In our patient series with PSA levels <0.5 ng/ml, Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT had a detection rate of 34.4%. In the ITT analysis, 30.2% of patients had a change in the intended treatment. These data support the hypothesis thatGa-PSMA-11 PET/CT is a useful procedure in the management of PCa patients showing early recurrence after RP, and should be implemented in routine clinical practice.

AimThis article discusses the current use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques in clinical practice and reviews the available data from clinical outcome studies in different clinical settings. An overview of available literature about clinical outcomes with VMAT stereotactic/radiosurgical treatment is also reported.Materials and methodsAll published manuscripts reporting the use of VMAT in a clinical setting from 2009 to November 2016 were identified. The search was carried out in December 2016 using the National Library of Medicine (PubMed/Medline). The following words were searched: “volumetric arc therapy”[All Fields] OR “vmat”[All Fields] OR “rapidarc”[All Fields], AND “radiotherapy”[All Fields] AND “Clinical Trial”[All Fields].ResultsOverall, 37 studies (21 prospective and 16 retrospective) fulfilling inclusion criteria and thus included in the review evaluated 2,029 patients treated with VMAT; of these patients, ~30.8% had genitourinary (GU) tumors (81% prostate, 19% endometrial), 26.2% head-and-neck cancer (H&NC), 13.9% oligometastases, 11.2% had anorectal cancer, 10.6% thoracic neoplasms (81% breast, 19% lung), and 7.0% brain metastases (BMs). Six different clinical scenarios for VMAT use were identified: 1) BMs, 2) H&NC, 3) thoracic neoplasms, 4) GU cancer, 5) anorectal tumor, and 6) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) performed by VMAT technique in the oligometastatic patient setting.ConclusionThe literature addressing the clinical appropriateness of VMAT is scarce. Current literature suggests that VMAT, especially when used as simultaneous integrated boost or SBRT strategy, is an effective safe modality for all cancer types.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged healthcare systems worldwide over the last few months, and it continues to do so. Although some restrictions are being removed, it is not certain when the pandemic is going to be definitively over. Pandemics can be seen as a highly complex logistic scenario. From this perspective, some of the indications provided for palliative radiotherapy (PRT) during the COVID-19 pandemic could be maintained in the future in settings that limit the possibility of patients achieving symptom relief by radiotherapy. This paper has two aims: (1) to provide a summary of the indications for PRT during the COVID-19 pandemic; since some indications can differ slightly, and to avoid any possible contradictions, an expert panel composed of the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) and the Palliative Care and Supportive Therapies Working Group (AIRO-palliative) voted by consensus on the summary; (2) to introduce a clinical care model for PRT [endorsed by AIRO and by a spontaneous Italian collaborative network for PRT named “La Rete del Sollievo” (“The Net of Relief”)]. The proposed model, denoted “No cOmpRoMise on quality of life by pALliative radiotherapy” (NORMALITY), is based on an AIRO-palliative consensus-based list of clinical indications for PRT and on practical suggestions regarding the management of patients potentially suitable for PRT but dealing with highly complex logistics scenarios (similar to the ongoing logistics limits due to COVID-19). Material and Methods First, a summary of the available literature guidelines for PRT published during the COVID-19 pandemic was prepared. A systematic literature search based on the PRISMA approach was performed to retrieve the available literature reporting guideline indications fully or partially focused on PRT. Tables reporting each addressed clinical presentation and respective literature indications were prepared and distributed into two main groups: palliative emergencies and palliative non-emergencies. These summaries were voted in by consensus by selected members of the AIRO and AIRO-palliative panels. Second, based on the summary for palliative indications during the COVID-19 pandemic, a clinical care model to facilitate recruitment and delivery of PRT to patients in complex logistic scenarios was proposed. The summary tables were critically integrated and shuffled according to clinical presentations and then voted on in a second consensus round. Along with the adapted guideline indications, some methods of performing the first triage of patients and facilitating a teleconsultation preliminary to the first in-person visit were developed. Results After the revision of 161 documents, 13 papers were selected for analysis. From the papers, 19 clinical presentation items were collected; in total, 61 question items were extracted and voted on (i.e., for each presentation, more than one indication was provided from the literature). Two tables summarizing the PRT indications during the COVID-19 pandemic available from the literature (PRT COVID-19 summary tables) were developed: palliative emergencies and palliative non-emergencies. The consensus of the vote by the AIRO panel for the PRT COVID-19 summary was reached. The PRT COVID-19 summary tables for palliative emergencies and palliative non-emergencies were adapted for clinical presentations possibly associated with patients in complex clinical scenarios other than the COVID-19 pandemic. The two new indication tables (i.e., “Normality model of PRT indications”) for both palliative emergencies and palliative non-emergencies were voted on in a second consensus round. The consensus rate was reached and strong. Written forms facilitating two levels of teleconsultation (triage and remote visits) were also developed, both in English and in Italian, to evaluate the patients for possible indications for PRT before scheduling clinical visits. Conclusion We provide a comprehensive summary of the literature guideline indications for PRT during COVID-19 pandemic. We also propose a clinical care model including clinical indications and written forms facilitating two levels of teleconsultation (triage and remote visits) to evaluate the patients for indications of PRT before scheduling clinical visits. The normality model could facilitate the provision of PRT to patients in future complex logistic scenarios.

No abstract

Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung (LCNEC) is a rare and highly aggressive type of lung cancer, with a complex biology that shares similarities with both small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The prognosis of LCNEC is poor, with a median overall survival of 8–12 months. The diagnosis of LCNEC requires the identification of neuroendocrine morphology and the expression of at least one of the neuroendocrine markers (chromogranin A, synaptophysin or CD56). In the last few years, the introduction of next-generation sequencing allowed the identification of molecular subtypes of LCNEC, with prognostic and potential therapeutic implications: one subtype is similar to SCLC (SCLC-like), while the other is similar to NSCLC (NSCLC-like). Because of LCNEC rarity, most evidence comes from small retrospective studies and treatment strategies that are extrapolated from those adopted in patients with SCLC and NSCLC. Nevertheless, limited but promising data about targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with LCNEC are emerging. LCNEC clinical management is still controversial and standardized treatment strategies are currently lacking. The aim of this manuscript is to review clinical and molecular data about LCNEC to better understand the optimal management and the potential prognostic and therapeutic implications of molecular subtypes.

Aim: To define safety and efficacy of a palliative, short-course accelerated radiation therapy for symptomatic locally advanced primary pelvic cancer. Materials and Methods: A phase II trial was planned based on the minimax Simon's twostage design. A total of 18 Gy in 4.5 Gy/fraction administered twice a day was delivered (SHARON). Pain and quality of life were recorded according to the Visual Analogue self-assessment and the cancer linear analog scales (CLAS), respectively. Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled in the study. The most frequent baseline symptoms were pain (48%), bleeding (40%), bleeding/pain (8%), and intestinal sub-occlusion (4%). The overall palliative response rate was 96.0%, with a median palliative duration of 6 months. An improvement of quality-oflife indices (well-being, fatigue, and ability to perform daily activities) was noted in 64.0%, 36.0%, and 48.0% of patients, respectively. Conclusion: The SHARON regimen was well tolerated and effective in the palliative treatment of patients with locally advanced pelvic cancer. Based on these results, a multicentric prospective phase III trial is ongoing to compare this regimen with traditional 2-week radiotherapy treatment. Symptoms such as pain, bleeding, intestinal/urinary occlusion, nausea, and vomiting can deeply affect the quality of life (QoL) of patients with locally advanced pelvic cancers (1-5). Moreover, for symptomatic patients with metastatic disease or severe comorbidities, radical treatments are generally contraindicated. Palliative radiotherapy (RT) can be an effective option to control symptoms and consequently improve patient QoL (6). Short-course RT regimens have several advantages in the palliative setting: i) Reduced discomfort for patients, ii) reduced delay of systemic treatment when indicated, iii) reduced delay until hospice admission, and iv) reduced costs for the health system. These advantages are particularly interesting in lesser resourced settings with long waiting lists for RT (7). Our group previously reported the results of hypofractionated-accelerated RT (delivered in four fractions on 2 consecutive days) in different palliative settings: complicated bone metastases, brain metastases, head and neck cancer, thoracic tumors, and elderly patients (8-13). The treatment was well tolerated and effective in terms of symptom relief. A potential risk while using a hypo-fractionated regimen is the development of long-term radiation-related side-effects 4237 This article is freely accessible online.

Background: It has been hypothesized that radiotherapy (RT) techniques delivering radiations to larger volumes (IMRT, VMAT) are potentially associated with a higher risk of second primary tumors. The aim of this study was to analyse the impact of RT technique (3D-CRT vs IMRT/VMAT) on the incidence of second tumors in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Methods: A retrospective study on 2526 previously irradiated PCa patients was performed. Patients were treated with 3D-CRT (21.3%), IMRT (68.1%), or VMAT (10.6%). Second tumors incidence was analysed in 3 categories: pelvic, pelvic and abdominal, and "any site". The correlation with RT technique was analysed using log-rank test and Cox's proportional hazard method. Results: With a median follow-up of 72 months (range: 9-185), 92 (3.6%) cases of second tumors were recorded with 48 months (range: 9-152) median interval from RT. Actuarial 10-year second tumor free survival (STFS) was 87.3%. Ten-year STFS in patients treated with 3D-CRT and IMRT/VMAT was 85.8 and 84.5%, respectively (p: .627). A significantly higher 10-year cumulative incidence of second tumors in the pelvis was registered in patients treated with IMRT/VMAT compared to 3D-CRT (10.7% vs 6.0%; p: .033). The lower incidence of second pelvic cancers in patients treated with 3D-CRT was confirmed at multivariable analysis (HR: 2.42, 95%CI: 1.07-5.47, p: .034). Conclusions: The incidence of second pelvic tumors after RT of PCa showed a significant correlation with treatment technique. Further analyses in larger series with prolonged follow-up are needed to confirm these results.

After RP, hypofractionated IMRT-SIB demonstrated a favorable toxicity profile and encouraging results in terms of relapse-free survival.