ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and safety of laser interstitial thermal therapy followed by consolidation radiosurgery (LITT-cSRS) was previously studied in brain metastasis that recurs locally after initial radiosurgery (BMRS). Here, we characterize the clinical outcome of LITT-cSRS in patients with newly diagnosed brain metastasis. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2023, ten consecutive cancer patients with newly diagnosed brain mass of unclear etiology who underwent stereotactic needle biopsy (SNB) and LITT in the same setting followed by consolidation SRS (cSRS) with > 6 months follow-up were identified retrospectively. Clinical and imaging outcomes were collected. RESULTS: The histology of the BM were: breast cancer (n = 3), melanoma (n = 3), non-cell cell lung cancer (n = 3), colon (n = 1). There were no wound or procedural complications. All patients were discharged home, with a median one-day hospital stay (range: 1-2 days). All patients were off corticosteroid therapy by the one-month follow-up. cSRS were carried out 12-27 days (median of 19 days) after SNB + LITT. There were no subsequent emergency room presentation, 30-day or 90-day re-admission. The Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) remains stable or improved at the 3 months-follow-up. With a median follow-up of 416 days (13.8 mo; range: 199-1,096 days), there was one local recurrence at 384 days (12.8 mo) post-LITT-cSRS. With exception of this patient with local recurrence, all patients showed decreased FLAIR volume surrounding the LITT-cSRS treated BMRS by the six-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: To our awareness, this case series represent the first to describe LITT-cSRS in the setting of newly diagnosed BM. The results presented here provide pilot data to support the safety and efficacy of LITT-cSRS and lay the foundation for future studies.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Capecitabine is an oral prodrug of fluorouracil, which is a common agent used in the management of many solid tumor malignancies. Dermatologic reaction is common with various chemotherapy agents but is not commonly reported in the use of capecitabine. When adverse reactions of rashes occur, the offending agent is typically removed. We report here an unusual case of photosensitive lichenoid rash due to capecitabine which is managed conservatively without major alteration in treatment. CASE PRESENTATION: Seventy-three year old female with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer undergoing management with capecitabine presents with a rash during the summer months that is biopsy proven to be lichenoid photosensitive rash with likely offending agent being capecitabine. Her treatment was initially held despite having response to treatment, started on topical steroids after evaluation by dermatology. Given her response to treatment, drug was resumed with instructions to use sun precaution, sunscreen, and to complete course of topical steroids until rash resolution. CONCLUSION: Drug-related rashes tend to lead to disruptions or alterations in treatments of malignancies, despite responses. Given the wide use of capecitabine in many different solid tumors, it is important to recognize this photosensitive related skin rash and to initiate appropriate precautions of sun safety and topical steroids to allow minimal disruptions in therapy and continue use of capecitabine.
