Nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer : Improved survival with chemoradiotherapy > 40 Gy after systemic treatment.

PURPOSE: The role of radiotherapy (RT) for nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer is still a matter of debate since randomized control trials have shown inconsistent results. The current retrospective single-institution study includes both resected and unresected patients with nonmetastasized pancreatic cancer. The aim is to analyze overall survival (OS) after irradiation combined with induction chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of the 73 patients with nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer eligible for the present analysis, 42 (58%) patients had adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT), while 31 (42%) received CRT as primary treatment. In all, 65 (89%) had chemotherapy at any time before, during, or after RT, and 39 (53%) received concomitant CRT. The median total dose was 50 Gy (range 12-77 Gy), while 61 (84%) patients received >40 Gy. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 22 months (range 1.2-179.8 months), 14 (19%) are still alive and 59 (81%) of the patients have died, whereby 51 (70%) were cancer-related deaths. Median OS and the 2­year survival rate were 22.9 months (1.2-179.8 months) and 44%, respectively. In addition, 61 (84%) patients treated with >40 Gy had a survival advantage (median OS 23.7 vs. 17.3 months, p = 0.026), as had patients with 4 months minimum of systemic treatment (median OS 27.5 vs. 14.3 months, p = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: CRT with total doses >40 Gy after induction chemotherapy leads to improved OS in patients with nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer.

Comparison of two different rectal spacers in prostate cancer external beam radiotherapy in terms of rectal sparing and volume consistency.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In external beam radiation (EBRT) of the prostate, the rectum is the dose-limiting organ at risk, and sparing of the anterior rectal wall is a prerequisite for safe delivery of doses beyond 70 Gy. Spatial sparing of the rectum can be achieved by introducing a spacer material into the retroprostatic space, thus separating the anterior rectal wall from the PTV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two spacer technologies, Spacer OAR, a polyethylene glycol gel and ProSpace, a saline inflated balloon, were compared in terms of spacer volume, stability, and dose reduction to the anterior rectum wall in 78 patients. RESULTS: Both spacer systems significantly reduced the rectum surface encompassed by the 95% isodose (gel: -35%, p<0.01; balloon -63.4%, p<0.001) compared to a control group. The balloon spacer was superior in reducing rectum dose (-27.7%, p=0.034), but exhibited an average volume loss of >50% during the full course of treatment of 37-40 fractions, while the volume of gel spacers remained fairly constant. CONCLUSIONS: In choosing between the two spacer technologies, the advantageous dose reduction of the balloon needs to be weighed up against the better volume consistency of the gel spacer with respect to the duration of hypofractionated vs normofractionated regimens.