Superior vena cava syndrome presenting as chylothorax.

Chylothorax caused by superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication requiring a multidisciplinary diagnosis and management approach. We present a case of a 27-year-old female with end-stage renal disease who developed chylothorax secondary to SVC syndrome caused by venous stenosis from a tunneled hemodialysis (HD) catheter. The patient had a history of ongoing hemodialysis through a tunneled catheter placed in the right internal jugular vein approximately seven months before presentation. She presented with dyspnea, chest pain, and a large left-sided pleural effusion. A multidisciplinary diagnostic workup and management included 2 thoracentesis, pleural fluid studies, serial radiological tests, right and left heart catheterizations, and blood serum studies with flow cytometry. They revealed that SVC stenosis around the hemodialysis catheter was causing the patient's pathology. The patient underwent veno-plasty of the right SVC and brachiocephalic veins and replacement of HD catheter leading to the resolution of the chylothorax and significant improvement in respiratory symptoms. This report will highlight the approach to diagnosing and managing chylothorax and a review of existing medical literature.

Prevalence, trends, and characteristics of trials investigating local therapy in contemporary phase 3 clinical cancer research.

BACKGROUND: Although most patients with cancer are treated with local therapy (LT), the proportion of late-phase clinical trials investigating local therapeutic interventions is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion, characteristics, and trends of phase 3 cancer clinical trials assessing the therapeutic value of LT over time. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of interventional randomized controlled trials in oncology published from 2002 through 2020 and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trends and characteristics of LT trials were compared to all other trials. RESULTS: Of 1877 trials screened, 794 trials enrolling 584,347 patients met inclusion criteria. A total of 27 trials (3%) included a primary randomization assessing LT compared with 767 trials (97%) investigating systemic therapy or supportive care. Annual increase in the number of LT trials (slope [m] = 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.39; p < .001) was outpaced by the increase of trials testing systemic therapy or supportive care (m = 7.57; 95% CI, 6.03-9.11; p < .001). LT trials were more often sponsored by cooperative groups (22 of 27 [81%] vs. 211 of 767 [28%]; p < .001) and less often sponsored by industry (5 of 27 [19%] vs. 609 of 767 [79%]; p < .001). LT trials were more likely to use overall survival as primary end point compared to other trials (13 of 27 [48%] vs. 199 of 767 [26%]; p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary late-phase oncology research, LT trials are increasingly under-represented, under-funded, and evaluate more challenging end points compared to other modalities. These findings strongly argue for greater resource allocation and funding mechanisms for LT clinical trials. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Most people who have cancer receive treatments directed at the site of their cancer, such as surgery or radiation. We do not know, however, how many trials test surgery or radiation compared to drug treatments (that go all over the body). We reviewed trials testing the most researched strategies (phase 3) completed between 2002 and 2020. Only 27 trials tested local treatments like surgery or radiation compared to 767 trials testing other treatments. Our study has important implications for funding research and understanding cancer research priorities.

Incidence of Primary End Point Changes Among Active Cancer Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Primary end point (PEP) changes to an active clinical trial raise questions regarding trial quality and the risk of outcome reporting bias. It is unknown how the frequency and transparency of the reported changes depend on reporting method and whether the PEP changes are associated with trial positivity (ie, the trial met the prespecified statistical threshold for PEP positivity). Objectives: To assess the frequency of reported PEP changes in oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and whether these changes are associated with trial positivity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used publicly available data for complete oncology phase 3 RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through February 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was change between the initial PEP and the final reported PEP, assessed using 3 methods: (1) history of tracked changes on ClinicalTrials.gov, (2) self-reported changes noted in the article, and (3) changes reported within the protocol, including all available protocol documents. Logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate whether PEP changes were associated with US Food and Drug Administration approval or trial positivity. Results: Of 755 included trials, 145 (19.2%) had PEP changes found by at least 1 of the 3 detection methods. Of the 145 trials with PEP changes, 102 (70.3%) did not have PEP changes disclosed within the manuscript. There was significant variability in rates of PEP detection by each method (χ2 = 72.1; P < .001). Across all methods, PEP changes were detected at higher rates when multiple versions of the protocol (47 of 148 [31.8%]) were available compared with 1 version (22 of 134 [16.4%]) or no protocol (76 of 473 [16.1%]) (χ2 = 18.7; P < .001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that PEP changes were associated with trial positivity (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.25-2.82; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study revealed substantial rates of PEP changes among active RCTs; PEP changes were markedly underreported in published articles and mostly occurred after reported study completion dates. Significant discrepancies in the rate of detected PEP changes call into question the role of increased protocol transparency and completeness in identifying key changes occurring in active trials.

Dose Escalation for Pancreas SBRT: Potential and Limitations of using Daily Online Adaptive Radiation Therapy and an Iterative Isotoxicity Automated Planning Approach.

Purpose: To determine the dosimetric limitations of daily online adaptive pancreas stereotactic body radiation treatment by using an automated dose escalation approach. Methods and Materials: We collected 108 planning and daily computed tomography (CT) scans from 18 patients (18 patients × 6 CT scans) who received 5-fraction pancreas stereotactic body radiation treatment at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dose metrics from the original non-dose-escalated clinical plan (non-DE), the dose-escalated plan created on the original planning CT (DE-ORI), and the dose-escalated plan created on daily adaptive radiation therapy CT (DE-ART) were analyzed. We developed a dose-escalation planning algorithm within the radiation treatment planning system to automate the dose-escalation planning process for efficiency and consistency. In this algorithm, the prescription dose of the dose-escalation plan was escalated before violating any organ-at-risk (OAR) dose constraint. Dose metrics for 3 targets (gross target volume [GTV], tumor vessel interface [TVI], and dose-escalated planning target volume [DE-PTV]) and 9 OARs (duodenum, large bowel, small bowel, stomach, spinal cord, kidneys, liver, and skin) for the 3 plans were compared. Furthermore, we evaluated the effectiveness of the online adaptive dose-escalation planning process by quantifying the effect of the interfractional dose distribution variations among the DE-ART plans. Results: The median D95% dose to the GTV/TVI/DE-PTV was 33.1/36.2/32.4 Gy, 48.5/50.9/40.4 Gy, and 53.7/58.2/44.8 Gy for non-DE, DE-ORI, and DE-ART, respectively. Most OAR dose constraints were not violated for the non-DE and DE-ART plans, while OAR constraints were violated for the majority of the DE-ORI patients due to interfractional motion and lack of adaptation. The maximum difference per fraction in D95%, due to interfractional motion, was 2.5 ± 2.7 Gy, 3.0 ± 2.9 Gy, and 2.0 ± 1.8 Gy for the TVI, GTV, and DE-PTV, respectively. Conclusions: Most patients require daily adaptation of the radiation planning process to maximally escalate delivered dose to the pancreatic tumor without exceeding OAR constraints. Using our automated approach, patients can receive higher target dose than standard of care without violating OAR constraints.

Inclusion of premenopausal women in breast cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with premenopausal breast cancer (PMBC) have been historically excluded from some clinical trials because of the limitations of using endocrine therapy (ET) in this population. We analyzed breast cancer randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to determine the rates of and factors associated with inclusion of PMBC patients to provide a benchmark for PMBC inclusion in RCTs moving forward. METHODS: Using ClinicalTrials.Gov, we identified breast cancer phase III RCTs and extracted inclusion criteria and patient enrollment information. Multiple binary logistic regression modeling was used to assess trial-related factors that were associated with PMBC patient inclusion. RESULTS: Of 170 breast cancer RCTs identified, 131 (77.1%) included PMBC patients. Sixty-five (38.2%) trials analyzed patients with hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer, of which 31 (47.7%) allowed for enrollment of PMBC patients. Lower rates of PMBC inclusion were seen in trials that studied HR+/HER2-patients (47.7% PMBC inclusion in HR+/HER2-trials vs. 94.3% in non-HR+/HER2-trials, aOR 0.07 [95% CI: 0.02-0.19], p < 0.001) and in trials that randomized or mandated ET (44.4% in ET trials vs. 83.2% in non-ET trials, aOR 0.21 [95% CI: 0.10-0.83], p = 0.02). Trials studying chemotherapy (CT) were associated with inclusion of PMBC patients (100% in CT trials vs. 70.5% in non-CT trials, a OR 14.02 [95% CI: 1.54-127.91], p = 0.01). All surgical and radiation therapy clinical trials allowed for the inclusion of PMBC patients in their eligibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer clinical trials should carefully select their enrollment criteria and consider inclusion of premenopausal patients when appropriate.

Microbiome Dynamics During Chemoradiation Therapy for Anal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with localized squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) who experience treatment toxicity or recurrences have few therapeutic options. Investigation into the microbiome's influence on treatment toxicity and its potential use as a predictive biomarker could improve these patients' outcomes. Our study presents the first longitudinal characterization of the SCCA tumor microbiome and its associations with treatment-related toxicities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This prospective cohort study included patients with nonmetastatic SCCA receiving standard-of-care chemoradiation therapy. Anorectal swabs of the tumor site were collected before, during, and after treatment. Patient-reported quality-of-life metrics were collected at similar time points. 16S rRNA gene sequencing was used to perform diversity and taxonomic characterization of the SCCA microbiome. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare microbial diversity and abundance over time. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare microbial profiles of high and low toxicity groups. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with SCCA were included in this study with a median age of 58.5 years (range, 39-77 years), and 18 (82%) were women. Alpha diversity remained relatively stable throughout chemoradiation therapy except for decreases in the Observed Features (P = .03) index at week 5 relative to baseline. Tumor microbial compositions changed significantly by the end of treatment (P = .03). Differential enrichment of bacteria at specific time points occurred during treatment, including the enrichment of Clostridia at follow-up (vs week 5, q = 0.019) and Corynebacterium at week 5 (vs baseline, q = 0.015; vs follow-up, q = 0.022). Patients experiencing high toxicity at week 5 had higher relative counts of Clostridia, Actinobacteria, and Clostridiales at baseline (P = .03 for all). CONCLUSIONS: The tumor microbiome changes during and after chemoradiation therapy, and patient-reported toxicity levels are associated with patients' microbial profiles. Further studies into these microbial characterizations and toxicity associations will elucidate the tumor microbiome's role in predicting treatment-related outcomes for patients with SCCA.

Exclusion of Older Adults from Cancer Clinical Trials: Review of the Literature and Future Recommendations.

In this review, we present the context of older adult (OA) cancer patients within the broader cancer population, including cancer burdens and trial representation. We first describe the proportion of older adults in clinical trials, with studies showing strong evidence that the proportion of OA in cancer trials is much less than the proportion of OA in the overall cancer population. We highlight the lack of generalizability that can lead to challenges in treatment decisions for OA as well as concerns regarding health inequity. We then discuss barriers to OA enrollment related to trial structure and design, physician perspective, and patient and/or caregiver perspective. We expand on this further by outlining these barriers throughout the process of trial design, patient enrollment/trial implementation, and data analysis in post-market settings. We summarize guidelines from national societies, regulatory agencies, and other institutional bodies, then present a compilation of on-the-ground actionable recommendations to address the challenges of clinical trial design, focusing on geriatric assessments and OA-specific trials. We conclude by providing an outline for future directions, noting specifically the potential impact that radiotherapy and radiation oncology may have on clinical trials related to OA patients.

The radiotherapy quality assurance gap among phase III cancer clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Quality assurance (QA) practices improve the quality level of oncology trials by ensuring that the protocol is followed and the results are valid and reproducible. This study investigated the utilization of QA among randomized controlled trials that involve radiotherapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in February 2020 for all phase III oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs). These trials were screened for RT-specific RCTs that had published primary trial results. Information regarding QA in each trial was collected from the study publications and trial protocol if available. Two individuals independently performed trial screening and data collection. Pearson's Chi-square tests analyses were used to assess factors that were associated with QA inclusion in RT trials. RESULTS: Forty-two RCTs with RT as the primary intervention or as a mandatory component of the protocol were analyzed; the earliest was started in 1994 and one trial was still active though not recruiting. Twenty-nine (69%) trials mandated RT quality assurance (RTQA) practices as part of the trial protocol, with 19 (45%) trials requiring institutional credentialing. Twenty-one (50%) trials published protocol deviation outcomes. Clinical trials involving advanced radiation techniques (IMRT, VMAT, SRS, SBRT) did not include more RTQA than trials without these advanced techniques (73% vs. 65%, p = 0.55). Trials that reported protocol deviation outcomes were associated with mandating RTQA in their protocols as compared to trials that did not report these outcomes (100% vs. 38%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of RTQA utilization and transparency in RT clinical trials. It is imperative for RT trials to include increased QA for safe, consistent, and high-quality RT planning and delivery.

Post-lumpectomy radiation therapy boost in breast cancer patients: evidence revisited.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy is an integral part in the management of breast cancer after breast conservative surgery. In selected patients at high risk for local recurrence (LR), a boost radiation dose is commonly applied to the tumour bed. METHODS: We performed a review of the English literature using PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar for published manuscripts addressing the effect of boost radiation in breast cancer patients, focusing mainly on LR and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of seven studies were included in our review. Most studies (6/7, 85.7%) showed a significant improvement in local control independent of age (hazard ratios ranging between 0.34 and 0.73), with the largest absolute benefit in younger patients. None of the studies, however, was able to demonstrate an improvement in OS. CONCLUSIONS: With lack of sufficient studies addressing the role of boost radiation, individualised treatment decisions are recommended, taking into account the risk factors for LR, including tumour biology. Real-life data are sorely needed to better assess the role of tumour bed boost in the contemporary era.

EUS-guided placement of fiducial markers for image-guided radiotherapy in gastrointestinal tumors: A critical appraisal.

We present here a new chapter of the series of papers on how to perform specific EUS techniques. In this manuscript, we discuss on how to perform EUS-guided placement of fiducial markers in gastrointestinal tumors. The aim is to present the scientific evidence of fiducials placement before radiation therapy, including an accurate revision of the literature, to give some advices on the technical approach, and to discuss Pros and Cons from the point of view of gastroenterologists and radiation oncologist.

Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Resected Brain Metastases: Does the Surgical Corridor Need to be Targeted?

PURPOSE: Although consensus guidelines for postresection stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases recommend the surgical corridor leading to the resection cavity be included in the SRS plan, no study has reported patterns of tumor recurrence based on inclusion or exclusion of the corridor as a target. We reviewed tumor control and toxicity outcomes of postresection SRS for deep brain metastases based on whether or not the surgical corridor was targeted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who had resected brain metastases treated with SRS between 2007 and 2018 and included only "deep" tumors (defined as located ≥1.0 cm from the pial surface before resection). RESULTS: In 66 deep brain metastases in 64 patients, the surgical corridor was targeted in 43 (65%). There were no statistical differences in the cumulative incidences of progression at 12 months for targeting versus not targeting the corridor, respectively, for overall local failure 2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0%-11%) versus 9% (95% CI, 1%-25%; P = .25), corridor failure 0% (95% CI, 0%-0%) versus 9% (95% CI, 1%-25%; P = .06), cavity failure 2% (95% CI, 0%-11%) versus 0% (95% CI, 0%-0%; P = .91), and adverse radiation effect 5% (95% CI, 1%-15%) versus 13% (95% CI, 3%-30%; P = .22). Leptomeningeal disease (7%; 95% CI, 2%-18%) versus 26% (95% CI, 10%-45%; P = .03) was higher in those without the corridor targeted. CONCLUSIONS: Omitting the surgical corridor in postoperative SRS for resected brain metastases was not associated with statistically significant differences in corridor or cavity recurrence or adverse radiation effect. As seen in recent prospective trials of postresection SRS, the dominant pattern of progression is within the resection cavity; omission of the corridor would yield a smaller SRS volume that could allow for dose escalation to potentially improve local cavity control.

Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Resected Brain Metastases: Single-Institutional Experience of Over 500 Cavities.

PURPOSE: Postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has less detrimental effect on cognition and quality of life compared with whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and is increasingly used for resected brain metastases (BMs). Postoperative SRS techniques are not standardized, and there is a concern for a different pattern of failure after postoperative SRS compared with WBRT. We aim to study the efficacy, toxicity, and failure pattern of postoperative SRS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively reviewed outcomes of patients with resected BMs treated with postoperative SRS between 2007 and 2018. Overall survival and cumulative incidences of local failure, overall distant intracranial failure (distant parenchymal failure, nodular leptomeningeal disease [nLMD], classical leptomeningeal disease [cLMD]), and adverse radiation effect were reported. Neurologic death was determined for patients with leptomeningeal disease (LMD). RESULTS: A total of 442 patients with 501 resected BMs were treated over 475 total SRS courses. Median clinical follow-up and overall survival after SRS were 10.1 months (interquartile range, 3.6-20.7 months) and 13.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.8-15.2 months), respectively. At 12 months, event rates were 7% (95% CI, 5%-10%) for local failure, 9% (95% CI, 7%-12%) for adverse radiation effect, 44% (95% CI, 40%-49%) for overall distant intracranial failure, 37% (95% CI, 33%-42%) for distant parenchymal failure, and 13% (95% CI, 10%-17%) for LMD. The overall incidence of LMD was 15.8% (53% cLMD, 46% nLMD). cLMD was associated with shorter survival than nLMD (2.0 vs 11.2 months, P < .01) and a higher proportion of neurologic death (67% vs 41%, P = .02). A total of 15% of patients ultimately received WBRT. CONCLUSIONS: We report the largest clinical experience of postoperative SRS for resected BMs, showing excellent local control and low toxicity. Intracranial failure was predominantly distant, with a rising incidence of LMD.