1
|
Patel KR, Mena E, Rowe LS, Ning H, Cheng J, Salerno K, Schott E, Nathan DA, Huang EP, Lindenberg L, Choyke P, Turkbey B, Citrin DE. A Phase 1 Trial of Image Guided Risk Volume-Adapted Postprostatectomy Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024:S0360-3016(24)03451-5. [PMID: 39384104 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.09.048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2024] [Revised: 09/12/2024] [Accepted: 09/20/2024] [Indexed: 10/11/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE This was a phase 1 trial with the primary objective of identifying the most compressed dose schedule (DS) tolerable using risk volume-adapted, hypofractionated, postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) for biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Secondary endpoints included biochemical progression-free survival and quality of life (QOL). METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients were treated with 1 of 3 isoeffective DSs (DS1: 20 fractions, DS2: 15 fractions, and DS3: 10 fractions) that escalated the dose to the imaging-defined local recurrence (73 Gy3 equivalent dose in 2Gy fractions) and de-escalated the dose to the remainder of the prostate bed (48 Gy3 equivalent dose in 2Gy fractions). Escalation followed a standard 3 + 3 design with a 6-patient expansion at the maximally tolerated hypofractionated DS. Dose-limiting toxicity was defined as Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4.0 grade (G) 3 toxicity lasting >4 days within 21 days of PORT completion or G4 gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary toxicities thereafter. QOL was assessed longitudinally through 24 months with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite short form. RESULTS Between January 2018 and December 2023, 15 patients were treated (3 with DS1, 3 with DS2, and 9 with DS3). The median follow-up was 48 months. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed on any DS, and thus, expansion occurred at DS3. The cumulative incidence of G3 GI and genitourinary toxicity was 7% and 9% at 24 months, respectively, with no G4 events observed. Transient, acute G2+ GI toxicity was the most common. QOL worsened transiently during study follow-up in urinary incontinence, GI, and sexual subdomains but was similar to baseline by 24 months. The biochemical progression-free survival was 91% at both 24 and 60 months. CONCLUSIONS The maximally tolerated hypofractionated DS for hypofractionated, risk volume-adapted PORT was determined to be DS3 (36.4 Gy to the prostate bed and 47.1 Gy to the imaging-defined recurrence in 10 daily fractions). No >G3 events were observed. Transient declines in QOL did not persist through 24 months.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krishnan R Patel
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes fo Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Esther Mena
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Lindsay S Rowe
- Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Holly Ning
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes fo Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Jason Cheng
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes fo Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Kilian Salerno
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes fo Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Erica Schott
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes fo Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Debbie-Ann Nathan
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes fo Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Erich P Huang
- Biometric Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Liza Lindenberg
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Peter Choyke
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Deborah E Citrin
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes fo Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ah-Thiane L, Sargos P, Chapet O, Jolicoeur M, Terlizzi M, Salembier C, Boustani J, Prevost C, Gaudioz S, Derashodian T, Palumbo S, De Hertogh O, Créhange G, Zilli T, Supiot S. Managing postoperative biochemical relapse in prostate cancer, from the perspective of the Francophone group of Urological radiotherapy (GFRU). Cancer Treat Rev 2023; 120:102626. [PMID: 37734178 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102626] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2023] [Revised: 09/14/2023] [Accepted: 09/15/2023] [Indexed: 09/23/2023]
Abstract
Up to 50% of patients treated with radical surgery for localized prostate cancer may experience biochemical recurrence that requires appropriate management. Definitions of biochemical relapse may vary, but, in all cases, consist of an increase in a PSA without clinical or radiological signs of disease. Molecular imaging through to positron emission tomography has taken a preponderant place in relapse diagnosis, progressively replacing bone scan and CT-scan. Prostate bed radiotherapy is currently a key treatment, the action of which should be potentiated by androgen deprivation therapy. Nowadays perspectives consist in determining the best combination therapies, particularly thanks to next-generation hormone therapies, but not exclusively. Several trials are ongoing and should address these issues. We present here a literature review aiming to discuss the current management of biochemical relapse in prostate cancer after radical surgery, in lights of recent findings, as well as future perspectives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Loic Ah-Thiane
- Department of Radiation Oncology, ICO René Gauducheau, St-Herblain, France
| | - Paul Sargos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Bergonie Institute, Bordeaux, France
| | - Olivier Chapet
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHU Lyon Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France
| | - Marjory Jolicoeur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charles Le Moyne Hospital, Montreal, Canada
| | - Mario Terlizzi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France
| | - Carl Salembier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Europe Hospitals Brussels, Belgium
| | - Jihane Boustani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France
| | - Célia Prevost
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHU Lyon Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France
| | - Sonya Gaudioz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHU Lyon Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France
| | - Talar Derashodian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre, Kelowna, Canada
| | - Samuel Palumbo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHU UCL Namur-Sainte Elisabeth, Namur, Belgium
| | - Olivier De Hertogh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHR Verviers East Belgium, Verviers, Belgium
| | - Gilles Créhange
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Curie Institute, Saint-Cloud, France
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Department of Radiation Oncology, ICO René Gauducheau, St-Herblain, France.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Petersen PM, Cook AD, Sydes MR, Clarke N, Cross W, Kynaston H, Logue J, Neville P, Payne H, Parmar MKB, Parulekar W, Persad R, Saad F, Stirling A, Parker CC, Catton C. Salvage Radiation Therapy After Radical Prostatectomy: Analysis of Toxicity by Dose-Fractionation in the RADICALS-RT Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:624-629. [PMID: 37150260 PMCID: PMC7615125 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.04.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2023] [Revised: 04/25/2023] [Accepted: 04/29/2023] [Indexed: 05/09/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Emerging data indicate comparable disease control and toxicity of normal postoperative fractionation and moderate hypofractionation radiation therapy (RT) in prostate cancer. In RADICALS-RT, patients were planned for treatment with either 66 Gy in 33 fractions (f) over 6.5 weeks or 52.5 Gy in 20f over 4 weeks. This non-randomized, exploratory analysis explored the toxicity of these 2 schedules in patients who had adjuvant RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS Information on RT dose was collected in all patients. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity score was recorded every 4 months for 2 years, every 6 months until 5 years, then annually until 15 years. Patient-reported data were collected at baseline and at 1, 5, and 10 years using standard measures, including the Vaizey fecal incontinence score (bowel) and the International Continence Society Male Short-Form questionnaire (urinary incontinence). The highest event grade was recorded within the first 2 years and beyond 2 years and compared between treatment groups using the χ² test. RESULTS Of 634 patients, 217 (34%) were planned for 52.5 Gy/20f and 417 (66%) for 66 Gy/33f. In the first 2 years, grade 1 to 2 cystitis was reported more frequently among the 66 Gy/33f group (52.5 Gy/20f: 20% vs 66 Gy/33f: 30%; P = .04). After 2 years, grade 1 to 2 cystitis was reported in 16% in the 66-Gy group and 9% in the 52.5-Gy group (P = .08). Other toxic effects were similar in the 2 groups, and very few patients had any grade 3 to 4 toxic effects. Patients reported slightly higher urinary and fecal incontinence scores at 1 year than at baseline, but no clinically meaningful differences were reported between the 52.5 Gy/20f and 66 Gy/33f groups. Patient-reported health was similar at baseline and at 1 year and similar between the 52.5 Gy/20f and 66 Gy/33f groups. CONCLUSIONS Severe toxic effects were rare after prostate bed radiation therapy with either 52.5 Gy/20f or 66 Gy/33f. Only modest differences were recorded in toxic effects or in patient-reported outcomes between these 2 schedules.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Meidahl Petersen
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | - Adrian D Cook
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew R Sydes
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Noel Clarke
- Department of Urology, The Christie and Salford Royal Hospitals, Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - William Cross
- Department of Urology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | | | - John Logue
- Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Peter Neville
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Heather Payne
- University College London, The Prostate Centre, London, United Kingdom
| | - Mahesh K B Parmar
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Wendy Parulekar
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Rajendra Persad
- Bristol Urological Institute, North Bristol Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Fred Saad
- Urologic Oncology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada
| | - Alan Stirling
- Castle Hill Hospital, Castle Road, Cottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Christopher C Parker
- The Institute of Cancer Research, Royal Marsden NHS, Foundation Trust, Sutton, United Kingdom
| | - Charles Catton
- Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Paz-Manrique R, Morton G, Vera FQ, Paz-Manrique S, Espinoza-Briones A, Deza CM. Radiation therapy after radical surgery in prostate cancer. Ecancermedicalscience 2023; 17:1565. [PMID: 37396107 PMCID: PMC10310328 DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2023.1565] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2022] [Indexed: 07/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Radiation therapy plays a key role in the treatment of prostate cancer on its own. For higher risk diseases, the risk of recurrence following single modality therapy increases and a combination of treatment modalities may be necessary to achieve optimal results. We review clinical outcomes of adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy, including disease-free survival, cancer-specific survival and overall survival. We also discuss when best to intervene with post-prostatectomy radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Gerard Morton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
| | | | | | - Andrés Espinoza-Briones
- Department of General, Visceral and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Jena, Jena 07743, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wages NA, Braun TM, Conaway MR. Isotonic design for phase I cancer clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. J Biopharm Stat 2023; 33:357-370. [PMID: 36606874 DOI: 10.1080/10543406.2022.2162068] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
This article addresses the problem of identifying the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in Phase I dose-finding clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. The main design challenge is how best to adaptively allocate study participants to tolerable doses when the evaluation window for the toxicity endpoint is long relative to the accrual rate of new participants. We propose a new design framework based on order-restricted statistical inference that addresses this challenge in sequential dose assignments. We illustrate the proposed method on real data from a Phase I trial of bortezomib in lymphoma patients and apply it to a Phase I trial of radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients. We conduct extensive simulation studies to compare our design's operating characteristics to existing published methods. Overall, our proposed design demonstrates good performance relative to existing methods in allocating participants at and around the MTD during the study and accurately recommending the MTD at the study conclusion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nolan A Wages
- Department of Biostatistics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA
| | - Thomas M Braun
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Mark R Conaway
- Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Laughlin BS, Voss MM, Toesca DA, Daniels T, Golafshar MA, Keole SR, Wong WW, Rwigema JC, Davis B, Schild SE, Stish BJ, Choo R, Lester S, DeWees TA, Vargas CE. Preliminary Analysis of a Phase II Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer With High-Risk Features After Radical Prostatectomy. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 8:101143. [PMID: 36845611 PMCID: PMC9943785 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101143] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2022] [Accepted: 11/30/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose There are limited data regarding using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the postprostatectomy setting. Here, we present a preliminary analysis of a prospective phase II trial that aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of postprostatectomy SBRT for adjuvant or early salvage therapy. Materials and Methods Between May 2018 and May 2020, 41 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria and were stratified into 3 groups: group I (adjuvant), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < 0.2 ng/mL with high-risk features including positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion, or extracapsular extension; group II (salvage), with PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL but < 2 ng/mL; or group III (oligometastatic), with PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL but < 2 ng/mL and up to 3 sites of nodal or bone metastases. Androgen deprivation therapy was not offered to group I. Androgen deprivation therapy was offered for 6 months for group II and 18 months for group III patients. SBRT dose to the prostate bed was 30 to 32 Gy in 5 fractions. Baseline-adjusted physician reported toxicities (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), patient reported quality-of-life (Expanded Prostate Index Composite, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System), and American Urologic Association scores were evaluated for all patients. Results The median follow-up was 23 months (range, 10-37). SBRT was adjuvant in 8 (20%) patients, salvage in 28 (68%), and salvage with the presence of oligometastases in 5 (12%) patients. Urinary, bowel, and sexual quality of life domains remained high after SBRT. Patients tolerated SBRT with no grade 3 or higher (3+) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities. The baseline adjusted acute and late toxicity grade 2 genitourinary (urinary incontinence) rate was 2.4% (1/41) and 12.2% (5/41). At 2 years, clinical disease control was 95%, and biochemical control was 73%. Among the 2 clinical failures, 1 was a regional node and the other a bone metastasis. Oligometastatic sites were salvaged successfully with SBRT. There were no in-target failures. Conclusions Postprostatectomy SBRT was very well tolerated in this prospective cohort, with no significant effect on quality of life metrics postirradiation, while providing excellent clinical disease control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Molly M. Voss
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | | | - Thomas Daniels
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona,Department of Radiation Oncology, NYU Langone Health, Brooklyn, New York
| | | | - Sameer R. Keole
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - William W. Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | | | - Brian Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Brad J. Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Richard Choo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Scott Lester
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Todd A. DeWees
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Carlos E. Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona,Corresponding author: Carlos E. Vargas, MD
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Prasad RN, Royce TJ, Chino F, Jagsi R, Palmer JD. Financial Toxicity as an End Point in Prospective Clinical Trials Involving Radiation Therapy. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 7:100970. [PMID: 35620674 PMCID: PMC9126781 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.100970] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2021] [Accepted: 04/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Prior research, predominately retrospective, has increased awareness that patients with cancer are at elevated risk for financial toxicity (FT). Radiation therapy (RT) can be particularly disruptive due to weeks of daily treatments. Yet, FT in patients receiving RT is less studied, and the extent to which FT has been incorporated as an end point in prospective clinical trials involving RT is unknown. Clinicaltrials.gov was queried to identify all observational or interventional studies from 2001 to 2020 wherein RT was administered for cancer. Studies with primary, secondary, or exploratory FT end points were identified through keyword search. For trials incorporating FT outcomes, pertinent study characteristics were collected. Detailed information regarding FT measures was recorded. Descriptive statistics, including frequency counts and proportions, were performed. The overall rate of inclusion of FT end points was calculated, and rates over 5-year intervals were compared using the χ2 test (α = 0.05). Overall, 10,550 studies involving RT were identified, of which 88 reported FT end points (0.8%). Included FT end points were typically secondary (78%), with just 15 studies (17%), including primary end points. Notably, only 19 studies (22%) reported a standalone FT end point. The majority measured FT as part of a larger quality of life (QoL) questionnaire. The rate of inclusion of FT end points significantly increased over time from 0.1% from 2001 to 2005 to 1.5% from 2016 to 2020, (P < .0001). FT is a major stressor for patients with cancer, yet even after a relative increase over time, the absolute rate of inclusion of FT end points remains low among RT-based trials. When included, FT outcomes were typically a single question within a QoL assessment not validated as a standalone measure of FT, preventing meaningful study and inference. To characterize and mitigate this burden more accurately, future prospective studies should include FT end points with greater frequency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rahul N. Prasad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Trevor J. Royce
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
- Flatiron Health, New York, New York
| | - Fumiko Chino
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Joshua D. Palmer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Prasad RN, Royce TJ, Palmer JD, Wang SJ. Lack of Price Transparency for Prostate-Directed Radiation Therapy Relative to Radical Prostatectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 113:518-520. [PMID: 35777397 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.03.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2022] [Accepted: 03/05/2022] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Rahul N Prasad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Trevor J Royce
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Flatiron Health, New York, New York
| | - Joshua D Palmer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Shang-Jui Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
A Phase I Trial of Highly Conformal, Hypofractionated Post-Prostatectomy Radiotherapy. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 7:101024. [DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2022] [Accepted: 07/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
|
10
|
Pocaterra A, Catucci M, Mondino A. Adoptive T cell therapy of solid tumors: time to team up with immunogenic chemo/radiotherapy. Curr Opin Immunol 2021; 74:53-59. [PMID: 34743069 DOI: 10.1016/j.coi.2021.10.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2021] [Revised: 10/13/2021] [Accepted: 10/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
Adoptive T cell therapy (ACT) with tumor-reactive lymphocytes can overcome the immune desert of poorly immunogenic tumors and instruct tumor eradication. Several hurdles limit the efficacy of this strategy against solid tumor including, but not limited to, sub optimal T cell engraftment, tumor infiltration, poor tumor antigenicity/immunogenicity, and immunosuppressive or resistance mechanisms. Recent advances indicate that concomitant treatments can be set in place to offset such barriers. In this review, we highlight the beneficial effects of combining ACT with conventional chemo and/or radiotherapy. While originally classified as immunosuppressive, these methodologies can also promote the engraftment of ACT products, immunogenic cell death, and the reprogramming of more favorable microenvironments. Data indicates that systemic and local chemo/radiotherapy regimens promote intratumoral cytokine and chemokine upregulation, tumor antigen presentation and cross presentation, infiltration and in situ T cells reactivation. Here we review the most recent contributions supporting these notions and discuss further developments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arianna Pocaterra
- Lymphocyte Activation Unit, Division of Immunology, Transplantation and Infectious Diseases, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina, 58, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Marco Catucci
- Lymphocyte Activation Unit, Division of Immunology, Transplantation and Infectious Diseases, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina, 58, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Anna Mondino
- Lymphocyte Activation Unit, Division of Immunology, Transplantation and Infectious Diseases, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina, 58, 20132, Milan, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Leite ETT, Ramos CCA, Moraes FY. In Reply to Fiorino et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 110:1549-1550. [PMID: 34273333 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.04.046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 04/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|