Early-Stage Primary Lung Neuroendocrine Tumors Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: A Multi-Institution Experience.

PURPOSE: Current guidelines recommend surgery as standard of care for primary lung neuroendocrine tumor (LNET). Given that LNET is a rare clinical entity, there is a lack of literature regarding treatment of LNET with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We hypothesized that SBRT could lead to effective locoregional tumor control and long-term outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively reviewed 48 tumors in 46 patients from 11 institutions with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of LNET, treated with primary radiation therapy. Data were collected for patients treated nonoperatively with primary radiation therapy between 2006 and 2020. Patient records were reviewed for lesion characteristics and clinical risk factors. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank tests, and Cox multivariate models were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: Median age at treatment was 71 years and mean tumor size was 2 cm. Thirty-two lesions were typical carcinoid histology, 7 were atypical, and 9 were indeterminate. The most common SBRT fractionation schedule was 50 to 60 Gy in 5 daily fractions. Overall survival at 3, 6, and 9 years was 64%, 43%, and 26%, respectively. Progression-free survival at 3, 6, and 9 years was 88%, 78%, and 78%, respectively. Local control at 3, 6, and 9 years was 97%, 91%, and 91%, respectively. There was 1 regional recurrence in a paraesophageal lymph node. No grade 3 or higher toxicity was identified. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series evaluating outcomes in patients with LNET treated with SBRT. This treatment is well tolerated, provides excellent locoregional control, and should be offered as an alternative to surgical resection for patients with early-stage LNET, particularly those who may not be ideal surgical candidates.

Evaluation of Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing for the Management of Patients Diagnosed with a Cancer of Unknown Primary.

BACKGROUND: Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) comprises a heterogeneous collection of malignancies that are typically associated with a poor prognosis and a lack of effective treatment options. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical utility of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) among CUP patients to assist with diagnosis and identify opportunities for molecularly guided therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a CUP at Moffitt Cancer Center who underwent NGS between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2019, were eligible for study inclusion. Next-generation sequencing results were assessed to determine the frequency of clinically actionable molecular alterations, and chart reviews were performed to ascertain the number of patients receiving molecularly guided therapy. RESULTS: Ninety-five CUP patients were identified for analysis. Next-generation sequencing testing identified options for molecularly guided therapy for 55% (n = 52) of patients. Among patients with molecularly guided therapy options, 33% (n = 17) were prescribed a molecularly guided therapy. The median overall survival for those receiving molecularly guided therapy was 23.6 months. Among the evaluable patients, the median duration of treatment for CUP patients (n = 7) receiving molecular-guided therapy as a first-line therapy was 39 weeks. The median duration of treatment for CUP patients (n = 8) treated with molecularly guided therapy in the second- or later-line setting was 13 weeks. Next-generation sequencing results were found to be suggestive of a likely primary tumor type for 15% (n = 14) of patients. CONCLUSION: Next-generation sequencing results enabled the identification of treatment options in a majority of patients and assisted with the identification of a likely primary tumor type in a clinically meaningful subset of patients.

Preoperative immunonutrition and carbohydrate loading associated with improved bowel function after radical cystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative malnourishment has been consistently associated with poor outcomes after radical cystectomy and other major abdominal surgeries. Most enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) studies have examined preoperative nutrition and its relationship to outcomes after gastrointestinal surgery. Although numerous studies have demonstrated the benefits of using an ERAS protocol, this study in unique in comparing 2 ERAS protocols, with and without a nutrition component. METHODS: A formalized preoperative nutrition protocol (PNP) recommending use of preoperative immunonutrition and carbohydrate drink was introduced in June 2018. A total of 78 consecutive patients who drank both beverages were compared with 92 historical controls. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were sequentially performed to determine if preoperative nutrition was associated with binary outcome variables (30-day complication, infectious complication, and readmission within 30 days). RESULTS: The preoperative nutrition group and control group were statistically similar in distribution of age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, clinical stage, and body mass index. Return of bowel function was found to occur earlier in the preoperative nutrition group than in the control group (3.12 vs 3.74 days; relative risk, 0.82; CI, 0.73-0.93; P = .0029). Complications within 30 days were similar in both groups (63.6% vs 55.4%; P = 0.36). Infectious complications (42.9% vs 37%; P = .53) and readmission within 30 days (22.1% vs 15.2%; P = .34) were also similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a PNP including immunonutrition and carbohydrate drink may be associated with earlier return of bowel function after radical cystectomy.

A Retrospective Analysis of Patients Undergoing Telemedicine Evaluation in the PreAnesthesia Testing Clinic at H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine for preanesthesia evaluation can decrease access disparities by minimizing commuting, time off work, and lifestyle disruptions from frequent medical visits. We report our experience with the first 120 patients undergoing telemedicine preanesthesia evaluation at Moffitt Cancer Center. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 120 patients seen via telemedicine for preanesthesia evaluation compared with an in-person cohort meeting telemedicine criteria had it been available. Telemedicine was conducted from our clinic to a patient's remote location using video conferencing. Clinic criteria were revised to create a tier of eligible patients based on published guidelines and anesthesiologist consensus. RESULTS: Day-of-surgery cancellation rate was 1.67% in the telemedicine versus 0% in the in-person cohort. The two telemedicine group cancellations were unrelated to medical workup, and cancellation rate between the groups was not statistically significant (P = .49). Median round trip distance and time saved by the telemedicine group was 80 miles [range 4; 1180] and 121 minutes [range 16; 1034]. Using the federal mileage rate, the median cost savings was $46 [range $2.30; 678.50] per patient. Patients were similar in gender and race in both groups (P = .23 and .75, respectively), but the in-person cohort was older and had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (P = .0003). CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine preanesthesia evaluation results in time, distance, and financial savings without increased day-of-surgery cancellations. This is useful in cancer patients who travel significant distances to specialty centers and have a high frequency of health care visits. American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status classification and age differences between cohorts indicate possible patient or provider selection bias. Randomized controlled trials will aid in further exploring this technology.