Patterns of treatment failure in patients with prostate cancer treated with 76 80 radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles

Purpose To assess the pattern of treatment failure in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiotherapy (76–80 Gy) ± hormone therapy (HT). We also evaluated the influence of treatment failure on survival outcomes. Methods Retrospective study of patients with PCa (n = 302) treated with radiotherapy (RT) ± HT at our centre between November 1999 and July 2007. The mean patient age was 70.2 years (range 51–87). Distribution by NCCN risk group was low (n = 80, 26.5%), intermediate (n = 86, 28.5%), high (n = 77, 25.5%), and very high (n = 49, 16.2%). Most patients (n = 273, 90.4%) received IMRT at a dose of 76–80 Gy. HT was administered in 237 patients (78.5%), in most cases (n = 167, 55.3%) for < 7 months Results Survival rates at 10 years were: overall survival (OS), 64.3%; biochemical disease-free survival, 83.9%; disease-free survival, 92.5%; and metastasis-free survival (MFS), 94.3%. Biochemical failure (BF) was observed in 55 cases (18.2%), 32 of whom subsequently developed clinical recurrence: metastasis (n = 17, 5.6%), local failure (n = 11, 3.6%), and regional failure (n = 4, 1.3%). The cause of death (n = 159) was intercurrent disease in 115 cases (72.3%), second cancer in 27 (17.0%), and PCa in 17 (10.7%). Biochemical failure-free survival ≤ 24 months was significantly associated with worse OS and MFS (p = 0.0001). Late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity grade ≥ 3 (RTOG) was observed in 18 (6.0%) and 7 (2.3%) patients, respectively. Conclusions The main type of treatment failure after 76–80 Gy of radiotherapy ± HT is local or metastatic. In all cases, biochemical failure occurred prior to treatment failure. BF within 24 months of treatment completion was significantly associated with worse OS and MFS (AU)

Patterns of treatment failure in patients with prostate cancer treated with 76-80 Gy radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles ± hormonotherapy.

PURPOSE: To assess the pattern of treatment failure in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiotherapy (76-80 Gy) ± hormone therapy (HT). We also evaluated the influence of treatment failure on survival outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients with PCa (n = 302) treated with radiotherapy (RT) ± HT at our centre between November 1999 and July 2007. The mean patient age was 70.2 years (range 51-87). Distribution by NCCN risk group was low (n = 80, 26.5%), intermediate (n = 86, 28.5%), high (n = 77, 25.5%), and very high (n = 49, 16.2%). Most patients (n = 273, 90.4%) received IMRT at a dose of 76-80 Gy. HT was administered in 237 patients (78.5%), in most cases (n = 167, 55.3%) for < 7 months RESULTS: Survival rates at 10 years were: overall survival (OS), 64.3%; biochemical disease-free survival, 83.9%; disease-free survival, 92.5%; and metastasis-free survival (MFS), 94.3%. Biochemical failure (BF) was observed in 55 cases (18.2%), 32 of whom subsequently developed clinical recurrence: metastasis (n = 17, 5.6%), local failure (n = 11, 3.6%), and regional failure (n = 4, 1.3%). The cause of death (n = 159) was intercurrent disease in 115 cases (72.3%), second cancer in 27 (17.0%), and PCa in 17 (10.7%). Biochemical failure-free survival ≤ 24 months was significantly associated with worse OS and MFS (p = 0.0001). Late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity grade ≥ 3 (RTOG) was observed in 18 (6.0%) and 7 (2.3%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The main type of treatment failure after 76-80 Gy of radiotherapy ± HT is local or metastatic. In all cases, biochemical failure occurred prior to treatment failure. BF within 24 months of treatment completion was significantly associated with worse OS and MFS.

Failure modes and effects analysis of total skin electron irradiation technique

Purpose. Total skin electron irradiation (TSEI) is a radiotherapy technique which consists of an homogeneous body surface irradiation by electrons. This treatment requires very strict technical and dosimetric conditions, requiring the implementation of multiple controls. Recently, the Task Group 100 report of the AAPM has recommended adapting the quality assurance program of the facility to the risks of their processes. Materials and methods. A multidisciplinary team evaluated the potential failure modes (FMs) of every process step, regardless of the management tools applied in the installation. For every FM, occurrence (O), severity (S) and detectability (D) by consensus was evaluated, which resulted in the risk priority number (RPN), which permitted the ranking of the FMs. Subsequently, all the management tools used, related to the TSEI process, were examined and the FMs were reevaluated, to analyze the effectiveness of these tools and to propose new management tools to cover the greater risk FMs. Results. 361 FMs were identified, 103 of which had RPN ≥80, initially, and 41 had S ≥ 8. Taking this into account the quality management tools FMs were reevaluated and only 30 FMs had RPN ≥80. The study of these 30 FMs emphasized that the FMs that involved greater risk were related to the diffuser screen placement and the patient’s position during treatment. Conclusions. The quality assurance program of the facility has been adapted to the risk of this treatment process, following the guidelines proposed by the TG-100. However, clinical experience continually reveals new FMs, so the need for periodic risk analysis is required (AU)

No disponible

Failure modes and effects analysis of total skin electron irradiation technique.

PURPOSE: Total skin electron irradiation (TSEI) is a radiotherapy technique which consists of an homogeneous body surface irradiation by electrons. This treatment requires very strict technical and dosimetric conditions, requiring the implementation of multiple controls. Recently, the Task Group 100 report of the AAPM has recommended adapting the quality assurance program of the facility to the risks of their processes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary team evaluated the potential failure modes (FMs) of every process step, regardless of the management tools applied in the installation. For every FM, occurrence (O), severity (S) and detectability (D) by consensus was evaluated, which resulted in the risk priority number (RPN), which permitted the ranking of the FMs. Subsequently, all the management tools used, related to the TSEI process, were examined and the FMs were reevaluated, to analyze the effectiveness of these tools and to propose new management tools to cover the greater risk FMs. RESULTS: 361 FMs were identified, 103 of which had RPN ≥80, initially, and 41 had S ≥ 8. Taking this into account the quality management tools FMs were reevaluated and only 30 FMs had RPN ≥80. The study of these 30 FMs emphasized that the FMs that involved greater risk were related to the diffuser screen placement and the patient's position during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The quality assurance program of the facility has been adapted to the risk of this treatment process, following the guidelines proposed by the TG-100. However, clinical experience continually reveals new FMs, so the need for periodic risk analysis is required.

Looking for complementary alternatives to CTCAE for skin toxicity in radiotherapy: quantitative determinations

INTRODUCTION: Radiotherapy (RT) is an essential part of the patient's treatment diagnosed with cancer. Determination of the most common RT secondary effect, the cutaneous toxicity, is usually based on visual rating scales, like Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with an inherent subjectivity. The aim of this work is to perform an objective method to evaluate the radiodermatitis using a non-invasive imaging technique based on laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was performed analysing 1,824 measurements. A LDF was used to measure the cutaneous microcirculation in real time. A basal measurement was taken prior to radiotherapy treatment. To be able to observe the microcirculation changes related to the delivered dose, several sets of measurements were taken in the irradiated area along the RT treatment and in the contralateral non-irradiated area. RESULTS: A relative increase in blood flow at all measured points was found in the irradiated area. This relative increase in blood flow increases with the dose administered. In the non-irradiated contralateral area, the relative increase in blood flow is not significant and is independent of the dose administered. After treatment, a decrease in blood flow was detected with a trend towards returning to the baseline measurements. CONCLUSIONS: LDF is an objective technique that assesses early radiodermatitis. This method is useful to develop strategies to prevent onset of radiation dermatitis in patients irradiated, such as the modification and individualization of fractionation parameters of the RT. This allows the reduction of radiation morbidities and maintains patient quality of life (AU)

No disponible

Looking for complementary alternatives to CTCAE for skin toxicity in radiotherapy: quantitative determinations.

INTRODUCTION: Radiotherapy (RT) is an essential part of the patient's treatment diagnosed with cancer. Determination of the most common RT secondary effect, the cutaneous toxicity, is usually based on visual rating scales, like Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with an inherent subjectivity. The aim of this work is to perform an objective method to evaluate the radiodermatitis using a non-invasive imaging technique based on laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was performed analysing 1,824 measurements. A LDF was used to measure the cutaneous microcirculation in real time. A basal measurement was taken prior to radiotherapy treatment. To be able to observe the microcirculation changes related to the delivered dose, several sets of measurements were taken in the irradiated area along the RT treatment and in the contralateral non-irradiated area. RESULTS: A relative increase in blood flow at all measured points was found in the irradiated area. This relative increase in blood flow increases with the dose administered. In the non-irradiated contralateral area, the relative increase in blood flow is not significant and is independent of the dose administered. After treatment, a decrease in blood flow was detected with a trend towards returning to the baseline measurements. CONCLUSIONS: LDF is an objective technique that assesses early radiodermatitis. This method is useful to develop strategies to prevent onset of radiation dermatitis in patients irradiated, such as the modification and individualization of fractionation parameters of the RT. This allows the reduction of radiation morbidities and maintains patient quality of life.