Hemostatic radiotherapy for bladder cancer-related hematuria in patients unfit for surgery: is there any impact of fractionation schedule?

PURPOSE: The optimal schedule for palliative external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in patients with bladder tumors with hematuria unfit for surgery remains undefined. This study aimed to assess the clinical hemostatic efficacy and safety of two EBRT hypofractionated schedules. METHODS: From February 2008 to October 2017, 31 patients were referred to our department for palliative hemostatic bladder irradiation. EBRT consisted of two schedules: "continuous" treatment (CRT) was delivered following consecutive 3-10 weekdays (3-6Gy/fraction (fr), to a total dose of 18-30Gy) (n=14); the "discontinuous" schedule (DRT) consisted of 23Gy in 4fr (6.5Gy/fr on days 1 and 3, followed by 5Gy/fr on days 15 and 17; n=12). The primary endpoint was the rate of hemostatic control (HC) at the end of the radiation course. Other endpoints included mid-term HC, toxicities and overall survival. Comparative analyses were performed by exact Fisher test with a cut-off of 0.05 for statistical significance. RESULTS: The rate of HC at the end of EBRT was 92% (n=24) with no differences between CRT and DRT (100% vs 86%; p=0.48). The median follow-up was 6 months, HC was achieved in 15/26 (58%) patients at the last follow-up, without meaningful differences between CRT and DRT (50% vs 67%; p=0.45). Three and two patients developed acute grade ≤2 diarrhea in CRT and DRT groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that both hypofractionated "continuous" and "discontinuous" EBRT are well tolerated and represent acceptable schedules for patients with limited life expectancy. DRT schedule could be preferred for departments' organization to increase the slots for the treatment of other referred patients for radiotherapy.

Axillary nodal irradiation practice in the sentinel lymph node biopsy era: Comparison of the contemporary available 3D and IMRT techniques.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to compare regional node coverage and doses to the organ at risk (OAR) using conventional technique (CT) vs "AMAROS" (AT) vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques in patients receiving regional nodal irradiation (RNI) for breast cancer (BC). METHODS: We included 30 consecutive patients with BC who received RNI including axillary nodes. Two independent and blinded dosimetric RNI plans were generated for all patients. For target volume coverage, we analyzed the V95%, the D95%, the mean and the minimal dose within the nodal station. For hotspots within nodal target volume, we used the V105%, the V108% and the maximal doses. For OAR, lung V20, mean lung and heart doses, the maximal dose to the brachial plexus and the axillary-lateral thoracic vessel junction region were compared between the three techniques. RESULTS: Target volume coverage and hotspots: Mean V95% in stations I, II, III and IV were 35.8% and 75% respectively with CV, 22.59 and 59.9% respectively with AT technique and 45.58 and 99.6% respectively with IMRT with statistically significant differences (p < 0.001). Mean V105% (cc) in axillary and supraclavicular stations were 21.3 and 6.4 respectively with CV, 1.2 and 0.02 respectively with AT technique and 0.5 and 0.4 respectively with IMRT with statistically significant differences (p < 0.001)..OARs: The mean ipsilateral lung V20 was 16.9%, 16.4 and 13.3% with CT, AT and IMRT respectively. The mean heart dose (Gy) was 0.3, 0.2 and 0.2 with CT, AT and IMRT respectively. The maximal dose to the plexus brachial (Gy) was 50.3, 46.3 and 47.3 with CT, AT and IMRT respectively. The maximal dose to the axillary-lateral thoracic vessel junction (Gy) was 52.3, 47.3 and 47.6 with CT, AT and IMRT respectively. The differences were statistically significant for all OAR (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: AT is a valuable technique for RNI including axilla in patients with limited sentinel lymph node biopsy involvement without additional axillary lymph node dissection since it decreases hotspots in the target volume and lowers the radiation exposure of the OAR. For more advanced tumors or patients who did not respond to primary systemic therapy, CT or IMRT should be considered because of their better coverage of the potentially residual nodal disease. IMRT combines several advantages of offering high conformal plans, limited hotspots and protection of main OAR. The clinical impact of these dosimetric differences need to be addressed. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study is to our knowledge the first to compare conventional three-dimensional and IMRT techniques for regional nodal irradiation for each nodal station in breast cancer in a context of increasing utilization of axillary irradiation.

A Wake-Up Call for Routine Morbidity and Mortality Review Meeting Procedures as Part of a Quality Governance Programs in Radiation Therapy Departments: Results of the PROUST Survey.

PURPOSE: Morbidity and mortality review (MMR) meetings in radiation therapy (RT) departments aim to monitor radiation-induced toxicities and identify potential factors that may be correlated with their development and severity, particularly treatment planning errors. The aims of the Prospective Registration of Morbidity and Mortality, Individual Radiosensitivity and Radiation Technique (PROUST) survey were to make an inventory of existing MMR procedures and to describe their procedures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The link to the web-based questionnaire of the PROUST survey was sent to 351 radiation oncologists working at 172 centers. The questionnaire included items related to organization, frequency, membership, governance, reasons for nonimplementation of MMR, and interest in its creation. RESULTS: As of July 2017, 108 responses had been received from the 172 centers, of which 107 responses were completed for analysis. All centers declared that they had initiated a quality assurance program in their department, including implementation of feedback committees dedicated to the registration, analysis, and correction of precursor events. Less than half of the centers (47%) had implemented MMR procedures. However, there was significant confusion regarding feedback committees in a majority of the centers. MMRs were organized every 6 and 12 months in 21% and 15%, respectively, of the centers. In 60% of the centers, toxicity grade ≥3 was the main reason for the MMR initiation. In routine practice, contouring and dosimetry files were reviewed by 66% and 83%, respectively, of centers practicing MMR. However, only 40% of the centers enrolled data in a registry dedicated to surveillance. Finally, 78% of centers expressed interest in initiating a consensual procedure. CONCLUSIONS: MMRs are not systematically implemented in RT departments worldwide. In France and in Europe, few departments with quality assurance programs have implemented MMRs. This survey showed that a large majority of centers are interested in implementing an MMR with a formalized procedure. Our project could help increase the interest of the RT community worldwide in this topic.