Summary
Background
(ECT) is an effective local treatment for cutaneous metastasis. Treatment involves the administration of chemotherapeutic drugs followed by delivery of electrical pulses to the tumour.
Objectives
To investigate the effectiveness of ECT in cutaneous metastases of melanoma and to identify factors that affect (beneficially or adversely) the outcome.
Methods
Thirteen cancer centres in the International Network for Sharing Practices on Electrochemotherapy consecutively and prospectively uploaded data to a common database. ECT consisted of intratumoral or intravenous injection of bleomycin, followed by application of electric pulses under local or general anaesthesia.
Results
In total, 151 patients with metastatic melanoma were identified from the database, 114 of whom had follow‐up data of 60 days or more. Eighty‐four of these patients (74%) experienced an overall response (OR = complete response + partial response). Overall, 394 lesions were treated, of which 306 (78%) showed OR, with 229 showing complete response (58%). In multivariate analysis, factors positively associated with overall response were coverage of deep margins, absence of visceral metastases, presence of lymphoedema and treatment of nonirradiated areas. Factors significantly associated with complete response to ECT treatment were coverage of deep margins, previous irradiation of the treated area and tumour size (< 3 cm). One‐year overall survival in this cohort of patients was 67% (95% confidence interval 57–77%), while melanoma‐specific survival was 74% (95% confidence interval 64–84%). No serious adverse events were reported, and the treatment was in general very well tolerated.
Conclusions
ECT is a highly effective local treatment for melanoma metastases in the skin, with no severe adverse effects noted in this study. In the presence of certain clinical factors, ECT may be considered for local tumour control as an alternative to established local treatments, or as an adjunct to systemic treatments.
BackgroundThe accurate definition of organs at risk (OARs) is required to fully exploit the benefits of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer. However, manual delineation is time-consuming and there is considerable inter-observer variability. This is pertinent as function-sparing and adaptive IMRT have increased the number and frequency of delineation of OARs. We evaluated accuracy and potential time-saving of Smart Probabilistic Image Contouring Engine (SPICE) automatic segmentation to define OARs for salivary-, swallowing- and cochlea-sparing IMRT.MethodsFive clinicians recorded the time to delineate five organs at risk (parotid glands, submandibular glands, larynx, pharyngeal constrictor muscles and cochleae) for each of 10 CT scans. SPICE was then used to define these structures. The acceptability of SPICE contours was initially determined by visual inspection and the total time to modify them recorded per scan. The Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation (STAPLE) algorithm created a reference standard from all clinician contours. Clinician, SPICE and modified contours were compared against STAPLE by the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean/maximum distance to agreement (DTA).ResultsFor all investigated structures, SPICE contours were less accurate than manual contours. However, for parotid/submandibular glands they were acceptable (median DSC: 0.79/0.80; mean, maximum DTA: 1.5 mm, 14.8 mm/0.6 mm, 5.7 mm). Modified SPICE contours were also less accurate than manual contours. The utilisation of SPICE did not result in time-saving/improve efficiency.ConclusionsImprovements in accuracy of automatic segmentation for head and neck OARs would be worthwhile and are required before its routine clinical implementation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.