The Assessment of the Long-Term Impact of Radiotherapy on Biophysical Skin Properties in Patients after Head and Neck Cancer.

Background and Objectives: Chronic radiotherapy-induced skin injury (cRISI) is an irreversible and progressive condition that can significantly impact a patient's quality of life. Despite the limited literature available on the assessment of the epidermal barrier in cRISI, there is a consensus that appropriate skincare, including the use of emollients, is the primary therapeutic approach for this group of patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the biophysical properties of the skin during the late period (at least 90 days) following radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer. Materials and Methods: This was a single-center prospective non-randomized study. It involved the analysis of 16 adult patients with head and neck cancer who underwent RT at the Greater Poland Cancer Center, along with 15 healthy volunteers. The study and control groups were matched for gender and age (p = 0.51). Clinical assessment, based on the LENT-SOMA scale, was conducted for all patients. Evaluation of the skin's biophysical properties included: an analysis of transepidermal water loss (TEWL), stratum corneum hydration (SCH), and skin visualization using high-frequency ultrasonography (HF-USG). Results: A significantly higher TEWL was observed in the irradiated area compared to the control area in the study group (p = 0.004). However, there was no statistically significant difference in SCH (p = 0.073). Additionally, no significant difference was observed in the values of TEWL and SCH in the irradiated area between the group of patients with and without clinically obvious RISI (p = 0.192 and p = 0.415, respectively). The skin thickness of the irradiated area, assessed by HF-USG, did not differ significantly from the skin thickness of the control area (p = 0.638). Furthermore, no difference in skin thickness was observed in patients with clinical features of cRISI in the irradiated and control areas (p = 0.345). The mean time after RT was 6.1 years. Conclusions: This study marks the first demonstration of epidermal barrier damage in patients in the long term following RT for head and neck cancer. The impairment of the epidermal barrier was observed independently of evident cRISI features. This observation underscores the necessity to recommend appropriate skin care, including the use of emollients, for all patients following RT. We also suggest that HF-USG examination is generally inconclusive in determining the degree of skin damage in the late period after RT.

Assessment of biological parameters in head and neck cancer based on in vivo distribution of 18F-FDG-FLT-FMISO-PET/CT images.

OBJECTIVE: Several genetic analyses have identified tumor diversity not only among tumors from different patients (intertumor heterogeneity) but also within individual tumors (intratumor heterogeneity). The aim of this study was to analyze the intratumor heterogeneity and other biological parameters based on in vivo distribution in triple-tracer positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT) study in patients with newly diagnosed head and neck (H&N) cancer. METHODS: Thirty-six patients with newly diagnosed H&N cancer were included in the study. Institutional Bioethical Committee approved the study protocol and informed consent was received from every participant. All patients underwent series of 3 PET/CT scans with [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG-PET), [18F]Fluorothymidine (18F-FLT-PET), and [18F]Fluoromisonidazole (18F-FMISO-PET) before treatment. Scans were performed on separate days, within a timeframe of 2 weeks. Several PET/CT parameters grading tumor biology including maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), its equivalent (total hypoxic lesion [TLH] and total proliferative lesion [TLP]), and heterogeneity (area under the curve-cumulative SUV histogram) for the primary tumor were compared. RESULTS: All patients showed increased uptake of 18F-FDG in primary tumor, ranging from 2.29 to 14.89 SUVmax. Respectively, SUVmax values for 18F-FLT ranged from 0.93 to 16.11 and for 18F-FMISO 0.36-4.07. Based on 3-year follow-up, we divided patients in terms of survival forecasts (first with good prognosis and second with worse). Higher values of TLG/TLP/TLH and SUVmax were observed in the second group in all 3 tracers (for 18F-FDG: 167.40 vs 100.32, 11.15 vs 8.95; for 18F-FLT: 116.61 vs 60.67, 7.09 vs 5.47; for 18F-FMISO: 37.34 vs 22.30, 1.70 vs 1.61 respectively). Statistically significant differences were shown in SUVmax in 18F-FDG and 18F-FLT (P<0.034, P<0.034, respectively; in TLG, P=0.05; TLP, P=0.04; and TLH, P=0.05). CONCLUSION: Our preliminary results suggest worse prognosis in patients with higher heterogeneity values of primary tumor in proliferation and hypoxia images and combination of metabolic and volumetric parameters in TLG and its equivalent and heterogeneity of primary tumor seems to be a prognostic factor.

Assessment of tumour hypoxia, proliferation and glucose metabolism in head and neck cancer before and during treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility of multitracer positron emission tomography (PET) imaging before and during chemoradiation and to evaluate the predictive value of image-based factors for outcome in locally advanced head and neck cancers treated with chemoradiation. METHODS: In the week prior to the treatment [18F]-2-flu-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG), [18F]-3'-flu-3'deoxythymidine (FLT) and [18F]-flumisonidazole (FMISO) imaging was performed. FLT scans were repeated at 14 and 28 Gy and FMISO at 36 Gy. Overall survival, disease-free survival and local control were correlated with subvolume parameters, and with tumour-to-muscle ratio for FMISO. For every tracer, total metabolic tumour volume was calculated. RESULTS: 33 patients were included. No correlation was found between pre-treatment maximum standardised uptake value for FDG, FLT, FMISO and outcomes. Tumour volume measured on initial CT scans and initial FLT volume correlated with disease-free survivall (p = 0.007 and 0.04 respectively). FDG and FLT metabolic tumour volumes correlated significantly with local control (p = 0.005 and 0.02 respectively). In multivariate Cox analysis only individual initial TMRmax correlated with overall survival. CONCLUSION: PET/CT imaging is a promising tool. However, various aspects of image analysis need further clinical validation in larger multicentre study employing uniform imaging protocol and standardisation, especially for hypoxia tracer. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Monitoring of biological features of the tumour using multitracer PET modality seems to be a feasible option in daily clinical practice.Evaluation of hypoxic subvolumes is more patient dependent; thus, exploration of individual parameters of hypoxia is needed. tumour-to-muscle ratio seems to be the most promising so far.

Assessment of health status in elderly patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Health status assessment of senior adults is one of the most important aspects of a treatment decision making process. A group of elderly cancer patients is very heterogeneous according to the health status - some of them are fit enough for aggressive treatment, but others are frail and vulnerable. Treatment for the latter group has to be adapted and carefully monitored. AIM: To review and analyze relevant literature on the usage and optimization of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medline search of studies published between 2000 and 2011, containing key words: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, aging, cancer in senior adults, frailty. RESULTS: To recognize and address individual needs of senior adults, a special holistic approach has been developed - comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). This tool is a gold standard in gerontooncology, recommended by International Society of Geriatric Oncology. CGA evaluates all important health domains, from physiology to social and economical problems, using sets of different tests. Assessment has to be performed by a trained team, including a physician, nurse and social worker. CGA has been clinically validated in many studies, but it is still not clear whether CGA improves the outcome of treatment of the elderly with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Complexity and multidimensionality of CGA pose a logistic challenge for everyday clinical practice. Special senior programs, which could be developed inside comprehensive cancer center, focusing attention on seniors' problems and needs seem to be a way forward for geriatric oncology.