Search

Purpose/objectivesThree-dimensional (3D) printing is recognized as an effective clinical and educational tool in procedurally intensive specialties. However, it has a nascent role in radiation oncology. The goal of this investigation is to clarify the extent to which 3D printing applications are currently being used in radiation oncology through a systematic review of the literature.Materials/methodsA search protocol was defined according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included articles were evaluated using parameters of interest including: year and country of publication, experimental design, sample size for clinical studies, radiation oncology topic, reported outcomes, and implementation barriers or safety concerns.ResultsOne hundred and three publications from 2012 to 2019 met inclusion criteria. The most commonly described 3D printing applications included quality assurance phantoms (26%), brachytherapy applicators (20%), bolus (17%), preclinical animal irradiation (10%), compensators (7%), and immobilization devices (5%). Most studies were preclinical feasibility studies (63%), with few clinical investigations such as case reports or series (13%) or cohort studies (11%). The most common applications evaluated within clinical settings included brachytherapy applicators (44%) and bolus (28%). Sample sizes for clinical investigations were small (median 10, range 1-42). A minority of articles described basic or translational research (11%) and workflow or cost evaluation studies (3%). The number of articles increased over time (P

Background: Select patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B cell lymphoma may benefit from bridging radiation (bRT) prior to anti-CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T). Here, we examined patient and treatment factors associated with outcomes and patterns of failure after bRT and CAR-T. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who received bRT prior to axicabtagene ciloleucel, tisagenlecleucel, or lisocabtagene maraleucel between 11/2017-4/2023. Clinical/treatment characteristics, response, and toxicity were extracted. Survival was modeled using Kaplan-Meier or Cox regression models for events distributed over time, or binary logistic regression for disease response. Fisher's Exact Test or Mann-Whitney U methods were used. Results: Of 51 patients, 25.5% had bulky disease and 64.7% had Stage III/IV disease at the time of RT. Comprehensive bRT alone to all disease sites was delivered to 51% of patients, and 29.4% were additionally bridged with systemic therapy. Median follow-up was 10.3 months (95% CI: 7.7-16.4). Overall response rate (ORR) was 82.4% at 30 days post-CAR-T infusion. Median overall survival (OS) was 22.1 months (6.6-not reached) and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.4 months (5.5-30). OS/PFS were 80% (66-99)/78% (64-87) at 1-year, and 59% (44-71)/54% (40-67) at 2-years, respectively. Comprehensive RT to all sites of disease correlated with improved PFS and OS, p ≤ 0.04. Additionally, ECOG ≥2 and Stage III/IV disease predicted poor OS (p ≤ 0.02). Disease bulk, IPI ≥3, and non-GCB histology were poor predictors for disease-specific survival (DSS), p <0.05. The latter two, as well as bRT dose of ≤30 Gy predicted worse PFS (p <0.05). Among patients with advanced stage disease, comprehensive bRT to all sites of disease (n =10) was not associated with improved OS and PFS compared to focal bRT (n =23), p >0.17. No difference was seen in bridging RT vs. chemoRT. Twenty-six patients developed relapse (50.9%), of which 46% was in-field. Risk of in-field relapse correlated with bulky disease (OR=7, 95% CI: 1.2-41, p =0.03) and lack of response at 30 day post-CAR-T evaluation (OR=16.8, 95% CI: 1.6-176, p =0.02), but not with bRT dose (p =0.27). Conclusion: bRT and CART is a good treatment strategy for select patients with aggressive B cell lymphoma. Comprehensive bRT including all sites of disease is associated with improved outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: This survey study investigates long-term patient-reported quality of life for individuals with low-lying rectal cancers, particularly focusing on the potential impact that ostomies may have on overall, sexual, and urinary quality of life. The findings suggest that patients with ostomies may experience a worse quality of life, affecting various aspects of daily life and relationships. These insights may help to inform patient counseling and shared decision making in the context of evolving rectal cancer treatment paradigms where patients have increasing multidisciplinary options. Background: Despite the increasing utilization of sphincter and/or organ-preservation treatment strategies, many patients with low-lying rectal cancers require abdominoperineal resection (APR), leading to permanent ostomy. Here, we aimed to characterize overall, sexual-, and bladder-related patient-reported quality of life (QOL) for individuals with low rectal cancers. We additionally aimed to explore potential differences in patient-reported outcomes between patients with and without a permanent ostomy. Methods: We distributed a comprehensive survey consisting of various patient-reported outcome measures, including the FACT-G7 survey, ICIQ MLUTS/FLUTS, IIEF-5/FSFI, and a specific questionnaire for ostomy patients. Descriptive statistics and univariate comparisons were used to compared demographics, treatments, and QOL scores between patients with and without a permanent ostomy. Results: Of the 204 patients contacted, 124 (60.8%) returned completed surveys; 22 (18%) of these had a permanent ostomy at the time of survey completion. There were 25 patients with low rectal tumors (≤5 cm from the anal verge) who did not have an ostomy at the time of survey completion, of whom 13 (52%) were managed with a non-operative approach. FACTG7 scores were numerically lower (median 20.5 vs. 22, p = 0.12) for individuals with an ostomy. Sexual function measures IIEF and FSFI were also lower (worse) for individuals with ostomies, but the results were not significantly different. MLUTS and FLUTS scores were both higher in individuals with ostomies (median 11 vs. 5, p = 0.06 and median 17 vs. 5.5, p = 0.01, respectively), suggesting worse urinary function. Patient-reported ostomy-specific challenges included gastrointestinal concerns (e.g., gas, odor, diarrhea) that may affect social activities and personal relationships. Conclusions: Despite a limited sample size, this study provides patient-centered, patient-derived data regarding long-term QOL in validated measures following treatment of low rectal cancers. Ostomies may have multidimensional negative impacts on QOL, and these findings warrant continued investigation in a prospective setting. These results may be used to inform shared decision making for individuals with low rectal cancers in both the settings of organ preservation and permanent ostomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]