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.

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.

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.

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.

Increased Risk for Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence in Invasive Lobular Carcinoma after Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation Brachytherapy.

BACKGROUND: The suitability criteria for accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) from the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and The Groupe Européende Curiethérapie European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) have significant differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single institution retrospective review of 946 consecutive patients with invasive breast cancer who underwent lumpectomy and APBI intracavitary brachytherapy from 2003 to 2018. Overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), relapse-free survival (RFS), and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) were estimated with Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 60.2 months. Median age was 68 years (46-94 years). The majority of patients had estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease (94%). There were 821 (87%) cases of invasive ductal carcinoma and 68 cases (7%) of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). The 5-year OS, BCSS, RFS, and IBTR were 93%, 99%, 90%, and 1.5%, respectively. Upon univariate analysis, ILC (hazard ratio [HR], 4.6; p = .008) and lack of nodal evaluation (HR, 6.9; p = .01) were risk factors for IBTR. The 10-year IBTR was 2.5% for IDC and 14% for ILC. While the ABS and ASTRO criteria could not predict IBTR, the GEC-ESTRO intermediate risk group was associated with inferior IBTR (p = .04) when compared to both low risk and high risk groups. None of the suitability criteria was able to predict RFS. CONCLUSION: These results show that APBI is an effective treatment for patients with invasive breast cancer. Expansion of the current eligibility criteria should be considered, although prospective validation is needed. Caution is required when considering APBI for patients with ILC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In a large retrospective review of 946 patients with early breast cancer treated with partial mastectomy and accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) intracavitary brachytherapy, this study demonstrates durable local control. Patients deemed unsuitable or high risk by the American Brachytherapy Society, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology guidelines were not at increased risk for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), suggesting that expansion of the current criteria should be considered. Importantly, however, these results demonstrate that caution should be taken when considering APBI for patients with invasive lobular carcinoma, as these patients had relatively high risk for IBTR (10-year IBTR, 14%).

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.

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.

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.

Miliary breast cancer brain metastasis: a rare and aggressive form of central nervous system metastasis.

Although breast cancer brain metastasis is an increasingly common occurrence, relatively little is known about miliary brain metastases, a rare subtype that presents unique diagnostic and management challenges. The present study from Bashour et al. proposes the first objective diagnostic imaging criteria, enabling improved future study.

Management of brain metastases in breast cancer: a review of current practices and emerging treatments.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) are becoming an increasingly common diagnosis due to improved systemic control and more routine surveillance imaging. Treatment continues to require a multidisciplinary approach managing systemic and intracranial disease burden. Although, improvements have been made in the diagnosis and management of BCBM, brain metastasis patients continue to pose a challenge for practitioners. METHODS: In this review, a group of medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, breast surgeons, and neurosurgeons specializing in the treatment of breast cancer reviewed the available published literature and compiled a comprehensive review on the current state of BCBM. RESULTS: We discuss the pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment options (including systemic, surgical, and radiotherapy treatment modalities), and treatment response evaluation for BCBM. Furthermore, we discuss the ongoing prospective trials enrolling BCBM patients and their biologic rationale. CONCLUSIONS: BCBM management is an increasing clinical concern. Multidisciplinary management combining the strengths of surgical, systemic, and radiation treatment modalities with prospective trials incorporating knowledge from the basic and translational sciences will ultimately lead to improved clinical outcomes for BCBM patients.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Oligometastatic Uterine Cancer: Clinical Outcomes and Toxicity.

We report on clinical outcomes in patients with oligometastatic uterine cancer treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Twenty-seven patients with 61 lesions were treated with SBRT. Median follow-up was 16.9 months. Local control was achieved in 49/61 (80.3%) lesions. One-year local-progression-free survival and overall survival were 75.9% and 65.4%. Lesions with favorable response were smaller than lesions with unfavorable response (p = .007). Liver lesions were less likely to achieve favorable response (p = .0128). There were no grade 3 or 4 events. Treatment with SBRT can provide excellent local control in oligometastatic uterine cancer with minimal toxicity.

Long term control and preservation of renal function after multiple courses of stereotactic body radiation therapy for renal cell carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is usually treated with surgery, with or without systemic therapy. For select patients, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) may be a suitable alternative. Although many reports exist on the successful use of SBRT, very few have described long term outcomes with regard to disease progression and renal function. We report a rare case of a single patient with primary, metastatic, and locally recurrent renal cell carcinoma who was successfully treated with SBRT. The patient has been disease-free for 8 years since treatment, with stable renal function even after two courses of SBRT to her solitary functioning kidney.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Leptomeningeal Disease Following Receipt of EGFR-Targeted Therapy, Immune-Checkpoint Blockade, Intrathecal Chemotherapy, or Radiation Therapy Alone.

BACKGROUND: EGFR-targeted therapy (ETT) and immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) have shown promising results in treating NSCLC brain metastases (BM). However, little is known of their effect in treating leptomeningeal disease (LMD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 80 patients diagnosed with NSCLC LMD from January 2014 to March 2021. Patients were grouped based on initial LMD treatment: radiotherapy (RT) alone, ETT, ICB, and intrathecal chemotherapy (ITC). RESULTS: EGFR mutation was present in 22 patients (28%). Twenty patients had positive cytology in cerebrospinal fluid, while 60 patients were diagnosed based on MRI with clinical correlation. The RT alone group consisted primarily of whole brain radiation (n = 20; 77%), stereotactic radiation (n = 3; 12%), and palliative spine radiation (n = 2; 7%). There were no significant differences amongst the treatment groups in age, performance status, or neurologic symptoms. Overall, the 6-month overall survival (OS) and craniospinal progression free survival (CS-PFS) were 35% and 24%, respectively. The 6-month OS for the ETT, ICB, ITC, and RT alone groups was 64%, 33%, 57%, and 29% respectively (log-rank P = .026). The 6-month CS-PFS for the ETT, ICB, ITC, and RT alone groups was 43%, 33%, 29%, and 19% respectively (log-rank P = .049). Upon univariate analysis, receipt of ETT compared to RT alone reached significance for OS (HR 0.35, P = .006) and CS-PFS (HR 0.39, P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis for patients with NSCLC LMD remains poor overall. However, the receipt of ETT for patients with EGFR-positive disease was associated with improved outcomes.

Novel Definitive Hypofractionated Accelerated Radiation Dose-painting (HARD) for Unresected Soft Tissue Sarcomas.

Purpose: Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are historically radioresistant, with surgery being an integral component of their treatment. With their low α/ß, STS may be more responsive to hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT), which is often limited by long-term toxicity risk to surrounding normal tissue. An isotoxic approach using a hypofractionated accelerated radiation dose-painting (HARD) regimen allows for dosing based on clinical risk while sparing adjacent organs at risk. Methods and Materials: We retrospectively identified patients from 2019 to 2022 with unresected STS who received HARD with dose-painting to high, intermediate, and low-risk regions of 3.0 Gy, 2.5 Gy, and 2.0 to 2.3 Gy, respectively, in 20 to 22 fractions. Clinical endpoints included local control, locoregional control, progression free survival, overall survival, and toxicity outcomes. Results: Twenty-seven consecutive patients were identified and had a median age of 68 years and tumor size of 7.0 cm (range, 1.2-21.0 cm). Tumors were most often high-grade (70%), stage IV (70%), located in the extremities (59%), and locally recurrent (52%). With a median follow-up of 33.4 months, there was a 3-year locoregional control rate of 100%. The 3-year overall and progression-free survival were 44.9% and 23.3%, respectively. There were 5 (19%) acute and 2 (7%) late grade 3 toxicities, and there were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities at any point. Conclusions: The HARD regimen is a safe method of dose-escalating STS, with durable 3-year locoregional control. This approach is a promising alternative for unresected STS, though further follow-up is required to determine long-term control and toxicity.

Prediction of radiologic outcome-optimized dose plans and post-treatment magnetic resonance images: A proof-of-concept study in breast cancer brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery.

Background and purpose: Information in multiparametric Magnetic Resonance (mpMR) images is relatable to voxel-level tumor response to Radiation Treatment (RT). We have investigated a deep learning framework to predict (i) post-treatment mpMR images from pre-treatment mpMR images and the dose map ("forward models"), and, (ii) the RT dose map that will produce prescribed changes within the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) on post-treatment mpMR images ("inverse model"), in Breast Cancer Metastases to the Brain (BCMB) treated with Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS). Materials and methods: Local outcomes, planning computed tomography (CT) images, dose maps, and pre-treatment and post-treatment Apparent Diffusion Coefficient of water (ADC) maps, T1-weighted unenhanced (T1w) and contrast-enhanced (T1wCE), T2-weighted (T2w) and Fluid-Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR) mpMR images were curated from 39 BCMB patients. mpMR images were co-registered to the planning CT and intensity-calibrated. A 2D pix2pix architecture was used to train 5 forward models (ADC, T2w, FLAIR, T1w, T1wCE) and 1 inverse model on 1940 slices from 18 BCMB patients, and tested on 437 slices from another 9 BCMB patients. Results: Root Mean Square Percent Error (RMSPE) within the GTV between predicted and ground-truth post-RT images for the 5 forward models, in 136 test slices containing GTV, were (mean ± SD) 0.12 ± 0.044 (ADC), 0.14 ± 0.066 (T2w), 0.08 ± 0.038 (T1w), 0.13 ± 0.058 (T1wCE), and 0.09 ± 0.056 (FLAIR). RMSPE within the GTV on the same 136 test slices, between the predicted and ground-truth dose maps, was 0.37 ± 0.20 for the inverse model. Conclusions: A deep learning-based approach for radiologic outcome-optimized dose planning in SRS of BCMB has been demonstrated.

Intricacies of Human-AI Interaction in Dynamic Decision-Making for Precision Oncology: A Case Study in Response-Adaptive Radiotherapy.

Background: Adaptive treatment strategies that can dynamically react to individual cancer progression can provide effective personalized care. Longitudinal multi-omics information, paired with an artificially intelligent clinical decision support system (AI-CDSS) can assist clinicians in determining optimal therapeutic options and treatment adaptations. However, AI-CDSS is not perfectly accurate, as such, clinicians' over/under reliance on AI may lead to unintended consequences, ultimately failing to develop optimal strategies. To investigate such collaborative decision-making process, we conducted a Human-AI interaction case study on response-adaptive radiotherapy (RT). Methods: We designed and conducted a two-phase study for two disease sites and two treatment modalities-adaptive RT for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and adaptive stereotactic body RT for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-in which clinicians were asked to consider mid-treatment modification of the dose per fraction for a number of retrospective cancer patients without AI-support (Unassisted Phase) and with AI-assistance (AI-assisted Phase). The AI-CDSS graphically presented trade-offs in tumor control and the likelihood of toxicity to organs at risk, provided an optimal recommendation, and associated model uncertainties. In addition, we asked for clinicians' decision confidence level and trust level in individual AI recommendations and encouraged them to provide written remarks. We enrolled 13 evaluators (radiation oncology physicians and residents) from two medical institutions located in two different states, out of which, 4 evaluators volunteered in both NSCLC and HCC studies, resulting in a total of 17 completed evaluations (9 NSCLC, and 8 HCC). To limit the evaluation time to under an hour, we selected 8 treated patients for NSCLC and 9 for HCC, resulting in a total of 144 sets of evaluations (72 from NSCLC and 72 from HCC). Evaluation for each patient consisted of 8 required inputs and 2 optional remarks, resulting in up to a total of 1440 data points. Results: AI-assistance did not homogeneously influence all experts and clinical decisions. From NSCLC cohort, 41 (57%) decisions and from HCC cohort, 34 (47%) decisions were adjusted after AI assistance. Two evaluations (12%) from the NSCLC cohort had zero decision adjustments, while the remaining 15 (88%) evaluations resulted in at least two decision adjustments. Decision adjustment level positively correlated with dissimilarity in decision-making with AI [NSCLC: ρ = 0.53 ( p < 0.001); HCC: ρ = 0.60 ( p < 0.001)] indicating that evaluators adjusted their decision closer towards AI recommendation. Agreement with AI-recommendation positively correlated with AI Trust Level [NSCLC: ρ = 0.59 ( p < 0.001); HCC: ρ = 0.7 ( p < 0.001)] indicating that evaluators followed AI's recommendation if they agreed with that recommendation. The correlation between decision confidence changes and decision adjustment level showed an opposite trend [NSCLC: ρ = -0.24 ( p = 0.045), HCC: ρ = 0.28 ( p = 0.017)] reflecting the difference in behavior due to underlying differences in disease type and treatment modality. Decision confidence positively correlated with the closeness of decisions to the standard of care (NSCLC: 2 Gy/fx; HCC: 10 Gy/fx) indicating that evaluators were generally more confident in prescribing dose fractionations more similar to those used in standard clinical practice. Inter-evaluator agreement increased with AI-assistance indicating that AI-assistance can decrease inter-physician variability. The majority of decisions were adjusted to achieve higher tumor control in NSCLC and lower normal tissue complications in HCC. Analysis of evaluators' remarks indicated concerns for organs at risk and RT outcome estimates as important decision-making factors. Conclusions: Human-AI interaction depends on the complex interrelationship between expert's prior knowledge and preferences, patient's state, disease site, treatment modality, model transparency, and AI's learned behavior and biases. The collaborative decision-making process can be summarized as follows: (i) some clinicians may not believe in an AI system, completely disregarding its recommendation, (ii) some clinicians may believe in the AI system but will critically analyze its recommendations on a case-by-case basis; (iii) when a clinician finds that the AI recommendation indicates the possibility for better outcomes they will adjust their decisions accordingly; and (iv) When a clinician finds that the AI recommendation indicate a worse possible outcome they will disregard it and seek their own alternative approach.

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.

Rectal tumor fragmentation as a response pattern following chemoradiation.

Background: Tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy is heterogenous and prognostically important for locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma (LARC) patients. Commonly applied response classification approaches including tumor regression grading (TRG) and TN downstaging can be discordant. The aim of this study is to compare the prognostic value of discordant tumor response measurement categorized according to the AJCC/CAP TRG schema and ypTN stage. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective review of 90 consecutive patients with stage II-III rectal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), total mesorectal excision (TME) and adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) between 2007 and 2018. Two pathologists re-examined each case to assign a consensus AJCC TRG. A Cox proportional hazards ratio model assessed the effect of patient, tumor, and treatment factors on disease-free survival (DFS). Results: Median follow-up after surgery was 46 months (95% CI: 41-50 months). Median age at diagnosis was 55 years (range: 27-80). Most patients were male (58%) and Caucasian (92%) with clinical stage III disease (68%). Seventy-three patients (81%) underwent low anterior resection (LAR), 17 (19%) underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR). The median interval from completion of nCRT to surgery was 62 days (IQR: 56-70 days). The 4-year OS, DFS, and LC was 92.4%, 74.4%, and 90.2%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, ypTN downstaging was not prognostically significant; however, AJCC TRG score 3 (minimal tumor response to treatment) was strongly predictive for inferior DFS (3-year DFS 79% vs. 25%, P<0.001). Patients with TRG 3 had a significantly higher risk of both local (75% vs. 5%) and distant failure (75% vs. 19%). Conclusions: Minimal tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy, AJCC TRG 3, irrespective of ypTN downstaging, is a pattern of residual disease that is at highest risk for recurrence. Response categorization discrepancies may be partly explained by alternative patterns of residual disease, including tumor fragmentation, and may be best reflected by TRG. The optimal tumor response categorization method requires further study to best stratify patient risk and management.

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.

Management of ductal carcinoma in situ with accelerated partial breast irradiation brachytherapy: Implications for guideline expansion.

PURPOSE: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is controversial, and the suitability criteria from the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS), American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO), and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) have important differences. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a single-institution retrospective review of 169 consecutive patients with DCIS who underwent lumpectomy followed by APBI intracavitary brachytherapy from 2003 to 2018. Outcomes, including overall survival, recurrence-free survival (RFS), ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, and distant metastasis, were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The median followup time was 62.5 months. Median age was 66 years (47-89 years). The majority of patients had estrogen receptor-positive disease (89%). Fifty patients (30%) had Grade 3 disease. Of the 142 patients with adequate pathology interpretation, 91 and 108 cases had margins ≥ 3 mm and ≥2 mm, respectively. Most patients (72%) were prescribed and started endocrine therapy. Of the patients evaluable for ABS criteria (N = 130), 97 met the suitability criteria. Of the patients evaluable for ASTRO criteria (N = 129), 42 were deemed cautionary and 33 were deemed unsuitable. Of the patients evaluable for GEC-ESTRO criteria (N = 143), 141 cases were at intermediate risk and two were at high risk. Five-year ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, RFS, and overall survival were 0.6%, 97.7%, and 97.2%, respectively. The ABS, ASTRO, and GEC-ESTRO criteria failed to significantly predict for RFS. CONCLUSIONS: These results, although limited by short-term followup, indicate that expansion of the eligibility criteria of APBI for patients with DCIS should be considered.