Radiation-induced sarcomas: A single referral cancer center experience and literature review.

Background and objective: The oncogenic effect of ionizing radiation is widely known. Sarcomas developing after radiation therapy (RT), termed "iatrogenic disease of success", represent a growing problem, since the advancements in cancer management and screening programs have increased the number of long-term cancer survivors. Although many patients have been treated with radiation therapy, only few data are available on radiation-induced sarcomas (RIS). Methods: We examined the medical and radiological records of 186 patients with histologically proven soft tissue and bone sarcomas, which referred to IRCCS CROB Centro di Riferimento Oncologico della Basilicata from January 2009 to May 2022. Among them, seven patients received a histological diagnosis of secondary RIS, according to Cahan's criteria. Clinicopathological features and treatment follow-up data of RIS patients were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Among these secondary RIS, five arose in irradiated breast cancer (5/2,570, 0.19%) and two in irradiated head and neck cancer (2/1,986, 0.10%) patients, with a mean onset latency time of 7.3 years. The histology of RIS was one desmoid tumor, two angiosarcomas, one chondrosarcoma, two leiomyosarcomas, and one undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Out of the seven RIS, one received radiotherapy, one received electrochemotherapy (ECT), one received a second-line chemotherapy, three were subjected to three lines of chemotherapy, and one underwent radiofrequency ablation, chemotherapy, and ECT. Median survival time is 36 months. No significant survival differences were found stratifying patients for age at RT, latency time, and age at RIS diagnosis. Conclusions: RIS represents a possible complication for long-survivor cancer patients. Therefore, adherence to a strict follow-up after the radiation treatment is recommended to allow early diagnosis and optimal management of RIS patients. After the planned follow-up period, considering the long-term risk to develop a RIS, a specific multispecialty survivorship care plan could be of benefit for patients.

Radiation Recall Pneumonitis COVID-19 Infection Induced After Adjuvant Breast Cancer Radiotherapy. A Known Phenomenon in an Unknown Pandemic Disease: A Case Report.

The COVID-19 pandemic has opened several new disease scenarios, yielding novel syndromes that have never been seen before and resurrecting old inflammatory phenomena that are no longer recorded, such as radiation recall (RR) syndromes. Radiation recall syndrome is a limited field inflammatory reaction that occurs in a volume that was irradiated several months or years previously before being induced by a triggering factor. The most frequently reported phenomena are skin reactions; however, other organs could be involved, such as the lungs in radiation recall pneumonitis (RRP). It is a well-described inflammatory reaction that occurs within a pulmonary volume that was irradiated several months or years previously via radiotherapy (RT), triggered by factors such as drugs, including chemotherapy agents, immunotherapy, or vaccination. Indeed, during the COVID-19 pandemic, RRP following anti-COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV2 infection was recently reported. ACE receptor-rich tissues such as lung or skin tissues were mainly involved. Herein, we present a case of RRP triggered by COVID-19 pulmonary infection in a woman who previously underwent adjuvant breast cancer radiotherapy. Although symptoms were typical, pulmonary CT findings depicted a unique distribution of ground-glass opacities (GGOs) throughout the previous radiation portals and mirror-like the radiation fields. Anamnesis and radiation plan evaluation were crucial in the diagnosis of RRP.

Phase I and II trial on infusional 5-fluorouracil and gefitinib in combination with preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer: 10-years median follow-up.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the long term survival of the addition of gefitinib to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This previously published multicentre, open-label, phase I-II study, enrolled patients (pts) with LARC to receive CRT with concurrent 5-fluorouracil continuous intravenous infusion and a dose escalation of orally administered gefitinib, followed 6-8 weeks later by surgery. An intra-operative radiotherapy boost of 10 Gy was planned. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administrated in ypN1-2 pts. After a median f/u of >10 years, we analyzed Local Control (LC), Metastasis Free Survival (MFS), Disease Free Survival (DFS), Disease Specific Survival (DSS) and Overall Survival (OS). Predictive endpoints of clinical outcomes were tested by univariate and multivariate analysis. Variables analyzed included: age, gefitinib dose and interruptions, adjuvant CT, surgery type, ypT, ypN, and TRG grade. We have also analyzed late toxicity according to CTCAEv4. RESULTS: Of the 41 initially enrolled pts, 39 were evaluable (27M, 12F). With a median f/u of 133 months, LC, MFS, DFS, OS and DSS at 5 years were 84%; 71%; 64%; 87% and 92%, respectively. The OS and DSS at 10 years were 61,5% and 76%, respectively. Grade 3-4 late toxicity occurred in 38% of pts: sexual (28,2%) and gastrointestinal toxicities (10,2%). CONCLUSION: Long term outcomes and late toxicity were similar to previously reported series. The addition of gefitinib did not improve outcomes in LARC. Gefitinib is not recommended for rectal cancer patients who received 5-FU based preoperative CRT. Further studies may identify if gefitinib is beneficial in selected group of patients.

Continuous renal replacement therapies: anticoagulation in the critically ill at high risk of bleeding.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing necessity for systemic heparinization is a well-known disadvantage of continuous renal replacement therapies (CRRT), and alternative methods of anticoagulation may be required. Our aim was to evaluate, in patients with a high risk of bleeding, the possibility of an acceptable filter life with non-anticoagulation CRRT and, in case of early filter failure, the efficacy and safety of bedside monitored regional anticoagulation with heparin and protamine. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients underwent CRRT for acute renal failure (ARF) following cardiac surgery. Patients who fulfilled one of the following criteria were selected for non-anticoagulation CRRT: spontaneous bleeding, aPTT > 45 sec, thrombocytopenia and recent surgery (< 48 hr). Filter life < 24 hr without anticoagulation was the cut-off point for starting the regional anticoagulation CRRT. Heparin was infused pre-filter and protamine post-filter at an initial ratio of 1 mg protamine:100 IU heparin. The ratio was adjusted to achieve a patient aPTT < 45 sec and a circuit > 55 sec. RESULTS: Twenty-two (37.3%) patients had been selected for non-anticoagulation. Of them, 12 patients continued to receive non-anticoagulation (filter life: 38.3 +/- 30.5 hr) while 10 switched to regional anticoagulation (filter life: 38.6 +/- 25 hr). During regional anticoagulation no statistical difference was found between baseline aPTT (36.7 +/- 6.4 sec) and patient aPTT (41.5 +/- 12.6 sec) while circuit aPTT (77.7 +/- 43.3 sec) was significantly higher than patient aPTT (p < 0.0001). The probabilities of the circuits remaining free from clotting after 24, 48 and 72 hr were: a) non-anticoagulation: 55.5%, 30.1% and 16.6%, b) regional anticoagulation: 76.2%, 39.6% and 19.8%. There was no rebound anticoagulation observed after regional anticoagulation CRRT ended. CONCLUSIONS: Non-anticoagulation CRRT allowed an adequate filter life in most patients with a high risk of bleeding for prolonged aPTT and/or thrombocytopenia. Despite concerns regarding the need for careful monitoring, regional anticoagulation with heparin and protamine can be considered as a safe and valid alternative when non-anticoagulation is unsuitable because of early filter failure.