ABSTRACT
Drug-drug interactions are of significant concern in clinical practice in oncology, particularly in patients receiving Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors, which are typically exposed to long-term regimens. This article presents the highlights from the 'First Workshop on Pharmacology and Management of CDK4/6 Inhibitors: Consensus about Concomitant Medications'. The article is structured into two modules. The educational module includes background information regarding drug metabolism, corrected QT (QTc) interval abnormalities, management of psychotropic drugs and a comprehensive review of selected adverse effects of palbociclib and ribociclib. The collaborative module presents the conclusions of the five working groups, each of which comprised five experts from different fields. From these conclusions positive lists of drugs for treating common comorbid conditions that can be safely administered concomitantly with palbociclib and/or ribociclib were developed.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evaluation of the use of optimization methods in interstitial cervical and oropharyngeal brachytherapy; evaluation of the conformal index (COIN) and the natural dose ratio (NDR) to quantify the implant quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: CT-based dose distributions were obtained for seven implants according to the Paris system. CT-based implants were used to assess the dose point and inverse optimization methods. To compare the results of these planning methods, the coverage index (CI), normal tissue irradiation (NTI), and the protection of organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated using cumulative dose volume histograms (CDVH). RESULTS: In regular cervical implants, a CI of 94 and 96%; a NTI of 35 and 28% resulted for non-optimized and optimized implants, respectively. In irregular cervical implants, a CI of 88, 96, and 90%; a NTI of 44, 37, and 44% resulted for non-optimized, dose point optimized, and inverse optimized implants, respectively. Compared to the non-optimized implants; both optimization methods resulted in better protection for the bladder wall. As for the protection of the rectal wall, only the inverse optimization gave a better result. In oropharyngeal implants, a better CI resulted after dose point optimization. Irradiation of the contralateral parotid were improved after both optimization methods. The maximum change in COIN that could have been achieved by optimization was 3%, as CI and NTI increased similarly. For the same value of COIN, an underdosage of PTV was avoided by the optimization methods as NDR increased from 0.86 to 1.01. CONCLUSION: CT-based optimized implant allows conformation of the dose distribution to the PTV while sparing normal tissue and organs at risk. COIN and NDR should be used together to evaluate both doses to normal tissue and organs at risk, and an under- or overdose inside the PTV.
