[Ramadan fasting during treatment with external beam radiotherapy]. / L'observance du jeûne de Ramadan pendant le traitement par radiothérapie externe.

INTRODUCTION: Many Muslim cancer patients insist on fasting during the month of Ramadan, even during treatment. The purpose of this observational study is to study the practice of fasting, in patients receiving external radiation therapy. METHODS: Our study was conducted during the month of Ramadan 1441 (2018) in the radiotherapy department of Ibn Rochd University Hospital of Casablanca. We included all patients who received external radiotherapy during this period. We thus collected the characteristics of patients, disease and treatment modalities. After an interview, with a pre-established questionnaire, we were able to establish the observance of the fast. RESULTS: We collected a total of 209 patients. The most frequently represented locations were breast cancer followed by gynecological cancers in 35.4% and 18.7% respectively. All our patients were fasting Ramadan before the diagnosis of cancer, however, only 39.2% were fasting during the treatment by radiotherapy, and just 40% of patients have discussed the possibility of fasting with their oncologist. In multivariate analysis, the stage of the disease was the only factor related to the fasting status of our patients. DISCUSSION: Even under treatment, many of our patients fast during the month of Ramadan. Further studies are needed to evaluate the tolerance of fasting in order to better answer the question "can I fast?".

Evaluation of the XVI dual registration tool for image-guided radiotherapy in prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the reliability and the required time for two cone-beam CT (CBCT) registration methods for prostate irradiation (PI) and prostate bed irradiation (PBI). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two-hundred treatment fractions (in 10 PI and 10 PBI patients) were reanalyzed, using two CBCT registration methods: (1) a combination of an automated chamfer matching (CM) with manual matching (MM), and (2) the automated XVI dual registration tool (DRT). Bland-Altman 95% Limits of Agreement (LoA) were used to assess agreement with manual registration by Radiation Oncologists. RESULTS: All 95% LoA for CM + MM were ≤ 0.33 cm. For DRT, several 95% LoA were notably larger than the predefined clinical threshold of 0.3 cm: -0.47 to +0.25 cm (PI) and -0.36 to +0.23 cm (PBI) for the superior-inferior direction and -0.52 to +0.24 cm (PI) and -0.38 to +0.31 cm (PBI) for the anterior-posterior direction.For PI, the average time required was 33 s with CM + MM versus only 18 s with DRT (p = 0.002). For PBI, this was 13 versus 19 s, respectively (p = 0.16). CONCLUSION: For PI, DRT was significantly faster than CM + MM, but the accuracy is insufficient to use without manual verification. Therefore, manual verification is still warranted, but could offset the time benefit. For PBI, the CM + MM method was faster and more accurate.