Biochemical Safety of SBRT to Multiple Intrahepatic Lesions for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Background: We aim to better characterize stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)-related hepatic biochemical toxicity in patients with multiple intrahepatic lesions from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with HCC who underwent SBRT for 2 or more synchronous or metachronous liver lesions. We collected patient characteristics and dosimetric data (mean liver dose [MLD], cumulative effective volume [Veff], cumulative volume of liver receiving 15 Gy [V15Gy], and cumulative planning target volume [PTV]) along with liver-related toxicity (measured by albumin-bilirubin [ALBI] and Child-Pugh [CP] scores). A linear mixed-effects model was used to assess the effect of multi-target SBRT on changes in ALBI. Results: There were 25 patients and 56 lesions with median follow-up of 29 months. Eleven patients had synchronous lesions, and 14 had recurrent lesions treated with separate SBRT courses. Among those receiving multiple SBRT courses, there were 7 lesions with overlap of V15Gy (median V15Gy overlap: 35 mL, range: 0.5-388 mL). There was no association between cumulative MLD, Veff, V15Gy, or PTV and change in ALBI. Four of 25 patients experienced non-classic radiation-induced liver disease (RILD), due to an increase of CP score by ≥2 points 3 to 6 months after SBRT. Sixteen of 25 patients experienced an increase in ALBI grade by 1 or more points 3 to 6 months after SBRT. Comparing the groups that received SBRT in a single course versus multiple courses revealed no statistically significant differences in liver toxicity. Conclusion: Liver SBRT for multiple lesions in a single or in separate courses is feasible and with acceptable risk of hepatotoxicity. Prospective studies with a larger cohort are needed to better characterize safety in this population.

Defining Minimum Treatment Parameters of Ablative Radiation Therapy in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Expert Consensus.

PURPOSE: External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is a highly effective treatment in select patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer system does not recommend the use of EBRT in HCC due to a lack of sufficient evidence and intends to perform an individual patient level meta-analysis of ablative EBRT in this population. However, there are many types of EBRT described in the literature with no formal definition of what constitutes "ablative." Thus, we convened a group of international experts to provide consensus on the parameters that define ablative EBRT in HCC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fundamental parameters related to dose, fractionation, radiobiology, target identification, and delivery technique were identified by a steering committee to generate 7 Key Criteria (KC) that would define ablative EBRT for HCC. Using a modified Delphi (mDelphi) method, experts in the use of EBRT in the treatment of HCC were surveyed. Respondents were given 30 days to respond in round 1 of the mDelphi and 14 days to respond in round 2. A threshold of ≥70% was used to define consensus for answers to each KC. RESULTS: Of 40 invitations extended, 35 (88%) returned responses. In the first round, 3 of 7 KC reached consensus. In the second round, 100% returned responses and consensus was reached in 3 of the remaining 4 KC. The distribution of answers for one KC, which queried the a/b ratio of HCC, was such that consensus was not achieved. Based on this analysis, ablative EBRT for HCC was defined as a BED10 ≥80 Gy with daily imaging and multiphasic contrast used for target delineation. Treatment breaks (eg, for adaptive EBRT) are allowed, but the total treatment time should be ≤6 weeks. Equivalent dose when treating with protons should use a conversion factor of 1.1, but there is no single conversion factor for carbon ions. CONCLUSIONS: Using a mDelphi method assessing expert opinion, we provide the first consensus definition of ablative EBRT for HCC. Empirical data are required to define the a/b of HCC.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction.

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction.

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

Individual Participant Data Network Meta-Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The optimal neoadjuvant treatment for resectable carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (TE) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains a matter of debate. We performed an individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to study the effect of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, with a focus on tumor location and histology subgroups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All, published or unpublished, RCTs closed to accrual before December 31, 2015 and having compared at least two of the following strategies were eligible: upfront surgery (S), chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS), and chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRS). All analyses were conducted on IPD obtained from investigators. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The IPD-NMA was analyzed by a one-step mixed-effect Cox model adjusted for age, sex, tumor location, and histology. The NMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018107158). RESULTS: IPD were obtained for 26 of 35 RCTs (4,985 of 5,807 patients) corresponding to 12 comparisons for CS-S, 12 for CRS-S, and four for CRS-CS. CS and CRS led to increased OS when compared with S with hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (0.75 to 0.99), P = .03 and HR = 0.77 (0.68 to 0.87), P < .001 respectively. The NMA comparison of CRS versus CS for OS gave a HR of 0.90 (0.74 to 1.09), P = .27 (consistency P = .26, heterogeneity P = .0038). For CS versus S, a larger effect on OS was observed for GEJ versus TE tumors (P = .036). For the CRS versus S and CRS versus CS, a larger effect on OS was observed for women (P = .003, .012, respectively). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were consistently better than S alone across histology, but with some variation in the magnitude of treatment effect by sex for CRS and tumor location for CS. A strong OS difference between CS and CRS was not identified.

Outcomes of surgical resection and intraoperative electron radiotherapy for patients with para-aortic recurrences of gastrointestinal and gynecologic malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Para-aortic lymph node (PALN) metastases from primary pelvic malignancies are often treated with resection, but recurrence is common. We report toxicity and oncologic outcomes for patients with PALN metastases from gastrointestinal and gynecologic malignancies treated with resection and intraoperative electron radiotherapy (IORT). METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with recurrent PALN metastases who underwent resection with IORT. All patients were included in the local recurrence (LR) and toxicity analyses. Only patients with primary colorectal tumors were included in the survival analysis. RESULTS: There were 26 patients with a median follow up of 10.4 months. The rate of para-aortic local control (LC) was 77% (20/26 patients) and the rate of any cancer recurrence was 58% (15/26 patients). Median time from surgery and IORT to any recurrence was 7 months. The LR rate for those with positive/close margins was 58% (7/12 patients) versus 7% (1/14 patients) for those with negative margins (p = 0.009). 15% (4/26 patients) developed surgical wound and/or infectious complications, 8% (2/26 patients) developed lower extremity edema, 8% (2/26 patients) experienced diarrhea, and 19% (5/26 patients) developed an acute kidney injury. There were no reported nerve injuries, bowel perforations, or bowel obstructions. For patients with primary colorectal tumors (n = 19), the median survival (OS) was 23 months. CONCLUSIONS: We report favorable LC and acceptable toxicity for patients receiving surgical resection and IORT for a population that has historically poor outcomes. Our data show disease control rates similar to literature comparisons for patients with strong risk factors for LR, such as positive/close margins.

Thermal ablation compared to stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter retrospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Early-stage HCC can be treated with thermal ablation or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We retrospectively compared local progression, mortality, and toxicity among patients with HCC treated with ablation or SBRT in a multicenter, US cohort. APPROACH RESULTS: We included adult patients with treatment-naïve HCC lesions without vascular invasion treated with thermal ablation or SBRT per individual physician or institutional preference from January 2012 to December 2018. Outcomes included local progression after a 3-month landmark period assessed at the lesion level and overall survival at the patient level. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to account for imbalances in treatment groups. The Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to compare progression and overall survival, and logistic regression was used for toxicity. There were 642 patients with 786 lesions (median size: 2.1 cm) treated with ablation or SBRT. In adjusted analyses, SBRT was associated with a reduced risk of local progression compared to ablation (aHR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.15-0.60). However, SBRT-treated patients had an increased risk of liver dysfunction at 3 months (absolute difference 5.5%, aOR 2.31, 95% CI: 1.13-4.73) and death (aHR 2.04, 95% CI: 1.44-2.88, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study of patients with HCC, SBRT was associated with a lower risk of local progression compared to thermal ablation but higher all-cause mortality. Survival differences may be attributable to residual confounding, patient selection, or downstream treatments. These retrospective real-world data help guide treatment decisions while demonstrating the need for a prospective clinical trial.

Adopting Consensus Terms for Testing in Precision Medicine.

Despite the well-understood benefits of biomarker and genetic testing in precision medicine, uptake remains low, particularly for patients with low socioeconomic status and minority ethnic backgrounds. Patients report having limited familiarity with testing terminology and may not be able to accurately explain testing's role in treatment decisions. Patient confusion and lack of understanding is exacerbated by a multiplicity of overlapping terms used in communicating about testing. A LUNGevity Foundation-led working group composed of five professional societies, 23 patient advocacy groups, and 19 industry members assessed and recommended specific terms for communicating with patients on testing for tumor characteristics and germline mutations. METHODS: Members completed a precision oncology testing framework analysis (biomarkers, germline variants, testing modalities, biospecimen, and commonly used testing terms) for nine solid tumors and blood cancers. The evaluation was segmented into terms that distinguish between somatic and germline testing. Additional data were captured in a comprehensive survey (1,650 respondents) led by FORCE (Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered) on patient preferences on germline testing terms. RESULTS: Thirty-three terms were noted in patient education related to biomarker, genetic, and genomic testing. Biomarker testing was selected as the preferred term for testing for somatic (acquired) alterations and other biomarkers. Genetic testing for an inherited mutation and genetic testing for inherited cancer risk were selected as the preferred terms for testing for germline variants. CONCLUSION: Democratizing comprehension about precision oncology testing through intentional use of plain language and common umbrella terminology by oncology health care providers and others in the oncology ecosystem may help improve understanding and communication, and facilitate shared decision making about the role of appropriate testing in treatment decisions and other aspects of oncology care.

Radiation therapy-associated toxicity: Etiology, management, and prevention.

Radiation therapy (RT) is a curative treatment for many malignancies and provides effective palliation in patients with tumor-related symptoms. However, the biophysical effects of RT are not specific to tumor cells and may produce toxicity due to exposure of surrounding organs and tissues. In this article, the authors review the clinical context, pathophysiology, risk factors, presentation, and management of RT side effects in each human organ system. Ionizing radiation works by producing DNA damage leading to tumor death, but effects on normal tissue may result in acute and/or late toxicity. The manifestation of toxicity depends on both cellular characteristics and affected organs' anatomy and physiology. There is usually a direct relationship between the radiation dose and volume to normal tissues and the risk of toxicity, which has led to guidelines and recommended dose limits for most tissues. Side effects are multifactorial, with contributions from baseline patient characteristics and other oncologic treatments. Technological advances in recent decades have decreased RT toxicity by dramatically improving the ability to deliver RT that maximizes tumor dose and minimizes organ dose. Thus the study of RT-associated toxicity is a complex, core component of radiation oncology training that continues to evolve alongside advances in cancer management. Because RT is used in up to one-half of all patients with cancer, an understanding of its acute and late effects in different organ systems is clinically pertinent to both oncologists and nononcologists.

A Grant-Based Experiment to Train Clinical Investigators: The AACR/ASCO Methods in Clinical Cancer Research Workshop.

To address the need for clinical investigators in oncology, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) and American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) established the Methods in Clinical Cancer Research Workshop (MCCRW). The workshop's objectives were to: (i) provide training in the methods, design, and conduct of clinical trials; (ii) ensure that clinical trials met federal and international ethical guidelines; (iii) evaluate the effectiveness of the workshop; and (iv) create networking opportunities for young investigators with mentoring senior faculty. Educational methods included: (i) didactic lectures, (ii) Small Group Discussion Sessions, (iii) Protocol Development Groups, and (iv) one-on-one mentoring. Learning focused on the development of an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-ready protocol, which was submitted on the last day of the workshop. Evaluation methods included: (i) pre- and postworkshop tests, (ii) students' workshop evaluations, (iii) faculty's ratings of protocol development, (iv) students' productivity in clinical research after the workshop, and (v) an independent assessment of the workshop. From 1996 to 2014, 1,932 students from diverse backgrounds attended the workshop. There was a significant improvement in the students' level of knowledge from the pre- to the postworkshop exams (P < 0.001). Across the classes, student evaluations were very favorable. At the end of the workshop, faculty rated 92% to 100% of the students' protocols as ready for IRB submission. Intermediate and long-term follow-ups indicated that more than 92% of students were actively involved in patient-related research, and 66% had implemented five or more protocols. This NCI-sponsored MCCRW has had a major impact on the training of clinicians in their ability to design and implement clinical trials in cancer research.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Recurrent, Isolated Hepatocellular Carcinoma Lymph Node Metastasis With or Without Prior Liver Transplantation.

Lymph node metastases from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a challenging clinical scenario with a poor prognosis, especially in the setting of prior liver transplant. Long-term survival is achievable in select patients with isolated lymph node metastases who undergo surgical resection, but little data exist regarding non-surgical options. For intrahepatic HCC, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has emerged as a standard and effective nonsurgical treatment option. Here, we present three patients (two with prior liver transplant) with isolated lymph node metastases treated with curative intent using SBRT to doses of 30-45 Gy in three to five fractions. Two patients (with follow-up of 27 and 31 months) had a complete or near-complete response and remain cancer-free. One patient had intrahepatic HCC recurrence shortly after SBRT but stable disease in the treated lymph node metastasis at 20 months. Liver function remained excellent after radiation in all three patients, but one patient developed a grade 3 duodenal ulcer at 20 months that resolved with medical management. These cases illustrate the potential utility of SBRT as a non-invasive, definitive treatment option for patients with isolated lymph node metastases from HCC.

Ethical Issues in Radiation Oncology During a Pandemic.

Medicine in the United States has generally followed ethical principles espoused by Immanuel Kant where the individual patient takes priority in decision-making. With the advent of coronavirus disease 2019 as a major health event, radiation oncologists in some situations need to alter the manner in which they act with individual patients. The well-being of health care workers and society as a whole needs to be considered in management decisions. During the time of a pandemic, ethics principles may be based more on a utilitarian approach that emphasizes the common good. Thus, at times treatment decisions might result in delays in initiating therapy, modifying the radiation treatment course (such as to a short course rather than a long course of therapy), and the sequence of therapies, all to minimize viral exposure. It is important that altered therapy is based as much as possible on institutional or departmental decisions and, to the extent possible, not on a case-by-case basis. However, in all situations, we need to still respect the individual's autonomy and fully inform patients of our decisions and the reasons for those decisions.

Does Timing Matter? Surgical Outcomes in High-Grade Sarcomas after Neoadjuvant Radiation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of time to surgical resection after neoadjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in the high-grade soft tissue and retroperitoneal sarcomas has not been well established. We aimed to evaluate how surgical timing from EBRT affects oncologic and perioperative outcomes. METHODS: We performed a single institution retrospective cohort study of patients with biopsy-proven, high-grade sarcoma who completed neoadjuvant EBRT and resection from January 1, 1999 to September 1, 2018. We collected demographic and clinicopathologic variables, stratifying patients by time interval between EBRT and surgery: <6, 6-8, 8-10, and >10 wk. Primary outcomes collected were as follows: disease-free survival, overall survival, and perioperative complications. RESULTS: Of the 269 patients identified, 146 met inclusion criteria. The median follow-up was 24 mo. Overall and local recurrence were 37% (n = 54) and 14.4% (n = 21), respectively. Time to surgery did not affect recurrence (P = 0.82) or survival (P = 0.88). Positive margins (odds ratio 2.7, confidence interval 1.14, 6.51, P < 0.05) were predictive of recurrence. Primary tumor location, surgical timing, histology, and intraoperative radiation therapy were not associated with differences in recurrence. The overall complication rate was 28%, with 63% from wound infections. Fewer postoperative complications occurred in the < 6-wk cohort versus > 6-wk cohort (15% versus 38%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in oncologic outcomes associated with the timing of surgical resection after EBRT. Patients undergoing resection >6 wk were at higher risk for all complications without impacting wound complication rates. Future studies may include preoperative optimization of patients requiring delays in surgical planning to decrease perioperative complication rates.

Intergroup Randomized Phase III Study of Postoperative Oxaliplatin, 5-Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin Versus Oxaliplatin, 5-Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Bevacizumab for Patients with Stage II or III Rectal Cancer Receiving Preoperative Chemoradiation: A Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Research Group (E5204).

BACKGROUND: The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colon cancer. E5204 was designed to test whether the addition of bevacizumab to mFOLFOX6, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and definitive surgery, could improve overall survival (OS) in patients with stage II/III adenocarcinoma of the rectum. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer who had completed neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil-based chemoradiation and had undergone complete resection were enrolled. Patients were randomized to mFOLFOX6 (Arm A) or mFOLFOX6 with bevacizumab (Arm B) administered every 2 weeks for 12 cycles. RESULTS: E5204 registered only 355 patients (17% of planned accrual goal) as it was terminated prematurely owing to poor accrual. At a median follow-up of 72 months, there was no difference in 5-year overall survival (88.3% vs. 83.7%) or 5-year disease-free survival (71.2% vs. 76.5%) between the two arms. The rate of treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) was 68.8% on Arm A and 70.7% on Arm B. Arm B had a higher proportion of patients who discontinued therapy early as a result of AEs and patient withdrawal than did Arm A (32.4% vs. 21.5%, p = .029).The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs were neutropenia, leukopenia, neuropathy, diarrhea (without prior colostomy), and fatigue. CONCLUSION: At 17% of its planned accrual, E5204 did not meet its primary endpoint. The addition of bevacizumab to FOLFOX6 in the adjuvant setting did not significantly improve OS in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: At 17% of its planned accrual, E5204 was terminated early owing to poor accrual. At a median follow-up of 72 months, there was no significant difference in 5-year overall survival (88.3% vs. 83.7%) or in 5-year disease-free survival (71.2% vs. 76.5%) between the two arms. Despite significant advances in the treatment of rectal cancer, especially in improving local control rates, the risk of distant metastases and the need to further improve quality of life remain a challenge. Strategies combining novel agents with chemoradiation to improve both distant and local control are needed.

Phase I/II trial of nano-camptothecin CRLX101 with capecitabine and radiotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer.

CRLX101 is a nanoparticle-drug conjugate with a camptothecin payload. We assessed the toxicity and pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of CRLX101 with standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer. A single-arm study was conducted with a 3 + 3 dose escalation phase Ib followed by phase II at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Thirty-two patients were enrolled with 29 (91%) patients having T3/4 and 26 (81%) N1/2 disease. In phase Ib, no patient experienced a dose limiting toxicity (DLT) with every other week dosing, while 1/9 patients experienced a DLT with weekly dosing. The weekly MTD was identified as 15 mg/m2. The most common grade 3-4 toxicity was lymphopenia, with only 1 grade 4 event. pCR was achieved in 6/32 (19%) patients overall and 2/6 (33%) patients at the weekly MTD. CRLX101 at 15 mg/m2 weekly with neoadjuvant CRT is a feasible combination strategy with an excellent toxicity profile. Clinicaltrials.gov registration NCT02010567.