Long-term cancer survivors treated with multiple courses of repeat radiation therapy.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: Through recent advances in cancer care, the number of long-term survivors has continuously increased. As a result, repetitive use of local radiotherapy for curative or palliative indications might have increased as well. This analysis aims to describe patterns of care and outcome of patients treated with multiple courses of repeat radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients treated with radiotherapy between 2011 and 2019 at our department of Radiation Oncology were included into this analysis. A course of radiotherapy was defined as all treatment sessions to one anatomical site under one medical indication. Demographics, cancer and treatment characteristics and overall survival of patients having undergone multiple radiotherapy courses (minimum n = 5) were evaluated. RESULTS: The proportion of cancer patients treated with a minimum five courses of radiotherapy increased continuously from 0.9% in 2011 to 6.5% in 2019. In the 112 patients treated with a minimum of five radiotherapy courses, the primary tumor was lung in 41.9% (n = 47), malignant melanoma in 8.9% (n = 10) and breast in 8.0% (n = 9) of cases. A median interval of 3 years (maximum 8 years) elapsed between the first and the last radiotherapy course. The maximum number of courses in a single patient were n = 10. Treatment intent was curative or palliative in 46.4% and 53.6% for the first radiotherapy, respectively. The proportion of curative intent decreased to 11.6% at the 5th, and the last radiotherapy course was following a palliative intent in all patients. Five-year overall survival measured from the 1st radiotherapy course was 32.7%. Median overall survival was 3.3, 2.4, 1.3, and 0.6 years when measured from the 1st, the 1st palliative, the 5th and last course of radiotherapy, respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: A continuously increasing number of patients is treated with multiple courses of radiotherapy throughout their long-term cancer survivorship.

Pattern of care in radiotherapy at a University Hospital in Spain: the RENORT project.

PURPOSE: RENORT is a novel data mining application developed to extract relevant clinical data from oncology information systems (OIS; ARIA and Mosaiq) used in radiation oncology (RO). METHODS/PATIENTS: We used RENORT to extract demographic and clinical data from the OIS of all patients treated at the RO Department at the General Hospital of Valencia during the year 2019. RESULTS: A total of 1158 treatments were performed. The female/male ratio was 39.3%/60.7%, with a mean age of 66 years. The mean waiting time between the treatment decision/proposal to the first visit was 10.1 days. Mean duration of the treatment preparation process was 21 days. Most patients (90.4%) completed treatment within the prescribed time ± 7 days. The most common sites/treatment types were: metastatic/palliative treatments (n = 300; 25.9%), breast (209; 18.0%), genitourinary (195; 16.8%), digestive (116; 10.0%), thoracic (104; 9.0%), head and neck (62; 5.4%), and skin cancer (51; 4.4%). The distribution according to treatment intent was as follows: palliative (n = 266; 23.0%), adjuvant curative (335; 28.9%), radical without adjuvant treatment (229; 19.8%), radical with concomitant treatment (188; 16.2%), curative neoadjuvant (70; 6.0%), salvage radiotherapy (61; 5.3%); and reirradiation (9; 0.8%). The most common treatment techniques were IMRT/VMAT with IGRT (n = 468; 40.4%), 3D-CRT with IGRT (421; 36.4%), SBRT (127; 11.0%), 2DRT (57; 4.9%), and SFRT (56; 4.8%). A mean of 15.9 fractions were administered per treatment. Hypofractionated schemes were used in 100% of radical intent breast and prostate cancer treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The RENORT application facilitates data retrieval from oncology information systems to allow for a comprehensive determination of the real role of radiotherapy in the treatment of cancer patients. This application is valuable to identify patterns of care and to assess treatment efficacy.

[Repeated irradiation of brain metastases under stereotactic conditions: A review of the literature]. / Irradiations répétées de métastases cérébrales en conditions stéréotaxiques : revue de la littérature.

Stereotactic radiotherapy has become a standard in the management of patients with brain metastases; its main interest is to differ whole brain radiotherapy, provider of neurocognitive toxicity and to increase the rate of local control. The repetition of radiotherapy sessions under stereotactic conditions is not codified, neither on the number of technically and clinically possible sessions, nor on the maximum total number or volume of metastases to be treated. The purpose of this review is to analyse the data in the literature concerning repeated irradiations under stereotactic conditions. The second reirradiation in stereotactic condition shows satisfactory results in terms of overall survival, local control, and toxicity. However, we lack data for patients receiving more than two sessions of SRS as well as to define dose constraints to reirradiated healthy tissues. Prospective trials are still needed to validate the management of recurrent brain metastases after initial SRS.

De-intensifying Radiation Therapy in HER-2 Positive Breast Cancer: To Boost or Not to Boost?

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy is fundamental in the management of breast cancer. After whole breast irradiation, an additional boost dose is often applied to the primary tumor bed. Here, we analyze the effect of radiation therapy boost on local control in patients with HER-2 positive breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We studied 1082 patients with HER-2 positive breast cancer who were originally enrolled in the Herceptin Adjuvant Trial and treated with breast-conserving surgery, radiation therapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab. The primary endpoint of the study was to determine the effect of a radiation boost on local recurrence. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated, and hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression. RESULTS: Our analysis included 441 patients (40.8%) who received radiation therapy boost and 641 patients (59.2%) who did not, after completion of whole breast radiation. Patients from both groups had similar baseline characteristics in terms of age, nodal involvement, and grade. At a median follow-up of 11 years, local control was 93% (confidence interval, 90%-95%) in the radiation boost group compared with 91% (confidence interval, 89%-93%) in the no-boost group (P = .33). When analyzing patients by age, patients <40 years of age had a higher risk for local recurrence; however, this was not significantly lowered by the addition of boost. Furthermore, no local control benefit for boost was noted in both hormone receptor (HR) subtypes (HR+: P = .11; HR-: P = .98). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HER-2 positive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery, whole breast radiation, and trastuzumab have excellent local control. Delivery of an additional radiation boost in this patient population was not shown to improve local control. Future studies are needed to identify subgroups of HER-2 positive patients who derive a clinically relevant benefit from radiation boost.

Hemostatic radiotherapy for inoperable gastric cancer: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Standard treatment for progressive gastric cancer with bleeding includes hemostatic radiotherapy (RT); however, the only prospective study using a fixed dose with fractions during hemostatic RT did not introduce re-irradiation. Therefore, we determined the utility of RT including re-irradiation for gastric cancer. METHODS: In this study, 31 patients with gastric cancer and bleeding were treated with an initial dose of 20 Gy/5 fractions for the whole stomach and a salvage dose of 15 Gy/5 fractions for the partial stomach. Patients achieving hemostasis, defined as a stable hemoglobin level within 30 days following irradiation, were considered responders, whereas those with no cessation of bleeding and those with re-bleeding within 30 days of irradiation were considered non-responders. We evaluated response rate, disease-free survival, overall survival (OS), re-irradiation, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The response rate of initial RT was 80% (25/31). 6 of the 25 patients underwent re-irradiation, and all 6 were responders (100%). The median OS was significantly different among the entire cohort and one-time irradiation and re-irradiation groups (91, 76, and 112 days, respectively). No AEs of grade ≥3 were observed. Initial low-dose RT followed by reirradiation was effective in reducing AEs and did not cause any further AEs. CONCLUSION: Hemostatic RT was an effective approach with low toxicity, and re-irradiation was effective and tolerable, with no patients developing severe AEs. Further, randomized controlled studies are warranted to determine the ideal dose and number of fractions for initial RT in patients with gastric cancer and bleeding. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: In this prospective study on hemostatic radiotherapy for gastric cancer, the response rate was 80% using a fixed dose of 20 Gy/5 fractions and the salvage dose of 15 Gy for re-bleeding was effective. Future comparative studies should include other doses with 20 Gy as a control.

Re-irradiation for recurrent rectal cancer - a single-center experience.

Background: There is no clear consensus on the use of re-irradiation (reRT) in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). The aim of the present study was to investigate all reRT administered for rectal cancer at a large referral institution and to evaluate patient outcomes and toxicity.Material and methods: All patients with rectal cancer were identified who had received previous pelvic radiotherapy (RT) and underwent reRT during 2006-2016. Medical records and RT details of the primary tumor treatments and rectal cancer recurrence treatments were registered, including details on reRT, chemotherapy, surgery, adverse events, and long-term outcomes.Results: Of 77 patients who received ReRT, 67 had previously received pelvic RT for rectal cancer and were administered reRT for LRRC. Re-irradiation doses were 30.0-45.0 Gy, most often given as hyperfractionated RT in 1.2-1.5 Gy fractions twice daily with concomitant capecitabine. The median time since initial RT was 29 months (range, 13-174 months). Of 36 patients considered as potentially resectable, 20 underwent surgery for LRRC within 3 months after reRT. Operated patients had better 3-year overall survival (OS) (62%) compared to those who were not operated (16%; HR 0.32, p = .001). The median gross tumor volume (GTV) was 107 cm3, and 3-year OS was significantly better in patients with GTV <107 cm3 (44%) compared to patients with GTV ≥107 cm3 (21%; HR 0.52, p = .03).Conclusion: Three-year survival was significantly better for patients who underwent surgery after reRT or who had small tumor volume. Prospective clinical trials are recommended for further improvements in patient selection, outcomes, and toxicity assessment.

Salvage reirradiation for local prostate cancer recurrence after radiation therapy. For who? When? How?

PURPOSE: Literature review reporting results of salvage brachytherapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate recurrence only after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 38 studies (including at least 15 patients per study) were analysed: 19 using low-dose-rate brachytherapy, nine high-dose-rate brachytherapy and ten stereotactic body radiotherapy. Only five studies were prospective. The median numbers of patients were 30 for low-dose-rate brachytherapy, 34 for high-dose-rate brachytherapy, and 30 for stereotactic body radiotherapy. The median follow-up were 47months for low-dose-rate brachytherapy, 36months for high-dose-rate brachytherapy and 21months for stereotactic body radiotherapy. RESULTS: Late genitourinary toxicity rates ranged, for grade 2: from 4 to 42% for low-dose-rate brachytherapy, from 7 to 54% for high-dose-rate brachytherapy and from 3 to 20% for stereotactic body radiotherapy, and for grade 3 or above: from 0 to 24% for low-dose-rate brachytherapy, from 0 to 13% for high-dose-rate brachytherapy and from 0 to 3% for grade 3 or above (except 12% in one study) for stereotactic body radiotherapy. Late gastrointestinal toxicity rates ranged, for grade 2: from 0 to 6% for low-dose-rate brachytherapy, from 0 to 14% for high-dose-rate brachytherapy and from 0 to 11% for stereotactic body radiotherapy, and for grade 3 or above: from 0 to 6% for low-dose-rate brachytherapy, and from 0 to 1% for high-dose-rate brachytherapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy. The 5-year biochemical disease-free survival rates ranged from 20 to 77% for low-dose-rate brachytherapy and from 51 to 68% for high-dose-rate brachytherapy. The 2- and 3-year disease-free survival rates ranged from 40 to 82% for stereotactic body radiotherapy. Prognostic factors of biochemical recurrence have been identified. CONCLUSION: Despite a lack of prospective data, salvage reirradiation for prostate cancer recurrence can be proposed to highly selected patients and tumours. Prospective comparative studies are needed.

Re-irradiation as salvage treatment in recurrent glioblastoma: A comprehensive literature review to provide practical answers to frequently asked questions.

The primary aim of this review is to provide practical recommendations in terms of fractionation, dose, constraints and selection criteria to be used in the daily clinical routine. Based on the analysis of the literature reviewed, in order to keep the risk of severe side effects ≤3,5%, patients should be stratified according to the target volume. Thus, patients should be treated with different fractionation and total EQD2 (<12.5 ml: EQD2 < 65 Gy with radiosurgery; >12.5 ml and <35 ml: EQD2 < 50 Gy with hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy; >35 ml and <50 ml: EQD2 < 36 Gy with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy). Concurrent approaches with temozolomide or bevacizumab do not seem to improve the outcomes of reirradiation and may lead to a higher risk of toxicity but these findings need to be confirmed in prospective series.

Policies for reirradiation of recurrent high-grade gliomas: a survey among Italian radiation oncologists.

PURPOSE: To assess the contribution of Italian radiation oncologists in the current management of recurrent high-grade gliomas (HGG), focusing on a reirradiation (reRT) approach. METHODS: In 2015, the Reirradiation and the Central Nervous System Study Groups on behalf of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology (AIRO) proposed a survey. All Italian radiation oncologists were individually invited to complete an online questionnaire regarding their clinical management of recurrent HGG, focusing on a reRT approach. RESULTS: A total of 37 of 210 questionnaires were returned (18% of all centers): 16 (43%) from nonacademic hospitals, 14 (38%) from academic hospitals, 5 (13%) from private institutions, and 2 (6%) from hadron therapy centers. The majority of responding centers (59%) treated ≤5 cases per year. Performance status at the time of recurrence, along with a target diameter <5 cm and an interval from primary radiation ≥6 months, were the prevalent predictive factors considered for reRT. Sixty percent of reirradiated patients had already received a salvage therapy, either chemotherapy (40%) or reoperation (20%). The most common approach for reRT was fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy to a mean (photon) dose of 41.6 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were wide variations in the clinical practice of reRT across the 37 centers, the core activities were reasonably consistent. These findings provide a basis for encouraging a national collaborative study to develop, implement, and monitor the use of reRT in this challenging clinical setting.

Re-irradiation with curative intent in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a national survey of usual practice on behalf of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology (AIRO).

OBJECTIVE: To report the results of a national survey investigating the pattern of practice of curative re-irradiation (ReRT) for recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: In March 2016, a 22-item, 4-section questionnaire was sent to all Italian Radiation Oncology centers. Sections were focused on assessing the expertise level of each center and collecting specific information on reRT prescription modalities in the adjuvant and definitive settings. RESULTS: Overall, 77 centers completed the survey. The majority (50/77, 64.9%) of participating radiation oncologists were senior consultants (> 10 years of experience). Of the responding centers, 63 (81.8%) performed curative ReRT, while 14 (18.1%) did not, mainly (5/14, 35.7%) due to the avoidance of severe toxicity. The use of adjuvant ReRT was reported by less than half of the interviewed radiation oncologists (36/77, 46.7%). In case of unresectable local recurrence, definitive ReRT was claimed to be adopted in 55/77 (71.4%) for non-nasopharyngeal and 47/77 (61%) for nasopharyngeal cancer. The preferred treatment technique was Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) followed by Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). When IMRT was applied, the most common (19/55 responders, 34.5%) selection of treatment volume consisted of the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) + 0.5 cm margin to account for microscopic disease. CONCLUSION: Despite the absence of definitive evidence-based recommendations, a possible consideration for ReRT in case of unresectable recurrent head and neck cancer was reported by over 80% of radiation oncologists taking part in the national survey.

Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy (the ASCENDE-RT Trial): An Analysis of Survival Endpoints for a Randomized Trial Comparing a Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost to a Dose-Escalated External Beam Boost for High- and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the primary endpoint of biochemical progression-free survival (b-PFS) and secondary survival endpoints from ASCENDE-RT, a randomized trial comparing 2 methods of dose escalation for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ASCENDE-RT enrolled 398 men, with a median age of 68 years; 69% (n=276) had high-risk disease. After stratification by risk group, the subjects were randomized to a standard arm with 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy, pelvic irradiation to 46 Gy, followed by a dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (DE-EBRT) boost to 78 Gy, or an experimental arm that substituted a low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) boost. Of the 398 trial subjects, 200 were assigned to DE-EBRT boost and 198 to LDR-PB boost. The median follow-up was 6.5 years. RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat analysis, men randomized to DE-EBRT were twice as likely to experience biochemical failure (multivariable analysis [MVA] hazard ratio [HR] 2.04; P=.004). The 5-, 7-, and 9-year Kaplan-Meier b-PFS estimates were 89%, 86%, and 83% for the LDR-PB boost versus 84%, 75%, and 62% for the DE-EBRT boost (log-rank P<.001). The LDR-PB boost benefited both intermediate- and high-risk patients. Because the b-PFS curves for the treatment arms diverge sharply after 4 years, the relative advantage of the LDR-PB should increase with longer follow-up. On MVA, the only variables correlated with reduced overall survival were age (MVA HR 1.06/y; P=.004) and biochemical failure (MVA HR 6.30; P<.001). Although biochemical failure was associated with increased mortality and randomization to DE-EBRT doubled the rate of biochemical failure, no significant overall survival difference was observed between the treatment arms (MVA HR 1.13; P=.62). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 78 Gy EBRT, men randomized to the LDR-PB boost were twice as likely to be free of biochemical failure at a median follow-up of 6.5 years.

Re-Irradiation of Locoregional NSCLC Recurrence Using Robotic Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the efficacy, toxicity, and dose responses of re-irradiation with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with recurrent non- small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after previous irradiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 28 patients were included. Previous median radiation doses were 54 and 66 Gy. The median interval time between previous radiotherapy and SBRT was 14 months. The median follow-up time after SBRT was 9 months (range 3-93 months). To evaluate the effectiveness of SBRT, local control, overall survival, and treatment-related toxicity were reported. RESULTS: SBRT doses and fractionation ranged from 60 to 30 Gy and from 3 to 8, respectively, according to previous doses, location of the recurrence, and interval time. 65% of tumor recurrences overlapped with previous treatment, while 35% of tumors recurred outside of the previous treatment. 4 patients had local progression after SBRT at their first follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of the 1- and 2-year actuarial overall survival were 71 and 42%, respectively. The mean survival following SBRT was 32.8 months, and the median survival was 21 months. No grade 3 or higher toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION: Robotic SBRT is a tolerable treatment option with manageable toxicity which can be used with radical or palliative intent in carefully selected patients with locally recurrent tumors after previous irradiation.

Survival benefit for patients with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) undergoing re-irradiation at first progression: A matched-cohort analysis on behalf of the SIOP-E-HGG/DIPG working group.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival (OS) of patients with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) is poor. The purpose of this study is to analyse benefit and toxicity of re-irradiation at first progression. METHODS: At first progression, 31 children with DIPG, aged 2-16 years, underwent re-irradiation (dose 19.8-30.0 Gy) alone (n = 16) or combined with systemic therapy (n = 15). At initial presentation, all patients had typical symptoms and characteristic MRI features of DIPG, or biopsy-proven high-grade glioma. An interval of ≥3 months after upfront radiotherapy was required before re-irradiation. Thirty-nine patients fulfilling the same criteria receiving radiotherapy at diagnosis, followed by best supportive care (n = 20) or systemic therapy (n = 19) at progression but no re-irradiation, were eligible for a matched-cohort analysis. RESULTS: Median OS for patients undergoing re-irradiation was 13.7 months. For a similar median progression-free survival after upfront radiotherapy (8.2 versus 7.7 months; P = .58), a significant benefit in median OS (13.7 versus 10.3 months; P = .04) was observed in favour of patients undergoing re-irradiation. Survival benefit of re-irradiation increased with a longer interval between end-of-radiotherapy and first progression (3-6 months: 4.0 versus 2.7; P < .01; 6-12 months: 6.4 versus 3.3; P = .04). Clinical improvement with re-irradiation was observed in 24/31 (77%) patients. No grade 4-5 toxicity was recorded. On multivariable analysis, interval to progression (corrected hazard ratio = .27-.54; P < .01) and re-irradiation (corrected hazard ratio = .18-.22; P < .01) remained prognostic for survival. A risk score (RS), comprising 5 categories, was developed to predict survival from first progression (ROC: .79). Median survival ranges from 1.0 month (RS-1) to 6.7 months (RS-5). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with DIPG, responding to upfront radiotherapy, do benefit of re-irradiation with acceptable tolerability.

A surveillance study of the current status of reirradiation and patterns of practice.

The aim of this study was to survey the current status of reirradiation (Re-RT) and patterns of practice in Japan. An email questionnaire was sent to Kansai Cancer Therapist Group partner institutions, using questions similar to those in the Canadian radiation oncologist (RO) survey (2008). A total of 34 ROs from 28 institutions returned the survey. All 28 institutions experienced Re-RT cases in 2014. However, 26 of the 28 institutions (93%) reported difficulty in obtaining Re-RT case information from their respective databases. Responses from 19 institutions included the number of Re-RT cases; this rose from 183 in the period 2005-2009 (institution median = 4; 2-12.9) to 562 in the period 2010-2014 (institution median = 26; 2-225). Important considerations for indication of Re-RT were age (65%), performance status (83%), life expectancy (70%), absence of distant metastases (67%), and interval since previous treatment (73%). Previous total radiation dose (48%), volume of tissue irradiated (72%), and the biologically equivalent dose (BED; 68.5%) were taken into account during Re-RT planning. These factors were similar to those considered in the Canadian survey; however, the present study did not consider age. In eight site-specific scenarios, barring central nervous system recurrence, more than 90% of ROs agreed to perform Re-RT, which was higher than the percentage observed in the Canadian survey. Re-RT cases have increased in number and aroused interest among ROs in this decade of advanced technology. However, consensus building to establish guidelines for the practice and prospective evaluation of Re-RT is required.

Prospective randomized clinical studies involving reirradiation : Lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: Reirradiation is a potentially useful option for many patients with recurrent cancer. The purpose of this study was to review all recently published randomized trials in order to identify methodological strengths and weaknesses, comment on the results, clinical implications and open questions, and give advice for the planning of future trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic review of trials published between 2000 and 2015 (databases searched were PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science). RESULTS: We reviewed 9 trials, most of which addressed reirradiation of head and neck tumours. The median number of patients was 69. Trial design, primary endpoint and statistical hypotheses varied widely. The results contribute mainly to decision making for reirradiation of nasopharynx cancer and bone metastases. The trials with relatively long median follow-up confirm that serious toxicity remains a concern after high cumulative total doses. CONCLUSION: Multi-institutional collaboration is encouraged to complete sufficiently large trials. Despite a paucity of large randomized studies, reirradiation has been adopted in different clinical scenarios by many institutions. Typically, the patients have been assessed by multidisciplinary tumour boards and advanced technologies are used to create highly conformal dose distributions.

Reirradiation of Head and Neck Cancers With Proton Therapy: Outcomes and Analyses.

PURPOSE: Reirradiation of head and neck (H&N) cancer is a clinical challenge. Proton radiation therapy (PRT) offers dosimetric advantages for normal tissue sparing and may benefit previously irradiated patients. Here, we report our initial experience with the use of PRT for H&N reirradiation, with focus on clinical outcomes and toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who received H&N reirradiation with PRT from April 2011 through June 2015. Patients reirradiated with palliative intent or without prior documentation of H&N radiation therapy were excluded. Radiation-related toxicities were recorded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0. RESULTS: The conditions of 60 patients were evaluated, with a median follow-up time of 13.6 months. Fifteen patients (25%) received passive scatter proton therapy (PSPT), and 45 (75%) received intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Thirty-five patients (58%) received upfront surgery, and 44 (73%) received concurrent chemotherapy. The 1-year rates of locoregional failure-free survival, overall survival, progression-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival were 68.4%, 83.8%, 60.1%, and 74.9%, respectively. Eighteen patients (30%) experienced acute grade 3 (G3) toxicity, and 13 (22%) required a feeding tube at the end of PRT. The 1-year rates of late G3 toxicity and feeding tube independence were 16.7% and 2.0%, respectively. Three patients may have died of reirradiation-related effects (1 acute and 2 late). CONCLUSIONS: Proton beam therapy can be a safe and effective curative reirradiation strategy, with acceptable rates of toxicity and durable disease control.

Initial Report of Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy for Posthysterectomy Patients With Gynecologic Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the acute toxicities associated with pencil beam scanning proton beam radiation therapy (PBS) for whole pelvis radiation therapy in women with gynecologic cancers and the results of a dosimetric comparison of PBS versus intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eleven patients with posthysterectomy gynecologic cancer received PBS to the whole pelvis. The patients received a dose of 45 to 50.4 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in 1.8 Gy (RBE) daily fractions. Acute toxicity was scored according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4. A dosimetric comparison between a 2-field posterior oblique beam PBS and an IMRT plan was conducted. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess the potential dosimetric differences between the 2 plans and PBS target coverage robustness relative to setup uncertainties. RESULTS: The median patient age was 55 years (range 23-76). The primary site was cervical in 7, vaginal in 1, and endometrial in 3. Of the 11 patients, 7 received concurrent cisplatin, 1 each received sandwich carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy, both sandwich and concurrent chemotherapy, and concurrent and adjuvant chemotherapy, and 1 received no chemotherapy. All patients completed treatment. Of the 9 patients who received concurrent chemotherapy, the rate of grade 2 and 3 hematologic toxicities was 33% and 11%, respectively. One patient (9%) developed grade 3 acute gastrointestinal toxicity; no patient developed grade ≥3 genitourinary toxicity. The volume of pelvic bone marrow, bladder, and small bowel receiving 10 to 30 Gy was significantly lower with PBS than with intensity modulated radiation therapy (P<.001). The target coverage for all PBS plans was robust relative to the setup uncertainties (P>.05) with the clinical target volume mean dose percentage received by 95% and 98% of the target volume coverage changes within 2% for the individual plans. CONCLUSIONS: Our results have demonstrated the clinical feasibility of PBS and the dosimetric advantages, especially for the low-dose sparing of normal tissues in the pelvis with the target robustness maintained relative to the setup uncertainties. Future studies with larger patient numbers are planned to further validate our preliminary findings.

Debate: single-fraction treatment should be standard in the retreatment of uncomplicated bone metastases.

There is controversy surrounding the optimal radiotherapy dose-fractionation for retreatment of painful bone metastases. Two commonly used regimens are 8 Gy in a single-fraction or 20 Gy in five or eight fractions. Randomized evidence, including the NCIC SC.20 randomized clinical trial, has failed to standardize clinical practice. Practitioners who use single-fraction regimens cite patient convenience, fewer acute adverse effects, and better cost-effectiveness. Practitioners who prefer multiple fractions raise questions about the interpretation of data that justifies single-fraction treatment, and the possibility that single-fraction treatment may provide inferior pain relief. Given this clinical controversy, should single-fraction irradiation be standard in retreatment of uncomplicated bone metastases? In this article, two teams debate both sides of the argument with commentary to summarize the relevant issues. The conclusion from the debate is that the "standard" treatment should be individualized to the patient with shared-decision making between the oncologist, patient and family members. In a cancer patient with poor performance status and short life expectancy, single-fraction repeat radiotherapy may be preferred; in a patient with a prolonged disease course, perhaps multiple fraction retreatments would be preferred. The choice between different fractionation schemes depends on an assessment of individual patient factors, tumour factors and unique patient circumstances.