Latest news with #radiation therapy
Yahoo
21-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
RaySearch and Radiology Oncology Systems form partnership
RaySearch Laboratories and Radiology Oncology Systems have formed a partnership, aiming to expand access to cancer treatment technology. The companies look to capitalise on opportunities involving new and existing technologies, emphasising the integration of refurbished linear accelerators with 'advanced' software tools. The aim is to provide comprehensive solutions that not only extend the lifecycle of linear accelerators but also promote sustainability in radiation therapy. By doing so, the two companies are working towards improving care and strengthening their market positions. This initiative challenges the routine scrapping of fully functional linear accelerators after ten years, advocating for their refurbishment and use in centres with limited technology. The collaboration, which aims to provide comprehensive solutions that broaden access to radiation therapy, has already produced several agreements. Radiology Oncology Systems president John V Vano said: 'Too many cancer patients around the world face a critical gap between their need for care and the advanced technology available. Our collaboration with RaySearch allows us to help our customers expand their access to critical, life-changing care.' Under this collaboration, RaySearch is expected to see increased adoption of its RayStation treatment planning system and RayCare oncology information system (OIS). RaySearch founder and CEO Johan Löf said: 'Access to care is critical for us to fulfil our vision of a world where cancer is conquered. This partnership, with its combination of refurbished linacs and advanced software solutions, can really make a difference.' Two centres in Argentina have placed orders for Varian Trilogy linear accelerators while a US centre has chosen TrueBeam and RayStation. A Mexican centre has selected Elekta Versa HD and RayStation. Earlier this year, Odense University Hospital (OUH) in Denmark ordered the RayStation system. "RaySearch and Radiology Oncology Systems form partnership" was originally created and published by Hospital Management, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Medscape
14-07-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Metastases-Directed Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello. I'm Dr Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I'd like to discuss what I consider to be an absolutely fascinating paper, and one that I will say has very interesting results but raises many more questions than it answers. I think that was the intent of the authors. The paper is entitled, 'Addition of metastasis-directed therapy to systemic therapy for oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (EXTEND): a multicenter, randomized phase 2 trial,' published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology . You might ask what metastasis-directed therapy in pancreatic cancer means. Have we really made much of an impact on pancreatic cancer? In fact, in my earlier years of training, if somebody came up with the idea, or suggested as part of a trial or treatment of an individual patient, that they would focus on metastases in pancreas cancer, you might say they're crazy, or you might say: 'Yeah, but they probably don't know anything about the disease and its natural history.' Now, fast forward several decades. Even with the recognized, modest advances in systemic therapy, what we see are tremendous, really remarkable advances in innovations in radiation therapy. Of course, this includes not only the use of radiation itself but also the imaging technology that is used to direct the radiation therapy. These advances have permitted asking the questions that are addressed in the current study. Again, this study is fascinating. They randomized a very small number. Again, it's a randomized phase 2 study. It's really more of a proof of principle here. They randomized 41 patients with five or fewer metastatic lesions — with oligometastatic disease, they could have numerous lesions — to undergo what they've described as comprehensive metastases-directed therapy. Most of this was external beam radiation therapy and stereotactic radiation therapy, but there were some localized radiation implants as well, plus chemotherapy. This was comprehensive metastases-directed therapy to each of these sites plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone. What was shown in this trial? The progression-free survival (PFS) in the metastases-directed therapy group was 10.3 months vs 2.5 months in the group of patients who received chemotherapy only, with a hazard ratio of 0.43 and statistical significance. Remember, this was a very small study, but we see more than a tripling in the PFS. There was no difference in overall survival, which is not at all surprising because it was a very small sample size. Very importantly — and essential to doing this trial ethically — a crossover was permitted at the time of progression, meaning that if a patient received chemotherapy only and progressed, they could potentially get stereotactic radiation to sites of metastatic disease. They might have also benefited from that kind of strategy to the metastasis-[therapy] so that overall survival in the small population may not be different. Again, there was a tripling of the time to disease progression. Clearly, a larger study will be required to be more definitive. We would need more centers involved and maybe some modification in the study design in this trial because of any issues that the investigators may have identified. Of course, overall survival would be a fair endpoint to look at, but again, crossover would be essential, and that might influence an ultimate is a very valid endpoint. The only other point to mention is, with these results — and as I mentioned, advances in radiation and imaging — is it reasonable to potentially consider this type of approach for individual patients as a component of aggressive standard of care? Of course, this would be with very adequate informed consent from patients, because we don't know what the impact will be. With the limited morbidity associated with the radiation, for an individual patient with pancreatic cancer who has an adequate performance status and limited metastases, if we give them chemotherapy and also directed radiation, is it reasonable to consider that as an appropriate treatment option outside the setting of a clinical trial? I think this is a very valid question that needs to be addressed. In my opinion, the answer in some settings should be yes, but that needs to be discussed much more widely than simply in this randomized phase 2 trial. Thank you for your attention.
