Subclavian Artery Branch Pseudoaneurysm Rupture With Massive Hemothorax in a Patient With Neurofibromatosis Type 1.

Neurofibromatosis type 1 is a rare disorder that occurs secondary to pathogenic variants in the NF1 tumor suppressor gene on chromosome 17. Characteristic clinical manifestations include multiple hyperpigmented macules, axillary and inguinal freckling, optic gliomas, and numerous skin neurofibromas. Vasculopathies are a rare complication of this disease and can affect vessels ranging from the proximal aorta to small arterioles, with pathology including arterial stenosis, aneurysms, and arteriovenous malformations. Aneurysms in these patients are often asymptomatic, and most patients with this complication appear for treatment after vessel rupture. We describe a 33-year-old man with neurofibromatosis type 1 who presented with chest pain and was ultimately found to have a ruptured left subclavian artery branch pseudoaneurysm leading to a large hemothorax.

Propensity score matched comparison of SBRT versus IMRT for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an attractive option for prostate cancer due to its short treatment duration and cost. In this report, we compare the efficacy and toxicity outcomes of prostate cancer patients treated with SBRT to those who received intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS: Two hundred sixty-three patients with localized prostate adenocarcinoma were included, ranging from clinically very low- to high-risk groups. We retrospectively compare consecutive patients treated with SBRT with consecutive patients treated with conventionally fractionated IMRT. For most patients, SBRT was delivered to a total dose of 36.25 Gy in five fractions and IMRT to 75.6 Gy in 42 fractions. To minimize selection bias, we perform propensity score analyses. RESULTS: The treatment groups became similar after propensity matching with absolute standard bias reduced to ≤0.19. For the first analysis, 5-year actuarial survival was 90.8 and 88.1 % in SBRT and IMRT groups, respectively (p = 0.7260), while FFBF was 88.7 and 95.5 %, respectively (p = 0.1720). For the second analysis (accounting for risk group), actuarial 5-year survival was 96.7 and 87.1 % in the SBRT and IMRT groups, respectively (p = 0.3025), while FFBF was 89.7 and 90.3 %, respectively (p = 0.6446). Toxicity did not exceed grade 3 in any of the studied patients. The highest recorded genitourinary toxicity at the time of latest follow-up was grade 2. CONCLUSION: Our data support the hypothesis that SBRT has non-inferior efficacy and toxicity rates as IMRT. Given the lower cost and convenience for patients, SBRT may be considered as an alternative treatment for localized prostate cancer.

SBRT for the Primary Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer: The Effect of Gleason Score, Dose and Heterogeneity of Intermediate Risk on Outcome Utilizing 2.2014 NCCN Risk Stratification Guidelines.

PURPOSE: To report an update of our previous experience using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for the primary treatment of prostate cancer, risk stratified by the updated National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) version 2.2014, reporting efficacy and toxicity in a community hospital setting. METHODS: From 2007 to 2012, 142 localized prostate cancer patients were treated with SBRT using CyberKnife. NCCN guidelines Version 2.2014 risk groups analyzed included very low (20%), low (23%), intermediate (35%), and high (22%) risk. To further explore group heterogeneity and to comply with new guidelines, we separated our prior intermediate risk group into favorable intermediate and unfavorable intermediate groups depending on how many intermediate risk factors were present (one vs. > one). The unfavorable intermediate group was further analyzed in combination with the high risk group as per NCCN guidelines Version 2.2014. Various dose levels were used over the years of treatment, and have been categorized into low dose (35 Gy, n = 5 or 36.25 Gy, n = 107) and high dose (37.5 Gy, n = 30). All treatments were delivered in five fractions. Toxicity was assessed using radiation therapy oncology group criteria. RESULTS: Five-year actuarial freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) was 100, 91.7, 95.2, 90.0, and 86.7% for very low, low, intermediate and high risk patients, respectively. A significant difference in 5 year FFBF was noted for patients with Gleason score (GS) ≥8 vs. 7 vs. 5/6 (p = 0.03) and low vs. high dose (p = 0.05). T-stage, pretreatment PSA, age, risk stratification group, and use of ADT did not affect 5-year FFBF. Multivariate analysis revealed GS and dose to be the most predictive factors for 5-year FFBF. CONCLUSION: Our experience with SBRT for the primary treatment of localized prostate cancer demonstrates favorable efficacy and toxicity comparable to the results reported for IMRT in literature. GS remains the single most important pretreatment predictor of outcome.