Search

Purpose: During the first weeks of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in France, it was necessary to clearly define organizational priorities in the radiation therapy (RT) departments. In this report, we focus on the urgent measures taken to reduce risk for both our staff and patients by reducing the number of patients receiving treatment. Methods and Materials: We reviewed the fractionation schemes for all patients in our department, including those receiving treatment and those soon to start treatment. Our goals were to (1) decrease the number of patients coming daily to the hospital for RT, (2) adapt our human resources to continue patients’ care in the department, and (3) help to cover understaffed COVID-19 sectors of the hospital. Results: We identified 50 patients who were receiving treatment (n = 6), were going to start radiation after CT scan simulation (n = 41), or for whom the CT scan was pending (n = 3). The majority were women (64%) treated for breast cancer (54%). RT was delayed for 22 (44%) patients. The majority were offered hormone therapy as “waiting therapy.” Hypofractionation was considered in 21 (42%) patients mainly with breast cancer (18 of 21, 86%). The number of courses initially planned and replanned as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak during the period of March 15 to May 31, 2020, were 1383 and 683, respectively, which represented a reduction of 50% (including delayed sessions) that allowed our reorganization process. Conclusions: To conserve resources during the pandemic, we successfully reduced the number of patients receiving treatment in a proactive fashion and adapted our organization to minimize the risk of COVID-19 contamination. Departments across the world may benefit from this same approach.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, are multifactorial diseases characterized by a chronic intestinal inflammation. Abdominal and pelvic irradiation can result in acute or chronic digestive toxicity. A few old studies on small population samples have suggested an increase of gastro-intestinal toxicities in patients with IBD in case of irradiation. Nevertheless, the physiopathology is unknown. More recent studies, including new irradiation techniques, have shown less toxicity events in these patients with IBD. There are no recommendations for irradiation in patients with IBD. This review aims to report recent data on this topic and discuss them regarding radiation parameters.

Purpose Morbidity and mortality review (MMR) meetings in radiation therapy (RT) departments aim to monitor radiation-induced toxicities and identify potential factors that may be correlated with their development and severity, particularly treatment planning errors. The aims of the Prospective Registration of Morbidity and Mortality, Individual Radiosensitivity and Radiation Technique (PROUST) survey were to make an inventory of existing MMR procedures and to describe their procedures. Methods and materials The link to the web-based questionnaire of the PROUST survey was sent to 351 radiation oncologists working at 172 centers. The questionnaire included items related to organization, frequency, membership, governance, reasons for nonimplementation of MMR, and interest in its creation. Results As of July 2017, 108 responses had been received from the 172 centers, of which 107 responses were completed for analysis. All centers declared that they had initiated a quality assurance program in their department, including implementation of feedback committees dedicated to the registration, analysis, and correction of precursor events. Less than half of the centers (47%) had implemented MMR procedures. However, there was significant confusion regarding feedback committees in a majority of the centers. MMRs were organized every 6 and 12 months in 21% and 15%, respectively, of the centers. In 60% of the centers, toxicity grade ≥3 was the main reason for the MMR initiation. In routine practice, contouring and dosimetry files were reviewed by 66% and 83%, respectively, of centers practicing MMR. However, only 40% of the centers enrolled data in a registry dedicated to surveillance. Finally, 78% of centers expressed interest in initiating a consensual procedure. Conclusions MMRs are not systematically implemented in RT departments worldwide. In France and in Europe, few departments with quality assurance programs have implemented MMRs. This survey showed that a large majority of centers are interested in implementing an MMR with a formalized procedure. Our project could help increase the interest of the RT community worldwide in this topic.

Purpose After radiation therapy (RT), various radiation-induced toxicities can develop in about one-fourth of patients. An international interest in using morbidity and mortality rates to monitor the quality of care and integrate morbidity and mortality review (MMR) meetings into organizations' governance processes has arisen. We report the first results of patients included in our MMR procedure that included biological assays for individual intrinsic radiosensitivity (IIRS). Methods and Materials Twenty-three patients were prospectively included in the MMR database. Twenty-two were evaluable for IIRS. Prostate (n=10) and breast (n=8) cancers were the most frequent disease types. The total dose delivered, determined according to the type of disease, ranged from 30 to 74 Gy. Our MMR procedure requires strict criteria: patients with unresolved toxicity of grade 3 or higher with availability of clinical (photographic) data, IIRS results obtained from skin biopsy assays, treatment modalities, and follow-up data. The RT technique and dosimetry were reviewed. Results Our prospective registration of toxicities showed mainly rectitis, occurring in 7 cases, and skin toxicities, occurring in 9. Of the 7 patients with rectitis, 5 received 66 Gy of post-prostatectomy RT with V50 (rectum volume receiving 50 Gy) ranging from 45% to 75% and a mean maximal dose of 66.5 Gy. For dermatitis and cystitis, the mean maximal doses were in the range of classical constraints without any overdosage or dose heterogeneity. No errors were found in the review of treatment planning and positioning. Conversely, all the patients were considered biologically as radiosensitive with genomic instability and ATM (ataxia telangiectasia mutated)-dependent DNA double-strand break repair impairments. Conclusions The MMR review of files allowed clear answers for patients on the relationship between clinical events and their IIRS. Our procedure has allowed education of all our staff to monitor, identify, and document clinical, physical, and biological aspects of radiation-induced toxicities. Thus we recommend the introduction of the MMR procedure in RT departments.

Granulocytic sarcomas, also referred to as chloromas or myeloid sarcomas, are extramedullary neoplasms that are composed of immature myeloid cells. This uncommon disease is known to be radiosensitive. However, the total dose and dose per fraction are not standardized. In addition, during the course of radiation therapy, significant reduction of the tumor is usually obtained. Thus, target volume reduction may require an intermediate radiotherapy plan evaluation for an adaptive treatment. A second plan at mid-dose is highly recommended.

Objective:Our study aimed to compare regional node coverage and doses to the organ at risk (OAR) using conventional technique (CT) vs “AMAROS” (AT) vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques in patients receiving regional nodal irradiation (RNI) for breast cancer (BC).Methods:We included 30 consecutive patients with BC who received RNI including axillary nodes. Two independent and blinded dosimetric RNI plans were generated for all patients. For target volume coverage, we analyzed the V95%, the D95%, the mean and the minimal dose within the nodal station. For hotspots within nodal target volume, we used the V105%, the V108% and the maximal doses. For OAR, lung V20, mean lung and heart doses, the maximal dose to the brachial plexus and the axillary-lateral thoracic vessel junction region were compared between the three techniques.Results:Target volume coverage and hotspots: Mean V95% in stations I, II, III and IV were 35.8% and 75% respectively with CV, 22.59 and 59.9% respectively with AT technique and 45.58 and 99.6% respectively with IMRT with statistically significant differences (p < 0.001). Mean V105% (cc) in axillary and supraclavicular stations were 21.3 and 6.4 respectively with CV, 1.2 and 0.02 respectively with AT technique and 0.5 and 0.4 respectively with IMRT with statistically significant differences (p < 0.001).. OARs: The mean ipsilateral lung V20 was 16.9%, 16.4 and 13.3% with CT, AT and IMRT respectively. The mean heart dose (Gy) was 0.3, 0.2 and 0.2 with CT, AT and IMRT respectively. The maximal dose to the plexus brachial (Gy) was 50.3, 46.3 and 47.3 with CT, AT and IMRT respectively. The maximal dose to the axillary-lateral thoracic vessel junction (Gy) was 52.3, 47.3 and 47.6 with CT, AT and IMRT respectively. The differences were statistically significant for all OAR (p < 0.001).Conclusion:AT is a valuable technique for RNI including axilla in patients with limited sentinel lymph node biopsy involvement without additional axillary lymph node dissection since it decreases hotspots in the target volume and lowers the radiation exposure of the OAR. For more advanced tumors or patients who did not respond to primary systemic therapy, CT or IMRT should be considered because of their better coverage of the potentially residual nodal disease. IMRT combines several advantages of offering high conformal plans, limited hotspots and protection of main OAR. The clinical impact of these dosimetric differences need to be addressed.Advances in knowledge:This study is to our knowledge the first to compare conventional three-dimensional and IMRT techniques for regional nodal irradiation for each nodal station in breast cancer in a context of increasing utilization of axillary irradiation.

Radiotherapy (RT) has been used for the treatment of skin cancers since very early after the discovery of X-rays. Indications for radiotherapy in non-melanoma cancers are controversial, and are usually decided according to the tumor type and the possibility of curing the patient with surgery. The introduction of sophisticated surgery techniques and the information of the general population on potential late radiation-induced toxicity and carcinogenesis have led to limiting radiation indications in the dermatologist community. However, radiotherapy has undergone considerable development, including technological advances, to enable limiting doses to the organs at risk. Thus, side effects due to high doses and/or the use of old radiotherapy (RT) techniques have been significantly decreased. In this systematic review we aim to discuss indications of radiotherapy in non-melanoma skin cancers and focus on new advances that may lead to rehabilitating this treatment option according to the tumor's radiosensitivity and the clinical benefit/risk ratio. Finally, for each type of cancer, we suggest "the best RT practice".