Asunto(s)
Cardiomiopatía Chagásica , Enfermedad de Chagas , Taquicardia Ventricular , Humanos , América Latina , Enfermedad de Chagas/complicaciones , Taquicardia Ventricular/etiología , Taquicardia Ventricular/radioterapia , Taquicardia Ventricular/cirugía , Cardiomiopatía Chagásica/radioterapia , Cardiomiopatía Chagásica/cirugíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Clinical complete responders after chemoradiation for rectal cancer are increasingly being managed by a watch-and-wait strategy. Nonetheless, a significant proportion will experience a local regrowth, and the long-term oncological outcomes of these patients is not totally known. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of patients who submitted to a watch-and-wait strategy and developed a local regrowth, and to compare these results with sustained complete clinical responders. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study. SETTING: Single institution, tertiary cancer center involved in alternatives to organ preservation. PATIENTS: Patients with a biopsy-proven rectal adenocarcinoma (stage II/III or low lying cT2N0M0 at risk for an abdominoperineal resection) treated with chemoradiation who were found at restage to have a clinical complete response. INTERVENTIONS: Rectal cancer patients treated with chemoradiation who underwent a watch-and-wait strategy (without a full thickness local excision) and developed a local regrowth were compared to the remaining patients of the watch-and-wait strategy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall survival between groups, incidence of regrowth' and results of salvage surgery. RESULTS: There were 67 patients. Local regrowth occurred in 20 (29.9%) patients treated with a watch-and-wait strategy. Mean follow-up was 62.7 months. Regrowth occurred at mean 14.2 months after chemoradiation, half of them within the first 12 months. Patients presented with comparable initial staging, lateral pelvic lymph-node metastasis, and extramural venous invasion. The regrowth group had a statistically nonsignificant higher incidence of mesorectal fascia involvement (35.0% vs 13.3%, p = 0.089). All regrowths underwent salvage surgery, mostly (75%) a sphincter-sparing procedure. 5-year overall survival was 71.1% in patients with regrowth and 91.1% in patients with a sustained complete clinical response (p = 0.027). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective evaluation of patient selection for a watch-and-wait strategy and outcomes, as well as its small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Local regrowth is a frequent event when following a watch-and-wait policy (29.9%); however, patients could undergo salvage surgical treatment with adequate pelvic control. In this series, overall survival showed a statistically significant difference from patients managed with a watch-and-wait strategy who experienced a local regrowth compared to those who did not. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B773.RESULTADOS DE LOS PACIENTES CON REBROTE LOCAL, DESPUÉS DEL MANEJO NO QUIRÚRGICO DEL CÁNCER DE RECTO, DESPUÉS DE LA QUIMIORRADIOTERAPIA NEOADYUVANTEANTECEDENTES:Los respondedores clínicos completos, después de la quimiorradiación para el cáncer de recto, se tratan cada vez más mediante una estrategia de observación y espera. No obstante, una proporción significativa experimentará un rebrote local y los resultados oncológicos a largo plazo de estos pacientes, no se conocen por completo.OBJETIVO:El propósito de este estudio, fue analizar los resultados de los pacientes sometidos a una estrategia de observación y espera, que desarrollaron un rebrote local, y comparar estos resultados con respondedores clínicos completos sostenidos.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO.Institución única, centro oncológico terciario involucrado en alternativas a la preservación de órganos.PACIENTES:Pacientes con un adenocarcinoma de recto comprobado por biopsia (estadio II / III o posición baja cT2N0M0, en riesgo de resección abdominoperineal), tratados con quimiorradiación, y que durante un reestadiaje, presentaron una respuesta clínica completa.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes con cáncer de recto tratados con quimiorradiación, sometidos a una estrategia de observación y espera (sin una escisión local de espesor total) y que desarrollaron un rebrote local, se compararon con los pacientes restantes de la estrategia de observación y espera.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Supervivencia global entre los grupos, incidencia de rebrote y resultados de la cirugía de rescate.RESULTADOS:Fueron 67 pacientes. El rebrote local ocurrió en 20 (29,9%) pacientes tratados con una estrategia de observación y espera. El seguimiento medio fue de 62,7 meses. El rebrote se produjo a la media de 14,2 meses después de la quimiorradiación, la mitad de ellos dentro de los primeros 12 meses. Los pacientes se presentaron con una estadificación inicial comparable, metástasis en los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales e invasión venosa extramural. El grupo de rebrote tuvo una mayor incidencia estadísticamente no significativa de afectación de la fascia mesorrectal (35,0 vs 13,3%, p = 0,089). Todos los rebrotes se sometieron a cirugía de rescate, en su mayoría (75%) con procedimiento de preservación del esfínter. La supervivencia global a 5 años fue del 71,1% en pacientes con rebrote y del 91,1% en pacientes con una respuesta clínica completa sostenida (p = 0,027).LIMITACIONES:Evaluación retrospectiva de la selección de pacientes para una estrategia y resultados de observar y esperar, tamaño de muestra pequeño.CONCLUSIONES:El rebrote local es un evento frecuente después de la política de observación y espera (29,9%), sin embargo los pacientes podrían someterse a un tratamiento quirúrgico de rescate con un adecuado control pélvico. En esta serie, la supervivencia global mostró una diferencia estadísticamente significativa de los pacientes manejados con una estrategia de observación y espera que experimentaron un rebrote local, en comparación con los que no lo hicieron. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B773. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Terapia Neoadyuvante , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia , Tratamientos Conservadores del Órgano , Neoplasias del Recto , Espera Vigilante/métodos , Adenocarcinoma/tratamiento farmacológico , Adenocarcinoma/patología , Adenocarcinoma/radioterapia , Brasil/epidemiología , Tratamiento Conservador/efectos adversos , Tratamiento Conservador/métodos , Tratamiento Conservador/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Humanos , Incidencia , Metástasis Linfática/patología , Metástasis Linfática/terapia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Terapia Neoadyuvante/métodos , Terapia Neoadyuvante/estadística & datos numéricos , Invasividad Neoplásica/patología , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/mortalidad , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/patología , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/cirugía , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Tratamientos Conservadores del Órgano/efectos adversos , Tratamientos Conservadores del Órgano/métodos , Tratamientos Conservadores del Órgano/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias del Recto/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias del Recto/patología , Neoplasias del Recto/radioterapia , Terapia Recuperativa , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: A group of international urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on prostate cancer (PCa) in developing countries. The results are reviewed and summarized, and recommendations on consensus statements for very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk PCa focused on developing countries were developed. METHODS: A panel of experts developed more than 300 survey questions of which 66 questions concern the principal areas of interest of this paper: very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in developing countries. A larger panel of 99 international multidisciplinary cancer experts voted on these questions to create the recommendations for treatment and follow-up for very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk PCa in areas of limited resources discussed in this manuscript. RESULTS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. Each question was deemed consensus if 75% or more of the full panel had selected a particular answer. These answers are based on panelist opinion not a literature review or meta-analysis. For questions that refer to an area of limited resources, the recommendations consider cost-effectiveness and the possible therapies with easier and greater access. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two nonanswers. The results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSION: The voting results and recommendations presented in this document can be used by physicians to support management for very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data; however, as guidelines for treatment for very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in developing countries have not been developed, this document will serve as a point of reference when confronted with this disease.
Asunto(s)
Médicos , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Consenso , Países en Desarrollo , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias de la Próstata/terapiaRESUMEN
Introduction: An increasing number of prostate permanent seeds implant (LDR) procedures are being performed annually for localized prostate cancer (CaP). As local intraprostatic radiotherapy, LDR needs exact volume and dose calculations before and after the implant of the radioactive sources. Post-implant dosimetric analysis is mandatory and is generally evaluated by CT. As different physicians can differ in their volume definition of the prostate gland on the same post-implant CT images, the final dosimetric quality of the implant may also vary. Material and Methods: Our purpose is to identify the degree of agreement among three professionals skilled on prostate imaging and the dosimetric consequences of any disagreement in the sets of images from 36 consecutive patients submitted to LDR as monotherapy at Hospital A.C. Camargo (São Paulo, Brazil) from February 2005 to July 2006. Results: Median reconstructed prostate volumes ranged from 20.0 cc to 70.3 cc. Student´s t-test showed significant differences in the prostate volumes among the 3 observers (p <0.001, p <0.001 and p =0.010, respectively). The Pearson´s correlation coefficient was 0.912 for prostate volumes, 0.762 for D90, 0.932 for V100 and 0.935 for V150 when all reviewers were considered. The global test revealed significant differences in D90, V100 and V150 among the reviewers (p <0.0001). Conclusion: CT-based post-implant dosimetry allow the calculation of dose delivered to the prostate and surrounding and intra-prostatic normal tissues, but this method does not provide enough information to allow observers to reproducibly delineate the prostate volume without any discordance, which impacts in the final dosimetry.