Search

Background/aim The aim of the study was to investigate boost volume definition, doses, and delivery techniques for rectal cancer dose intensification. Patients and methods An online survey was made on 25 items (characteristics, simulation, imaging, volumes, doses, planning and treatment). Results Thirty-eight radiation oncologists joined the study. Twenty-one delivered long-course radiotherapy with dose intensification. Boost volume was delineated on diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 18 centres (85.7%), and computed tomography (CT) and/or positron emission tomography-CT in 9 (42.8%); 16 centres (76.2%) performed co-registration with CT-simulation. Boost dose was delivered on gross tumor volume in 10 centres (47.6%) and on clinical target volume in 11 (52.4%). The most common total dose was 54-55 Gy (71.4%), with moderate hypofractionation (85.7%). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was used in all centres, with simultaneous integrated boost in 17 (80.8%) and image-guidance in 18 (85.7%). Conclusion A high quality of treatment using dose escalation can be inferred by widespread multidisciplinary discussion, MRI-based treatment volume delineation, and radiation delivery relying on IMRT with accurate image-guided radiation therapy protocols.

Purpose: To assess the efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept in patients suffering from post-radiation macular edema following plaque radiotherapy for choroidal melanoma. Methods: This prospective, interventional case series included patients affected by radiation maculopathy (RM) with macular edema secondary to ruthenium-106 plaque brachytherapy for choroidal melanoma. The effect of intravitreal aflibercept on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central foveal thickness (CFT) detected by spectral domain optical coherence tomography (sd-OCT), and Horgan’s grading scale of RM was evaluated throughout the 24-month follow-up. Intraocular pressure (IOP) and possible complications were also recorded. Results: Nine eyes of 9 patients were included. A mean of 4.4 ± 1.2 injections were given over the 24 months. At the end of follow-up, mean BCVA was significantly improved, from 0.9 ± 0.19 logMAR at baseline to 0.56 ± 0.3 logMAR (P = 0.028), and mean CFT was significantly decreased, from 546 ± 123 μm at baseline to 223 ± 34 μm (P < 0.001). Intravitreal aflibercept lowered baseline maculopathy stage as well. No significant change in IOP values and no complications, such as endophthalmitis, was recorded. Conclusion: Intravitreal aflibercept is an effective treatment for patients with radiation-induced macular edema, allowing functional and anatomical improvements to be achieved with a relatively low number of injections.

PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy of an intravitreal dexamethasone (Dex) implant 0.7 mg compared with intravitreal ranibizumab (Ra) for the treatment of radiation maculopathy with macular edema secondary to plaque brachytherapy in choroidal melanoma. METHODS Eight patients were treated with intravitreal Ra, and eight patients received the Dex intravitreal implant. Visual acuity and foveal thickness were evaluated using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. RESULTS The mean calculated irradiation to the fovea and mean times from brachytherapy to maculopathy development did not differ significantly between groups. In the Ra group, a mean 7.8 ± 3.9 injections were given and the mean follow-up was 33 ± 15 months (range, 7-52 months). In the Dex group, a mean 2.1 ± 0.8 injections were given and the mean follow-up was 22 ± 7 months (range, 11-31 months). The mean visual acuity improved significantly from the baseline to the last follow-up visit in both groups. Foveal thickness decreased significantly in both groups from 459 ± 81 μm to 243 ± 58 μm and from 437 ± 71 μm to 254 ± 44 μm from the baseline to the last follow-up visit in the Ra and Dex groups, respectively. No patients developed significant cataract or ocular hypertension in both groups. CONCLUSION Both Ra and Dex are effective treatments for macular edema secondary to plaque brachytherapy for uveal melanoma. Dex-treated patients required fewer injections to achieve anatomical and functional improvement.

ABSTRACT Lung metastasectomy is considered a safe and potentially curative procedure despite there is not a strong evidence that metastasectomy prolongs long-term survival in patients with lung metastases. Moreover, the debate is open regarding the best approach for lung metastasectomy, video-assisted thoracic surgery versus open approach. A systematic review of literature to clarify what is the best approach to prolong survival in patients with lung metastases was performed. Our study confirms that overall survival is equivalent for video-assisted thoracic surgery and thoracotomy, therefore the ‘gold standard’ surgical treatment for lung metastases remains a point of debate. The choice of the surgical approach still depends more on the single center or surgeon practice than on strong scientific evidence. A prospective randomized trial could clarify the question.

Long-term survival for adult patients with solid tumours continues to increase. For some cancers, the possibility of recurrence after a number of years is extremely low, and the risk of death becomes similar to that of the general population of the same sex and age. During the Fifth European Conference on Survivors and Chronic Cancer Patients held in Siracusa, Italy, June 2014, oncologists, general practitioners, epidemiologists, cancer patients and survivors, and patient advocates joined to discuss the possible use of the term “cured” in reference to some adult patients with solid tumours. The specific focus was the appropriateness of using the term in communicating with cancer patients, survivors, and their families. Initial results of the discussion, in concert with a review of the published literature on the subject, were later further discussed by all participants through electronic communication. The resulting final statement aims to suggest appropriate ways to use the word “cured” in the clinical and communicative setting, to highlight the potential impact of the word on patients, and to open a critical discussion concerning this timely and delicate matter.