A "SHort course Accelerated RadiatiON therapy" (SHARON) During and Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic

The current pandemic situation posed significant problems for radiotherapy (RT) services. In addition to the need to treat COVID-positive patients, it is important to protect health workers and healthy patients from the infection. Although some restrictions are being removed, it is not sure when the pandemic is actually going to be definitively over. Radiation oncologists (ROs) will be forced to face the pandemic for an unknown time interval (1). A recent guideline has been published on the possibility of adapting RT strategies in all settings (2). Particularly along the first months of pandemic spread, hypofractionated RT schedules adequately managing different clinical settings have been proposed to reduce the number of interactions and contacts in hospitals (for both patients–patients and patients–RT personnel), while delivering effective treatments (3–5). Only few were specifically dedicated to palliative RT or particularly oriented to relevant palliative presentations (e.g., bone metastases) (6). With the aim of decreasing hospital contacts, it has been proposed to omit, or delay, or modify the usual prescribed RT regimens (6), more often for palliative settings. However, in the field of palliative RT any omission and delay can dramatically worsen patients’ quality of life. In fact, the proposal to omit palliative radiotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic has not been widely accepted, with some authors being worried by its clinical and ethical implications (7, 8). We would like to draw attention to a RT regimen tested in different settings. This scheme of SHort course Accelerated RadiatiON therapy: “SHARON” allows to complete a palliative RT course in four sessions and in only 2 days, using a double daily fractionation

CARE-compliant stereotactic radiotherapy of urothelial nodal metastases: A case report

The aim of the present study was to report the case of a 58-year-old male patient with ureteral carcinoma who underwent ureteroileostomy treatment. At 2 years following surgery, six lymph node metastases (LNMs) were detected in the patient's para-aortic and pelvic regions using F-18-labeled fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT. All LNMs were treated using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT; 35-40 Gy/5 fractions). At 3 months after radiotherapy, F-18-FDG-PET/CT examination revealed a complete radiological and metabolic response of all targeted treatment sites in the patient. In the 2 years following radiotherapy, another three same-dose SBRT treatments were performed on single or multiple LNMs, which were all detected in the abdomen and pelvis of the patient. Overall, a total of 11 LNMs were targeted in the patient and all exhibited complete radiological and metabolic response following treatment. The only treatment side effect reported by the patient was a slight and temporary loss of appetite. In patients with lymph node oligometastases there are two options for radiotherapy: i) Irradiation focusing on LNMs alone; and ii) prophylactic irradiation of the entire lymph node area combined with a boost on macroscopic lesions. In the patient discussed in the present study, the choice of irradiation focusing on LNMs alone made it possible to postpone systemic therapies and instead use an optimally tolerated treatment. The treatment outcome in this patient indicated that there was no radioresistance of urothelial LNMs

Short course palliative radiotherapy in advanced solid tumors: a pooled analysis (the SHARON project)

Previous trials showed the tolerability and efficacy of a palliative radiotherapy (RT) regimen (SHARON) based on the 4 fractions delivered in 2 days in different oncological settings. In order to identify possible predictors of symptomatic response, the purpose of this study is to perform a pooled analysis of previous trials. We analyzed the impact on symptomatic response of the following parameters: tumor site, histological type, performance status (ECOG), dominant symptom, and RT dose using the Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test. One-hundred-eighty patients were analyzed. Median RT dose was 20 Gy (range: 14-20 Gy). The overall response rate was 88.8% (95% CI 83.3-92.7%) while pre- and post-treatment mean VAS was 5.3 (+/- 7.7) and 2.2 (+/- 2.2), respectively (p < 0.001). The overall response rate of pain, dyspnea, bleeding, dysphagia, and other symptoms was 86.2%, 90.9%, 100%, 87.5%, and 100%, respectively. Comparing the symptomatic effect based on the analyzed parameters no significant differences were recorded. However, patients with locally advanced disease showed a higher rate of symptomatic responses than metastatic ones (97.3% vs 83.0%; p = 0.021). Finally, the complete pain response rate was more than double in patients with mild to moderate (VAS: 4-7) compared to those with severe (VAS > 7) pain (36.0% vs 14.3%; p = 0.028). This pooled analysis showed high efficacy of the SHARON regimen in the relief of several cancer-related symptoms. The markedly and significantly higher complete pain response rate, in patients with mild-moderate pain, suggests early referral to palliative RT for patients with cancer-related pain

Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Lung: Current Understanding and Challenges

Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung (LCNEC) is a rare and highly aggressive type of lung cancer, with a complex biology that shares similarities with both small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The prognosis of LCNEC is poor, with a median overall survival of 8–12 months. The diagnosis of LCNEC requires the identification of neuroendocrine morphology and the expression of at least one of the neuroendocrine markers (chromogranin A, synaptophysin or CD56). In the last few years, the introduction of next-generation sequencing allowed the identification of molecular subtypes of LCNEC, with prognostic and potential therapeutic implications: one subtype is similar to SCLC (SCLC-like), while the other is similar to NSCLC (NSCLC-like). Because of LCNEC rarity, most evidence comes from small retrospective studies and treatment strategies that are extrapolated from those adopted in patients with SCLC and NSCLC. Nevertheless, limited but promising data about targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with LCNEC are emerging. LCNEC clinical management is still controversial and standardized treatment strategies are currently lacking. The aim of this manuscript is to review clinical and molecular data about LCNEC to better understand the optimal management and the potential prognostic and therapeutic implications of molecular subtypes

Memantine in the Prevention of Radiation-Induced Brain Damage: A Narrative Review

Preserving cognitive functions is a priority for most patients with brain metastases. Knowing the mechanisms of hyperglutamatergic neurotoxicity and the role of some hippocampal areas in cognitive decline (CD) led to testing both the antiglutamatergic pharmacological prophylaxis and hippocampal-sparing whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) techniques. These studies showed a relative reduction in CD four to six months after WBRT. However, the failure to achieve statistical significance in one study that tested memantine alone (RTOG 0614) led to widespread skepticism about this drug in the WBRT setting. Moreover, interest grew in the reasons for the strong patient dropout rates in the first few months after WBRT and for early CD onset. In fact, the latter can only partially be explained by subclinical tumor progression. An emerging interpretation of the (not only) cognitive impairment during and immediately after WBRT is the dysfunction of the limbic and hypothalamic system with its immune and hormonal consequences. This new understanding of WBRT-induced toxicity may represent the basis for further innovative trials. These studies should aim to: (i) evaluate in greater detail the cognitive effects and, more generally, the quality of life impairment during and immediately after WBRT; (ii) study the mechanisms producing these early effects; (iii) test in clinical studies, the modern and advanced WBRT techniques based on both hippocampal-sparing and hypothalamic-pituitary-sparing, currently evaluated only in planning studies; (iv) test new timings of antiglutamatergic drugs administration aimed at preventing not only late toxicity but also acute effects

Achieving Consensus for Management of Hormone-Sensitive, Low-Volume Metastatic Prostate Cancer in Italy

Metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) is usually categorized as high- or low-volume disease. This is relevant because low- and high-volume metastatic disease are associated with different outcomes, and thus management of the two forms should differ. Although some definitions have been reported, the concept of oligometastatic disease is not so clearly defined, giving rise to further variability in the choice of treatment, mainly between systemic agents and radiotherapy, especially in the era of metastasis-directed therapy. With the aim of providing clinicians with guidance on best practice, a group of medical and radiation oncologists, experts in prostate cancer, used the round robin method to generate a series of consensus statements on management of low-volume mHSPC. Consensus was obtained on three major areas of controversy: (1) with regard to clinical definitions of mHSPC, it was held that oligometastatic and low-volume disease refer to different concepts and should not be used interchangeably; (2) regarding therapy of de novo low-volume metastatic disease, androgen deprivation therapy alone can be considered undertreatment, and all patients should be evaluated for systemic treatment combinations; local therapy should not be denied in patients with mHSPC, regardless of the intensity of systemic therapy, and metastasis-directed therapy can be proposed in selected cases; (3) with regard to treatment of metachronous metastatic disease, patients should be evaluated for systemic treatment combinations. Metastasis-directed therapy can be proposed to delay systemic treatment in selected cases, especially if prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography staging has been performed and when indolent disease occurs. It is hoped that clinicians treating patients with mHSPC in daily practice will find this expert opinion of value