Siddhartha Laskar

Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) is a technique that involves precise delivery of a large dose of ionising radiation to the tumour or tumour bed during surgery. Direct visualisation of the tumour bed and ability to space out the normal tissues from the tumour bed allows maximisation of the dose to the tumour while minimising the dose to normal tissues. This results in an improved therapeutic ratio with IORT. Although it was introduced in the 1960s, it has seen a resurgence of popularity with the introduction of self-shielding mobile linear accelerators and low-kV IORT devices, which by eliminating the logistical issues of transport of the patient during surgery for radiotherapy or building a shielded operating room, has enabled its wider use in the community. Electrons, low-kV X-rays and HDR brachytherapy are all different methods of IORT in current clinical use. Each method has its own unique set of advantages and disadvantages, its own set of indications where one may be better suited than the other, and each requires a specific kind of expertise. IORT has demonstrated its efficacy in a wide variety of intra-abdominal tumours, recurrent colorectal cancers, recurrent gynaecological cancers, and soft-tissue tumours. Recently, it has emerged as an attractive treatment option for selected, early-stage breast cancer, owing to the ability to complete the entire course of radiotherapy during surgery. IORT has been used in a multitude of roles across these sites, for dose escalation (retroperitoneal sarcoma), EBRT dose de-escalation (paediatric tumours), as sole radiation modality (early breast cancers) and as a re-irradiation modality (recurrent rectal and gynaecological cancers). This article aims to provide a review of the rationale, techniques, and outcomes for IORT across different sites relevant to current clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Osteosarcoma of the head and neck region is a rare tumor and is a therapeutic challenge because of its aggressive nature and complex anatomical location. Standard management guidelines are lacking due to paucity of published data. METHODS: Fifty patients with head and neck osteosarcoma treated at our institute from 1995 to 2004 were reviewed. RESULTS: There were 32 men and 18 women (median, 30 years). Mandible (56%) was the most common site. Chondroblastic (46%) was the most common histopathological variant. Treatment comprised multimodality approach using surgery (100%), radiotherapy (36%), and chemotherapy (58%). After a median follow-up of 16.6 months, 46% were alive and disease free. Median overall survival was 45.7 months, and progression-free survival was 13.7 months. Mandible and maxilla were favorable sites. Postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy improved local control in patients with adverse prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery remains the mainstay of the treatment of head and neck osteosarcoma. Adjuvant radiotherapy improves outcome in patients with adverse factors.

BACKGROUND: The purpose was to evaluate the prognostic factors and treatment outcome of Indian patients with primary diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of the tonsil treated at a single institution. METHODS: In all, 121 patients with DLBCL of the tonsil, treated at the Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India, from January 1990 to December 2002, were included. The median age was 45 years and the majority of patients (68%) were males. Systemic symptoms were present in 12% of patients; 28% presented with stage I and 67% had stage II disease. Treatment consisted of a combination of chemotherapy (CTh) and radiotherapy (RT) for the majority of patients (69.4%). Among those receiving RT, 64% received an RT dose of > or =45 Gy. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 62 months, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 66.4% and 81.6%, respectively. Significant prognostic factors included: WHO performance score > or =2 (OS: 72.1% vs 95.6%, P = .016), bulky tumors (OS: 68.5% vs 86.9%, P = .001), presence of B-symptoms (OS: 36.7% vs 79.6%, P < .001), and Ann Arbor stage. On multivariate analysis; WHO performance score > or =2 (hazard ratio [HR], 4.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-15.12), and B symptoms (HR, 6.27; 95% CI, 2.38-16.48), retained statistical significance. CTh + RT resulted in a significantly better outcome than those treated with CTh alone (OS: 85.7% vs 70.7%, P = .008). The complete response (P = .053), DFS (P = .039), and OS (P = .014) rates were significantly better for patients receiving an RT dose > or =45 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor bulk, WHO performance score, the presence of B symptoms, and Ann Arbor stage significantly influence outcome. A combined modality treatment, consisting of CTh and RT (with an RT dose of > or =45 Gy), results in a satisfactory outcome in patients with this uncommon neoplasm.