Harnessing benefit of highly conformal RT techniques for lymphoma patients

Long-Term Results of IFRT vs. ISRT in Infradiaphragmal Fields in Aggressive Non-Hodgkins's Lymphoma Patients-A Single Centre Experience

(1) Background: This study aimed to examine the difference in efficacy and toxicity of involved-field (IFRT) and involved-site radiotherapy (ISRT) fields in infradiaphragmal aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients. (2) Methods: In total, 140 patients with infradiaphragmal lymphoma treated between 2003 and 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. There were 69 patients (49%) treated with IFRT, and 71 (51%) patients treated with ISRT. The median dose in the IFRT group was 36 Gy, (range 4-50.4 Gy), and in the ISRT group, it was 30 Gy (range 4-48 Gy). (3) Results: The median follow-up in the IFRT group was 133 months (95% CI 109-158), and in the ISRT group, it was 48 months (95% CI 39-57). In the IFRT group, locoregional control was 67%, and in the ISRT group, 73%. The 2- and 5-year overall survival (OS) in the IFRT and ISRT groups were 79% and 69% vs. 80% and 70%, respectively (p = 0.711). The 2- and 5-year event-free survival (EFS) in the IFRT and ISRT groups were 73% and 68% vs. 77% and 70%, respectively (p = 0.575). Acute side effects occurred in 43 (31%) patients, which is more frequent in the IFRT group, 34 (39%) patients, than in the ISRT group, 9 (13%) patients, p > 0.01. Late toxicities occurred more often in the IFRT group of patients, (10/53) 19%, than in the ISRT group of patients, (2/37) 5%, (p = 0.026). (4) Conclusions: By reducing the radiotherapy volume and the doses in the treatment of infradiaphragmatic fields, treatment with significantly fewer acute and long-term side effects is possible. At the same time, efficiency and local disease control are not compromised.

Repeated deep-inspiration breath-hold CT scans at planning underestimate the actual motion between breath-holds at treatment for lung cancer and lymphoma patients

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

Deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) during radiotherapy may reduce dose to the lungs and heart compared to treatment in free breathing. However, intra-fractional target shifts between several breath-holds may decrease target coverage. We compared target shifts between four DIBHs at the planning-CT session with those measured on CBCT-scans obtained pre- and post-DIBH treatments.

MATERIAL/METHODS

Twenty-nine lung cancer and nine lymphoma patients were treated in DIBH. An external gating block was used as surrogate for the DIBH-level with a window of 2 mm. Four DIBH CT-scans were acquired: one for planning (CTDIBH3) and three additional (CTDIBH1,2,4) to assess the intra-DIBH target shifts at scanning by registration to CTDIBH3. During treatment, pre-treatment (CBCTpre) and post-treatment (CBCTpost) scans were acquired. For each pair of CBCTpre/post, the target intra-DIBH shift was determined. For lung cancer, tumour (GTV-Tlung) and lymph nodes (GTV-Nlung) were analysed separately. Group mean (GM), systematic and random errors, and GM for the absolute maximum shifts (GMmax) were calculated for the shifts between CTDIBH1,2,3,4 and between CBCTpre/post.

RESULTS

For GTV-Tlung, GMmax was larger at CBCT than CT in all directions. GMmax in cranio-caudal direction was 3.3 mm (CT)and 6.1 mm (CBCT). The standard deviations of the shifts in the left-right and cranio-caudal directions were larger at CBCT than CT. For GTV-Nlung and CTVlymphoma, no difference was found in GMmax or SD.

CONCLUSION

Intra-DIBH shifts at planning-CT session are generally smaller than intra-DIBH shifts observed at CBCTpre/post and therefore underestimate the intra-fractional DIBH uncertainty during treatment. Lung tumours show larger intra-fractional variations than lymph nodes and lymphoma targets.

Management of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in patients ineligible for CAR-T cell therapy

INTRODUCTION

Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) therapy has revolutionized the treatment of relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). However, patients who are excluded or have no access to CAR-T represent a challenge for clinicians and have generally a dismal outcome. The landscape for this category of patients is constantly evolving: new agents have been approved in the last 2-3 years, alone or in combination, and novel treatment modalities are under investigations.

AREAS COVERED

Thereafter, we reviewed the currently available therapeutic strategies: conventional chemotherapy, Antibody-drug conjugate ADC (mainly polatuzumab and loncastuxumab), bispecific antibodies (CD19/CD3 and focus on novel CD20/CD3 Abs), immunomodulatory drugs (covering tafasitamab and lenalidomide, checkpoint inhibitors mainly in PMBL), small molecules (selinexor, BTK and PI3K inhibitors), and the role of radiotherapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Navigating this scenario, will uncover new challenges, including identifying an ideal sequence for these therapies, the most effective combinations, and search for consistent predictive factors to help selecting the appropriate population of LBCL patients. At present, supporting clinical research for CAR-T ineligible patients, a new and challenging group, must remain a major focus that is complementary to advances in CAR T-cell therapy.