STereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation (STAR): the Standardized Treatment and Outcome Platform for Stereotactic Therapy Of Re-entrant tachycardia by a Multidisciplinary consortium (STOPSTORM.eu) and review of current patterns of STAR practice in Europe.

The EU Horizon 2020 Framework-funded Standardized Treatment and Outcome Platform for Stereotactic Therapy Of Re-entrant tachycardia by a Multidisciplinary (STOPSTORM) consortium has been established as a large research network for investigating STereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation (STAR) for ventricular tachycardia (VT). The aim is to provide a pooled treatment database to evaluate patterns of practice and outcomes of STAR and finally to harmonize STAR within Europe. The consortium comprises 31 clinical and research institutions. The project is divided into nine work packages (WPs): (i) observational cohort; (ii) standardization and harmonization of target delineation; (iii) harmonized prospective cohort; (iv) quality assurance (QA); (v) analysis and evaluation; (vi, ix) ethics and regulations; and (vii, viii) project coordination and dissemination. To provide a review of current clinical STAR practice in Europe, a comprehensive questionnaire was performed at project start. The STOPSTORM Institutions' experience in VT catheter ablation (83% ≥ 20 ann.) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (59% > 200 ann.) was adequate, and 84 STAR treatments were performed until project launch, while 8/22 centres already recruited VT patients in national clinical trials. The majority currently base their target definition on mapping during VT (96%) and/or pace mapping (75%), reduced voltage areas (63%), or late ventricular potentials (75%) during sinus rhythm. The majority currently apply a single-fraction dose of 25 Gy while planning techniques and dose prescription methods vary greatly. The current clinical STAR practice in the STOPSTORM consortium highlights potential areas of optimization and harmonization for substrate mapping, target delineation, motion management, dosimetry, and QA, which will be addressed in the various WPs.

SIMBOSPROST: Prevalence of metabolic syndrome and osteoporosis in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy: A multicentre, cross-sectional study.

AIM: To assess the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and osteoporosis in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radical radiotherapy (RT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). BACKGROUND: Worldwide, the prevalence of MetS is estimated to range from 20% to 25% of the adult population. However, prevalence rates are much higher in PCa patients (pts) who undergo ADT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicentre cross-sectional study of 270 pts in Spain with PCa. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on the duration of ADT (6, 12-18, ≥24 months) and compared to a control group without ADT. MetS was defined according to NCEP ATP III criteria. Osteoporosis was assessed by DEXA. RESULTS: A total of 270 pts, treated from November 2011 to October 2012, were included. Of these, 122 pts (47%) fulfilled the criteria for MetS. The median age of this group was significantly higher (71.3 vs. 69.38 years, p = 0.028). MetS prevalence was 50% in the control group. In pts who received ADT, prevalence was 44.8% after 6 months of ADT, 45.3% after 12-18 months, and 50% after ≥24 months (pns). Most pts (168/270; 62%) underwent DEXA. Of those tested, 78 (46.4%) had osteopenia and only 11 (6.5%) had osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of MetS in pts with PCa treated with radical RT was higher (47%) than in the general population. However, there were no significant differences in the duration of ADT administration. The prevalence of osteoporosis was low. These findings suggest that the prevalence of MetS in PCa patients may be higher than previously reported.

Radiobiological comparison of two radiotherapy treatment techniques for high-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: To make a radiobiological comparison, for high risk prostate cancer (T3a, PSA > 20 ng/ml or Gleason > 7) of two radiotherapy treatment techniques. One technique consists of a treatment in three phases of the pelvic nodes, vesicles and prostate using a conventional fractionation scheme of 2 Gy/fraction (SIMRT). The other technique consists of a treatment in two phases that gives simultaneously different dose levels in each phase, 2 Gy/fraction, 2.25 Gy/fraction and 2.5 Gy/fraction to the pelvic nodes, vesicles and prostate, respectively (SIBIMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The equivalent dose at fractionation of 2 Gy (EQD2), calculated using the linear quadratic model with α/ß prostate = 1.5 Gy, was the same for both treatment strategies. For comparison the parameters employed were D95, mean dose and Tumour Control Probabilities for prostate PTV and D15, D25, D35, D50, mean dose and Normal Tissue Complication Probabilities for the rectum and bladder, with physical doses converted to EQD2. Parameters were obtained for α/ß prostate = 1.5, 3 and 10 Gy and for α/ß oar = 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8. RESULTS: For prostate PTV, both treatment strategies are equivalent for α/ß prostate = 1.5 Gy but for higher α/ß prostate, EQD2 and TCP, decrease for the SIBIMRT technique. For the rectum and bladder when α/ß oar ≤ 2 Gy, EQD2 and NTCP are lower for the SIMRT technique or equal in both techniques. For α/ß oar ≥ 2-3 Gy, EQD2 and NTCP increase for the SIMRT treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A comparison between two radiotherapy techniques is presented. The SIBIMRT technique reduces EQD2 and NTCP for α/ß oar from 2 to 8 Gy.

Patterns of care for brachytherapy in Europe: facilities and resources in brachytherapy in the European area.

PURPOSE: The objective of the survey was to obtain detailed information on the use of brachytherapy through a web-based questionnaire. The present article describes the resources available in 2002. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The European area was divided into three groups: Group I included the 15 original member countries of the European Union plus 4 others according to economic wealth; Group II included the 10 most recent members of the European Union; and Group III included 14 other European countries. A national coordinator was designated for each country with a general coordinator to oversee the project to encourage the participation of every radiotherapy center. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-eight (47.2%) of the responding centers provided brachytherapy services and, compared to data from 1997, most showed a significant increase in the mean number of brachytherapy patients per center. The average number of radiation oncologists involved in brachytherapy was similar in the three groups. The average workload estimated in hours per week at the cancer centers was, however, higher in Groups II and III. Most centers had at least one treatment planning system, although in Group I 7.7% of the centers had three or more treatment planning systems. CONCLUSIONS: Notable differences in brachytherapy treatment were observed, especially in the workload of radiation oncologists and physicists in Groups II and III, the two groups with largest number of patients. New surveys can provide a detailed analysis of changes over time, a potentially useful tool to eliminate the differences observed.