Wide local excision with negative pathologic margins is the treatment of choice for most desmoid tumors. Function-sparing resection is appropriate because adjuvant radiation therapy can offset the adverse impact of positive margins. Unresectable disease should be treated with definitive radiation therapy.

IMPORTANCE The most appropriate dose-fractionation for whole breast irradiation (WBI) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE To assess acute and six-month toxicity and quality of life (QoL) with conventionally fractionated WBI (CF-WBI) versus hypofractionated WBI (HF-WBI). DESIGN Unblinded randomized trial of CF-WBI (n=149; 50 Gy/25 fractions + boost [10–14 Gy/5–7 fractions]) versus HF-WBI (n=138; 42.56 Gy/16 fractions + boost [10–12.5 Gy/4–5 fractions]). SETTING Community-based and academic cancer centers. PARTICIPANTS 287 women age ≥ 40 years with stage 0–II breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery for whom whole breast irradiation without addition of a third field was recommended. 76% (n=217) were overweight or obese. Patients were enrolled from February 2011 through February 2014. INTERVENTION(S) FOR CLINICAL TRIALS CF-WBI versus HF-WBI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Physician-reported acute and six-month toxicities using NCICTCv4.0 and patient-reported QoL using the FACT-B version 4. All analyses were intention-to-treat, with outcomes compared using chi-square, Cochran-Armitage test, and ordinal logistic regression. Patients were followed for a minimum of 6 months. RESULTS Treatment arms were well-matched for baseline characteristics including FACT-B total score (P=0.46) and individual QoL items such as lack of energy (P=0.86) and trouble meeting family needs (P=0.54). Maximal physician-reported acute dermatitis (P<0.001), pruritus (P<0.001), breast pain (P=0.001), hyperpigmentation (P=0.002), and fatigue (P=0.02) during radiation were lower in patients randomized to HF-WBI. Overall grade ≥2 acute toxicity was less with HF-WBI vs. CF-WBI (47% vs. 78%; P<0.001). Six months after radiation, physicians reported less fatigue in patients randomized to HF-WBI (P=0.01), and patients randomized to HF-WBI reported less lack of energy (P<0.001) and less trouble meeting family needs (P=0.01). Multivariable regression confirmed the superiority of HF-WBI in terms of patient-reported lack of energy (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24–0.63) and trouble meeting family needs (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16–0.75). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE HF-WBI appears to yield less acute toxicity than CF-WBI, as well as less fatigue and trouble meeting family needs six months after completing radiation. These findings should be communicated to patients as part of shared decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT01266642 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01266642)

Spermatic cord sarcoma has a high propensity for local recurrence after surgery. Nodal relapse is less frequent than commonly believed. Because of the relatively high local failure rate seen in surgery alone and durable local control noted in 3 patients treated with surgery plus radiotherapy, combined modality treatment should be considered in those with spermatic cord sarcoma who are believed to be at high risk for local failure.

This simulation-based study investigated the relationship between Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) dosimetry and survival in 340 patient cases from the phase 3 EF-14 study. Delivery of TTFields to the patients was simulated and the spatial distribution of the fields analyzed. The analysis yielded a robust definition for TTFields dose, which was correlated to patient survival. This work sets a conceptual framework for defining TTFields dosimetry and treatment planning procedures. Introduction: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are approved for glioblastoma based on improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the phase 3 EF-14 trial of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. To test the hypothesis that increasing TTFields dose at the tumor site improves patient outcomes, we performed a simulation-based study investigating the association between TTFields dose and survival (OS and PFS) in patients treated with TTFields in EF-14. Methods and Materials: EF-14 patient cases (N Z 340) were included. Realistic head models were derived from T1-contrast images captured at baseline. The transducer array layout on each patient was obtained from EF-14 records; average compliance (fraction of time patient was on active treatment) and average electrical current delivered to the patient were derived from log files of the TTFields devices used by patients. TTFields intensity distributions and power densities were calculated using the finite element method. Local minimum dose density (LMiDD) was defined as the product of TTFields intensity, tissue-specific conductivities, and patient compliance. The average LMiDD within a tumor bed comprising the gross tumor volume and the 3-mm-wide peritumoral boundary zone was calculated. Results: The median OS and PFS were significantly longer when the average LMiDD in the tumor bed was !0.77 mW/cm 3 : OS was 25.2 versus 20.4 months (P Z .003, hazard ratio [HR] Z 0.611) and PFS was 8.5 versus 6.7 months (P Z .02,

EOO should be considered clinically and therapeutically distinct from osseous osteosarcoma. Radiographic response rates and pathologic complete response rates to doxorubicin-based systemic therapy are low.

Importance: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are an anti-mitotic treatment approved for treating newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma, and mesothelioma. TTFields in glioblastoma comprise alternating electric fields (200 kHz) delivered continuously, ideally for ≥18 h/day, to the tumor bed via transducer arrays placed on the shaved scalp. When applied locoregionally to the tumor bed and combined with systemic temozolomide chemotherapy, TTFields improved overall survival vs. temozolomide alone in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Improved efficacy outcomes with TTFields were demonstrated, while maintaining a well-tolerated and manageable safety profile. The most commonly-reported TTFields-associated adverse events (AEs) are beneath-array dermatologic events. Since survival benefit from TTFields increases with duration-of-use, prevention and management of skin AEs are critical to maximize adherence. This paper describes TTFields-associated dermatological AEs and recommends prevention and management strategies based on clinical trial evidence and real-world clinical experience. Observations: TTFields-associated skin reactions include contact dermatitis (irritant/allergic), hyperhidrosis, xerosis or pruritus, and more rarely, skin erosions/ulcers and infections. Skin AEs may be prevented through skin-care and shifting (∼2 cm) of array position during changes. TTFields-related skin AE management should be based on clinical phenotype and severity. Depending on diagnosis, recommended treatments include antibiotics, skin barrier films, moisturizers, topical corticosteroids, and antiperspirants. Water-based lotions, soaps, foams, and solutions with minimal impact on electrical impedance are preferred with TTFields use over petroleum-based ointments, which increase impedance. Conclusions: Early identification, prophylactic measures, and symptomatic skin AE management help patients maximize TTFields usage, while maintaining quality-of-life and optimizing therapeutic benefit. Lacouture et al. Managing TTFields-Associated Skin Adverse Events Implications for practice: TTFields confer a survival benefit in patients with glioblastoma that correlates positively with duration of daily use. Skin events (rash) are the primary treatment-related AE that can limit duration of use. The recommendations described here will help healthcare professionals to recognize, prevent, and manage dermatologic AEs associated with TTFields treatment. These recommendations may improve cutaneous health and support adherence to therapy, both of which would maximize treatment outcomes.

The sponsor initially approved the study concept and the original protocol, required regular updates regarding protocol accrual and data safety monitoring and provided funds to each participating center for each protocol accrual. The sponsor had no role in the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

No abstract