Intraoperative radiotherapy electron boost in advanced and recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a retrospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Relapses of epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) have a poor prognosis and are almost always fatal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome and toxicity of intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy (IOERT) in advanced and recurrent EOC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Forty-five women with EOC were treated with IOERT. Twenty-five patients had primary disease (PD) without distant metastasis at IOERT, and 20 patients had an isolated local recurrence (ILR) after surgery. All 45 patients in this series underwent optimal cytoreductive (≤ 1 cm) surgery. The whole pelvic (WP) radiotherapy was intraoperatively delivered using 12 Mev electron beam; 43 patients received 18-20 Gy and two patients received 10 Gy. Thirty-three patients received postoperateive intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy, while seven patients received intravenous (IV) chemotherapy. Five patients refused concurrent chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Tumor recurrence and metastasis were observed in 16 patients (35.6%). Of those, 14 patients (31.1%) relapsed and two patients (4.4%) had distant metastasis alone. Eight of 25 (32%) local failures were observed in the PD group, as compared to 6/20 (30%) in the ILR group (<it>P </it>= 0.885). Actuarial local control at five year follow-up was 31/45 (68.9%). Seventeen of the total 45 (37.8%) patients died. Nine of 25 (36%) in the PD group died, as compared to 8 of 20 (40%) in the ILR group. The 5-year OS and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 28/45 (62.2%) and 25/45 (55.6%), respectively. In the PD group, the 5-year OS and DFS rates were 16/25 (64%) and 14/25 (56%) (<it>P </it>> 0.05, <it>vs</it>. the ILR group at 12/20 and 11/20, respectively). The OS and DFS in the IOERT plus IP group were 25/33 (75.8%) and 23/33 (69.7%), respectively, which were superior to the rates achieved with IOERT plus IV chemotherapy (<it>P </it>< 0.05, 2/7 and 1/7, respectively). The major complication of IOERT was neuropathy. Five (11.1%) patients developed peripheral neurotoxicity.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>IOERT may be feasible and effective as a boosting technique for advanced and recurrent ovarian cancer. IOERT plus IP chemotherapy may achieve high locoregional disease control and survival benefit with a low risk of toxicity. Peripheral nerves in the IOERT field are dose-limiting structures requiring nerve protection policies or a dose compromise to ensure against severe neurological damage.</p

Phase II study evaluating consolidation whole abdominal intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer stage FIGO III - The OVAR-IMRT-02 Study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The prognosis for patients with advanced FIGO stage III epithelial ovarian cancer remains poor despite the aggressive standard treatment, consisting of maximal cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. The median time to recurrence is less than 2 years, with a 5-years survival rate of -20-25%. Recurrences of the disease occur mostly intraperitoneally.</p> <p>Ovarian cancer is a radiosensitive tumor, so that the use of whole abdominal radiotherapy (WAR) as a consolidation therapy would appear to be a logical strategy. WAR used to be the standard treatment after surgery before the chemotherapy era; however, it has been almost totally excluded from the treatment of ovarian cancer during the past decade because of its high toxicity. Modern intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has the potential of sparing organs at risk like kidneys, liver, and bone marrow while still adequately covering the peritoneal cavity with a homogenous dose.</p> <p>Our previous phase I study showed for the first time the clinical feasibility of intensity-modulated WAR and pointed out promising results concerning treatment tolerance. The current phase-II study succeeds to the phase-I study to further evaluate the toxicity of this new treatment.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The OVAR-IMRT-02 study is a single-center one arm phase-II trial. Thirty seven patients with optimally debulked ovarian cancer stage FIGO III having a complete remission after chemotherapy will be treated with intensity-modulated WAR as a consolidation therapy.</p> <p>A total dose of 30 Gy in 20 fractions of 1.5 Gy will be applied to the entire peritoneal cavity including the liver surface and the pelvic and para-aortic node regions. Organ at risk are kidneys, liver (except the 1 cm-outer border), heart, vertebral bodies and pelvic bones.</p> <p>Primary endpoint is tolerability; secondary objectives are toxicity, quality of life, progression-free and overall survival.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Intensity-modulated WAR provides a new promising option in the consolidation treatment of ovarian carcinoma in patients with a complete pathologic remission after adjuvant chemotherapy. Further consequent studies will be needed to enable firm conclusions regarding the value of consolidation radiotherapy within the multimodal treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov: <a href="http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01180504">NCT01180504</a></p

Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma of the breast: a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge

We present a patient with lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (lelc) of the breast whose diagnosis is illustrative of the pathology nuances that must be taken into account to successfully reach correct identification of the disease. We also present an overview of our patient’s proposed treatment in the context of 16 other reported lelc cases. Although lelc cases are rare, a sufficient number have been reported to discern the natural history of this pathologic entity and to undertake a review of those cases and of the application of oncologic first principles in their management. Given the potential for locoregional spread and distant metastases in lelc, adjuvant therapy has a role in the treatment of this entity

Caught in the middle: case study of a brachial (sentry) lymph node recurrence after resection and locoregional breast radiotherapy

To reduce local recurrence, adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy is given routinely for post-mastectomy breast patients with 4 or more positive lymph nodes. Most institutions adopt a 3- or 4-field radiotherapy technique, in which the field and shielding placements are informed by bony anatomic landmarks viewed on digitally reconstructed radiographs

Personalizing Post-Treatment Cancer Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey of the Needs and Preferences of Well Survivors of Breast Cancer

Background: Improved treatments resulting in a rising number of survivors of breast cancer (bca) calls for optimization of current specialist-based follow-up care. In the present study, we evaluated well survivors of bca with respect to their supportive care needs and attitudes toward follow-up with various care providers, in varying settings, or mediated by technology (for example, videoconference or e-mail). Methods: A cross-sectional paper survey of well survivors of early-stage pT1–2N0 bca undergoing posttreatment follow-up was completed. Descriptive and univariable logistic regression analyses were performed to examine associations between survivor characteristics, supportive care needs, and perceived satisfaction with follow-up options. Qualitative responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Results: The 190 well survivors of bca who participated (79% response rate) had an average age of 63 ± 10 years. Median time since first follow-up was 21 months. Most had high perceived satisfaction with in-person specialist care (96%, 177 of 185). The second most accepted model was shared care involving specialist and primary care provider follow-up (54%, 102 of 190). Other models received less than 50% perceived satisfaction. Factors associated with higher perceived satisfaction with non-specialist care or virtual follow-up by a specialist included less formal education (p &lt; 0.01) and more met supportive care needs (p &lt; 0.05). Concerns with virtual follow-up included the perceived impersonal nature of virtual care, potential for inadequate care, and confidentiality. Conclusions: Well survivors of bca want specialists involved in their follow-up care. Compared with virtual followup, in-person follow-up is perceived as more reassuring. Certain survivor characteristics (for example, met supportive care needs) might signal survivor readiness for virtual or non-specialist follow-up. Future work should examine multi-stakeholder perspectives about barriers to and facilitators of shared multimodal follow-up care

Physician "Out of Office" Alert: Does It Work?

The rapid expansion of electronic communication has aided in patient care, but it has also increased the amount of time that physicians spend reviewing and responding to e-mail messages. [...