Concurrent Chemotherapy-Enhanced Radiation: Trials and Conclusions

2010 ◽  
pp. 167-181
Author(s):  
Joseph Wee
Keyword(s):  
Concurrent Chemotherapy

A review on radiation induced nausea and vomiting: “Current management strategies and prominence of radio sensitizers”

2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522110115
Author(s):  
Meenu Vijayan ◽  
Sherin Joseph ◽  
Emmanuel James ◽  
Debnarayan Dutta
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Cell Damage ◽  
Genetic Material ◽  
High Energy ◽  
Concurrent Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Dose Fractionation ◽  
Psychological State ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Radiation Induced

Radiations dissipated are high energy waves used mostly as treatment intervention in controlling the unwanted multiplication of cell. About 60%–65% of cancer treatment requires radiation therapy and 40%–80% of radiation therapy causes RINV which are true troublemakers. Radiation therapy (RT) is targeted therapy mostly used to treat early stages of tumour and prevent their reoccurrence. They mainly destroy the genetic material (DNA) of cancerous cells to avoid their unwanted growth and division. The RINV affects the management and quality of life of patients which further reduces the patient outcome. RINV depends on RT related factors (dose, fractionation, irradiation volume, RT techniques) and patient related factors like (gender, health conditions, age, concurrent chemotherapy, psychological state, and tumour stage). RT is an active area of research and there is only limited progress in tackling the RINV crisis. Advanced technological methods are adopted that led to better understanding of total lethal doses. Radiation therapy also affects the immunity system that leads to radiation induced immune responses and inflammation. Radio sensitizers are used to sensitize the tumour cells to radiations that further prevent the normal cell damage from radiation exposure. There is a need for future studies and researches to re-evaluate the data available from previous trials in RINV to make better effective antiemetic regimen. The article focuses on radiation therapy induced nausea and vomiting along with their mechanism of action and treatment strategies in order to have a remarkable patient care.

scholarly journals Role of interstitial brachytherpy using template (mupit) in locally advanced carcinoma cervix

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashish Bhange ◽  
Abhishek Gulia ◽  
Anirudh Punnakal ◽  
Anil Kumar Anand ◽  
Anil Kumar Bansal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Local Control ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Concurrent Chemotherapy ◽  
Interstitial Brachytherapy ◽  
Carcinoma Cervix ◽  
Advanced Carcinoma ◽  
Needle Position ◽  
Grade 3

Introduction: Locally advanced carcinoma cervix includes stages IIB, IIIA, IIIB and IVA. Interstitial brachytherapy has the potential to deliver adequate dose to lateral parametrium and to vagina. Hence, it is preferable in cases with distorted anatomy, extensive (lower) vaginal wall involvement, bulky residual disease post EBRT and parametrium involvement upto lateral pelvic wall. Aim and Objective: To determine clinical outcome and complications (acute and chronic) in locally advanced carcinoma cervix, treated with interstitial brachytherapy using template (MUPIT - Martinez universal perineal interstitial template). Materials and Methods: This study is a retrospective analysis of 37 cases of locally advanced carcinoma cervix (stage IIB-2, IIIB-30, IVA-5), treated with EBRT (dose-median 45Gy/25#) ± concurrent chemotherapy (CCT) - Inj. Cisplatin/Inj Carboplatin, followed by interstitial brachytherapy using MUPIT from December 2009 to June 2015. Initial treatment with EBRT ± CCT was followed by intertstitial brachytherapy. Under spinal anaesthesia and epidural analgesia, MUPIT application was done. Straight and divergent needles (median 26, range 19-29) were inserted to cover parametrium adequately. Needle position was verified with planning CT scan and Brachytherapy planning was done. Dose was normalized to 5 mm box surface from outermost needle with optimization of dose to OAR (Bladder, Rectum and Sigmoid colon). Prescription dose –25Gy in 5#. Treatment was delivered by Microselectron HDR using Ir192 source. Treatment fractions were delivered twice daily with min 6 Hrs. gap in-between fractions. Results: The median duration of follow-up was 25 months. Local control was achieved in 28 patients with residual disease in 7 patients and local recurrence in 2 patients. 10 patients had acute lower GI toxicity {Grade1 (n=6), Grade 2 (n=4)}, 2 patients had acute Grade 1 bladder toxicity. 1 patient had grade 3 and 1 patient had grade 4 chronic bladder toxicity. Chronic rectal toxicity was seen in 10 patients {Grade 2 (n=4), Grade 3 (n=4), Grade 4 (n=2)}. Conclusion: Local control was achieved in 28/37 patients (75.6%) and overall survival rate of 81.1% at median follow up of 25 months in patients with locally advanced carcinoma cervix and unfavorable prognostic factors.

Concurrent high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy and chemotherapy for unresectable locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer: a pilot study

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Kenichi Matsumoto ◽  
Akihiko Miyamoto ◽  
Tomoya Kawase ◽  
Taro Murai ◽  
Yuta Shibamoto
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Concurrent Chemotherapy ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Chemotherapy Group ◽  
Intensity Modulated

Abstract Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of concurrent chemotherapy and high-dose (≥55 Gy) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (CCIMRT) in comparison with chemotherapy alone and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) alone for unresectable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods: Forty-six patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing CCIMRT (n = 17), chemotherapy alone (n = 16) or IMRT alone (n = 13) were analysed. Overall survival (OS), locoregional progression-free survival (LRPFS) and gastrointestinal toxicities were evaluated. The median radiation dose was 60 Gy (range, 55–60) delivered in a median of 25 fractions (range, 24–30). Gemcitabine (GEM) alone, GEM + S-1, S-1 alone, FOLFIRINOX and GEM + nab-paclitaxel were used in CCIMRT and chemo-monotherapy. Results: The 1-year OS rate was 69% in the CCIMRT group, 27% in the chemotherapy group and 38% in the IMRT group (p = 0·12). The 1-year LRPFS rate was 73, 0 and 40% in the 3 groups, respectively (p = 0·012). Acute Grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicity (nausea, diarrhea) was observed in 12% (2/17) in the CCIMRT group, 25% (4/16) in the chemotherapy group and 7·7% (1/13) in the IMRT group (p = 0·38). Late Grade 3 gastrointestinal bleeding was observed in 6·3% (1/16) in the chemotherapy group. Conclusion: High-dose CCIMRT yielded acceptable toxicity and favorable OS and LRPFS.

scholarly journals WEE1 Inhibitor: Clinical Development

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Kong ◽  
Hisham Mehanna
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Tp53 Mutation ◽  
Predictive Biomarker ◽  
Concurrent Chemotherapy ◽  
Clinical Development ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Chemotherapy Agents

Abstract Purpose of Review WEE1 inhibitor has been shown to potential chemotherapy or radiotherapy sensitivity in preclinical models, particularly in p53-mutated or deficient cancer cells although not exclusively. Here, we review the clinical development of WEE1 inhibitor in combination with chemotherapy or radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy as well as its combination with different novel agents. Recent Findings Although several clinical trials have shown that WEE1 inhibitor can be safely combined with different chemotherapy agents as well as radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy, its clinical development has been hampered by the higher rate of grade 3 toxicities when added to standard treatments. A few clinical trials had also been conducted to test WEE1 inhibitor using TP53 mutation as a predictive biomarker. However, TP53 mutation has not been shown to be the most reliable predictive biomarker and the benefit of adding WEE1 inhibitor to chemotherapy has been modest, even in TP53 biomarker-driven studies. Summary There are ongoing clinical trials testing WEE1 inhibitor with novel agents such as ATR and PAPR inhibitors as well as anti-PDL1 immunotherapy, which may better define the role of WEE1 inhibitor in the future if any of the novel treatment combination will show superior anti-tumor efficacy with a good safety profile compared to monotherapy and/or standard treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document