ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The impact of bridging radiation therapy (bRT) for CAR T-cell therapy on absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) kinetics and treatment outcome is unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed adults with relapsed/refractory aggressive large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who received bRT prior to CD-19 CAR-T between 11/2017-4/2023. The change in ALC (ALC Δ RT) was computed by subtracting ALC pre- and post-bRT. Percent bone marrow (%BM) irradiated was calculated by estimating skeletal BM distribution. PFS, DSS, and OS were modeled via Kaplan-Meier. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients received bRT, of which 13 (25.5%) had bulky disease (≥7.5cm). The median bRT dose was 30Gy (range: 4-48Gy); 26 patients (51%) received ≥30Gy. Thirty-one patients (61%) received bRT comprehensively to all disease sites. The median cumulative %BM irradiated was 5.05% (range: 0-50%). At a median follow-up of 10.3 months (95% CI: 7.7-16.4), the 1-year OS, PFS, and DSS rates were 80% (95% CI: 66-99), 78% (64-87), and 82% (68-90), respectively. The incidence of ≥Grade 3 lymphopenia was 33% pre-RT and 68% post-RT, but recovered to 43% at the conditioning chemotherapy (CC) timepoint. There was no correlation between post-RT Grade ≥3 lymphopenia and the receipt of comprehensive bRT, combined modality bridging, ≥30Gy bRT, or bRT to ≥15% of BM (all p>0.2). Among patients with Grade 0-2 lymphopenia pre-RT, increased conversion to Grade ≥3 lymphopenia post-RT correlated with comprehensive or ≥30Gy bRT, but these factors did not impair ALC recovery at CC. There was no association between ALC Δ RT or post-RT ALC with 30 or 90 day response (p>0.25), DSS, PFS, or OS (p>0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Lymphocyte change during bRT is not associated with CAR-T outcomes. Persistent cytopenia risk following bRT is not associated with bRT to ≥30Gy, ≥15% of BM, or comprehensive coverage. While bRT can be delivered safely, we urge careful treatment planning when incorporating into pre-CAR-T regimens.
ABSTRACT
Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) involving the gastrointestinal (GI) organs is rare, and real-world outcomes after combined modality therapy (CMT) with systemic therapy (ST) and radiotherapy (RT) are not well-characterized, particularly in the contemporary era. We characterized outcomes in a large cohort of GI-DLBCL patients treated with ST alone or CMT. Methods: Patients with GI-DLBCL treated at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models estimated survival. Multivariable analyses were conducted using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Of 204 patients, gastric involvement was most common (63%). Most presented with early-stage disease (61%). All patients received ST and 65 patients (32%) received RT, 88% as part of first-line CMT. Median dose was 36 Gy (IQR 30.6-39.6) in 18 fractions (IQR 17-22). Median follow-up was 46 months. Five-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was 88% and 84%, respectively; complete response (CR) rate was 82%. Improved OS associated with low IPI (p=0.001), fewer chemotherapy lines (p<0.001), early stage (p<0.006), and CR (p<0.001). Survival did not differ by RT receipt (p>0.25). Only early stage and CR correlated with improved OS on multivariable analysis. Stomach-directed RT vs. RT to other sites correlated with improved PFS and OS (p<0.04). Patients with early stage DLBCL treated with CMT in the post-rituximab era had equivalent OS vs. ST alone, even with fewer chemotherapy cycles (p<0.02; median of 4 with RT vs. 6 cycles without). Fifty patients had bulky disease (≥7.5 cm), of whom 18 (36%) had early stage disease. Among patients with bulky disease, 5 (10%) developed relapse at the initial site of disease bulk. Four of the 5 patients did not receive consolidative radiation. Among these 4 patients, 3 relapsed only in their initial site of bulky disease. Of 191 patients with luminal GI-DLBCL, n=4 (2.1%) developed perforation; only one received RT. Acute Grade 3 toxicities were reported in 41.2% of patients, and 12 (5.8%) patients had late Grade 3 toxicities, 99% attributed to chemotherapy. Conclusion: GI-DLBCL patients have favorable outcomes after CMT with minimal late toxicity. CMT may be offered with abridged systemic regimens with equivalent outcomes. Stomach directed-RT may mitigate relapse risk associated with incomplete disease response or bulky disease.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: : Guidelines for early-stage breast cancer allow for radiation therapy (RT) omission after breast conserving surgery among older women, though high utilization of RT persists. This study explored surgeon referral and the effect of a productivity-based bonus metric for radiation oncologists in an academic institution with centralized quality assurance review. Methods and materials: : We evaluated patients ≥70 years of age treated with breast conserving surgery for estrogen receptor (ER)+ pT1N0 breast cancer at a single tertiary cancer network between 2015 and 2018. The primary outcomes were radiation oncology referral and RT receipt. Covariables included patient and physician characteristics and treatment decisions before versus after productivity metric implementation. Univariable generalized linear effects models explored associations between these outcomes and covariables. Results: : Of 703 patients included, 483 (69%) were referred to radiation oncology and 273 (39%) received RT (among those referred, 57% received RT). No difference in RT receipt pre- versus post-productivity metric implementation was observed (P = .57). RT receipt was associated with younger patient age (70-74 years; odds ratio [OR], 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-4.57) and higher grade (grade 3; OR, 7.75; 95% CI, 3.33-18.07). Initial referral was associated with younger age (70-74; OR, 5.64; 95% CI, 3.37-0.45) and higher performance status (Karnofsky performance status ≥90; OR, 5.34; 95% CI, 2.63-10.83). Conclusions: : Nonreferral to radiation oncology accounted for half of RT omission but was based on age and Karnofsky performance status, in accordance with guidelines. Lack of radiation oncologist practice change in response to misaligned financial incentives is reassuring, potentially reflecting incentive design and/or centralized quality assurance review. Multi-institutional studies are needed to confirm these findings.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Telemedicine was rapidly implemented for initial consultations and radiation treatment planning in the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In this study, we explore utilization of and physician perspectives on this approach in an attempt to identify patient populations that may benefit most from virtual care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a mixed-methods study with a convergent design. Approximately 6 to 8 weeks after implementation of telemedicine, all radiation oncologists in a single academic radiation oncology department were invited to participate in either semistructured interviews with embedded survey questions or a concurrently administered survey only. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to identify common themes, and quantitative data was assessed using descriptive statistics and univariable analyses. RESULTS: At the apex of the pandemic, 92% of radiation oncology visits were conducted via telemedicine. In total, 51 of 61 radiation oncologists participated in the study (response rate 84%). Most (71%) reported no difference in ability to treat cancer appropriately via telemedicine, which was more common among specialized physicians (P = .01) but not those with higher visit volume or years of experience. Over half (55%) perceived no difference or even improvement in overall visit quality with telemedicine. Virtual visits were deemed acceptable for a median of 70% to 96% of patients, which varied by disease site. Need for physical examination, and availability of an acceptable proxy, factored into telemedicine acceptability. Most (88%) found telemedicine better than expected, but opinions were split on how telemedicine would affect physician burnout. Almost all (96%) foresaw a role for telemedicine beyond the pandemic and would opt for a median of 50% (interquartile range 20%-66%) of visits conducted via telemedicine. CONCLUSIONS: Among radiation oncologists in an academic setting, telemedicine was perceived to be highly appropriate and acceptable for most patients. Future studies should focus on identifying the 5% to 30% of patients whose care may be optimized with in-person visits, and if there is alignment with patient preferences.