Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy before resection to avoid delay for early-stage lung cancer or oligometastases during the COVID-19 pandemic: Pathologic outcomes from the SABR-BRIDGE protocol.

BACKGROUND: During coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related operating room closures, some multidisciplinary thoracic oncology teams adopted a paradigm of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as a bridge to surgery, an approach called SABR-BRIDGE. This study presents the preliminary surgical and pathological results. METHODS: Eligible participants from four institutions (three in Canada and one in the United States) had early-stage presumed or biopsy-proven lung malignancy that would normally be surgically resected. SABR was delivered using standard institutional guidelines, with surgery >3 months following SABR with standardized pathologic assessment. Pathological complete response (pCR) was defined as absence of viable cancer. Major pathologic response (MPR) was defined as ≤10% viable tissue. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent SABR. Most common SABR regimens were 34 Gy/1 (29%, n = 21), 48 Gy/3-4 (26%, n = 19), and 50/55 Gy/5 (22%, n = 16). SABR was well-tolerated, with one grade 5 toxicity (death 10 days after SABR with COVID-19) and five grade 2-3 toxicities. Following SABR, 26 patients underwent resection thus far (13 pending surgery). Median time-to-surgery was 4.5 months post-SABR (range, 2-17.5 months). Surgery was reported as being more difficult because of SABR in 38% (n = 10) of cases. Thirteen patients (50%) had pCR and 19 (73%) had MPR. Rates of pCR trended higher in patients operated on at earlier time points (75% if within 3 months, 50% if 3-6 months, and 33% if ≥6 months; p = .069). In the exploratory best-case scenario analysis, pCR rate does not exceed 82%. CONCLUSIONS: The SABR-BRIDGE approach allowed for delivery of treatment during a period of operating room closure and was well-tolerated. Even in the best-case scenario, pCR rate does not exceed 82%.

Evaluating the sensitivity of EQ-5D-5L in patients with brain metastases: a secondary analysis of NRG CC001.

BACKGROUND: EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L is a commonly used measure of health-related quality of life in clinical trials given the use of its index score as a measure of health utilities. It is unclear whether EQ-5D-5L is sensitive to changes in neurocognitive function and progression that occur following brain radiation. This study sought to evaluate the sensitivity of EQ-5D-5L in reflecting these changes. METHODS: A secondary analysis of NRG Oncology CC001 was performed. Mean EQ-5D-5L index and visual analog scale (VAS) score changes from baseline between groups of patients stratified by neurocognitive function and intracranial progression status were assessed. MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for brain tumor (MDASI-BT) symptom and interference items were also analyzed between groups. RESULTS: EQ-5D-5L mean index and VAS score changes between patients who had cognitive failure and those who had preserved cognition showed no statistically significant differences at any timepoint. In contrast, VAS changes at 4 months (1.61 vs -5.13, P = .05) and 6 months (8.17 vs -0.14, P = .04) were significantly improved in the patients who survived without intracranial progression. MDASI-BT cognitive factor scores were improved in the cohort of patients with preserved neurocognitive function at 2 months (1.68 vs 2.08, P = .05) and 4 months (1.35 vs 1.83, P = .04). MDASI-BT symptom interference was significantly associated with intracranial progression at 4 months, but not with neurocognitive status. CONCLUSION: EQ-5D-5L index and VAS scores were not sensitive to neurocognitive changes that patients experienced, but VAS scores were sensitive to progression. This study challenges the routine use of EQ-5D as a quality of life metric in brain metastases clinical trials that are focused on preventing neurocognitive dysfunction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT# 02360215.

Stereotactic or Conventional Radiation for Early-Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has been increasingly used for the treatment of inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It has been shown to provide promising local control (LC) and toxicity in prospective trials. However, randomized trials have shown conflicting results in terms of whether SABR confers an overall survival (OS) advantage compared to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT). A systematic review of Medline and Embase (inception to December 2020) was performed on early-stage NSCLC patients randomized to SABR versus CFRT. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and manuscripts. A random-effects model was used to estimate treatment effects. Toxicity outcomes were compared by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Individual patient data were digitally approximated and pooled as secondary analysis. The literature search identified 1494 studies, and 16 studies were included for full-text review. Two randomized trials were identified, including a total of 203 patients, of which 115 (57%) received SABR, and 88 (43%) received CFRT. The weighted mean age was 74 years and 48% of patients were male. Most patients had T1 cancers (67%). Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy was not associated with a significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-2.08, p=0.71). There was no significant difference in LC between SABR and CFRT (relative risk: 0.59; CI 0.28-1.23, p=0.16). Of the commonly reported adverse events, one grade 4 toxicity of dyspnea was reported for SABR, while all others i.e., grade 3 or higher toxicities were similar. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy demonstrated less esophagitis, dyspnea, and skin reaction of any grade. Despite widespread adoption and extensive single-arm prospective and retrospective studies suggesting its benefit, this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials fail to confirm improvements in LC, OS, and toxicity profile of SABR over CFRT in early NSCLC. This small study is likely underpowered to detect clinically significant differences.

Medical Assistance in Dying in Oncology Patients: A Canadian Academic Hospital's Experience.

BACKGROUND: Medical assistance in dying (MAID) was legislatively enacted in Canada in June 2016. Most studies of patients who received MAID grouped patients with cancer and non-cancer diagnoses. Our goal was to analyze the characteristics of oncology patients who received MAID in a Canadian tertiary care hospital. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients with cancer who received MAID between June 2016 and July 2020 at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC). We describe patients' demographics, oncologic characteristics, symptoms, treatments, and palliative care involvement. RESULTS: Ninety-two oncology patients received MAID. The median age was 72. The leading cancer diagnoses among these patients were lung, colorectal, and pancreatic. At the time of MAID request, 68% of patients had metastatic disease. Most patients (90%) had ECOG performance status of 3 or 4 before receiving MAID. Ninety-nine percent of patients had distressing symptoms at time of MAID request, most commonly pain. One-third of patients with metastatic or recurrent cancer received early palliative care. The median time interval between the first MAID assessment and receipt of MAID was 7 days. INTERPRETATION: Most oncology patients who received MAID at LHSC had poor performance status and almost all had distressing symptoms. The median time interval between first MAID assessment and receipt of MAID was shorter than expected. Only one-third of patients with metastatic or recurrent cancer received early palliative care. Improving access to early palliative care is a priority in patients with advanced cancer. STUDY REGISTRATION: We received research approval from Western University's Research Ethics Board (REB) with project ID number 115367, and from Lawson's Research Database Application (ReDA) with study ID number 9579.

PET-Based Staging Is Cost-Effective in Early-Stage Follicular Lymphoma.

The objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of staging PET/CT in early-stage follicular lymphoma (FL) from the Canadian health-care system perspective. Methods: The study population was FL patients staged as early-stage using conventional CT imaging and planned for curative-intent radiation therapy (RT). A decision analytic model simulated the management after adding staging PET/CT versus using staging CT alone. In the no-PET/CT strategy, all patients proceeded to curative-intent RT as planned. In the PET/CT strategy, PET/CT information could result in an increased RT volume, switching to a noncurative approach, or no change in RT treatment as planned. The subsequent disease course was described using a state-transition cohort model over a 30-y time horizon. Diagnostic characteristics, probabilities, utilities, and costs were derived from the literature. Baseline analysis was performed using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs (2019 Canadian dollars), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted, evaluating net monetary benefit at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 10,000 simulations was performed. Costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 1.5%. Results: In the reference case scenario, staging PET/CT was the dominant strategy, resulting in an average lifetime cost saving of $3,165 and a gain of 0.32 QALYs. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the PET/CT strategy remained the preferred strategy for all scenarios supported by available data. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the PET/CT strategy was strongly dominant in 77% of simulations (i.e., reduced cost and increased QALYs) and was cost-effective in 89% of simulations (i.e., either saved costs or had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below $100,000/QALY). Conclusion: Our analysis showed that the use of PET/CT to stage early-stage FL patients reduces cost and improves QALYs. Patients with early-stage FL should undergo PET/CT before curative-intent RT.

Dexamethasone added to mepivacaine prolongs the duration of analgesia after supraclavicular brachial plexus blockade.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Corticosteroids have been used successfully to prolong the duration of local anesthetic action after peripheral nerve and epidural blockade. We hypothesized that the addition of dexamethasone to mepivacaine would prolong the duration of analgesia after ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block for patients undergoing upper-limb surgery. METHODS: After Federal Health Department and institutional review board approval, 45 adult patients undergoing elective hand or forearm surgery under supraclavicular brachial plexus blockade were randomized to receive either 30 mL mepivacaine 1.5% plus dexamethasone 8 mg (4 mg/mL), or 30 mL mepivacaine 1.5% plus 2 mL normal saline. The primary outcome measure was duration of analgesia. Secondary outcomes included onset times of sensory and motor blockade, pain and satisfaction scores, analgesic consumption, and block-related complications. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar between groups. The median duration of analgesia was significantly prolonged in the Dexamethasone group (332 mins; interquartile range, 225-448 mins) compared with the Normal Saline group (228 mins; interquartile range, 207-263 mins; P = 0.008). The onset times of sensory and motor block were similar between the groups. Complications were minor and transient and did not differ between groups at 2 weeks postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of dexamethasone to mepivacaine prolongs the duration of analgesia but does not reduce the onset of sensory and motor blockade after ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block compared with mepivacaine alone.