DWI-MR and PET-CT Functional Imaging for Boost Tumor Volume Delineation in Neoadjuvant Rectal Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND/AIM T2 weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is the gold standard for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) staging. The potential benefit of functional imaging, as diffusion-weighted MR (DWI) and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT), could be considered for treatment intensification strategies. Dose intensification resulted in better pathological complete response (pCR) rates. This study evaluated the inter-observer agreement between two radiation oncologists, and the difference in gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation in simulation-CT, T2-MR, DWI-MR, and PET-CT in patients with LARC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two radiation oncologists prospectively delineated GTVs of 24 patients on simul-CT (CT$_{GTV}$), T2-weighted MR (T2$_{GTV}$), echo planar b1000 DWI (DWI$_{GTV}$) and PET-CT (PET$_{GTV}$). Observers' agreement was assessed using Dice index. Kruskal-Wallis test assessed differences between methods. RESULTS Mean CT$_{GTV}$, T2$_{GTV}$, DWI$_{GTV}$, and PET$_{GTV}$ were 41.3±26.9 cc, 25.9±15.2 cc, 21±14.8 cc, and 37.7±27.7 cc for the first observer, and 42.2±27.9 cc, 27.6±16.9 cc, 19.9±14.9cc, and 34.8±24.3 cc for the second observer, respectively. Mean Dice index was 0.85 for CT$_{GTV}$, 0.84 for T2$_{GTV}$, 0.82 for DWI$_{GTV}$, and 0.89 for PET$_{GTV}$, representative of almost perfect agreement. Kruskal-Wallis test showed a statistically significant difference between methods (p=0.009). Dunn test showed there were differences between DWI$_{GTV}$ vs. PET$_{GTV}$ (p=0.040) and DWI$_{GTV}$ vs. CT$_{GTV}$ (p=0.008). CONCLUSION DWI resulted in smaller volume delineation compared to CT, T2-MR, and PET-CT functional images. Almost perfect agreements were reported for each imaging modality between two observers. DWI-MR seems to remain the optimal strategy for boost volume delineation for dose escalation in patients with LARC

Smile In^TM Totems in Radiotherapy: Patients’ Satisfaction with Limited Equipment and COVID-19

Background: We report a mono-institutional experience regarding patient-perceived quality regarding the Chieti Radiotherapy Department, through RAMSI (Radiotherapy Amica Mia—SmileINTM(SI)—My Friend RadiotherapySI) project, in critical scenarios of limited equipment and COVID-19. Material and methods: Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) were assessed as follows: Patient-centric welcome perception (PCWP), Comfort, Professional skills and Punctuality. Patients could give anonymous feedback using HappyOrNot technology through four totems located in strategic areas within the center. An internal benchmark was obtained using the feedback received after a preliminary observation period. The SI Experience Index was collected, analyzed and compared. Weekly and monthly reports were generated. Results: From February 2019 to February 2022, 8924 patients accessed the department; 17,464 daily treatments were recorded and 5830 points of feedback were collected: 896, 1267, 1125 and 2542 for PCWP, Comfort, Professional skills and Punctuality, respectively. A LINAC decommissioning period was analyzed, with decreases in the SI-Index score and Smile-IN approved percentage and an improvement after this period. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic was analyzed with a mild evaluations decrease for PREM’s Welcome, Comfort and Punctuality (Δ-value: −9%, −3% and −4%, respectively), while Professional skills were always optimal. Conclusion: The RAMSI project was effective for assessing treatment quality perception, allowing for improving clinical procedures with corrective actions. The RAMSI project is ongoing

Reirradiation with radiosurgery or stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy in association with regorafenib in recurrent glioblastoma

PurposeNo standard treatment has yet been established for recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). In this context, the aim of the current study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of reirradiation (re-RT) by radiosurgery or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS/FSRT) in association with regorafenib.MethodsPatients with a histological or radiological diagnosis of recurrent GBM who received re-RT by SRS/FSRT and regorafenib as second-line systemic therapy were included in the analysis.ResultsFrom January 2020 to December 2022, 21 patients were evaluated. The median time between primary/adjuvant RT and disease recurrence was 8 months (range 5-20). Median re-RT dose was 24 Gy (range 18-36 Gy) for a median number of 5 fractions (range 1-6). Median regorafenib treatment duration was 12 weeks (range 3-26). Re-RT was administered before starting regorafenib or in the week off regorafenib during the course of chemotherapy. The median and the 6-month overall survival (OS) from recurrence were 8.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.9-12.7 months) and 75% (95% CI 50.9-89.1%), respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) from recurrence was 6 months (95% CI 3.7-8.5 months). The most frequent side effects were asthenia that occurred in 10 patients (8 cases of grade 2 and 2 cases of grade 3), and hand-foot skin reaction (2 patients grade 3, 3 patients grade 2). Adverse events led to permanent regorafenib discontinuation in 2 cases, while in 5/21 cases (23.8%), a dose reduction was administered. One patient experienced dehiscence of the surgical wound after reintervention and during regorafenib treatment, while another patient reported intestinal perforation that required hospitalization.ConclusionFor recurrent GBM, re-RT with SRT/FSRT plus regorafenib is a safe treatment. Prospective trials are necessary

The representation of the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and the consequent lockdown in Italy: A psychosocial research by SPS, Studio di Psicosociologia of Rome

A fine febbraio 2020, in SPS4ci siamo chiesti quali fossero i vissuti evocati dalla pandemia Covid-19 in esordio, e quali fatti “derivassero” da tali vissuti. A tal fine abbiamo interpellato 419 persone, tra l’1 marzo e il 5 maggio 2020. Il corpus raccolto è stato analizzato con l’Analisi Emozionale del Testo (AET). Si ipotizzava che la pandemia avesse destrutturato le modalità abituali di rapporto, e pensavamo stessero emergendo dimensioni relazionali inedite. I nostri dati dicono che l’individualismo abituale, di avida competitività, è in crisi. In risposta alla destrutturazione dello schema relazionale amico/nemico, alla base della socialità, è emerso un nuovo individualismo. La rappresentazione del pericolo insito nel contagio pandemico ci ha reso, tutti, potenzialmente nemici gli uni degli altri. Tutti siamo vissuti come potenzialmente nemici di tutti, a meno di non essere dichiaratamente malati. I malati, di contro, non sono vissuti come nemici: sono un’alterità scissa, relegata in un altrove lontano da chi è “sano”. Le cure, nel lockdown, erano confinate nell’ospedale, caratterizzate dall’isolamento, dall’emergenza, dalla morte esperita nel peggiore dei modi. L’altrove è stato reificato in un ospedale diventato sintomatico del fallimento del sistema sanitario. Si è costituito un “noi” qui insieme, sani e maniacalmente felici, e un “loro”contagiati, dannati, isolati e “altrove”. Internet, consentendo vicinanza senza contatto, è diventata un nuovo contesto di socialità. Ha permesso di ridiventare umani, ovvero amici, a meno che non si dimostri il contrario. Ma la nuova amicalità è fondata sulla scissione dall’altro dannato: la coppia malato/curante, e tutti gli esclusi, per diverse motivazioni, dalla protezione del lockdown. Dalla nuova socialità è escluso anche il vissuto dello stare chiusi in casa con gli abituali conviventi, dove emerge la violenza delle relazioni familiari obbligate. Si evidenziano altri esclusi dal noi maniacalmente amicale: gli anziani che non usano internet e che più di tutti rischiano di morire. C’è poi una cultura che, entro il fallimento delle relazioni sociali abituali, sottolinea l’impotenza delle istituzioni (politiche, sanitarie, mediatiche etc.) nella contingenza pandemica. Infine, c’è una cultura pre-lockdown, fatta della paura che porterà a scegliere l’isolamento. Manca, nei dati, il mondo produttivo, che non ha ritrovato, per gli interpellati dalla ricerca –nel periodo di tempo da noi considerato –un codice emozionale condiviso che potesse raccogliersi in un cluster. La ricerca aveva anche un obiettivo di intervento: quello di creare un contesto in cui l’evento pandemia potesse essere interpretato, entro un setting di partecipazione. Oltre a effettuare una pubblicazione rapida dei dati, intendiamo promuovere gruppi di discussione su internet con i partecipanti. La creazione di un contesto di condivisione è anche un motivo dell’alto numero di Autori.At the end of February 2020, in SPS2we asked ourselves what were the experiences evoked by the Covid-19 pandemic in its debut, and what facts “derived”from these experiences. To this end, we interviewed 419 people, between 1 March and 5 May 2020. The collected corpus was analyzed through the Emotional Text Analysis (AET). It was assumed that the pandemic had deconstructed the usual ways of relating, and we thought that new relational dimensions were emerging. Our data show that habitual individualism, of greedy competitiveness, is in crisis. A new individualism has emerged in response to the deconstruction of the friend/foerelational schema, at the basis of sociality. The representation of the danger inherent in the pandemic contagion has made us all potentially enemies of each other. We have all lived as potentially enemies of all, unless we are admittedly sick. The sick, on the other hand, are not experienced as enemies: they are a split otherness, relegated to an elsewhere far from those who are “healthy”. Duringthe lockdown, treatments were confined to the hospital, characterized by isolation, emergency, death experienced in the worst way. The othernesswas reified in a hospital that became symptomatic of the failure of the health system. A “we”has formed here together, healthy and maniacally happy, and a “them”infected, damned, isolated and “elsewhere”. The Internet, by allowing contactless proximity, has become a new context of sociality. It has allowed us to become human again, or friends, unless proven otherwise. But the new friendship is based on the split from the damned other: the sick/caring couple, and all those excluded, for various reasons, from the protection of the lockdown. The experience of being closed at home with the usual cohabitants is also excluded from the new sociality, where the violence of forced family relationships emerges. There are others excluded from a maniacally friendlyus: the elderly who do not use the internet and who most of all risk dying. There is also a culture that, within the failure of habitual social relations, underlines the powerlessness of institutions (political, health, media, etc.) in the pandemic contingency. Finally, there is a pre-lockdown culture, made up of fear that will lead to chooseisolation. In the data, the productive world is missing, which for those interviewed by the research did not find -in the period of time we considered -a shared emotional code that could be gathered in a cluster. The research also had an intervention objective: to create a context in which the pandemicevent could be interpreted, within a setting of participation. In addition to publishing the data quickly, we intend to promote discussion groups onthe internet with participants. The creation of a sharing context is also areason for the high number of Author

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field