The med AUSTRON / ÖGRO patterns of care study on radiotherapy indications in Austria

Use of radiation treatment units in breast cancer. Changes in the last 15 years

INTRODUCTION

Advances in diagnosis and treatment in oncology combined with technical advances in radiotherapy have resulted in qualitative and quantitative changes in the use of radiation to treat breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to analyse changes in radiation indications from 1990 to the present time and their consequences in the use of treatments units.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

From January 1990 to December 2005, 4545 radiation treatments for breast cancer were performed, classified as radical after conservative surgery, radical after mastectomy or palliative. Data are presented as relative frequencies and as 3-year period groups.

RESULTS

An increase in the proportion of treatments for breast cancer and in treatment unit use distribution is observed. Radical treatments have increased over time, ranging from 55% in the first 3-year period group to 82% in the last one. Unit treatment distribution analysis is similar, but with a less important increase, rising from 85% to 95%. A rise in conservative treatment is also observed, from 43% to 75%.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in breast cancer incidence is observed and there was also an increase in irradiation after conservative treatment. On the contrary, probably due to the rise in the use of systemic treatments, a decrease in postmastectomy irradiation and palliative treatments is shown.

Evidence-based radiation oncology: Definitive, adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer

The standard treatment options based on the risk category (stage, Gleason score, PSA) for localized prostate cancer include surgery, radiotherapy and watchful waiting. The literature does not provide clear-cut evidence for the superiority of surgery over radiotherapy, whereas both approaches differ in their side effects. The definitive external beam irradiation is frequently employed in stage T1b-T1c, T2 and T3 tumors. There is a pretty strong evidence that intermediate- and high-risk patients benefit from dose escalation. The latter requires reduction of the irradiated normal tissue (using 3-dimensional conformal approach, intensity modulated radiotherapy, image-guided radiotherapy, etc.). Recent data suggest that prostate cancer may benefit from hypofractionation due to relatively low alpha/beta ratio; these findings warrant confirmation though. The role of whole pelvis irradiation is still controversial. Numerous randomized trials demonstrated a clinical benefit in terms of biochemical control, local and distant control, and overall survival from the addition of androgen suppression to external beam radiotherapy in intermediate- and high-risk patients. These studies typically included locally advanced (T3-T4) and poor-prognosis (Gleason score >7 and/or PSA >20 ng/mL) tumors and employed neoadjuvant/concomitant/adjuvant androgen suppression rather than only adjuvant setting. The ongoing trials will hopefully further define the role of endocrine treatment in more favorable risk patients and in the setting of the dose escalated radiotherapy. Brachytherapy (BRT) with permanent implants may be offered to low-risk patients (cT1-T2a, Gleason score <7, or 3+4, PSA <or=10 ng/mL), with prostate volume of <or=50 ml, no previous transurethral prostate resection and a good urinary function. Some recent data suggest a benefit from combining external beam irradiation and BRT for intermediate-risk patients. EBRT after radical prostatectomy improves disease-free survival and biochemical and local control rates in patients with positive surgical margins or pT3 tumors. Salvage radiotherapy may be considered at the time of biochemical failure in previously non-irradiated patients.