A comparative study of gemcitabine and cisplatin versus oral capecitabine alone in metastatic gallbladder cancer.

Aims: There is no consensus for palliative chemotherapy regimen in metastatic gallbladder cancer. We did a retrospective study to compare the treatment outcome in patients of metastatic gallbladder cancer treated with either gemcitabine + cisplatin (regimen A) or oral capecitabine (regimen B) alone. Subjects and Methods: A total of 67 patients between January 2015 and September 15 treated with either regimen A or regimen B were retrospectively evaluated. Statistical analysis was done in June 2019. Kaplan-Meir and Log rank test were used to compare survival between two arms. Results: Out of 67 patients, 31/67 (46%) received regimen A, and 36/67 (54%) received regimen B. Male to female ratio was 1:3. About 42% patients in regimen A and 20% in regimen B required palliative stenting. Median number of chemotherapy cycles was 4 in both regimen A (range 1->6) and regimen B (range 1->6). Patients receiving 3 cycles and 6 cycles of chemotherapy in regimen A and regimen B was 68% and 31% versus 70% and 63%, respectively (P = 0.86). Response assessment as any response (complete response + partial response + disease was stable) after 3 cycles and 6 cycles was 71% and 57% (P = 0.20), 44% and 39% (P = 0.29), in regimen A and B, respectively. Median survival was 23 weeks (range 2-106 weeks) in regimen A and 15 weeks (range 4-83 weeks) in regimen B (P = 0.40). Conclusions: The present study shows gemcitabine and cisplatin has nonsignificant better survival compared to oral capecitabine. However, oral capecitabine is more convenient and easy to administer. Studies with larger sample size are needed to further establish the standard chemotherapy guidelines.

Comparative retrospective analysis of locoregional recurrence in unselected breast cancer patients treated with conventional versus hypofractionated radiotherapy at a tertiary cancer center?

BACKGROUND: Role of hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) in early breast cancer is established; comparatively, there are limited data for HFRT in locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). We report the impact of HFRT in unselected breast cancer patients in comparison with historically treated patients with conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Records of 463 breast cancer patients treated between January 09 and July 13 with CFRT (50 Gy/25 fr) or HFRT (42.4 Gy in 16 fractions or 40 Gy in 15 fractions) in two sequential periods were retrospectively reviewed. The analysis was done in August 2018. The primary endpoint was to compare the differences in locoregional recurrence rate. RESULTS: Of the 463 patients, 209 received CFRT and 254 received HFRT. The median age was 48 years (interquartile range: 40-56), premenopausal (CFRT: 23% vs. HFRT 39%, P = 0.005). The most common pathology was infiltrating ductal carcinoma (81%) with Grade III tumors (45%), estrogen receptor (+) was seen in 44%, triple-negative breast cancer in 34%, and Her2Neu (3+) were seen in 27%. Two hundred and fifty-four patients (54.5%) had undergone breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and 209 patients (45%) modified radical mastectomy (MRM). Nodal radiotherapy was delivered in 76% versus 64% in patients receiving CFRT versus HFRT, respectively (P = 0.005). With a median follow-up of 46 months in CFRT and 57 months in HFRT, 9/209 (4.3%) patients in CFRT and 7/254 (2.7%) in HFRT had locoregional relapse (LRR). The 4 years#39; actuarial local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) in CFRT versus HFRT was 95% versus 97% (P = 0.37). The mean estimated LRFS (local relapse-free survival) for CFRT is 113.4 months and for HFRT 94.2 months (P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of local recurrence among patients of breast cancer treated with HFRT after BCS or MRM was not worse when compared to CFRT.

Comparison of set-up errors by breast size on wing board by portal imaging.

AIM: To quantify and compare setup errors between small and large breast patients undergoing intact breast radiotherapy. METHODS: 20 patients were inducted. 10 small/moderate size breast in arm I and 10 large breast in arm II. Two orthogonal and one lateral tangent portal images (PIs) were obtained and analyzed for systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors. Effect of no action level (NAL) was also evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: 142 PIs were analyzed. Σ(mm) was 3.2 versus 6.7 (p = 0.41) in the mediolateral (ML) direction, 2.1 versus 2.9 (p = 0.06) in the craniocaudal (CC) and 2.2 versus 3.6 (p = 0.08) in the anteroposterior (AP) direction in small and large breast, respectively. σ(mm) was 3.0, 3.3 and 3.3 for small breast and 4.1, 3.7 and 3.2 for large breast in the ML, CC and AP direction (p = 0.07, 0.86, 0.37), respectively. 3 D Σ(mm) was 2.7 versus 4.2 (p = 0.01) and σ(mm) was 2.5 versus 3.2 (p = 0.14) in arm I and II, respectively. The standard deviation (SD) of variations (mm) in breast contour depicted by central lung distance (CLD) was 5.9 versus 7.4 (p < 0.001), central flash distance (CFD) 6.6 versus 10.5 (p = 0.002), inferior central margin (ICM) 4 versus 4.9 (p < 0.001) in arm I and II, respectively. NAL showed a significant reduction of systematic error in large breast in the mediolateral direction only. CONCLUSION: Wing board can be used in a busy radiotherapy department for setting up breast patients with a margin of 1.1 cm, 0.76 cm and 0.71 cm for small breasts and 1.96 cm, 1.12 cm and 0.98 cm for large breast in the ML, AP and CC directions, respectively. The large PTV margin in the mediolateral direction in large breast can be reduced using NAL. Further research is needed to optimize positioning of large breasted women.