[Cancer causes: what levers for primary prevention?] / Causes des cancers : quels leviers pour la prévention primaire ?

CANCER CAUSES: WHAT LEVERS FOR PRIMARY PREVENTION? Facing the continuous increase in cancer incidence, mobilizing efficient levers to act upstream of the disease is a major public health issue. Accelerating the transfer into practice of the continuous enrichment of the understanding of the multifactorial causes of cancers constitutes a first lever of prevention. This also requires a strengthening of the involvement of all actors and stakeholders, beyond the health and medico-social sectors. In order to guide practices, this article reviews the proportion of cancers attributable to the main lifestyle and environmental factors and causes, provides an update on cancers linked to heredity and the French oncogenetic organisation, addresses the specific issue of work related exposures and occupational cancers, proposes a prioritization of actions to break with the current fragmentation of prevention, in particular through improving the articulation of population-based interventions with targeted and personalized approaches, and better considering individuals in their environments.

CAUSES DES CANCERS: QUELS LEVIERS POUR LA PRÉVENTION PRIMAIRE ? Devant l'augmentation continue de l'incidence des cancers, mobiliser des leviers efficaces pour agir en amont de la maladie constitue un enjeu majeur de santé publique. L'accélération du transfert dans la pratique de l'enrichissement continu de la compréhension des causes multifactorielles des cancers constitue un premier levier de la prévention. Laquelle nécessite également un renforcement de l'implication de l'ensemble des acteurs et parties prenantes au-delà du domaine de la santé et du secteur médico-social. Dans l'objectif de guider les pratiques, il convient de faire le point sur la part attribuable des cancers aux principaux facteurs et causes liés au mode de vie et à l'environnement, de réaliser une mise au point sur la part des cancers liée à l'hérédité et le dispositif d'oncogénétique, d'aborder la problématique spécifique des expositions et cancers d'origine professionnelle, de proposer une priorisation des actions permettant de rompre avec la fragmentation actuelle de la prévention, notamment améliorer l'articulation des interventions en population avec des approches ciblées et personnalisées, et mieux considérer les individus dans leurs environnements.

Overview of the Genetic Causes of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome in a Large French Patient Cohort.

The use of multigene panel testing for patients with a predisposition to Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer syndrome (HBOC) is increasing as the identification of mutations is useful for diagnosis and disease management. Here, we conducted a retrospective analysis of BRCA1/2 and non-BRCA gene sequencing in 4630 French HBOC suspected patients. Patients were investigated using a germline cancer panel including the 13 genes defined by The French Genetic and Cancer Group (GGC)-Unicancer. In the patients analyzed, 528 pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (P/LP) were identified, including BRCA1 (n = 203, 38%), BRCA2 (n = 198, 37%), PALB2 (n = 46, 9%), RAD51C (n = 36, 7%), TP53 (n = 16, 3%), and RAD51D (n = 13, 2%). In addition, 35 novel (P/LP) variants, according to our knowledge, were identified, and double mutations in two distinct genes were found in five patients. Interestingly, retesting a subset of BRCA1/2-negative individuals with an expanded panel produced clinically relevant results in 5% of cases. Additionally, combining in silico (splicing impact prediction tools) and in vitro analyses (RT-PCR and Sanger sequencing) highlighted the deleterious impact of four candidate variants on splicing and translation. Our results present an overview of pathogenic variations of HBOC genes in the southeast of France, emphasizing the clinical relevance of cDNA analysis and the importance of retesting BRCA-negative individuals with an expanded panel.

Afatinib maintenance therapy following post-operative radiochemotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Results from the phase III randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study BIB2992ORL (GORTEC 2010-02).

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the efficacy and safety of afatinib maintenance therapy in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with macroscopically complete resection and adjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT). METHODS: This French multicentric randomised phase III double-blind placebo-controlled study included adult patients with ECOG-PS≤2, normal haematological, hepatic and renal functions, and non-metastatic, histologically confirmed HNSCC of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx or hypopharynx, with macroscopically complete resection and adjuvant RCT (≥2 cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 J1, J22, J43 and 66Gy (2Gy/fraction, 5 fractions/week, conventional or intensity modulated radiotherapy ≥60Gy). Randomised patients were planned to receive either afatinib (afa arm) or placebo (control arm (C)) as maintenance therapy for one year. Primary endpoint was disease free survival (DFS). A 15% improvement in DFS was expected at 2 years with afatinib (from 55 to 70%). RESULTS: Among the 167 patients with resected HNSCC included in 19 cancer centres and hospitals from Dec 2011, 134 patients were randomised to receive one-year maintenance afatinib or placebo (afa:67; C:67). Benefit/risk ratio was below assumptions and independent advisory committee recommended to stop the study in Feb 2017, the sponsor decided premature study discontinuation, with a 2-year follow-up for the last randomised patient. 2y-DFS was 61% (95% CI 0.48-0.72) in the afatinib group and 64% (95% CI 0.51-0.74) in the placebo group (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.70-1.80). CONCLUSION: Maintenance therapy with afatinib compared with placebo following post-operative RCT in patients with HNSCC did not significantly improve 2y-DFS and should not be recommended in this setting outside clinical trials. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier NCT01427478.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor sensitivity of DNA repair deficient tumors.

Faithful DNA replication is necessary to maintain genome stability and implicates a complex network with several pathways depending on DNA damage type: homologous repair, nonhomologous end joining, base excision repair, nucleotide excision repair and mismatch repair. Alteration in components of DNA repair machinery led to DNA damage accumulation and potentially carcinogenesis. Preclinical data suggest sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors in tumors with DNA repair deficiency. Here, we review clinical studies that explored the use of immune checkpoint inhibitor in patient harboring tumor with DNA repair deficiency.

National recommendations of the French Genetics and Cancer Group - Unicancer on the modalities of multi-genes panel analyses in hereditary predispositions to tumors of the digestive tract.

In case of suspected hereditary predisposition to digestive cancers, next-generation sequencing can analyze simultaneously several genes associated with an increased risk of developing these tumors. Thus, "Gastro Intestinal" (GI) gene panels are commonly used in French molecular genetic laboratories. Lack of international recommendations led to disparities in the composition of these panels and in the management of patients. To harmonize practices, the Genetics and Cancer Group (GGC)-Unicancer set up a working group who carried out a review of the literature for 31 genes of interest in this context and established a list of genes for which the estimated risks associated with pathogenic variant seemed sufficiently reliable and high for clinical use. Pancreatic cancer susceptibility genes have been excluded. This expertise defined a panel of 14 genes of confirmed clinical interest and relevant for genetic counseling: APC, BMPR1A, CDH1, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, PMS2, POLD1, POLE, PTEN, SMAD4 and STK11. The reasons for the exclusion of the others 23 genes have been discussed. The paucity of estimates of the associated tumor risks led to the exclusion of genes, in particular CTNNA1, MSH3 and NTHL1, despite their implication in the molecular pathways involved in the pathophysiology of GI cancers. A regular update of the literature is planned to up-grade this panel of genes in case of new data on candidate genes. Genetic and epidemiological studies and international collaborations are needed to better estimate the risks associated with the pathogenic variants of these genes either selected or not in the current panel.

A comparison of two modalities of stereotactic body radiation therapy for peripheral early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: results of a prospective French study.

OBJECTIVES: This prospective, observational, non-randomized multicentric study was conducted to compare efficiency and toxicity using different modalities of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in early-stage peripheral non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: From 9 April to 11 December, 106 patients were treated according to the local equipment availability for peripheral NSCLC with SBRT: 68 by linear accelerator equipped for SBRT and 38 by Cyberknife®. Multivariate analysis and propensity score analysis using Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (IPTW) were undertaken in an effort to adjust for potential bias due to non-randomization. RESULTS: 2-year local control rates were 97.0% (95% CI: [90.6%; 99.4%]) with SBRT by Linac vs 100% (95% CI: ([100%; 100%]) with Cyberknife® (p = 0.2839). 2-year PFS and 2-year OS rates were 52.7% (95% CI [39.9%;64.0%]) versus 54.1% (95% CI [36.8; 68.6%]) (p = 0.8582) and 65.1% (95% CI: [51.9%; 75.5%] versus 83.9% (95% CI: [67.5%; 92.4%] (p = 0.0831) using Linac and Cyberknife® respectively. Multivariate regression analysis indicates no significant effect of SBRT treatment type on PFS or OS. Local relapse could not be modeled due to the small number of events (n = 2). Acute and late toxicity rates were not significantly different. After IPTW adjustment, results were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in efficiency or toxicity was shown after SBRT of peripheral NSCLC treatment using Linac or Cyberknife®. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first large prospective non-randomized study focusing on peripheral localized NSCLC comparing SBRT using an appropriately equipped linac with Cyberknife®. No significant difference in efficiency or toxicity was shown in this situation.

Exclusive Hyperfractionated Radiation Therapy and Reduced Boost Volume for Standard-Risk Medulloblastoma: Pooled Analysis of the 2 French Multicentric Studies MSFOP98 and MSFOP 2007 and Correlation With Molecular Subgroups.

PURPOSE: Medulloblastoma has recently been characterized as a heterogeneous disease with 4 distinct molecular subgroups: wingless (WNT), sonic hedgehog (SHH), group 3, and group 4, with a new definition of risk stratification. We report progression-free survival, overall survival, and long-term cognitive effects in children with standard-risk medulloblastoma exclusively treated with hyperfractionated radiation therapy (HFRT), reduced boost volume, and online quality control, and we explore the prognostic value of biological characteristics in this chemotherapy-naïve population. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with standard-risk medulloblastoma were enrolled in 2 successive prospective multicentric studies, MSFOP 98 and MSFOP 2007, and received exclusive HFRT (36 Gy, 1 Gy/fraction twice daily) to the craniospinal axis followed by a boost at 68 Gy restricted to the tumor bed (1.5 cm margin), with online quality assurance before treatment. Patients with MYC or MYCN amplification were not excluded at the time of the study. We report progression-free survival and overall survival in the global population, and according to molecular subgroups as per World Health Organization 2016 molecular classification, and we present cognitive evaluations based on the Wechsler scale. RESULTS: Data from 114 patients included in the MSFOP 98 trial from December 1998 to October 2001 (n = 48) and in the MSFOP 2007 from October 2008 to July 2013 (n = 66) were analyzed. With a median follow-up of 16.2 (range, 6.4-19.6) years for the MSFOP 98 cohort and 6.5 (1.6-9.6) years for the MSFOP 2007 cohort, 5-year overall survival and progression-free survival in the global population were 84% (74%-89%) and 74% (65%-81%), respectively. Molecular classification was determined for 91 patients (WNT [n = 19], SHH [n = 12], and non-WNT/non-SHH [n = 60]-including group 3 [n = 9], group 4 [n = 29], and not specified [n = 22]). Our results showed more favorable outcome for the WNT-activated subgroup and a worse prognosis for SHH-activated patients. Three patients had isolated extra-central nervous system relapse. The slope of neurocognitive decline in the global population was shallower than that observed in patients with a normofractionated regimen combined with chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: HFRT led to a 5-year survival rate similar to other treatments combined with chemotherapy, with a reduced treatment duration of only 6 weeks. We confirm the MSFOP 98 results and the prognostic value of molecular status in patients with medulloblastoma, even in the absence of chemotherapy. Intelligence quotient was more preserved in children with medulloblastoma who received exclusive HFRT and reduced local boost, and intelligence quotient decline was delayed compared with patients receiving standard regimen. HFRT may be appropriate for patients who do not consent to or are not eligible for prospective clinical trials; for patients from developing countries for whom aplasia or ileus may be difficult to manage in a context of high cost/effectiveness constraints; and for whom shortened duration of RT may be easier to implement.

Short-term androgen deprivation therapy combined with radiotherapy as salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 16): a 112-month follow-up of a phase 3, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is the standard salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy. To date, the role of androgen deprivation therapy has not been formally shown. In this follow-up study, we aimed to update the results of the GETUG-AFU 16 trial, which assessed the efficacy of radiotherapy plus androgen suppression versus radiotherapy alone. METHODS: GETUG-AFU 16 was an open-label, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial that enrolled men (aged ≥18 years) with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate (but no previous androgen suppression or pelvic radiotherapy), stage pT2, T3, or T4a (bladder neck involvement only) and pN0 or pNx according to the tumour, node, metastasis (TNM) staging system, whose prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration increased from 0·1 ng/mL to between 0·2 ng/mL and 2·0 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy, without evidence of clinical disease. Patients were assigned through central randomisation (1:1) to short-term androgen suppression (subcutaneous injection of 10·8 mg goserelin on the first day of irradiation and 3 months later) plus radiotherapy (3D conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy of 66 Gy in 33 fractions, 5 days a week for 7 weeks) or radiotherapy alone. Randomisation was stratified using a permuted block method (block sizes of two and four) according to investigational site, radiotherapy modality, and prognosis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This post-hoc one-shot data collection done 4 years after last data cutoff included patients who were alive at the time of the primary analysis and updated long-term patient status by including dates for first local progression, metastatic disease diagnosis, or death (if any of these had occurred) or the date of the last tumour evaluation or last PSA measurement. Survival at 120 months was reported. Late serious adverse effects were assessed. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00423475. FINDINGS: Between Oct 19, 2006, and March 30, 2010, 743 patients were randomly assigned, 374 to radiotherapy alone and 369 to radiotherapy plus goserelin. At the time of data cutoff (March 12, 2019), the median follow-up was 112 months (IQR 102-123). The 120-month progression-free survival was 64% (95% CI 58-69) for patients treated with radiotherapy plus goserelin and 49% (43-54) for patients treated with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0·54, 0·43-0·68; stratified log-rank test p<0·0001). Two cases of secondary cancer occurred since the primary analysis, but were not considered to be treatment related. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: The 120-month progression-free survival confirmed the results from the primary analysis. Salvage radiotherapy combined with short-term androgen suppression significantly reduced risk of biochemical or clinical progression and death compared with salvage radiotherapy alone. The results of the GETUG-AFU 16 trial confirm the efficacy of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy as salvage treatment in patients with increasing PSA concentration after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. FUNDING: The French Health ministry, AstraZeneca, la Ligue Contre le Cancer, and La Ligue de Haute-Savoie.

[The French Genetic and Cancer Consortium guidelines for multigene panel analysis in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer predisposition]. / Recommandations françaises du Groupe Génétique et Cancer pour l'analyse en panel de gènes dans les prédispositions héréditaires au cancer du sein ou de l'ovaire.

INTRODUCTION: Next generation sequencing allows the simultaneous analysis of large panel of genes for families or individuals with a strong suspicion of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC). Because of lack of guidelines, several panels of genes potentially involved in HBOC were designed, with large disparities not only in their composition but also in medical care offered to mutation carriers. Then, homogenization in practices is needed. METHODS: The French Genetic and Cancer Group (GGC) - Unicancer conducted an exhaustive bibliographic work on 18 genes of interest. Only publications with unbiased risk estimates were retained. RESULTS: The expertise of each 18 genes was based on clinical utility criteria, i.e. a relative risk of cancer of 4 and more, available medical tools for screening and prevention of mutation carriers, and pre-symptomatic genetic tests for relatives. Finally, 13 genes were selected to be included in a HBOC diagnosis gene panel: BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, TP53, CDH1, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM. The reasons for excluding NBN, RAD51B, CHEK2, STK11, ATM, BARD1, BRIP1 from the HBOC diagnosis panel are presented. Screening, prevention and genetic counselling guidelines were detailed for each of the 18 genes. DISCUSSION: Due to the rapid increase in knowledge, the GGC has planned a yearly update of the bibliography to take into account new findings. Furthermore, genetic-epidemiological studies are being initiated to better estimate the cancer risk associated with genes which are not yet included in the HBOC diagnosis panel.

Clinical Outcomes of Several IMRT Techniques for Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis.

PURPOSE: The Advanced Radiotherapy Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie (ART-ORL) study (NCT02024035) was performed to prospectively evaluate the clinical and economic aspects of helical TomoTherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) for patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fourteen centers participated in this prospective comparative study. Randomization was not possible based on the availability of equipment. Patients with epidermoid or undifferentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma or epidermoid carcinoma of the oropharynx and oral cavity (T1-T4, M0, N0-N3) were included between February 2010 and February 2012. Only the results of the clinical study are presented in this report, as the results of the economic assessment have been published previously. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score analysis was undertaken in an effort to adjust for potential bias due to nonrandomization. Locoregional control, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival assessed 18 months after treatment, as well as long-term toxicity and salivary function, were evaluated. RESULTS: The analysis included 166 patients. The following results are given after inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment. The locoregional control rate at 18 months was significantly better in the TomoTherapy group: 83.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.5%-90.2%) versus 72.7% (95% CI, 62.1%-80.8%) in the RapidArc group (P=.025). The cancer-specific survival rate was better in the TomoTherapy group: 97.2% (95% CI, 89.3%-99.3%) versus 85.5% (95% CI, 75.8%-91.5%) in the RapidArc group (P=.014). No significant difference was shown in progression-free or overall survival. TomoTherapy induced fewer acute salivary disorders (P=.012). Posttreatment salivary function degradation was worse in the RapidArc group (P=.012). CONCLUSIONS: TomoTherapy provided better locoregional control and cancer-specific survival than RapidArc treatment, with fewer salivary disorders. No significant difference was shown in progression-free and overall survival. These results should be explored in a randomized trial.

Salvage radiotherapy with or without short-term hormone therapy for rising prostate-specific antigen concentration after radical prostatectomy (GETUG-AFU 16): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: How best to treat rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration after radical prostatectomy is an urgent clinical question. Salvage radiotherapy delays the need for more aggressive treatment such as long-term androgen suppression, but fewer than half of patients benefit from it. We aimed to establish the effect of adding short-term androgen suppression at the time of salvage radiotherapy on biochemical outcome and overall survival in men with rising PSA following radical prostatectomy. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, was done in 43 French study centres. We enrolled men (aged ≥18 years) who had received previous treatment for a histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate (but no previous androgen deprivation therapy or pelvic radiotherapy), and who had stage pT2, pT3, or pT4a (bladder neck involvement only) in patients who had rising PSA of 0·2 to less than 2·0 µg/L following radical prostatectomy, without evidence of clinical disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally via an interactive web response system to standard salvage radiotherapy (three-dimensional [3D] conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy, of 66 Gy in 33 fractions 5 days a week for 7 weeks) or radiotherapy plus short-term androgen suppression using 10·8 mg goserelin by subcutaneous injection on the first day of irradiation and 3 months later. Randomisation was stratified using a permuted block method according to investigational site, radiotherapy modality, and prognosis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00423475. FINDINGS: Between Oct 19, 2006, and March 30, 2010, 743 patients were randomly assigned, 374 to radiotherapy alone and 369 to radiotherapy plus goserelin. Patients assigned to radiotherapy plus goserelin were significantly more likely than patients in the radiotherapy alone group to be free of biochemical progression or clinical progression at 5 years (80% [95% CI 75-84] vs 62% [57-67]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·50, 95% CI 0·38-0·66; p<0·0001). No additional late adverse events occurred in patients receiving short-term androgen suppression compared with those who received radiotherapy alone. The most frequently occuring acute adverse events related to goserelin were hot flushes, sweating, or both (30 [8%] of 366 patients had a grade 2 or worse event; 30 patients [8%] had hot flushes and five patients [1%] had sweating in the radiotherapy plus goserelin group vs none of 372 patients in the radiotherapy alone group). Three (8%) of 366 patients had grade 3 or worse hot flushes and one patient had grade 3 or worse sweating in the radiotherapy plus goserelin group versus none of 372 patients in the radiotherapy alone group. The most common late adverse events of grade 3 or worse were genitourinary events (29 [8%] in the radiotherapy alone group vs 26 [7%] in the radiotherapy plus goserelin group) and sexual disorders (20 [5%] vs 30 [8%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Adding short-term androgen suppression to salvage radiotherapy benefits men who have had radical prostatectomy and whose PSA rises after a postsurgical period when it is undetectable. Radiotherapy combined with short-term androgen suppression could be considered as a reasonable option in this population. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health, AstraZeneca, and La Ligue Contre le Cancer.

Cost Analysis of Complex Radiation Therapy for Patients With Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: This cost analysis aimed to prospectively assess differences in costs between TomoTherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Economic data were gathered from a multicenter study. However, randomization was not possible due to the availability of equipment. Costs were calculated using the microcosting technique from the hospital's perspective (in 2013 euros), and the time horizon was radiation therapy. Only resources that entered the hospital production process and which were likely to vary between the strategies being compared were considered. Acute adverse events observed within the time horizon were also assessed. RESULTS: The cost analysis was based on a total of 173 patient treatments given between 2010 and 2012 in 14 French cancer centers: 73 patients were treated with TomoTherapy, 92 with VMAT RapidArc, and 8 with VMAT SmartArc. Estimated costs of SmartArc were removed from the comparison due to the small sample size. The mean ± SD cost per patient of the treatment planning phase was €314 (±€214) for TomoTherapy and €511 (±€590) for RapidArc. Mean costs ± SD per patient of irradiation reached €3144 (±€565) for TomoTherapy and €1350 (±€299) for RapidArc. The most sensitive parameter of irradiation was the annual operating time of accelerators. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the mean costs of irradiation were €3016 to €3272 for TomoTherapy and €1281 to €1408 for RapidArc. The number of acute adverse events during radiation therapy was not significantly different between strategies. CONCLUSIONS: TomoTherapy appeared to be more expensive than RapidArc mainly due to the higher price of the accelerator, the higher costs of maintenance, and the longer duration of treatment sessions. Because strategies were not significantly different in clinical effect, RapidArc appeared to be the strategy to be recommended at this stage of knowledge.

Intensity modulated arc therapy in bilaterally irradiated head and neck cancer: a comparative and prospective multicenter planning study.

A dosimetric comparison was made of Helical Tomotherapy (HT) and Rapid'Arc(®) (RA) in 115 patients with head and neck carcinoma included in a prospective and multicentric study. HT and RA provided highly conformal plans that easily complied with dose volume constraints for organs at risk. HT reduced high doses to the planning target volumes (PTVs) compared to RA and provided a more homogeneous dose distribution but with an increased Non Tumoral Integral Dose (NTID) than RA. However, the clinical consequences of these dosimetric advantages and disadvantages need further investigation.

Bilateral Wilms tumors (WT) treated with the SIOP 93 protocol in France: epidemiological survey and patient outcome.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of bilateral Wilms tumors (WT) requires multimodality therapy with individualized decision to ensure cure while preserving as much renal parenchyma as possible. PROCEDURE: We analyzed the clinical records of 49 children with bilateral WT treated in France between 1993 and 2001, according to the SIOP-93 guidelines (individual treatment program: Treatment was continued as long as there was imaging evidence of tumor regression). Pathology reports, duration of preoperative chemotherapy and surgical records were also reviewed. Overall Survival (OS) and Event-Free Survival (EFS) rates were studied and relationships between possible prognostic factors and survival were assessed. RESULTS: Imaging studies revealed bilateral involvement in 98% of the cases. Whatever the response to preoperative chemotherapy, the mean duration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 80 days (Q1-Q3: 47-89 days). Forty-eight children underwent nephron sparing surgery (NSS) at least for one kidney and 19 for both. Five-year EFS and OS rates were, respectively, 83.4 and 89.5%. Only the most advanced stages were shown to affect OS (P = 0.03). At study endpoint, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was reported in seven children, associated with a predisposing phenotype in three. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study demonstrate a favorable outcome of patients with bilateral WT receiving an individual treatment program. With a tailored approach to treatment according to the tumor response, 77% of our patients were operated before the third month of preoperative chemotherapy. In spite of good survival, 14% of our patients have ESRD.

Impact of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography on treatment strategy and radiotherapy planning for stage I-II Hodgkin disease: a prospective multicenter study.

PURPOSE: To quantify the impact of preradiotherapy 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET) on treatment strategy and radiotherapy planning for patients with Stage I/II Hodgkin disease included in a large prospective multicenter study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Conventional computed tomography and FDG-PET were performed just before the planned radiotherapy. The radiotherapy plan was first elaborated under blinded conditions for FDG-PET data. Then, the medical staff was asked to confirm or not confirm the treatment strategy and, if appropriate, to modify the radiotherapy plan based on additional information from FDG-PET. RESULTS: Between January 2004 and January 2006, 137 patients were included (124 were available for analysis) in 11 centers (108 adults, 16 children). All but 1 patient had received chemotherapy before inclusion. Prechemotherapy work-up included FDG-PET for 61 patients, and data were available for elaboration of the first radiotherapy plan. Based on preradiotherapy FDG-PET data, the radiotherapy was cancelled in 6 patients (4.8%), and treatment plan modifications occurred in 16 patients (12.9%): total dose (11 patients), CTV volume (5 patients), number of beam incidences (6 patients), and number of CTV (6 patients). The concordance between the treatment strategies with or without preradiotherapy FDG-PET was 82.3%. Concordance results were not significantly different when prechemotherapy PET-CT information was available. CONCLUSION: Preradiotherapy FDG-PET for treatment planning in Hodgkin lymphoma may lead to significant modification of the treatment strategy and the radiotherapy planning in patients with Stage I or II Hodgkin disease, even in those who have undergone FDG-PET as part of the prechemotherapy work-up.

Impact of (18)F-FDG PET on treatment strategy and 3D radiotherapy planning in non-small cell lung cancer: A prospective multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to quantify the impact of preradiotherapy (18)F-FDG PET when deciding whether radiotherapy should be curative or palliative in intent and defining its detailed planning in patients with non-small cell lung cancer referred for 3D conformal radical radiotherapy within a large prospective multicenter study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Conventional CT and FDG PET were performed 2-3 weeks before radiotherapy was scheduled to start. As an initial step, the medical team was asked to plan radiotherapy while blinded to the results of FDG PET. In a second step, the FDG PET data were revealed, and the medical team had to decide whether or not to confirm their radical radiotherapy strategy and, if so, whether any modifications were required to the treatment plan. RESULTS: Of the 134 patients (79% with stage III disease) who were included in the analysis, 110 patients (82%) had received induction chemotherapy. Prechemotherapy FDG PET also was available for 25 patients. Knowledge of preradiotherapy FDG PET data caused treatment to be cancelled or changed from curative to palliative intent in 15 patients (11%). Of the 119 patients in whom radical radiotherapy was confirmed, the treatment plan was modified in 37 (31%). The concordance rate between the treatment strategies with or without preradiotherapy FDG PET was 62%. Concordance was improved but was still not complete (80%) when the prechemotherapy workup included FDG PET. CONCLUSION: Preradiotherapy FDG PET for non-small cell lung cancer patients referred for 3D conformal radiotherapy may lead to significant modification of treatment strategy and radiotherapy planning.

Assessing user satisfaction and hospital pharmacy practice: application to an individualized dispensing system in a French military teaching hospital.

RATIONALE AND AIMS: Hospital pharmacy aims at optimizing pharmaceutical care practice. Classically, assessing patient's satisfaction is required. Same manner, for a service provider such as a hospital pharmacy, it is necessary to evaluate the satisfaction of its customers: physicians, nurses and pharmacy staff. The aim of this paper was to assess user satisfaction with an individualized dispensing system. METHOD: A survey including 14 close-ended and 1 open-ended questions was repeated at several years' distance in a French military teaching hospital. Questionnaires were administered anonymously to the different actors involved: physicians, nurses, pharmacy staff. RESULTS: Fifty-seven users of an individualized dispensing system (29 nurses, 18 physicians and 10 pharmacy staff) were included in the survey. At the level of the establishment, users' opinion about the system was positive. None of the dimensions studied concerning the pharmaceutical service was rated negatively. Overall user opinion about the computer system was the only parameter rated negatively. In total, most dimensions were judged satisfactory: confidence in the individualized dispensing system, time of delivery at the care unit, impact on cost control, quality of the presentation of unit doses and performance of respondents. The benefit for the patients was judged very satisfactory. The workload involved, the frequency and severity of errors, the serviceability of the information processing system and its impact on patient safety were judged fairly satisfactory. Finally, the quality of pharmaceutical information was rated average. CONCLUSIONS: An evaluation of a service or a practice should include an assessment of how well the service meets the needs of the user and how well the service is provided. A comprehensive, reliable and valid instrument for assessing user's satisfaction with individualized dispensing system is then available in our hospital. This paper demonstrated the interest of using simple and robust tools in professional practice.