10-Year oncological outcome report after second conservative treatment for ipsilateral breast tumor event.

Purpose: To analyze long-term oncological outcome after 2nd conservative treatment (2ndCT) for patients with ipsilateral 2nd ipsilateral breast tumor event (2ndIBTE). Materials/methods: In this retrospective observational study (N°F20210402152843), patients with 2ndIBTE underwent 2ndCT (lumpectomy + tumor bed re-irradiation). 3rdIBTE (3rdIBTE-FS), regional relapse- (RRFS) and metastatic disease- (MD-FS) free survivals as well as disease-free (DFS), specific (SS) and overall (OS) survival were analyzed. Late toxicity was reported. Results: Between 09/2000 and 04/2022, 244 patients presented a 2ndIBTE and underwent a 2ndCT. Among them, 113 pts with a minimum follow-up of 60 months were analyzed. Median time interval between 1st and 2ndIBTE was 13.5 years [2-35]. Median 2ndIBTE age was 66.2 years [31-85]. 2ndIBTE were adenocarcinomas (77 %). Tumor size was < 20 mm (86.7 %). 2ndIBTE were grade 1/2 (75 %), with positive hormonal receptor (85 %) and clear surgical margins (no ink on tumor, 90.3 %). In the APBI classification, 21 pts were high-risk (18.6 %), while 77 % were Luminal A/BHer2-. With a MFU of 121.5 months [CI95% 111.7-129.6], 10-year 3rdIBTE-FS was 89 % [83-96]. Then-year RRFS, MDFS, DFS, SS and OS were 94 % [89-100], 89 % [83-96], 78 % [70-87], 95 % [91-100] and 94 % [90 -99] respectively. In multivariate analysis, APBI classification (high-risk; HR2.66 [1.01-7.1], p = 0.049) and tumor size (≥20 mm; HR2.64 [1.02-6.8], p = 0.045) were considered independent prognostic factors for DFS.Ninety-seven late complications were observed (fibrosis 64 %) with 6.2 % G ≥ 3 late toxicity. Cosmetic outcome was excellent/good in 91.2 %. Conclusions: With long follow-up, 2ndIBTE managed with 2ndCT allows second breast preservation without oncological outcome compromise and acceptable G ≥ 3 toxicity.

Irradiation of localized prostate cancer in the elderly: A systematic literature review.

Purpose: To analyze the literature that addresses radiation therapy for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer (PC) in the elderly. Patients and methods: A PubMed literature search was conducted including articles from 01/01/2000 to 30/06/21, with the following keywords: PC, radiotherapy/brachytherapy and elderly. The analysis mainly focused on the issue of under-treatment in the elderly and the benefit/risk balance of irradiation. Results: Of the 176 references analyzed, 24 matched the selection criteria. The definition of "elderly patient" varied from 70 to 80 years. The analysis was impacted by the inhomogeneous primary end points used in each cohort. Age was often an obstacle to radical treatment, with a subsequent risk of under-treatment, particularly in patients with a poorer prognosis. However, comparable elderly oncological outcomes were compared to younger patients, both with external beam radiotherapy alone or combined with brachytherapy boost. Late toxicity rates are low and most often comparable to younger populations. However, a urinary over- toxicity was observed in the super-elderly (>80 years) after brachytherapy boost. The use of ADT should be considered in light of comorbidities, and may even be deleterious in some patients. Conclusion: Due to the increase in life expectancy, the management of PC in the elderly is a challenge for patients, clinicians and health insurance payers. Except for unfit men, elderly patients remain candidates for optimal curative treatment (i.e. regardless of age) after oncogeriatric assessment. More solid data from prospective trials conducted specially in this population will provide better guidance in our daily clinical practice.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for locally advanced cervical cancer: Oncological outcome and toxicity analysis of 4 fractionation schemes.

PURPOSE: Brachytherapy (BT) boost after radio-chemotherapy (RCT) is a standard of care in the management of locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). As there is no consensus on high-dose-rate (HDR) BT fractionation schemes, our aim was to report the oncological outcome and toxicity profile of four different schemes using twice-a-day (BID) HDR-BT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective, single institution study for patients with LACC receiving a HDR-BT boost. The latter was performed with a single implant and single imaging done on day 1. The different fractionation schemes were: 7 Gy + 4x3.5 Gy (group 1); 7 Gy + 4x4.5 Gy (group 2); 3x7Gy (group 3) and 3x8Gy (group 4). Local (LFS), nodal (NFS) and metastatic (MFS) recurrence-free survival as well as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Acute (≤6 months) and late toxicities (>6 months) were reported. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2018, 191 patients were included. Median follow-up was 57 months [45-132] and median EQD210D90CTVHR was 84, 82 and 90 Gy for groups 2, 3 and 4 respectively (dosimetric data missing for group 1). The 5-year LFS, NFS, MFS, PFS and OS were 85% [81-90], 83% [79-86], 70% [67-73], 61% [57-64] and 75% [69-78] respectively, with no significant difference between the groups. EQD210D90CTVHR < 85 Gy was a prognostic factor for local recurrence in univariate analysis (p = 0.045). The rates of acute/late grade ≥ 2 urinary, digestive and gynecological toxicities were 9%/15%, 3%/15% and 9%/25% respectively. CONCLUSION: Bi-fractionated HDR-BT boost seems feasible with good oncological outcome and slightly more toxicity after dose escalation.

Single fraction of HDR brachytherapy for prostate cancer: Results of the SiFEPI phase II prospective trial.

Purpose: To report the results of the Single Fraction Early Prostate Irradiation (SiFEPI) phase 2 prospective trial. Materials/Methods: The SiFEPI trial (NCT02104362) evaluated a single fraction of high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDB) for low- (LR) and favorable-intermediate (FIR) risk prostate cancers. After rectal spacer placement, a single fraction of 20 Gy was delivered to the prostate. Oncological outcome (biochemical (bRFS) and local (lRFS) relapses, disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survivals and toxicity (acute/late genito-urinary (GU), gastro-intestinal (GI) and sexual (S) toxicities were investigated. Results: From 03/2014 to 10/2017, 35 pts were enrolled, of whom 33 were evaluable. With a median age of 66 y [46-79], 25 (76 %) and 8 (24 %) pts were LR and FIR respectively. With a MFU of 72.8 months [64-86], 6y-bRFS, lRFS and mRFS were 62 % [45-85], 61 % [44-85] and 93 % [85-100] respectively while 6y-DFS, CSS and OS were 54 % [37-77], 100 % and 89 % [77-100] respectively. Late GU, GI and S toxicities were observed in 11 pts (33 %;18G1), 4 pts (12 %;4G1) and 7 pts (21 %;1G1,5G2,1G3) respectively. Biochemical relapse (BR) was observed in 11 pts (33 %;7LR,4FIR) with a median time interval between HDB and BR of 51 months [24-69]. Nine of these pts (82 %) presented a histologically proven isolated local recurrence. Conclusions: Long-term results of the SiFEPI trial show that a single fraction of 20 Gy leads to sub-optimal biochemical control for LR/FIR prostate cancers. The late GU and GI toxicity profile is encouraging, leading to consideration of HDB as a safe irradiation technique.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for elderly patients with intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer: 5-year clinical outcome of the PROSTAGE cohort.

Purpose: To analyze the oncological outcome in elderly (>70 years) prostate cancer after high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDB) boost. Materials/methods: In this retrospective study, patients with intermediate (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer underwent external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) followed by HDB boost with/without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The impact of age (≤70y vs. > 70y) was investigated. Oncological outcome focused on biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), cause-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Late genito-urinary (GU) and gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicities were investigated. Results: From 07/08 to 01/22, 518 pts received a HDB boost, and 380 were analyzed (≤70y:177pts [46.6%] vs. > 70y:203pts [53.4%]). Regarding NCCN classification, 98 pts (≤70y: 53pts; >70y: 45pts; p = 0.107) and 282 pts (≤70y: 124pts; >70y: 158pts; p = NS) were IR and HR pts respectively. Median EBRT dose was 46 Gy [37.5-46] in 23 fractions [14-25]. HDB boost delivered a single fraction of 14/15 Gy (79%). ADT was used in 302 pts (≤70y: 130pts; >70y: 172pts; p = 0.01). With MFU of 72.6 months [67-83] for the whole cohort, 5-y bRFS, 5-y CSS and 5-y OS were 88% [85-92], 99% [97-100] and 94% [92-97] respectively; there was no statistical difference between the two age groups except for 5-y CSS (p = 0.05). Late GU and GI toxicity rates were 32.4% (G ≥ 3 7.3%) and 10.1% (no G3) respectively. Conclusions: For IR and HR prostate cancers, HDB boost leads to high rates of disease control with few late G ≥ 3 GU/GI toxicities. For elderly pts, HDB boost remains warranted mainly in HR pts, while competing comorbidity factors influence OS.

High-dose rate brachytherapy in localized penile cancer: 5-Year clinical outcome analysis.

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 35 Gy or 39 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 72.4 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 1 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.