ABSTRACT
Purpose: Conventional chemoradiation (CCRT) is inadequately effective for the treatment of unresectable or inoperable biliary tract cancers (UIBC). Ablative radiation therapy (AR), typically defined as a biologically effective dose (BED) ≥80.5 Gy, has shown some promise in terms of local control and survival in these patients. We compare the efficacy and toxicity of AR to non-AR in UIBC patients. Methods and Materials: Patients with UIBC treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT; n = 18) or CCRT (n = 28) between 2006 and 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The associations of treatment, BED groups, selected characteristics with overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and local control were estimated separately using Cox proportional hazards regression. Toxicity was scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0. Results: Median dose fractionation was 60 Gy in 5 fractions (median BED, 127 Gy) for SBRT and 50 Gy in 25 fractions (median BED, 64 Gy) for CCRT. The median follow-up of the entire cohort was 11.5 months. The 1-year OS rate was 62% for BED <80.5 versus 66% for BED ≥80.5 (P = .069). The 1-year PFS rate was 24% for BED <80.5 and 29% for BED ≥80.5 (P = .050). The 1-year local control rate was 20% for BED <80.5 and 41% for BED ≥80.5 (P = .097). BED as a continuous variable (P = .013), BED ≥100 Gy (P = .044), and race (white versus nonwhite) (P = .037) were associated with improved overall mortality. BED ≥80.5 Gy (P = .046), smaller tumor size (<5 cm; P = .038) and N0 disease (P <.0001) were associated with improved disease progression rates. Local control was improved in patients with N0 disease compared with N1 disease (P <.0001). Both treatments were well tolerated; there was no difference in acute and late toxicity between AR and non-AR. Conclusions: In this review, there was improved PFS with BED ≥80.5 Gy with a trend toward OS benefit. BED ≥80.5 Gy was achieved mostly through SBRT and was well tolerated. AR could be considered a more effective treatment modality than CCRT in patients with UIBC.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Most safety and efficacy trials of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines excluded patients with cancer, yet these patients are more likely than healthy individuals to contract SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to become seriously ill after infection. Our objective was to record short-term adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer, to compare the magnitude and duration of these reactions with those of patients without cancer, and to determine whether adverse reactions are related to active cancer therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, single-institution observational study was performed at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All study participants received 2 doses of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine separated by approximately 3 weeks. A report of adverse reactions to dose 1 of the vaccine was completed upon return to the clinic for dose 2. Participants completed an identical survey either online or by telephone 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: The cohort of 1,753 patients included 67.5% who had a history of cancer and 12.0% who were receiving active cancer treatment. Local pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom for all respondents and did not distinguish patients with cancer from those without cancer after either dose 1 (39.3% vs 43.9%; P=.07) or dose 2 (42.5% vs 40.3%; P=.45). Among patients with cancer, those receiving active treatment were less likely to report pain at the injection site after dose 1 compared with those not receiving active treatment (30.0% vs 41.4%; P=.002). The onset and duration of adverse events was otherwise unrelated to active cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: When patients with cancer were compared with those without cancer, few differences in reported adverse events were noted. Active cancer treatment had little impact on adverse event profiles.
