The Real-Life Impact of Primary Tumor Resection of Synchronous Metastatic Colorectal Cancer-From a Clinical Oncologic Point of View.

AIM: The complex medical care of synchronous metastatic colorectal (smCRC) patients requires prudent multidisciplinary planning and treatments due to various challenges caused by the primary tumor and its metastases. The role of primary tumor resection (PTR) is currently uncertain; strong arguments exist for and against it. We aimed to define its effect and find its best place in our therapeutic methodology. METHOD: We performed retrospective data analysis to investigate the clinical course of 449 smCRC patients, considering treatment modalities and the location of the primary tumor and comparing the clinical results of the patients with or without PTR between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018 at the Institute of Oncotherapy of the University of Pécs. RESULTS: A total of 63.5% of the 449 smCRC patients had PTR. Comparing their data to those whose primary tumor remained intact (IPT), we observed significant differences in median progression-free survival with first-line chemotherapy (mPFS1) (301 vs. 259 days; p < 0.0001; 1 y PFS 39.2% vs. 26.6%; OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.36-0.87)) and median overall survival (mOS) (760 vs. 495 days; p < 0.0001; 2 y OS 52.4 vs. 26.9%; OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.33-0.53)), respectively. However, in the PTR group, the average ECOG performance status was significantly better (0.98 vs. 1.1; p = 0.0456), and the use of molecularly targeted agents (MTA) (45.3 vs. 28.7%; p = 0.0005) and rate of metastasis ablation (MA) (21.8 vs. 1.2%; p < 0.0001) were also higher, which might explain the difference partially. Excluding the patients receiving MTA and MA from the comparison, the effect of PTR remained evident, as the mOS differences in the reduced PTR subgroup compared to the reduced IPT subgroup were still strongly significant (675 vs. 459 days; p = 0.0009; 2 y OS 45.9 vs. 24.1%; OR 0.37 (95% CI 0.18-0.79). Further subgroup analysis revealed that the site of the primary tumor also had a major impact on the outcome considering only the IPT patients; shorter mOS was observed in the extrapelvic IPT subgroup in contrast with the intrapelvic IPT group (422 vs. 584 days; p = 0.0026; 2 y OS 18.2 vs. 35.9%; OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.18-0.89)). Finally, as a remarkable finding, it should be emphasized that there were no differences in OS between the smCRC PTR subgroup and metachronous mCRC patients (mOS 760 vs. 710 days, p = 0.7504, 2 y OS OR 0.85 (95% CI 0.58-1.26)). CONCLUSIONS: The role of PTR in smCRC is still not professionally justified. Our survey found that most patients had benefited from PTR. Nevertheless, further prospective trials are needed to clarify the optimal treatment sequence of smCRC patients and understand this cancer disease's inherent biology.

The Real-Life Impact of mFOLFIRI-Based Chemotherapies on Elderly Patients-Should We Let It or Leave It?

AIM: The oncologic treatment of elderly patients is going on with a lack of evidence due to their underrepresentation in clinical trials. Many data suggest that certain groups of elderly patients, like their younger counterparts, may benefit from the systemic treatment of their metastatic colorectal tumors (mCRC). METHOD: We performed retrospective data analysis to investigate the clinical course of care and clinical outcomes of 515 patients who received first-line mFOLFIRI-based chemotherapy for mCRC between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018 at the Institute of Oncotherapy of the University of Pécs, focusing on a comparison of patients over and under 70 years of age, defined as the cut-off value. RESULTS: 28.7% of the 515 patients were 70 years old and older (median age 73.5 years). Compared to the data of the elderly patients, the younger group (median age 61.1 years) had a performance status that was significantly better (average ECOG 1.07 vs. 0.83, p < 0.0001), and significantly more patients received molecularly targeted agents (MTA) (21.6% vs. 51.8%, p < 0.0001); nevertheless, mPFS (241 vs. 285 days, p = 0.3960) and mOS (610 vs. 698 days, p = 0.6305) results did not differ significantly. Considering the 1y PFS OR and the 2ys OS OR values (0.94 [95%CI 0.63-1.41] and 0.72 [95%CI 0.47-1.09], respectively), only a non-significant trend was observed in OS favouring the younger population. Additional analysis of our data proved that the survival in patients over 70 years was positively affected by the addition of MTAs to the doublet chemotherapies, and the reasonable modifications/reductions in dose intensity and the addition of local interventions had similar positive effects as observed in the younger patients' group. CONCLUSIONS: Age stratification of mCRC patients is not professionally justified. Patients over 70 years of age with good performance status and controlled co-morbidities benefit from systemic therapy, its modifications and local treatment to the same extent as younger patients. With the increasing incidence of age-related cancers due to the rising average lifespan, prospective randomised clinical trials are needed to determine the real value of systemic therapy in the elderly and the rational, objective methods of patient selection.

Literature review of evidence-based follow-up strategies of cancer patients / Daganatos betegek evidencia alapú gondozási stratégiáinak irodalmi áttekintése

An increasing proportion of cancer patients remains permanently tumorfree after primary care due to modern curative treatments. However, the life expectancy and quality of life deteriorate significantly in most relapsed cases in spite of different palliative therapies. To detect the early relapse in asymptomatic stage, patients undergo a preplanned care process, targeting primarily their improved survival. Several studies and reviews have been conducted in recent decades to determine the optimal and rational frequency and methods of control examinations. The data of different followup strategies were analyzed from several perspectives. Recommended followup protocols differ significantly based on the origin, histological characteristics, stage, prognostic factors and typical sites of recurrences, such as local, "oligometastatic" or systemic relapse of tumors. In addition to the detection of recurrence, the importance of qual ity of life, monitoring of psychological status and psychosomatic complaints as well as the costeffectiveness of protocols also came to the focus. Involving family doctors or qualified nurses in routine oncology followup may function as an alternative option to reducing the workload of specialists. The COVID­19 pandemic resulted in the use of telemedicine methods in the evaluation of examinations and followup strategies coming to the fore, while at the same time this made the reevaluation of control care algorithms even more important. In this paper, we review the results of studies comparing the different followup strategies, highlighting which protocols help to optimize the use of health care capacity while preserving the survival chance of cancer patients in relapse.

IMAT-IGRT Treatment with Simultaneous Integrated Boost as Dose Escalation for Patients with Cervical Cancer: A Single Institution, Prospective Pilot Study.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to introduce the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique to assess the safety of replacement of the brachytherapy (BT) boost for ineligible patients with cervical cancer receiving radiochemotherapy (RCT). Methods: Fourteen patients were enrolled between 2015 and 2018. SIB was delivered using RapidArc technique at doses of 2.4 Gy per fraction during pelvic irradiation with 50.4/1.8 Gy in seven patients (to a total dose of 67.2 Gy) with limited volume disease. In 7 patients with a more advanced disease stage (>5 cm tumor, parametric invasion both sides), parametric boost therapy was added to the pelvic radiotherapy to a total dose of the macroscopic tumor of 79.2 Gy. All patients received simultaneous cisplatin-based chemotherapy for 5 cycles with a dosage of 40 mg/m2. We examined acute toxicity (CTCAE v4.1) and quality of life (EORTC QLQ30 and CX24). The tumor regression rate was evaluated with RECIST 1.1 after the first 3- to 4-months follow-up Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan. We calculated the percentage of tumor regression rate and the local control during the follow-up period and evaluated the survival data. Results: Our patient data are presented at a median follow-up time of 24.5 months. During the treatment period, no grade 3 to 4 toxicity was observed. During the follow-up period, no late-onset toxicity was observed. The tumor regression rate at the first MRI scan was 95.31% on average. Disease free survival (DFS) during the median follow-up of 24 months was 98.6%. Conclusion: In patients with cervical cancer, the SIB technique is amenable as part of definitive RCT. Dose escalation with the SIB technique can be safely administered to cervical cancer patients during definitive RCT if BT is not feasible. However, further randomized clinical studies are needed to validate the method, so routine use of it cannot be recommended yet.

Role of early radiotherapy in the treatment of supratentorial WHO Grade II astrocytomas: long-term results of 97 patients.

OBJECT: To determine principal prognostic factors and the effect of timing of radiotherapy (RT) on disease-specific survival (DSS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in WHO Grade II astrocytomas. METHODS: Histologic slides of 166 consecutive patients with the original tissue diagnosis of low-grade, non-pilocytic astrocytoma were reviewed. One-hundred and six were selected where two additional certified neuropathologist agreed on the grading of WHO Grade II astrocytoma. In 97 out of 106 cases follow-up informations were available. Early postoperative RT was given to 36 out of 97 patients (37%). The two groups of patients (early vs. delayed RT) were well balanced in respect to extent of surgery and other main clinical prognostic factors. Median follow-up of surviving patients was 79 months. The 5- and 10-year PFS was 52.2% and 30.7% with early RT and 39.5% and 12.4% with delayed RT (p = 0.0388). In respect to DSS, there was no significant difference in the 5- and 10-year actuarial survival rate according to the timing of RT (60.5% and 26.5% vs. 66.6% and 23.7%; p = 0.7545). Age (p = 0.0145) and extent of surgery (p = 0.0473) were significant prognostic variables in respect to DSS. Subdividing the irradiated group based on the extent of surgery, early RT in the subtotal group significantly improved 5-year PFS (60.0% vs. 12.4%; p = 0.0036) and DSS (66.7% vs. 49.8%; p = 0.0389). However, postoperative RT had no influence on PFS (p = 0.6812) and DSS (p = 0.3987) in the group with extensive resection. CONCLUSION: Early postoperative RT in subtotally resected, Grade II astrocytomas significantly improves both progression-free and disease-specific survival. Early RT does not benefit patients with extensive resection, RT should be withheld in these patients until progression.

Electron and high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost in the conservative treatment of stage I-II breast cancer first results of the randomized Budapest boost trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To evaluate the effect of electron and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR BT) boost on local tumor control (LTC), side effects and cosmesis after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in a prospective randomized study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 207 women with stage I-II breast cancer who underwent BCS were treated by 50 Gy irradiation to the whole breast and then randomly assigned to receive either a boost to the tumor bed (n = 104) or no further radiotherapy (n = 103). Boost treatments consisted of either 16 Gy electron irradiation (n = 52) or 12-14,25 Gy HDR BT (n = 52). Breast cancer-related events, side effects, and cosmetic results were assessed. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, the crude rate of local recurrences was 6.7% (7/104) with and 15.5% (16/103) without boost. The 5-year probability of LTC, relapse-free survival (RFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) was 92.7% vs. 84.9% (p = 0.049), 76.6% vs. 66.2% (p = 0.044), and 90.4% vs. 82.1% (p = 0.053), respectively. There was no significant difference in LTC between patients treated with electron or HDR BT boost (94.2% vs. 91.4%; p = 0.74). On multivariate analysis, patient age < 40 years (RR: 4.53), positive margin status (RR: 4.17), and high mitotic activity index (RR: 3.60) were found to be significant risk factors for local recurrence. The incidence of grade 2-3 side effects was higher in the boost arm (17.3% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.03). However, the rate of excellent/good cosmetic results was similar for the two arms (85.6% vs 91.3%; p = 0.14). Cosmesis was rated as excellent/good in 88.5% of patients treated with HDR BT and 82.7% of patients with electron boost (p = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Boost dose significantly improves LTC and RFS in patients treated with BCS and radiotherapy. In spite of the higher incidence of late side effects in the boost arm, boost dose is strongly recommended for patients at high risk for local recurrence. Positive or close margin status, high mitotic activity index, and young patient age should be viewed as absolute indications for tumor bed boost. LTC and cosmesis are excellent and similar to patients boosted with either HDR BT or electrons.