Three-dimensional surface and ultrasound imaging for daily IGRT of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: Image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) is an essential pre-requisite for delivering high precision radiotherapy. We compared daily variation detected by two non-ionizing imaging modalities (surface imaging and trans-abdominal ultrasound, US) to verify prostate patient setup and internal organ variations. METHODS: Forty patients with organ confined prostate cancer and candidates to curative radiotherapy were enrolled in this prospective study. At each treatment session, after laser alignment, all patients received imaging by a 3D-surface and a 3D-US system. The shifts along the three directions (anterior-posterior AP, cranial-caudal CC, and later-lateral LL) were measured in terms of systematic and random errors. Then, we performed statistical analysis on the differences and the possible correlations between the two modalities. RESULTS: For both IGRT modalities, surface imaging and US, 1318 acquisitions were collected. According with Shapiro Wilk test, the positioning error distributions were not Gaussian for both modalities. The differences between the systematic errors detected by the two modalities were statistically significant only in LL direction (p < 0.05), while the differences between the random errors were not statistically significant in any directions. The 95% confidence interval of the residual errors obtained by subtracting the random errors detected with surface images to those detected with US was included in the range from -7 mm to 7 mm corresponding to the minimum PTV margin adopted in AP direction in our clinical routine. CONCLUSIONS: From our data, it emerges that setup misalignments measured by surface imaging can be predictive of US displacements after the adjustment for systematic errors. Moreover, surface imaging can detect setup errors predictive of registration errors measured by US. This data suggest that the two IGRT modalities could be considered as complementary to each other and could represent a daily "low-cost" and non-invasive IGRT modality in prostate cancer patients

Antiproliferative, Proapoptotic, Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Effects of <em>Sinapis nigra </em>L. and <em>Sinapis alba</em> L. Extracts

High Brassicaceae consumption reduces the risk of developing several cancer types, probably due to high levels of glucosinolates. Extracts from Sinapis nigra L. (S. nigra) and Sinapis alba L. (S. alba) have been obtained from leaves and seeds under different conditions using ethanol/water mixtures because their glucosinolates are well accepted by the food industry. The EtOH/H2O 8:2 mixture gives better yields in glucosinolate amounts from ground seeds, mainly, sinalbin in S. alba and sinigrin in S. nigra. The highest antiproliferative activity in both non-tumor and tumor cell lines was induced by S. alba seeds extract. To evaluate whether the effect of Sinapis species (spp) was only due to glucosinolate content or whether it was influenced by the extracts’ complexity, cells were treated with extracts or glucosinolates, in the presence of myrosinase. Pure sinigrin did not modify cell proliferation, while pure sinalbin was less effective than the extract. The addition of myrosinase increased the antiproliferative effects of the S. nigra extract and sinigrin. Antiproliferative activity was correlated to Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinases modulation, which was cell and extract-dependent. Cell-cycle analysis evidenced a proapoptotic effect of S. alba on both tumor cell lines and of S. nigra only on HCT 116. Both extracts showed good antimicrobial activity in disc diffusion tests and on ready-to-eat fresh salad. These results underline the potential effects of Sinapis spp in chemoprevention and food preservation

Regret affects the choice between neoadjuvant therapy and upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer

Background: When treating potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, therapeutic decisions are left to the sensibility of treating clinicians who, faced with a decision that post hoc can be proven wrong, may feel a sense of regret that they want to avoid. A regret-based decision model was applied to evaluate attitudes toward neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods: Three clinical scenarios describing high-, intermediate-, and low-risk disease-specific mortality after upfront surgery were presented to 60 respondents (20 oncologists, 20 gastroenterologists, and 20 surgeons). Respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding neoadjuvant chemotherapy on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied to analyze respondents' attitudes toward neoadjuvant therapy. Results: The lowest regret of omission was elicited in the low-risk scenario, and the highest regret in the high-risk scenario (P &lt; .001). The regret of the commission was diametrically opposite to the regret of omission (P ≤ .001). The disease-specific threshold mortality at which upfront surgery is favored over the neoadjuvant therapy progressively decreased from the low-risk to the high-risk scenarios (P ≤ .001). The nonsurgeons working in or with lower surgical volume centers (P&nbsp;= .010) and surgeons (P&nbsp;= .018) accepted higher disease-specific mortality after upfront surgery, which resulted in the lower likelihood of adopting neoadjuvant therapy. Conclusion: Regret drives decision making in the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Being a surgeon or a specialist working in surgical centers with lower patient volumes reduces the likelihood of recommending neoadjuvant therapy

Implementation of the ERAS (Enhanced Recovery after Surgery) protocol for colorectal cancer surgery in the Piemonte Region with an Audit and Feedback approach: Study protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: A study of the EASY-NET project

Introduction The ERAS protocol (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) is a multimodal pathway aimed to reduce surgical stress and to allow a rapid postoperative recovery. Application of the ERAS protocol to colorectal cancer surgery has been limited to a minority of hospitals in Italy. To promote the systematic adoption of ERAS in the entire regional hospital network in Piemonte an Audit and Feedback approach (A&F) has been adopted together with a cluster randomised trial to estimate the true impact of the protocol on a large, unselected population. Methods A multicentre stepped wedge cluster randomised trial is designed for comparison between standard perioperative management and the management according to the ERAS protocol. The primary outcome is the length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes are: incidence of postoperative complications, time to patients' recovery, control of pain and patients' satisfaction. With an A&F approach the adherence to the ERAS items is monitored through a dedicated area in the study web site. The study includes 28 surgical centres, stratified by activity volume and randomly divided into four groups. Each group is randomly assigned to a different activation period of the ERAS protocol. There are four activation periods, one every 3 months. However, the planned calendar and the total duration of the study have been extended by 6 months due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The expected sample size of about 2200 patients has a high statistical power (98%) to detect a reduction of LOS of 1 day and to estimate clinically meaningful changes in the other endpoints. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been approved by the Ethical Committee of the coordinating centre and by all participating centres. Study results will be timely circulated within the hospital network and published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT04037787

Changes in surgicaL behaviOrs dUring the CoviD-19 pandemic. The SICE CLOUD19 Study

BACKGROUND: The spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus, which causes COVID-19 disease, profoundly impacted the surgical community. Recommendations have been published to manage patients needing surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey, under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery, aims to analyze how Italian surgeons have changed their practice during the pandemic.METHODS: The authors designed an online survey that was circulated for completion to the Italian departments of general surgery registered in the Italian Ministry of Health database in December 2020. Questions were divided into three sections: hospital organization, screening policies, and safety profile of the surgical operation. The investigation periods were divided into the Italian pandemic phases I (March-May 2020), II (June-September 2020), and III (October-December 2020).RESULTS: Of 447 invited departments, 226 answered the survey. Most hospitals were treating both COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. The reduction in effective beds dedicated to surgical activity was significant, affecting 59% of the responding units. 12.4% of the respondents in phase I, 2.6% in phase II, and 7.7% in phase III reported that their surgical unit had been closed. 51.4%, 23.5%, and 47.8% of the respondents had at least one colleague reassigned to non-surgical COVID-19 activities during the three phases. There has been a reduction in elective (>200 procedures: 2.1%, 20.6% and 9.9% in the three phases, respectively) and emergency (<20 procedures: 43.3%, 27.1%, 36.5% in the three phases, respectively) surgical activity. The use of laparoscopy also had a setback in phase I (25.8% performed less than 20% of elective procedures through laparoscopy). 60.6% of the respondents used a smoke evacuation device during laparoscopy in phase I, 61.6% in phase II, and 64.2% in phase III. Almost all responders (82.8% vs. 93.2% vs. 92.7%) in each analyzed period did not modify or reduce the use of high-energy devices.CONCLUSION: This survey offers three faithful snapshots of how the surgical community has reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic during its three phases. The significant reduction in surgical activity indicates that better health policies and more evidence-based guidelines are needed to make up for lost time and surgery not performed during the pandemic