Objective: The aim of this work was to evaluate the impact of stereotactic radiosurgery/fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy with the Cyberknife system on local disease control, clinical outcome and toxicity in patients with meningioma, according to the site and histological grade of lesion. From January 2013 to April 2017, 52 patients with intracranial meningiomas were treated with the Cyberknife system. Twenty-four patients had undergone previous surgery: 38% gross total resection, 10% subtotal resection; 27 patients underwent no surgery; 22 patients had a recurrence of meningioma. Methods: Radiosurgery was used for lesions smaller than 2 cm, stereotactic radiotherapy for lesions larger than 2 cm, or smaller but close to a critical site such as the optical chiasm, optic pathway or brainstem. Results: Local control and clinical outcomes were analysed. Median follow-up was 20 months: six patients died, one after re-surgery died from post-surgical sepsis, three from heart disease. Progression-free survival had a mean value of 38.3 months and overall survival of 41.6 months. We evaluated at 12 months 28 patients (100% local control); at 24 months 19 patients (89% local control); at 36 months nine patients (89% local control). At baseline, 44/52 patients (85%) were symptomatic: 19 visual disorders, 17 motor disorders, six hearing disorders, 10 headache and six epilepsy. Visual symptoms remained unchanged in 52%, improved in 32%, resolved in 16%. Headache was improved in 40%, resolved in 10%, unchanged in 50%. Epilepsy was resolved in 17%, unchanged in 33%, worsened in 33%. Conclusions: Stereotactic radiosurgery/fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy with Cyberknife provides a good local disease control, improving visual, hearing and motor symptoms.

// <![CDATA[ $('.header-date').hide();$('#titleAuthors').hide();$('#abstractHeader').hide(); // ]]> Rossella Di Franco1,2, Valentina Borzillo2, Vincenzo Ravo2, Gianluca Ametrano1,2, Sara Falivene2, Fabrizio Cammarota2, Sabrina Rossetti1, Francesco Jacopo Romano1, Carmine D’Aniello1,3, Carla Cavaliere1,4, Gelsomina Iovane1,5, Raffaele Piscitelli1, Massimiliano Berretta6, Paolo Muto2 and Gaetano Facchini1,5 1 Progetto ONCONET2.0 – Linea progettuale 14 per l’implementazione della prevenzione e diagnosi precoce del tumore alla prostata e testicolo – Regione Campania, Italy 2 Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori ‘Fondazione Giovanni Pascale’ – IRCCS, Napoli, Italy 3 Division of Medical Oncology, A.O.R.N. dei COLLI “Ospedali Monaldi-Cotugno-CTO”, Napoli 4 Department of Onco-Ematology Medical Oncology, S.G. Moscati Hospital of Taranto, Taranto, Italy 5 Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Uro-Gynaecological Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori ‘Fondazione G. Pascale’ - IRCCS , Naples , Italy 6 Department of Medical Oncology, CRO Aviano, National Cancer Institute, Aviano, Italy Correspondence to: Rossella Di Franco, email: // <![CDATA[ mail("rosselladifrancort","gmail",0,"") // ]]> Keywords: prostate cancer; radiotherapy; toxicity; meta-analysis; review Received: October 12, 2016 Accepted: December 07, 2016 Published: January 22, 2017

In recent years, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has gained popularity among clinical methods for the treatment of medium and low risk prostate cancer (PCa), mainly as an alternative to surgery. The hypo-fractionated regimen allows the administration of high doses of radiation in a small number of fractions; such a fractionation is possible by exploiting the different intrinsic prostate radiosensitivity compared with the surrounding healthy tissues. In addition, SBRT treatment guaranteed a better quality of life compared with surgery, avoiding risks, aftermaths, and possible complications. At present, most stereotactic prostate treatments are performed with the CyberKnife (CK) system, which is an accelerator exclusively dedicated for stereotaxis and it is not widely spread in every radiotherapy centre like a classic linear accelerator (LINAC). To be fair, a stereotactic treatment is achievable also by using a LINAC through Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), but some precautions must be taken. The aim of this work is to carry out a dosimetric comparison between these two methodologies. In order to pursue such a goal, two groups of patients were selected at Instituto Nazionale Tumori—IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale: the first group consisting of ten patients previously treated with a SBRT performed with CK; the second one was composed of ten patients who received a hypo-fractionated VMAT treatment and replanned in VMAT-SBRT flattening filter free mode (FFF). The two SBRT techniques were rescaled at the same target coverage and compared by normal tissue sparing, dose distribution parameters and delivery time. All organs at risk (OAR) constraints were achieved by both platforms. CK exhibits higher performances in terms of dose delivery; nevertheless, the general satisfying dosimetric results and the significantly shorter delivery time make VMAT-FFF an attractive and reasonable alternative SBRT technique for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Background: The use of intra-fractional monitoring and correction of prostate position with the Image Guided Radio Therapy (IGRT) system can increase the spatial accuracy of dose delivery. Clarity is a system used for intrafraction prostate-motion management, it provides a real-time visualization of prostate with a transperineal ultrasound. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of Clarity-IGRT on proper intrafraction alignment and monitoring, its impact on Planning Tumor Volume margin and on urinary and rectal toxicity in elderly patients not eligible for surgery. Patients and Methods: Twenty-five elderly prostate cancer patients, median age=75 years (range=75-90 years) were treated with Volumetric Radiotherapy and Clarity-IGRT using 3 different schemes: A) 64.5/72 Gray (Gy) in 30 fractions on prostate and seminal vesicles (6 patients); B) 35 Gy in 5 fractions on prostate and seminal vesicles (12 patients); C): 35 Gy in 5 fractions on prostate (7 patients). Ultrasound identification of the overlapped structures to the detected ones during simulation has been used in each session. A specific software calculates direction and entity of necessary shift to obtain the perfect match. The average misalignment in the three-dimensional space has been determined and shown in a box-plot. Results: All patients completed treatment with mild-moderate toxicity. During treatment, genitourinary toxicity was 32% Grade 1; 4% Grade 2, rectal was 4% Grade 1. At follow-up of 3 months, genitourinary toxicity was 20% Grade 1; 4% Grade 2, rectal toxicity was 4% Grade 2. At follow-up of 6 months, genitourinary toxicity was 4% Grade 1; 4% Grade 2. Rectal toxicity was 4% Grade 2. Conclusion: Radiotherapy with the Clarity System allows a reduction of PTV margins, the amount of fractions can be reduced increasing the total dose, not exacerbating urinary and rectal toxicity with greater patient’s compliance.

Aim: The frequent inadequacy of pain management in cancer patients is well known. Moreover, the quality of analgesic treatment in patients treated with radiotherapy (RT) has only been rarely assessed. In order to study the latter topic, we conducted a multicenter, observational and prospective study based on the Pain Management Index (PMI) in RT Italian departments. Methods: We collected data on age, gender, tumor site and stage, performance status, treatment aim, and pain (type: CP—cancer pain, NCP—non-cancer pain, MP—mixed pain; intensity: NRS: Numeric Rating Scale). Furthermore, we analyzed the impact on PMI on these parameters, and we defined a pain score with values from 0 (NRS: 0, no pain) to 3 (NRS: 7–10: intense pain) and an analgesic score from 0 (pain medication not taken) to 3 (strong opioids). By subtracting the pain score from the analgesic score, we obtained the PMI value, considering cases with values < 0 as inadequate analgesic prescriptions. The Ethics Committees of the participating centers approved the study (ARISE-1 study). Results: Two thousand one hundred four non-selected outpatients with cancer and aged 18 years or older were enrolled in 13 RT departments. RT had curative and palliative intent in 62.4% and 37.6% patients, respectively. Tumor stage was non-metastatic in 57.3% and metastatic in 42.7% of subjects, respectively. Pain affected 1417 patients (CP: 49.5%, NCP: 32.0%; MP: 18.5%). PMI was < 0 in 45.0% of patients with pain. At multivariable analysis, inadequate pain management was significantly correlated with curative RT aim, ECOG performance status = 1 (versus both ECOG-PS3 and ECOG- PS4), breast cancer, non-cancer pain, and Central and South Italy RT Departments (versus Northern Italy).Conclusions: Pain management was less adequate in patients with more favorable clinical condition and stage. Educational and organizational strategies are needed in RT departments to reduce the non-negligible percentage of patients with inadequate analgesic therapy.