MR-guided prostate SBRT in prostate cancer patients with low-volume metastatic disease.

BACKGROUND: Recent data have found an overall survival benefit from prostate-directed radiotherapy in patients with low-volume metastatic prostate cancer. Prostate SBRT is an attractive treatment in this setting and may be optimised with MR-guided adaptive treatment. Here, we share our institutional experience delivering stereotactic MR-guided adaptive prostate SBRT (SMART) for patients with low-volume metastatic disease. METHODS: We reviewed patients with low-volume metastatic disease who received prostate SMART from October 2019 to December 2021 on a 0.35T MR-Linac. The cohort included 14 patients. Genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were assessed using CTCAE v 5.0. Progression was defined as a change in systemic or hormonal therapy regimen as a result of PSA rise or disease progression. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 29 months. Seven patients had hormone sensitive prostate cancer and 7 had castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). 13 patients received 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions and one patient received 33 Gy in 5 fractions. At the time of last follow-up, 11 patients had not experienced progression and three patients, all with CRPC, had experienced progression. No patients developed local progression in the prostate after SMART. One patient experienced acute grade 2 urinary toxicity (7%) and no patients experienced acute grade 2 GI toxicity (0%). No grade 3 + acute toxicities were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate SMART was found to be well tolerated and all patients had local control of disease within the prostate at the time of last follow-up. Prostate SMART may represent a low-risk and well-tolerated approach for delivering prostate-directed radiotherapy for patients with limited metastatic disease.

Intracerebral haemorrhage in patients with brain metastases receiving therapeutic anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism is common in patients with solid malignancies and brain metastases. Whether to anticoagulate such patients is controversial given the possibility of intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). We evaluated the added risk of ICH in patients with brain metastases receiving therapeutic anticoagulation. METHODS: We performed a matched, retrospective cohort study of 291 patients (100 receiving therapeutic anticoagulation vs 191 controls) with brain metastases managed at Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute between 1998 and 2015. For each patient, all MRI studies of the brain were reviewed to identify ICH. Propensity score matching and multivariable Cox regression were used to mitigate confounding. RESULTS: The risk of ICH was comparable in patients receiving anticoagulation versus controls preanticoagulation. Postanticoagulation, we observed significant or borderline-significant associations between anticoagulation and development of any ICH (HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.79, p=0.09), ICH as identified by gradient echo/susceptibility-weighted imaging (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.01, p=0.02), symptomatic ICH (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.22, p=0.05), extralesional ICH (HR 5.82, 95% CI 1.56 to 21.7, p=0.009) and fatal ICH (HR 5.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 54.2, p=0.13). Anticoagulation was associated with differentially higher ICH risk in patients with prior ICH versus no prior ICH (HR 2.20 vs 0.68, respectively, p interaction <0.001) and symptomatic ICH risk in melanoma versus other primary malignancies (HR 6.46 vs 1.36, respectively, p interaction=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation is associated with clinically significant ICH in patients with brain metastases, especially those with melanoma or prior ICH. The indication for anticoagulation and risk of intracerebral bleeding should be considered on an individual basis among such patients.

Response rate and local recurrence after concurrent immune checkpoint therapy and radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Prior literature has suggested synergy between immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) and radiotherapy (RT) for the treatment of brain metastases (BrM), but to the authors' knowledge the optimal timing of therapy to maximize this synergy is unclear. METHODS: A total of 199 patients with melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer with BrM received ICT and RT between 2007 and 2016 at the study institution. To reduce selection biases, individual metastases were included only if they were treated with RT within 90 days of ICT. Concurrent treatment was defined as RT delivered on the same day as or in between doses of an ICT course; all other treatment was considered to be nonconcurrent. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to response and local disease recurrence on a per-metastasis basis, using a sandwich estimator to account for intrapatient correlation. RESULTS: The final cohort included 110 patients with 340 BrM, with 102 BrM treated concurrently and 238 BrM treated nonconcurrently. Response rates were higher with the use of concurrent treatment (70% vs 47%; P < .001), with correspondingly lower rates of progressive disease (5% vs 26%; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, concurrent treatment was found to be associated with improved time to response (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.18-2.63 [P = .006]) and decreased local recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.78 [P = .006]). This effect appeared to be greater for melanoma than for non-small cell lung cancer, although interaction tests were not statistically significant. Only 1 of 103 metastases which had a complete response later developed disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent RT and ICT may improve response rates and decrease local recurrence of brain metastases compared with treatment that was nonconcurrent but delivered within 90 days. Further study of this combination in prospective, randomized trials is warranted.

Breast cancer subtype and intracranial recurrence patterns after brain-directed radiation for brain metastases.

PURPOSE: Brain metastases from breast cancer are frequently managed with brain-directed radiation but the impact of subtype on intracranial recurrence patterns after radiation has not been well-described. We investigated intracranial recurrence patterns of brain metastases from breast cancer after brain-directed radiation to facilitate subtype-specific management paradigms. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 349 patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases from breast cancer treated with brain-directed radiation at Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute between 2000 and 2015. Patients were stratified by subtype: hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-), HER2+ positive (HER2+), or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). A per-metastasis assessment was conducted. Time-to-event analyses were conducted using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Of the 349 patients, 116 had HR+/HER2- subtype, 164 had HER2+ subtype, and 69 harbored TNBC. Relative to HR+/HER2- subtype, local recurrence was greater in HER2+ metastases (HR 3.20, 95% CI 1.78-5.75, p < 0.001), while patients with TNBC demonstrated higher rates of new brain metastases after initial treatment (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.99-5.02, p < 0.001) and shorter time to salvage whole brain radiation (WBRT) (HR 3.79, 95% CI 1.36-10.56, p = 0.01) and salvage stereotactic radiation (HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.11-3.10, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a strong association between breast cancer subtype and intracranial recurrence patterns after brain-directed radiation, particularly local progression for HER2+ and distant progression for TNBC patients. If validated, the poorer local control in HER2+ brain metastases may support evaluation of novel local therapy-based approaches, while the increased distant recurrence in TNBC suggests the need for improved systemic therapy and earlier utilization of WBRT.

Local control after brain-directed radiation in patients with cystic versus solid brain metastases.

PURPOSE: Brain metastases can be radiographically cystic or solid. Cystic metastases are associated with a greater intracranial disease burden and poorer oncologic outcomes, but the impact of cystic versus solid appearance on local control after radiation remains unknown. We investigated whether cystic versus solid nature is predictive of local control after management with stereotactic or whole brain radiation (WBRT) and whether the radiation modality utilized is an effect modifier. METHODS: We identified 859 patients with 2211 newly-diagnosed brain metastases managed with upfront stereotactic radiation or WBRT without preceding resection/aspiration at Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute between 2000 and 2015. Multivariable Cox regression with an interaction term and sandwich covariance matrix was used to quantify local failure. RESULTS: Cystic lesions were more likely to recur than solid ones when managed with stereotactic radiation (HR 2.33, 95% CI 1.32-4.10, p = 0.004) but not WBRT (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62-1.36, p = 0.67), p-interaction = 0.007. 1 year local control rates for cystic versus solid metastases treated with stereotactic radiation were 75% versus 88%, respectively; estimates with WBRT were 76% versus 76%, respectively. However, no significant differences were noted between the two cohorts in post-radiation outcomes including all-cause mortality and neurologic death (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with brain metastases, stereotactic radiation yields improved local control and less morbidity than WBRT, and consequently for many patients the cystic versus solid designation does not impact treatment selection. However, our results suggest that in patients with a large number of cystic brain metastases, a lower threshold to consider WBRT, as opposed to stereotactic radiation, should be employed. If our results can be confirmed, further investigation into the underlying mechanism(s) would be warranted.

Heterogeneity in high-risk prostate cancer treated with high-dose radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to assess the heterogeneity of high-risk (HR) prostate cancer managed with high-dose external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS: We identified 547 patients who were treated with modern EBRT from 1997 to 2013, of whom 98% received ADT. We analyzed biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) and distant metastases-free survival (DMFS). RESULTS: Median EBRT dose was 74 Gy, and median ADT duration was 8 months. At 5 years, the DMFS was 85%. On multivariate analysis, significant predictors of shorter bRFS were biopsy Gleason score (bGS) of 8 to 10, higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, shorter duration of ADT and lower radiation dose while predictors of shorter DMFS were bGS of 8 to 10, higher PSA level, and lower radiation dose. We identified an unfavorable high-risk (UHR) group of with 2-3 HR factors based on 2015 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria and a favorable high-risk (FHR) group, with 1 HR feature. Comparing very-HR prostate cancer, UHR & FHR, 5 year bRFS rates were 58.2%, 66.2%, and 69.2%, and 5 year DMFS rates were 78.4%, 81.2%, and 88.0%. CONCLUSION: Patients with multiple HR factors have worse outcome than patients with 1 HR factor. Future studies should account for this heterogeneity in HR prostate cancer.

Rapid progression of intracranial melanoma metastases controlled with combined BRAF/MEK inhibition after discontinuation of therapy: a clinical challenge.

Novel systemic therapies with anti-tumor activity in the brain including small molecules targeting BRAF and MEK, and immune checkpoint inhibition, offer the possibility of improved control of intracranial disease. A number of prospective trials support the judicious use of modern systemic therapies in patients with melanoma and limited brain metastases .The intracranial clinical course of patients who progress extracranially on BRAF/MEK inhibition remains poorly described in the literature. In this report, we highlight a series of clinical cases, with rapid progression of intracranial disease following discontinuation of dabrafenib/trametinib for extracranial disease progression or toxicity, a previously unreported finding in the medical literature with significant implications for patient care.

The use of master protocols for efficient trial design to evaluate radiotherapy interventions: a systematic review.

The aim of this review was to highlight why the use of master protocols trial design is particularly useful for radiotherapy intervention trials where complex-set up pathways (including quality assurance, user training, integrating multiple modalities of treatment) may hinder clinical advances. We carried out a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines, reviewing the findings using a landscape analysis. Results were summarised descriptively, reporting on trial characteristics highlighting the benefits, limitations, and challenges of developing and implementing radiotherapy master protocols with three case studies selected to explore these issues in more detail. 12 studies were suitable for inclusion (4 platform trials, 3 umbrella trials, and 5 basket trials), evaluating a mix of solid tumour sites in both curative and palliative settings. The interventions were categorised into 1. Novel agent and radiotherapy combinations; 2. Radiotherapy dose personalisation; and 3. Device evaluation, with a case study provided for each intervention. Benefits of master protocol trials for radiotherapy intervention include: protocol efficiency for implementation of novel radiotherapy techniques; accelerating the evaluation of novel agent drug and radiotherapy combinations; and more efficient translational research opportunities, leading to cost savings and research efficiency to improve patient outcomes. Master protocols offer an innovative platform under which multiple clinical questions can be addressed within a single trial. Due to the complexity of radiotherapy trial set up, cost and research efficiency savings may be more apparent than in systemic treatment trials. Use of this research approach may be the change needed to push forward oncological innovation within radiation oncology.

Widening the therapeutic window for central and ultra-central thoracic oligometastatic disease with stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART).

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Central/ultra-central thoracic tumors are challenging to treat with stereotactic radiotherapy due potential high-grade toxicity. Stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) may improve the therapeutic window through motion control with breath-hold gating and real-time MR-imaging as well as the option for daily online adaptive replanning to account for changes in target and/or organ-at-risk (OAR) location. MATERIALS/METHODS: 26 central (19 ultra-central) thoracic oligoprogressive/oligometastatic tumors treated with isotoxic (OAR constraints-driven) 5-fraction SMART (median 50 Gy, range 35-60) between 10/2019-10/2022 were reviewed. Central tumor was defined as tumor within or touching 2 cm around proximal tracheobronchial tree (PBT) or adjacent to mediastinal/pericardial pleura. Ultra-central was defined as tumor abutting the PBT, esophagus, or great vessel. Hard OAR constraints observed were ≤ 0.03 cc for PBT V40, great vessel V52.5, and esophagus V35. Local failure was defined as tumor progression/recurrence within the planning target volume. RESULTS: Tumor abutted the PBT in 31 %, esophagus in 31 %, great vessel in 65 %, and heart in 42 % of cases. 96 % of fractions were treated with reoptimized plan, necessary to meet OAR constraints (80 %) and/or target coverage (20 %). Median follow-up was 19 months (27 months among surviving patients). Local control (LC) was 96 % at 1-year and 90 % at 2-years (total 2/26 local failure). 23 % had G2 acute toxicities (esophagitis, dysphagia, anorexia, nausea) and one (4 %) had G3 acute radiation dermatitis. There were no G4-5 acute toxicities. There was no symptomatic pneumonitis and no G2 + late toxicities. CONCLUSION: Isotoxic 5-fraction SMART resulted in high rates of LC and minimal toxicity. This approach may widen the therapeutic window for high-risk oligoprogressive/oligometastatic thoracic tumors.

Lung sparing in MR-guided non-adaptive SBRT treatment of peripheral lung tumors.

Objective.We aim to: (1) quantify the benefits of lung sparing using non-adaptive magnetic resonance guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (MRgSBRT) with advanced motion management for peripheral lung cancers compared to conventional x-ray guided SBRT (ConvSBRT); (2) establish a practical decision-making guidance metric to assist a clinician in selecting the appropriate treatment modality.Approach.Eleven patients with peripheral lung cancer who underwent breath-hold, gated MRgSBRT on an MR-guided linear accelerator (MR linac) were studied. Four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT)-based retrospective planning using an internal target volume (ITV) was performed to simulate ConvSBRT, which were evaluated against the original MRgSBRT plans. Metrics analyzed included planning target volume (PTV) coverage, various lung metrics and the generalized equivalent unform dose (gEUD). A dosimetric predictor for achievable lung metrics was derived to assist future patient triage across modalities.Main results.PTV coverage was high (median V100% > 98%) and comparable for both modalities. MRgSBRT had significantly lower lung doses as measured by V20 (median 3.2% versus 4.2%), mean lung dose (median 3.3 Gy versus 3.8 Gy) and gEUD. Breath-hold, gated MRgSBRT resulted in an average reduction of 47% in PTV volume and an average increase of 19% in lung volume. Strong correlation existed between lung metrics and the ratio of PTV to lung volumes (RPTV/Lungs) for both modalities, indicating that RPTV/Lungsmay serve as a good predictor for achievable lung metrics without the need for pre-planning. A threshold value of RPTV/Lungs< 0.035 is suggested to achieve V20 < 10% using ConvSBRT. MRgSBRT should otherwise be considered if the threshold cannot be met.Significance.The benefits of lung sparing using MRgSBRT were quantified for peripheral lung tumors; RPTV/Lungswas found to be an effective predictor for achievable lung metrics across modalities. RPTV/Lungscan assist a clinician in selecting the appropriate modality without the need for labor-intensive pre-planning, which has significant practical benefit for a busy clinic.

Stereotactic Magnetic Resonance-guided Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Localized Kidney Cancer: Early Outcomes from a Prospective Phase 1 Trial and Supplemental Cohort.

Stereotactic magnetic resonance (MR)-guided adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) for renal cell carcinoma may result in more precise treatment delivery through the capabilities for improved image quality, daily adaptive planning, and accounting for respiratory motion during treatment with real-time MR tracking. In this study, we aimed to characterize the safety and feasibility of SMART for localized kidney cancer. Twenty patients with localized kidney cancer (ten treated in a prospective phase 1 trial and ten in the supplemental cohort) were treated to 40 Gy in five fractions on a 0.35 T MR-guided linear accelerator with daily adaptive planning and a cine MR-guided inspiratory breath hold technique. The median follow-up time was 17 mo (interquartile range: 13-20 months). A single patient developed local failure at 30 mo. No grade ≥3 adverse events were reported. The mean decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate was -1.8 ml/min/1.73 m2 (95% confidence interval or CI [-6.6 to 3.1 ml/min/1.73 m2]), and the mean decrease in tumor diameter was -0.20 cm (95% CI [-0.6 to 0.2 cm]) at the last follow-up. Anterior location and overlap of the 25 or 28 Gy isodose line with gastrointestinal organs at risk were predictive of the benefit from online adaptive planning. Kidney SMART is feasible and, at the early time point evaluated in this study, was well tolerated with minimal decline in renal function. More studies are warranted to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of this technique. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with localized renal cell carcinoma who are not surgical candidates, stereotactic magnetic resonance--guided adaptive radiotherapy is a feasible and safe noninvasive treatment option that results in minimal impact on kidney function.

Re-irradiation of recurrent IDH-wildtype glioblastoma in the bevacizumab and immunotherapy era: Target delineation, outcomes and patterns of recurrence.

Introduction and background: While recurrent glioblastoma patients are often treated with re-irradiation, there is limited data on the use of re-irradiation in the setting of bevacizumab (BEV), temozolomide (TMZ) re-challenge, or immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). We describe target delineation in patients with prior anti-angiogenic therapy, assess safety and efficacy of re-irradiation, and evaluate patterns of recurrence. Materials and methods: Patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of glioblastoma treated at a single institution between 2013 and 2021 with re-irradiation were included. Tumor, treatment and clinical data were collected. Logistic and Cox regression analysis were used for statistical analysis. Results: One hundred and seventeen recurrent glioblastoma patients were identified, receiving 129 courses of re-irradiation. In 66 % (85/129) of cases, patients had prior BEV. In the 80 patients (62 %) with available re-irradiation plans, 20 (25 %) had all T2/FLAIR abnormality included in the gross tumor volume (GTV). Median overall survival (OS) for the cohort was 7.3 months, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months. Acute CTCAE grade ≥ 3 toxicity occurred in 8 % of cases. Concurrent use of TMZ or ICI was not associated with improved OS nor PFS. On multivariable analysis, higher KPS was significantly associated with longer OS (p < 0.01). On subgroup analysis, patients with prior BEV had significantly more marginal recurrences than those without (26 % vs. 13 %, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Re-irradiation can be safely employed in recurrent glioblastoma patients. Marginal recurrence was more frequent in patients with prior BEV, suggesting a need to consider more inclusive treatment volumes incorporating T2/FLAIR abnormality.

A genomic score to predict local control among patients with brain metastases managed with radiation.

BACKGROUND: Clinical predictors of local recurrence following radiation among patients with brain metastases (BrM) provide limited explanatory power. We developed a DNA-based signature of radiotherapeutic efficacy among patients with BrM to better characterize recurrence risk. METHODS: We identified 570 patients with 1487 BrM managed with whole-brain (WBRT) or stereotactic radiation therapy at Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (2013-2020) for whom next-generation sequencing panel data (OncoPanel) were available. Fine/Gray's competing risks regression was utilized to compare local recurrence on a per-metastasis level among patients with versus without somatic alterations of likely biological significance across 84 genes. Genes with a q-value ≤ 0.10 were utilized to develop a "Brain-Radiation Prediction Score" ("Brain-RPS"). RESULTS: Genomic alterations in 11 (ATM, MYCL, PALB2, FAS, PRDM1, PAX5, CDKN1B, EZH2, NBN, DIS3, and MDM4) and 2 genes (FBXW7 and AURKA) were associated with decreased or increased risk of local recurrence, respectively (q-value ≤ 0.10). Weighted scores corresponding to the strength of association with local failure for each gene were summed to calculate a patient-level RPS. On multivariable Fine/Gray's competing risks regression, RPS [1.66 (1.44-1.91, P < .001)], metastasis-associated edema [1.60 (1.16-2.21), P = .004], baseline size [1.02 (1.01-1.03), P < .001] and receipt of WBRT without local therapy [4.04 (2.49-6.58), P < .001] were independent predictors of local failure. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a genomic score to quantify local recurrence risk following brain-directed radiation. To the best of our knowledge, this represents the first study to systematically correlate DNA-based alterations with radiotherapeutic outcomes in BrM. If validated, Brain-RPS has potential to facilitate clinical trials aimed at genome-based personalization of radiation in BrM.

Incidence proportion and prognosis of leptomeningeal disease among patients with breast vs. non-breast primaries.

BACKGROUND: Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) is a relatively uncommon manifestation of advanced cancer. Patients with LMD carry a poor prognosis and often decline rapidly, complicating inclusion in clinical trials. Identification of LMD subsets of greater incidence and more favorable prognosis might facilitate dedicated clinical trials in the future. We hypothesized that patients with breast cancer may represent such a population and sought to assess the relative incidence and prognosis of LMD secondary to breast vs. non-breast primaries. METHODS: We identified 2411 patients with intracranial metastases secondary to breast (N = 501) and non-breast (N = 1910) primaries at Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute between 1996 and 2020, of whom 112 presented with and an additional 161 subsequently developed LMD. A log-rank test and Cox modeling were used to compare outcomes in patients with breast vs. non-breast primaries. RESULTS: Among patients with newly diagnosed intracranial disease, the incidence proportion of concurrent LMD was 11.4% vs. 2.9% among patients with breast vs. non-breast primaries (P < .001). Development of LMD among initially LMD-naïve patients was also more common among patients with breast vs. non-breast primaries (HR = 1.49 [1.05-2.11], P = .03). Patients with LMD secondary to breast vs. non-breast primaries displayed lower all-cause mortality (HR 0.70 [0.52-0.93], P = .01; median survival: 5.2 vs. 2.4 months, respectively), with a greater numerical difference observed in patients with LMD at intracranial involvement (7.4 vs. 2.6 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with breast cancer and LMD may represent an ideal population for clinical trials given the higher incidence and potentially more favorable prognosis seen in this population.

Phase I study of a novel glioblastoma radiation therapy schedule exploiting cell-state plasticity.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastomas comprise heterogeneous cell populations with dynamic, bidirectional plasticity between treatment-resistant stem-like and treatment-sensitive differentiated states, with treatment influencing this process. However, current treatment protocols do not account for this plasticity. Previously, we generated a mathematical model based on preclinical experiments to describe this process and optimize a radiation therapy fractionation schedule that substantially increased survival relative to standard fractionation in a murine glioblastoma model. METHODS: We developed statistical models to predict the survival benefit of interventions to glioblastoma patients based on the corresponding survival benefit in the mouse model used in our preclinical study. We applied our mathematical model of glioblastoma radiation response to optimize a radiation therapy fractionation schedule for patients undergoing re-irradiation for glioblastoma and developed a first-in-human trial (NCT03557372) to assess the feasibility and safety of administering our schedule. RESULTS: Our statistical modeling predicted that the hazard ratio when comparing our novel radiation schedule with a standard schedule would be 0.74. Our mathematical modeling suggested that a practical, near-optimal schedule for re-irradiation of recurrent glioblastoma patients was 3.96 Gy × 7 (1 fraction/day) followed by 1.0 Gy × 9 (3 fractions/day). Our optimized schedule was successfully administered to 14/14 (100%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: A novel radiation therapy schedule based on mathematical modeling of cell-state plasticity is feasible and safe to administer to glioblastoma patients.

Evaluation of Standard Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology, Modified Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology, and Immunotherapy Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology in Newly Diagnosed and Recurrent Glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria are widely used in high-grade glioma clinical trials. We compared the RANO criteria with updated modifications (modified RANO [mRANO] and immunotherapy RANO [iRANO] criteria) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (nGBM) and recurrent GBM (rGBM) to evaluate the performance of each set of criteria and inform the development of the planned RANO 2.0 update. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Evaluation of tumor measurements and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequences were performed by blinded readers to determine disease progression using RANO, mRANO, iRANO, and other response assessment criteria. Spearman's correlations between progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-six nGBM and 580 rGBM cases were included. Spearman's correlations were similar between RANO and mRANO (0.69 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.75] v 0.67 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.73]) in nGBM and rGBM (0.48 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.55] v 0.50 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.57]). In nGBM, requirement of a confirmation scan within 12 weeks of completion of radiotherapy to determine progression was associated with improved correlations. Use of the postradiation magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as baseline scan was associated with improved correlation compared with use of the pre-radiation MRI (0.67 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.73] v 0.53 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.62]). Evaluation of FLAIR sequences did not improve the correlation. Among patients who received immunotherapy, Spearman's correlations were similar among RANO, mRANO, and iRANO. CONCLUSION: RANO and mRANO demonstrated similar correlations between PFS and OS. Confirmation scans were only beneficial in nGBM within 12 weeks of completion of radiotherapy, and there was a trend in favor of the use of postradiation MRI as the baseline scan in nGBM. Evaluation of FLAIR can be omitted. The iRANO criteria did not add significant benefit in patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Comparison of first-line radiosurgery for small-cell and non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases (CROSS-FIRE).

INTRODUCTION: Historical reservations regarding stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) brain metastases include concerns for short-interval and diffuse central nervous system (CNS) progression, poor prognoses, and increased neurological mortality specific to SCLC histology. We compared SRS outcomes for SCLC and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) where SRS is well established. METHODS: Multicenter first-line SRS outcomes for SCLC and NSCLC from 2000 to 2022 were retrospectively collected (n = 892 SCLC, n = 4785 NSCLC). Data from the prospective Japanese Leksell Gamma Knife Society (JLGK0901) clinical trial of first-line SRS were analyzed as a comparison cohort (n = 98 SCLC, n = 814 NSCLC). Overall survival (OS) and CNS progression were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard and Fine-Gray models, respectively, with multivariable adjustment for cofactors including age, sex, performance status, year, extracranial disease status, and brain metastasis number and volume. Mutation-stratified analyses were performed in propensity score-matched retrospective cohorts of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) positive NSCLC, mutation-negative NSCLC, and SCLC. RESULTS: OS was superior for patients with NSCLC compared to SCLC in the retrospective dataset (median OS = 10.5 vs 8.6 months; P < .001) and in the JLGK0901 dataset. Hazard estimates for first CNS progression favoring NSCLC were similar in both datasets but reached statistical significance in the retrospective dataset only (multivariable hazard ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval = 0.73 to 0.92, P = .001). In the propensity score-matched cohorts, there were continued OS advantages for NSCLC patients (median OS = 23.7 [EGFR and ALK positive NSCLC] vs 13.6 [mutation-negative NSCLC] vs 10.4 months [SCLC], pairwise P values < 0.001), but no statistically significant differences in CNS progression were observed in the matched cohorts. Neurological mortality and number of lesions at CNS progression were similar for NSCLC and SCLC patients. Leptomeningeal progression was increased in patients with NSCLC compared to SCLC in the retrospective dataset only (multivariable hazard ratio = 1.61, 95% confidence interval = 1.14 to 2.26, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: After SRS, SCLC histology was associated with shorter OS compared to NSCLC. CNS progression occurred earlier in SCLC patients overall but was similar in patients matched on baseline factors. SCLC was not associated with increased neurological mortality, number of lesions at CNS progression, or leptomeningeal progression compared to NSCLC. These findings may better inform clinical expectations and individualized decision making regarding SRS for SCLC patients.

Inaugural Results of the Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy: A Phase II Platform Trial for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Using Bayesian Adaptive Randomization.

PURPOSE: The Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) is a phase II platform trial that uses response adaptive randomization and genomic profiling to efficiently identify novel therapies for phase III testing. Three initial experimental arms (abemaciclib [a cyclin-dependent kinase [CDK]4/6 inhibitor], neratinib [an epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR]/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 inhibitor], and CC-115 [a deoxyribonucleic acid-dependent protein kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor]) were simultaneously evaluated against a common control arm. We report the results for each arm and examine the feasibility and conduct of the adaptive platform design. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase-unmethylated glioblastoma were eligible if they had tumor genotyping to identify prespecified biomarker subpopulations of dominant glioblastoma signaling pathways (EGFR, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, and CDK). Initial random assignment was 1:1:1:1 between control (radiation therapy and temozolomide) and the experimental arms. Subsequent Bayesian adaptive randomization was incorporated on the basis of biomarker-specific progression-free survival (PFS) data. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and one-sided P values are reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02977780). RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-seven patients were treated (71 control; 73 abemaciclib; 81 neratinib; 12 CC-115) in years 2017-2021. Abemaciclib and neratinib were well tolerated, but CC-115 was associated with ≥ grade 3 treatment-related toxicity in 58% of patients. PFS was significantly longer with abemaciclib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.06; one-sided P = .046) and neratinib (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.02; one-sided P = .033) relative to the control arm but there was no PFS benefit with CC-115 (one-sided P = .523). None of the experimental therapies demonstrated a significant OS benefit (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The INSIGhT design enabled efficient simultaneous testing of three experimental agents using a shared control arm and adaptive randomization. Two investigational arms had superior PFS compared with the control arm, but none demonstrated an OS benefit. The INSIGhT design may promote improved and more efficient therapeutic discovery in glioblastoma. New arms have been added to the trial.