Linfoma de Hodgkin: aspectos práticos da abordagem radioterápica

O papel da radioterapia na abordagem do linfoma de Hodgkin (LH) é bem definido. O objetivo deste estudo é apresentar e situar a radioterapia no tratamento atual dessa entidade. O LH pode ser subdividido em grupos favoráveis e desfavoráveis ao tratamento, de acordo com o prognóstico; o primeiro apresenta melhores resultados na terapia combinada (quimioterapia - QT - e radioterapia - RT) quando comparados ao segundo. Neste, usar campos menores de irradiação (a tendência atual para radioterapia) não tem diferença na sobrevida. Em favoráveis no estádio inicial, doses menores de QT e RT são eficazes. Nos estágios III e IV em geral, a adição de RT apenas aumenta o tempo livre de doença, mas não a sobrevida

Stereotactic body radiotherapy in lung cancer: an update

AbstractFor early-stage lung cancer, the treatment of choice is surgery. In patients who are not surgical candidates or are unwilling to undergo surgery, radiotherapy is the principal treatment option. Here, we review stereotactic body radiotherapy, a technique that has produced quite promising results in such patients and should be the treatment of choice, if available. We also present the major indications, technical aspects, results, and special situations related to the technique

Emerging radiotherapy technology in a developing country: A single Brazilian institution assessment of stereotactic body radiotherapy application

Objective: To provide a quantitative profile of the indications and use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in a developing country oncology-based institution. In addition, to describe the patients' and treatment characteristics, and to provide a temporal analysis. Method: SBRT patients treated from 2007 to 2015 were retrospectively evaluated by two independently investigators. Data were stratified and compared in two periods: first experience (FE) (May 2007 to April 2011), and following experience (FollowE) (May 2011 to April 2015). The following parameters were compared between the groups: total number of treated patients and lesions, treatment site, additional image fusion used, formal protocol adoption, and SBRT planning technique. Results: One hundred and seventy-six (176) patients with 191 lesions were treated: 34 (18%) lesions in the FE and 157 (82%) lesions in FollowE. The majority of lesions were metastases (60.3%), and lung (60.2%) was the most common treatment site, followed by spine (31%), and others (8.8%). An average of 1.4 (±0.6) additional imaging exams for delineation was performed. Conformal 3D radiotherapy planning technique was used in 64.4%, and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the remaining 35.6% (p=0.0001). Higher rates of curative treatments were observed in FE, as well as more lung lesions, patients ≥ 70 years, 3D conformal, number of additional images and ECOG 0, and all presented p<0.05. The global rate of protocol statement was 79%, lung treatment being the most stated. Conclusion: SBRT application is rapidly increasing in our setting. Treatment sites and planning techniques are becoming more diversified and complex

Long-term outcomes of dose-escalated intensity modulated radiation therapy alone without androgen deprivation therapy for patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer

Objective: The addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to conventional radiation therapy improves overall survival (OS) in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. The benefit of ADT to added to dose-escalated radiotherapy is less clear. The aim of this study was to report disease control outcomes and to identify prognostic variables associated with favorable outcomes in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer treated with dose-escalated radiation therapy without ADT. Methods and materials: From September 2001 to March 2010, 127 patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer were treated with dose-escalated radiation otherapy without ADT. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), prostate cancer–specific mortality, and OS were assessed. Univariate and multivariate analyses using Cox regression modeling were performed. Results: The median follow-up was 6.5 years, and the 5-year estimated bRFS, DMFS, prostate cancer–specific mortality, and OS for all patients was 89%, 96.1%, 98.4%, and 96.9% respectively. On multivariate analysis, factors that predict bRFS include risk group and PSA nadir, and factors that predict DMFS include perineural invasion, risk group, and PSA nadir. Conclusions: Patients with favorable intermediate-risk cancer could likely be treated with dose-escalated radiation therapy without ADT. Patients with high-risk and unfavorable intermediate-risk cancer, perineural invasion, and PSA nadir ≥1ng/dL had worse outcomes and likely need distinct therapeutic approaches