Salivary gland-sparing other than parotid-sparing in definitive head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiotherapy does not seem to jeopardize local control.

International audienceBACKGROUND: The objective was to analyze locoregional (LR) failure patterns in patients with head-and-neck cancer (HNC) treated using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with whole salivary gland-sparing: parotid (PG), submandibular (SMG), and accessory salivary glands represented by the oral cavity (OC). METHODS: Seventy consecutive patients with Stage I-II (23%) or III/IV (77%) HNC treated by definitive IMRT were included. For all LR failure patients, the FDG-PET and CT scans documenting recurrence were rigidly registered to the initial treatment planning CT. Failure volumes (Vf) were delineated based on clinical, radiological, and histological data. The percentage of Vf covered by 95% of the prescription isodose (Vf-V95) was analyzed. Failures were classified as "in-field" if Vf--V95 >= 95%, "marginal" if 20% < Vf-V95 < 95%, and "out-of-field" if Vf-V95 <=20%. Correlation between Vf-V95 and mean doses (Dmean) in the PG, SMG, and OC was assessed using Spearman's rank-order correlation test. The salivary gland dose impact on the LR recurrence risk was assessed by Cox analysis. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 20 months (6--35). Contralateral and ipsilateral PGs were spared in 98% and 54% of patients, respectively, and contralateral and ipsilateral SMG in 26% and 7%, respectively. The OC was spared to a dose <=40 Gy in 26 patients (37%). The 2-year LR control rate was 76.5%. One recurrence was "marginal", and 12 were "in-field". No recurrence was observed in vicinity of spared structures. Vf-V95 was not significantly correlated with Dmean in PG, SMG, and OC. The LR recurrence risk was not increased by lower Dmean in the salivary glands, but by T (p = 0.04) and N stages (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Over 92% of LR failures occurred "in-field" within the high dose region when using IMRT with a whole salivary gland-sparing strategy. Sparing SMG and OC in addition to PG thus appears a safe strategy

Individual Participant Data Network Meta-Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Carcinoma

PURPOSE: The optimal neoadjuvant treatment for resectable carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (TE) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains a matter of debate. We performed an individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to study the effect of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, with a focus on tumor location and histology subgroups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All, published or unpublished, RCTs closed to accrual before December 31, 2015 and having compared at least two of the following strategies were eligible: upfront surgery (S), chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS), and chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRS). All analyses were conducted on IPD obtained from investigators. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The IPD-NMA was analyzed by a one-step mixed-effect Cox model adjusted for age, sex, tumor location, and histology. The NMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018107158). RESULTS: IPD were obtained for 26 of 35 RCTs (4,985 of 5,807 patients) corresponding to 12 comparisons for CS-S, 12 for CRS-S, and four for CRS-CS. CS and CRS led to increased OS when compared with S with hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (0.75 to 0.99), P = .03 and HR = 0.77 (0.68 to 0.87), P &lt; .001 respectively. The NMA comparison of CRS versus CS for OS gave a HR of 0.90 (0.74 to 1.09), P = .27 (consistency P = .26, heterogeneity P = .0038). For CS versus S, a larger effect on OS was observed for GEJ versus TE tumors (P = .036). For the CRS versus S and CRS versus CS, a larger effect on OS was observed for women (P = .003, .012, respectively). CONCLUSION:Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were consistently better than S alone across histology, but with some variation in the magnitude of treatment effect by sex for CRS and tumor location for CS. A strong OS difference between CS and CRS was not identified.</p

Tomographie par émission de positons au (18 F)-fluorodésoxyglucose dans les cancers du col utérin: évaluation ganglionnaire et valeur pronostique/prédictive des données de la tumeur primitive [((18)F)-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT in cervix cancer: lymph node assessment and prognostic/predictive value of primary tumour analysis].

National audiencePURPOSE: In cervix carcinoma: (a) to evaluate the ability of ((18)F)-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in the lymph node detection; (b) to investigate the prognostic and predictive value of the primary cervical PET parameters. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety patients treated for cervix carcinoma and evaluated initially by MRI and FGD PET were included. The performances of FDG-PET for lymph node detection (relatively to the lymph node dissection) have been described (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value). PET tumour parameters analyzed were: maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax), the volume and the maximum diameter. The prognostic and predictive values of these parameters were investigated. The tumour response was evaluated on surgical specimens. RESULTS: PET detected the cervical tumour with a sensitivity of 97% (mean values: SUVmax=15.8, volume=27 mm(3), maximum diameter=47). For the detection of the lymph nodes, the values of sensibility, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were: 86, 56, 69 and 78% in the pelvic, and 90, 67, 50 and 95% for the para-aortic area, respectively. The SUVmax was correlated with histologic response (P=0.04). The frequency of partial histological response was significantly higher for tumour SUVmax>10.9 (P=0.017). The maximum PET diameter and pathologic response had an impact on disease-free survival and overall survival in multivariate analysis (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: PET has high sensitivity in detecting pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes. Some primary cervical tumour PET parameters are useful as prognostic and predictive factors

Pre- and per-treatment 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters to predict recurrence and survival in cervical cancer

International audienc

Individual Participant Data Network Meta-Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Carcinoma

PURPOSE: The optimal neoadjuvant treatment for resectable carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (TE) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains a matter of debate. We performed an individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to study the effect of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, with a focus on tumor location and histology subgroups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All, published or unpublished, RCTs closed to accrual before December 31, 2015 and having compared at least two of the following strategies were eligible: upfront surgery (S), chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS), and chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRS). All analyses were conducted on IPD obtained from investigators. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The IPD-NMA was analyzed by a one-step mixed-effect Cox model adjusted for age, sex, tumor location, and histology. The NMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018107158). RESULTS: IPD were obtained for 26 of 35 RCTs (4,985 of 5,807 patients) corresponding to 12 comparisons for CS-S, 12 for CRS-S, and four for CRS-CS. CS and CRS led to increased OS when compared with S with hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (0.75 to 0.99), P = .03 and HR = 0.77 (0.68 to 0.87), P < .001 respectively. The NMA comparison of CRS versus CS for OS gave a HR of 0.90 (0.74 to 1.09), P = .27 (consistency P = .26, heterogeneity P = .0038). For CS versus S, a larger effect on OS was observed for GEJ versus TE tumors (P = .036). For the CRS versus S and CRS versus CS, a larger effect on OS was observed for women (P = .003, .012, respectively). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were consistently better than S alone across histology, but with some variation in the magnitude of treatment effect by sex for CRS and tumor location for CS. A strong OS difference between CS and CRS was not identified

Individual Participant Data Network Meta-Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Carcinoma

PURPOSE The optimal neoadjuvant treatment for resectable carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (TE) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains a matter of debate. We performed an individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to study the effect of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, with a focus on tumor location and histology subgroups. PATIENTS AND METHODS All, published or unpublished, RCTs closed to accrual before December 31, 2015 and having compared at least two of the following strategies were eligible: upfront surgery (S), chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS), and chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRS). All analyses were conducted on IPD obtained from investigators. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The IPD-NMA was analyzed by a one-step mixed-effect Cox model adjusted for age, sex, tumor location, and histology. The NMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018107158). RESULTS IPD were obtained for 26 of 35 RCTs (4,985 of 5,807 patients) corresponding to 12 comparisons for CS-S, 12 for CRS-S, and four for CRS-CS. CS and CRS led to increased OS when compared with S with hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (0.75 to 0.99), P = .03 and HR = 0.77 (0.68 to 0.87), P < .001 respectively. The NMA comparison of CRS versus CS for OS gave a HR of 0.90 (0.74 to 1.09), P = .27 (consistency P = .26, heterogeneity P = .0038). For CS versus S, a larger effect on OS was observed for GEJ versus TE tumors ( P = .036). For the CRS versus S and CRS versus CS, a larger effect on OS was observed for women ( P = .003, .012, respectively). CONCLUSION Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were consistently better than S alone across histology, but with some variation in the magnitude of treatment effect by sex for CRS and tumor location for CS. A strong OS difference between CS and CRS was not identified