Prospective Assessment of Patient-Reported Dry Eye Syndrome After Whole Brain Radiation.

PURPOSE: Dry eye is not typically considered a toxicity of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT). We analyzed dry eye syndrome as part of a prospective study of patient-reported outcomes after WBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients receiving WBRT to 25 to 40 Gy were enrolled on a study with dry mouth as the primary endpoint and dry eye syndrome as a secondary endpoint. Patients received 3-dimensional WBRT using opposed lateral fields. Per standard practice, lacrimal glands were not prospectively delineated. Patients completed the Subjective Evaluation of Symptom of Dryness (SESoD, scored 0-4, with higher scores representing worse dry eye symptoms) at baseline, immediately after WBRT (EndRT), and at 1 month (1M), 3 months, and 6 months. Patients with baseline SESoD ≥3 (moderate dry eye) were excluded. The endpoints analyzed were ≥1-point and ≥2-point increase in SESoD score at 1M. Lacrimal glands were retrospectively delineated with fused magnetic resonance imaging scans. RESULTS: One hundred patients were enrolled, 70 were eligible for analysis, and 54 were evaluable at 1M. Median bilateral lacrimal V20Gy was 79%. At 1M, 17 patients (32%) had a ≥1-point increase in SESoD score, and 13 (24%) a ≥2-point increase. Lacrimal doses appeared to be associated with an increase in SESoD score of both ≥1 point (V10Gy: P = .042, odds ratio [OR] 1.09/%; V20Gy: P = .071, OR 1.03/%) and ≥2 points (V10Gy: P = .038, OR 1.15/%; V20Gy: P = .063, OR 1.04/%). The proportion with increase in dry eye symptoms at 1M for lacrimal V20Gy ≥79% versus <79% was 46% versus 15%, respectively, for ≥1 point SESoD increase (P = .02) and 36% versus 12%, respectively, for ≥2 point SESoD increase (P = .056). CONCLUSIONS: Dry eye appears to be a relatively common, dose/volume-dependent acute toxicity of WBRT. Minimization of lacrimal gland dose may reduce this toxicity, and patients should be counseled regarding the existence of this potential side effect and treatments for dry eye.

Assessment of Risk of Xerostomia After Whole-Brain Radiation Therapy and Association With Parotid Dose.

Importance: Whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) delivers a substantial radiation dose to the parotid glands, but the parotid glands are not delineated for avoidance and xerostomia has never been reported as an adverse effect. Minimizing the toxic effects in patients receiving palliative treatments, such as WBRT, is crucial. Objective: To assess whether xerostomia is a toxic effect of WBRT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study enrolled patients from November 2, 2015, to March 20, 2018, at 1 academic center (University of North Carolina Hospitals) and 2 affiliated community hospitals (High Point Regional Hospital and University of North Carolina Rex Hospital). Adult patients (n = 100) receiving WBRT for the treatment or prophylaxis of brain metastases were enrolled. Patients who had substantial baseline xerostomia or did not complete WBRT or at least 1 postbaseline questionnaire were prospectively excluded from analysis and follow-up. Patients received 3-dimensional WBRT using opposed lateral fields covering the skull and the C1 or C2 vertebra. Per standard practice, the parotid glands were not prospectively delineated. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients completed the University of Michigan Xerostomia Questionnaire and a 4-point bother score at baseline, immediately after WBRT, at 1 month, at 3 months, and at 6 months. The primary end point was the 1-month xerostomia score, with a hypothesized worsening score of 10 points from baseline. Results: Of the 100 patients enrolled, 73 (73%) were eligible for analysis and 55 (55%) were evaluable at 1 month. The 73 patients included 43 women (59%) and 30 men (41%) with a median (range) age of 61 (23-88) years. The median volume of parotid receiving at least 20 Gy (V20Gy) was 47%. The mean xerostomia score was 7 points at baseline and was statistically significantly higher at each assessment period, including 21 points immediately after WBRT (95% CI, 16-26; P < .001), 23 points (95% CI, 16-30; P < .001) at 1 month, 21 points (95% CI, 13-28; P < .001) at 3 months, and 14 points (95% CI, 7-21; P = .03) at 6 months. At 1 month, the xerostomia score increased by 20 points or more in 19 patients (35%). The xerostomia score at 1 month was associated with parotid dose as a continuous variable and was 35 points in patients with parotid V20Gy of 47% or greater, compared with only 9 points in patients with parotid V20Gy less than 47% (P < .001). The proportion of patients who self-reported to be bothered quite a bit or bothered very much by xerostomia at 1 month was 50% in those with parotid V20Gy of 47% or greater, compared with only 4% in those with parotid V20Gy less than 47% (P < .001). At 3 months, this difference was 50% vs 0% (P = .001). Xerostomia was not associated with medication use. Conclusions and Relevance: Clinically significant xerostomia occurred by the end of WBRT, appeared to be persistent, and appeared to be associated with parotid dose. The findings from this study suggest that the parotid glands should be delineated for avoidance to minimize these toxic effects in patients who undergo WBRT and often do not survive long enough for salivary recovery.

Impact of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic factors on receipt of radiation after breast conservation surgery: analysis of the national cancer database.

INTRODUCTION: Many eligible women with invasive breast cancer do not receive recommended adjuvant radiation (RT), despite its role in local control and overall survival. We examined trends in RT use over 10 years, and the impact of sociodemographic factors on the receipt of standard-of-care RT, using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). MATERIALS/METHODS: Women under age 70 with invasive breast cancer who underwent BCS from 2004 to 2014 were analyzed. Receipt of RT was evaluated in the whole cohort and by time period to identify temporal trends. Multiple logistic regression models were used to assess associations between factors such as race, insurance status, ethnicity, and receipt of RT. RESULTS: A total of 501,733 patients met eligibility criteria. The percentage of patients undergoing adjuvant RT increased from 86.7% in 2004 to 92.4% in 2012, and then decreased in 2013 and 2014 to 88.9%. On univariate analysis, patients of white race were significantly more likely to receive RT compared with patients of black race (90.4% vs 86.9%, p < 0.0001), as were non-Hispanic women compared to Hispanic patients (90.2% vs. 85.3%, p < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, race, ethnicity, insurance status, education level, and age remained significantly associated with receipt of RT. On temporal analysis, gaps remained stable, with no significant improvements over time. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests a recent decline in guideline-concordant receipt of RT in women under 70, and persistent disparities in the use of RT after BCS by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic factors. These findings raise concern for a recent detrimental change in patterns of care delivery.

Socioeconomic factors affect the selection of proton radiation therapy for children.

BACKGROUND: Proton radiotherapy remains a limited resource despite its clear potential for reducing radiation doses to normal tissues and late effects in children in comparison with photon therapy. This study examined the impact of race and socioeconomic factors on the use of proton therapy in children with solid malignancies. METHODS: This study evaluated 12,101 children (age ≤ 21 years) in the National Cancer Data Base who had been diagnosed with a solid malignancy between 2004 and 2013 and had received photon- or proton-based radiotherapy. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate patient, tumor, and socioeconomic variables affecting treatment with proton radiotherapy versus photon radiotherapy. RESULTS: Eight percent of the patients in the entire cohort received proton radiotherapy, and this proportion increased between 2004 (1.7%) and 2013 (17.5%). Proton therapy was more frequently used in younger patients (age ≤ 10 years; odds ratio [OR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-2.2) and in patients with bone/joint primaries and ependymoma, medulloblastoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma histologies (P < .05). Patients with metastatic disease were less likely to receive proton therapy (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.6). Patients with private/managed care were more likely than patients with Medicaid or no insurance to receive proton therapy (P < .0001). A higher median household income and educational attainment were also associated with increased proton use (P < .001). Patients treated with proton therapy versus photon therapy were more likely to travel more than 200 miles (13% vs 5%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic factors affect the use of proton radiotherapy in children. Whether this disparity is related to differences in the referral patterns, the knowledge of treatment modalities, or the ability to travel for therapy needs to be further clarified. Improving access to proton therapy in underserved pediatric populations is essential. Cancer 2017;123:4048-56. © 2017 American Cancer Society.