GEC-ESTRO/ACROP recommendations for performing bladder-sparing treatment with brachytherapy for muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma

The standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is a radical cystectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In selected cases a bladder sparing approach is possible, for example a limited surgical excision combined with external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. To perform brachytherapy flexible catheters have to be implanted in the bladder wall. The implantation is done either by the open retropubic approach or the endoscopic surgical approach.

http://ift.tt/2hXl9bM

Advertisements

Adaptation is mandatory for intensity modulated proton therapy of advanced lung cancer to ensure target coverage

Large anatomical changes during radiotherapy are seen for a large proportion of lung cancer patients. We investigate the applicability of a decision support protocol for photon therapy in a proton therapy setting.

http://ift.tt/2itSz5v

Multicenter analysis of neoadjuvant docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer

Abstract

              <span> 
                </span><h3>Purpose</h3> 
                <p>In an era where neoadjuvant dual blockade is emerging as the standard of care for early and locally advanced HER2-positive breast cancer, we aimed to identify predictors of response to single-blockade chemotherapy.</p> 

              <span> 
                </span><h3>Methods</h3> 
                <p>This retrospective analysis reviewed all the incident stage I–III HER2-positive breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH) in three institutions. pCR was defined as the absence of invasive tumor in breast and axillary nodes (ypT0/isypN0).</p> 

              <span> 
                </span><h3>Results</h3> 
                <p>From 2008 to 2015, 84 patients receiving neoadjuvant TCH were identified within our institutions. The mean age at diagnosis was 51.8 years. 59.5% of the patients were hormone receptor (HR) positive, lymph node involvement occurred in 67.9%, and clinical distribution was 2.4, 65.5, and 32.1% for stage I, II, and III, respectively. pCR rate was 47.6%; there was a significantly lower response in HR-positive patients compared to HR-negative ones (34 vs 67.6%, <em>p</em> = 0.005). pCR rate was associated with tumor size, whereas differences did not reach significance either for stage or for nodal status. Multivariate analysis found that only HR status was associated with response (<em>p</em> = 0.003). At a median follow-up of 31.7 months, disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival were 78.6, 85.7, and 94%, respectively. Breast-conserving surgery was performed in 44% of the patients. Overall, TCH was well tolerated, with low rates of grade 3–4 adverse events, and neither late toxicities nor cardiac dysfunctions were reported.</p> 

              <span> 
                </span><h3>Conclusions</h3> 
                <p>Neoadjuvant TCH, an anthracycline-free single-blockade regimen, achieved a pCR of 47.6%. Further molecular analyses are required in order to identify stronger predictive markers of pCR and thus for an accurate selection of patients who do not benefit from dual blockade.</p> 
              <br /><br />

http://ift.tt/2ipBJ5o

Carcinoma of buccal mucosa with metastasis to thigh

Squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity ranks as the twelfth most common cancer in the world and the eighth most frequent in males. In USA, cancers of oral cavity comprises approximately 3% of all cancers, the most common sub site for oral cavity carcinomas being the tongue followed by floor of mouth among all Head and Neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Buccal mucosa is the most common oral cancer in men and the third most common oral cancer in women in India; and accounts for up to one-third of all tobacco-related cancers.

http://ift.tt/2iRG3gU

Rejection versus escape: the tumor MHC dilemma

Abstract

              <p> Most tumor cells derive from MHC-I-positive normal counterparts and remain positive at early stages of tumor development. T lymphocytes can infiltrate tumor tissue, recognize and destroy MHC class I (MHC-I)-positive cancer cells (“permissive” phase I). Later, MHC-I-negative tumor cell variants resistant to T-cell killing emerge. During this process, tumors first acquire a heterogeneous MHC-I expression pattern and finally become uniformly MHC-I-negative. This stage (phase II) represents a “non-permissive” encapsulated structure with tumor nodes surrounded by fibrous tissue containing different elements including leukocytes, macrophages, fibroblasts, etc. Molecular mechanisms responsible for total or partial MHC-I downregulation play a crucial role in determining and predicting the antigen-presenting capacity of cancer cells. MHC-I downregulation caused by reversible (“soft”) lesions can be upregulated by TH1-type cytokines released into the tumor microenvironment in response to different types of immunotherapy. In contrast, when the molecular mechanism of the tumor MHC-I loss is irreversible (“hard”) due to a genetic defect in the gene/s coding for MHC-I heavy chains (chromosome 6) or beta-2-microglobulin (B2M) (chromosome 15), malignant cells are unable to upregulate MHC-I, remain undetectable by cytotoxic T-cells, and continue to grow and metastasize. Based on the tumor MHC-I molecular analysis, it might be possible to define MHC-I phenotypes present in cancer patients in order to distinguish between non-responders, partial/short-term responders, and likely durable responders. This highlights the need for designing strategies to enhance tumor MHC-I expression that would allow CTL-mediated tumor rejection.</p><br /><br />

http://ift.tt/2iplZ2g

Implementation of image-guided intensity-modulated accelerated partial breast irradiation

Abstract

                <span> 
                  </span><h3>Purpose</h3> 
                  <p>To report 3‑year results of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) following breast conserving surgery (BCS) for low-risk early invasive breast cancer.</p> 

                <span> 
                  </span><h3>Patients and methods</h3> 
                  <p>Between July 2011 and March 2014, 60 patients with low-risk early invasive breast cancer underwent BCS and were enrolled in this phase II prospective study. The total dose was 36.9 Gy (9 fractions of 4.1 Gy, two fractions/day). Patient setup errors were detected in LAT, LONG and VERT directions. Local tumour control, survival results, early and late side effects and cosmetic outcome were assessed.</p> 

                <span> 
                  </span><h3>Results</h3> 
                  <p>At a median follow-up of 39 months, all patients were alive and neither locoregional nor distant failure occurred. One contralateral breast cancer and two new primary malignancies outside the breast were observed. No grade (G) 3–4 acute toxicity was detected. G1 and G2 erythema occurred in 21 (35%) and 2 (3.3%) patients, respectively; while G1 oedema was observed in 23 (38.8%) cases. G1 and G2 pain was reported by 6 (10%) and 2 (3.3%) patients, respectively. Among the late radiation side effects, G1 pigmentation or telangiectasia, G1 fibrosis and G1 asymptomatic fat necrosis occurred in 10 (16.7%), 7 (11.7%) and 3 (5%) patients, respectively. No ≥ G2 late toxicity was detected. Cosmetic outcome was excellent in 43 (71.7%) and good in 17 (28.3%) patients.</p> 

                <span> 
                  </span><h3>Conclusion</h3> 
                  <p>IG-IMRT is a reproducible and feasible technique for delivery of external beam APBI following BCS for treatment of low-risk, early-stage invasive breast carcinoma. In order to avoid toxicity, image guidance performed before each radiation fraction is necessary to minimize the PTV. Three-year results are promising, early and late radiation side-effects are minimal, and cosmetic results are excellent to good.</p> 
                <br /><br />

http://ift.tt/2gfMYfp

Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy tumour bed boost during breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Abstract

                <span> 
                  </span><h3>Introduction</h3> 
                  <p>The use of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) as a tumour bed boost during breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer has been reported since 1998. We present its use in patients undergoing breast conservation following neoadjuvant therapy (NACT).</p> 

                <span> 
                  </span><h3>Method</h3> 
                  <p>In this retrospective study involving 116 patients after NACT we compared outcomes of 61 patients who received a tumour bed boost with IORT during lumpectomy versus 55 patients treated in the previous 13 months with external (EBRT) boost. All patients received whole breast radiotherapy. Local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), breast cancer mortality (BCM), non-breast cancer mortality (NBCM) and overall mortality (OS) were compared.</p> 

                <span> 
                  </span><h3>Results</h3> 
                  <p>Median follow up was 49 months. The differences in LRFS, DFS and BCM were not statistically significant. The 5‑year Kaplan–Meier estimate of OS was significantly better by 15% with IORT: IORT 2 events (96.7%, 95%CI 87.5–99.2), EBRT 9 events (81.7%, 95%CI 67.6–90.1), hazard ratio (HR) 0.19 (0.04–0.87), log rank <em>p</em> = 0.016, mainly due to a reduction of 10.1% in NBCM: IORT 100%, EBRT 89.9% (77.3–95.7), HR (not calculable), log rank <em>p</em> = 0.015. The DDFS was as follows: IORT 3 events (95.1%, 85.5–98.4), EBRT 12 events (69.0%, 49.1–82.4), HR 0.23 (0.06–0.80), log rank <em>p</em> = 0.012.</p> 

                <span> 
                  </span><h3>Conclusion</h3> 
                  <p>IORT during lumpectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a tumour bed boost appears to give results that are not worse than external beam radiotherapy boost. These data give further support to the inclusion of such patients in the TARGIT-B (boost) randomised trial that is testing whether IORT boost is superior to EBRT boost.</p> 
                <br /><br />

http://ift.tt/2fCMotZ

Rejection versus escape: the tumor MHC dilemma

Abstract

              <p> Most tumor cells derive from MHC-I-positive normal counterparts and remain positive at early stages of tumor development. T lymphocytes can infiltrate tumor tissue, recognize and destroy MHC class I (MHC-I)-positive cancer cells (“permissive” phase I). Later, MHC-I-negative tumor cell variants resistant to T-cell killing emerge. During this process, tumors first acquire a heterogeneous MHC-I expression pattern and finally become uniformly MHC-I-negative. This stage (phase II) represents a “non-permissive” encapsulated structure with tumor nodes surrounded by fibrous tissue containing different elements including leukocytes, macrophages, fibroblasts, etc. Molecular mechanisms responsible for total or partial MHC-I downregulation play a crucial role in determining and predicting the antigen-presenting capacity of cancer cells. MHC-I downregulation caused by reversible (“soft”) lesions can be upregulated by TH1-type cytokines released into the tumor microenvironment in response to different types of immunotherapy. In contrast, when the molecular mechanism of the tumor MHC-I loss is irreversible (“hard”) due to a genetic defect in the gene/s coding for MHC-I heavy chains (chromosome 6) or beta-2-microglobulin (B2M) (chromosome 15), malignant cells are unable to upregulate MHC-I, remain undetectable by cytotoxic T-cells, and continue to grow and metastasize. Based on the tumor MHC-I molecular analysis, it might be possible to define MHC-I phenotypes present in cancer patients in order to distinguish between non-responders, partial/short-term responders, and likely durable responders. This highlights the need for designing strategies to enhance tumor MHC-I expression that would allow CTL-mediated tumor rejection.</p><br /><br />

http://ift.tt/2iplZ2g

Rejection versus escape: the tumor MHC dilemma

Abstract

              <p> Most tumor cells derive from MHC-I-positive normal counterparts and remain positive at early stages of tumor development. T lymphocytes can infiltrate tumor tissue, recognize and destroy MHC class I (MHC-I)-positive cancer cells (“permissive” phase I). Later, MHC-I-negative tumor cell variants resistant to T-cell killing emerge. During this process, tumors first acquire a heterogeneous MHC-I expression pattern and finally become uniformly MHC-I-negative. This stage (phase II) represents a “non-permissive” encapsulated structure with tumor nodes surrounded by fibrous tissue containing different elements including leukocytes, macrophages, fibroblasts, etc. Molecular mechanisms responsible for total or partial MHC-I downregulation play a crucial role in determining and predicting the antigen-presenting capacity of cancer cells. MHC-I downregulation caused by reversible (“soft”) lesions can be upregulated by TH1-type cytokines released into the tumor microenvironment in response to different types of immunotherapy. In contrast, when the molecular mechanism of the tumor MHC-I loss is irreversible (“hard”) due to a genetic defect in the gene/s coding for MHC-I heavy chains (chromosome 6) or beta-2-microglobulin (B2M) (chromosome 15), malignant cells are unable to upregulate MHC-I, remain undetectable by cytotoxic T-cells, and continue to grow and metastasize. Based on the tumor MHC-I molecular analysis, it might be possible to define MHC-I phenotypes present in cancer patients in order to distinguish between non-responders, partial/short-term responders, and likely durable responders. This highlights the need for designing strategies to enhance tumor MHC-I expression that would allow CTL-mediated tumor rejection.</p><br /><br />

http://ift.tt/2iplZ2g