Updating approach for lexicographic optimization-based planning to improve cervical cancer plan quality.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the capability of a not-yet commercially available fully automated lexicographic optimization (LO) planning algorithm, called mCycle (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden), to further improve the plan quality of an already-validated Wish List (WL) pushing on the organs-at-risk (OAR) sparing without compromising target coverage and plan delivery accuracy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-four mono-institutional consecutive cervical cancer Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plans delivered between November 2019 and April 2022 (50 Gy/25 fractions) have been retrospectively selected. In mCycle the LO planning algorithm was combined with the a-priori multi-criterial optimization (MCO). Two versions of WL have been defined to reproduce manual plans (WL01), and to improve the OAR sparing without affecting minimum target coverage and plan delivery accuracy (WL02). Robust WLs have been tuned using a subset of 4 randomly selected patients. The remaining plans have been automatically re-planned by using the designed WLs. Manual plans (MP) and mCycle plans (mCP01 and mCP02) were compared in terms of dose distributions, complexity, delivery accuracy, and clinical acceptability. Two senior physicians independently performed a blind clinical evaluation, ranking the three competing plans. Furthermore, a previous defined global quality index has been used to gather into a single score the plan quality evaluation. RESULTS: The WL tweaking requests 5 and 3 working days for the WL01 and the WL02, respectively. The re-planning took in both cases 3 working days. mCP01 best performed in terms of target coverage (PTV V95% (%): MP 98.0 [95.6-99.3], mCP01 99.2 [89.7-99.9], mCP02 96.9 [89.4-99.5]), while mCP02 showed a large OAR sparing improvement, especially in the rectum parameters (e.g., Rectum D50% (Gy): MP 41.7 [30.2-47.0], mCP01 40.3 [31.4-45.8], mCP02 32.6 [26.9-42.6]). An increase in plan complexity has been registered in mCPs without affecting plan delivery accuracy. In the blind comparisons, all automated plans were considered clinically acceptable, and mCPs were preferred over MP in 90% of cases. Globally, automated plans registered a plan quality score at least comparable to MP. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the flexibility of the Lexicographic approach in creating more demanding Wish Lists able to potentially minimize toxicities in RT plans.

Comprehensive dosimetric and clinical evaluation of lexicographic optimization-based planning for cervical cancer.

Aim: In this study, a not yet commercially available fully-automated lexicographic optimization (LO) planning algorithm, called mCycle (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden), was validated for cervical cancer. Material and methods: Twenty-four mono-institutional consecutive treatment plans (50 Gy/25 fx) delivered between November 2019 and April 2022 were retrospectively selected. The automatic re-planning was performed by mCycle, implemented in the Monaco TPS research version (v5.59.13), in which the LO and Multicriterial Optimization (MCO) are coupled with Monte Carlo calculation. mCycle optimization follows an a priori assigned priority list, the so-called Wish List (WL), representing a dialogue between the radiation oncologist and the planner, setting hard constraints and following objectives. The WL was tuned on a patient subset according to the institution's clinical protocol to obtain an optimal plan in a single optimization. This robust WL was then used to automatically re-plan the remaining patients. Manual plans (MP) and mCycle plans (mCP) were compared in terms of dose distributions, complexity (modulation complexity score, MCS), and delivery accuracy (perpendicular diode matrices, gamma analysis-passing ratio, PR). Their clinical acceptability was assessed through the blind choice of two radiation oncologists. Finally, a global quality score index (SI) was defined to gather into a single number the plan evaluation process. Results: The WL tuning requested four patients. The 20 automated re-planning tasks took three working days. The median optimization and calculation time can be estimated at 4 h and just over 1 h per MP and mCP, respectively. The dose comparison showed a comparable organ-at-risk spare. The planning target volume coverage increased (V95%: MP 98.0% [95.6-99.3]; mCP 99.2%[89.7-99.9], p >0.05). A significant increase has been registered in MCS (MP 0.29 [0.24-0.34]; mCP 0.26 [0.23-0.30], p <0.05) without affecting delivery accuracy (PR (3%/3mm): MP 97.0% [92.7-99.2]; mCP 97.1% [95.0-98.6], p >0.05). In the blind choice, all mCP results were clinically acceptable and chosen over MP in more than 75% of cases. The median SI score was 0.69 [0.41-0.84] and 0.73 [0.51-0.82] for MP and mCP, respectively (p >0.05). Conclusions: mCycle plans were comparable to clinical manual plans, more complex but accurately deliverable and registering a similar SI. Automated plans outperformed manual plans in blinded clinical choice.

Follow-up of elderly patients with urogenital cancers: Evaluation of geriatric care needs and related actions.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) with subsequent investigation of healthcare patterns in older patients with urological cancers undergoing initial surgery or radiotherapy, to verify the usefulness of the incorporation of geriatric principles in future care plans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study. From November 2011 to March 2015, CGA was offered to all patients aged 70+ years treated with radiotherapy or surgery at seven tertiary centers. Patients were classified as fit, vulnerable, or frail according to Balducci's definition. CGA and follow-up data were collected by two trained evaluators at 6 and 12months. The information collected was not available to the caring physicians during follow-up. RESULTS: CGA was performed in 453 patients with prostate cancer (295), bladder cancer (126), or kidney cancer (32). 40% of patients with prostate cancer were fit, 47% vulnerable, and 13% frail. The corresponding values for renal cancer were 25%, 40%, and 34%, and for bladder cancer, 21%, 42%, and 37%. During follow-up, 60% of patients with cardiac diseases, 42% of those with diabetes/other metabolic disorders, 35% of those with hypertension, and 35% of those with respiratory diseases were followed by a specialist (for these severe/extremely severe comorbidities). Of 16 patients with ADL impairment and 63 with IADL impairment, only 4 (25%) and 6 (10%), respectively, were referred to a rehabilitation service. Only one case was referred to a geriatrician. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate clinical care patterns are advisable to improve quality of survivorship in older patients with urological cancers.

Lessons learned from the H1N1 pandemic: the need to improve systematic vaccination in Sickle Cell Disease children. A multi center survey in Italy.

During the recent H1N1 pandemic, children with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) experienced more hospitalizations and more complications than the general pediatric population. We performed a retrospective multicenter survey at 9 Pediatric Haematology-Oncology Units across Italy. H1N1 admission rate was 5.2%, with all admissions occurring before vaccine availability. Length Of Stay (LOS) was 6.06 days (7.85 for Acute Chest Syndrome), longer than in other countries. Vaccination coverage was not homogeneous, ranging from 0 to 99%; several family-related and health-system related barriers in accessing vaccinations were identified that should be ameliorated to improve coverage in this high risk group of children.

Quality of life assessment in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: results from a phase III randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase III trial suggested that a PEFG (cisplatin, epirubicin, 5-fluorouracil, gemcitabine) regimen might improve the outcome compared to gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The analysis of treatment impact on quality of life (QOL) is reported. METHOD: Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and PAN-26 questionnaires at baseline and every second month of treatment until disease progression. RESULTS: The largest differences between arms favored PEFG. Expressed as improvement > or =10 points from baseline (PEFG/gemcitabine), these were: emotional function (43/18%), fatigue (41/17%), QOL (55/29%), pain (64/41%), and flatulence (50/26%). Only change in sexual function favored gemcitabine (19/42%). Physical function, fatigue, appetite, and satisfaction with healthcare improved in 40-46% of partial responders compared with 0-12% of patients with stable disease. CONCLUSION: Clinically relevant improvement in QOL from baseline was observed more often after PEFG than after gemcitabine, suggesting that the PEFG regimen did not impair QOL, Partial response was associated with improved QOL suggesting that effective treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma may have an important role in these patients.

Final results of a prospective trial of a PEFG (Cisplatin, Epirubicin, 5-Fluorouracil, Gemcitabine) regimen followed by radiotherapy after curative surgery for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative management of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) is controversial. METHODS: The aim of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility of postoperative combination chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy in patients aged 18-70 years with a histological diagnosis of PA, and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) > or =70. Cisplatin and epirubicin 40 mg/m2 on day 1, gemcitabine 600 mg/m2 on day 1 and 8, and 5-fluorouracil 200 mg/m2/day as protracted infusion (PEFG regimen) were delivered every 28 days for 4 cycles. Assuming a minimum one-year disease-free survival (DFS) of interest of 65% and a maximum of low interest of 45% (alpha 0.05; beta 0.10), the target enrollment was 51 patients, and the strategy would be considered to deserve further analysis if more than 29 patients were DF at one-year from surgery. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients, KPS >80: 29, median tumor size 3.5 cm, stage II/III/IVA: 2/34/13, grade 3-4: 22, positive resection margins: 26, node positive: 46, received 179 cycles of chemotherapy. Main grade 3/4 toxicity consisted of neutropenia (51%), thrombocytopenia (18%), and anemia (4%). One-year DFS was 67 +/- 7%. Two-year overall survival was 53 +/- 7%. CONCLUSION: Postoperative management of PA with this multimodality strategy was well tolerated and yielded a promising outcome.

Gemcitabine versus cisplatin, epirubicin, fluorouracil, and gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomised controlled multicentre phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma have a poor response, progression-free survival, and overall survival with standard treatment. We aimed to assess whether a four-drug regimen could improve 4 month progression-free survival compared with gemcitabine alone. METHODS: In a randomised multicentre phase III trial, 52 patients were randomly assigned to 40 mg/m2 cisplatin and 40 mg/m2 epirubicin both given on day 1, 600 mg/m2 gemcitabine given intravenously over 1 h on days 1 and 8, and 200 mg/m2 fluorouracil a day given by continuous infusion on days 1-28 of a 4-week cycle (PEFG regimen), and 47 were assigned to 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine given intravenously over 30 min once a week for 7 of 8 consecutive weeks in cycle 1 and for 3 of 4 weeks thereafter. The primary endpoint was 4-month progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, objective response, safety, and quality of life. Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS: 51 patients assigned PEFG and 46 assigned gemcitabine alone had disease progression. 49 patients in the PEFG group and 46 in the gemcitabine group died from progressive disease. More patients allocated PEFG than gemcitabine alone were alive without progressive disease at 4 months (60% [95% CI 46-72] vs 28% [17-42]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.46 [0.26-0.79]). 1-year overall survival in the PEFG group was 38.5% (25.3-51.7) and in the gemcitabine group was 21.3% (9.6-33.0; HR 0.68 [0.42-1.09]). More patients assigned PEFG showed disease response than did those assigned gemcitabine (38.5% [25.3-51.7] vs 8.5% [0.5-16.5]; odds ratio 6.60 [2.11-20.60], p=0.0008). More patients in the PEFG group had grade 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia than in the gemcitabine group (p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION: The PEFG regimen could be considered for treatment of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.