Different options for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) are available based on international guidelines: chemotherapy (CHT), chemoradiation (CRT), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). However, the role of radiotherapy is debated in LAPC. We retrospectively compared CHT, CRT, and SBRT ± CHT in a real-world setting in terms of overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). LAPC patients from a multicentric retrospective database were included (2005–2018). Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Multivariable Cox analysis was performed to identify predictors of LC, OS, and DMFS. Of the 419 patients included, 71.1% were treated with CRT, 15.5% with CHT, and 13.4% with SBRT. Multivariable analysis showed higher LC rates for CRT (HR: 0.56, 95%CI 0.34–0.92, p = 0.022) or SBRT (HR: 0.27, 95%CI 0.13–0.54, p < 0.001), compared to CHT. CRT (HR: 0.44, 95%CI 0.28–0.70, p < 0.001) and SBRT (HR: 0.40, 95%CI 0.22–0.74, p = 0.003) were predictors of prolonged OS with respect to CHT. No significant differences were recorded in terms of DMFS. In selected patients, the addition of radiotherapy to CHT is still an option to be considered. In patients referred for radiotherapy, CRT can be replaced by SBRT considering its duration, higher LC rate, and OS rate, which are at least comparable to that of CRT.

Background and purpose: A prognostic scoring system based on laboratory inflammation parameters, [Hemo-Eosinophils-Inflammation (HEI) index], including baseline hemoglobin level, the systemic inflam-matory index and eosinophil count was recently proposed in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (ASCC). HEI was shown to discriminate disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival in ASCC patients treated with concurrent chemoradiation (CRT). We tested the accuracy of the model on a mul-ticentric cohort for external validation.Materials and methods: Patients treated with CRT were enrolled. The Kaplan-Meier curves for DFS and OS based on HEI risk group were calculated and the log-rank test was used. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the prognostic factors for DFS and OS. The exponential of the regression coefficients provided an estimate of the hazard ratio (HR). For model discrimination, we determined Harrell's C -index, Gonen & Heller K Index and the explained variation on the log relative hazard scale.Results: A total of 877 patients was available. Proportional hazards were adjusted for age, gender, tumor -stage, and chemotherapy. Two-year DFS was 77 %(95 %CI:72.0-82.4) and 88.3 %(95 %CI:84.8-92.0 %) in the HEI high-and low-risk groups. Two-year OS was 87.8 %(95 %CI:83.7-92.0) and 94.2 %(95 %CI:91.5- 97). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed a HR = 2.02(95 %CI:1.25-3.26; p = 0.004) for the HEI high-risk group with respect to OS and a HR = 1.53(95 %CI:1.04-2.24; p = 0.029) for DFS. Harrel C-indexes were 0.68 and 0.66 in the validation dataset, for OS and DFS. Gonen-Heller K indexes were 0.67 and 0.71, respectively.Conclusion: The HEI index proved to be a prognosticator in ASCC patients treated with CRT. Model dis-crimination in the external validation cohort was acceptable.(c) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 177 (2022) 9-15

Introduction: Breast cancer is the most common tumor in women and represents the leading cause of cancer death. Radiation therapy plays a key-role in the treatment of all breast cancer stages. Therefore, the adoption of evidence-based treatments is warranted, to ensure equity of access and standardization of care in clinical practice. Method: This national document on the highest evidence-based available data was developed and endorsed by the Italian Association of Radiation and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) Breast Cancer Group. We analyzed literature data regarding breast radiation therapy, using the SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) methodology (www.sign.ac.uk). Updated findings from the literature were examined, including the highest levels of evidence (meta-analyses, randomized trials, and international guidelines) with a significant impact on clinical practice. The document deals with the role of radiation therapy in the treatment of primary breast cancer, local relapse, and metastatic disease, with focus on diagnosis, staging, local and systemic therapies, and follow up. Information is given on indications, techniques, total doses, and fractionations. Results: An extensive literature review from 2013 to 2021 was performed. The work was organized according to a general index of different topics and most chapters included individual questions and, when possible, synoptic and summary tables. Indications for radiation therapy in breast cancer were examined and integrated with other oncological treatments. A total of 50 questions were analyzed and answered. Four large areas of interest were investigated: (1) general strategy (multidisciplinary approach, contraindications, preliminary assessments, staging and management of patients with electronic devices); (2) systemic therapy (primary, adjuvant, in metastatic setting); (3) clinical aspects (invasive, non-invasive and micro-invasive carcinoma; particular situations such as young and elderly patients, breast cancer in males and cancer during pregnancy; follow up with possible acute and late toxicities; loco-regional relapse and metastatic disease); (4) technical aspects (radiation after conservative surgery or mastectomy, indications for boost, lymph node radiotherapy and partial breast irradiation). Appendixes about tumor bed boost and breast and lymph nodes contouring were implemented, including a dedicated web application. The scientific work was reviewed and validated by an expert group of breast cancer key-opinion leaders. Conclusions: Optimal breast cancer management requires a multidisciplinary approach sharing therapeutic strategies with the other involved specialists and the patient, within a coordinated and dedicated clinical path. In recent years, the high-level quality radiation therapy has shown a significant impact on local control and survival of breast cancer patients. Therefore, it is necessary to offer and guarantee accurate treatments according to the best standards of evidence-based medicine.

A multi-institutional retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the pattern of care and clinical outcomes of anal cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques. In a cohort of 987 patients, the clinical complete response (CR) rate (beyond 6 months) was 90.6%. The 3-year local control (LC) rate was 85.8% (95% CI: 84.4–87.2), and the 3-year colostomy-free survival (CFS) rate was 77.9% (95% CI: 76.1–79.8). Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 80.2% and 88.1% (95% CI: 78.8–89.4) (95% CI: 78.5–81.9), respectively. Histological grade 3 and nodal involvement were associated with lower CR (p = 0.030 and p = 0.004, respectively). A statistically significant association was found between advanced stage and nodal involvement, and LC, CFS, PFS, OS and event-free survival (EFS). Overall treatment time (OTT) ≥45 days showed a trend for a lower PFS (p = 0.050) and was significantly associated with lower EFS (p = 0.030) and histological grade 3 with a lower LC (p = 0.025). No statistically significant association was found between total dose, dose/fraction and/or boost modality and clinical outcomes. This analysis reports excellent clinical results and a mild toxicity profile, confirming IMRT techniques as standard of care for the curative treatment of anal cancer patients. Lymph node involvement and histological grade have been confirmed as the most important negative prognostic factors.

Aim: Radiation therapy is a cornerstone of oncological treatment and oncological patients show greater risk of developing complications related to COVID-19 infection. Stringent social restrictions have ensured a significant reduction in the spread of the virus, but also gave rise to a number of critical issues for radiation oncology wards. For this reason, the Directors of the Radiation Oncology Departments (RODs) of Lazio, Abruzzo and Molise regions shared their experience and ideas in order to create a common document that may assist in facing the negative impacts of the pandemic on radiation oncology wards and patients. Patients and Methods: The study was conducted according to the Estimate-Talk Estimate method. Five issues were proposed and rated. Among approved issues, statements were proposed anonymously, then harmonized and finally voted on according to a Likert scale from 1 to 9. Those for which an agreement of 7-9 was observed were finally approved. Results: The document was developed with 42 statements dealing about safety measures for patients and staff, organization of clinical and work activities, usage of Information Technology systems for meetings/smart working. An agreement was recorded for 34 statements. Conclusion: This document sets out some recommendations for RODs and can provide valuable management information for Oncological Radiotherapy wards.

AbstractConventionally fractionated chemoradiation (CRT) or chemotherapy (CHT) are considered as standard options in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) while stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment in this setting. The aim of this study was to compare two cohorts of LAPC patients treated with SBRT ± CHT vs CRT ± CHT in terms of local control (LC), distant metastases‐free survival (DMFS), progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Eighty patients were included. Patients in the two cohorts were matched according to: age ≤/>65 years, tumor diameter (two cut‐offs: ≥3.0 and ≥3.9 cm), clinical tumor stage and clinical nodal stage, neoadjuvant CHT, and adjuvant CHT. Median prescribed total dose was 30.0 Gy (range: 18.0‐37.5) and 54.0 Gy (18.0‐63.0) in SBRT and CRT cohorts, respectively. Toxicity was evaluated by CTCAE v4.0 scale. Survival curves were calculated by Kaplan‐Meier method. For hypothesis testing an equivalence and a non‐inferiority test was calculated. No statistically significant differences in terms of acute and late toxicity, DMFS, PFS, and OS were recorded among the two cohorts. Median, 1‐, and 2‐year LC was: 16.0 months, 53.1%, and 40.5% in the CRT cohort and 22.0 months, 80.4%, and 49.8% in the SBRT cohort, respectively (P: .017). A statistically non‐inferiority significance was recorded in terms of OS between CRT and SBRT (P = .031). Patients treated with SBRT showed higher LC rate and similar OS compared to CRT. Therefore, the design of confirmatory randomized studies comparing SBRT and CRT seems justified.

Background: Due to the high soft tissue resolution, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could improve the accuracy of pancreatic tumor delineation in radiation treatment planning. A multi-institutional study was proposed to evaluate the impact of MRI on inter-observer agreement in gross tumor volume (GTV) and duodenum delineation for pancreatic cancer compared with computer tomography (CT). Material and Methods: Two clinical cases of borderline resectable (Case 1) and unresectable (Case 2) pancreatic cancer were selected. In two sequential steps, diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT scan and MRI sequences were sent to the participating centers. CT-GTVs were contoured while blinded to MRI data sets. DICE index was used to evaluate the spatial overlap accuracy. Results: Thirty-one radiation oncologists from different Institutions submitted the delineated volumes. CT- and MRI-GTV mean volumes were 21.6 +/- 9.0 cm(3) and 17.2 +/- 6.0 cm(3), respectively for Case 1, and 31.3 +/- 15.6 cm(3) and 33.2 +/- 20.2 cm(3), respectively for Case 2. Resulting MRI-GTV mean volume was significantly smaller than CT-GTV in the borderline resectable case (p < .05). A substantial agreement was shown by the median DICE index for CT- and MRI-GTV resulting as 0.74 (IQR: 0.67-0.75) and 0.61 (IQR: 0.57-0.67) for Case 1; a moderate agreement was instead reported for Case 2: 0.59 (IQR:0.52-0.66) and 0.53 (IQR:0.42-0.62) for CT- and MRI-GTV, respectively. Conclusion: Diagnostic MRI resulted in smaller GTV in borderline resectable case with a substantial agreement between observers, and was comparable to CT scan in interobserver variability, in both cases. The greater variability in the unresectable case underlines the critical issues related to the outlining when vascular structures are more involved. The integration of MRI with contrast-enhancement CT, thanks to its high definition of tumor relationship with neighboring vessels, could offer a greater accuracy of target delineation.

ConclusionTumor persistence and distant recurrence were the main patterns of lack of disease control.Persistence after (chemo)radiotherapy negatively impacted survival.Outof-field was the least frequent recurrence pattern.It is acceptable to maintain IFI technique.

Background/Aim: Recent data highlighted that location of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may have a prognostic impact and also a predictive value of the outcomes of first-line therapy. Materials and Methods: The records of mCRC patients who underwent first-line therapy from 2011 to April 2018 at our Institute were retrospectively reviewed. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) according to the primary tumor location were investigated. Results: Overall, 130 patients were eligible. Two-year OS was 82.9% in left-sided colon cancers (LCC) and 67.5% in right-sided (RCC) (p=0.32). One-year mPFS was statistically longer in LCC (46.8% vs. 24.2%, p=0.0005). mPFS was longer in LCC treated with anti-VEGF vs. anti-EGFR (p=0.06). ORR was 51.1% in LCC, 25% in RCC (p=0.008). Overall, 11 complete responses all in LCC were observed (p=0.03). Conclusion: Tumor location has a prognostic impact and might influence the outcomes of mCRC patients.