Radiation Therapy in Conjunction With Surgical Stabilization of Impending or Pathologic Fractures Secondary to Metastasis: Is There a Difference Between Single and Multifraction Regimens?

PURPOSE: Patients who undergo surgical stabilization for impending or pathologic fractures secondary to metastasis are often treated with radiation therapy to the involved site. We sought to retrospectively analyze outcomes from single versus multifraction regimens of radiation therapy in this setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From our institutional radiation database, we identified 87 patients between 2004 and 2016 who had an impending or pathologic fracture from metastatic disease and who underwent surgical fixation in conjunction with either neoadjuvant (within 5 weeks before surgery) or adjuvant (within 10 weeks after surgery) radiation therapy, representing 99 total treatment sites. Patients were included on the basis of intention to treat with bimodality therapy. Baseline patient characteristics were compared using 2-sided t tests and Fisher's exact tests. Cumulative incidence of local failure, reirradiation, and reoperation were calculated using the Fine-Gray method for competing risks. Freedom from complication was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics between the single (n = 52) and multifraction (n = 47) cohorts were similar with the exception of higher rates of synchronous bony metastasis (83% vs 60%, P = .01) and female patients (71% vs 43%, P = .004) in the single fraction cohort. There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups. After a median follow-up of 13 months, there was no significant difference in the single and multifraction cohorts, respectively, in the 1-year cumulative incidence rates of local failure (4% vs 7%, P = .58), reirradiation (5% vs 4%, P = .95), reoperation (4% vs 0%, P = .30), or 1-year freedom from complication (90% vs 95%, P = .40). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study comparing outcomes between single and multifraction radiation therapy in conjunction with surgical stabilization of an impending or pathologic fracture. We found no difference in outcomes between single and multifraction regimens in this setting. Given these findings, single fraction perioperative radiation therapy may be a viable treatment option in appropriately selected patients pending prospective validation of these findings.

Analysis of Nonsurgical Treatment Options for Metastatic Rectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Using a large national registry, we investigated patterns of care and overall survival (OS) for metastatic rectal cancer patients treated with chemotherapy or radiotherapy (RT), or with a multimodal approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with metastatic rectal cancer who did not undergo resection diagnosed from 2004 to 2014 were included. Kaplan-Meier, log-rank, and Cox regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: We identified 2385 patients. Of these, 1020 patients (43%) received chemotherapy alone, 228 (10%) received RT alone, 850 (36%) received chemotherapy and RT, and 287 (12%) received no treatment. Receipt of chemotherapy alone increased over the study period, and receipt of chemoradiotherapy decreased (P < .01). The only factor predictive of receiving any RT on multivariate analysis was clinical stage T3 disease. Factors predictive of OS on multivariate analysis included receipt of chemotherapy, Hispanic race, income greater than $46,000, and presence of lung metastasis. The OS for patients treated with chemotherapy and RT was not significantly different than chemotherapy alone. Five-year OS with chemotherapy alone, RT alone, chemoradiotherapy, and no treatment were, respectively, 84%, 56%, 79%, and 46%. CONCLUSION: Metastatic rectal cancer patients with T3 tumors were more likely to receive RT. Local RT does not improve survival for patients with metastatic rectal cancer who do not also undergo surgery. The use of chemotherapy alone for metastatic rectal cancer is increasing, and chemotherapy is associated with higher OS compared to no treatment and RT alone. This remained true even in patients older than 80 years.

The radiation dose-response of non-retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma with positive margins: An NCDB analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Positive margins can increase the risk of local recurrence of soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Utilizing a national registry, we investigated patterns of care and overall survival (OS) of patients with margin-positive non-retroperitoneal STS who received preoperative radiation therapy, adjuvant radiation therapy, or both. METHODS: Adult patients with non-retroperitoneal STS who underwent resection and RT from 2004 to 2015 were included. Kaplan-Meier, log-rank analysis, and Cox regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: We identified 5726 patients. Most had a tumor size >5 cm (60%), grade 3 disease (67%), and microscopically positive margins (57%). Compared to ≤50.4 Gy, a dose of 66 to 69.99 Gy was associated with decreased risk of death on multivariate analysis (HR 0.69, 95%; CI, 0.50-0.94). Receipt of a boost was associated with decreased risk of death on univariate analysis (HR 0.54, 95%; CI, 0.29-0.99). In patients with grade 2 to 3 tumors without the gross disease, there was an OS benefit associated with a boost on multivariate analysis (HR 0.39, 95%; CI, 0.16-0.97). CONCLUSION: This analysis appears to show an OS benefit of dose escalation to 66 to 69 Gy for margin-positive non-retroperitoneal STS. A Postoperative boost is associated with higher OS in grade 2 to 3 STS without the gross disease.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus percutaneous local tumor ablation for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To compare patterns of care and overall survival (OS) between stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and percutaneous local tumor ablation (LTA) for non-surgically managed early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried from 2004 to 2014 for adults with non-metastatic, node-negative invasive adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the lung with primary tumor size ≤5.0 cm who did not undergo surgery or chemotherapy and received SBRT or LTA. Patterns of care were assessed with multivariate logistic regression. After propensity-score weighting with generalized boosted regression, OS was assessed with univariate and doubly-robust multivariate Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 15,792 patients, 14,651 (93%) received SBRT and 1141 (7%) received LTA. Increasing age (OR 1.01, p = .035), treatment at an academic institution (OR 2.94, p < .001), increasing tumor size (OR 1.05, p < .001), and more recent year of diagnosis (OR 1.43, p < .001) were predictive of treatment with SBRT, whereas comorbidities (OR 0.74, p = .003) and treatment at a high-volume facility (OR 0.05, p < .001) were predictive for LTA. At a median follow-up of 26.2 months, SBRT was associated with improved OS relative to LTA within a propensity-score weighted doubly-robust multivariate analysis (HR 0.71, p < .001). On weighted subgroup analyses, improved OS was observed with SBRT for tumor sizes >2.0 cm (HR 0.72, p < .001) and for those treated at high-volume facilities (HR 0.71, p < .001). No OS difference was found with SBRT or LTA in tumor sizes ≤2.0 cm (HR 0.90, p = .227). CONCLUSION: Within the NCDB, SBRT was more commonly utilized and was associated with improved OS when compared to percutaneous LTA for patients with non-surgically managed early-stage NSCLC. Patients with small tumor volumes likely represent an appropriate population for future prospective randomized comparisons between SBRT and LTA.