Dose-Limiting Organs at Risk in Carbon Ion Re-Irradiation of Head and Neck Malignancies: An Individual Risk-Benefit Tradeoff

DEGRO practical guideline for central nervous system radiation necrosis part 1: classification and a multistep approach for diagnosis

PURPOSE

The Working Group for Neuro-Oncology of the German Society for Radiation Oncology in cooperation with members of the Neuro-Oncology Working Group of the German Cancer Society aimed to define a practical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of radiation-induced necrosis (RN) of the central nervous system (CNS).

METHODS

Panel members of the DEGRO working group invited experts, participated in a series of conferences, supplemented their clinical experience, performed a literature review, and formulated recommendations for medical treatment of RN including bevacizumab in clinical routine.

CONCLUSION

Diagnosis and treatment of RN requires multidisciplinary structures of care and defined processes. Diagnosis has to be made on an interdisciplinary level with the joint knowledge of a neuroradiologist, radiation oncologist, neurosurgeon, neuropathologist, and neuro-oncologist. A multistep approach as an opportunity to review as many characteristics as possible to improve diagnostic confidence is recommended. Additional information about radiotherapy (RT) techniques is crucial for the diagnosis of RN. Misdiagnosis of untreated and progressive RN can lead to severe neurological deficits. In this practice guideline, we propose a detailed nomenclature of treatment-related changes and a multistep approach for their diagnosis.

Ways to unravel the clinical potential of carbon ions for head and neck cancer reirradiation: dosimetric comparison and local failure pattern analysis as part of the prospective randomized CARE trial

Background

Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) yields biophysical advantages compared to photons but randomized studies for the reirradiation setting are pending. The aim of the current project was to evaluate potential clinical benefits and drawbacks of CIRT compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in recurrent head and neck cancer.

Methods

Dose-volume parameters and local failure patterns of CIRT compared to VMAT were evaluate in 16 patients from the randomized CARE trial on head and neck cancer reirradiation.

Results

Despite an increased target dose, CIRT resulted in significantly reduced organ at risk (OAR) dose across all patients (− 8.7% Dmean). The dose-volume benefits were most pronounced in the brainstem (− 20.7% Dmax) and the optic chiasma (− 13.0% Dmax). The most frequent local failure was type E (extraneous; 50%), followed type B (peripheral; 33%) and type A (central; 17%). In one patient with type A biological and/or dosimetric failure after CIRT, mMKM dose recalculation revealed reduced target coverage.

Conclusions

CIRT resulted in highly improved critical OAR sparing compared to VMAT across all head and neck cancer reirradiation scenarios despite an increased prescription dose. Local failure pattern analysis revealed further potential CIRT specific clinical benefits and potential pitfalls with regard to image-guidance and biological dose-optimization.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-022-02093-4.

Retreatment of Recurrent or Second Primary Head and Neck Cancer After Prior Radiation: Executive Summary of the American Radium Society® (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC): Expert Panel on Radiation Oncology - Head and Neck Cancer

BACKGROUND

Re-treatment of recurrent or second primary head and neck cancers occurring in a previously irradiated field is complex. Few guidelines exist to support practice.

METHODS

We performed an updated literature search of peer-reviewed journals in a systematic fashion. Search terms, key questions, and associated clinical case variants were formed by panel consensus. The literature search informed the committee during a blinded vote on the appropriateness of treatment options via the modified Delphi method.

RESULTS

The final number of citations retained for review was 274. These informed five key questions, which focused on patient selection, adjuvant re-irradiation, definitive re-irradiation, stereotactic body radiation (SBRT), and re-irradiation to treat non-squamous cancer. Results of the consensus voting are presented along with discussion of the most current evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This provides updated evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for the re-treatment of recurrent or second primary cancer of the head and neck.

Histone methyltransferase KMT2C plays an oncogenic role in prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in males. Epigenetic modifier abnormalities are becoming a driving event in PCa. The specific role of KMT2C, a histone methyltransferase that is frequently aberrant in various tumors, is poorly understood in PCa. This study aimed to reveal the potential carcinogenic role of KMT2C in PCa.

METHODS

We first examined the expression levels of KMT2C in prostate cancer tissues. Then, we assessed the function of KMT2C in prostate cancer cell proliferation, colony formation, and migration. To explore the mechanism of the biological consequences, RNA-seq and CHIP-qPCR were performed. We also analyzed the effects of overexpression of the KMT2C downstream genes CLDN8 and ITGAV to reverse the effects of KMT2C on prostate cancer cells.

RESULTS

Herein, we first confirmed KMT2C overexpression in PCa at the transcript and protein levels. Knocking down KMT2C in VCaP and LNCaP cells inhibited cell viability, colony formation, and migration. Consistently, stable KMT2C depletion effectively decreased tumor growth by approximately 70% in vivo. Mechanistically, the results suggested that CLDN8 and ITGAV are two key downstream genes of KMT2C and further regulate the MAPK/ERK and EMT pathways.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that KMT2C plays an oncogenic role in PCa. One of the mechanisms may be the epigenetic regulation of CLDN8 and ITGAV by KMT2C to modulate tumor-signaling pathways. Therefore, KMT2C may serve as a potential therapeutic target for PCa patients.

Carbon ion reirradiation compared to intensity-modulated re-radiotherapy for recurrent head and neck cancer (CARE): a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Intensity-modulated re-radiotherapy (reIMRT) has been established as a standard local treatment option in patients with non-resectable, recurrent head and neck cancer (rHNC). However, the clinical outcome is unfavorable and severe toxicities (≥grade III) occurred in 30-40% of patients. The primary aim of the current trial is to investigate carbon ion reirradiation (reCIRT) compared to reIMRT in patients with rHNC regarding safety/toxicity as well as local control, overall survival (OS), and quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

The present trial will be performed as a single center, two-armed, prospective phase II study. A maximum of 72 patients will be treated with either reIMRT or reCIRT to evaluate severe (≥grade III) treatment-related toxicities (randomization ratio 1:1). The primary target value is to generate less than 35% acute/subacute severe toxicity (≥grade III), according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0, within 6 months after study treatment. The total dose of reirradiation will range between 51 and 60 Gy or Gy (RBE), depending primarily on the radiotherapy interval and the cumulative dose to organs at risk. Individual dose prescription will be at the discretion of the treating radiation oncologist. The local and distant progression-free survival 12 months after reirradiation, the OS, and the QoL are the secondary endpoints of the trial. Explorative trial objectives are the longitudinal investigation of clinical patient-related parameters, tumor parameters on radiological imaging, and blood-based tumor analytics.

DISCUSSION

Recent retrospective studies suggested that reCIRT could represent a feasible and effective treatment modality for rHNC. This current randomized prospective trial is the first to investigate the toxicity and clinical outcome of reCIRT compared to reIMRT in patients with rHNC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ; NCT04185974 ; December 4th 2019.