Palliation or Prolongation? The Impact of a Peer-Review Intervention on Shortening Radiotherapy Schedules for Bone Metastases.

PURPOSE: Shorter fractionation radiation regimens for palliation of bone metastases result in lower financial and social costs for patients and their caregivers and have similar efficacy as longer fractionation schedules, although practice patterns in the United States show poor adoption. We investigated whether prospective peer review can increase use of shorter fractionation schedules. METHODS: In June 2016, our practice mandated peer review of total dose and fractionation for all patients receiving palliative treatment during our weekly chart rounds. We used descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test to compare lengths of treatment of uncomplicated bone metastases before and after implementation of the peer review process. RESULTS: Between July 2015 and December 2016, a total of 242 palliative treatment courses were delivered, including 105 courses before the peer review intervention and 137 after the intervention. We observed greater adoption of shorter fractionation regimens after the intervention. The use of 8 Gy in one fraction increased from 2.8% to 13.9% of cases postadoption. Likewise, the use of 20 Gy in five fractions increased from 25.7% to 32.8%. The use of 30 Gy in 10 fractions decreased from 55.2% to 47.4% ( P = .002), and the use of ≥ 11 fractions decreased from 16.2% before the intervention to 5.8% after ( P = .006). CONCLUSION: Prospective peer review of palliative regimens for bone metastases can lead to greater adoption of shorter palliative fractionation schedules in daily practice, in accordance with national guidelines. This simple intervention may therefore benefit patients and their caregivers as well as provide value to the health care system.

Reduced acute bowel toxicity in patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: We have previously shown that intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce dose to small bowel, bladder, and bone marrow compared with three-field conventional radiotherapy (CRT) technique in the treatment of rectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to review our experience using IMRT to treat rectal cancer and report patient clinical outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients with rectal cancer who were treated at Mayo Clinic Arizona with pelvic radiotherapy (RT). Data regarding patient and tumor characteristics, treatment, acute toxicity according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v 3.0, tumor response, and perioperative morbidity were collected. RESULTS: From 2004 to August 2009, 92 consecutive patients were treated. Sixty-one (66%) patients were treated with CRT, and 31 (34%) patients were treated with IMRT. All but 2 patients received concurrent chemotherapy. There was no significant difference in median dose (50.4 Gy, CRT; 50 Gy, IMRT), preoperative vs. postoperative treatment, type of concurrent chemotherapy, or history of previous pelvic RT between the CRT and IMRT patient groups. Patients who received IMRT had significantly less gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Sixty-two percent of patients undergoing CRT experienced ≥Grade 2 acute GI side effects, compared with 32% among IMRT patients (p = 0.006). The reduction in overall GI toxicity was attributable to fewer symptoms from the lower GI tract. Among CRT patients, ≥Grade 2 diarrhea and enteritis was experienced among 48% and 30% of patients, respectively, compared with 23% (p = 0.02) and 10% (p = 0.015) among IMRT patients. There was no significant difference in hematologic or genitourinary acute toxicity between groups. In addition, pathologic complete response rates and postoperative morbidity between treatment groups did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of rectal cancer, IMRT is associated with a clinically significant reduction in lower GI toxicity compared with CRT. Further study is needed to evaluate differences in late toxicity and long-term efficacy.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation compared to neoadjuvant radiation alone and surgery alone for Stage II and III soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCR) prior to resection of extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS) has been studied, but data are limited. We present outcomes with NCR using a variety of chemotherapy regimens compared to neoadjuvant radiation without chemotherapy (NR) and surgery alone (SA). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 112 cases. RESULTS: Treatments included SA (36 patients), NCR (39 patients), and NR (37 patients). NCR did not improve the rate of margin-negative resections over SA or NR. Loco-regional relapse-free survival, distant metastases-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were not different among the treatment groups. Patients with relapsed disease (OR 11.6; p = 0.01), and tumor size greater than 5 cm (OR 9.4; p = 0.01) were more likely to have a loco-regional recurrence on logistic regression analysis. Significantly increased OS was found among NCR-treated patients with tumors greater than 5 cm compared to SA (3 year OS 69 vs. 40%; p = 0.03). Wound complication rates were higher after NCR compared to SA (50 vs. 11%; p = 0.003) but not compared to NR (p = 0.36). Wet desquamation was the most common adverse event of NCR. CONCLUSIONS: NCR and NR are acceptable strategies for patients with STS. NCR is well-tolerated, but not clearly superior to NR.

Phase II study of preoperative pemetrexed, carboplatin, and radiation followed by surgery for locally advanced esophageal cancer and gastroesophageal junction tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Based on favorable preliminary clinical data and the need to identify effective, well-tolerated neoadjuvant regimens for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, this clinical trial was undertaken. METHODS: This phase II study tested 500 mg/m neoadjuvant pemetrexed intravenously and carboplatin with an area under the curve of 6 intravenously on days 1 and 22 in conjunction with concomitant radiation of 5040 centigray, which was given in 28 daily fractions of 180 centigray. The primary endpoint was the rate of pathologic complete response. RESULTS: This trial closed early because, during an interim analysis, the primary endpoint fell short. However, 26 eligible patients were accrued. Twenty (74%) were men. Performance scores of 0, 1, and 2 were seen in 16 (59%), 9 (33%), and 2 (7%), respectively. Among eligible patients, 6 of 26 (23%; 95% confidence interval 9-44%) demonstrated a pathologic complete response. Twenty-two underwent a complete cancer resection. The median survival was 17.8 months (95% confidence interval: 12.2-30.7 months). In the neoadjuvant setting, 22 patients had at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event, and 8 patients had at least one grade 4 event. Postoperatively (within 30 days of surgery), there were three deaths, one grade 4 event (thrombosis), and three grade 3 events. CONCLUSIONS: The neoadjuvant regimen tested within this phase II trial demonstrated antineoplastic activity but fell short of yielding a complete pathologic response rate that merits further testing.

Advancements in radiation techniques for gastric cancer.

All but the earliest cases of nonmetastatic gastric cancer represent a therapeutic challenge given the high propensity of these patients to develop locoregional and distant relapse. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant strategies that include chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy have been associated with significant toxicity, but also improvement in patient survival. Technologic advances in the planning and delivery of radiotherapy (RT) have enabled significant progress in the accuracy and conformality of radiation treatment. Four-dimensional CT and image-guided RT improve the accuracy of radiation treatment. Three-dimensional RT and intensity-modulated RT allow increased conformality of radiation dose distribution, sparing of normal organs, and providing opportunity for dose escalation. Initial clinical experience with these technologies shows favorable tolerance and outcomes.

Adjuvant chemoradiation for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: the Johns Hopkins Hospital-Mayo Clinic collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: Survival for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is low, the role of adjuvant therapy remains controversial, and recent data suggest adjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) may decrease survival compared with surgery alone. Our goal was to examine efficacy of adjuvant CRT in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma compared with surgery alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma at Johns Hopkins Hospital (n = 794, 1993-2005) and Mayo Clinic (n = 478, 1985-2005) following resection who were observed (n = 509) or received adjuvant 5-FU based CRT (median dose 50.4 Gy; n = 583) were included. Cox survival and propensity score analyses assessed associations with overall survival. Matched-pair analysis by treatment group (1:1) based on institution, age, sex, tumor size/stage, differentiation, margin, and node positivity with N = 496 (n = 248 per treatment arm) was performed. RESULTS: Median survival was 18.8 months. Overall survival (OS) was longer among recipients of CRT versus surgery alone (median survival 21.1 vs. 15.5 months, P < .001; 2- and 5-year OS 44.7 vs. 34.6%; 22.3 vs. 16.1%, P < .001). Compared with surgery alone, adjuvant CRT improved survival in propensity score analysis for all patients by 33% (P < .001), with improved survival when stratified by age, margin, node, and T-stage (RR = 0.57-0.75, P < .05). Matched-pair analysis demonstrated OS was longer with CRT (21.9 vs. 14.3 months median survival; 2- and 5-year OS 45.5 vs. 31.4%; 25.4 vs. 12.2%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant CRT is associated with improved survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Adjuvant CRT was not associated with decreased survival in any risk group, even in propensity score and matched-pair analyses. Further studies evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy compared with adjuvant chemoradiation are needed to determine the most effective combination of systemic and local-regional therapy to achieve optimal survival results.

Localized gastric or gastroesophageal cancer - chemoradiation is a pertinent component of adjuvant treatment for patients at high risk of relapse.

The standard of care for resectable gastric or gastroesophageal (GE) junction cancer for patients who can tolerate a surgical procedure is surgical resection, but surgery alone is not optimal treatment for patients at high risk for relapse. For patients with lower-risk lesions (confined to gastric wall, nodes negative; T1-2N0M0), local-regional relapse risks are low, and adjuvant radiotherapy is usually not recommended, except in select instances. Since both local-regional and systemic relapses are common after resection of high-risk gastric or GE junction cancers (beyond wall, nodes positive, or both; T3-4N0, TanyN+), adjuvant treatment is indicated for these patients. The results of phase III trials that demonstrate a survival benefit for adjuvant preoperative radiotherapy, postoperative chemoradiation, or preoperative chemoradiation vs. surgery alone will be presented and compared with the results of adjuvant perioperative chemotherapy. Results of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) analyses and meta-analyses that support the role of adjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiation will be summarized.