Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Stage IIA to IIIA Inoperable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Trial.

PURPOSE: Larger tumors are underrepresented in most prospective trials on stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed this phase 1 trial to specifically study the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of SBRT for NSCLC >3 cm. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 3 + 3 dose-escalation design (cohort A) with an expansion cohort at the MTD (cohort B) was used. Patients with inoperable NSCLC >3 cm (T2-4) were eligible. Select ipsilateral hilar and single-station mediastinal nodes were permitted. The initial SBRT dose was 40 Gy in 5 fractions, with planned escalation to 50 and 60 Gy in 5 fractions. Adjuvant chemotherapy was mandatory for cohort A and optional for cohort B, but no patients in cohort B received chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was SBRT-related acute grade (G) 4+ or persistent G3 toxicities (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03). Secondary endpoints included local failure (LF), distant metastases, disease progression, and overall survival. RESULTS: The median age was 80 years; tumor size was >3 cm and ≤5 cm in 20 (59%) and >5 cm in 14 patients (41%). In cohort A (n = 9), 3 patients treated to 50 Gy experienced G3 radiation pneumonitis (RP), thus defining the MTD. In the larger dose-expansion cohort B (n = 25), no radiation therapy-related G4+ toxicities and no G3 RP occurred; only 2 patients experienced G2 RP. The 2-year cumulative incidence of LF was 20.2%, distant failure was 34.7%, and disease progression was 54.4%. Two-year overall survival was 53%. A biologically effective dose (BED) <100 Gy was associated with higher LF (P = .006); advanced stage and higher neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio were associated with greater disease progression (both P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Fifty Gy in 5 fractions is the MTD for SBRT to tumors >3 cm. A higher BED is associated with fewer LFs even in larger tumors. Cohort B appears to have had less toxicity, possibly due to the omission of chemotherapy.

Adapting CBT for youth anxiety: Flexibility, within fidelity, in different settings.

Anxiety disorders are common in youth, associated with impairments in daily functioning, and often persist into adulthood when untreated. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for youth anxiety is a well-established intervention and has been modified to fit several treatment settings. Despite decades of results supporting the efficacy of CBT, there is a large gap in access to this treatment and a need to consider how it can best be administered flexibly to increase uptake and personalization. We first discuss the core components of treatment for CBT through the lens of the Coping Cat treatment. Next, we review the empirical findings regarding adjustments made for CBT for youth anxiety delivered (a) in schools, (b) in community settings, (c) through telehealth, (d) through online computer programs, and (e) by caregivers at home. In each setting, we provide specific suggestions for how to implement CBT with flexibility while maintaining fidelity.

CBT for Youth Anxiety: How Does It Fit Within Community Mental Health?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review (1) the empirical literature for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for youth anxiety delivered in community settings, (2) the use of online delivery methods in this process, and (3) identified barriers and facilitators to implementation of CBT for youth anxiety in community mental health clinics (CMHCs). We provide suggestions for future work. RECENT FINDINGS: Meta-analytic reviews of effectiveness studies suggest that outcomes comparable to those of efficacy studies can be achieved in community settings, particularly when in-session exposures occur. Several online programs support delivery of these services, with an evidence base that is promising. The notable barrier to the implementation of services is the cost of implementation and sustainability. Organizational factors such as leadership, culture, and climate are consistently identified as barriers and facilitators depending on their valence and appear to be related to implementation outcomes (e.g., on provider attitudes). The current findings need to be integrated into future studies, with a focus on further identifying facilitators (e.g., champions and online programs) of implementation. There is also the need for efforts to address organizational and individual barriers and to compare ways to reduce costs.

Can bronchoscopically implanted anchored electromagnetic transponders be used to monitor tumor position and lung inflation during deep inspiration breath-hold lung radiotherapy?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of using bronchoscopically implanted anchored electromagnetic transponders (EMTs) as surrogates for 1) tumor position and 2) repeatability of lung inflation during deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) lung radiotherapy. METHODS: Forty-one patients treated with either hypofractionated (HF) or conventional (CF) lung radiotherapy on an IRB-approved prospective protocol using coached DIBH were evaluated for this study. Three anchored EMTs were bronchoscopically implanted into small airways near or within the tumor. DIBH treatment was gated by tracking the EMT positions. Breath-hold cone-beam-CTs (CBCTs) were acquired prior to every HF treatment or weekly for CF patients. Retrospectively, rigid registrations between each CBCT and the breath-hold planning CT were performed to match to 1) spine, 2) EMTs and 3) tumor. Absolute differences in registration between EMTs and spine were analyzed to determine surrogacy of EMTs for lung inflation. Differences in registration between EMTs and the tumor were analyzed to determine surrogacy of EMTs for tumor position. The stability of the EMTs was evaluated by analyzing the difference between inter-EMT displacements recorded at treatment from that of the plan for the CF patients, as well as the geometric residual (GR) recorded at the time of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 219 CBCTs were analyzed. The average differences between EMT centroid and spine registration among all CBCTs were 0.45±0.42 cm, 0.29±0.28 cm, and 0.18±0.15 cm in superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral directions, respectively. Only 59% of CBCTs had differences in registration < 0.5 cm for EMT centroid compared to spine, indicating that lung inflation is not reproducible from simulation to treatment. The average differences between EMT centroid and tumor registration among all CBCTs were 0.13±0.13 cm, 0.14±0.13 cm and 0.12±0.12 cm in SI, AP and lateral directions, respectively. Ninety-five percent of CBCTs resulted in a < 0.5 cm change between EMT centroid and tumor registration, indicating that EMT positions correspond well with tumor position during treatments. Six out of the seven recorded CF patients had average differences in inter-EMT displacements ≤0.26 cm and average GR ≤0.22 cm, indicating that the EMTs are stable throughout treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Bronchoscopically implanted anchored EMTs are good surrogates for tumor position and are reliable for maintaining tumor position when tracked during DIBH treatment, as long as the tumor size and shape are stable. Large differences in registration between EMTs and spine for many treatments suggest that lung inflation achieved at simulation is often not reproduced.

Treatment planning and outcomes effects of reducing the preferred mean esophagus dose for conventionally fractionated non-small cell lung cancer radiotherapy.

Based on an analysis of published literature, our department recently lowered the preferred mean esophagus dose (MED) constraint for conventionally fractionated (2 Gy/fraction in approximately 30 fractions) treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) with the goal of reducing the incidence of symptomatic acute esophagitis (AE). The goal of the change was to encourage treatment planners to achieve a MED close to 21 Gy while still permitting MED to go up to the previous guideline of 34 Gy in difficult cases. We compared all our suitable LA-NSCLC patients treated with plans from one year before through one year after the constraint change. The primary endpoint for this study was achievability of the new constraint by the planners; the secondary endpoint was reduction in symptomatic AE. Planners were able to achieve the new constraint in statistically significantly more cases during the year following its explicit implementation than in the year before (P = 0.0025). Furthermore, 38% of patients treated after the new constraint developed symptomatic AE during their treatment as opposed to 48% of the patients treated before. This is a clinically desirable endpoint although the observed difference was not statistically significant. A subsequent power calculation suggests that this is due to the relatively small number of patients in the study.

Analysis of pneumonitis and esophageal injury after stereotactic body radiation therapy for ultra-central lung tumors.

OBJECTIVES: SBRT has been associated with serious toxicity in ultra-central lung tumors, but little is known about the incidence and dosimetric correlates of pulmonary and esophageal complications in this setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed SBRT patients whose lung tumor abutted proximal airways, or whose planning target volume overlapped esophagus. All patients received 5-15 fractions of high-dose, image-guided radiation. The primary endpoint was SBRT-related toxicity, with local control and survival as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: We included 88 patients. Nineteen patients (22 %) experienced grade ≥3 (G3+) toxicity, including 6 cases of G3+ radiation pneumonitis and 4 cases of G3+ esophageal injury. Two patients developed trachea-esophageal fistula. Overall incidence of radiation pneumonitis was 23 %. Ten patients (11.4 %) succumbed to SBRT-related complications. Multiple dosimetric parameters for lung (including mean lung dose and V20Gy) and esophagus (including maximum point dose) correlated with radiation pneumonitis and esophageal toxicity, respectively. No impact of fractionation on toxicity was seen. CONCLUSION: This analysis indicates that high rate and multiple manifestations of pulmonary and esophageal toxicity occur after SBRT for ultra-central tumors. In particular, severe radiation pneumonitis and tracheoesophageal fistula are possible. Dosimetric parameters such as mean lung dose and maximum esophageal dose are significantly correlated with toxicity. Further study is needed to optimize the safe delivery of SBRT in these patients.