Introduction To evaluate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in low-risk Prostate Cancer patients as preferred treatment option in emergency health conditions. Materials and methods From April 2013 to September 2015, 28 patients with low-risk prostate cancer were prospectively enrolled. The SBRT prescribed dose was 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions, twice a week. Primary endpoints were acute and late toxicity. Secondary endpoints were biochemical recurrence free survival (bRFS) and overall survival. Results Median follow-up was 65.5 months (range 52–81). No acute G3 or G4 toxicity was recorded. Acute G1 or G2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity occurred in 43% and acute G1–G2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in 14%. Late G1 and G3 GU toxicity in 18% and 3.5%, respectively. The G3 toxicity was not directly attributable to radiotherapy. Late G1 GI toxicity occurred in 18%. 5yy bRFS was 96.5% (95% CI 82.3–99.4%). Conclusions Stereotactic body radiotherapy for early prostate cancer reported safe toxicity profile and a good clinical outcome at the median follow-up of 5 years. It may be an useful option if radiotherapy is required in emergency medical conditions.

Conventionally fractionated chemoradiation (CRT) or chemotherapy (CHT) are considered as standard options in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) while stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment in this setting. The aim of this study was to compare two cohorts of LAPC patients treated with SBRT ± CHT vs CRT ± CHT in terms of local control (LC), distant metastases‐free survival (DMFS), progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Eighty patients were included. Patients in the two cohorts were matched according to: age ≤/>65 years, tumor diameter (two cut‐offs: </≥3.0 and </≥3.9 cm), clinical tumor stage and clinical nodal stage, neoadjuvant CHT, and adjuvant CHT. Median prescribed total dose was 30.0 Gy (range: 18.0‐37.5) and 54.0 Gy (18.0‐63.0) in SBRT and CRT cohorts, respectively. Toxicity was evaluated by CTCAE v4.0 scale. Survival curves were calculated by Kaplan‐Meier method. For hypothesis testing an equivalence and a non‐inferiority test was calculated. No statistically significant differences in terms of acute and late toxicity, DMFS, PFS, and OS were recorded among the two cohorts. Median, 1‐, and 2‐year LC was: 16.0 months, 53.1%, and 40.5% in the CRT cohort and 22.0 months, 80.4%, and 49.8% in the SBRT cohort, respectively (P: .017). A statistically non‐inferiority significance was recorded in terms of OS between CRT and SBRT (P = .031). Patients treated with SBRT showed higher LC rate and similar OS compared to CRT. Therefore, the design of confirmatory randomized studies comparing SBRT and CRT seems justified.

Background: After radical prostatectomy (RP) radiotherapy (RT) plays a role, both as adjuvant or salvage treatment. If negative features are present such as extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, lymph invasion, and positive surgical margins, RT after RP reduces the risk of recurrence, although it is associated with an increased risk of acute and late toxicities. An intensified RT delivered in a shortened time could improve clinical outcome and be safely combined with hormonal therapy (HT). The aim of this study was to determine the acute and late toxicities associated with hypofractionated RT and to assess the impact of the addition of HT to RT in high-risk prostate cancer (PC) patients on overall response and toxicity. Materials and methods: Sixty-four PC patients undergoing RP were included in this retrospective study. All patients were recommended to receive adjuvant or salvage RT. Prescription doses were 62.5 Gy in 25 fractions to prostate bed, 56.25 Gy in 25 fractions to seminal vesicles bed, and 50 Gy in 25 fractions to pelvis if indicated. HT was administered to patients with additional adverse pathologic features including Gleason score >7, prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL before surgery, or prostate-specific antigen with rapid doubling time after relapse or nodal involvement. After completion of RT, patients were observed after 4 weeks, and then followed-up every 3–6 months. Acute and late toxicities were assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4 and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale, respectively. Results: For acute toxicity, only grade 1 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were detected in 17% and 11% of patients, respectively. As regards late toxicity, only 5% of the patients developed grade 1 gastrointestinal adverse event; grade 1, grade 2, and grade 3 genitourinary toxicity was recorded in 5%, 3.3%, and 3.3% of patients, respectively. Two and 5 years overall survival were 98% and 96%, respectively. The curves stratified for treatment show a slight difference between patients receiving RT or RT+HT, but the differences did not reach statistical significance (p=0.133). Conclusion: In patients with PC undergoing RP, hypofractionated RT may contribute to achieve a high overall survival with an acceptable toxicity profile. Combination of RT and HT is also well tolerated and efficacious.

The present report provides preliminary outcomes with intraoperative radiotherapy delivered to women with breast cancer included in a re-irradiation program. From October 2010 to April 2014, thirty women were included in a re-irradiation protocol by exploiting IORT technique. The median time between the two irradiations was 10 years (range 3-50). All patients underwent conservative surgery, sentinel lymph node excision and IORT with electron beam delivered by a mobile linear accelerator. Primary endpoint was esthetic result and consequential/late toxicity; secondary endpoints were local control (LC), disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). With a median follow up of 47 months (range 10-78), we analyzed 29 patients (1 lost at follow up). Twenty-seven patients (90%) had presented breast cancer local relapse or a new primary cancer in the same breast after a previous conservative surgery plus radiation treatment; three patients (10%) had previously received irradiation with mantle field for Hodgkin Lymphoma. Esthetic result was excellent in 3 pts (10%), good in 12 pts (41%), fair in 8 pts (28%) and poor in 6 pts (21%). 12 (41%) patients showed subcutaneous fibrosis at the last follow-up. LC, DFS and OS at five years was 92.3%, 86.3% and 91.2%, respectively. Although we analyzed a small number of patients, our results are satisfactory and this approach is feasible even if it could not be considered the standard treatment. Further clinical trials exploring IORT are needed to identify possible subgroups of patients that might be suitable for this type of approach.