Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Radiat Oncol ; 15(1): 226, 2020 Sep 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32993690

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 in Italy has led to the need to reorganize hospital protocols with a significant risk of interruption to cancer treatment programs. In this report, we will focus on a management model covering the two phases of the COVID-19 emergency, namely lockdown-phase I and post-lockdown-phase II. METHODS: The following steps were taken in the two phases: workload during visits and radiotherapy planning, use of dedicated routes, measures for triage areas, management of suspected and positive COVID-19 cases, personal protective equipment, hospital environments and intra-institutional meetings and tumor board management. Due to the guidelines set out by the Ministry of Health, oncological follow-up visits were interrupted during the lockdown-phase I; consequently, we set about contacting patients by telephone, with laboratory and instrumental exams being viewed via telematics. During the post-lockdown-phase II, the oncological follow-up clinic reopened, with two shifts operating daily. RESULTS: By comparing our radiotherapy activity from March 9 to May 4 2019 with the same period in 2020 during full phase I of the COVID-19 emergency, similar results were achieved. First radiotherapy visits, Simulation Computed Tomography and Linear Accelerator treatments amounted to 123, 137 and 151 in 2019 compared with 121, 135 and 170 in 2020 respectively. There were no cases of COVID-19 positivity recorded either in patients or in healthcare professionals, who were all negative to the swab tests performed. CONCLUSION: During both phases of the COVID-19 emergency, the planned model used in our own experience guaranteed both continuity in radiotherapy treatments whilst neither reducing workload nor interrupting treatment and, as such, it ensured the safety of cancer patients, hospital environments and staff.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Neoplasias/radioterapia , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Radioterapia (Especialidade)/estatística & dados numéricos , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Continuidade da Assistência ao Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Hospitais , Humanos , Itália/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Radioterapia (Especialidade)/organização & administração , SARS-CoV-2 , Carga de Trabalho/estatística & dados numéricos
2.
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother ; 25(2): 157-162, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32021569

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Salvage re-irradiation in patients affected by radiorecurrent prostate cancer might be a valid as well as challenging treatment option. The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility and toxicity of salvage external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) re-treatment in patients affected by radiorecurrent prostate cancer within the prostate gland or the prostate bed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 15 patients underwent EBRT re-treatment using helical tomotherapy (HT), with daily Megavolt computed tomography image-guidance. We registered toxicity according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0. Biochemical relapse was defined as a PSA increase > 20% compared with the pre-EBRT re-treatment value. Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: All patients received a total dose of 50 Gy (25 × 2 Gy), and 7 (46.6%) had concomitant androgen deprivation therapy (median duration of 12 months). With a median follow-up of 40.9 months, the 2-year and 4-year biochemical relapse-free survival were 55% and 35%, respectively. Acute and late genito-urinary (GU) toxicity ≥2 were recorded in 4 (26.6%) and 5 (33.3%) patients, respectively, and the 4-year late GU toxicity was 30%. Acute gastrointestinal toxicity ≥2 was recorded in 2 (13.3%) cases, whereas no patient experienced late toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the inherent bias of a retrospective analysis, our long-term results showed a low toxicity profile with a relatively low rate of biochemical control for HT re-treatment in patients affected by local radiorecurrent prostate cancer. Prospective trials are needed to investigate the role of EBRT in this setting.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...