First-in-human study of SBRT and adenosine pathway blockade to potentiate the benefit of immunochemotherapy in early-stage luminal B breast cancer: results of the safety run-in phase of the Neo-CheckRay trial.

BACKGROUND: Luminal B breast cancer (BC) presents a worse prognosis when compared with luminal A BC and exhibits a lower sensitivity to chemotherapy and a lower immunogenicity in contrast to non-luminal BC subtypes. The Neo-CheckRay clinical trial investigates the use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) directed to the primary tumor in combination with the adenosine pathway inhibitor oleclumab to improve the response to neo-adjuvant immuno-chemotherapy in luminal B BC. The trial consists of a safety run-in followed by a randomized phase II trial. Here, we present the results of the first-in-human safety run-in. METHODS: The safety run-in was an open-label, single-arm trial in which six patients with early-stage luminal B BC received the following neo-adjuvant regimen: paclitaxel q1w×12 → doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide q2w×4; durvalumab (anti-programmed cell death receptor ligand 1 (PD-L1)) q4w×5; oleclumab (anti-CD73) q2w×4 → q4w×3 and 3×8 Gy SBRT to the primary tumor at week 5. Surgery must be performed 2-6 weeks after primary systemic treatment and adjuvant therapy was given per local guidelines, RT boost to the tumor bed was not allowed. Key inclusion criteria were: luminal BC, Ki67≥15% or histological grade 3, MammaPrint high risk, tumor size≥1.5 cm. Primary tumor tissue samples were collected at three timepoints: baseline, 1 week after SBRT and at surgery. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, PD-L1 and CD73 were evaluated at each timepoint, and residual cancer burden (RCB) was calculated at surgery. RESULTS: Six patients were included between November 2019 and March 2020. Median age was 53 years, range 37-69. All patients received SBRT and underwent surgery 2-4 weeks after the last treatment. After a median follow-up time of 2 years after surgery, one grade 3 adverse event (AE) was reported: pericarditis with rapid resolution under corticosteroids. No grade 4-5 AE were documented. Overall cosmetical breast evaluation after surgery was 'excellent' in four patients and 'good' in two patients. RCB results were 2/6 RCB 0; 2/6 RCB 1; 1/6 RCB 2 and 1/6 RCB 3. CONCLUSIONS: This novel treatment combination was considered safe and is worth further investigation in a randomized phase II trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03875573.

Intraoperative electron radiotherapy in early invasive ductal breast cancer: 6-year median follow-up results of a prospective monocentric registry.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative electron radiotherapy (IOERT) can be used to treat early breast cancer during the conservative surgery thus enabling shorter overall treatment times and reduced irradiation of organs at risk. We report on our first 996 patients enrolled prospectively in a registry trial. METHODS: At Jules Bordet Institute, from February 2010 onwards, patients underwent partial IOERT of the breast. Women with unifocal invasive ductal carcinoma, aged 40 years or older, with a clinical tumour size ≤ 20 mm and tumour-free sentinel lymph node (on frozen section and immunohistochemical analysis). A 21 Gy dose was prescribed on the 90% isodose line in the tumour bed with the energy of 6 to 12 MeV (Mobetron®-IntraOp Medical). RESULTS: Thirty-seven ipsilateral tumour relapses occurred. Sixteen of those were in the same breast quadrant. Sixty patients died, and among those, 12 deaths were due to breast cancer. With 71.9 months of median follow-up, the 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimate of local recurrence was 2.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of breast cancer local recurrence after IOERT is low and comparable to published results for IORT and APBI. IOERT is highly operator-dependent, and appropriate applicator sizing according to tumour size is critical. When used in a selected patient population, IOERT achieves a good balance between tumour control and late radiotherapy-mediated toxicity morbidity and mortality thanks to insignificant irradiation of organs at risk.

Inter-fraction heart displacement during voluntary deep inspiration breath hold radiation therapy without visual feedback measured by daily CBCT.

Purpose/Objective: Deep Inspiration Breath Hold (DIBH) is now considered as the standard of care for many breast cancer patients. However, there are still uncertainties about the dose given to the heart, and it is unknown if patients may improve voluntary DIBH depth by gaining experience during treatment. In this study, we will examine the interfractional three-dimensional (3D) heart displacement throughout voluntary DIBH (vDIBH) radiotherapy by means of daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Material and methods: Two hundred twenty-five unique CBCTs from 15 patients treated in 15 fractions were analyzed. During CBCT, a vDIBH was conducted without any visual feedback. Patients performed their DIBH freely after receiving explanations and training. After daily CBCT matching to the chest wall (CW), surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) tracked DIBH depth to ensure that the CW position was the same as the daily acquired CBCT. The CBCTs were retrospectively registered to the DIBH planning-CT to calculate daily changes in heart displacement relative to the CW. Results: The mean displacement of the heart during DIBH treatment relative to the DIBH planning-CT was as follows: 1.1 mm to the right, interquartile range (IQR) 8.0; 0.5 mm superiorly, IQR 4.8; and 0 mm posteriorly, IQR 6.4. The Spearman correlation coefficients (rs) were -0.15 (p=0.025), 0.04 (p=0.549), and 0.03 (p=0.612) for the X, Y, and Z directions, respectively. The differences in median heart displacement were significant: Friedmann rank sum test p=0.031 and pairwise comparison using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test were p=0.008 for X and Y; p=0.33 for X and Z; and p=0.07 for Y and Z. The total median heart motion was δtot median= 7.26 mm, IQR= 6.86 mm. Conclusion: During DIBH, clinicians must be aware of the wide range of intra- and inter-individual heart position variations. The inter-individual heterogeneity shown in our study should be investigated further in order to avoid unexpected cardiac overexposure and to develop a more accurate heart dose-volume model.

The State of the Art of Radiotherapy for Non-melanoma Skin Cancer: A Review of the Literature.

Due to the general aging population and the fashion trend of sun exposure, non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is rising. The management of NMSC is difficult and necessitates a multidisciplinary team (i.e., pathologists, dermatologists, medical oncologists, surgeons, and radiation oncologists). When surgery is not an option or will cause unacceptably functional morbidity, radiation therapy (RT) may be a preferable tissue-preserving option. Whether used alone or in conjunction with other treatments, RT has been shown to be quite effective in terms of cosmetic results and local control. Contact hypofractionated RT, brachytherapy, and electronic brachytherapy are all promising new treatments. However, rigorous, randomized trials are missing, explaining the disparity in dose, fractionation, and technique recommendations. Therefore, it is essential that interdisciplinary teams better understand RT modalities, benefits, and drawbacks. Our review will provide the role and indications for RT in patients with NMSC.

Unintended dose to the lower axilla in adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer: Differences between tangential beam and VMAT.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate dosimetric differences in unintended dose to the lower axilla between 3D-standard (3DCRT), tangential beam forward intensity modulated radiotherapy (F-IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The objective is to evaluate whether results of clinical trials, such as the ACOSOG-Z011 trial, that evaluated omission of axillary clearance can be extrapolated towards more conformal techniques like VMAT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive patients treated with whole breast radiotherapy alone (WBRT) using a F-IMRT technique were identified. Three additional plans were created for every patient: one plan using a single 270° arc (VMAT 1x270°), another using two small ≤90° opposing arcs (VMAT 2x < 90°) and thirdly a 3DCRT plan without F-IMRT. Axillary levels I-II were contoured after the treatment plans were made. RESULTS: The volume of the axilla level I that was covered by the 50% isodose (V50%) was significantly higher for VMAT 2x < 90° (71.3 cm3, 84% of structure volume, p < 0.001) and VMAT 1x270° (68.8 cm3, 81%, p < 0.01) compared to 3DCRT (60.3 cm3, 71%) and F-IMRT (60.8 cm3, 72%). The V50% to the axilla level II, however, was low for all techniques: 12.3 cm3 (12%); 8.9 cm3 (9%); 4.3 cm3 (4%); 4.4 cm3 (4%) for VMAT 2x < 90°, VMAT 1x270°, 3DCRT, F-IMRT, respectively. For the higher doses (V90% and above), no clinically relevant differences were seen between the different modalities. CONCLUSION: WBRT treatments with VMAT do not lead to a significant reduction of the unintended axillary dose in comparison with a tangential beam setup. Hence, concerning tumor control, VMAT can be applied to clinical situations similar to the Z0011 trial. The intermediate axillary dose is higher with VMAT, but the clinical consequence of this difference on toxicity is unknown.