Impact of radiotherapy schedule on survival of patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors for advanced melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Preclinical and clinical data suggest a potential benefit in the addition of radiotherapy (RT) to immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) during the treatment of advanced cancers. Nevertheless, the ideal patients for this approach and the optimal RT regimen is still debated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The aim of this study was to determine the effect RT schedule has on survival for advanced non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma patients (pts) treated with ICI (anti-PD1 or anti-CTLA4) and concomitant RT. RESULTS: A total of 58 pts were identified, of which 26 received RT concomitantly with ICI while the remaining 32 pts were treated with RT at the time of progression under ICI. The RT parameters associated with outcome include dose per fraction, biological effective dose, RT to all targets and lung irradiation. Independent predictors of improved progression-free survival were lung irradiation, melanoma histology, oligometastatic status (<6 metastasis), presence of liver metastasis, PNN<7000/mm3 and normal LDH. Independent predictors of improved overall survival were melanoma histology and normal LDH. Among pts who were irradiated at progression, 68.7% had an overall clinical benefit and had a median extension of ICI use by 2.3 months (range: 0-29.1), among which 2 presented with an abscopal effect. CONCLUSIONS: The irradiation of lung metastases may increase survival in patients under ICI. RT at progression could prolong the use of ICI, and neutrophilia and LDH should be considered during patient selection of this combined RT/ICI approach.

Stereotactic Pelvic Reirradiation for Locoregional Cancer Relapse.

AIMS: Up to 40% of patients who have received radiation for a pelvic malignancy will develop locoregional recurrence in the previously irradiated volume. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has been used in the oligometastatic setting, and provides an ablative approach ideal for reirradiation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes after SBRT reirradiation of extraosseous recurrences in the pelvis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single institution retrospective study evaluated patients treated with SBRT reirradiation in the pelvis from January 2011 to February 2018. Patients with more than five oligometastatic lesions, >7 cm in size, and recurrence within the prostate were excluded. RESULTS: In total, 30 patients were treated with SBRT with a median follow-up of 29.4 months. The primary tumour sites were most commonly rectum (30.8%) and prostate (30.8%). The median time interval between irradiation for the primary and SBRT reirradiation was 48 months (3-245). The typical reirradiation treatment was 35 Gy in five fractions, the median gross tumour volume size was 10.2 (0.3-110.5) ml and the most common target was the iliac nodes (40%). There were three (10%) acute grade 3 toxicities and no late grade 3 or more toxicities. At 12/24 months, local relapse-free survival, metastasis-free survival, progression-free survival and overall survival were 67.7%/50.7%, 67%/41.7%, 34.8%/14.9% and 83.2%/62.5%, respectively. On univariate analysis, improved local control was associated with low gross tumour volume (<10 ml) (P = 0.003) and prostate primary (P = 0.02), but was no longer significant on multivariate analysis. The proximity of organ at risk to the target did not significantly correlate with worse toxicity (P = 0.14) or tumour coverage (gross tumour volume: P = 0.8, planning target volume: P = 0.4). CONCLUSION: SBRT pelvic reirradiation in oligometastatic patients is a safe and effective treatment modality. Careful consideration should be taken with larger tumour size, as it may be associated with worse oncological and toxicity outcome.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy at high-volume centers improves survival in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma receiving trimodality therapy.

The standard of care trimodality therapy for resectable locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is complex and necessitates multidisciplinary care and expertise. In this work, it is hypothesized that facility clinical volume and utilization of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) may influence outcomes. The National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients with cT1-4-N0-3 M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma undergoing trimodality therapy from 2004 to 2013 (n = 2445). All patients received chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy at a Commission on Cancer facility. The facility volume was categorized into tertiles: high-volume centers (HVCs) in the highest 25th percentile of cases per year, intermediate-volume centers (IVCs) with the next highest 25th percentile of cases, and low- and very low-volume centers (LVCs) in the lowest 50th percentile. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard regression. Propensity score matching to balance patient characteristics between volume centers was performed. Subgroup analysis was done comparing IMRT versus 3D conformal radiotherapy. The median follow-up was 26 months. Treatment at an HVC (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.81, P < 0.001) was found to be independently associated with improved overall survival in multivariable analysis. Three-year OS was 58.4%, 46.2%, and 47.5% for HVCs, IVCs, and LVCs, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients at HVCs were more likely to receive IMRT over 3D chemoradiation (CRT; OR 3.45, 95% CI 2.4-5.0, P < 0.001). Patients treated using IMRT at HVCs had improved OS compared to those treated at IVCs or LVCs (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.90, P < 0.01), while patients treated with 3D CRT at HVCs had no survival advantage over those at IVCs or LVCs (P = 0.28). Patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma treated with IMRT and at HVCs appear to have improved survival.

American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement for soft tissue sarcoma brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy represents an essential treatment option in the management of soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Brachytherapy represents an important subset of radiation therapy techniques used for STS, with evolving indications and applications. Therefore, the purpose of this guideline was to update clinicians regarding the data surrounding brachytherapy (BT) and provide recommendations for the utilization of BT in patients with STS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Members of the American Brachytherapy Society with expertise in STS, and STS BT in particular, created an updated guideline for the use of BT in STS based on a literature review and clinical experience. RESULTS: Guidelines are presented with respect to dose and fractionation and technical features to improve outcomes and potentially reduce the risk of toxicity. Brachytherapy as monotherapy can be considered in low-risk cases or in situations where re-irradiation is being considered. Brachytherapy boost can be considered in cases at higher risk of recurrence or where BT alone cannot adequately cover the target volume. To limit wound complications, the start of BT delivery should be delayed until final wound closure, or if after immediate reconstruction, started after postoperative Day 5. CONCLUSIONS: The current guidelines have been created to provide clinicians with a review of the data supporting BT in the management of STS as well as providing indications and technique guidelines to ensure optimal patient selection and clinical outcomes.

Dose escalated neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with dose-painting intensity-modulated radiation therapy and improved pathologic complete response in locally advanced esophageal cancer.

We compared pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, toxicity, and postoperative complications between patients treated preoperatively with 50.4 Gy versus dose escalation with dose-painting intensity-modulated radiation therapy (dp-IMRT) to 56 Gy in locally advanced esophageal cancer. We evaluated esophageal cancer patients treated between 2006 and 2014 with preoperative IMRT chemoradiation to a dose of 50.4 Gy versus 56 Gy. The endpoints were pCR and toxicity. We identified 113 patients (50.4 Gy: n = 40; 56 Gy: n = 73). There were no significant differences in tumor or patient characteristics. Patients treated with 56 Gy demonstrated a higher pCR rate (56.2% vs. 30.0%) and lower pathologic nonresponse rate (4.1% vs. 20.0%) compared to patients treated to 50.4 Gy (P = 0.008). This remained significant on multivariate analysis (OR 3.375 95%CI 1.3-8.8, P = 0.013). Patients treated to 56 Gy also had an improved 3-year locoregional control rate compared to those treated to 50.4 Gy (93.8% vs. 78.5%; P = 0.022). The estimated 3-year freedom from failure was also superior in the 56 Gy arm (73.7% vs. 52.2%; P = 0.051), approaching significance. There were no differences in treatment related grade ≥3 toxicities, hospital admissions, feeding tube, esophageal stent placement, or dilation. There was, however, a statistically significant increase in postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients treated with 56 Gy (30.1% vs. 12.5%; P = 0.036). There was no difference in postoperative 30 or 60 day mortality. Dose escalation to 56 Gy with dp-IMRT is safe and results in significantly higher complete pathologic response rates in esophageal cancer without an increase in treatment-related toxicity. Prospective trials using dp-IMRT are needed to address the role of dose escalation on pCR rate and survival in esophageal cancer.

Clinical outcomes of melanoma brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery and anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK inhibitors, BRAF inhibitor, or conventional chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The effect of immunologic and targeted agents on intracranial response rates in patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) is not yet clearly understood. This report analyzes outcomes of intact MBMs treated with single-session stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK inhibitors(i), BRAFi, or conventional chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were included if MBMs were treated with single-session SRS within 3 months of receiving systemic therapy. The primary end point of this study was distant MBM control. Secondary end points were local MBM control defined as a >20% volume increase on follow-up MRI, systemic progression-free survival, overall survival (OS) from both SRS and cranial metastases diagnosis, and neurotoxicity. Images were reviewed alongside two neuro-radiologists at our institution. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were treated to 314 MBMs over 119 SRS treatment sessions between January 2007 and August 2015. No significant differences were noted in age (P = 0.27), gender (P = 0.85), treated gross tumor volume (P = 0.26), or the diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment (P = 0.51) between the treatment cohorts. Twelve-month Kaplan-Meier (KM) distant MBM control rates were 38%, 21%, 20%, 8%, and 5% (P = 0.008) for SRS with anti-PD-1 therapies, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEKi, BRAFi, and conventional chemotherapy, respectively. No significant differences were noted in the KM local MBM control rates among treatment groups (P = 0.25). Treatment with anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, or BRAF/MEKi significantly improved OS on both univariate and multivariate analyses when compared with conventional chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: In our institutional analysis of patients treated with SRS and various systemic immunologic and targeted melanoma agents, significant differences in distant MBM control and OS are noted. Prospective evaluation of the potential synergistic effect between these agents and SRS is warranted.