Should Cancer Survivors Fear Radiation-Induced Sarcomas?

Purpose/Results. Ionizing radiation is carcinogenic and the induction of a second malignancy is a serious potential long-term complication of radiotherapy. The incidence of radiation-induced sarcomas was evaluated from many large epidemiological surveys of long-term cancer survivors reported in the literature over the past 30 years and only one case was found for every 1000 patients irradiated

Imaging in pleural mesothelioma: A review of the 11th International Conference of the International Mesothelioma Interest Group

Imaging of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is essential to the diagnosis, assessment, and monitoring of this disease. The complex morphology and growth pattern of MPM, however, create unique challenges for image acquisition and interpretation. These challenges have captured the attention of investigators around the world, some of whom presented their work at the 2012 International Conference of the International Mesothelioma Interest Group (iMig 2012) in Boston, Massachusetts, USA, September 2012. The measurement of tumor thickness on computed tomography (CT) scans is the current standard of care in the assessment of MPM tumor response to therapy; in this context, variability among observers in the measurement task and in the tumor response classification categories derived from such measurements was reported. Alternate CT-based tumor response criteria, specifically direct measurement of tumor volume change and change in lung volume as a surrogate for tumor response, were presented. Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT has a role in other settings, but investigation into its potential use for imaging mesothelioma tumor perfusion only recently has been initiated. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron-emission tomography (PET) are important imaging modalities in MPM and complement the information provided by CT. The pointillism sign in diffusion-weighted MRI was reported as a potential parameter for the classification of pleural lesions as benign or malignant, and PET parameters that measure tumor activity and functional tumor volume were presented as indicators of patient prognosis. Also reported was the use of PET/CT in the management of patients who undergo high-dose radiation therapy. Imaging for MPM impacts everything from initial patient diagnosis to the outcomes of clinical trials; iMig 2012 captured this broad range of imaging applications as investigators exploit technology and implement multidisciplinary approaches toward the benefit of MPM patients. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved

Comparison of toxicity and outcomes of concurrent radiotherapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel or cisplatin/etoposide in stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has become the standard of care for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The comparative merits of two widely used regimens: carboplatin/paclitaxel (PC) and cisplatin/etoposide (PE), each with concurrent radiotherapy, remain largely undefined. Records for consecutive patients with stage III NSCLC treated with PC or PE and ≥60 Gy chest radiotherapy between 2000 and 2011 were reviewed for outcomes and toxicity. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox modeling with the Wald test. Comparison across groups was done using the student's t and chi-squared tests. Seventy-five (PC: 44, PE: 31) patients were analyzed. PC patients were older (median 71 vs. 63 years; P = 0.0006). Other characteristics were comparable between groups. With PE, there was significantly increased grade ≥3 neutropenia (39% vs. 14%, P = 0.024) and thrombocytopenia (10% vs. 0%, P = 0.039). Radiation pneumonitis was more common with PC (66% vs. 38%, P = 0.033). Five treatment-related deaths occurred (PC: 3 vs. PE: 2, P = 1.000). With a median follow-up of 51.6 months, there were no significant differences in relapse-free survival (median PC 12.0 vs. PE 11.5 months, P = 0.700) or overall survival (median PC 20.7 vs. PE 13.7 months; P = 0.989). In multivariate analyses, no factors predicted for improved survival for either regimen. PC was more likely to be used in elderly patients. Despite this, PC resulted in significantly less hematological toxicity but achieved similar survival outcomes as PE. PC is an acceptable CCRT regimen, especially in older patients with multiple comorbidities

Quality of life after breast-conserving therapy and adjuvant radiotherapy for non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01): 2-year results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundBIG 3-07/TROG 07.01 is an international, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial evaluating tumour bed boost and hypofractionation in patients with non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast radiotherapy. Here, we report the effects of diagnosis and treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 2 years.MethodsThe BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01 trial is ongoing at 118 hospitals in 11 countries. Women aged 18 years or older with completely excised non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ were randomly assigned, by use of a minimisation algorithm, to tumour bed boost or no tumour bed boost, following conventional whole breast radiotherapy or hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy using one of three randomisation categories. Category A was a 4-arm randomisation of tumour bed boost versus no boost following conventional whole breast radiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks) versus hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy (42·5 Gy in 16 fractions over 3·5 weeks). Category B was a 2-arm randomisation between tumour bed boost versus no boost following conventional whole breast radiotherapy, and category C was a 2-arm randomisation between tumour bed boost versus no boost following hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy. Stratification factors were age at diagnosis, planned endocrine therapy, and treating centre. The primary endpoint, time to local recurrence, will be reported when participants have completed 5 years of follow-up. The HRQOL statistical analysis plan prespecified eight aspects of HRQOL, assessed by four questionnaires at baseline, end of treatment, and at 6, 12, and 24 months after radiotherapy: fatigue and physical functioning (EORTC QLQ-C30); cosmetic status, breast-specific symptoms, arm and shoulder functional status (Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale); body image and sexuality (Body Image Scale); and perceived risk of invasive breast cancer (Cancer Worry Scale and a study-specific question). For each of these measures, tumour bed boost was compared with no boost, and conventional whole breast radiotherapy compared with hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy, by use of generalised estimating equation models. Analyses were by intention to treat, with Hochberg adjustment for multiple testing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00470236.FindingsBetween June 1, 2007, and Aug 14, 2013, 1208 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive no tumour bed boost (n=605) or tumour bed boost (n=603). 396 of 1208 women were assigned to category A: conventional whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=100) or no boost (n=98), or to hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=98) or no boost (n=100). 447 were assigned to category B: conventional whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=223) or no boost (n=224). 365 were assigned to category C: hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=182) or no boost (n=183). All patients were followed up at 2 years for the HRQOL analysis. 1098 (91%) of 1208 patients received their allocated treatment, and most completed their scheduled HRQOL assessments (1147 [95%] of 1208 at baseline; 988 [87%] of 1141 at 2 years). Cosmetic status was worse with tumour bed boost than with no boost across all timepoints (difference 0·10 [95% CI 0·05–0·15], global p=0·00014, Hochberg-adjusted p=0·0016); at the end of treatment, the estimated difference between tumour bed boost and no boost was 0·13 (95% CI 0·06–0·20; p=0·00021), persisting at 24 months (0·13 [0·06–0·20]; p=0·00021). Arm and shoulder function was also adversely affected by tumour bed boost across all timepoints (0·08 [95% CI 0·03–0·13], global p=0·0033, Hochberg adjusted p=0·045); the difference between tumour bed boost and no boost at the end of treatment was 0·08 (0·01 to 0·15, p=0·021), and did not persist at 24 months (0·04 [–0·03 to 0·11], p=0·29). None of the other six prespecified aspects of HRQOL differed significantly after adjustment for multiple testing. Conventional whole breast radiotherapy was associated with worse body image than hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy at the end of treatment (difference –1·10 [95% CI –1·79 to –0·42], p=0·0016). No significant differences were reported in the other PROs between conventional whole breast radiotherapy compared with hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy.InterpretationTumour bed boost was associated with persistent adverse effects on cosmetic status and arm and shoulder functional status, which might inform shared decision making while local recurrence analysis is pending