ABSTRACT
Purpose/Objective: Oligometastatic disease (OMD) and oligoprogressive disease (OPD) describe tumor states with a limited metastasization. In contrast to other disease states, treatment of OMD or OPD has not yet become common for breast cancer. We sought to understand the outcomes and toxicities of this treatment paradigm. Material/Methods: We retrospectively analyzed female breast cancer patients with OMD (≤3 metastases) or OPD (1 progressive lesion) who received stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for their respective extracranial metastatic lesions between 01/2002 and 07/2019. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test being used for evaluation of significance. Cox regression was used to detect prognostic outcome factors. Toxicity was evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v. 5.0). Results: Forty-six patients (70% OMD; 30% OPD) with 58 lesions met criteria for inclusion. The majority of treatments (34 out of 58; 58.6%) were delivered from 2017 to 2018. Treatment sites were bone, liver, lung [n = 19 (33%) for each site], and adrenal gland [n = 1 (1%)]. Median biologically effective dose (BED at α/ß = 10) was 81.6 Gy (range: 45-112.5 Gy) and median planning target volume was 36.60 mL (range: 3.76-311.00 mL). At 2 years, local control (LC) was 89%, distant control (DC) was 44%, progression free survival (PFS) was 17% and overall survival (OS) was 62%. Multivariate analysis identified the diagnosis of a solitary metastasis as an independent prognostic factor for superior DC (HR = 0.186, CI [0.055; 0.626], p = 0.007) and PFS (HR = 0.363, CI [0.152; 0.863], p = 0.022). OS was independently inferior for patients treated at a higher age (HR = 5.788, CI [1.077; 31.119] p = 0.041). Nine (15.5%) grade I° and one (1.7%) grade II° toxicities were recorded, with no grade III° or higher toxicities. Conclusion: Extracranial SBRT in breast cancer patients with OMD or OPD was well-tolerated with excellent LC. SBRT should especially be offered to younger OMD and OPD breast cancer patients with only one metastasis. The increase in utilization since 2017 points toward a growing acceptance of SBRT for OMD and OPD in breast cancer.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The primary aim of our study was to evaluate percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement depending on body weight and body mass index in patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC). A secondary aim was to evaluate the course of weight change following PEG placement. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 186 patients with HNC undergoing radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) at our institution between January 2010 and August 2017. Initial weight and nutritional intake were analyzed prior to RT initiation and then followed throughout treatment until completion. Based on these data, the indication of PEG placement was determined. Medical records were also reviewed to analyze PEG-related acute toxicities. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients were most commonly male (n=123, 66.1%) with squamous cell carcinoma (n=164, 88.2%). Patients who had dysphagia prior to treatment initiation as well as patients with a BMI <18.5 kg/m2 needed PEG placement earlier during the treatment course. Low-grade toxicities related to PEG insertion were observed in 10.7% patients, with peristomal pain and redness adjacent to the PEG tube insertion site being most common. High-grade toxicities, such as peritonitis and organ injury, were found in 4.9% of patients. CONCLUSION: Underweight patients and those with preexisting dysphagia should be closely screened during RT for weight loss and decreased oral intake. For weight loss greater than 4.5% during the treatment of HNC, early PEG-tube placement should be considered. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings, and delineate a scoring system for timing of PEG use (prophylactic vs reactive) as well as assess the quality of life in patients with HNC who receive PEG placement.
ABSTRACT
Background: Ionizing radiation was shown to be able to influence the function of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED's) leading to malfunctions with potentially severe consequences. Those effects presumably correlate with beam energy and neutron production. Thus, particle facilities are commonly cautious to treat patients with CIED's with particles, but substantial evidence is lacking. Methods and Materials: In total 31 patients were investigated, who have been treated at the Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT) from September 2012 to February 2019 with protons and carbon ions in active-scanning technique. All CIED's were checked after every single irradiation by the department of cardiology. The minimum distance between the CIED and the planning target volume (PTV), the 10% isodose and the single beam in Beam's Eye View (BEV) was analyzed for 12 patients. Results: In total, 31 patients received 32 courses of radiotherapy (RT). Twenty-two received treatment with carbon ion beam and ten with proton beam. The cumulative number of fractions was 582, the cumulative number of documented controls after RT was 504 (87%). Three patients had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and 28 patients had a pacemaker at the time of treatment. Seven patients had a heart rate of ≤30/min. The majority of patients (69%) were treated for tumors of the head and neck. The median minimum distance between CIED and PTV, 10% isodose and the single beam on BEV was 13.4, 11.6, and 8.3 cm, respectively. There were no registered events associated with the treatment in this evaluation. Conclusion: Treatment of CIED-patients with protons and carbon ions applied with active raster scanning technique was safe without any incidents in our single center experience. Monitoring after almost every fraction provided systematic and extensive data. Further investigations are necessary in order to form reliable guidelines, which should consider different modes of beam application, as active scanning supposedly provides a greater level of safety from malfunctions for patients with CIED undergoing particle irradiation.
