Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- toxicity (3) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
Introduction: To evaluate the oncological outcome of high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BRT) as monotherapy for clinically localised prostate cancer (PCA).
Material and Methods: Between January 2002 and February 2004, 141 consecutive patients with clinically localised PCA were treated with HDR-BRT monotherapy. The cohort comprised 103 (73%) low-, 32 (22.7%) intermediate- and 6 (4.3%) high risk patients according to D’Amico classification or 104 (73.8%) low-, 24 (17.0%) intermediate favourable-, 12 (8.5%) intermediate unfavourable- and one (0.7%) very high risk patient according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) one. Patients received four fractions of 9.5 Gy delivered within a single implant up to a total physical dose of 38 Gy. Catheter-implantation was transrectal ultrasound-based whereas treatment planning CT-based. Thirty-three patients (23.4%) received ADT neoadjuvantly and continued concurrently with BRT. Biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) was defined according to the Phoenix Consensus Criteria and genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity evaluated using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0.
Results: Median age at treatment and median follow-up time was 67.2 and 15.2 years, respectively. Twenty-three (16.3%) patients experienced a biochemical relapse and 5 (3.5%) developed distant metastases, with only one patient dying of PCA. The BRFS was 85.1% at 15 years and 78.7% at 18 years. The corresponding overall survival, metastases-free survival, and prostate cancer specific mortality at 15- and 18-years was 73.9%/59.1%, 98.3%/90.6%, and 100%/98.5% respectively. Late grade 3 GI and GU toxicity was 4.2% and 5.6% respectively. Erectile dysfunction grade 3 was reported by 27 (19%) patients. From the prognostic factors evaluated, tumor stage (≤T2b compared to ≥T2c) along with the risk group (low-intermediate vs. high) when using the D’Amico classification but not when the NCCN one was taken into account, correlated significantly with BRFS.
Conclusion: Our long-term results confirm HDR-BRT to be a safe and effective monotherapeutic treatment modality for low- and intermediate risk PCA.
Background and Purpose: Targeted drugs have augmented the cancer treatment armamentarium. Based on the molecular specificity, it was initially believed that these drugs had significantly less side effects. However, currently it is accepted that all of these agents have their specific side effects. Based on the given multimodal approach, special emphasis has to be placed on putative interactions of conventional cytostatic drugs, targeted agents and other modalities. The interaction of targeted drugs with radiation harbours special risks, since the awareness for interactions and even synergistic toxicities is lacking. At present, only limited is data available regarding combinations of targeted drugs and radiotherapy. This review gives an overview on the current knowledge on such combined treatments.
Material and methods: Using the following MESH headings and combinations of these terms pubmed database was searched: Radiotherapy AND cetuximab / trastuzumab / panitumumab / nimotuzumab, bevacizumab, sunitinib / sorafenib / lapatinib / gefitinib / erlotinib / sirolimus, thalidomide / lenalidomide as well as erythropoietin. For citation crosscheck the ISI web of science database was used employing the same search terms.
Results: Several classes of targeted substances may be distinguished: Small molecules including kinase inhibitors and specific inhibitors, antibodies, and anti-angiogenic agents. Combination of these agents with radiotherapy may lead to specific toxicities or negatively influence the efficacy of RT. Though there is only little information on the interaction of molecular targeted radiation and radiotherapy in clinical settings, several critical incidents are reported.
Conclusions: The addition of molecular targeted drugs to conventional radiotherapy outside of approved regimens or clinical trials warrants a careful consideration especially when used in conjunction in hypo-fractionated regimens. Clinical trials are urgently needed in order to address the open question in regard to efficacy, early and late toxicity.
Purpose: Sarcopenia, defined as a loss of muscle mass and quality, has been associated with impaired oncological outcome and treatment toxicities in several malignancies. However, its role in anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) remains less well explored.
Methods/Materials: Planning CT scans were used to measure cross-sectional skeletal muscle area (SMA) to calculate the skeletal muscle index (SMI). The association of sarcopenia with clinical and treatment-related parameters, and toxicity was assessed in 114 patients with ASCC that underwent standard 5-Fluorouracil/Mitomycin C chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The prognostic impact of sarcopenia on local relapse-free survival (LRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival was examined using a Cox regression analysis.
Results: 29 (25.4%) patients had sarcopenia. Patients with sarcopenia had lower baseline hemoglobin levels (p = 0.002), worse Karnofsky Performance Status (p = 0.001) lower BMI (p < 0.001), and a significantly lower body surface area (p = 0.03), and lower incidence of involved lymph nodes (p = 0.03). Regarding acute toxicity, sarcopenia was associated with a significantly higher incidence of ≥grade 3leukopenia (OR: 3.5; 95% CI: 1.6–7.5, p = 0.007) and ≥grade 3 thrombopenia (OR: 5.1; 95% CI: 1.3–21, p = 0.018) after CRT. Despite higher hematologic toxicity in sarcopenic patients, total treatment time was similar between patients with and without sarcopenia (median 44 vs 45 days, p = 0.95). There was no significant prognostic impact of sarcopenia on either LRFS, DFS, or OS.
Conclusion: This is the largest study to assess the impact of sarcopenia on toxicity and oncological outcome in patients with ASCC. Increased clinician awareness of higher hematological toxicity risk is needed for sarcopenic patients with ASCC undergoing CRT to facilitate closer monitoring of side effects and earlier introduction of supportive measures. Further prospective studies are needed to elucidate the prognostic role and impact of sarcopenia on CRT-related toxicity in ASCC.