INTRODUCTION:We evaluated the treatment outcomes and failure patterns in cT3N0 breast cancer patients classified for rigorous pretreatment evaluation and treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and curative surgery. METHODS:We reviewed the records of 87 cT3N0 breast cancer patients who received NAC and curative surgery between 2000 and 2015. The clinical high-risk group was defined as having two or more risk factors: age < 40, histologic grade 3, lymphovascular invasion, hormone receptor negativity, and Ki-67 labeling index >20%. RESULTS:Of the patients, 84 (96.6%) and 79 (90.8%) were initially evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Most patients received anthracycline based NAC regimen (n = 69, 79.3%) and modified radical mastectomy (n = 61, 70.1%). During a 91.5-month median follow-up, ten patients experienced distant metastasis (DM) only, two had isolated local recurrence, one had local recurrence and DM, and another had local recurrence, regional recurrence, and DM. The 5-year rates of locoregional recurrence, DM, any recurrence (AR), and overall survival (OS) were 1.2%, 11.6%, 11.6%, and 90.8%, respectively. The risk group was an independent prognostic factor of recurrence, and the high-risk group had worse rates of DM (19.2% vs. 0%, P = 0.009), AR (19.2% vs. 0%, P = 0.016) and OS (82.8% vs. 100%, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION:Patients with cT3N0 breast cancer classified for rigorous pretreatment evaluation and treated with NAC and radical surgery had favourable oncological outcomes. A clinical risk group based on clinical and immunohistochemical risk factors was an excellent predictor of survival and recurrence.

Purpose: An optimal once-daily radiotherapy (RT) regimen is under investigation for definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in limited disease small cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC). We compared the efficacy and safety of dose escalation with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).Materials and Methods: Between January 2016 and March 2021, patients treated with definitive CCRT for LD-SCLC with IMRT were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who received a total dose <50 Gy or those with a history of thoracic RT or surgery were excluded. The patients were divided into two groups (standard and dose-escalated) based on the total biologically effective dose (BED, α/β = 10) of 70 Gy. The chemotherapeutic regimen comprised four cycles of etoposide and cisplatin.Results: One hundred and twenty-two patients were analyzed and the median follow-up was 27.8 months (range, 4.4 to 76.9 months). The median age of the patients was 63 years (range, 35 to 78 years) and the majority had a history of smoking (86.0%). The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates of the escalated dose group were significantly higher than those of the standard group (93.5% and 50.5% vs. 76.7% and 33.3%, respectively; p = 0.008), as were the 1- and 3-year freedom from in-field failure rates (91.4% and 66.5% vs. 73.8% and 46.9%, respectively; p = 0.018). The incidence of grade 2 or higher acute and late pneumonitis was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.062, 0.185). Conclusion: Dose-escalated once-daily CCRT with IMRT led to improved locoregional control and survival, with no increase in toxicity.

Purpose: Surface-guided radiation therapy is an image-guided method using optical surface imaging that has recently been adopted for patient setup and motion monitoring during treatment. We aimed to determine whether the surface guide setup is accurate and efficient compared to the skin-marking guide in prostate cancer treatment.Materials and Methods: The skin-marking setup was performed, and vertical, longitudinal, and lateral couch values (labeled as "M") were recorded. Subsequently, the surface-guided setup was conducted, and couch values (labeled as "S") were recorded. After performing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), the final couch values was recorded (labeled as "C"), and the shift value was calculated (labeled as "Gap (M-S)," "Gap (M-C)," "Gap (S-C)") and then compared. Additionally, the setup times for the skin marking and surface guides were also compared.Results: One hundred and twenty-five patients were analyzed, totaling 2,735 treatment fractions. Gap (M-S) showed minimal differences in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral averages (-0.03 cm, 0.07 cm, and 0.06 cm, respectively). Gap (M-C) and Gap (S-C) exhibited a mean difference of 0.04 cm (p = 0.03) in the vertical direction, a mean difference of 0.35 cm (p = 0.52) in the longitudinal direction, and a mean difference of 0.11 cm (p = 0.91) in the lateral direction. There was no correlation between shift values and patient characteristics. The average setup time of the skin-marking guide was 6.72 minutes, and 7.53 minutes for the surface guide. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference between the surface and skin-marking guides regarding final CBCT shift values and no correlation between translational shift values and patient characteristics. We also observed minimal difference in setup time between the two methods. Therefore, the surface guide can be considered an accurate and time-efficient alternative to skin-marking guides.