Skin cancer incidence is rising worldwide. BT offers an effective non-invasive or minimally invasive and relative short treatment that particularly appeals to elder and frail population.

No abstract

Although the emergence of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has had a profound impact on the diagnosis of prostate cancers (PCa), analyzing these images remains still complex even for experts. This paper proposes a fully automatic system based on Deep Learning that performs localization, segmentation and Gleason grade group (GGG) estimation of PCa lesions from prostate mpMRIs. It uses 490 mpMRIs for training/validation and 75 for testing from two different datasets: ProstateX and Valencian Oncology Institute Foundation. In the test set, it achieves an excellent lesion-level AUC/sensitivity/specificity for the GGG$$\ge$$ ≥ 2 significance criterion of 0.96/1.00/0.79 for the ProstateX dataset, and 0.95/1.00/0.80 for the IVO dataset. At a patient level, the results are 0.87/1.00/0.375 in ProstateX, and 0.91/1.00/0.762 in IVO. Furthermore, on the online ProstateX grand challenge, the model obtained an AUC of 0.85 (0.87 when trained only on the ProstateX data, tying up with the original winner of the challenge). For expert comparison, IVO radiologist’s PI-RADS 4 sensitivity/specificity were 0.88/0.56 at a lesion level, and 0.85/0.58 at a patient level. The full code for the ProstateX-trained model is openly available at https://github.com/OscarPellicer/prostate_lesion_detection. We hope that this will represent a landmark for future research to use, compare and improve upon.

Purpose We report the first cervical cancer cases treated with interstitial electronic brachytherapy (eBT) at our hospital and compare them with plans made with high‐dose‐rate interstitial brachytherapy based on Ir192 (HDR‐BT). Materials and methods Eight patients with cervical cancer were treated with the Axxent eBT device (Xoft, Inc.). Planning was with magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography following the recommendations of the EMBRACE protocol. The dosimetry parameters of organs at risk (OAR) were evaluated for the bladder, rectum, and sigmoid colon (D2cc, D1cc, and D0.1cc). In addition, the V150 and V200 of irradiated tissue were compared for both eBT and HDR‐BT. All patients received intensity‐modulated external beam radiation therapy with a regimen of 23 sessions of 2 Gy followed by four sessions of 7 Gy of eBT performed over 2 weeks (two sessions followed by another two sessions a week later) following the EMBRACE recommendations. Each of the eight patients was followed to assess acute toxicity associated with treatment. Results The doses reaching OAR for eBT plans were lower than for HDR‐BT plans. As for acute toxicity associated with eBT, very few cases of mucositis were detected. No cases of rectal toxicity and one case with grade 1 urinary toxicity were detected. The results at 1 month are equally good, and no relapses have occurred to date. Conclusions The first results of treatment with the Axxent eBT device are promising, as no recurrences have been observed and toxicity is very low. eBT is a good alternative for treating cervical cancer in centers without access to conventional HDR.

No abstract