1
|
Three Months' PSA and Toxicity from a Prospective Trial Investigating STereotactic sAlvage Radiotherapy for Macroscopic Prostate Bed Recurrence after Prostatectomy-STARR (NCT05455736). Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15030992. [PMID: 36765948 PMCID: PMC9913280 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15030992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2022] [Revised: 01/27/2023] [Accepted: 01/30/2023] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Biochemical recurrences after radical prostatectomy (RP) can be managed with curative purpose through salvage radiation therapy (SRT). RT dose escalation, such as stereotactic RT (SSRT), may improve relapse-free survival in this setting. STARR trial (NCT05455736) is a prospective multicenter study including patients affected by macroscopic recurrence within the prostate bed after RP treated with SSRT. Recurrence was detected with a Choline or PSMA CT-PET. In the current analysis, the early biochemical response (BR) rate and toxicity profile after three months of follow-up were assessed. Twenty-five patients were enrolled, and data about BR and toxicity at three months after treatment were available for 19 cases. Overall, BR was detected after three months in 58% of cases. Four G1-G2 adverse events were recorded; no G ≥ 3 adverse events were detected. SSRT appears feasible and safe, with more than half of patients experiencing BR and an encouraging toxicity profile. The STARR trial is one of the few prospective studies aimed at implementing this promising treatment strategy in this scenario.
Collapse
|
2
|
Guerini AE, Noale M, Mortellaro G, Lisi R, Bruni A, Santini R, Muto P, Ferrera G, Cossali G, Morelli V, Magrini SM, Spiazzi L, Buglione M. Early results of PRO-EPI: PROspective multicenter observational study on elective pelvic nodes irradiation in patients with intermediate/high/very high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer submitted to radical, adjuvant, or salvage radiotherapy with or without concomitant androgen deprivation therapy. Front Oncol 2022; 12:951220. [PMID: 36408148 PMCID: PMC9666761 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.951220] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2022] [Accepted: 09/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary: Although radiotherapy plays a fundamental role in the management of intermediate/high/very high-risk non-metastatic prostatic cancer (IHR-nmPca), there is still no consensus on the optimal treatment strategy in this setting. Remarkably, the role of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) is still highly controversial. The PROspective multicenter observational study on Elective Pelvic nodes Irradiation (PRO-EPI) was designed to provide "real life" data regarding the patterns of care for IHR-nmPca. Forty-three Italian Radiation Oncology centers participated in the PROspective multicenter observational study on Elective Pelvic nodes Irradiation (PRO-EPI) project, with 1029 patients enrolled. In this preliminary analysis, we longitudinally evaluated the impact of Elective Nodal Irradiation (ENI) and radiotherapy features on toxicity and quality of life (QoL). Six months follow-up data were available for 913 patients and 12 months data for 762 patients. Elective Nodal Irradiation was given to 506 patients (48.9%). Volumetric Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) was adopted in more than 77% of patients and Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) in 84.4%. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was administered to the majority of patients (68.3%), and it was associated to ENI in 408 cases (81.1%). Toxicity was mostly mild and reversible and IGRT resulted in a significant reduction of rectal toxicity, although a non-significant trend toward increased urinary toxicity was observed. No statistically significant differences in QoL and toxicity were seen in patients treated with or without ENI. The adoption of IGRT is widespread and increasing and could reduce treatment toxicity. ENI is not yet the standard treatment, but it is performed in a growing fraction of cases and not resulting into an increase in toxicity or in a deterioration of QoL. Further analyses are needed to clarify the long-term toxicity profile and the impact of ENI on survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Emanuele Guerini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Brescia and Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia, Italy,*Correspondence: Andrea Emanuele Guerini,
| | - Marianna Noale
- National Research Council, Neuroscience Institute, Padova, Italy
| | - Gianluca Mortellaro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Azienda ospedaliera di rilievo nazionale e di alta specializzazione (ARNAS) Ospedale Civico, Palermo, Italy
| | - Roberto Lisi
- Department of Radiotherapy, Policlinico Umberto I “Sapienza” University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Alessio Bruni
- Radiotherapy Unit, Oncology and Hematology Department, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy
| | - Roberto Santini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ospedale San Jacopo Pistoia, Pistoia, Italy
| | - Paolo Muto
- Radiotherapy, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, “Fondazione G. Pascale”-Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Naples, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Ferrera
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Azienda ospedaliera di rilievo nazionale e di alta specializzazione (ARNAS) Ospedale Civico, Palermo, Italy
| | - Gianluca Cossali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Brescia and Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia, Italy
| | - Vittorio Morelli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Brescia and Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia, Italy
| | | | - Stefano Maria Magrini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Brescia and Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia, Italy
| | - Luigi Spiazzi
- Medical Physics Department, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale (ASST) Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia, Italy
| | - Michela Buglione
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Brescia and Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Francolini G, Morelli I, Carnevale MG, Grassi R, Nardone V, Loi M, Valzano M, Salvestrini V, Livi L, Desideri I. Integration between Novel Imaging Technologies and Modern Radiotherapy Techniques: How the Eye Drove the Chisel. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:5277. [PMID: 36358695 PMCID: PMC9656145 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14215277] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2022] [Revised: 10/17/2022] [Accepted: 10/24/2022] [Indexed: 03/12/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Targeted dose-escalation and reduction of dose to adjacent organs at risk have been the main goal of radiotherapy in the last decade. Prostate cancer benefited the most from this process. In recent years, the development of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) radically changed clinical practice, also thanks to the availability of modern imaging techniques. The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between diagnostic imaging and prostate cancer radiotherapy techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS Aiming to provide an overview of the integration between modern imaging and radiotherapy techniques, we performed a non-systematic search of papers exploring the predictive value of imaging before treatment, the role of radiomics in predicting treatment outcomes, implementation of novel imaging in RT planning and influence of imaging integration on use of RT in current clinical practice. Three independent authors (GF, IM and ID) performed an independent review focusing on these issues. Key references were derived from a PubMed query. Hand searching and clinicaltrials.gov were also used, and grey literature was searched for further papers of interest. The final choice of papers included was discussed between all co-authors. RESULTS This paper contains a narrative report and a critical discussion of the role of new modern techniques in predicting outcomes before treatment, in radiotherapy planning and in the integration with systemic therapy in the management of prostate cancer. Also, the role of radiomics in a tailored treatment approach is explored. CONCLUSIONS Integration between diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy is of great importance for the modern treatment of prostate cancer. Future clinical trials should be aimed at exploring the real clinical benefit of complex workflows in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giulio Francolini
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, 50134 Florence, Italy
| | - Ilaria Morelli
- Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences “Mario Serio”, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy
| | - Maria Grazia Carnevale
- Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences “Mario Serio”, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy
| | - Roberta Grassi
- Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania “L. Vanvitelli”, 80138 Naples, Italy
- Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), SIRM Foundation, 20122 Milan, Italy
| | - Valerio Nardone
- Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania “L. Vanvitelli”, 80138 Naples, Italy
- Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), SIRM Foundation, 20122 Milan, Italy
| | - Mauro Loi
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, 50134 Florence, Italy
| | - Marianna Valzano
- Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences “Mario Serio”, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy
| | - Viola Salvestrini
- Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences “Mario Serio”, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Livi
- Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences “Mario Serio”, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy
| | - Isacco Desideri
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, 50134 Florence, Italy
- Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences “Mario Serio”, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hervás-Morón A, Domínguez-Rullán J, Santana VD, Valero M, Vallejo C, Sancho S, Fuentes JDG, Cámara Gallego M, López-Campos F. Assessing radiation dose for postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer: Real world data. World J Clin Oncol 2022; 13:652-662. [PMID: 36157159 PMCID: PMC9346429 DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v13.i7.652] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2022] [Revised: 06/04/2022] [Accepted: 07/06/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Approximately 30% of patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) who undergo radical prostatectomy will develop biochemical recurrence. In these patients, the only potentially curative treatment is postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) with or without hormone therapy. However, the optimal radiotherapy dose is unknown due to the limited data available.
AIM To determine whether the postoperative radiotherapy dose influences biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) in patients with PCa.
METHODS Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for PCa followed by PORT-either adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) or salvage radiotherapy (SRT)-between April 2002 and July 2015. From 2002 to 2010, the prescribed radiation dose to the surgical bed was 66-70 Gy in fractions of 2 Gy; from 2010 until July 2015, the prescribed dose was 70-72 Gy. Patients were grouped into three categories according to the total dose administered: 66-68 Gy, 70 Gy, and 72 Gy. The primary endpoint was BFFS, defined as the post-radiotherapy prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir + 0.2 ng/mL. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS; based on conventional imaging tests). Treatment-related genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was evaluated according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria. Finally, we aimed to identify potential prognostic factors. BFFS, OS, CSS, and MFS were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were performed to explore between-group differences in survival outcome measures.
RESULTS A total of 301 consecutive patients were included. Of these, 93 (33.6%) received ART and 186 (66.4%) SRT; 22 patients were excluded due to residual macroscopic disease or local recurrence in the surgical bed. In this subgroup (n = 93), 43 patients (46.2%) were Gleason score (GS) ≤ 6, 44 (47.3%) GS 7, and 6 (6.5%) GS ≥ 8; clinical stage was cT1 in 51 (54.8%), cT2 in 35 (39.3%), and cT3 in one patient (1.1%); PSA was < 10 ng/mL in 58 (63%) patients, 10-20 ng/mL in 28 (30.6%), and ≥ 20 ng/mL in 6 (6.4%) patients. No differences were found in BFFS in this patient subset versus the entire cohort of patients (P = 0.66). At a median follow-up of 113 months (range, 4-233), 5- and 10-year BFFS rates were 78.8% and 73.7%, respectively, with OS rates of 93.3% and 81.4%. The 5-year BFFS rates in three groups were as follows: 69.6% (66-68 Gy), 80.5% (70 Gy) and 82.6% (72 Gy) (P = 0.12):the corresponding 10-year rates were 63.9%, 72.9%, and 82.6% (P = 0.12), respectively. No significant between-group differences were observed in MFS, CSS, or OS. On the univariate analysis, the following variables were significantly associated with BFFS: PSA at diagnosis; clinical stage (cT1 vs cT2); GS at diagnosis; treatment indication (ART vs SRT); pre-RT PSA levels; and RT dose 66 -68 Gy vs. 72 Gy (HR: 2.05; 95%CI: 1.02-4.02, P = 0.04). On the multivariate analysis, the following variables remained significant: biopsy GS (HR: 2.85; 95%CI: 1.83-4.43, P < 0.001); clinical stage (HR: 2.31; 95%CI: 1.47-4.43, P = 0.01); and treatment indication (HR: 4.11; 95%CI: 2.06-8.17, P < 0.001). Acute grade (G) 1 GU toxicity was observed in 11 (20.4%), 17 (19.8%), and 3 (8.3%) patients in each group (66-68 Gy, 70 Gy and 72 Gy), respectively (P = 0.295). Acute G2 toxicity was observed in 2 (3.7%), 4 (4.7%) and 2 (5.6%) patients, respectively (P = 0.949). Acute G1 GI toxicity was observed in 16 (29.6%), 23 (26.7%) and 2 (5.6%) patients in each group, respectively (P = 0.011). Acute G2 GI toxicity was observed in 2 (3.7%), 6 (6.9%) and 1 (2.8%) patients, respectively (P = 0.278). No cases of acute G3 GI toxicity were observed.
CONCLUSION The findings of this retrospective study suggest that postoperative radiotherapy dose intensification in PCa is not superior to conventional radiotherapy treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Asunción Hervás-Morón
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, Madrid 28034, Spain
| | - Jose Domínguez-Rullán
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, Madrid 28034, Spain
| | - Victor Duque Santana
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, Madrid 28034, Spain
| | - Mireia Valero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, Madrid 28034, Spain
| | - Carmen Vallejo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, Madrid 28034, Spain
| | - Sonsoles Sancho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, Madrid 28034, Spain
| | | | - Miguel Cámara Gallego
- Department of Medical Physics, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, Madrid 28034, Spain
| | - Fernando López-Campos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, Madrid 28034, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lu YC, Huang CY, Cheng CH, Huang KH, Lu YC, Chow PM, Chang YK, Pu YS, Chen CH, Lu SL, Lan KH, Jaw FS, Chen PL, Hong JH. Propensity score matching analysis comparing radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy in locally advanced prostate cancer. Sci Rep 2022; 12:12480. [PMID: 35864293 PMCID: PMC9304348 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-16700-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2021] [Accepted: 07/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
To compare clinical outcomes between the use of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in locally advanced prostate cancer (PC), 315 patients with locally advanced PC (clinical T-stage 3/4) were considered for analysis retrospectively. Propensity score-matching at a 1:1 ratio was performed. The median follow-up period was 59.2 months (IQR 39.8–87.4). There were 117 (37.1%) patients in the RP group and 198 (62.9%) patients in the RT group. RT patients were older and had higher PSA at diagnosis, higher Gleason score grade group and more advanced T-stage (all p < 0.001). After propensity score-matching, there were 68 patients in each group. Among locally advanced PC patients, treatment with RP had a higher risk of biochemical recurrence compared to the RT group. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, treatment with RT plus ADT significantly decreased the risk of biochemical failure (HR 0.162, p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in local recurrence, distant metastasis and overall survival (p = 0.470, p = 0.268 and p = 0.509, respectively). This information supported a clinical benefit in BCR control for patients undergoing RT plus long-term ADT compared to RP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu-Cheng Lu
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Chao-Yuan Huang
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Chia-Hsien Cheng
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Kuo-How Huang
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yu-Chuan Lu
- Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Changde St., Zhongzheng Dist., Taipei City, 10048, Taiwan.,Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Po-Ming Chow
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yi-Kai Chang
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Yeong-Shiau Pu
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Chung-Hsin Chen
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Shao-Lun Lu
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Keng-Hsueh Lan
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Fu-Shan Jaw
- Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Changde St., Zhongzheng Dist., Taipei City, 10048, Taiwan
| | - Pei-Ling Chen
- Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Jian-Hua Hong
- Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Changde St., Zhongzheng Dist., Taipei City, 10048, Taiwan. .,Department of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Nicosia L, Mazzola R, Vitale C, Cuccia F, Figlia V, Giaj-Levra N, Ricchetti F, Rigo M, Ruggeri R, Cavalleri S, Alongi F. Postoperative moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a mono-institutional propensity-score-matching analysis between adjuvant and early-salvage radiotherapy. Radiol Med 2022; 127:560-570. [PMID: 35347581 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-022-01479-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2021] [Accepted: 03/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
AIM To evaluate the impact of moderately hypofractionated postoperative radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS The data of 304 surgically resected PCa patients were analyzed. One hundred and five patients underwent adjuvant RT (aRT), 77 early-savage RT (esRT), and 123 salvage RT (sRT). Biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS), progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity were analyzed. A propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to account for potential confounders between aRT and esRT groups. RESULTS The median follow-up was 33 months. Three-year BRFS and PFS were 82 and 85.2%, respectively, in the overall population. At the multivariate analysis, Gleason score and hormone therapy were factors independently correlated with BRFS and PFS. After PSM, there was no difference in BRFS and PFS between aRT and esRT patients. Severe toxicity was represented by grade 3 urinary incontinence (3.5%) and urgency (1%), and aRT correlated with increased any-grade acute toxicity. Severe grade 3 gastrointestinal late toxicity occurred in 1.3% of cases. CONCLUSION Postoperative moderately hypofractionated RT achieved acceptable disease control rate and demonstrated no increased or unexpected toxicity. Future prospective studies should evaluate the role of postoperative RT in patients with unfavorable disease characteristics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luca Nicosia
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Negrar, Verona, Italy
| | - Rosario Mazzola
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Negrar, Verona, Italy
| | - Claudio Vitale
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Negrar, Verona, Italy
| | - Francesco Cuccia
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Negrar, Verona, Italy.
| | - Vanessa Figlia
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Negrar, Verona, Italy
| | - Niccolò Giaj-Levra
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Negrar, Verona, Italy
| | - Francesco Ricchetti
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Negrar, Verona, Italy
| | - Michele Rigo
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Negrar, Verona, Italy
| | - Ruggiero Ruggeri
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Negrar, Verona, Italy
| | - Stefano Cavalleri
- Urology Division, Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar, Verona, Italy
| | - Filippo Alongi
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Cancer Care Center, Negrar, Verona, Italy
- University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|