Influence of COVID-19 pandemic on the decision making of patients in undergoing gamma knife radiosurgery.

PURPOSE: Gamma knife radiosurgery (GK) is a commonly used approach for the treatment of intracranial lesions. Its radiation response is typically not immediate, but delayed. In this study, we analyzed cases from a prospectively collected database to assess the influence of COVID-19 pandemic on the decision making in patients treated by gamma knife radiosurgery. METHODS: From January 2019 to August 2021, 540 cases of intracranial lesions were treated by GK with 207 cases before COVID-19 pandemic as a control. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 333 cases were similarly treated on patients with or without the COVID-19 vaccination. All the GK treated parameters as well as time profile in the decision making were analyzed. The parameters included age, sex, characteristic of lesion, targeted volume, peripheral radiation dose, neurological status, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), time interval from MRI diagnosis to consultation, time interval from the approval to treatment, frequency of outpatient department (OPD) visit, and frequency of imaging follow-up. RESULTS: Longer time intervals from diagnosis to GK consultation and treatment were found in the pandemic group (36.8 ± 25.5/54.5 ± 27.6 days) compared with the pre-COVID control (17.1 ± 22.4/45.0 ± 28.0 days) or vaccination group (12.2 ± 7.1/29.6 ± 10.9 days) (p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). The fewer OPD visits and MRI examinations also showed the same trends. High proportion of neurological deficits were found in the pandemic group (65.4%) compared with the control (45.4%) or vaccination group (58.1%) (p < 0.001). The Charlson comorbidity in the pandemic group was 3.9 ± 3.3, the control group was 4.6 ± 3.2, and the vaccination group was 3.1 ± 3.1. There were similar inter-group difference (p < 0.001). In multiple variant analyses, longer time intervals from the diagnosis to consultation or treatment, OPD frequency and MRI examination were likely influenced by the status of the COVID-19 pandemic as they were alleviated by the vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The decision making in patients requiring gamma knife treatment was most likely influenced by the status of the COVID-19 pandemic, while vaccination appeared to attenuate their hesitant behaviors. Patients with pre-treatment neurological deficits and high co-morbidity undergoing the gamma knife treatment were less affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Stereotactic radiosurgery with Cyberknife®: first case in the United Arab Emirates (a case report).

A 64-year-old gentleman was referred to the department of oncology with severe pain in the right ear radiating to the right side of the face. Imaging revealed a large extra-axial expansile lesion, surrounding and encasing the right cavernous sinus extending to the right middle cranial fossa. The patient consulted several neurosurgeons and was recommended stereotactic radiosurgery with Cyberknife® as the best non-invasive modality. The proximity to the critical structures, such as the brainstem, made it challenging for any surgical approach. The patient completed stereotactic radiosurgery with Cyberknife® and is doing well one month after treatment.

The dosimetric advantages of perirectal hydrogel spacer in men with localized prostate cancer undergoing stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR).

To evaluate the dosimetric differences for patients receiving a perirectal hydrogel spacer (PR-HS) using SpaceOAR undergoing stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for localized prostate cancer with the CyberKnife VSI system. Gold fiducial markers and a PR-HS was inserted in 22 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed localized prostate cancer. For planning comparison, dosimetry from the clinical plans was compared against replans based on a simulated rectum volume designed to recreate a clinically appropriate spacer-less anatomy for each patient. Both sets were planned to 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions using the treatment planning system associated with the CyberKnife VSI system. The aim was to ensure equivalent target coverage for both plans and to evaluate doses to the organs-at-risk (OARs): rectum, bladder and penile bulb. The median PR-HS implant volume was 11.2 cc (range 8.8 to 14.9 cc). The maximal median perirectal separation was 15.5 mm (10.5 to 20.7 mm). Statistically significant reductions were noted for the 3 OARs, with no statistically significant difference in planning target volumes or clinical target volume coverage. All rectal dose constraints were significantly improved in the PR-HS plans with a percentage dose difference of at least 24% (rectum V18.1Gy (%)) to 60.5% (rectum V36Gy (cc)). The bladder and penile bulb dose constraints parameters were also significantly improved: the bladder V37Gy was reduced by 17.1%, V18.1Gy was reduced by 4.2%; the penile bulb D50% was reduced by 7.7%. The use of PR-HS was able to significantly reduce planned dose to the rectum, bladder and penile bulb with SABR techniques associated with the CyberKnife VSI system.

Stereotactic MRI-guided radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer (SMILE): a prospective, multicentric phase-II-trial.

BACKGROUND: Normofractionated radiation regimes for definitive prostate cancer treatment usually extend over 7-8 weeks. Recently, moderate hypofractionation with doses per fraction between 2.2 and 4 Gy has been shown to be safe and feasible with oncologic non-inferiority compared to normofractionation. Radiobiologic considerations lead to the assumption that prostate cancer might benefit in particular from hypofractionation in terms of tumor control and toxicity. First data related to ultrahypofractionation demonstrate that the overall treatment time can be reduced to 5-7 fractions with single doses > 6 Gy safely, even with simultaneous focal boosting of macroscopic tumor(s). With MR-guided linear accelerators (MR-linacs) entering clinical routine, invasive fiducial implantations become unnecessary. The aim of the multicentric SMILE study is to evaluate the use of MRI-guided stereotactic radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer in 5 fractions regarding safety and feasibility. METHODS: The study is designed as a prospective, one-armed, two-stage, multi-center phase-II-trial with 68 patients planned. Low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients will be eligible for the study as well as early high-risk patients (cT3a and/or Gleason Score ≤ 8 and/or PSA ≤ 20 ng/ml) according to d'Amico. All patients will receive definitive MRI-guided stereotactic radiation therapy with a total dose of 37.5 Gy in 5 fractions (single dose 7.5 Gy) on alternating days. A focal simultaneous integrated boost to MRI-defined tumor(s) up to 40 Gy can optionally be applied. The primary composite endpoint includes the assessment of urogenital or gastrointestinal toxicity ≥ grade 2 or treatment-related discontinuation of therapy. The use of MRI-guided radiotherapy enables online plan adaptation and intrafractional gating to ensure optimal target volume coverage and protection of organs at risk. DISCUSSION: With moderate hypofractionation being the standard in definitive radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer at many institutions, ultrahypofractionation could be the next step towards reducing treatment time without compromising oncologic outcomes and toxicities. MRI-guided radiotherapy could qualify as an advantageous tool as no invasive procedures have to precede in therapeutic workflows. Furthermore, MRI guidance combined with gating and plan adaptation might be essential in order to increase treatment effectivity and reduce toxicity at the same time.

Propensity-Weighted Survival Analysis of SBRT vs. Conventional Radiotherapy in Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), which delivers high-dose precision treatment in ≤5 fractions, is a shorter, more convenient, and less expensive alternative to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CRFT; ∼44 fractions) or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MFRT; 20-28 fractions). SBRT has not been widely adopted but may have radiobiologic advantages over CFRT/MFRT. We hypothesized that SBRT would be associated with improved overall survival (OS) versus CFRT or MFRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for unfavorable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PCa). METHODS: Men with UIR-PCa treated with SBRT (35-40Gy in ≤5 fractions) or biologically equivalent doses of CFRT (72-86.4Gy in 1.8-2.0Gy/fraction) or MRFT (≥60Gy in 2.4-3.2Gy/fraction; biologically effective doses ≥120) were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Unweighted and propensity-weighted multivariable Cox analysis (MVA) was used to compare OS hazard ratios. RESULTS: Of 28,028 men with UIR-PCa who received CFRT with (n = 12,872) or without ADT (n = 12,984); MFRT with (n = 251) or without ADT (n = 281); and SBRT with (n = 212) or without ADT (n = 1,428) were identified. Relative to CFRT without ADT, CFRT+ ADT (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.97, P = .002) and SBRT without ADT (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61-0.89, P = .002) were both associated with improved OS on MVA. Relative to CFRT+ADT, SBRT without ADT correlated with improved OS on MVA (HR:0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99, P = .04). Propensity-weighted MVA demonstrated that SBRT (HR:0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = .036) and ADT (HR:0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.97, P = .002) correlated with improved OS. SBRT was not associated with improved OS versus MFRT. CONCLUSION: SBRT, which offers a cheaper and shorter treatment course that mitigates COVID-19 exposure, was associated with improved OS versus CFRT for UIR-PCa. These results confirm guideline-based recommendations that SBRT is a viable option for UIR prostate cancer. The results from this large retrospective study require further validation in clinical trials.

Safety, Efficacy, and Patterns of Failure After Single-Fraction Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Oligometastases.

PURPOSE: Fewer attendances for radiation therapy results in increased efficiency and less foot traffic within a radiation therapy department. We investigated outcomes after single-fraction (SF) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with oligometastatic disease. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between February 2010 and June 2019, patients who received SF SBRT to 1 to 5 sites of oligometastatic disease were included in this retrospective study. The primary objective was to describe patterns of first failure after SBRT. Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), high-grade treatment-related toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥3), and freedom from systemic therapy (FFST). RESULTS: In total, 371 patients with 494 extracranial oligometastases received SF SBRT ranging from 16 Gy to 28 Gy. The most common primary malignancies were prostate (n = 107), lung (n = 63), kidney (n = 52), gastrointestinal (n = 51), and breast cancers (n = 42). The median follow-up was 3.1 years. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS was 93%, 69%, and 55%, respectively; PFS was 48%, 19%, and 14%, respectively; and FFST was 70%, 43%, and 35%, respectively. Twelve patients (3%) developed grade 3 to 4 treatment-related toxicity, with no grade 5 toxicity. As the first site of failure, the cumulative incidence of local failure (irrespective of other failures) at 1, 3 and 5 years was 4%, 8%, and 8%, respectively; locoregional relapse at the primary was 10%, 18%, and 18%, respectively; and distant failure was 45%, 66%, and 70%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SF SBRT is safe and effective, and a significant proportion of patients remain FFST for several years after therapy. This approach could be considered in resource-constrained or bundled-payment environments. Locoregional failure of the primary site is the second most common pattern of failure, suggesting a role for optimization of primary control during metastasis-directed therapy.

COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Radiation Recall Phenomenon.

Radiation recall phenomenon (RRP) is an uncommon, late occurring, acute inflammatory skin reaction that emerges in localized areas coincident with previously irradiated radiation therapy (RT) treatment fields. RRP has been known to be triggered by a number of chemotherapy agents. To the best of our knowledge, this report is the first description of RRP after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for COVID-19, or any other currently available vaccine against COVID-19. Acute skin reactions were observed in 2 RT patients with differing timelines of RT and vaccinations. In both cases however, the RRP presented within days of the patient receiving the second dose of vaccine. For each RT course, the treatment planning dosimetry of the radiation fields was compared with the area of the observable RRP. RRP developed within the borders of treatment fields where prescription dose constraints were prioritized over skin sparing. Our observation is currently limited to 2 patients. The actual incidence of RRP in conjunction with Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine or any other vaccine against COVID-19 is unknown. For patients with cancer being treated with radiation with significant dose to skin, consideration should be given to the probability of RRP side effects from vaccinations against COVID-19.

COVID-19 and radiotherapy: potential new strategies for patients management with hypofractionation and telemedicine.

COVID-19 disease is one of the biggest public health challenges in Italy and global healthcare facilities, including radiotherapy departments, faced an unprecedented emergency. Cancer patients are at higher risk of COVID-19 infection because of their immunosuppressive state caused by both tumor itself and anticancer therapy adopted. In this setting, the radiation therapy clinical decision-making process has been partly reconsidered; thus, to reduce treatment duration and minimize infection risk during a pandemic, hypofractionated regimens have been revised. Moreover, telemedicine shows its helpfulness in the radiotherapy field, and patients get the supportive care they need minimizing their access to hospitals. This review aims to point out the importance of hypofractionated RT and telemedicine in cancer patient management in the COVID-19 era.

Long-term Overall Survival Outcomes in Patients with Early Stage, Peripherally Located, Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy in a Non-academic Cancer Centre.

AIMS: To report long-term outcomes of patients treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for early stage, peripherally located non-small cell lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively between September 2009 and May 2019. Electronic medical records were reviewed for baseline characteristics, treatment details and outcomes. All patients were treated according to local protocol based on the national UK SABR Consortium guidelines. Risk-adapted treatment schedules were used depending on the size and the location of the tumour (54 Gy in three fractions, 55 Gy in five fractions, 60 Gy in eight fractions or 50 Gy in 10 fractions). Overall survival outcomes were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: In total, 412 patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 76 years (range 48-93 years). Histological confirmation was obtained in 233 cases (56.6%). The median overall survival for all patients was 42.3 months (95% confidence interval 37.3-47.3 months), with 3- and 5-year overall survival of 52.8% and 37.3%, respectively. For biopsy-proven patients (56.6%), 3- and 5-year overall survival was 57.3% and 40.1%, respectively. With respect to overall survival, univariate and multivariate analysis revealed no significant difference in survival by technique (volume-modulated arc therapy versus conformal; three-dimensional computed tomography versus four-dimensional computed tomography), tumour location, smoking status at first contact, pre-treatment tumour stage or pre-treatment standardised uptake value. Survival was poorer for patients who received the 50 Gy in 10 fractions schedule. Treatment was very well tolerated with very low rates of grade 3-4 toxicity (1%). CONCLUSIONS: SABR for peripherally located, medically inoperable non-small cell lung cancer can be safely and effectively implemented in a non-academic institution with appropriate equipment and training. Overall survival outcomes and toxicity rates are comparable with internationally published studies. Patients treated with 50 Gy in 10 fractions had a poorer survival outcome.

Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for Treatment of Brain Metastases during the COVID-19 Outbreak.

INTRODUCTION: The WHO declared 2019 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) a public health emergency of international concern. The National and Regional Health System has been reorganized, and many oncological patients died during this period or had to interrupt their therapies. This study summarizes a single-centre experience, during the COVID-19 period in Italy, in the treatment of brain metastases with Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery (GKRS). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed our series of patients with brain metastases who underwent GKRS at the Niguarda Hospital from February 24 to April 24, 2020. RESULTS: We treated 30 patients with 66 brain metastases. A total of 22 patients came from home and 8 patients were admitted to the emergency room for urgent neurological symptoms. Duration of stay was limited to 0-1 day in 17 patients. We chose to treat a cluster of 9 patients, whose greater lesion exceeded 10 cm3, with 2-stage modality GKRS to minimize tumour recurrence and radiation necrosis. CONCLUSION: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the whole world is at a critical crossroads about the use of health care resources. During the COVID-19 outbreak, the deferral of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and a work backlog in every medical specialty are the natural consequences of reservation of resources for COVID-19 patients. GKRS improved symptoms and reduced the need for open surgeries, allowing many patients to continue their therapeutic path and sparing beds in ICUs. Neurosurgeons have to take into account the availability of stereotactic radiosurgery to reduce hospital stay, conciliating safety for patients and operators with the request for health care coming from the oncological patients and their families.