Does Chemo-Radiotherapy Improve Survival Outcomes vs. Radiotherapy Alone for High-Grade cT1 Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder?

BACKGROUND: Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (non-MIBC) that is high-grade and confined to the lamina propria (HGT1) often has an aggressive clinical course. Currently, there is limited data on the comparative effectiveness of RT vs. CRT for HGT1 non-MIBC. We hypothesized that CRT would be associated with improved overall survival (OS) vs. RT in HGT1 bladder cancer. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with HGT1 non-MIBC, and treated with transurethral resection of bladder tumor followed by either treatment with RT alone or CRT, were identified in the National Cancer Database. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was employed and weight-adjusted multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression modeling was used to compare overall survival (OS) hazard ratios. OS was the primary endpoint, and was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests. RESULTS: A total of 259 patients with HGT1 UC were treated with: (i) RT alone (n = 123) or (ii) CRT (n = 136). Propensity-weighted MVA showed that combined modality treatment with CRT was associated with improved OS relative to radiation alone (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 0.62, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI): 0.44-0.88, P = .007). Four-year OS for the CRT vs. RT alone was 36% and 19%, respectively (log-rank P <.008). CONCLUSION: For patients with HGT1 bladder cancer, concurrent CRT was associated with improved OS compared with radiation alone in a retrospective cohort. These results are hypothesis-generating. The NRG is currently developing a phase II randomized clinical trial comparing CRT to other novel, bladder preservation strategies.

Clinical outcomes of patients with unresectable primary liver cancer treated with MR-guided stereotactic body radiation Therapy: A Six-Year experience.

Purpose: Magnetic resonance-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy (MRgSBRT) with optional online adaptation has shown promise in delivering ablative doses to unresectable primary liver cancer. However, there remain limited data on the indications for online adaptation as well as dosimetric and longer-term clinical outcomes following MRgSBRT. Methods and Materials: Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), and combined biphenotypic hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) who completed MRgSBRT to 50 Gy in 5 fractions between June of 2015 and December of 2021 were analyzed. The necessity of adaptive techniques was evaluated. The cumulative incidence of local progression was evaluated and survival and competing risk analyses were performed. Results: Ninety-nine analyzable patients completed MRgSBRT during the study period and 54 % had planning target volumes (PTVs) within 1 cm of the duodenum, small bowel, or stomach at the time of simulation. Online adaptive RT was used in 53 % of patients to correct organ-at-risk constraint violation and/or to improve target coverage. In patients who underwent adaptive RT planning, online replanning resulted in superior target coverage when compared to projected, non-adaptive plans (median coverage ≥ 95 % at 47.5 Gy: 91 % [IQR: 82-96] before adaptation vs 95 % [IQR: 87-99] after adaptation, p < 0.01). The median follow-up for surviving patients was 34.2 months for patients with HCC and 10.1 months for patients with CCA/cHCC-CCA. For all patients, the 2-year cumulative incidence of local progression was 9.8 % (95 % CI: 1.5-18 %) for patients with HCC and 9.0 % (95 % CI: 0.1-18) for patients with CCA/cHCC-CCA. Grade 3 through 5 acute and late clinical gastrointestinal toxicities were observed in < 10 % of the patients. Conclusions: MRgSBRT, with the option for online adaptive planning when merited, allows delivery of ablative doses to primary liver tumors with excellent local control with acceptable toxicities. Additional studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of MRgSBRT in the treatment of primary liver cancer are warranted.

Intrinsic tumor resistance to CAR T cells is a dynamic transcriptional state that is exploitable with low-dose radiation.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy represents a major advancement for hematologic malignancies, with some patients achieving long-term remission. However, the majority of treated patients still die of their disease. A consistent predictor of response is tumor quantity, wherein a higher disease burden before CAR T-cell therapy portends a worse prognosis. Focal radiation to bulky sites of the disease can decrease tumor quantity before CAR T-cell therapy, but whether this strategy improves survival is unknown. We find that substantially reducing systemic tumor quantity using high-dose radiation to areas of bulky disease, which is commonly done clinically, is less impactful on overall survival in mice achieved by CAR T cells than targeting all sites of disease with low-dose total tumor irradiation (TTI) before CAR T-cell therapy. This finding highlights another predictor of response, tumor quality, the intrinsic resistance of an individual patient's tumor cells to CAR T-cell killing. Little is known about whether or how an individual tumor's intrinsic resistance may change under different circumstances. We find a transcriptional "death receptor score" that reflects a tumor's intrinsic sensitivity to CAR T cells can be temporarily increased by low-dose TTI, and the timing of this transcriptional change correlates with improved in vivo leukemia control by an otherwise limited number of CAR T cells. This suggests an actionable method for potentially improving outcomes in patients predicted to respond poorly to this promising therapy and highlights that intrinsic tumor attributes may be equally or more important predictors of CAR T-cell response as tumor burden.

The Association of Radiation Dose With Overall Survival for Patients Treated With Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.

Introduction Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate adenocarcinoma (PCa) has demonstrated excellent biochemical recurrence-free survival, with studies showing improved BRFS with higher-dose SBRT. However, current studies have been underpowered to evaluate the relationship of SBRT dose to overall survival (OS). In this retrospective study using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we hypothesize that, given the low alpha/beta ratio of PCa, a relatively small increase in the dose-per-fraction would be associated with improved survival outcomes for intermediate-risk PCa (IR-PCa) comparing 36.25 Gy/5 fx [biologically equivalent dose (BEDα/ß = 1.5 = 211.46 Gy vs. 35 Gy (BED1.5 = 198.33 Gy)]. Materials and methods We queried records from the NCDB from 2005 to 2015 for men receiving prostate SBRT for IR-PCa (n=2673). 82% were treated using either 35 Gy/5 fx or 36.25 Gy/5 fx. We compared OS in men receiving 35 Gy versus 36.25 Gy. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for covariable imbalances. Unweighted- and weighted-multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression was used to compare OS hazard ratios, accounting for age, race, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, treatment facility type, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), clinical T-stage, Gleason Score, and use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed. Results Seven hundred and eighty men (35%) were treated with 35 Gy/5 fx and 1434 men (65%) were treated with 36.25 Gy/5 fx (n=2214). Compared to 35 Gy, treatment with 36.25 Gy was associated with significantly improved OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.43-0.89], P=0.009) on MVA. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, 36.25 Gy was associated with improved survival (p=0.034), with a five-year OS of 92% and 88%, respectively. Conclusions In a multi-institutional retrospective database of 2,214 IR patients treated with prostate SBRT, a prescription dose of 36.25 Gy/5 fx was associated with improved OS vs. 35 Gy/5 fx. Results are hypothesis-generating but do lend support to the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines that the minimum recommended dose for prostate SBRT is 36.25 Gy/5 fx.

Differences in radiation-induced heart dysfunction in male versus female rats.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy remains part of the standard of care for breast, lung, and esophageal cancers. While radiotherapy improves local control and survival, radiation-induced heart dysfunction is a common side effect of thoracic radiotherapy. Cardiovascular dysfunction can also result from non-therapeutic total body radiation exposures. Numerous studies have evaluated the relationship between radiation dose to the heart and cardiotoxicity, but relatively little is known about whether there are differences based on biological sex in radiation-induced heart dysfunction (RIHD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated whether male and female inbred Dahl SS rats display differences in RIHD following delivery of 24 Gy in a single fraction to the whole heart using a 1.5 cm beam size (collimater). We also compared the 2.0 cm vs. 1.5 cm collimator in males. Pleural and pericardial effusions and normalized heart weights were measured, and echocardiograms were performed. RESULTS: Female SS rats displayed more severe RIHD relative to age-matched SS male rats. Normalized heart weight was significantly increased in females, but not in males. A total of 94% (15/16) of males and 55% (6/11) of females survived 5 months after completion of radiotherapy (p < .01). Among surviving rats, 100% of females and 14% of males developed moderate-to-severe pericardial effusions at 5 months. Females demonstrated increased pleural effusions, with the mean normalized pleural fluid volume for females and males being 56.6 mL/kg ± 12.1 and 10.96 mL/kg ± 6.4 in males (p = .001), respectively. Echocardiogram findings showed evidence of heart failure, which was more pronounced in females. Because age-matched female rats have smaller lungs, a higher percentage of the total lung was treated with radiation in females than males using the same beam size. After using a larger 2 cm beam in males which results in higher lung exposure, there was not a significant difference between males and females in terms of the development of moderate-to-severe pericardial effusions or pleural effusions. Treatment of males with a 2 cm beam resulted in comparable increases in LV mass and reductions in stroke volume to female rats treated with a 1.5 cm beam. CONCLUSION: Together, these results illustrate that there are differences in radiation-induced cardiotoxicity between male and female SS rats and add to the data that lung radiation doses, in addition to other factors, may play an important role in cardiac dysfunction following heart radiation exposure. These factors may be important to factor into future mitigation studies of radiation-induced cardiotoxicity.

Heart Sparing Radiotherapy Techniques in Breast Cancer: A Focus on Deep Inspiration Breath Hold.

Adjuvant radiation therapy is a critical component of breast cancer management. However, when breast cancer patients receive incidental radiation to the heart, there is an increased risk of cardiac disease and mortality. This is most common for patients with left-sided breast cancers and those receiving nodal irradiation as part of treatment. The overall risk of cardiac toxicity increases 4-16% with each Gray increase in mean heart radiation dose, with data suggesting that no lower limit exists which would eliminate cardiac risk entirely. Radiation techniques have improved over time, leading to lower cardiac radiation exposure than in the past. This decline is expected to reduce the incidence of radiation-induced heart dysfunction in patients. Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) is one such technique that was developed to reduce the risk of cardiac death and coronary events. DIBH is a non-invasive approach that capitalizes on the natural physiology of the respiratory cycle to increase the distance between the heart and the therapeutic target throughout the course of radiation therapy. DIBH has been shown to decrease the mean incidental radiation doses to the heart and left anterior descending coronary artery by approximately 20-70%. In this review, we summarize different techniques for DIBH and discuss recent data on this technique.

Assessing the impact of brachytherapy boost and androgen deprivation therapy on survival outcomes for patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations regarding radiotherapy treatment for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PCa) include external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) ± brachytherapy boost (BT) ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The ideal radiotherapy treatment approach for UIR-PCa has not been well-defined. We hypothesized that EBRT+BT±ADT is associated with improved overall survival (OS) relative to EBRT±ADT in men with UIR-PCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to retrospectively identify 32,246 men diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 with UIR-PCa who received EBRT (n = 13,265), EBRT+ADT (n = 13,123), EBRT+BT (n = 3440), or EBRT+BT+ADT (n = 2418). OS was the primary outcome. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for covariable imbalances and weight-adjusted multivariable analysis using Cox regression modeling was used to compare OS hazard ratios. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 60 months (range: 3-168 months). EBRT+ADT correlated with improved OS relative to EBRT alone on multivariable analysis (Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.92, [95% Confidence Interval: 0.87-0.98], p = 0.005). Compared to EBRT+ADT, EBRT+BT (HR: 0.77 [0.69-0.85], p = 3 × 10-7) and EBRT+BT+ADT (HR: 0.75 [0.67-0.83], p = 6 × 10-8) were associated with improved OS. Eight-years OS for the EBRT+ADT versus EBRT+BT+ADT was 70% and 78% (p < 0.0001), which is similar to historical clinical trials (ASCENDE-RT 9-year OS: 74% vs. 78%, p = 0.29). Relative to EBRT+BT, EBRT+BT+ADT was not associated with improved OS (HR: 0.99 [0.87-1.11], p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: In a large retrospective cohort, the addition of brachytherapy to EBRT correlated with improved survival in men with UIR-PCa. Men receiving EBRT+ADT+BT had improved OS relative to EBRT+ADT. The addition of ADT to EBRT, but not to EBRT+BT, correlated with improved OS.

Oligometastatic Rectal Adenocarcinoma Treated With Short-Course Radiation Therapy and Chemotherapy With Nonoperative Intent of the Primary for Locoregional Complete Responders.

PURPOSE: Nonoperative management with short-course radiation therapy (SCRT) as a component of definitive therapy for oligometastatic rectal cancer has not been previously reported. This single-institution retrospective analysis evaluates treatment with SCRT in combination with chemotherapy (SCRT-CTX) with nonoperative intent for patients with a locoregional clinical complete response (cCR). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-six patients with newly diagnosed oligometastatic rectal cancer were treated with SCRT-CTX between January 1, 2018, and May 31, 2020. Digital rectal examination, endoscopy, and imaging (computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging) were used to determine cCR. Medically operable patients without cCR underwent surgical resection of the primary rectal tumor. Patients with cCR who experienced a local failure received salvage surgery. Rates of hospitalization related to primary tumor disease and pelvic symptoms were reviewed. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival were evaluated. RESULTS: Seventeen percent (6/36) of patients achieved cCR after SCRT-CTX. Eleven percent (4) of patients experienced a local failure. OS for all patients was 83% (71%-96%) at 12 months and 57% (41%-80%) at 24 months. Progression free survival for all patients was 56% (41%-74%) at 12 months and 10% (3.1%-35%) at 24 months. On multivariate analysis, having received more than 4 months of chemotherapy (hazard ratio = 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.71; P = .01) and definitive treatment of metastatic site (hazard ratio = 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.66; P = .01) predicted for improved OS. The number of patients requiring hospitalization due to obstruction (8/36, 22%), rectal bleeding (5/36, 14%), or need for permanent ostomy placement (5/36, 14%) was low, and there was a decrease in endorsement of obstructive symptoms and rectal bleeding after completion of SCRT-CTX. CONCLUSIONS: SCRT-CTX with nonoperative intent for patients with a locoregional cCR may be a reasonable treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed oligometastatic rectal adenocarcinoma and demonstrates excellent control of pelvic disease and symptoms. Increased duration of chemotherapy within the treatment paradigm may improve oncologic outcomes.

Outcomes of Patients With Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated With External-Beam Radiotherapy Versus Brachytherapy Alone.

BACKGROUND: The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer currently recommend several definitive radiotherapy (RT) options for men with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) prostate cancer: external-beam RT (EBRT) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost with or without ADT. However, brachytherapy alone with or without ADT is not well defined and is currently not recommended for UIR prostate cancer. We hypothesized that men treated with brachytherapy with or without ADT have comparable survival rates to men treated with EBRT with or without ADT. METHODS: A total of 31,783 men diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 with UIR prostate cancer were retrospectively reviewed from the National Cancer Database. Men were stratified into 4 groups: EBRT (n=12,985), EBRT plus ADT (n=12,960), brachytherapy (n=4,535), or brachytherapy plus ADT (n=1,303). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for covariable imbalances, and weight-adjusted multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression modeling was used to compare overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Relative to EBRT alone, the following treatments were associated with improved OS: EBRT plus ADT (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97; P=.002), brachytherapy alone (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98; P=.01), and brachytherapy plus ADT (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P=.00006). Brachytherapy correlated with improved OS relative to EBRT in men who were not treated with ADT (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99; P=.03) and in those receiving ADT (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95; P=.004). At 10-year follow-up, 56% and 63% of men receiving EBRT and brachytherapy, respectively, were alive (P<.0001). IPTW was used to determine the average treatment effect of definitive brachytherapy. Relative to EBRT, definitive brachytherapy correlated with improved OS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; P=.009) on weight-adjusted MVA. CONCLUSIONS: Definitive brachytherapy was associated with improved OS compared with EBRT. The addition of ADT to both EBRT and definitive brachytherapy was associated with improved OS. These results suggest that definitive brachytherapy should be considered as an option for men with UIR prostate cancer.

Assessing the role of external beam radiation therapy in combination with brachytherapy versus brachytherapy alone for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Definitive treatment options for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PCa) include external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) ± brachytherapy boost ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The role of brachytherapy ± ADT in the absence of EBRT is not well defined. We hypothesized that EBRT+BT±ADT is associated with improved overall survival (OS) relative to BT±ADT for UIR-PCa. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Men with UIR-PCa diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Inverse propensity of treatment weighting was used to balance covariables that influenced treatment allocation and outcomes, and propensity-weighted multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression modeling was used to compare OS hazard ratios. RESULTS: A total of 11,721 men were stratified into four treatment groups: (1) BT without ADT (n = 4,535), (2) BT+ADT (n = 1,303), (3) EBRT+BT (n = 3,446), or (4) EBRT+BT+ADT (n = 2,437). Relative to patients treated with BT alone, BT+ADT (Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.86 [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.76-0.99], p = 0.03), EBRT+BT (HR: 0.79 [0.70-0.88], p = 0.00002), and EBRT+BT+ADT (HR: 0.76 [0.67-0.85], p = 0.000003) were associated with improved OS on MVA. Relative to BT alone, EBRT+BT correlated with improved OS on weight-adjusted MVA (HR: 0.82 [0.75-0.89], p = 0.000005). 10-year OS for BT vs. EBRT+BT was 62.4% [60.1-64.7] vs. 69.3% [67.5-71.2], respectively (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: EBRT+BT correlated with improved OS relative to BT alone in men with UIR-PCa, reaffirming current NCCN recommendations recommending EBRT+BT over BT alone. While prior studies reported no benefit to adding EBRT to BT with optimal implant dosimetry, this study suggests men benefit from EBRT in a population of variable implant quality.

Survival Outcomes in Men with Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk and High-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Prostate-Only versus Whole Pelvic Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Men with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR-PCa) or high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa) are often treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus androgen deprivation therapy. Treatment is frequently intensified by electively treating the pelvic lymph nodes (LNs) with whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT), but practice patterns and the benefits of WPRT are not well defined. We hypothesized that men treated with WPRT would have improved overall survival (OS) relative to men treated with prostate-only radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: National Cancer Database records of men diagnosed between 2008-2015 with UIR-PCa or HR-PCa and treated with prostate EBRT±androgen deprivation therapy (72-86.4 Gy) with (15,175) or without (13,549) WPRT were reviewed. Risk of LN involvement was calculated using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram. Measured confounders were balanced with inverse probability of treatment weighting and OS hazard ratios (HRs) were generated using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Of the men, 53% received WPRT. Every 1% increase in risk of LN involvement correlated with a 1% increase in risk of death (p <0.001). WPRT trended toward improved OS in all men with UIR-PCa and HR-PCa (HR: 0.95 [95% CI: 0.90-1.006], p=0.055). WPRT correlated with improved OS in men with Gleason 9 and 10 disease (HR: 0.87 [0.78-0.98], p=0.02) or risk of LN involvement ≥10% (HR: 0.93 [0.87-0.99], p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Men with higher LN risk scores and Gleason grade benefited from WPRT. These results complement the recent POP-RT randomized trial in mostly positron emission tomography/computerized tomography-staged patients, demonstrating that a more heterogeneous population of men staged without functional imaging benefits from WPRT.

Propensity-Weighted Survival Analysis of SBRT vs. Conventional Radiotherapy in Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), which delivers high-dose precision treatment in ≤5 fractions, is a shorter, more convenient, and less expensive alternative to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CRFT; ∼44 fractions) or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MFRT; 20-28 fractions). SBRT has not been widely adopted but may have radiobiologic advantages over CFRT/MFRT. We hypothesized that SBRT would be associated with improved overall survival (OS) versus CFRT or MFRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for unfavorable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PCa). METHODS: Men with UIR-PCa treated with SBRT (35-40Gy in ≤5 fractions) or biologically equivalent doses of CFRT (72-86.4Gy in 1.8-2.0Gy/fraction) or MRFT (≥60Gy in 2.4-3.2Gy/fraction; biologically effective doses ≥120) were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Unweighted and propensity-weighted multivariable Cox analysis (MVA) was used to compare OS hazard ratios. RESULTS: Of 28,028 men with UIR-PCa who received CFRT with (n = 12,872) or without ADT (n = 12,984); MFRT with (n = 251) or without ADT (n = 281); and SBRT with (n = 212) or without ADT (n = 1,428) were identified. Relative to CFRT without ADT, CFRT+ ADT (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.97, P = .002) and SBRT without ADT (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61-0.89, P = .002) were both associated with improved OS on MVA. Relative to CFRT+ADT, SBRT without ADT correlated with improved OS on MVA (HR:0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99, P = .04). Propensity-weighted MVA demonstrated that SBRT (HR:0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = .036) and ADT (HR:0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.97, P = .002) correlated with improved OS. SBRT was not associated with improved OS versus MFRT. CONCLUSION: SBRT, which offers a cheaper and shorter treatment course that mitigates COVID-19 exposure, was associated with improved OS versus CFRT for UIR-PCa. These results confirm guideline-based recommendations that SBRT is a viable option for UIR prostate cancer. The results from this large retrospective study require further validation in clinical trials.

Feasibility of Same-Day Prostate Fiducial Markers, Perirectal Hydrogel Spacer Placement, and Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Simulation for External Beam Radiation Therapy for Low-Risk and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The use of prostate fiducial markers and perirectal hydrogel spacers can reduce the acute and late toxic effects associated with prostate radiation therapy. These procedures are usually performed days to weeks before simulation during a separate clinic visit to ensure resolution of procedure-related inflammation. The purpose of this study was to assess whether same-day intraprostatic fiducial marker placement, perirectal hydrogel injection, and computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulation were feasible without adversely affecting hydrogel volume, perirectal spacing, or rectal dose. If feasible, performing these procedures on the same day as simulation would expedite the start of radiation therapy, improve patient convenience, and reduce costs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-one patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who were enrolled on a prospective clinical trial (NCT01617161) underwent same-day marker placement, hydrogel injection, and CT and MRI simulation, then underwent T2 MRI verification scans 3 to 4 weeks later. The MRI scans were fused to the CT planning scans by clinical target volumes (CTVs) to generate comparison treatment plans (70 Gy in 28 fractions). Hydrogel volume and symmetry, perirectal spacing, CTV dose, and organ-at-risk dose were evaluated. RESULTS: Verification scans occurred a mean of 24.9 ± 4.6 days after simulation and 9.3 ± 4.9 days after treatment start. Prostate volume did not change between scans (median, 67.3 ± 22.1 cm3 vs 64.1 ± 21.8 cm3; P = .64). The median hydrogel change between simulation and verification was -1.8% ± 4.5% (P = .27). No significant differences in perirectal spacing (midgland: 1.33 ± 0.45 cm vs 1.3 ± 0.7 cm; 1 cm superior: 1.25 ± 0.95 cm vs 1.43 ± 0.91 cm; 1 cm inferior: 1.16 ± 0.28 cm vs 1.41 ± 0.49 cm) were identified. No significant differences in rectal V66 (median 2.3 ± 2.18% vs 2.3 ± 2.28%; P = .99), V35 (median 14.79 ± 7.61 vs 14.67 ± 8.4; P = .73), or D1cc (65.7 ± 9.2 Gy vs 68.2 ± 9.0 Gy; P = .80) were found. All plans met CTV and organ-at-risk constraints. CONCLUSION: Same-day placement of intraprostatic fiducial markers, perirectal hydrogel, and simulation scans was feasible and did not significantly affect hydrogel volume, position, CTV coverage, or rectal dose.

Stereotactic Radiation for Lung Cancer: A Practical Approach to Challenging Scenarios.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for medically inoperable patients with early stage NSCLC. SBRT is a noninvasive treatment involving the delivery of ablative radiation doses with high precision in the course of a few treatments. Relative to conventionally fractionated radiation, SBRT achieves superior local control and survival. SBRT use has increased dramatically in the past 15 years and is currently considered the standard of care in cases of inoperable early stage NSCLC. It is being increasingly applied to more complex patient populations at higher risk of treatment-related toxicity. In these more complex patients, there is an increasing need to balance patient and treatment factors in selecting the optimal patients for SBRT. Here, we review several challenging clinical scenarios often encountered in thoracic multidisciplinary tumor boards.

Association Between Surgical Margins Larger Than 1 cm and Overall Survival in Patients With Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

Importance: Current recommendations regarding the size of local excision (LE) margins for Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) have not been well established. Objective: To assess whether larger clinical LE margins and receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy are associated with improvements in overall survival (OS) among patients with localized MCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This large multicenter retrospective cohort study used records from the National Cancer Database to identify adult patients with localized stage I or stage II MCC who underwent LE between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2015. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2020, to January 25, 2021. Exposures: Local excision margin size and adjuvant radiotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall and net survival were assessed using Cox multivariable regression analysis. Results: A total of 6156 patients with localized MCC (median age at diagnosis, 77 years [range, 27-90 years]; 2500 women [40.6%]). In the multivariable regression analysis, LE clinical margins larger than 1.0 cm were associated with improvements in OS (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.95; P < .001) compared with margins of 1.0 cm or smaller, regardless of tumor subsite. At 5 years after surgery, LE margins of 1.0 cm or smaller were associated with a net survival of 76.7%, while LE margins larger than 1.0 cm were associated with a net survival of 89.8% (P < .001). Stratification of LE margins into 3 subgroups indicated that LE margins of 1.1 to 2.0 cm (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; P = .047) and larger than 2.0 cm (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98; P = .03) were associated with improvements in OS compared with margins of 1.0 cm or smaller. In patients with less aggressive disease (ie, those who were immunocompetent and had tumors ≤1.0 cm, no lymphovascular invasion, and negative pathologic margins), LE margins larger than 1.0 cm were also associated with improvements in OS (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.97; P = .01). Among patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy, larger LE margins were associated with improvements in OS (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98; P = .03). Receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy was also associated with improvements in OS within the 3 LE margin subgroups. Patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy and had LE margins of 1.0 cm or smaller (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89; P < .001) experienced OS that was comparable to that in patients who did not receive adjuvant radiotherapy and had LE margins larger than 1.0 cm (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89; P = .87). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, LE clinical margins larger than 1.0 cm were associated with improvements in OS, and these improvements were independent of tumor subsite, receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy, positive pathologic margins, or adverse pathologic features for stage I to stage II MCC. Patients with LE margins of 1.0 cm or smaller who received adjuvant radiotherapy experienced OS that was similar to that of patients with larger LE margins who did not receive radiotherapy. The combination of LE clinical margins larger than 1.0 cm and adjuvant radiotherapy was associated with the highest OS.

The Novel Use of a Commercially Available Video-Conference Platform to Facilitate Multidisciplinary Target Volume Review and Delineation for Skull-Base Radiation Therapy During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

Multidisciplinary involvement in radiation therapy (RT) treatment planning is currently underused. A radiation oncologist sought input for generating target contours from a neuro-radiologist (NR) and otolaryngologist (OL) for 3 patients requiring skull-base RT during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. A Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant virtual meeting between the radiation oncologist, NR, and OL was arranged. Involvement of the OL and NR led to significant changes in the clinical target volume for all patients. Our experience highlights the feasibility of using commercially available video-conference platforms for multidisciplinary target volume delineation for complex RT cases. Further applications include interdisciplinary contour review for RT cases requiring special expertise and joint attending/resident physician contour review for resident education. The video-conference platform technology has demonstrated benefit during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and we believe it will remain an integral component of our field moving forward.

Reduced Wide Local Excision Margins are Associated with Increased Risk of Relapse and Death from Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Current recommendations regarding the size of wide local excision (WLE) margins for Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) are not well established. METHODS: WLE and pathologic margins were respectively reviewed from 79 patients with stage I or II MCC, who underwent WLE at Washington University in St Louis from 2005 to 2019. Outcomes included local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), regional recurrence-free survival (RRFS), distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and disease-specific survival (DSS). RESULTS: Thirty-two percent of patients received adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT). At 1 year, DFS was 51.3%, 71.4%, and 87.8% for patients with WLE margins < 1 cm, 1-1.9 cm, and ≥ 2 cm, respectively (p = 0.02). At 3 years, the DSS was 57.7%, 82.6%, and 100% for patients with WLE margins < 1 cm, 1-1.9 cm, and ≥ 2 cm, respectively (p = 0.02). Multivariable Cox analysis demonstrated that every 1-cm increase in WLE margins was associated with improved RRFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.11-0.75], DRFS (HR 0.30, CI 0.08-0.99), DFS (HR 0.42, CI 0.21-0.86), and DSS (HR 0.16, CI 0.04-0.61). WLE and pathologic margin size were moderately-to-strongly correlated (r = 0.66). Close or positive pathologic margins (< 3 mm) were associated with reduced DRFS (HR 6.83, CI 1.80-25.9), DFS (HR 2.98, CI 1.31-6.75), and DSS (HR 3.52, CI 1.14-10.9). CONCLUSION: Reduced WLE and pathologic margins were associated with higher risk of relapse and death from MCC. Larger WLE margins are important in populations with lower rates of adjuvant radiation.

Regional lymph node irradiation in locally advanced Merkel cell carcinoma reduces regional and distant relapse and improves disease-specific survival.

BACKGROUND: One-third of patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) present with locally advanced disease involving the regional lymph nodes, but indications for regional lymph node radiation therapy (rLN-RT) are not well established. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 72 patients with locally advanced MCC were retrospectively reviewed. Regional lymph nodes were addressed with observation, lymph node dissection (LND) alone, definitive nodal radiotherapy (DnRT), or LND plus adjuvant nodal radiotherapy (AnRT). Cox regression was used to compare treatment modalities in terms of regional recurrence-free survival (RRFS), distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). RESULTS: rLN-RT, including both DnRT and AnRT, improved RRFS (Hazard ratio (HR): 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.01-0.40, p = 0.003), DRFS (HR: 0.28, CI: 0.11-0.76, p = 0.01), DFS (HR: 0.23, CI: 0.09-0.58, p = 0.002), and DSS (HR: 0.23, CI: 0.06-0.90, p = 0.03). AnRT improved DFS and DSS in high-risk subgroups (e.g., extranodal extension (ENE), ≥ 2 positive lymph nodes, or bulkier lymph nodes). The benefit of AnRT increased with higher disease burden. After controlling for these adverse factors, AnRT significantly improved RRFS (HR: 0.04, CI: 0.01-0.37, p = 0.004), DRFS (HR: 0.14, CI: 0.04-0.50, p = 0.003), DFS (HR: 0.09, CI: 0.02-0.33, p < 0.001), and DSS (HR: 0.21, CI: 0.05-0.89, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: rLN-RT, including both DnRT and AnRT, reduces relapse and death from MCC in patients with node-positive disease. AnRT is particularly beneficial for patients with ENE, multiple involved lymph nodes, or larger nodal foci of disease. These results argue for more liberal use of nodal RT for MCC patients who present with node-positive disease.