Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for liver metastasis - clinical outcomes from the international multi-institutional RSSearch® Patient Registry.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment option for liver metastases in patients unsuitable for surgery. We investigated factors associated with clinical outcomes for liver metastases treated with SBRT from a multi-center, international patient registry. METHODS: Patients with liver metastases treated with SBRT were identified in the RSSearch® Patient Registry. Patient, tumor and treatment characteristics associated with treatment outcomes were assessed. Dose fractionations were normalized to BED10. Overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) were evaluated using Kaplan Meier analysis and log-rank test. RESULTS: The study included 427 patients with 568 liver metastases from 25 academic and community-based centers. Median age was 67 years (31-91 years). Colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRC) was the most common primary cancer. 73% of patients received prior chemotherapy. Median tumor volume was 40 cm3 (1.6-877 cm3), median SBRT dose was 45 Gy (12-60 Gy) delivered in a median of 3 fractions [1-5]. At a median follow-up of 14 months (1-91 months) the median overall survival (OS) was 22 months. Median OS was greater for patients with CRC (27 mo), breast (21 mo) and gynecological (25 mo) metastases compared to lung (10 mo), other gastro-intestinal (GI) (18 mo) and pancreatic (6 mo) primaries (p < 0.0001). Smaller tumor volumes (< 40 cm3) correlated with improved OS (25 months vs 15 months p = 0.0014). BED10 ≥ 100 Gy was also associated with improved OS (27 months vs 15 months p < 0.0001). Local control (LC) was evaluable in 430 liver metastases from 324 patients. Two-year LC rates was better for BED10 ≥ 100 Gy (77.2% vs 59.6%) and the median LC was better for tumors < 40 cm3 (52 vs 39 months). There was no difference in LC based on histology of the primary tumor. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, multi-institutional series of patients with liver metastasis treated with SBRT, reasonable LC and OS was observed. OS and LC depended on dose and tumor volume, while OS varied by primary tumor. Future prospective trials on the role of SBRT for liver metastasis from different primaries in the setting of multidisciplinary management including systemic therapy, is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01885299 .

Lung metastases treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy: the RSSearch® patient Registry's experience.

OBJECTIVES: To report overall survival and local control for patients identified in the RSSearch® Patient Registry with metastatic cancer to the lung treated with SBRT. METHODS: Seven hundred two patients were identified with lung metastases in the RSSearch® Registry. Of these patients, 577 patients had SBRT dose and fractionation information available. Patients were excluded if they received prior surgery, radiation, or radiofrequency ablation to the SBRT treated area. Between April 2004-July 2015, 447 patients treated with SBRT at 30 academic and community-based centers were evaluable for overall survival (OS). Three hundred four patients with 327 lesions were evaluable for local control (LC). All doses were converted to Monte Carlo equivalents and subsequent BED Gy10 for dose response analysis. RESULTS: Median age was 69 years (range, 18-93 years). Median Karnofsky performance status (KPS) was 90 (range 25/75% 80-100). 49.2% of patients had prior systemic therapy. Median metastasis volume was 10.58 cc (range 25/75% 3.7-25.54 cc). Site of primary tumor included colorectal (25.7%), lung (16.6%), head and neck (11.4%), breast (9.2%), kidney (8.1%), skin (6.5%) and other (22.1%). Median dose was 50 Gy (range 25/75% 48-54) delivered in 3 fractions (range 25/75% 3-5) with a median BED of 100Gy10 (range 25/75% 81-136). Median OS for the entire group was 26 months, with actuarial 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS of 74.1%, 33.3, and 21.8%, respectively. Patients with head and neck and breast cancers had longer median OS of 37 and 32 months respectively, compared to colorectal (30 months) and lung (26 months) which corresponded to 3-year actuarial OS of 51.8 and 47.9% for head and neck and breast respectively, compared to 35.8% for colorectal and 31.2% for lung. The median LC for all patients was 53 months, with actuarial 1-, 3-, and 5-year LC rates of 80.4, 58.9, and 46.3%, respectively. There was no difference in LC by primary histologic type (p = 0.49). Improved LC was observed for lung metastases that received SBRT doses of BED ≥100Gy10 with 3-year LC rate of 77.1% compared to 45% for lung metastases treated with BED < 100Gy10 (p = 0.01). Smaller tumor volumes (<11 cc) had improved LC compared to tumor volumes > 11 cc. (p = 0.005) Two-year LC rates for tumor volumes < 11 cc, 11-27 cc and > 27 cc were 72.9, 64.2 and 45.6%, respectively. This correlated with improved OS with 2-year OS rates of 62.4, 60.9 and 46.2% for tumor volumes < 11 cc, 11-27 cc and > 27 cc, respectively (p = 0.0023). In a subset of patients who received BED ≥100Gy10, 2-year LC rates for tumor volumes < 11 cc, 11-27 cc and > 27 cc were 82.8, 58.9 and 68.6%, respectively (p = 0.0244), and 2-year OS rates were 66.0, 58.8 and 28.5%, respectively (p = 0.0081). CONCLUSION: Excellent OS and LC is achievable with SBRT utilizing BED ≥100Gy10 for lung metastases according to the RSSearch® Registry data. Patients with small lung metastases (volumes < 11 cc) had better LC and OS when using SBRT doses of BED ≥100Gy10. Further studies to evaluate a difference, if any, between various tumor types will require a larger number of patients.

Skin surface brachytherapy: A survey of contemporary practice patterns.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to define current patterns of care among radiation oncologists who use skin surface brachytherapy for the treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) in academic and community settings. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 30-question electronic survey was administered to clinician members of the American Brachytherapy Society. The respondents were asked to provide details regarding their clinical practice and their approach to skin surface brachytherapy. RESULTS: A total of 16 surveys were returned. Among the respondents, aggregate experience varied from 8 to 1800 cases. Most preferred brachytherapy over external beam radiation because of shorter treatment course, conformality of treatment for irregular or curved targets, and shallow dose deposition. Of the total, 60% of respondents routinely estimated lesion depth via ultrasound before initiating treatment. Treatment margin on gross disease varied widely (range, 3-15 mm; median, 5 mm). Hypofractionation was the preferred dose schedule. Prescribed doses ranged from 30 Gy in five fractions to 64 Gy in 32 fractions (EQD2, 40 Gy-65 Gy). There was a tendency to increase the number of fractions for larger targets, although some used the same fractionation regardless of anatomic location or lesion size. There was no consensus on dosimetric constraints, and some respondents reported cases of severe toxicity, particularly when treating the pretibial skin. CONCLUSIONS: This pattern of care study suggests that skin brachytherapy can be a convenient and safe tool for treatment of BCC and cSCC. Prospective trials and the development of expert consensus guidelines would be beneficial for optimizing skin surface brachytherapy and reducing practice variation.

Improving patient safety in the radiation oncology setting through crew resource management.

PURPOSE: This paper demonstrates how the communication patterns and protocol rigors of a methodology called crew resource management (CRM) can be adapted to a radiation oncology environment to create a culture of patient safety. CRM training was introduced to our comprehensive radiation oncology department in the autumn of 2009. With 34 full-time equivalent staff, we see 100-125 patients daily on 2 hospital campuses. We were assisted by a consulting group with considerable experience in helping hospitals incorporate CRM principles and practices. Implementation steps included developing change initiative skills for key leaders, providing training in teamwork and communications, creating site-specific tools for safety and efficiency, and collecting data to document results. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Our goals were to improve patient safety, teamwork, communication, and efficiency through the use of tools we developed that emphasized teamwork and communication, cross-checking, and routinizing specific protocols. Our CRM plan relies on the following 4 pillars: patient identification methods; "pause for the cause"; enabling all staff to halt treatment and question decisions; and daily morning meetings. We discuss some of the hurdles to change we encountered. RESULTS: Our safety record has improved. Our near-miss rate before CRM implementation averaged 11 per month; our near-miss rate currently averages 1.2 per month. In the 5 years prior to CRM implementation, we experienced 1 treatment deviation per year, although none rose to the level of "mis-administration." Since implementing CRM, our current patient treatment setup and delivery process has eliminated all treatment deviations. Our practices have identified situations where ambiguity or conflicting documentation could have resulted in inappropriate treatment or treatment inefficiencies. Our staff members have developed an extraordinary sense of teamwork combined with a high degree of personal responsibility to assure patient safety and have spoken up when they considered something potentially unsafe. We have increased our efficiency (and profitability); in 2012, our units of service were up 11.3% over 2009 levels with the same staffing level. CONCLUSIONS: The rigor and standardization introduced into our practice, combined with the increase in communication and teamwork have improved both safety and efficiency while improving both staff and patient satisfaction. CRM principles are highly adaptable and applicable to the radiation oncology setting.