High mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) is an extremely versatile protein that is located predominantly in the nucleus of quiescent eukaryotic cells, where it is critically involved in maintaining genomic structure and function. During cellular stress, however, this multifaceted, cytokine-like protein undergoes posttranslational modifications that promote its translocation to the cytosol, from where it is released extracellularly, either actively or passively, according to cell type and stressor. In the extracellular milieu, HMGB1 triggers innate inflammatory responses that may be beneficial or harmful, depending on the magnitude and duration of release of this pro-inflammatory protein at sites of tissue injury. Heightened awareness of the potentially harmful activities of HMGB1, together with a considerable body of innovative, recent research, have revealed that excessive production of HMGB1, resulting from misdirected, chronic inflammatory responses, appears to contribute to all the stages of tumorigenesis. In the setting of established cancers, the production of HMGB1 by tumor cells per se may also exacerbate inflammation-related immunosuppression. These pro-inflammatory mechanisms of HMGB1-orchestrated tumorigenesis, as well as the prognostic potential of detection of elevated expression of this protein in the tumor microenvironment, represent the major thrusts of this review.

PURPOSE There is a shortage of radiation therapy service centers in low- to middle-income countries. TARGIT–intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) may offer a viable alternative to improve radiation treatment efficiency and alleviate hospital patient loads. The Breast Care Unit in Johannesburg became the first facility in Africa to offer TARGIT-IORT, and the purpose of this study was to present a retrospective review of patients receiving IORT at this center between November 2017 and May 2020. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patient selection criteria were based mainly on the latest American Society of Radiation Oncology guidelines. Selection criteria included early-stage breast carcinoma (luminal A) and luminal B with negative upfront sentinel lymph node biopsy that negated external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Patient characteristics, reasons for choosing IORT, histology, and use of oncoplastic surgery that resulted in complications were recorded. RESULTS One hundred seven patients successfully received IORT/TARGIT-IORT. Mean age was 60.8 years (standard deviation, 9.3 years). A total of 73.8% of patients presented with luminal A, 15.0% with luminal B, and 5.6% with triple-negative cancer. One patient who presented with locally advanced breast cancer (T4N2) opted for IORT as a boost in addition to planned EBRT. Eighty-seven patients underwent wide local excision (WLE) with mastopexy, and 12 underwent WLE with parenchymal. Primary reasons for selecting IORT/TARGIT-IORT were distance from the hospital (43.9%), choice (40.2%), and age (10.3%). CONCLUSION This retrospective study of IORT/TARGIT-IORT performed in Africa confirms its viability, with low complication rates and no detrimental effects with breast conservation, resulting in positive acceptance and the potential to reduce Oncology Center patient loads. Limitations of the study include the fact that only short-term data on local recurrence were available. Health and socioeconomic value models must still be addressed in the African setting.

No abstract

Case reports detailing the effects of targeted intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) on patients with cardiac pacemakers (PMs) are rare. This growing population subgroup requiring IORT and lack of standardized guidelines necessitate more practical published research. An 81-year-old patient with clinical stage II, T1 N0 grade III, triple-negative invasive ductal carcinoma and an implanted single-lead chamber PM (VVIR mode, model: Biotronik, type Effecta SR) received targeted intraoperative radiotherapy at the time of wide local excision and sentinel lymph node biopsy. It presents the shortest distance between the outer diameter of the PM and IORT applicator in literature. Target IORT was performed utilizing an Intrabeam device (50 kV, Carl Zeiss Surgical, Oberkochen, Germany). This case elucidates the successful use of targeted IORT for breast-conserving surgery in a patient with a single ipsilateral chamber VVIR mode PM. No device failure or malfunction was reported for the PM before, during, or after the procedure. These findings support the use of targeted IORT for patients diagnosed with early-stage breast carcinomas who have a PM implanted. However, further research is needed to understand the safety of other methods and devices for IORT patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.

No abstract