1
|
Kowalchuk RO, Mullikin TC, Spears GM, Johnson-Tesch BA, Rose PS, Siontis BL, Kun Kim D, Costello BA, Morris JM, Gao RW, Shiraishi S, Lucido JJ, Olivier KR, Owen D, Stish BJ, Waddle MR, Laack NN, Park SS, Brown PD, Merrell KW. Assessment of minimum target dose as a predictor of local failure after spine SBRT. Radiother Oncol 2024; 195:110260. [PMID: 38548114 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2023] [Revised: 02/23/2024] [Accepted: 03/21/2024] [Indexed: 04/02/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Metastasis-directed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has demonstrated robust clinical benefits in carefully selected patients, improving local control and even overall survival (OS). We assess a large database to determine clinical and dosimetric predictors of local failure after spine SBRT. METHODS Spine SBRT treatments with imaging follow-up were identified. Patients were treated with a simultaneous integrated boost technique using 1 or 3 fractions, delivering 20-24 Gy in 1 fraction to the gross tumor volume (GTV) and 16 Gy to the low dose volume (or 27-36 Gy and 21-24 Gy for 3 fraction treatments). Exclusions included: lack of imaging follow-up, proton therapy, and benign primary histologies. RESULTS 522 eligible spine SBRT treatments (68 % single fraction) were identified in 377 unique patients. Patients had a median OS of 43.7 months (95 % confidence interval: 34.3-54.4). The cumulative incidence of local failure was 10.5 % (7.4-13.4) at 1 year and 16.3 % (12.6-19.9) at 2 years. Local control was maximized at 15.3 Gy minimum dose for single-fraction treatment (HR = 0.31, 95 % CI: 0.17 - 0.56, p < 0.0001) and confirmed via multivariable analyses. Cumulative incidence of local failure was 6.1 % (2.6-9.4) vs. 14.2 % (8.3-19.8) at 1 year using this cut-off, with comparable findings for minimum 14 Gy. Additionally, epidural and soft tissue involvement were predictive of local failure (HR = 1.77 and 2.30). CONCLUSIONS Spine SBRT offers favorable local control; however, minimum dose to the GTV has a strong association with local control. Achieving GTV minimum dose of 14-15.3 Gy with single fraction SBRT is recommended whenever possible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roman O Kowalchuk
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Trey C Mullikin
- Duke University, Department of Radiation Oncology, Durham, NC 27710, United States
| | - Grant M Spears
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Statistics, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | | | - Peter S Rose
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Brittany L Siontis
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Medical Oncology, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Dong Kun Kim
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiology, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Brian A Costello
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Medical Oncology, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Jonathan M Morris
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiology, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Robert W Gao
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Satomi Shiraishi
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Medical Physics, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - John J Lucido
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Medical Physics, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Kenneth R Olivier
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Dawn Owen
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Bradley J Stish
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Mark R Waddle
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Nadia N Laack
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Sean S Park
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Paul D Brown
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, MN 55905, United States
| | - Kenneth W Merrell
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Guckenberger M, Andratschke N, Belka C, Bellut D, Cuccia F, Dahele M, Guninski RS, Josipovic M, Mancosu P, Minniti G, Niyazi M, Ricardi U, Munck Af Rosenschold P, Sahgal A, Tsang Y, Verbakel W, Alongi F. ESTRO clinical practice guideline: Stereotactic body radiotherapy for spine metastases. Radiother Oncol 2024; 190:109966. [PMID: 37925107 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109966] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2023] [Accepted: 10/18/2023] [Indexed: 11/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Recent progress in diagnostics and treatment of metastatic cancer patients have improved survival substantially. These developments also affect local therapies, with treatment aims shifting from short-term palliation to long-term symptom or disease control. There is consequently a need to better define the value of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for the treatment of spinal metastases. METHODS This ESTRO clinical practice guideline is based on a systematic literature review conducted according to PRISMA standards, which formed the basis for answering four key questions about the indication and practice of SBRT for spine metastases. RESULTS The analysis of the key questions based on current evidence yielded 22 recommendations and 5 statements with varying levels of endorsement, all achieving a consensus among experts of at least 75%. In the majority, the level of evidence supporting the recommendations and statements was moderate or expert opinion, only, indicating that spine SBRT is still an evolving field of clinical research. Recommendations were established concerning the selection of appropriate patients with painful spine metastases and oligometastatic disease. Recommendations about the practice of spinal SBRT covered technical planning aspects including dose and fractionation, patient positioning, immobilization and image-guided SBRT delivery. Finally, recommendations were developed regarding quality assurance protocols, including description of potential SBRT-related toxicity and risk mitigation strategies. CONCLUSIONS This ESTRO clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations and statements regarding the selection of patients with spinal metastases for SBRT and its safe implementation and practice. Enrollment of patients into well-designed prospective clinical trials addressing clinically relevant questions is considered important.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| | - N Andratschke
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - C Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Munich, Munich, Germany; Bavarian Cancer Research Center (BZKF), Munich, Germany
| | - D Bellut
- University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Department of Neurosurgery, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - F Cuccia
- ARNAS Civico Hospital, Radiation Oncology Unit, Palermo, Italy
| | - M Dahele
- Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiation Oncology and Cancer Center Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - R S Guninski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - M Josipovic
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3B 2200, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - P Mancosu
- IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Medical Physics Unit, Radiation Oncology department, via Manzoni 56 I-20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - G Minniti
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Anatomical Pathology Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy; IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, IS, Italy
| | - M Niyazi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - U Ricardi
- University of Turin, Department of Oncology, Turin, Italy
| | | | - A Sahgal
- Odette Cancer Center of the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Toronto, Canada
| | - Y Tsang
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Radiation Medicine Program, Toronto, Canada
| | - Wfar Verbakel
- Amsterdam University Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - F Alongi
- Advanced Radiation Department, IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore Don Calabria, Negrar-Verona, Italy; University of Brescia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sahgal A, Kellett S, Nguyen T, Maralani P, Greenspoon J, Linden K, Pearce A, Siddiqi F, Ruschin M. A Cancer Care Ontario Consensus-Based Organizational Guideline for the Planning and Delivery of Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Treatment in Ontario. Pract Radiat Oncol 2023; 13:499-509. [PMID: 37597616 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2023] [Accepted: 08/01/2023] [Indexed: 08/21/2023]
Abstract
The proposed recommendations are primarily based on the consensus opinion and in-field experience of the Ontario Health/Cancer Care Ontario stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for Spine Metastasis Guideline Development Group and published literature when available. Primary consideration was given to the perceived benefits for patients and the small likelihood of harm arising from recommendation implementation. Apart from the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up strategy, all evidence was considered indirect and was provided by the working group in conjunction with their collective expertise in the field of SBRT. The application of an SBRT program requires a multidisciplinary team consisting of a radiation oncologist, spine surgeon, neuroradiologist, medical physicist, medical dosimetrist, and radiation therapist. In Canada, linear accelerators are the most used treatment delivery units and should follow technology-specific quality assurance procedures. Immobilization technique is location dependant. Treatment planning MRI sequences should be acquired no more than 14 days from the date of treatment. In the case of epidural disease, simulation MRI should be completed no more than 7 days from the date of treatment. After treatment, patients should be followed with routine clinical visits every 3 months for the first year, every 3 to 6 months during years 2 and 3, and every 4 to 6 months thereafter. The recommendations enclosed provide a framework for the minimum requirements for a cancer center in Ontario, Canada to offer SBRT for spine metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arjun Sahgal
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Sarah Kellett
- Program in Evidence-Based Care, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Fawaz Siddiqi
- London Health Sciences Center, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mark Ruschin
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kowalchuk RO, Niranjan A, Hess J, Antonios JP, Zhang MY, Braunstein S, Ross RB, Pikis S, Deibert CP, Lee CC, Yang HC, Langlois AM, Mathieu D, Peker S, Samanci Y, Rusthoven CG, Chiang V, Wei Z, Lunsford LD, Trifiletti DM, Sheehan JP. Stereotactic radiosurgery and local control of brain metastases from triple-negative breast cancer. J Neurosurg 2023; 138:1608-1614. [PMID: 36433878 DOI: 10.3171/2022.10.jns221900] [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: 08/16/2022] [Accepted: 10/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an effective treatment for intracranial metastatic disease, but its role in triple-negative breast cancer requires further study. Herein, the authors report overall survival (OS) and local tumor control in a multiinstitutional cohort with triple-negative breast cancer metastases treated with SRS. METHODS Patients treated from 2010 to 2019 at 9 institutions were included in this retrospective study if they had biopsy-proven triple-negative breast cancer with intracranial metastatic lesions treated with SRS. Patients were excluded if they had undergone prior SRS, whole-brain radiation therapy, or resection of the metastatic lesions. A retrospective chart review was conducted to determine OS, local control, and treatment efficacy. RESULTS Sixty-eight patients with 315 treated lesions were assessed. Patients had a median Karnofsky Performance Status of 80 (IQR 70-90) and age of 57 years (IQR 48-67 years). Most treated patients had 5 or fewer intracranial lesions, with 34% of patients having a single lesion. Treated lesions were small, having a median volume owf 0.11 cm3 (IQR 0.03-0.60 cm3). Patients were treated with a median margin dose of 18 Gy (IQR 18-20 Gy) to the median 71% isodose line (IQR 50%-84%). Overall, patients had a 1-year OS of 43% and 2-year OS of 20%. Most patients (88%) were followed until death, by which time local tumor progression had occurred in only 7% of cases. Furthermore, 76% of the lesions demonstrated regression. Tumor volume was correlated with local tumor progression (p = 0.012). SRS was very well tolerated, and only 3 patients (5%) developed symptomatic radiation necrosis. CONCLUSIONS SRS is a safe and efficacious treatment for well-selected patients with triple-negative breast cancer, especially for those with a favorable performance status and small- to moderate-volume metastatic lesions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roman O Kowalchuk
- 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Ajay Niranjan
- 2Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Judith Hess
- 3Department of Neurosurgery, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Joseph P Antonios
- 3Department of Neurosurgery, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Michael Y Zhang
- 4Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Steve Braunstein
- 4Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Richard B Ross
- 5Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
| | - Stylianos Pikis
- 6Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | | | - Cheng-Chia Lee
- 8Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
- 9National Yang-Ming University School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Huai-Che Yang
- 8Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
- 9National Yang-Ming University School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Anne-Marie Langlois
- 10Department of Neurosurgery, Université de Sherbrooke, Centre de recherche du CHUS, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
| | - David Mathieu
- 10Department of Neurosurgery, Université de Sherbrooke, Centre de recherche du CHUS, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
| | - Selcuk Peker
- 11Department of Neurosurgery, Koc University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; and
| | - Yavuz Samanci
- 11Department of Neurosurgery, Koc University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey; and
| | - Chad G Rusthoven
- 5Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
| | - Veronica Chiang
- 3Department of Neurosurgery, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Zhishuo Wei
- 2Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - L Dade Lunsford
- 2Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | | | - Jason P Sheehan
- 6Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kowalchuk RO, Mullikin TC, Florez M, De BS, Spears GM, Rose PS, Siontis BL, Kim DK, Costello BA, Morris JM, Marion JT, Johnson-Tesch BA, Gao RW, Shiraishi S, Lucido JJ, Trifiletti DM, Olivier KR, Owen D, Stish BJ, Waddle MR, Laack NN, Park SS, Brown PD, Ghia AJ, Merrell KW. Development and validation of a recursive partitioning analysis-based pretreatment decision-making tool identifying ideal candidates for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy. Cancer 2023; 129:956-965. [PMID: 36571507 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34626] [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: 06/27/2022] [Revised: 10/17/2022] [Accepted: 11/09/2022] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study was aimed at developing and validating a decision-making tool predictive of overall survival (OS) for patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases. METHODS Three hundred sixty-one patients at one institution were used for the training set, and 182 at a second institution were used for external validation. Treatments most commonly involved one or three fractions of spine SBRT. Exclusion criteria included proton therapy and benign histologies. RESULTS The final model consisted of the following variables and scores: Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) ≥ 6 (1), time from primary diagnosis < 21 months (1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status = 1 (1) or ECOG performance status > 1 (2), and >1 organ system involved (1). Each variable was an independent predictor of OS (p < .001), and each 1-point increase in the score was associated with a hazard ratio of 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-2.25; p < .0001). The concordance value was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.78). The scores were discretized into three groups-favorable (score = 0-1), intermediate (score = 2), and poor survival (score = 3-5)-with 2-year OS rates of 84% (95% CI, 79%-90%), 46% (95% CI, 36%-59%), and 21% (95% CI, 14%-32%), respectively (p < .0001 for each). In the external validation set (182 patients), the score was also predictive of OS (p < .0001). Increasing SINS<zaq;6> was predictive of decreased OS as a continuous variable (p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS This novel score is proposed as a decision-making tool to help to optimize patient selection for spine SBRT. SINS may be an independent predictor of OS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roman O Kowalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Trey C Mullikin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Marcus Florez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Brian S De
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Grant M Spears
- Department of Statistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Peter S Rose
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | | | - Dong Kun Kim
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Brian A Costello
- Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | | | - Joseph T Marion
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | | | - Robert W Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Satomi Shiraishi
- Department of Medical Physics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - John J Lucido
- Department of Medical Physics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | | | - Kenneth R Olivier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Dawn Owen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Bradley J Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Mark R Waddle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Nadia N Laack
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Paul D Brown
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Amol J Ghia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Kenneth W Merrell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kowalchuk RO, Spears GM, Morris LK, Owen D, Yoon HH, Jethwa K, Chuong MD, Ferris MJ, Haddock MG, Hallemeier CL, Wigle D, Lin SH, Merrell KW. Risk stratification of postoperative cardiopulmonary toxicity after trimodality therapy for esophageal cancer. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1081024. [PMID: 36845682 PMCID: PMC9948243 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1081024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2022] [Accepted: 01/27/2023] [Indexed: 02/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose/objective Postoperative toxicity for esophageal cancer impacts patient quality of life and potentially overall survival (OS). We studied whether patient and toxicity parameters post-chemoradiation therapy predict for post-surgical cardiopulmonary total toxicity burden (CPTTB) and whether CPTTB was associated with short and long-term outcomes. Materials/methods Patients had biopsy-proven esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy. CPTTB was derived from total perioperative toxicity burden (Lin et al. JCO 2020). To develop a CPTTB risk score predictive for major CPTTB, recursive partitioning analysis was used. Results From 3 institutions, 571 patients were included. Patients were treated with 3D (37%), IMRT (44%), and proton therapy (19%). 61 patients had major CPTTB (score ≥ 70). Increasing CPTTB was predictive of decreased OS (p<0.001), lengthier post-esophagectomy length of stay (LOS, p<0.001), and death or readmission within 60 days of surgery (DR60, p<0.001). Major CPTTB was also predictive of decreased OS (hazard ratio = 1.70, 95% confidence interval: 1.17-2.47, p=0.005). The RPA-based risk score included: age ≥ 65, grade ≥ 2 nausea or esophagitis attributed to chemoradiation, and grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicity attributed to chemoradiation. Patients treated with 3D radiotherapy had inferior OS (p=0.010) and increased major CPTTB (18.5% vs. 6.1%, p<0.001). Conclusion CPTTB predicts for OS, LOS, and DR60. Patients with 3D radiotherapy or age ≥ 65 years and chemoradiation toxicity are at highest risk for major CPTTB, predicting for higher short and long-term morbidity and mortality. Strategies to optimize medical management and reduce toxicity from chemoradiation should be strongly considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roman O. Kowalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Grant M. Spears
- Department of Statistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Lindsay K. Morris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Dawn Owen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Harry H. Yoon
- Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Krishan Jethwa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Michael D. Chuong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, United States
| | - Matthew J. Ferris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical System, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Michael G. Haddock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | | | - Dennis Wigle
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Steven H. Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Kenneth W. Merrell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States,*Correspondence: Kenneth W. Merrell,
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Lehrer EJ, Kowalchuk RO, Gurewitz J, Bernstein K, Kondziolka D, Niranjan A, Wei Z, Lunsford LD, Fakhoury KR, Rusthoven CG, Mathieu D, Trudel C, Malouff TD, Ruiz-Garcia H, Bonney P, Hwang L, Yu C, Zada G, Patel S, Deibert CP, Picozzi P, Franzini A, Attuati L, Prasad RN, Raval RR, Palmer JD, Lee CC, Yang HC, Harmsen WS, Jones BM, Sharma S, Ahluwalia MS, Sheehan JP, Trifiletti DM. Concurrent Administration of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Single Fraction Stereotactic Radiosurgery in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Melanoma, and Renal Cell Carcinoma Brain Metastases is Not Associated With an Increased Risk of Radiation Necrosis Over Nonconcurrent Treatment: An International Multicenter Study of 657 Patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023:S0360-3016(23)00057-3. [PMID: 36690161 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.01.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/17/2022] [Revised: 01/04/2023] [Accepted: 01/09/2023] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are highly effective treatments for brain metastases, particularly when these therapies are administered concurrently. However, there are limited data reporting the risk of radiation necrosis (RN) in this setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with brain metastases from primary non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, or melanoma treated with SRS and ICI were considered. Time-to-event analyses were conducted for any grade RN and symptomatic RN (SRN) with death incorporated as a competing risk. As a secondary analysis, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used for model development, and a loop of potential models was analyzed, with the highest-fidelity model selected. Brain V12 Gy thresholds identified on RPA were then incorporated into the competing risks analysis. Concurrent SRS and ICI administration. RESULTS Six hundred fifty-seven patients with 4182 brain metastases across 11 international institutions were analyzed. The median follow-up for all patients was 13.4 months. The median follow-up was 12.8 months and 14.1 months for the concurrent and nonconcurrent groups, respectively (P = .03). The median patient age was 66 years, and the median Karnofsky Performance Status was 90. In patients with any grade RN, 1- and 2-year rates were 6.4% and 9.9%, respectively. In patients with SRN, 1- and 2-year rates were 4.8% and 7.2%, respectively. On RPA, the highest-fidelity models consistently identified V12 Gy as the dominant variable predictive of RN. Three risk groups were identified by V12 Gy: (1) < 12 cm3; (2) 20 cm3 ≥ V12 Gy ≥ 12 cm3; (3) V12 Gy > 20 cm3. In patients with any grade RN, 1-year rates were 3.7% (V12 Gy < 12 cm3), 10.3% (20 cm3 ≥ V12 Gy ≥ 12 cm3), and 12.6% (V12 Gy > 20 cm3); the 2-year rates were 7.5% (V12 Gy < 12 cm3), 13.8% (20 cm3 ≥ V12 Gy ≥ 12 cm3), and 15.4% (V12 Gy > 20 cm3) (P < 0.001). In patients with any SRN, 1-year rates were 2.4% (V12 Gy < 12 cm3), 8.9% (20 cm3 ≥ V12 Gy ≥ 12 cm3), and 10.3% (V12 Gy > 20 cm3); the 2-year rates were 4.4% (V12 Gy < 12 cm3), 12.4% (20 cm3 ≥ V12 Gy ≥ 12 cm3), and 13.1% (V12 Gy > 20 cm3; P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in rates of any grade RN or SRN when accounting for therapy timing for all patients and by V12 risk group identified on RPA. CONCLUSIONS The use of SRS and ICI results in a low risk of any grade RN and SRN. This risk is not increased with concurrent administration. Therefore, ICI can safely be administered within 4-weeks of SRS. Three risk groups based on V12 Gy were identified, which clinicians may consider to further reduce rates of RN.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric J Lehrer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
| | - Roman O Kowalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minneapolis
| | - Jason Gurewitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Kenneth Bernstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Douglas Kondziolka
- Department of Neurosurgery, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Ajay Niranjan
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Zhishuo Wei
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - L Dade Lunsford
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Kareem R Fakhoury
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Chad G Rusthoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado
| | - David Mathieu
- Department of Neurosurgery, Université de Sherbrooke, Centre de recherche du CHUS, Quebec, Canada
| | - Claire Trudel
- Department of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Centre de recherche du CHUS, Quebec, Canada
| | - Timothy D Malouff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Henry Ruiz-Garcia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Phillip Bonney
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Lindsay Hwang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Cheng Yu
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Gabriel Zada
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Samir Patel
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | | | - Piero Picozzi
- Department of Neurosurgery, Humanitas Research Hospital-IRCCS, Rozzano (Mi), Italy
| | - Andrea Franzini
- Department of Neurosurgery, Humanitas Research Hospital-IRCCS, Rozzano (Mi), Italy
| | - Luca Attuati
- Department of Neurosurgery, Humanitas Research Hospital-IRCCS, Rozzano (Mi), Italy
| | - Rahul N Prasad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Raju R Raval
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Joshua D Palmer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Cheng-Chia Lee
- Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veteran General Hospital, Taiwan
| | - Huai-Che Yang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veteran General Hospital, Taiwan
| | | | - Brianna M Jones
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Sonam Sharma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | | | - Jason P Sheehan
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
In reply to Cassidy et al. Pract Radiat Oncol 2022; 12:e460-e462. [PMID: 35718074 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2022.06.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2022] [Revised: 06/06/2022] [Accepted: 06/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|