Search

PurposeTo report the utilization of radiation therapy in Syrian refugee patients with prostate cancer residing in Turkey.Methods and materialsA multi-institutional retrospective review including 14 cancer centers in Turkey was conducted to include 137 Syrian refugee patients with prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy (RT). Toxicity data was scored using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Noncompliance was defined as a patient missing two or more scheduled RT appointments.ResultsAdvanced disease, defined as stage III or IV, was reported in 64.2% of patients while androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was only administrated to 20% of patients. Conventionally fractionated RT with a median number of 44 fractions was delivered to all patients with curative intent (n = 61) while palliative RT (n = 76) was delivered with a median number of 10 fractions. The acute grade 3–4 toxicity rate for the entire cohort was 16%. Noncompliance rate was 42%.ConclusionMost Syrian refugee prostate cancer patients presented with advanced disease however ADT was seldom used. Despite the low treatment compliance rate, conventional fractionation was used in all patients. Interventions are critically needed to improve screening and increase the use of standard-of-care treatment paradigms, including hypofractionated RT and ADT.

BackgroundPostmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) decreases the risk of locoregional recurrence and increases overall survival rates in patients with high-risk node positive breast cancer. While the number of breast cancer patients treated with proton-based PMRT has increased in recent years, there is limited data on the use of proton therapy in the postmastectomy with reconstruction setting. In this study, we compared acute toxicities and reconstructive complications in patients treated with proton-based and photon-based PMRT.MethodsA retrospective review of our institutional database was performed to identify breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy with implant or autologous reconstruction followed by PMRT from 2015 to 2020. Baseline clinical, disease, and treatment related factors were compared between the photon-based and proton-based PMRT groups. Early toxicity outcomes and reconstructive complications following PMRT were graded by the treating physician.ResultsA total of 11 patients treated with proton-based PMRT and 26 patients treated with photon-based PMRT were included with a median follow-up of 7.4 months (range, 0.7-33 months). Six patients (55%) in the proton group had a history of breast cancer (3 ipsilateral and 3 contralateral) and received previous RT 38 months ago (median, range 7-85). There was no significant difference in mean PMRT (p = 0.064) and boost dose (p = 0.608) between the two groups. Grade 2 skin toxicity was the most common acute toxicity in both groups (55% and 73% in the proton and photon group, respectively) (p = 0.077). Three patients (27%) in the proton group developed grade 3 skin toxicity. No Grade 4 acute toxicity was reported in either group. Reconstructive complications occurred in 4 patients (36%) in the proton group and 8 patients (31%) in photon group (p = 0.946).ConclusionsAcute skin toxicity remains the most frequent adverse event in both proton- and photon-based PMRT. In our study, reconstructive complications were not significantly higher in patients treated with proton- versus photon-based PMRT. Longer follow-up is warranted to assess late toxicities.