The effects of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) blockade on the vascular biology of human tumors are not known. Here we show here that a single infusion of the VEGF-specific antibody bevacizumab decreases tumor perfusion, vascular volume, microvascular density, interstitial fluid pressure and the number of viable, circulating endothelial and progenitor cells, and increases the fraction of vessels with pericyte coverage in rectal carcinoma patients. These data indicate that VEGF blockade has a direct and rapid antivascular effect in human tumors.VEGF has a crucial role in physiological and pathological angiogenesis 1-3 . Although VEGF blockade, alone or in combination with cytotoxic therapies, is being tested in a number of

In this good-risk subset of patients with DCIS, with a median follow-up of 7 years, the LF rate was low with observation but was decreased significantly with the addition of RT. Longer follow-up is planned because the timeline for LF in this setting seems protracted.

Summary Background The NRG/RTOG 9413 study showed that whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) plus neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) improved progression-free survival in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk localised prostate cancer compared with prostate only radiotherapy (PORT) plus NHT, WPRT plus adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), and PORT plus AHT. We provide a long-term update after no years of follow-up of the primary endpoint (progression-free survival) and report on the late toxicities of treatment. Methods The trial was designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study with hormonal sequencing as one stratification factor and radiation field as the other factor and tested whether NHT improved progression-free survival versus AHT, and NHT plus WPRT versus NHT plus PORT. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate, an estimated risk of lymph node involvement of more than 15% and a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70, with no age limitations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by permuted block randomisation to receive either NHT 2 months before and during WPRT followed by a prostate boost to 70 Gy (NHT plus WPRT group), NHT 2 months before and during PORT to 70 Gy (NHT plus PORT group), WPRT followed by 4 months of AHT (WPRT plus AHT group), or PORT followed by 4 months of AHT (PORT plus AHT group). Hormonal therapy was combined androgen suppression, consisting of goserelin acetate 3·6 mg once a month subcutaneously or leuprolide acetate 7·5 mg once a month intramuscularly, and flutamide 250 mg twice a day orally for 4 months. Randomisation was stratified by T stage, Gleason Score, and prostate-specific antigen concentration. NHT was given 2 months before radiotherapy and was continued until radiotherapy completion; AHT was given at the completion of radiotherapy for 4 months. The primary endpoint progression-free survival was analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769548. The trial has been terminated to additional follow-up collection and this is the final analysis for this trial. Findings Between April 1, 1995, and June 1, 1999, 1322 patients were enrolled from 53 centres and randomly assigned to the four treatment groups. With a median follow-up of 8·8 years (IQR 5·07–13·84) for all patients and 14·8 years (7·18–17·4) for living patients (n=346), progression-free survival across all timepoints continued to differ significantly across the four treatment groups (p=0·002). The 10-year estimates of progression-free survival were 28·4% (95% CI 23·3–33·6) in the NHT plus WPRT group, 23·5% (18·7–28·3) in the NHT plus PORT group, 19·4% (14·9–24·0) in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 30·2% (25·0–35·4) in the PORT plus AHT group. Bladder toxicity was the most common grade 3 or worse late toxicity, affecting 18 (6%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, 17 (5%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, 22 (7%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 14 (4%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. Late grad...

The development and use of in vivo techniques for strictly experimental applications in animals has been very successful, and these results now have made possible some very attractive potential clinical applications. The area with the most obvious immediate, effective and widespread clinical use is oximetry, where EPR almost uniquely can make repeated and accurate measurements of pO 2 in tissues. Such measurements can provide clinicians with information that can impact directly on diagnosis and therapy, especially for oncology, peripheral vascular disease and wound healing. The other area of immediate and timely importance is the unique ability of in vivo EPR to measure clinically significant exposures to ionizing radiation 'after-the-fact', such as may occur due to accidents, terrorism or nuclear war. There are a number of other capabilities of in vivo EPR that also potentially could become extensively used in human subjects. In pharmacology the unique capabilities of in vivo EPR to detect and characterize free radicals could be applied to measure free radical intermediates from drugs and oxidative process. A closely related area of potential widespread applications is the use of EPR to measure nitric oxide. These often unique capabilities, combined with the sensitivity of EPR spectra to the immediate environment (e.g. pH, molecular motion, charge) have already resulted in some very productive applications in animals and these are likely to expand substantially in the near future. They should provide a continually developing base for extending clinical uses of in vivo EPR. The challenges for achieving full implementation include adapting the spectrometer for safe and comfortable measurements in human subjects, achieving sufficient sensitivity for measurements at the sites of the pathophysiological processes that are being measured, and establishing a consensus on the clinical value of the measurements.

No abstract

No abstract

American College of Radiology and American Society for Radiation Oncology Practice Guideline for the Performance of Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS). SRS is a safe and efficacious treatment option of a variety of benign and malignant disorders involving intracranial structures and selected extracranial lesions. SRS involves a high dose of ionizing radiation with a high degree of precision and spatial accuracy. A quality SRS program requires a multidisciplinary team involved in the patient management. Organization, appropriate staffing, and careful adherence to detail and to established SRS standards is important to ensure operational efficiency and to improve the likelihood of procedural success. A collaborative effort of the American College of Radiology and American Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology has produced a practice guideline for SRS. The guideline defines the qualifications and responsibilities of all the involved personnel, including the radiation oncologist, neurosurgeon, and qualified medical physicist. Quality assurance is essential for safe and accurate delivery of treatment with SRS. Quality assurance issues for the treatment unit, stereotactic accessories, medical imaging, and treatment-planning system are presented and discussed. Adherence to these practice guidelines can be part of ensuring quality and patient safety in a successful SRS program.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a complex technique for the delivery of radiation therapy preferentially to target structures while minimizing doses to adjacent normal critical structures. It is widely utilized in the treatment of a variety of clinical indications in radiation oncology, including tumors of the central nervous system, head and neck, breast, prostate, gastrointestinal tract, and gynecologic organs, as well as in situations where previous radiation therapy has been delivered, and has allowed for significant therapeutic advances in many clinical areas. IMRT treatment planning and delivery is a complex process. Safe and reliable delivery of IMRT requires appropriate process design and adherence to quality assurance (QA) standards. A collaborative effort of the American College of Radiology and American Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology has produced a practice guideline for IMRT. The guideline defines the qualifications and responsibilities of all the involved personnel, including the radiation oncologist, physicist, dosimetrist, and radiation therapist. Factors with respect to the QA of the treatment planning system, treatment-planning process, and treatment-delivery process are discussed, as are issues related to the utilization of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Patient-specific QA procedures are presented. Successful IMRT programs involve integration of many processes: patient selection, patient positioning/immobilization, target definition, treatment plan development, and accurate treatment delivery. Appropriate QA procedures, including patient-specific QA procedures, are essential to ensure quality in an IMRT program and to assure patient safety.