Radiation therapy for vulvar cancer: consensus guidelines of the GINECOR working group of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology. Part 1: clinical recommendations

Purpose The present consensus statement was developed by the GINECOR working group on behalf of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR). Given the lack of prospective data on the management of vulvar carcinoma, this document provides an up-to-date review of radiotherapy treatment in vulvar cancer and a series of consensus-based recommendations from a group of experts. Methods A two-round, online modified Delphi study was conducted to reach consensus treatment recommendations in three clinical settings: 1) adjuvant treatment, 2) locally-advanced vulvar cancer (LAVC), and 3) recurrent disease. After the first round, we comprehensively reviewed the available medical literature from peer-reviewed journals to assess and define the evidence-based treatment options. In the second round, participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the preliminary recommendations according to the GRADE (Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria, as follows: strongly agree; agree; neither agree nor disagree; disagree; strongly disagree. Results The main recommendations were as follows: 1) following surgical resection, adjuvant radiotherapy is recommended with the presence of adverse risk factors (primarily positive margins and lymph node involvement); 2) radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) should be considered in LAVC; and 3) in recurrent disease, radiotherapy should be individualised on a case-by-case basis. A high level of agreement over 80% was reached. Conclusions In the absence of robust clinical data, these final recommendations may help to select the optimal radiotherapy approach for this relatively rare cancer (AU)

Radiation therapy for vulvar cancer: consensus technical guidelines of the GINECOR working group of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology. Part 2: radiotherapy recommendations

Purpose The present consensus statement was developed by the GINECOR working group on behalf of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR). This document provides an up-to-date review of the technical aspects in radiation treatment of vulvar cancer. Methods A two-round modified Delphi study was conducted to reach consensus on the appropriateness of technical aspects of external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Three clinical scenarios were proposed: adjuvant treatment of vulvar cancer, radiation treatment of locally advanced vulvar carcinoma and locoregional recurrences. After the first round, an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journal was performed to define evidence-based treatment options. In the second round, participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the preliminary recommendations according to the GRADE (Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria, as follows: strongly agree; agree; neither agree nor disagree; disagree and strongly disagree. Results The main recommendations on external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy, both in adjuvant setting and local advanced disease are summarized. Recommendations include treatment technique, treatment volume, and doses in target and organs at-risk. Taking into consideration the different clinical scenarios of recurrent disease, the radiation treatment should be individualized. Conclusions In the absence of robust clinical data, these recommendations may help to select the optimal radiotherapy approach for this relatively rare cancer (AU)

Radiation therapy for vulvar cancer: consensus guidelines of the GINECOR working group of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology. Part 1: clinical recommendations.

PURPOSE: The present consensus statement was developed by the GINECOR working group on behalf of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR). Given the lack of prospective data on the management of vulvar carcinoma, this document provides an up-to-date review of radiotherapy treatment in vulvar cancer and a series of consensus-based recommendations from a group of experts. METHODS: A two-round, online modified Delphi study was conducted to reach consensus treatment recommendations in three clinical settings: 1) adjuvant treatment, 2) locally-advanced vulvar cancer (LAVC), and 3) recurrent disease. After the first round, we comprehensively reviewed the available medical literature from peer-reviewed journals to assess and define the evidence-based treatment options. In the second round, participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the preliminary recommendations according to the GRADE (Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria, as follows: strongly agree; agree; neither agree nor disagree; disagree; strongly disagree. RESULTS: The main recommendations were as follows: 1) following surgical resection, adjuvant radiotherapy is recommended with the presence of adverse risk factors (primarily positive margins and lymph node involvement); 2) radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) should be considered in LAVC; and 3) in recurrent disease, radiotherapy should be individualised on a case-by-case basis. A high level of agreement over 80% was reached. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of robust clinical data, these final recommendations may help to select the optimal radiotherapy approach for this relatively rare cancer.

Radiation therapy for vulvar cancer: consensus technical guidelines of the GINECOR working group of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology. Part 2: radiotherapy recommendations.

PURPOSE: The present consensus statement was developed by the GINECOR working group on behalf of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR). This document provides an up-to-date review of the technical aspects in radiation treatment of vulvar cancer. METHODS: A two-round modified Delphi study was conducted to reach consensus on the appropriateness of technical aspects of external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Three clinical scenarios were proposed: adjuvant treatment of vulvar cancer, radiation treatment of locally advanced vulvar carcinoma and locoregional recurrences. After the first round, an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journal was performed to define evidence-based treatment options. In the second round, participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the preliminary recommendations according to the GRADE (Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria, as follows: strongly agree; agree; neither agree nor disagree; disagree and strongly disagree. RESULTS: The main recommendations on external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy, both in adjuvant setting and local advanced disease are summarized. Recommendations include treatment technique, treatment volume, and doses in target and organs at-risk. Taking into consideration the different clinical scenarios of recurrent disease, the radiation treatment should be individualized. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of robust clinical data, these recommendations may help to select the optimal radiotherapy approach for this relatively rare cancer.

Prognostic influence of histopathological regression patterns in rectal adenocarcinoma receiving neoadjuvant therapy.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is an important management strategy in rectal carcinoma. Different systems grading response have shown varying prognostic influence. METHODS: To analyze the prognostic influence of pathological response in a series of 183 patients with rectal carcinoma receiving neoadjuvant therapy. To determine the prognostic significance of the histopathological patterns of response. RESULTS: A total of 183 patients from two hospitals. The concordance rate between pathologists was good. In total, 18% of the patients showed grade 0 (complete response), 31.7% grade 1, 19.2% grade 2 and 31.1% grade 3 regression. T down-staging was found in 51.9% of the cases. 46 patients recurred and 18 died of disease (median follow-up time: 39 months). We found a statistically significant association between pathological response and pT stage and down-staging. Inflammatory reaction in the tumor bed was significantly associated to regression and prognosis. Cox's multivariate analysis of survival revealed that down-staging and presence of mucin pools in the tumor bed behaved as significant predictors of recurrence and regression grade and mucin pools as significant predictors of survival. CONCLUSIONS: Pathological response is an important surrogate marker of prognosis in some large series, but results are varying. There are many systems to grade regression and this makes it difficult to compare the results by different groups. It is important to report the specific pattern of response, for some of them may have prognostic relevance. We feel there is an urgent need to develop standarized protocols and employ a universal regression scheme if we intend to use this factor to guide therapy.