A study of skin marker alignment using different diamond-shaped light fields for prone breast external-beam radiation therapy.

For breast cancer patients treated in the prone position with tangential fields, a diamond-shaped light field (DSLF) can be used to align with corresponding skin markers for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). This study evaluates and compares the benefits of different DSLF setups. Seventy-one patients who underwent daily tangential kilovoltage (kV) IGRT were categorized retrospectively into four groups: (1) DSLF field size (FS) = 10 × 10 cm2 , gantry angle = 90° (right breast)/270° (left breast), with the same isocenter as treatment tangential beams; (2) same as group 1, except DSLF FS = 4 × 4 cm2 ; (3) DSLF FS = 4 × 4-6 × 8 cm2 , gantry angle = tangential treatment beam, off-isocenter so that the DSLF was at the approximate breast center; and (4) No-DSLF. We compared their total setup time (including any DSLF/marker-based alignment and IGRT) and relative kV-based couch shift corrections. For groups 1-3, DSLF-only dose distributions (excluding kV-based correction) were simulated by reversely shifting the couch positions from the computed tomography plans, which were assumed equivalent to the delivered dose when both DSLF and IGRT were used. For patient groups 1-4, the average daily setup time was 2.6, 2.5, 5.0, and 8.3 min, respectively. Their mean and standard deviations of daily kV-based couch shifts were 0.64 ± 0.4, 0.68 ± 0.3, 0.8 ± 0.6, and 1.0 ± 0.6 cm. The average target dose changes after excluding kV-IGRT for groups 1-3 were-0.2%, -0.1%, and +0.4%, respectively, whereas DSLF-1 was most efficient in sparing heart and chest wall, DSLF-2 had lowest lung Dmax ; and DSLF-3 maintained the highest target coverage at the cost of highest OAR dose. In general, the use of DSLF greatly reduces patient setup time and may result in smaller IGRT corrections. If IGRT is limited, different DSLF setups yield different target coverage and OAR dose sparing. Our findings will help DSLF setup optimization in the prone breast treatment setting.

Phase I/II Dose-Escalation Trial of 3-Fraction Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Resection Cavities From Large Brain Metastases: Health-related Quality of Life Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated differences in quality of life (QoL) in patients enrolled on a phase I/II dose-escalation study of 3-fraction resection cavity stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for large brain metastases. METHODS: Eligible patients had 1 to 4 brain metastases, one of which was a resection cavity 4.2 to 33.5 cm3. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life questionnaires core-30 (QLQ-30) and brain cancer specific module (QLQ-BN20) were obtained before SRS and at each follow-up. Nine scales were analyzed (global health status; physical, social, and emotional functioning; motor dysfunction, communication deficit, fatigue, insomnia, and future uncertainty). QoL was assessed with mixed effects models. Differences ≥10 points with q-value (adjusted P-value to account for multiplicity of testing) <0.10 were considered significant. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2014, 50 enrolled patients completed 277 QoL questionnaires. Median questionnaire follow-up was 11.8 months. After SRS, insomnia demonstrated significant improvement (q=0.032, -17.7 points at 15 mo post-SRS), and future uncertainty demonstrated significant worsening (q=0.018, +9.9 points at 15 mo post-SRS). Following intracranial progression and salvage SRS, there were no significant QoL changes. The impact of salvage whole brain radiotherapy could not be assessed because of limited data (n=4 patients). In the 28% of patients that had adverse radiation effect, QoL had significant worsening in 3 metrics (physical functioning, q=0.024, emotional functioning q=0.001, and future uncertainty, q=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: For patients treated with 3-fraction SRS for large brain metastasis cavities, 8 of 9 QoL metrics were unchanged or improved after initial SRS. Intracranial tumor progression and salvage SRS did not impact QoL. Adverse radiation effect may be associated with at least short-term QoL impairments, but requires further investigation.

A phase II randomized trial of RAdium-223 dichloride and SABR Versus SABR for oligomEtastatic prostate caNcerS (RAVENS).

BACKGROUND: Metastasis directed therapy (MDT) for patients with oligometastatic disease is associated with improvements in progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to systemic therapy alone. Additionally, within a prostate-cancer-specific cohort, MDT is able to forestall initiation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with hormone-sensitive, oligometastatic prostate cancer (HSOPCa) compared to observation. While MDT appears to be safe and effective in HSOPCa, a large percentage of men will eventually have disease recurrence. Patterns of failure in HSOPCa demonstrate patients tend to have recurrence in the bone following MDT, raising the question of sub-clinically-apparent osseous disease. Radium-223 dichloride is a radiopharmaceutical with structural similarity to calcium, allowing it to be taken up by bone where it emits alpha particles, and therefore might have utility in the treatment of micrometastatic osseous disease. Therefore, the primary goal of the phase II RAVENS trial is to evaluate the efficacy of MDT + radium-223 dichloride in prolonging progression free survival in men with HSOPCa. METHODS: Patients with HSOPCa and 3 or less metastases with at least 1 bone metastasis will be randomized 1:1 to stereotactic ablative radiation (SABR, also known as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)) alone vs SABR + radium-223 dichloride with a minimization algorithm to balance assignment by institution, primary intervention, prior hormonal therapy, and PSA doubling time. SABR is delivered in one to five fractions and patients in the SABR + radium-223 dichloride arm will receive six infusions of radium-223 dichloride at four-week intervals. The primary end point is progression free survival. The secondary clinical endpoints include toxicity and quality of life assessments, local control at 12 months, locoregional progression, time to distant progression, time to new metastasis, and duration of response. DISCUSSION: The RAVENS trial will be the first described phase II, non-blinded, randomized study to compare SABR +/- radium-223 dichloride in patients with HSOPCa and 3 or less metastases with at least one bone metastasis. The primary hypothesis is that SABR + radium-223 dichloride will increase median progression-free survival from 10 months in the SABR arm to 20 months in the SABR + radium-223 dichloride arm. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: Clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04037358. Date of Registration: July 30, 2019. Date of First Participant Enrolled: August 9, 2019. Date of Last Approved Amendment: October 16, 2019. Protocol Version: Version 5.

Outcomes and Characteristics of Patients Treated with Emergent Palliative Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Emergent palliative radiation therapy (PRT) of symptomatic metastases can significantly increase the quality of life of patients with cancer. In some contexts, this treatment may be underused, but in others PRT may represent an excessively aggressive intervention. The characterization of the current use of emergent PRT is warranted for optimized value and patient-centered care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study is a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of all emergent PRT courses at a single academic tertiary institution across 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 214 patients received a total of 238 treatment courses. The most common indications were bone (39%) and brain (14%) metastases. Compared with outpatients, inpatients had lower mean survival rates (2 months vs 6 months; P < .001), higher rates of stopping treatment early (19.1% vs 9.0%; P = .034), and greater involvement of palliative care (44.8% vs 24.1%; P < .001), but the same mean planned fractions (9.10 vs 9.40 fractions; P = .669). In a multiple predictor survival analysis, palliative care involvement (P = .025), male sex (P = .001), ending treatment early (P = .011), and having 1 of 3 serious indications (airway compromise, leptomeningeal disease, and superior/inferior vena cava involvement; P = .007) were significantly associated with worse overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Survival is particularly poor in patients who receive emergent PRT, and patient characteristics such as functional status and indication should be considered when determining fractionation schedule and dosing. A multi-institutional study of practice patterns and outcomes is warranted.

Automated Survival Prediction in Metastatic Cancer Patients Using High-Dimensional Electronic Medical Record Data.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists use patients' life expectancy to guide decisions and may benefit from a tool that accurately predicts prognosis. Existing prognostic models generally use only a few predictor variables. We used an electronic medical record dataset to train a prognostic model for patients with metastatic cancer. METHODS: The model was trained and tested using 12 588 patients treated for metastatic cancer in the Stanford Health Care system from 2008 to 2017. Data sources included provider note text, labs, vital signs, procedures, medication orders, and diagnosis codes. Patients were divided randomly into a training set used to fit the model coefficients and a test set used to evaluate model performance (80%/20% split). A regularized Cox model with 4126 predictor variables was used. A landmarking approach was used due to the multiple observations per patient, with t0 set to the time of metastatic cancer diagnosis. Performance was also evaluated using 399 palliative radiation courses in test set patients. RESULTS: The C-index for overall survival was 0.786 in the test set (averaged across landmark times). For palliative radiation courses, the C-index was 0.745 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.715 to 0.775) compared with 0.635 (95% CI = 0.601 to 0.669) for a published model using performance status, primary tumor site, and treated site (two-sided P < .001). Our model's predictions were well-calibrated. CONCLUSIONS: The model showed high predictive performance, which will need to be validated using external data. Because it is fully automated, the model can be used to examine providers' practice patterns and could be deployed in a decision support tool to help improve quality of care.

Pre-treatment non-target lung FDG-PET uptake predicts symptomatic radiation pneumonitis following Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR).

PURPOSE: To determine if pre-treatment non-target lung FDG-PET uptake predicts for symptomatic radiation pneumonitis (RP) following lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). METHODS: We reviewed a 258 patient database from our institution to identify 28 patients who experienced symptomatic (grade â©¾ 2) RP after SABR, and compared them to 57 controls who did not develop symptomatic RP. We compared clinical, dosimetric and functional imaging characteristics between the 2 cohorts including pre-treatment non-target lung FDG-PET uptake. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 26.9 months. Patients who experienced symptomatic RP had significantly higher non-target lung FDG-PET uptake as measured by mean SUV (p < 0.0001) than controls. ROC analysis for symptomatic RP revealed area under the curve (AUC) of 0.74, with sensitivity 82.1% and specificity 57.9% with cutoff mean non-target lung SUV > 0.56. Predictive value increased (AUC of 0.82) when mean non-target lung SUV was combined with mean lung dose (MLD). We developed a 0-2 point model using these 2 variables, 1 point each for SUV > 0.56 or MLD > 5.88 Gy equivalent dose in 2 Gy per fraction (EQD2), predictive for symptomatic RP in our cohort with hazard ratio 10.01 for score 2 versus 0 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with elevated pre-SABR non-target lung FDG-PET uptake are at increased risk of symptomatic RP after lung SABR. Our predictive model suggests patients with mean non-target lung SUV > 0.56 and MLD > 5.88 Gy EQD2 are at highest risk. Our predictive model should be validated in an external cohort before clinical implementation.

Tracheal Diverticulum Following Paratracheal Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in the Setting of Prior and Subsequent Bevacizumab.

We present the case of a 63-year-old woman with limited metastatic colorectal cancer to the lungs and liver treated with FOLFIRI-bevacizumab, followed by consolidative hypofractionated radiotherapy to right paratracheal metastatic lymphadenopathy. We treated the right paratracheal site with 60 Gy in 15 fractions (70 Gy equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions). The patient tolerated the treatment well, and six months later started a five-month course of FOLFIRI-bevacizumab for new metastatic disease. She presented to our clinic six months after completing this, complaining of productive cough with scant hemoptysis, and was found to have localized tracheal wall breakdown and diverticulum in the region of prior high-dose radiation therapy, threatening to progress to catastrophic tracheovascular fistula. This was successfully repaired surgically after a lack of response to conservative measures. We urge caution in treating patients with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors in the setting of hypofractionated radiotherapy involving the mucosa of tubular organs, even when these treatments are separated by months. Though data is limited as to the impact of sequence, this may be particularly an issue when VEGF inhibitors follow prior radiotherapy.

Predictive Factors for Prophylactic Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) Tube Placement and Use in Head and Neck Patients Following Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Treatment: Concordance, Discrepancies, and the Role of Gabapentin.

The prophylactic placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube in the head and neck cancer (HNC) patient is controversial. We sought to identify factors associated with prophylactic PEG placement and actual PEG use. Since 2010, data regarding PEG placement and use were prospectively recorded in a departmental database from January 2010 to December 2012. HNC patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) were retrospectively evaluated from 2010 to 2012. Variables potentially associated with patient post-radiation dysphagia from previous literature, and our experience was evaluated. We performed multivariate logistic regression on these variables with PEG placement and PEG use, respectively, to compare the difference of association between the two arms. We identified 192 HNC patients treated with IMRT. Prophylactic PEG placement occurred in 121 (63.0 %) patients, with PEG use in 97 (80.2 %) patients. PEG placement was associated with male gender (p < .01), N stage ≥ N2 (p < .05), pretreatment swallowing difficulties (p < .01), concurrent chemotherapy (p < .01), pretreatment KPS ≥80 (p = .01), and previous surgery (p = .02). Concurrent chemotherapy (p = .03) was positively associated with the use of PEG feeding by the patient, whereas pretreatment KPS ≥80 (p = .03) and prophylactic gabapentin use (p < .01) were negatively associated with PEG use. The analysis suggests there were discrepancies between prophylactic PEG tube placement and actual use. Favorable pretreatment KPS, no pretreatment dysphagia, no concurrent chemotherapy, and the use of gabapentin were significantly associated with reduced PEG use. This analysis may help refine the indications for prophylactic PEG placement.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pertuzumab in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: The Clinical Evaluation of Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab (CLEOPATRA) study showed a 15.7-month survival benefit with the addition of pertuzumab to docetaxel and trastuzumab (THP) as first-line treatment for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the value of adding pertuzumab. PATIENT AND METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic Markov model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of docetaxel plus trastuzumab (TH) with or without pertuzumab in US patients with metastatic breast cancer. The model followed patients weekly over their remaining lifetimes. Health states included stable disease, progressing disease, hospice, and death. Transition probabilities were based on the CLEOPATRA study. Costs reflected the 2014 Medicare rates. Health state utilities were the same as those used in other recent cost-effectiveness studies of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. Outcomes included health benefits expressed as discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs in US dollars, and cost effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. One- and multiway deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the effects of specific assumptions. RESULTS: Modeled median survival was 39.4 months for TH and 56.9 months for THP. The addition of pertuzumab resulted in an additional 1.81 life-years gained, or 0.62 QALYs, at a cost of $472,668 per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that THP is unlikely to be cost effective even under the most favorable assumptions, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted 0% chance of cost effectiveness at a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: THP in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer is unlikely to be cost effective in the United States.