Page 84 - ARNM-3-2
P. 84

Advances in Radiotherapy
            & Nuclear Medicine                                               Radiotherapy in node-positive bladder cancer


































            Figure 1. Dose distribution achieved with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (the dose color wash scale between 43.7 Gy [95% of the 46 Gy, node planning
            target volume prescription] and the max dose). The images at the top show the primary and prophylactic node volumes, as well as organs-at-risk structures,
            with dose distribution. The bottom images show the dose distribution for a node-positive patient, where the positive nodes received the same dose as the
            primary (i.e., 57.5 Gy), and the elective nodes received 46 Gy in 23 fractions.

            distribution of various patient-, tumor-, and treatment-  (n = 1), cerebrovascular disease (n = 1), peripheral vascular
            related variables. For the analysis of OS, disease-specific   disease  (n  =  1),  sleep  apnea  (n  =  1),  chromic  paraplegia
            death was considered the sole event, while patients who   (n = 1), ischemic heart disease (n = 3), hypertension (n = 4),
            were alive or had died from unrelated causes were censored   and type II diabetes (n = 3). The majority of patients (n = 10)
            at the time of their last visit. For PFS analysis, an event was   had transitional cell carcinoma (TCC), followed by TCC
            defined as disease progression or recurrence, as indicated   with divergent squamous (n = 4), TCC with neuroendocrine
            by radiological imaging and/or clinical deterioration.   differentiation (n  = 2), and pure poorly differentiated
            The durations of PFS  and OS were calculated from the   neuroendocrine (small cell phenotype) carcinoma (n = 1).
            date of diagnosis. Survival probabilities were estimated   The distribution of T stages was T2 (n = 5), T3 (n = 10),
            using the Kaplan–Meier method. All statistical analyses   and T4 (n  = 2). Two patients had N0 stage disease, and
            were  performed using  the StatsDirect  software system   15 patients had N1 stage disease, with positive pelvic nodes
            (StatsDirect Ltd, Version 4, UK).                  on cross-sectional imaging (Table 1).

            3. Results                                         3.2. Treatment characteristics and toxicity
                                                               (Tables 2 and 3)
            3.1. Patient characteristics and disease features
                                                               3.2.1. Upfront (induction) chemotherapy
            A total of 17 patients received RT to the bladder and pelvic
            nodes using VMAT protocol, with a male predominance   Ten patients (59%) received an upfront (induction)
            (male, n = 12; female, n = 5). The median age was 66 years   systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) before proceeding
            (range: 30 – 83  years). The reasons for not proceeding   to RT. The commonly employed regimens included
            to surgery included locally advanced disease (n  = 8),   gemcitabine/cisplatin  (n  =  5),  carboplatin/gemcitabine
            concomitant comorbidities (n = 6), unfavorable histology   (n  =  1), atezolizumab (n  =  1), cisplatin/etoposide
            such as neuroendocrine transformation (n  = 2), and   (n = 1), carboplatin and etoposide (n = 1), and cisplatin/
            patient choice (n  = 1). The comorbidities, according to   gemcitabine followed by pembrolizumab (n  = 1). Seven
            the  American Society of  Anesthesiologist status  (ASA),   patients  (41%)  proceeded  to  RT  without  any  induction
            were ASA1 (n = 6), ASA2 (n = 4), ASA3 (n = 5), and ASA4   chemotherapy.
            (n = 2). The following comorbidities were frequently noted:   The median number of cycles was three; however, at
            pulmonary hypertension with Eisenmenger syndrome   least two patients (12%) received a prolonged duration of


            Volume 3 Issue 2 (2025)                         76                        doi: 10.36922/ARNM025090009
   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89