Exploring Oral Cavity Cancer in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Background This study delves into the demographics and clinical characteristics of oral cavity tumors in the context of the United Arab Emirates. It further investigates the efficacy of four different treatment modalities in impacting patient survival rates. It aims to understand if any treatments significantly improve survival compared to others. Methodology To assess the survival outcomes across the different treatment groups, the study employed the log-rank test, a non-parametric statistical test widely used in survival analysis. The sample consisted of patients from the electronic medical records assigned to one of the following four treatment groups: radiotherapy only (RT), radiotherapy with surgery and chemotherapy (RT+S+C), radiotherapy with surgery (RT+S), and, finally, radiotherapy with chemotherapy including immunotherapy (RT+C). Data collection involved tracking survival times from the initiation of treatment until the last follow-up period or the occurrence of an event (e.g., death). The statistical analysis was conducted using the chi-squared statistic to determine the distribution of survival times across the groups, providing a quantitative measure of the difference between the observed and expected survival. The Kaplan-Meier curve was plotted for the cohort divided into four groups. Results The log-rank test yielded a p-value of 0.321019, suggesting no statistically significant difference in survival among the treatment groups at the 5% significance level. The chi-squared statistic was 3.498018, within the 95% acceptance region, further corroborating the null hypothesis of no significant survival difference across the groups. Despite this, an observed medium effect size of 0.59 indicates a moderate difference in survival between the groups. Conclusions The findings illustrate that while there is no statistically significant difference in survival rates among the four treatment groups, the medium effect size observed suggests a moderate difference in survival. This emphasizes the need to consider the statistical significance and effect size in clinical research, as they provide different insights into treatment efficacy.

An Evaluation of Treatment Outcomes and Associated Factors in Nasopharyngeal Cancer Patients at a Tertiary Cancer Center in the United Arab Emirates.

Background and objective Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) presents a complex epidemiological pattern influenced by demographic characteristics, risk factors such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection, and smoking. Understanding the clinical profile and optimizing treatment strategies for NPC requires comprehensive analyses of these factors. In light of this, this study aimed to analyze the epidemiological patterns, histological characteristics, and treatment outcomes of NPC patients diagnosed and treated at a single center from 2016 to 2023. Materials and methods This retrospective study was conducted at Tawam Hospital in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), focusing on patients diagnosed with NPC. It involved the analysis of patient age distribution to identify epidemiological patterns, histological examination to classify NPC types according to WHO guidelines, and evaluation of treatment outcomes based on induction chemotherapy regimens and concurrent chemoradiotherapy protocols. The effectiveness of various chemotherapy combinations, particularly cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (Cis+5FU), was assessed alongside the integration of advanced radiotherapy techniques like intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Results In this study of 41 NPC patients, the age distribution varied widely, ranging from 10 to 74 years, with a mean age of >40 years. There was a significant male predominance (82.93%). Most patients were non-smokers (68.29%) and did not consume alcohol (92.68%), and there was a high prevalence of EBV positivity (100%). At diagnosis, 80.49% had no metastases. The primary treatment was chemotherapy induction, with a 73.17% uptake and a 92.68% completion rate, leading to a 65.85% complete response (CR) rate. No significant association was found between smoking status and treatment response (p=0.7657). Pathologically, non-keratinizing undifferentiated squamous carcinoma was the most common variant (75.61%). The Cis+5FU regimen was the most frequently employed method (56.67%), associated with a 76.47% CR rate. Concurrent chemotherapy was administered to 87.80% of patients, with the weekly Cis regimen being the most used one (56.09%), resulting in a significant CR rate. Combining radiation therapy with concurrent and induction chemotherapy yielded high CR rates (RT+cCT: 66.66%, RT+cCT+iCT: 80%). Survival analysis revealed the highest 36-month survival rate (46.43%) in the RT+cCT+iCT group, suggesting a potential benefit from incorporating induction chemotherapy into the treatment regimen. Conclusions This study illustrates the impact of demographic variables, EBV infection, and smoking on the development and treatment outcomes of NPC. It points to the success of customized chemotherapy and advanced radiotherapy strategies. Yet, it is limited by its retrospective nature and single-center focus, and hence we recommend multicentric studies to broaden the applicability of the results and improve NPC treatment approaches for varied patient groups.

Cetuximab-radiotherapy combination in the management of locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: We report the outcomes of using a combination of cetuximab with radiation therapy (Cetux-RT) to treat a selected group of patients with locally advanced (unresectable) cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (LA-cSCC). This study presents two-year efficacy and safety data for 8 patients with LA-cSCC treated within a single institution. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2017 a total of eight patients (seven males, one female) with LA-cSCC received curative intent treatment with Cetux-RT. All patients received an initial loading dose of cetuximab at 400 mg/m2 seven days prior to radiotherapy, followed by weekly treatment with 250 mg/m2 , continuing through the end of radiotherapy. Radiation doses were 6600 cGy/30 fr (n = 2), 6300 cGy/30fr (n = 2) and 5500 cGy/22 fr (n = 4). RESULTS: The median age was 81 years (range, 55-87). The ECOG performance status of all patients was between 0 and 2. With a median duration of follow-up of 25 months (range 10-48 months), five patients remain in a complete response. After a partial response, another patient has relapsed and is receiving palliative chemotherapy, while two patients have died during the period of follow up (one of whom died following progression of disease, the other of an unrelated cause). Treatment in this group of patients was well tolerated, with most toxicities ≤ grade 2, and no toxicities of grade 4/5 reported. CONCLUSIONS: Cetux-RT was well tolerated and provided durable disease control within this patient sample. Our data support the use of the Cetux-RT regimen for selected patients with inoperable LA-cSCC and adequate performance status.

Cardiac-sparing radiation therapy using positioning breast shell for patients with left-sided breast cancer who are ineligible for breath-hold techniques.

PURPOSE: Patients with left-sided breast cancer (LSBC) are at increased risk of cardiac morbidity from adjuvant breast radiation therapy (ABRT). Breath-hold (BH) techniques substantially reduce the radiation received by heart during radiation therapy for LSBC. However, a subset of patients with LSBC are ineligible for BH techniques due to an inability to breath-hold or because of other comorbidities. To reduce radiation to the heart, we routinely use a custom-made breast shell for the treatment of patients with LSBC who are ineligible for BH techniques. This study evaluates the dosimetric impact of using a breast shell for patients with LSBC undergoing ABRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixteen consecutive patients with LSBC who failed BH and underwent ABRT using a breast shell during the period of 2014 to 2016 were identified. Treatment was planned using field-in-field tangents with a prescribed dose of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions. Comparisons between plans with and without a shell were made for each patient using a paired t test to quantify the sparing of organs at risk (OARs) and target coverage. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the planning target volume of breast coverage. A statistically significant improvement was observed in sparing the heart, left ventricle (LV), and ipsilateral lung (P-value < .001). Plans with the shell spared OARs better than the no-shell plans with a mean dose of 2.15 Gy versus 5.15 Gy (58.2% reduction) to the heart, 3.27 Gy versus 9.00 Gy (63.7% reduction) to the LV, and 5.16 Gy versus 7.95 Gy (35% reduction) to the ipsilateral lung. The irradiated volumes of OARs for plans with and without shell are 13.3 cc versus 59.5 cc (77.6% reduction) for the heart, 6.2 cc versus 33.2 cc (81.2% reduction) for the LV, and 92.8 cc versus 162.5 cc (42.9% reduction) for the ipsilateral lung. CONCLUSIONS: A positioning breast shell offers significant benefit in terms of sparing the heart for patients with LSBC who are ineligible for BH techniques. It also can be used as a simple cardiac-sparing alternative in centers without BH capability.