HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de

These data confirm the importance of implementing couple-focused interventions.

ORCID: 0000–0001-6019–7309. In the treatment of breast cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reportedly reduces the high-dose irradiation of at-risk organs and decreases the frequency of adverse events (AEs). Comparisons with conventional radiotherapy have shown that IMRT is associated with lower frequencies of acute and late-onset AEs. Here, we extended a prospective, observational, single-center study of the safety of IMRT to a second investigating center. Patients scheduled for adjuvant IMRT after partial or total mastectomy were given a dose of 50 Gy (25 fractions of 2 Gy over 5 weeks), with a simultaneous integrated boost in patients having undergone conservative surgery. 300 patients were included in the study, and 288 were analyzed. The median follow-up period was 2.1 years. The 2-year disease-free survival rate [95% CI] was 93.4% [89.2–96.0%]. Most AEs were mild. The most common AEs were skin-related—mainly radiodermatitis [in 266 patients (92.4%)] and hyperpigmentation (in 178 (61.8%)). 35% and 6% of the patients presented with grade 2 acute skin and esophageal toxicity, respectively. Only 4 patients presented with a grade 3 event (radiodermatitis). Smoking (odds ratio) [95% CI] = 2.10 [1.14–3.87]; p = 0.017), no prior chemotherapy (0.52 [0.27–0.98]; p = 0.044), and D98% for subclavicular skin (1.030 [1.001–1.061]; p = 0.045) were associated with grade ≥ 2 acute AEs. In a univariate analysis, the mean dose, (p < 0.0001), D2% (p < 0.0001), D50% (p = 0.037), D95% (p = 0.0005), D98% (p = 0.0007), V30Gy (p < 0.0001), and V45Gy (p = 0.0001) were significantly associated with grade ≥ 1 acute esophageal AEs. In a multivariate analysis, D95% for the skin (p < 0.001), D98% for the subclavicular skin and low D95% for the internal mammary lymph nodes were associated with grade ≥ 1 medium-term AEs. The safety profile of adjuvant IMRT after partial or total mastectomy is influenced by dosimetric parameters.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02281149.

BackgroundInter-observer delineation variation has been detailed for many years in almost every tumor location. Inadequate delineation can impair the chance of cure and/or increase toxicity. The aim of our original work was to prospectively improve the homogeneity of delineation among all of the senior radiation oncologists in the Nord-Pas de Calais region, irrespective of the conditions of practice.MethodsAll 11 centers were involved. The first studied cancer was prostate cancer. Three clinical cases were studied: a low-risk prostate cancer case (case 1), a high-risk prostate cancer case (pelvic nodes, case 2) and a case of post-operative biochemical elevated PSA (case 3). All of the involved physicians delineated characteristically the clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk. The volumes were compared using validated indexes: the volume ratio (VR), common and additional volumes (CV and AV), volume overlap (VO) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). A second delineation of the same three cases was performed after discussion of the slice results and the choice of shared guidelines to evaluate homogenization. A comparative analysis of the indexes before and after discussion was conducted using the Wilcoxon test for paired samples. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.ResultsThe indexes were not improved in case 1, for which the inter-observer agreement was considered good after the first comparison (DSC = 0.83±0.06). In case 2, the second comparison showed homogenization of the CTV delineation with a significant improvement in CV (81.4±11.7 vs. 88.6±10.26, respectively, p = 0.048), VO (0.41±0.09 vs. 0.47±0.07, respectively; p = 0.009) and DSC (0.58±0.09 vs. 0.63±0.07, respectively; p = 0.0098). In case 3, VR and AV were significantly improved: VR: 1.71(±0.6) vs. 1.34(±0.46), respectively, p = 0.0034; AV: 46.58(±14.50) vs. 38.08(±15.10), respectively, p = 0.0024. DSC was not improved, but it was already superior to 0.6 in the first comparison.ConclusionOur prospective work showed that a collaborative discussion about clinical cases and the choice of shared guidelines within an established framework improved the homogeneity of CTV delineation among the senior radiation oncologists in our region.

No abstract