Search

Purpose The aim of this study is to correlate locoregional relapse with radiation therapy volumes in patients with rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation in the ACCORD 12/0405-PRODIGE 02 trial. Patients and methods We identified patients who had a locoregional relapse included in ACCORD 12's database. We studied their clinical, radiological, and dosimetric data to analyze the dose received by the area of relapse. Results 39 patients (6.5%) presented 54 locoregional relapses. Most of the relapses were in-field (n = 21, 39%) or marginal (n = 13, 24%) with only six out-of-field (11%), 14 could not be evaluated. Most of them happened in the anastomosis, the perirectal space, and the usual lymphatic drainage areas (presacral and posterior lateral lymph nodes). Only patients treated for a lower rectum adenocarcinoma had a relapse outside of the treated volume. 2 patients with T4 tumors extending into anterior pelvic organs had relapses in anterior lateral and external iliac lymph nodes. Conclusions Lowering the upper limit of the treatment field for low rectal tumors increased the risk of out of the field recurrence. For very low tumors, including the inguinal lymph nodes in the treated volume should be considered. Recording locoregional involvement, treated volumes, and relapse areas in future prospective trials would be of paramount interest to refine delineation guidelines.

Introduction: Adjuvant whole-pelvic radiation therapy (WPRT) improves locoregional control for high-intermediate stages I–III endometrial cancer patients. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) tends to replace the standard 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) technique used in trials. Material and methods: Consecutive patients with stages I–IIIc endometrial cancer treated between 2008 and 2014 in our department with post-operative 3DCRT or IMRT WPRT were studied retrospectively. Patients with cervical involvement underwent additional low-dose rate vaginal brachytherapy. The impact of the WPRT technique on local control, tolerance, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed. Clinicians evaluated routinely acute radiation toxicity each week during radiation therapy and late toxicity during standard follow-up consultations. Results: Median follow-up was 50 months (range: 6–158). Among the 83 patients included, 47 were treated with 3DCRT and 36 with IMRT. There was no difference in patient characteristics between groups. The 5-year locoregional control and DFS rates were 94.5% and 68%, respectively. No significant difference was found between the 3DCRT and IMRT groups in terms of survival, with 5-year OS rates of 74.6% and 78%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, age over 68, stage > T1 and grade 3 were independently associated with shorter DFS and OS. Seven patients (8.4%) had grades 3–4 acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity with five patients (10.6%) and two (5.4%) in the 3DCRT and IMRT groups, respectively (p = .69). One case (1.2%) of late grade 3 GI toxicity was observed treated in 3DCRT. Conclusions: IMRT seems to be a safe technique for the treatment of endometrial cancer with a trend towards decreased acute GI toxicities. Results of the phase 3 RTOG 1203 trial are needed to confirm these results.

Currently, the use of radiation therapy for patients with pancreatic cancer is subject to discussion. In adjuvant setting, the standard treatment is 6 months of chemotherapy with gemcitabine and capecitabine. Chemoradiation (CRT) may improve the survival of patients with incompletely resected tumors (R1). This should be confirmed by a prospective trial. Neoadjuvant CRT is a promising treatment especially for patients with borderline resectable tumors. For patients with locally advanced tumors, there is no a standard. An induction chemotherapy followed by CRT for non-progressive patients reduces the rate of local relapse. Whereas in the first trials of CRT large fields were used, the treated volumes have been reduced to improve tolerance. Tumor movements induced by breathing should be taken in account. Intensity modulated radiation therapy allows a reduction of doses to the organs at risk. Whereas widely used, this technique is not recommended.

Purpose: Retrospective comparison of Linac radiosurgery (RS) in 93 single brain metastases with or without a 2-mm margin. Patients and Methods: A total of 153 patients had Linac RS (between April 1992 and June 2004), with 139 patients (90.8%) evaluable in June 2005. Sixty-one patients (44%) had extracranial lesions and 65 patients had neurologic symptoms (47%). RS alone: 105 patients (66%); RS +whole brain radiotherapy: 34 patients (24%). Single metastasis: 93/139 patients; classic RS: 42/93 patients; 2-mm margin: 51/93 patients; 30 multiple lesions patients were excluded. Treatment: 15 Mv X-ray Linac, circular minibeams, 8-30 mm, four to six noncoplanar coronal arcs. Isodose was 60-80%; doses were 10-20 Gy. Follow-up: 12 months-13 years; median, 14 months. Results: Local control (LC) was not improved in 51 margin patients vs. 42 classic RS patients: 1 year: 69.1% and 72.4%. Two-year LC rate: 64% and 54.7%, respectively. Survival: median classic RS: 11.3 months; margin RS, 19 months (p = 0.34) and 1 year, 41.6% and 60.2%, respectively. Margin RS patients had a significantly higher rate of severe parenchymal complications: 19.6% vs. 7.1% (p = 0.02); surgery was necessary in 4 of 51 cases vs. 1 of 42 classic RS cases. Conclusion: No increase ofmore » 1- and 2-year LC rate in margin RS or survival and median survival: 11.3 vs. 19 months (NS) 2-mm margin associated with more severe parenchymal complications (p = 0.02).This procedure is therefore not recommended. Late CT images and 1-mm margin as recommended by pathologists, use of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging and fuzzy method to calculate volumes may yield better results. Stereotactic hypofractionation requires further studies.« less