Brachytherapy for targeting the immune system in cervical cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: New combinations based on standard therapeutic modalities and immunotherapy require understanding the immunomodulatory properties of traditional treatments. The objective was to evaluate the impact of brachytherapy (BT) on the immune system of cervical cancer and to identify the best modality, High-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) vs. Pulsed-dose-rate (PDR-BT), to target it. METHODS: Nineteen patients enrolled in a prospective study received chemoradiation (CRT) and subsequently HDR-BT or PDR-BT. Peripheral blood samples were obtained for immunophenotyping analysis by flow-cytometry before CRT, BT, and two and four weeks after BT. The Friedman one-way ANOVA, Conover post hoc test, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to compare changes in cell populations at different periods, perform multiple pairwise comparisons and assess differences between treatment groups (PDR and HDR). RESULTS: Natural killer cells (NKs) were the best target for BT. Patients receiving HDR-BT achieved significantly higher values ​​and longer time of the CD56dimCD16 + NK cells with greater cytotoxic capacity than the PDR-BT group, which presented their highest elevation of CD56-CD16 + NK cells. Furthermore, both BT modalities were associated with an increase in myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), related to a worse clinical prognosis. However, there was a decrease in the percentage of CD4 + CD25 + Foxp3 + CD45RA + regulatory T cells (Tregs) in patients receiving HDR-BT, although there were no significant differences between BT. CONCLUSIONS: Immune biomarkers are important predictive determinants in cervical cancer. Higher cytotoxic NK cells and a trend toward lower values of Tregs might support the use of HDR-BT to the detriment of PDR-BT and help develop effective combinations with immunotherapy.

Prospective pilot study to explore the melatonin level in brain tumor patients undergoing radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to assess if the radiotherapy dose decreased the melatonin levels as well as the quality of life and sleep in brain tumor patients. METHODS: We performed a follow-up study on melatonin levels in saliva and its urinary metabolite sulfatoxi-melatonine (STM) samples in patients with brain tumors treated with radiotherapy close to the pineal gland's area. We analyzed the cortisol, cortisone, and excrection of STM normalized by urinary creatinine. In some cases, a polysomnography (PSG) was performed. Quality of life questionnaires, distress scale, and sleepiness inventories were also administered. RESULTS: We included twelve patients (experimental arm) and eight healthy controls (control group). No differences were observed between experimental arm and control group at baseline. No differences were detected in the experimental arm before and after delivering the radiotherapy. No clinically significant differences were found according to the radiotherapy dose delivered. CONCLUSION: Melatonin levels and PSG outcomes do not change after receiving radiotherapy. The findings of this study do not show a statistically significant association between the treatment and the quality of life and sleep.

Radiation and concomitant chemotherapy for patients with glioblastoma multiforme.

Postoperative external beam radiotherapy was considered the standard adjuvant treatment for patients with glioblastoma multiforme until the advent of using the drug temozolomide (TMZ) in addition to radiotherapy. High-dose volume should be focal, minimizing whole brain irradiation. Modern imaging, using several magnetic resonance sequences, has improved the planning target volume definition. The total dose delivered should be in the range of 60 Gy in fraction sizes of 1.8-2.0 Gy. Currently, TMZ concomitant and adjuvant to radiotherapy has become the standard of care for glioblastoma multiforme patients. Radiotherapy dose-intensification and radiosensitizer approaches have not improved the outcome. In spite of the lack of high quality evidence, stereotactic radiotherapy can be considered for a selected group of patients. For elderly patients, data suggest that the same survival benefit can be achieved with similar morbidity using a shorter course of radiotherapy (hypofractionation). Elderly patients with tumors that exhibit methylation of the O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter can benefit from TMZ alone.

Recurrent Glioblastoma: Ongoing Clinical Challenges and Future Prospects.

Virtually all glioblastomas treated in the first-line setting will recur in a short period of time, and the search for alternative effective treatments has so far been unsuccessful. Various obstacles remain unresolved, and no effective salvage therapy for recurrent glioblastoma can be envisaged in the short term. One of the main impediments to progress is the low incidence of the disease itself in comparison with other pathologies, which will be made even lower by the recent WHO classification of gliomas, which includes molecular alterations. This new classification helps refine patient prognosis but does not clarify the most appropriate treatment. Other impediments are related to clinical trials: glioblastoma patients are often excluded from trials due to their advanced age and limiting neurological symptoms; there is also the question of how best to measure treatment efficacy, which conditions the design of trials and can affect the acceptance of results by oncologists and medicine agencies. Other obstacles are related to the drugs themselves: most treatments cannot cross the blood-brain-barrier or the brain-to-tumor barrier to reach therapeutic drug levels in the tumor without producing toxicity; the drugs under study may have adverse metabolic interactions with those required for symptom control; identifying the target of the drug can be a complex issue. Additionally, the optimal method of treatment - local vs systemic therapy, the choice of chemotherapy, irradiation, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or a combination thereof - is not yet clear in glioblastoma in comparison with other cancers. Finally, in addition to curing or stabilizing the disease, glioblastoma therapy should aim at maintaining the neurological status of the patients to enable them to return to their previous lifestyle. Here we review currently available treatments, obstacles in the search for new treatments, and novel lines of research that show promise for the future.

Clinical outcomes and timing on the combination of focal radiation therapy and immunotherapy for the treatment of brain metastases.

Introduction: Radiotherapy is one of the standard treatments for brain metastases (BM). Over the past years, the introduction of immunotherapy as routine treatment for solid tumors has forced investigators to review and evaluate how it would interact with radiation. Radiation and Immunotherapy have shown a synergic effect activating the host's immune system and enhancing treatment response. The combinatory effect on BM is currently under investigation. Methods: Data published on Pubmed to determine toxicity, survival, treatment characteristics and timing on the combination of radiotherapy and immunotherapy for the treatment of BM has been reviewed. Results: Mostly retrospective reviews report an improvement of intracranial progression free survival (iPFS) when combining radioimmunotherapy for BM patients. Two systematic reviews and meta-analysis and one phase II prospective trial also report a benefit on iPFS without an increase of toxicity. Among the published literature, the definition of concurrency is heterogeneous, being one month or even narrowed intervals correlated to better clinical outcomes. Toxicity due to concurrent radioimmunotherapy, specifically symptomatic radionecrosis, is also directly analyzed and reported to be low, similar to the toxicity rates secondary to stereotactic radiosurgery alone. Conclusion: Radiation combined with immunotherapy has shown in predominantly retrospective reviews a synergic effect on the treatment of BM. The concurrent combination of radioimmunotherapy is a feasible therapeutic strategy and seems to improve clinical outcomes, especially iPFS, when delivered within <30 days. Larger prospective and randomized studies are needed to establish reliable outcomes, best delivery strategies and toxicity profile.