Local consolidative radiotherapy in the treatment of metastatic malignancies has shown promising results in several types of tumors. The objective of this study was to assess consolidative radiotherapy to the bladder and to residual metastases in metastatic urothelial bladder cancer with no progression following first-line systemic therapy. Materials/methods: Patients who received first-line therapy for the treatment of metastatic urothelial bladder cancer (mUBC) and who were progression-free following treatment with no more than five residual metastases were retrospectively identified through the database of four Comprehensive Cancer Centers, between January 2005 and December 2018. Among them, patients who received subsequent definitive radiotherapy (of EQD2Gy > 45Gy) to the bladder and residual metastases were included in the consolidative group (irradiated (IR) group), and the other patients were included in the observation group (NIR group). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined from the start of the first-line chemotherapy using the Kaplan–Meier method. To prevent immortal time bias, a Cox model with time-dependent covariates and 6-month landmark analyses were performed to examine OS and PFS. Results: A total of 91 patients with at least stable disease following first-line therapy and with no more than five residual metastases were analyzed: 51 in the IR group and 40 in the NIR group. Metachronous metastatic disease was more frequent in the NIR group (19% vs. 5%, p = 0.02); the median number of metastases in the IR group vs. in the NIR group was 2 (1–9) vs. 3 (1–5) (p = 0.04) at metastatic presentation, and 1 (0–5) vs. 2 (0–5) (p = 0.18) after completion of chemotherapy (residual lesions), respectively. Two grade 3 toxicities (3.9%) and no grade 4 toxicity were reported in the IR group related to radiotherapy. With a median follow up of 85.9 months (95% IC (36.7; 101.6)), median OS and PFS were 21.7 months (95% IC (17.1; 29.7)) and 11.1 months (95% IC (9.9; 14.1)) for the whole cohort, respectively. In multivariable analysis, consolidative radiotherapy conferred a benefit in both PFS (HR = 0.49, p = 0.007) and OS (HR = 0.47, p = 0.015) in the whole population; in the landmark analysis at 6 months, radiotherapy was associated with improved OS (HR = 0.48, p = 0.026), with a trend for PFS (HR = 0.57, p = 0.082). Conclusion: Consolidative radiotherapy for mUBC patients who have not progressed after first-line therapy and with limited residual disease seems to confer both OS and PFS benefits. The role of consolidative radiotherapy in the context of avelumab maintenance should be addressed prospectively.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a valid option for the treatment of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. In randomized trials, it was found not inferior to conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). It also compares favorably to brachytherapy (BT) even if level 1 evidence is lacking. However, BT remains a strong competitor, especially for young patients, as series with 10–15 years of median follow-up have proven its efficacy over time. SBRT will thus have to confirm its effectiveness over the long-term as well. SBRT has the advantage over BT of less acute urinary toxicity and, more hypothetically, less sexual impairment. Data are limited regarding SBRT for high-risk disease while BT, as a boost after EBRT, has demonstrated superiority against EBRT alone in randomized trials. However, patients should be informed of significant urinary toxicity. SBRT is under investigation in strategies of treatment intensification such as combination of EBRT plus SBRT boost or focal dose escalation to the tumor site within the prostate. Our goal was to examine respective levels of evidence of SBRT and BT for the treatment of localized prostate cancer in terms of oncologic outcomes, toxicity and quality of life, and to discuss strategies of treatment intensification.

The relevance of metastasis-directed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) remains to be demonstrated through phase III trials. Multiple SBRT procedures have been published potentially resulting in a disparity of practices. Therefore, the french society of urological radiation oncolgists (GETUG) recognized the need for joint expert consensus guidelines for metastasis-directed SBRT in order to standardize practice in trials carried out by the group. After a comprehensive literature review, 97 recommendation statements were created regarding planning and delivery of spine bone (SBM) and non-spine bone metastases (NSBM) SBRT. These statements were then submitted to a national online two-round modified Delphi survey among main GETUG investigators. Consensus was achieved if a statement received ≥ 75 % agreements, a trend to consensus being defined as 65–74 % agreements. Any statement without consensus at round one was re-submitted in round two. Twenty-one out of 29 (72.4%) surveyed experts responded to both rounds. Seventy-five statements achieved consensus at round one leaving 22 statements needing a revote of which 16 achieved consensus and 5 a trend to consensus. The final rate of consensus was 91/97 (93.8%). Statements with no consensus concerned patient selection (3/19), dose and fractionation (1/11), prescription and dose objectives (1/9) and organs at risk delineation (1/15). The voting resulted in the writing of step-by-step consensus guidelines. Consensus guidelines for SBM and NSBM SBRT were agreed upon using a validated modified Delphi approach. These guidelines will be used as per-protocole recommendations in ongoing and further GETUG clinical trials.

Introduction: Recent modifications in the epidemiology of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) have led to the increase of Human papillomavirus (HPV) related metastatic head and neck cancer patients with high life expectancy even at advanced stage, low comorbidity and still restricted systemic therapy opportunities. In the recent era of ablative therapies’ development, oligometastatic HPV OSCC patients are indubitably good candidates for intensified treatment. However, data related to outcomes after optimised management of metastatic sites are dramatically missing. Materials and patients: In our cohort of 186 unselected consecutive OSCC patients treated with curative intent at our institution between 2009 and 2013, we analysed the incidence, treatment and outcomes of distant metastatic (DM) failure according to p16 status. Results: After a median follow-up of 4.2 years (95% CI: 3.8–4.4) from primary diagnosis of OSCC, 21/95 p16− patients (22.1%) vs. 8/91 (8.8%) p16+ patients presented DM failure with a median interval of 11 (range 0–46) and 28 months (range 0–71), respectively (p = 0.10). Overall survival (OS) after DM failure was significantly higher in p16+ patients with a two-year OS rate of 75% and 15% for p16+ and p16−, respectively (p = 0.002). In eight HPV-related metastatic patients, three underwent ablative lung metastasis treatment and are still complete responders four to five years later. Conclusion: This study highlights distinct outcomes of metastatic HPV-related OSCC patients emphasised by three long-term complete responders after lung ablative treatment. In patients with high life expectancy and limited tumour burden, the question of ablative treatment such as metastasectomy or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SBRT) should be addressed.

Sinonasal and skull base tumor surgery-related morbidity has been reduced by the use of endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery (EESBS). Postoperative radiation therapy (poRT) requires precise definition of target volumes. To enhance the accuracy of poRT planning, histological and radiological correlations are necessary to locate the tumor attachment on poRT CT scans. An accurate atlas of structures resected or identified during EESBS could serve for the interdisciplinary postoperative management of patients, personalizing poRT by adequate radiation dose delivery. The objective of this study was to achieve a consensual segmentation atlas on CT scan with surgeons practicing EESBS and radiation oncologists. The sinonasal structures relevant for poRT of sinonasal malignancies were determined by a two-round Delphi process. A rating group of 25 European experts in sinonasal malignancies was set up. Consensual structures emerged and were used to determine the anatomical limits of the retained structures to draft an atlas with expert based relevant structures. The atlas was then critically reviewed, discussed, and edited by another 2 skull base surgeons and 2 radiation oncologists. After the two rating rounds, 46 structures obtained a strong agreement, 7 an agreement, 5 were rejected and 5 did not reach consensus. The atlas integrating all the selected structures is presented attached. Consensual segmentation atlas on CT scan might allow, through careful poRT planning to limit the morbidity of poRT while maintaining good local control. Prospective studies are necessary to validate this potential precision medicine-based approach.