Search

Additional file 1. Supplementary Table 1. Conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in different risk groups. Supplementary Table 2. Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy in different risk groups. Supplementary Table 3. SBRT in different risk groups.

Bai Y, Gao XS, Qin SB, et al. Onco Targets Ther. 2018;11:2571– 2579.Recently the authors found two main errata in the text thatneed to be corrected.On page 2571, Abstract, Results section, “Two-year overallsurvival 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, 3rdand 4th sentences, “One-year over-all survival was 88.2%.Two-year overall survival was 55.6% (Figure 2A).” shouldread “One-year over-all survival was 64.9%. Two-yearoverall survival was 44.5% (Figure 2A).”On page 2574, Response and survival outcomes section, 10thsentence, “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 ofoverall 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 localcontrol rate was 100%. Two-year local control rate was 85.7%.(C) Patients with B90≥ 65% (n=19) achieved a higher localcontrol 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– 4.9months, respectively; P=0.010). (D) Patients with B80≥ 90%(n=20) achieved a higher local control rate than those withB80< 90% (n=10) (median survival=14.9 months vs 3.5months, 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 plotsof local control for all patients. One-year local control rate was 100%. Two-year local control rate was 57.1%. (C) Patientswith B90≥ 65% (n=19) achieved a higher local control ratethan those with B90< 65% (n=11) (median survival=15.2months 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 localcontrol rate was as high as 85.7%, even stage IV NSCLCwere 40%.” should read “Therefore, daily SABR wasapplied in our article and the 1-year local control rate wasas high as 100%, even stage IV NSCLC were 40%.”Despite the correction in the text list as above, the Figuresof Kaplan–Meier plots of overall survival and local controlare correct, and the error doesn`t the change the overallfindings reported in the paper. We can still conclude that“This retrospective study suggests that P-SABR is feasibleand well tolerated in bulky NSCLC. Local control rate isencouraging, especially for the B90≥ 65% group, whichmay due to the ability of P-SABR to optimize BED withequivalent toxicity”. The authors apologize for this error.Read the original article

Shang-Bin Qin,1 Xian-Shu Gao,1 Hong-Zhen Li,1 Chao-Xing Liu,2 Dong-Liang Hou,3 Wei-Dong Nian,4 Xue-Ying Li,5 Dian Wang61Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Radiation Oncology, Shijiazhuang City First Hospital, Shijiazhuang, People’s Republic of China; 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 4Department of General Surgery, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 5Department of Medical Statistics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 6Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USAPurpose: 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.Keywords: radiation proctitis, epinephrine, radiotherapy

Between November 1984 and August 1992 we used hyperthermotherapy in six cases of local recurrence of rectal cancer. Hyperthermotherapy was performed on the average 8.7 times (range: 3-18) for each patient for 60 min each. All patients underwent combined radiotherapy and received a mean radiation dose of 42.5 Gy (range: 9-60 Gy). Five patients underwent heating within 1 h after irradiation and one patient simultaneously with the irradiation. Four patients underwent combined chemotherapy and two patients immunotherapy. Before the treatment all patients had painful lesions, but pain decreased posttherapeutically in five patients. Performance status improved in two patients. High carcinoembryonic antigen levels prior to the therapy in four patients decreased in all cases after treatment. Posttherapeutical computed tomograms revealed only minor response or no changes. After the treatment, four patients died of exacerbations of recurrent tumors and one patient of distant metastases. The patient who underwent simultaneous radiohyperthermotherapy is presently alive, in August 1992, 38 months after initiation of the treatment. The 50% survival time after initiation of the treatment was 25 months (range: 10-38 months). Hyperthermotherapy combined with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy was useful for the alleviation of pain in patients who developed local recurrence after surgery, and improved survival after recurrences can be expected.

We performed a long-term follow-up of 4 patients with penile cancer who underwent hyperthermotherapy from August 1985 until August 1992. Hyperthermia was applied using a frequency of 350 MHz with a waveguide applicator twice a week for 60 min each for an average of 9.5 times (varying from 6 to 13 times). The total heating time that the temperature of urethra could be kept above 42 degrees C, was 166 min on the average (ranging from 0 to 463 min). Two patients classified as stage I according to the Jackson classification and 1 patient classified as stage IV underwent combined radiotherapy and received an average radiation dose of 53 Gy (range, 40-70 Gy). Among these patients 2 underwent combined chemotherapy with bleomycin or peplomycin. Malignant cells disappeared posttherapeutically and in August 1992, after an average of 5 years and 9 months (varying from 4 years 6 months to 6 years 10 months), the patients were free of recurrences. The one patient on stage IV had extensive invasion of the abdominal wall, but still recovered completely. One patient on stage III underwent combined chemotherapy and hyperthermotherapy, but heating had obviously been insufficient. There was a residue of malignant cells after the treatment and we performed a penectomy. Regarding functional preservation of the penis a multidisciplinary therapy incorporating hyperthermotherapy can be expected to increase the curativity. This indicates that it could induce in an advanced case, where an operation would be difficult, complete remission.