RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The DEGRO Expert Commission on Prostate Cancer has revised the indication for radiation therapy of the primary prostate tumor in patients with synchronous distant metastases with low metastatic burden. METHODS: The current literature in the PubMed database was reviewed regarding randomized evidence on radiotherapy of the primary prostate tumor with synchronous low metastatic burden. RESULTS: In total, two randomized trials were identified. The larger study, the STAMPEDE trial, demonstrated an absolute survival benefit of 8% after 3 years for patients with low metastatic burden treated with standard of care (SOC) and additional radiotherapy (RT) (EQD2 ≤â¯72â¯Gy) of the primary tumor. Differences in the smaller Horrad trial were not statistically significant, although risk reduction in the subgroup (<â¯5 bone metastases) was equal to STAMPEDE. The STOPCAP meta-analysis of both trials demonstrated the benefit of local radiotherapy for up to 4 bone lesions and an additional subanalysis of STAMPEDE also substantiated this finding in cases with M1a-only metastases. CONCLUSION: Therefore, due to the survival benefit after 3 years, current practice is changing. New palliative SOC is radiotherapy of the primary tumor in synchronously metastasized prostate cancer with low metastatic burden (defined as ≤â¯4 bone metastases, with or without distant nodes) or in case of distant nodes only detected by conventional imaging.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Óseas , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Neoplasias Óseas/secundario , Hormonas , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Focal therapy (FT) is an option to treat localized prostate cancer (PCa) and preserve healthy prostate tissue in order to reduce known side effects from primary whole-gland treatment. The available FT modalities are manifold. Until now, national and international PCa guidelines have been cautious to propose recommendations regarding FT treatment since data from prospective controlled trials are lacking for most FT modalities. Moreover, none of the international guidelines provides a separate section on FT. In this purpose, we provide a synopsis of the consensus-based German S3 guidelines for a possible international use. SUMMARY: The recently published update of the German S3 guidelines, an evidence- and consensus-based guideline, provides a section on FT with recommendations for diagnostic work-up, indications, modalities, and follow-up. This section consists of 12 statements and recommendations for FT in the treatment of localized PCa. KEY MESSAGE: The German S3 guidelines on PCa are the first to incorporate recommendations for FT based on evidence and expert consensus including indication criteria for FT, pretreatment, and follow-up diagnostic pathways as well as an extended overview of FT techniques and the current supportive evidence.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Próstata , Crioterapia , Humanos , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/terapiaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Integrating moderate hypofractionation to the macroscopic tumor with elective nodal irradiation while sparing the organs at risk (OAR) in chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: From 2010-2018, treatment, patient and tumor characteristics of 138 patients from two radiation therapy centers were assessed. Chemoradiotherapy by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the primary tumor and macroscopic lymph node metastases was used. RESULTS: A total of 124 (90%) patients received concurrent chemotherapy. 106 (76%) patients had UICC (Union for International Cancer Control) stage ≥IIIB and 21 (15%) patients had an oligometastatic disease (UICC stage IV). Median SIB and elective total dose was 61.6 and 50.4â¯Gy in 28 fractions, respectively. Furthermore, 64 patients (46%) had an additional sequential boost to the primary tumor after the SIB-IMRT main series: median 6.6â¯Gy in median 3 fractions. The median cumulative mean lung dose was 15.6â¯Gy (range 6.2-29.5â¯Gy). Median follow-up and radiological follow-up for all patients was 18.0 months (range 0.6-86.9) and 16.0 months (range 0.2-86.9), respectively. Actuarial local control rates at 1, 2 and 3 years were 80.4, 68.4 and 57.8%. Median overall survival and progression-free survival was 30.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 23.5-36.4) and 12.1 months (95% CI 8.2-16.0), respectively. Treatment-related toxicity was moderate. Radiation-induced pneumonitis grade 2 and grade 3 occurred in 13 (9.8%) and 3 (2.3%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Chemoradiotherapy using SIB-IMRT showed promising local tumor control rates and acceptable toxicity in patients with locally advanced and in part oligometastatic lung cancer. The SIB concept, resulting in a relatively low mean lung dose, was associated with low numbers of clinically relevant pneumonitis. The overall survival appears promising in the presence of a majority of patients with UICC stage ≥IIIB disease.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/terapia , Quimioradioterapia/métodos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/terapia , Radioterapia de Intensidad Modulada/métodos , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Carboplatino/administración & dosificación , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/secundario , Cisplatino/administración & dosificación , Tomografía Computarizada de Haz Cónico , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Tomografía Computarizada Cuatridimensional , Enfermedades Hematológicas/etiología , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/secundario , Irradiación Linfática , Metástasis Linfática , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Paclitaxel/administración & dosificación , Tomografía Computarizada por Tomografía de Emisión de Positrones , Supervivencia sin Progresión , Traumatismos por Radiación/etiología , Neumonitis por Radiación/etiología , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por Computador , Radioterapia Guiada por Imagen , Radioterapia de Intensidad Modulada/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Carga Tumoral , Vinorelbina/administración & dosificaciónRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The current article encompasses a literature review and recommendations for radiotherapy in nodal oligorecurrent prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review focused on studies comparing metastasis-directed stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) vs. external elective nodal radiotherapy (ENRT) and studies analyzing recurrence patterns after local nodal treatment was performed. The DEGRO Prostate Cancer Expert Panel discussed the results and developed treatment recommendations. RESULTS: Metastasis-directed radiotherapy results in high local control (often >â¯90% within a follow-up of 1-2 years) and can be used to improve progression-free survival or defer androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) according to prospective randomized phase II data. Distant progression after involved-node SABR only occurs within a few months in the majority of patients. ENRT improves metastases-free survival rates with increased toxicity in comparison to SABR according to retrospective comparative studies. The majority of nodal recurrences after initial local treatment of pelvic nodal metastasis are detected within the true pelvis and common iliac vessels. CONCLUSION: ENRT with or without a boost should be preferred to SABR in pelvic nodal recurrences. In oligometastatic prostate cancer with distant (extrapelvic) nodal recurrences, SABR alone can be performed in selected cases. Application of additional systemic treatments should be based on current guidelines, with ADT as first-line treatment for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Only in carefully selected patients can radiotherapy be initially used without additional ADT outside of the current standard recommendations. Results of (randomized) prospective studies are needed for definitive recommendations.
Asunto(s)
Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/radioterapia , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Humanos , Ganglios Linfáticos/patología , Ganglios Linfáticos/efectos de la radiación , Metástasis Linfática/patología , Metástasis Linfática/radioterapia , Masculino , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/patología , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , RadiocirugiaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Various randomized phase III clinical trials have compared moderately hypofractionated to normofractionated radiotherapy (RT). These modalities showed similar effectiveness without major differences in toxicity. This project was conducted by the Prostate Cancer Expert Panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) and the Working Party on Radiation Oncology of the German Cancer Society. We aimed to investigate expert opinions on the use of moderately hypofractionated RT as a definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer in German-speaking countries. METHODS: A 25-item, web-based questionnaire on moderate-hypofractionation RT was prepared by an internal committee. The experts of the DEGRO were asked to complete the questionnaire. RESULTS: Fourteen active members of DEGRO completed the questionnaire. The questions described indications for selecting patients eligible to receive moderate hypofractionation based on clinical and pathological factors such as age, urinary symptoms, and risk-group. The questions also collected information on the technical aspects of selection criteria, including the definition of a clinical target volume, the use of imaging, protocols for bladder and rectal filling, the choice of a fractionation schedule, and the use of image guidance. Moreover, the questionnaire collected information on post-treatment surveillance after applying moderately hypofractionated RT. CONCLUSION: Although opinions varied on the use of moderate-hypofractionation RT, the current survey reflected broad agreement on the notion that moderately hypofractionated RT could be considered a standard treatment for localized prostate cancer in German-speaking countries.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Próstata , Oncología por Radiación , Fraccionamiento de la Dosis de Radiación , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Hipofraccionamiento de la Dosis de Radiación , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
Due to its low fractionation sensitivity, also known as "alpha/beta ratio," in relation to its surrounding organs at risk, prostate cancer is predestined for hypofractionated radiation schedules assuming an increased therapeutic ratio compared to normofractionated regimens. While moderate hypofractionation (2.2-4â¯Gy) has been proven to be non-inferior to normal fractionation in several large randomized trials for localized prostate cancer, level I evidence for ultrahypofractionation (>4â¯Gy) was lacking until recently. An accumulating body of non-randomized evidence has recently been strengthened by the publication of two randomized studies comparing ultrahypofractionation with a normofractionated schedule, i.e., the Scandinavian HYPO-RT trial by Widmark et al. and the first toxicity results of the PACEB trial. In this review, we aim to give a brief overview of the current evidence of ultrahypofractionation, make an overall assessment of the level of evidence, and provide recommendations and requirements that should be followed before introducing ultrahypofractionation into routine clinical use.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Hipofraccionamiento de la Dosis de Radiación , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Humanos , Masculino , Próstata/efectos de la radiación , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
AIM: To provide an overview on the available treatments to prevent and reduce gynecomastia and/or breast pain caused by antiandrogen therapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: The German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) expert panel summarized available evidence published and assessed the validity of the information on efficacy and treatment-related toxicity. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials and one meta-analysis were identified. Two randomized trials demonstrated that prophylactic radiation therapy (RT) using 1â¯× 10â¯Gy or 2â¯× 6â¯Gy significantly reduced the rate of gynecomastia but not breast pain, as compared to observation. A randomized dose-finding trial identified the daily dose of 20â¯mg tamoxifen (TMX) as the most effective prophylactic dose and another randomized trial described that daily TMX use was superior to weekly use. Another randomized trial showed that prophylactic daily TMX is more effective than TMX given at the onset of gynecomastia. Two other randomized trials described that TMX was clearly superior to anastrozole in reducing the risk for gynecomastia and/or breast pain. One comparative randomized trial between prophylactic RT using 1â¯× 12â¯Gy and TMX concluded that prophylactic TMX is more effective compared to prophylactic RT and furthermore that TMX appears to be more effective to treat gynecomastia and/or breast pain when symptoms are already present. A meta-analysis confirmed that both prophylactic RT and TMX can reduce the risk of gynecomastia and/or breast pain with TMX being more effective; however, the rate of side effects after TMX including dizziness and hot flushes might be higher than after RT and must be taken into account. Less is known regarding the comparative effectiveness of different radiation fractionation schedules and more modern RT techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic RT as well as daily TMX can significantly reduce the incidence of gynecomastia and/or breast pain. TMX appears to be an effective alternative to RT also as a therapeutic treatment in the presence of gynecomastia but its side effects and off-label use must be considered.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma/tratamiento farmacológico , Antagonistas de Andrógenos/efectos adversos , Andrógenos , Antineoplásicos Hormonales/efectos adversos , Moduladores de los Receptores de Estrógeno/uso terapéutico , Ginecomastia/inducido químicamente , Mastodinia/inducido químicamente , Neoplasias Hormono-Dependientes/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/tratamiento farmacológico , Tamoxifeno/uso terapéutico , Anastrozol/uso terapéutico , Antagonistas de Andrógenos/uso terapéutico , Anilidas/efectos adversos , Antineoplásicos Hormonales/uso terapéutico , Mareo/inducido químicamente , Fraccionamiento de la Dosis de Radiación , Esquema de Medicación , Moduladores de los Receptores de Estrógeno/administración & dosificación , Moduladores de los Receptores de Estrógeno/efectos adversos , Rubor/inducido químicamente , Ginecomastia/tratamiento farmacológico , Ginecomastia/prevención & control , Ginecomastia/radioterapia , Humanos , Masculino , Mastodinia/tratamiento farmacológico , Mastodinia/prevención & control , Mastodinia/radioterapia , Metaanálisis como Asunto , Nitrilos/efectos adversos , Uso Fuera de lo Indicado , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Tamoxifeno/administración & dosificación , Tamoxifeno/efectos adversos , Compuestos de Tosilo/efectos adversosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This article aims to provide an overview of the role of combined radiation and androgen deprivation (ADT) therapy in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The current German, European, and NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guidelines as well as relevant literature in the PubMed database which provide information on sub-classification within the intermediate-risk group and the use of ADT in terms of oncological outcome were reviewed. RESULTS: Different recommendations for risk-group assessment of patients with localized prostate cancer are available. Subdivision of intermediate risk into a favorable and an unfavorable group seems to be justified to allow for a more individualized therapy in a quite heterogenous group of patients. So far, multiple randomized trials have shown a benefit when radiation therapy (RT) is combined with ADT. The use of dose-escalated RT without ADT also appears to be an adequate therapy associated with a very low rate of cancer-specific deaths. Therefore, taking into account the increased rate of toxicity associated with ADT, dose-escalated RT alone might be justified, especially in favorable intermediate-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Dose-escalated RT alone appears to be an appropriate treatment in favorable intermediate-risk patients. Addition of short course ADT (4-6 months) might improve outcomes in unfavorable intermediate-risk patients.
Asunto(s)
Antagonistas de Andrógenos/uso terapéutico , Quimioradioterapia , Neoplasias de la Próstata/terapia , Humanos , Masculino , Medicina de Precisión , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Medición de RiesgoAsunto(s)
Próstata , Terapia Recuperativa , Humanos , Ganglios Linfáticos/patología , Masculino , PelvisRESUMEN
AIM: Overview on the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) added to salvage radiation therapy (SRT) for prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. METHODS: The German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) expert panel summarized available evidence published between January 2009 and May 2017, and assessed the validity of the information on outcome parameters including overall survival (OS) and treatment-related toxicity. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials and nine relevant retrospective analyses were identified. The RTOG 9601 trial showed an OS improvement for the combination of 2 years of bicalutamide and SRT compared to SRT alone after a median follow-up of 13 years. This improvement appeared to be restricted to those patients with a prostate specific antigen (PSA) level before SRT of ≥0.7â¯ng/mL. The GETUG AFU-16 trial showed that after a median follow-up of 5 years, the addition of 6 months of goserelin to SRT improved progression-free survival (PFS; based on biochemical recurrence) as compared to SRT alone. ADT in both trials was not associated with increased major late toxicities. Results of retrospective series were inconsistent with a suggestion that the addition of ADT improved biochemical PFS especially in patients with high-risk factors such as Gleason Score ≥8 and in the group with initially negative surgical margins. CONCLUSIONS: ADT combined with SRT appears to improve OS in patients with a PSA level before SRT of ≥0.7â¯ng/mL. In patients without persistent PSA after prostatectomy and PSA levels of <0.7â¯ng/mL, ADT should not routinely be used, but may be considered in patients with additional risk factors such as Gleason Score ≥8 and negative surgical margins.
Asunto(s)
Antagonistas de Andrógenos/uso terapéutico , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/terapia , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangre , Prostatectomía , Neoplasias de la Próstata/terapia , Radioterapia Adyuvante , Terapia Recuperativa , Terapia Combinada , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/sangre , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/patología , Neoplasias de la Próstata/sangre , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Estudios Retrospectivos , Tasa de SupervivenciaRESUMEN
AIM: This article gives an overview on the current status of hypofractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer with a special focus on the applicability in routine use. METHODS: Based on a recently published systematic review the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) expert panel added additional information that has become available since then and assessed the validity of the information on outcome parameters especially with respect to long-term toxicity and long-term disease control. RESULTS: Several large-scale trials on moderate hypofractionation with single doses from 2.4-3.4 Gy have recently finished recruiting or have published first results suggestive of equivalent outcomes although there might be a trend for increased short-term and possibly even long-term toxicity. Large phase 3 trials on extreme hypofractionation with single doses above 4.0 Gy are lacking and only very few prospective trials have follow-up periods covering more than just 2-3 years. CONCLUSION: Until the results on long-term follow-up of several well-designed phase 3 trials become available, moderate hypofractionation should not be used in routine practice without special precautions and without adherence to the highest quality standards and evidence-based dose fractionation regimens. Extreme hypofractionation should be restricted to prospective clinical trials.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Hipofraccionamiento de la Dosis de Radiación , Traumatismos por Radiación/etiología , Radioterapia Conformacional/efectos adversos , Radioterapia Conformacional/métodos , Relación Dosis-Respuesta en la Radiación , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Alemania , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Traumatismos por Radiación/prevención & control , Medición de Riesgo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In patients with prostate cancer (PC) and biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy, salvage radiotherapy (SRT) could improve PC-specific survival (PCSS) but the timing for initiation is still under discussion. We have demonstrated a low rate of biochemical relapses in a patient series with very low pre-SRT PSA levels after a median follow-up of 42 months. Here, we present an update of that study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Overall, 151 patients were analyzed. A biochemical relapse after SRT was diagnosed when the PSA exceeded the post-SRT nadir by 0.2 ng/ml with subsequent increase. Parameters with significant impact on biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS), PCSS, and overall survival (OS) in univariate analysis were included in a multiple Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 82 months, 18 patients (12%) had died with 10 (6.6%) deaths being PC-related. A biochemical progression was diagnosed in 83 patients (55%). Univariate analysis revealed a significant impact of pre-SRT PSA level, Gleason score, and PSA doubling time (PSADT) on BPFS and for initial tumor stage and Gleason score on OS. Multivariate analysis confirmed the impact of pre-SRT PSA level, Gleason score, and PSADT on BPFS and tumor stage on OS. CONCLUSION: In this update, the rate of biochemical relapses increased compared with our previous data. Compared to similar studies, we found a remarkably low rate of PC-related deaths. Our data support early initiation of SRT. However, this treatment strategy, triggered by very low PSA levels, could carry the risk of overtreatment in at least a subset of patients.
Asunto(s)
Biomarcadores de Tumor/sangre , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/radioterapia , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangre , Prostatectomía , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Radioterapia Adyuvante/métodos , Terapia Recuperativa/métodos , Terapia Combinada , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Clasificación del Tumor , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/mortalidad , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/patología , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/cirugía , Pronóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/mortalidad , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Neoplasias de la Próstata/cirugía , Tasa de SupervivenciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients with prostate cancer face the difficult decision between a wide range of therapeutic options. These men require elaborate information about their individual risk profile and the therapeutic strategies´ risks and benefits to choose the best possible option. In order to detect time trends and quality improvements between an early patient population (2003/2004) and a later reference group (2007/2008) data was analysed with regards to epidemiologic parameters, differences in diagnostics and the type and ranking of the recommended therapies taking into account changes to Gleason Grading System and implementation of new therapeutic strategies, particularly Active surveillance, in 2005. METHODS: Data from all 496 consecutive patients who received consultation in 2003/2004 (n = 280) and 2007/2008 (n = 216) was retrospectively evaluated. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test. Dependent variables were analysed using the unpaired Students´ t-test and the Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: The cohorts were comparable concerning clinical stage, initial PSA, prostate volume, comorbidities and organ confined disease. Patients in Cohort I were younger (66.44 vs. 69.31y; p < .001) and had a longer life expectancy (17.22 vs. 14.75y; p < .001). 50.9%, 28.2% and 20.9% in Cohort I and 37.2%, 39.6% and 23.2% in Cohort II showed low-, intermediate- and high-risk disease (D´Amico) with a trend towards an increased risk profile in Cohort II (p = .066). The risk-adapted therapy recommended as first option was radical prostatectomy for 91.5% in Cohort I and 69.7% in Cohort II, radiation therapy for 83.7% in Cohort I and 50.7% in Cohort II, and other therapies (brachytherapy, Active surveillance, Watchful waiting, high-intensity focused ultrasound) for 6.5% in Cohort I and 6.9% in Cohort II (p < .001). Radiation therapy was predominant in both cohorts as second treatment option (p < .001). Time trends showing quality improvement involved an increase in biopsy cores (9.95 ± 2.38 vs. 8.43 ± 2.29; p < .001) and an increased recommendation for bilateral nerve sparing (p < .001). CONCLUSION: In the earlier years, younger patients with a more favourable risk profile presented for interdisciplinary consultation. A unilateral recommendation for radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy was predominant. In the later years, the patient population was considerably older. However, this group may have benefitted from optimised diagnostic possibilities and a wider range of treatment options.
Asunto(s)
Toma de Decisiones , Grupo de Atención al Paciente/organización & administración , Neoplasias de la Próstata/terapia , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud/normas , Derivación y Consulta/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Berlin , Instituciones Oncológicas/estadística & datos numéricos , Distribución de Chi-Cuadrado , Estudios de Cohortes , Comorbilidad , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tamaño de los Órganos , Antígeno Prostático Específico/análisis , Prostatectomía/métodos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/cirugía , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
Current risk-stratification systems for prostate cancer (PCa) do not sufficiently reflect the disease heterogeneity. Genomic classifiers (GC) enable improved risk stratification after surgery, but less data exist for patients treated with definitive radiation therapy (RT) or RT in oligo-/metastatic disease stages. To guide future perspectives of GCs for RT, we conducted (1) a systematic review on the evidence of GCs for patients treated with RT and (2) a survey of experts using the Delphi method, addressing the role of GCs in personalized treatments to identify relevant fields of future clinical and translational research. We performed a systematic review and screened ongoing clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov. Based on these results, a multidisciplinary international team of experts received an adapted Delphi method survey. Thirty-one and 30 experts answered round 1 and round 2, respectively. Questions with ≥75% agreement were considered relevant and included in the qualitative synthesis. Evidence for GCs as predictive biomarkers is mainly available to the postoperative RT setting. Validation of GCs as prognostic markers in the definitive RT setting is emerging. Experts used GCs in patients with PCa with extensive metastases (30%), in postoperative settings (27%), and in newly diagnosed PCa (23%). Forty-seven percent of experts do not currently use GCs in clinical practice. Expert consensus demonstrates that GCs are promising tools to improve risk-stratification in primary and oligo-/metastatic patients in addition to existing classifications. Experts were convinced that GCs might guide treatment decisions in terms of RT-field definition and intensification/deintensification in various disease stages. This work confirms the value of GCs and the promising evidence of GC utility in the setting of RT. Additional studies of GCs as prognostic biomarkers are anticipated and form the basis for future studies addressing predictive capabilities of GCs to optimize RT and systemic therapy. The expert consensus points out future directions for GC research in the management of PCa.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Consenso , Neoplasias de la Próstata/genética , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Neoplasias de la Próstata/tratamiento farmacológico , GenómicaRESUMEN
Summary The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer, first published in April 2018, was reviewed in its entirety between April 2020 and January 2022 and updated. The review was carried out at the request of German Cancer Aid as part of the Oncology Guidelines Program and the lead coordinators were the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG), the Gynecology Oncology Working Group (AGO) of the German Cancer Society (DKG) and the German Cancer Aid (DKH). The guideline update was based on a systematic search and assessment of the literature published between 2016 and 2020. All statements, recommendations and background texts were reviewed and either confirmed or amended. New statements and recommendations were included where necessary. Aim The use of evidence-based risk-adapted therapies to treat women with endometrial cancer of low risk prevents unnecessarily radical surgery and avoids non-beneficial adjuvant radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy. For women with endometrial cancer and a high risk of recurrence, the guideline defines the optimum level of radical surgery and indicates whether chemotherapy and/or adjuvant radiation therapy is necessary. This should improve the survival rates and quality of life of these patients. The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer and the quality indicators based on the guideline aim to provide the basis for the work of certified gynecological cancer centers. Methods The guideline was first compiled in 2018 in accordance with the requirements for S3-level guidelines and was updated in 2022. The update included an adaptation of the source guidelines identified using the German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal (DELBI). The update also used evidence reviews which were created based on selected literature obtained from systematic searches in selected literature databases using the PICO process. The Clinical Guidelines Service Group was tasked with carrying out a systematic search and assessment of the literature. Their results were used by interdisciplinary working groups as a basis for developing suggestions for recommendations and statements which were then modified during structured online consensus conferences and/or additionally amended online using the DELPHI process to achieve a consensus. Recommendations Part 1 of this short version of the guideline provides recommendations on epidemiology, screening, diagnosis, and hereditary factors. The epidemiology of endometrial cancer and the risk factors for developing endometrial cancer are presented. The options for screening and the methods used to diagnose endometrial cancer are outlined. Recommendations are given for the prevention, diagnosis, and therapy of hereditary forms of endometrial cancer. The use of geriatric assessment is considered and existing structures of care are presented.
RESUMEN
Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical surgery in NSCLC has long been a matter of debate. The pros and cons have all been discussed thoroughly and the data existing due to their partial outdated nature in respect of the diagnostic and therapeutic maneuvers used make it difficult to rely on them. Based on the existing level of evidence from randomized studies, the decision to irradiate a NSCLC patient postoperatively does not seem to be prudent, as several meta-analyses in fact have rather shown a detrimental effect than any benefit. As the majority of the randomized trials that are the bases of the meta-analyses are neither of good quality nor include those patients that are nowadays regarded as those for whom adjuvant irradiation should be discussed, other sources of information are of relevance. Subanalyses of randomized phase III trials and recently published SEER data are indicative that there is a benefit from adjuvant irradiation not only in terms of freedom from local failure but of overall survival as well. Notably, this is not at the expense of unacceptably high rates of long-term side effects.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/radioterapia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/radioterapia , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/patología , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/cirugía , Terapia Combinada , Fraccionamiento de la Dosis de Radiación , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/cirugía , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Cuidados Posoperatorios , Pronóstico , Tasa de Supervivencia , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
A biochemical recurrence following prostatectomy is often diagnosed in relatively young and healthy men, and hence deemed very relevant concerning life, given the generally high life expectancy of these patients. Therefore, there is a need for a therapy that offers a long-term chance of cure. Following salvage radiotherapy in large multicenter series, about 45% of the patients treated are in biochemical complete remission 4 years after radiotherapy. The best chances of response are in those patients in whom none of the established risk factors, that will be discussed, are present. Given the established curative potential of salvage radiotherapy and the fact that there are no therapeutic alternatives with a realistic chance of cure, the rather moderate rates of side effects seem acceptable.