Stereotactic body radiotherapy for primary renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and practice guideline from the International Society of Stereotactic Radiosurgery (ISRS).

Surgery is the standard of care for patients with primary renal cell carcinoma. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a novel alternative for patients who are medically inoperable, technically high risk, or who decline surgery. Evidence for using SBRT in the primary renal cell carcinoma setting is growing, including several rigorously conducted prospective clinical trials. This systematic review was performed to assess the safety and efficacy of SBRT for primary renal cell carcinoma. Review results then formed the basis for the practice guidelines described, on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society. 3972 publications were screened and 36 studies (822 patients) were included in the analysis. Median local control rate was 94·1% (range 70·0-100), 5-year progression-free survival was 80·5% (95% CI 72-92), and 5-year overall survival was 77·2% (95% CI 65-89). These practice guidelines addressed four key clinical questions. First, the optimal dose fractionation was 25-26 Gy in one fraction, or 42-48 Gy in three fractions for larger tumours. Second, routine post-treatment biopsy is not recommended as it is not predictive of patient outcome. Third, SBRT for primary renal cell carcinoma in a solitary kidney is safe and effective. Finally, guidelines for post-treatment follow-up are described, which include cross-axial imaging of the abdomen including both kidneys, adrenals, and surveillance of the chest initially every 6 months. This systematic review and practice guideline support the practice of SBRT for primary renal cell carcinoma as a safe and effective standard treatment option. Randomised trials with surgery and invasive ablative therapies are needed to further define best practice.

Recent advances in Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy for glioblastoma.

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy is a locoregional, anticancer treatment consisting of a noninvasive, portable device that delivers alternating electric fields to tumors through arrays placed on the skin. Based on efficacy and safety data from global pivotal (randomized phase III) clinical studies, TTFields therapy (Optune Gio) is US Food and Drug Administration-approved for newly diagnosed (nd) and recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) and Conformité Européenne-marked for grade 4 glioma. Here we review data on the multimodal TTFields mechanism of action that includes disruption of cancer cell mitosis, inhibition of DNA replication and damage response, interference with cell motility, and enhancement of systemic antitumor immunity (adaptive immunity). We describe new data showing that TTFields therapy has efficacy in a broad range of patients, with a tolerable safety profile extending to high-risk subpopulations. New analyses of clinical study data also confirmed that overall and progression-free survival positively correlated with increased usage of the device and dose of TTFields at the tumor site. Additionally, pilot/early phase clinical studies evaluating TTFields therapy in ndGBM concomitant with immunotherapy as well as radiotherapy have shown promise, and new pivotal studies will explore TTFields therapy in these settings. Finally, we review recent and ongoing studies in patients in pediatric care, other central nervous system tumors and brain metastases, as well as other advanced-stage solid tumors (ie, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, gastric, and hepatic cancers), that highlight the broad potential of TTFields therapy as an adjuvant treatment in oncology.

Radiotherapeutic advances in the management of glioblastoma.

Glioblastoma remains a fatal diagnosis despite continuous efforts to improve upon the current standard backbone management paradigm of surgery, radiation therapy, systemic therapy and Tumor Treating Fields. Radiation therapy (RT) plays a pivotal role, with progress recently achieved in multiple key areas of research. The evolving landscape of dose and fractionation schedules and dose escalation options for different patient populations is explored, offering opportunities to better tailor treatment to a patient's overall status and preferences; novel efforts to modify treatment volumes are presented, such as utilizing state-of-the-art MRI-based linear accelerators to deliver adaptive therapy, hoping to reduce normal tissue exposure and treatment-related toxicity; specialized MR techniques and functional imaging using novel PET agents are described, providing improved treatment accuracy and the opportunity to target areas at risk of disease relapse; finally, the role of particle therapy and new altered dose-rate photon and proton therapy techniques in the treatment paradigm of glioblastoma is detailed, aiming to improve tumor control and patient outcome by exploiting novel radiobiological pathways. Improvements in each of these aforementioned areas are needed to make the critical necessary progress and allow for new approaches combining different advanced treatment modalities. This plethora of multiple new treatment options currently under investigation provides hope for a new outlook for patients with glioblastoma in the near future.

Comparative evaluation of outcomes amongst different radiosurgery management paradigms for patients with large brain metastasis.

INTRODUCTION: This study compares four management paradigms for large brain metastasis (LMB): fractionated SRS (FSRS), staged SRS (SSRS), resection and postoperative-FSRS (postop-FSRS) or preoperative-SRS (preop-SRS). METHODS: Patients with LBM (≥ 2 cm) between July 2017 and January 2022 at a single tertiary institution were evaluated. Primary endpoints were local failure (LF), radiation necrosis (RN), leptomeningeal disease (LMD), a composite of these variables, and distant intracranial failure (DIF). Gray's test compared cumulative incidence, treating death as a competing risk with a random survival forests (RSF) machine-learning model also used to evaluate the data. RESULTS: 183 patients were treated to 234 LBMs: 31.6% for postop-FSRS, 28.2% for SSRS, 20.1% for FSRS, and 20.1% for preop-SRS. The overall 1-year composite endpoint rates were comparable (21 vs 20%) between nonoperative and operative strategies, but 1-year RN rate was 8 vs 4% (p = 0.012), 1-year overall survival (OS) was 48 vs. 69% (p = 0.001), and 1-year LMD rate was 5 vs 10% (p = 0.052). There were differences in the 1-year RN rates (7% FSRS, 3% postop-FSRS, 5% preop-SRS, 10% SSRS, p = 0.037). With RSF analysis, the out-of-bag error rate for the composite endpoint was 47%, with identified top-risk factors including widespread extracranial disease, > 5 total lesions, and breast cancer histology. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to conduct a head-to-head retrospective comparison of four SRS methods, addressing the lack of randomized data in LBM literature amongst treatment paradigms. Despite patient characteristic trends, no significant differences were found in LF, composite endpoint, and DIF rates between non-operative and operative approaches.

Tumor Treating Fields therapy with standard systemic therapy versus standard systemic therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer following progression on or after platinum-based therapy (LUNAR): a randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt processes critical for cancer cell survival, leading to immunogenic cell death and enhanced antitumour immune response. In preclinical models of non-small-cell lung cancer, TTFields amplified the effects of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. We report primary results from a pivotal study of TTFields therapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study recruited patients at 130 sites in 19 countries. Participants were aged 22 years or older with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer progressing on or after platinum-based therapy, with squamous or non-squamous histology and ECOG performance status of 2 or less. Previous platinum-based therapy was required, but no restriction was placed on the number or type of previous lines of systemic therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to TTFields therapy and standard systemic therapy (investigator's choice of immune checkpoint inhibitor [nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab] or docetaxel) or standard therapy alone. Randomisation was performed centrally using variable blocked randomisation and an interactive voice-web response system, and was stratified by tumour histology, treatment, and region. Systemic therapies were dosed according to local practice guidelines. TTFields therapy (150 kHz) was delivered continuously to the thoracic region with the recommendation to achieve an average of at least 18 h/day device usage. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety population included all patients who received any study therapy and were analysed according to the actual treatment received. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02973789. FINDINGS: Between Feb 13, 2017, and Nov 19, 2021, 276 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive TTFields therapy with standard therapy (n=137) or standard therapy alone (n=139). The median age was 64 years (IQR 59-70), 178 (64%) were male and 98 (36%) were female, 156 (57%) had non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and 87 (32%) had received a previous immune checkpoint inhibitor. Median follow-up was 10·6 months (IQR 6·1-33·7) for patients receiving TTFields therapy with standard therapy, and 9·5 months (0·1-32·1) for patients receiving standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with TTFields therapy and standard therapy than with standard therapy alone (median 13·2 months [95% CI 10·3-15·5] vs 9·9 months [8·1-11·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·56-0·98]; p=0·035). In the safety population (n=267), serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 70 (53%) of 133 patients receiving TTFields therapy plus standard therapy and 51 (38%) of 134 patients receiving standard therapy alone. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were leukopenia (37 [14%] of 267), pneumonia (28 [10%]), and anaemia (21 [8%]). TTFields therapy-related adverse events were reported in 95 (71%) of 133 patients; these were mostly (81 [85%]) grade 1-2 skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders. There were three deaths related to standard therapy (two due to infections and one due to pulmonary haemorrhage) and no deaths related to TTFields therapy. INTERPRETATION: TTFields therapy added to standard therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with standard therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on platinum-based therapy without exacerbating systemic toxicities. These data suggest that TTFields therapy is efficacious in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and should be considered as a treatment option to manage the disease in this setting. FUNDING: Novocure.

National Cancer Institute Collaborative Workshop on Shaping the Landscape of Brain Metastases Research: challenges and recommended priorities.

Brain metastases are an increasing global public health concern, even as survival rates improve for patients with metastatic disease. Both metastases and the sequelae of their treatment are key determinants of the inter-related priorities of patient survival, function, and quality of life, mandating a multidimensional approach to clinical care and research. At a virtual National Cancer Institute Workshop in September, 2022, key stakeholders convened to define research priorities to address the crucial areas of unmet need for patients with brain metastases to achieve meaningful advances in patient outcomes. This Policy Review outlines existing knowledge gaps, collaborative opportunities, and specific recommendations regarding consensus priorities and future directions in brain metastases research. Achieving major advances in research will require enhanced coordination between the ongoing efforts of individual organisations and consortia. Importantly, the continual and active engagement of patients and patient advocates will be necessary to ensure that the directionality of all efforts reflects what is most meaningful in the context of patient care.

Single-fraction radiosurgery outcomes for large vestibular schwannomas in the upfront or post-surgical setting: a systematic review and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS) Practice Guidelines.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of literature specific to single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for large vestibular schwannomas (VS), maximum diameter ≥ 2.5 cm and/or classified as Koos Grade IV, and to present consensus recommendations on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS). METHODS: The Medline and Embase databases were used to apply the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach. We considered eligible prospective and retrospective studies, written in the English language, reporting treatment outcomes for large VS; SRS for large post-operative tumors were analyzed in aggregate and separately. RESULTS: 19 of the 229 studies initially identified met the final inclusion criteria. Overall crude rate of tumor control was 89% (93.7% with no prior surgery vs 87.7% with prior surgery). Rates of salvage microsurgical resection, need for shunt, and additional SRS in all series versus those with no prior surgery were 9.6% vs 3.3%, 4.7% vs 6.4% and 1% vs 0.9%, respectively. Rates of facial palsy and hearing preservation in all series versus those with no prior surgery were 1.3% vs 3.4% and 34.2% vs 40.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront SRS resulted in high rates of tumor control with acceptable rates of facial palsy and hearing preservation as compared to the results in those series including patients with prior surgery (level C evidence). Therefore, although large VS are considered classic indication for microsurgical resection, upfront SRS can be considered in selected patients and we recommend a prescribed marginal dose from 11 to 13 Gy (level C evidence).

Management of Brain Metastases: A Review of Novel Therapies.

Brain metastases (BMs) represent the most common intracranial tumors in adults, and most commonly originate from lung, followed by breast, melanoma, kidney, and colorectal cancer. Management of BM is individualized based on the size and number of brain metastases, the extent of extracranial disease, the primary tumor subtype, neurological symptoms, and prior lines of therapy. Until recently, treatment strategies were limited to local therapies, like surgical resection and radiotherapy, the latter in the form of whole-brain radiotherapy or stereotactic radiosurgery. The next generation of local strategies includes laser interstitial thermal therapy, magnetic hyperthermic therapy, post-resection brachytherapy, and focused ultrasound. New targeted therapies and immunotherapies with documented intracranial activity have transformed clinical outcomes. Novel systemic therapies with intracranial utility include new anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors like brigatinib and ensartinib; selective "rearranged during transfection" inhibitors like selpercatinib and pralsetinib; B-raf proto-oncogene inhibitors like encorafenib and vemurafenib; Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene inhibitors like sotorasib and adagrasib; ROS1 gene rearrangement (ROS1) inhibitors, anti-neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase agents like larotrectinib and entrectinib; anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/epidermal growth factor receptor exon 20 agent like poziotinib; and antibody-drug conjugates like trastuzumab-emtansine and trastuzumab-deruxtecan. This review highlights the modern multidisciplinary management of BM, emphasizing the integration of systemic and local therapies.

A study on inter-planner plan quality variability using a manual planning- or Lightning dose optimizer-approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife® Icon™.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate inter-planner plan quality variability using a manual forward planning (MFP)- or fast inverse planning (FIP, Lightning)-approach for single brain lesions treated with the Gamma Knife® (GK) Icon™. METHODS: Thirty patients who were previously treated with GK stereotactic radiosurgery or radiotherapy were selected and divided into three groups (post-operative resection cavity, intact brain metastasis, and vestibular schwannoma [10 patients per group]). Clinical plans for the 30 patients were generated by multiple planners using FIP only (1), a combination of FIP and MFP (12), and MFP only (17). Three planners (Senior, Junior, and Novice) with varying experience levels re-planned the 30 patients using MFP and FIP (two plans per patient) with planning time limit of 60 min. Statistical analysis was performed to compare plan quality metrics (Paddick conformity index, gradient index, number of shots, prescription isodose line, target coverage, beam-on-time (BOT), and organs-at-risk doses) of MFP or FIP plans among three planners and to compare plan quality metrics between each planner's MFP/FIP plans and clinical plans. Variability in FIP parameter settings (BOT, low dose, and target max dose) and in planning time among the planners was also evaluated. RESULTS: Variations in plan quality metrics of FIP plans among three planners were smaller than those of MFP plans for all three groups. Junior's MFP plans were the most comparable to the clinical plans, whereas Senior's and Novice's MFP plans were superior and inferior, respectively. All three planners' FIP plans were comparable or superior to the clinical plans. Differences in FIP parameter settings among the planners were observed. Planning time was shorter and variations in planning time among the planners were smaller for FIP plans in all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: The FIP approach is less planner dependent and more time-honored than the MFP approach.

OptImal Gamma kNife lIghTnIng sOlutioN (IGNITION) score to characterize the solution space of the Gamma Knife FIP optimizer for stereotactic radiosurgery.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to evaluate the user-defined optimization settings in the Fast Inverse Planning (FIP) optimizer in Leksell GammaPlan® and determine the parameters that result in the best stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plan quality for brain metastases, benign tumors, and arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). METHODS: Thirty patients with metastases and 30 with benign lesions-vestibular schwannoma, AVMs, pituitary adenoma, and meningioma-treated with SRS were evaluated. Each target was planned by varying the low dose (LD) and beam-on-time (BOT) penalties in increments of 0.1, from 0 to 1. The following plan quality metrics were recorded for each plan: Paddick conformity index (PCI), gradient index (GI), BOT, and maximum organ-at-risk (OAR) doses. A novel objective score matrix was calculated for each target using a linearly weighted combination of the aforementioned metrics. A histogram of optimal solutions containing the five best scores was extracted. RESULTS: A total of 7260 plans were analyzed with 121 plans per patient for the range of LD/BOT penalties. The ranges of PCI, GI, and BOT across all metastatic lesions were 0.58-0.97, 2.1-3.8, and 8.8-238 min, respectively, and were 0.13-0.97, 2.1-3.8, and 8.8-238 min, respectively, for benign lesions. The objective score matrix showed unique optimal solutions for metastatic lesions and benign lesions. Additionally, the plan metrics of the optimal solutions were significantly improved compared to the clinical plans for metastatic lesions with equivalent metrics for all other cases. CONCLUSION: In this study, FIP optimizer was evaluated to determine the optimal solution space to maximize PCI and minimize GI, BOT and OAR doses simultaneously for single metastatic/benign/non-neoplastic targets. The optimal solution chart was determined using a novel objective score which provides novice and expert planners a roadmap to generate the most optimal plans efficiently using FIP.

Relationship between insurance status and interhospital transfers among cancer patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between insurance status and interhospital transfers has not been adequately researched among cancer patients. Hence this study aimed for understanding this relationship using a nationally representative database. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data collected during 2010-2016 and included all cancer hospitalization between 18 and 64 years of age. Interhospital transfers were compared based on insurance status (Medicare, Medicaid, private, and uninsured). Weighted multivariable logistic regressions were used to calculate the odds of interhospital transfers based on insurance status, after adjusting for many covariates. RESULTS: There were 3,580,908 weighted cancer hospitalizations, of which 72,353 (2.02%) had interhospital transfers. Uninsured patients had significantly higher rates of interhospital transfers, compared to those with Medicare (P = 0.005) and private insurance (P < 0.001). Privately insured patients had significantly lower rates of interhospital transfers, compared to those with Medicare (P < 0.001) and Medicaid (P < 0.001). Logistic regression analyses showed that the odds of having interhospital transfers were significantly higher among uninsured (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.57, 95% CI: 1.45-1.69), Medicare (aOR, 1.38, 95% CI: 1.32-1.45) and Medicaid (aOR, 1.23, 95% CI: 1.16-1.30) patients when compared to those with private insurance coverages. CONCLUSION: Among cancer patients, uninsured and Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries were more likely to experience interhospital transfers. In addition to medical reasons, factors such as affordability and socioeconomic status are influencing interhospital transfer decisions, indicating existing healthcare disparities. Further studies should focus on identifying the causal associations between factors explored in this study as well as additional unexplored factors.

Lack of Efficacy of the Neutropenic Diet in Decreasing Infections among Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the existing evidence supporting the effectiveness of the neutropenic diet in decreasing infection and mortality among cancer patients. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus for relevant articles published from database inception until March 2019. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for this review. Individual studies were evaluated using the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. A total of 473 articles were identified and 11 articles were selected after assessing eligibility. Our review showed that the neutropenic diet does not decrease infection rates or mortality among cancer patients. Currently, there is no uniform definition for the neutropenic diet across different institutions. For example, some institutions follow general food safety practices while others avoid foods that increase exposure to microbes and bacteria, and some follow both. Given these differences in practice regarding what constitutes a neutropenic diet, it is advisable that safe food handling and preparation practices recommended by the Food and Drug Administration be uniformly followed for neutropenic patients.

A risk model for prediction of 30-day readmission rates after surgical treatment for colon cancer.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a risk model for the prediction of 30-day unplanned readmission rate after surgery for colon cancer. METHOD: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of data from Nationwide Readmissions Database, collected during 2010-2014. Patients ≥ 18 years of age who underwent surgery for colon cancer were included in the study. The primary outcome of the study was 30-day unplanned readmission rate. RESULTS: There were 141,231 index hospitalizations for surgical treatment of colon cancers and 16,551 had unplanned readmissions. Age, sex, primary payer, Elixhauser comorbidity index, node positive or metastatic disease, length of stay, hospital bedsize, teaching status, hospital ownership, presence of stoma, surgery types, surgery procedures, infectious complications, surgical complications, mechanical wounds, pulmonary complications, and gastrointestinal complications were selected for the risk analysis during backward regression model. Based on the estimated coefficients of selected variables, risk scores were developed and stratified as low risk (≤ 1.08), moderate risk (> 1.08 to ≤ 1.5), and high risk (> 1.5) for unplanned readmission. Validation analysis (n = 42,269) showed that 7.1% of low-risk individuals, 11.1% of moderate-risk individuals, and 17.1% of high-risk individuals experienced unplanned readmissions (P < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons also showed statistically significant differences between low-risk and moderate-risk participants (P < 0.001), between moderate-risk and high-risk participants (P < 0.001), and between low-risk and high-risk participants (P < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve was 0.622. CONCLUSIONS: Our risk model could be helpful for risk-stratifying patients for readmission after surgical treatment for colon cancer. This model needs further validation by incorporating all possible clinical variables.

Overall survival and the response to radiotherapy among molecular subtypes of breast cancer brain metastases treated with targeted therapies.

BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to investigate survival and the response to radiotherapy among patients with molecular subtypes of breast cancer brain metastases treated with or without targeted therapies. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with breast cancer brain metastases at a single tertiary care institution were included. The primary outcome was overall survival, whereas secondary outcomes included the cumulative incidences of distant intracranial failure, local failure, and radiation necrosis. Competing risks regression was used to model secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Within the study period, 547 patients presented with 3224 brain metastases and met inclusion criteria. Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-amplified disease, 80% received HER2 antibodies and 38% received HER2/epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The median survival was significantly shorter in the basal cohort (8.4 months), and progressively increased in the luminal A (12.3 months), HER2-positive (15.4 months), and luminal B (18.8 months) cohorts (P<.001). Among patients with HER2-amplified disease, the median survival was extended with the use of both HER2 antibodies (17.9 months vs 15.1 months; P = .04) and TKIs (21.1 months vs 15.4 months; P = .03). The 12-month cumulative incidences of local failure among molecular subtypes were 6.0% in the luminal A cohort, 10.3% in the luminal B cohort, 15.4% in the HER2-positive cohort, and 9.9% in the basal cohort (P = .01). Concurrent HER2/epidermal growth factor receptor TKIs with stereotactic radiosurgery significantly decreased the 12-month cumulative incidence of local failure from 15.1% to 5.7% (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Molecular subtypes appear to be prognostic for survival and predictive of the response to radiotherapy. TKIs were found to improve survival and local control, and may decrease the rate of distant failure. To preserve neurocognition, these results support a paradigm of upfront radiosurgery and HER2-directed therapy in the HER2-amplified population, reserving whole-brain radiotherapy for salvage. Cancer 2017;123:2283-2293. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The risk of radiation necrosis following stereotactic radiosurgery with concurrent systemic therapies.

To investigate late toxicity among patients with newly-diagnosed brain metastases undergoing stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with concurrent systemic therapies with or without whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT). Patients with newly-diagnosed brain metastasis who underwent SRS at a single tertiary-care institution from 1997 to 2015 were eligible for inclusion. The class and timing of all systemic therapies were collected for each patient. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of radiographic radiation necrosis (RN). Multivariable competing risks regression was used to adjust for confounding. During the study period, 1650 patients presented with 2843 intracranial metastases. Among these, 445 patients (27%) were treated with SRS and concurrent systemic therapy. Radiographic RN developed following treatment of 222 (8%) lesions, 120 (54%) of which were symptomatic. The 12-month cumulative incidences of RN among lesions treated with and without concurrent therapies were 6.6 and 5.3%, respectively (p = 0.14). Concurrent systemic therapy was associated with a significantly increased rate of RN among lesions treated with upfront SRS and WBRT (8.7 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.04). In particular, concurrent targeted therapies significantly increased the 12-month cumulative incidence of RN (8.8 vs. 5.3%, p < 0.01). Among these therapies, significantly increased rates of RN were observed with VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (14.3 vs. 6.6%, p = 0.04) and EGFR TKIs (15.6 vs. 6.0%, p = 0.04). Most classes of systemic therapies may be safely delivered concurrently with SRS in the management of newly-diagnosed brain metastases. However, the rate of radiographic RN is significantly increased with the addition of concurrent systemic therapies to SRS and WBRT.

Prediction of new brain metastases after radiosurgery: validation and analysis of performance of a multi-institutional nomogram.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) without whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for brain metastases can avoid WBRT toxicities, but with risk of subsequent distant brain failure (DBF). Sole use of number of metastases to triage patients may be an unrefined method. Data on 1354 patients treated with SRS monotherapy from 2000 to 2013 for new brain metastases was collected across eight academic centers. The cohort was divided into training and validation datasets and a prognostic model was developed for time to DBF. We then evaluated the discrimination and calibration of the model within the validation dataset, and confirmed its performance with an independent contemporary cohort. Number of metastases (≥8, HR 3.53 p = 0.0001), minimum margin dose (HR 1.07 p = 0.0033), and melanoma histology (HR 1.45, p = 0.0187) were associated with DBF. A prognostic index derived from the training dataset exhibited ability to discriminate patients' DBF risk within the validation dataset (c-index = 0.631) and Heller's explained relative risk (HERR) = 0.173 (SE = 0.048). Absolute number of metastases was evaluated for its ability to predict DBF in the derivation and validation datasets, and was inferior to the nomogram. A nomogram high-risk threshold yielding a 2.1-fold increased need for early WBRT was identified. Nomogram values also correlated to number of brain metastases at time of failure (r = 0.38, p < 0.0001). We present a multi-institutionally validated prognostic model and nomogram to predict risk of DBF and guide risk-stratification of patients who are appropriate candidates for radiosurgery versus upfront WBRT.

Changing Treatment Paradigms for Brain Metastases From Melanoma-Part 1: Diagnosis, Prognosis, Symptom Control, and Local Treatment.

Melanoma is the third most common cause of brain metastases, after lung and breast cancer. The management of melanoma brain metastases can be broadly divided into symptom control and therapeutic strategies. Supportive treatments include corticosteroids to reduce peritumoral edema, antiepileptics for seizure control, and medications to preserve cognitive function. Until recently, therapeutic strategies consisted primarily of local treatments, including surgery, whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Surgery, WBRT, and SRS-alone and in various combinations-still play an important role in treatment, especially in patients with few and/or smaller brain lesions. Much work has been done recently to try to determine the optimal settings for these therapies, the most effective ways to combine them, and ideal radiation dose and fractions.

Changing Treatment Paradigms for Brain Metastases From Melanoma-Part 2: When and How to Use the New Systemic Agents.

Until recently, therapeutic strategies for melanoma brain metastases focused on local treatments: surgery, whole-brain radiation therapy, and stereotactic radiosurgery. Historically, systemic therapy had limited utility. Immunotherapeutic drugs, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 and anti-programmed death 1 agents, and agents targeting the BRAF-MEK pathway have revolutionized the systemic treatment of melanoma brain metastases. Recent clinical trials of these agents have shown activity against melanoma brain metastases, and they are increasingly being used in clinical practice. In this article, we provide an overview of the currently available systemic agents, including immunotherapeutic agents and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We also provide a practical management algorithm to guide the practicing oncologist in the use of both of these new therapies and the more traditional local treatments.

A cure is possible: a study of 10-year survivors of brain metastases.

Little is known on the natural history, recurrence patterns, neurocognitive outcomes and prognostic factors associated with survival in long-term survivors (≥10 years) from brain metastasis (BM). In this study, the records of 1953 patients who underwent treatment for BM with a potential for ≥10 years of follow-up were reviewed. Cox regression analysis identified factors predictive for overall survival (OS). The median age at brain metastasis diagnosis was 60 years and the median OS was 6.4 months. The 1-year OS rate was 29.9, 12.1 % at 2 years, 3.0 % at 5 years, and 1.3 % at 10 years. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with worse OS included gender (males, HR 1.2), multiple brain metastases (HR 1.3), no surgery (HR 1.8), and no stereotactic radiosurgery (HR 1.8) (p < 0.0001 each). Fifty-six patients (2.9 %) survived ≥5 years; 23 patients (1.2 %) survived ≥10 years and the median survival for ≥10 year survivors was 18.5 years. Six of the 10-year survivors had an intracranial recurrence, five occurred within 11 years from the first treatment. Presence of a solitary lesion or single lesion at the time of brain metastasis diagnosis was associated with improved survival. Eight of the ≥10 year survivors (34.8 %) had no neurological symptoms at last follow-up; none of the 10-year survivors were documented to have a neurologic death. Our study demonstrates that patients with favorable prognostic features should undergo multimodality treatment. Albeit rare, patients who are alive 10 years after treatment for their brain metastases may be considered cured from their intracranial disease.