Search

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a widespread malignancy with global significance, which substantially affects cancer-related mortality. Its spectrum varies widely, from slow-progressing cases to aggressive or even lethal forms. Effective patient stratification into risk groups is crucial to therapeutic decisions and clinical trials. This review examines a wide range of diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers, several of which are integrated into clinical guidelines, such as the PHI, the 4K score, PCA3, Decipher, and Prolaris. It also explores the emergence of novel biomarkers supported by robust preclinical evidence, including urinary miRNAs and isoprostanes. Genetic alterations frequently identified in PCa, including BRCA1/BRCA2, ETS gene fusions, and AR changes, are also discussed, offering insights into risk assessment and precision treatment strategies. By evaluating the latest developments and applications of PCa biomarkers, this review contributes to an enhanced understanding of their role in disease management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a critical global public health issue with its incidence on the rise. Radiation therapy holds a primary role in PCa treatment; however, radiation resistance has become increasingly challenging as we uncover more about PCa's pathogenesis. Our review aims to investigate the multifaceted mechanisms underlying radiation therapy resistance in PCa. Specifically, we will examine how various factors, such as cell cycle regulation, DNA damage repair, hypoxic conditions, oxidative stress, testosterone levels, epithelial–mesenchymal transition, and tumor stem cells, contribute to radiation therapy resistance. By exploring these mechanisms, we hope to offer new insights and directions towards overcoming the challenges of radiation therapy resistance in PCa. This can also provide a theoretical basis for the clinical application of novel ultra-high-dose-rate (FLASH) radiotherapy in the era of PCa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is one of the treatment options for oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) but is limited by a lack of data to evaluate high-dose SABR to all/multiple sites. Objective: This study retrospectively investigated the efficacy and prognostic factors of high-dose SABR for oligometastatic RCC patients. Design, setting, and participants: Patients with oligometastatic RCC on systemic therapy were retrospectively collected. Intervention(s): All patients were treated with SABR (40–50 Gy/5 fractions) for small tumors or partial-SABR (tumor center boosted with 6–8 Gy/3–5 fractions with 50–60 Gy/20–25 fractions to the whole tumor volume) for bulky tumors or tumors adjacent to critical organs. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Results and limitations: In total, 35 patients were enrolled, of which 88.5% had intermediate- or high-risk disease, with 60% on second- to fourth-line systemic therapy. The median follow-up time was 17 months. The median PFS and OS times were 11.3 and 29.7 months, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that an OS benefit was found in patients who received radiation before tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) failure (p = 0.006) and where there was a short time interval (

Purpose: To investigate the potential clinical benefit of utilizing intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) to reduce acute hematologic toxicity for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) patients and explore the feasibility of a model-based patient selection approach via the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). Methods: Twenty patients with LA-NSCLC were retrospectively selected. Volumetric modulated arc photon therapy (VMAT) and IMPT plans were generated with a prescription dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions. A wide range of cases with varied tumor size, location, stations of metastatic lymph nodes were selected to represent the general cancer group. Contouring and treatment planning followed RTOG-1308 protocol. Doses to thoracic vertebral bodies (TVB) and other organ at risks were compared. Risk of grade ≥ 3 acute hematologic toxicity (HT3+) were calculated based on the NTCP model, and patients with a reduction on NTCP of HT3+ from VMAT to IMPT (△NTCP_HT3+) ≥ 10% were considered to 'significantly benefit from proton therapy.' Results: Compared to VMAT, IMPT significantly reduced the dose to the TVB, the lung, the heart, the esophagus and the spinal cord. Tumor distance to TVB was significantly associated with △NTCP _HT3+ ≥ 10%. For the patients with tumor distance ≤ 0.7 cm to TVB, the absolute reduction of dose (mean, V30 and V40) to TVB was significantly lower than that in patients with tumor distance > 0.7 cm. Conclusion: IMPT decreased the probability of HT3+ compared to VMAT by reducing the dose to the TVB in LA-NSCLC patients. Patients with tumor distance to TVB less than 0.7 cm are likely to benefit most from proton over photon therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We retrospectively analyzed the oncological outcomes of T3 or G3 distal ureteral urothelial carcinoma (DUUC) underwent partial ureterectomy (PU) followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (ART). Methods: From January 2008 to September 2019, clinical data from a total of 221 patients with pathologic T3 or G3 who underwent PU or RNU at our hospital were analyzed. 17 patients of them were treated with PU+ART, 72 with PU alone and 132 with radical nephroureterectomy (RNU). Clinicopathologic outcomes were evaluated. Survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression addressed recurrence-free survival (RFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Median age and follow-up time were 68 (IQR 62-76) years old and 43 (IQR 28-67) months, respectively. In univariate and multivariable analyses, no lymph node metastasis(LNM) and ART were independent prognostic factors of RFS (p=0.031 and 0.016, respectively). ART significantly improved 5-year RFS compared with the PU alone, (67.6% vs. 39.5%, HR: 2.431, 95%CI 1.210-4.883, p=0.039). There was no statistical difference in 5-year RFS between PU+ART and RNU groups (67.6% vs. 64.4%, HR=1.113, 95%CI 0.457-2.712, p=0.821). Compared with PU alone or RNU, PU+ART demonstrated no statistical difference in 5-year MFS (PU+ART 73.2%, PU 57.2%, RNU69.4%), CSS (70.7%, 55.1%, 76.6%, respectively), and OS (70.7%, 54.1%, 69.2%, respectively). Conclusions: For distal ureteral urothelial carcinoma patients with T3 or G3, adjuvant radiotherapy could significantly improve recurrence-free survival compared with partial ureterectomy alone. There was no significant difference between survival outcomes of PU+ART and radical nephroureterectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate the potential clinical benefits of using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) among different treatment modalities and planning strategies, including photon and proton. Method: A total of 19 patients were retrospectively selected in this study: 13 cases with the tumor located in the head of the pancreas and 6 cases with the tumor in the body of the pancreas. SBRT-SIB plans were generated using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), two-field Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT), and three-field IMPT. The IMPT used the robust optimization parameters of ± 3.5% range and 5-mm setup uncertainties. Root-mean-square deviation dose (RMSD) volume histograms were used to evaluate the target coverage robustness quantitatively. Dosimetric metrics based on the dose-volume histogram (DVH), homogeneity index (HI), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were analyzed to evaluate the potential clinical benefits among different planning groups. Results: With a similar CTV and SIB coverage, two-field IMPT provided a lower maximum dose for the stomach (median: 18.6GyE, p<0.05) and duodenum (median: 32.62GyE, p<0.05) when the target was located in the head of the pancreas compared to VMAT and three-field IMPT. The risks of gastric bleed (3.42%) and grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity (4.55%) were also decreased. However, for the target in the body of the pancreas, VMAT showed a lower maximum dose for the stomach (median 30.93GyE, p<0.05) and toxicity of gastric bleed (median: 8.67%, p<0.05) compared to two-field IMPT and three-field IMPT, while other maximum doses and NTCPs were similar. The RMSD volume histogram (RVH) analysis shows that three-field IMPT provided better robustness for targets but not for OARs. Instead, three-field IMPT increased the Dmean of organs such as the stomach, duodenum, and intestine. Conclusion: The results indicated that the tumor locations could play a critical role in determining clinical benefits among different treatment modalities. Two-field IMPT could be a better option for LAPC patients whose tumors are located in the head of the pancreas. It provides lower severe toxicity for the stomach and duodenum. Nevertheless, VMAT is preferred for the body with better protection for the possibility of gastric bleed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate dosimetric properties of intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for simulated treatment planning in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) targeting left atrial‐pulmonary vein junction (LA‐PVJ), in comparison with volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (TOMO). Methods: Ten thoracic 4D‐CT scans with respiratory motion and one with cardiac motion were used for the study. Ten respiratory 4D‐CTs were planned with VMAT, TOMO, and IMPT for simulated AF. Targets at the LA‐PVJ were defined as wide‐area circumferential ablation line. A single fraction of 25 Gy was prescribed to all plans. The interplay effects from cardiac motion were evaluated based on the cardiac 4D‐CT scan. Dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) of the ITV and normal tissues were compared. Statistical analysis was evaluated via one‐way Repeated‐Measures ANOVA and Friedman's test with Bonferroni's multiple comparisons test. Results: The median volume of ITV was 8.72cc. All plans had adequate target coverage (V23.75Gy ≥ 99%). Compared with VMAT and TOMO, IMPT resulted in significantly lower dose of most normal tissues. For VMAT, TOMO, and IMPT plans, Dmean of the whole heart was 5.52 ± 0.90 Gy, 5.89 ± 0.78 Gy, and 3.01 ± 0.57 Gy (P < 0.001), mean dose of pericardium was 4.74 ± 0.76 Gy, 4.98 ± 0.62 Gy, and 2.59 ± 0.44 Gy (P < 0.001), and D0.03cc of left circumflex artery (LCX) was 13.96 ± 5.45 Gy, 14.34 ± 5.91 Gy, and 8.43 ± 7.24 Gy (P < 0.001), respectively. However, no significant advantage for one technique over the others was observed when examining the D0.03cc of esophagus and main bronchi. Conclusions: IMPT targeting LA‐PVJ for patients with AF has high potential to reduce dose to surrounding tissues compared to VMAT or TOMO. Motion mitigation techniques are critical for a particle‐therapy approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is not known which risk stratification system has the best discrimination ability for predicting prostate cancer death. Methods: We identified patients with non-metastatic primary prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosis between 2004 and 2015 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Patients were categorized in different risk groups using the three frequently used risk stratification systems of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline (NCCN-g), American Urological Association guideline (AUA-g), and European Association of Urology guideline (EAU-g), respectively. Associations between risk classification and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) were determined using Kaplan–Meier analyses and multivariable regression with Cox proportional hazards model. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) analyses were used to test the discrimination ability of the three risk grouping systems. Results: We analyzed 310,062 patients with a median follow-up of 61 months. A total of 36,368 deaths occurred, including 6,033 prostate cancer deaths. For all the three risk stratification systems, the risk groups were significantly associated with PCSM. The AUC of the model relying on NCCN-g, AUA-g, and EAU-g risk stratification systems for PCSM at specifically 8 years were 0.818, 0.793, and 0.689 in the entire population; 0.819, 0.795, and 0.691 in Whites; 0.802, 0.777, and 0.681 in Blacks; 0.862, 0.818, and 0.714 in Asians; 0.845, 0.806, and 0.728 in Chinese patients. Regardless of the age, marital status, socioeconomic status, and treatment modality, AUC of the model relying on NCCN-g and AUA-g for PCSM was greater than that relying on EAU-g; AUC of the model relying on NCCN-g system was greater than that of the AUA-g system. Conclusions: The NCCN-g and AUA-g risk stratification systems perform better in discriminating PCSM compared to the EAU-g system. The discrimination ability of the NCCN-g system was better than that of the AUA-g system. It is recommended to use NCCN-g to evaluate risk groups for prostate cancer patients and then provide more appropriate corresponding treatment recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and toxicity of intra-rectal epinephrine during prostatic radiotherapy. Materials and methods: A total of 34 patients with prostate cancer were randomized to receive daily intra-rectal epinephrine (4 mg in 40 mL, n=16) or placebo (40 mL normal saline, n=18) 5 min before daily radiotherapy. Physical examination including systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR) was performed before, 5 min after, and 20 min after intra-rectal use. Toxicities were graded using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group standard. A two-sided Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions between groups. A mixed-effects model was used to analyze multiple measurements of SBP and HR. Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared between groups using the log-rank test. Results: All patients completed the protocol treatment and reported no cardiovascular symptoms after intra-rectal administration. There were no differences in SBP and HR between these two groups at any time point (before, 5 min after, and 20 min after epinephrine). At 5 weeks after the start of radiotherapy, the incidence of rectal toxicity≥grade 2 was 27.8% (5/18) for the control group versus 12.5% (2/16) for the epinephrine group, but was not statistically significant (p=0.4). There was no rectal toxicity≥grade 2 in these two groups beyond 2-year follow-up. The 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival was 75.0% and 72.2% for the epinephrine and control group, respectively. Conclusion: Results of this pilot randomized trial have demonstrated that intra-rectal administration of epinephrine is feasible and safe in prostatic radiotherapy. Its radio-protective effect warrants further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aims to test whether Cordyceps sinensis (CS), the most expensive Asian nutrient supplement might stimulate growth of prostate cancer cells. Methods: Impact of CS on growth of prostate cancer was determined in vivo and in vitro. Results: Firstly, the serum testosterone level was significantly elevated in mice fed CS. Prostate glands were significantly enlarged (weight index 0.53 ± 0.04 mg/g vs. 0.31 ± 0.04 mg/g, P = 0.006). Furthermore, cell viability was increased twofold in the androgen-responsive prostate cancer cell line (VCaP) after CS treatment. This promoting effect disappeared after bicalutamide was added. In addition, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in mice bearing VCaP xenografts was significantly elevated (0.66 ± 0.04 ng/ml vs. 0.26 ± 0.06 ng/ml, P < 0.001) after treatment with CS. Finally, VCaP tumors in mice treated with CS grew much faster (479.2 ± 78.74 mm3 vs. 283 ± 58.97 mm3, P = 0.074). However, the above promoting effects of CS were not observed in parallel studies using the PC-3 cell line which lacks AR expression. Conclusions: These results suggest that CS promotes growth of prostate cancer cells by increasing production of testosterone and stimulating the AR-dependent pathway. Additional studies are required to see whether CS is safely consumed by patients with prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Bulky non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is difficult to achieve effective local control by conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CRT). The present work aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of partial stereotactic ablative boost radiotherapy (P-SABR) in bulky NSCLC. Patients and methods: From December 2012 through August 2017, 30 patients with bulky NSCLC treated with P-SABR technique were analyzed. The P-SABR plan consisted of one partial SABR plan (5–9 Gy/f, 3–6 fractions) to gross tumor boost (GTVb), followed by one CRT plan to the planning target volume (PTV). GTVb was the max volume receiving SABR to guarantee the dose of organs-at-risks (OARs) falloff to about 3 Gy/f. The total dose of PTV margin was planned to above 60 Gy. The simply CRT plans were created using the same planning parameters as the original plan, with the goal to achieve comparable OARs doses and PTV margin dose to the P-SABR plan. Dosimetric variables were acquired in both P-SABR and compared CRT plans. Toxicity, local control, and survival were also evaluated. Results: Median follow-up in survivors was 10.3 months (range=2.3–39.4 months). Eleven patients (36.7%) had partial response (PR) and ten patients (33.3%) had stable disease (SD). Two-year overall survival was 55.6%. Two-year local control rate was 85.7%. No severe acute side effects.CTCAE Grade III were observed. Compared to the simply CRT plan, P-SABR plans achieved similar doses to the OARs and Dmin, but increased dose at the isocenter, Dmean, Dmax, and biological equivalent dose (BED) significantly (P<0.05). BED in the tumor center could reach 107.3 Gy (93.2–132 Gy). Patients with B90≥65% achieved a higher local control rate than those with B90<65% (P=0.010). Conclusion: This retrospective study suggests that P-SABR is feasible and well tolerated in bulky NSCLC. Local control rate is encouraging, especially for the B90≥65% group, which may due to the ability of P-SABR to optimize BED with equivalent toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) is a parameter reflecting inflammatory responses in patients with cancer. Several studies have investigated the prognostic value of PLR in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC); however, the results are controversial. Thus, we carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate the association between PLR and CRC prognostication. Relevant articles were retrieved through PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, and pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed by using STATA V.12.0. Both the random-effects model and fixed-effects model were utilized. A total of 13 studies (14 cohorts) with 8,601 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled HRs and 95% CIs demonstrated that increased PLR predicted poor overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.81, 95%CI:1.42–2.31, p<0.001; I2 = 65%, Ph = 0.002), disease-free survival (DFS) (HR = 1.84, 95%CI:1.22–2.76, p = 0.003; I2 = 78.3%, Ph<0.001) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 1.84, 95%CI:1.41–2.41, p<0.001; I2 = 0, Ph = 0.686), although this was not the case for cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR = 1.75, 95%CI:0.59–5.17, p = 0.309; I2 = 66.2%, Ph = 0.085) or time to recurrence (TTR) (HR = 1.21 95%CI:0.62–2.36, p = 0.573;I2 = 58.4%, Ph = 0.121). Subgroup analysis showed that PLR enhanced the prognostic value for OS in Caucasian patients, in small sample studies and for metastatic disease; however, this was not the case with rectal cancer. Furthermore, elevated PLR predicted reduced DFS in Caucasians and not in Asians. In conclusion, our meta-analysis showed that high PLR was a significant biomarker for poor OS, DFS, and RFS in patients with CRC; however, it had no association with CSS or TTR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To clarify the radiotherapy clinical target volume (CTV) margin needed for esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Methods and Materials: Surgical specimens of esophageal SCC (n = 34) and GEJ adenocarcinoma (n = 32) were prospectively collected and analyzed for microscopic spread along the esophagus and GEJ both proximally and distally from gross tumor and for lymph node (LN) metastasis. Results: For SCC, the mean microscopic spread beyond the gross tumor was 10.5 +/- 13.5 mm proximally (<30 mm in 32 of 34 cases) and 10.6 +/- 8.1 mm distally (<30 mm in 33 of 34 cases). For GEJ adenocarcinoma, the spread was 10.3 +/- 7.2 mm proximally (<30 mm in 29 of 29 cases) and 18.3 +/- 16.3 mm distally (<30 mm in 27 of 32 cases). The extent of microscopic spread of cancer was significantly associated with pathologic T stage (p = 0.012). LN metastases were observed in 12 (35%) of 34 patients with middle and lower esophageal SCC and 15 (47%) of 32 patients with GEJ adenocarcinoma. Conclusions: The extent of microscopic spread within esophagus (recommended CTV margin) was <30 mm in about 94% of cases of esophageal cancer, except for distal microscopic spread in GEJ adenocarcinoma, in which 50 mm was needed to cover about 94% of cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract, Results section, "Two-year overall survival was 55.6%. Two-year local control rate was  85.7%" should read "One-year overall survival was  64.9%. One-year local control rate was 100%".On page 2574, Response and survival outcomes section, 3rd and 4th sentences, "One-year over-all survival was 88.2%. Two-year overall survival was 55.6% (Figure 2A)." should read "One-year over-all survival was 64.9%. Two-year overall survival was 44.5% (Figure 2A)."On page 2574, Response and survival outcomes section, 10th sentence, "Two-year local control rate was 85.7%. (Figure  2B)." should read "Two-year local control rate was 57.1%. (Figure 2B)."On page 2575, Figure 2 legend, "(A) Kaplan–Meier plots of overall survival for all patients. One-year overall survival was  88.2%. Two-year overall survival was 55.6%. (B) Kaplan–Meier plots of local control for all patients. One-year local control rate was 100%. Two-year local control rate was 85.7%. (C) Patients with B90≥ 65% (n=19) achieved a higher local control rate than those with B90< 65% (n=11) (median survival=15.2 months vs 3.5 months, CI=6.8– 23.6 and 2.2– 4.9 months, respectively; P=0.010). (D) Patients with B80≥ 90% (n=20) achieved a higher local control rate than those with B80< 90% (n=10) (median survival=14.9 months vs 3.5 months, CI=3.4– 26.3 and 1.8– 5.2 months, respectively; P=0.045)." should read "(A) Kaplan–Meier plots of overallsurvival for all patients. One-year overall survival was 64.9%. Two-year overall survival was 44.5%. (B) Kaplan–Meier plots of local control for all patients. One-year local control rate was  100%. Two-year local control rate was 57.1%. (C) Patients with B90≥ 65% (n=19) achieved a higher local control rate than those with B90< 65% (n=11) (median survival=15.2 months vs 3.5 months, CI=6.8– 23.6 and 2.2– 4.9 months, respectively; P=0.010). (D) Patients with B80≥ 90% (n=20) achieved a higher local control rate than those with B80< 90% (n=10) (median survival=14.9 months vs 3.5 months, CI=3.4– 26.3 and 1.8– 5.2 months, respectively; P=0.045)."On page 2576, Discussion section, last sentence "Therefore, daily SABR was applied in our article and the 2-year local control rate was as high as 85.7%, even stage IV NSCLC were 40%." should read "Therefore, daily SABR was applied in our article and the 1-year local control rate was as high as 100%, even stage IV NSCLC were 40%."Despite the correction in the text list as above, the Figures of Kaplan–Meier plots of overall survival and local control are correct, and the error doesn't the change the overall findings reported in the paper. We can still conclude that "This retrospective study suggests that P-SABR is feasible and well tolerated in bulky NSCLC. Local control rate is encouraging, especially for the B90≥ 65% group, which may due to the ability of P-SABR to optimize BED with equivalent toxicity". The authors apologize for this error. Read the original article [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with advanced renal cancer (RCC) often have limited success with systemic therapy due to tumor heterogeneity. However, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has been shown to have a beneficial therapeutic effect for oligometastatic disease when used early. Despite this, current guidelines recommend the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) as the first-line therapeutic agent for patients with recurrent or metastatic kidney cancer. Additionally, there is limited data on the combination of systemic treatment and SABR for extensive metastatic RCC due to concerns about high toxicity. Proton therapy offers a promising treatment option as it emits energy at a specific depth, generating high target doses while minimizing damage to normal tissue. This allows for precise treatment of various tumor lesions. In this case report, we describe a high-risk 65-year-old male with extensive pleural and thoracic lymph node metastases and 2 bone metastases of clear cell renal cancer. While the targeted therapy and immunotherapy effectively treated the bone metastases, it was not effective in treating the chest metastases, including the pleural and lymph node metastases. Thus, the patient received full-coverage radiotherapy with photon for primary renal tumor and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for thoracic metastases. The patient showed no evidence of disease for 1 year after the initial radiotherapy, and no severe SABR-related adverse effects were observed until now. The combination of targeted therapy and immunotherapy with full-coverage radiotherapy may be a promising treatment option for selected patients with extensive metastatic renal cancer, especially as proton therapy allows for more precise control of the beam and minimal damage to normal tissue. This case has motivated us to investigate the potential advantages of administering proton therapy concurrently with systemic therapy in the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A recent study has shown that upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients with high-risk factors have a high local recurrence rate. The purpose of this work was to investigate the benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) for patients with high recurrence factors.Methods: Four hundred twenty-four UTUC patients who received radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) in our hospital between 2010 and 2018 were reviewed. The significance of factors on cancer-specific survival (CSS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were assessed using Cox multivariate analysis. In patients with high recurrence factors, propensity score matching was used to adjust the confounding factors for ART.Results: The median follow-up time was 40 (range 3-77) months. Multivariate analysis showed that multifocal tumor, G3, pT3/4 stage and positive lymph node (N+) were independent predictors for worse RFS. Multifocal tumor and pT3/4 stage were independent predictors of worse CSS in UTUC after surgery. A total of 286 patients with these high recurrence factors were identified: 192 (67.1%) patients received RNU only, and 94 (32.9%) patients received ART. Overall, ART did not improve CSS (ART 86.1% vs. RNU 78.5%.; P = 0.11). After propensity score matching, ART significantly improved the CSS of patients with high recurrence factors. The 3-year CSS was 73.1% in patients treated with RNU alone vs. 86.1% in patients treated with ART (P = 0.016).Conclusions: Results of our study demonstrated benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy in cancer specific survival in UTUC patients with high recurrence factors(multifocal tumor ,pT3/4,G3 and positive lymph node). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare and analyze the effect of different clinical target volumes (CTVs) on survival rate after postoperative radiotherapy (RT) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Methods and Materials: We studied 102 patients who underwent postoperative RT after radical resection for esophageal SCC (T3/4 or N1). The radiation dose was ≥50 Gy. In the extensive portal group (E group, 43 patients), the CTV encompassed the bilateral supraclavicular region, all mediastinal lymph nodes, the anastomosis site, and the left gastric and pericardial lymphatic. In the regional portal group (R group, 59 patients), the CTV was confined to tumor bed and the lymph nodes in the immediate region of the primary lesion. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were compared between the groups, and multivariate/univariate analysis for factors predicting survival was studied. Results: For the entire group, the 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were 76.3%, 50.5%, and 42.9%, respectively (median survival, 30 months). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 76.5%, 52.1%, and 41.3%, respectively, in the E group and 76.2%, 49.2%, and 44.6%, respectively, in the R group (not significant). According to the multivariate analysis, N stage, number of lymph nodes with metastatic disease, and tumor length were the independent prognostic factors for survival. Conclusions: Using a regional portal in postoperative RT for esophageal SCC is not associated with compromised survival compared with extensive portal RT and therefore should be considered. N stage, number of affected lymph nodes, and tumor length predict poor survival. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]