Chest wall reconstruction in benign and malignant tumors with non-rigid materials: An overview.

Several materials and techniques have been described for the procedure of chest wall reconstruction: the choice of using a technique or a material over another relies mainly on the surgeon's experience as well as thoracic defect localization and dimension, local availability of materials, and costs. From a technical point of view, autologous and alloplastic reconstruction are available, and, in both cases, rigid and non-rigid prostheses are found. Each material has its peculiarities, with advantages and disadvantages; thus, it is mandatory to be confident when planning the intervention to foresee possible complications and minimize them. We have reviewed the literature on chest wall reconstruction in chest wall tumors (both malignant and non malignant) with non-rigid prosthetic materials, focusing on safety outcomes.

Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: Long-Term Results.

Background: To evaluate outcomes in terms of survival and toxicity in a series of intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy (HyRT) + hormonal therapy (HT) with or without image guidance (IGRT) and to investigate the impact of different variables. Methods: This is a multi-centric study. From January 2005 to December 2019, we treated 313 intermediate-risk PCa patients (T2b−T2c, Gleason score 7, or pre-treatment PSA 10 to 20 ng/mL) with HyRT. Patients received 54.75 Gy in 15 fractions in 5 weeks plus 9 months of neo-adjuvant, concomitant, and adjuvant HT with or without IGRT. Results: Median follow-up was 91.6 months (range 5.1−167.8 months). Median OS was not reached, and the 8- and 10-year OS was 81.9% and 72.4%, respectively. Median CSS was not reached, and the 8- and 10-year CSS was 97.9% and 94.5%, respectively. PSA at first follow-up <0.8 ng/mL was significantly related to better oncological outcomes (CSS, bRFS, LRFS, cPFS, and MFS) in both univariate and multivariate analysis. After Propensity Score matching, grade 2−3 acute and cumulative late GU (p = 0.153 and p = 0.581, respectively) and GI (p = 0.196 and p = 0.925, respectively) toxicity were not statistically different in patients treated with or without IGRT. Conclusions: HyRT is effective and safe regardless of the use of IGRT. PSA at first follow-up is an easily accessible prognostic factor that may help the clinicians to identify patients who require a treatment intensification.

Late morbidity and oncological outcome after radical hypofractionated radiotherapy in men with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that three-dimensional hypofractionated radiotherapy (3D-HFRT) is well tolerated and not worse than 3-D conventional RT (3D-CRT) for oncological outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 162 men with hystologically confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma were included in the analysis. In all, 82 men were treated with 3D-HFRT (15 fractions of 3.62 Gy delivered 3 times/week; a total dose of 54.3 Gy). This group was retrospectively compared with 80 men who met the same inclusion criteria and who were treated with 3D-CRT (39 fractions of 2 Gy delivered daily; a total dose of 78 Gy). A short course of hormone therapy was administered concomitantly with the RT. RESULTS: Only one (1.7%) patient in the 3D-CRT group and two (4.0%) in the 3D-HFRT group had Grade 3 genitourinary toxicity. There was late gastrointestinal morbidity of ≥ grade 3 in only 5.1% of men treated with 3D-HFRT and in 4.0% of men treated with 3D-CRT. In both groups there was no Grade 4 toxicity. At the median (range) follow-up of 45 (39.4-51) months for the 3D-HFRT group and 57.5 (54.9-59.1) months for 3D-CRT group the progression rate was 18/82 (21.9%) and 20/80 (25.0%), respectively, with no significant worsening in the risk of biochemical failure (BCF; log-rank test, P= 0.222). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, men with clinically localized prostate cancer had similar levels of morbidity irrespective of whether they received HFRT or CRT without any worsening in the early risk of BCF. Thus, the present data provide some clinical evidence to justify trends already emerging toward HF regimens for treating clinically localised prostate cancer.

Patterns of practice in the radiation therapy management of rectal cancer: survey of the Interregional Group Piedmont, Valle d'Aosta and Liguria of the "Associazione Italiana di Radioterapia Oncologica (AIRO)".

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: To report the survey about the main aspects on the use of radiotherapy for the treatment of rectal cancer in Piedmont and Liguria. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: Sixteen centers (11 from Piedmont and 5 from Liguria) received and answered by email a questionnaire data base about clinical and technical aspects of the treatment of rectal cancer. All data were incorporated in a single data base and analyzed. RESULTS: Data regarding 593 patients who received radiotherapy for rectal cancer during the year 2009 were collected and analyzed. Staging consisted in colonoscopy, thoracic and abdominal CT, pelvic MRI and endoscopic ultrasound. PET/CT was employed to complete staging and in the treatment planning in 12/16 centers (75%). Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was employed more frequently than adjuvant radiotherapy (50% vs 36.4%), using typically a total dose of 45 Gy with 1.8 Gy/fraction. Concurrent chemoradiation with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine was mainly employed in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, whereas oxaliplatin alone or in combination with 5-FU or capecitabine and leucovorin was commonly employed as the adjuvant agent. The median interval from neoadjuvant treatment to surgery was 7 weeks after long-course radiotherapy and 8 days after short-course radiotherapy. The pelvic total dose of 45 Gy in the adjuvant setting was the same in all the centers. Doses higher than 45 Gy were employed with a radical intent or in case of positive surgical margins. Hypofractionated regimens (2.5, 3 Gy to a total dose of 35-30 Gy) were used in the palliative setting. No relevant differences were observed in target volume definition and patient setup. Twenty-six patients (4.4%) developed grade 3 acute toxicity. Follow-up was scheduled in a similar way in all the centers. CONCLUSIONS: No relevant differences were found among the centers involved in the survey. The approach can help clinicians to address important clinical questions and to improve consistency and homogeneity of treatments.