MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen facilities in 10 Asian countries participated in this prospective, interventional, single-arm study. The study included two independent regimens: hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (WBI) for patients who had undergone breast-conserving surgery and hypofractionated PMRT for patients who had undergone total mastectomy at a dose of 43.2 Gy in 16 fractions. In the hypofractionated WBI group, patients with high-grade factors received additional 8.1 Gy boost irradiation sessions for the tumour bed in three fractions.
RESULTS: Between February 2013 and October 2019, 227 and 222 patients were enrolled in the hypofractionated WBI and hypofractionated PMRT groups, respectively. The median follow-up periods in the hypofractionated WBI and hypofractionated PMRT groups were 61 and 60 months, respectively. The 5-year locoregional control rates were 98.9% (95% confidence interval 97.4-100.0) and 96.3% (95% confidence interval 93.2-99.4) in the hypofractionated WBI and hypofractionated PMRT groups, respectively. Regarding adverse events, grade 3 acute dermatitis was observed in 2.2% and 4.9% of patients in the hypofractionated WBI and hypofractionated PMRT groups, respectively. However, no other adverse events were observed.
CONCLUSION: Although further follow-up is required, hypofractionated radiotherapy regimens for postoperative patients with breast cancer in East and Southeast Asian countries are effective and safe. In particular, the proven efficacy of hypofractionated PMRT indicates that more patients with advanced breast cancer can receive appropriate care in these countries. Hypofractionated WBI and hypofractionated PMRT are reasonable approaches that can contain cancer care costs in these countries. Long-term observation is required to validate our findings.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between October 2007 and May 2016, 106 patients with untreated squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix were enrolled in the present study. Radiation therapy consisted of pelvic irradiation (total dose, 50 Gy in 25 fractions including central shielding), prophylactic paraortic regional irradiation (36-40 Gy in 20 fractions), and either high- or low-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) according to institutional practice. The planned point A dose was 21 to 28 Gy in 3 to 4 fractions for high-dose-rate ICBT and 40 to 41 Gy in 1 to 2 fractions for low-dose-rate ICBT. Five cycles of weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2) were administered during the radiation therapy course.
RESULTS: A total of 106 patients were enrolled. Of these, 9 had major protocol violations and 2 did not receive treatment because of worsened general condition. Thus, 95 patients were evaluable. The median follow-up was 56 months. Of the 95 patients, 76 (80%) received 4 or 5 cycles of chemotherapy. Acute grade 3 leukopenia was observed in 20 of the patients (21%), and late grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity was observed in 3%. The 2-year local control, progression-free survival, and overall survival rate for all patients were 96%, 78%, and 90%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that prophylactic extended-field concurrent chemoradiation therapy using weekly cisplatin is feasible and effective for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer in East and Southeast Asia.
OBJECTIVE: Currently there is limited evidence and guidance on the management of mild degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and asymptomatic spinal cord compression (ASCC). Anecdotal evidence suggest variance in clinical practice. The objectives of this study were to assess current practice and to quantify the variability in clinical practice.
METHODS: Spinal surgeons and some additional health professionals completed a web-based survey distributed by email to members of AO Spine and the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) North American Society. Questions captured experience with DCM, frequency of DCM patient encounters, and standard of practice in the assessment of DCM. Further questions assessed the definition and management of mild DCM, and the management of ASCC.
RESULTS: A total of 699 respondents, mostly surgeons, completed the survey. Every world region was represented in the responses. Half (50.1%, n = 359) had greater than 10 years of professional experience with DCM. For mild DCM, standardised follow-up for non-operative patients was reported by 488 respondents (69.5%). Follow-up included a heterogeneous mix of investigations, most often at 6-month intervals (32.9%, n = 158). There was some inconsistency regarding which clinical features would cause a surgeon to counsel a patient towards surgery. Practice for ASCC aligned closely with mild DCM. Finally, there were some contradictory definitions of mild DCM provided in the form of free text.
CONCLUSIONS: Professionals typically offer outpatient follow up for patients with mild DCM and/or asymptomatic ASCC. However, what this constitutes varies widely. Further research is needed to define best practice and support patient care.