Pattern of care in radiotherapy at a University Hospital in Spain: the RENORT project

Purpose RENORT is a novel data mining application developed to extract relevant clinical data from oncology information systems (OIS; ARIA and Mosaiq) used in radiation oncology (RO). Methods/patients We used RENORT to extract demographic and clinical data from the OIS of all patients treated at the RO Department at the General Hospital of Valencia during the year 2019. Results A total of 1158 treatments were performed. The female/male ratio was 39.3%/60.7%, with a mean age of 66 years. The mean waiting time between the treatment decision/proposal to the first visit was 10.1 days. Mean duration of the treatment preparation process was 21 days. Most patients (90.4%) completed treatment within the prescribed time ± 7 days. The most common sites/treatment types were: metastatic/palliative treatments (n = 300; 25.9%), breast (209; 18.0%), genitourinary (195; 16.8%), digestive (116; 10.0%), thoracic (104; 9.0%), head and neck (62; 5.4%), and skin cancer (51; 4.4%). The distribution according to treatment intent was as follows: palliative (n = 266; 23.0%), adjuvant curative (335; 28.9%), radical without adjuvant treatment (229; 19.8%), radical with concomitant treatment (188; 16.2%), curative neoadjuvant (70; 6.0%), salvage radiotherapy (61; 5.3%); and reirradiation (9; 0.8%). The most common treatment techniques were IMRT/VMAT with IGRT (n = 468; 40.4%), 3D-CRT with IGRT (421; 36.4%), SBRT (127; 11.0%), 2DRT (57; 4.9%), and SFRT (56; 4.8%). A mean of 15.9 fractions were administered per treatment. Hypofractionated schemes were used in 100% of radical intent breast and prostate cancer treatments. Conclusions The RENORT application facilitates data retrieval from oncology information systems to allow for a comprehensive determination of the real role of radiotherapy in the treatment of cancer patients. This application is valuable to identify patterns of care and to assess treatment efficacy (AU)

Patterns of treatment failure in patients with prostate cancer treated with 76 80 radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles

Purpose To assess the pattern of treatment failure in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiotherapy (76–80 Gy) ± hormone therapy (HT). We also evaluated the influence of treatment failure on survival outcomes. Methods Retrospective study of patients with PCa (n = 302) treated with radiotherapy (RT) ± HT at our centre between November 1999 and July 2007. The mean patient age was 70.2 years (range 51–87). Distribution by NCCN risk group was low (n = 80, 26.5%), intermediate (n = 86, 28.5%), high (n = 77, 25.5%), and very high (n = 49, 16.2%). Most patients (n = 273, 90.4%) received IMRT at a dose of 76–80 Gy. HT was administered in 237 patients (78.5%), in most cases (n = 167, 55.3%) for < 7 months Results Survival rates at 10 years were: overall survival (OS), 64.3%; biochemical disease-free survival, 83.9%; disease-free survival, 92.5%; and metastasis-free survival (MFS), 94.3%. Biochemical failure (BF) was observed in 55 cases (18.2%), 32 of whom subsequently developed clinical recurrence: metastasis (n = 17, 5.6%), local failure (n = 11, 3.6%), and regional failure (n = 4, 1.3%). The cause of death (n = 159) was intercurrent disease in 115 cases (72.3%), second cancer in 27 (17.0%), and PCa in 17 (10.7%). Biochemical failure-free survival ≤ 24 months was significantly associated with worse OS and MFS (p = 0.0001). Late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity grade ≥ 3 (RTOG) was observed in 18 (6.0%) and 7 (2.3%) patients, respectively. Conclusions The main type of treatment failure after 76–80 Gy of radiotherapy ± HT is local or metastatic. In all cases, biochemical failure occurred prior to treatment failure. BF within 24 months of treatment completion was significantly associated with worse OS and MFS (AU)

Pattern of care in radiotherapy at a University Hospital in Spain: the RENORT project.

PURPOSE: RENORT is a novel data mining application developed to extract relevant clinical data from oncology information systems (OIS; ARIA and Mosaiq) used in radiation oncology (RO). METHODS/PATIENTS: We used RENORT to extract demographic and clinical data from the OIS of all patients treated at the RO Department at the General Hospital of Valencia during the year 2019. RESULTS: A total of 1158 treatments were performed. The female/male ratio was 39.3%/60.7%, with a mean age of 66 years. The mean waiting time between the treatment decision/proposal to the first visit was 10.1 days. Mean duration of the treatment preparation process was 21 days. Most patients (90.4%) completed treatment within the prescribed time ± 7 days. The most common sites/treatment types were: metastatic/palliative treatments (n = 300; 25.9%), breast (209; 18.0%), genitourinary (195; 16.8%), digestive (116; 10.0%), thoracic (104; 9.0%), head and neck (62; 5.4%), and skin cancer (51; 4.4%). The distribution according to treatment intent was as follows: palliative (n = 266; 23.0%), adjuvant curative (335; 28.9%), radical without adjuvant treatment (229; 19.8%), radical with concomitant treatment (188; 16.2%), curative neoadjuvant (70; 6.0%), salvage radiotherapy (61; 5.3%); and reirradiation (9; 0.8%). The most common treatment techniques were IMRT/VMAT with IGRT (n = 468; 40.4%), 3D-CRT with IGRT (421; 36.4%), SBRT (127; 11.0%), 2DRT (57; 4.9%), and SFRT (56; 4.8%). A mean of 15.9 fractions were administered per treatment. Hypofractionated schemes were used in 100% of radical intent breast and prostate cancer treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The RENORT application facilitates data retrieval from oncology information systems to allow for a comprehensive determination of the real role of radiotherapy in the treatment of cancer patients. This application is valuable to identify patterns of care and to assess treatment efficacy.

Patterns of treatment failure in patients with prostate cancer treated with 76-80 Gy radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles ± hormonotherapy.

PURPOSE: To assess the pattern of treatment failure in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiotherapy (76-80 Gy) ± hormone therapy (HT). We also evaluated the influence of treatment failure on survival outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients with PCa (n = 302) treated with radiotherapy (RT) ± HT at our centre between November 1999 and July 2007. The mean patient age was 70.2 years (range 51-87). Distribution by NCCN risk group was low (n = 80, 26.5%), intermediate (n = 86, 28.5%), high (n = 77, 25.5%), and very high (n = 49, 16.2%). Most patients (n = 273, 90.4%) received IMRT at a dose of 76-80 Gy. HT was administered in 237 patients (78.5%), in most cases (n = 167, 55.3%) for < 7 months RESULTS: Survival rates at 10 years were: overall survival (OS), 64.3%; biochemical disease-free survival, 83.9%; disease-free survival, 92.5%; and metastasis-free survival (MFS), 94.3%. Biochemical failure (BF) was observed in 55 cases (18.2%), 32 of whom subsequently developed clinical recurrence: metastasis (n = 17, 5.6%), local failure (n = 11, 3.6%), and regional failure (n = 4, 1.3%). The cause of death (n = 159) was intercurrent disease in 115 cases (72.3%), second cancer in 27 (17.0%), and PCa in 17 (10.7%). Biochemical failure-free survival ≤ 24 months was significantly associated with worse OS and MFS (p = 0.0001). Late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity grade ≥ 3 (RTOG) was observed in 18 (6.0%) and 7 (2.3%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The main type of treatment failure after 76-80 Gy of radiotherapy ± HT is local or metastatic. In all cases, biochemical failure occurred prior to treatment failure. BF within 24 months of treatment completion was significantly associated with worse OS and MFS.

Survival after biochemical failure in prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy: Spanish Registry of Prostate Cancer (RECAP) database outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical course in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) after biochemical failure (BF) has received limited attention. This study analyzes survival time from recurrence, patterns of progression, and the efficacy of salvage therapies in patients treated with radical or postoperative radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective comparative study of 1135 patients diagnosed with BF and treated with either radical (882) or postoperative (253) RT. Data correspond to the RECAP database. Clinical, tumor, and therapeutic characteristics were collected. Descriptive statistics, survival estimates, and comparisons of survival rates were calculated. RESULTS: Time to BF from initial treatment (RT or surgery) was higher in irradiated patients (51 vs 37 months). At a median follow-up of 102 months (14-254), the 8-year cause-specific survival (CSS) was 80.5%, without significant differences between the radical (80.1%) and postoperative (83.4%) RT groups. The 8-year metastasis-free survival rate was 57%. 173 patients (15%) died of PCa and 29 (2.5%) of a second cancer. No salvage therapy was given in 15% of pts. Only 5.5% of pts who underwent radical RT had local salvage treatment and 71% received androgen deprivation (AD) ± chemotherapy. The worst outcomes were in patients who developed metastases after BF (302 pts; 26.5%) and in cases with a Gleason > 7. CONCLUSIONS: In PCa treated with radiotherapy, median survival after BF is relatively long. In this sample, no differences in survival rates at 8-years have been found, regardless of the time of radiotherapy administered. AD was the most common treatment after BF. Metastases and high Gleason score are adverse variables. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare outcomes after BF among patients treated with primary RT vs. those treated with postoperative RT and to evaluate recurrence patterns, treatments administered, and causes of death. The results allow avoiding overtreatment, improving quality of life, without negatively affecting survival.

Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology clinical guidelines for stereotactic body radiation therapy in lymph node oligometastases

Data in the literature support the existence of a state of limited metastases or oligometastases. Favorable outcomes have been observed in selected patients with such oligometastases that are treated with local ablative therapies, which include surgical extirpation, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and radiofrequency ablation. The role of SBRT in the setting of lymph node oligometastases is still emerging but the early results for local control are promising. However, the biggest challenge is to identify patients who will benefit from treatment of their oligometastatic disease with local aggressive therapy. Patients are initially categorized based upon examination of the initial biopsy, location, stage, and previous treatments received. Appropriate patient management with SBRT requires an understanding of several clinicopathological features that help to identify several subsets of patients with more responsive tumors and a good tolerance to SBRT. In an effort to incorporate the most recent evidence, here the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology presents guidelines for using SBRT in lymph node oligometastases (AU)

No disponible

Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology clinical guidelines for stereotactic body radiation therapy in lymph node oligometastases.

Data in the literature support the existence of a state of limited metastases or oligometastases. Favorable outcomes have been observed in selected patients with such oligometastases that are treated with local ablative therapies, which include surgical extirpation, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and radiofrequency ablation. The role of SBRT in the setting of lymph node oligometastases is still emerging but the early results for local control are promising. However, the biggest challenge is to identify patients who will benefit from treatment of their oligometastatic disease with local aggressive therapy. Patients are initially categorized based upon examination of the initial biopsy, location, stage, and previous treatments received. Appropriate patient management with SBRT requires an understanding of several clinicopathological features that help to identify several subsets of patients with more responsive tumors and a good tolerance to SBRT. In an effort to incorporate the most recent evidence, here the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology presents guidelines for using SBRT in lymph node oligometastases.

[Usefulness of procalcitonin as an early diagnostic test of neonatal sepsis in newborns with risk factors for infection]. / Utilidad de la procalcitonina como prueba diagnóstica precoz de sepsis neonatal en recién nacidos con factores de riesgo de infección.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reliability of serum procalcitonin (PCT) as an early diagnostic test (within the first 12 hours of life) of neonatal sepsis in newborns with maternal or neonatal risk factors for infection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 123 newborns consecutively admitted to neonatal unit over a 2-year period with at least one risk factor for infection. We constructed a 2x2 table between the validated test (serum PCT by semi-quantitative assay, with several cut-off points: 0.5, 2 and 10 ng/ml) and the reference assay (blood culture or clinical, laboratory and microbiological confirmation of sepsis). The validity (sensitivity, specificity), safety [positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV)] and likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) of the test were calculated. RESULTS: Serum PCT was measured within the first 12 hours of life in 95% of the patients (mean and median=6 hours). The best cut-off point for serum PCT was 2 ng/ml, and, taking subsequent clinical-laboratory-microbiological confirmation of sepsis as the best reference assay, showed a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 65-100), specificity of 82% (95% CI 74-88), PPV of 25% (95% CI 13-44), NPV of 100% (95% CI 96-100), LR+ of 5.5 (95% CI 3.7-8.1), and LR- of 0. CONCLUSIONS: Serum PCT levels<2 ng/ml within the first 6-12 hours of life in newborns with risk factors for infection are useful as a screening assay to rule out neonatal sepsis with a sensitivity of 100% (false negatives=0% and NPV=100%). However, for subsequent confirmation a more specific assay (with a low false positive rate and high PPV) should be used, such as C-reactive protein. The higher cost of the serum PCT test should be weighed against shorter admissions as a result of its use.