical response showed higher rates after LDFRT-CHT compared to CHT alone. Three out of four studies comparing survival reported improved results after combined treatment. Three studies compared toxicity of CHT and LDFRT plus CHT, and all of them reported similar adverse events rates. In most cases, toxicity was manageable with only three likely LDFRT-unrelated fatal events (1%), all recorded in the same series on LDFRT plus temozolomide in glioblastoma multiforme patients.ConclusionNone of the analyzed studies provided level I evidence on the clinical impact of LDFRT plus CHT. However, it should be noted that, apart from two small series of breast cancers, all studies reported improved therapeutic outcomes and similar tolerability compared to CHT alone. Systematic Review Registrationwww.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42020206639.