No abstract

IntroductionCancer center websites are trusted sources of internet information about treatment options for prostate cancer. The quality of information on these websites is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of information on cancer center websites addressing prostate cancer treatment options, outcomes, and toxicity.Materials and methodsWe evaluated the websites of all National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers to determine if sufficient information was provided to address eleven decision-specific knowledge questions from the validated Early Prostate Cancer Treatment Decision Quality Instrument. We recorded the number of questions addressed, the number of clicks to reach the prostate cancer-specific webpage, evaluation time, and Spanish and mobile accessibility. Correlation between evaluation time and questions addressed were calculated using the Pearson coefficient.ResultsSixty-three websites were reviewed. Eighty percent had a prostate cancer-specific webpage reached in a median of three clicks. The average evaluation time was 6.5 minutes. Information was available in Spanish on 24% of sites and 59% were mobile friendly. Websites provided sufficient information to address, on average, 19% of questions. No website addressed all questions. Evaluation time correlated with the number of questions addressed (R2 = 0.42, p < 0.001).ConclusionsCancer center websites provide insufficient information for men with localized prostate cancer due to a lack of information about and direct comparison of specific treatment outcomes and toxicities. Information is also less accessible in Spanish and on mobile devices. These data can be used to improve the quality and accessibility of prostate cancer treatment information on cancer center websites.

No abstract

Background To assess the clinical outcomes in patients with greater than 4 newly diagnosed brain metastases treated with focal stereotactic radiotherapy alone. Methods All patients with five or more brain metastases who received focal radiotherapy without whole brain radiation or resection were included in this retrospective analysis. Distant brain failure (DBF), overall survival (OS) and toxicity were reported. Results Thirty-six patients met inclusion with median clinical follow-up of 6.3 months (range: 1.1, 51.4). Twenty-nine patients received stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to a median dose of 20 Gy (16-20), and 7 received fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) to a median dose of 30 Gy (25, 30) in five fractions. The median lesion number and total brain metastases volume was 6 (5, 14) and 1.55 cc (0.12, 32.96), respectively. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of DBF at six-month was 58%, and survival probability at 1 year was 49%. Twenty percent of patients experienced systemic death without CNS relapse. Eight percent experienced grade 3 toxicity with no grade 4 or 5 toxicity. Neither tumor volume nor number predicted DBF. Conclusions DBF, OS and treatment toxicity were similar to historical controls with fewer than five metastases treated with focal radiation. Focal stereotactic radiotherapy alone without whole brain RT is a reasonable treatment strategy for five or more brain metastases.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the incidence and risk factors for mesorectal node metastasis (MRNM) in locally advanced cervical cancer.Methods/MaterialsWe performed an observational retrospective cohort study of 122 patients with cervical cancer who received definitive chemo-radiation treatment between December 2013 and June 2017 to evaluate the incidence of MRNM. Three diagnostic radiologists assessed all available pre-treatment images. In this study, the pelvic node metastasis was defined as ≥ 1.0 cm and MRNM as ≥ 0.5 cm for CT and MRI scans and as a maximum standardized uptake value of > 2.5 for PET/CT. The relationship of MRNM with FIGO stage, pelvic node metastasis, and mesorectal fascia involvement was evaluated.ResultsThe incidence of MRNM in all 122 patients was 8 (6.6%). However, in advanced stage (III– IV) patients, MRNM occurred in 4 of 39 (10.3%) compared with 4 of 83 (4.8%) in early stage (IB1–IIB) patients (p = 0.27). In patients with a positive pelvic node, MRNM occurred in 7 of 55 (12.7%) and 1 of 67 (1.5%) in those with negative pelvic node (p = 0.02). In addition, the incidence of MRNM was 3 of 9 (33.3%) in the presence of mesorectal fascia involvement and 5 of 113 (4.4%) among those without mesorectal fascia involvement (p = 0.013).ConclusionThis study indicates that pelvic node metastasis and mesorectal fascia involvement are high-risk factors for MRNM. Therefore, vigilance of reviewing images in the mesorectum for MRNM is necessary for high-risk patients.