Radiation dose mapping and anastomotic complications after trimodality therapy for esophageal cancers

Background and purpose: There is conflicting evidence with respect to the correlation between neoadjuvant chemoradiation and anastomotic complications following trimodality therapy in patients with esophageal cancer. We aimed to analyze the relationship between their dosimetry and any resulting anastomotic complications. Materials and methods: The medical records of 51 consecutive patients who underwent trimodality therapy between 2007 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. We analyzed the differences in the mean dose received by regions of the esophagus relative to the landmark of the azygous vein and the stomach to correlate the development of an anastomotic complication using nonparametric rank-sum tests. Results: Anastomotic leakage and stricture rates were 12% and 22%, respectively. Patients with anastomotic complications received a statistically significant higher mean dose to the esophagus at the level of the azygous vein (0.0 cm) and lower (up to −2.7 cm) (28.4–42.2 Gy vs. 10.3–27.6 Gy, p < 0.04). There were no differences noted in mean gastric doses. Median follow up time was 30.9 months. Median overall survival and disease free survival of our patient cohort was 34.4 months and 22.5 months, respectively. The development of an anastomotic complication did not affect survival outcomes. Conclusion: Patients who experienced anastomotic complication after trimodality therapy for esophageal cancer were more likely to have received a higher mean esophageal dose around the proximity of the azygous vein, where intrathoracic anastomoses most commonly occur. Communication between surgical and radiation oncologists regarding the anastomotic location may be an important consideration in planning for trimodality therapy in reducing potential anastomotic complications

European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus on re-irradiation: definition, reporting, and clinical decision making

Re-irradiation can be considered for local recurrence or new tumours adjacent to a previously irradiated site to achieve durable local control for patients with cancer who have otherwise few therapeutic options. With the use of new radiotherapy techniques, which allow for conformal treatment plans, image guidance, and short fractionation schemes, the use of re-irradiation for different sites is increasing in clinical settings. Yet, prospective evidence on re-irradiation is scarce and our understanding of the underlying radiobiology is poor. Our consensus on re-irradiation aims to assist in re-irradiation decision making, and to standardise the classification of different forms of re-irradiation and reporting. The consensus has been endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. The use of this classification in daily clinical practice and research will facilitate accurate understanding of the clinical implications of re-irradiation and allow for cross-study comparisons. Data gathered in a uniform manner could be used in the future to make recommendations for re-irradiation on the basis of clinical evidence. The consensus document is based on an adapted Delphi process and a systematic review of the literature was done according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)

European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus on re-irradiation: definition, reporting, and clinical decision making

Re-irradiation can be considered for local recurrence or new tumours adjacent to a previously irradiated site to achieve durable local control for patients with cancer who have otherwise few therapeutic options. With the use of new radiotherapy techniques, which allow for conformal treatment plans, image guidance, and short fractionation schemes, the use of re-irradiation for different sites is increasing in clinical settings. Yet, prospective evidence on re-irradiation is scarce and our understanding of the underlying radiobiology is poor. Our consensus on re-irradiation aims to assist in re-irradiation decision making, and to standardise the classification of different forms of re-irradiation and reporting. The consensus has been endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. The use of this classification in daily clinical practice and research will facilitate accurate understanding of the clinical implications of re-irradiation and allow for cross-study comparisons. Data gathered in a uniform manner could be used in the future to make recommendations for re-irradiation on the basis of clinical evidence. The consensus document is based on an adapted Delphi process and a systematic review of the literature was done according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)

European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus on re-irradiation: definition, reporting, and clinical decision making

Re-irradiation can be considered for local recurrence or new tumours adjacent to a previously irradiated site to achieve durable local control for patients with cancer who have otherwise few therapeutic options. With the use of new radiotherapy techniques, which allow for conformal treatment plans, image guidance, and short fractionation schemes, the use of re-irradiation for different sites is increasing in clinical settings. Yet, prospective evidence on re-irradiation is scarce and our understanding of the underlying radiobiology is poor. Our consensus on re-irradiation aims to assist in re-irradiation decision making, and to standardise the classification of different forms of re-irradiation and reporting. The consensus has been endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. The use of this classification in daily clinical practice and research will facilitate accurate understanding of the clinical implications of re-irradiation and allow for cross-study comparisons. Data gathered in a uniform manner could be used in the future to make recommendations for re-irradiation on the basis of clinical evidence. The consensus document is based on an adapted Delphi process and a systematic review of the literature was done according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)

The effect of bariatric surgery on dietary Behaviour, dietary recommendation Adherence, and micronutrient deficiencies one year after surgery

Bariatric surgery (BS) is associated with vitamin and mineral deficiencies, which might be augmented by low adherence to dietary guidelines and inappropriate dietary behaviours. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of BS on eating behaviour, prevalence of nutrient deficiency, level of commitment to diet, and lifestyle recommendations one-year post-BS.A cross-sectional study was conducted among adult patients who underwent BS in 2019 and had follow-up for a year. Age, gender, and clinical data were collected from the hospital system and other information was obtained from questionnaires during phone interviews. A total of 160 patients participated in the study.At 12 months, a significant increase from the baseline values in plasma levels of vitamin B12, folate, vitamin D, iron, corrected calcium, albumin, CRP, and MCV, as well as a significant decrease in BMI was observed. Adherence to dietary and lifestyle recommendations was moderate to high. Emotional, and restrained eating behaviours were moderate with 64.4%, and 77.5%, respectively. External eating was low at 58.1%.The study concluded that pre-and post-bariatric surgery nutrients should be closely monitored

Critical impact of radiotherapy protocol compliance and quality in the treatment of retroperitoneal sarcomas: Results from the EORTC 62092-22092 STRASS trial

BACKGROUND The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 22092-62092 STRASS trial failed to demonstrate the superiority of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) over surgery alone in patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma. Therefore, an RT quality-assurance program was added to the study protocol to detect and correct RT deviations. The authors report results from the trial RT quality-assurance program and its potential effect on patient outcomes. METHODS To evaluate the effect of RT compliance on survival outcomes, a composite end point was created. It combined the information related to planning target volume coverage, target delineation, total dose received, and overall treatment time into 2 groups: non-RT-compliant (NRC) for patients who had unacceptable deviation(s) in any of the previous categories and RT-compliant (RC) otherwise. Abdominal recurrence-free survival (ARFS) and overall survival were compared between the 2 groups using a Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for known prognostic factors. RESULTS Thirty-six of 125 patients (28.8%) were classified as NRC, and the remaining 89 patients (71.2%) were classified as RC. The 3-year ARFS rate was 66.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55.8%-75.7%) and 49.8% (95% CI, 32.7%-64.8%) for the RC and NRC groups, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.25-4.32; P = .008). Local recurrence after macroscopic complete resection occurred in 13 of 89 patients (14.6%) versus 2 of 36 patients (5.6%) in the RC and NRC groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The current analysis suggests a significant benefit in terms of ARFS in favor of the RC group. This association did not translate into less local relapses after complete resection in the RC group. Multidisciplinary collaboration and review of cases are critical to avoid geographic misses, especially for rare tumors like retroperitoneal sarcoma