Quality criteria in radiotherapy for head and neck cancers under the aegis of Head and Neck Intergroup [Critères de qualité en radiothérapie des cancers de la tête et du cou sous l'égide de l'Intergroupe ORL]
Tao Y.,Institute Gustave Roussy |
Vintonenko N.,Groupe dOncologie Radiotherapie Tete et Cou GORTEC |
Garcia R.,Institute Sainte Catherine |
Marchesi V.,Institute Of Cancerologie Of Lorraine Alexis Vautrin |
And 5 more authors.
Bulletin du Cancer
The aim of radiotherapy is to deliver enough radiation to the tumor in order to achieve maximum tumour control in the irradiated volume with as few serious complications as possible with an irradiation dose as low as possible to normal tissue. The quality of radiotherapy is essential for optimal treatment and quality control is to reduce the bias in clinical trials avoiding possible major deviations. The assurance and quality control programs have been developed in large european (EORTC, GORTEC) and american cooperative groups (RTOG) of radiation oncology since the 1980s. We insist here on the importance of quality assurance in radiotherapy and the current status in this domain and the criteria for quality control especially for current clinical trials within GORTEC are discussed here. ©John Libbey Eurotext. Source
Guerci P.,University of Lorraine |
Vial F.,University of Lorraine |
McNelis U.,Wansbeck General Hospital |
Losser M.-R.,University of Lorraine |
And 5 more authors.
The management of patients with central nervous system disorders such as brain tumours, hydrocephalus, intracranial hypertension, or subarachnoid hemorrhage has improved in recent years resulting in increased life expectancy. Consequently, the prevalence of patients with increased intracranial pressure or cerebrospinal fluid shunting devices presenting for non-neurological procedures has increased. These patients commonly receive a general anesthetic, as the safety profile of neuraxial anesthesia in this clinical setting remains uncertain. This article reviews literature on neuraxial anesthesia in patients with intracranial hypertension or cerebrospinal fluid shunting systems. It describes current knowledge, exposes and weighs the real benefits and risks of this technique in this setting. It provides several scenarios and anesthetic options to help the practitioner with choosing a tailored approach in this specific population. © 2014 SIAARTI. Source
Peiffert D.,The Saints |
Peiffert D.,Institute Of Cancerologie Of Lorraine Alexis Vautrin |
Hannoun-Levi J.-M.,Center Antoine Lacassagne
During the last decade, the organization of brachytherapy in France moved to 62 units in 173 radiotherapy centres in 2009. More than 7500 patients were treated in 2009, quite exclusively with curative intent, for 80% in public or associated hospitals. The techniques improved to high tech 3D dosimetry and optimization of the dose distribution. Brachytherapy, despite representing only 5% of the treatments by irradiation, is a reference treatment for several tumors. © 2013. Source
Pazopanib plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours resistant to imatinib and sunitinib (PAZOGIST): A randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 2 trial
Mir O.,Gustave Roussy |
Cropet C.,Direction of Clinical Research and Innovation |
Toulmonde M.,Institute Bergonie |
Cesne A.L.,Gustave Roussy |
And 15 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology
Background: Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) are the most common mesenchymal neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract. Imatinib followed by sunitinib and regorafenib is the standard sequence of treatment for advanced disease. Pazopanib is effective in soft tissue sarcomas but has never been assessed in advanced GIST in a randomised trial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients with previously treated advanced GIST. Methods: In this randomised, open-label phase 2 study, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with advanced GIST resistant to imatinib and sunitinib from 12 comprehensive cancer centres or university hospitals in France and randomly assigned them 1:1 using an interactive web-based centralised platform to 800 mg oral pazopanib once daily in 4-week cycles plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Randomisation was stratified by the number of previous treatment regimens (2 vs ≥3); no-one was masked to treatment group allocation. Upon disease progression, patients in the best supportive care group were allowed to switch to pazopanib as compassionate treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed by intention-to-treat. All randomised participants who received at least one dose of pazopanib were included in the safety analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01323400. Findings: Between April 12, 2011, and Dec 9, 2013, 81 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to pazopanib plus best supportive care (n=40) or best supportive care alone (n=41). The median follow-up was 26·4 months (IQR 22·0-37·8) in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and 28·9 months (22·0-35·2) in the best supportive care group. 4-month investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 45·2% (95% CI 29·1-60·0) in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group versus 17·6% (7·8-30·8) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·59, 95% CI 0·37-0·96; p=0·029). Median progression-free survival was 3·4 months (95% CI 2·4-5·6) with pazopanib plus best supportive care and 2·3 months (2·1-3·3) with best supportive care alone (HR 0·59 [0·37-0·96], p=0·03). 36 (88%) of the patients originally assigned to the best supportive care group switched to pazopanib following investigator-assessed disease progression; these patients had a median progression-free survival from pazopanib initiation of 3·5 months (95% CI 2·2-5·2). 55 (72%) of the 76 pazopanib-treated patients had pazopanib-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, the most common of which was hypertension (15 [38%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and 13 [36%] in the best supportive care group). 20 (26%) patients had pazopanib-related serious adverse events (14 [35%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and six [17%] in the best supportive care group), including pulmonary embolism in eight (9%) patients (five [13%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and three [7%] in the best supportive care group). Three pazopanib-related deaths occurred (two pulmonary embolisms [one in each group] and one hepatic cytolysis [in the best supportive care group]). Three adverse event-related but not pazopanib-related deaths occurred in the best supportive care group after switch to pazopanib; these deaths were from hyperammonaemic encephalopathy, pneumopathy, and respiratory failure. Interpretation: Pazopanib plus best supportive care improves progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone in patients with advanced GIST resistant to imatinib and sunitinib, with a toxicity profile similar to that reported for other sarcomas. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting for these patients. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline, French National Cancer Institute, EuroSARC (FP7-278742), Centre Léon Bérard. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. Source
Houpeau J.-L.,Center Oscar Lambret |
Chauvet M.-P.,Center Oscar Lambret |
Guillemin F.,Institute Of Cancerologie Of Lorraine Alexis Vautrin |
Bendavid-Athias C.,The Surgical Center |
And 3 more authors.
Journal of Surgical Oncology
Background and Objectives The French Sentimag feasibility trial evaluated a new method for the localization of breast cancer sentinel lymph node (SLN) using Sienna+®, superparamagnetic iron oxide particles, and Sentimag® detection in comparison to the standard technique (isotopes ± blue dye). Methods We conducted a prospective multicentric paired comparison trial on 115 patients. SLN localization was performed using both the magnetic technique and the standard method. Detection rate and concordance between magnetic and standard tracers were calculated. Post-operative complications were assessed after 30 days. Results Results are based on 108 patients. SLN identification rate was 98.1% [93.5-99.8] for both methods, 97.2% [92.1-99.4] for Sienna+® and 95.4% [89.5-98.5] for standard technique. A mean of 2.1 SLNs per patient was removed. The concordance rate was 99.0% [94.7-100.0%] per patient and 97.4% [94.1-99.2] per node. Forty-six patients (43.4%) had nodal involvement. Among involved SLNs, concordance rate was 97.7% [88.0-99.9] per patient and 98.1% [90.1-100.0] per node. Conclusions This new magnetic tracer is a feasible method and a promising alternative to the isotope. It could offer benefits for ambulatory surgery or sites without nuclear medicine departments. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Source