The role of palliative interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy) in esophageal cancer: An AIRO (Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology) systematic review focused on dysphagia-free survival

A two-center experience: The impact of COVID-19 on two brachytherapy programs in Ontario - virtual care, service suspension and radiation therapy workflow

INTRODUCTION

Most brachytherapy (BT) procedures require general anesthesia and are therefore considered aerosol generating medical procedures (AGMPs). The COVID-19 pandemic impacted BT as services were prioritized by balancing the harm associated with COVID-19 infection versus the effect of delay of potentially curative treatment. This article summarizes the impact of the pandemic on BT programs in two cancer centers in a Canadian province.

METHODS

As part of a quality assurance project, a retrospective study was conducted for the first five months of the pandemic (March 1 to July 31, 2020). Chart review and COVID-19 related mitigation strategies were identified by BT Clinical Specialist Radiation Therapists (bCSRT) in each center using electronic medical records, departmental reports, policies and procedures.

RESULTS

Impact included start of virtual care (VC), shortened fractionation, suspension of services and workflow changes.  Both centers implemented VC strategies to reduce clinic visits: "same-day size and treat" strategy for post-operative endometrial cancer patients and virtual patient education for all patients. BT services that were suspended were low-dose-rate and high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate treatments (Center 1), lung and esophagus HDR treatments (Center 2).  Workflow changes that affected staff and patients in both centers included COVID-19 screening and the use of personal protective equipment. The centers were marginally different in workflow adjustments for AGMP procedures.  Those considered high-risk AGMP and low-risk cancer were suspended temporarily with alternate treatment strategies sought for some patients. Others had temporizing treatment such as androgen deprivation therapy to facilitate oncological safe deferral of procedures.

CONCLUSION

Both BT programs delivered treatment to most patients with minimal delays and cancellations, where feasible. Some of the pandemic workflow changes continued to the current state of the pandemic. Long-term follow-up is needed to assess the impact of COVID-19 and treatment interruptions on oncologic outcomes.

Organ and Function Preservation in Gastrointestinal Malignancies

Radiation plays an important role in organ preservation for gastrointestinal malignancies, with a watch and wait strategy enabling surgery to be avoided in patients who are not suitable or who are refusing surgery. Brachytherapy boost allows the radiation dose to be escalated, which plays a pivotal role in the successful outcome of achieving organ preservation. Here we describe the role of brachytherapy in two common gastrointestinal malignancies (oesophagus and rectum). Their indications and how the brachytherapy procedures are carried out, together with the dose and fractionation commonly used are discussed. The use of brachytherapy needs to be included in the training curriculum at all academic centres so that its use is developed by the newer generation of radiation oncologists. Its current non-use due to bias, lack of training and availability is no longer justified, given the overwhelming published evidence for the role of brachytherapy to improve organ preservation for both radical treatment and palliation in gastrointestinal malignancies.

Gastrointestinal Brachytherapy

Brachytherapy is a sophisticated and proven treatment technique of different GI localizations. Here the development of GI- brachytherapy of last 20 years, current position and the perspectives for next years are discussed. In summary: The GI-brachytherapy of different localizations is very effective, in experienced hands a safe technique and should be part of armamentarium of every radiation oncologist.

Immunosuppressive treatment and radiotherapy in kidney transplant patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppression (IS) therapy may contribute to cancer development. Some authors have proposed to reduce immunosuppression drugs dose in case of viral infections, in immunosuppression-related diseases, and in patients undergoing radiotherapy. The present analysis reports the results of a systematic review on kidney transplant recipients undergoing immunosuppression and radiotherapy.

AIM

To define if it is necessary reduce immunosuppression drugs during radiotherapy.

METHODS

The literature search was based on three electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science) using selected keywords linked through the "AND" and "OR" Boolean operators to build specific strings for each electronic search engine. Two researchers independently screened the citations, and disagreement was resolved by discussion or through the intervention of a third author. The review was conducted and reported according to the PRISMA statement. Extracted data were narratively synthesized, and, where possible, frequencies, percentages, and ranges were calculated.

RESULTS

The literature search resulted in 147 citations. After abstracts screening, 21 records were selected for full-text evaluation. Fifteen of these were excluded, leaving six papers considered suitable for analysis. There is still no clear evidence that withdrawing antimetabolites and/or calcineurin inhibitors and/or mammalian target of rapamycin-inhibitors, as opposed to continuing maintenance IS, improves patient survival in kidney transplant recipients with cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Only few retrospective studies on small cancer patient cohorts are available in this setting, but without comparison of different immunosuppression treatments. Even where immunosuppression therapy was described, patient survival seemed to be correlated only with cancer stage and type.

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review do not support the reduction of immunosuppression dose in patients undergoing radiotherapy.

Modern Management of Esophageal Cancer: Radio-Oncology in Neoadjuvancy, Adjuvancy and Palliation

The modern management of esophageal cancer is crucially based on a multidisciplinary and multimodal approach. Radiotherapy is involved in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings; moreover, it includes radical and palliative treatment intention (with a focus on the use of a stent and its potential integration with radiotherapy). In this review, the above-mentioned settings and approaches will be described. Referring to available international guidelines, the background evidence bases will be reviewed, and the ongoing, more relevant trials will be outlined. Target definitions and radiotherapy doses to administer will be mentioned. Peculiar applications such as brachytherapy (interventional radiation oncology), and data regarding innovative approaches including MRI-guided-RT and radiomic analysis will be reported. A focus on the avoidance of surgery for major clinical responses (particularly for SCC) is detailed.

Modern Management of Esophageal Cancer: Radio-Oncology in Neoadjuvancy, Adjuvancy and Palliation

The modern management of esophageal cancer is crucially based on a multidisciplinary and multimodal approach. Radiotherapy is involved in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings; moreover, it includes radical and palliative treatment intention (with a focus on the use of a stent and its potential integration with radiotherapy). In this review, the above-mentioned settings and approaches will be described. Referring to available international guidelines, the background evidence bases will be reviewed, and the ongoing, more relevant trials will be outlined. Target definitions and radiotherapy doses to administer will be mentioned. Peculiar applications such as brachytherapy (interventional radiation oncology), and data regarding innovative approaches including MRI-guided-RT and radiomic analysis will be reported. A focus on the avoidance of surgery for major clinical responses (particularly for SCC) is detailed.

Modern Management of Esophageal Cancer: Radio-Oncology in Neoadjuvancy, Adjuvancy and Palliation

The modern management of esophageal cancer is crucially based on a multidisciplinary and multimodal approach. Radiotherapy is involved in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings; moreover, it includes radical and palliative treatment intention (with a focus on the use of a stent and its potential integration with radiotherapy). In this review, the above-mentioned settings and approaches will be described. Referring to available international guidelines, the background evidence bases will be reviewed, and the ongoing, more relevant trials will be outlined. Target definitions and radiotherapy doses to administer will be mentioned. Peculiar applications such as brachytherapy (interventional radiation oncology), and data regarding innovative approaches including MRI-guided-RT and radiomic analysis will be reported. A focus on the avoidance of surgery for major clinical responses (particularly for SCC) is detailed.

Rehabilitation Nursing Intervention Can Improve Dysphagia and Quality of Life of Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer

Objective

To seek the improvement of rehabilitation nursing intervention on dysphagia and quality of life of patients with esophageal cancer undergoing radiotherapy.

Methods

A total of 109 patients with esophageal cancer undergoing radiotherapy were selected as research objects. According to the random number table, they were separated into the control group (CG) and intervention group (IG), with 45 cases in CG and 64 cases in IG. In CG, patients were given routine nursing intervention, while those in IG were given rehabilitation nursing intervention. After intervention, the degree of acute radiation injury and the improvement of swallowing function were observed to compare the self-nursing ability, quality of life, and incidence of complications between the two groups.

Results

The degree of injury in CG was heavier than that in IG. The improvement of swallowing function in IG was better than that in CG. The scores of self-nursing ability and life quality in IG were higher than those in CG, with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). The incidence of complications in IG was obviously lower than that in CG (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Rehabilitation nursing intervention can ameliorate dysphagia, improve the quality of life, and reduce the incidence of complications for patients with esophageal cancer undergoing radiotherapy. It is worthy of clinical application.

Pre-clinical dosimetry of a new six-channel applicator for high-dose-rate treatment of esophageal cancer

Purpose

To evaluate the dosimetry of a six-channel high-dose-rate (HDR) applicator for treatment of esophageal cancer with respect to lateral directionality and heterogeneous media.

Material and methods

A computed tomography (CT)- and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-compatible esophageal applicator consisting of 2 inflatable portions (anchor and therapeutic balloons) with 6 longitudinal treatment catheters equally spaced circumferentially was constructed. Treatment plans were prepared using Oncentra 4.5 for various catheter loadings and target locations and sizes. Calculated dose distributions were compared to measured distributions obtained using film and a water phantom. Balloon inflations with water and with air were tested.

Results

TG-43 dose calculations matched measurements well when inflation balloons were filled with water. When air was used to inflate, model-based dose calculations (TG-186) improved the comparison with measurement. Several cases with simulated ring targets demonstrated better dose conformity to non-uniform targets compared to a single central catheter. Additionally, the use of this applicator compared to a single catheter, gave rise to considerable improvement in sparing non-target tissue.

Conclusions

Lateral dose modulation is achievable with the applicator described in this work. The use of TG-186 dose calculation made a small improvement in heterogeneous media.

Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Staging and Multimodal Therapy of Esophageal and Gastric Tumors

Gastric and esophageal tumors are diverse neoplasms that involve mucosal and submucosal tissue layers and include squamous cell carcinomas, adenocarcinomas, spindle cell neoplasms, neuroendocrine tumors, marginal B cell lymphomas, along with less common tumors. The worldwide burden of esophageal and gastric malignancies is significant, with esophageal and gastric cancer representing the ninth and fifth most common cancers, respectively. The approach to diagnosis and staging of these lesions is multimodal and includes a combination of gastrointestinal endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, and cross-sectional imaging. Likewise, therapy is multidisciplinary and combines therapeutic endoscopy, surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic chemotherapeutic tools. Future directions for diagnosis of esophageal and gastric malignancies are evolving rapidly and will involve advances in endoscopic and endosonographic techniques including tethered capsules, optical coherence tomography, along with targeted cytologic and serological analyses.

Review of brachytherapy complications - Upper gastrointestinal tract

While brachytherapy applications are not widely used for cancer diagnoses in the upper GI tract (including the esophagus, liver, stomach, and pancreas), they have a clear role in palliation and symptom management and occasionally definitive locoregional treatment. With the increasing use of image-guided techniques, the incidence of side effects and complications has shown to be lower than many other alternative treatment modalities, making brachytherapy approaches a preferred treatment option. This review examines procedural complications and acute and chronic adverse effects from radiation associated with esophageal, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic brachytherapy and their management.

Stage III Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients With Three-Dimensional Conformal or Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

Aim: To evaluate long-term outcome and prognostic factors of stage III esophageal cancer after definitive radiotherapy using three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques.

Methods: Patients with T3N1M0/T4N0-1M0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) treated with definitive radiotherapy from 2002 to 2016 in 10 Chinese medical centers were retrospectively analyzed. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were calculated. Prognostic factors were analyzed by Log-rank test and multivariable Cox model.

Results: Survival data of 1,450 patients were retrospectively collected. With a median follow-up time of 65.9 months, 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 69.3, 36.7, and 27.7%, respectively, and PFS rates were 58.6, 32.7, and 27.4%, respectively. Univariable analyses showed that gender, age, lesion location, lesion length, largest tumor diameter, lymph node metastasis, gross tumor volume, EQD2, short-term response, and concurrent chemotherapy were prognostic factors for OS. Multivariable analyses showed that lesion location, T-classification, GTV size, EQD2, and short-term response to RT were independent prognostic factors for OS, and tumor diameter, GTV size, and short-term response were independent prognostic factors for PFS.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that definitive radiotherapy using 3DCRT and IMRT provides promising outcomes for locally advanced ESCC.

Patient-reported outcomes after external beam radiotherapy versus brachytherapy for palliation of dysphagia in esophageal cancer: A matched comparison of two prospective trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

A matched comparison of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) versus brachytherapy recently demonstrated that EBRT appears at least as effective for palliating dysphagia in patients with incurable esophageal cancer. The aim of this analysis was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after EBRT versus brachytherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a multicenter prospective cohort study, patients with incurable esophageal cancer requiring palliation of dysphagia were included to undergo EBRT (20 Gy in 5 fractions). This EBRT cohort was compared to the single-dose 12 Gy brachytherapy cohort of the previously reported SIREC-trial. Propensity score matching was applied to adjust for baseline imbalances. The primary endpoint of dysphagia improvement was reported previously. PROs were secondary outcomes and assessed at baseline and 3 months after treatment using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18 questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 115 enrolled EBRT patients and 93 brachytherapy patients were eligible. After matching, 69 well-balanced pairs remained. At follow-up, significant deteriorations in functioning (i.e. physical, role, social), pain, appetite loss, and trouble with taste were observed after brachytherapy. In the EBRT group, such deterioration was observed only for role functioning, while significant improvements in trouble with eating and pain were found. Between-group comparison showed mostly comparable PRO changes, but significantly favored EBRT with regard to nausea, vomiting, pain, and appetite loss.

CONCLUSION

Short course EBRT results in similar or better PROs at 3 months after treatment compared to single-dose brachytherapy for the palliation of malignant dysphagia. These findings further support its use and inclusion in clinical practice guidelines.

Radiochemotherapy with or without cetuximab for unresectable esophageal cancer: final results of a randomized phase 2 trial (LEOPARD-2)

Purpose

To investigate the efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab when added to radiochemotherapy for unresectable esophageal cancer.

Methods

This randomized phase 2 trial (clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT01787006) compared radiochemotherapy plus cetuximab (arm A) to radiochemotherapy (arm B) for unresectable esophageal cancer. Primary objective was 2‑year overall survival (OS). Arm A was considered insufficiently active if 2‑year OS was ≤40% (null hypothesis = H₀), and promising if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was >45%. If that lower limit was >40%, H₀ was rejected. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional control (LC), metastases-free survival (MFS), response, and toxicity. The study was terminated early after 74 patients; 68 patients were evaluable.

Results

Two-year OS was 71% in arm A (95% CI: 55–87%) vs. 53% in arm B (95% CI: 36–71%); H₀ was rejected. Median OS was 49.1 vs. 24.1 months (p = 0.147). Hazard ratio (HR) for death was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.30–1.21). At 2 years, PFS was 56% vs. 44%, LC 84% vs. 72%, and MFS 74% vs. 54%. HRs were 0.51 (0.25–1.04) for progression, 0.43 (0.13–1.40) for locoregional failure, and 0.43 (0.17–1.05) for distant metastasis. Overall response was 81% vs. 69% (p = 0.262). Twenty-six and 27 patients, respectively, experienced at least one toxicity grade ≥3 (p = 0.573). A significant difference was found for grade ≥3 allergic reactions (12.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.044).

Conclusion

Given the limitations of this trial, radiochemotherapy plus cetuximab was feasible. There was a trend towards improved PFS and MFS. Larger studies are required to better define the role of cetuximab for unresectable esophageal cancer.

Can brachytherapy be properly considered in the clinical practice? Trilogy project: The vision of the AIRO (Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology) Interventional Radiotherapy study group

Purpose

Brachytherapy (BT, interventional radiotherapy - IRT) is a kind of radiation therapy, in which the radioactive source is placed nearby or even inside the cancer itself. Even though this kind of radiation therapy appears effective and valuable, BT has been facing a slow but progressive decline over the past decades in Europe, particularly in Italy. Aims of this study were to identify the practical and theoretical reasons why BT is facing a slow decline in Italy, and to define a vision of the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) and a strategy about this emerged issues.

Material and methods

A programmatic path divided into three steps like a trilogy was launched by AIRO Interventional Radiotherapy study group. The study group performed an initial data collection to highlight both the clinical and the educational topics and problems through specific surveys. After having analyzed the results of the surveys and shared a vision about the emerged issues, a specific strategy was adopted.

Results

Four relevant domains were identified and for each ones, a strategy has been discussed and defined. This manuscript shows in detail the individual actions defined (accomplished or in progress).

Conclusions

The AIRO vision implies that specific strategic interventions must be carried out in the field of national guidelines, education, research, and communication with patients and colleagues of other specialties in an interdisciplinary setting.

Hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for fragile patients with oesophageal cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and dosimetric results of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to deliver hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) in oesophageal cancer patients, unfit for a multimodality curative strategy.

PATIENTS/METHODS

From 2010 to 2017, 22 patients were treated with hypofractionated VMAT for palliative/symptomatic setting. The prescription dose was 40 Gy in 16 fractions (EQD2 41.7 Gy considering an α/β ratio of 10 Gy, and 44 Gy considering an α/β ratio of 3 Gy).

RESULTS

Eight patients (36%) were symptomatic for grade 3 baseline dysphagia. RT was generally well tolerated, and no patient interrupted the daily treatment. Acute toxicity was generally mild; no G3 acute toxicities were reported. At the end of treatment, 5 patients (22.7%) experienced a stable dysphagia and 14 (63.6%) an improvement of baseline dysphagia, while 3 patients (13.7%) reported a worsening of oesophagitis. At a mean follow-up of 8.7 months, 15 patients (79%) had a complete clinical recovery (G0-1) of the symptomatic moderate/severe dysphagia. At 3 months after the end of RT, seven patients (31.8%) achieved a partial or complete response. Two coplanar arcs were employed for VMAT delivery. Dosimetric results were consistent in terms of both target coverage and normal tissue sparing. Finally, 1-year progression-free and overall survival was 20% and 27.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypofractionated VMAT was feasible, safe, and effective to deliver symptomatic radiation in locally advanced oesophageal cancer patients, non-suitable for a standard curative treatment.