Hypofractionated radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer: From moderate to extreme protocols

Adjuvant irradiation is the standard treatment after breast conservative surgery. Normofractionated regimen with an overall treatment time of 5 to 6 weeks is often considered as a limiting factor for irradiation compliance. In order to answer this issue, moderate and more recently extreme hypofractionated protocols appeared. We report here oncological outcomes and toxicity of hypofractionated breast irradiation. After defining the frame of moderate and extreme hypofractionated breast irradiations based on overall treatment time, patient selection criteria were listed. According to their levels of proof, the results of moderate and extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation were analysed. Overall treatment time for moderate hypofractionated breast irradiation ranged from 3 to 4 weeks, while for extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation, it was less than 1 week. For moderate hypofractionated breast irradiation, whole breast irradiation was currently performed with or without lymph node irradiation. Moderate hypofractionated breast irradiation has proven to be as safe and as efficient as normofractionated breast irradiation with level IA evidence. For extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation, phase III randomized trials confirmed that accelerated partial breast irradiation was non-inferior in terms of local control compared to normofractionated whole breast irradiation (with external beam radiation therapy and multicatheter brachytherapy), with similar acute and late toxicity. While the use of intraoperative breast irradiation remains under debate, new very accelerated partial breast irradiation (overall treatment time not exceeding 2 days) protocols emerged with encouraging results. Accelerated partial breast irradiation is warranted for extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation and is indicated for low-risk breast cancers. Moderate and extreme hypofractionated breast irradiation regimens are validated and can be routinely proposed according to patient selection criteria.     

Orientation and mobility outcome measures

Despite orientation and mobility (O&M) being a significant factor determining quality of life of people with low vision or blindness, there are no gold standard measures or agreement on how to measure O&M performance. In the first part of this systematic review, an inventory of O&M outcome measures used by recent studies to assess the performance of orientation and/or mobility of adults with vision impairment (low vision and blindness) is presented. A wide variety of O&M outcome measures have been implemented in different fields of study, such as epidemiologic research and interventional studies evaluating training, assistive technology, vision rehabilitation and vision restoration. The most frequent aspect of outcome measures is efficiency such as time, distance, speed and percentage of preferred walking speed, followed by obstacle contacts and avoidance, and dis/orientation and veering. Other less commonly used aspects are target identification, safety and social interaction and self-reported outcome measures. Some studies employ sophisticated equipment to capture and analyse O&M performance in a laboratory setting, while others carry out their assessment in real-world indoor or outdoor environments. In the second part of this review, the appropriateness of implementing the identified outcome measures to assess O&M performance in clinical and functional O&M practice is evaluated. Nearly a half of these outcome measures meet all four criteria of face validity (either clinical or functional), responsiveness, reliability and feasibility and have the potential to be implemented in clinical or functional O&M practice. The findings of this review confirm the complicated and dynamic nature of O&M. Multiple measures are required in any evaluation of O&M performance to facilitate holistic assessment of O&M abilities and limitations of each individual.     

Percutaneous renal mass biopsy: historical perspective,current status,and future considerations

Introduction: Percutaneous renal mass biopsy has evolved over the last decade with improvements on previous pitfalls including low tissue yield, high non-diagnostic rates, and complications. As understanding of tumor biology and natural history of renal cortical neoplasms has improved, percutaneous renal mass biopsy is poised to have an expanding role in an area characterized by individualized management and refined risk stratification.

Areas covered: This review summarizes the evolution of renal mass biopsy to its current state with respect to outcomes, indications, and clinical guidelines.

Expert opinion: With improved understanding of differential biological potential of renal cortical neoplasms combined with technical improvements in diagnostic yield and accuracy, utilization of renal mass biopsy is becoming an important adjunct to patient care in a broad range of clinical scenarios, including active surveillance, thermal ablation, and use of primary systemic therapy in localized and advanced settings.     

A basal‐enriched microRNA is required for prostate tumorigenesis in a Pten knockout mouse model

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) play important roles in prostate cancer development. However, it remains unclear how individual miRNAs contribute to the initiation and progression of prostate cancer. Here we show that a basal layer‐enriched miRNA is required for prostate tumorigenesis. We identify miR‐205 as the most highly expressed miRNA and enriched in the basal cells of the prostate. Although miR‐205 is not required for normal prostate development and homeostasis, genetic deletion of miR‐205 in a Pten null tumor model significantly compromises tumor progression and does not promote metastasis. In Pten null basal cells, loss of miR‐205 attenuates pAkt levels and promotes cellular senescence. Furthermore, although overexpression of miR‐205 in prostate cancer cells with luminal phenotypes inhibits cell growth in both human and mouse, miR‐205 has a minimal effect on the growth of a normal human prostate cell line. Taken together, we have provided genetic evidence for a requirement of miR‐205 in the progression of Pten null‐induced prostate cancer.