Activity

27%; p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the distribution of PET-positive lymph nodes. Median PSA before SLND was higher than before SLNRT (3.07 ng/ml vs. 1.3 ng/ml; p = 0.393). The 2‑year bRFS was significantly higher in the SLNRT vs. the SLND cohort (92% vs. 30%; p = 0.001) with lower rates of distant metastases (21% vs. 52%; p = 0.002) and secondary treatments (5% vs. 39%; p = 0.011) irrespective of ongoing androgen deprivation therapy at last contact. In multivariable analysis, SLNRT was significantly associated with prolonged bRFS (regression coefficient 1.436, hazard ratio 4.204, 95% CI 1.789-9.878; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION Based on this retrospective study SLNRT might be the preferred treatment option for patients with nodal recurrence after previous RPE.PURPOSE The relation between functional imaging and intrapatient genetic heterogeneity remains poorly understood. The aim of our study was to investigate spatial sampling and functional imaging by FDG-PET/MRI to describe intrapatient tumour heterogeneity. METHODS Six patients with oropharyngeal cancer were included in this pilot study. Two tumour samples per patient were taken and sequenced by next-generation sequencing covering 327 genes relevant in head and neck cancer. Corresponding regions were delineated on pretherapeutic FDG-PET/MRI images to extract apparent diffusion coefficients and standardized uptake values. RESULTS Samples were collected within the primary tumour (n = 3), within the primary tumour and the involved lymph node (n = 2) as well as within two independent primary tumours (n = 1). Genetic heterogeneity of the primary tumours was limited and most driver gene mutations were found ubiquitously. Slightly increasing heterogeneity was found between primary tumours and lymph node metastases. One private predicted driver mutation within a primary tumour and one in a lymph node were found. However, the two independent primary tumours did not show any shared mutations in spite of a clinically suspected field cancerosis. No conclusive correlation between genetic heterogeneity and heterogeneity of PET/MRI-derived parameters was observed. CONCLUSION Our limited data suggest that single sampling might be sufficient in some patients with oropharyngeal cancer. However, few driver mutations might be missed and, if feasible, spatial sampling should be considered. In two independent primary tumours, both lesions should be sequenced. buy RK-33 Our data with a limited number of patients do not support the concept that multiparametric PET/MRI features are useful to guide biopsies for genetic tumour characterization.Stereotactic radiotherapy with its forms of intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), intracranial fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is today a guideline-recommended treatment for malignant or benign tumors as well as neurological or vascular functional disorders. The working groups for radiosurgery and stereotactic radiotherapy of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) and for physics and technology in stereotactic radiotherapy of the German Society for Medical Physics (DGMP) have established a consensus statement about the definition and minimal quality requirements for stereotactic radiotherapy to achieve best clinical outcome and treatment quality in the implementation into routine clinical practice.This review details and discusses the technological quality requirements to ensure the desired quality for stereotactic radiotherapy using photon external beam radiotherapy as defined by the DEGRO Working Group Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Radiotherapy and the DGMP Working Group for Physics and Technology in Stereotactic Radiotherapy. The covered aspects of this review are 1) imaging for target volume definition, 2) patient positioning and target volume localization, 3) motion management, 4) collimation of the irradiation and beam directions, 5) dose calculation, 6) treatment unit accuracy, and 7) dedicated quality assurance measures. For each part, an expert review for current state-of-the-art techniques and their particular technological quality requirement to reach the necessary accuracy for stereotactic radiotherapy divided into intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery in one single fraction (SRS), intracranial fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT), and extracranial stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is presented. All recommendations and suggestions for all mentioned aspects of stereotactic radiotherapy are formulated and related uncertainties and potential sources of error discussed. Additionally, further research and development needs in terms of insufficient data and unsolved problems for stereotactic radiotherapy are identified, which will serve as a basis for the future assignments of the DGMP Working Group for Physics and Technology in Stereotactic Radiotherapy. The review was group peer-reviewed, and consensus was obtained through multiple working group meetings.For more than 3500 years, metabolic disorders were recognized by symptoms similar to those indicating diabetes mellitus today. Over centuries, explanations remained elusive and shed sparse light on the origin of the disease and any treatments. The poor prognosis triggered myths and misconceptions, some even lasting until today. Two hundred years ago, major advances were made in the understanding of the pathophysiology, which has led to more successful treatments. Presently, useful preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic procedures exist. However, old myths and misconceptions still influence the treatments. This article reviews ongoing myths dealing with the genesis and treatment of diabetes and the growing evidence for improved therapies.Increasingly more studies focus on cardiovascular endpoints while considering more realistic therapeutic goals. This paves the way to polyvalent treatment concepts reaching beyond the classic glucocentric treatment concept of type 2 diabetes. The introduction of molecular medicine, the current opportunities and future prospects of new drugs, personalized medicine, and technical innovations prompt hopes and expectations for a change of paradigms in therapeutic concepts. It is quite possible that traditional and newly generated myths will accompany this development. This has to be kept in mind when developing new concepts for treatment.