Clinical outcomes of melanoma brain metastases treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone versus nivolumab and ipilimumab with stereotactic radiosurgery.

PURPOSE: Upfront dual checkpoint blockade with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has demonstrated efficacy for treating melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in asymptomatic patients. Whether the combination of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with dual checkpoint blockade improves outcomes over dual-checkpoint blockade alone is unknown. We evaluated clinical outcomes of patients with MBM receiving ICI with nivolumab and ipilimumab, with and without SRS. METHODS: 49 patients with 158 MBM receiving nivolumab and ipilimumab for untreated MBM between 2015 and 2022 were identified at our institution. Patient and tumor characteristics including age, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), presence of symptoms, cancer history, MBM burden, and therapy course were recorded. Outcomes measured from initiation of MBM-directed therapy included overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant intracranial control (DIC). Time-to-event analysis was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: 25 patients with 74 MBM received ICI alone, and 24 patients with 84 MBM received concurrent SRS. Median follow-up was 24 months. No differences in age (p = 0.96), KPS (p = 0.85), presence of symptoms (p = 0.79), prior MBM (p = 0.68), prior MBM-directed surgery (p = 0.96) or SRS (p = 0.68), MBM size (p = 0.67), or MBM number (p = 0.94) were seen. There was a higher rate of nivolumab and ipilimumab course completion in the SRS group (54% vs. 24%; p = 0.029). The SRS group received prior immunotherapy more often than the ICI alone group (54% vs. 8.0%; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 1-year OS (72% vs. 71%, p = 0.20) and DIC (63% v 51%, p = 0.26) between groups. The SRS group had higher 1-year LC (92% vs. 64%; p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, LC was improved with combination therapy (AHR 0.38, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In our analysis, patients who received SRS with nivolumab and ipilimumab had superior LC without increased risk of toxicity or compromised immunotherapy treatment completion despite the SRS cohort having higher rates of prior immunotherapy. Further prospective study of combination nivolumab and ipilimumab with SRS is warranted.

Leptomeningeal disease in melanoma: An update on the developments in pathophysiology and clinical care.

Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) remains a major challenge in the clinical management of metastatic melanoma patients. Outcomes for patient remain poor, and patients with LMD continue to be excluded from almost all clinical trials. However, recent trials have demonstrated the feasibility of conducting prospective clinical trials in these patients. Further, new insights into the pathophysiology of LMD are identifying rational new therapeutic strategies. Here we present recent advances in the understanding of, and treatment options for, LMD from metastatic melanoma. We also annotate key areas of future focus to accelerate progress for this challenging but emerging field.

Stereotactic radiosurgery and anti-PD-1 + CTLA-4 therapy, anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK inhibitors, BRAF inhibitors, or conventional chemotherapy for the management of melanoma brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy and targeted BRAF/MEK inhibitors (i) have revolutionised the systemic management of advanced melanoma. Given the role of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the local management of brain metastases, we sought to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) treated with SRS and various systemic therapies. METHODS: Patients were included if MBM were diagnosed and treated with SRS within 3 months of receiving anti-PD-1+CTLA-4 therapy, anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK-i, BRAF-i, or conventional chemotherapy. Comparisons between groups were made for overall survival (OS), distant MBM control, local MBM, systemic progression-free survival (sPFS), and neurotoxicity. RESULTS: In total, 257 patients with 1048 MBM treated over 368 SRS sessions between 2011 and 2020 were identified. On MVA, treatment with anti-PD1+anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, and BRAF/MEK-i improved distant intracranial control over conventional chemotherapy. No significant differences were noted in local control (LC) between groups (p = 0.78). Kaplan-Meier OS at 12 months for anti-PD-1 + CTLA-4 therapy, anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK-i, BRAF-i, and conventional chemotherapy was 68%, 59%, 45%, 62%, 21%, and 15%, respectively (p = <0.0001). The sPFS rates at 12 months were 57%, 53%, 42%, 45%, 14%, and 6% (p = <0.0001). No significant differences were noted in rates of radiation necrosis (p = 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: This is among the largest series evaluating MBM treated with SRS and various systemic therapy regimens. Our analysis noted significant differences in OS, distant MBM control, and sPFS by systemic therapy. No differences in LC or radiation necrosis risk were noted.

Tucatinib and stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of HER2 positive breast cancer brain metastases.

PURPOSE: HER2-positive breast cancer has a high risk of brain metastasis. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is standard of care for limited brain metastases. Tucatinib, a HER2-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated intracranial efficacy in the HER2-CLIMB Trial. However, it is unknown whether tucatinib with SRS is safe or effective. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of HER2-positive breast cancer treated with SRS and tucatinib for brain metastases management was performed. All patients received tucatinib and SRS for the management of active brain metastases. The primary endpoint was local and distant brain tumor control. Secondary endpoints were intracranial progression free survival (CNS-PFS), systemic PFS, overall survival (OS), and neurotoxicity. RESULTS: A total of 135 lesions treated with SRS over 39 treatment sessions in 22 patients were identified. Median follow-up from tucatinib initiation was 20.8 months. Local brain control was 94% at 12-months and 81% at 24-months. Distant brain control was 39% at 12-months and 26% at 24-months. Median survival was 21.2 months, with 12- and 24-month OS rates of 84% and 50%, respectively. Median CNS-PFS was 11.3 months, with 12- and 24-month CNS-PFS rates of 44.9% at both time points. Median systemic PFS was not reached, with 12- and 24-month systemic PFS rates of 86% and 57%, respectively. Symptomatic radiation necrosis occurred in 6 (4%) lesions. No additional unexpected toxicities were noted. CONCLUSIONS: SRS in combination with tucatinib, capecitabine, and trastuzumab appears to be a safe and feasible treatment for HER2 + brain metastases. Further prospective evaluation of potential synergistic effects is warranted.

Neoadjuvant Simultaneous Integrated Boost Radiation Therapy Improves Clinical Outcomes for Retroperitoneal Sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant radiation therapy (RT) with standard techniques (ST) offers a modest benefit in retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS). As the high-risk region (HRR) at risk for a positive surgical margin and recurrence is posterior and away from radiosensitive organs at risk, using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) allows targeted dose escalation to the HRR while sparing these organs. We hypothesized that neoadjuvant SIB RT can improve disease control compared with ST, without increasing toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively identified patients with resectable nonmetastatic RPS from 2000 to 2021 who received neoadjuvant RT of 180 to 200 cGy/fraction to standard volumes. SIB patients received 205 to 230 cGy/fraction to the appropriate HRR. Clinical endpoints included abdominopelvic control (APC), recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and acute toxicity. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 57 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 50-64), there were 103 patients with RPS who received either ST (n = 69) or SIB (n = 34) RT. Median standard volume dose was 5000 cGy (ST) and 4500 cGy (SIB), with a median HRR SIB dose of 5750 cGy. Liposarcomas (79% vs 53%; P = .004) and cT4 tumors (59% vs 19%; P < .001) were more common in the SIB cohort, without a significant difference in the rate of resection (82% vs 81%; P = .88) or R1 margin (53.5% vs 50%; P = .36); there were no R2 resections. SIB was associated with a significant improvement in 5-year APC (96% vs 70%; P = .046) and RFS (60.2% vs 36.3%; P = .036), with a nonsignificant OS difference (90.1% vs 67.5%; P = .164). On multivariable analysis, SIB remained a predictor for APC (hazard ratio, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.74; P = .027) and RFS (hazard ratio, 0.036; 95% CI, 0.13-0.98; P = .045). SIB showed no significant detriment in toxicity, albeit with a lower rate of overall grade 3 acute toxicity (3% vs 22%; P = .023) compared with ST. CONCLUSIONS: In RPS, dose escalation with neoadjuvant SIB RT may be independently associated with improved APC and RFS, without a detriment in toxicity, compared with ST. With the addition of standard RT having only a modest benefit compared with surgery alone, our study suggests that future prospective studies evaluating for the benefit of SIB RT should be considered.

The Radiosensitivity Index Gene Signature Identifies Distinct Tumor Immune Microenvironment Characteristics Associated With Susceptibility to Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy (RT) is a mainstay of cancer care, and accumulating evidence suggests the potential for synergism with components of the immune response. However, few data describe the tumor immune contexture in relation to RT sensitivity. To address this challenge, we used the radiation sensitivity index (RSI) gene signature to estimate the RT sensitivity of >10,000 primary tumors and characterized their immune microenvironments in relation to the RSI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We analyzed gene expression profiles of 10,469 primary tumors (31 types) within a prospective tissue collection protocol. The RT sensitivity of each tumor was estimated by the RSI and respective distributions were characterized. The tumor biology measured by the RSI was evaluated by differentially expressed genes combined with single sample gene set enrichment analysis. Differences in the expression of immune regulatory molecules were assessed and deconvolution algorithms were used to estimate immune cell infiltrates in relation to the RSI. A subset (n = 2368) of tumors underwent DNA sequencing for mutational frequency characterization. RESULTS: We identified a wide range of RSI values within and across various tumor types, with several demonstrating nonunimodal distributions (eg, colon, renal, lung, prostate, esophagus, pancreas, and PAM50 breast subtypes; P < .05). Across all tumor types, stratifying RSI at a tumor type-specific median identified 7148 differentially expressed genes, of which 146 were coordinate in direction. Network topology analysis demonstrates RSI measures a coordinated STAT1, IRF1, and CCL4/MIP-1ß transcriptional network. Tumors with an estimated high sensitivity to RT demonstrated distinct enrichment of interferon-associated signaling pathways and immune cell infiltrates (eg, CD8+ T cells, activated natural killer cells, M1-macrophages; q < 0.05), which was in the context of diverse expression patterns of various immunoregulatory molecules. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis describes the immune microenvironments of patient tumors in relation to the RSI gene expression signature.

Evolving management of HER2+ breast cancer brain metastases and leptomeningeal disease.

Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer are at a particularly high risk of breast cancer brain metastasis (BCBM) and leptomeningeal disease (LMD). Improvements in systemic therapy have translated to improved survival for patients with HER2-positive BCBM and LMD. However, the optimal management of these cases is rapidly evolving and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Herein, a team of radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, and breast surgeon created a review of the evolving management of HER2-positive BCBM and LMD. We assess the epidemiology, diagnosis, and evolving treatment options for patients with HER2-positive BCBM and LMD, as well as the ongoing prospective clinical trials enrolling these patients. The management of HER2-positive BCBM and LMD represents an increasingly common challenge that involves the coordination of local and systemic therapy. Advances in systemic therapy have resulted in an improved prognosis, and promising targeted therapies currently under prospective investigation have the potential to further benefit these patients.

Clinical outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery and immune checkpoint inhibitors, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors, or chemotherapy alone.

OBJECTIVE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are commonly used in the systemic management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) brain metastases (BMs). However, optimizing control of NSCLC BM with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and various systemic therapies remains an area of investigation. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2019, the authors identified 171 NSCLC BM patients with 646 BMs treated with single-fraction SRS within 3 months of receiving treatment with ICIs (n = 56; 33%), EGFR-TKI (n = 30; 18%), chemotherapy and ICIs (n = 23; 14%), or standard chemotherapy alone (n = 62; 36%). Time-to-event analysis was conducted, and outcomes included distant intracranial control (DIC), local control (LC), and overall survival from SRS. RESULTS: The median follow-up from BM diagnosis was 8.9 months (range 0.3-127 months). The 12-month Kaplan-Meier DIC rates were 37%, 53%, 41%, and 21% (p = 0.047) for the ICI, EGFR-TKI, ICI and chemotherapy, and chemotherapy-alone groups, respectively. On multivariate analysis, DIC was improved with EGFR-TKI (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, p = 0.005) compared with conventional chemotherapy and treatment with SRS before systemic therapy (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.9, p = 0.03) compared with after; and LC was improved with SRS before (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9, p = 0.03) or concurrently (HR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.6, p = 0.003) compared with after. No differences in radionecrosis were noted by timing or type of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' analysis showed significant differences in DIC based on receipt of systemic therapy and treatment with SRS before systemic therapy improved DIC. Prospective evaluation of the potential synergism between systemic therapy and SRS in NSCLC BM management is warranted.

The presentation of brain metastases in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and breast cancer and potential implications for screening brain MRIs.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the presentation and institutional outcomes treating brain metastases (BM) of breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and melanoma origin. METHODS: Patients with brain metastases treated between 2014 and 2019 with primary melanoma, NSCLC, and BC were identified. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from dates of initial BM diagnosis using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 959 patients were identified including melanoma (31%), NSCLC (51%), and BC (18%). Patients with BC were younger at BM diagnosis (median age: 57) than NSCLC (65) and melanoma patients (62, p < 0.0001). Breast cancer patients were more likely to present with at least 5 BM (27%) than NSCLC (14%) and melanoma (13%), leptomeningeal disease (23%, 6%, and 6%, p = 0.0004) and receive whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) (58%, 37%, and 22%, p < 0.0001). There were no differences in surgical resection (24%, 24%, and 29%, p = 0.166). Median OS was shorter for BC patients (9.9, 10.3, and 13.7 months, p = 0.0006). CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients were more likely to be younger, present with advanced disease, require WBRT, and have poorer OS than NSCLC and melanoma patients. Further investigation is needed to determine which BC patients are at sufficient risk for brain MRI screening.

Radiation therapy in the management of the inguinal region in penile cancer: What's the evidence?

Due to its rarity and lack of prospective studies, clinical evidence for the management of the inguinal lymphatic nodal basin with radiation therapy in penile cancer (PeCa) has been limited. In this report, we review the current literature and further investigated the landscape of radiation sensitivity in nodal metastases of PeCa utilizing our well-established genome-based radiosensitivity index (RSI) platform. We hypothesized that optimal therapeutic gain could be achieved in PeCa stratified by the combination of clinicopathological parameters, genomic heterogeneity, and RSI-based radiation dose prescription (RxRSI). Similar to primary PeCa lesions, we found that the majority of PeCa nodal metastases are genomically radioresistant with significant heterogeneity. RxRSI should be considered to inform and optimize the radiation therapy dose prescription to the individual tumor biology.

Nivolumab and Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Patients With Breast Cancer Brain Metastases: A Nonrandomized, Open-Label Phase 1b Study.

PURPOSE: We hypothesize treatment with nivolumab and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) will be feasible and well tolerated, and may improve intracranial tumor control rates compared with SRS alone. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study was designed as a prospective, single-arm, nonrandomized, open-label, phase 1b trial of nivolumab and SRS among patients with metastatic breast cancer brain metastases. Key eligibility criteria included patients with breast cancer brain metastases of all subtypes, age ≥18, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status ≤2 with ≤10 brain metastases. Treatment was initiated with a dose of nivolumab (480 mg intravenously) that was repeated every 4 weeks. The initial dose of nivolumab was followed 1 week later by SRS. This study is closed to accrual and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03807765. RESULTS: Between February 2019 and July 2020, a total of 12 patients were treated to 17 lesions. No dose limiting toxicities were noted in our patient population. The most common neurologic adverse events included grade 1 to 2 headaches and dizziness occurring in 5 (42%) of patients. Median intracranial control was 6.2 months (95% confidence interval, 3-14 months) with 6- and 12-month control rates of 55% and 22%, respectively. A total of 4 patients had systemic progression during the study. Median time to systemic progression free survival has not been reached with 6- and-12 month rates of 63% and 51%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab and SRS is a safe and feasible treatment option in breast cancer brain metastases. Preliminary data reveals activity in certain breast cancer patients to study therapy.

Tumor-immune ecosystem dynamics define an individual Radiation Immune Score to predict pan-cancer radiocurability.

Radiotherapy efficacy is the result of radiation-mediated cytotoxicity coupled with stimulation of antitumor immune responses. We develop an in silico 3-dimensional agent-based model of diverse tumor-immune ecosystems (TIES) represented as anti- or pro-tumor immune phenotypes. We validate the model in 10,469 patients across 31 tumor types by demonstrating that clinically detected tumors have pro-tumor TIES. We then quantify the likelihood radiation induces antitumor TIES shifts toward immune-mediated tumor elimination by developing the individual Radiation Immune Score (iRIS). We show iRIS distribution across 31 tumor types is consistent with the clinical effectiveness of radiotherapy, and in combination with a molecular radiosensitivity index (RSI) combines to predict pan-cancer radiocurability. We show that iRIS correlates with local control and survival in a separate cohort of 59 lung cancer patients treated with radiation. In combination, iRIS and RSI predict radiation-induced TIES shifts in individual patients and identify candidates for radiation de-escalation and treatment escalation. This is the first clinically and biologically validated computational model to simulate and predict pan-cancer response and outcomes via the perturbation of the TIES by radiotherapy.

Pan-cancer prediction of radiotherapy benefit using genomic-adjusted radiation dose (GARD): a cohort-based pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in cancer genomics, radiotherapy is still prescribed on the basis of an empirical one-size-fits-all paradigm. Previously, we proposed a novel algorithm using the genomic-adjusted radiation dose (GARD) model to personalise prescription of radiation dose on the basis of the biological effect of a given physical dose of radiation, calculated using individual tumour genomics. We hypothesise that GARD will reveal interpatient heterogeneity associated with opportunities to improve outcomes compared with physical dose of radiotherapy alone. We aimed to test this hypothesis and investigate the GARD-based radiotherapy dosing paradigm. METHODS: We did a pooled, pan-cancer analysis of 11 previously published clinical cohorts of unique patients with seven different types of cancer, which are all available cohorts with the data required to calculate GARD, together with clinical outcome. The included cancers were breast cancer, head and neck cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, endometrial cancer, melanoma, and glioma. Our dataset comprised 1615 unique patients, of whom 1298 (982 with radiotherapy, 316 without radiotherapy) were assessed for time to first recurrence and 677 patients (424 with radiotherapy and 253 without radiotherapy) were assessed for overall survival. We analysed two clinical outcomes of interest: time to first recurrence and overall survival. We used Cox regression, stratified by cohort, to test the association between GARD and outcome with separate models using dose of radiation and sham-GARD (ie, patients treated without radiotherapy, but modelled as having a standard-of-care dose of radiotherapy) for comparison. We did interaction tests between GARD and treatment (with or without radiotherapy) using the Wald statistic. FINDINGS: Pooled analysis of all available data showed that GARD as a continuous variable is associated with time to first recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98 [95% CI 0·97-0·99]; p=0·0017) and overall survival (0·97 [0·95-0·99]; p=0·0007). The interaction test showed the effect of GARD on overall survival depends on whether or not that patient received radiotherapy (Wald statistic p=0·011). The interaction test for GARD and radiotherapy was not significant for time to first recurrence (Wald statistic p=0·22). The HR for physical dose of radiation was 0·99 (95% CI 0·97-1·01; p=0·53) for time to first recurrence and 1·00 (0·96-1·04; p=0·95) for overall survival. The HR for sham-GARD was 1·00 (0·97-1·03; p=1·00) for time to first recurrence and 1·00 (0·98-1·02; p=0·87) for overall survival. INTERPRETATION: The biological effect of radiotherapy, as quantified by GARD, is significantly associated with time to first recurrence and overall survival for patients with cancer treated with radiation. It is predictive of radiotherapy benefit, and physical dose of radiation is not. We propose integration of genomics into radiation dosing decisions, using a GARD-based framework, as the new paradigm for personalising radiotherapy prescription dose. FUNDING: None. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

Genomically Guided Breast Radiation Therapy: A Review of the Current Data and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: To highlight the current evidence and the limitations in data to support a personalized approach in breast oncology radiation therapy management and define steps needed for clinical implementation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A critical review of the current literature on the use of genomics in breast radiation therapy was undertaken by a group of breast radiation oncologists to discuss current data, future directions, and challenges. RESULTS: A summary of the existing data, ongoing clinical trials, and future directions is provided. The authors note many groups have developed radiation-specific genomic assays, which demonstrate promise in prediction of local control and benefit from radiation therapy; however, prospective validation of their utility is needed. Limitations continue to exist in our understanding of tumor biology and how it can be integrated into clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Given the relative ubiquity of breast radiation therapy, the variety of dose and fractionation approaches, and the current data to support a personalized approach, it is our belief that the delivery of breast radiation therapy is uniquely poised for a genomically personalized radiation therapy approach. Prospective clinical trials implementing genomic signatures are needed at this time to advance the field.

Capecitabine and stereotactic radiation in the management of breast cancer brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the safety and efficacy of concurrent capecitabine and stereotactic radiotherapy in the setting of breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM). METHODS: Twenty-three patients with BCBM underwent 31 stereotactic sessions to 90 lesions from 2005 to 2019 with receipt of capecitabine. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant intracranial control (DIC) from the date of stereotactic radiation. Imaging was independently reviewed by a neuro-radiologist. RESULTS: Median follow-up from stereotactic radiation was 9.2 months. Receptor types of patients treated included triple negative (n = 7), hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2- (n = 7), HR+/HER2+ (n = 6), and HR-/HER2+ (n = 3). Fourteen patients had stage IV disease prior to BCBM diagnosis. The median number of brain metastases treated per patient was 3 (1 to 12). The median dose of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) was 21 Gy (range: 15-24 Gy) treated in a single fraction and for lesions treated with fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (FSRT) 25 Gy (24-30 Gy) in a median of 5 fractions (range: 3-5). Of the 31 stereotactic sessions, 71% occurred within 1 month of capecitabine. No increased toxicity was noted in our series with no cases of radionecrosis. The 1-year OS, LC, and DIC were 46, 88, and 30%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our single institution experience, we demonstrate stereotactic radiation and capecitabine to be a safe treatment for patients with BCBM with adequate LC. Further study is needed to determine the potential synergy between stereotactic radiation and capecitabine in the management of BCBM.

Trastuzumab Emtansine (T-DM1) and stereotactic radiation in the management of HER2+ breast cancer brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Due to recent concerns about the toxicity of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with stereotactic radiation, we assessed our institutional outcomes treating HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) with T-DM1 and stereotactic radiation. METHODS: This is a single institution series of 16 patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who underwent 18 stereotactic sessions to 40 BCBM from 2013 to 2019 with T-DM1 delivered within 6 months. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival (OS), local control (LC), distant intracranial control (DIC), and systemic progression-free survival (sPFS) from the date of SRS. A neuro-radiologist independently reviewed follow-up imaging. RESULTS: One patient had invasive lobular carcinoma, and 15 patients had invasive ductal carcinoma. All cases were HER2-positive, while 10 were hormone receptor (HR) positive. Twenty-four lesions were treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to a median dose of 21 Gy (14-24 Gy). Sixteen lesions were treated with fractionated stereotactic radiation (FSRT) with a median dose of 25 Gy (20-30Gy) delivered in 3 to 5 fractions. Stereotactic radiation was delivered concurrently with T-DM1 in 19 lesions (48%). Median follow up time was 13.2 months from stereotactic radiation. The 1-year LC, DIC, sPFS, and OS were 75, 50, 30, and 67%, respectively. There was 1 case of leptomeningeal progression and 1 case (3%) of symptomatic radionecrosis. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that stereotactic radiation and T-DM1 is well-tolerated and effective for patients with HER2-positive BCBM. An increased risk for symptomatic radiation necrosis was not noted in our series.

Breast cancer subtype predicts clinical outcomes after stereotactic radiation for brain metastases.

PURPOSE: We investigated the prognostic ability of tumor subtype for patients with breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) treated with stereotactic radiation (SRT). METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 181 patients who underwent SRT to 664 BCBM from 2004 to 2019. Patients were stratified by subtype: hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-), HR-positive, HER2-positive (HR+/HER2+), HR-negative, HER2-positive (HR-/HER2+), and triple negative (TN). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant intracranial control (DIC) from the date of SRT. Multivariate analysis (MVA) was conducted using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Median follow up from SRT was 11.4 months. Of the 181 patients, 47 (26%) were HR+/HER2+, 30 (17%) were HR-/HER2+, 60 (33%) were HR+/HER2-, and 44 (24%) were TN. Of the 664 BCBMs, 534 (80%) received single fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with a median dose of 21 Gy (range 12-24 Gy), and 130 (20%) received fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (FSRT), with a median dose of 25 Gy (range 12.5-35 Gy) delivered in 3 to 5 fractions. One-year LC was 90%. Two-year DIC was 35%, 23%, 27%, and 16% (log rank, p = 0.0003) and 2-year OS was 54%, 47%, 24%, and 12% (log rank, p < 0.0001) for HR+/HER2+, HR-/HER2+, HR+/HER2-, and TN subtypes, respectively. On MVA, the TN subtype predicted for inferior DIC (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.00-2.60, p = 0.049). The modified breast-Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) significantly predicted DIC and OS (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Subtype is prognostic for OS and DIC for patients with BCBM treated with SRT.