Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy for spinal metastases: experience at a single Brazilian institution.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess the clinical outcomes of patients with spine metastases who underwent stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) as part of their treatment. SABR has arisen as a contemporary treatment option for spinal metastasis patients with good prognoses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between November 2010 and September 2018, Spinal SABR was performed in patients with metastatic disease in different settings: radical (SABR only), postoperative (after decompression and/or fixation surgery), and reirradiation. Local control (LC), pain control, overall survival (OS) and toxicities were reported. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients (corresponding to 96 treatments) with spine metastases were included. The median age was 59 years (range, 23-91). In most SA BR (82.3%, n = 79) was performed as the first local spine treatment, while in 12 settings (12.5%), fixation and/or decompression surgery was performed prior to SABR. Two-year overall survival rate was 74.1%, and median survival was 19 months. The LC rate at 2 years was 72.3%. With regard to pain control, among 67 patients presenting with pain before SA BR, 83.3% had a complete response, 12.1% had a partial response, and 4.6% had progression. Vertebral compression fractures occurred in 10 patients (11.7%), of which 5 cases occurred in the reirradiation setting. Radiculopathy and myelopathy were not observed. No grade III or IV toxicities were seen. CONCLUSION: This is the first study presenting a Brazilian experience with spinal SA BR, and the results confirm its feasibility and safety. SABR was shown to produce good local and pain control rates with low rates of adverse events.

Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours' consensus guidelines for the management of oesophageal cancer.

Oesophageal cancer is among the ten most common types of cancer worldwide. More than 80% of the cases and deaths related to the disease occur in developing countries. Local socio-economic, epidemiologic and healthcare particularities led us to create a Brazilian guideline for the management of oesophageal and oesophagogastric junction (OGJ) carcinomas. The Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours invited 50 physicians with different backgrounds, including radiology, pathology, endoscopy, nuclear medicine, genetics, oncological surgery, radiotherapy and clinical oncology, to collaborate. This document was prepared based on an extensive review of topics related to heredity, diagnosis, staging, pathology, endoscopy, surgery, radiation, systemic therapy (including checkpoint inhibitors) and follow-up, which was followed by presentation, discussion and voting by the panel members. It provides updated evidence-based recommendations to guide clinical management of oesophageal and OGJ carcinomas in several scenarios and clinical settings.

Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours' consensus guidelines for the management of gastric cancer.

Gastric cancer is among the ten most common types of cancer worldwide. Most cases and deaths related to the disease occur in developing countries. Local socio-economic, epidemiologic and healthcare particularities led us to create a Brazilian guideline for the management of gastric carcinomas. The Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumors (GTG) invited 50 physicians with different backgrounds, including radiology, pathology, endoscopy, nuclear medicine, genetics, oncological surgery, radiotherapy and clinical oncology, to collaborate. This document was prepared based on an extensive review of topics related to heredity, diagnosis, staging, pathology, endoscopy, surgery, radiation, systemic therapy and follow-up, which was followed by presentation, discussion, and voting by the panel members. It provides updated evidence-based recommendations to guide clinical management of gastric carcinomas in several scenarios and clinical settings.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience.

PURPOSE: To review the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center's experience in using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between September 1998 and June 2004, 50 patients with histologically confirmed cancer of the oropharynx underwent IMRT at our institution. There were 40 men and 10 women with a median age of 56 years (range, 28-78 years). The disease was Stage I in 1 patient (2%), Stage II in 3 patients (6%), Stage III in 7 (14%), and Stage IV in 39 (78%). Forty-eight patients (96%) received definitive treatment, and 2 (4%) were treated in the postoperative adjuvant setting. Concurrent chemotherapy was used in 43 patients (86%). Patients were treated using three different IMRT approaches: 76% dose painting, 18% concomitant boost with IMRT in both am and pm deliveries, and 6% concomitant boost with IMRT only in pm delivery. Regardless of the approach, the average prescription dose to the gross tumor planning target volume was 70 Gy, while the average dose delivered to the subclinical volume was 59.4 Gy in the dose painting group and 54 Gy in the concomitant boost group. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tubes (PEGs) were placed before the beginning of treatment in 84% of the patients. Acute and late toxicity were graded according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) radiation morbidity scoring criteria. Toxicity was also evaluated using subjective criteria such as the presence of esophageal stricture, and the need for PEG usage. The local progression-free, regional progression-free, and distant metastases-free rates, and overall survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Three patients had persistent locoregional disease after treatment. The 2-year estimates of local progression-free, regional progression-free, distant metastases-free, and overall survival were 98%, 88%, 84%, and 98%, respectively. The worst acute mucositis experienced was Grade 1 in 4 patients (8%), Grade 2 in 27 (54%), and Grade 3 in 19 (38%). Xerostomia decreased with increasing time interval from the end of radiotherapy, and among the patients with at least 9 months of follow-up there was 67% Grade 0-1 and 33% Grade 2 toxicity. Of the 42 patients who required upfront PEG placement, 6 were still using PEG for nutrition at the time of this analysis. Three patients had cervical esophageal strictures, and of these, 1 was still PEG dependent 1 year after treatment. Two of these patients were treated with the IMRT concomitant boost am and pm approach, whereas the other was treated with the dose painting technique. CONCLUSIONS: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy achieved encouraging local control rates in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma. Treatment toxicity was acceptable even in the setting of concurrent chemotherapy. Long-term follow-up is needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

Outcomes of high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy alone with 1 cm planning target volume posterior margin for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Clinically localized prostate cancer may be treated by different approaches of radiation therapy. The aim of this study was to report the results of disease control and toxicity in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with high dose IMRT alone with 1 cm PTV posterior margin. METHODS: From September 2001 to April 2008, 140 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with definitive IMRT (dose ≥ 74 Gy) without hormone therapy. Outcomes were measured from the conclusion of radiotherapy. Biochemical failure was defined as PSA nadir + 2.0 ng/dL. Toxicities were assessed using the NCI-CTCAE-version 3.0. Median follow-up was 58 months. RESULTS: Biochemical failure occurred in 13.6% of patients. Actuarial 5-year biochemical control rates were 91.7%, 82.5% and 85.9% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively. Stage T2 patients presented a risk of biochemical failure almost three times higher than stage T1 (RR = 2.91; 95% CI: 1.04; 8.17). Distant metastases occurred in 3 (2%) patients. Five-year metastasis-free and overall survivals were 96% and 97.5%, respectively. Late grade 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates were, respectively, 1.6% and 3%. CONCLUSION: High-dose IMRT alone with 1 cm posterior PTV margin was effective and safe for patients with localized prostate cancer.

A comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and concomitant boost radiotherapy in the setting of concurrent chemotherapy for locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare toxicity/efficacy of conventional radiotherapy using delayed accelerated concomitant boost radiotherapy (CBRT) vs. intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the setting of concurrent chemotherapy (CT) for locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between September 1998 and June 2004, a total of 293 consecutive patients were treated at our institution for cancer of the oropharynx. Of these, 112 had Stage III/IV disease and squamous cell histology. In all, 41 were treated with IMRT/CT and 71 were treated with CBRT/CT, both to a median dose of 70 Gy. Most common CT was a planned two cycles given every 3 to 4 weeks of cisplatin, 100 mg/m2 i.v., but an additional cycle was given to IMRT patients when possible. Both groups were well-matched for all prognostic factors. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 46 months (range, 3-93 months) for the CBRT patients and 31 months (range, 20-64 months) for the IMRT group. Three-year actuarial local-progression-free, regional-progression-free, locoregional progression-free, distant-metastases-free, disease-free, and overall survival rates were 85% vs. 95% (p = 0.17), 95% vs. 94% (p = 0.90), 82% vs. 92% (p = 0.18), 85% vs. 86% (p = 0.78), 76% vs. 82% (p = 0.57), and 81% vs. 91% (p = 0.10) for CBRT and IMRT patients, respectively. Three patients died of treatment-related toxicity in the CBRT group vs. none undergoing IMRT. At 2 years, 4% IMRT patients vs. 21% CBRT patients were dependent on percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (p = 0.02). Among those who had > or =20 months follow-up, there was a significant difference in Grade > or =2 xerostomia as defined by the criteria of the Radiation Therapy and Oncology Group, 67% vs. 12% (p = 0.02), in the CBRT vs. IMRT arm. CONCLUSION: In the setting of CT for locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma, IMRT results in lower toxicity and similar treatment outcomes when compared with CBRT.