Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Curr Treat Options Oncol ; 25(4): 427-433, 2024 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38386240

ABSTRACT

OPINION STATEMENT: Over the past decades, the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer has evolved dramatically due to improvements in diagnostic imaging, surgical technique, and the addition of radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Fractionation of neoadjuvant radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy remains the subject of discussion and the question multiple recent trials have aimed to answer. In light of recent data and concern for locoregional recurrence, our institution favors long-course chemoradiation in most cases, especially in low-lying primaries, threatened circumferential resection margin, consideration of non-operative management, or if the surgeon has concerns for resectability. Exceptions would include cases of oligometastatic disease planned for metastasectomy in which curative-intent treatment was pursued or if additional factors required a reduction in treatment time.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms, Second Primary , Rectal Neoplasms , Humans , Neoadjuvant Therapy/methods , Rectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Rectal Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Rectal Neoplasms/surgery , Combined Modality Therapy , Chemoradiotherapy/methods , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/drug therapy , Treatment Outcome
2.
Adv Radiat Oncol ; 8(5): 101252, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37408675

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the toxicity and outcomes following treatment of prostate cancer with seminal vesicle involvement (SVI) evident on magnetic resonance imaging or clinical examination with moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy (MHRT). Methods and Materials: Forty-one patients treated with MHRT to the prostate and 1 or both seminal vesicles from 2013 to 2021 at a single institution were identified and propensity score matched to 82 patients treated during the same period with prescription dose given to the prostate alone. Dosimetry of the planning target volume, bladder, and rectum were compared. Urinary and bowel toxicity were scored by National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Clinical outcomes including freedom from biochemical recurrence, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were assessed. Results: Of the 41 patients identified with SVI, 26.8% had SVI by clinical examination and 95.1% had high-risk prostate cancer. Compared with the cohort without SVI, treatment plans to include SVI had a larger planning target volume (152.2 vs 109.9 cc; P < .001), maximum point dose (107.9% vs 105.8%; P < .001), and volume receiving 100% of the prescription dose (143.1 vs 95.9 cc; P < .001). No difference in bladder dosimetric variables between cohorts was observed, but there was an increase in the rectal maximum point dose (103.9% vs 102.8%; P = .030) and rectal volume receiving 100% of the prescription dose (1.8 vs 1.2 cc; P = .016). Despite these differences, there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of grade 2+ urinary (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.39-1.35; P = .31) or bowel (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.04-3.03; P = .34) toxicity. Freedom from biochemical recurrence (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.16-1.38; P = .17), prostate cancer-specific survival (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.04-2.49; P = .31), and overall survival (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.10-1.16; P = .09) also did not differ with or without SVI, respectively. Conclusions: Treatment of SVI to prescription dose with MHRT for localized prostate cancer does not increase bowel or urinary toxicity. Similar clinical outcomes were also observed with or without SVI.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL