Sustained Preservation of Cognition and Prevention of Patient-Reported Symptoms With Hippocampal Avoidance During Whole-Brain Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases: Final Results of NRG Oncology CC001.

PURPOSE: Initial report of NRG Oncology CC001, a phase 3 trial of whole-brain radiation therapy plus memantine (WBRT + memantine) with or without hippocampal avoidance (HA), demonstrated neuroprotective effects of HA with a median follow-up of fewer than 8 months. Herein, we report the final results with complete cognition, patient-reported outcomes, and longer-term follow-up exceeding 1 year. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Adult patients with brain metastases were randomized to HA-WBRT + memantine or WBRT + memantine. The primary endpoint was time to cognitive function failure, defined as decline using the reliable change index on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R), Controlled Oral Word Association, or the Trail Making Tests (TMT) A and B. Patient-reported symptom burden was assessed using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory with Brain Tumor Module and EQ-5D-5L. RESULTS: Between July 2015 and March 2018, 518 patients were randomized. The median follow-up for living patients was 12.1 months. The addition of HA to WBRT + memantine prevented cognitive failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74, P = .016) and was associated with less deterioration in TMT-B at 4 months (P = .012) and HVLT-R recognition at 4 (P = .055) and 6 months (P = .011). Longitudinal modeling of imputed data showed better preservation of all HVLT-R domains (P < .005). Patients who received HA-WBRT + Memantine reported less symptom burden at 6 (P < .001 using imputed data) and 12 months (P = .026 using complete-case data; P < .001 using imputed data), less symptom interference at 6 (P = .003 using complete-case data; P = .0016 using imputed data) and 12 months (P = .0027 using complete-case data; P = .0014 using imputed data), and fewer cognitive symptoms over time (P = .043 using imputed data). Treatment arms did not differ significantly in overall survival, intracranial progression-free survival, or toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: With median follow-up exceeding 1 year, HA during WBRT + memantine for brain metastases leads to sustained preservation of cognitive function and continued prevention of patient-reported neurologic symptoms, symptom interference, and cognitive symptoms with no difference in survival or toxicity.

Disease Control After Hypofractionation Versus Conventional Fractionation for Triple Negative Breast Cancer: Comparative Effectiveness in a Large Observational Cohort.

PURPOSE: Questions remain about whether moderately hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation is appropriate for patients with triple-negative breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the prospective database of a multicenter, collaborative quality improvement consortium, we identified patients with node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer who received whole-breast irradiation with either moderate hypofractionation or conventional fractionation. Using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), we compared outcomes using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimation method with Cox regression models estimating the hazard ratio for time-to-event endpoints between groups. RESULTS: The sample included 538 patients treated at 18 centers in 1 state in the United States, of whom 307 received conventionally fractionated whole-breast irradiation and 231 received moderately hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation. The median follow-up time was 5.0 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.77-5.15 years). The 5-year IPTW estimates for freedom from local recurrence were 93.6% (95% CI, 87.8%-96.7%) in the moderate hypofractionation group and 94.4% (95% CI, 90.3%-96.8%) in the conventional fractionation group. The hazard ratio was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.51-2.17; P = .89). The 5-year IPTW estimates for recurrence-free survival were 87.8% (95% CI, 81.0%-92.4%) in the moderate hypofractionation group and 88.4% (95% CI 83.2%-92.1%) in the conventional fractionation group. The hazard ratio was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.62-1.67; P = .95). The 5-year IPTW estimates for overall survival were 96.6% (95% CI, 92.0%-98.5%) in the moderate hypofractionation group and 93.4% (95% CI, 88.7%-96.1%) in the conventional fractionation group. The hazard ratio was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.30-1.42; P = .28). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of outcomes in this large observational cohort of patients with triple-negative, node-negative breast cancer treated with whole-breast irradiation revealed no differences by dose fractionation. This adds evidence to support the use of moderate hypofractionation in patients with triple-negative disease.

A Phase 1 study Combining Pexidartinib, Radiation Therapy, and Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Men With Intermediate- and High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate a combination of radiation therapy (RT), androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and pexidartinib (colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor [CSF1R]) inhibitor in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. CSF1R signaling promotes tumor infiltration and survival of tumor-associated macrophages, which in turn promote progression and resistance. Counteracting protumorigenic actions of tumor-associated macrophages via CSF1R inhibition may enhance therapeutic efficacy of RT and ADT for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this phase 1 study, the treatment regimen consisted of pexidartinib (800 mg, administered as a split-dose twice daily) and ADT (both for a total of 6 months), and RT that was initiated at the start of month 3. RT volumes included the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles. The delivered dose was 7920 cGy (180 cGy per fraction) using intensity modulated RT with daily image guidance for prostate localization. The primary objective was to identify the maximum tolerated dose based on dose-limiting toxicities. RESULTS: All 4 enrolled patients who were eligible to receive RT had T1 stage prostate cancer, 2 were intermediate risk, and 2 were high risk. The median age was 62.5 years, and the prostate-specific antigen levels were in the range 6.4 to 10.7 ng/mL. The patients' individual Gleason scores were 3 + 3, 4 + 3, 4 + 4, and 4 + 5. All 4 patients reported ≥1 adverse events before RT. Grade 1 hypopigmentation was observed in 1 patient, and grade 3 pulmonary embolus in another. One patient experienced fatigue and joint pain, and another elevated amylase and pruritus (all grade 3 toxicities). Five of the 6 adverse events noted in 3 patients were all grade 3 toxicities attributable to pexidartinib, qualifying as dose-limiting toxicities and ultimately resulting in the study closure. CONCLUSIONS: The combination was not well tolerated and does not warrant further investigation in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

Single fraction radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spine metastasis: A dosimetric comparison of multiple delivery platforms.

There are numerous commercial radiotherapy systems capable of delivering single fraction spine radiosurgery/SBRT. We aim to compare the capabilities of several of these systems to deliver this treatment when following standardized criteria from a national protocol. Four distinct target lesions representing various case presentations of spine metastases were contoured in both the thoracic and lumbar spine of an anthropomorphic SBRT phantom. Single fraction radiosurgery/SBRT plans were designed for each target with each of our treatment platforms. Plans were prescribed to 16 Gy in one fraction to cover 90% of the target volume using normal tissue and target constraints from RTOG 0631. We analyzed these plans with priority on the dose to 10% of the partial spinal cord and dose to 0.03 cc of the spinal cord. Each system was able to maintain 90% target coverage while meeting all the constraints of RTOG 0631. On average, CyberKnife was able to achieve the lowest spinal cord doses overall and also generated the sharpest dose falloff as indicated by the Paddick gradient index. Treatment times varied widely depending on the modality utilized. On average, treatment can be delivered faster with Flattening Filter Free RapidArc and Tomotherapy, compared to Vero and Cyberknife. While all systems analyzed were able to meet the dose constraints of RTOG 0631, unique characteristics of individual treatment modalities may guide modality selection. Specifically, certain modalities performed better than the others for specific target shapes and locations, and delivery time varied significantly among the different modalities. These findings could provide guidance in determining which of the available modalities would be preferable for the treatment of spine metastases based on individualized treatment goals.

Single-fraction spine SBRT end-to-end testing on TomoTherapy, Vero, TrueBeam, and CyberKnife treatment platforms using a novel anthropomorphic phantom.

Spine SBRT involves the delivery of very high doses of radiation to targets adjacent to the spinal cord and is most commonly delivered in a single fraction. Highly conformal planning and accurate delivery of such plans is imperative for successful treatment without catastrophic adverse effects. End-to-end testing is an important practice for evaluating the entire treatment process from simulation through treatment delivery. We performed end-to-end testing for a set of representative spine targets planned and delivered using four different treatment planning systems (TPSs) and delivery systems to evaluate the various capabilities of each. An anthropomorphic E2E SBRT phantom was simulated and treated on each system to evaluate agreement between measured and calculated doses. The phantom accepts ion chambers in the thoracic region and radiochromic film in the lumbar region. Four representative targets were developed within each region (thoracic and lumbar) to represent different presentations of spinal metastases and planned according to RTOG 0631 constraints. Plans were created using the TomoTherapy TPS for delivery using the Hi·Art system, the iPlan TPS for delivery using the Vero system, the Eclipse TPS for delivery using the TrueBeam system in both flattened and flattening filter free (FFF), and the MultiPlan TPS for delivery using the CyberKnife system. Delivered doses were measured using a 0.007 cm3 ion chamber in the thoracic region and EBT3 GAFCHROMIC film in the lumbar region. Films were scanned and analyzed using an Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner in conjunction with FilmQAPro2013. All treatment platforms met all dose constraints required by RTOG 0631. Ion chamber measurements in the thoracic targets delivered an overall average difference of 1.5%. Specifically, measurements agreed with the TPS to within 2.2%, 3.2%, 1.4%, 3.1%, and 3.0% for all three measureable cases on TomoTherapy, Vero, TrueBeam (FFF), TrueBeam (flattened), and CyberKnife, respectively. Film measurements for the lumbar targets resulted in average global gamma index passing rates of 100% at 3%/3 mm, 96.9% at 2%/2mm, and 61.8% at 1%/1 mm, with a 10% minimum threshold for all plans on all platforms. Local gamma analysis was also performed with similar results. While gamma passing rates were consistently accurate across all platforms through 2%/2 mm, treatment beam-on delivery times varied greatly between each platform with TrueBeam FFF being shortest, averaging 4.4 min, TrueBeam using flattened beam at 9.5 min, TomoTherapy at 30.5 min, Vero at 19 min, and CyberKnife at 46.0 min. In spite of the complexity of the representative targets and their proximity to the spinal cord, all treatment platforms were able to create plans meeting all RTOG 0631 dose constraints and produced exceptional agreement between calculated and measured doses. However, there were differences in the plan characteristics and significant differences in the beam-on delivery time between platforms. Thus, clinical judgment is required for each particular case to determine most appropriate treatment planning/delivery platform.

Limitations of the bowel bag contouring technique in the definitive treatment of cervical cancer.

PURPOSE: Incidence of acute grade 3 and 4 small bowel toxicity in the definitive treatment of cervical cancer is approximately 15%. Given uncertainties in position of the bowel at time of treatment, techniques including the contouring of a bowel bag have been suggested. The purpose of this study is to describe interfraction variability in bowel location for the female pelvis with intact reproductive organs and to characterize the ability of the bowel bag technique, as described in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group pelvic normal tissue contouring guidelines, to account for organ motion in this specific clinical setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Bowel position was assessed for 45 computed tomographic scans used in treatment planning for 9 consecutive cervical cancer patients. After a single operator contoured bowel loops, most superior, anterior, posterior, and inferior positions of bowel were recorded. Mixed effects models were used to assess significance of interfraction variability. Frequency of bowel loop migration outside of the bowel bag was then considered for each patient given all potential bowel bag volumes. Standardized scoring was used to determine additional margins that would be required to account for 95%, 90%, and 85% of significant bowel motion. RESULTS: Interfraction variability in the inferior-most bowel position was significant (P = .002). Median maximum variation in the inferior bowel position was 2.1 cm (range, 0.9 cm-4.8 cm). When applying the bowel bag technique, 100% of bowel motion was accounted for as the bowel translated laterally, anteriorly, posteriorly, and superiorly, though accounted for just 70.3% of motion in the inferior direction. A 4-cm inferior margin was required to account for 90% of motion in the inferior direction. CONCLUSIONS: In the intact female pelvis, the bowel bag technique is successful in accounting for most interfraction variability in bowel position but underestimates inferior motion. Until an improved approach to predicting small bowel motion can be routinely implemented, a focus on decreasing dose to potential bowel space should be emphasized.