[Prostate cancer: what treatment techniques for which tumors? Ethical and methodological issues]. / Cancers de prostate : quelles techniques de radiothérapie pour quelles tumeurs ? Enjeux éthiques et méthodologiques.

The identification of the optimal radiation technique in prostate cancer is based on the results of dosimetric and clinical studies, although there are almost no randomized studies comparing different radiation techniques. The feasibility of the techniques depends also on the technical and human resources of the radiation department, on the cost of the treatment from the points of view of the society, the patient and the radiation oncologist, and finally on the choice of the patient. The slow evolution of prostate cancer leads to consider the biochemical failure as the main judgment criteria in the majority of the studies. A proper urinary radio-induced toxicity evaluation implies a long follow-up. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) combined with image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) is recommended in case of high dose (≥76Gy) to the prostate, pelvic lymph nodes irradiation and hypofractionation schedules. For low-risk tumors, the aim of the treatment is to preserve quality of life, while limiting costs. Stereotactic body radiotherapy shows promising results, although the follow-up is still limited and phase III trials are ongoing. Focal radiation techniques are in the step of feasibility. For intermediate and high-risk tumors, the objective of the treatment is to increase the locoregional control, while limiting the toxicity. IMRT combined with IGRT leads to either a well-validated dose escalation strategy for intermediate risk tumors, or to a strategy of moderate hypofractionated schedules, which cannot be yet considered as a standard treatment. These combined radiation techniques allow finally large lymph node target volume irradiation and dose escalation potentially in the dominant intraprostatic lesion. The feasibility of simultaneous integrated boost approaches is demonstrated.

Decision-making of vestibular schwannoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from vestibular schwannoma can choose between four modalities of management: (1) wait-and-scan, (2) tumour resection, (3) radiosurgery and (4) fractionated radiotherapy. METHOD: This study is based on postal questionnaire survey of 739 vestibular schwannoma patients (survey response rate, 78%). It not only investigates the decision-making of patients, especially the medical consultation, but also further influences on the therapy decision and the patients' evaluation of possible side-effects of the treatment. RESULTS: Only a minority of the patients was informed about radiosurgery and radiotherapy at all. CONCLUSION: The praxis of patient counselling of acoustic neuroma patients in Germany is far from the ideal condition of medical consultation: The most important shortcoming is that it is unilateral: About 69% of the patients are informed about only one treatment option, generally surgery. Furthermore, information about side effects is usually insufficient. We recommend to advice all patients on all treatment options by an interdisciplinary team. The counselling should firstly be based on evidence-based medicine and secondly respond to the patients' individual life situation and preferences.

Clinical outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy for small lung lesions clinically diagnosed as primary lung cancer on radiologic examination.

PURPOSE: Image-guided biopsy occasionally fails to diagnose small lung lesions, which are highly suggestive of primary lung cancer. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for small lung lesions that were clinically diagnosed as primary lung cancer without pathologic confirmation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 115 patients were treated with SBRT in 12 institutions. Tumor size ranged from 5 to 45 mm in diameter, with a median of 20 mm. RESULTS: The 3-year and 5-year overall survival rates for patients with a tumor size < or =20 mm in diameter (n = 58) were both 89.8%, compared with 60.7% and 53.1% for patients with tumors >20 mm (n = 57) (p <0.0005), respectively. Local progression occurred in 2 patients (3.4%) with a tumor size < or =20 mm and in 3 patients (5.3%) with tumors >20 mm. Among the patients with a tumor size < or =20 mm, Grade 2 pulmonary complications were observed in 2 (3.4%), but no Grade 3 to 5 toxicity was observed. In patients with a tumor size >20 mm, Grades 2, 3, and 5 toxicity were observed in 5 patients (8.8%), 3 patients (5.3%), and 1 patient (1.8%), respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with a tumor < or =20 mm in diameter, SBRT was reasonably safe in this retrospective study. The clinical implications of the high local control rate depend on the accuracy of clinical/radiologic diagnosis for small lung lesions and are to be carefully evaluated in a prospective study.