Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for non-metastatic pancreatic cancer increases margin-negative and node-negative rates at resection.

OBJECTIVE: To compare neoadjuvant to adjuvant chemoradiation in non-metastatic pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS: Single-institution data were obtained for patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiation from 2011 to 2014. Univariate analyses were performed to evaluate clinical and pathological outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-two well-matched patients were enrolled (21 underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation, 11 with adjuvant chemoradiation and 20 in the definitive group). Median tumor size was 2.6 cm pretreatment and 2.5 cm after neoadjuvant chemoradiation but 3.2 cm on pathology, with a treatment effect in 95.2% of specimens. Clinical node positivity at diagnosis for neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemoradiation groups was similar (28.6% vs 27.3%, P = 0.12). Of the 36 neoadjuvant patients, 21 (58.3%) underwent complete resection. In the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemoradiation groups, positive margins were decreased (4.8% vs 63.6%, P < 0.001), as was pathological nodal positivity (23.8% vs 90.9%, P < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 13.3 months, locoregional control for neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemoradiation was 7.7 and 7.2 months, respectively (P = 0.12) and the definitive group was 1.2 months (P = 0.014 compared with the surgical cohort). One-year overall survival was better with neoadjuvant than with adjuvant chemoradiation but this was not significant (94% vs 82%, P = 0.20); 1-year survival for the definitive group was 59% (P = 0.03 compared with the surgical cohort). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation remains a promising approach for non-metastatic pancreatic cancer for improving resectability and pathological and clinical findings. Computed tomography may not fully demonstrate the effectiveness of neoadjuvant treatment.

The impact of decompression with instrumentation on local failure following spine stereotactic radiosurgery.

OBJECTIVE Spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a safe and effective treatment for spinal metastases. However, it is unknown whether this highly conformal radiation technique is suitable at instrumented sites given the potential for microscopic disease seeding. The authors hypothesized that spinal decompression with instrumentation is not associated with increased local failure (LF) following SRS. METHODS A 2:1 propensity-matched retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing SRS for spinal metastasis was conducted. Patients with less than 1 month of radiographic follow-up were excluded. Each SRS treatment with spinal decompression and instrumentation was propensity matched to 2 controls without decompression or instrumentation on the basis of demographic, disease-related, dosimetric, and treatment-site characteristics. Standardized differences were used to assess for balance between matched cohorts. The primary outcome was the 12-month cumulative incidence of LF, with death as a competing risk. Lesions demonstrating any in-field progression were considered LFs. Secondary outcomes of interest were post-SRS pain flare, vertebral compression fracture, instrumentation failure, and any Grade ≥ 3 toxicity. Cumulative incidences analysis was used to estimate LF in each cohort, which were compared via Gray's test. Multivariate competing-risks regression was then used to adjust for prespecified covariates. RESULTS Of 650 candidates for the control group, 166 were propensity matched to 83 patients with instrumentation. Baseline characteristics were well balanced. The median prescription dose was 16 Gy in each cohort. The 12-month cumulative incidence of LF was not statistically significantly different between cohorts (22.8% [instrumentation] vs 15.8% [control], p = 0.25). After adjusting for the prespecified covariates in a multivariate competing-risks model, decompression with instrumentation did not contribute to a greater risk of LF (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.74-1.98, p = 0.45). The incidences of post-SRS pain flare (11% vs 14%, p = 0.55), vertebral compression fracture (12% vs 22%, p = 0.04), and Grade ≥ 3 toxicity (1% vs 1%, p = 1.00) were not increased at instrumented sites. No instrumentation failures were observed. CONCLUSIONS In this propensity-matched analysis, LF and toxicity were similar among cohorts, suggesting that decompression with instrumentation does not significantly impact the efficacy or safety of spine SRS. Accordingly, spinal instrumentation may not be a contraindication to SRS. Future studies comparing SRS to conventional radiotherapy at instrumented sites in matched populations are warranted.

Predictive factors on outcomes in metaplastic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Metaplastic breast cancer (MBC) is a rare, aggressive variant of breast cancer, with limited data available regarding treatment and outcomes. This study aims to review patients with MBC treated at our tertiary care institution with an emphasis on the role of treatment modality and histologic classification. METHODS: With IRB-approval, we queried our pathology database for patients with MBC diagnosis. All cases were re-evaluated by dedicated breast pathologists and confirmed as MBC breast cancer. Patient demographics, clinical/pathologic histology, and treatment were analyzed with respect to outcomes including local-regional recurrence (LRR), distant metastasis (DM), and overall survival (OS). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were performed to evaluate the impact on outcomes. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated survival. RESULTS: We evaluated 113 patients with MBC diagnosed between 2002 and 2013. Median age was 61 years and median pathologic tumor size 2.5 cm; 76 (67%) were ER/PR/Her2 negative, 83 (74%) grade 3. Median follow-up was 38 months. 47 (42%) underwent breast conservation therapy (BCT), 66 (58%) had mastectomy, 61 (54%) underwent adjuvant radiation (RT), and 85 (75%) had chemotherapy. At 2 and 5 years, the LRR/DM/OS rates were 12%/15%/90% and 21%/35%/69%, respectively. On Cox regression analysis, only adjuvant RT correlated with reduced LRR [RR 3.1 (1.13-9.88), p = 0.027], while chemotherapy, type of surgery, and T-N stage did not. Only T-stage (p = 0.008) correlated with DM, however chemotherapy, RT, surgery type, and N-stage were not. Univariate analysis demonstrated histologic subtype did not significantly correlate with local (p = 0.54) or distant (p = 0.83) disease control. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents among the largest institutional experiences in the outcomes of MBC. At this time, there does not appear to be a clear histologic subset of MBC which has significantly different clinical outcomes from the other subtypes. Although limited in its sample size, this study shows RT remains important in local-regional control.

Report of whole-brain radiation therapy in a patient with an implanted deep brain stimulator: important neurosurgical considerations and radiotherapy practice principles.

Patients with implanted neuromodulation devices present potential challenges for radiation therapy treatment planning and delivery. Although guidelines exist regarding the irradiation of cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators, fewer data and less clinical experience exist regarding the effects of radiation therapy on less frequently used devices, such as deep brain stimulators. A 79-year-old woman with a history of coarse tremors effectively managed with deep brain stimulation presented with multiple intracranial metastases from a newly diagnosed lung cancer and was referred for whole-brain radiation therapy. She was treated with a German helmet technique to a total dose of 30 Gy in 10 fractions using 6 MV photons via opposed lateral fields with the neurostimulator turned off prior to delivery of each fraction. The patient tolerated the treatment well with no acute complications and no apparent change in the functionality of her neurostimulator device or effect on her underlying neuromuscular disorder. This represents the first reported case of the safe delivery of whole-brain radiation therapy in a patient with an implanted neurostimulator device. In cases such as this, neurosurgeons and radiation oncologists should have discussions with patients about the risks of brain injury, device malfunction or failure of the device, and plans for rigorous testing of the device before and after radiation therapy.