Overview of the synergistic use of radiotherapy and immunotherapy in cancer treatment: current challenges and scopes of improvement.

INTRODUCTION: Oncological treatments are changing rapidly due to the advent of several targeted anticancer drugs and regimens. The primary new area of research in oncological medicine is the implementation of a combination of novel therapies and standard care. In this scenario, radioimmunotherapy is one of the most promising fields, as proven by the exponential growth of publications in this context during the last decade. AREAS COVERED: This review provides an overview of the synergistic use of radiotherapy and immunotherapy and addresses questions like the importance of this subject, aspects clinicians look for in patients to administer this combined therapy, individuals who would benefit the most from this treatment, how to achieve abscopal effect and when does radio-immunotherapy become standard clinical practice. EXPERT OPINION: Answers to these queries generate further issues that need to be addressed and solved. The abscopal and bystander effects are not utopia, rather physiological phenomena that occur in our bodies. Nevertheless, substantial evidence regarding the combination of radioimmunotherapy is lacking. In conclusion, joining forces and finding answers to all these open questions is of paramount importance.

One-week external beam partial breast irradiation: survival and toxicity outcomes.

PURPOSE: According to ASTRO and ESTRO guidelines, external beam Partial Breast Irradiation (PBI) is a valid option for early-stage breast cancer patients. Nevertheless, there is lack of consensus about the best treatment schedule. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data of female patients treated at our institution from 2013 to 2022 with adjuvant "one-week" partial breast irradiation. Clinical Target Volume (CTV) was an isotropic expansion of 15 mm from the tumour bed (identified as the breast tissue between surgical clips). The treatment schedule was 30 Gy delivered with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy in 5 daily fractions. The primary endpoint was Local Control (LC). Disease-Free Survival (DFS), Overall Survival (OS) and safety were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-four patients with a median age of 69 (33-87) years were included in the study. After a median follow-up of 34 (7-105) months, 7 patients (2.0%) developed a local recurrence. Three-year LC, DFS and OS actuarial rates were 97.5% (95% CI 96.2%-98.8%), 95.7% (95% CI 94.2%-97.2%), and 96.9% (95% CI 95.7%-98.1%), respectively. Ten (2.9%) patients experienced grade 2 late toxicities. Five (1.5%) patients reported late cardiac major events. Three (0.9%) late pulmonary toxicities were detected. One hundred and five (30.5%) patients reported fat necrosis. Good or excellent cosmetic evaluation following the Harvard Scale was reported in 252 (96.9%) cases by the physicians, while in 241 (89.2%) cases by the patients. CONCLUSION: "One-week" PBI is effective and safe, and this schedule is a valid option for highly selected early breast cancer patients.

Hypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy in large breast size patients: is it really a resolved issue?

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of breast size on acute and late side effects in breast cancer (BC) patients treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy (Hypo-RT). In this study we analyzed patients over 50 years with a diagnosis of early BC, candidate for Hypo-RT after conservative surgery. Acute and late skin toxicities were evaluated in accordance with the RTOG scale. Multivariable logistic analysis was performed using dosimetric/anatomical factors resulted associated with toxicity outcome in univariable analysis. Among patients treated between 2009 and 2015, 425 had at least 5 years of follow-up. At RT end, acute skin toxicity ≥ G2 and edema ≥ G2 occurred in 88 (20.7%) and 4 (0.9%) patients, respectively. The multivariable analysis showed association of skin toxicity with boost administration (p < 0.01), treated skin area (TSA) receiving more than 20 Gy (p = 0.027) and breast volume receiving 105% of the prescription dose (V105%) (p = 0.016), but not breast size. At 5 years after RT, fibrosis ≥ G1 occurred in 89 (20.9%) patients and edema ≥ G1 in 36 (8.5%) patients. Fibrosis resulted associated with breast volume ≥ 1000 cm3 (p = 0.04) and hypertension (p = 0.04). As for edema, multivariable logistic analysis showed a correlation with hypertension and logarithm of age, but not with boost administration. Breast volume had an unclear impact (p = 0.055). A recurrent association was found between acute and late toxicities and breast V105%, which is correlated with breast size. This may suggest that a more homogenous RT technique may be preferred for patients with larger breast size.

A monocentric, open-label randomized standard-of-care controlled study of XONRID®, a medical device for the prevention and treatment of radiation-induced dermatitis in breast and head and neck cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: This study was an open-label, 2-arms, monocentric, randomized clinical trial comparing Xonrid®, a topical medical device, versus standard of care (SOC) in preventing and treating acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) in Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) and Breast Cancer (BC) patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: Eligible HNC and BC patients were randomized 1:1 to receive Xonrid® + SOC or SOC during RT. Patients were instructed to apply Xonrid® on the irradiated area three times daily, starting on the first day of RT and until 2 weeks after RT completion or until the development of grade ≥ 3 skin toxicity. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the proportion of patients who developed an ARD grade < 2 at the 5th week in both groups. Secondary endpoints were median time to grade 2 (G2) skin toxicity onset; changes in skin erythema and pigmentation and trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL); patient-reported skin symptoms. All patients were evaluated at baseline, weekly during RT and 2 weeks after treatment completion. The evaluation included: clinical toxicity assessment; reflectance spectrometry (RS) and TEWL examination; measurement of patients' quality of life (QoL) through Skindex-16 questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighty patients (40 for each cancer site) were enrolled between June 2017 and July 2018. Groups were well balanced for population characteristics. All BC patients underwent 3-Dimensional Conformal RT (3D-CRT) whereas HNC patients underwent Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). At week 5 the proportion of BC patients who did not exhibit G2 ARD was higher in Xonrid® + SOC group (p = 0.091). In the same group the onset time of G2 ARD was significantly longer than in SOC-alone group (p < 0.0491). For HNC groups there was a similar trend, but it did not reach statistical significance. For both cancer sites, patients' QoL, measured by the Skindex-16 score, was always lower in the Xonrid® + SOC group. CONCLUSION: Despite the failure to achieve the primary endpoint, this study suggests that Xonrid® may represent a valid medical device in the prevention and treatment of ARD at least in BC patients, delaying time to develop skin toxicity and reducing the proportion of patients who experienced G2 ARD during RT treatment and 2 weeks later. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (INT 52/14 - NCT02261181 ). Registered on ClinicalTrial.gov on 21st August 2017.