A Dutch phase III randomized multicenter trial: whole brain radiotherapy versus stereotactic radiotherapy for 4-10 brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: The clinical value of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for brain metastases (BM) is a matter of debate due to the significant side effects involved. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an attractive alternative treatment option that may avoid these side effects and improve local tumor control. We initiated a randomized trial (NCT02353000) to investigate whether quality of life is better preserved after SRS compared with WBRT in patients with multiple brain metastases. METHODS: Patients with 4-10 BM were randomized between the standard arm WBRT (total dose 20 Gy in 5 fractions) or SRS (single fraction or 3 fractions). The primary endpoint was the difference in quality of life (QOL) at 3 months post-treatment. RESULTS: The study was prematurely closed due to poor accrual. A total of 29 patients (13%) were randomized, of which 15 patients have been treated with SRS and 14 patients with WBRT. The median number of lesions were 6 (range: 4-9) and the median total treatment volume was 13.0 cc3 (range: 1.8-25.9 cc3). QOL at 3 months decreased in the SRS group by 0.1 (SD = 0.2), compared to 0.2 (SD = 0.2) in the WBRT group (P = .23). The actuarial 1-year survival rates were 57% (SRS) and 31% (WBRT) (P = .52). The actuarial 1-year brain salvage-free survival rates were 50% (SRS) and 78% (WBRT) (P = .22). CONCLUSION: In patients with 4-10 BM, SRS alone resulted in 1-year survival for 57% of patients while maintaining quality of life. Due to the premature closure of the trial, no statistically significant differences could be determined.

Impact of Technique and Schedule of Reirradiation Plus Hyperthermia on Outcome after Surgery for Patients with Recurrent Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Combining reirradiation (reRT) with hyperthermia (HT) has shown to be of high therapeutic value for patients with loco-regionally recurrent breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term therapeutic effect and toxicity of reRT + HT following surgery of loco-regionally recurrent breast cancer using two different reRT regimens. METHODS: The reRT regimen of the 78 patients treated in Institute A consisted of 8 × 4 Gy twice a week using mostly abutted photon-electron fields. The 78 patients treated in Institute B received a reRT regimen of 12 × 3 Gy, four times a week with single or multiple electron fields. Superficial hyperthermia was applied once a week in Institute A and twice a week in Institute B. Both institutes started HT treatment within 1 hour after reRT and used the same 434-MHz systems to heat the tumor area to 41-43 °C. RESULTS: The 5-year-infield local control (LC) rates were similar; however, the 5-year-survival rates were 13% lower in Institute A. Most remarkable was the difference in risk with respect to 5-year ≥ grade 3 toxicity, which was more than twice as high in Institute A. CONCLUSION: The combination of reirradiation and hyperthermia after macroscopically complete excision of loco-regional breast cancer recurrences provides durable local control in patients at risk for locoregional recurrent breast cancer. Treatment is well tolerated with the 12 × 3 Gy schedule with limited-sized electron fields.

Reirradiation + hyperthermia for recurrent breast cancer en cuirasse.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with irresectable locoregional recurrent breast cancer en cuirasse (BCEC) do not have effective curative treatment options. Hyperthermia, the elevation of tumor temperature to 40-45 °C, is a well-established radio- and chemotherapy sensitizer. A total of 196 patients were treated with reirradiation and hyperthermia (reRT+HT) at two Dutch institutes from 1982-2005. The palliative effect was evaluated in terms of clinical outcome and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients received previous irradiation to a median dose of 50 Gy. In all, 75% of patients received 1-6 treatment modalities for previous tumor recurrences. ReRT consisted of 8 × 4 Gy given twice a week or 12 × 3 Gy given four times a week. Superficial hyperthermia was added once or twice a week. Tumor area comprised ≥½ of the ipsilateral chest wall. RESULTS: Overall clinical response rate was 72% (complete response [CR] 30%, partial response [PR] 42%, stable disease [SD] 22%, progressive disease [PD] 6%). The local progression-free rate at 1 year was 24%. Median survival was 6.9 months. Forty-three percent of our patients with CR, PR, SD after treatment remained infield progression-free until death or last follow-up. Acute ≥grade 3 toxicity occurred in 33% of patients, while late ≥grade 3 toxicity was recorded in 14% of patients. Tumor ulceration prior to treatment had a negative impact on both clinical outcome and toxicity. CONCLUSION: ReRT+HT provides sustainable palliative tumor control, despite refractory, extensive tumor growth. Compared to currently available systemic treatment options, reRT+HT is more effective with less toxicity.

Individualized early death and long-term survival prediction after stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases of non-small cell lung cancer: Two externally validated nomograms.

INTRODUCTION: Commonly used clinical models for survival prediction after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases (BMs) are limited by the lack of individual risk scores and disproportionate prognostic groups. In this study, two nomograms were developed to overcome these limitations. METHODS: 495 patients with BMs of NSCLC treated with SRS for a limited number of BMs in four Dutch radiation oncology centers were identified and divided in a training cohort (n=214, patients treated in one hospital) and an external validation cohort n=281, patients treated in three other hospitals). Using the training cohort, nomograms were developed for prediction of early death (<3months) and long-term survival (>12months) with prognostic factors for survival. Accuracy of prediction was defined as the area under the curve (AUC) by receiver operating characteristics analysis for prediction of early death and long term survival. The accuracy of the nomograms was also tested in the external validation cohort. RESULTS: Prognostic factors for survival were: WHO performance status, presence of extracranial metastases, age, GTV largest BM, and gender. Number of brain metastases and primary tumor control were not prognostic factors for survival. In the external validation cohort, the nomogram predicted early death statistically significantly better (p<0.05) than the unfavorable groups of the RPA, DS-GPA, GGS, SIR, and Rades 2015 (AUC=0.70 versus range AUCs=0.51-0.60 respectively). With an AUC of 0.67, the other nomogram predicted 1year survival statistically significantly better (p<0.05) than the favorable groups of four models (range AUCs=0.57-0.61), except for the SIR (AUC=0.64, p=0.34). The models are available on www.predictcancer.org. CONCLUSION: The nomograms predicted early death and long-term survival more accurately than commonly used prognostic scores after SRS for a limited number of BMs of NSCLC. Moreover these nomograms enable individualized probability assessment and are easy into use in routine clinical practice.

Prognostic Factors for Local Control in Breast Cancer After Long-term Follow-up in the EORTC Boost vs No Boost Trial: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Prognostic factors of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) may change over time following breast-conserving therapy. OBJECTIVE: The EORTC "boost no boost" trial showed that young age and high-grade invasive carcinoma were the most important risk factors for IBTR. This study reanalyses pathological prognostic factors related to IBTR using long-term follow-up. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 5569 early-stage breast cancer patients, treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and whole-breast irradiation (WBI), who were randomized between no boost and a 16-Gy boost in the EORTC phase III "boost no boost" trial (1989-1996). A total of 1616 patients with a microscopically complete resection (according to local pathologists), included in the central pathology review, have been analyzed in this study. Median follow-up was 18.2 years. INTERVENTIONS: No further treatment or 16-Gy boost, after BCS and 50-Gy WBI. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Time to ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) as first event. RESULTS: The 20-year cumulative incidence of IBTR in 1616 patients (160 events observed) was 15% (95% CI, 12%-17%). Young age (P < .001) and presence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (HR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.36-3.38; P = .001) were associated with an increased risk of IBTR in multivariable analysis. The cumulative incidence of IBTR at 20 years was 34% (95% CI, 25%-41%), 14% (95% CI, 10%-18%), and 11% (95% CI, 8%-15%), in patients 40 years or younger, 41 to 50 years and 50 years or older, respectively (P < .001). This incidence was 18% (95% CI, 14%-22%) and 9% (95% CI, 6%-12%) for tumors with and without DCIS (P < .001). High-grade tumors relapsed more frequently early during follow-up but the relative effect of age and presence of DCIS seemed stable over time. The boost reduced the 20-year IBTR incidence from 31% (95% CI, 22%-39%) to 15% (95% CI, 8%-21%) (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.62; P < .001) in high-risk patients (≤50 years with DCIS present). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The association of high-grade invasive tumor with IBTR diminished during follow-up, while the effect of DCIS adjacent to invasive tumor seemed to remain stable. Therefore, patients with high-grade invasive tumors should be monitored closely, especially in the first 5 years, while additional DCIS is an indication for longer follow-up, emphasizing the importance of long-term trial follow-up to estimate absolute effects accurately. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02295033.

Rib fractures after reirradiation plus hyperthermia for recurrent breast cancer: Predictive factors.

BACKGROUND: Combining reirradiation (reRT) and hyperthermia (HT) has shown high therapeutic value for patients with locoregional recurrent breast cancer (LR). However, additional toxicity of reirradiation (e.g., rib fractures) may occur. The aim of this study is to determine the impact of potential risk factors on the occurrence of rib fractures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1982-2005, 234 patients were treated with adjuvant reRT + HT after surgery for LR. ReRT consisted typically of 8 fractions of 4 Gy twice a week, or 12 fractions of 3 Gy four times a week. A total of 118 patients were irradiated with abutted photon and electron fields. In all, 60 patients were irradiated using either one or alternating combinations of abutted AP electron fields. Hyperthermia was given once or twice a week. RESULTS: The 5-year infield local control (LC) rate was 70 %. Rib fractures were detected in 16 of 234 patients (actuarial risk: 7 % at 5 years). All rib fractures occurred in patients treated with a combination of photon and abutted electron fields (p = 0.000); in 15 of 16 patients fractures were located in the abutment regions. The other significant predictive factors for rib fractures were a higher fraction dose (p = 0.040), large RT fields, and treatment before the year 2000. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: ReRT + HT results in long-term LC. The majority of rib fractures were located in the photon/electron abutment area, emphasizing the disadvantage of field overlap. Large abutted photon/electron fields combined with 4 Gy fractions increase the number of rib fractures in this study group. However, as these factors were highly correlated no relative importance of the individual factors could be estimated. Increasing the number of HT sessions a week does not increase the risk of rib fractures.

Reirradiation and hyperthermia for irresectable locoregional recurrent breast cancer in previously irradiated area: Size matters.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Treatment options for irresectable locoregional recurrent breast cancer in previously irradiated area are limited. Hyperthermia, elevating tumor temperature to 40-45°C, sensitizes radio-and-chemotherapy. Four hundred and fourteen patients treated with reirradiation+hyperthermia (reRT+HT) in the AMC(n=301) and the BVI(n=113), from 1982 to 2005 were retrospectively analyzed for treatment response, locoregional control (LC) and prognostic factors for LC and toxicity. PATIENTS/METHODS: All patients received previous irradiation (median 50 Gy). reRT consisted of 8 × 4 Gy-2/week (AMC) or 12 × 3 Gy-4/week (BVI). Hyperthermia was added once (AMC)/twice (BVI) a week. RESULTS: Overall clinical response rate was 86%. The 3-year LC rate was 25%. The number of recurrence episodes, distant metastases (DM), tumor site, tumor size, time to recurrence and treatment year were significant for LC. Acute ⩾ grade 3 toxicity occurred in 24% of patients. Actuarial late ⩾ grade 3 toxicity was 23% at 3-years. In multivariable analysis reRT fraction dose was significantly related to late ⩾ grade 3 toxicity. CONCLUSION: reRT+HT is an effective curative and palliative treatment option for patients with irresectable locoregional recurrent breast cancer in previously irradiated area. Early referral, treatment of chest wall recurrences ⩽ 5 cm in the absence of distant metastases, provided the highest local control rates. The cumulative effects of past and present treatments should be accounted for by adjusting treatment protocol to minimize toxicity.

Whole-breast irradiation with or without a boost for patients treated with breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer: 20-year follow-up of a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of breast-conserving treatment, various radiation doses after lumpectomy have been used. In a phase 3 randomised controlled trial, we investigated the effect of a radiation boost of 16 Gy on overall survival, local control, and fibrosis for patients with stage I and II breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving treatment compared with patients who received no boost. Here, we present the 20-year follow-up results. METHODS: Patients with microscopically complete excision for invasive disease followed by whole-breast irradiation of 50 Gy in 5 weeks were centrally randomised (1:1) with a minimisation algorithm to receive 16 Gy boost or no boost, with minimisation for age, menopausal status, presence of extensive ductal carcinoma in situ, clinical tumour size, nodal status, and institution. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02295033. FINDINGS: Between May 24, 1989, and June 25, 1996, 2657 patients were randomly assigned to receive no radiation boost and 2661 patients randomly assigned to receive a radiation boost. Median follow-up was 17.2 years (IQR 13.0-19.0). 20-year overall survival was 59.7% (99% CI 56.3-63.0) in the boost group versus 61.1% (57.6-64.3) in the no boost group, hazard ratio (HR) 1.05 (99% CI 0.92-1.19, p=0.323). Ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence was the first treatment failure for 354 patients (13%) in the no boost group versus 237 patients (9%) in the boost group, HR 0.65 (99% CI 0.52-0.81, p<0.0001). The 20-year cumulative incidence of ipsilatelal breast tumour recurrence was 16.4% (99% CI 14.1-18.8) in the no boost group versus 12.0% (9.8-14.4) in the boost group. Mastectomies as first salvage treatment for ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence occurred in 279 (79%) of 354 patients in the no boost group versus 178 (75%) of 237 in the boost group. The cumulative incidence of severe fibrosis at 20 years was 1.8% (99% CI 1.1-2.5) in the no boost group versus 5.2% (99% CI 3.9-6.4) in the boost group (p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION: A radiation boost after whole-breast irradiation has no effect on long-term overall survival, but can improve local control, with the largest absolute benefit in young patients, although it increases the risk of moderate to severe fibrosis. The extra radiation dose can be avoided in most patients older than age 60 years. FUNDING: Fonds Cancer, Belgium.

Impact of reirradiation of painful osseous metastases on quality of life and function: a secondary analysis of the NCIC CTG SC.20 randomized trial.

PURPOSE: We previously demonstrated that 48% of patients with pain at sites of previously irradiated bone metastases benefit from reirradiation. It is unknown whether alleviating pain also improves patient perception of quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the database of a randomized trial comparing radiation treatment dose fractionation schedules to evaluate whether response, determined using the International Consensus Endpoint (ICE) and Brief Pain Inventory pain score (BPI-PS), is associated with patient perception of benefit, as measured using the European Organisation for Resesarch and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and functional interference scale of the BPI (BPI-FI). Evaluable patients completed baseline and 2-month follow-up assessments. RESULTS: Among 850 randomly assigned patients, 528 were evaluable for response using the ICE and 605 using the BPI-PS. Using the ICE, 253 patients experienced a response and 275 did not. Responding patients had superior scores on all items of the BPI-FI (ie, general activity, mood, walking ability, normal work, relations with other people, sleep, and enjoyment of life) and improved QOL, as determined by scores on the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales of physical, role, emotional and social functioning, global QOL, fatigue, pain, and appetite. Similar results were obtained using the BPI-PS; observed improvements were typically of lesser magnitude. CONCLUSION: Patients responding to reirradiation of painful bone metastases experience superior QOL scores and less functional interference associated with pain. Patients should be offered re-treatment for painful bone metastases in the hope of reducing pain severity as well as improving QOL and pain interference.

Single versus multiple fractions of repeat radiation for painful bone metastases: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Although repeat radiation treatment has been shown to palliate pain in patients with bone metastases from multiple primary origin sites, data for the best possible dose fractionation schedules are lacking. We aimed to assess two dose fractionation schedules in patients with painful bone metastases needing repeat radiation therapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, non-blinded, randomised, controlled trial in nine countries worldwide. We enrolled patients 18 years or older who had radiologically confirmed, painful (ie, pain measured as ≥2 points using the Brief Pain Inventory) bone metastases, had received previous radiation therapy, and were taking a stable dose and schedule of pain-relieving drugs (if prescribed). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 8 Gy in a single fraction or 20 Gy in multiple fractions by a central computer-generated allocation sequence using dynamic minimisation to conceal assignment, stratified by previous radiation fraction schedule, response to initial radiation, and treatment centre. Patients, caregivers, and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall pain response at 2 months, which was defined as the sum of complete and partial pain responses to treatment, assessed using both Brief Pain Inventory scores and changes in analgesic consumption. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00080912. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2004, and May 24, 2012, we randomly assigned 425 patients to each treatment group. 19 (4%) patients in the 8 Gy group and 12 (3%) in the 20 Gy group were found to be ineligible after randomisation, and 140 (33%) and 132 (31%) patients, respectively, were not assessable at 2 months and were counted as missing data in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the intention-to-treat population, 118 (28%) patients allocated to 8 Gy treatment and 135 (32%) allocated to 20 Gy treatment had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·21; response difference of 4·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 9·2, less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). In the per-protocol population, 116 (45%) of 258 patients and 134 (51%) of 263 patients, respectively, had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·17; response difference 6·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 13·2, greater than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). The most frequently reported acute radiation-related toxicities at 14 days were lack of appetite (201 [56%] of 358 assessable patients who received 8 Gy vs 229 [66%] of 349 assessable patients who received 20 Gy; p=0·011) and diarrhoea (81 [23%] of 357 vs 108 [31%] of 349; p=0·018). Pathological fractures occurred in 30 (7%) of 425 patients assigned to 8 Gy and 20 (5%) of 425 assigned to 20 Gy (odds ratio [OR] 1·54, 95% CI 0·85-2·75; p=0·15), and spinal cord or cauda equina compressions were reported in seven (2%) of 425 versus two (<1%) of 425, respectively (OR 3·54, 95% CI 0·73-17·15; p=0·094). INTERPRETATION: In patients with painful bone metastases requiring repeat radiation therapy, treatment with 8 Gy in a single fraction seems to be non-inferior and less toxic than 20 Gy in multiple fractions; however, as findings were not robust in a per-protocol analysis, trade-offs between efficacy and toxicity might exist. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, US National Cancer Institute, Cancer Council Australia, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Dutch Cancer Society, and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris.

Management of radiation oncology patients with a pacemaker or ICD: a new comprehensive practical guideline in The Netherlands. Dutch Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology (NVRO).

Current clinical guidelines for the management of radiotherapy patients having either a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (both CIEDs: Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices) do not cover modern radiotherapy techniques and do not take the patient's perspective into account. Available data on the frequency and cause of CIED failure during radiation therapy are limited and do not converge. The Dutch Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology (NVRO) initiated a multidisciplinary task group consisting of clinical physicists, cardiologists, radiation oncologists, pacemaker and ICD technologists to develop evidence based consensus guidelines for the management of CIED patients. CIED patients receiving radiotherapy should be categorised based on the chance of device failure and the clinical consequences in case of failure. Although there is no clear cut-off point nor a clear linear relationship, in general, chances of device failure increase with increasing doses. Clinical consequences of device failures like loss of pacing, carry the most risks in pacing dependent patients. Cumulative dose and pacing dependency have been combined to categorise patients into low, medium and high risk groups. Patients receiving a dose of less than 2 Gy to their CIED are categorised as low risk, unless pacing dependent since then they are medium risk. Between 2 and 10 Gy, all patients are categorised as medium risk, while above 10 Gy every patient is categorised as high risk. Measures to secure patient safety are described for each category. This guideline for the management of CIED patients receiving radiotherapy takes into account modern radiotherapy techniques, CIED technology, the patients' perspective and the practical aspects necessary for the safe management of these patients. The guideline is implemented in The Netherlands in 2012 and is expected to find clinical acceptance outside The Netherlands as well.

Patients with a favourable prognosis are equally palliated with single and multiple fraction radiotherapy: results on survival in the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the prospectively, randomized Dutch Bone Metastasis Study on the effect of a single fraction of 8 Gy versus 24 Gy in six fractions on painful bone metastases, 28% of the patients survived for more than 1 year. Purpose of the present study was to analyze the palliative effect of radiotherapy in long-term surviving patients, and to identify prognostic factors for survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Response rates were compared in all patients surviving>52 weeks. The Cox proportional hazards model stratified by primary tumour was used for multivariate (MV) analyses of prognostic factors for survival. RESULTS: In 320 patients surviving>52 weeks, responses were 87% after 8 Gy and 85% after 24 Gy (P=0.54). Duration of response and progression rates were similar. For all primary tumours, prognostic factors for survival were a good Karnofsky Performance Score, no visceral metastases, and non-opioid analgesics intake (all factors, MV P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Single fraction radiotherapy should be the standard dose schedule for all patients with painful bone metastases, including patients with an expected favourable survival. General prognosticators as the Karnofsky Performance Score and metastatic tumour load are useful in predicting survival.