[Radiotherapy as conservative therapy for sarcomas within the irradiated field]

Retreatment of Recurrent or Second Primary Head and Neck Cancer After Prior Radiation: Executive Summary of the American Radium Society® (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC): Expert Panel on Radiation Oncology - Head and Neck Cancer

BACKGROUND

Re-treatment of recurrent or second primary head and neck cancers occurring in a previously irradiated field is complex. Few guidelines exist to support practice.

METHODS

We performed an updated literature search of peer-reviewed journals in a systematic fashion. Search terms, key questions, and associated clinical case variants were formed by panel consensus. The literature search informed the committee during a blinded vote on the appropriateness of treatment options via the modified Delphi method.

RESULTS

The final number of citations retained for review was 274. These informed five key questions, which focused on patient selection, adjuvant re-irradiation, definitive re-irradiation, stereotactic body radiation (SBRT), and re-irradiation to treat non-squamous cancer. Results of the consensus voting are presented along with discussion of the most current evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This provides updated evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for the re-treatment of recurrent or second primary cancer of the head and neck.

Implications of staged reconstruction and adjuvant brachytherapy in the treatment of recurrent soft tissue sarcoma

PURPOSE

Prior studies illustrated a reduction in wound complications with the use of staged reconstruction (SR) and negative pressure wound therapy when treating soft tissue sarcoma (STS) with surgical resection followed by high-dose-rate adjuvant brachytherapy. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of SR and immediate reconstruction (IR) brachytherapy in recurrent STS.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A retrospective review of 40 patients with recurrent STS of the local extremity and trunk treated with resection followed by adjuvant brachytherapy alone. Margin status was defined as positive (SM(+)) if there was microscopic involvement (R1) or ≤1 mm margin and negative (SM(-)) if >1 mm margin was obtained. SR and IR were compared regarding toxicity, local control, and limb preservation.

RESULTS

Median followup was 27 months. When comparing the SR (n = 22) and IR (n = 18) cohorts, there was a significantly lower final SM(+) rate in SR (32% vs. 83%, p < 0.01). A 2-year local control benefit seen with SR (80% vs. 34%; p = 0.012) and a final SM(-) (81% vs. 39%; p = 0.023). SR was associated with less toxicity on multivariate analysis, including a 90% decrease in persistent edema, an 80% decrease in wound dehiscence, and a 94% decrease in nonhealing wounds, when compared to IR. Ten of 31 (32%) extremity cases required eventual amputation from either chronic wound complications (n = 4) or local recurrence (n = 6). SR predicted for a benefit in 2-year limb preservation (88% vs. 50%; p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

In our series, the treatment with SR brachytherapy resulted in less morbidity and an improved final SM(-) rate. This technique translated to an improvement in both local control and limb preservation of recurrent STS.