Cardiac Toxicity of Thoracic Radiotherapy: Existing Evidence and Future Directions

Teriparatide in individuals with a prior history of radiation therapy-a case series

PURPOSE

Teriparatide is a highly effective anabolic therapy for use in patients with osteoporosis at elevated fracture risk but carries a warning about an increased risk of osteosarcoma based on findings from pre-approval animal studies. Since approval, follow-up of individuals treated with teriparatide has not shown an increased risk of osteosarcoma, but it is still recommended to avoid teriparatide in patients with risk factors for osteosarcoma. One such risk factor is radiotherapy; deciding whether to use teriparatide therapy in patients at high risk of fracture but with a history of radiotherapy is therefore a frequent clinical problem.

METHODS

We sought to identify whether clinicians are using teriparatide in patients with a history of radiotherapy despite the warning and to explore the rationale for this choice. Herein, we describe six cases where the likelihood of fracture, osteosarcoma, and the benefits of teriparatide treatment are assessed to determine the appropriateness of prescribing teriparatide in the setting of prior or concurrent radiotherapy.

RESULTS

All six patients had severe osteoporosis with limited treatment options. For those who completed 2 years of teriparatide, no further fractures during the follow-up period have occurred, and improvements in bone density (as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) were observed.

CONCLUSION

Despite radiotherapy being a relative contraindication to teriparatide use, there may be a role for teriparatide in select cases where osteoporosis is complex and severe and where other treatment options are not suitable or have been exhausted. The risks vs. benefits of prescribing teriparatide in this population should always be carefully considered, and both the patient and treating oncologist should be educated on the potential risk of osteosarcoma development when teriparatide is continued during radiotherapy.

The Utility of Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging in Cancer Patients-When, Why, How, and the Latest Developments

Cardio-oncology encompasses the risk stratification, prognostication, identification and management of cancer therapeutics related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD). Cardiovascular imaging (CVI) plays a significant role in each of these scenarios and has broadened from predominantly quantifying left ventricular function (specifically ejection fraction) to the identification of earlier bio-signatures of CTRCD. Recent data also demonstrate the impact of chemotherapy on the right ventricle, left atrium and pericardium and highlight a possible role for CVI in the identification of CTRCD through tissue characterization and assessment of these cardiac chambers. This review aims to provide a contemporary perspective on the role of multi-modal advanced cardiac imaging in cardio-oncology.

Feasibility of intensity modulated radiotherapy with involved field radiotherapy for Japanese patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer

The feasibility of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with involved field radiotherapy (IFRT) for Japanese patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) remains unclear. Here we reviewed our initial experience of IMRT with IFRT for Japanese patients with LA-NSCLC to evaluate the feasibility of the treatment. Twenty LA-NSCLC patients who were treated with IMRT with IFRT during November 2019 to October 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients received 60 Gy in 30 fractions of IMRT and were administered concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy. The median patient age was 71 years old and the group included 15 men and 5 women. The patient group included 2 patients with stage IIB, 11 patients with stage IIIA, 5 patients with stage IIIB, and 2 patients with stage IIIC disease. Histological diagnosis was squamous cell carcinoma in 14 patients, adenocarcinoma in 5 patients, and non-small cell lung cancer in 1 patient. The median follow-up period was 8 months. The incidence of grade 3 or greater pneumonitis was 5%, and grade 3 or greater esophagitis was not observed. None of the patients developed regional lymph node, with only recurrence reported so far. These findings indicate that IMRT with IFRT for Japanese patients with LA-NSCLC is feasible in terms of acute toxicity. Further study with a larger number of patients and longer follow-up to clarify the effect of treatment on patient prognosis is required.

Expert consultation is vital for adverse outcome pathway development: a case example of cardiovascular effects of ionizing radiation

BACKGROUND

The circulatory system distributes nutrients, signaling molecules, and immune cells to vital organs and soft tissues. Epidemiological, animal, and in vitro cellular mechanistic studies have highlighted that exposure to ionizing radiation (IR) can induce molecular changes in cellular and subcellular milieus leading to long-term health impacts, particularly on the circulatory system. Although the mechanisms for the pathologies are not fully elucidated, endothelial dysfunction is proven to be a critical event via radiation-induced oxidative stress mediators. To delineate connectivities of events specifically to cardiovascular disease (CVD) initiation and progression, the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) approach was used with consultation from field experts. AOPs are a means to organize information around a disease of interest to a regulatory question. An AOP begins with a molecular initiating event and ends in an adverse outcome via sequential linkages of key event relationships that are supported by evidence in the form of the modified Bradford-Hill criteria. Detailed guidelines on building AOPs are provided by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) AOP program. Here, we report on the questions and discussions needed to develop an AOP for CVD resulting from IR exposure. A recent workshop jointly organized by the MELODI (Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative) and the ALLIANCE (European Radioecology Alliance) associations brought together experts from the OECD to present the AOP approach and tools with examples from the toxicology field. As part of this workshop, four working groups were formed to discuss the identification of adverse outcomes relevant to radiation exposures and development of potential AOPs, one of which was focused on IR-induced cardiovascular effects. Each working group comprised subject matter experts and radiation researchers interested in the specific disease area and included an AOP coach.

CONCLUSION

The CVD working group identified the critical questions of interest for AOP development, including the exposure scenario that would inform the evidence, the mechanisms of toxicity, the initiating event, intermediate key events/relationships, and the type of data currently available. This commentary describes the four-day discussion of the CVD working group, its outcomes, and demonstrates how collaboration and expert consultation is vital to informing AOP construction.

A Pilot Study of Safer Radiation Dosage to the Heart and Its Subregions

Background and Objectives: The real impact of ionizing radiation on the heart and poorer overall survival for patients with non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains unclear. This study aims to determine the safe dose constraints to the heart’s subregions that could prevent patients’ early non-cancerous death and improve their quality of life. Methods and Materials: A retrospective cohort study was performed containing 51 consecutive patients diagnosed with stage III NSCLC and treated using 3D, Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) radiotherapy. For a dosimetric analysis, these structures were chosen: heart, heart base (HB), and region of great blood vessels (GBV). Dose–volume histograms (DVH) were recorded for all mentioned structures. Maximum and mean doses to the heart, HB, the muscle mass of the HB, and GBV were obtained. V10–V60 (%) parameters were calculated from the DVH. After performed statistical analysis, logistic regression models were created, and critical doses calculated. Results: The critical dose for developing a fatal endpoint for HB was 30.5 Gy, while for GBV, it was 46.3 Gy. Increasing the average dose to the HB or GBV by 1 Gy from the critical dose further increases the possibility of early death by 22.0% and 15.8%, respectively. Conclusions: We suggest that the non-canonical sub-regions of the heart (HB and GBV) should be considered during the planning stage. Additional constraints of the heart subregions should be chosen accordingly, and we propose that the mean doses to these regions be 30.5 Gy and 46.3 Gy, respectively, or less. Extrapolated DVH curves for both regions may be used during the planning stage with care.