Search

Objective: Updated report about the randomized comparison of the effect of radiotherapy on painful osteoarthritis (OA) applying a standard dose vs. a very low dose regime after a follow-up of 1 year., Patients and Methods: Patients presenting with OA of the hand/finger and knee joints were included. After randomization (every joint region was randomized separately) the following protocols were applied: (a) standard arm: total dose 3.0 Gy, single fractions of 0.5 Gy twice a week; (b) experimental arm: total dose 0.3 Gy, single fractions of 0.05 Gy twice a week. The dosage was blinded for the patients. For evaluation the scores after 1‑year visual analog scale (VAS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Short Form (KOOS-PS), Short Form Score for the Assessment and Quantification of Chronic Rheumatic Affections of the Hands (SF-SACRAH) and 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) were used (for further details: see [1])., Results: The standard dose was applied to 77 hands and 33 knees, the experimental dose was given to 81 hands and 30 knees. After 12 months, the data of 128 hands and 45 knees were available for evaluation. Even after this long time, we observed a favorable response of pain to radiotherapy in both trial arms; however, there were no reasonable statistically significant differences between both arms concerning pain, functional, and quality of life scores. Side effects did not occur. The only prognostic factor was the pain level before radiotherapy., Conclusions: We found a favorable pain relief and a limited response in the functional and quality of life scores in both treatment arms. The possible effect of low doses such as 0.3 Gy on pain is widely unknown., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Randomized comparison of the effect of radiotherapy on painful osteoarthritis (OA) applying a standard-dose vs. a very-low-dose regime PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with OA of the hand and knee joints were included. Further inclusion criteria: symptoms for more than 3 months, favorable general health status, age above 40 years. Patients with prior local radiotherapy, trauma, rheumatoid arthritis, or vascular diseases were excluded. After randomization (every joint was randomized separately), the following protocols were applied: standard arm: total dose 3.0 Gy, single fractions of 0.5 Gy twice weekly; experimental arm: total dose 0.3 Gy, single fractions of 0.05 Gy twice weekly. The dosage was not known to the patients. The patients were examined 3 and 12 months after radiotherapy. Scores like VAS (visual analogue scale), KOOS-SF (the knee injugy and osteoarthritis outcome score), SF-SACRAH (short form score for the assessment and quantification of chronic rheumatic affections of the hands), and SF-12 (short form 12) were used., Results: A total of 64 knees and 172 hands were randomized. 3.0 Gy was applied to 87 hands and 34 knees, 0.3 Gy was given to 85 hands and 30 knees. After 3 months, we observed good pain relief after 3 Gy and after 0.3 Gy, there was no statistically significant difference. Side effects were not recorded. The trial was closed prematurely due to slow recruitment., Conclusion: We found favorable pain relief and a limited response in the functional and quality of life scores in both arms. The effect of low doses such as 0.3 Gy on pain is widely unknown. Further trials are necessary to compare a conventional dose to placebo and to further explore the effect of low doses on inflammatory disorders., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Treatment of patients with laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma with radiotherapy or chemoradiation is an established alternative to laryngeal surgery in many cases, but particularly for advanced tumors without cartilage invasion. Imaging modalities face the challenge of distinguishing between posttherapeutic changes and residual disease in the complex anatomic subsite of the larynx. Guidelines concerning restaging of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) are presented by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and other national guidelines, but clearly defined recommendations for routine restaging particularly for laryngeal cancer are lacking., Methods: A systematic search was carried out in PubMed to identify studies evaluating routine restaging methods after primary non-surgical treatment of laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma from 2009 to 2020., Results: Only three studies were deemed eligible, as they included at least ≥50% patients with laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma and evaluated imaging modalities to detect residual cancer. The small number of studies in our review suggest restaging with fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) 3 months after initial treatment, followed by direct laryngoscopy with biopsy of the lesions identified by FDG PET/CT., Conclusion: Studies evaluating restaging methods after organ-preserving non-surgical treatment of laryngeal carcinoma are limited. As radiotherapy (RT), chemoradiotherapy (CRT), systemic therapy followed by RT and radioimmunotherapy are established alternatives to surgical treatment, particularly in advanced laryngeal cancers, further studies are needed to assess and compare different imaging modalities (e.g. PET/CT, MRI, CT, ultrasound) and clinical diagnostic tools (e.g., video laryngoscopy, direct laryngoscopy) to offer patients safe and efficient restaging strategies. PET or PET/CT 3 months after initial treatment followed by direct laryngoscopy with biopsy of the identified lesions has the potential to reduce the number of unnecessary laryngoscopies.

Purpose: Osteoarthritis is a common disease, with a prevalence of symptomatic disease of 8.9%. One treatment option is radiotherapy. Most published samples were treated with an orthovoltage technique or with a telecobalt device. A lot of radiotherapy institutions are nowadays using linear accelerators for treatment of osteoarthritis. There is a discussion on whether the treatment results achieved with a linear accelerator are comparable to those with the orthovoltage technique. The aim of this study is to analyze the results of radiotherapy for osteoarthritis with a linear accelerator and compare the results with reference to different joints., Materials and Methods: The analysis was performed in patients of two German radiotherapy institutions and included 295 irradiated joints. Pain was documented with the numeric rating scale (NRS). Evaluation of the NRS was done before and directly after each radiation therapy course as well as for the follow-up of 24 months. The median age of the patients was 65 years, with 39.0% male and 61.0% female patients. Most frequently, osteoarthritis of the knee (34.6%) or the finger (15.9%) was treated., Results: We could find a significant response to radiotherapy. Median pain for the whole sample was 7 on the NRS before radiotherapy, 4 after 6 weeks, and 3 after 12 and 24 months. The percentage of patients with 0 or 1 on the NRS was 33.8% 12 months after radiotherapy. All investigated subgroups had a significant reduction of pain., Conclusion: Radiotherapy of osteoarthritis with a linear accelerator is an effective treatment which is very well tolerated. All analyzed subgroups show a good response to radiotherapy for at least 24 months. Orthovoltage therapy seems to be superior to treatment with a linear accelerator in a case-related analysis of the published samples. Further investigations should be performed for a definitive answer to this question.

Purpose: Osteoarthritis of the ankle and tarsal joints is less common than osteoarthritis of the knee or hip, but the associated disability is at least as severe as that of the other major joints of the lower limb. The results for total arthroplasty are still not satisfactory. For this reason, arthrodesis is still the gold standard of non-joint-conserving surgery. For the reason of functionality, joint-conserving therapies play a major role in treatment of ankle and tarsal osteoarthritis. Low-dose radiotherapy has a long history of treatment of osteoarthritis. The aim of this survey was to examine the results of low-dose radiotherapy for osteoarthritis of the ankle and tarsal joints., Materials and Methods: The analysis was performed on patients of three German radiotherapy institutions and included 66 irradiated joints. Pain was documented with the numeric rating scale (NRS). Evaluation of the NRS was done before and directly after each radiation therapy course as well as for the follow-up of 24 months. The median age of the patients was 68 years, with 24.5% male and 75.5% female patients. The upper ankle was treated in 37.9%, the lower ankle in 27.3% and the tarsal joints in 34.8%., Results: We could find a significant response to radiotherapy. For the whole sample, the median pain was 7 on the NRS before radiotherapy, 5 after 6 and 12 weeks, and 4 after 12 months. The percentage of patients with 0 or 1 on the NRS was 19.6% 12 months after radiotherapy. An improvement of joint mobility could be detected in 56.7% of the cases. All investigated subgroups had a significant reduction in pain., Conclusion: Radiotherapy of ankle and tarsal osteoarthritis is an effective treatment without showing side effects. All analysed subgroups show a good response to radiotherapy for at least 24 months.

Background: Humeral epicondylitis is a common elbow disease. The prevalence is about 1.7%. One of the most effective treatment options is radiotherapy. Some authors mention that they apply a second or third course of radiation for recurrent pain or partial or no response to the initial course. As the results of a re-irradiation have not been systematically analyzed, the aim of this study was to document the results of repeated radiation treatment and to identify those patients who will benefit., Material and Methods: The analysis was performed on patients from three German radiotherapy institutions and included 99 re-irradiated elbows. Pain was documented with the numeric rating scale (NRS). Evaluation of the NRS was done before and directly after each radiation therapy as well as for the follow-up of 24 months. The median age of the patients was 51 years with 48.8% male and 51.2% female patients. Repeated radiation was indicated because the initial radiotherapy resulted in 39.7% of no response, in 41.0% of partial response and in 19.3% of recurrent pain., Results: A significant response to re-irradiation was found. For the whole sample the median pain score was 6 before re-irradiation, 3 after 6 weeks, 2 after 12 months and 1 after 24 months. The percentage of patients being free of pain or with very little pain was 50.9% 24 months after re-irradiation. All subgroups, notably those with no response, partial response and recurrent pain had a significant reduction of pain., Conclusion: Re-irradiation of humeral epicondylitis is an effective and safe treatment. All subgroups showed a good response to re-irradiation for at least 24 months.

Purpose: Ionizing radiation is able to cause severe damage to cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). In Germany, the DEGRO/DGK guideline recommends close monitoring of patients with CIEDs undergoing radiotherapy (RT). Nevertheless, especially in the era of intensity-modulated techniques and predominant use of 6 MV photons, errors of CIEDs are rare events. Therefore, we performed daily CIED controls and hypothesized that no relevant device interaction would occur in our cohort., Methods: From 2014 to 2018, we collected data of 51 patients (62 courses) with daily interrogation (n = 1046) of CIED. The dose to the skin above the CIED was measured by semiconductor or ion chamber dosimetry at least once per RT course. In many cases the dose was also calculated., Results: The prescribed dose to the planning target volume (PTV) ranged from 7.5 to 78.0 Gy (IQR 27.8-61.0 Gy). The median measured cumulative dose to the skin above the CIED was 0.17 Gy, whereas the median calculated dose was 1.03 Gy. No error occurred in the group with maximum beam energy >10 MeV. Three events without clinical relevance could be recognized in the group with an intensity-modulated technique at 6 MV. None of the three concerned devices were located directly within the PTV., Conclusion: Errors of CIEDs during RT are rare events. The approach according to the DEGRO/DGK guideline is safe, but also consumes resources. In our cohort it was not compulsory to relocate any CIED. Clinically relevant events are uncommon, so it remains debatable which procedure is necessary. Daily controls could be avoided in some selected cases without compromising patient safety.

Purpose: Osteoarthritis is a common disease with a prevalence of approximately 8.9% among the average population. One treatment option is low-dose radiotherapy. Some authors mention that they apply a second or third course of radiation for recurrent pain or partial or no response to the initial course. As the results of re-irradiation have not been analysed systematically, the aim of this study was to document the results of repeated radiation treatment and to identify those patients who will benefit., Methods and Materials: The analysis was performed on patients of three German radiotherapy institutions and included 217 re-irradiated joints. Pain was documented with the numeric rating scale (NRS). Evaluation of the NRS was done before and directly after each radiation therapy as well as at the follow-up of 24 months. The median age of the patients was 67 years, with 40% male and 60% female patients. Re-irradiation was indicated because the initial radiotherapy resulted in no response in 21.2%, in partial response in 41.5%, and in recurrent pain in 37.3%., Results: We found a significant response to re-irradiation. For the whole sample, the median pain was 6 before re-irradiation, 4 after 6 weeks, and 3 after 12 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months. The percentage of patients being free of pain or with very little pain was approximately 25% 12 months after re-irradiation. All subgroups, notably those with no response to the first course versus partial response to the first course versus recurrent pain, had significant reduction of pain., Conclusion: Re-irradiation of osteoarthritis is an effective and safe treatment. All subgroups showed a good response to re-irradiation for at least 24 months.

Background: Epicondylitis humeri is a common disease with a prevalence of 1.7%. One of the treatment options is radiotherapy. Most published cases were treated with the orthovoltage technique or with a telecobalt device. Many radiotherapy institutions are nowadays using linear accelerators for treatment of epicondylitis humeri. There is a discussion whether the treatment results with linear accelerators are comparable to the orthovoltage technique. The aim of this study was to analyze the results of radiotherapy with a linear accelerator for epicondylitis humeri., Material and Methods: The analysis was performed on patients of 2 German radiotherapy institutions and included 138 irradiated elbows. Pain was documented with the numeric rating scale (NRS). Evaluation of the NRS was done before and directly after each radiation therapy course as well as for the follow-up of 24 months. The median age of the patients was 49 years with 48.4% male and 51.6% female. In all, 81.0% were suffering from from epicondylitis humeri radialis while 16.7% were treated because of epicondylitis humeri ulnaris. In 65.4% the dominant arm was treated., Results: A significant response to radiotherapy could be found. For the whole sample the median pain was 7 on the NRS before radiotherapy, 4 after 6 weeks and 0 after 12 and 24 months. The percentage of patients with 0 or 1 on the NRS was 64.6% 12 months after radiotherapy. All subgroups, notably those with epicondylitis humeri radialis and epicondylitis humeri ulnaris had a significant reduction of pain., Conclusion: Radiotherapy of epicondylitis humeri with a linear accelerator is an effective treatment without showing side effects. All analyzed subgroups showed a good response to radiotherapy for at least 24 months.

Purpose: Osteoarthritis of the knee is a common disease, often associated with a Baker's cyst. Besides osteoarthritis, also other joint pathologies of the knee can be causative for a Baker's cyst. Radiotherapy is known to be an effective treatment for osteoarthritis, with an anti-inflammatory effect. As the excessive production of synovia usually is associated with intraarticular inflammation, our hypothesis was that radiotherapy might positively influence the synovial production and reduce the volume of a Baker's cyst., Materials and Methods: We performed a prospective trial, including 20 knees receiving radiotherapy for knee arthritis. Besides documentation of NRS (numeric rating scale), WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) score and Knee Society Score, the volume of the Baker's cyst was calculated for a short- (6 to 12 weeks) and long-term (9 to 12 months) follow-up. Ultrasonic volumetry was performed using an ultrasound device with a high-resolution multifrequency linear probe (6-9 MHz)., Results: Low-dose radiotherapy improved NRS, WOMAC score and Knee Society Score significantly. The mean volume of Baker's cyst decreased from 22.3 ml to 10.7 respectively 3.1 ml during follow-up. A decrease in volume of more than 25% compared to the baseline could be achieved for 75% of the patients in the short-term and 79% of the patients in the long-term follow up., Conclusion: Radiotherapy of knee osteoarthritis is an effective treatment that decreases the volume of a Baker's cyst. Most patients respond to the treatment. Whether radiotherapy is an effective treatment for Baker's cyst without associated osteoarthritis has to be further examined.

Background: Cetuximab (CET) is a potent inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor and has been shown to have activity in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). We conducted a single-arm phase II trial of a combination therapy comprising cisplatin (CIS), CET and hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HART)., Patients and Methods: Patients with UICC stage III or IVA/B, M0 SCCHN were enrolled and treated with an initial dose of CET (400 mg/m 2 ) and then with a weekly dosage of 250 mg/m 2 during HART. HART was started with a prescribed dosage of 2.0 Gy per day for 3 weeks, followed by 1.4 Gy twice daily to a total dose of 70.6 Gy to the gross tumour volume. CIS (40 mg/m 2 ) was administered weekly (days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 and 36). The primary objective of the phase II study was to determine the 2‑year progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Between November 2007 and November 2010, a total of 74 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 65 were evaluable (83% were men). Median age was 56 years (range 37-69 years). An Oropharyngeal primary tumour was diagnosed in 49%, T4a,b in 65% and N2/3 in 96% of the patients. Of these patients, 85% were smokers or ex-smokers. Complete remission (CR) was observed in 23 patients (35%). The most common toxicity grade was ≥3, including mucositis (58%) and dysphagia (52%). The 2‑ and 5‑year overall survival rates were 64 and 41%, the 2‑ and 5‑year PFS rates were 45 and 32%, and the 2‑ and 5‑year locoregional control rates were 47 and 33%, respectively., Conclusion: The combination of weekly CIS with HART plus CET is a feasible regimen for these unfavourable smoking-induced cancers. However, the parallel US study (RTOG 0522) showed no advantage of the enhanced triple therapy compared to chemoradiotherapy alone.

Background: In this randomized multicenter trial, we compared the effect of a lower single dose of 0.5 Gy vs. a standard single dose of 1 Gy concerning pain relief and quality of life, while maintaining a uniform total dose of 6 Gy. On the basis of laboratory observations, the lower single dose would be expected to be more effective., Patients and Methods: A total of 127 patients suffering from painful heel spur were randomized: Patients in the standard group were treated with single fractions of 6 × 1 Gy twice a week, while the experimental group was treated with single fractions of 12 × 0.5 Gy three times a week. Patients who did not show satisfactory pain relief after 12 weeks were offered re-irradiation with the standard dose. The study's primary endpoints were pain relief and quality of life. Therapy results were evaluated and compared based on follow-up examinations after 12 and 48 weeks., Results: The data of 117 patients could be evaluated. There was no significant difference between the groups concerning the results of a visual analogue scale (VAS), Calcaneodynia Score (CS), and the somatic scale of the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey(SF-12). Patients undergoing re-irradiation showed a significant benefit concerning pain relief. Their total outcome was comparable to patients showing a good response from the beginning. No relevant acute or chronic side effects were recorded., Conclusion: Both patient groups showed good results concerning pain relief. A fractionation schedule of 12 × 0.5 Gy was not superior to the current standard dose of 6 × 1 Gy. Further trials are necessary to explore the best fractionation schedule.

Purpose: Painful heel spur syndrome is a common disease with a lifetime prevalence of approximately 10 %. One of the most effective treatment options is radiotherapy. Many authors recommend a second or third series of radiation for recurrent pain and partial or no response to the initial treatment. As the results of re-irradiation have not been systematically analyzed the aim of this study was to document the results of repeated radiation treatment and to identify patients who could benefit from this treatment., Material and Methods: The analysis was performed on patients from 2 German radiotherapy institutions and included 101 re-irradiated heels. Pain was documented with the numeric rating scale (NRS) and carried out before and directly after each radiation therapy as well as for the follow-up period of 24 months. The median age of the patients was 56 years with 30.1 % male and 69.9 % female patients. Pain was caused by plantar fasciitis in 72.3 %, Haglund's exostosis in 15.8 % and Achilles tendinitis in 11.9 %. Repeated radiation was indicated because the initial radiotherapy resulted in no response in 35.6 % of patients, partial response in 39.6 % and recurrent pain in 24.8 %., Results: A significant response to re-irradiation could be found. For the whole sample the median NRS pain score was 6 before re-irradiation, 2 after 6 weeks and 0 after 12 and 24 months. Of the patients 73.6 % were free of pain 24 months after re-irradiation. All subgroups, notably those with no response, partial response and recurrent pain had a significant reduction of pain., Conclusion: Re-irradiation of painful heel spur syndrome is an effective and safe treatment. All subgroups showed a good response to re-irradiation for at least 24 months.