No abstract

No abstract

The aim of this guideline is to present recommendations regarding moderately hypofractionated (240-340 cGy per fraction) and ultrahypofractionated (500 cGy or more per fraction) radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a task force to address 8 key questions on appropriate indications and dosefractionation for moderately and ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy, as well as technical issues, including normal tissue dose constraints, treatment volumes, and use of image guided and intensity modulated radiation therapy. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and Society-approved tools for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength. Results: Based on high-quality evidence, strong consensus was reached for offering moderate hypofractionation across risk groups to patients choosing external beam radiation therapy. The task force conditionally recommends ultrahypofractionated radiation may be offered for low-and intermediate-risk prostate cancer but strongly encourages treatment of intermediate-risk patients on a clinical trial or multi-institutional registry. For high-risk patients, the task force conditionally recommends against routine use of ultrahypofractionated external beam radiation therapy. With any hypofractionated approach, the task force strongly recommends image guided radiation therapy and avoidance of nonmodulated 3-dimensional conformal techniques. Conclusions: Hypofractionated radiation therapy provides important potential advantages in cost and convenience for patients, and these recommendations are intended to provide guidance on moderate hypofractionation and ultrahypofractionation for localized prostate cancer. The limits in the current evidentiary basedespecially for ultrahypofractionationdhighlight the imperative to support large-scale randomized clinical trials and underscore the importance of shared decision making between clinicians and patients.

Intratumor heterogeneity may contribute to the ambiguous clinical results on PD-L1 status as a predictor for immunotherapy response in patients with HNSCC. This decreases the utility of PD-L1 expression from single tumour biopsies as a predictive biomarker. In this prospective study, intratumor heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression in HNSCC was investigated with both Tumour Proportion Score (TPS) and Combined Positive Score (CPS). Thirty-three whole surgical specimens from 28 patients with HNSCC were included. PD-L1 expression in six random core biopsies from each surgical specimen was used to assess the concordance between multiple biopsies and the negative predictive value of a single negative core biopsy. With 1% cut off, 36% of the specimens were concordant with TPS and 52% with CPS. With a 50% cut-off value the concordance was 70% with TPS and 55% with CPS. Defining a tumour as positive if just a single-one of the biopsies was positive, the negative predictive value (NPV) of a single negative core biopsy was 38.9 and 0% (1% cut off), and 79.9% and 62.8% (50% cut off) for TPS and CPS, respectively. In conclusion, PD-L1 positivity varies markedly within the tumour, both with TPS and CPS, challenging the utility of this biomarker.

While the workshop was co-sponsored by the NCI and RSS, the comments in this report are strictly the opinions of the co-authors and does not constitute endorsement of these results and/or treatments by the NCI and RSS or consensus of all the co-authors on each of the points. This report is designed to stimulate further formal research and development to explore the future clinical application of these novel therapies and not for implementation into routine clinical practice.

Due to uncertainties regarding clinically meaningful gains from adjuvant chemotherapy after colorectal cancer surgery, several Nordic Groups in the early 1990s initiated randomised trials to prove or reject such gains. This report gives the joint analyses after a minimum 5-year follow-up. Between October 1991 and December 1997, 2 224 patients under 76 years of age with colorectal cancer stages II and III were randomised to surgery alone (n = 1 121) or adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 1 103) which varied between trials (5FU/levamisole for 12 months, n = 444; 5FU/leucovorin for 4-5 months according to either a modified Mayo Clinic schedule (n = 262) or the Nordic schedule (n = 397). Some centres also randomised patients treated with 5FU/leucovorin to+/-levamisole). A total of 812 patients had colon cancer stage II, 708 colon cancer stage III, 323 rectal cancer stage II and 368 rectal cancer stage III. All analyses were according to intention-to-treat. No statistically significant difference in overall survival, stratified for country or region, could be found in any group of patients according to stage or site. In colon cancer stage III, an absolute difference of 7% (p = 0.15), favouring chemotherapy, was seen. The present analyses corroborate a small but clinically meaningful survival gain from adjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer stage III, but not in the other presentations.

No abstract

This prognostic study compares standard readmission risk assessment scores with a machine learning score, the Baltimore score, for predicting 30-day unplanned hospital readmissions calculated in real time.