Stereotactic body radiation therapy for metastatic lung metastases

Although systemic therapy is standard management for patients with metastatic disease, several recent reports have indicated that an addition of local therapies including stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with oligometastatic disease (OMD) could improve survival. The lung is the most common site of distant metastasis from many solid tumors, and the strategy of SBRT, such as dose-fraction schedules, timing, etc., would be different depending on the type of primary tumor, location, and patterns of OMD. This review describes the role of SBRT with curative-intent for patients with pulmonary OMD for each of these variables. First, differences according to the type of primary tumor, for which many studies suggest that SBRT-mediated local control (LC) for patients with pulmonary OMD from colorectal cancer (CRC) is less successful than for those from non-CRC tumors. In addition, higher dose-fraction schedules seemed to correlate with higher LC; hence, different SBRT treatment strategies may be needed for patients with pulmonary OMD from CRC relative to other tumors. Second, differences according to location, where the safety of SBRT for peripheral pulmonary tumors has been relatively well established, but safety for central pulmonary tumors including pulmonary OMD is still considered controversial. To determine the optimal dose-fraction schedules, further data from prospective studies are still needed. Third, differences according to the patterns of OMD, the number of metastases and the timing of SBRT whereby 1–5 lesions in most patients and patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD are considered good candidates for SBRT. We conclude that there are still several problems in defining suitable indications for local therapy including SBRT, and that further prospective studies are required to resolve these issues.

Differential Diagnostic Value of Histology in MPLC and IPM: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The paramount issue regarding multiple lung cancer (MLC) is whether it represents multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC) or intrapulmonary metastasis (IPM), as this directly affects both accurate staging and subsequent clinical management. As a classic method, histology has been widely utilized in clinical practice. However, studies examining the clinical value of histology in MLC have yielded inconsistent results; thus, this remains to be evaluated. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the differential diagnostic value of histology in MPLC and IPM and to provide evidence-based medicine for clinical work.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched to collect relevant literature according to PRISMA, and inclusion and exclusion criteria were set up to screen and assess the literature. The data required for reconstructing a 2 × 2 contingency table were extracted directly or calculated indirectly from the included studies, and statistical analysis was carried out by using Stata 15, Meta-DiSc 1.4, and Review Manager 5.4 software.

Results

A total of 34 studies including 1,075 pairs of tumors were included in this meta-analysis. Among these studies, 11 were about the M-M standard and the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71–0.84) and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.38–0.55), respectively; 20 studies were about CHA and the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.76 (95% CI: 0.72–0.80) and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68–0.79), respectively; and 3 studies were about the “CHA & Lepidic” criteria and the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.96 (95% CI: 0.85–0.99) and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.21–0.73), respectively. The combined pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and the area under the SROC curve of the 34 studies were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.73–0.86), 0.64 (95% CI: 0.51–0.76), 2.25 (95% CI: 1.59–3.17), 0.31 (95% CI: 0.23–0.43), 7.22 (95% CI: 4.06–12.81), and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77–0.84), respectively.

Conclusion

The current evidence indicated that histology had a moderate differential diagnostic value between MPLC and IPM. Among the three subgroups, the “CHA & Lepidic” criteria showed the highest sensitivity and CHA showed the highest specificity. Further research is necessary to validate these findings and to improve clinical credibility.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022298180.

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multidisciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (27 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2014, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 191 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. The guidelines comprehensively cover endometrial carcinoma staging, definition of prognostic risk groups integrating molecular markers, pre- and intra-operative work-up, fertility preservation, management for early, advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease and palliative treatment. Principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multidisciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (27 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2014, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 191 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. The guidelines comprehensively cover endometrial carcinoma staging, definition of prognostic risk groups integrating molecular markers, pre- and intra-operative work-up, fertility preservation, management for early, advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease and palliative treatment. Principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multi-disciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

Clonality assessment of multifocal lung adenocarcinoma by pathology evaluation and molecular analysis

The aim of this study was to explore morphologic and molecular features distinguishing between multifocal lung adenocarcinoma (MLA) and intrapulmonary metastases (IMs). Sixteen patients with MLAs, a total of 34 tumors, were reviewed. Four approaches were used: (1) array-comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) as a standard clonality assessment; (2) EGFR and KRAS mutational profiles as a supplementary method; (3) comprehensive histologic assessment (CHA) was method I in pathology evaluation; and (4) CHA combined with lepidic component analysis was method II. The lepidic component was divided into low grade and high grade according to extent of atypia; tumors with low-grade lepidic component were defined as primary. Eight patients were found to have IMs and 8 to have multiple primaries (MPs) by array-CGH; 7 had MPs and 9 had IMs by method I; 5 had MPs and 11 had IMs by method II. Compared with array-CGH, method I had a lower coincidence rate (65%) than method II (85%). Univariate analysis revealed that patients with MP had a better clinical outcome than those with IM only if the MPs were diagnosed by array-CGH (P = .034) or method II (P = .027) but not EGFR/KRAS mutation (P = .843) or method I (P = .493). Our results suggest that a low-grade lepidic component is a sign of a primary tumor. CHA combined with a low-grade lepidic component (method II) is more accurate clinically and more cost-effective in distinguishing MLAs from IMs. Also, EGFR mutation is not an appropriate molecular marker for clonality assessment.

Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Lung Metastases: Where is the Evidence and What are We Doing With It?

This review provides an overview of the use of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for pulmonary metastases. The local control rates after SABR are generally >90%. Whether this also translates into a significant improvement in overall survival is the subject of ongoing studies. New exciting opportunities including the integration of SABR with targeted and immune therapies as well as some competing treatment strategies are discussed.

Respiratory-gated (4D) FDG-PET detects tumour and normal lung response after stereotactic radiotherapy for pulmonary metastases

BACKGROUND

Response assessment after stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in lung can be confounded by radiation-induced inflammation, fibrosis and subsequent alteration of tumour motion. The purpose of this prospective pilot study was to evaluate the utility of four-dimensional (4D) FDG-PET/CT for post-SABR tumour and normal lung response assessment in pulmonary oligometastases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients enrolled from February 2010 to December 2011 in this prospective ethics approved study had 1-2 pulmonary metastases on staging FDG-PET. Serial contemporaneous 3D and 4D FDG-PET/CT scans were performed at baseline, 14 days and 70 days after a single fraction of 26 Gy SABR. Tumour response was evaluated in 3D and 4D using SUVmax, RECIST and PERCIST criteria. Normal lung radiotoxicity was evaluated using SUVmean within 0-2 Gy, 2-5 Gy, 5-10 Gy, 10-20 Gy and 20 + Gy isodose volumes.

RESULTS

In total, 17 patients were enrolled of which seven were ineligible due to interval progression from staging PET to baseline 4D-PET. The mean time between scans was 62 days. At a median follow-up of 16 months, 10 patients with 13 metastases received SABR, with no patient having local progression. The vector of tumour motion was larger in patients with discordant 3D and 4D PET PERCIST response (p < 0.01), with a mean (± SEM) motion of 10.5 mm (± 0.96 mm) versus 6.14 mm (± 0.81 mm) in those patients with concordant 3D and 4D response. Surrounding normal lung FDG uptake at 70 days was strongly correlated to delivered radiation dose (r(2) = 0.99, p < 0.01), with significant elevations across all dose levels (p ≤ 0.05), except the < 2 Gy volume (p = 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate high rates of interval progression between staging PET scans in patients with oligometastases. We found that tumour response on conventional 3D PET is not concordant with 4D PET for tumours with large motion. Normal lung metabolic uptake is strongly dose dependent after SABR, a novel finding that should be further validated.