Search

Copyright of Strahlentherapie und Onkologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Despite moderate improvements in outcome of glioblastoma after first-line treatment with chemoradiation recent clinical trials failed to improve the prognosis of recurrent glioblastoma. In the absence of a standard of care we aimed to investigate institutional treatment strategies to identify similarities and differences in the pattern of care for recurrent glioblastoma. We investigated re-treatment criteria and therapeutic pathways for recurrent glioblastoma of eight neuro-oncology centres in Switzerland having an established multidisciplinary tumour-board conference. Decision algorithms, differences and consensus were analysed using the objective consensus methodology. A total of 16 different treatment recommendations were identified based on combinations of eight different decision criteria. The set of criteria implemented as well as the set of treatments offered was different in each centre. For specific situations, up to 6 different treatment recommendations were provided by the eight centres. The only wide-range consensus identified was to offer best supportive care to unfit patients. A majority recommendation was identified for non-operable large early recurrence with unmethylated MGMT promoter status in the fit patients: here bevacizumab was offered. In fit patients with late recurrent non-operable MGMT promoter methylated glioblastoma temozolomide was recommended by most. No other majority recommendations were present. In the absence of strong evidence we identified few consensus recommendations in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma. This contrasts the limited availability of single drugs and treatment modalities. Clinical situations of greatest heterogeneity may be suitable to be addressed in clinical trials and second opinion referrals are likely to yield diverging recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Induction chemotherapy followed by definitive chemoradiotherapy is an intensified treatment approach for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) that might be associated with high rates of toxicity.Materials and Methods: The data of 40 consecutive patients who underwent induction chemotherapy with docetaxel-containing regimens followed by intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and concomitant systemic therapy for unresectable locally advanced HNSCC were retrospectively analyzed. Primary objectives were RT-related acute and late toxicity. Secondary objectives were response to induction chemotherapy, locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), overall survival (OS), and influencing factors for LRRFS and OS.Results: The median follow-up for surviving patients was 21 months (range, 2-53 months). Patients received a median of three cycles of induction chemotherapy followed by IMRT to 72 Gy. Three patients died during induction chemotherapy and one during chemoradiotherapy. Acute RT-related toxicity was of grade 3 and 4 in 72 and 3 % of patients, respectively, mainly dysphagia and dermatitis. Late RT-related toxicity was mainly xerostomia and bone/cartilage necrosis and was of grade 3 and 4 in 15 % of patients. One- and 2-year LRRFS and OS were 72 and 49 % and 77 and 71 %, respectively.Conclusion: Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy using IMRT was associated with a high rate of severe acute and late RT-related toxicities in this selected patient cohort. Four patients were lost because of fatal complications. Induction chemotherapy did not compromise the delivery of full-dose RT; however, the use of three cycles of concomitant cisplatin was impaired. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Strahlentherapie und Onkologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Urologe A is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Onkologe is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Onkologe is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) has been increasing in incidence among both immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients. Today there is no uniform approach to the treatment of this disease. Whole brain irradiation (WBI) has been standard treatment, resulting in complete remission in the majority of patients, but with most patients relapsing and dying of their disease within 2 years after treatment. The addition of chemotherapy to WBI appears to prolong survival for patients younger than 60 years with median survival reaching a plateau at approximately 40 months. The issue of the best treatment for older patients remains controversial. Prospective studies will be needed, as it is impossible to draw conclusions from the nonrandomized small series published so far. This is because the prognostic variables of age and performance status to date have affected outcome more than therapy. In this review, some of the questions regarding the management of PCNSL are addressed. Since the role of radiotherapy remains unclear, we designed a new randomized multicenter study (G-PCNSL-SG-1 trial) to investigate the optimal timing of WBI after high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of HNO is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Aim: Optimal dose and schedule of paclitaxel in combined drug-irradiation treatment could not be determined for most of tumors yet. The aim of this study was to compare in vitro cytotoxicity and radiosensitizing abilities as a function of single paclitaxel (Taxol) exposure in tumor and fibroblastic cells using different drug incubation irradiation intervals.Material and Method: A lung-carcinoma (SK-LU-1), glioblastoma (U-138 MG) and rodent fibroblast cell line (HyB14FAF28) were used. The clonogenic assay was applied for survival investigation. alpha beta-values were calculated using the linear-quadratic model (log S = -alpha D - beta D2). Cytotoxicity of Taxol was examined at 0 to 50 microM. Combined Taxol-radiotherapy exposure was accomplished with 10 microM Taxol plus 10 Gy irradiation (RT) following after a 1-hour and 9-hour interval. For controls cells were exposed to Cremophor EL/ethanol (CEL/eth) and a phosphate buffered saline (PBS).Results: Single Taxol exposure (10 microM) resulted in 0.54/0.50/0.84 (3-hours incubation) and 0.094/0.48/0.82 (15-hours incubation) survival of SK-LU-1, U-138 MG and HyB14FAF28 cells, respectively. Taxol concentrations from 2 to 50 microM only had cytotoxic effect in tumor cells. Single dose RT (10 Gy) led to cell survival of 0.0006/0.006/0.03. The diluent CEL/eth also showed cytotoxic activity. Taxol plus RT led to cell survival of 0.00025/0.0014/0.042 (1 hour) and 0.0004/0.0019/0.04 (9 hours) without significant difference between chosen time intervals. alpha beta-values showed great variation lacking evidence for definite radiosensitization. alpha increase after Taxol and alpha decrease after CEL/eth exposure were detected.Conclusions: The data presented demonstrate a potential beneficial effect, described as co-operation, by combining Taxol and RT in human tumor cells and rodent fibroblasts. High intrinsic alpha components of the tumor cells as well as CEL/eth's antagonizing actions could be likely to disturb and influence paclitaxel's abilities leading to radiosensitization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Strahlentherapie und Onkologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)