Cardiac Substructure Radiation Dose and Associations With Tachyarrhythmia and Bradyarrhythmia After Lung Cancer Radiotherapy.

Background: Arrhythmias are common following radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the association of distinct arrhythmia classes with cardiac substructure radiotherapy dose. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 748 patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with radiotherapy. Cardiac substructure dose parameters were calculated. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analyses for predictors of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥3 atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter, non-AF and non-atrial flutter supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (SVT), bradyarrhythmia, and ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) or asystole were calculated. Fine-Gray regression models were performed (with noncardiac death as a competing risk). Results: Of 748 patients, 128 (17.1%) experienced at least 1 grade ≥3 arrhythmia, with a median time to first arrhythmia of 2.0 years (Q1-Q3: 0.9-4.2 years). The 2-year cumulative incidences of each arrhythmia group were 8.0% for AF, 2.7% for atrial flutter, 1.8% for other SVT, 1.4% for bradyarrhythmia, and 1.1% for VT or asystole. Adjusting for baseline cardiovascular risk, pulmonary vein (PV) volume receiving 5 Gy was associated with AF (subdistribution HR [sHR]: 1.04/mL; 95% CI: 1.01-1.08; P = 0.016), left circumflex coronary artery volume receiving 35 Gy with atrial flutter (sHR: 1.10/mL; 95% CI: 1.01-1.19; P = 0.028), PV volume receiving 55 Gy with SVT (sHR: 1.03 per 1%; 95% CI: 1.02-1.05; P < 0.001), right coronary artery volume receiving 25 Gy with bradyarrhythmia (sHR: 1.14/mL; 95% CI: 1.00-1.30; P = 0.042), and left main coronary artery volume receiving 5 Gy with VT or asystole (sHR: 2.45/mL; 95% CI: 1.21-4.97; P = 0.013). Conclusions: This study revealed pathophysiologically distinct arrhythmia classes associated with radiotherapy dose to discrete cardiac substructures, including PV dose with AF and SVT, left circumflex coronary artery dose with atrial flutter, right coronary artery dose with bradyarrhythmia, and left main coronary artery dose with VT or asystole, guiding potential risk mitigation approaches.

Factors Associated With and Characteristics of Patients Receiving Proton Therapy at the End of Life.

Purpose: To identify the characteristics, indications, and toxicities among patients receiving proton beam therapy (PBT) in the final year of life at an academic medical center. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of patients who received PBT within the final 12 months of life was performed. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patient and treatment details from 2010 to 2019. Patients were followed from the start of PBT until death or last follow-up. Acute (3 months) toxicities were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. Imaging response was assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. The χ2 test was used to evaluate factors associated with palliative treatment. Simple logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with toxicity. Results: Bet299 patients were treated at the end of life (EOL) out of 5802 total patients treated with PBT (5.2%). Median age was 68 years (19-94 years), 58% male. The most common cancer was nonsmall cell lung cancer (27%). Patients were treated for symptom palliation alone (11%), durable control (57%), curative intent (16%), local recurrence (14%), or oligometastatic disease (2%). Forty-five percent received reirradiation. Median treatment time was 32 days (1-189 days). Acute toxicity was noted in 85% of the patients (31% G1, 53% G2, 15% G3). Thirteen patients (4%) experienced chronic toxicity. Breast and hematologic malignancy were associated with palliative intent χ2 (1, N = 14) = 17, P = .013; (χ2 (1, N = 14) = 18, P = .009). Conclusion: The number of patients treated with PBT at the EOL was low compared to all comers. Many of these patients received treatment with definitive doses and concurrent systemic therapy. Some patients spent a large portion of their remaining days on treatment. A prognostic indicator may better optimize patient selection for PBT at the EOL.

Mitigation of Sarcopenia after Peritoneovenous Shunt Placement in Patients with Refractory Ascites.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of peritoneonvenous shunt placement on metrics of sarcopenia in patients with refractory ascites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional review board-approved single-institution retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent peritoneovenous shunt (Denver Shunt; BD, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey) placement (N = 29) and a comparator cohort of patients with cirrhosis who underwent serial paracentesis (N = 42) from 2009 to 2019 with baseline and follow-up cross-sectional imaging of at least 3 months was performed. Axial muscle area measurements (psoas, paraspinal, and total abdominal wall) were performed using free-hand region-of-interest technique. Patient records were reviewed for demographic characteristics, referring indication, laboratory studies, and performance status. Statistical analyses were performed with Student t test, Welch unequal variances, Fisher exact test, and Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: The most common indications for peritoneovenous shunt placement were metastatic disease or cirrhosis. In the shunt cohort, there were no significant differences in the aggregate psoas muscle area (13.4 vs 14.0 cm2; P = .223) or paraspinal muscle area (43.0 vs 42.2 cm2; P = .471). In the paracentesis cohort, there were significant decreases in aggregate psoas (18.1 vs 15.7 cm2; P < .0001) and erector spinae (43.4 vs 39.9 cm2; P < .0001) muscle area. In addition, there was a significant decrease in serum albumin level (3.2 vs 3.0 g/dL; P = .015) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score (1.0 vs 1.3; P < .0001) in the paracentesis group, compared with no significant changes in the shunt cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with refractory ascites who are not candidates for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement, peritoneovenous shunt mitigates loss of truncal muscle and, in some instances, promotes muscle growth.

Radiologically Placed Peritoneovenous Shunt is an Acceptable Treatment Alternative for Refractory Ascites Due to End-Stage Liver Disease.

PURPOSE: To compare patients treated with large-volume paracentesis (LVP), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and peritoneovenous shunt (PVS) for ascites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of 192 patients treated with LVP (94), TIPS (75), or PVS (23) was performed. Records were reviewed for patient characteristics and outcomes. The patients' age differed (LVP, 59.5 years; TIPS, 58.8 years; and PVS, 65.6 years; P = .003). Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis was the most common etiology in the PVS cohort (11/23, 47%), and hepatitis C in the TIPS (27/75, 36%), and LVP cohorts (43/94, 46%) (P = .032). The model for end-stage liver disease score was significantly different (LVP, 14; TIPS, 13; and PVS, 8; P = .035). Hepatocellular carcinoma was higher in the PVS cohort (6/23 patients, 25%) than in the TIPS (4/75, 5%), and LVP (12/94, 12%) cohorts (P = .03). RESULTS: Emergency department visits and hospital readmissions were the highest in the LVP cohort (40%, ≥2 readmissions, P < .001). Patients required fewer LVPs after TIPS (1.5 to 0.14, P < .001) or PVS (2.1 to 0.5, P = .019). In an unadjusted Cox model, patients in the TIPS cohort were found to have a 58% reduction in the risk of death compared with patients in the LVP cohort (P = .003). Transplant-free survival (PVS, 44 days; TIPS, 155 days; and LVP, 213 days) differed (log rank = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The survival in the PVS and TIPS cohorts was similar, with less healthcare utilization than the LVP cohort. PVS is a satisfactory alternative to LVP.