Does IPSS-R down staging before transplantation improve the prognosis of patients with Myelodysplastic neoplasms?

In MDS patients higher IPSS-R at transplant is associated with worse transplant outcome. Thus, it may seem beneficial to improve IPSS-R by therapeutic intervention prior to transplantation in order to "down-stage" the disease risk. However, there is no evidence to date to support this approach. A retrospective analysis of the EBMT transplant registry was performed to investigate the role of therapeutic interventions prior to transplantation with regard to changes in IPSS-R and transplant outcomes. A total of 1482 MDS patients with sufficient data to calculate IPSS-R at diagnosis and at time of transplantation were selected and analysed for transplant outcome in a multivariable Cox model including IPSS-R at diagnosis, treatment intervention, change in IPSS-R before transplant and several patient and transplant variables. Transplant outcome was unaffected by IPSS-R change in untreated patients and moderately superior in chemotherapy-treated patients with improved IPSS-R at transplant. Improved IPSS-R after hypomethylating agents (HMA) or other therapies showed no beneficial effect. However, when IPSS-R progressed after chemotherapy, (HMA) or other therapies, transplant outcome was worse than without any prior treatment. Similar results were found when reduction or increase in bone marrow (BM) blasts between diagnosis and transplantation was considered. The results show a limited benefit of IPSS-R down staging or reduction of BM blasts after chemotherapy and no benefit for HMA or other treatments and thus question the role of prior therapy in MDS patients scheduled for transplantation. The model-based survival estimates should help inform decision making for both doctors and patients.

Standard versus fractionated high-dose cisplatin plus radiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: Results of the CisFRad (GORTEC 2015-02) randomized phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiotherapy with high-dose cisplatin (HD-Cis: 100 mg/m2 q3w for three cycles) is the standard of care (SOC) in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC). Cumulative delivered dose of cisplatin is prognostic of survival, even beyond 200 mg/m2 but high toxicity compromises its delivery. AIM: Cisplatin fractionation may allow, by decreasing the peak serum concentration, to decrease toxicity. To date, no direct comparison was done of HD-Cis versus fractionated high dose cisplatin (FHD-Cis). METHODS: This is a multi-institutional randomized phase II trial, stratified on postoperative or definitive chemoradiotherapy, comparing HD-Cis to FHD-Cis (25 mg/m2/d d1-4 q3w for 3 cycles) in patients with LA-HNSCC. The primary endpoint was the cumulative delivered cisplatin dose. RESULTS: Between December 2015 and April 2018, 124 patients were randomized. Median cisplatin cumulative delivered dose was 291 mg/m2 (IQR: 251;298) in the FHD-Cis arm and 274 mg/m2 (IQR: 198;295) in the HD-Cis arm (P = 0.054). The proportion of patients receiving a third cycle of cisplatin was higher, with a lower proportion of grade 3-4 acute AEs in the FHD-Cis arm compared to the HD-Cis arm: 81 % vs. 64 % (P = 0.04) and 10 % vs. 17 % (P = 0.002), respectively. With a median follow-up of 48 months (IQR: 41;55), locoregional failure rate, PFS and OS were similar between the two arms. CONCLUSION: Although the primary endpoint was not met, FHD-Cis allowed more cycles of cisplatin to be delivered with lower toxicity, when compared to SOC. FHD-Cis concurrently with RT is a treatment option which deserves further consideration.

Long-Term Results of Stereotactic Radiotherapy in Patients with at Least 10 Brain Metastases at Diagnosis.

PURPOSE: to evaluate an SRT approach in patients with at least 10 lesions at the time of BM initial diagnosis. METHODS: This is a monocentric prospective cohort of patients treated by SRT, followed by a brain MRI every two months. Subsequent SRT could be delivered in cases of new BMs during follow-up. The main endpoints were local control rate (LCR), overall survival (OS), and strategy success rate (SSR). Acute and late toxicity were evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included from October 2014 to January 2019, and the most frequent primary diagnosis was non-small-cell lung cancer (N = 36, 51.4%). A total of 1174 BMs were treated at first treatment, corresponding to a median number of 14 BMs per patient. Most of the patients (N = 51, 72.6%) received a single fraction of 20-24 Gy. At 1 year, OS was 62.3%, with a median OS of 19.2 months, and SSR was 77.8%. A cumulative number of 1537 BM were treated over time, corresponding to a median cumulative number of 16 BM per patient. At 1-year, the LCR was 97.3%, with a cumulative incidence of radio-necrosis of 2.1% per lesion. Three patients (4.3%) presented Grade 2 toxicity, and there was no Grade ≥ 3 toxicity. The number of treated BMs and the treatment volume did not influence OS or SSR (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: SRT was highly efficient in controlling the BM, with minimal side effects. In this setting, an SRT treatment should be proposed even in patients with ≥10 BMs at diagnosis.

Adapted EXTREME regimen in the first-line treatment of fit, older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (ELAN-FIT): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: A standard treatment for fit, older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is yet to be established. In the previous EXTREME trial, few older patients were included. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of an adapted EXTREME regimen in fit, older patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: This single-arm, phase 2 study was done at 22 centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 70 years or older and assessed as not frail (fit) using the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation (EGE) and had recurrent or metastatic HNSCC in the first-line setting that was not eligible for local therapy (surgery or radiotherapy), and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. The adapted EXTREME regimen consisted of six cycles of fluorouracil 4000 mg/m2 on days 1-4, carboplatin with an area under the curve of 5 on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (400 mg/m2 on cycle 1-day 1, and 250 mg/m2 subsequently), all intravenously, with cycles starting every 21 days. In patients with disease control after two to six cycles, cetuximab 500 mg/m2 was continued once every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was systematically administered and erythropoietin was recommended during chemotherapy. The study was based on the two-stage Bryant and Day design, combining efficacy and toxicity endpoints. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate at week 12 after the start of treatment, assessed by central review (with an unacceptable rate of ≤15%). The primary toxicity endpoint was morbidity, defined as grade 4-5 adverse events, or cutaneous rash (grade ≥3) that required cetuximab to be discontinued, during the chemotherapy phase, or a decrease in functional autonomy (Activities of Daily Living score decrease ≥2 points from baseline) at 1 month after the end of chemotherapy (with an unacceptable morbidity rate of >40%). Analysis of the coprimary endpoints, and of safety in the chemotherapy phase, was based on the per-protocol population, defined as eligible patients who received at least one cycle of the adapted EXTREME regimen. Safety in the maintenance phase was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of cetuximab as maintenance therapy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01864772, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 27, 2013, and June 20, 2018, 85 patients were enrolled, of whom 78 were in the per-protocol population. 66 (85%) patients were male and 12 (15%) were female, and the median age was 75 years (IQR 72-79). The median number of chemotherapy cycles received was five (IQR 3-6). Objective response at week 12 was observed in 31 patients (40% [95% CI 30-51]) and morbidity events were observed in 24 patients (31% [22-42]). No fatal adverse events occurred. Four patients presented with a decrease in functional autonomy 1 month after the end of chemotherapy versus baseline. During chemotherapy, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were haematological events (leukopenia [22 patients; 28%], neutropenia [20; 26%], thrombocytopenia [15; 19%], and anaemia [12; 15%]), oral mucositis (14; 18%), fatigue (11; 14%), rash acneiform (ten; 13%), and hypomagnesaemia (nine; 12%). Among 44 patients who received cetuximab during the maintenance phase, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypomagnesaemia (six patients; 14%) and acneiform rash (six; 14%). INTERPRETATION: The study met its primary objectives on objective response and morbidity, and showed overall survival to be as good as in younger patients treated with standard regimens, indicating that the adapted EXTREME regimen could be used in older patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC who are deemed fit with use of a geriatric evaluation tool adapted to patients with head and neck cancer, such as the EGE. FUNDING: French programme PAIR-VADS 2011 (sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the Fondation ARC, and the Ligue Contre le Cancer), Sandoz, GEFLUC, and GEMLUC. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Transplantation for myelofibrosis patients in the ruxolitinib era: a registry study from the Société Francophone de Greffe de Moelle et de Thérapie Cellulaire.

In this SFGM-TC registry study, we report the results after stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in 305 myelofibrosis patients, in order to determine potential risk factors associated with outcomes, especially regarding previous treatment with ruxolitinib. A total of 102 patients were transplanted from an HLA-matched-sibling donor (MSD), and 143 patients received ruxolitinib. In contrast with previous studies, our results showed significantly worse outcomes for ruxolitinib patients regarding overall survival (OS) and non-relapse mortality (NRM), especially in the context of unrelated donors (URD). When exploring reasons for potential confounders regarding the ruxolitinib effect, an interaction between the type of donor and the use of ATG was found, therefore subsequent analyses were performed separately for each type of donor. Multivariable analyses did not confirm a significant negative impact of ruxolitinib in transplantation outcomes. In the setting of URD, only age and Fludarabine-Melphalan (FM) conditioning were associated with increased NRM. For MSD, only Karnoksfy <70% was associated with reduced OS. However, a propensity score analysis showed that ruxolitinib had a negative impact on OS but only in non-responding patients, consistent with previous data. To conclude, with all the precautions due to confounders and bias, ruxolitinib itself does not appear to increase mortality after HSCT.

Cetuximab versus methotrexate in first-line treatment of older, frail patients with inoperable recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (ELAN UNFIT): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: At present, there is no established standard treatment for frail older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of cetuximab to those of methotrexate (the reference regimen) in this population. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 20 hospitals in France. Patients aged 70 years or older, assessed as frail by the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation, with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in the first-line setting and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive cetuximab 500 mg/m2 intravenously every 2 weeks or methotrexate 40 mg/m2 intravenously every week, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, serum albumin concentration, and geriatrician consultation. To avoid deterministic minimisation and assure allocation concealment, patients were allocated with a probability of 0·80 to the treatment that most reduced the imbalance. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was failure-free survival (defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression, death, discontinuation of treatment, or loss of 2 or more points on the Activities in Daily Living scale, whichever occurred first) and was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. 151 failures expected out of 164 patients were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·625 with 0·05 alpha error, with 80% power. A futility interim analysis was planned when approximately 80 failures were observed, based on failure-free survival. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01884623) and was stopped for futility after the interim analysis. FINDINGS: Between Nov 7, 2013, and April 23, 2018, 82 patients were enrolled (41 to the cetuximab group and 41 to the methotrexate group); 60 (73%) were male, 37 (45%) were aged 80 years or older, 35 (43%) had an ECOG performance status of 2, and 36 (44%) had metastatic disease. Enrolment was stopped for futility at the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median follow-up was 43·3 months (IQR 30·8-52·1). At data cutoff, all 82 patients had failure; failure-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 1·4 months [95% CI 1·0-2·1] in the cetuximab group vs 1·9 months [1·1-2·6] in the methotrexate group; adjusted HR 1·03 [95% CI 0·66-1·61], p=0·89). The frequency of patients who had grade 3 or worse adverse events was 63% (26 of 41) in the cetuximab group and 73% (30 of 41) in the methotrexate group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the cetuximab group were fatigue (four [10%] of 41 patients), lung infection (four [10%]), and rash acneiform (four [10%]), and those in the methotrexate group were fatigue (nine [22%] of 41), increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (seven [17%]), natraemia disorder (four [10%]), anaemia (four [10%]), leukopenia (four [10%]), and neutropenia (four [10%]). The frequency of patients who had serious adverse events was 44% (18 of 41) in the cetuximab group and 39% (16 of 41) in the methotrexate group. Four patients presented with a fatal adverse event in the cetuximab group (sepsis, decreased level of consciousness, pulmonary oedema, and death of unknown cause) as did two patients in the methotrexate group (dyspnoea and death of unknown cause). INTERPRETATION: The study showed no improvement in failure-free survival with cetuximab versus methotrexate. Patients with an ECOG performance status of 2 did not benefit from these systemic therapies. New treatment options including immunotherapy should be explored in frail older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, after an initial geriatric evaluation, such as the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation. FUNDING: French programme PAIR-VADS 2011 (sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the Fondation ARC and the Ligue Contre le Cancer), GEMLUC, GEFLUC, and Merck Santé. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for pediatric patients with non-anaplastic peripheral T-cell lymphoma. An EBMT pediatric diseases working party study.

Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) other than anaplastic large-cell lymphoma are rare in children, and the role of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) has not been clarified yet. In a retrospective analysis of registry-data of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation we analyzed 55 patients aged < 18 years who received allogeneic (N = 46) or autologous (N = 9) HSCT for PTCL. Median age at HSCT was 13.9 years; 33 patients (60%) were in first remission, and 6 (19%) in progression at HSCT. Conditioning was myeloablative in 87% of the allogeneic HSCTs and in 27 (58.7%) based on total body irradiation. After allogeneic HSCT the 5-year overall- and progression-free survival was 58.9% (95% CI 42.7-71.9) and 52.6% (95% CI 36.8-66.1), respectively. 5-year relapse incidence was 27.6% (95% CI 15.1-41.6), the non-relapse mortality rate was 19.8% (95% CI 9.7-32.6). Five of the six patients with progression at HSCT died. Seven of nine patients after autologous HSCT were alive and disease-free at last follow-up. Our data suggest a role of allogeneic HSCT in consolidation-treatment of patients with high-risk disease, who reach at least partial remission after primary- or relapse-therapy, whereas patients with therapy-refractory or progressive disease prior to transplantation do not profit from HSCT.

Very high-energy electron therapy as light-particle alternative to transmission proton FLASH therapy - An evaluation of dosimetric performances.

PURPOSE: Clinical translation of FLASH-radiotherapy (RT) to deep-seated tumours is still a technological challenge. One proposed solution consists of using ultra-high dose rate transmission proton (TP) beams of about 200-250 MeV to irradiate the tumour with the flat entrance of the proton depth-dose profile. This work evaluates the dosimetric performance of very high-energy electron (VHEE)-based RT (50-250 MeV) as a potential alternative to TP-based RT for the clinical transfer of the FLASH effect. METHODS: Basic physics characteristics of VHEE and TP beams were compared utilizing Monte Carlo simulations in water. A VHEE-enabled research treatment planning system was used to evaluate the plan quality achievable with VHEE beams of different energies, compared to 250 MeV TP beams for a glioblastoma, an oesophagus, and a prostate cancer case. RESULTS: Like TP, VHEE above 100 MeV can treat targets with roughly flat (within ± 20 %) depth-dose distributions. The achievable dosimetric target conformity and adjacent organs-at-risk (OAR) sparing is consequently driven for both modalities by their lateral beam penumbrae. Electron beams of 400[500] MeV match the penumbra of 200[250] MeV TP beams and penumbra is increased for lower electron energies. For the investigated patient cases, VHEE plans with energies of 150 MeV and above achieved a dosimetric plan quality comparable to that of 250 MeV TP plans. For the glioblastoma and the oesophagus case, although having a decreased conformity, even 100 MeV VHEE plans provided a similar target coverage and OAR sparing compared to TP. CONCLUSIONS: VHEE-based FLASH-RT using sufficiently high beam energies may provide a lighter-particle alternative to TP-based FLASH-RT with comparable dosimetric plan quality.

Randomized phase II selection trial of FLASH and conventional radiotherapy for patients with localized cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma: A study protocol.

Background: Cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are the most prevalent skin cancers in western countries. Surgery is the standard of care for these cancers and conventional external radiotherapy (CONV-RT) with conventional dose rate (0.03-0.06 Gy/sec) represents a good alternative when the patients or tumors are not amenable to surgery but routinely generates skin side effects. Low energy electron FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH-RT) is a new form of radiotherapy exploiting the biological advantage of the FLASH effect, which consists in delivering radiation dose in milliseconds instead of minutes in CONV-RT. In pre-clinical studies, when compared to CONV-RT, FLASH-RT induced a robust, reproducible and remarkable sparing of the normal healthy tissues, while the efficacy on tumors was preserved. In this context, we aim to prospectively evaluate FLASH-RT versus CONV-RT with regards to toxicity and oncological outcome in localized cutaneous BCC and SCC. Methods: This is a randomized selection, non-comparative, phase II study of curative FLASH-RT versus CONV-RT in patients with T1-T2 N0 M0 cutaneous BCC and SCC. Patients will be randomly allocated to low energy electron FLASH-RT (dose rate: 220-270 Gy/s) or to CONV-RT arm. Small lesions (T1) will receive a single dose of 22 Gy and large lesions (T2) will receive 30 Gy in 5 fractions of 6 Gy over two weeks.The primary endpoint evaluates safety at 6 weeks after RT through grade ≥ 3 toxicity and efficacy through local control rate at 12 months. Approximately 60 patients in total will be randomized, considering on average 1-2 lesions and a maximum of 3 lesions per patients corresponding to the total of 96 lesions required. FLASH-RT will be performed using the Mobetron® (IntraOp, USA) with high dose rate functionality.LANCE (NCT05724875) is the first randomized trial evaluating FLASH-RT and CONV-RT in a curative setting.

Complex karyotype but not other cytogenetic abnormalities is associated with worse posttransplant survival of patients with nucleophosmin 1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia: A study from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Acute Leukemia Working Party.

In the 2022 European LeukemiaNet classification, patients with nucleophosmin 1 (NPM1)-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) were classified in the adverse-risk category in the presence of high-risk cytogenetics (CG). Nonetheless, the impact of various CG aberrations on posttransplant outcomes remains to be unraveled. This registry study analyzed adult patients with NPM1-mutated de novo AML who underwent their first allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in the first complete remission from 2005 to 2021. A total of 3275 patients were identified, 2782 had normal karyotype, 493 had chromosomal aberrations including 160 with adverse-risk CG, 72 patients had complex karyotype (CK), and 66 monosomal karyotype (MK). Overall, 2377 (73%) patients had FLT3-ITD. On univariate analysis, only FLT3-ITD, minimal/measurable residual disease (MRD) positivity and CK, but not abnormal CG, affected posttransplant outcomes. On multivariable analysis, CK was associated with lower overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.72, p = .009). In the subgroup of 493 patients with aberrant CG, the 2-year leukemia-free survival (LFS) and OS were around 61% and 68%, respectively. On multivariable analysis for this subgroup, CK and MRD positivity were associated with increased risk of relapse (HR 1.7, p = .025; and 1.99, p = .003 respectively) and worse LFS (HR 1.62, p = .018; and 1.64, p = .011 respectively) while FLT3-ITD, MK, or other CG abnormalities had no significant effect. Importantly, CK negatively affected OS (HR 1.91, p = .002). In the first complete remission transplant setting, CK was found as the only cytogenetic risk factor for worse outcomes in NPM1-mutated AML. Nevertheless, even for this subgroup, a significant proportion of patients can achieve long-term posttransplant survival.

Season of radiotherapy and outcomes of head & neck cancer patients in the MACH-NC & MARCH meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: A single institution retrospective study suggested that head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) during "dark" season (fall/winter) may have better outcomes than those treated during "light" season (spring/summer), possibly secondary to seasonal variations in cell cycle progression. We investigated the impact of season of RT in two large, multi-institutional, prospective datasets of randomized trials. METHODS: Individual patient data from the MACH-NC and MARCH meta-analyses were analyzed. Dark season was defined as mid-radiotherapy date during fall or winter and light the reverse, using equinoxes to separate the two periods. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoint was locoregional failure (LRF). The effect of season was estimated with a Cox model stratified by trial and adjusted on sex, tumor site, stage, and treatment. Planned sensitivity analyses were performed on patients treated around solstices, who received "complete radiotherapy", patients treated with concomitant radio-chemotherapy and on trials performed in Northern countries. RESULTS: 11320 patients from 33 trials of MARCH and 6276 patients from 29 trials of MACH-NC were included. RT during dark season had no benefit on PFS in the MARCH (hazard ratio[HR]: 1.01 [95%CI 0.97;1.05],p=0.72) or MACH-NC dataset (HR:1.00 [95%CI 0.94;1.06],p=1.0. No difference in LRF was observed in the MARCH (HR:1.00 [95%CI 0.94;1.06,p=0.95) or MACH-NC dataset (HR:0.99 [95%CI 0.91; 1.07],p=0.77). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. CONCLUSION: Season of RT had no impact on PFS or LRF in two large databases of HNSCC.

Thiotepa-Based Regimens Are Valid Alternatives to Total Body Irradiation-Based Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Regimens in Patients with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Retrospective Study on Behalf of the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Total body irradiation (TBI) at myeloablative doses is superior to chemotherapy-based regimens in young patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). However, in elderly and unfit patients, in whom reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens are preferred, whether a TBI-based or a chemotherapy-based approach is better is unexplored. Thiotepa can be used as part of ALL conditioning regimens. The current study aimed to compare transplantation outcomes after RIC with TBI-based or thiotepa-based regimens in patients with ALL. The study cohort comprised patients aged ≥40 years undergoing allo-HSCT for ALL in first complete remission between 2000 and 2020 who received an RIC regimen containing either TBI (4 to 6 Gy) or thiotepa. We identified a total of 265 patients, including 117 who received a TBI-based RIC regimen and 148 who received a thiotepa-based RIC regimen. Univariate analysis revealed no significant differences in the following transplantation outcomes for TBI versus thiotepa: relapse, 23% versus 28% (P = .24); nonrelapse mortality, 20% versus 26% (P = .61); leukemia-free survival, 57% versus 46% (P = .12); overall survival, 67% versus 56% (P = .18); graft-versus-host disease (GVHD]/relapse-free survival, 45% versus 38% (P = .21); grade II-IV acute GVHD, 30% in both groups (P = .84); grade III-IV acute GVHD, 9% versus 10% (P = .89). The sole exception was the incidence of chronic GVHD, which was higher in the recipients of TBI-based regimens (43% versus 29%; P = .03). However, multivariate analysis revealed no differences in transplantation outcomes between the 2 groups. In patients aged ≥40 years receiving RIC, use of a thiotepa-based regimen may represent a valid alternative to TBI-based regimens, as no differences were observed in the main transplantation outcomes.

Comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer using Pareto fronts.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing different radiotherapy treatment techniques-such as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT)-typically compare one treatment plan per technique. Often, some dose metrics favor one plan and others favor the other, so the final plan decision involves subjective preferences. Pareto front comparisons provide a more objective framework for comparing different treatment techniques. A Pareto front is the set of all treatment plans where improvement in one criterion is possible only by worsening another criterion. However, different Pareto fronts can be obtained depending on the chosen machine settings. PURPOSE: To compare VMAT and HT using Pareto fronts and blind expert evaluation, to explain the observed differences, and to illustrate limitations of using Pareto fronts. METHODS: We generated Pareto fronts for twenty-four prostate cancer patients treated at our clinic for VMAT and HT techniques using an in-house script that controlled a commercial treatment planning system. We varied the PTV under-coverage (100% - V95%) and the rectum mean dose, and fixed the mean doses to the bladder and femoral heads. In order to ensure a fair comparison, those fixed mean doses were the same for the two treatment techniques and the sets of objective functions were chosen so that the conformity indexes of the two treatment techniques were also the same. We used the same machine settings as are used in our clinic. Then, we compared the VMAT and HT Pareto fronts using a specific metric (clinical distance measure) and validated the comparison using a blinded expert evaluation of treatment plans on these fronts for all patients in the cohort. Furthermore, we investigated the observed differences between VMAT and HT and pointed out limitations of using Pareto fronts. RESULTS: Both clinical distance and blind treatment plan comparison showed that VMAT Pareto fronts were better than HT fronts. VMAT fronts for 10 and 6 MV beam energy were almost identical. HT fronts improved with different machine settings, but were still inferior to VMAT fronts. CONCLUSIONS: That VMAT Pareto fronts are better than HT fronts may be explained by the fact that the linear accelerator can rapidly vary the dose rate. This is an advantage in simple geometries that might vanish in more complex geometries. Furthermore, one should be cautious when speaking about Pareto optimal plans as the best possible plans, as their calculation depends on many parameters.

Outcomes of CMML patients undergoing allo-HCT are significantly worse compared to MDS-a study of the CMWP of the EBMT.

Although CMML since long has been separated from MDS, many studies continue to evaluate the outcomes of both diseases after hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) together. Data evaluating outcomes of a large CMML cohort after allo-HCT compared to MDS are limited. We aim to compare outcomes of CMML to MDS patients who underwent allo-HCT between 2010 and 2018. Patients ≥18 years with CMML and MDS undergoing allo-HCT reported to the EBMT registry were analyzed. Progression to AML before allo-HCT was an exclusion criterion. Overall survival (OS), progression/relapse-free survival (PFS), relapse incidence (including progression) (REL), and non-relapse mortality (NRM) were evaluated in univariable and multivariable (MVA) Cox proportional hazard models including interaction terms between disease and confounders. In total, 10832 patients who underwent allo-HCT were included in the study, there were a total of 1466 CMML, and 9366 MDS. The median age at time of allo-HCT in CMML (median 60.5, IQR 54.3-65.2 years) was significantly higher than in the MDS cohort (median 58.8, IQR 50.2-64.5 years; p < .001). A significantly higher percentage of CMML patients were male (69.4%) compared to MDS (61.2%; p < .001). There were no clinically meaningful differences in the distribution of Karnofsky score, Sorror HCT-CI score at allo-HCT, and donor type, between the CMML and MDS patients. RIC platforms were utilized in 63.9% of CMML allo-HCT, and in 61.4% of MDS patients (p = .08). In univariable analyses, we found that OS, PFS, and REL were significantly worse in CMML when compared with MDS (all p < .0001), whereas no significant difference was observed in NRM (p = .77). In multivariable analyses, the HR comparing MDS versus CMML for OS was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74-0.88, p < .001), PFS 0.76 (95% CI 0.70-0.82, p < .001), relapse 0.66 (95% CI 0.59-0.74, p < .001), and NRM 0.87 (95% CI 0.78-0.98, p = .02), respectively. The association between baseline variables and outcome was found to be similar in MDS and CMML (all interaction p > .05) except for a decreasing trend over time of the risk of relapse in CMML (HR allo-HCT per year later 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.98), whereas no such trend was observed in MDS (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.02). The poor outcome observed for CMML could be related to variables not measured in this study or to factors inherent to the disease itself. This study demonstrates that outcomes of CMML patients after allo-HCT are significantly worse compared to MDS. The results of this study may contribute to future recommendations for allo-HCT in CMML patients.

Validation of the transplant conditioning intensity (TCI) index for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.

The intensity of the conditioning regimen given before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) can vary substantially. To confirm the ability of the recently developed transplant conditioning intensity (TCI) score to stratify the preparative regimens of allo-HCT, we used an independent and contemporary patient cohort of 4060 transplant recipients with acute myeloid leukemia meeting inclusion criteria from the discovery study (allo-HCT in first complete remission, matched donor), but who were allografted in a more recent period (2018-2021) and were one decade older (55-75 years, median 63.4 years), we assigned them to a TCI category (low n = 1934, 48%; intermediate n = 1948, 48%, high n = 178, 4%) according to the calculated TCI score ([1-2], [2.5-3.5], [4-6], respectively), and examined the validity of the TCI category in predicting early non-relapse mortality (NRM), 2-year NRM and relapse (REL). In the unadjusted comparison, the TCI index provided a significant risk stratification for d100 and d180 NRM, NRM and REL risk. In the multivariate analysis adjusted for significant variables, there was an independent association of TCI with early NRM, NRM and REL. In summary, we confirm in contemporary treated patients that TCI reflects the conditioning regimen related morbidity and anti-leukemic efficacy satisfactorily and across other established prognostic factors.

Clinical implementation of deep learning-based automated left breast simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy treatment planning.

Background and purpose: Automation in radiotherapy treatment planning aims to improve both the quality and the efficiency of the process. The aim of this study was to report on a clinical implementation of a Deep Learning (DL) auto-planning model for left-sided breast cancer. Materials and methods: The DL model was developed for left-sided breast simultaneous integrated boost treatments under deep-inspiration breath-hold. Eighty manual dose distributions were revised and used for training. Ten patients were used for model validation. The model was then used to design 17 clinical auto-plans. Manual and auto-plans were scored on a list of clinical goals for both targets and organs-at-risk (OARs). For validation, predicted and mimicked dose (PD and MD, respectively) percent error (PE) was calculated with respect to manual dose. Clinical and validation cohorts were compared in terms of MD only. Results: Median values of both PD and MD validation plans fulfilled the evaluation criteria. PE was < 1% for targets for both PD and MD. PD was well aligned to manual dose while MD left lung mean dose was significantly less (median:5.1 Gy vs 6.1 Gy). The left-anterior-descending artery maximum dose was found out of requirements (median values:+5.9 Gy and + 2.9 Gy, for PD and MD respectively) in three validation cases, while it was reduced for clinical cases (median:-1.9 Gy). No other clinically significant differences were observed between clinical and validation cohorts. Conclusion: Small OAR differences observed during the model validation were not found clinically relevant. The clinical implementation outcomes confirmed the robustness of the model.

Influence of optimisation parameters on directly deliverable Pareto fronts explored for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: In inverse radiotherapy treatment planning, the Pareto front is the set of optimal solutions to the multi-criteria problem of adequately irradiating the planning target volume (PTV) while reducing dose to organs at risk (OAR). The Pareto front depends on the chosen optimisation parameters whose influence (clinically relevant versus not clinically relevant) is investigated in this paper. METHODS: Thirty-one prostate cancer patients treated at our clinic were randomly selected. We developed an in-house Python script that controlled the commercial treatment planning system RayStation to calculate directly deliverable Pareto fronts. We calculated reference Pareto fronts for a given set of objective functions, varying the PTV coverage and the mean dose of the primary OAR (rectum) and fixing the mean doses of the secondary OARs (bladder and femoral heads). We calculated the fronts for different sets of objective functions and different mean doses to secondary OARs. We compared all fronts using a specific metric (clinical distance measure). RESULTS: The in-house script was validated for directly deliverable Pareto front calculations in two and three dimensions. The Pareto fronts depended on the choice of objective functions and fixed mean doses to secondary OARs, whereas the parameters most influencing the front and leading to clinically relevant differences were the dose gradient around the PTV, the weight of the PTV objective function, and the bladder mean dose. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that for multi-criteria optimisation of prostate treatments using external therapy, dose gradient around the PTV and bladder mean dose are the most influencial parameters.

Need for standardization in the use of structures in the intensity-modulated radiation therapy planning of head and neck cancers, a GORTEC study.

BACKGROUND: Most radiotherapy structures contoured on CT scans during IMRT planning are defined by the ICRU, forming part of standard practice. Associated dose-volume constraints serve as parameters for dose computation algorithms to produce optimized dose maps. On the ground, however, physicists/dosimetrists routinely delineate auxiliary "non-standard" radiotherapy structures (nsRS). MATERIALS/METHODS: From 287 patients' data, five categories of nsRS were identified. Inter-center, inter-patient variability, and temporal trends in nsRS use were investigated. Relation of nsRS with topological complexity, plan quality, calculated quality assurance (QA) and expert QA, was investigated using machine learning classification. RESULTS: nsRS accounted for 19.2% of all structures. Average number of nsRS per patient was 8.92 ± 6.70. Variation coefficient across centers was > 70% for nsRS frequency. There was no effect of patient volume per center on averaged nsRS number between low, intermediate, and high-volume centers. No temporal trends in nsRS use were detected at the high-volume centers, except for an increase in 'forced-dose' nsRS (p = 3.08 × (10)^(-5)) at one center. Machine learning prediction accuracy including nsRS features were 0.70 ± 0.06 for topological complexity, 0.58 ± 0.05 for calculated QA and 0.72 ± 0.05 for expert QA. CONCLUSION: Use of nsRS is frequent but heterogeneous and should be standardized further in line with ICRU initiatives in IMRT planning. Use of nsRS should be documented with respect to the need for nsRS from dose computation algorithms of treatment planning systems and IMRT machines in terms of modulation capacity and plan robustness.