We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Radiation therapy (RT), in combination with chemotherapy, is the mainstay in the treatment for locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer. We analysed the tumour response and the toxicity profiles in patients having locally advanced oropharyngeal cancers receiving hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and concurrent chemotherapy with Cisplatin investigating the feasibility and radiobiological efficacy of the regimen, along with its use as a resource-sparing alternative for a high-volume centre.
Material and Methods:
The records of 41 eligible patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of oropharynx, registered from September 2015 to April 2017, treated with hypofractionated IMRT with concurrent Cisplatin, were analysed from the hospital database. Patients received concurrent chemo-radiation with 2 cycles of 3-weekly cisplatin on day 1 and day 22 along with hypofractionated IMRT, 55 Gy delivered in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. Patients were observed for any radiation reaction or chemotherapy toxicity at least once a week during the course of radiation therapy.
Results:
Twenty-nine patients (70·7%) achieved complete response and remaining 12 showed partial response. Acute grade 3 toxicity was observed mostly in the form of oral mucositis and radiation dermatitis. Both grade 3 oral mucositis and radiation dermatitis were seen in 15 patients (36·6%) and 7 patients (17%), respectively. The most common late toxicities were dysphagia and dry mouth. Twenty-five patients (61%) completed the overall treatment within 4 weeks’ duration.
Conclusion:
This hypofractionated regimen is feasible and was associated with tolerable acute and late morbidity and satisfactory locoregional response. Larger prospective, multi- institutional studies examining similar schedules may be undertaken to establish this as a standard practice, particularly for a high-volume centre.
The incidence of breast cancer has surpassed cervical cancer in India and it has now become the most common cancer in women. Multiple randomised studies have reported low α/β value in the range of 3–4 for breast cancer, which predict a potential radiobiological advantage for hypofractionated radiotherapy resulting in such schedules becoming standard in many centers with reduction in overall treatment time. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a novel technique of delivering radiotherapy that reduces treatment delivery time, requires less monitor units (MU) and offers good conformity. The mean dose to normal tissue may be minimised using this technique although there will be inferior sparing if we consider the low-dose volume such as V5, the effect of which is not quantifiable yet.
Aim:
Reporting acute toxicity, cosmetic effects, and quality of life in patients of early breast cancer treated with adjuvant hypofractionated VMAT with SIB.
Material and Methods:
The records of 44 patients registered at the hospital between August 2014 and December 2015 were included in this analysis. Acute toxicities were analysed using CTCAE v4.03. Cosmetic outcomes were assessed using Harvard scale, while quality of life outcomes were assessed using EORTC scales and Health Related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires (QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23).
Results:
No grade ≥2 skin toxicities were recorded. Breast pain was recorded as Grade 1 in 13·8% patients and Grade 1 fatigue in 18·2%. The maximum haematological abnormality grade recorded was Grade 1. Cosmesis was assessed at the baseline, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. A total of 88·6% of the patients had an Excellent or good cosmesis at the baseline, which was similar even at 6 months, at 88·7%, improved further at 1 year to 90·9%. At 6 months post radiotherapy, high functional scale QOL scores were noted.
Conclusion:
The technique is associated with minimum acute toxicity, good to excellent cosmesis and acceptable quality of life.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.