Are oral cancers effectively palliated with radiotherapy? Outcomes of treatment with a modified QUAD SHOT regimen.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed a palliative radiotherapy regimen using daily radiation over 4 days for three courses in inoperable head and neck cancers, emphasizing oral primary cancers. METHODS: Retrospective data of 116 patients treated with a daily dose of 3.6-3.7 Gy in four fractions over 4 days to a total of three courses, with a 2-week gap after every course, were analyzed for survival outcomes. A subgroup analysis was done for oral cancer. RESULTS: Ninety-nine (85%) completed three courses. Overall subjective response rate was 77%. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were 12 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8-20) and 8 months (95% CI: 6-10), with numerically higher overall survival in oral cancer. The treatment was well tolerated, with no on-treatment hospitalization or grade 3-4 toxicities. CONCLUSION: The modified QUAD SHOT regimen is practical for palliation in head and neck cancers.

Study protocol of a randomised controlled trial of prostate radiotherapy in high-risk and node-positive disease comparing moderate and extreme hypofractionation (PRIME TRIAL).

INTRODUCTION: There has been an interest in studying the efficacy of extreme hypofractionation in low and intermediate risk prostate cancer utilising the low alpha/beta ratio of prostate. Its role in high-risk and node-positive prostate cancer, however, is unknown. We hypothesise that a five-fraction schedule of extreme hypofractionation will be non-inferior to a moderately hypofractionated regimen over 5 weeks in efficacy and will have acceptable toxicity and quality of life while reducing the cost implications during treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an ongoing, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised trial (NCT03561961) of two schedules for National Cancer Control Network high-risk and/or node-positive non-metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. The standard arm will be a schedule of 68 Gy/25# over 5 weeks while the test arm will be extremely hypofractionated radiotherapy with stereotactic body radiation therapy to 36.25 Gy/5# (7 to 10 days). The block randomisation will be stratified by nodal status (N0/N+), hormonal therapy (luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone therapy/orchiectomy) and centre. All patients will receive daily image-guided radiotherapy.The primary end point is 4-year biochemical failure free survival (BFFS). The power calculations assume 4-year BFFS of 80% in the moderate hypofractionation arm. With a 5% one-sided significance and 80% power, a total of 434 patients will be randomised to both arms equally (217 in each arm). The secondary end points include overall survival, prostate cancer specific survival, acute and late toxicities, quality of life and out-of-pocket expenditure. DISCUSSION: The trial aims to establish a therapeutically efficacious and cost-efficient modality for high-risk and node-positive prostate cancer with an acceptable toxicity profile. Presently, this is the only trial evaluating and answering such a question in this cohort. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by IEC-III of Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered with CTRI/2018/05/014054 (http://ctri.nic.in) on 24 May 2018.

Resource requirements and reduction in cardiac mortality from deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) radiation therapy for left sided breast cancer patients: A prospective service development analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Use of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) radiation therapy may reduce long-term cardiac mortality. The resource and time commitments associated with DIBH are impediments to its widespread adoption. We report the dosimetric benefits, workforce requirements, and potential reduction in cardiac mortality when DIBH is used for left-sided breast cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data regarding the time consumed for planning and treating 50 patients with left-sided breast cancer with DIBH and 20 patients treated with free breathing (FB) radiation therapy were compiled prospectively for all personnel (regarding person-hours [PH]). A second plan was generated for all DIBH patients in the FB planning scan, which was then compared with the DIBH plan. Mortality reduction from use of DIBH was calculated using the years of life lost resulting from ischemic heart disease for Indians and the postulated reduction in risk of major cardiac events resulting from reduced cardiac dose. RESULTS: The median reduction in mean heart dose between the DIBH and FB plans was 166.7 cGy (interquartile range, 62.7-257.4). An extra 6.76 PH were required when implementing DIBH as compared with FB treatments. Approximately 3.57 PH were necessary per Gy of reduction in mean heart dose. The excess years of life lost from ischemic heart disease if DIBH was not done in was 0.95 per 100 patients, which translates into a saving of 12.8 hours of life saved per PH of work required for implementing DIBH. DIBH was cost effective with cost for implementation of DIBH for all left-sided breast cancers at 2.3 times the annual per capita gross domestic product. CONCLUSION: Although routine implementation of DIBH requires significant resource commitments, it seems to be worthwhile regarding the projected reductions in cardiac mortality.