Low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) as monotherapy for early stage prostate cancer in Italy: practice and outcome analysis in a series of 2237 patients from 11 institutions.

OBJECTIVE: Low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) in localized prostate cancer is available since 15 years in Italy. We realized the first national multicentre and multidisciplinary data collection to evaluate LDR-BT practice, given as monotherapy, and outcome in terms of biochemical failure. METHODS: Between May 1998 and December 2011, 2237 patients with early-stage prostate cancer from 11 Italian community and academic hospitals were treated with iodine-125 ((125)I) or palladium-103 LDR-BT as monotherapy and followed up for at least 2 years. (125)I seeds were implanted in 97.7% of the patients: the mean dose received by 90% of target volume was 145 Gy; the mean target volume receiving 100% of prescribed dose (V100) was 91.1%. Biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression were used to evaluate the relationship of covariates with outcomes. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 65 months. 5- and 7-year DSS, OS and BFFS were 99 and 98%, 94 and 89%, and 92 and 88%, respectively. At multivariate analysis, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network score (p < 0.0001) and V100 (p = 0.09) were correlated with BFFS, with V100 effect significantly different between patients at low risk and those at intermediate/high risk (p = 0.04). Short follow-up and lack of toxicity data represent the main limitations for a global evaluation of LDR-BT. CONCLUSION: This first multicentre Italian report confirms LDR-BT as an excellent curative modality for low-/intermediate-risk prostate cancer. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Multidisciplinary teams may help to select adequately patients to be treated with brachytherapy, with a direct impact on the implant quality and, possibly, on outcome.

Early stage cervical cancer: adjuvant treatment in negative lymph node cases.

OBJECTIVES: In early stage cervical carcinoma, most studies of the literature show that adjuvant radiotherapy significantly reduced local relapse; its impact on survival improvement is controversial. In this retrospective study, we analyze the role of adjuvant radiotherapy in negative node patients and the possibility of this treatment to improve survival in selected groups. METHODS: Four hundred fifty-four patients with stage IB-IIA carcinoma of the uterine cervix were treated with primary radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. The patients with negative nodes but with pathologic prognostic factors predictive of a poor outcome, underwent adjuvant radiation therapy, according to personalized indications. RESULTS: Disease-free actuarial 5-year survival (DFS) was 80%: 88% and 57% in patients with negative and positive nodes, respectively. The population of negative node patients was stratified in three risk categories according to the number of worsening prognostic factors: parametrial invasion, depth of stromal invasion (SI) >1/3 and presence of lymph vascular space involvement (LVSI). In the medium risk category (1 or 2 unfavorable prognostic factors), DFS showed significant advantage for patients submitted to post-operative external beam radiation. In the subset of cases without parametrial extension (pT1B) with one or two risk factors on the surgical specimen (LVSI and/or SI >1/3), there was no difference in DFS between the two groups treated or not with adjuvant radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Post-operative radiotherapy is controversial in node-negative pathologic stage IB cervical cancer; radical surgery alone has low morbidity, enable more accurate prediction of prognosis and may be sufficient therapy in the majority of patients with lymph node-negative early stage cervical cancer.

Which role for radiation therapy in ethmoid cancer? A retrospective analysis of 84 cases from a single institution.

PURPOSE: To define the results of radiotherapy for the treatment of ethmoid carcinoma in a large, retrospective, substantially unselected series from a single institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A relatively large series of 84 consecutive patients treated at our Institution over a 30-year period (1970-2000) was retrospectively analyzed. Sixteen more patients treated in the same period were affected by a relapse of disease at presentation and were therefore excluded from the analysis. Most of the patients had T3 or T4 disease (76%), and half of them had undifferentiated (G3-G4) tumors. Radical surgery preceded radiotherapy in 60 patients, the remaining had only biopsy or incomplete surgery. Average ICRU dose varied according to the extent of postsurgical residual disease. RESULTS: The 5-year actuarial overall survival of the entire series was 48.6%, 5-year disease-specific survival 58%, and 5-year relapse-free survival 54.6%. Overall, disease-specific and relapse-free survival were significantly better (logrank test) for early stage patients (T1-T2) and for those with low-grade disease; relapse-free and disease-specific survival were also significantly (or almost significantly) better for patients who had radical surgery and for those with less extended postsurgical residue. Patients treated with radiotherapy after biopsy only or grossly incomplete surgery had 5-year relapse-free, disease-specific and overall survival of 22%, 42% and 37%, respectively. Higher cumulative doses (>60 Gy) were related to a not significantly lower recurrence probability in patients with micro- or macroscopic residual disease after surgery (54% vs 62%). Multivariate analysis (Cox model) showed that only T stage and grading were independent prognostic factors for overall and disease-specific survival, whereas the prognostic impact of radical surgery was limited to relapse-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Radical radiation therapy alone is able to cure about 25% of the unfavorably selected cases, after biopsy only or partial surgery. Radical surgery is associated with better relapse-free survival rates, but the contribution of postoperative radiotherapy to the primary treatment of these patients cannot be eliminated.