High-dose radiotherapy and risk-adapted androgen deprivation in localised prostate cancer (DART 01/05): 10-year results of a phase 3 randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of androgen deprivation combined with high-dose radiotherapy in prostate cancer remains controversial. The DART 01/05 trial was designed to determine whether long-term androgen deprivation is superior to short-term androgen deprivation when combined with high-dose radiotherapy. The 5-year results showed that 2 years of adjuvant androgen deprivation combined with high-dose radiotherapy significantly improved biochemical control, metastasis, and overall survival, especially in patients with high-risk disease. In this report, we present the 10-year final results of the trial. METHODS: This open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial was done in ten hospitals in Spain. The eligibility criteria included patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed T1c to T3, N0, and M0 adenocarcinoma of the prostate, according to the 2002 classification of the American Joint Committee on Cancer, with intermediate-risk and high-risk factors, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 100 ng/mL, and a Karnofsky performance score of at least 70%. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 4 months of neoadjuvant and concomitant short-term androgen deprivation (STAD) plus high-dose radiotherapy (minimum dose 76 Gy; median dose 78 Gy) or to receive the same treatment followed by 24 months of adjuvant long-term androgen deprivation (LTAD), via a randomisation scheduled generated by Statistical Analysis Software programme (version 9.1) and an interactive web response system. Patients assigned to the STAD group received 4 months of neoadjuvant and concomitant androgen deprivation (oral flutamide 750 mg per day or oral bicalutamide 50 mg per day) with subcutaneous goserelin (2 months before and 2 months combined with high-dose radiotherapy). Anti-androgen therapy was added during the first 2 months of treatment. Patients assigned to LTAD continued with goserelin every 3 months for another 24 months. The primary endpoint was biochemical disease-free survival at 5 years. For this 10-year study we analysed overall survival, metastasis-free survival, biochemical disease-free survival, and cause-specific survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is closed and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02175212) and in the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2005-000417-36). FINDINGS: Between Nov 7, 2005, and Dec 20, 2010, 355 patients were enrolled. One patient in the STAD group withdrew from the trial, hence 354 participants were randomly assigned to STAD (n=177) or LTAD (n=177). The median follow-up was 119·4 months (IQR 100·6-124·3). The 10-year biochemical disease-free survival for LTAD was 70·2% (95% CI 63·1-77·3) and for STAD was 62·3% (54·9-69·7; hazard ratio [HR] 0·84; 95% CI 0·50-1·43; p=0·52). At 10 years, overall survival was 78·4% (72·1-84·8) for LTAD and 73·3% (66·6-80·0) for STAD (HR 0·84; 95% CI 0·55-1·27; p=0·40), and metastasis-free survival was 76·0% (69·4-82·7) for LTAD and 70·9% (64·0-77·8) for STAD (HR 0·90; 95% CI, 0·37-2·19; p=0·81). For the subgroup of high-risk patients, the 10-year biochemical disease-free survival was 67·2% (57·2-77·2) for LTAD and 53·7% (43·3-64·1) for STAD (HR 0·90; 95% CI 0·49-1·64; p=0·73), the 10-year overall survival was 78·5% (69·6-87·3) for LTAD and 67·0% (57·3-76·7) for STAD (HR 0·58; 95% CI 0·33-1·01; p=0·054), and the 10-year metastasis-free survival was 76·6% (95% CI 67·6-85·6) for LTAD and 65·0% (55·1-74·8) for STAD (HR 0·89; 95% CI 0·33-2·43; p=0·82). Only 11 (3%) of 354 patients died from prostate cancer, all of them in the high-risk subgroup (five in the LTAD group and six in the STAD group). 76 (21%) patients died from other causes (mainly second malignancies in 31 [9%] and cardiovascular disease in 21 [6%]). No treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: After an extended 10-year follow-up, we were unable to support the significant benefit of LTAD reported at 5 years. However, the magnitude of the benefit was clinically relevant in high-risk patients. Intermediate-risk patients treated with high-dose radiotherapy do not benefit from LTAD. A biological characterisation with the inclusion of genomic testing is needed in the decision-making process. FUNDING: Grupo de Investigación en Oncología Radioterápica and Sociedad Española de Oncología Radioterápica, the National Health Investigation Fund, and AstraZeneca.

Are breast cancer patients treated with radiotherapy younger now than ten years ago?

AIM: The aim of the present study was to analyze the age of breast cancer patients managed with curative approach at the time of treatment with radiotherapy. BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most frequent neoplasm in women. Little is known with regard to the age of patients at diagnosis, and some authors have suggested that breast cancer is now affecting women who are younger than before. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a descriptive study of our series of breast cancer patients from 1998 to 2011. The age of patients, city of residence, year of treatment and uni- or bilateral location were extracted from the administrative database of the Radiation Oncology Department. The demographical and reference populational data were extracted from the Catalan Institute of Statistics. RESULTS: 3382 patients were obtained. The mean age was 57.79 years. No statistical differences were observed in the mean age during the period of study (p > 0.05), nor in patients with bilateral neoplasias with regard to unilateral tumours (p > 0.5). Patients aged less than 30, 40, 50 and 65 years were 0.3%, 6.3%, 27.0% and 69.1%, respectively. The proportion of patients aged less, equal or more than 40 and 50 years was not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy after radical surgery have not experienced significant changes in their mean age at treatment. The subgroups of patients that remain out of the mammographic screening programmes were unchanged as well. The observed differences can be explained by demographical disparities and by a probable increase in the indications for adjuvant radiotherapy.

Primary pericardial mesothelioma.

Primary pericardial mesothelioma is a rare clinical entity; about 150 cases have been described in literature. It is a highly aggressive tumour with global survival under 6 months. We present a 44-year-old man with a primary pericardial mesothelioma who received treatment under clinical essay with carboplatinum and pemetrexed reaching tumoral response; consolidation radiotherapy was administered. Ten months after end of radiotherapy, tumoral progression was detected, and patient received second line of chemotherapy. The patient died 16 months after diagnosis. New cytotoxic drugs can improve the prognosis of this rare entity.

Human papillomavirus detection and p16INK4a expression in cervical lesions: a comparative study.

p16(INK4a) expression in dysplastic cervical lesions is related to high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection. The immunohistochemical expression of this protein in these lesions allows an increase in diagnostic reproducibility in biopsies and the introduction of prognostic factors in low-grade lesions. Here, we studied the immunohistochemical expression of p16 in 86 dysplastic cervical lesions, 54 cervical intraepithelial neoplasms-grade 1 (CIN-I), 23 CIN-II, and 9 CIN-III. In addition, we performed HPV detection and genotyping. We detected HR-HPV in 19/54 CIN-I, 21/23 CIN-II and 9/9 CIN-III cases. p16(INK4a) immunoreactivity was observed in 7/19 CIN-I HR-HPV-positive, 17/21 CIN-II HR-HPV-positive and all CIN-III cases. Immunoreactivity for p16(INK4a) was found in 7/54 CIN-I and in 17/23 CIN-II cases. In the follow-up, we detected 3 p16-positive high-grade squamous epithelial lesions (CIN-II and CIN-III) in the CIN-I/p16-negative group and 5 p16-positive high-grade squamous epithelial lesions cases in the CIN-II/p16-negative group. We conclude that p16 negativity in CIN-I and CIN-II biopsies does not always imply regression of the lesion and that the diagnosis of CIN-II should not be based solely on p16 results.

Phase I study of concurrent chemoradiation with pemetrexed and cisplatin followed by consolidation pemetrexed for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Although concurrent chemotherapy and radiation is the standard approach for good risk unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, there is no optimal concurrent chemotherapy regimen. Administration of chemotherapy at full dose with maximal activity against local and micrometastatic disease is highly desirable. This study tested the feasibility of 3 cycles of full dose cisplatin and pemetrexed concurrent with definitive thoracic radiotherapy followed by consolidation pemetrexed, without the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) exceeding 33% of the patients. METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC, good performance status and no serious comorbidity were eligible. Patients received thoracic radiation to a dose of 66 Gy concurrently with three 21-day cycles of pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2), and cisplatin at escalating doses from 60 to 75 mg/m(2). Consolidation chemotherapy of pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) was provided for 3 more 21-day cycles. Cisplatin doses were escalated as far as no more than 1/3 of the patients in a level developing dose limiting toxicities (DLT). RESULTS: Fifteen eligible patients were enrolled: nine in the first dose level and 3 in the second and third dose levels respectively. Two out of 9 patients in the first dose level experienced DLT (grade 3 esophagitis resulting in delay in treatment administration). The major serious acute toxicities were esophagitis (40%) and febrile neutropenia (20%). With a median follow up time of 22 months, median time to progression and overall survival has not been reached. The rate of survival at 24 months was 57.5% (95% CI: 27.5-87.4%) of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Three systemic dose levels of pemetrexed and cisplatin could be administered concurrently with radiotherapy. The rate of survival at 24 months was encouraging.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases.

The goal of this paper is to expose the clinical results and review of the literature of the treatment of spinal metastases with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) presenting one case. A spinal metastases from rectal cancer treated with a single dose of 18Gy is presented. The following physics aspects are exposed: Treatment volume, tumor volume marginal doses and maximum doses in organs at risk. Clinical and radiographic follow up is presented. Local control and pain relief after one year of follow up was excellent. In properly selected patients, the treatment of limited metastatic disease with SBRT appears to be feasible and safe.