Our study shows that the volume definition by PET/CT and CT data differs. CT simulation, without taking into account PET/CT information, might leave cancer-involved nodes out of the radiotherapy-delineated volumes.

No abstract

Information received by cancer patients has gained importance in recent decades. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perception of information received by oncological patients in a radiotherapy department and to measure the importance of the other information sources. A cross-sectional study was conducted, evaluating patients who received radiotherapy. All the patients were asked two questionnaires: the EORTC QLQ-INFO26 module evaluating their satisfaction with received information, and a questionnaire analyzing other sources of information search. One hundred patients between 27 and 84 years were enrolled. Breast cancer (26 %) was the commonest cancer. Patients felt better informed about the medical tests and secondly about the performed treatment. The younger patients were those who were more satisfied with the information received and patients with no formal education felt less satisfied, with statistically significant differences. Patients did not seek external information; at the most, they asked relatives and other people with cancer. Patients were satisfied with the received information, although a high percentage would like more information. In general, patients did not search for external information sources. Age and educational level seem to influence in the satisfaction with the received information.

Objective: We evaluated whether the changes in FDG-PET/CT uptake between pre/and post-treatment might predict a complete response in esophageal cancer (EC). Patients and Methods: Fifty-six patients with 2 PET-CTs studies were evaluated retrospectively. Images were evaluated qualitatively and semiquantitatively (SUVs). Patients were classified as persistence of disease, complete metabolic response and unspecific FDG uptake. The SUVmax values and percentages of change in SUV were measured. Results: A significant difference was found between the persistence group and the non-persistence group regarding the median percentage change in SUVtumor (72.95% vs. 54.12%; p = 0.04) and regarding the percentage change in SUVnode (89.91% vs. 59.91%, p = 0.04). In patients treated with radiochemotherapy (RCTX), a significant difference was found between the persistence group and the no persistence group regarding the percentage change in SUVtumor (58.02% vs. 78.59%). Overall survival rate was related to the percentage of change in the SUVtumor. The group of ≥75% of change SUVtumor showed a median survival of 37.32 months (IC: 95% = 49.93-24.70) and the group of <75% of change SUVtumor showed a median survival of 18.39 months (IC: 95% = 25.14-11.65) (p = 0.04). In patients with metastatic relapse, a significant difference was found regarding the percentage change in SUVnode (94.63% vs. 74.09%). Conclusion: Our study provides evidence that the percentage change in the SUVmax is a predictor of the response to neoadjuvant treatment in patients with EC.

No abstract