Search

Purpose: The management of older patients in radiation therapy (RT) departments has been challenging in the context of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. We report our experience of RT adapted schedules or strategy changes in older patients during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods and Materials: Patients aged ≥75 years were recruited during weekly chart rounds. All were potentially eligible for a specific intervention to reduce the frequency of patients' visits to the hospital. The effect of deferring radiation and hypofractionation of RT schedules was assessed in terms of the number of courses initially planned and replanned during the lockdown., Results: Twenty patients were identified during the official lockdown in France (March 17 to May 11). Median age was 78 years (75-95 years). Most patients were male (n = 12, 60%) being treated in the postoperative setting (n = 17, 85%). RT was delayed in 11 cases (55%) with hormonal therapy prescribed in 10 cases (50%). Altered RT fractionation was proposed for 5 cases (25%); combinations of altered fractionation and deferral of radiation were applied in 3 cases (15%). The number of radiation courses initially planned and replanned according to the pandemic context: 563 and 197, respectively (-62%; P < .001). None presented recurrence when RT was initiated, and no patient developed symptomatic COVID-19 infection., Conclusions: In the context of the COVID-19 outbreak, individual risk-based radiation therapy seems to be safe. Systematic screening of patients for COVID-19 before starting radiation therapy is mandatory. In our department the oncogeriatrics expertise availability for daily practice was of great use during the pandemic. Other prospective studies are needed to validate such strategies in case of resurgence of similar outbreaks., (© 2020 The Author(s).)

Radiation therapy has benefited from many developments over the past 20 years. These developments are mainly linked to the technology, imaging and informatics evolutions which allow better targets definitions, ensure better organs-at-risk sparing and excellent reproducibility of treatments, with a perfect control of patient positioning. In breast cancer radiotherapy, the evolution was marked by the possibility of reducing the duration of treatments from 6-7 to 3-4 weeks by using hypofractionated regimens, or by further reducing the irradiation to one week when treatment is solely focalised to the tumour bed. This concept of accelerated partial breast irradiation has challenged the paradigm of the obligation to irradiate the whole breast after conservative surgery in all patients. In addition, the technical mastery of accelerated partial breast irradiation and the development of stereotactic radiotherapy techniques are currently contributing to the development of research projects in neoadjuvant settings. Thus, numerous ongoing studies are evaluating the impact of high-dose preoperative tumour irradiation, alone or in combination with systemic treatments, on biological tumor changes, on anti-tumour immunity, and on the pathologic complete response, which is considered as predictive of better long-term survival in some molecular breast cancer subtypes. In this review, we discuss all these developments which allow breast radiation therapy to enter the era of personalisation of treatments in oncology., (Copyright © 2020 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a new virus that has never been identified in humans before. COVID-19 caused at the time of writing of this article, 2.5 million cases of infections in 193 countries with 165,000 deaths, including two-third in Europe. In this context, Oncology Departments of the affected countries had to adapt quickly their health system care and establish new organizations and priorities. Thus, numerous recommendations and therapeutic options have been reported to optimize therapy delivery to patients with chronic disease and cancer. Obviously, while these cancer care recommendations are immediately applicable in Europe, they may not be applicable in certain emerging and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this review, we aimed to summarize these international guidelines in accordance with cancer types, making a synthesis for daily practice to protect patients, staff and tailor anti-cancer therapy delivery taking into account patients/tumour criteria and tools availability. Thus, we will discuss their applicability in the LMICs with different organizations, limited means and different constraints., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement A.I. declares the following relevant financial activities outside the submitted work: has received Grants from Transgene, Sanofi, Air Liquide, Nutritheragene; has received travel funding from Leo Pharma; Grant research support and travel funding from Carthera. J.G. declare the following financial personnal fees for activities outside the submitted work or served as consultant or advisory board/ has received symposium and travel funding from: Roche-Genentech, Novartis, Onxeo, Dachii Sankyo, MSD, Isai, Genomic Health, Ipsen, Macrogenics, Pfizer, Mylan, Lilly, Immunomedics, Sandoz. J.-P.S. declares the following financial personnal fees for activities outside the submitted work or served as consultant or advisory board/ has received Symposium and travel funding from: MSD, Lilly, Roche, Mylan, Pfizer, PFOncology, LeoPharma, Novartis, Biogaran, Astra Zeneca, Gilead, BMS. All the other authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The optimal schedule for palliative external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in patients with bladder tumors with hematuria unfit for surgery remains undefined. This study aimed to assess the clinical hemostatic efficacy and safety of two EBRT hypofractionated schedules., Methods: From February 2008 to October 2017, 31 patients were referred to our department for palliative hemostatic bladder irradiation. EBRT consisted of two schedules: "continuous" treatment (CRT) was delivered following consecutive 3-10 weekdays (3-6Gy/fraction (fr), to a total dose of 18-30Gy) (n=14); the "discontinuous" schedule (DRT) consisted of 23Gy in 4fr (6.5Gy/fr on days 1 and 3, followed by 5Gy/fr on days 15 and 17; n=12). The primary endpoint was the rate of hemostatic control (HC) at the end of the radiation course. Other endpoints included mid-term HC, toxicities and overall survival. Comparative analyses were performed by exact Fisher test with a cut-off of 0.05 for statistical significance., Results: The rate of HC at the end of EBRT was 92% (n=24) with no differences between CRT and DRT (100% vs 86%; p=0.48). The median follow-up was 6 months, HC was achieved in 15/26 (58%) patients at the last follow-up, without meaningful differences between CRT and DRT (50% vs 67%; p=0.45). Three and two patients developed acute grade ≤2 diarrhea in CRT and DRT groups, respectively., Conclusion: Our study suggests that both hypofractionated "continuous" and "discontinuous" EBRT are well tolerated and represent acceptable schedules for patients with limited life expectancy. DRT schedule could be preferred for departments' organization to increase the slots for the treatment of other referred patients for radiotherapy.

Objective: Our study aimed to compare regional node coverage and doses to the organ at risk (OAR) using conventional technique (CT) vs "AMAROS" (AT) vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques in patients receiving regional nodal irradiation (RNI) for breast cancer (BC)., Methods: We included 30 consecutive patients with BC who received RNI including axillary nodes. Two independent and blinded dosimetric RNI plans were generated for all patients. For target volume coverage, we analyzed the V95%, the D95%, the mean and the minimal dose within the nodal station. For hotspots within nodal target volume, we used the V105%, the V108% and the maximal doses. For OAR, lung V20, mean lung and heart doses, the maximal dose to the brachial plexus and the axillary-lateral thoracic vessel junction region were compared between the three techniques., Results: Target volume coverage and hotspots: Mean V95% in stations I, II, III and IV were 35.8% and 75% respectively with CV, 22.59 and 59.9% respectively with AT technique and 45.58 and 99.6% respectively with IMRT with statistically significant differences ( p < 0.001). Mean V105% (cc) in axillary and supraclavicular stations were 21.3 and 6.4 respectively with CV, 1.2 and 0.02 respectively with AT technique and 0.5 and 0.4 respectively with IMRT with statistically significant differences ( p < 0.001)..OARs: The mean ipsilateral lung V20 was 16.9%, 16.4 and 13.3% with CT, AT and IMRT respectively. The mean heart dose (Gy) was 0.3, 0.2 and 0.2 with CT, AT and IMRT respectively. The maximal dose to the plexus brachial (Gy) was 50.3, 46.3 and 47.3 with CT, AT and IMRT respectively. The maximal dose to the axillary-lateral thoracic vessel junction (Gy) was 52.3, 47.3 and 47.6 with CT, AT and IMRT respectively. The differences were statistically significant for all OAR ( p < 0.001)., Conclusion: AT is a valuable technique for RNI including axilla in patients with limited sentinel lymph node biopsy involvement without additional axillary lymph node dissection since it decreases hotspots in the target volume and lowers the radiation exposure of the OAR. For more advanced tumors or patients who did not respond to primary systemic therapy, CT or IMRT should be considered because of their better coverage of the potentially residual nodal disease. IMRT combines several advantages of offering high conformal plans, limited hotspots and protection of main OAR. The clinical impact of these dosimetric differences need to be addressed., Advances in Knowledge: This study is to our knowledge the first to compare conventional three-dimensional and IMRT techniques for regional nodal irradiation for each nodal station in breast cancer in a context of increasing utilization of axillary irradiation .

Purpose: During the first weeks of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in France, it was necessary to clearly define organizational priorities in the radiation therapy (RT) departments. In this report, we focus on the urgent measures taken to reduce risk for both our staff and patients by reducing the number of patients receiving treatment., Methods and Materials: We reviewed the fractionation schemes for all patients in our department, including those receiving treatment and those soon to start treatment. Our goals were to (1) decrease the number of patients coming daily to the hospital for RT, (2) adapt our human resources to continue patients' care in the department, and (3) help to cover understaffed COVID-19 sectors of the hospital., Results: We identified 50 patients who were receiving treatment (n = 6), were going to start radiation after CT scan simulation (n = 41), or for whom the CT scan was pending (n = 3). The majority were women (64%) treated for breast cancer (54%). RT was delayed for 22 (44%) patients. The majority were offered hormone therapy as "waiting therapy." Hypofractionation was considered in 21 (42%) patients mainly with breast cancer (18 of 21, 86%). The number of courses initially planned and replanned as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak during the period of March 15 to May 31, 2020, were 1383 and 683, respectively, which represented a reduction of 50% (including delayed sessions) that allowed our reorganization process., Conclusions: To conserve resources during the pandemic, we successfully reduced the number of patients receiving treatment in a proactive fashion and adapted our organization to minimize the risk of COVID-19 contamination. Departments across the world may benefit from this same approach., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Purpose: To assess predictors of outcome in a cohort of Inflammatory Breast Cancer (IBC) patients receiving induction chemotherapy followed by local treatment., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 95 non-metastatic IBC patient files., Results: Complete clinical response (cCR) was obtained in 15 (16%) patients. Median follow up was 13.4 years (IC95%: 10.4-14.6). Loco-regional control (LC), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) at 5 years were 85%, 41%, and 55%, respectively; cCR was associated with better DFS and OS in multivariate analyses adjusted for age (p = 0.02)., Conclusions: Clinical response to upfront chemotherapy predicts the outcome of patients affected by IBC.