Exercise interventions for adults with cancer receiving radiation therapy alone.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy (RT) is given to about half of all people with cancer. RT alone is used to treat various cancers at different stages. Although it is a local treatment, systemic symptoms may occur. Cancer- or treatment-related side effects can lead to a reduction in physical activity, physical performance, and quality of life (QoL). The literature suggests that physical exercise can reduce the risk of various side effects of cancer and cancer treatments, cancer-specific mortality, recurrence of cancer, and all-cause mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise plus standard care compared with standard care alone in adults with cancer receiving RT alone. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, conference proceedings and trial registries up to 26 October 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people who were receiving RT without adjuvant systemic treatment for any type or stage of cancer. We considered any type of exercise intervention, defined as a planned, structured, repetitive, objective-oriented physical activity programme in addition to standard care. We excluded exercise interventions that involved physiotherapy alone, relaxation programmes, and multimodal approaches that combined exercise with other non-standard interventions such as nutritional restriction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology and the GRADE approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcome was fatigue and the secondary outcomes were QoL, physical performance, psychosocial effects, overall survival, return to work, anthropometric measurements, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Database searching identified 5875 records, of which 430 were duplicates. We excluded 5324 records and the remaining 121 references were assessed for eligibility. We included three two-arm RCTs with 130 participants. Cancer types were breast and prostate cancer. Both treatment groups received the same standard care, but the exercise groups also participated in supervised exercise programmes several times per week while undergoing RT. Exercise interventions included warm-up, treadmill walking (in addition to cycling and stretching and strengthening exercises in one study), and cool-down. In some analysed endpoints (fatigue, physical performance, QoL), there were baseline differences between exercise and control groups. We were unable to pool the results of the different studies owing to substantial clinical heterogeneity. All three studies measured fatigue. Our analyses, presented below, showed that exercise may reduce fatigue (positive SMD values signify less fatigue; low certainty). • Standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 1.64; 37 participants (fatigue measured with Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI)) • SMD 2.42, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.13; 54 participants (fatigue measured with BFI) • SMD 1.44, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.42; 21 participants (fatigue measured with revised Piper Fatigue Scale) All three studies measured QoL, although one provided insufficient data for analysis. Our analyses, presented below, showed that exercise may have little or no effect on QoL (positive SMD values signify better QoL; low certainty). • SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.26 to 1.05; 37 participants (QoL measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate) • SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.34; 21 participants (QoL measured with World Health Organization QoL questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF)) All three studies measured physical performance. Our analyses of two studies, presented below, showed that exercise may improve physical performance, but we are very unsure about the results (positive SMD values signify better physical performance; very low certainty) • SMD 1.25, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; 37 participants (shoulder mobility and pain measured on a visual analogue scale) • SMD⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 3.13 (95% CI 2.32 to 3.95; 54 participants (physical performance measured with the six-minute walk test) Our analyses of data from the third study showed that exercise may have little or no effect on physical performance measured with the stand-and-sit test, but we are very unsure about the results (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.86, positive SMD values signify better physical performance; 21 participants; very low certainty). Two studies measured psychosocial effects. Our analyses (presented below) showed that exercise may have little or no effect on psychosocial effects, but we are very unsure about the results (positive SMD values signify better psychosocial well-being; very low certainty). • SMD 0.48, 95% CI -0.18 to 1.13; 37 participants (psychosocial effects measured on the WHOQOL-BREF social subscale) • SMD 0.29, 95% CI -0.57 to 1.15; 21 participants (psychosocial effects measured with the Beck Depression Inventory) Two studies recorded adverse events related to the exercise programmes and reported no events. We estimated the certainty of the evidence as very low. No studies reported adverse events unrelated to exercise. No studies reported the other outcomes we intended to analyse (overall survival, anthropometric measurements, return to work). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence on the effects of exercise interventions in people with cancer who are receiving RT alone. While all included studies reported benefits for the exercise intervention groups in all assessed outcomes, our analyses did not consistently support this evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that exercise improved fatigue in all three studies. Regarding physical performance, our analysis showed very low-certainty evidence of a difference favouring exercise in two studies, and very low-certainty evidence of no difference in one study. We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the effects of exercise and no exercise on quality of life or psychosocial effects. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for possible outcome reporting bias, imprecision due to small sample sizes in a small number of studies, and indirectness of outcomes. In summary, exercise may have some beneficial outcomes in people with cancer who are receiving RT alone, but the evidence supporting this statement is of low certainty. There is a need for high-quality research on this topic.

Oncologic Outcome and Immune Responses of Radiotherapy with Anti-PD-1 Treatment for Brain Metastases Regarding Timing and Benefiting Subgroups.

While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with radiotherapy (RT) are widely used for patients with brain metastasis (BM), markers that predict treatment response for combined RT and ICI (RT-ICI) and their optimal dosing and sequence for the best immunogenic effects are still under investigation. The aim of this study was to evaluate prognostic factors for therapeutic outcome and to compare effects of concurrent and non-concurrent RT-ICI. We retrospectively analyzed data of 93 patients with 319 BMs of different cancer types who received PD-1 inhibitors and RT at the University Hospital Cologne between September/2014 and November/2020. Primary study endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and local control (LC). We included 66.7% melanoma, 22.8% lung, and 5.5% other cancer types with a mean follow-up time of 23.8 months. Median OS time was 12.19 months. LC at 6 months was 95.3% (concurrent) vs. 69.2% (non-concurrent; p = 0.008). Univariate Cox regression analysis detected following prognostic factors for OS: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio NLR favoring <3 (low; HR 2.037 (1.184−3.506), p = 0.010), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) favoring ≤ULN (HR 1.853 (1.059−3.241), p = 0.031), absence of neurological symptoms (HR 2.114 (1.285−3.478), p = 0.003), RT concept favoring SRS (HR 1.985 (1.112−3.543), p = 0.019), RT dose favoring ≥60 Gy (HR 0.519 (0.309−0.871), p = 0.013), and prior anti-CTLA4 treatment (HR 0.498 (0.271−0.914), p = 0.024). Independent prognostic factors for OS were concurrent RT-ICI application (HR 0.539 (0.299−0.971), p = 0.024) with a median OS of 17.61 vs. 6.83 months (non-concurrent), ECOG performance status favoring 0 (HR 7.756 (1.253−6.061), p = 0.012), cancer type favoring melanoma (HR 0.516 (0.288−0.926), p = 0.026), BM volume (PTV) favoring ≤3 cm3 (HR 1.947 (1.007−3.763), p = 0.048). Subgroups with the following factors showed significantly longer OS when being treated concurrently: RT dose <60 Gy (p = 0.014), PTV > 3 cm3 (p = 0.007), other cancer types than melanoma (p = 0.006), anti-CTLA4-naïve patients (p < 0.001), low NLR (p = 0.039), steroid intake ≤4 mg (p = 0.042). Specific immune responses, such as abscopal effects (AbEs), pseudoprogression (PsP), or immune-related adverse events (IrAEs), occurred more frequently with concurrent RT-ICI and resulted in better OS. Other toxicities, including radionecrosis, were not statistically different in both groups. The concurrent application of RT and ICI, the ECOG-PS, cancer type, and PTV had an independently prognostic impact on OS. In concurrently treated patients, treatment response (LC) was delayed and specific immune responses (AbE, PsP, IrAE) occurred more frequently with longer OS rates. Our results suggest that concurrent RT-ICI application is more beneficial than sequential treatment in patients with low pretreatment inflammatory status, more and larger BMs, and with other cancer types than melanoma.

Long-term results of robotic radiosurgery for non brachytherapy patients with cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Consolidation brachytherapy is a critical treatment component for cervical cancer patients undergoing primary chemoradiation. Some patients are unsuitable for brachytherapy for a variety of reasons. The use of alternatives (LINAC-based stereotactic radiosurgery or external beam boosts) compromise oncologic results in cervical cancer patients. Thus, we evaluated the value of brachytherapy-like doses prescriptions using robotic radiosurgery (CyberKnife®, CR, Acuuray, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). METHODS: From 06/2011 to 06/2015, 31 patients (median age 53 years; range 30-77 years) with histologically proven FIGO stages IB-IVB cervical cancer underwent primary chemoradiation. All patients were either not suitable for intracervical brachytherapy for a variety of reasons or refused the brachytherapy. To achieve an adequate dose within the tumor, a CK boost was applied after fiducial implantation. In 29 patients, a dose of either five times 6 Gy or five times 5 Gy was prescribed to the target volume. Two patients received three times 5 Gy. The target dose was prescribed to the 70% isodose. Treatment toxicity was documented once weekly regarding vaginal mucositis, bladder, and bowel irritation according to CTCAE v. 4.03. If possible 3 months after completion of treatment intracervical curettage was performed to exclude residual tumor and the patients were followed up clinically. Sparing of organs at risk (OAR) and outcome in terms of local control (LC), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 31 patients, 30 have completed CK boost therapy. The median follow-up time was 40 months (range 5-84 months). General treatment tolerability was good. Except for 1 patient, who had diarrhea grade 3, no treatment related side effects above grade 2 were reported. Sparing of OAR was excellent. The 1­, 3­, and 5­year OS rates were 89, 60, and 57% respectively across all stages. Seven patients showed progression (28%), only two of them with local relapse (8%), resulting in an LC rate of 92% after 3 and 5 years. Mean PFS was 41 months (range 2-84 months). Patients with local recurrence had PFS of 5 and 8 months. Five patients developed distant metastases. Fifteen patients (48%) underwent intracervical curettage 3 months after completion of treatment of which 14 (93%) had complete pathologic response. CONCLUSION: Brachytherapy remains the standard of care for patients diagnosed with cervical cancer and indication for primary chemoradiation. In terms of local control, CyberKnife®-based boost concepts provide excellent local control. It can be an alternative for patients who cannot receive adequate brachytherapy. Distant relapse still remains a challenge in this context.

Addition of Radiotherapy to Immunotherapy: Effects on Outcome of Different Subgroups Using a Propensity Score Matching.

Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) has been established as successful modality in cancer treatment. Combination concepts are used to optimize treatment outcome, but may also induce higher toxicity rates than monotherapy. Several rationales support the combination of radiotherapy (RT) with ICI as radioimmunotherapy (RIT), but it is still unknown in which clinical situation RIT would be most beneficial. Therefore, we have conducted a retrospective matched-pair analysis of 201 patients with advanced-stage cancers and formed two groups treated with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors only (PD1i) or in combination with local RT (RIT) at our center between 2013 and 2017. We collected baseline characteristics, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, mutational status, PD-1 inhibitor and RT treatment details, and side effects according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v.5.0. Patients received pembrolizumab (n = 93) or nivolumab (n = 108), 153 with additional RT. For overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), there was no significant difference between both groups. After propensity score matching (PSM), we analyzed 96 patients, 67 with additional and 29 without RT. We matched for different covariates that could have a possible influence on the treatment outcome. The RIT group displayed a trend towards a longer OS until the PD1i group reached a survival plateau. PD-L1-positive patients, smokers, patients with a BMI ≤ 25, and patients without malignant melanoma showed a longer OS when treated with RIT. Our data show that some subgroups may benefit more from RIT than others. Suitable biomarkers as well as the optimal timing and dosage must be established in order to achieve the best effect on cancer treatment outcome.

Abscopal Effects in Radio-Immunotherapy-Response Analysis of Metastatic Cancer Patients With Progressive Disease Under Anti-PD-1 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition.

Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) targeting the programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) has shown promising results in the fight against cancer. Systemic anti-tumor reactions due to radiation therapy (RT) can lead to regression of non-irradiated lesions (NiLs), termed "abscopal effect" (AbE). Combination of both treatments can enhance this effect. The aim of this study was to evaluate AbEs during anti-PD-1 therapy and irradiation. We screened 168 patients receiving pembrolizumab or nivolumab at our center. Inclusion criteria were start of RT within 1 month after the first or last application of pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg every 3 weeks) or nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) and at least one metastasis outside the irradiation field. We estimated the total dose during ICI for each patient using the linear quadratic (LQ) model expressed as 2 Gy equivalent dose (EQD2) using α/ß of 10 Gy. Radiological images were required showing progression or no change in NiLs before and regression after completion of RT(s). Images must have been acquired at least 4 weeks after the onset of ICI or RT. The surface areas of the longest diameters of the short- and long-axes of NiLs were measured. One hundred twenty-six out of 168 (75%) patients received ICI and RT. Fifty-three percent (67/126) were treated simultaneously, and 24 of these (36%) were eligible for lesion analysis. AbE was observed in 29% (7/24). One to six lesions (mean = 3 ± 2) in each AbE patient were analyzed. Patients were diagnosed with malignant melanoma (MM) (n = 3), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 3), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (n = 1). They were irradiated once (n = 1), twice (n = 2), or three times (n = 4) with an average total EQD2 of 120.0 ± 37.7 Gy. Eighty-two percent of RTs of AbE patients were applied with high single doses. MM patients received pembrolizumab, NSCLC, and RCC patients received nivolumab for an average duration of 45 ± 35 weeks. We demonstrate that 29% of the analyzed patients showed AbE. Strict inclusion criteria were applied to distinguish the effects of AbE from the systemic effect of ICI. Our data suggest the clinical existence of systemic effects of irradiation under ICI and could contribute to the development of a broader range of cancer treatments.

Volumetric assessment of mediastinal lymphoma masses in Hodgkin lymphoma.

The large mediastinal mass (LMM) at initial staging represents a risk factor in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and is measured by X-ray. Depending on location of the LMM, different results can occur regardless of the initial lymphoma volume. To assess this risk factor more accurately, we evaluated the method of volumetry in 77 patients of HD13/14 study of the German Hodgkin Study Group. Furthermore, volume calculations based on three or only one diameter, were performed to simplify volume assessment. Inter-rater reliability was good for all methods. The 3-diameter measurement produced larger volumes than volumetric assessment with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.93, which could be improved to 0.95 by multiplying volumes with a correction factor of 0.86. The 1-dimensional measurement strongly overestimated the volume with an ICC of 0.7. In conclusion, the simplified volume estimation based on 3 largest diameters provides a reliable concept for the staging of HL patients.

Corrigendum: Abscopal Effects in Radio-Immunotherapy-Response Analysis of Metastatic Cancer Patients With Progressive Disease Under Anti-PD-1 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00511.].

Robotic Stereotactic Radiosurgery in Melanoma Patients with Brain Metastases under Simultaneous Anti-PD-1 Treatment.

Combination concepts of radiotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibition are currently of high interest. We examined imaging findings, acute toxicity, and local control in patients with melanoma brain metastases receiving programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors and/or robotic stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Twenty-six patients treated with SRS alone (n = 13; 20 lesions) or in combination with anti-PD-1 therapy (n = 13; 28 lesions) were analyzed. Lesion size was evaluated three and six months after SRS using a volumetric assessment based on cranial magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) and acute toxicity after 12 weeks according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Local control after six months was comparable (86%, SRS + anti-PD-1, and 80%, SRS). All toxicities reported were less than or equal to grade 2. One metastasis (5%) in the SRS group and six (21%) in the SRS + anti-PD-1 group increased after three months, whereas four (14%) of the six regressed during further follow-ups. This was rated as pseudoprogression (PsP). Three patients (23%) in the SRS + anti-PD-1 group showed characteristics of PsP. Treatment with SRS and anti-PD-1 antibodies can be combined safely in melanoma patients with cerebral metastases. Early volumetric progression of lesions under simultaneous treatment may be related to PsP; thus, the evaluation of combined radioimmunotherapy remains challenging and requires experienced teams.