The modern management of esophageal cancer is crucially based on a multidisciplinary and multimodal approach. Radiotherapy is involved in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings; moreover, it includes radical and palliative treatment intention (with a focus on the use of a stent and its potential integration with radiotherapy). In this review, the above-mentioned settings and approaches will be described. Referring to available international guidelines, the background evidence bases will be reviewed, and the ongoing, more relevant trials will be outlined. Target definitions and radiotherapy doses to administer will be mentioned. Peculiar applications such as brachytherapy (interventional radiation oncology), and data regarding innovative approaches including MRI-guided-RT and radiomic analysis will be reported. A focus on the avoidance of surgery for major clinical responses (particularly for SCC) is detailed.

Different options for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) are available based on international guidelines: chemotherapy (CHT), chemoradiation (CRT), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). However, the role of radiotherapy is debated in LAPC. We retrospectively compared CHT, CRT, and SBRT ± CHT in a real-world setting in terms of overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). LAPC patients from a multicentric retrospective database were included (2005–2018). Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Multivariable Cox analysis was performed to identify predictors of LC, OS, and DMFS. Of the 419 patients included, 71.1% were treated with CRT, 15.5% with CHT, and 13.4% with SBRT. Multivariable analysis showed higher LC rates for CRT (HR: 0.56, _95%CI 0.34–0.92, p = 0.022) or SBRT (HR: 0.27, _95%CI 0.13–0.54, p < 0.001), compared to CHT. CRT (HR: 0.44, _95%CI 0.28–0.70, p < 0.001) and SBRT (HR: 0.40, _95%CI 0.22–0.74, p = 0.003) were predictors of prolonged OS with respect to CHT. No significant differences were recorded in terms of DMFS. In selected patients, the addition of radiotherapy to CHT is still an option to be considered. In patients referred for radiotherapy, CRT can be replaced by SBRT considering its duration, higher LC rate, and OS rate, which are at least comparable to that of CRT.

Background/Objectives: High-dose-rate (HDR) interventional radiotherapy (IRT) represents a valuable treatment alternative for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the midface, especially in the presence of esthetic or functional issues related to surgery. This retrospective study examines the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent HDR-IRT at our institution. Methods: Patients (pts) with histologically confirmed midface BCC were treated with HDR-IRT using superficial, interstitial, or endocavitary implants depending on tumor characteristics. Fractionation regimens were tailored to tumor location: 45 Gy in 9 fractions twice a day (the cheeks/lips) and 44 Gy in 14 fractions (the nose, with the first and last fractions delivering 4 Gy each, administered once daily, and the remaining 12 fractions delivering 3 Gy each, administered twice daily (BID) with an inter-fraction interval of at least 6 h). Treatment efficacy was assessed based on local control rates, toxicity (CTCAE criteria), and cosmetic outcomes. Results: Eight patients were considered. The most common tumor site was the nose (seven patients, 87.5%), followed by the upper lip. Tumors were either primary (three patients, 37.5%) or residual/recurrent after previous surgery with involved margins (five patients, 62.5%). The median follow-up was 6 months (range: 1–19 months). Clinical local control was achieved in all cases, with persistent alteration at dermoscopy in one patient six months after the completion of treatment. Acute toxicities were minimal, with two patients developing grade 3 skin toxicity, which resolved within 1–3 months with topical management. Cosmetic outcomes were favorable across all patients. Conclusions: HDR-IRT is a well-tolerated, effective, and cosmetically favorable treatment for midface BCC. Our institutional experience supports its use as an alternative to surgery in cosmetically sensitive areas and in selected patients/lesions unfit for surgery. Endocavitary implants appear to be an effective option to cover the full thickness nasal wall without resorting to interstitial implants.