Disease-Related Outcomes and Toxicities of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy After Lung-Sparing Pleurectomy for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: This review explores the use of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) after lung-sparing surgery in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Because severe toxicities have been documented after radiation therapy for MPM, its use remains controversial, especially as modern surgical management has shifted toward lung-sparing pleurectomy/decortication. IMRT is an advanced technique that may allow for safer radiation therapy delivery, but there remains limited data (including no summative data) to support this notion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a systematic review evaluating the safety and efficacy of post-pleurectomy IMRT (P-IMRT). A systematic review of PubMed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted for publications of all dates that specifically reported clinical outcomes and/or toxicities of P-IMRT in patients with MPM. Ten original studies were included in this review. RESULTS: The incidence of grade 3 pneumonitis ranged from 0% to 16%, with all but 2 studies reporting rates below 9%. Grade 4 and 5 pneumonitis were observed in less than 1.5% of cases, except in one publication that used hypofractionated radiation therapy to doses >60 Gy. Crude local failure rates ranged from 19% to 60%, median progression free survival ranged from 12 to 16 months, and median overall survival ranged from 19 to 28 months. CONCLUSIONS: P-IMRT produces relatively few higher-grade toxicities and has reasonable disease-related outcomes, especially when delivered using conventionally fractionated regimens to doses of 45 to 54 Gy and exercising careful attention to dose constraints during treatment planning. IMRT can thus be considered in well-selected patients in whom adequate survival after pleurectomy is expected. These data also support the initiation of the phase III NRG-LU006 trial of extended pleurectomy/decortication and chemotherapy with or without IMRT.

Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy for pulmonary metastases: Improving overall survival and identifying subgroups at high risk of local failure.

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE: Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) is an emerging treatment option for patients with pulmonary metastases; identifying patients who would benefit from SABR can improve outcomes. MATERIALS & METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed local failure (LF), distant failure (DF), overall survival (OS), and toxicity in 317 patients with 406 pulmonary metastases treated with SABR in January 2006-September 2017 at a tertiary cancer center. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 23 months. Primary adrenal, colorectal, sarcoma, or pancreatic ("less responsive") tumors led to high rates of LF. LF rates for patients with less responsive vs. responsive tumors were 4.6% vs. 1.6% at 12 months and 12.8% vs. 3.9% at 24 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11-0.73; Log-Rank P = 0.0087). A nomogram for 24-month local control was created using Cox multivariate factors (surgical history, planning target volume, primary disease site, lung lobe location). Treating patients with ≤3 pulmonary metastases vs. >3 pulmonary metastases was associated with improved 24-month (74.2% vs. 59.3%) and 48-month (47.7% vs. 35.1%) OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.95; Log-Rank P = 0.043), and reduced 12-month (22.5% vs. 50.8%) and 24-month (31.8% vs. 61.4%) intrathoracic DF (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.74; Log-Rank P < 0.0001). The most common toxicity was asymptomatic pneumonitis (14.8%). Six patients had grade 3 events (5 pneumonitis, 1 brachial plexus). CONCLUSIONS: SABR for pulmonary metastases was effective and well tolerated. Irradiating limited intrathoracic sites of disease led to improved OS and intrathoracic DM. Higher SABR doses or surgery could be considered for less radio-responsive primary tumors.

Commercial Insurance Coverage of Advanced Radiation Therapy Techniques Compared With American Society for Radiation Oncology Model Policies.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare and contrast the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) model policies (MPs) for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR), and proton beam therapy (PBT) with the coverage policies constructed by 5 of the largest publicly available commercial insurers throughout the United States (ie, Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana, and United Healthcare). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Appropriate indications for IMRT, SRS, SABR, and PBT by disease site (and particular clinical setting thereof) were extracted from the most recently published ASTRO MPs and published coverage policies (2019 editions) of the 5 carriers. After tabulation, concordance between ASTRO MPs and insurance policies were calculated for each modality. RESULTS: All 5 insurer policies supported IMRT for neoplasms of the central nervous system, head/neck, hepatopancreaticobiliary, anal, and prostate cancers. The least covered diseases were retroperitoneal tumors (n = 0 carriers) and bladder cancer (n = 1). For SRS, all carriers covered benign brain tumors, brain metastases, arteriovenous malformations, and trigeminal neuralgia. None of the insurance carriers covered SRS for medically refractory epilepsy. For SABR, primary liver, lung, and low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were covered by all insurers, and none allowed SABR for primary biliary neoplasms. Only one insurance carrier each covered SABR for primary/metastatic adrenal disease and primary renal cancer. All carriers approved PBT for ocular melanoma, skull base tumors, and pediatric malignancies. The ASTRO MPs listed 4 PBT scenarios (ie, spinal disease, retroperitoneal sarcoma, head/neck neoplasms, and patients with genetic radiosensitivity syndromes) not covered by any insurer. Concordance between insurance carriers and ASTRO MPs was 67.8% for IMRT, 72.0% for SRS, 58.4% for SABR, and 41.8% for PBT (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Coverage guidelines for IMRT, SRS, SABR, and PBT vary across 5 major insurance providers and may be substantially discordant compared with ASTRO coverage guidelines. There remain several specific areas where ongoing and future dialogues between ASTRO members, payers, and policymakers remain essential.

Quantifying institutional resource utilization of adjuvant brachytherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for endometrial cancer via time-driven activity-based costing.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the cost of resources required to deliver adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) for high- to intermediate-risk endometrial cancer using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Comparisons were made for three and five fractions of vaginal cuff brachytherapy (VCB), 28 fractions of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and combined modality RT (25-fraction IMRT followed by 2-fraction VCB). Process maps were developed representing each phase of care. Salary and equipment costs were obtained to derive capacity cost rates, which were multiplied by process times and summed to calculate total costs. Costs were compared with 2018 Medicare physician fee schedule reimbursement. RESULTS: Full cycle costs for 5-fraction VCB, IMRT, and combined modality RT were 42%, 61%, and 93% higher, respectively, than for 3-fraction VCB. Differences were attributable to course duration and number of fractions/visits. Accumulation of cost throughout the cycle was steeper for VCB, rising rapidly within a shorter time frame. Personnel cost was the greatest driver for all modalities, constituting 76% and 71% of costs for IMRT and VCB, respectively, with VCB requiring 74% more physicist time. Total reimbursement for 5-fraction VCB was 40% higher than for 3-fractions. Professional reimbursement for IMRT was 31% higher than for 5-fraction VCB, vs. IMRT requiring 43% more physician TDABC than 5-fraction VCB. CONCLUSIONS: TDABC is a feasible methodology to quantify the cost of resources required for delivery of adjuvant IMRT and brachytherapy and produces directionally accurate costing data as compared with reimbursement calculations. Such data can inform institution-specific financial analyses, resource allocation, and operational workflows.

Dose Escalation for Prostate Adenocarcinoma: A Long-Term Update on the Outcomes of a Phase 3, Single Institution Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine the long-term outcomes for prostate adenocarcinoma when escalating radiation dose from 70 Gy to 78 Gy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1993 and 1998, 301 patients with biopsy-proven clinical stage T1b-T3 prostate adenocarcinoma, any prostate-specific antigen level, and any Gleason score were randomized to 70 Gy in 35 fractions versus 78 Gy in 39 fractions of photon radiation therapy using a 4-field box technique without hormone deprivation therapy. The primary outcome was powered to detect a 15% difference in biochemical or clinical failure. Secondary outcomes included survival, prostate cancer mortality, biochemical failure, local failure, nodal failure, distant failure, and secondary malignancy rates. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 14.3 years, the cumulative incidence of 15-year biochemical or clinical failure was 18.9% versus 12.0% in the 70 Gy versus 78 Gy arms, respectively (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.98; Fine-Gray P = .042). The 15-year cumulative incidence of distant metastasis was 3.4% versus 1.1%, respectively (sHR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.82; Fine-Gray P = .018). The 15-year cumulative incidence of prostate cancer-specific mortality was 6.2% versus 3.2%, respectively, (sHR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98; Fine-Gray P = .045). There were no differences in overall survival (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.84-1.45; log rank P = .469) or other-cause survival (sHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.99-1.79; Fine-Gray P = .061). Salvage therapy was more common in the 70 Gy arm, at 38.7% versus 21.9% in the 78 Gy arm (P = .002). There was a 2.3% secondary solid malignancy rate (1 bladder, 6 rectal) within the radiation treatment field, which was not significantly different between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation by 8 Gy (78 Gy vs 70 Gy) provided a sustained improvement in biochemical and clinical failure, which translated into lower salvage rates and improved prostate cancer-specific mortality, but not overall survival. Long-term follow-up demonstrated a low incidence of potential solid tumor secondary malignancies.

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma presenting as an inconspicuous primary lesion with extensive cavernous sinus involvement and temporal lobe extension: a case report and review of literature.

Detection of nodal metastasis in the neck or adjacent structures is common in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) when there is frank primary disease. Intracranial extension without obvious nasopharyngeal disease is not common. Here, we discuss a patient with NPC that presented with extensive intracranial disease with subtle findings in the nasopharynx.