Explore the vast range of titles available.

Brachytherapy (BRT) plays a pivotal role in the treatment of tumors, offering precise radiation therapy directly to the affected area. However, this technique demands extensive training and skills development, posing challenges for widespread adoption and ensuring patient safety. This narrative review explored the utilization of augmented reality (AR) in BRT, seeking to summarize existing evidence, discuss key findings, limitations, and quality of research as well as outline future research directions. The review revealed promising findings regarding the integration of AR in BRT. Studies have suggested the feasibility and potential benefits of AR in education, training, intra-operative guidance, and treatment planning. However, the evidence remains limited and heterogeneous, with most studies in preliminary phases. Standardization, prospective clinical trials, patient-centered outcomes assessment, and cost-effectiveness analysis emerge as critical areas for future research. Augmented reality holds transformative potential for BRT by enhancing precision, safety, and training efficiency. To fully implement these benefits, the field requires standardized protocols, rigorous clinical trials, and in-depth patient-centered investigations. Policy-makers and healthcare providers should closely monitor developments in AR and consider its implementation in clinical practice, contingent and robust evidence, and cost-effectiveness analysis. The pro-active pursuit of evidence-based practices will contribute to optimizing patient care in BRT.

Background It has been hypothesized that radiotherapy (RT) techniques delivering radiations to larger volumes (IMRT, VMAT) are potentially associated with a higher risk of second primary tumors. The aim of this study was to analyse the impact of RT technique (3D-CRT vs IMRT/VMAT) on the incidence of second tumors in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Methods A retrospective study on 2526 previously irradiated PCa patients was performed. Patients were treated with 3D-CRT (21.3%), IMRT (68.1%), or VMAT (10.6%). Second tumors incidence was analysed in 3 categories: pelvic, pelvic and abdominal, and “any site”. The correlation with RT technique was analysed using log-rank test and Cox’s proportional hazard method. Results With a median follow-up of 72 months (range: 9–185), 92 (3.6%) cases of second tumors were recorded with 48 months (range: 9–152) median interval from RT. Actuarial 10-year second tumor free survival (STFS) was 87.3%. Ten-year STFS in patients treated with 3D-CRT and IMRT/VMAT was 85.8 and 84.5%, respectively ( p: .627 ). A significantly higher 10-year cumulative incidence of second tumors in the pelvis was registered in patients treated with IMRT/VMAT compared to 3D-CRT (10.7% vs 6.0%; p: .033 ). The lower incidence of second pelvic cancers in patients treated with 3D-CRT was confirmed at multivariable analysis (HR: 2.42, 95%CI: 1.07–5.47, p: .034 ). Conclusions The incidence of second pelvic tumors after RT of PCa showed a significant correlation with treatment technique. Further analyses in larger series with prolonged follow-up are needed to confirm these results.

Previous trials showed the tolerability and efficacy of a palliative radiotherapy (RT) regimen (SHARON) based on the 4 fractions delivered in 2 days in different oncological settings. In order to identify possible predictors of symptomatic response, the purpose of this study is to perform a pooled analysis of previous trials. We analyzed the impact on symptomatic response of the following parameters: tumor site, histological type, performance status (ECOG), dominant symptom, and RT dose using the Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test. One-hundred-eighty patients were analyzed. Median RT dose was 20 Gy (range: 14–20 Gy). The overall response rate was 88.8% (95% CI 83.3–92.7%) while pre- and post-treatment mean VAS was 5.3 (± 7.7) and 2.2 (± 2.2), respectively ( p  < 0.001). The overall response rate of pain, dyspnea, bleeding, dysphagia, and other symptoms was 86.2%, 90.9%, 100%, 87.5%, and 100%, respectively. Comparing the symptomatic effect based on the analyzed parameters no significant differences were recorded. However, patients with locally advanced disease showed a higher rate of symptomatic responses than metastatic ones (97.3% vs 83.0%; p  = 0.021). Finally, the complete pain response rate was more than double in patients with mild to moderate (VAS: 4–7) compared to those with severe (VAS > 7) pain (36.0% vs 14.3%; p  = 0.028). This pooled analysis showed high efficacy of the SHARON regimen in the relief of several cancer-related symptoms. The markedly and significantly higher complete pain response rate, in patients with mild-moderate pain, suggests early referral to palliative RT for patients with cancer-related pain.

Introduction: Whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is an effective therapeutic modality in patients with brain metastases. However, nearly 90% of patients undergoing WBRT suffer from a neurocognitive function (NCF) impairment at diagnosis, and up to two-thirds will experience a further decline within 2-6 months after WBRT. Focal-dose reduction on bilateral hippocampus is thought to improve NCF preservation. The aim was to present a systematic review of clinical results on NCF after hippocampal-sparing (HS) WBRT. Materials and Methods: A systematic review of published literature was performed on PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Only prospective clinical trials reporting NCF outcome in patients treated with HS-WBRT have been analyzed. Results: A total of 165 patients from three studies were included. These studies are characterized by small sample size and different methods in terms of WBRT technique but with similar planning analysis and NCF assessment tests. No significant changes in NCF (i.e., verbal and nonverbal learning memory, executive functions, and psychomotor speed) between baseline and 4-month follow-up after RT and only a mean relative decline in delayed recall at 4 months (7% compared to 30% of historical control) were observed. Conclusions: Considering preliminary results on NCF preservation, further studies seem justified in patients undergoing brain irradiation for brain metastases or referred for prophylactic cranial irradiation to evaluate long-term effects on NCF and quality of life.

Simulators have revolutionized medical education and training across various disciplines, offering unique advantages in skill acquisition and performance improvement. In the context of interventional radiation therapy (IRT), simulators have emerged as valuable tools for training healthcare professionals in these complex procedures. This narrative review summarized the available evidence on the use of simulators in IRT training, highlighting their impact on proficiency, engagement, and self-confidence as well as their benefits for medical physicists and radiation therapists.A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, resulting in inclusion of 10 papers published since 2009, with 5 of them published since 2020. Publications originated from centers in USA, Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, and Japan, covering a range of IRT settings, including general, prostate, and cervical IRT.The review demonstrated that simulators provide a controlled and realistic environment for skill acquisition, allowing healthcare professionals to practice procedures, optimize image quality, and enhance technical proficiency. The use of simulators addressed the barriers associated with limited caseload and procedural complexity, ultimately contributing to improved education and IRT training. While cost considerations may exist, simulators offer long-term cost-effective solutions, balancing the potential benefits in improving educational outcomes and patient care.Overall, simulators play a crucial role in IRT training, enhancing the skills and competence of healthcare providers and improving access to quality IRT care worldwide. Future research should focus on evaluating the long-term impact of simulation-based training on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction, exploring different simulation models and training approaches, and addressing region-specific barriers to optimize the utilization of IRT.

Metastases with soft tissues invasion, impending fractures or spinal cord compression (complicated bone metastases) represent a common clinical problem in advanced cancers and frequently lead to deterioration of patients’ quality of life (QoL). A phase I–II study was planned to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a short-course radiotherapy (RT) and its efficacy in palliation of complicated bone metastases. A phase I trial was designed with three dose-escalation steps: 16, 18, and 20 Gy. Total dose at each level was delivered in 2 days, twice daily. Eligibility criteria were painful complicated bone metastases and ECOG performance status ≤ 3. The presence of acute toxicity ≥ Grade 3 (RTOG scale) was considered the dose limiting toxicity. The MTD was used to plan a phase II trial with pain response as the primary outcome. Pain was recorded using a Visual Analogic Scale (VAS), and QoL using CLAS scales. Forty-five patients were enrolled in this trial. In phase I no Grade ≥ 2 acute toxicities were recorded. Thus 20 Gy was established as MTD. In phase II, with a median follow-up of 4 months, rates of complete symptom remission, partial response, no symptomatic change, and symptoms progression were 32.0%, 52.0%, 8.0%, and 8.0%, respectively. This RT protocol tested in our study is effective and tolerable with comparable results to traditional RT treatments delivered in 5–10 daily fractions.

This article discusses the current use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques in clinical practice and reviews the available data from clinical outcome studies in different clinical settings. An overview of available literature about clinical outcomes with VMAT stereotactic/radiosurgical treatment is also reported. All published manuscripts reporting the use of VMAT in a clinical setting from 2009 to November 2016 were identified. The search was carried out in December 2016 using the National Library of Medicine (PubMed/Medline). The following words were searched: \"volumetric arc therapy\"[All Fields] OR \"vmat\"[All Fields] OR \"rapidarc\"[All Fields], AND \"radiotherapy\"[All Fields] AND \"Clinical Trial\"[All Fields]. Overall, 37 studies (21 prospective and 16 retrospective) fulfilling inclusion criteria and thus included in the review evaluated 2,029 patients treated with VMAT; of these patients, ~30.8% had genitourinary (GU) tumors (81% prostate, 19% endometrial), 26.2% head-and-neck cancer (H&NC), 13.9% oligometastases, 11.2% had anorectal cancer, 10.6% thoracic neoplasms (81% breast, 19% lung), and 7.0% brain metastases (BMs). Six different clinical scenarios for VMAT use were identified: 1) BMs, 2) H&NC, 3) thoracic neoplasms, 4) GU cancer, 5) anorectal tumor, and 6) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) performed by VMAT technique in the oligometastatic patient setting. The literature addressing the clinical appropriateness of VMAT is scarce. Current literature suggests that VMAT, especially when used as simultaneous integrated boost or SBRT strategy, is an effective safe modality for all cancer types.

This systematic review aimed to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of using modern external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as alternative approaches to brachytherapy (BRT) in adjuvant treatment of endometrial cancer (EC). A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. The research question was framed using the PICO method, focusing on patients with EC [P] and comparing modern EBRT techniques (IMRT, VMAT, SBRT) [I] vs. BRT [C], to evaluate their feasibility, safety, and effectiveness, particularly in terms of tumor local control (LC) [O]. Both planning and clinical outcomes, including acute toxicity, late side effects, and LC were analyzed with quality assessments performed using the GRADE framework and ROBINS-I tool. Planning studies revealed that while IMRT and VMAT provided comparable or improved target coverage and dose homogeneity compared with BRT, brachytherapy was associated with lower doses to critical organs. Post-operative SBRT and SIB-VMAT studies reported high LC rates (up to 100%) with minimal acute toxicity. However, the overall quality of evidence was low to very low, with significant risks of bias, mainly related to participant selection. This review highlights that, although modern EBRT techniques, such as IMRT and VMAT are feasible alternative approaches to BRT for post-operative vaginal cuff irradiation, the current evidence does not support their superiority over BRT. Brachytherapy remains a highly effective treatment modality with well-established benefits. Future research should focus on more robust comparisons between EBRT and BRT, considering not only local control and toxicity, but also psychological impact and quality of life, especially in low-resource settings, where access to BRT may be limited.

To report the results of a patient's tailored therapeutic approach using a second course of interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy) in patients with locally recurrent uveal melanoma. Patients who had already undergone ocular brachytherapy treated at our IOC (Interventional Oncology Center) were considered. Five patients who has received a second course of treatment with a plaque after local recurrences were included in our study. Re-irradiation was performed with Ruthenium-106 (prescribed dose to the apex 100 Gy) or with Iodine-125 plaques (prescribed dose to the apex 85 Gy). Moreover, a systematic literature search was conducted through three electronic databases, including Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. All patients were initially treated with Ruthenium-106 plaque; the re-irradiation was performed with Ruthenium-106 plaque in three cases and with Iodine in two cases. Mean time between the first and the second plaque was 56.8 months (range, 25-93 months). Local tumor control rate was 100%, no patient underwent secondary enucleation owing to re-treatment failure. Distant metastasis occurred in 1 patient after 6 months from re-treatment. After a median follow-up of 44.2 months (range, 26-65 months) from re-treatment, all patients experienced worsening of the visual acuity (median visual acuity was 0.42 at time of recurrence and decline to 0.24 at the most recent follow-up); cataract occurred in two cases, no patient developed scleral necrosis. We considered 2 papers for a systematic review. In selected cases, especially in presence of marginal local recurrence, a personalized re-treatment strategy with a plaque may offer high probability of tumor control and organ preservation but worsening of visual acuity.

Introduction: An education strategy was employed in our department to increase the rate of patients with uncomplicated painful bone metastases undergoing single fractionation radiotherapy (SFRT). The purpose of this report is to analyze the results of this strategy over a 5 year period. Materials and Methods: In January 2015, two meetings were organized in our department. In the first, data from an audit on the current SFRT rate were shown. In the second, evidence of SFRT efficacy in the relief of pain from uncomplicated bone metastases was presented. In addition, during the weekly discussion of clinical cases, the opportunity to use the SFRT was systematically recalled. Using our institutional database, all patients treated with radiotherapy for uncomplicated painful bone metastases in the period between 2014 (year considered as a reference) and 2019 were retrieved. Data regarding treatment date (year), radiotherapy fractionation, and tumor, patients, and radiation oncologists characteristics were collected. Results: A total of 627 patients were included in the analysis. The rate of patients undergoing SFRT increased from 4.0% in 2014 to 63.5% in 2019 (p < 0.001). At multivariable analysis, the delivery of SFRT was significantly correlated with older patients age (>80 years), lung cancer as the primary tumor, treatment prescribed by a radiation oncologist dedicated to palliative treatments, and treatment date (2014 vs 2015–2019). Conclusions: This retrospective single-center analysis showed that a simple but intensive and prolonged departmental education strategy can increase the rate of patients treated with SFRT by nearly 16 times.