Hybrid VMAT-3DCRT as breast cancer treatment improvement tool.

Radiation therapy is an important tool in the treatment of breast cancer and can play a crucial role in improving patient outcomes. For breast cancer, if the technique has been for a long time the use of 3DCRT, clinicians have seen the management evolve greatly in recent years. Field-in-field and IMRT approaches and more recently dynamic arctherapy are increasingly available. All of these approaches are constantly trying to improve tumour coverage and to preserve organs at risk by minimising the doses delivered to them. If arctherapy allows a considerable reduction of high doses received by healthy tissues, no one can deny that it also leads to an increase of low doses in tissues that would not have received any with other techniques. We propose a hybrid approach combining the robustness of the 3DCRT approach and the high technicality and efficiency of arctherapy. Statistical tests (ANOVA, Wilcoxon, determination coefficient, ROC, etc.) allow us to draw conclusions about the possibility of using the hybrid approach in certain cases (right breast, BMI [Formula: see text], age [Formula: see text], target volume [Formula: see text] cc, etc.). Depending on the breast laterality and patients morphological characteristics, hybridization may prove to be a therapeutic tool of choice in the management of breast cancer in radiotherapy.

Impact of histological subtype on radiological and pathological response after neoadjuvant radiotherapy in soft tissue sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of response to neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NART) does not consider soft tissue sarcoma (STS) heterogeneity. We aimed to investigate radiological and pathological response of 4 major histotypes. METHODS: Extremity or trunk STS patients who received 50 Gy NART between 2009 and 2020 were retrospectively included. Relative variation in tumor size (RVTS) and pathological response were reported in the overall population and in undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS), myxofibrosarcoma (MFS), myxoid liposarcoma (MLS) and synovial sarcoma (SS) patients to identify response modalities of each histotype. RESULTS: Among the 121 included patients, 49, 19, 13 and 11 presented UPS, MFS, MLS and SS. Median RVTS were 0% (IQR -18-+18), +8% (IQR 0-+24), -12% (IQR -20-3) and -11% (IQR -15-9), respectively (p = 0.001). Median viable cells were 10%, 60%, 20% and 70% (p = 0.007). In overall population, pathological complete response and median necrosis were 27.7% and 10% without significant correlation to histotype (p = 0.18 and 0.06). Nineteen (38.8%) UPS specimens presented cysts that were emptied during the sampling process and distorted the microscopic response evaluation. Infiltrative growth pattern was observed in 28% and 38.9% UPS and MFS patients. Five (38.5%) MLS presented mature adipocytes without proven prognostic value. Cysts were observed in 36% of SS specimens. In the absence of initial tumor limits, the great viable cellularity of SS may be overestimated by their nodular aspect. CONCLUSION: After NART, we highlighted disparate response of UPS, frequent progression of MFS, and confirmed MLS and SS radiosensitivity. Response must be interpreted with caution and consider the histotype-specific patterns.