Optimizing Palliative Focal Radiation Therapy Dose in Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma: How Low Can You Go?

PURPOSE: Primary cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCLs) are radiosensitive tumors with variable and often relapsing courses. Local disease can be treated with low-dose focal palliative radiation therapy (RT), though little data supports the use of a specific dose. This study assesses clinical outcomes after focal RT to a total dose of 4 Gy, 8 Gy, or 12 Gy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An International Review Board-approved, retrospective, single-institution study was performed of 225 lesions in 41 patients with primary CTCL treated with low-dose focal RT from 2015 to 2020. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were reviewed. The primary outcome was freedom from treatment failure (FFTF), defined as time to requiring local retreatment, and secondary outcomes included response rates and toxicities. RESULTS: Of the 225 lesions, 90 received 4 Gy, 106 received 8 Gy, and 29 received 12 Gy. Lesions treated with 12 Gy (96%) or 8 Gy (92%) had a significantly higher 1-year FFTF compared with 4 Gy (77%) (P = .034). Overall response rate and complete response rate were not significantly different between different doses (P = .117), though there was a trend toward higher overall response rate at initial assessment with 8 Gy versus 4 Gy (91.5% vs 82.2%, P = .057). Toxicity was low, with 7.1% of lesions having grade 2 or higher radiation dermatitis. CONCLUSIONS: In primary CTCL lesions treated with focal palliative RT, a dose response was noted favoring 8 to 12 Gy, with 1-year FFTF rates over 90%. However, 4 Gy resulted in substantially better outcomes than previously reported, with 77% requiring no further treatment at 1 year and comparable response rates to higher doses. While our data substantiates 8 to 12 Gy as the standard of care, it also suggests that 4 Gy should be considered an acceptable alternative in situations with concern for radiation toxicities, such as with fragile or heavily pretreated skin.

A case of cetuximab-induced radiation recall skin dermatitis and review of the literature.

Radiation recall presents as an acute inflammatory reaction triggered by systemic therapy, usually chemotherapy, and is typically limited to an area that was previously irradiated. Radiation recall reactions are generally self-limiting and most commonly occur in the skin. Many systemic agents have been described to elicit a radiation recall reaction, but the exact pathogenesis is largely unknown. Here, we describe the first reported case of radiation recall dermatitis following cetuximab. While cetuximab is associated with other skin reactions, oncologists should not exclude radiation recall dermatitis as a potential complication of cetuximab infusion in patients with prior radiation, and special attention should be paid to the pattern of skin changes both in terms of location and chronology.

Primary central nervous system lymphoma: a real-world comparison of therapy access and outcomes by hospital setting.

Background: This study analyzes sociodemographic barriers for primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) treatment and outcomes at a public safety-net hospital versus a private tertiary academic institution. We hypothesized that these barriers would lead to access disparities and poorer outcomes in the safety-net population. Methods: We reviewed records of PCNSL patients from 2007-2020 (n = 95) at a public safety-net hospital (n = 33) and a private academic center (n = 62) staffed by the same university. Demographics, treatment patterns, and outcomes were analyzed. Results: Patients at the safety-net hospital were significantly younger, more commonly Black or Hispanic, and had a higher prevalence of HIV/AIDS. They were significantly less likely to receive induction chemotherapy (67% vs 86%, P = .003) or consolidation autologous stem cell transplantation (0% vs. 47%, P = .001), but received more whole-brain radiation therapy (35% vs 16%, P = .001). Younger age and receiving any consolidation therapy were associated with improved progression-free (PFS, P = .001) and overall survival (OS, P = .001). Hospital location had no statistical impact on PFS (P = .725) or OS (P = .226) on an age-adjusted analysis. Conclusions: Our study shows significant differences in treatment patterns for PCNSL between a public safety-net hospital and an academic cancer center. A significant survival difference was not demonstrated, which is likely multifactorial, but likely was positively impacted by the shared multidisciplinary care delivery between the institutions. As personalized therapies for PCNSL are being developed, equitable access including clinical trials should be advocated for resource-limited settings.