Stereotactic Radiosurgery: Treatment of Brain Metastasis Without Interruption of Systemic Therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence, outcomes, and toxicities of concurrent delivery of systemic therapy with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for treatment of brain metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a retrospective review of 193 patients treated at our institution with SRS without prior whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) for brain metastases between 2009 and 2014. Outcome metrics included administration of concurrent systemic therapy, myelosuppression, neurotoxicity, and survival. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-three patients with a median age of 61 years underwent a total of 291 SRS treatments. Thirty-seven percent of SRS treatments were delivered concurrently with systemic therapy, of which 46% were with conventional myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and 54% with targeted and immune therapy agents. Myelosuppression was minimal after treatment with both systemic therapy and SRS, with 14% grade 3-4 toxicity for lymphopenia and 4-9% for leukopenia, neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Neurotoxicity was also minimal after combined therapy, with no grade 4 and <5% grade 3 toxicity, 34% dexamethasone requirement, and 4% radiation necrosis, all similar to treatments with SRS alone. Median overall survival was similar after SRS alone (14.4 months) versus SRS with systemic therapy (12.9 months). In patients with a new diagnosis of primary cancer with brain metastasis, early treatment with concurrent systemic therapy and SRS correlated with improved survival versus SRS alone (41.6 vs 21.5 months, P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic therapy can be safely given concurrently with SRS for brain metastases: our results suggest minimal myelosuppression and neurotoxicity. Concurrent therapy is an attractive option for patients who have both intracranial and extracranial metastatic disease and may be particularly beneficial in patients with a new diagnosis of primary cancer with brain metastasis.

Contribution of posture to anorectal manometric measurements: are the measurements in left-lateral position physiologic?

PURPOSE: Anorectal manometry is commonly used to investigate fecal incontinence. Traditional practice dictates that measurements are performed with the patient in the left-lateral position however, episodes of fecal incontinence usually occur in the erect position. The influence of erect posture on anorectal manometry has not been studied. METHODS: We examined the contribution of posture to commonly measured variables during manometry by performing assessment in the left-lateral position and the erect posture. Maximum mean resting pressure, vector volumes, and resting pressure gradient were compared. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 172 patients. Median age was 55 (interquartile range, 44-65) years. Thirty-seven (22 percent) patients were continent, and 135 (78 percent) were incontinent. Both resting pressure and vector volume increased significantly in the erect position for both continent (P = 0.008 and 0.001, respectively) and incontinent (P = 0.001 for both) patients. A significant negative correlation was seen between severity of incontinence and resting pressure in the erect posture and amount of change in maximum mean resting pressure from left-lateral to erect posture (Spearman coefficients = -0.203, -0.211, and P = 0.013, 0.017, respectively) but not with maximum mean resting pressure in the left-lateral position (Spearman coefficient = -0.119; P = 0.164). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows significant increase in measurements of manometric variables in the erect position. The increase may be related to anal cushions, which have a significant role in this position. The measurements in erect posture are better correlated with severity of incontinence and may be a more physiologic method of performing anorectal manometry.