Explore the vast range of titles available.

Adjuvant radiotherapy reduces the risk of biochemical progression in prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy. We aimed to compare adjuvant versus early salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy, combined with short-term hormonal therapy, in terms of oncological outcomes and tolerance. GETUG-AFU 17 was a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial done at 46 French hospitals. Men aged at least 18 years who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated with radical prostatectomy, who had pathologically-staged pT3a, pT3b, or pT4a (with bladder neck invasion), pNx (without pelvic lymph nodes dissection), or pN0 (with negative lymph nodes dissection) disease, and who had positive surgical margins were eligible for inclusion in the study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either immediate adjuvant radiotherapy or delayed salvage radiotherapy at the time of biochemical relapse. Random assignment, by minimisation, was done using web-based software and stratified by Gleason score, pT stage, and centre. All patients received 6 months of triptorelin (intramuscular injection every 3 months). The primary endpoint was event-free survival. Efficacy and safety analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00667069. Between March 7, 2008, and June 23, 2016, 424 patients were enrolled. We planned to enrol 718 patients, with 359 in each study group. However, on May 20, 2016, the independent data monitoring committee recommended early termination of enrolment because of unexpectedly low event rates. At database lock on Dec 19, 2019, the overall median follow-up time from random assignment was 75 months (IQR 50–100), 74 months (47–100) in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 78 months (52–101) in the salvage radiotherapy group. In the salvage radiotherapy group, 115 (54%) of 212 patients initiated study treatment after biochemical relapse. 205 (97%) of 212 patients started treatment in the adjuvant group. 5-year event-free survival was 92% (95% CI 86–95) in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 90% (85–94) in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·48–1·36; log-rank p=0·42). Acute grade 3 or worse toxic effects occurred in six (3%) of 212 patients in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and in four (2%) of 212 patients in the salvage radiotherapy group. Late grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicities were reported in 125 (59%) of 212 patients in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 46 (22%) of 212 patients in the salvage radiotherapy group. Late genitourinary adverse events of grade 2 or worse were reported in 58 (27%) of 212 patients in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 14 (7%) of 212 patients in the salvage radiotherapy group (p<0·0001). Late erectile dysfunction was grade 2 or worse in 60 (28%) of 212 in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 17 (8%) of 212 in the salvage radiotherapy group (p<0·0001). Although our analysis lacked statistical power, we found no benefit for event-free survival in patients assigned to adjuvant radiotherapy compared with patients assigned to salvage radiotherapy. Adjuvant radiotherapy increased the risk of genitourinary toxicity and erectile dysfunction. A policy of early salvage radiotherapy could spare men from overtreatment with radiotherapy and the associated adverse events. French Health Ministry and Ipsen.

Radioimmunotherapy is being used successfully for the treatment of patients with hematological malignancies, however similar efficacy is lacking in patients with solid tumors. Pouget and colleagues explain basic concepts of radiobiology, review the results of clinical radioimmunotherapy trials, and highlight potential strategies to improve the efficacy of radioimmunotherapy in patients with solid tumors. Conventional external-beam radiation therapy is dedicated to the treatment of localized disease, whereas radioimmunotherapy represents an innovative tool for the treatment of local or diffuse tumors. Radioimmunotherapy involves the administration of radiolabeled monoclonal antibodies that are directed specifically against tumor-associated antigens or against the tumor microenvironment. Although many tumor-associated antigens have been identified as possible targets for radioimmunotherapy of patients with hematological or solid tumors, clinical success has so far been achieved mostly with radiolabeled antibodies against CD20 ( 131 I-tositumomab and 90 Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan) for the treatment of lymphoma. In this Review, we provide an update on the current challenges aimed to improve the efficacy of radioimmunotherapy and discuss the main radiobiological issues associated with clinical radioimmunotherapy. Key Points Radioimmunotherapy is a multi-disciplinary approach that requires the cooperation of radiobiologists, radiolabeling chemists, physicists, immunologists, nuclear medicine physicians, and oncologists Although two radioimmunotherapy agents for patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma have been approved by the FDA, few clinical radioimmunotherapy trials in patients with solid tumors have progressed beyond phase II trials As for external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), radioimmunotherapy schedules need to be rationalized on the basis of accurate and personalized dosimetry, dose fractionation and dose intensification Strategies that increase the absorbed dose by tumor tissue while minimizing the exposure of healthy organs (for example pretargeting strategies) must be developed for improving the efficacy of radioimmunotherapy The radiobiology of radioimmunotherapy is not identical to that of EBRT and must thus be investigated in preclinical models The success of radioimmunotherapy will depend on finding the best combinations with other therapeutic agents

Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is an effective treatment in brain metastases and, when combined with local treatments such as surgery and stereotactic radiosurgery, gives the best brain control. Nonetheless, WBRT is often omitted after local treatment due to its potential late neurocognitive effects. Publications on radiation-induced neurotoxicity have used different assessment methods, time to assessment, and definition of impairment, thus making it difficult to accurately assess the rate and magnitude of the neurocognitive decline that can be expected. In this context, and to help therapeutic decision making, we have conducted this literature review, with the aim of providing an average incidence, magnitude and time to occurrence of radio-induced neurocognitive decline. We reviewed all English language published articles on neurocognitive effects of WBRT for newly diagnosed brain metastases or with a preventive goal in adult patients, with any methodology (MMSE, battery of neurcognitive tests) with which baseline status was provided. We concluded that neurocognitive decline is predominant at 4 months, strongly dependant on brain metastases control, partially solved at later time, graded 1 on a SOMA-LENT scale (only 8% of grade 2 and more), insufficiently assessed in long-term survivors, thus justifying all efforts to reduce it through irradiation modulation.

The genetic background of each person might affect the severity of radiotherapy (RT)-induced normal tissue toxicity. The aim of study was to evaluate the influence of TGFB1 C-509T and Leu10Pro, XRCC1 Arg280His and XRCC3 Thr241Met polymorphisms as well as the level of radiation-induced CD8 T-lymphocyte apoptosis (RILA) on adverse effects of RT for prostate cancer (PCa). The study included 88 patients with localized or locally advanced PCa who were treated with RT. The polymorphisms were determined by PCR–RFLP analysis on DNA from peripheral blood mononuclear cells. RILA values were measured by flow cytometry. We found that CT genotype of TGFB1 C-509T could be protective biomarker for acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) radiotoxicity, while Thr variant of XRCC3 Thr241Met could predict the risk for acute GU radiotoxicity. Correlation between RILA values and toxicity was not detected. Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that Gleason score and risk group were risk factors for late GU, while for late GI radiotoxicity it was diabetes mellitus type 2. However, in multivariate model those were not proven to be significant and independent risk factors. Identification of assays combination predicting individual radiosensitivity is a crucial step towards personalized RT approach.

In oncology, the expanding use of multi-gene panels to explore familial cancer predisposition and tumor genome analysis has led to increased secondary findings discoveries (SFs) and has given rise to important medical, ethical, and legal issues. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published a policy statement for managing SFs for a list of genes, including 25 cancer-related genes. Currently, there are few recommendations in Europe. From June 2016 to May 2017, the French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine (SFMPP) established a working group of 47 experts to elaborate guidelines for managing information given on the SFs for genes related to cancers. A subgroup of ethicists, lawyers, patients’ representatives, and psychologists provided ethical reflection, information guidelines, and materials (written consent form and video). A subgroup with medical expertise, including oncologists and clinical and molecular geneticists, provided independent evaluation and classification of 60 genes. The main criteria were the “actionability” of the genes (available screening or prevention strategies), the risk evaluation (severity, penetrance, and age of disease onset), and the level of evidence from published data. Genes were divided into three classes: for class 1 genes (n = 36), delivering the information on SFs was recommended; for class 2 genes (n = 5), delivering the information remained questionable because of insufficient data from the literature and/or level of evidence; and for class 3 genes (n = 19), delivering the information on SFs was not recommended. These guidelines for managing SFs for cancer-predisposing genes provide new insights for clinicians and laboratories to standardize clinical practices.

Background Biomarkers for predicting late normal tissue toxicity to radiotherapy are necessary to personalize treatments and to optimize clinical benefit. Many radiogenomic studies have been published on this topic. Conversely, proteomics approaches are not much developed, despite their advantages. Methods We used the isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) proteomic approach to analyze differences in protein expression levels in ex-vivo irradiated (8 Gy) T lymphocytes from patients with grade ≥ 2 radiation-induced breast fibrosis (grade ≥ 2 bf+) and patients with grade < 2 bf + after curative intent radiotherapy. Patients were selected from two prospective clinical trials (COHORT and PHRC 2005) and were used as discovery and confirmation cohorts. Results Among the 1979 quantified proteins, 23 fulfilled our stringent biological criteria. Immunoblotting analysis of four of these candidate proteins (adenylate kinase 2, AK2; annexin A1; heat shock cognate 71 kDa protein; and isocitrate dehydrogenase 2) confirmed AK2 overexpression in 8 Gy-irradiated T lymphocytes from patients with grade ≥ 2 bf + compared with patients with grade < 2 bf+. As these candidate proteins are involved in oxidative stress regulation, we also evaluated radiation-induced reactive oxygen species (ROS) production in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with grade ≥ 2 bf + and grade < 2 bf+. Total ROS level, and especially superoxide anion level, increased upon ex-vivo 8 Gy-irradiation in all patients. Analysis of NADPH oxidases (NOXs), a major source of superoxide ion in the cell, showed a significant increase of NOX4 mRNA and protein levels after irradiation in both patient groups. Conversely, only NOX4 mRNA level was significantly different between groups (grade ≥ 2 bf + and grade < 2 bf+). Conclusion These findings identify AK2 as a potential radiosensitivity candidate biomarker. Overall, our proteomic approach highlights the important role of oxidative stress in late radiation-induced toxicity, and paves the way for additional studies on NOXs and superoxide ion metabolism.

Letrozole radiosensitises breast cancer cells in vitro. In clinical settings, no data exist for the combination of letrozole and radiotherapy. We assessed concurrent and sequential radiotherapy and letrozole in the adjuvant setting. This phase 2 randomised trial was undertaken in two centres in France and one in Switzerland between Jan 12, 2005, and Feb 21, 2007. 150 postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer were randomly assigned after conserving surgery to either concurrent radiotherapy and letrozole (n=75) or sequential radiotherapy and letrozole (n=75). Randomisation was open label with a minimisation technique, stratified by investigational centres, chemotherapy (yes vs no), radiation boost (yes vs no), and value of radiation-induced lymphocyte apoptosis (≤16% vs >16%). Whole breast was irradiated to a total dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks. In the case of supraclavicular and internal mammary node irradiation, the dose was 44–50 Gy. Letrozole was administered orally once daily at a dose of 2·5 mg for 5 years (beginning 3 weeks pre-radiotherapy in the concomitant group, and 3 weeks post-radiotherapy in the sequential group). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of acute (during and within 6 weeks of radiotherapy) and late (within 2 years) radiation-induced grade 2 or worse toxic effects of the skin. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00208273. All patients were analysed apart from one in the concurrent group who withdrew consent before any treatment. During radiotherapy and within the first 12 weeks after radiotherapy, 31 patients in the concurrent group and 31 in the sequential group had any grade 2 or worse skin-related toxicity. The most common skin-related adverse event was dermatitis: four patients in the concurrent group and six in the sequential group had grade 3 acute skin dermatitis during radiotherapy. At a median follow-up of 26 months (range 3–40), two patients in each group had grade 2 or worse late effects (both radiation-induced subcutaneous fibrosis). Letrozole can be safely delivered shortly after surgery and concomitantly with radiotherapy. Long-term follow-up is needed to investigate cardiac side-effects and cancer-specific outcomes. Novartis Oncology France.

The aim was to analyze arc therapy techniques according to the number and position of the brain lesions reported by comparing dynamic noncoplanar conformal arcs (DCA), two coplanar full arcs (RAC) with volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT), multiple noncoplanar partial arcs with VMAT (RANC), and two full arcs with VMAT and 10° table rotation (RAT). Patients with a single lesion (n = 10), multiple lesions (n = 10) or a single lesion close to organs at risk (n = 5) and previously treated with DCA were selected. For each patient, the DCA treatment was replanned with all VMAT techniques. All DCA plans were compared with VMAT plans and evaluated in regard to the different quality indices and dosimetric parameters. For single lesion, homogeneity index (HI) better results were found for the RANC technique (0.17±0.05) compared with DCA procedure (0.27±0.05). Concerning conformity index (CI), the RAT technique gave higher and better values (0.85±0.04) compared with those obtained with the DCA technique (0.77±0.05). DCA improved healthy brain protection (8.35±5.61 cc vs. 10.52±6.40 cc for RANC) and reduced monitor unit numbers (3046±374 MU vs. 4651±736 for RANC), even if global room occupation was higher. For multiple lesions, VMAT techniques provided better HI (0.16) than DCA (0.24±0.07). The CI was improved with RAT (0.8±0.08 for RAT vs. 0.71±0.08 for DCA). The V10Gy healthy brain was better protected with DCA (9.27±4.57 cc). Regarding the MU numbers: RANC

Journal Article

Share this book

Add to My Shelf