Survey on gynecological cancer treatment by Piedmont, Liguria, and Valle d’Aosta group of AIRO (Italian Association of Radiation Oncology)

Purpose : We focused the attention on radiation therapy practices about the gynecological malignancies in Piedmont, Liguria, and Valle d’Aosta to know the current treatment practice and to improve the quality of care. Material and methods : We proposed a cognitive survey to evaluate the standard practice patterns for gynecological cancer management, adopted from 2012 to 2014 by radiotherapy (RT) centers with a large amount of gynecological cancer cases. There were three topics: 1. Taking care and multidisciplinary approach 2. Radiotherapy treatment and brachytherapy, 3. Follow-up. Results : Nineteen centers treated gynecological malignancies and 12 of these had a multidisciplinary dedicated team. Radiotherapy option has been used in all clinical setting: definitive, adjuvant, and palliative. In general, 1978 patients were treated. There were 834 brachytherapy (BRT) treatments. The fusion between diagnostic imaging (magnetic resonance imaging – MRI, positron emission tomography – PET) and computed tomography (CT) simulation was used for contouring in all centers. Conformal RT and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) were the most frequent techniques. The image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) was used in 10/19 centers. There were 8 active BRT centers. Brachytherapy was performed both with radical intent and as boost, mostly by HDR (6/8 centers). The doses for exclusive BRT were between 20 to 30 Gy. The doses for BRT boost were between 10 and 20 Gy. Four centers used CT-MRI compatible applicators but only one used MRI for planning. The BRT plans on vaginal cuff were still performed on traditional radiographies in 2 centers. The plan sum was evaluated in only 1 center. Only 1 center performed in vivo dosimetry. Conclusions : In the last three years, multidisciplinary approach, contouring, treatment techniques, doses, and control systems were similar in Liguria-Piedmont and Valle d’Aosta. However, the technology implementation didn’t translate in a real treatment innovation so far

Survey on gynecological cancer treatment by Piedmont, Liguria, and Valle d'Aosta group of AIRO (Italian Association of Radiation Oncology)

PURPOSE: We focused the attention on radiation therapy practices about the gynecological malignancies in Piedmont, Liguria, and Valle d'Aosta to know the current treatment practice and to improve the quality of care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We proposed a cognitive survey to evaluate the standard practice patterns for gynecological cancer management, adopted from 2012 to 2014 by radiotherapy (RT) centers with a large amount of gynecological cancer cases. There were three topics: 1. Taking care and multidisciplinary approach, 2. Radiotherapy treatment and brachytherapy, 3. Follow-up. RESULTS: Nineteen centers treated gynecological malignancies and 12 of these had a multidisciplinary dedicated team. Radiotherapy option has been used in all clinical setting: definitive, adjuvant, and palliative. In general, 1978 patients were treated. There were 834 brachytherapy (BRT) treatments. The fusion between diagnostic imaging (magnetic resonance imaging - MRI, positron emission tomography - PET) and computed tomography (CT) simulation was used for contouring in all centers. Conformal RT and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) were the most frequent techniques. The image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) was used in 10/19 centers. There were 8 active BRT centers. Brachytherapy was performed both with radical intent and as boost, mostly by HDR (6/8 centers). The doses for exclusive BRT were between 20 to 30 Gy. The doses for BRT boost were between 10 and 20 Gy. Four centers used CT-MRI compatible applicators but only one used MRI for planning. The BRT plans on vaginal cuff were still performed on traditional radiographies in 2 centers. The plan sum was evaluated in only 1 center. Only 1 center performed in vivo dosimetry. CONCLUSIONS: In the last three years, multidisciplinary approach, contouring, treatment techniques, doses, and control systems were similar in Liguria-Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta. However, the technology implementation didn't translate in a real treatment innovation so far

Mayo Endoscopic Score and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index Are Equally Effective for Endoscopic Activity Evaluation in Ulcerative Colitis Patients in a Real Life Setting

The role of endoscopic evaluation in ulcerative colitis (UC) is well recognized, but a universally accepted gold standard for endoscopic activity evaluation is still lacking, and many scores have been proposed to this purpose. Among these, the Mayo Endoscopic Score (MES) and the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index (UCEIS) are currently the most used in trials and clinical practice. The aim of the study is to evaluate feasibility and performance of MES and UCEIS among expert endoscopists with no specific expertise in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), in a single hospital center. Two minutes video recordings, from colonoscopy of 12 UC patients, were observed and scored, according to MES and UCEIS, by seven hospital gastroenterologists with experience in digestive endoscopy and no particular expertise in IBD. Knowledge and utilization of the two scores were investigated. Inter-observer agreement and agreement with an IBD-expert gastroenterologist of the same center (central reader), and correlation between the two scores, was calculated. Among the endoscopists, MES was much more known and currently used than UCEIS. Both the scores displayed a similar good performance. Agreement with central reader was moderate for MES and UCEIS, and interobserver agreement was good, for both MES and UCEIS. Correlation between the two scores was very good both for central reader and for the hospital endoscopists. This single center study confirmed potential feasibility and usefulness of MES and UCEIS for assessment of endoscopic activity in UC patients in a real-life setting

The "DICA" endoscopic classification for diverticular disease of the colon shows a significant interobserver agreement among community endoscopists

BACKGROUND AND AIM: An endoscopic classification of Diverticular Disease (DD), called DICA (Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment) is currently available. It scores severity of the disease as DICA 1, DICA 2 and DICA 3. Our aim was to assess the agreement levels for this classification among an endoscopist community setting. METHODS: A total of 66 endoscopists independently scored a set of DD endoscopic videos. The percentages of overall agreement on the DICA score and a free-marginal multirater kappa (κ) coefficient were reported as statistical measures of the inter-rater agreement. RESULTS: The overall agreement levels were: 70.2% for DICA 1, 70.5% for DICA 2, 81.3% for DICA 3. The free marginal κ was: 0.553 for DICA 1, 0.558 for DICA 2, 0.719 for DICA 3. The agreement levels among the expert group were: 78.8% for DICA 1, 80.2% for DICA 2, 88.5% for DICA 3. The free marginal κ among the expert group were: 0.682 for DICA 1, 0.712 for DICA 2, 0.828 for DICA 3. The agreement of expert raters on the single item of the DICA classification was superior to the agreement of the overall group. CONCLUSIONS: The overall inter-rater agreement for DICA score in this study ranges from moderate to good, with a significant improvement in the expert subgroup of raters. Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment is a simple and reproducible endoscopic scoring system

The “dica” endoscopic classification for diverticular disease of the colon shows a significant interobserver agreement among community endoscopists

BACKGROUND AND AIM: An endoscopic classification of Diverticular Disease (DD), called DICA (Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment) is currently available. It scores severity of the disease as DICA 1, DICA 2 and DICA 3. Our aim was to assess the agreement levels for this classification among an endoscopist community setting. METHODS: A total of 66 endoscopists independently scored a set of DD endoscopic videos. The percentages of overall agreement on the DICA score and a free-marginal multirater kappa (κ) coefficient were reported as statistical measures of the inter-rater agreement. RESULTS: The overall agreement levels were: 70.2% for DICA 1, 70.5% for DICA 2, 81.3% for DICA 3. The free marginal κ was: 0.553 for DICA 1, 0.558 for DICA 2, 0.719 for DICA 3. The agreement levels among the expert group were: 78.8% for DICA 1, 80.2% for DICA 2, 88.5% for DICA 3. The free marginal κ among the expert group were: 0.682 for DICA 1, 0.712 for DICA 2, 0.828 for DICA 3. The agreement of expert raters on the single item of the DICA classification was superior to the agreement of the overall group. CONCLUSIONS: The overall inter-rater agreement for DICA score in this study ranges from moderate to good, with a significant improvement in the expert subgroup of raters. Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment is a simple and reproducible endoscopic scoring system