Exploring the impact of patient-specific clinical features on osimertinib effectiveness in a real-world cohort of patients with EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer.

Osimertinib is prescribed to patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a sensitizing EGFR mutation. Limited data exists on the impact of patient characteristics or osimertinib exposure on effectiveness outcomes. This was a Dutch, multicenter cohort study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, with metastatic EGFRm+ NSCLC, receiving osimertinib. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were performed. In total, 294 patients were included. Primary EGFR-mutations were mainly exon 19 deletions (54%) and p.L858R point mutations (30%). Osimertinib was given in first-line (40%), second-line (46%) or beyond (14%), with median PFS 14.4 (95% CI: 9.4-19.3), 13.9 (95% CI: 11.3-16.1) and 8.7 months (95% CI: 4.6-12.7), respectively. Patients with low BMI (<20.0 kg/m2 ) had significantly shorter PFS/OS compared to all other subgroups. Patients with a high plasma trough concentration in steady state (Cmin,SS ; >271 ng/mL) had shorter PFS compared to a low Cmin,SS (<163 ng/mL; aHR 2.29; 95% CI: 1.13-4.63). A significant longer PFS was seen in females (aHR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82) and patients with the exon 19 deletion (aHR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.92). A trend towards longer PFS was seen for TP53 wild-type patients, while age did not impact PFS. Patients with a primary EGFR exon 19 deletion had longer PFS, while a low BMI, male sex and a high Cmin,SS were indicative for shorter PFS and/or OS. Age was not associated with effectiveness outcomes of osimertinib.

A phase 2 trial combining afatinib with cetuximab in patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion (ex20ins) mutations are the third most common EGFR mutations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and are associated with primary resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). There is evidence of activity of combining EGFR TKIs with monoclonal antibodies. This study reports on the efficacy and safety of afatinib in combination with cetuximab. METHODS: In this single-arm phase 2 trial, patients with advanced NSCLC harboring an EGFR ex20ins mutation were treated with afatinib 40 mg once daily in combination with cetuximab 500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks. The primary end point was disease control rate (DCR) at 18 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients started treatment, with a median age of 65 years (range, 40-80 years), 78% female, and 95% White. The study achieved its primary end point with a DCR of 54% at 18 weeks, an overall response rate (ORR) of 43%, and a 32% confirmed ORR. Best responses were partial (n = 16), stable (n = 16), progressive disease (n = 2), or not evaluable (n = 3). Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.7-8.3 months) and median overall survival was 16.8 months (95% CI, 10.7-25.8 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were diarrhea (70%), rash (65%), dry skin (59%), paronychia (54%), and erythema (43%). Grade 3 TRAEs were reported in 54% of all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment with afatinib and cetuximab demonstrated antitumor activity with a DCR of 54% at 18 weeks and a 32% confirmed ORR. Toxicity was significant, although manageable, after dose reduction.

Proactive monitoring of drug-drug interactions between direct oral anticoagulants and small-molecule inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Small-molecule inhibitors (SMIs) have revolutionised the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, SMI-induced drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with frequently co-administered direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), increase thromboembolic and bleeding risks. This study investigated and proactively managed the consequences of DOAC-SMI DDIs. METHODS: This prospective, observational study enrolled patients with NSCLC concomitantly using a DOAC and SMI. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with DOAC plasma trough (Ctrough) and peak (Cpeak) concentrations outside expected ranges. Secondary outcomes included DOAC treatment modifications, incidence of bleeding and thromboembolic events and feasibility evaluation of pharmacokinetically guided DOAC dosing. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were analysed. Thirty-nine percent (13/33) had DOAC Ctrough and/or Cpeak were outside the expected ranges in 39% (13/33). In 71% (5/7) of patients with DOAC concentrations quantified before and during concurrent SMI use, DOAC Ctrough and/or Cpeak increased or decreased >50% upon SMI initiation. In all patients in whom treatment modifications were deemed necessary, DOAC concentrations were adjusted to within the expected ranges. CONCLUSION: Proactive monitoring showed that a substantial proportion of patients had DOAC concentrations outside the expected ranges. DOAC concentrations were successfully normalised after treatment modifications. These results highlight the importance of proactive monitoring of DOAC-SMI DDIs to improve treatment in patients with NSCLC.

Targeting serine/glycine metabolism improves radiotherapy response in non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the most lethal cancer, and 85% of cases are classified as non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Metabolic rewiring is a cancer hallmark that causes treatment resistance, and lacks insights into serine/glycine pathway adaptations upon radiotherapy. METHODS: We analyzed radiotherapy responses using mass-spectrometry-based metabolomics in NSCLC patient's plasma and cell lines. Efficacy of serine/glycine conversion inhibitor sertraline with radiotherapy was investigated by proliferation, clonogenic and spheroid assays, and in vivo using a serine/glycine dependent NSCLC mouse model by assessment of tumor growth, metabolite and cytokine levels, and immune signatures. RESULTS: Serine/glycine pathway metabolites were significantly consumed in response to radiotherapy in NSCLC patients and cell models. Combining sertraline with radiotherapy impaired NSCLC proliferation, clonogenicity and stem cell self-renewal capacity. In vivo, NSCLC tumor growth was reduced solely in the sertraline plus radiotherapy combination treatment group. Tumor weights linked to systemic serine/glycine pathway metabolite levels, and were inhibited in the combination therapy group. Interestingly, combination therapy reshaped the tumor microenvironment via cytokines associated with natural killer cells, supported by eradication of immune checkpoint galectin-1 and elevated granzyme B levels. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that targeting serine/glycine metabolism using sertraline restricts cancer cell recovery from radiotherapy and provides tumor control through immunomodulation in NSCLC.

Measured Steps: Navigating the Path of Oligoprogressive Lung Cancer with Targeted and Immunotherapies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review discusses the definitions, treatment modalities, management, future directions, and ongoing clinical trials of oligoprogressive disease in oncogene-driven and non-oncogene-driven NSCLC. RECENT FINDINGS: During the last decades, diagnostic and treatment modalities for oligometastatic NSCLC have advanced significantly, leading to improved survival. Additionally, our understanding of the tumor biology of oligoprogressive disease has expanded. However, despite the efforts of organizations, such as EORTC, ESTRO, and ASTRO proposing definitions for oligometastatic and oligoprogressive disease, heterogeneity in definitions persists in (ongoing) trials. Recognizing the significance of subclassification within oligoprogressive disease in NSCLC and the varying risks associated with subsequent metastatic spread, there is a call for tailored management strategies. A consensus on standardized criteria for the definition of oligoprogressive disease is urgently needed and will not only facilitate meaningful comparisons between studies but also pave the way for the development of personalized treatment plans that take into account the heterogeneous nature of oligoprogressive disease.

Prevalence and Predictors of Physician-Patient Discordance in Prognostic Perceptions in Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Discordance between physicians' and patients' prognostic perceptions in advanced cancer care threatens informed medical decision-making and end-of-life preparation, yet this phenomenon is poorly understood. We sought to: (1) describe the extent and direction of prognostic discordance, patients' prognostic information preferences in cases of prognostic discordance, and physicians' awareness of prognostic discordance; and (2) examine which patient, physician, and caregiver factors predict prognostic discordance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oncologists and advanced cancer patients (median survival ≤12 months; n = 515) from 7 Dutch hospitals completed structured surveys in a cross-sectional study. Prognostic discordance was operationalized by comparing physicians' and patients' perceptions of the likelihood of cure, 2-year mortality risk, and 1-year mortality risk. RESULTS: Prognostic discordance occurred in 20% (likelihood of cure), 24%, and 35% (2-year and 1-year mortality risk) of physician-patient dyads, most often involving patients with more optimistic perceptions than their physician. Among patients demonstrating prognostic discordance, the proportion who preferred not knowing prognosis varied from 7% (likelihood of cure) to 37% (1-year mortality risk), and 45% (2-year mortality risk). Agreement between physician-perceived and observed prognostic discordance or concordance was poor (kappa = 0.186). Prognostic discordance was associated with several patient factors (stronger fighting spirit, self-reported absence of prognostic discussions, an information source other than the healthcare provider), and greater physician-reported uncertainty about prognosis. CONCLUSION: Up to one-third of the patients perceive prognosis discordantly from their physician, among whom a substantial proportion prefers not knowing prognosis. Most physicians lack awareness of prognostic discordance, raising the need to explore patients' prognostic information preferences and perceptions, and to tailor prognostic communication.

Development and validation of an HPLC-MS/MS method to simultaneously quantify brigatinib, lorlatinib, pralsetinib and selpercatinib in human K2-EDTA plasma.

A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method was developed and validated to quantify the small-molecule inhibitors (SMIs) brigatinib, lorlatinib, pralsetinib and selpercatinib, which are used in patients with oncogenic-driven non-small cell lung cancer. Chromatographic separation was performed on a HyPURITY® C18 analytical column with a gradient elution using ammonium acetate in water and in methanol, both acidified with formic acid 0,1%. Detection and quantification were performed using a triple quad mass spectrometer with an electrospray ionization interface. The assay was validated over a linear range of 50-2,500 ng/ml for brigatinib, 25-1,000 ng/ml for lorlatinib, 100-10,000 ng/ml for pralsetinib and 50-5,000 ng/ml for selpercatinib. All four SMIs were stable for at least 7 days under cool conditions (2-8°C), and at least 24 h at room temperature (15-25°C) in K2-EDTA plasma. Under freezing conditions (-20°C), all SMIs were stable for at least 30 days, except for the lowest quality control (QCLOW ) of pralsetinib. The QCLOW of pralsetinib was stable for at least 7 days at -20°C. This method provides an efficient and simple way to quantify four SMIs with a single assay in clinical practice.

Management of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Updates from the European Lung Cancer Congress 2022.

The recently concluded European Lung Cancer Congress 2022 (ELCC22) showcased some very exciting data, with more than 200 abstracts presented during the meeting. Through this review, we focus on selected clinically relevant abstracts that in our opinion represent significant updates in the current management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we summarize the updates in surgical management, adjuvant therapy and therapy for advanced stage NSCLC and put these advances in the context of the current clinical standard of care.

Characteristics of patients with advanced cancer preferring not to know prognosis: a multicenter survey study.

BACKGROUND: For some patients with advanced cancer not knowing prognosis is essential. Yet, in an era of informed decision-making, the potential protective function of unawareness is easily overlooked. We aimed to investigate 1) the proportion of advanced cancer patients preferring not to know prognosis; 2) the reasons underlying patients' prognostic information preference; 3) the characteristics associated with patients' prognostic information preference; and 4) the concordance between physicians' perceived and patients' actual prognostic information preference. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study with structured surveys (PROSPECT). Medical and thoracic oncologists included patients (n = 524), from seven Dutch hospitals, with metastatic/inoperable cancer and an expected median overall survival of ≤ 12 months. For analysis, descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: Twenty-five to 31% of patients preferred not to know a general life expectancy estimate or the 5/2/1-year mortality risk. Compared to patients preferring to know prognosis, patients preferring unawareness more often reported optimism, avoidance and inability to comprehend information as reasons for wanting limited information; and less often reported expectations of others, anxiety, autonomy and a sense of control as reasons for wanting complete information. Females (p < .05), patients receiving a further line of systemic treatment (p < .01) and patients with strong fighting spirit (p < .001) were more likely to prefer not to know prognosis. Concordance between physicians' perceived and patients' actual prognostic information preference was poor (kappa = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: We encourage physicians to explore patients' prognostic information preferences and the underlying reasons explicitly, enabling individually tailored communication. Future studies may investigate changes in patients' prognostic information preferences over time and examine the impact of prognostic disclosure on patients who prefer unawareness.

Hyperhydration with cisplatin does not influence pemetrexed exposure.

Pemetrexed is a cytotoxic drug for first-line treatment of lung cancer. It is often combined with other anticancer drugs such as cisplatin or carboplatin. In clinical practice, hyperhydration regimens are applied to overcome cisplatin-related nephrotoxicity. As pemetrexed is almost completely eliminated from the body by the kidneys, hyperhydration can result in augmented clearance. Furthermore, administration of large quantities of fluid may increase the volume of distribution of pemetrexed. Pharmacokinetics and, thus, efficacy and toxicity may be influenced by hyperhydration. This has not yet been properly studied. We performed a population pharmacokinetic analysis to assess hyperhydration as a covariate for pemetrexed clearance and for volume of distribution A relevant change was defined as >25% increase in clearance or volume of distribution. In our extensive dataset of 133 individuals, we found that hyperhydration did not significantly or relevantly explain variability in pemetrexed clearance (unchanged, P = .196) or volume of distribution (+7% change, P = .002), despite a power of >99% to detect a relevant change. Therefore, dose adjustments of pemetrexed are not required during hyperhydration with cisplatin.

Toxicity of pemetrexed during renal impairment explained-Implications for safe treatment.

Pemetrexed is an important component of first line treatment in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. However, a limitation is the contraindication in patients with renal impairment due to hematological toxicity. Currently, it is unknown how to safely dose pemetrexed in these patients. The aim of our study was to elucidate the relationship between pemetrexed exposure and toxicity to support the development of a safe dosing regimen in patients with renal impairment. A population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis was performed based on phase II study results in three patients with renal dysfunction, supplemented with data from 106 patients in early clinical studies. Findings were externally validated with data of different pemetrexed dosing regimens. Alternative dosing regimens were evaluated using the developed model. We found that pemetrexed toxicity was driven by the time above a toxicity threshold concentration. The threshold for vitamin-supplemented patients was 0.110 mg/mL (95% CI: 0.092-0.146 mg/mL). It was observed that in patients with renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]: <45 mL/min) the approved dose of 500 mg/m2 would yield a high probability of severe neutropenia in the range of 51.0% to 92.6%. A pemetrexed dose of 20 mg for patients (eGFR: 20 mL/min) is shown to be neutropenic-equivalent to the approved dose in patients with adequate renal function (eGFR: 90 mL/min), but would result in an approximately 13-fold lower area under the concentration-time curve. The pemetrexed exposure-toxicity relationship is explained by a toxicity threshold and substantially different from previously thought. Without prophylaxis for toxicity, it is unlikely that a therapeutic dose can be safely administered to patients with renal impairment.

Multicenter Comparison of Molecular Tumor Boards in The Netherlands: Definition, Composition, Methods, and Targeted Therapy Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy. RESULTS: Interviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type-specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%). CONCLUSION: MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a "Dutch MTB model" for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. A molecular tumor board (MTB) supports oncologists in rationalizing therapy options. However, there is no consensus on the most optimal setup for an MTB, which can affect the quality of recommendations. This study reveals that the eight MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational profiles. The Dutch MTB model is based on a collaborative and nationally aligned workflow with interinstitutional collaboration and data sharing.

Development and validation of an HPLC-MS/MS method to simultaneously quantify alectinib, crizotinib, erlotinib, gefitinib and osimertinib in human plasma samples, using one assay run.

A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method was developed and validated to quantify alectinib, crizotinib, erlotinib and gefitinib. This assay can be combined with our method for osimertinib, allowing quantification of the most used ALK- and EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in non-small cell lung cancer with a single-assay setup. Chromatographic separation was performed on a HyPurity® C18 analytical column using an elution gradient of ammonium acetate in water and in methanol, both acidified with formic acid 0.1%. Detection and quantification were performed using a triple quad mass spectrometer with an electrospray ionization interface. This method led to robust results, as the selectivity, carryover, precision and accuracy met all pre-specified requirements. The assay was validated over a linear range of 100-2,000 ng/ml for alectinib and erlotinib and 50-1,000 ng/ml for crizotinib and gefitinib. Alectinib, crizotinib, erlotinib and gefitinib were all stable for at least 4 h in whole blood (at room temperature and at 4°C) and for at least 1 month in EDTA plasma when stored at -80°C, while osimertinib proved to be unstable at room temperature. Although high-performance liquid chromatography was used, the run time was short and comparable with other methods using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography.

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) combined with immunotherapy (L19-IL2) versus standard of care in stage IV NSCLC patients, ImmunoSABR: a multicentre, randomised controlled open-label phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: About 50% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients have metastatic disease at initial diagnosis, which limits their treatment options and, consequently, the 5-year survival rate (15%). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, have become standard of care (SOC) for most good performance status patients. However, most patients will not obtain long-term benefit and new treatment strategies are therefore needed. We previously demonstrated clinical safety of the tumour-selective immunocytokine L19-IL2, consisting of the anti-ED-B scFv L19 antibody coupled to IL2, combined with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). METHODS: This investigator-initiated, multicentric, randomised controlled open-label phase II clinical trial will test the hypothesis that the combination of SABR and L19-IL2 increases progression free survival (PFS) in patients with limited metastatic NSCLC. One hundred twenty-six patients will be stratified according to their metastatic load (oligo-metastatic: ≤5 or poly-metastatic: 6 to 10) and randomised to the experimental-arm (E-arm) or the control-arm (C-arm). The C-arm will receive SOC, according to the local protocol. E-arm oligo-metastatic patients will receive SABR to all lesions followed by L19-IL2 therapy; radiotherapy for poly-metastatic patients consists of irradiation of one (symptomatic) to a maximum of 5 lesions (including ICI in both arms if this is the SOC). The accrual period will be 2.5-years, starting after the first centre is initiated and active. Primary endpoint is PFS at 1.5-years based on blinded radiological review, and secondary endpoints are overall survival, toxicity, quality of life and abscopal response. Associative biomarker studies, immune monitoring, CT-based radiomics, stool collection, iRECIST and tumour growth rate will be performed. DISCUSSION: The combination of SABR with or without ICI and the immunocytokine L19-IL2 will be tested as 1st, 2nd or 3rd line treatment in stage IV NSCLC patients in 14 centres located in 6 countries. This bimodal and trimodal treatment approach is based on the direct cytotoxic effect of radiotherapy, the tumour selective immunocytokine L19-IL2, the abscopal effect observed distant from the irradiated metastatic site(s) and the memory effect. The first results are expected end 2023. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ImmunoSABR Protocol Code: NL67629.068.18; EudraCT: 2018-002583-11; Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03705403; ISRCTN ID: ISRCTN49817477; Date of registration: 03-April-2019.

The Emerging Role of Radiomics in COPD and Lung Cancer.

Medical imaging plays a key role in evaluating and monitoring lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer. The application of artificial intelligence in medical imaging has transformed medical images into mineable data, by extracting and correlating quantitative imaging features with patients' outcomes and tumor phenotype - a process termed radiomics. While this process has already been widely researched in lung oncology, the evaluation of COPD in this fashion remains in its infancy. Here we outline the main applications of radiomics in lung cancer and briefly review the workflow from image acquisition to the evaluation of model performance. Finally, we discuss the current assessments of COPD and the potential application of radiomics in COPD.

Responding to the challenges of international collaborations between the east and the west - report of the first JCOG-EORTC symposium and a perspective from young JCOG and EORTC investigators.

International/intercontinental collaboration is necessary to set up new innovative clinical trials for cancer treatment. However, the infrastructure, especially Asia-Europe academic partnerships, to enable such collaboration has not been fully structured and differences and similarities between the research groups have not been well studied. In 2015, collaboration started between the biggest cancer research organizations in Asia and EU, Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Following the first pilot collaboration study, the first scientific symposium took place in December 2017 in Tokyo. Before the symposium, a working visit for EORTC investigators from the Early Career Investigator initiative (ECI), willing to develop projects within the JCOG-EORTC partnership, was held. In addition to the digest of the working visit and symposium, we aimed to describe the differences and similarities between the two groups and to identify key factors for collaboration from the perspective of the young investigators of the networks. These findings are described in this article.

Use of Systemic Therapy Concurrent With Cranial Radiotherapy for Cerebral Metastases of Solid Tumors.

The incidence of brain metastases of solid tumors is increasing. Local treatment of brain metastases is generally straightforward: cranial radiotherapy (e.g., whole-brain radiotherapy or stereotactic radiosurgery) or resection when feasible. However, treatment becomes more complex when brain metastases occur while other metastases, outside of the central nervous system, are being controlled with systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, or monoclonal antibodies). It is known that some anticancer agents can increase the risk for neurotoxicity when used concurrently with radiotherapy. Increased neurotoxicity decreases quality of life, which is undesirable in this predominantly palliative patient group. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to identify the compounds that should be temporarily discontinued when cranial radiotherapy is needed.This review summarizes the (neuro)toxicity data for combining systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, or monoclonal antibodies) with concurrent radiotherapy of brain metastases. Because only a limited amount of high-level data has been published, a risk assessment of each agent was done, taking into account the characteristics of each compound (e.g., lipophilicity) and the microenvironment of brain metastasis. The available trials suggest that only gemcitabine, erlotinib, and vemurafenib induce significant neurotoxicity when used concurrently with cranial radiotherapy. We conclude that for most systemic therapies, the currently available literature does not show an increase in neurotoxicity when these therapies are used concurrently with cranial radiotherapy. However, further studies are needed to confirm safety because there is no high-level evidence to permit definitive conclusions. The Oncologist 2017;22:222-235Implications for Practice: The treatment of symptomatic brain metastases diagnosed while patients are receiving systemic therapy continues to pose a dilemma to clinicians. Will concurrent treatment with cranial radiotherapy and systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, and monoclonal antibodies), used to control intra- and extracranial tumor load, increase the risk for neurotoxicity? This review addresses this clinically relevant question and evaluates the toxicity of combining systemic therapies with cranial radiotherapy, based on currently available literature, in order to determine the need to and interval to interrupt systemic treatment.