Explore the vast range of titles available.

Unlike for extremity sarcomas, the efficacy of radiotherapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma is not established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone on abdominal recurrence-free survival. EORTC-62092 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study done in 31 research institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 13 countries in Europe and North America. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically documented, localised, primary retroperitoneal sarcoma that was operable and suitable for radiotherapy, who had not been previously treated and had a WHO performance status and American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 2 or lower, were centrally randomly assigned (1:1), using an interactive web response system and a minimisation algorithm, to receive either surgery alone or preoperative radiotherapy followed by surgery. Randomisation was stratified by hospital and performance status. Radiotherapy was delivered as 50·4 Gy (in 28 daily fractions of 1·8 Gy) in either 3D conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy, and the objective of surgery was a macroscopically complete resection of the tumour mass with en-bloc organ resection as necessary. The primary endpoint was abdominal recurrence-free survival, as assessed by the investigator, and was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who started their allocated treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01344018. Between Jan 18, 2012 and April 10, 2017, 266 patients were enrolled, of whom 133 were randomly assigned to each group. The median follow-up was 43·1 months (IQR 28·8–59·2). 128 (96%) patients from the surgery alone group had surgery, and 119 (89%) patients in the radiotherapy and surgery group had both radiotherapy and surgery. Median abdominal recurrence-free survival was 4·5 years (95% CI 3·9 to not estimable) in the radiotherapy plus surgery group and 5·0 years (3·4 to not estimable) in the surgery only group (hazard ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·71–1·44; log rank p=0·95). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were lymphopenia (98 [77%] of 127 patients in the radiotherapy plus surgery group vs one [1%] of 128 patients in the surgery alone group), anaemia (15 [12%] vs ten [8%]), and hypoalbuminaemia (15 [12%] vs five [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 30 (24%) of 127 patients in the radiotherapy plus surgery group, and in 13 (10%) of 128 patients in the surgery alone group. One (1%) of 127 patients in the radiotherapy plus surgery group died due to treatment-related serious adverse events (gastropleural fistula), and no patients in the surgery alone group died due to treatment-related serious adverse events. Preoperative radiotherapy should not be considered as standard of care treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, and European Clinical Trials in Rare Sarcomas.

The aim of this trial was to compare dose-escalated conformal radiotherapy with control-dose conformal radiotherapy in patients with localised prostate cancer. Preliminary findings reported after 5 years of follow-up showed that escalated-dose conformal radiotherapy improved biochemical progression-free survival. Based on the sample size calculation, we planned to analyse overall survival when 190 deaths occurred; this target has now been reached, after a median 10 years of follow-up. RT01 was a phase 3, open-label, international, randomised controlled trial enrolling men with histologically confirmed T1b–T3a, N0, M0 prostate cancer with prostate specific antigen of less than 50 ng/mL. Patients were randomly assigned centrally in a 1:1 ratio, using a computer-based minimisation algorithm stratifying by risk of seminal vesicle invasion and centre to either the control group (64 Gy in 32 fractions, the standard dose at the time the trial was designed) or the escalated-dose group (74 Gy in 37 fractions). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to assignment. All patients received neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for 3–6 months before the start of conformal radiotherapy, which continued until the end of conformal radiotherapy. The coprimary outcome measures were biochemical progression-free survival and overall survival. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment-related side-effects have been reported previously. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN47772397. Between Jan 7, 1998, and Dec 20, 2001, 862 men were registered and 843 subsequently randomly assigned: 422 to the escalated-dose group and 421 to the control group. As of Aug 2, 2011, 236 deaths had occurred: 118 in each group. Median follow-up was 10·0 years (IQR 9·1–10·8). Overall survival at 10 years was 71% (95% CI 66–75) in each group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·77–1·28; p=0·96). Biochemical progression or progressive disease occurred in 391 patients (221 [57%] in the control group and 170 [43%] in the escalated-dose group). At 10 years, biochemical progression-free survival was 43% (95% CI 38–48) in the control group and 55% (50–61) in the escalated-dose group (HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·56–0·84; p=0·0003). At a median follow-up of 10 years, escalated-dose conformal radiotherapy with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy showed an advantage in biochemical progression-free survival, but this advantage did not translate into an improvement in overall survival. These efficacy data for escalated-dose treatment must be weighed against the increase in acute and late toxicities associated with the escalated dose and emphasise the importance of use of appropriate modern radiotherapy methods to reduce side-effects. UK Medical Research Council.

The optimum duration of androgen deprivation combined with high-dose radiotherapy in prostate cancer remains undefined. We aimed to determine whether long-term androgen deprivation was superior to short-term androgen deprivation when combined with high-dose radiotherapy. In this open-label, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial, patients were recruited from ten university hospitals throughout Spain. Eligible patients had clinical stage T1c–T3b N0M0 prostate adenocarcinoma with intermediate-risk and high-risk factors according to 2005 National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive either 4 months of androgen deprivation combined with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy at a minimum dose of 76 Gy (range 76–82 Gy; short-term androgen deprivation group) or the same treatment followed by 24 months of adjuvant androgen deprivation (long-term androgen deprivation group), stratified by prostate cancer risk group (intermediate risk vs high risk) and participating centre. Patients assigned to the short-term androgen deprivation group received 4 months of neoadjuvant and concomitant androgen deprivation with subcutaneous goserelin (2 months before and 2 months combined with high-dose radiotherapy). Anti-androgen therapy (flutamide 750 mg per day or bicalutamide 50 mg per day) was added during the first 2 months of treatment. Patients assigned to long-term suppression continued with the same luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogue every 3 months for another 24 months. The primary endpoint was biochemical disease-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02175212. Between Nov 7, 2005, and Dec 20, 2010, 178 patients were randomly assigned to receive short-term androgen deprivation and 177 to receive long-term androgen deprivation. After a median follow-up of 63 months (IQR 50–82), 5-year biochemical disease-free survival was significantly better among patients receiving long-term androgen deprivation than among those receiving short-term treatment (90% [95% CI 87–92] vs 81% [78–85]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·88 [95% CI 1·12–3·15]; p=0·01). 5-year overall survival (95% [95% CI 93–97] vs 86% [83–89]; HR 2·48 [95% CI 1·31–4·68]; p=0·009) and 5-year metastasis-free survival (94% [95% CI 92–96] vs 83% [80–86]; HR 2·31 [95% CI 1·23–3·85]; p=0·01) were also significantly better in the long-term androgen deprivation group than in the short-term androgen deprivation group. The effect of long-term androgen deprivation on biochemical disease-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and overall survival was more evident in patients with high-risk disease than in those with low-risk disease. Grade 3 late rectal toxicity was noted in three (2%) of 177 patients in the long-term androgen deprivation group and two (1%) of 178 in the short-term androgen deprivation group; grade 3–4 late urinary toxicity was noted in five (3%) patients in each group. No deaths related to treatment were reported. Compared with short-term androgen deprivation, 2 years of adjuvant androgen deprivation combined with high-dose radiotherapy improved biochemical control and overall survival in patients with prostate cancer, particularly those with high-risk disease, with no increase in late radiation toxicity. Longer follow-up is needed to determine whether men with intermediate-risk disease benefit from more than 4 months of androgen deprivation. Spanish National Health Investigation Fund, AstraZeneca.

A current standard treatment for locally advanced prostate cancer is external-beam radiotherapy combined with 3 years of androgen suppression. Adverse events, such as myocardial infarction, are associated with long-term androgen suppression. This trial examined survival after treatment with long-term (3 years) or short-term (6 months) androgen suppression, plus external-beam radiotherapy, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Overall and prostate-cancer–specific survival in the group receiving short-term androgen suppression was inferior to that in the group receiving long-term suppression. This trial examined survival after treatment with long-term (3 years) or short-term (6 months) androgen suppression, plus external-beam radiotherapy, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Overall and prostate-cancer–specific survival in the group receiving short-term androgen suppression was inferior. Overall survival among patients with locally advanced prostate cancer has improved with the use of external-beam radiotherapy combined with long-term androgen suppression (≥2 years) as compared with the use of external-beam radiotherapy and deferral of hormonal treatment until relapse. 1 – 5 However, long-term androgen suppression can reduce the quality of life and increase the risk of fatal myocardial infarction, 6 fractures, 7 and the metabolic syndrome. 8 These risks might be lowered by replacing long-term androgen suppression with short-term suppression (6 months), which has been found to reduce mortality from localized prostate cancer. 9 The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) conducted . . .

In Thailand, individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who develop portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) have a restricted treatment option because to the extent of the disease, poor underlying liver function, and non-coverage of immuno/targeted therapy. Radiotherapy (RT) plays an increasingly important function in these patients. To investigate the feasibility, efficacy, and adverse event rates, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients with HCC with PVTT who underwent 3-dimensional conformal radiation (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation (IMRT), volumetric-modulated radiotherapy (VMAT), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in a single-institution. To examine clinical results in terms of overall survival (OS), local control (LC), response of primary tumor and PVTT, hepatic and gastrointestinal adverse reaction, and prognosis variables for OS and LC. Between July 2007 and August 2019, non-metastatic HCC with PVTT patients treated with RT were retrospectively reviewed and evaluated. The analysis included data from 160 patients. The mean age of the patients was 60.8 years ((95% CI 58.2-62.0). The median diameter of the tumor was 7.7 cm (range: 1-24.5). 85 (54.5%) individuals had PVTT in the main or first branch. At 1.8-10 Gy per fraction, the mean biologically effective dose (BED) as α/β ratio of 10 was 49.6 (95% CI 46.7-52.5) Gy10. The median survival time was 8.3 (95% CI 6.1-10.3) months. Survival rates at one and two years were 39.6% and 17.1%, respectively. Estimated incidence of local failure using competing risk analysis were 24% and 60% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. The overall response rate was 74%, with an 18.5 percent complete response rate. In multivariate analysis, tumor size, overall response, and radiation dose were all significant prognostic variables for OS. Hepatic unfavorable events of grade 3 and 4 were for 14.1% of the total. There was no occurrences of grade 3-4 gastrointestinal toxicity, either acute or late. Additionally, there were no treatment-related mortality. Advanced RT is regarded as a safe and effective therapeutic option for HCC with PVTT. Overall survival was clearly related to tumor size, radiation dose, and tumor/PVTT response. Individuals with BED 56 Gy10 had significantly better overall survival than patients with BED 56 Gy10. A prospective randomized trial is required to validate these outcomes in order to corroborate these findings.

Background Excellent dosimetric characteristics were demonstrated for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). In a single-center retrospective analysis, we tested whether these advantages may translate into significant clinical benefits. We compared VMAT to conventional 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in patients, homogeneously treated according to the control arm of the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 trial. Methods CRT consisted of pelvic irradiation with 50.4/1.8Gy by VMAT ( n  = 81) or 3DCRT ( n  = 107) and two cycles of 5-fluorouracil. Standardized total mesorectal excision surgery was performed within 4–6 weeks. The tumor regression grading (TRG) was assessed by the Dworak score. Acute and late toxicity were evaluated via the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and the Late effects of normal tissues scale, respectively. Side effects greater than or equal to grade 3 were considered high-grade. Results Median follow-up was 18.3 months in the VMAT group and 61.5 months in the 3DCRT group with no differences in TRG between them ( p  = 0.1727). VMAT treatment substantially reduced high-grade acute and late toxicity, with 5 % versus 20 % ( p  = 0.0081) and 6 % vs. 22 % ( p  = 0.0039), respectively. With regard to specific organs, differences were found in skin reaction ( p  = 0.019) and proctitis ( p  = 0.0153). Conclusions VMAT treatment in preoperative CRT for LARC showed the potential to substantially reduce high-grade acute and late toxicity. Importantly, we could demonstrate that VMAT irradiation did not impair short-term oncological results. We conclude, that the reduced toxicity after VMAT irradiation may pave the way for more efficient systemic therapies, and hopefully improved patient survival in the multimodal treatment of LARC.

Quality of life (QOL) is becoming increasingly important to appraise the value of a particular oncologic intervention. This was a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized trial (NCT02832830) of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) versus conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) as part of palliative management of symptomatic spinal metastases. This study examined QOL, fatigue, emotional distress, and late toxicities between patients having received IMRT versus 3DCRT. Sixty patients were enrolled in this single-institutional randomized exploratory trial in which all patients received 30 Gy in 10 fractions. The EORTC QLQ-BM22, EORTC QLQ-FA13, and QSC-R10 questionnaires were utilized to evaluate QOL, fatigue, and emotional distress, respectively; endpoints were evaluated at baseline, and at 3, and 6 months. Late (6 months) toxicities were assessed according to the LENT-SOMA criteria. Mean follow-up was 192 days (IQR=77-285). Although QOL was similar between groups, patients in the IMRT arm experienced lower physical (p=0.011) and emotional (p=0.017) fatigue at 6 months. Emotional distress was also lower in IMRT-treated patients after six months (p=0.039). Cohen's effect size confirmed the clinically significant improvement of these findings. Late toxicities occurred infrequently and were similar between arms. This is the first randomized study evaluating QOL between IMRT and 3DCRT to palliate vertebral metastases. IMRT resulted in reduced physical and emotional fatigue as well as emotional distress. IMRT should be further studied for these patients given these outcomes.

Background Bone metastases represent an important source of morbidity in cancer patients, mostly due to severe pain. Radiotherapy is an established symptomatic treatment for painful bone metastases, however, when conventional techniques are used, the effectiveness is moderate. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), delivering very high doses in a limited number of fractions in a highly conformal manner, could potentially be more effective and less toxic. Methods This is a phase III, randomized-controlled, single-blind, multicenter study evaluating the response rate of antalgic radiotherapy for painful bone metastases and the acute toxicity associated with this treatment. A total of 126 patients will be randomly assigned to receive either the standard schedule of a single fraction of 8.0 Gy delivered through three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or a single fraction of 20.0 Gy delivered through SBRT. Primary endpoint is pain response at the treated site at 1 month after radiotherapy. Secondary endpoints are pain flare at 24–48-72 h after radiotherapy, duration of pain response, re-irradiation need, acute toxicity, late toxicity, quality of life and subsequent serious skeletal events. In a supplementary analysis, patient-compliance for a paper-and-pencil questionnaire will be compared with an electronic mode. Discussion If a dose-escalated approach within the context of single fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy could improve the pain response to radiotherapy and minimize acute toxicity, this would have an immediate impact on the quality of life for a large number of patients with advanced cancer. Potential disadvantages of this technique include increased pain flare or a higher incidence of radiation-induced fractures. Trial registration The Ethics committee of the GZA Hospitals (B099201732915) approved this study on September 4th 2018. Trial registered on Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03831243 ) on February 5th 2019.

Background and Objectives: Reducing time of treatment during COVID-19 outbreaks has been recommended by the leading Radiation Oncology societies. Still minimizing radiation induced tissue toxicity is one of the most important issues in breast cancer patients. The study aimed to investigate compliance, clinical and dosimetry normal tissue toxicity, and cosmetic results between moderated and ultra-fractionated regimes for breast cancer patients during COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: This pilot prospective randomized study included 60 patients with early breast cancer after preserving surgery, 27 patients advocated to ultra-hypofractionated whole-breast three dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy of 26 Gy in 5 fractions over 1 week and 33 patients with moderate fractionated breast 3D conformal radiotherapy patients between March 2020 and July 2020, during the COVID pandemic outbreak. The compliance to treatment, dosimetric parameters, acute and late skin toxicity, subcutaneous tissue toxicity, cosmetic results and clinical follow up for 18 months for the two regimes were analyzed and compared. Results: When two regimes were compared 5 fraction group had significantly lower prevalence of newly infected cases of SARS-CoV-2 and thus delayed/interrupted treatment (p = 0.05), comparable grade 1 CTCAE v5, acute skin toxicity (p = 0.18), Grade 1 Radiation Morbidity Scoring Scheme (RESS) subcutaneous tissue toxicity (p = 0.18), Grade 1 RESS late skin toxicity (p = 0.88) and cosmetic results (p = 0.46). Dosimetric results reveled that patients in 5 fraction group received significantly lower median ipsilateral lung doses (p < 0.01) in addition to left breast cancer patients that received significantly lower median heart dose (p < 0.01) and median left anterior descending artery (LAD) dose (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy for breast cancer is comparable to moderate hypofractionation regimen regarding grade 1 acute skin toxicity, grade 1 subcutaneous tissue toxicity, late skin toxicity and cosmetic results. Application of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy with significantly lower radiation doses for lung and heart could be crucial in reducing the risk of acute/late pulmonary and heart radiation-induced toxicity.

This was a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized trial, which analyzed quality of life (QOL), fatigue, and emotional distress following stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) versus conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) as part of palliative management of painful spinal metastases. Fifty-five patients were enrolled in this single-institutional randomized exploratory phase II trial (NCT02358720). Participants were randomly assigned to receive SBRT (single-fraction 24 Gy) or 3DCRT (30 Gy/10 fractions). QOL (EORTC QLQ-BM22), fatigue (EORTC QLQ FA13), and emotional distress (QSC-R10) at the end of radiotherapy, along with 3- and 6-month follow-up were assessed. At all recorded time points, there were no significant QOL differences between cohorts, including painful sites, pain characteristics, functional impairment, or psychosocial aspects (p>0.05 for all). There were also no differences in all dimensions of fatigue between groups at each recorded time point (p>0.05 for all). Emotional distress was also similar at three (p=0.248) and six months (p=0.603). Although these results demonstrate that SBRT does not cause worse QOL deteriorations compared to 3DCRT, larger randomized investigations are recommended to corroborate these findings.