Long-Term Risk of Hip Complications After Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Dose-Response Study

Assessing Pain and Functional Outcomes of Percutaneous Stabilization of Metastatic Pelvic Lesions via Photodynamic Nails: A Bi-Institutional Investigation of Orthopaedic Outcomes

Background

Minimally invasive surgical interventions for metastatic invasion of the pelvis have become more prevalent and varied. Our group hypothesized that the use of percutaneous photodynamic nails (PDNs) would result in decreased pain, improved functional outcomes and level of ambulation, and decreased use of opioid pain medication.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with metastatic pelvic bone disease undergoing stabilization with PDNs (IlluminOss Medical) at 2 institutions. Functional outcome measures assessed include the Combined Pain and Ambulatory Function (CPAF), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function, and PROMIS Global Health-Physical. Pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS). Outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year following surgery.

Results

A total of 39 patients treated with PDNs were included. No cases of surgical site infection or implant failure were identified. The median pain VAS score decreased from 8 preoperatively to 0 at the 6-week time point (p < 0.0001). The median CPAF score improved from 5.5 points preoperatively to 7 points at the 3-month mark (p = 0.0132). A significant improvement in physical function was seen at 6 months in the PROMIS Physical Function (p = 0.02) and at both 6 months (p = 0.01) and 1 year (p < 0.01) for the PROMIS Global Health-Physical. The rate of patients prescribed opioid analgesia dropped from 100% preoperatively to 20% at 6 months following surgery (p < 0.001). By 6 weeks, all patients were fully weight-bearing and able to walk independently with or without assistive devices.

Conclusions

Percutaneous stabilization of metastatic periacetabular defects using PDNs is a safe and effective palliative procedure that has been shown to improve patient mobility and provide early pain relief.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Dosimetric Features of Ultra-Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Purpose

To report clinical and dosimetric characteristics of 5-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) using intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for localized prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

All patients receiving IMPT SABR from 2017 to 2021 for localized prostate cancer at our institution were included. Five fractions were delivered every other day to the prostate +/- seminal vesicles [clinical target volume (CTV)] with 3 mm/3% robustness. A 4-field arrangement with 2 anterior oblique and 2 opposed lateral beams was used in most patients (97%), and most (99%) had a retroprostatic hydrogel spacer.

Results

A total of 534 patients with low (14%), favorable intermediate (45%), unfavorable intermediate (36%), high (4.0%), or very high-risk (0.6%) disease are evaluated. Prescription dose was 36.25 Gy (31%), 38 Gy (38%), or 40 Gy (31%) was prescribed. Median volume percentage of CTV receiving at least 100% of prescription dose [V100% (%)] was 100% [interquartile range: 99.99-100]. Rectum V50% (%), V80% (%), and V90% (%) were significantly lower in patients who had spacer, with a mean difference of -9.70%, -6.59%, and -4.42%, respectively, compared to those who did not have spacer. Femoral head dose was lower with a 4-field arrangement. Mean differences in left and right femoral head V40% (%) were -6.99% and -10.74%, respectively.

Conclusion

We provide a large, novel report of patients treated with IMPT SABR for localized prostate cancer. Four-field IMPT with hydrogel spacer provides significant sparing of rectum and femoral heads without compromising target coverage.

Dual Mobility for Oncological Hip Reconstruction: Significantly Reduced Dislocation Rates at 5 years

BACKGROUND

Although dual mobility total hip arthroplasty has become increasingly common in recent years, limited remains known on dual mobility in surgical oncology. This university-based investigation compared dislocation and revision rates of DMs, conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA), and hemiarthroplasties (HAs) for oncological hip reconstruction.

METHODS

An institutional tumor registry was used to identify 221 patients undergoing 45 DMs, 67 conventional THAs, and 109 HAs, performed for 17 primary hip tumors and 204 hip metastases between 2010 and 2020. The median age at surgery was 65 years, and 52% were female. The mean follow-up was 2.5 years. Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves and log-rank tests were done to compare dislocation and revision rates among all 221 patients, after a one-to-one propensity match, based on age, sex, tumor type (metastasis, primary tumor), and tumor localization (femur, acetabulum).

RESULTS

The 5-year survivorship free of dislocation was 98% in DMs, 66% in conventional THAs ( P = 0.03; all P values compared with DMs), and 97% among HAs ( P = 0.48). The 5-year survivorship free of revision was 69% in DMs, 62% in conventional THAs ( P = 0.68), and 92% in HAs ( P = 0.06). After propensity matching, the 5-year survivorship free of dislocation was 42% in 45 conventional THAs ( P = 0.027; compared with all 45 DMs) and 89% in 16 matched HAs ( P = 0.19; compared with 16 DMs with femoral involvement only). The 5-year survivorship free of revision was 40% in matched conventional THAs ( P = 0.91) and 100% in matched HAs ( P = 0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

DMs showed markedly lower rates of dislocation than conventional THAs, with overall revision rates remaining comparable among different designs. DMs should be considered the option of choice for oncological hip reconstruction if compared with conventional THAs. HAs are a feasible alternative when encountering femoral disease involvement only.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Impact of external beam radiation on total shoulder arthroplasty outcomes: a propensity-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

External beam radiation therapy has a number of deleterious effects on the body, and a number of post-operative complications have been reported for several surgeries including total knee arthroplasty. However, few studies have investigated the impact of external beam radiation therapy for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Our study aimed to assess the systemic and joint complications associated with TSA in patients with prior radiation exposures, as well as evaluate the surgical outcomes of radiation patients compared to non-radiation TSA patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the TriNetX Analytics Network. A 1:1 propensity score matching function was utilized to create two cohorts with matched baseline characteristics within the TriNetX network. Comparisons of the primary and secondary outcomes between the two cohorts were made using odds ratios. A p value of < 0.05 was determined to be significant.

RESULTS

A total of 75,510 patients that received TSA were identified with 1505 having a history of radiation therapy (RT) and 73,605 with no radiation therapy (non-RT). After propensity matching, both groups contained 1484 patients. RT patients were at higher risk for developing prosthetic joint infection, acute renal failure, altered mental state, cerebrovascular event, DVT, PE, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and UTI compared to non-RT patients at different time points (p < 0.5).

CONCLUSION

Patients with prior history of external beam radiation undergoing TSA had a higher risk of systemic complications and prosthetic joint infection compared to patients without a prior history. These complications suggest a more complicated post-operative management course for these patients.

Comparative In Silico Analysis of Ultra-Hypofractionated Intensity-Modulated Photon Radiotherapy (IMRT) Versus Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) in the Pre-Operative Treatment of Retroperitoneal Sarcoma

BACKGROUND

While pre-operative radiation did not improve abdominal recurrence-free survival for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) in the randomized STRASS trial, it did reduce rates of local recurrence. However, the risk of toxicity was substantial and the time to surgery was prolonged. A combination of hypofractionation and proton therapy may reduce delays from the initiation of radiation to surgery and limit the dose to surrounding organs at risk (OARs). We conducted a dosimetric comparison of the pre-operative ultra-hypofractionated intensity-modulated photon (IMRT) and proton radiotherapy (IMPT).

METHODS

Pre-operative IMRT and IMPT plans were generated on 10 RPS patients. The prescription was 25 Gy radiobiological equivalents (GyEs) (radiobiological effective dose of 1.1) to the clinical target volume and 30 GyEs to the margin at risk, all in five fractions. Comparisons were made using student T-tests.

RESULTS

The following endpoints were significantly lower with IMPT than with IMRT: mean doses to liver, bone, and all genitourinary and gastrointestinal OARs; bowel, kidney, and bone V5-V20; stomach V15; liver V5; maximum doses to stomach, spinal canal, and body; and whole-body integral dose.

CONCLUSIONS

IMPT maintained target coverage while significantly reducing the dose to adjacent OARs and integral dose compared to IMRT. A prospective trial treating RPS with pre-operative ultra-hypofractionated IMPT at our institution is currently being pursued.

Is High-dose Radiation Therapy Associated With Early Revision Due to Aseptic Loosening in Patients With a Sarcoma of the Lower Extremities Reconstructed With a Cemented Endoprosthesis?

BACKGROUND

The durability of endoprostheses after limb salvage surgery is influenced by surgical factors (resection length, implant location, and residual bone quality), implant design (modular versus custom design, rotating versus fixed hinge, coating, collars, and the use of cross pins), and host factors (patient's immune status, activity levels, and age). In general, radiation therapy increases the risk of fractures, infection, delayed wound healing, and impaired osseointegration. Several studies have shown exposure to radiation to be associated with higher endoprosthesis revision rates and higher periprosthetic infection rates, but results are inconsistent. Although radiation therapy is not routinely used in the treatment of many bone sarcomas in current practice, it is still used in high doses after resection and prosthetic reconstruction in patients who have Ewing sarcoma with close or positive margins and in patients with soft tissue sarcoma. It is also used in varying doses after prosthetic reconstruction in patients with myeloma or bone metastasis after resection of periarticular destructive tumors. These patients may be at an increased risk of complications due to their radiation exposure, but this is a difficult question to study given the rarity of these diagnoses and poor overall survival of these patients. We therefore leveraged a large, longitudinally collected, 40-year endoprosthesis database that included patients who received radiation to the extremity for many bone and soft tissue sarcomas to investigate the association between preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy and endoprosthesis survival.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is receiving preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy in low or high doses for the treatment of bone or soft tissue malignancy of the lower extremities associated with decreased implant survivorship free from amputation or revision due to any cause? (2) Is receiving preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy in low or high doses for the treatment of bone or soft tissue malignancy of the lower extremities associated with decreased implant survivorship free from revision specifically due to aseptic loosening? (3) Is receiving preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy for the treatment of Ewing sarcoma of the femur specifically associated with decreased implant survivorship free from revision specifically due to aseptic loosening?

METHODS

This was a retrospective, comparative study using our institution's database of 822 endoprostheses. Between 1980 and 2019, we treated 541 patients with primary cemented endoprostheses of the extremities. Of those patients, 8% (45 of 541) were excluded due to unknown radiation status, 3% (17 of 541) because of prior failed allograft, 15% (83 of 541) due to metastatic disease from a carcinoma, 1% (6 of 541) due to a nononcologic diagnosis, 4% (20 of 541) due to benign tumor diagnosis, 16% (87 of 541) due to upper extremity tumor location, 9% (49 of 541) due to not receiving chemotherapy, and 3% (14 of 541) due to expandable prostheses. Of the remaining 220 patients, 6% (13) were considered missing because they did not have 2 years of follow-up and did not reach a study endpoint. No patients had surgery within the last 2 years of the study end date. In all, 207 patients met inclusion criteria and were eligible for analysis. Patients who had received radiation to the lower extremities at any point in their treatment course were included in the radiation group and were compared with patients who did not receive radiation. For patients where radiation dose was available, the radiation group was subdivided into a low-dose (≤ 3000 cGy) and high-dose (> 3000 cGy) group. Revision surgery was defined as any surgery necessitating removal or replacement of the tibial or femoral stem. The complications necessitating revision or amputation were poor wound healing, aseptic loosening, implant breakage, deep infection, and tumor progression. The primary outcome of interest was implant survival free from revision or amputation due to any cause. The secondary outcome of interest was implant survival free from revision or amputation specifically due to aseptic loosening. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were generated with implant survival free from revision or amputation as the endpoint and patient death as a competing risk. A log-rank test was used to identify differences in survivorship between the patients who received radiation and those who did not. Multivariate regression was used to identify factors associated with decreased implant survival. An odds ratio was used to determine relative effect size among the factors associated with decreased implant survival.

RESULTS

The mean implant survival time for patients who did not receive radiation was 18.3 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.4 to 21.3) whereas the mean implant survival time for patients who received low- and high-dose radiation were 19.1 years (95% CI 14.5 to 23.7; p = 0.59) and 13.8 years (95% CI 8.2 to 19.5; p = 0.65), respectively. The mean implant survival free from revision for aseptic loosening for patients who did not receive radiation was 27.1 years (95% CI 24.1 to 30.1) whereas the mean implant survival for patients who received low- and high-dose radiation were 24.1 years (95% CI 19.1 to 29.1; p = 0.34) and 16.4 years (95% CI 10.6 to 22.2; p = 0.01), respectively. Patients who received high-dose radiation had decreased 5-year implant survivorship free from amputation or revision due to aseptic loosening (73% [95% CI 44% to 89%]) compared with patients who did not receive radiation (95% [95% CI 90% to 99%]; p = 0.01). For patients treated for Ewing sarcoma of the femur, the 5-year implant survival free from amputation or revision due to aseptic loosening for patients who did not receive radiation (100% [95% CI 100% to 100%]) was no different compared with patients who received radiation (71% [95% CI 35% to 90%]; p = 0.56).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study may apply to scenarios where radiation is used, such as Ewing sarcoma with positive margins or local recurrence and after prosthetic reconstruction in patients with myeloma or bone metastasis after resection of periarticular destructive tumors. Surgeons may consider closer monitoring for early clinical and radiographic signs of aseptic loosening in patients who received high-dose radiation. These patients may also benefit from constructs that have increased resistance to aseptic loosening such as cross-pin or side plate fixation. The association between radiation and aseptic loosening should be further studied with larger studies with homogeneity in tumor diagnosis and prosthesis. The dose-dependent relationship between radiation and bone-related complications may also benefit from controlled, laboratory-based biomechanical studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Acute toxicities of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with intensified chemoradiotherapy within the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial: comparing conventional versus VMAT planning at a single center

In locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is regarded as standard treatment. We assessed acute toxicities in patients receiving conventional 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-RT) and correlated them with dosimetric parameters after re-planning with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Patients were randomized within the multicenter CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial and received 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions and simultaneous chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin. Organs at risk (OAR) were contoured in a standardized approach. Acute toxicities and dose volume histogram parameters of 3D-RT plans were compared to retrospectively calculated VMAT plans. From 08/2015 to 01/2018, 35 patients with LARC were treated at one study center. Thirty-four patients were analyzed of whom 1 (3%) was UICC stage II and 33 (97%) patients were UICC stage III. Grade 3 acute toxicities occurred in 5 patients (15%). Patients with acute grade 1 cystitis (n = 9) had significantly higher D_mean values for bladder (29.4 Gy vs. 25.2 Gy, p < 0.01) compared to patients without bladder toxicities. Acute diarrhea was associated with small bowel volume (grade 2: 870.1 ccm vs. grade 0-1: 647.3 ccm; p < 0.01) and with the irradiated volumes V5 to V50. Using VMAT planning, we could reduce mean doses and irradiated volumes for all OAR: D_mean bladder (21.9 Gy vs. 26.3 Gy, p < 0.01), small bowel volumes V5-V45 (p < 0.01), D_mean anal sphincter (34.6 Gy vs. 35.6 Gy, p < 0.01) and D_mean femoral heads (right 11.4 Gy vs. 25.9 Gy, left 12.5 Gy vs. 26.6 Gy, p < 0.01). Acute small bowel and bladder toxicities were dose and volume dependent. Dose and volume sparing for all OAR could be achieved through VMAT planning and might result in less acute toxicities.