RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Boca , Cuidados Paliativos , Humanos , Masculino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Femenino , Cuidados Paliativos/métodos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Neoplasias de la Boca/radioterapia , Neoplasias de la Boca/mortalidad , Neoplasias de la Boca/terapia , Neoplasias de la Boca/patología , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Adulto , Fraccionamiento de la Dosis de Radiación , Resultado del Tratamiento , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/mortalidad , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/radioterapia , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/terapia , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/patologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Ensuring high-quality radiotherapy requires peer-reviewing target volumes. The Royal College of Radiologists recommends peer review specifically for individual target volumes in cases of gynaecological cancers. This study presents the outcomes of implementing an on-demand peer review system for gynaecological cancers within our institute. METHODS: The peer review process was planned for gynaecological cancer cases intended for curative radiotherapy. After junior clinical oncologists (COs) completed the segmentation, two senior COs specializing in gynaecological cancers conducted the peer review. All peer review outcomes were recorded prospectively. The audit process compliance, the proportion of patients requiring major and minor modifications in target volumes, the direction of changes, and the factors influencing these changes were reported. RESULTS: A total of 230 patients were eligible, and out of these, 204 (88.3%) patients underwent at least one peer review. Among the patients, 108 required major modifications in their target volumes. P-charts revealed a stabilization in the need for major modifications at the end of three months, indicating that 38.2% and 28% of patients still required major modifications for the nodal and primary CTV, respectively. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that major modifications were associated with the use of extended field radiotherapy and radical radiation in non-cervical primary cases. CONCLUSIONS: An on-demand peer review system was feasible and resulted in clinically meaningful, major modifications in the target volumes for 53% of patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Gynaecological cancers require ongoing peer review to ensure quality of care in radiotherapy. A flexible on-demand system not only ensures that patient treatment start is not delayed but also has an important educational role for junior trainees.