Acute Toxicity and Quality of Life in a Post-Prostatectomy Ablative Radiation Therapy (POPART) Multicentric Trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy to the prostate bed in patients with biochemical and/or clinical relapse following radical prostatectomy who were enrolled in the prospective, observational, multicentric POPART trial (NCT04831970). METHODS: Patients with post-radical prostatectomy PSA levels of ≥0.1-2.0 ng/mL and/or local relapse at PSMA PET/CT or multiparametric MRI were treated with Linac-based SBRT on the prostate bed up to a total dose of 32.5 Gy in five fractions every other day (EQD21.5 = 74.2 Gy). Maximum acute toxicity was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5 scale. International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF) and Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice (EPIC-CP) scores were assessed at baseline and during the follow-up. RESULTS: From April 2021 to June 2022, thirty men with a median age of 72 years (range 55-82) were enrolled in three centers. The median PSA level before RT was 0.30 ng/mL (range 0.18-1.89 ng/mL). At 3 months post-treatment, no GI or ≥2 GU side effects were reported; three patients (10%) experienced Grade 1 GU toxicity. No changes in ICIQ-SF or in the urinary domains of EPIC-CP were observed, while a transient worsening was registered in the bowel domain. At the same time point, all but two patients, who progressed distantly, were found to be biochemically controlled with a median post-treatment PSA level of 0.07 ng/mL (range 0-0.48 ng/mL). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings show that SBRT can be safely extended to the postoperative setting, without an increase in short-term toxicity or a significant decline in QoL. Long-term results are needed to confirm this strategy.

Almost one year of COVID-19 pandemic: how radiotherapy centers have counteracted its impact on cancer treatment in Lombardy, Italy. CODRAL/AIRO-L study.

Lombardy has represented the Italian and European epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although most clinical efforts within hospitals were diverted towards the care of virally infected patients, therapies for patients with cancer, including radiotherapy (RT), have continued. During both the first and second pandemic waves, several national and regional organizations provided Italian and Lombardian RT departments with detailed guidelines aimed at ensuring safe treatments during the pandemic. The spread of infection among patients and personnel was limited by adopting strict measures, including triage procedures, interpersonal distance, and adequate implementation of personal protective equipment (PPE). Screening procedures addressed to both the healthcare workforce and patients, such as periodic nasopharyngeal swabs, have allowed the early identification of asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic COVID-19 cases, thus reducing the spread of the infection. Prevention of infection was deemed of paramount importance to protect both patients and personnel and to ensure the availability of a minimum number of staff members to maintain clinical activity. The choice of treating COVID-19-positive patients has represented a matter of debate, and the risk of oncologic progression has been weighted against the risk of infection of personnel and other patients. Such risk was minimized by creating dedicated paths, reserving time slots, applying intensified cleaning procedures, and supplying personnel and staff with appropriate PPE. Remote working of research staff, medical physicists, and, in some cases, radiation oncologists has prevented overcrowding of shared spaces, reducing infection spread.

Back to (new) normality-A CODRAL/AIRO-L survey on cancer radiotherapy in Lombardy during Italian COVID-19 phase 2.

BACKGROUND: Italy experienced one of the world's severest COVID-19 outbreak, with Lombardy being the most afflicted region. However, the imposed safety measures allowed to flatten the epidemic curve and hence to ease the restrictions and inaugurate, on the 4th of May 2020, the Italian phase (P) 2 of the pandemic. The present survey study, endorsed by CODRAL and AIRO-L, aimed to assess how radiotherapy (RT) departments in Lombardy have dealt with the recovery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire dealing with the management of pandemic was developed online and sent to all CODRAL Directors on the 10th of June 2020. Answers were collected in full anonymity one week after. RESULTS: All the 33 contacted RT facilities (100%) responded to the survey. Despite the scale of the pandemic, during P1 14 (42.4%) centres managed to safely continue the activity (≤ 10% reduction). During P2, 10 (30.3%) centres fully recovered and 14 (42.4%) reported an increase. Nonetheless, 6 (18.2%) declared no changes and, interestingly, 3 (9.1%) reduced activities. Overall, 21 centres (63.6%) reported suspected or positive cases within healthcare workforce since the beginning of the pandemic. Staff units were quarantined in 19 (57.6%) and 6 (18.2%) centres throughout P1 and P2, respectively. In the two phases, about two thirds centres registered positive or suspected cases amongst patients. CONCLUSION: The study revealed a particular attention to anti-contagion measures and a return to normal or even higher clinical workload in most RT centres in Lombardy, necessary to carry out current and previously deferred treatments.

Radiotherapy for oligometastatic cancer: a survey among radiation oncologists of Lombardy (AIRO-Lombardy), Italy.

AIMS: To evaluate the use of radiotherapy (RT) for oligometastatic cancer (OMC) among radiation oncologists in Lombardy, Italy. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: A survey with 12 items regarding data of 2016 was sent to all 34 Lombardy RT centers. The survey included six general items and six specific items regarding patient/disease/treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Thirteen centers answered the survey (38%). All centers responded to general items and 12 centers submitted patient/disease/treatment data. General items The majority of centers (8/13) consider OMC if metastases number is less than 5. The most commonly prescribed dose/fraction is 5-10 Gy (8/13) using schedules of 3-5 fractions (11/13). Patient data items A total of 15.681 patients were treated in 2016 with external beam RT in 12 responding centers, and 1.087 patients were treated for OMC (7%). Primary tumor included lung, prostate, breast, colorectal and other malignancies in 33%, 21%, 12%, 9% and 25% of all OMC patients, respectively. Brain, lymph node, lung, bone, liver and others were the most common treated sites (24%, 24%, 22%, 17%, 8% and 5%, respectively). One and more than one metastasis were treated in 75 and 25% of patients, respectively. The vast majority of patients (95%) were treated with image-guided intensity-modulated RT or stereotactic RT. CONCLUSIONS: Seven percent of all RT patients in Lombardy are treated for OMC. Extreme hypofractionation and high-precision RT are commonly employed. The initiative of multicenter and multidisciplinary collaboration has been undertaken in order to prepare the platform for prospective and/or observational studies in OMC.

Daily sodium butyrate enema for the prevention of radiation proctitis in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical radiation therapy: results of a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled dose-finding phase 2 study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of sodium butyrate enemas (NABUREN) in prostate cancer radiation therapy (RT) in reducing the incidence, severity, and duration of acute RT-induced proctitis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 166 patients, randomly allocated to 1 of 4 groups (rectal sodium butyrate 1 g, 2 g, or 4 g daily or placebo), were treated with NABUREN during and 2 weeks after RT. The grade of proctitis was registered in a daily diary. The correlation between NABUREN and proctitis was investigated through χ(2) statistics. The toxicity endpoints considered were as follows: total number of days with grade ≥1 proctitis (≥G1); total number of days with grade ≥2 proctitis (≥G2); ≥G1 and ≥G2 proctitis lasting at least 3 and 5 consecutive days starting from week 4 (≥G1+3d, ≥G2+3d); damaging effects of RT on rectal mucosa as measured by endoscopy. The relationship between endpoints and pretreatment morbidities, hormonal therapy, presence of diabetes or hypertension, abdominal surgery, or hemorrhoids was investigated by univariate analysis. RESULTS: The patients were randomly allocated to the 4 arms. No difference in the distribution of comorbidities among the arms was observed (P>.09). The mean ≥G1 and ≥G2 proctitis were 7.8 and 4.9 for placebo and 8.9 and 4.7 for the NABUREN group, respectively. No favorable trend in reduction of incidence, severity, and duration of ≥G1 and ≥G2 proctitis was observed with NABUREN use. In univariate analysis, ≥G1+3d toxicity was found to be related to hemorrhoids (P=.008), and a slight correlation was found between ≥G2 proctitis and hormonal therapy (P=.06). The RT effects on rectal mucosa as based on endoscopic assessment were mainly related to diabetes (P<.01). Endoscopy data at 6 week showed no significant difference between the placebo and butyrate arms. The other investigated endpoints were not correlated with any of the clinical risk factors analyzed. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of efficacy of NABUREN in reducing the incidence, severity, and duration of acute radiation proctitis. There was a correlation between some endpoints and clinical risk factors.

Postoperative adjuvant radio(chemo)therapy for rectal cancer: an appraisal.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer can be considered a broad-spectrum disease, where the surgeon, radiation oncologist and medical oncologist have a peculiar and specific place in order to work harmoniously as a good orchestra. The reality in common general hospitals is far from that of comprehensive cancer centers, particularly for postoperative approaches. The adjuvant therapy of rectal cancer is not codified worldwide, and it is strongly dependent on preoperative staging procedures, surgeon's acts and pathologist's decisions. Starting from our 10-year experience, we analyzed the various steps of postoperative approaches, defining possible decision errors, the incongruity of some attitudes, and the lack of knowledge of recent achievements of science in this disease. METHODS: A total of 194 patients with advanced surgically removed rectal cancer (pT3-4 pN0-any pT pN+) treated with postoperative radio(chemo)therapy was reviewed retrospectively. Anterior resection was performed in 126, abdominoperineal resection in 48, and other surgical procedures in 20 patients. Irradiation was conducted with a single daily fraction of 1.8 Gy until 45 Gy, and chemotherapy consisted of the combination of 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid (Machover schedule): 47% of patients with positive nodes did not receive chemotherapy. RESULTS: Five-year overall survival was 60.6% and relapse-free survival was 55.5%. The main prognostic factors were pathological T and N stages. The principal route of progression was distant metastases. Acute toxicity was severe in 1 case (drug toxic hepatitis) and very severe in 16 patients, and late severe sequelae appeared in 13 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of rectal cancer patients has not changed during the last decade, and this was confirmed in our study. The improvement of radiotherapy techniques has reduced the adverse acute and late toxicity. The best postsurgical approach for pT3pN0 cancer remains unsolved, as the good chemotherapy combination and the real solution could be the application of a new Consensus Conference.

Anxiety, depression and informed consent in patients referred to a radiotherapy department.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Informing cancer patients is an ethical, legal and deontological aspect of patient management. Patients need clear instructions in order to be able to accept or refuse medical procedures. Many reports in the literature have shown differences among physicians in informing cancer patients. The aim of this study was to assess patients' understanding of diagnosis, planned radiotherapy and risk of early and late effects, their satisfaction with the discussion with the doctor and correlation with anxiety and depression after the disclosure of a cancer diagnosis. METHODS: From April to July 2000 a physician with psychiatric training conducted interviews with patients after their consultation with the radiotherapist and asked them to fill in a questionnaire. Anxiety and depression were measured by means of a scoring system [HAD(A) and HAD(D)] such as the patient's satisfaction and the physician's belief in it. Eighty-two outpatients referred to our radiotherapy department were studied. RESULTS: We did not find any correlation between HAD(A) and HAD(D) scores and comprehension scores of disease, treatment schedule, side effects and patient satisfaction, or between any scores and presumed predictive variables such as diagnosis, gender, age, treatment aims, time from diagnosis, education, marital status, profession, life habits, and the role of the doctor obtaining the informed consent. CONCLUSIONS: We may conclude that informed consent does not seem to increase reactive anxiety or depression. Its quality is high in our department but must be improved.