Objective: Our objective was to report our experience and to evaluate the feasibility and toxicity of focal salvage stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with post-radiation local recurrence of prostate cancer. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients treated with Cyberknife ® between October 2014 and April 2017 at our institution for a focal reirradiation delivered to the prostate/prostatic bed for local recurrence after radical or adjuvant radiotherapy. All patients underwent prostate biopsies at recurrence at the time of fiducial markers placement, had choline PET/CT and pelvic MRI. The treatment consisted in 36 Gy in six fractions delivered every other day. Post reirradiation toxicities were assessed according to the CTCAE v4 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). Results: 42 patients were treated with followed with a median follow-up of 21 months (range 3 – 31). 34 patients had biopsy proven recurrence. The initial treatment was radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy for 9 patients and radiation therapy alone for 33 patients. 23 patients from the group of prostate reirradiation had placement of rectal spacers. No Grade 4 or 5 toxicity were observed. 27 acute urinary events were recorded: 18 patients experienced Grade 1, 9 patients experienced Grade 2 toxicity and 1 patient experienced Grade 3 urinary toxicity, namely cystitis and/or dysuria. No Grade 2 or more digestive toxicity was observed. Rectal doses were significantly lower with rectal spacers. Conclusion: Salvage focal Cyberknife ® seems feasible and show promising results. Advances in knowledge: SBRT for local prostate cancer recurrence after initial radiotherapy is well tolerated with short follow-up.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility, efficacy and toxicity of fiducial marker implantation and tracking in CyberKnife® stereotactic radiation therapy (SBRT) applied to extracranial locations. Materials and method This is a retrospective, single-centre, observational study to collect the data of all patients treated by stereotactic radiation therapy with fiducial marker tracking at extracranial locations, conducted between June 2014 and November 2017. Information regarding the implantation procedure, the types of toxicity related to marker implantation and the number of markers implanted/tracked during treatment were collected. Complication rates were evaluated using the CTCAE v4 [Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events] scale. The technical success rate was based on the ability to optimally track the tumor throughout all treatment fractions. Results Out of 2505 patients treated by stereotactic radiation therapy, 25% received treatment with fiducial marker tracking. The total number of implantation procedures was 616 and 1543 fiducial markers were implanted. The implantation-related complication rate was 3%, with 16 Grade 1 events and 4 Grade 2 events. The number of treated patients and the number of implanted markers has gradually increased since the technique was first implemented. The median treatment time was 27 min (range 10–76). 1295 fiducials were effectively tracked throughout all treatment fractions, corresponding to a technical success rate of 84%. The difference between the number of fiducials implanted and those tracked during treatment decreased significantly as the site’s experience increased. Conclusion Fiducial marker implantation and tracking is feasible, well-tolerated, and technically effective technique in SBRT for extracranial tumors.

Background Gastrointestinal bleeding is a rare but severe complication of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Objective The purpose of this study was to describe the causes and treatments of non-postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and explore the parameters associated with therapeutic effectiveness. Methods This was a single-centre observational retrospective study (2000–2017) with data collected from the prospectively coded diagnostic hospital’s database system including patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had a gastrointestinal bleeding episode. Effectiveness of haemostatic treatment was assessed according to transfusion requirements and immediate and long-term haemostatic efficacy; the latter defined as no bleeding recurrence. Results The population included 72 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had 94 episodes of gastrointestinal bleeding. The main causes of gastrointestinal bleeding were gastroduodenal tumour invasion (56.4%) and oesophageal variceal bleeding due to left-sided portal hypertension (19.1%). In cases of gastrointestinal bleeding caused by tumour invasion, the main treatment was therapeutic endoscopy (41.5%). Among patients who had gastrointestinal bleeding by tumour invasion treated by endoscopy or radiation therapy, haemostatic immediate efficacy rates were 70.6% and 100%, respectively. Bleeding recurrence rates were 35.3% and 25.0%, for patients treated by endoscopy or radiation therapy, respectively, for a first episode of gastrointestinal bleeding by tumour invasion. Transfusion requirements, before and after treatment, were not different in patients treated by haemostatic radiation therapy for gastrointestinal bleeding by tumour invasion compared to other treatments (odds ratio 0.3, 95% CI (0.06–1.59); p = 0.16). The median survival after all-cause gastrointestinal bleeding was 2.72 months (1.43–4.01). Conclusion Gastroduodenal tumour invasion was the main cause of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; haemostatic radiation therapy is a potential interesting option for gastrointestinal bleeding treatment in this context.