Latin American Consensus on the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer.

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is well known as a serious health problem worldwide, especially in low-income countries or those with limited resources, such as most countries in Latin America. International guidelines cannot always be applied to a population from a large region with specific conditions. This study established a Latin American guideline for care of patients with head and neck cancer and presented evidence of HNSCC management considering availability and oncologic benefit. A panel composed of 41 head and neck cancer experts systematically worked according to a modified Delphi process on (1) document compilation of evidence-based answers to different questions contextualized by resource availability and oncologic benefit regarding Latin America (region of limited resources and/or without access to all necessary health care system infrastructure), (2) revision of the answers and the classification of levels of evidence and degrees of recommendations of all recommendations, (3) validation of the consensus through two rounds of online surveys, and (4) manuscript composition. The consensus consists of 12 sections: Head and neck cancer staging, Histopathologic evaluation of head and neck cancer, Head and neck surgery-oral cavity, Clinical oncology-oral cavity, Head and neck surgery-oropharynx, Clinical oncology-oropharynx, Head and neck surgery-larynx, Head and neck surgery-larynx/hypopharynx, Clinical oncology-larynx/hypopharynx, Clinical oncology-recurrent and metastatic head and neck cancer, Head and neck surgery-reconstruction and rehabilitation, and Radiation therapy. The present consensus established 48 recommendations on HNSCC patient care considering the availability of resources and focusing on oncologic benefit. These recommendations could also be used to formulate strategies in other regions like Latin America countries.

Moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy for breast cancer: preferences amongst radiation oncologists from countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Background: The safety and effectiveness of moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy for breast cancer were demonstrated by several trials. This study aimed to evaluate the current patterns of practice and prescription preference about moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy to assess possible aspects that affect the decision-making process regarding the use of fractionation in breast cancer patients in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). We also aimed to identify factors that can restrain the utilization of moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy for breast cancer. Materials an methods: Radiation oncologists from LAC were invited to contribute to this study. A 38-question survey was used to evaluate their opinions. Results: A total of 173 radiation oncologists from 13 countries answered the questionnaire. The majority of respondents (84.9%) preferred moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy as their first choice in cases of whole breast irradiation. Whole breast plus regional nodal irradiation, post-mastectomy (chest wall and regional nodal irradiation) without reconstruction, and post-mastectomy (chest wall and regional node irradiation) with reconstruction hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy was preferred by 72.2% 71.1%, and 53.7% of respondents, respectively. Breast cancer stage, and flap-based breast reconstruction were the factors associated with absolute contraindications for the use of hypofractionated schedules. Conclusion: Even though moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy for breast cancer is considered a new standard to the vast majority of the patients, its unrestricted application in clinical practice across LAC still faces reluctance.

Total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: a narrative review.

Locally advanced rectal cancer has traditionally been treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. However, a new strategy, total neoadjuvant therapy, involves the administration of CRT and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with the aim of eradicating micrometastases earlier and achieving greater control of the disease. The use of total neoadjuvant therapy has shown higher rates of pathological complete response and resectability compared with CRT, including improved survival. Nevertheless, distant relapse is the main cause of morbidity and mortality in locally advanced rectal cancer. To address this, new biomarkers are being developed to predict disease response.

Leveling Up the Access to Radiation Therapy in Latin America: Economic Analysis of Investment, Equity, and Inclusion Opportunities Up to 2030.

PURPOSE: Latin America faces a shortage in radiation therapy (RT) units and qualified personnel for timely and high-quality treatment of patients with cancer. Investing in equitable and inclusive access to RT over the next decade would prevent thousands of deaths. Measuring the investment gap and payoff is necessary for stakeholder discussions and capacity planning efforts. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data were collected from the International Atomic Energy Agency's Directory of Radiotherapy Centers, industry stakeholders, and individual surveys sent to national scientific societies. Nationwide data on available devices and personnel were compiled. The 10 most common cancers in 2020 with RT indication and their respective incidence rates were considered for gap calculations. The gross 2-year financial return on investment was calculated based on an average monthly salary across Latin America. A 10-year cost projection was calculated according to the estimated population dynamics for the period until 2030. RESULTS: Eleven countries were included in the study, accounting for 557,213,447 people in 2020 and 561 RT facilities. Approximately 1,065,684 new cancer cases were diagnosed, and a mean density of 768,469 (standard deviation ±392,778) people per available unit was found. By projecting the currently available treatment fractions to determine those required in 2030, it was found that 62.3% and 130.8% increases in external beam RT and brachytherapy units are needed from the baseline, respectively. An overall regional investment of approximately United States (US) $349,650,480 in 2020 would have covered the existing demand. An investment of US $872,889,949 will be necessary by 2030, with the expectation of a 2-year posttreatment gross return on investment of more than US $2.1 billion from patients treated in 2030 only. CONCLUSIONS: Investment in RT services is lagging in Latin America in terms of the population's needs. An accelerated outlay could save additional lives during the next decade, create a self-sustaining system, and reduce region-wide inequities in cancer care access. Cash flow analyses are warranted to tailor precise national-level intervention strategies.

Cellular bases of hypofractionated radiotherapy protocols for lung cancer.

The extreme demand on health systems due to the COVID-19 pandemic has led to reconsider hypofractionation. Although the best clinical efficacy of these schemes is being demonstrated, the biological bases have not been established. Thus, after validating basic clinical parameters, through complementary in vitro models, we characterized the cellular and molecular mechanisms of hypofractionation protocols. Cell cultures of human lung cancer cell line A549 were irradiated with 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 Gy. The clastogenic, cytotoxic, proliferative and clonogenic capacities and bystander effect were evaluated. In addition, we assessed survival and toxicity in a retrospective study of 49 patients with lung cancer. Our findings showed that the greater efficacy of ablative regimens should not only be attributed to events of direct cell death induced by genotoxic damage, but also to a lower cell repopulation and the indirect action of clastogenic factors secreted. These treatments were optimal in terms of 1- and 2-year overall survival (74 and 65%, respectively), and progression-free survival at 1 and 2 years (71 and 61%, respectively). The greater efficacy of high doses per fraction could be attributed to a multifactorial mechanism that goes beyond the 4Rs of conventional radiotherapy.

Recommendations for detection, prioritization, and treatment of thoracic oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: the THOCOoP cooperative group.

The world currently faces a pandemic due to SARS-CoV-2. Relevant information has emerged regarding the higher risk of poor outcomes in lung cancer patients. As such, lung cancer patients must be prioritized in terms of prevention, detection and treatment. On May 7th, 45 experts in thoracic cancers from 11 different countries were invited to participate. A core panel of experts regarding thoracic oncology care amidst the pandemic gathered virtually, and a total of 60 initial recommendations were drafted based on available evidence, 2 questions were deleted due to conflicting evidence. By May 16th, 44 experts had agreed to participate, and voted on each of the 58 recommendation using a Delphi panel on a live voting event. Consensus was reached regarding the recommendations (>66 % strongly agree/agree) for 56 questions. Strong consensus (>80 % strongly agree/agree) was reached for 44 questions. Patients with lung cancer represent a particularly vulnerable population during this time. Special care must be taken to maintain treatment while avoiding exposure.

Multidisciplinary approach to COVID-19 and cancer: consensus from scientific societies in Argentina.

INTRODUCTION: The world is living through an outbreak of an acute respiratory syndrome caused by a new betacoronavirus known as coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2), which has been declared an international public health emergency by the World Health Organisation. Cancer patients are a very special population in this setting since they are more susceptible to viral infections than the general population. Several recommendations have been made on this issue, most of them based on expert opinion and institutional experience. It is essential to gather the evidence available for decision making. OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence available in order to create a multi-institutional position from the perspective of scientific societies in Argentina involved in the management of cancer patients. METHODOLOGY: The review included two phases: 1) search and systematic revision of the medical literature; 2) consensus and revision of the document drafted by national scientific societies involved in the management and care of cancer patients using the modified Delphi method. The final results were presented at a videoconference with all the participants. Also, additional comment and recommendations were discussed. The final document was revised and approved for publication by the members of the panel. RESULTS: The consensus panel included 18 representatives from scientific societies from Argentina who assessed the evidence and then made recommendations for the management of cancer patients in our country. International guidelines (CDC; ASCO, NCCN and ESMO) were considered as a background for analysis, as well as institutional guidelines and an open ad hoc survey administered to 114 healthcare professionals from the scientific societies involved in this study.The recommendations are grouped as follows: 1) general care interventions-training of the personnel, cleaning and disinfection of the hospital premises and patient scheduling; 2) treatment decisions-patient care, surgeries, immunosuppressive therapy, radiotherapy and screening; 3) ethical considerations-optimisation of resources, end-of-life care for critically-ill patients; 4) management of hospitalised patients; and 5) wellbeing of the healthcare team.The general recommendation arising from the study is that the management of cancer patients must adapt to the exceptional pandemic status quo without disregarding treatment or cure options. Moreover, healthcare professional accompaniment of all patients should not be neglected. All healthcare professionals must make a significant joint effort to create multidisciplinary teams to discuss the most appropriate measures for each particular situation. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific evidence available on this topic worldwide is in progress. This together with the epidemiologically shifting scenario poses unprecedented challenges in the management of cancer amidst this global pandemic. Furthermore, the key role of the healthcare structural organisation appears evident, such as the drafting of clear guidelines for all the stakeholders, adaptability to constant change and an interdisciplinary shared vision through consensus to provide adequate care to our cancer patients in the light of uncertainty and fast-paced change.

Cáncer anal: resultados clínicos, toxicidades y supervivencia libre de colostomía comparando técnicas de radioterapia conformada tridimensional versus radioterapia de intensidad modulada / Anal cancer: clinical results, toxicities and colostomy-free survival comparing three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy techniques versus intensity modulated radiotherapy

Las técnicas definitivas de quimio-radioterapia para el cáncer anal, radioterapia tridimensional conformada (3DCRT) o radioterapia de intensidad modulada (IMRT) dan excelentes resultados a largo plazo. Evaluamos resultados en centros de radiación basados en la comunidad. Se evaluaron retrospectivamente 281 pacientes tratados con quimio-radioterapia definitiva para carcinoma anal loco-regional, entre 2006 y 2014. El 95% realizó quimioterapia. Se evaluaron datos de toxicidades, progresión de la enfermedad y necesidad de colostomía durante el período de seguimiento. La supervivencia global, supervivencia libre de progresión y colostomía libre se calcularon con métodos de Kaplan-Meier. La edad media fue 63.7 años con seguimiento medio de 60 meses. Ciento sesenta y nueve pacientes recibieron IMRT y 112 recibieron 3DCRT. La dosis total media tumoral fue 54 Gy. El 80% experimentó complicaciones agudas, y el 56% requirió interrupción de tratamiento. No hubo diferencias significativas en supervivencia global, supervivencia libre de progresión, supervivencia libre de colostomía ni control local a dos años entre ambos grupos. La IMRT tuvo menos suspensión del tratamiento (48% vs. 65%) (p=0.0261). El grupo IMRT tuvo una reducción significativa de todas las toxicidades agudas ≥3 y gastrointestinales (GI) tardías, en comparación con los tratados con 3DCRT. Esta serie representa una de las mayores comparaciones 3DCRT vs. IMRT para el tratamiento definitivo de cáncer anal. Los resultados a largo plazo no difieren significativamente en función de la técnica de radioterapia (RT). La IMRT reduce todas las toxicidades ≥ grado 3 y la necesidad de interrupción en comparación con 3DCRT (AU)

The definitive techniques of chemo-radiotherapy for anal cancer, 3DCRT or IMRT, give excellent long-term results. We evaluated results in community-based radiation centers. We retrospectively evaluated 281 patients treated with definitive chemo-radiotherapy for locoregional anal carcinoma, between 2006 and 2014. The 95% performed chemotherapy. Toxicity data, progression of the disease, need of colostomy during the follow-up period were evaluated. Global survival (GS), progression free survival (PFS), and free colostomy survival (CFS) were calculated with Kaplan-Meier methods. Mean age was 63.7 years with a mean follow-up of 60 months. One hundred and sixty nine patients received IMRT and 112 received 3DCRT. The total mean tumor dose was 54 Gy. The 80% experienced acute complications, and 56% required treatment interruption. There was no significant difference in GS, PFS, CFS or local control at two years between both groups. The IMRT had less treatment discontinuation (48% vs. 65%) (p = 0.0261). The IMRT group had a significant reduction in all acute toxicities ≥3 and late gastrointestinal, compared with those treated with 3DCRT. This series represents one of the largest 3DCRT vs. IMRT comparisons for the definitive treatment of anal cancer. The long-term results do not differ significantly depending on the RT technique. The IMRT reduces all toxicities ≥ grade 3 and the need for interruption compared to 3DCRT (AU)

Comparación Clínica de radioterapia de intensidad modulada vs. radioterapia 3D en tratamiento neoadyuvante del cáncer de recto localmente avanzado / Clinical comparison of intensity modulated radiotherapy vs. 3D radiotherapy in neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer

El objetivo de este trabajo fue comparar ventajas potenciales de la radioterapia de intensidad modulada (IMRT) vs. la radioterapia 3D (3DRT) en el control loco-regional y la toxicidad aguda en pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado (CRLA). Se analizaron retrospectivamente 235 pacientes con adenocarcinoma de recto T2/T4 y N0/N1 sometidos a radioquimioterapia neoadyuvante entre febrero de 2010 y agosto de 2015. La modalidad radiante se correlacionó con los resultados clínicos (control local y a distancia) y las tasas de toxicidades agudas urinarias, hematológicas, gastrointestinales (GI) y dérmicas. Ciento cuarenta (59.6%) recibieron IMRT y 95 (40.4%) 3DRT. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 36 meses. Las tasas de recidiva local y metástasis a distancia fueron similares entre IMRT y 3DRT. No se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en control local (CL) ni en supervivencia global (SG) entre IMRT y 3DRT (p=0.56 y p=0.24, respectivamente), ni en colostomía libre para tumores rectales bajos (p=0.44). IMRT implicó menor toxicidad cutánea (p<0.001), hematológica (p<0.0001), urinaria (p=0.0017), y gastrointestinal (p=0.0006). La incidencia de diarrea grado ≥ 3 fue del 16% entre los pacientes del grupo 3DRT frente al 5% de del grupo IMRT. En el análisis univariado, el estadio clínico T, edad, KPS, y quimioterapia adyuvante se asociaron con mejor SG (todos p<0.05) y la dosis total de radiación se asoció con mejor período libre de enfermedad (p=0.0065) Postulamos que IMRT permitiría un aumento de dosis en forma segura con el potencial de aumentar la tasa de respuestas patológicas completas (RPC), en particular en tumores rectales bajos (AU)

The aim was to compare the advantages of IMRT vs. 3D in loco regional control and acute toxicity in patients with locally advanced rectum cancer. We analyzed retrospectively 235 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma T2/T4 and N0/N1 undergoing chemo radiation between February 2010 and August 2015. The radiant modality was correlated with clinical outcomes (local and systemic control) and rates of acute urinary, hematological, gastrointestinal and dermal toxicities. One hundred and forty patients (59.6%) received IMRT and 95 (40.4%) received 3D. The median follow-up time was 36 months. The rates of local recurrence and distant metastases were similar between IMRT vs. 3D. No statistically significant differences were found in local control or survival between IMRT and 3D (p=0.56 and p =0.24, respectively), nor in free colostomy for low rectal tumors (p= 0.44). IMRT resulted in lower dermal (p<0.001), hematological (p<0.0001), urinary (p=0.0017), and gastrointestinal toxicity (p=0.0006). The incidence of diarrhea grade ≥ 3 was 16% among 3D patients vs. 5% in IMRT. In the univariate analysis, clinical stage T, age, KPS, and adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with better overall survival (all p<0.05) and the total dose of radiation was associated with better disease-free period (p=0.0065). We postulate that IMRT would allow us to increase dose in a safe manner with the potential to increase rate of complete pathological responses, particularly in low rectal tumors (AU)