BackgroundLung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is associated with low morbidity, however there is an increased risk of treatment-related toxicity in tumors directly abutting or invading the proximal bronchial tree, termed ‘ultra-central’ tumors. As there is no consensus regarding the optimal radiotherapy treatment regimen for these tumors, we performed a modeling study to evaluate the trade-offs between predicted toxicity and local control for commonly used high-precision dose-fractionation regimens.MethodsTen patients with ultra-central lung tumors were identified from our institutional database. New plans were generated for 3 different hypofractionated schemes: 50 Gy in 5 fractions, 60 Gy in 8 fractions and 60 Gy in 15 fractions. For each regimen, one plan was created that prioritized planning target volume (PTV) coverage, potentially at the expense of organ at risk (OAR) tolerance, and a second that compromised PTV coverage to respect OAR dose constraints. Published radiobiological models were employed to evaluate competing treatment plans based on estimates for local control and the likelihood for toxicity to OAR.ResultsThe risk of esophageal or pulmonary toxicity was low (< 5%) in all scenarios. When PTV coverage was prioritized, tumor control probabilities were 92.9% for 50 Gy in 5 fractions, 92.4% for 60 Gy in 8 fractions, and 52.0% for 60 Gy in 15 fractions; however the estimated risk of grade ≥ 4 toxicity to the proximal bronchial tree was 68%, 44% and 2% respectively. When dose to OAR was prioritized, the risk of major pulmonary toxicity was reduced to < 1% in all schemes, but this compromise reduced tumor control probability to 60.3% for 50 Gy in 5 fractions, 65.7% for 60 Gy in 8 fractions and 47.8% for 60 Gy in 15 fractions.ConclusionsThe tradeoff between local control and central airway toxicity are considerable in the use of 3 commonly used hypofractionated radiotherapy regimens for ultra-central lung cancer. The results of this planning study predict that the best balance may be achieved with 60 Gy in 8 fractions compromising PTV coverage as required to maintain acceptable doses to OAR. A prospective phase I trial (SUNSET) is planned to further evaluate this challenging clinical scenario.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-018-1001-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background/Aim: To compare overall survival (OS) and liver cancer-specific survival (LCSS) of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) database patients treated with cryoablation (cryo) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective review of Stage I or II HCC patients from the SEER database treated with cryo and RFA from 2004-2013. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regressions were performed on pooled and propensity-matched cohort. Results: Out of 3,239 patients, RFA showed a significant survival advantage over cryo in liver cancer specific survival (LCSS) (HR=1.634 p=0.0004). A total of 91 propensity-matched pairs had similar OS (HR=1.006 p=0.9768), but no difference in LCSS was observed between the groups [HR=1.412 (95%CI=0.933-2.137) p=0.1023]. Survival Cox models did not reveal treatment type as an independent prognostic factor. Conclusion: Propensity-matched cohort showed no significant difference in terms of OS and LCSS was found for patients treated with either cryo or RFA for localized HCC.
Abscess–fistula complexes and enterocutaneous fistulae are due to postoperative, spontaneous, and inflammatory etiologies. Conservative, percutaneous, endoscopic, and surgical treatment options are available options. Interventional radiologists have an array of different treatment strategies, often starting with percutaneous drainage of associated intra-abdominal abscesses. This review article details different percutaneous management strategies, focusing on percutaneous catheter strategies for abscess-fistula complexes along with tract closures strategies for enterocutaneous fistulae.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.