DEGRO guideline for personalized radiotherapy of brain metastases and leptomeningeal carcinomatosis in patients with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to evaluate the existing evidence for radiotherapy for brain metastases in breast cancer patients and provide recommendations for the use of radiotherapy for brain metastases and leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the current review, a PubMed search was conducted including articles from 01/1985 to 05/2023. The search was performed using the following terms: (brain metastases OR leptomeningeal carcinomatosis) AND (breast cancer OR breast) AND (radiotherapy OR ablative radiotherapy OR radiosurgery OR stereotactic OR radiation). CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Despite the fact that the biological subtype of breast cancer influences both the occurrence and relapse patterns of breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM), for most scenarios, no specific recommendations regarding radiotherapy can be made based on the existing evidence. For a limited number of BCBM (1-4), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) is generally recommended irrespective of molecular subtype and concurrent/planned systemic therapy. In patients with 5-10 oligo-brain metastases, these techniques can also be conditionally recommended. For multiple, especially symptomatic BCBM, whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), if possible with hippocampal sparing, is recommended. In cases of multiple asymptomatic BCBM (≥ 5), if SRS/SRT is not feasible or in disseminated brain metastases (> 10), postponing WBRT with early reassessment and reevaluation of local treatment options (8-12 weeks) may be discussed if a HER2/Neu-targeting systemic therapy with significant response rates in the central nervous system (CNS) is being used. In symptomatic leptomeningeal carcinomatosis, local radiotherapy (WBRT or local spinal irradiation) should be performed in addition to systemic therapy. In patients with disseminated leptomeningeal carcinomatosis in good clinical condition and with only limited or stable extra-CNS disease, craniospinal irradiation (CSI) may be considered. Data regarding the toxicity of combining systemic therapies with cranial and spinal radiotherapy are sparse. Therefore, no clear recommendations can be given, and each case should be discussed individually in an interdisciplinary setting.

Pharmaceutical management of acute radiation dermatitis in the German speaking radiation oncology community.

BACKGROUND: Radiation dermatitis (RD) remains the most common side effect in radiation therapy (RT) with various pharmaceutical options available for prevention and treatment. We sought to determine pharmaceutical management patterns of radiation dermatitis among radiation oncology professionals. METHODS: We conducted a survey on RD among the German-speaking community of radiation oncologists inquiring for their opinion on preventive and therapeutic pharmaceutical approaches for acute RD. RESULTS: 244 health professionals participated. Dexpanthenol lotion is the agent most widely used both for prevention (53.0%) and treatment (76.9%) of RD, followed by urea (29.8%) for prevention and corticosteroids (46.9%) for treatment. A wide range of substances is used by participants, though the overall experience with them is rather limited. 32.5% of participants do generally not recommend any preventative treatment. 53.4% of participants recommend alternative medicine for RD management. While seldomly used, corticosteroids were considered most effective in RD therapy, followed by dexpanthenol and low-level laser therapy. A majority of participants prefers moist over dry treatment of moist desquamation and 43.8% prescribe antiseptics. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmaceutical management of RD in the German-speaking radiation oncology community remains controversial, inconsistent, and partially not supported by evidence-based medicine. Stronger evidence level and interdisciplinary consensus is required amongst practitioners to improve these care patterns.

Risk assessment, surveillance, and nonpharmaceutical prevention of acute radiation dermatitis: results of a multicentric survey among the German-speaking radiation oncology community.

PURPOSE: Radiation dermatitis (RD) represents one of the most frequent side effects in radiotherapy (RT). Despite technical progress, mild and moderate RD still affects major subsets of patients and identification and management of patients with a high risk of severe RD is essential. We sought to characterize surveillance and nonpharmaceutical preventive management of RD in German-speaking hospitals and private centers. METHODS: We conducted a survey on RD among German-speaking radiation oncologists inquiring for their evaluation of risk factors, assessment methods, and nonpharmaceutical preventive management of RD. RESULTS: A total of 244 health professionals from public and private institutions in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland participated in the survey. RT-dependent factors were deemed most relevant for RD onset followed by lifestyle factors, emphasizing the impact of treatment conceptualization and patient education. While a broad majority of 92.8% assess RD at least once during RT, 59.0% of participants report RD at least partially arbitrarily and 17.4% stated to classify RD severity solely arbitrarily. 83.7% of all participants were unaware of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Consensus exists on some lifestyle recommendations like avoidance of sun exposure (98.7%), hot baths (95.1%), and mechanical irritation (91.8%) under RT, while deodorant use (63.4% not at all, 22.1% with restrictions) or application of skin lotion (15.1% disapproval) remain controversial and are not recommended by guidelines or evidence-based practices. CONCLUSION: Identification of patients at an increased risk of RD and subsequent implementation of adequate preventive measures remain relevant and challenging aspects of clinical routines. Consensus exists on several risk factors and nonpharmaceutical prevention recommendations, while RT-dependent risk factors, e.g., the fractionation scheme, or hygienic measures like deodorant use remain controversial. Surveillance is widely lacking methodology and objectivity. Intensifying outreach in the radiation oncology community is needed to improve practice patterns.

Oligometastasis in breast cancer-current status and treatment options from a radiation oncology perspective.

Evidence from a few small randomized trials and retrospective cohorts mostly including various tumor entities indicates a prolongation of disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) from local ablative therapies in oligometastatic disease (OMD). However, it is still unclear which patients benefit most from this approach. We give an overview of the several aspects of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in extracranial OMD in breast cancer from a radiation oncology perspective. A PubMed search referring to this was conducted. An attempt was made to relate the therapeutic efficacy of SBRT to various prognostic factors. Data from approximately 500 breast cancer patients treated with SBRT for OMD in mostly in small cohort studies have been published, consistently indicating high local tumor control rates and favorable progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Predictors for a good prognosis after SBRT are favorable biological subtype (hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative), solitary metastasis, bone-only metastasis, and long metastasis-free interval. However, definitive proof that SBRT in OMD breast cancer prolongs DFS or OS is lacking, since, with the exception of one small randomized trial (n = 22 in the SBRT arm), none of the cohort studies had an adequate control group. Further studies are needed to prove the benefit of SBRT in OMD breast cancer and to define adequate selection criteria. Currently, the use of local ablative SBRT should always be discussed in a multidisciplinary tumor board.

Post-neoadjuvant treatment with capecitabine and trastuzumab emtansine in breast cancer patients-sequentially, or better simultaneously?

PURPOSE: Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, postoperative systemic therapy, also called post-neoadjuvant treatment, has been established in defined risk settings. We reviewed the evidence for sequencing of postoperative radiation and chemotherapy, with a focus on a capecitabine and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1)-based regimen. METHODS: A systematic literature search using the PubMed/MEDLINE/Web of Science database was performed. We included prospective and retrospective reports published since 2015 and provided clinical data on toxicity and effectiveness. RESULTS: Six studies were included, five of which investigated capecitabine-containing regimens. Of these, four were prospective investigations and one a retrospective matched comparative analysis. One randomized prospective trial was found for T­DM1 and radiotherapy. In the majority of these reports, radiation-associated toxicities were not specifically addressed. CONCLUSION: Regarding oncologic outcome, the influence of sequencing radiation therapy with maintenance capecitabine chemotherapy in the post-neoadjuvant setting is unclear. Synchronous administration of capecitabine is feasible, but reports on possible excess toxicities are partially conflicting. Dose reduction of capecitabine should be considered, especially if normofractionated radiotherapy is used. In terms of tolerance, hypofractionated schedules seem to be superior in terms of toxicity in concurrent settings. T­DM1 can safely be administered concurrently with radiotherapy.

Moderate hypofractionation remains the standard of care for whole-breast radiotherapy in breast cancer: Considerations regarding FAST and FAST-Forward.

Moderate hypofractionation is the standard of care for adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. Recently, 10-year results from the FAST and 5­year results from the FAST-Forward trial evaluating adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy in 5 fractions over 5 weeks or 1 week have been published. This article summarizes recent data for moderate hypofractionation and results from the FAST and FAST-Forward trial on ultra-hypofractionation. While the FAST trial was not powered for comparison of local recurrence rates, FAST-Forward demonstrated non-inferiority for two ultra-hypofractionated regimens in terms of local control. In both trials, the higher-dose experimental arms resulted in elevated rates of late toxicity. For the lower dose experimental arms of 28.5 Gy over 5 weeks and 26 Gy over 1 week, moderate or marked late effects were similar in the majority of documented items compared to the respective standard arms, but significantly worse in some subdomains. The difference between the standard arm and the 26 Gy of the FAST-Forward trial concerning moderate or marked late effects increased with longer follow-up in disadvantage of the experimental arm for most items. For now, moderate hypofractionation with 40-42.5 Gy over 15-16 fractions remains the standard of care for the majority of patients with breast cancer who undergo whole-breast radiotherapy without regional nodal irradiation after breast-conserving surgery.

Heart-sparing radiotherapy techniques in breast cancer patients: a recommendation of the breast cancer expert panel of the German society of radiation oncology (DEGRO).

PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to analyze the respective efficacy of various heart-sparing radiotherapy techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Heart-sparing can be performed in three different ways in breast cancer radiotherapy: by seeking to keep the heart out of treated volumes (i.e. by prone position or specific breathing techniques such as deep inspiration breath-hold [DIBH] and/or gating), by solely irradiating a small volume around the lumpectomy cavity (partial breast irradiation, PBI), or by using modern radiation techniques like intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or protons. This overview presents the available data on these three approaches. RESULTS: Studies on prone position are heterogeneous and most trials only refer to patients with large breasts; therefore, no definitive conclusion can be drawn for clinical routine. Nonetheless, there seems to be a trend toward better sparing of the left anterior descending artery in supine position even for these selected patients. The data on the use of DIBH for heart-sparing in breast cancer patients is consistent and the benefit compared to free-breathing is supported by several studies. In comparison with whole breast irradiation (WBI), PBI has an advantage in reducing the heart dose. Of note, DIBH and PBI with multicatheter brachytherapy are similar with regard to the dose reduction to heart structures. WBI by IMRT/VMAT techniques without DIBH is not an effective strategy for heart-sparing in breast cancer patients with "standard" anatomy. A combination of DIBH and IMRT may be used for internal mammary radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Based on the available findings, the DEGRO breast cancer expert panel recommends the use of DIBH as the best heart-sparing technique. Nonetheless, depending on the treatment volume and localization, other techniques may be employed or combined with DIBH when appropriate.

Radiotherapy after skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction in intermediate-risk breast cancer : Indication and technical considerations.

BACKGROUND: Skin-sparing (SSME) and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSME) were developed to improve the cosmetic results for breast cancer (BC) patients, both allowing for immediate breast reconstruction. Recommendations for post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) are primarily derived from trials where patients were treated by standard mastectomies. Due to their more conservative character, SSME and especially NSME potentially leave more glandular tissue at risk for subclinical disease. METHODS: Rates and sites of locoregional failures following SSME and NSME plus/minus reconstruction were analyzed regarding tumor stage and biological risk factors. In particular, the role of PMRT in "intermediate"-risk and early stage high-risk breast cancer patients was revisited. Implications on targeting and dose delivery of PMRT were critically reviewed. RESULTS: The value of PMRT in stage III BC remains undisputed. For node-negative BC patients, the majority of reports classify clinical and biological features such as tumor size, close surgical margins, premenopausal status, multicentricity, lymphangiosis, triple-negativity, HER2-overexpression, and poor tumor grading as associated with higher rates of locoregional relapse, thus, building an "intermediate" risk group. Surveys revealed that the majority of radiation oncologists use risk-adaptive models also considering the number of coinciding factors for the estimation of recurrence probability following SSME and NSME. Constellations with a 10-year locoregional recurrence risk of >10% are usually triggering the indication for PMRT. There was no common belief that the amount of residual tissue, e.g., tissue thickness over flaps, serves as additional decision aid. Modern treatment planning can ensure optimal dose distribution for PMRT in almost all patients with SSME. There are no reliable data supporting a reduction of the treatment volume from the CTV chest wall, e.g., to the nipple-areola complex, to the dorsal aspect behind the implant volume, the pectoralis muscle, nor the regional interpectoral, axillary, or complete regional lymph nodes only. The omission of a skin bolus in intermediate-risk BC does not compromise oncological safety. CONCLUSIONS: For intermediate-risk as well as early stage high-risk BC patients, the DEGRO Breast Cancer Expert Panel recommends the use of PMRT following SSME and NSME when a 10-year locoregional recurrence risk is likely to be greater than 10%, as estimated by clinical and biological risk factors. Subvolume-only radiation is discouraged outside of trials. The impact of adequate systemic treatment and the value of radiotherapy on optimal locoregional tumor control, with the goal of less than 5% LRR at 10-years follow-up, has to be verified in prospective trials.

Heart toxicity from breast cancer radiotherapy : Current findings, assessment, and prevention.

BACKGROUND: Late cardiac toxicities caused by (particularly left-sided) breast radiotherapy (RT) are now recognized as rare but relevant sequelae, which has prompted research on risk structure identification and definition of threshold doses to heart subvolumes. The aim of the present review was to critically discuss the clinical evidence on late cardiac reactions based on dose-dependent outcome reports for mean heart doses as well as doses to cardiac substructures. METHODS: A literature review was performed to examine clinical evidence on radiation-induced heart toxicities. Mean heart doses and doses to cardiac substructures were focused upon based on dose-dependent outcome reports. Furthermore, an overview of radiation techniques for heart protection is given and non-radiotherapeutic aspects of cardiotoxicity in the multimodal setting of breast cancer treatment are discussed. RESULTS: Based on available findings, the DEGRO breast cancer expert panel recommends the following constraints: mean heart dose <2.5 Gy; DmeanLV (mean dose left ventricle) < 3 Gy; V5LV (volume of LV receiving ≥5 Gy) < 17%; V23LV (volume of LV receiving ≥23 Gy) < 5%; DmeanLAD (mean dose left descending artery) < 10 Gy; V30LAD (volume of LAD receiving ≥30 Gy) < 2%; V40LAD (volume of LAD receiving ≥40 Gy) < 1%. CONCLUSION: In addition to mean heart dose, breast cancer RT treatment planning should also include constraints for cardiac subvolumes such as LV and LAD. The given constraints serve as a clinicians' aid for ensuring adequate heart protection. The individual decision between sufficient protection of cardiac structures versus optimal target volume coverage remains in the physician's hand. The risk of breast cancer-specific mortality and a patient's cardiac risk factors must be individually weighed up against the risk of radiation-induced cardiotoxicity.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer-background for the indication of locoregional treatment.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been widely adopted into the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer. The prognostic impact of treatment response has been clearly demonstrated. However, the impact of treatment response on the indication for adjuvant radiotherapy is unclear. This review summarizes important implications of NACT and treatment response on the risk of recurrence and locoregional multidisciplinary management from the standpoint of radiation oncology.

Individualization of post-mastectomy radiotherapy and regional nodal irradiation based on treatment response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer : A systematic review.

PURPOSE: To review the evidence regarding post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) and regional nodal irradiation (RNI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for breast cancer, with a special focus on individualization of adjuvant radiotherapy based on treatment response. METHODS: A systematic literature search using the PubMed/Medline database was performed. We included prospective and retrospective reports with a minimum of 10 patients that had been published since 1st January 2000, and provided clinical outcome data analyzed by treatment response and radiotherapy. RESULTS: Out of 763 articles identified via PubMed/Medline and hand search, 68 full text-articles were assessed for eligibility after screening of title and abstract. 13 studies were included in the systematic review, 9 for PMRT and 5 for RNI. All included studies were retrospective reports. CONCLUSIONS: There is a considerable lack of evidence regarding the role of adjuvant radiotherapy and its individualization based on treatment response after NACT. Results of prospective randomized trials such as NSABP B­51/RTOG 1304 and Alliance A11202 are eagerly awaited.

2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) are distressing symptoms. Evidence-based guidelines should facilitate the prescription of the best possible antiemetic prophylaxis. As part of the MASCC/ESMO Antiemetic Guidelines Update 2016, a thorough review of the literature concerning RINV since the 2009 update was required. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature including data published from June 2009 to May 2015 was performed. Committee VII (RINV) under the MASCC/ESMO Antiemetic Guidelines Update Committee assessed the literature. RESULTS: The searches yielded 926 records, 906 records were excluded, leaving 20 records for full text assessment, and 18 publications were finally included. The only fully published randomized studies in prevention of RINV were two negative studies in acupuncture and green tea, respectively. No data to support new recommendations for antiemetic prophylaxis in RINV was available. However, based on expert opinions, the committee agreed on changes in emetic risk level for certain sites of irradiation. CONCLUSIONS: The serotonin receptor antagonists are still the corner stone in antiemetic prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting induced by high and moderate emetic risk radiotherapy. The studies available since the last update did not change recommendations for antiemetic prophylaxis. The emetogenicity of craniospinal radiotherapy was reclassified from low to moderate emetic level along with some other minor changes. In the future, RINV prophylaxis in single fraction, multiple fraction, and in concomitant chemo-radiotherapy still need to be explored with regard to the different classes and combinations of antiemetic drugs.

Efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant for the prevention of nausea and emesis during 5 weeks of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer (the GAND-emesis study): a multinational, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists in the prevention of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting has not been established. The purpose of the GAND-emesis study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone in the prevention of nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of fractionated radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS: This investigator initiated, multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, included women with cervical cancer scheduled to receive fractionated radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin 40 mg/m(2) for 5 weeks. Patients had to be naive to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either single doses of fosaprepitant 150 mg intravenously or placebo (saline) in combination with palonosetron 0·25 mg intravenously and dexamethasone 16 mg orally before cisplatin administration. Randomisation was done by the unmasked pharmacist, who used a list of six numbers (a block) provided in a sealed envelope. A web-based randomisation number generator was used to generate the full list of randomisation numbers that was split up in blocks of six numbers. All patients received oral dexamethasone 8 mg twice a day on day 2, 4 mg twice a day on day 3, and 4 mg once on day 4. The treatment was repeated for 5 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with sustained no emesis after 5 weeks of treatment. The modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who received study medication) was used for the statistical analyses. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01074697. FINDINGS: Between June 15, 2010, and March 8, 2015, 246 patients from four countries consented to the study and were randomly assigned. Of these, 234 patients were eligible, having received study medication (118 received fosaprepitant, 116 received placebo). The proportion of patients with sustained no emesis at 5 weeks (competing risk analysis) was 48·7% (95% CI 25·2-72·2) for the placebo group compared with 65·7% (42·2-89·2) of patients for the fosaprepitant group. There was a significantly lower cumulative risk of emesis in the fosaprepitant group compared with the placebo group (subhazard ratio 0·58 [95% CI 0·39-0·87]; p=0·008). Treatments were generally well tolerated with few grade 3 adverse events none of which were related to the study treatment; the most common grade 3 adverse event during the 5 weeks of treatment was diarrhoea (11 [9%] of 118 patients in the fosaprepitant group vs six [5%] of 116 patients in the placebo group). There was only one report of a grade 4 adverse event (neutropenia), in the fosaprepitant group. No deaths were recorded in either group. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate safety and efficacy of a NK-1 receptor antagonist during 5 weeks of radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin. Patients receiving fosaprepitant in addition to palonosetron and dexamethasone were less likely to experience emesis and nausea compared with those receiving palonosetron and dexamethasone alone. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Further investigations in other radiotherapy settings are warranted. FUNDING: Private and hospital or university funding, unrestricted grants from Biovitrum and Helsinn Healthcare SA.

DEGRO practical guidelines for radiotherapy of breast cancer V: Therapy for locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancer, as well as local therapy in cases with synchronous distant metastases.

AIM: The purpose of this work is to give practical guidelines for radiotherapy of locally advanced, inflammatory and metastatic breast cancer at first presentation. METHODS: A comprehensive survey of the literature using the search phrases "locally advanced breast cancer", "inflammatory breast cancer", "breast cancer and synchronous metastases", "de novo stage IV and breast cancer", and "metastatic breast cancer" and "at first presentation" restricted to "clinical trials", "randomized trials", "meta-analysis", "systematic review", and "guideline" was performed and supplemented by using references of the respective publications. Based on the German interdisciplinary S3 guidelines, updated in 2012, this publication addresses indications, sequence to other therapies, target volumes, dose, and fractionation of radiotherapy. RESULTS: International and national guidelines are in agreement that locally advanced, at least if regarded primarily unresectable and inflammatory breast cancer should receive neoadjuvant systemic therapy first, followed by surgery and radiotherapy. If surgery is not amenable after systemic therapy, radiotherapy is the treatment of choice followed by surgery, if possible. Surgery and radiotherapy should be administered independent of response to neoadjuvant systemic treatment. In patients with a de novo diagnosis of breast cancer with synchronous distant metastases, surgery and radiotherapy result in considerably better locoregional tumor control. An improvement in survival has not been consistently proven, but may exist in subgroups of patients. CONCLUSION: Radiotherapy is an important part in the treatment of locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancer that should be given to all patients regardless to the intensity and effect of neoadjuvant systemic treatment and the extent of surgery. Locoregional radiotherapy in patients with primarily distant metastatic disease should be prescribed on an individual basis.

DEGRO practical guidelines for radiotherapy of breast cancer IV: radiotherapy following mastectomy for invasive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Since the last recommendations from the Breast Cancer Expert Panel of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) in 2008, evidence for the effectiveness of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) has grown. This growth is based on updates of the national S3 and international guidelines, as well as on new data and meta-analyses. New aspects were considered when updating the DEGRO recommendations. METHODS: The authors performed a comprehensive survey of the literature. Data from recently published (meta-)analyses, randomized clinical trials and international cancer societies' guidelines yielding new aspects compared to 2008 were reviewed and discussed. New aspects were included in the current guidelines. Specific issues relating to particular PMRT constellations, such as the presence of risk factors (lymphovascular invasion, blood vessel invasion, positive lymph node ratio >20 %, resection margins <3 mm, G3 grading, young age/premenopausal status, extracapsular invasion, negative hormone receptor status, invasive lobular cancer, size >2 cm or a combination of ≥ 2 risk factors) and 1-3 positive lymph nodes are emphasized. RESULTS: The evidence for improved overall survival and local control following PMRT for T4 tumors, positive resection margins, >3 positive lymph nodes and in T3 N0 patients with risk factors such as lymphovascular invasion, G3 grading, close margins, and young age has increased. Recently identified risk factors such as invasive lobular subtype and negative hormone receptor status were included. For patients with 1-3 positive lymph nodes, the recommendation for PMRT has reached the 1a level of evidence. CONCLUSION: PMRT is mandatory in patients with T4 tumors and/or positive lymph nodes and/or positive resection margins. PMRT should be strongly considered in patients with T3 N0 tumors and risk factors, particularly when two or more risk factors are present.

Malignant melanoma S3-guideline "diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of melanoma".

This first German evidence-based guideline for cutaneous melanoma was developed under the auspices of the German Dermatological Society (DDG) and the Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group (DeCOG) and funded by the German Guideline Program in Oncology. The recommendations are based on a systematic literature search, and on the consensus of 32 medical societies, working groups and patient representatives. This guideline contains recommendations concerning diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of melanoma. The diagnosis of primary melanoma based on clinical features and dermoscopic criteria. It is confirmed by histopathologic examination after complete excision with a small margin. For the staging of melanoma, the AJCC classification of 2009 is used. The definitive excision margins are 0.5 cm for in situ melanomas, 1 cm for melanomas with up to 2 mm tumor thickness and 2 cm for thicker melanomas, they are reached in a secondary excision. From 1 mm tumor thickness, sentinel lymph node biopsy is recommended. For stages II and III, adjuvant therapy with interferon-alpha should be considered after careful analysis of the benefits and possible risks. In the stage of locoregional metastasis surgical treatment with complete lymphadenectomy is the treatment of choice. In the presence of distant metastasis mutational screening should be performed for BRAF mutation, and eventually for CKIT and NRAS mutations. In the presence of mutations in case of inoperable metastases targeted therapies should be applied. Furthermore, in addition to standard chemotherapies, new immunotherapies such as the CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab are available. Regular follow-up examinations are recommended for a period of 10 years, with an intensified schedule for the first three years.

Adult intracranial ependymoma-relevance of DNA methylation profiling for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.

BACKGROUND: A methylation-based classification of ependymoma has recently found broad application. However, the diagnostic advantage and implications for treatment decisions remain unclear. Here, we retrospectively evaluate the impact of surgery and radiotherapy on outcome after molecular reclassification of adult intracranial ependymomas. METHODS: Tumors diagnosed as intracranial ependymomas from 170 adult patients collected from 8 diagnostic institutions were subjected to DNA methylation profiling. Molecular classes, patient characteristics, and treatment were correlated with progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The classifier indicated an ependymal tumor in 73.5%, a different tumor entity in 10.6%, and non-classifiable tumors in 15.9% of cases, respectively. The most prevalent molecular classes were posterior fossa ependymoma group B (EPN-PFB, 32.9%), posterior fossa subependymoma (PF-SE, 25.9%), and supratentorial ZFTA fusion-positive ependymoma (EPN-ZFTA, 11.2%). With a median follow-up of 60.0 months, the 5- and 10-year-PFS rates were 64.5% and 41.8% for EPN-PFB, 67.4% and 45.2% for PF-SE, and 60.3% and 60.3% for EPN-ZFTA. In EPN-PFB, but not in other molecular classes, gross total resection (GTR) (P = .009) and postoperative radiotherapy (P = .007) were significantly associated with improved PFS in multivariable analysis. Histological tumor grading (WHO 2 vs. 3) was not a predictor of the prognosis within molecularly defined ependymoma classes. CONCLUSIONS: DNA methylation profiling improves diagnostic accuracy and risk stratification in adult intracranial ependymoma. The molecular class of PF-SE is unexpectedly prevalent among adult tumors with ependymoma histology and relapsed as frequently as EPN-PFB, despite the supposed benign nature. GTR and radiotherapy may represent key factors in determining the outcome of EPN-PFB patients.

Endometrial Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG, DKG and DKH (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/034-OL, September 2022). Part 1 with Recommendations on the Epidemiology, Screening, Diagnosis and Hereditary Factors of Endometrial Cancer, Geriatric Assessment and Supply Structures.

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.

The Prevention and Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting During Tumor Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects of tumor therapy. Despite prophylaxis, 40-50% of patients suffer from nausea, and 20-30% from vomiting. Antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment are therefore of great importance for improving patients' quality of life and preventing sequelae such as tumor cachexia. METHODS: The recommendations presented here are based on international and national guidelines, updated with publications retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases, with special attention to randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that have appeared in the past 5 years since the German clinical practice guideline on supportive therapy was published. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted prevention and treatment is based on the identification of treatment-related and patient-specific risk factors, including female sex and younger age. Parenteral tumor therapy is divided into four risk classes (minimal, low, moderate, high), and oral tumor therapy into two (minimal/low, moderate/high). In radiotherapy, the radiation field is of decisive importance. The antiemetic drugs most commonly used are 5-HT3-RA, NK1-RA, and dexamethasone; olanzapine has proven beneficial as an add-on or rescue drug. The use of steroids in patients being treated with drug combinations including checkpoint inhibitors is discussed controversially because of the potentially reduced therapeutic response. Benzodiazepines, dimenhydrinate, and cannabinoids can be used as backup antiemetics. Acupuncture/acupressure, ginger, and progressive muscle relaxation are pos - sible alternative methods. CONCLUSION: Detailed, effective, risk profile-adapted algorithms for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting are now available for patients undergoing classic chemotherapy regimens or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Optimal symptom control for patients undergoing oral tumor therapy over multiple days in the outpatient setting remains a challenge.

Long-Term Results of the TARGIT-A Trial: More Questions than Answers.

Background: During the last decade, partial breast irradiation (PBI) has gained traction as a relevant treatment option for patients with early-stage low-risk breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery. The TARGIT-A prospective randomized trial compared a "risk-adapted" intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) approach with 50-kv X-rays (INTRABEAM®) as the PBI followed by optional whole-breast irradiation (WBI) and conventional adjuvant WBI in terms of observed 5-year in-breast recurrence rates. Recently, long-term data were published. Since the first publication of the TARGIT-A trial, a broad debate has been emerged regarding several uncertainties and limitations associated with data analysis and interpretation. Our main objective was to summarize the data, with an emphasis on the updated report and the resulting implications. Summary: From our point of view, the previously unresolved questions still remain and more have been added, especially with regard to the study design, a change in the primary outcome measure, the significant number of patients lost to follow-up, and the lack of a subgroup analysis according to risk factors and treatment specifications. Key Message: Taking into account the abovementioned limitations of the recently published long-term results of the TARGIT-A trial, the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) Breast Cancer Expert Panel adheres to its recently published recommendations on PBI: "the 50-kV system (INTRABEAM) cannot be recommended for routine adjuvant PBI treatment after breast-conserving surgery."