Search

The purpose of the study was to evaluate retrospectively the acute toxicity and efficacy in terms of locoregional control of a cervical lymph node irradiation using a hypofractionated regimen in frail elderly patients. Patients receiving unilateral hypofractionated cervical lymph node irradiation at the Institut de cancérologie de Lorraine (France) were retrospectively included. The treatment regimen consisted of delivering 54 Gy in 18 fractions to the high-risk tumour or lymph node volume and 45 Gy to the prophylactic volume using the technique of simultaneous integrated-boost without concomitant systemic treatment. Toxicity data according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4 and survival data were collected. Forty-three patients were treated between January 2013 and July 2021. The median age was 83 years (range: 78–86.5 years), 32 patients (74.4 %) were male and 25.6 % had WHO status ≥ 2. Histological types were cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (39 patients), salivary gland carcinoma (three patients) and Merkel cell carcinoma (one patient). The mean duration of treatment was 27 days. Seventeen patients (39.5 %) received radiotherapy alone. Acute toxicity events of grade ≥ 2 at the end of radiotherapy in the 43 patients were described as follows: 58.1 % radiodermatitis (25 patients), 24.6 % mucositis (11 patients), and 18.1 % xerostomia (eight patients). Seven patients (16.3 %) experienced grade ≥ 2 odynodysphagia, with four patients (9.3 %) requiring enteral nutrition. No grade 3 toxicity events were reported at 3 months, 6 months or 1 year. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months (range: 6–18.5 months), 11 patients (25.6 %) of those treated by exclusive irradiation had a complete locoregional response as assessed by CT-scan 3 months. At 6 months, two of 20 patients retained grade 2 xerostomia and only four of 20 patients reported residual grade 1 pain. Moderately hypofractionated unilateral cervical lymph node radiotherapy appears to be well tolerated in frail elderly patients with an acceptable locoregional control rate, potentially providing an alternative to palliative strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The COVID-19 crisis requires a reorganization of the health system, particularly in radiotherapy. • Metastatic patients are particularly fragile. • A single 8Gy fraction is recommended for most clinical situations. The current health crisis caused by COVID-19 is a challenge for oncology treatment, especially when it comes to radiotherapy. Cancer patients are already known to be very fragile and COVID-19 brings about the risk of severe respiratory complications. In order to treat patients safely while protecting medical teams, the entire health care system must optimize the way it approaches prevention and treatment at a time when social distancing is key to stemming this pandemic. All indications and treatment modalities must be re-discussed. This is particularly the case for radiotherapy of bone metastases for which it is possible to reduce the number of sessions, the frequency of transport and the complexity of treatments. These changes will have to be discussed according to the organization of each radiotherapy department and the health situation, while medical teams must remain vigilant about the risks of complications of bone metastases, particularly spinal metastases. In this short piece, the members of the GEMO (the European Study Group of Bone Metastases) offer a number of recommendations to achieve the above objectives, both in general and in relation to five of the most common situations on radiation therapy for bone metastases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with bone metastasis are prevalent among those receiving palliative radiotherapy (RT), with approximately 20 % requiring reirradiation (reirradiation). The goal of bone reirradiation may be local control (oligoreoccurrence or oligoprogression of a previously treated lesion or in a previous treatment field) or symptomatic (threatening or painful progression). Published data on bone reirradiation indicate almost two-thirds of overall pain response. The primary organ at risk (especially for spine treatment) is the spinal cord. The risk of radiation myelitis is < 1 % for cumulative doses of < 50 Gy. Intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) and stereotactic RT (SRT) appear to be safer than three-dimensional RT (3DRT), although randomized trials comparing these techniques in reirradiation are lacking. Reirradiation requires multidisciplinary assessment. Alternative treatments for bone metastases (surgery, interventional radiology, etc.) must be considered. Patients should have a performance status ≤ 2, with at least a 1-month interval between treatments. The planning process involves reviewing previous RT plans, cautious dose adjustments, and precise target delineation and dose distribution to minimize toxicity. Cumulative dosimetry, patient consent, and vigilant post-treatment monitoring and dose reporting are crucial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Social media and mobile technology are transforming the way in which young physicians are learning and practicing medicine. The true impact of such technologies has yet to be evaluated. Methods and Materials We performed a nationwide cross-sectional survey to better assess how young radiation oncologists used these technologies. An online survey was sent out between April 24, 2013, and June 1, 2013. All residents attending the 2013 radiation oncology French summer course were invited to complete the survey. Logistic regressions were performed to assess predictors of use of these tools in the hospital on various clinical endpoints. Results In all, 131 of 140 (93.6%) French young radiation oncologists answered the survey. Of these individuals, 93% owned a smartphone and 32.8% owned a tablet. The majority (78.6%) of the residents owning a smartphone used it to work in their department. A total of 33.5% had more than 5 medical applications installed. Only 60.3% of the residents verified the validity of the apps that they used. In all, 82.9% of the residents had a social network account. Conclusions Most of the residents in radiation oncology use their smartphone to work in their department for a wide variety of tasks. However, the residents do not consistently check the validity of the apps that they use. Residents also use social networks, with only a limited impact on their relationship with their patients. Overall, this study highlights the irruption and the risks of new technologies in the clinical practice and raises the question of a possible regulation of their use in the hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]