Association between inflammatory bowel disease and uveal melanoma: case report of two young adults and a literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Uveal melanoma is a rare tumour caused by genetic factors and alterations in the immune response. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a multifactorial chronic inflammatory disorder characterized by an inappropriate or excessive immune response. The two main types of IBD are Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). A diagnosis of IBD and the use of immunosuppressive drugs are both independently associated with an increased risk of developing skin melanoma. The association between IBD and uveal melanoma (UM) has not been previously described. CASES DESCRIPTION: Two young Caucasian men, aged 24 and 28, developed UM 3 and 15 years, respectively, after being diagnosed with IBD. Both received long-term treatment with immunomodulatory drugs, with periodic switching among the drugs due to the refractory nature of IBD. In both cases, melanoma was treated by brachytherapy with iodine-125 COMS plaque implant at a dose of 75 Gy. DISCUSSION: Chronic inflammation can promote cell proliferation and growth. The use of immunomodulatory drugs is associated with an increased risk of developing melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer. The two patients described in this report both had long-standing IBD treated with immunomodulatory drugs. It seems reasonable to suggest that these two factors may have promoted the development of uveal melanoma. More studies are warranted to investigate and confirm this possible association.

Quality-of-life results for accelerated partial breast irradiation with interstitial brachytherapy versus whole-breast irradiation in early breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery (GEC-ESTRO): 5-year results of a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous results from the GEC-ESTRO trial showed that accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using multicatheter brachytherapy in the treatment of early breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery was non-inferior to whole-breast irradiation in terms of local control and overall survival. Here, we present 5-year results of patient-reported quality of life. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 16 hospitals and medical centres in seven European countries. Patients aged 40 years or older with 0-IIA breast cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) after breast-conserving surgery (resection margins ≥2 mm) to receive either whole-breast irradiation of 50 Gy with a boost of 10 Gy or APBI using multicatheter brachytherapy. Randomisation was stratified by study centre, tumour type, and menopausal status, with a block size of ten and an automated dynamic algorithm. There was no masking of patients or investigators. The primary endpoint of the trial was ipsilateral local recurrence. Here, we present 5-year results of quality of life (a prespecified secondary endpoint). Quality-of-life questionnaires (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, breast cancer module QLQ-BR23) were completed before radiotherapy (baseline 1), immediately after radiotherapy (baseline 2), and during follow-up. We analysed the data according to treatment received (as-treated population). Recruitment was completed in 2009, and long-term follow-up is continuing. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00402519. FINDINGS: Between April 20, 2004, and July 30, 2009, 633 patients had accelerated partial breast irradiation and 551 patients had whole-breast irradiation. Quality-of-life questionnaires at baseline 1 were available for 334 (53%) of 663 patients in the APBI group and 314 (57%) of 551 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group; the response rate was similar during follow-up. Global health status (range 0-100) was stable in both groups: at baseline 1, APBI group mean score 65·5 (SD 20·6) versus whole-breast irradiation group 64·6 (19·6), p=0·37; at 5 years, APBI group 66·2 (22·2) versus whole-breast irradiation group 66·0 (21·8), p=0·94. The only moderate, significant difference (difference of 10-20 points) between the groups was found in the breast symptoms scale. Breast symptom scores were significantly higher (ie, worse) after whole-breast irradiation than after APBI at baseline 2 (difference of means 13·6, 95% CI 9·7-17·5; p<0·0001) and at 3-month follow-up (difference of means 12·7, 95% CI 9·8-15·6; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: APBI with multicatheter brachytherapy was not associated with worse quality of life compared with whole-breast irradiation. This finding supports APBI as an alternative treatment option after breast-conserving surgery for patients with early breast cancer. FUNDING: German Cancer Aid.

Late side-effects and cosmetic results of accelerated partial breast irradiation with interstitial brachytherapy versus whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery for low-risk invasive and in-situ carcinoma of the female breast: 5-year results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously confirmed the non-inferiority of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) with interstitial brachytherapy in terms of local control and overall survival compared with whole-breast irradiation for patients with early-stage breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery in a phase 3 randomised trial. Here, we present the 5-year late side-effects and cosmetic results of the trial. METHODS: We did this randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial at 16 centres in seven European countries. Women aged 40 years or older with stage 0-IIA breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery with microscopically clear resection margins of at least 2 mm were randomly assigned 1:1, via an online interface, to receive either whole-breast irradiation of 50 Gy with a tumour-bed boost of 10 Gy or APBI with interstitial brachytherapy. Randomisation was stratified by study centre, menopausal status, and tumour type (invasive carcinoma vs ductal carcinoma in situ), with a block size of ten, according to an automated dynamic algorithm. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint of our initial analysis was ipsilateral local recurrence; here, we report the secondary endpoints of late side-effects and cosmesis. We analysed physician-scored late toxicities and patient-scored and physician-scored cosmetic results from the date of breast-conserving surgery to the date of onset of event. Analysis was done according to treatment received (as-treated population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00402519. FINDINGS: Between April 20, 2004, and July 30, 2009, we randomly assigned 1328 women to receive either whole-breast irradiation (n=673) or APBI with interstitial brachytherapy (n=655); 1184 patients comprised the as-treated population (551 in the whole-breast irradiation group and 633 in the APBI group). At a median follow-up of 6·6 years (IQR 5·8-7·6), no patients had any grade 4 toxities, and three (<1%) of 484 patients in the APBI group and seven (2%) of 393 in the whole-breast irradiation group had grade 3 late skin toxicity (p=0·16). No patients in the APBI group and two (<1%) in the whole-breast irradiation group developed grade 3 late subcutaneous tissue toxicity (p=0·10). The cumulative incidence of any late side-effect of grade 2 or worse at 5 years was 27·0% (95% CI 23·0-30·9) in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 23·3% (19·9-26·8) in the APBI group (p=0·12). The cumulative incidence of grade 2-3 late skin toxicity at 5 years was 10·7% (95% CI 8·0-13·4) in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 6·9% (4·8-9·0) in the APBI group (difference -3·8%, 95% CI -7·2 to 0·4; p=0·020). The cumulative risk of grade 2-3 late subcutaneous tissue side-effects at 5 years was 9·7% (95% CI 7·1-12·3) in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 12·0% (9·4-14·7) in the APBI group (difference 2·4%; 95% CI -1·4 to 6·1; p=0·28). The cumulative incidence of grade 2-3 breast pain was 11·9% (95% CI 9·0-14·7) after whole-breast irradiation versus 8·4% (6·1-10·6) after APBI (difference -3·5%; 95% CI -7·1 to 0·1; p=0·074). At 5 years' follow-up, according to the patients' view, 413 (91%) of 454 patients had excellent to good cosmetic results in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 498 (92%) of 541 patients in the APBI group (p=0·62); when judged by the physicians, 408 (90%) of 454 patients and 503 (93%) of 542 patients, respectively, had excellent to good cosmetic results (p=0·12). No treatment-related deaths occurred, but six (15%) of 41 patients (three in each group) died from breast cancer, and 35 (85%) deaths (21 in the whole-breast irradiation group and 14 in the APBI group) were unrelated. INTERPRETATION: 5-year toxicity profiles and cosmetic results were similar in patients treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by either APBI with interstitial brachytherapy or conventional whole-breast irradiation, with significantly fewer grade 2-3 late skin side-effects after APBI with interstitial brachytherapy. These findings provide further clinical evidence for the routine use of interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy-based APBI in the treatment of patients with low-risk breast cancer who opt for breast conservation. FUNDING: German Cancer Aid.

GEC-ESTRO multicenter phase 3-trial: Accelerated partial breast irradiation with interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy versus external beam whole breast irradiation: Early toxicity and patient compliance.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare early side effects and patient compliance of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) with multicatheter brachytherapy to external beam whole breast irradiation (WBI) in a low-risk group of patients with breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between April 2004 and July 2009, 1328 patients with UICC stage 0-IIA breast cancer were randomized to receive WBI with 50Gy and a boost of 10Gy or APBI with either 32.0Gy/8 fractions, or 30.1Gy/7 fractions (HDR-brachytherapy), or 50Gy/0.60-0.80Gy per pulse (PDR-brachytherapy). This report focuses on early side-effects and patient compliance observed in 1186 analyzable patients. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00402519. RESULTS: Patient compliance was excellent in both arms. Both WBI and APBI were well tolerated with moderate early side-effects. No grade 4 toxicity had been observed. Grade 3 side effects were exclusively seen for early skin toxicity (radiation dermatitis) with 7% vs. 0.2% (p<0.0001), and breast infection with 0% vs. 0.2% (p=n.s.) for patients treated with WBI and APBI. The incidence of grades 1-2 early side effects for WBI and APBI was 86% vs. 21% (p<0.0001) for skin toxicity, 2% vs. 20% (p<0.0001) for mild hematoma, and 2% vs. 5% (p=0.01) for mild breast infection rates, respectively. No differences had been found regarding grades 1-2 early breast pain (26% vs. 29%, p=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: APBI with interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy was tolerated very well and dramatically reduced early skin toxicity in comparison to standard WBI.

Portfolio of prospective clinical trials including brachytherapy: an analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the current status of prospective interventional clinical trials that includes brachytherapy (BT) procedures. METHODS: The records of 175,538 (100 %) clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov were downloaded on September 2014 and a database was established. Trials using BT as an intervention were identified for further analyses. The selected trials were manually categorized according to indication(s), BT source, applied dose rate, primary sponsor type, location, protocol initiator and funding source. We analyzed trials across 8 available trial protocol elements registered within the database. RESULTS: In total 245 clinical trials were identified, 147 with BT as primary investigated treatment modality and 98 that included BT as an optional treatment component or as part of the standard treatment. Academic centers were the most frequent protocol initiators in trials where BT was the primary investigational treatment modality (p < 0.01). High dose rate (HDR) BT was the most frequently investigated type of BT dose rate (46.3 %) followed by low dose rate (LDR) (42.0 %). Prostate was the most frequently investigated tumor entity in trials with BT as the primary treatment modality (40.1 %) followed by breast cancer (17.0 %). BT was rarely the primary investigated treatment modality for cervical cancer (6.8 %). CONCLUSION: Most clinical trials using BT are predominantly in early phases, investigator-initiated and with low accrual numbers. Current investigational activities that include BT mainly focus on prostate and breast cancers. Important questions concerning the optimal usage of BT will not be answered in the near future.

HDR and LDR Brachytherapy in the Treatment of Lip Cancer: the Experience of the Catalan Institute of Oncology.

PURPOSE: Lip cancer can be treated by surgery, external radiotherapy, and/or brachytherapy (BT). In recent years, BT has become increasingly favored for this type of cancer. The aim of the present study was to analyze local control and survival of patients treated at our institution between July 1989 and June 2008. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 121 patients (109 males and 12 females) who underwent lip cancer brachytherapy from July 1989 to June 2008. Median age was 67 years and median follow-up was 31.8 months (range 20-188 months). Out of 121 patients, 100 (82.6%) were treated with low dose rate (LDR) BT while the remaining 21 patients (17.4%) received high dose rate (HDR) BT. RESULTS: The most common cell type was squamous cell carcinoma (115 cases; 95%) and most tumors were located on the lower lip (107 patients; 88.4%). Most cases were either stage T1 (62 patients; 51.2%), or T2 (44 cases; 36.4%). After 15 years of follow-up, overall survival was 89.5%, cause-specific survival 97.8%, and disease-free survival 86.6%. Local, regional, and distant control at 15 years were 90%, 92%, and 98.8%, respectively. Grade 3 mucosal toxicity was observed in 23% of patients treated with LDR compared to 33% of HDR patients, and grade 4 mucosal toxicity in 9% versus 0% in the HDR group. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm that brachytherapy is an effective treatment for lip cancer. The results from our series are in line with those published elsewhere. Based on our limited data, HDR appears to be equally as good as LDR, although this needs to be confirmed by further studies.