Patient-Reported Outcomes After Swallowing (SWOARs)-Sparing IMRT in Head and Neck Cancers: Primary Results from a Prospective Study Endorsed by the Head and Neck Study Group (HNSG) of the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO).

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively investigate changes in M.D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) scores in patients affected by naso- and oropharynx cancer after definitive radiochemotherapy (ChemoRT) using swallowing organs at risk (SWOARs)-sparing IMRT. METHODS: MDADI questionnaires were collected at baseline and at 6 and 12 months after treatment. MDADI scores were categorized as follows: ≥ 80 "optimal," 80-60 "adequate," < 60 "poor" deglutition-related quality of life (QoL) group, and dichotomized as "optimal" vs "adequate/poor" for the analysis. A mean MDADI composite (MDADI-C) change of 10 points was considered as minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were enrolled of which 47 were considered for the analysis. At baseline, 26 (55%) were "optimal" and 21 (45%) were "adequate/poor." The mean baseline MDADI-C score was 93.6 dropping to 81 at 6 months (p = 0.013) and slightly rising to 85.5 at 12 months (p = 0.321) for the "optimal" group. Indeed, the mean baseline MDADI-C score was 64.3 rising to 77.5 at 6 months (p = 0.006) and stabilizing at 76 at 12 months (p = 0.999) for the "adequate/poor" group. A statistically significant but not clinically relevant worsening of the MDADI-C score was reported for the "optimal" group, whereas both a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement of the MDADI-C score were reported for the "adequate/poor" group from before to post-treatment. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest a doubly clinical benefit of dose optimization to SWOARs to minimize the RT sequalae in patients with a baseline "optimal" deglutition-related QoL and to recover from cancer dysphagia in those with a baseline "adequate/poor" deglutition-related QoL.

Stereotactic radiotherapy for oligometastases in the lymph nodes.

Even though systemic therapy is standard treatment for lymph node metastases, metastasis-directed stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT ) seems to be a valid option in oligometastatic patients with a low disease burden. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT ) is the gold standard for assessing metastases to the lymph nodes; co-registration of PET-CT images and planning CT images are the basis for gross tumor volume (GTV ) delineation. Appropriate techniques are needed to overcome target motion. SRT schedules depend on the irradiation site, target volume and dose constraints to the organs at risk (OARs) of toxicity. Although several fractionation schemes were reported, total doses of 48-60 Gy in 4-8 fractions were proposed for mediastinal lymph node SRT, with the spinal cord, esophagus, heart and proximal bronchial tree being the dose limiting OAR s. Total doses ranged from 30 to 45 Gy, with daily fractions of 7-12 Gy for abdominal lymph nodes, with dose limiting OARs being the liver, kidneys, bowel and bladder. SRT on lymph node metastases is safe; late side effects, particularly severe, are rare.

Stereotactic radiotherapy for bone oligometastases.

About 60-90% of cancer patients are estimated to develop bone metastases, particularly in the spine. Bone scintigraphy, computed tomography (CT ) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI ) are currently used to assess metastatic bone disease; positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET-CT ) has become more widespread in clinical practice because of its high sensitivity and specificity with about 95% diagnostic accuracy. The most common and well-known radiotracer is 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18FDG); several other PET-radiotracers are currently under investigation for different solid tumors, such as 11C or 18FDG-choline and prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET/CT for prostate cancer. In treatment planning, standard and investigational imaging modalities should be registered with the planning CT so as to best define the bone target volume. For target volume delineation of spine metastases, the International Spine Radiosurgery Consortium (ISRC ) of North American experts provided consensus guidelines. Single fraction stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT ) doses ranged from 12 to 24 Gy; fractionated SRT administered 21-27 Gy in 3 fractions or 20-35 Gy in 5 fractions. After spine SRT, less than 5% of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 acute toxicity. Late toxicity included the extremely rare radiation-induced myelopathy and a 14% risk of de novo vertebral compression fractures.

Prostate-specific antigen percentage: An early predictive tool after iodine-125 interstitial brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: After interstitial prostate iodine-125 brachytherapy (BT), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) evolution in time could predict overall biochemical relapse, but, considering the single patient, it is influenced by the presentation PSA amount and by the prostatic volume. It is also challenging to differentiate a PSA bounce from a biochemical relapse. PURPOSE: To determine the usefulness of PSA percentage (PP) defined as the rate between PSA presented by a patient at time "t" and the PSA that the same patient had presented at the time of diagnosis (t0) assumed as 100% in predicting biochemical relapse and in differentiating them from PSA Bounces. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We included 721 patients from Milan S. Raffaele Turro (399) and Lucca Campo di Marte (then S. Luca) Hospital (322). The mean age of patients was 66.5 years (range, 50-79). Mean followup was 150 months (range, 24-180). For each patient, PSA was recorded before and after iodine-125 BT, and PPs were calculated. Cox regression model, relative operating characteristic curves, and Kaplan-Meier regression model were elaborated, and a cutoff of 20% was defined. RESULTS: We observed that PP >20% is an independent variable highly associated with relapse risk (p < 0.0001) with a sensitivity of 79.7%, a specificity of 82%, and an hazard ratio of 12.1, since the 6 months of followup. A PSA increase above the nadir should be because of bounce (sensitivity and specificity of 81.4%, p < 0.0001) if patient had experienced at 6 months a PP <20%. CONCLUSIONS: PP might represent an early and useful tool, predictive of clinical outcome in patients after BT for prostate cancer.

Can chemotherapy concomitantly delivered with radiotherapy improve survival of patients with resectable rectal cancer? A meta-analysis of literature data.

BACKGROUND: There is clear evidence from two systematic reviews that radiotherapy (RT) reduces the risk of local recurrence in patients with resectable rectal cancer, though the data on survival are still equivocal. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of chemotherapy combined concomitantly with radiotherapy (CRT) on the increase of overall survival, and on the prevention of local recurrence and distant metastases. DATA SOURCES: Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE and CANCERLIT (1970-2008) were supplemented with hand searches of reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing preoperative or postoperative CRT to preoperative or postoperative RT alone, and if they included patients with resectable, histologically-proven, rectal adenocarcinoma without metastases. Thirteen RCTs, seven of preoperative CRT vs. preoperative RT (2787 patients), four of postoperative CRT vs. postoperative RT (726 patients) and two of postoperative CRT vs. preoperative RT (1400 patients), were analyzed. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on population, intervention, and outcomes were extracted from each RCT, in accordance with the intention-to-treat method, by three independent observers, and combined using the DerSimonian method and Laird method. RESULTS: Preoperative CRT compared to preoperative RT alone significantly reduces the 5-year local recurrence rate (RR 1.05; 95%CI 1.01-1.10). No increase was observed in 5-year overall survival rate (RR 0.94; 95%CI 0.94-1.09), and in the occurrence of distant metastases (RR 0.97; 95%CI 0.93-1.02). Instead, postoperative CRT did not reduce local recurrence (RR 0.96; 95%CI 0.80-1.16), distant metastases (RR 1.11; 95%CI 0.94-1.31) and overall mortality (RR 1.09; 95%CI 0.83-1.41). By pooling data on postoperative CRT vs. preoperative RT a significant reduction of local recurrence was found for the preoperative approach (RR 0.93; 95%CI 0.90-0.96), though no difference was found in distant metastases rates and overall survival. Finally, the risk of mortality related to toxic events was significantly higher when adding chemotherapy to radiotherapy (RR 2.86; 95%CI 0.99-8.26). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resectable rectal cancer, CRT does not increase overall survival, despite the fact that preoperative CRT significantly reduces the risk of the local recurrence. No reduction in the distant metastases rate was found. Toxicity-related mortality is significantly increased by the concomitant approach, emphasizing the need for safer treatment combinations.

Accuracy of endoanal ultrasound in the follow-up assessment for squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal treated with radiochemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Radiochemotherapy has largely replaced surgery in the treatment for squamous cell cancer of the anal canal. Transanal ultrasonography is well documented as an important investigation method in the management of anal carcinoma. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of endoanal ultrasound in the study of the postradiation findings and to distinguish between postradiation fibrosis, residual tumor, and local recurrence. METHODS: The study enrolled 16 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven squamous carcinoma of the anal canal between 2003 and 2006. All the patients underwent a pretreatment and at least four posttreatment endosonographies, according to the follow-up period. All the patients were treated with the same radiochemotherapy protocol. RESULTS: Nine patients had stage uT2 disease; none had uT3 disease; and seven had uT4 disease. There was no evidence of residual tumor in the T2 group after treatment. In the T4 patients after treatment, ultrasound demonstrated tumor regression or abnormalities considered to be radiation-induced changes rather than residual diseases. Only for three patients was a posttreatment biopsy performed to evaluate recurrence (two uT2 and one uT4). Surgical treatment of recurrence was performed for two uT4 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Endoanal ultrasound is a safe and effective method for evaluating and following anal cancer before and after treatment. Experience and evaluation during the period of the ultrasonographic abnormalities could give a clear idea concerning the evolution of the anal tumors treated with radiochemotherapy.