To Örebro University

Objectives: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the mainstay treatment for NSCLC stage III disease. To investigate whether radiation dose escalation based on individual normal tissue constraints can improve outcome, the Swedish lung cancer study group launched this randomized phase II trial.

Materials and Methods: NSCLC patients with stage III disease, good performance status (0-1) and adequate lung function (FEV1 > 1.0 L and CO diffusion capacity > 40%) received three cycles of cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) day 1) and vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2) day 1 and 8) every third week. Radiotherapy started concurrently with the second cycle, with either 2 Gy daily, 5 days a week, to 68 Gy (A) or escalated therapy (B) based on constraints to the spinal cord, esophagus and lungs up to 84 Gy by adding an extra fraction of 2 Gy per week.

Results: A pre-planned safety analysis revealed excessive toxicity and decreased survival in the escalated arm, and the study was stopped. Thirty-six patients were included during 2011-2013 (56% male, 78% with adenocarcinoma, 64% with PS 0 and 53% with stage IIIB). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 11 and 17 months in arm B compared to the encouraging results of 28 and 45 months in the standard arm. The 1- and 3-year survival rates were 56% and 33% (B) and 72% and 56% (A), respectively. There were seven toxicity-related deaths due to esophageal perforations and pneumonitis: five in the escalated group and two with standard treatment.

Conclusion: Dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiotherapy to 84 Gy to primary tumor and nodal disease is hazardous, with a high risk of excessive toxicity, whereas modern standard dose chemoradiotherapy with proper staging given in the control arm shows a promising outcome with a median survival of 45 months and a 3-year survival of 56% (NCT01664663).

Purpose: Until now, most long-term results for brachytherapy only has been published for low-dose-rate (LDR) seeds. Due to radiobiology reasons, high-dose-rate (HDR) mono-brachytherapy is of growing interest. The aim of the study was to report long-term biochemical control rate and toxicities with HDR monotherapy.

Material and methods: This was a retrospective single-institution experience, including 229 men, clinically staged T1c-T2b, Gleason 3 + 3 (prostate specific antigen (PSA) <= 15), or Gleason 3 + 4 (PSA <= 10), consecutively treated between 2004 and 2012 with HDR brachytherapy alone, using three different fractionation schedules of 92-95 Gy (EQD(2), alpha/beta = 3). Group 4F (n = 19) had a single implant of 9.5 Gy in four fractions over 2 days. Group 3F (n = 107) had three separate implants of 11 Gy over 4 weeks. Group 2F (n = 103) had two implants of 14 Gy over 2 weeks. No adjuvant hormonal therapy was allowed.

Results: For 4F, 3F, and 2F study groups, median follow-up was 10.2, 7.1, and 6.1 years, respectively, and biochemical failure rate was 10.5%, 4.7%, and 14.6%, respectively. Early and late side effects were followed with common terminology criteria version 2.0 and patient-reported questionnaires. There were a temporary acute urethral toxicity increase, 1-2 grades over baseline lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), which usually recovered. About 1/3 of the patients had a remaining one grade over baseline LUTS. Severe grade 3-4 toxicity were only found in 3.5% of patients. No rectal toxicity was observed. Erectile dysfunction (ED) was depending on age and erectile function before treatment. In patients without ED before the treatment, we found a complete ED in 21% of men at the last follow-up.

Conclusions: In the present study, HDR mono-brachytherapy was found to be an effective treatment, with mild long-term side effects difficult to differentiate from aging effects. There were no significant differences in PSA regression, PSA failure rate, and toxicity between the different fraction schedules.

INTRODUCTION: In radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, a mask is used to immobilise the head and shoulders. An open mask that does not cover the face is expected to cause less anxiety, but there is need to further investigate the patients' experience of open versus closed masks. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate patient preferences for open or closed masks and whether an open mask can reduce discomfort and anxiety for patients.

METHODS: Twenty participants were treated in alternating weeks using open and closed masks. Their distress was evaluated through semi-structured interviews and patient-reported outcome measures.

RESULTS: When using the open mask, it took longer to position the patient correctly. The closed mask felt more confining and could induce a sense of claustrophobia. Participants employed both internal and external strategies to cope with the stressful situation. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) showed a significant reduction in anxiety over time during the treatment period, but no significant difference between the masks. When participants chose which mask to use for the final treatments, 12 chose the open mask, while 8 chose the closed mask. In addition to the 20 analysed participants, two participants withdrew from the study because they could only tolerate the open mask, one due to anxiety and the other due to swelling.

CONCLUSIONS: The open mask seems to provide a less confined experience but may lead to greater difficulties in achieving the correct treatment position. While both masks can be viable options for most patients, some cannot tolerate closed masks but do tolerate open masks.

Background: This was a validation study of a regional register of oral cancer in Örebro, Sweden. The purpose was to assess the rate of errors in baseline, and treatment, and the completeness and accuracy of data on recurrences.

Materials and Methods: A total of 653 cases with squamous cell cancer in the oral cavity were identified from the register. A randomized sample of 73 (11%) was selected, and a set of relevant data was compared to medical records.

Results: Data on patient and tumour characteristics showed high accuracy, with 98% correct data and more than 99% of treatment data were correct. Follow-up data had a higher rate of errors, with 23% of recurrences not recorded, 13.6% misclassified, and 9.1% of cases showing errors in timing of the recurrence.

Conclusion: data concerning patients, tumour status, and treatment in the Regional Head and Neck Register in Örebro are highly accurate. However, the follow-up data contain a higher rate of errors, that must be taken into consideration when evaluating outcome after treatment.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Previous studies of node-negative oral squamous cell carcinoma have shown a benefit of elective neck dissection compared to observation. Evidence for radiotherapy as single-modality elective treatment of the node-negative neck is so far lacking.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective material of 420 early-stage oral cancers from 2000 to 2016, overall survival, disease-free survival, and regional relapse-free survival were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS: At five years, overall survival was 59.7%, disease-specific survival was 77.2%, and regional relapse-free survival was 83.5%. Among those with adjuvant treatment of the neck after surgery of T1-T2 tumours during 2009-2016, regional relapse-free survival at five years was 85.7% for elective radiotherapy of the neck and 87.4% for elective neck dissection.

CONCLUSION: Elective radiotherapy to the neck with a modern technique and adequate dose might be an alternative to neck dissection for patients with early-stage oral squamous cell cancer.

Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the mainstay treatment for NSCLC stage III disease, however, with a rather high probability of locoregional and metastatic recurrence further treatment optimization is warranted. Based on previous one-armed trials with dose escalated radiotherapy, showing feasibility, the Swedish Lung Cancer Study Group aimed to investigate whether dose escalation based on individual normal tissue constraints could improve outcome in this randomized phase II trial.

Method: NSCLC patients with stage III disease, good performance status (0-1), adequate lung function (FEV1 > 1.0 L and CO diff. > 40%) received three cycles of cisplatin (75 mg/m2 day 1) and vinorelbine (25 mg/m2 day 1 and 8) every third week. The radiotherapy started concurrently with the second cycle, with either 2 Gy daily, 5 days a week, to a total dose of 68 Gy (standard arm A) or escalated therapy (B) based on constraints to the spinal cord, esophagus and lungs up to 84 Gy by adding an extra fraction of 2 Gy per week while keeping the total treatment time constant at seven weeks with the same dose to involved nodes and primary tumor.

Result: A pre-planned safety analysis revealed excessive toxicity and decreased survival in the escalated arm, and the study was stopped. Thirty-six patients were included during 2011-2013 (56% male, 78% with adenocarcinoma, 64% with PS 0 and 53% with stage IIIB). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 11 and 17 months in the dose escalated group compared to 28 and 45 months in the standard group. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were 56%, 33% and 17% in the escalated arm and 72%, 61% and 34% in the standard arm. There were four toxicity-related deaths due to esophageal perforations (one in arm A and three in arm B) and three deaths due to pneumonitis (one in arm A and two in arm B).

Conclusion: Dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiotherapy to 84 Gy to primary tumor and nodal disease is hazardous, with a high risk of excessive toxicity, whereas modern standard dose chemoradiotherapy with proper staging given in the control arm shows a promising outcome with a median survival of 45 months and a 5-year survival of 34%. A possible step forward will be to improve systemic therapy, but future approaches with escalated radiotherapy may include boost techniques to remaining PET positive areas or different escalation schedules to the primary tumor and mediastinal nodes.