RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Cemiplimab is a monoclonal antibody targeting the PD-1, and phase II trials have shown its efficacy in the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in patients who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation therapy as a first- or later-line treatment. A synergistic antitumoral response has been demonstrated with concurrent radiotherapy and PD1-immunotherapy. However, no real-life study has demonstrated this effect in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS: We conducted a real-life retrospective cohort study to investigate the benefit of concomitant therapy in 33 patients treated with cemiplimab at the University Hospital of Caen, alone (C group) or concomitant to radiotherapy (C/RT group). Our primary objectives were to evaluate the best overall response and objective response rate. Our secondary objectives were the disease control rate, median time to response, progression-free survival, overall survival, clinical benefit of radiotherapy, and safety data. After stopping cemiplimab administration, we performed a follow-up of our patients and performed a descriptive study. RESULTS: We reported an objective response rate of 45.5%, including 47.6% in the cemiplimab group versus 41.6% in the concomitant group. The addition of radiotherapy to cemiplimab enables an earlier clinico-radiological response, with a median duration of 5.5 months in the cemiplimab group versus 3 months in the concomitant therapy group. The response to treatment was prolonged despite discontinuation of cemiplimab, with 91.6% (n = 11/12) and 83.3% (n = 10/12) patients in complete or partial remission at 6 months and 1 year after cessation of cemiplimab and no switch to another oncological treatment, respectively. Radiation therapy also provided a therapeutic effect in 83.3% of the patients in the concomitant group, without increasing the occurrence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the efficacy of cemiplimab and radiotherapy in the management of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Concomitant therapy permitted to obtain an earlier radiological response, a beneficial local therapeutic effect of radiotherapy, without any safety alert.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Proton therapy (PT) can be a good option to achieve tumor control while reducing the probability of radiation induced toxicities compared to X-ray-based radiotherapy. However, there are still uncertainties about the effects of PT on the organs in direct contact with the irradiated volume. The aim of this prospective series was to report 6-month follow-up of clinical and functional optic neuropathy rates of patients treated by proton therapy using a standardized comprehensive optic examination. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Standardized ophthalmological examinations were performed to analyze subclinical anomalies in a systematic way before treatment and 6 months after the end of proton therapy with: Automatic visual field, Visual evoked potential (VEP) and optic coherence of tomography (OCT). RESULTS: From October 2018 to July 2020 we analyzed 81 eyes. No significant differences were found in the analysis of the clinical examination of visual functions by the radiation oncologist. However, considering VEP, the impairment was statistically significant for both fibers explored at 30'angle (p:0.007) and 60'angle (p <0.001). In patients with toxicity, the distance of the target volume from the optical pathways was more important with a p-value for 30'VEP at 0.035 and for 60'VEP at 0.039. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm uncertainties concerning relative biological effectiveness of proton therapy, linear energy transfer appears to be more inhomogeneous especially in areas close to the target volumes. The follow-up of patients after proton therapy is not an easy process to set up but it is necessary to improve our knowledges about the biological effects of proton therapy in real life. Our study which will continue during the coming years, suggests that follow-up with in-depth examinations such as VEP as a biomarker could improve the detection of early abnormalities.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Correct tandem implantation for cervix cancer intracavitary brachytherapy may be challenging. We investigated whether suboptimal implantation can be related to patient and disease characteristics and may result in subsequent underutilization of brachytherapy in cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Consecutive cervix cancer patients referred for intracavitary brachytherapy after external beam radiation therapy performed in several general hospitals from 2013 to 2017 were included. RESULTS: In 172 patients having 301 procedures, 95 implantations were suboptimal (15% inadequate tandem insertions, 10% subserosal insertion, and 6% uterine perforation on postimplant CT scan). Risk factors were age, myometrium invasion, and uterine retroversion. Median followup was 21 months. Three-year local control and survival rates were 72% and 85%, respectively. Forty-seven patients (27%) failed to receive brachytherapy. Failure to perform brachytherapy was associated with poorer local control (OR = 0.34 [0.17-0.67], p = 0.001). By contrast, suboptimal implantation did not increase local failure or toxicity rates in patients undergoing brachytherapy. No peritoneal carcinomatosis occurred after uterine perforation in our cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal implantation was frequent. In the absence of image guidance during implantation, conversion to other treatment modalities (including external beam radiation therapy) due to insertion difficulties resulted in worse local control. With optimization, however, suboptimal brachytherapy implantation did not result in suboptimal dose coverage or poorer local control. Failure to perform a brachytherapy boost correlates with increased local failure risk in patients with cervix cancer, whereas tandem malposition does not. Real-time intraoperative ultrasound guidance may be useful to reduce uterine perforation rates and thus increase brachytherapy use.