Clinical outcomes of melanoma brain metastases treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone versus nivolumab and ipilimumab with stereotactic radiosurgery.

PURPOSE: Upfront dual checkpoint blockade with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has demonstrated efficacy for treating melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in asymptomatic patients. Whether the combination of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with dual checkpoint blockade improves outcomes over dual-checkpoint blockade alone is unknown. We evaluated clinical outcomes of patients with MBM receiving ICI with nivolumab and ipilimumab, with and without SRS. METHODS: 49 patients with 158 MBM receiving nivolumab and ipilimumab for untreated MBM between 2015 and 2022 were identified at our institution. Patient and tumor characteristics including age, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), presence of symptoms, cancer history, MBM burden, and therapy course were recorded. Outcomes measured from initiation of MBM-directed therapy included overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant intracranial control (DIC). Time-to-event analysis was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: 25 patients with 74 MBM received ICI alone, and 24 patients with 84 MBM received concurrent SRS. Median follow-up was 24 months. No differences in age (p = 0.96), KPS (p = 0.85), presence of symptoms (p = 0.79), prior MBM (p = 0.68), prior MBM-directed surgery (p = 0.96) or SRS (p = 0.68), MBM size (p = 0.67), or MBM number (p = 0.94) were seen. There was a higher rate of nivolumab and ipilimumab course completion in the SRS group (54% vs. 24%; p = 0.029). The SRS group received prior immunotherapy more often than the ICI alone group (54% vs. 8.0%; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 1-year OS (72% vs. 71%, p = 0.20) and DIC (63% v 51%, p = 0.26) between groups. The SRS group had higher 1-year LC (92% vs. 64%; p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, LC was improved with combination therapy (AHR 0.38, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In our analysis, patients who received SRS with nivolumab and ipilimumab had superior LC without increased risk of toxicity or compromised immunotherapy treatment completion despite the SRS cohort having higher rates of prior immunotherapy. Further prospective study of combination nivolumab and ipilimumab with SRS is warranted.

Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab with or without stereotactic body radiation therapy for advanced Merkel cell carcinoma: a randomised, open label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma is among the most aggressive and lethal of primary skin cancers, with a high rate of distant metastasis. Anti-programmed death receptor 1 (anti-PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monotherapy is currently standard of care for unresectable, recurrent, or metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. We assessed treatment with combined nivolumab plus ipilimumab, with or without stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma as a first-line therapy or following previous treatment with anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 monotherapy. METHODS: In this randomised, open label, phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned adults from two cancer sites in the USA (one in Florida and one in Ohio) to group A (combined nivolumab and ipilimumab) or group B (combined nivolumab and ipilimumab plus SBRT) in a 1:1 ratio. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically proven advanced stage (unresectable, recurrent, or stage IV) Merkel cell carcinoma, a minimum of two tumour lesions measureable by CT, MRI or clinical exam, and tumour tissue available for exploratory biomarker analysis. Patients were stratified by previous immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) status to receive nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks (group A) or the same schedule of combined nivolumab and ipilimumab with the addition of SBRT to at least one tumour site (24 Gy in three fractions at week 2; group B). Patients had to have at least two measurable sites of disease so one non-irradiated site could be followed for response. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of combined nivolumab and ipilimumab. ORR was defined as the proportion of patients with a complete response or partial response per immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. Response was assessed every 12 weeks. Safety was assessed in all patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03071406. FINDINGS: 50 patients (25 in both group A and group B) were enrolled between March 14, 2017, and Dec 21, 2021, including 24 ICI-naive patients (13 [52%] of 25 group A patients and 11 [44%] of 25 group B patients]) and 26 patients with previous ICI (12 [48%] of 25 group A patients and 14 [56%] of 25 group B patients]). One patient in group B did not receive SBRT due to concerns about excess toxicity. Median follow-up was 14·6 months (IQR 9·1-26·5). Two patients in group B were excluded from the analysis of the primary endpoint because the target lesions were irradiated and so the patients were deemed non-evaluable. Of the ICI-naive patients, 22 (100%) of 22 (95% CI 82-100) had an objective response, including nine (41% [95% CI 21-63]) with complete response. Of the patients who had previously had ICI exposure, eight (31%) of 26 patients (95% CI 15-52) had an objective response and four (15% [5-36]) had a complete response. No significant differences in ORR were observed between groups A (18 [72%] of 25 patients) and B (12 [52%] of 23 patients; p=0·26). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 10 (40%) of 25 patients in group A and 8 (32%) of 25 patients in group B. INTERPRETATION: First-line combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma showed a high ORR with durable responses and an expected safety profile. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab also showed clinical benefit in patients with previous anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 treatment. Addition of SBRT did not improve efficacy of combined nivolumab and ipilimumab. The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab represents a new first-line and salvage therapeutic option for advanced Merkel cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb Rare Population Malignancy Program.

Current and future approaches in the surgical management of T3b/T4 primary and locoregionally advanced melanoma.

Currently accepted principles of surgical management-margin width, use of sentinel node biopsy, performance of radical node dissections for node-positive cases-and some aspects of postoperative management (use of radiation for desmoplastic melanoma primaries and for clinically node-positive disease) will change in the future with the potential widespread adoption of adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies.

Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Clinical Stage III Melanoma in the Modern Therapeutic Era.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) can decrease lymph node basin (LNB) recurrences in patients with clinically evident melanoma lymph node (LN) metastases following lymphadenectomy, but its role in the era of modern systemic therapies (ST), immune checkpoint or BRAF/MEK inhibitors, is unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients at four institutions who underwent lymphadenectomy (1/1/2010-12/31/2019) for clinically evident melanoma LN metastases and received neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant ST with RT, or ST alone, but met indications for RT, were identified. Comparisons were made between ST alone and ST/RT groups. The primary outcome was 3-year cumulative incidence (CI) of LNB recurrence. Secondary outcomes included 3-year incidences of in-transit/distant recurrence and survival estimates. RESULTS: Of 98 patients, 76 received ST alone and 22 received ST/RT. Median follow-up time for patients alive at last follow-up was 44.6 months. The ST/RT group had fewer inguinal node metastases (ST 36.8% versus ST/RT 9.1%; P = 0.04), and more extranodal extension (ST 50% versus ST/RT 77.3%; P = 0.02) and positive lymphadenectomy margins (ST 2.6% versus ST/RT 13.6%; P = 0.04). The 3-year CI of LNB recurrences was lower for the ST/RT group compared with the ST group (13.9% versus 25.2%), but this reduction was not statistically significant (P = 0.36). Groups did not differ significantly in in-transit/distant recurrences (P = 0.24), disease-free survival (P = 0.14), or melanoma-specific survival (P = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: In the era of modern ST, RT may still have value in reducing LNB recurrences in melanoma with clinical LN metastases. Further research should focus on whether select patient populations derive benefit from combination therapy, and optimizing indications for RT following neoadjuvant ST.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Melanoma: Cutaneous, Version 2.2021.

Over the past few years, the NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma: Cutaneous have been expanded to include pathways for treatment of microscopic satellitosis (added in v2.2020), and the following Principles sections: Molecular Testing (added in v2.2019), Systemic Therapy Considerations (added in v2.2020), and Brain Metastases Management (added in v3.2020). The v1.2021 update included additional modifications of these sections and notable revisions to Principles of: Pathology, Surgical Margins for Wide Excision of Primary Melanoma, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Completion/Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissection, and Radiation Therapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the important changes to pathology and surgery recommendations, as well as additions to systemic therapy options for patients with advanced disease.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Uveal Melanoma, Version 1.2019.

The NCCN Guidelines for Uveal Melanoma include recommendations for staging, treatment, and follow-up of patients diagnosed with uveal melanoma of the choroid or ciliary body. In addition, because distinguishing between uveal melanoma and benign uveal nevi is in some cases difficult, these guidelines also contain recommendations for workup of patients with suspicious pigmented uveal lesions, to clarify the tests needed to distinguish between those who should have further workup and treatment for uveal melanoma versus those with uncertain diagnosis and low risk who should to be followed and later reevaluated. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe recommendations for treatment of newly diagnosed nonmetastatic uveal melanoma in patients who have already undergone a complete workup.

Management of Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Merkel Cell Carcinoma: Completion Lymphadenectomy, Radiation, or Both?

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of patients with clinically localized Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) show nodal involvement on sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Optimal management of SLNB-positive disease has not been defined. This study compared outcomes after completion lymphadenectomy (CLND), radiation, and combined CLND plus radiation after a positive SLNB. METHODS: All patients treated at a single institution for SLNB-positive MCC (1998-2015) were retrospectively evaluated, with examination of patient demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, outcomes, and regional toxicity. RESULTS: The study identified 71 evaluable patients with SLNB-positive disease. The median age of these patients was 76 years, and 76.1% were men. Of the 71 patients, 11 (15.5%) underwent CLND, 40 (56.3%) received radiation, and 20 (28.2%) underwent CLND plus postoperative radiation. Lymphovascular invasion was significantly more common in the radiation-alone cohort (p = 0.04). For the three cohorts, the median percentages of nodal involvement were respectively 2, 10, and 30% (p = 0.06). After a median follow-up period of 22.3 months, four patients had recurrence in their regional nodal basin (3 radiation-alone patients and 1 CLND + radiation patient). The three cohorts did not differ significantly in the development of distant metastases (p = 0.68) or overall survival (p = 0.72). Six patients experienced surgical-site infections (2 CLND and 4 CLND + radiation patients), and three patients experienced symptomatic lymphedema (1 CLND patient and 2 CLND + radiation patients). CONCLUSIONS: Regional failure was infrequent (≤ 10%) regardless of treatment, and morbidity appeared to be low with all approaches. Given that multiple treatment approaches can be successful in treating micrometastatic MCC, future efforts should be directed at refining criteria for allocating patients to a specific method, or possibly no further nodal basin treatment, in an effort to maximize regional control at the lowest cost and morbidity.

Cutaneous Melanoma, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cutaneous melanoma have been significantly revised over the past few years in response to emerging data on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies and BRAF-targeted therapy. This article summarizes the data and rationale supporting extensive changes to the recommendations for systemic therapy as adjuvant treatment of resected disease and as treatment of unresectable or distant metastatic disease.

Resection Margins in Merkel Cell Carcinoma: Is a 1-cm Margin Wide Enough?

BACKGROUND: Guidelines regarding specific resection margins for primary Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) are not well established. The current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend 1- to 2-cm resection margins. This study aimed to determine the impact of margin width on local recurrence (LR), disease-specific survival (DSS), overall survival (OS), and type of wound closure. METHODS: All patients who underwent resection of primary MCC at a single institution from 2000 to 2015 were reviewed. Patient demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, treatments, and outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 240 patients underwent resection of primary MCC with resection margin width identified in the operative report. The median age was 76 years, and 65.8% of the patients were men. Of the 240 patients, 85 (35.4%) had head and neck primaries, 140 (58.3%) had extremity primaries, and 15 (6.3%) had trunk primaries. In terms of margins, 69 patients (28.8%) had a margin of 1 cm, 36 patients (15%) had a margin of 1.1-1.9 cm, and 135 patients (56.2%) had a margin of 2 cm or more. The median follow-up period was 21 months. The LR rate was 2.9% for a margin of 1 cm, 2.8% for a margin of 1.1-1.9 cm, and 5.2% for a margin of 2 cm or more (p = 0.80). The 5-year OS was 63.6% for a margin of 1 cm, 59.7% for a margin of 1.1-1.9, and 70.7% for a margin of 2 cm or more (p = 0.66). The 5-year DSS was 80.3% for a margin of 1 cm, 66.2% for a margin of 1.1-1.9 cm, and 91.8% for a margin of 2 cm or more (p = 0.28). For wound closure, 43.5, 50, and 65.9% of the patients respectively required a flap or graft with a margin of 1, 1.1-1.9, and 2 cm or more (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: A 1-cm resection margins did not increase the risk of LR. Margin width did not make a significant difference in DSS or OS. Larger resection margins increase the need for a graft or flap closure.

Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma provide recommendations for the management of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal or perianal region. Primary treatment of anal cancer usually includes chemoradiation, although certain lesions can be treated with margin-negative local excision alone. Disease surveillance is recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is essential for optimal patient care.

Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Rectal Cancer address diagnosis, staging, surgical management, perioperative treatment, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, disease surveillance, and survivorship in patients with rectal cancer. This portion of the guidelines focuses on the management of localized disease, which involves careful patient selection for curative-intent treatment options that sequence multimodality therapy usually comprised of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgical resection.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Colon Cancer, Version 2.2018.

The NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer provide recommendations regarding diagnosis, pathologic staging, surgical management, perioperative treatment, surveillance, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, and survivorship. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Colon Cancer Panel discussions for the 2018 update of the guidelines regarding risk stratification and adjuvant treatment for patients with stage III colon cancer, and treatment of BRAF V600E mutation-positive metastatic colorectal cancer with regimens containing vemurafenib.

Clinical feasibility of 90Y digital PET/CT for imaging microsphere biodistribution following radioembolization.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical feasibility of next generation solid-state digital photon counting PET/CT (dPET/CT) technology and imaging findings in patients following 90Y microsphere radioembolization in comparison with standard of care (SOC) bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT (bSPECT/CT). METHODS: Five patients underwent SOC 90Y bremsstrahlung imaging immediately following routine radioembolization with 3.5 ± 1.7 GBq of 90Y-labeled glass microspheres. All patients also underwent dPET/CT imaging at 29 ± 11 h following radioembolization. Matched pairs comparison was used to compare image quality, image contrast and 90Y biodistribution between dPET/CT and bSPECT/CT images. Volumetric assessments of 90Y activity using different isocontour thresholds on dPET/CT and bSPECT/CT images were also compared. RESULTS: Digital PET/CT consistently provided better visual image quality and 90Y-to-background image contrast while depicting 90Y biodistribution than bSPECT/CT. Isocontour volumetric assessment using a 1% threshold precisely outlined 90Y activity and the treatment volume on dPET/CT images, whereas a more restrictive 20% threshold on bSPECT/CT images was needed to obtain comparable treatment volumes. The use of a less restrictive 10% threshold isocontour on bSPECT/CT images grossly overestimated the treatment volume when compared with the 1% threshold on dPET/CT images. CONCLUSIONS: Digital PET/CT is clinically feasible for the assessment of 90Y microsphere biodistribution following radioembolization, and provides better visual image quality and image contrast than routine bSPECT/CT with comparable acquisition times. With further optimization and clinical validation, dPET technology may allow faster and more accurate imaging-based assessment of 90Y microsphere biodistribution.

Neoadjuvant modified (m) FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced unresectable (LAPC) and borderline resectable (BRPC) adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND: For patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil [5-FU], leucovorin [LV], irinotecan [IRI], and oxaliplatin) has shown improved survival rates compared with gemcitabine but with significant toxicity, particularly in patients with a high tumor burden. Because of reported response rates exceeding 30 %, the authors began to use a modified (m) FOLFIRINOX regimen for patients with advanced nonmetastatic disease aimed at downstaging for resection. This report describes their experience with mFOLFIRINOX and aggressive surgical resection. METHODS: Between January 2011 and August of 2013, 43 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC, n = 18) or locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC, n = 25) were treated with mFOLFIRINOX (no bolus 5-FU, no LV, and decreased IRI). Radiation was used based on response and intended surgery. Charts were retrospectively reviewed to assess response, toxicities, and extent of resection when possible. RESULTS: The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was diarrhea in six patients (14 %) with no grade 3/4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia. Resection was attempted in 31 cases (72 %) and accomplished in 22 cases (51.1 %) including 11 of 25 LAPC cases (44 %). Vascular resection was required in 4 cases (18 %), with R0 resection in 86.4 % of the resections. Complications occurred in 6 cases (27 %), with no perioperative deaths. The median progression-free survival period was 18 months if the resection was achieved compared with 8 months if no resection was performed (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX is an effective, well-tolerated regimen for patients with advanced nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer. When mFOLFIRINOX is coupled with aggressive surgery, high resection rates are possible even when the initial imaging shows locally advanced disease. Although data are still maturing, resection appears to offer at least a progression-free survival advantage.

Multi-institutional experience of MR-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy for adrenal gland metastases.

Purpose: While dose escalation is associated with improved local control (LC) for adrenal gland metastases (AGMs), the proximity of gastrointestinal (GI) organs-at-risk (OARs) limits the dose that can be safely prescribed via CT-based stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The advantages of magnetic resonance-guided SBRT (MRgSBRT), including tumor tracking and online plan adaptation, facilitate safe dose escalation. Methods: This is a multi-institutional review of 57 consecutive patients who received MRgSBRT on a 0.35-T MR linac to 61 AGMs from 2019 to 2021. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and LC, and the Cox proportional hazards model was utilized for univariate analysis (UVA). Results: Median follow up from MRgSBRT was 16.4 months (range [R]: 1.1-39 months). Median age was 67 years (R: 28-84 years). Primary histologies included non-small cell lung cancer (N = 38), renal cell carcinoma (N = 6), and melanoma (N = 5), amongst others. The median maximum diameter was 2.7 cm (R: 0.6-7.6 cm), and most AGMs were left-sided (N = 32). The median dose was 50 Gy (R: 30-60 Gy) in 5-10 fractions with a median BED10 of 100 Gy (R: 48-132 Gy). 45 cases (74 %) required adaptation for at least 1 fraction (median: 4 fractions, R: 0-10). Left-sided AGMs required adaptation in at least 1 fraction more frequently than right-sided AGMs (88 % vs 59 %, p = 0.018). There were 3 cases of reirradiation, including 60 Gy in 10 fractions (N = 1) and 40 Gy in 5 fractions (N = 2). One-year LC, PFS, and OS were 92 %, 52 %, and 78 %, respectively. On UVA, melanoma histology predicted for inferior 1-year LC (80 % vs 93 %, p = 0.012). There were no instances of grade 3+ toxicity. Conclusions: We demonstrate that MRgSBRT achieves favorable early LC and no grade 3 + toxicity despite prescribing a median BED10 of 100 Gy to targets near GI OARs.

Adjuvant Radiation Does Not Affect Locoregional Control Following Resection of Melanoma Satellitosis or In-Transit Disease.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the association of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) with improved locoregional (LR) recurrence for resected melanoma satellitosis and in-transit disease (ITD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively for resected melanoma satellitosis/ITD from 1996 to 2017. RESULTS: 99 patients were identified. 20 patients (20.2%) received adjuvant RT while 79 (79.8%) did not. Mean follow-up in the RT group was 4.3 years and 4.7 years in the non-RT group. 80% of patients who underwent RT suffered a complication, most commonly dermatitis. Locoregional recurrence occurred in 9 patients (45%) treated with adjuvant RT and 30 patients (38%) in the non-RT group (P = 0.805). Median LR-DFS was 5.8 years in the RT group and 9.5 years in the non-RT group (P = 0.604). On multivariable analysis, having a close or positive margin was the only independent predictor of LR-DFS (HR 3.8 95% CI 1.7-8.7). In-transit disease was associated with improved overall survival when compared to satellitosis (HR 0.260, 95% CI 0.08-0.82). DISCUSSION: The use of adjuvant RT is not associated with improved locoregional control in resected melanoma satellitosis or ITD. Close or positive margin was the only treatment-related factor associated with decreased LR-DFS after surgical resection of satellitosis/ITD.

Magnetic Resonance-Guided Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy/Hypofractionated Radiation therapy for Metastatic and Primary Central and Ultracentral Lung Lesions.

Introduction: The recent results from the Nordic-HILUS study indicate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is associated with high-grade toxicity for ultracentral (UC) tumors. We hypothesized that magnetic resonance-guided SBRT (MRgSBRT) or hypofractionated radiation therapy (MRgHRT) enables the safe delivery of high-dose radiation to central and UC lung lesions. Methods: Patients with UC or central lesions were treated with MRgSBRT/MRgHRT with real-time gating or adaptation. Central lesions were defined as per the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and UC as per the HILUS study definitions: (1) group A or tumors less than 1 cm from the trachea and/or mainstem bronchi; or (2) group B or tumors less than 1 cm from the lobar bronchi. The Kaplan-Meier estimate and log-rank test were used to estimate survival. Associations between toxicities and other patient factors were tested using the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. Results: A total of 47 patients were included with a median follow-up of 22.9 months (95% confidence interval: 16.4-29.4). Most (53%) had metastatic disease. All patients had central lesions and 55.3% (n = 26) had UC group A. The median distance from the proximal bronchial tree was 6.0 mm (range: 0.0-19.0 mm). The median biologically equivalent dose (α/ß = 10) was 105 Gy (range: 75-151.2). The most common radiation schedule was 60 Gy in eight fractions (40.4%). Most (55%) had previous systemic therapy, 32% had immunotherapy and 23.4% had previous thoracic radiation therapy. There were 16 patients who underwent daily adaptation. The 1-year overall survival was 82% (median = not reached), local control 87% (median = not reached), and progression-free survival 54% (median = 15.1 mo, 95% confidence interval: 5.1-25.1). Acute toxicity included grade 1 (26%) and grade 2 (21%) with only two patients experiencing grade 3 (4.3%) in the long term. No grade 4 or 5 toxicities were seen. Conclusions: Previous studies noted high rates of toxicity after SBRT to central and UC lung lesions, with reports of grade 5 toxicities. In our cohort, the use of MRgSBRT/MRgHRT with high biologically effective doses was well tolerated, with two grade 3 toxicities and no grade 4/5.

Stereotactic radiosurgery and anti-PD-1 + CTLA-4 therapy, anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK inhibitors, BRAF inhibitors, or conventional chemotherapy for the management of melanoma brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy and targeted BRAF/MEK inhibitors (i) have revolutionised the systemic management of advanced melanoma. Given the role of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the local management of brain metastases, we sought to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) treated with SRS and various systemic therapies. METHODS: Patients were included if MBM were diagnosed and treated with SRS within 3 months of receiving anti-PD-1+CTLA-4 therapy, anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK-i, BRAF-i, or conventional chemotherapy. Comparisons between groups were made for overall survival (OS), distant MBM control, local MBM, systemic progression-free survival (sPFS), and neurotoxicity. RESULTS: In total, 257 patients with 1048 MBM treated over 368 SRS sessions between 2011 and 2020 were identified. On MVA, treatment with anti-PD1+anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, and BRAF/MEK-i improved distant intracranial control over conventional chemotherapy. No significant differences were noted in local control (LC) between groups (p = 0.78). Kaplan-Meier OS at 12 months for anti-PD-1 + CTLA-4 therapy, anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK-i, BRAF-i, and conventional chemotherapy was 68%, 59%, 45%, 62%, 21%, and 15%, respectively (p = <0.0001). The sPFS rates at 12 months were 57%, 53%, 42%, 45%, 14%, and 6% (p = <0.0001). No significant differences were noted in rates of radiation necrosis (p = 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: This is among the largest series evaluating MBM treated with SRS and various systemic therapy regimens. Our analysis noted significant differences in OS, distant MBM control, and sPFS by systemic therapy. No differences in LC or radiation necrosis risk were noted.

Delivery of Online Adaptive MRI-Guided Radiation Therapy for a Deaf Patient.

MRI-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) enables real-time imaging during treatment and daily online adaptive planning. It is particularly useful for areas of treatment that have been previously excluded or restricted from ablative doses due to potential damage to adjacent normal tissue. In certain cases, ablative doses to metastatic lesions may be justified and treated with MRgRT using video-assisted gated breath-hold adjustments throughout delivery. The workflow relies on patient biofeedback and auditory cues. A 74-year-old deaf male with a history of prostate cancer status post prostatectomy was found to have an enlarged cervical lymph node, which was excised with histopathology demonstrating Merkel cell carcinoma. Approximately one year after treatment with two cycles of pembrolizumab, which was subsequently discontinued due to toxicity, surveillance imaging demonstrated an enlarging left adrenal nodule. It was initially stable for an additional seven months with pembrolizumab rechallenge but was again found enlarged on subsequent imaging. The patient underwent MRg stereotactic body radiation therapy (MRgSBRT) to a total dose of 60 Gy in five fractions to this isolated site of progression. The patient was equipped with mirrored glasses to view the tracking structure with respect to gating the boundary structure, and the traditional reliance on verbal cues for coaching was reimagined to rely on visual cues instead. Follow-up positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) two weeks after treatment demonstrated interval resolution of the left adrenal metastatic nodule and a return to symmetric bilateral adrenal gland metabolic activity. The necessary MRgSBRT treatment for single metastatic lesions near normal tissue structures relies on verbal cues and coaching. However, deaf patients are unable to receive this treatment according to the traditional workflow model. Unique opportunities exist for the implementation of culturally competent care for the Deaf community, relying more heavily on visual cues, in radiation oncology practice.

Phase I study of trametinib in combination with whole brain radiation therapy for brain metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Trametinib is a MEK inhibitor with intracranial activity indicated for BRAF-mutant metastatic malignancies. Yet, the safety of trametinib concurrent with whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is unknown. We performed a single-institution, prospective, 3 + 3, phase I clinical trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of trametinib with WBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with brain metastases (BM) received daily trametinib for 28 days, starting 7 days prior to and continuing through WBRT (37.5 Gy/15 fractions). Dose levels (DL)1-3 were 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 mg. The MTD of trametinib plus WBRT, the max dose where ≤1 of 6 patients experienced a dose limiting toxicity (DLT), was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: 10 patients were enrolled (median age-59 [47-64], BM-5 [1-10], 50% melanoma). Three and 7 patients were assigned to DL1 and 2. One DL2 patient withdrew. 89% of remaining patients completed therapy per protocol, but 1 DL2 patient with systemic progression discontinued therapy at 30 Gy. Thirteen grade (G)3-4 toxicities were observed, of which 12 occurred at DL2 (4/6 of patients). DLT was reached at DL2 (G4 thrombocytopenia and G3 diarrhea, 1 each). There were no G5 toxicities. Median overall survival was 2.2 months. During the study period, changing practice patterns favored utilization of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Thus, the trial closed early prior to completion. CONCLUSIONS: In a patient population representative of modern candidates for WBRT, trametinib plus WBRT is highly toxic with a MTD <1.5 mg. The safety of trametinib with SRS remains an important question for future study.