Neoadjuvant Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: New Concepts in Clinical Trial Design.

OPINION STATEMENT: Treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer has evolved from surgery alone to surgery plus adjuvant therapy. Preoperative 5-fluorouracil- or capecitabine-based chemoradiation with standard fractionated radiation, surgery utilizing total mesorectal excision, and further chemotherapy has become the standard of care in the USA. Preoperative adjuvant chemoradiation treatment sequencing has allowed for decreased toxicity, more sphincter-sparing surgery, and improved local control rates as compared to delivering the chemoradiation postoperatively. Yet, given the heterogeneity of locally advanced disease, some patients may be over-treated with this approach, leading to unnecessary toxicity and costs, while others may have a propensity to develop distant metastases and may benefit from intensified therapy. Therefore, the trend in modern clinical trial design has been to individualize therapy. As such, current studies are examining shortening the duration of radiation, omitting preoperative chemoradiation in patients who have a robust response to induction chemotherapy alone, omitting or delaying surgery in patients who have a clinical complete response to preoperative chemoradiation, and completing all of the adjuvant treatment prior to surgery.

Biophysical model-based parameters to classify tumor recurrence from radiation-induced necrosis for brain metastases.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used for local control treatment of patients with intracranial metastases. As a result of SRS, some patients develop radiation-induced necrosis. Radiographically, radiation-induced necrosis can appear similar to tumor recurrence in magnetic resonance (MR) T1 -weighted contrast-enhanced imaging, T2 -weighted MR imaging, and Fluid-Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR) MR imaging. Radiographic ambiguities often necessitate invasive brain biopsies to determine lesion etiology or cause delayed subsequent therapy initiation. We use a biomechanically coupled tumor growth model to estimate patient-specific model parameters and model-derived measures to noninvasively classify etiology of enhancing lesions in this patient population. METHODS: In this initial, preliminary retrospective study, we evaluated five patients with tumor recurrence and five with radiation-induced necrosis. Longitudinal patient-specific MR imaging data were used in conjunction with the model to parameterize tumor cell proliferation rate and tumor cell diffusion coefficient, and Dice correlation coefficients were used to quantify degree of correlation between model-estimated mechanical stress fields and edema visualized from MR imaging. RESULTS: Results found four statistically relevant parameters which can differentiate tumor recurrence and radiation-induced necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary investigation suggests potential of this framework to noninvasively determine the etiology of enhancing lesions in patients who previously underwent SRS for intracranial metastases.

The Role of Adjuvant Radiation in the Management of Solitary Fibrous Tumors of the Central Nervous System: A National Cancer Database Analysis of 155 Patients.

Solitary fibrous tumors (SFT) are a rare neoplasm of mesenchymal origin. There is limited evidence on the epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes of SFT in the central nervous system (CNS). The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients diagnosed with an SFT in the CNS as their only tumor diagnosis between 2003 and 2011. The final cohort included 155 patients who received surgery and had adequate information for analysis. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed. Significance was calculated using a t-test, Fisher's exact test, chi-square, log-rank test, or Cox model. Twenty-three patients (15%) underwent both surgery and adjuvant radiation while 132 (85%) underwent surgery alone. The treatment groups had comparable demographics and tumor size; median age 53 (range 25-80) and 11 females (48%) in the surgery and adjuvant radiation group, compared to 55 (20-89) and 71 (54%) in the surgery alone group, respectively. Radiotherapy methods included conventional and stereotactic dose and fractionations schemes. Information on margin status and re-resection rates was not available. No variables were significantly associated with receipt of adjuvant radiation. In single (p = 0.78) and multivariable (p = 0.86) survival analyses, the addition of adjuvant radiation did not significantly affect overall survival. Five-year overall survival was 88% with surgery alone versus 93% with adjuvant radiation. SFTs are rare neoplasms, especially in the CNS. Our study did not demonstrate an overall survival benefit for adjuvant radiation. The role of adjuvant radiation is still unclear and warrants further investigation.

Effect of Targeted Therapies on Prognostic Factors, Patterns of Care, and Survival in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma and Brain Metastases.

PURPOSE: To identify prognostic factors, define evolving patterns of care, and the effect of targeted therapies in a larger contemporary cohort of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with new brain metastases (BM). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multi-institutional retrospective institutional review board-approved database of 711 RCC patients with new BM diagnosed from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2015, was created. Clinical parameters and treatment were correlated with median survival and time from primary diagnosis to BM. Multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS: The median survival for the prior/present cohorts was 9.6/12 months, respectively (P < .01). Four prognostic factors (Karnofsky performance status, extracranial metastases, number of BM, and hemoglobin b) were significant for survival after the diagnosis of BM. Of the 6 drug types studied, only cytokine use after BM was associated with improved survival. The use of whole-brain radiation therapy declined from 50% to 22%, and the use of stereotactic radiosurgery alone increased from 46% to 58%. Nonneurologic causes of death were twice as common as neurologic causes. CONCLUSIONS: Additional prognostic factors refine prognostication in this larger contemporary cohort. Patterns of care have changed, and survival of RCC patients with BM has improved over time. The reasons for this improvement in survival remain unknown but may relate to more aggressive use of local brain metastasis therapy and a wider array of systemic treatment options for those patients with progressive extracranial tumor.

Estimating survival for renal cell carcinoma patients with brain metastases: an update of the Renal Graded Prognostic Assessment tool.

Background: Brain metastases are a common complication of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Our group previously published the Renal Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) tool. In our prior RCC study (n = 286, 1985-2005), we found marked heterogeneity and variation in outcomes. In our recent update in a larger, more contemporary cohort, we identified additional significant prognostic factors. The purpose of this study is to update the original Renal-GPA based on the newly identified prognostic factors. Methods: A multi-institutional retrospective institutional review board-approved database of 711 RCC patients with new brain metastases diagnosed from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2015 was created. Clinical parameters and treatment were correlated with survival. A revised Renal GPA index was designed by weighting the most significant factors in proportion to their hazard ratios and assigning scores such that the patients with the best and worst prognoses would have a GPA of 4.0 and 0.0, respectively. Results: The 4 most significant factors were Karnofsky performance status, number of brain metastases, extracranial metastases, and hemoglobin. The overall median survival was 12 months. Median survival for GPA groups 0-1.0, 1.5-2.0, 2.5-3, and 3.5-4.0 (% n = 25, 27, 30 and 17) was 4, 12, 17, and 35 months, respectively. Conclusion: The updated Renal GPA is a user-friendly tool that will help clinicians and patients better understand prognosis, individualize clinical decision making and treatment selection, provide a means to compare retrospective literature, and provide more robust stratification of future clinical trials in this heterogeneous population. To simplify use of this tool in daily practice, a free online application is available at brainmetgpa.com.

Long-term Outcomes after Salvage Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) following In-Field Failure of Initial SRS for Brain Metastases.

PURPOSE: The optimal treatment strategy following local recurrence after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) remains unclear. While upfront SRS has been extensively studied, few reports focus on outcomes after retreatment. Here, we report the results following a second course of SRS for local recurrence of brain metastases previously treated with SRS. METHODS: Using institutional database, patients who received salvage SRS (SRS2) following in-field failure of initial SRS (SRS1) for brain metastases were identified. Radionecrosis and local failure were defined radiographically by MRI following SRS2. The primary endpoint was defined as the time from SRS2 to the date of all-cause death or last follow-up [overall survival (OS)]. The secondary endpoints included local failure-free survival (LFFS) and radionecrosis-free survival, defined as the time from SRS2 to the date of local failure or radionecrosis, or last follow-up, respectively. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients with 32 brain metastases were evaluated between years 2004 and 2015. The median interval between SRS1 and SRS2 was 9.7 months. Median OS was 22.0 months. Median LFFS time after SRS2 was 13.6 months. The overall local control rate following SRS2 was 84.4%. The 1- and 2-year local control rates are 88.3% (95% CI, 76.7-100%) and 80.3% (95% CI, 63.5-100%), respectively. The overall rate of radionecrosis following SRS2 was 18.8%. On univariate analysis, higher prescribed isodose line (p = 0.033) and higher gross tumor volume (p = 0.015) at SRS1 were associated with radionecrosis. Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward lower risk of radionecrosis with interval surgical resection, fractionated SRS, lower total EQD2 (<50 Gy), and lack of concurrent systemic therapy at SRS2. CONCLUSION: In select patients, repeat LINAC-based SRS following recurrence remains a reasonable option leading to long-term survival and local control. Radionecrosis approaches 20% for high risk individuals and parallels historic values.

Yttrium-90 Radioembolization in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Who have Previously Received Sorafenib.

PURPOSE: Yttrium-90 radioembolization (RE) is a locoregional therapy option for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Sorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor used in HCC that can potentially affect the efficacy of RE by altering tumor vascularity or suppressing post-irradiation angiogenesis. The safety and efficacy of sorafenib followed by RE has not been previously reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with HCC who received RE after sorafenib were included in this retrospective review. Overall survival, toxicity, and maximal radiographic response and necrosis criteria were examined. RESULTS: Ten patients (15 RE administrations) fit the inclusion criteria. All were Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C. Median follow-up was 16.5 weeks. Median overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival were 30 and 28 weeks, respectively. Significant differences in overall survival were seen based on Child-Pugh class (p = 0.002) and radiographic response (p = 0.009). Three patients had partial response, six had stable disease, and one had progressive disease. Grade 1 or 2 acute fatigue, anorexia, and abdominal pain were common. Three patients had Grade 3 ascites in the setting of disease progression. Two patients had Grade 3 biochemical toxicity. One patient was sufficiently downstaged following RE and sorafenib to receive a partial hepatectomy. CONCLUSION: Yttrium-90 RE in patients with HCC who have received sorafenib demonstrate acceptable toxicity and rates of radiographic response. However, the overall survival is lower than that reported in the literature on RE alone or sorafenib alone. This may be due in part to more patients in this study having advanced disease compared to these other study populations. Larger prospective studies are needed to determine whether the combination of RE and sorafenib is superior to either therapy alone.