Radiotherapy is a pivotal component in the curative treatment of patients with localised cancer and isolated metastasis, as well as being used as a palliative strategy for patients with disseminated disease. The clinical efficacy of radiotherapy has traditionally been attributed to the local effects of ionising radiation, which induces cell death by directly and indirectly inducing DNA damage, but substantial work has uncovered an unexpected and dual relationship between tumour irradiation and the host immune system. In clinical practice, it is, therefore, tempting to tailor immunotherapies with radiotherapy in order to synergise innate and adaptive immunity against cancer cells, as well as to bypass immune tolerance and exhaustion, with the aim of facilitating tumour regression. However, our understanding of how radiation impacts on immune system activation is still in its early stages, and concerns and challenges regarding therapeutic applications still need to be overcome. With the increasing use of immunotherapy and its common combination with ionising radiation, this review briefly delineates current knowledge about the non-targeted effects of radiotherapy, and aims to provide insights, at the preclinical level, into the mechanisms that are involved with the potential to yield clinically relevant combinatorial approaches of radiotherapy and immunotherapy.

<b><i>Purpose:</i></b> It is usual for cancer patients to use complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) and yet the literature evaluating their efficacy in cancer patients is very limited. The objective of the present study was to report on the nature, frequency of use, and patient-reported outcome of CAMs in a single-center study. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> All the consecutive patients treated between November 2017 and June 2018 at the Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute (France) were screened. Their reasons for using CAMs and their usage habits were collected. Patients evaluated their benefit. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of the 209 patients screened, 200 patients were included. CAMs ranged from osteopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, healing touch, magnetism, naturopathy, suction cups, Chinese medicine, reflexology, to hypnosis. CAMs were widely used (n = 166, 83%), the first being osteopathy (<i>n</i> = 99, 49.5%), the second homeopathy (<i>n</i> = 78, 39.0%), and finally acupuncture (<i>n</i> = 76, 38.0%). Whatever the CAM, high satisfaction rates were reported (median satisfaction: 61–81%). CAMs were mainly used to prevent/treat side effects of anticancer treatments (81.2% for healing touch), increase well-being (55.4% for naturopathy), improve the immune system (16.9% for homeopathy), and treat cancer (<i>n</i> = 3, 5.1% for homeopathy). Patients could easily consider using CAMs, as up to 50.8% would have accepted a consultation. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The reasons for using CAMs differed among patients. They praised CAMs and kept asking for more information although there is limited evidence about their efficacy in the literature. Thus, prospective randomized controlled trials exploring the safety and efficacy of CAMs in cancer patients are needed.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Cancer and anti-cancer therapies are often associated with pain, loss of self-worth, anxiety, and depression. Alternative therapies such as art therapy are available to improve patients’ quality of life, by reducing asthenia, depression, anxiety and pain. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of art therapy, namely theatre and plastic art workshops, on well-being and quality of life of participants in the Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A prospective study was conducted at the Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute (France), between April 2018 and July 2018. Cancer patients followed at the Institute have been asked to participate in 10 2-h sessions, once a week, based on theatre and plastic art workshops. Self-report questionnaires were used to evaluate both psychological and quality of life domains, but also satisfaction and well-being, before (pre-test) and after the last session (early post-test), as well as 1-month post-experimentation (late post-test). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Among the 14 patients who were enroled, the QLQ-C30 questionnaire revealed a pre-test median score of 50.0, an early post-test score of 51.5, and the late post-test revealed a score of 48.0. The anxiety test revealed median scores of 8.0 (pre-test), 6.0 (early post-test) and 6.0 (late post-test), respectively. The depression test reported median scores of 4.0 (pre-test), 5.0 (early post-test) and 6.0 (late post-test), respectively. The median well-being score difference observed between the beginning and the end of sessions is +2.13. The minimum satisfaction score observed is 3.50 out of 10, and the maximum is 10 out of 10. The median is between 7.00 and 10.00. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Art therapy sessions had an impact on patients’ welfare. We also reported a trend towards amelioration of quality of life that could probably be confirmed in a larger population, and potentially with a different methodology.

No abstract

No abstract