Search

Purpose With a new tumor‐tracking system (Synchrony®) for tomotherapy (Radixact®), the internal and set‐up margins can be tightened, like cyberknife (CyberKnife®), in the planning of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. Recently, the usefulness of placing a hydrogel spacer between the prostate and rectum has been established in prostate radiotherapy. We evaluated the characteristics of tomotherapy plans with the tumor‐tracking system and compared them with cyberknife SBRT plans for localized prostate cancer using a hydrogel spacer. Methods In 20 patients, two plans were created and compared using tomotherapy and cyberknife. All patients underwent hydrogel spacer injection behind the prostate before simulation CT and MRI for fusion. For all plans, 36.25 Gy in 7.25‐Gy fractions for a minimum coverage dose of 95% of planning target volume (PTV) (D95%) was prescribed. The D99% of PTV and D0.1 ml of the PTV, urethra, bladder, and rectum were intended to be > 90%, 110–130%, 100–110%

Cancer‐specific death (CSD) and non‐cancer‐specific death (non‐CSD) after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for pulmonary oligometastases have not been studied in detail. The aim of this study was to determine the cumulative incidences of CSD and non‐CSD and to reveal prognostic factors. Data from a large survey of SBRT for pulmonary oligometastases were used for analyses, and patients with unknown cause of death were excluded from current analyses. CSD was primary cancer death and non‐CSD was non‐primary cancer death including a series of cancer treatment‐related deaths. Cumulative incidences were calculated using the Kaplan‐Meier method and a stratified Cox regression model was used for multivariate analyses (MVA). Fifty‐two patients with an unknown death were excluded and a total of 1326 patients was selected. CSD and non‐CSD occurred in 375 and 109 patients, respectively. The median OS period was 53.2 months and the cumulative incidences of 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year CSD vs. non‐CSD rates were 6.5% vs. 2.3%, 29.5% vs. 8.6%, and 41.2% vs. 11.0%, respectively. In MVA, the incidence of CSD was related to performance status (1 vs. 0; p, The incidences cancer‐specific death and non‐cancer‐specific death after stereotactic body radiotherapy for pulmonary oligometastases were 29.5 and 8.6% at 3 years, respectively. Cancer‐specific death significantly related to performance status, oligometastatic state or disease‐free interval and maximum tumor diameter, on the other hand, non‐cancer‐specific death significantly related to age and tumor‐located lung lobe.

Background Despite advances in chemotherapy, curing multiple liver metastases is quite rare. Even when response is obtained, regrowth of the tumors is almost inevitable. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of helical tomotherapy for chemo‐refractory multiple liver metastases. Methods Forty‐five patients with chemo‐refractory multiple (3‐10) liver metastases after standard systemic chemotherapy entered the single‐institutional prospective study. Liver metastases were the major disease; however, 31 also had uncontrolled primary lesions and/or other metastases. The prescribed dose was 55 Gy in 25 fractions. The median planning target volume (PTV) and normal liver volume (NLV) of first treatment were 128 cm3 and 1175 cm3, respectively. The median of V15Gy, V30Gy, and mean dose to NLV were 45%, 23%, and 19.4 Gy, respectively. Results Forty‐two patients (93%) completed the planned treatment. Median survival time (MST) for all patients was 8 months, and the 1‐year survival rate was 29%. The median local control (LC) period was 5 months and the 6‐month control rate of irradiated tumors was 33%. A ≥30% decrease in tumor markers was observed in 31%. The most common grade 3 toxicity was lymphocytopenia (40%), followed by fatigue (6%). Radiation‐induced liver disease (RILD) was not observed. Pancreatic cancer as the primary tumor, distant metastases outside the liver, low pretreatment neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and low pretreatment monocyte‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (MLR) were associated with poorer prognoses. Conclusions Helical tomotherapy for chemo‐refractory multiple liver metastases is a feasible and potentially effective treatment. Incorporating tomotherapy into the first‐line treatment in combination with systemic chemotherapy should be considered. Trial registration number CROG 12005., Despite the remarkable advances of systemic chemotherapy for multiple liver metastases, the efficacy is still limited and cure of the multiple lesions is difficult. Helical tomotherapy for chemo‐refractory multiple liver metastases was suggested to be a feasible and potentially effective treatment with acceptable adverse events.