Cousin S.,Center Oscar Lambret |
Taieb S.,Oscar Lambret Cancer Center |
Penel N.,Center Oscar Lambret |
Penel N.,University of Lille Nord de France
Current Opinion in Oncology | Year: 2012
Purpose of Review: To describe the difficulty in assessing the biological activity of a novel agent in phase II trials. Recent Findings: Two major fields of research provide interesting new potential endpoints: endpoints based on new imaging techniques (e.g. PET or spectral imaging that explore tumour metabolism, dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) ultrasonography or DCE-MRI that explore tumour vascularization and tumour growth inhibition) and endpoints integrating assessment of tumour burden across time, such as the growth modulation index. Summary: Most of the recently described techniques appear attractive, but require formal validation. © 2012 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Frumovitz M.,University of Houston |
Querleu D.,The Surgical Center |
Gil-Moreno A.,Hospital Vall DHebron |
Morice P.,Institute Gustave Roussy |
And 6 more authors.
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology | Year: 2014
Radiation treatment planning for women with locally advanced cervical cancer (stages IB2-IVA) is often based on positron emission tomography (PET). PET, however, has poor sensitivity in detecting metastases in aortocaval nodes. We have initiated a study with the objective of determining whether pre-therapeutic laparoscopic surgical staging followed by tailored chemoradiation improves survival as compared with PET/computed tomography (CT) radiologic staging alone followed by chemoradiation. This international, multicenter phase III trial will enroll 600 women with stages IB2-IVA cervical cancer and PET/CT findings showing fluorodeoxyglucose-avid pelvic nodes and fluorodeoxyglucose-negative para-aortic nodes. Eligible patients will be randomized to undergo either pelvic radiotherapy with chemotherapy (standard-of-care arm) or surgical staging via a minimally invasive extraperitoneal approach followed by tailored radiotherapy with chemotherapy (experimental arm). The primary end point is overall survival. Secondary end points are disease-free survival, short- and long-term morbidity with pre-therapeutic surgical staging, and determination of anatomic locations of metastatic para-aortic nodes in relationship to the inferior mesenteric artery. We believe this study will show that tailored chemoradiation after pre-therapeutic surgical staging improves survival as compared with chemoradiation based on PET/CT in women with stages IB2-IVA cervical cancer. © 2014 AAGL.
Thureau S.,University of Rouen |
Chaumet-Riffaud P.,University Paris - Sud |
Modzelewski R.,University of Rouen |
Fernandez P.,Bordeaux University Hospital Center |
And 20 more authors.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine | Year: 2013
As the preparation phase of a multicenter clinical trial using 18Ffluoro- 2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG), 18F-fluoromisonidazole (18FFMISO), and 3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine (18F-FLT) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, we investigated whether 18 nuclear medicine centers would score tracer uptake intensity similarly and define hypoxic and proliferative volumes for 1 patient and we compared different segmentation methods. Methods: Ten 18F-FDG, ten 18F-FMISO, and ten 18F-FLT PET/CT examinations were performed before and during curative-intent radiotherapy in 5 patients with NSCLC. The gold standards for uptake intensity and volume delineation were defined by experts. The between-center agreement (18 nuclear medicine departments connected with a dedicated network, SFMN-net [French Society of Nuclear Medicine]) in the scoring of uptake intensity (5-level scale, then divided into 2 levels: 0, normal; 1, abnormal) was quantified by κ-coefficients (κ). The volumes defined by different physicians were compared by overlap and k. The uptake areas were delineated with 22 different methods of segmentation, based on fixed or adaptive thresholds of standardized uptake value (SUV). Results: For uptake intensity, the k values between centers were, respectively, 0.59 for 18F-FDG, 0.43 for 18F-FMISO, and 0.44 for 18F-FLT using the 5-level scale; the values were 0.81 for 18F-FDG and 0.77 for both 18F-FMISO and 18F-FLT using the 2-level scale. The mean overlap and mean κ between observers were 0.13 and 0.19, respectively, for 18F-FMISO and 0.2 and 0.3, respectively, for 18FFLT. The segmentation methods yielded significantly different volumes for 18F-FMISO and 18F-FLT (P < 0.001). In comparison with physicians, the best method found was 1.5×maximum SUV (SUVmax) of the aorta for 18F-FMISO and 1.3×SUVmax of the muscle for 18F-FLT. The methods using the SUV of 1.4 and the method using 1.5×the SUVmax of the aorta could be used for 18F-FMISO and 18F-FLT. Moreover, for 18F-FLT, 2 other methods (adaptive threshold based on 1.5 or 1.6×muscle SUVmax) could be used. Conclusion: The reproducibility of the visual analyses of 18F-FMISO and 18F-FLT PET/CT images was demonstrated using a 2-level scale across 18 centers, but the interobserver agreement was low for the 18F-FMISO and 18FFLT volume measurements. Our data support the use of a fixed threshold (1.4) or an adaptive threshold using the aorta background to delineate the volume of increased 18F-FMISO or 18F-FLT uptake. With respect to the low tumor-on-background ratio of these tracers, we suggest the use of a fixed threshold (1.4). COPYRIGHT © 2013 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Inc.
Perrier L.,University of Lyon |
Perrier L.,Leon Berard Cancer Center |
Morelle M.,University of Lyon |
Morelle M.,Leon Berard Cancer Center |
And 14 more authors.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | Year: 2016
Purpose This cost analysis aimed to prospectively assess differences in costs between TomoTherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with head and neck cancer. Methods and Materials Economic data were gathered from a multicenter study. However, randomization was not possible due to the availability of equipment. Costs were calculated using the microcosting technique from the hospital's perspective (in 2013 euros), and the time horizon was radiation therapy. Only resources that entered the hospital production process and which were likely to vary between the strategies being compared were considered. Acute adverse events observed within the time horizon were also assessed. Results The cost analysis was based on a total of 173 patient treatments given between 2010 and 2012 in 14 French cancer centers: 73 patients were treated with TomoTherapy, 92 with VMAT RapidArc, and 8 with VMAT SmartArc. Estimated costs of SmartArc were removed from the comparison due to the small sample size. The mean ± SD cost per patient of the treatment planning phase was €314 (±€214) for TomoTherapy and €511 (±€590) for RapidArc. Mean costs ± SD per patient of irradiation reached €3144 (±€565) for TomoTherapy and €1350 (±€299) for RapidArc. The most sensitive parameter of irradiation was the annual operating time of accelerators. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the mean costs of irradiation were €3016 to €3272 for TomoTherapy and €1281 to €1408 for RapidArc. The number of acute adverse events during radiation therapy was not significantly different between strategies. Conclusions TomoTherapy appeared to be more expensive than RapidArc mainly due to the higher price of the accelerator, the higher costs of maintenance, and the longer duration of treatment sessions. Because strategies were not significantly different in clinical effect, RapidArc appeared to be the strategy to be recommended at this stage of knowledge. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Ferron G.,Institute Claudius Regaud |
Simon L.,Institute Claudius Regaud |
Guyon F.,Bergonie Institute |
Glehen O.,University of Lyon |
And 47 more authors.
European Journal of Surgical Oncology | Year: 2015
Background Over the last two decades, many surgical teams have developed programs to treat peritoneal carcinomatosis with extensive cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Currently, there are no specific recommendations for HIPEC procedures concerning environmental contamination risk management, personal protective equipment (PPE), or occupational health supervision. Methods A survey of the institutional practices among all French teams currently performing HIPEC procedures was carried out via the French network for the treatment of rare peritoneal malignancies (RENAPE). Results Thirty three surgical teams responded, 14 (42.4%) which reported more than 10 years of HIPEC experience. Some practices were widespread, such as using HIPEC machine approved by the European Community (100%), individualized or centralized smoke evacuation (81.8%), "open" abdominal coverage during perfusion (75.8%), and maintaining the same surgeon throughout the procedure (69.7%). Others were more heterogeneous, including laminar flow air circulation (54.5%) and the provision of safety protocols in the event of perfusate spills (51.5%). The use of specialized personal protective equipment is ubiquitous (93.9%) but widely variable between programs. Conclusion Protocols regarding cytoreductive surgery/HIPEC and the associated professional risks in France lack standardization and should be established. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.