ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiotherapy to vertebral column remains uncommon practice and only relevant in selected group of patients. The main objective of the study was to describe the current state of medical practices of stereotactic body radiotherapy to vertebral column in France in 2016 and to assess the diversity of practices to identify areas for improvement and establish a common database set for this technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was written with contribution of a medical physicist, a radiation oncologist, an information technologist and a radiotherapy resident. The questionnaire was distributed online to a radiation oncologists and a medical physicists partner of selected French radiotherapy specialized centres that provide stereotactic body radiotherapy to vertebral metastasis from April to June 2016. The questionnaire surveyed the following topics: patients' selection, simulation, targeted volume and organs at risk delineation, prescription, dosimetric implementation and image guidance. RESULTS: A total of 31 centres were surveyed. Seventy eight per cent of centres (n=21) completed the questionnaire. The "ideal" patient for spine stereotactic radiotherapy according to these institutions has a good performance status, a long life expectancy, controlled primary tumour with oligometastatic spread. The most prescribed protocol was 30Gy in three fractions. For clinical target volume delineation, about two thirds of centres used the International Spine Radiosurgery Consortium (ISRC) recommendations (Noël G et al.,2006). CONCLUSION: This study identified some consistency of practices in some aspects despite the lack of consensus guidelines. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to establish consensus of planning and treatment.
Subject(s)
Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Radiosurgery , Spinal Neoplasms/radiotherapy , France , Health Care Surveys , HumansABSTRACT
Refractory chronic GVHD (cGVHD) remains a major cause of morbidity after transplantation. Many drugs are used but there is no consensus on the standard of care. We investigated the efficacy of TLI in corticosteroid-refractory cGVHD. We analyzed retrospectively 31 patients receiving one or more TLI session for refractory cGVHD from 2000 to 2007. The main objective was to evaluate the response rate after TLI. Decreased corticosteroid doses and/or discontinued immunosuppressive agents were considered to be surrogate markers of response. All but one patient presented with severe cGVHD at the time of TLI. The median number of previous immunosuppressive treatment lines was 3 (range: 2-4). Fourteen patients (45%) achieved an objective response after TLI and 8 (25%) were cGVHD free at long-term follow-up. In all, 5 (29%) of the 17 nonresponsive patients did not show the features of progressive cGVHD and could decrease the amount of immunosuppressive drugs taken. Response after TLI significantly improved 5-year GVHD-related mortality (14% vs 42%, P=0.038) but not OS (58%vs 64% P=0.27). Regarding the promising response rate in this heavily pretreated population, we reasoned that TLI could be an alternative treatment for corticosteroid-refractory cGVHD.
