Sex Differences in Odds of Brain Metastasis and Outcomes by Brain Metastasis Status after Advanced Melanoma Diagnosis.

Sex differences in cancer are well-established. However, less is known about sex differences in diagnosis of brain metastasis and outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma. Using a United States nationwide electronic health record-derived de-identified database, we evaluated patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma from 1 January 2011-30 July 2022 who received an oncologist-defined rule-based first line of therapy (n = 7969, 33% female according to EHR, 35% w/documentation of brain metastases). The odds of documented brain metastasis diagnosis were calculated using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, practice type, diagnosis period (pre/post-2017), ECOG performance status, anatomic site of melanoma, group stage, documentation of non-brain metastases prior to first-line of treatment, and BRAF positive status. Real-world overall survival (rwOS) and progression-free survival (rwPFS) starting from first-line initiation were assessed by sex, accounting for brain metastasis diagnosis as a time-varying covariate using the Cox proportional hazards model, with the same adjustments as the logistic model, excluding group stage, while also adjusting for race, socioeconomic status, and insurance status. Adjusted analysis revealed males with advanced melanoma were 22% more likely to receive a brain metastasis diagnosis compared to females (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09, 1.36). Males with brain metastases had worse rwOS (aHR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.28) but not worse rwPFS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.95, 1.14) following first-line treatment initiation. Among patients with advanced melanoma who were not diagnosed with brain metastases, survival was not different by sex (rwOS aHR: 1.06 [95% CI: 0.97, 1.16], rwPFS aHR: 1.02 [95% CI: 0.94, 1.1]). This study showed that males had greater odds of brain metastasis and, among those with brain metastasis, poorer rwOS compared to females, while there were no sex differences in clinical outcomes for those with advanced melanoma without brain metastasis.

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.

CNS Downstaging: An Emerging Treatment Paradigm for Extensive Brain Metastases in Oncogene-Addicted Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: For extensive brain metastases (BrM) presentations arising from oncogene-addicted lung cancer, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with high response rates in the central nervous system (CNS) could potentially downstage the CNS disease burden, allowing for the avoidance of upfront whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and the conversion of some patients into candidates for focal stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). METHODS: We describe the outcomes of patients with ALK, EGFR, and ROS1-driven NSCLC with extensive BrM presentations (defined as > 10 BrMs or leptomeningeal disease) treated with upfront newer generation CNS-active TKIs alone, including osimertinib, alectinib, brigatinib, lorlatinib, and entrectinib, from 2012 to 2021 at our institution. All BrMs were contoured at study entry, best CNS response (nadir), and first CNS progression. RESULTS: Twelve patients met criteria including 6 with ALK, 3 with EGFR, and 3 with ROS1-driven NSCLC. The median number and volume of BrMs at presentation were 49 and 19.6 cm3, respectively. Eleven patients (91.7 %) achieved a CNS response by modified-RECIST criteria to upfront TKI (10 partial responses, 1 complete response, 1 stable disease) with nadir observed at a median of 5.1 months. At nadir, the median number and volume of BrMs were 5 (median 91.7 % reduction per-patient) and 0.3 cm3(median 96.5 % reduction per-patient), respectively. Eleven patients (91.6 %) developed subsequent CNS progression (7 local failures, 3 local + distant, 1 distant) at a median of 17.9 months. At CNS progression, the median number and volume of BrMs were 7 and 0.7 cm3, respectively. Seven patients (58.3 %) received salvage SRS and no patients received salvage WBRT. The median overall survival from initiation of TKI for the extensive BrM presentation was 43.2 months. CONCLUSION: In this initial case series, we describe CNS downstaging as a promising multidisciplinary treatment paradigm involving the upfront administration CNS-active systemic therapy and close MRI surveillance for extensive BrMs as a strategy to avoid upfront WBRT and to convert some patients into SRS candidates.

Development of a United States Radiation Oncology Curricular Framework: A Stakeholder Delphi Consensus.

PURPOSE: A United States (US) radiation oncology curriculum, developed using best practices for curriculum inquiry, is needed to guide residency education and qualifying examinations. Competency-based training, including entrustable professional activities (EPAs), provides an outcomes-based approach to modern graduate medical education. This study aimed to define US radiation oncology EPAs and curricular content domains using a deliberative process with input from multiple stakeholder groups. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Core Curriculum Project Leadership Committee developed initial content domains and EPAs. Following recruitment of stakeholders, a Delphi process was used to achieve consensus. In the first round, content domains and EPAs were reviewed for inclusion and exclusion, clarity, time allocation (content domains), and level of training (EPAs). Participants submitted additional content domains and EPAs for consideration. Any content domains or EPAs 1 standard deviation below the median for inclusion and exclusion underwent Leadership Committee review. All participants completing the first Delphi round were invited to the second round. Percent curriculum time allocated for content domains and a single subdomain were finalized. New EPAs or EPAs undergoing major revisions were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 186 participants representing diverse stakeholder groups participated. One hundred fourteen completed the first Delphi round (61.3%). Of 114 invited, 77 participants completed the second round of the Delphi process (67.5%). Overall, 6 of 9 content domains met consensus, 1 content domain was removed, and 2 content domains were combined. Four subdomains of a single content domain were reviewed and met consensus. Consensus on percent time allocated per content domain and subdomain was reached. Of 55 initial EPAs, 52 final EPAs met consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Deliberative curriculum inquiry was successfully used to develop a consensus on US radiation oncology content domains and EPAs. These data can guide the allocation of educational time in training programs, help inform weighting for qualifying examinations, and help guide clinical training and resident assessment.

Factors associated with progression and mortality among patients undergoing stereotactic radiosurgery for intracranial metastasis: results from a national real-world registry.

OBJECTIVE: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been increasingly employed in recent years to treat intracranial metastatic lesions. However, there is still a need for optimization of treatment paradigms to provide better local control and prevent progressive intracranial disease. In the current study, the authors utilized a national collaborative registry to investigate the outcomes of patients with intracranial metastatic disease who underwent SRS and to determine factors associated with lesion treatment response, overall progression, and mortality. METHODS: The NeuroPoint Alliance SRS registry was queried for all patients with intracranial metastatic lesions undergoing single- or multifraction SRS at participating institutions between 2016 and 2020. The main outcomes of interest included lesion response (lesion-level analysis), progression using Response Assessment for Neuro-Oncology criteria, and mortality (patient-level analysis). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to report time to progression and overall survival, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to investigate factors associated with lesion response, progression, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 501 patients (1447 intracranial metastatic lesions) who underwent SRS and had available follow-up were included in the current analyses. The most common primary tumor was lung cancer (49.5%, n = 248), followed by breast (15.4%, n = 77) and melanoma (12.2%, n = 61). Most patients had a single lesion (44.9%, n = 225), 29.3% (n = 147) had 2 or 3 lesions, and 25.7% (n = 129) had > 3 lesions. The mean sum of baseline measurements of the lesions according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was 35.54 mm (SD 25.94). At follow-up, 671 lesions (46.4%) had a complete response, 631 (43.6%) had a partial response (≥ 30% decrease in longest diameter) or were stable (< 30% decrease but < 20% increase), and 145 (10%) showed progression (> 20% increase in longest diameter). On multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, melanoma-associated lesions (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.67; p < 0.001) and larger lesion size (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.93-0.96; p < 0.001) showed lower odds of lesion regression, while a higher biologically effective dose was associated with higher odds (HR 1.001, 95% CI 1.0001-1.00023; p < 0.001). A total of 237 patients (47.3%) had overall progression (local failure or intracranial progressive disease), with a median time to progression of 10.03 months after the index SRS. Factors found to be associated with increased hazards of progression included male sex (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.108-1.99; p = 0.008), while administration of immunotherapy (before or after SRS) was found to be associated with lower hazards of overall progression (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.460-0.85; p = 0.003). A total of 121 patients (23.95%) died during the follow-up period, with a median survival of 19.4 months from the time of initial SRS. A higher recursive partitioning analysis score (HR 21.3485, 95% CI 1.53202-3.6285; p < 0.001) was found to be associated with higher hazards of mortality, while single-fraction treatment compared with hypofractionated treatment (HR 0.082, 95% CI 0.011-0.61; p = 0.015), administration of immunotherapy (HR 0.385, 95% CI 0.233-0.64; p < 0.001), and presence of single compared with > 3 lesions (HR 0.427, 95% CI 0.187-0.98; p = 0.044) were found to be associated with lower risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The comparability of results between this study and those of previously published clinical trials affirms the value of multicenter databases with real-world data collected without predetermined research purpose.

Practical Implementation of Emergent After-Hours Radiation Treatment Process Using Remote Treatment Planning on Optimized Diagnostic CT Scans.

The purpose of this report is to present the implementation of a process for after-hours radiation treatment (RT) utilizing remote treatment planning based on optimized diagnostic computed tomography (CT) scans for the urgent palliative treatment of inpatients. A standardized operating procedure was developed by an interprofessional panel to improve the quality of after-hours RT and minimize the risk of treatment errors. A new diagnostic CT protocol was created that could be performed after-hours on hospital scanners and would ensure a reproducible patient position and adequate field of view. An on-call structure for dosimetry staff was created utilizing remote treatment planning. The optimized CT protocol was developed in collaboration with the radiology department, and a novel order set was created in the electronic health system. The clinical workflow begins with the radiation oncologist notifying the on-call team (therapist, dosimetrist, and physicist) and obtaining an optimized diagnostic CT scan on a hospital-based scanner. The dosimetrist remotely creates a plan; the physicist checks the plan; and the patient is treated. Plans are intentionally simple (parallel opposed fields, symmetric jaws) to expedite care and reduce the risk of error. Education on the new process was provided for all relevant staff. Our process was successfully implemented with the use of an optimized CT protocol and remote treatment planning. This approach has the potential to improve the quality and safety of emergent after-hours RT by better approximating the normal process of care.

The Economics of Using Locally Ablative Therapy in Oligometastatic Cancer.

Locally ablative therapy for oligometastatic cancers can improve clinical outcomes in some settings, but the interventional procedures used will also add expense to the overall cost of care for individual patients. The physician's responsibility to be a thoughtful steward of health care resources obliges evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of local therapy when used in an effort to prolong duration of survival or improve quality of life in patients with metastatic cancer. The challenge for investigators in this domain is to capture appropriate prospective data that can inform proper patient selection and identify the conditions in which locally ablative therapy for oligometastatic cancer provides high value care.

No Longer a Match: Trends in Radiation Oncology National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Data from 2010-2020 and Comparison Across Specialties.

PURPOSE: To report trends in the number and types of applicants and matched trainees to radiation oncology in comparison to other specialties participating in the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) between 2010 and 2020. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from the NRMP and Electronic Residency Application System (ERAS) were obtained for 18 medical specialties between 2010 and 2020. We assessed the numbers and types of applicants and matched trainees relative to available positions in the NRMP and Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP). RESULTS: In the 2020 NRMP, 122 US MD senior graduates preferentially ranked radiation oncology, a significant decrease from a median of 187 between 2010 to 2019 (interquartile range [IQR], 170-192; P < .001). Across all 18 specialties, radiation oncology experienced the greatest declines in the 2020 NRMP cycle relative to 2010 to 2019, in both the number of ERAS applicants from the United States and Canada (-31%) and the percentage of positions filled by US MD or DO senior graduates (-28%). Of 189 available positions, 81% (n = 154) filled in the NRMP prior to the SOAP, of which 65% (n = 122) were "matched" by US MD senior graduates who preferentially ranked radiation oncology as their top choice of specialty, representing a significant decrease from a median of 92% between 2010 to 2019 (IQR, 88%-94%; P = .002). The percentages of radiation oncology programs and positions unfilled in the NRMP prior to the SOAP were significantly increased in 2020 compared with 2010 to 2019 (programs: 29% vs 8% [IQR, 5%-8%; P < .001]; positions: 19% vs 4% [IQR, 2%-4%; P <.001]). Despite >99% (n = 127 of 128) of US MD or DO senior applicants preferring radiation oncology successfully matching to a radiation oncology position in the 2020 NRMP, 16 of 35 remaining unfilled positions were filled via the SOAP. Radiation oncology was the top user of the SOAP across all specialties participating in the 2020 NRMP, filling 15% of total positions versus a median of 0.9% (IQR, 0.3%-2.3%; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: The supply of radiation oncology residency positions now far exceeds demand by graduating US medical students. Efforts to nullify a market correction revealed by medical student behavior via continued reliance on the SOAP to fill historical levels of training positions may not be in the best of interest of trainees, individual programs, or the specialty as a whole.

Prostate Cancer Central Nervous System Metastasis in a Contemporary Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Central nervous system (CNS) metastasis from prostate cancer (PCA) is a rare event, but one with significant prognostic impact for those affected. There are limited data on its impact in contemporary cohorts treated with modern agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective institutional review was performed to characterize the occurrence/outcome of PCA CNS metastasis on all cases of PCA from 2011 to 2017. A manual chart review was performed to confirm PCA CNS metastases in all cases identified through a diagnostic code screening of the health data. RESULTS: A total of 6596 cases of PCA were identified, with 29 (20 dural and 9 intraparenchymal) confirmed cases of CNS metastases from PCA. The median survival from the time of diagnosis of CNS metastasis was 2.6 months (95% confidence interval, 2.04-10.78 months) and 5.41 months (95% confidence interval, 3.03 months to not reached) for dural and parenchymal metastases, respectively. Among those who developed CNS metastases, approximately 79% of patients had prior exposure to abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, of whom 50% had ≥ 6 months of exposure. Four (0.07%) of the 5841 patients developed CNS metastases prior to the initiation of therapy or on androgen deprivation therapy alone. In contrast, 24 (8.6%) of the 279 patients with 2 or more lines of medical therapy developed CNS metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights the continued poor prognosis of parenchymal and dural CNS metastases from PCA. CNS metastases in PCA remain a rare event with a 0.4% incidence in this series, but this incidence is considerably increased in patients who receive medical therapy beyond first-line androgen deprivation therapy.

Practice Recommendations for Lung Cancer Radiotherapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An ESTRO-ASTRO Consensus Statement.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused radiotherapy resource pressures and led to increased risks for lung cancer patients and healthcare staff. An international group of experts in lung cancer radiotherapy established this practice recommendation pertaining to whether and how to adapt radiotherapy for lung cancer in the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: For this ESTRO & ASTRO endorsed project, 32 experts in lung cancer radiotherapy contributed to a modified Delphi consensus process. We assessed potential adaptations of radiotherapy in two pandemic scenarios. The first, an early pandemic scenario of risk mitigation, is characterized by an altered risk-benefit ratio of radiotherapy for lung cancer patients due to their increased susceptibility for severe COVID-19 infection, and minimization of patient travelling and exposure of radiotherapy staff. The second, a later pandemic scenario, is characterized by reduced radiotherapy resources requiring patient triage. Six common lung cancer cases were assessed for both scenarios: peripherally located stage I NSCLC, locally advanced NSCLC, postoperative radiotherapy after resection of pN2 NSCLC, thoracic radiotherapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation for limited stage SCLC and palliative thoracic radiotherapy for stage IV NSCLC. RESULTS: In a risk-mitigation pandemic scenario, efforts should be made not to compromise the prognosis of lung cancer patients by departing from guideline-recommended radiotherapy practice. In that same scenario, postponement or interruption of radiotherapy treatment of COVID-19 positive patients is generally recommended to avoid exposure of cancer patients and staff to an increased risk of COVID-19 infection. In a severe pandemic scenario characterized by reduced resources, if patients must be triaged, important factors for triage include potential for cure, relative benefit of radiation, life expectancy, and performance status. Case-specific consensus recommendations regarding multimodality treatment strategies and fractionation of radiotherapy are provided. CONCLUSION: This joint ESTRO-ASTRO practice recommendation established pragmatic and balanced consensus recommendations in common clinical scenarios of radiotherapy for lung cancer in order to address the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Practice recommendations for lung cancer radiotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: An ESTRO-ASTRO consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused radiotherapy resource pressures and led to increased risks for lung cancer patients and healthcare staff. An international group of experts in lung cancer radiotherapy established this practice recommendation pertaining to whether and how to adapt radiotherapy for lung cancer in the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: For this ESTRO & ASTRO endorsed project, 32 experts in lung cancer radiotherapy contributed to a modified Delphi consensus process. We assessed potential adaptations of radiotherapy in two pandemic scenarios. The first, an early pandemic scenario of risk mitigation, is characterized by an altered risk-benefit ratio of radiotherapy for lung cancer patients due to their increased susceptibility for severe COVID-19 infection, and minimization of patient travelling and exposure of radiotherapy staff. The second, a later pandemic scenario, is characterized by reduced radiotherapy resources requiring patient triage. Six common lung cancer cases were assessed for both scenarios: peripherally located stage I NSCLC, locally advanced NSCLC, postoperative radiotherapy after resection of pN2 NSCLC, thoracic radiotherapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation for limited stage SCLC and palliative thoracic radiotherapy for stage IV NSCLC. RESULTS: In a risk-mitigation pandemic scenario, efforts should be made not to compromise the prognosis of lung cancer patients by departing from guideline-recommended radiotherapy practice. In that same scenario, postponement or interruption of radiotherapy treatment of COVID-19 positive patients is generally recommended to avoid exposure of cancer patients and staff to an increased risk of COVID-19 infection. In a severe pandemic scenario characterized by reduced resources, if patients must be triaged, important factors for triage include potential for cure, relative benefit of radiation, life expectancy, and performance status. Case-specific consensus recommendations regarding multimodality treatment strategies and fractionation of radiotherapy are provided. CONCLUSION: This joint ESTRO-ASTRO practice recommendation established pragmatic and balanced consensus recommendations in common clinical scenarios of radiotherapy for lung cancer in order to address the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.