Association of Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy with survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy, an electric field-based cancer treatment, became FDA-approved for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) in 2015 based on the randomized controlled EF-14 study. Subsequent approvals worldwide and increased adoption over time have raised the question of whether a consistent survival benefit has been observed in the real-world setting, and whether device usage has played a role. METHODS: We conducted a literature search to identify clinical studies evaluating overall survival (OS) in TTFields-treated patients. Comparative and single-cohort studies were analyzed. Survival curves were pooled using a distribution-free random-effects method. RESULTS: Among nine studies, seven (N = 1430 patients) compared the addition of TTFields therapy to standard of care (SOC) chemoradiotherapy versus SOC alone and were included in a pooled analysis for OS. Meta-analysis of comparative studies indicated a significant improvement in OS for patients receiving TTFields and SOC versus SOC alone (HR: 0.63; 95% CI 0.53-0.75; p < 0.001). Among real-world post-approval studies, the pooled median OS was 22.6 months (95% CI 17.6-41.2) for TTFields-treated patients, and 17.4 months (95% CI 14.4-21.6) for those not receiving TTFields. Rates of gross total resection were generally higher in the real-world setting, irrespective of TTFields use. Furthermore, for patients included in studies reporting data on device usage (N = 1015), an average usage rate of ≥ 75% was consistently associated with prolonged survival (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of comparative TTFields studies suggests survival may be improved with the addition of TTFields to SOC for patients with newly diagnosed GBM.

Survival After Robotic-assisted Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Epidemiologic Study.

BACKGROUNDS: To determine the potential survival benefit associated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP) for prostate cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: RALP has become the dominant surgical approach for localized disease in the absence of randomized clinical evidence and despite of the factor that RALP is more expensive than ORP. METHODS: We performed a cohort study involving patients who underwent RALP and ORP for localized prostate cancer at the Commission on Cancer- accredited hospitals in the United States. Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, Cox proportional hazards models, and propensity score-matched analyses. An interrupted time-series analysis using the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program database was also performed. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2011, 37,645 patients received RALP and 12,655 patients received ORP. At a median follow-up of 60.7 months, RALP was associated with improved overall survival by both univariate [hazard ratio (HR), 0.69; P < 0.001] and multivariate analysis (HR, 0.76; P < 0.001) compared with ORP. Propensity score-matched analysis demonstrated improved 5-year all-cause mortality (3.9% vs 5.5%, HR, 0.73; P < 0.001) for RALP. The interrupted time-series analysis demonstrated the adoption of robotic surgery coincided with a systematic improvement in the 5-year cancer-specific survival rate of 0.17% (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.25) per year after 2003 (P = 0.004 for change of trend), as compared to the time before adoption of RALP (1998-2003, annual percentage change, 0.01%; 95% confidence interval, -0.06 to 0.08). Sensitivity analysis suggested that the results from the interrupted time-series analysis were consistent with the improvement in the all-cause mortality demonstrated in the survival analysis (P = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: In this epidemiologic analysis, RALP was associated with a small but statistically significant improvement in 5-year all-cause mortality compared to ORP for localized prostate cancer. This is the first time in the literature to report a survival benefit with RALP. Our findings have significant quality and cost implications, and provide assurance regarding a dominant adoption of more expensive technology in the absence of randomized controlled trials.

The role of radiation therapy in the management of cutaneous malignancies. Part I: Diagnostic modalities and applications.

Radiation therapy offers distinct advantages over other currently available treatments for cutaneous malignancies in certain circumstances. Dermatologists and dermatologic surgeons should be familiar with the available radiation therapy techniques as well as their value and potential limitations in a variety of clinical scenarios. The first article in this 2-part continuing medical education series highlights the mechanisms, modalities, and applications of the most commonly used radiotherapy treatments as they relate to cutaneous oncology. We review the current indications for the use of radiation in the treatment of various cutaneous malignancies, the techniques commonly employed in modern radiotherapy, and the associated complications.

The role of radiation therapy in the management of cutaneous malignancies. Part II: When is radiation therapy indicated?

Radiation therapy may be performed for a variety of cutaneous malignancies, depending on patient health status, tumor clinical and histologic features, patient preference, and resource availability. Dermatologists should be able to recognize the clinical scenarios in which radiation therapy is appropriate, as this may reduce morbidity, decrease risk of disease recurrence, and improve quality of life. The second article in this 2-part continuing medical education series focuses on the most common indications for radiation therapy in the treatment of basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, Merkel cell carcinoma, Kaposi sarcoma, angiosarcoma, cutaneous lymphoma, melanoma, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, and sebaceous carcinoma.

Integration of Tumor-Treating Fields into the Multidisciplinary Management of Patients with Solid Malignancies.

Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) are a noninvasive antimitotic cancer treatment consisting of low-intensity alternating electric fields delivered to the tumor or tumor bed via externally applied transducer arrays. In multiple in vitro and in vivo cancer cell lines, TTFields therapy inhibits cell proliferation, disrupts cell division, interferes with cell migration and invasion, and reduces DNA repair. Human trials in patients with primary glioblastoma showed an improvement in overall survival, and trials in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma showed favorable outcomes compared with historical control. This led to U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in both clinical situations, paving the way for development of trials investigating TTFields in other malignancies. Although these trials are ongoing, the existing evidence suggests that TTFields have activity outside of neuro-oncology, and further study into the mechanism of action and clinical activity is required. In addition, because TTFields are a previously unrecognized antimitotic therapy with a unique mode of delivery, the oncological community must address obstacles to widespread patient and provider acceptance. TTFields will likely join surgery, systemic therapy, and radiation therapy as a component of multimodality management of patients with solid malignancies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) exhibit a broad range of antitumor activities. Clinically, they improve overall survival for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. The emergence of TTFields has changed the treatment regimen for glioblastoma. Clinicians need to understand the practical issues surrounding its use in the multidisciplinary management of patients with glioblastoma. With ongoing clinical trials, TTFields likely will become another treatment modality for solid malignancies.

Definitive Pelvic Radiotherapy and Survival of Patients With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Anal Cancer.

Background: Chemotherapy with or without pelvic radiotherapy (RT) is included in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for metastatic anal cancer (MAC), despite limited clinical evidence for RT in this setting. In addition, increasing evidence shows that local therapies, including RT, may increase patient survival for some types of metastatic cancers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patterns of care and association between definitive pelvic RT and overall survival (OS) for patients with MAC. Methods: The National Cancer Database was analyzed to evaluate OS of patients with newly diagnosed MAC treated with chemotherapy with or without pelvic RT. Those who did not undergo treatment, treated with surgery, or without baseline variables were excluded. OS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, Cox proportional hazards models, and propensity score-matched analyses. Results: From 2004 through 2015, 437 patients received chemotherapy alone and 1,020 received pelvic chemoradiotherapy (CRT). At a median follow-up of 17.3 months, CRT was associated with improved OS on univariate (P<.001) and multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81; P<.001). Propensity score-matched analysis demonstrated superior median survival (21.3 vs 15.9 months) and 2-year OS rates (46% vs 34%) with CRT compared with chemotherapy alone (P<.001). Landmark analyses limited to long-term survivors of ≥1, ≥2, and ≥4 years showed improved OS with CRT in all subsets (all P<.05). CRT with therapeutic doses (≥45 Gy) was associated with longer median survival than palliative doses (<45 Gy) and chemotherapy alone (24.9 vs 10.9 vs 15.6 months, respectively; P<.001). The benefit of CRT was present among not only those with distant lymph node metastasis (HR, 0.63; P=.04) but also those with distant organ disease (HR, 0.74; P<.001). Conclusions: In this large hypothesis-generating analysis, patients with newly diagnosed MAC who received definitive pelvic RT with chemotherapy lived significantly longer than those who received chemotherapy alone. Prospective trials evaluating definitive local RT for MAC are warranted.

Phase 1 adaptive dose-finding study of neoadjuvant gemcitabine combined with radiation therapy for patients with high-risk extremity and trunk soft tissue sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: This study was performed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of gemcitabine given concurrently with preoperative, fixed-dose external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for patients with resectable, high-risk extremity and trunk soft tissue sarcoma (STS). METHODS: Gemcitabine was administered on days 1, 8, 22, 29, 43, and 50 with EBRT (50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks). The gemcitabine MTD was determined with a toxicity severity weight method (TSWM) incorporating 6 toxicity types. The TSWM is a Bayesian procedure that choses each cohort's dose to have a posterior mean total toxicity burden closest to a predetermined clinician-defined target. Clinicopathologic and outcome data were also collected. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients completed the study. According to the TSWM, the gemcitabine MTD was 700 mg/m(2). At this dose level, 4 patients (24%) experienced grade 4 toxicity; no toxicity-related deaths occurred. All tumors were resected with microscopically negative margins. Pathologic responses of >90% tumor necrosis were achieved in 17 patients (47%); 14 (39%) had complete responses. With a median follow-up of 6.2 years, the 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were 85%, 80%, and 86%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The TSWM combines data from qualitatively different toxicities and can be used to determine the MTD for a drug given as part of a multimodality treatment. Neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus radiation therapy is feasible and safe in patients with high-risk extremity and trunk STS. Major pathologic responses can be achieved, and after complete resection, long-term clinical outcomes are encouraging.

Extended Follow-Up Outcomes from Pooled Prospective Studies Evaluating Efficacy of Interstitial Alpha Radionuclide Treatment for Skin and Head and Neck Cancers.

The initial favorable efficacy and safety profile for Alpha DaRT have been demonstrated (NCT04377360); however, the longer-term safety and durability of the treatment are unknown. This pooled analysis of four prospective trials evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of Alpha DaRT for the treatment of head and neck or skin tumors. A total of 81 lesions in 71 patients were treated across six international institutions, with a median follow-up of 14.1 months (range: 2-51 months). Alpha DaRT sources were delivered via a percutaneous interstitial technique and placed to irradiate the tumor volume with the margin. The sources were removed two to three weeks following implantation. A complete response was observed in 89% of treated lesions (n = 72) and a partial response in 10% (n = 8). The two-year actuarial local recurrence-free survival was 77% [95% CI 63-87]. Variables, including recurrent versus non-recurrent lesions, baseline tumor size, or histology, did not impact long-term outcomes. Twenty-seven percent of patients developed related acute grade 2 or higher toxicities, which resolved with conservative measures. No grade 2 or higher late toxicities were observed. These data support the favorable safety profile of Alpha DaRT, which is currently being explored in a pivotal US trial.

Feasibility and Safety of Diffusing Alpha-Emitter Radiation Therapy for Recurrent or Unresectable Skin Cancers.

Importance: Patients with recurrent or unresectable skin cancers have limited treatment options. Diffusing alpha-emitter radiation therapy (DaRT), a novel solid tumor management strategy using alpha-particle interstitial brachytherapy, may address this challenge. Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of using DaRT to manage recurrent or unresectable skin cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study of patients who received a 2-week to 3-week treatment course and were followed up for 24 weeks after treatment during 2021 and 2022 at 2 sites in the US. Patients with malignant skin tumors or soft tissue tumors were recruited if they had limited treatment options for tumors recurrent after prior surgery or external beam radiotherapy or unresectable tumors. Intervention: Patients underwent DaRT to deliver a physical dose of 10 Gy (equivalent weighted dose of 200 CGE) to the tumor. Main Outcomes and Measures: Feasibility of the DaRT procedure was evaluated based on the ability of investigators to successfully deliver radiation to the tumor. Patients were followed up for adverse events (AEs) for 24 weeks and for tumor response by physicians' physical examination and imaging 12 weeks after device removal. Results: This study included 10 participants with recurrent or unresectable skin cancer (median [IQR] age, 72 [68-75] years; 6 males [60%]; 4 females [40%]). Six patients (60%) had recurrent disease, and 4 (40%) had tumors that were deemed unresectable. Tumors were located on the nose, chin, eyelid, scalp, neck, trunk, and extremities. Median (range) tumor volume before treatment was 2.1 cm3 (0.65-12.65 cm3). The mean (SD) prescription dose coverage of the gross tumor volume was 91% (2.8%) with all tumors having coverage of 85% or more. No device-related grade 3 AEs were noted. Common AEs were grade 1 to 2 erythema, edema, and pruritus. At 12 weeks following treatment, there was a 100% complete response rate. Nine of 10 complete responses (90%) were confirmed by CT imaging. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study suggests the feasibility and preliminary safety of DaRT in the management of recurrent or unresectable skin cancers. The favorable safety profile and high response rates are promising. A US trial for marketing approval based on this pilot study is under way. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04377360.

Predicting future cancer incidence by age, race, ethnicity, and sex.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer remains a substantial burden on society. Our objective was to update projections on the number of new cancer diagnoses in the United States by age, race, ethnicity, and sex through 2040. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Population-based cancer incidence data were obtained using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data. Population estimates were made using the 2010 US Census data population projections to calculate future cancer incidence. Trends in age-adjusted incidence rates for 23 cancer types along with total cancers were calculated and incorporated into a second projection model. RESULTS: If cancer incidence remains stable, annual cancer diagnoses are projected to increase by 29.5% from 1.86 million to 2.4 million between 2020 and 2040. This increase outpaces the projected US population growth of 12.3% over the same period. The population of older adults is projected to represent an increasing proportion of total cancer diagnoses with patients ≥65 years old comprising 69% of all new cancer diagnoses and patients ≥85 years old representing 13% of new diagnoses by 2040. Cancer diagnoses are projected to increase in racial minority groups, with a projected 44% increase in Black Americans (from 222,000 to 320,000 annually), and 86% in Hispanic Americans (from 175,000 to 326,000 annually). DISCUSSION: The landscape of cancer care will continue to change over the next several decades. The burden of disease will remain substantial, and the growing proportion of older and minority patients with cancer remains of particular interest. These projections should help guide future health policy and research priorities.

Multi-Institutional Patterns of Use of Tumor-Treating Fields for Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

(1) Background: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the device usage rates and patterns of use regarding Tumor-Treating Fields (TTFields) for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) throughout the US. (2) Methods: We evaluated de-identified data from 33 patients with MPM enrolled in FDA-required HDE protocols at 14 institutions across the US from September 2019 to March 2022. (3) Results: The median number of total TTFields usage days was 72 (range: 6-649 days), and the total treatment duration was 160 months for all patients. A low usage rate (defined as less than 6 h per day, 25%) was observed in 34 (21.2%) months. The median TTFields usage in the first 3 months was 12 h per day (range: 1.9-21.6 h), representing 50% (range: 8-90%) of the potential daily duration. The median TTFields usage after 3 months decreased to 9.1 h per day (range: 3.1-17 h), representing 38% (range: 13-71%) of the daily duration, and was lower than usage in the first 3 months (p = 0.01). (4) Conclusions: This study represents the first multicenter analysis of real-world TTFields usage based on usage patterns for MPM patients in clinical practice. The real-world usage level was lower than the suggested daily usage. Further initiatives and guidelines should be developed to evaluate the impact of this finding on tumor control.

Determinants of tumor treating field usage in patients with primary glioblastoma: A single institutional experience.

Background: Determinates of tumor treating fields (TTFields) usage in patients receiving combined modality therapy for primary IDH wild-type glioblastoma are currently unknown. Methods: Ninety-one patients underwent maximal debulking surgical resection, completed external beam radiotherapy with concurrent Temozolomide (TMZ), and initiated adjuvant TMZ with or without TTFields. We performed a retrospective analysis of patient, tumor, and treatment-related factors that affected TTFields usage. Results: We identified three TTFields usage subgroups: 32 patients that declined TTFields, 40 patients that started, but had monthly compliance of less than 75% or used it for less than 2 months, and 19 patients who used TTFields for 2 or more months and maintained average monthly compliance greater than 75%. With 26.5 months median follow-up for surviving patients, the 1- and 3-year actuarial overall survival for all patients was 80% and 18%, respectively. On multivariate analysis TTFields use (P = .03), extent of surgical resection (P = 0.02), and MGMT methylation status (P = .01) were significantly associated with overall survival. TTFields usage was explored as a continuous variable and higher average usage was associated with longer overall survival (P = .03). There was no relationship between patient, tumor, or treatment-related factors and a patient's decision to use TTFields. Conclusions: No subgroup of patients was more or less likely to initiate TTFields therapy and no subgroup was more or less likely to use TTFields as prescribed. The degree of TTFields compliance may be associated with improved survival independent of other factors.

The Impact of Tumor Treating Fields on Glioblastoma Progression Patterns.

PURPOSE: Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) are an antimitotic treatment modality that interfere with glioblastoma (GBM) cell division and organelle assembly by delivering low-intensity, alternating electric fields to the tumor. A previous analysis from the pivotal EF-14 trial demonstrated a clear correlation between TTFields dose density at the tumor bed and survival in patients treated with TTFields. This study tests the hypothesis that the antimitotic effects of TTFields result in measurable changes in the location and patterns of progression of newly diagnosed GBM. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Magnetic resonance images of 428 newly diagnosed GBM patients who participated in the pivotal EF-14 trial were reviewed, and the rates at which distant progression occurred in the TTFields treatment and control arm were compared. Realistic head models of 252 TTFields-treated patients were created, and TTFields intensity distributions were calculated using a finite element method. The TTFields dose was calculated within regions of the tumor bed and normal brain, and its relationship with progression was determined. RESULTS: Distant progression was frequently observed in the TTFields-treated arm, and distant lesions in the TTFields-treated arm appeared at greater distances from the primary lesion than in the control arm. Distant progression correlated with improved clinical outcome in the TTFields patients, with no such correlation observed in the controls. Areas of normal brain that remained normal were exposed to higher TTFields doses compared with normal brain that subsequently exhibited neoplastic progression. Additionally, the average dose to areas of the enhancing tumor that returned to normal was significantly higher than in the areas of the normal brain that progressed to enhancing tumor. CONCLUSIONS: There was a direct correlation between TTFields dose distribution and tumor response, confirming the therapeutic activity of TTFields and the rationale for optimizing array placement to maximize the TTFields dose in areas at highest risk of progression, as well as array layout adaptation after progression.

Prevention and Management of Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Tumor Treating Fields in Patients With Glioblastoma.

Importance: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are an anti-mitotic treatment approved for treating newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma, and mesothelioma. TTFields in glioblastoma comprise alternating electric fields (200 kHz) delivered continuously, ideally for ≥18 h/day, to the tumor bed via transducer arrays placed on the shaved scalp. When applied locoregionally to the tumor bed and combined with systemic temozolomide chemotherapy, TTFields improved overall survival vs. temozolomide alone in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Improved efficacy outcomes with TTFields were demonstrated, while maintaining a well-tolerated and manageable safety profile. The most commonly-reported TTFields-associated adverse events (AEs) are beneath-array dermatologic events. Since survival benefit from TTFields increases with duration-of-use, prevention and management of skin AEs are critical to maximize adherence. This paper describes TTFields-associated dermatological AEs and recommends prevention and management strategies based on clinical trial evidence and real-world clinical experience. Observations: TTFields-associated skin reactions include contact dermatitis (irritant/allergic), hyperhidrosis, xerosis or pruritus, and more rarely, skin erosions/ulcers and infections. Skin AEs may be prevented through skin-care and shifting (~2 cm) of array position during changes. TTFields-related skin AE management should be based on clinical phenotype and severity. Depending on diagnosis, recommended treatments include antibiotics, skin barrier films, moisturizers, topical corticosteroids, and antiperspirants. Water-based lotions, soaps, foams, and solutions with minimal impact on electrical impedance are preferred with TTFields use over petroleum-based ointments, which increase impedance. Conclusions: Early identification, prophylactic measures, and symptomatic skin AE management help patients maximize TTFields usage, while maintaining quality-of-life and optimizing therapeutic benefit. Implications for practice: TTFields confer a survival benefit in patients with glioblastoma that correlates positively with duration of daily use. Skin events (rash) are the primary treatment-related AE that can limit duration of use. The recommendations described here will help healthcare professionals to recognize, prevent, and manage dermatologic AEs associated with TTFields treatment. These recommendations may improve cutaneous health and support adherence to therapy, both of which would maximize treatment outcomes.

Correlation of Tumor Treating Fields Dosimetry to Survival Outcomes in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma: A Large-Scale Numerical Simulation-Based Analysis of Data from the Phase 3 EF-14 Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are approved for glioblastoma based on improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the phase 3 EF-14 trial of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. To test the hypothesis that increasing TTFields dose at the tumor site improves patient outcomes, we performed a simulation-based study investigating the association between TTFields dose and survival (OS and PFS) in patients treated with TTFields in EF-14. METHODS AND MATERIALS: EF-14 patient cases (N = 340) were included. Realistic head models were derived from T1-contrast images captured at baseline. The transducer array layout on each patient was obtained from EF-14 records; average compliance (fraction of time patient was on active treatment) and average electrical current delivered to the patient were derived from log files of the TTFields devices used by patients. TTFields intensity distributions and power densities were calculated using the finite element method. Local minimum dose density (LMiDD) was defined as the product of TTFields intensity, tissue-specific conductivities, and patient compliance. The average LMiDD within a tumor bed comprising the gross tumor volume and the 3-mm-wide peritumoral boundary zone was calculated. RESULTS: The median OS and PFS were significantly longer when the average LMiDD in the tumor bed was ≥0.77 mW/cm3: OS was 25.2 versus 20.4 months (P = .003, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.611) and PFS was 8.5 versus 6.7 months (P = .02, HR = 0.699). The median OS and PFS were longer when the average TTFields intensity was >1.06 V/cm: OS was 24.3 versus 21.6 months (P = .03, HR = 0.705) and PFS was 8.1 versus 7.9 months (P = .03, HR = 0.721). CONCLUSIONS: In this study we present the first reported analysis demonstrating patient-level dose responses to TTFields. We provide a rigorous definition for TTFields dose and set a conceptual framework for future work on TTFields dosimetry and treatment planning.

Iodine-125 Episcleral Plaque Brachytherapy for AJCC T4 Posterior Uveal Melanoma: Clinical Outcomes in 158 Patients.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study is to report the burden of ocular morbidity following iodine-125 episcleral plaque brachytherapy (EPBT) in the treatment of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T4-staged posterior uveal melanoma (PUM). METHODS: Clinical records of patients with T4-staged PUM treated with 125I EPBT were analyzed for incidence of treatment failure and radiation-induced complications. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence of local treatment failure was 9% (95% CI 5-15%) at 5 years and was associated with decreased tumor height (HR = 0.78; p = 0.01). Cumulative incidence of enucleation at 5 years was 21% and was correlated with worsening baseline visual acuity (HR = 1.42; p = 0.05). Increasing patient age was associated with higher rates of vitreous hemorrhage (HR = 1.03; p = 0.02) and cataract surgery (HR = 1.05; p < 0.001). Increased tumor height was associated with higher rates of neovascular glaucoma (HR = 1.16; p = 0.03) and vitreous hemorrhage (HR = 1.23; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: 125I EPBT is an effective treatment for T4-staged PUM and achieves high rates of local control. Treatment failure appears to be more common among minimally elevated tumors. Other causes of ocular morbidity were associated with increasing tumor height, patient age, and baseline visual acuity.

Prospective Comparison of Toxicity and Cosmetic Outcome After Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation With Conformal External Beam Radiotherapy or Single-Entry Multilumen Intracavitary Brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to prospectively characterize toxicity and cosmesis after accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (CRT) or single-entry, multilumen, intracavitary brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 281 patients with pTis, pT1N0, or pT2N0 (≤3.0 cm) breast cancer treated with segmental mastectomy were prospectively enrolled from December 2008 through August 2014. APBI was delivered using 3-dimensional CRT (n = 29) or with SAVI (n = 176), Contura (n = 56), or MammoSite (n = 20) brachytherapy catheters. Patients were evaluated at protocol-specified intervals, at which time the radiation oncologist scored cosmetic outcome, toxicities, and recurrence status using a standardized template. RESULTS: The median follow-up time is 41 months. Grade 1 seroma and fibrosis were more common with brachytherapy than with 3-dimensional CRT (50.4% vs 3.4% for seroma; P < .0001 and 66.3% vs 44.8% for fibrosis; P = .02), but grade 1 edema was more common with 3-dimensional CRT than with brachytherapy (17.2% vs 5.6%; P = .04). Grade 2 to 3 pain was more common with 3-dimensional CRT (17.2% vs 5.2%; P = .03). Actuarial 5-year rates of fair or poor radiation oncologist-reported cosmetic outcome were 9% for 3-dimensional CRT and 24% for brachytherapy (P = .13). Brachytherapy was significantly associated with inferior cosmesis on mixed model analysis (P = .003). Significant predictors of reduced risk of adverse cosmetic outcome after brachytherapy were D0.1cc (skin) ≤102%, minimum skin distance >5.1 mm, dose homogeneity index >0.54, and volume of nonconformance ≤0.89 cc. The 5-year ipsilateral breast recurrence was 4.3% for brachytherapy and 4.2% for 3-dimensional CRT APBI patients (P = .95). CONCLUSIONS: Brachytherapy APBI is associated with higher rates of grade 1 fibrosis and seroma than 3-dimensional CRT but lower rates of grade 1 edema and grade 2 to 3 pain than 3-dimensional CRT. Rates of radiation oncologist-reported fair or poor cosmetic outcomes are higher with brachytherapy. We identified dosimetric parameters that predict reduced risk of adverse cosmetic outcome after brachytherapy-based APBI. Ipsilateral breast recurrence was equivalent for brachytherapy and 3-dimensional CRT.

Long-term outcomes for desmoid tumors treated with radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate long-term outcomes in patients with desmoid fibromatosis treated with radiation therapy (RT), with or without surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1965 and 2005, 115 patients with desmoid tumors were treated with RT at our institution. The median age was 29 years (range, 8-73 years). Of the patients, 41 (36%) received RT alone (median dose, 56 Gy) for gross disease, and 74 (64%) received combined-modality treatment (CMT) consisting of a combination of surgery and RT (median dose, 50.4 Gy). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 10.1 years. Local control (LC) rates at 5 and 10 years were 75% and 74%, respectively. On univariate analysis, LC was significantly influenced by tumor size (< or =5 cm vs. 5-10 cm vs. >10 cm) (p = 0.02) and age (< or = 30 vs. >30 years) (p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in LC for patients treated with RT alone for gross disease vs. CMT. For patients treated with CMT, only tumor size significantly influenced LC (p = 0.02). Patients with positive margins after surgery did not have poorer LC than those with negative margins (p = 0.38). Radiation-related complications occurred in 20 (17%) of patients and were associated with dose >56 Gy (p = 0.001), age < or =30 years (p = 0.009), and receipt of RT alone vs. CMT (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Desmoid tumors are effectively controlled with RT administered either as an adjuvant to surgery when resection margins are positive or alone for gross disease when surgical resection is not feasible. Doses >56 Gy may not be necessary to control gross disease and are associated with high rates of radiation-related complications.

Excellent local control rates and distinctive patterns of failure in myxoid liposarcoma treated with conservation surgery and radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the local control rates and patterns of metastatic relapse in patients with localized myxoid liposarcoma treated with conservation surgery and radiotherapy (RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1960 and 2003, 127 patients with non-metastatic myxoid liposarcoma were treated with conservation surgery and RT at our institution. The median patient age was 39 years (range, 14-79 years). Of the 127 patients, 46% underwent preoperative RT (median dose, 50 Gy) and 54% underwent postoperative RT (median dose, 60 Gy). Also, 28% received doxorubicin-based chemotherapy as a part of their treatment. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 9.1 years. The overall survival rate at 5 and 10 years was 87% and 79%, respectively. The corresponding disease-free survival rates were 81% and 73%. The local control rate at > or =5 years was 97%. The actuarial rate of distant metastases at 5 and 10 years was 15% and 24%, respectively. Of the 27 patients who developed distant metastases, 48% did so in the retroperitoneum, 22% in other extrapulmonary soft tissues, 22% in the lung, 15% in bone, and 4% in the liver. CONCLUSION: The results of our study have shown that RT and conservation surgery for localized myxoid liposarcoma provide excellent local control. Distant metastatic relapse tended to occur in the retroperitoneum and other nonpulmonary soft tissues. Therefore, staging and surveillance imaging should include the abdomen and pelvis, as well as the thorax, for patients with localized myxoid liposarcoma.

Postoperative adjuvant external-beam radiation therapy for cancers of the eyelid and conjunctiva.

PURPOSE: To outline the indications for and our experience with postoperative adjuvant external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in patients with eyelid or conjunctival cancers. METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients with primary eyelid or conjunctival cancer treated with surgical resection followed by postoperative EBRT between January 2000 and September 2006 were included. The indications for postoperative EBRT, type and dose of EBRT, oculoplastic reconstructive procedures, timing of EBRT in relation to reconstructive procedures, and the ocular side effects of EBRT were recorded. RESULTS: Sixteen women and 4 men ranged in age from 44 to 86 years (median, 64 years). The oculoplastic procedures included local flaps or direct closure of eyelid defect (12), tarsoconjunctival flap (6), full-thickness skin grafts (6), amniotic membrane grafts (2), other conjunctival reconstruction (2), tarsoconjunctival graft (1), and lacrimal stenting (1). The total radiation dose ranged from 26 to 63 Gy (median, 60 Gy). The indications for postoperative EBRT included aggressive histology, recurrent tumor, microscopic perineural invasion, advanced-stage disease, and microscopically positive or "close" margins. EBRT started 5 to 12 weeks (median, 7 weeks) after reconstructive procedures. The follow-up time ranged from 7 to 50 months (mean, 24 months). Thirteen patients experienced dry eye syndrome; 3 keratinization of conjunctiva; and 1 each blepharitis, trichiasis, radiation retinopathy/optic neuropathy, and exposure keratopathy. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative EBRT can be used as adjuvant therapy after surgical resection of eyelid or conjunctival cancers and may obviate more radical surgery such as orbital exenteration in some patients. The ocular side effects from EBRT were relatively minor in most patients.