RESUMO
Background and purpose: Prostate cancer can be treated using either brachytherapy or high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), which are less invasive than surgery. Although both approaches have proved effective, few studies have looked at the specific causes of hospitalisation due to complications, following these treatments. The aim of this study was to compare the causes of hospitalisation. Methods: A retrospective study was carried out examining the records of patients who had undergone brachytherapy or HIFU treatment for localized prostate cancer in 2019 and 2020, using the French national database: Programme de Médicalisation du Système d'Information - Médecine, Chirurgie, Obstétrique (PMSI-MSO). Data on post-treatment hospitalisations were analyzed. Results: 3090 patients were included in the study, of whom 1699 underwent brachytherapy and 1391 HIFU procedures. The incidence of hospitalisation was much higher after HIFU than after brachytherapy, notably due to a higher rate of obstructive complications (12.94% vs 2.77%). Large differences were also found for infections (8.20% vs 1.47%) and bleeding (6.76% vs 2.18%) leading to hospitalisation. Most of the complications occurred at the initial hospitalization: 12% for HIFU, and 1.4% for brachytherapy. Conclusion: Complications were more frequent after treatment with HIFU than with brachytherapy in the year following treatment for localized prostate cancer. Further the causes of hospitalisation differed between the two treatments. These differences need to be taken into account in the therapeutic strategy, as well as in post-treatment management.
RESUMO
Patients with bone metastasis are prevalent among those receiving palliative radiotherapy (RT), with approximately 20 % requiring reirradiation (reirradiation). The goal of bone reirradiation may be local control (oligoreoccurrence or oligoprogression of a previously treated lesion or in a previous treatment field) or symptomatic (threatening or painful progression). Published data on bone reirradiation indicate almost two-thirds of overall pain response. The primary organ at risk (especially for spine treatment) is the spinal cord. The risk of radiation myelitis is<1 % for cumulative doses of<50Gy. Intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) and stereotactic RT (SRT) appear to be safer than three-dimensional RT (3DRT), although randomized trials comparing these techniques in reirradiation are lacking. Reirradiation requires multidisciplinary assessment. Alternative treatments for bone metastases (surgery, interventional radiology, etc.) must be considered. Patients should have a performance status≤2, with at least a 1-month interval between treatments. The planning process involves reviewing previous RT plans, cautious dose adjustments, and precise target delineation and dose distribution to minimize toxicity. Cumulative dosimetry, patient consent, and vigilant post-treatment monitoring and dose reporting are crucial.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Radiotherapy is, with surgery, one of the main therapeutic treatment strategies for meningiomas. No prospective study has defined a consensus for the delineation of target volumes for meningioma radiotherapy. Therefore, target volume definition is mainly based on information from retrospective studies that include heterogeneous patient populations. The aim is to describe delineation guidelines for meningioma radiotherapy as an adjuvant or definitive treatment with intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic radiation therapy techniques. This guideline is based on a consensus endorsed by a multidisciplinary group of brain tumor experts, members of the Association of French-speaking Neuro-oncologists (ANOCEF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-step procedure was used. First, the steering group carried out a comprehensive review to identify divergent issues on meningiomas target volume delineation. Second, an 84-item web-questionnaire has been developed to precisely define meningioma target volume delineation in the most common clinical situations. Third, experts members of the ANOCEF were requested to answer. The first two rounds were completed online. A third round was carried out by videoconference to allow experts to debate and discuss the remaining uncertain questions. All questions remained in a consensus. RESULTS: Limits of the target volume were defined using visible landmarks on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, considering the pathways of tumor extension. The purpose was to develop clear and precise recommendations on meningiomas target volumes. CONCLUSION: New recommendations for meningiomas delineation based on simple anatomic boundaries are proposed by the ANOCEF. Improvement in uniformity in target volume definition is expected.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Meníngeas , Meningioma , Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada , Humanos , Meningioma/patologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada/métodos , Planejamento da Radioterapia Assistida por Computador/métodos , Neoplasias Meníngeas/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias Meníngeas/radioterapia , Neoplasias Meníngeas/patologiaRESUMO
The origin of penile metastases is in 70% of cases from primary pelvic cancers (genitourinary and recto-sigmoid primary tumors). The prognosis is poor and it is often associated with synchronous bone metastases at the time of diagnosis. We present the case of a 61-year-old patient who developed a penile induration 7 years after radical prostatectomy followed by adjuvant external beam radiation therapy for high-risk prostatic adenocarcinoma. Biopsies confirmed the metastatic localization and a detailed assessment failed to find any further remote lesions. Faced with this penile oligometastatic prostate cancer, we proposed an ablative treatment based on interstitial multi-catheter high-dose rate brachytherapy. At the six-month follow-up, clinical examination and 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET confirmed a complete response of the penile tumor without new lesion at a distance.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To analyze the oncological outcome and toxicity profile after conservative treatment based on multicatheter interstitial high-dose rate brachytherapy (MHB) for patients presenting a localized penile cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically proven, non-metastatic (T1-T2 N0-N2 M0) localized penile cancer were treated with MHB. Needles were placed under general anesthesia into the target volume using a dedicated template. Treatment planning was performed using a post-implant CT-scan to deliver 35â¯Gy or 39â¯Gy (9f, 5d) for adjuvant or definitive treatment respectively. Five-year oncological outcome was evaluated with local relapse-free (LRFS), regional relapse-free (RRFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS), specific (SS) and overall survival (OS). In pre-treatment and follow-up consultations, skin, urinary and sexual toxicities were investigated using CTCAEv4.0 classification, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function 5-items (IIEF-5). Dosimetry data were also analyzed. RESULTS: From 03/2006 to 05/2020, with a median follow-up of 72.4â¯months [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], 29 pts, mainly T1 (75.9%) and N0 (89.7%), underwent MHB. Eleven (38%) and 18 pts (62%) received MHB as adjuvant or definitive treatment respectively. Five-year LRFS, RRFS, MFS, SS and OS were 82%, 82%, 89%, 88% and 73% respectively. Six patients (20.7%) experienced local relapse and underwent salvage penectomy leading to a penile preservation rate of 79.3%. Acute skin toxicity was reported 1â¯month after MHB, with 28% G1, 66% G2 and 6% G3. Late skin complications were telangiectasia for 5 pts (17%) and necrosis for 3 pts (10.3% requiring hyperbaric oxygen therapy). Comparing pre- and post-treatment status, no significant change was observed for skin appearance, IPSS and IIEF-5. CONCLUSION: MHB represents an efficient first line conservative treatment option for early penile cancers. Oncological outcome and late toxicity profile appear encouraging. However, larger-scale cohorts with longer follow-up are needed to more accurately precise the features of the best candidate to MHB.