Recommended procedures and responsibilities for radiosurgery (SRS) and extracranial stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT): report of the SEOR in collaboration with the SEFM

Today, patient management generally requires a multidisciplinary approach. However, due to the growing knowledge base and increasing complexity of Medicine, clinical practice has become even more specialised. Radiation oncology is not immune to this trend towards subspecialisation, which is particularly evident in ablative radiotherapy techniques that require high dose fractions, such as stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The aim of the present report is to establish the position of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR), in collaboration with the Spanish Society of Medical Physics (SEFM), with regard to the roles and responsibilities of healthcare professionals involved in performing SRS and SBRT. The need for this white paper is motivated due to the recent changes in Spanish Legislation (Royal Decree [RD] 601/2019, October 18, 2019) governing the use and optimization of radiotherapy and radiological protection for medical exposure to ionizing radiation (article 11, points 4 and 5) [1 ], which states: “In radiotherapy treatment units, the specialist in Radiation Oncology will be responsible for determining the correct treatment indication, selecting target volumes, determining the clinical radiation parameters for each volume, directing and supervising treatment, preparing the final clinical report, reporting treatment outcomes, and monitoring the patient’s clinical course.” Consequently, the SEOR and SEFM have jointly prepared the present document to establish the roles and responsibilities for the specialists—radiation oncologists (RO), medical physicists (MP), and related staff —involved in treatments with ionizing radiation. We believe that it is important to clearly establish the responsibilities of each professional group and to clearly establish the professional competencies at each stage of the radiotherapy process (AU)

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care of cancer patients in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on public healthcare systems are limited, particularly in cancer management. As no such studies have been carried out in Spain, our objective is to describe and quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer patients in Spanish hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter, nationwide study collected information from hospital departments treating oncology patients. An electronic questionnaire comparing outcomes and management of oncohematological patients for the March-June 2019 and March-June 2020 periods was used. RESULTS: Information from 78 departments (36 tertiary hospitals) was analyzed. Forty-four departments implemented adapted protocols during March 2020. Most of these (n = 38/44; 86.4%) carried out COVID-19 triage, while 26 of 44 (59.1%) carried out onsite polymerase chain reaction tests for clinically suspected cases. A shift from in-person to telephone visits was observed in 43 of 44 (97.7%) departments. Comparing the March-June 2019 and March-June 2020 periods, the number of new patients decreased by 20.8% (from 160.2 to 126.4). Decreases were also seen in the mean number of total (2858.2 versus 1686.1) and cancer (465.5 versus 367.2) biopsies, as well as the mean number of bone marrow biopsies (30.5 versus 18.6). Concerning the number of patients visiting specific cancer care departments, a decrease from 2019 to 2020 was seen for mean number of chemotherapy treatments (712.7 versus 643.8) and radiation therapy (2169.9 versus 2139.9). Finally, a reduction from 2019 to 2020 of 12.9% (from 8.6 to 7.4) in the mean number of patients included in clinical trials was noted. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first comprehensive data concerning the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care in Spain. The pandemic caused a 20.8% decrease in newly diagnosed patients, which may impact future outcomes. Measures must be taken to ensure cancer management receives priority in times of healthcare emergencies.

Recommended procedures and responsibilities for radiosurgery (SRS) and extracranial stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT): report of the SEOR in collaboration with the SEFM.

Today, patient management generally requires a multidisciplinary approach. However, due to the growing knowledge base and increasing complexity of Medicine, clinical practice has become even more specialised. Radiation oncology is not immune to this trend towards subspecialisation, which is particularly evident in ablative radiotherapy techniques that require high dose fractions, such as stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The aim of the present report is to establish the position of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR), in collaboration with the Spanish Society of Medical Physics (SEFM), with regard to the roles and responsibilities of healthcare professionals involved in performing SRS and SBRT. The need for this white paper is motivated due to the recent changes in Spanish Legislation (Royal Decree [RD] 601/2019, October 18, 2019) governing the use and optimization of radiotherapy and radiological protection for medical exposure to ionizing radiation (article 11, points 4 and 5) [1 ], which states: "In radiotherapy treatment units, the specialist in Radiation Oncology will be responsible for determining the correct treatment indication, selecting target volumes, determining the clinical radiation parameters for each volume, directing and supervising treatment, preparing the final clinical report, reporting treatment outcomes, and monitoring the patient's clinical course." Consequently, the SEOR and SEFM have jointly prepared the present document to establish the roles and responsibilities for the specialists-radiation oncologists (RO), medical physicists (MP), and related staff -involved in treatments with ionizing radiation. We believe that it is important to clearly establish the responsibilities of each professional group and to clearly establish the professional competencies at each stage of the radiotherapy process.

Patient safety in radiation oncology in Spain: a need to change.

PURPOSE: The Working Group on Patient Safety and Quality of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology, revised the most relevant national and international recommendations, selecting a series of important aspects for patient safety, evaluating whether they are included in Spanish legislation MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have considered a concept as relevant to the patient safety in radiotherapy if so defined in at least 8 of the 16 documents reviewed. RESULTS: 12 subjects were selected: training and qualification, human resources, protocols, safety culture, communication, peer review, accreditation: audits, checklists, areas without interruptions, maps of processes and risks, prospective risk analysis, notification, registration and incident learning, and quality control of the equipment. CONCLUSIONS: At the legislative level, as well as the professional organizations and the health center directorates, the implementation of safety culture must continue to be fostered. Only in this environment will the tools and measures to increase patient safety be effective. The current Spanish legislation must be revised and updated, in accordance with directive 2013/59/EURATOM and the Patient Safety Strategy 2015-2020 of the Spanish National Health System, introducing the obligation to perform risk analysis and incidents management. Audits and accreditations must be carried out, thus raising the general level of practice of the specialty. In this process, the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology must continue playing its fundamental role, collaborating with the institutions and the rest of the scientific societies involved in the radiotherapy process, issuing recommendations on patient safety and disseminating the safety culture in our specialty.

Time for radioimmunotherapy: an overview to bring improvements in clinical practice.

Harnessing the patient's own immune system against an established cancer has proven to be a successful strategy. Within the last years, several antibodies blocking critical "checkpoints" that control the activation of T cells, the immune cells able to kill cancer cells, have been approved for the use in patients with different tumours. Unfortunately, these cases remain a minority. Over the last years, radiotherapy has been reported as a means to turn a patient's own tumour into an in situ vaccine and generate anti-tumour T cells in patients who lack sufficient anti-tumour immunity. Indeed, review data show that the strategy of blocking multiple selected immune inhibitory targets in combination with radiotherapy has the potential to unleash powerful anti-tumour responses and improve the outcome of metastatic solid tumours. Here, we review the principal tumours where research in this field has led to new knowledge and where radioimmunotherapy becomes a reality.

Tapentadol in the management of opioid-naïve patients with cancer painl / Tapentadol en el manejo del dolor oncológico en pacientes libres de opioides

Introduction: Tapentadol is a centrally acting analgesic with two mechanisms of action (μ opioid agonism and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition). Patients and methods: Tapentadol in 53 cancer opioidnaïve patients with chronic and/or acute pain treated with tapentadol in 3 Radiotherapy Departments from October 2011 to February 2013. Results: Patients included 18 women (33.96 %) and 35 men (66.04 %) aged 28-85 years (mean: 62.7). Treatment was suspended due to death in 16.98 %, improvement in 5.66 %, pruritus in 1.9 % and dizziness in 1.9 %. Treatment was continued in 66.03 %, and doses increased in 26.41 % to achieve analgesia while 7.5 % were switched to another drug. a) The most common cancers were head and neck in 32.1 %, lung in 24.5 % and breast in 13.2 %. b) Pain was due to: 47.16 % tumor, 18.7 % bone metastases, 13.21 % radiation therapy, 7.55 % benign processes, 7.55 % neuropathic pain and 3.77 % visceral metastases. c) Visual Analog Scale pain pre-treatment was 7.2 and posttreatment 3.3 (difference: 3.9 points), while 71.8 % progressed to mild pain (VAS ≤ 4). d) The dose most used was: 50 mg (50.9 %). e) Associated medications were: none (22.64 %), rapid-onset fentanyl (60.38 %), anticonvulsants (17 %), steroids (17 %), NSAIDs (13.2 %), morphine (5.66 %), anxiolytics (1.9 %), antidepressants (1.9 %), lidocaine 5 % (1.9 %) and acupuncture (1.9 %). f) Analgesic efficacy was achieved in 94.34 % of cases. Mean analgesia was reached by 58 % of patients and maximum analgesia was 87.5 % in one patient. g) Tapentadol was well tolerated with mild side effects (pruritus, constipation and dizziness) in 4 cases (10.7 %). Conclusions: Our data support the use of Tapentadol in cancer opioid-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe chronic or acute pain (VAS > 5). Tapentadol is an effective pain reliever with few side effects (AU)

Introducción: El tapentadol es un analgésico de acción central con dos mecanismos de acción (agonismo µ opioide e inhibición de la recaptación de norepinefrina). Pacientes y métodos: Desde octubre de 2011 a febrero de 2013 hemos realizado un estudio prospectivo de cohorte observacional para evaluar la eficacia del tapentadol en 53 pacientes oncológicos libres de opioides con dolor crónico o agudo en tres Servicios de Oncología Radioterápica. Resultados: Los pacientes fueron 18 mujeres (33,96 %) y 35 hombres (66,04 %) con una edad entre 28-85 años (media: 62,7). El tratamiento se suspendió por fallecimiento en el 16,98 %, por mejoría del dolor en el 5,66 %, por prurito en el 1,9 % y por mareo en el 1,9 %. El tratamiento se mantuvo en el 66,03 % y las dosis se aumentaron para alcanzar la analgesia en el 26,41 %, mientras que en el 7,5 % se rotó a otro fármaco. a) Los cánceres más comunes fueron de cabeza y cuello en el 32,1 %, pulmón en el 24,5 % y mama en el 13,2 %. b) El dolor era debido al tumor en el 47,16 % de los casos, metástasis óseas en el 18,7 %, radioterapia en el 13,21 %, dolor neuropático en el 7,55 %, otro proceso benigno en el 7,55 % y metástasis viscerales en el 3,77 %. c) La Escala Visual Analógica (EVA) pre-tratamiento era de 7,2 y post-tratamiento de 3,3 (diferencia de 3,9 puntos). El 71,8 % de los pacientes evolucionó a un dolor moderado (EVA ≤ 4). d) La dosis más utilizada fue de 50 mg (50,9 %). e) Otras medicaciones asociadas fueron: ninguna (22,64 %), fentanilo de liberación rápida (60,38 %), anticonvulsivantes (17 %), esteroides (17 %), antiinflamatorios (13,2 %), morfina (5,66 %), ansiolíticos (1,9 %), antidepresivos (1,9 %), lidocaína 5 % (1,9 %) y acupuntura (1,9 %). f) La eficacia analgésica se alcanzó en el 94,34 % de los casos. Una analgesia media se consiguió en el 58 % de los pacientes y una máxima del 87,5 % en un paciente. g) El tapentadol fue bien tolerado con moderados efectos secundarios (prurito, estreñimiento y mareo) en 4 casos (10,7 %). Conclusiones: Nuestros datos apoyan el uso del tapentadol en los pacientes con cáncer libres de opioides con dolor crónico moderado-severo o agudo (EVA > 5). El tapentadol es un analgésico con pocos efectos secundarios (AU)

Genotoxicity in oral epithelial cells in children caused by nickel in metal crowns.

The micronucleus (MN) assay evaluates the effects of low doses of genotoxic carcinogens and can detect structural lesions that survive mitotic cycles. The objective of this study was to determine both the genotoxicity of nickel (Ni) in buccal epithelial cells and the urinary excretion of Ni in children with metal crowns. This was a prospective longitudinal study based on 37 patients selected at the Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila. MN assays were performed using buccal cells from the 37 patients, and Ni levels were determined from urine samples using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry at 1 (basal value), 15, and 45 days following the placement of crowns in each patient. Ni urinary excretion levels increased from 2.12 ± 1.23 to 3.86 ± 2.96 mg Ni/g creatinine (P < 0.05) and the frequency of exposed micronuclei increased from 4.67 ± 0.15 to 6.78 ± 0.167/1000 cells (P < 0.05) between 1 and 45 days post-crown placement. These results suggest that odontological exposure to metal crowns results in genotoxic damage at the cellular level of the oral mucosa and an increase in the urinary excretion of Ni within 45 days of exposure.

Spanish co-operative group of Medical Neuro-oncology (GENOM)

No disponible

No disponible

Definición y áreas de la calidad de vida en Oncología / No disponible

No disponible

Radioterapia conformada en tres dimensiones con intensidad modulada (IMRT). Nuevas estrategias en tumores de cabeza y cuello / Three-dimensional conformal intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). New strategies for head and neck cancer

La radioterapia con intensidad modulada (IMRT) es la forma más sofisticada actualmente disponible para realizar tratamientos radioterápicos con técnicas de planificación conformada en 3 dimensiones (3D-CRT), mediante la utilización de incidencias de campos con intensidad de dosis no uniformes en el volumen blanco. Su utilidad se justifica partiendo de las tres premisas clásicas en radioterapia que nos indican que las dosis más altas de irradiación se traducen en mejor control locorregional de la enfermedad, que el mayor control local se correlaciona con ganancias en supervivencia y que la 3D-CRT nos permitiría aumentar la dosis de irradiación sobre el volumen tumoral con menores efectos secundarios. Se realiza una revisión crítica de las experiencias clínicas actualmente disponibles con IMRT, especialmente enfocada a los tumores de cabeza y cuello, indicando cuales pueden ser las nuevas estrategias de desarrollo en el futuro próximo (AU)

[Metastatic disease of the penis. Report of 3 cases]. / Enfermedad metastásica del pene. A propósito de tres casos.

Metastatic lesions of the penis are uncommon, only some 200 cases having been reported in the literature. Priapism is the most frequent symptom, although increased penis size, ulceration and nodes formation have also been described; metastasis happens simultaneously in 20% cases while in 50% of cases they appear 2 years after initial diagnosis. Survival of untreated patients has not exceed 24 weeks, whereas treated patients have survived 47 weeks.