1
|
Tang JD, Mills MN, Nakashima J, Dohm AE, Khushalani NI, Forsyth PA, Vogelbaum MA, Wuthrick EJ, Yu HHM, Oliver DE, Liu JKC, Ahmed KA. Clinical outcomes of melanoma brain metastases treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone versus nivolumab and ipilimumab with stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurooncol 2024; 166:431-440. [PMID: 38310157 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-023-04543-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2023] [Accepted: 12/13/2023] [Indexed: 02/05/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Upfront dual checkpoint blockade with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has demonstrated efficacy for treating melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in asymptomatic patients. Whether the combination of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with dual checkpoint blockade improves outcomes over dual-checkpoint blockade alone is unknown. We evaluated clinical outcomes of patients with MBM receiving ICI with nivolumab and ipilimumab, with and without SRS. METHODS 49 patients with 158 MBM receiving nivolumab and ipilimumab for untreated MBM between 2015 and 2022 were identified at our institution. Patient and tumor characteristics including age, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), presence of symptoms, cancer history, MBM burden, and therapy course were recorded. Outcomes measured from initiation of MBM-directed therapy included overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant intracranial control (DIC). Time-to-event analysis was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS 25 patients with 74 MBM received ICI alone, and 24 patients with 84 MBM received concurrent SRS. Median follow-up was 24 months. No differences in age (p = 0.96), KPS (p = 0.85), presence of symptoms (p = 0.79), prior MBM (p = 0.68), prior MBM-directed surgery (p = 0.96) or SRS (p = 0.68), MBM size (p = 0.67), or MBM number (p = 0.94) were seen. There was a higher rate of nivolumab and ipilimumab course completion in the SRS group (54% vs. 24%; p = 0.029). The SRS group received prior immunotherapy more often than the ICI alone group (54% vs. 8.0%; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 1-year OS (72% vs. 71%, p = 0.20) and DIC (63% v 51%, p = 0.26) between groups. The SRS group had higher 1-year LC (92% vs. 64%; p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, LC was improved with combination therapy (AHR 0.38, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION In our analysis, patients who received SRS with nivolumab and ipilimumab had superior LC without increased risk of toxicity or compromised immunotherapy treatment completion despite the SRS cohort having higher rates of prior immunotherapy. Further prospective study of combination nivolumab and ipilimumab with SRS is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph D Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Dr. , Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Matthew N Mills
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Dr. , Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Justyn Nakashima
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Dr. , Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Ammoren E Dohm
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Dr. , Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Nikhil I Khushalani
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Peter A Forsyth
- Department of Neuro-Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Michael A Vogelbaum
- Department of Neuro-Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Evan J Wuthrick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Dr. , Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Hsiang-Hsuan M Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Dr. , Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Daniel E Oliver
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Dr. , Tampa, FL, USA
| | - James K C Liu
- Department of Neuro-Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Kamran A Ahmed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Dr. , Tampa, FL, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dohm AE, Nakashima JY, Kalagotla H, Jiang SX, Tang JD, Bhandari M, Kim Y, Graham JA, Khushalani NI, Forsyth PA, Etame AB, Liu JK, Tran ND, Vogelbaum MA, Wuthrick EJ, Yu HHM, Oliver DE, Ahmed KA. Stereotactic radiosurgery and anti-PD-1 + CTLA-4 therapy, anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK inhibitors, BRAF inhibitors, or conventional chemotherapy for the management of melanoma brain metastases. Eur J Cancer 2023; 192:113287. [PMID: 37657227 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113287] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2023] [Accepted: 07/27/2023] [Indexed: 09/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Immunotherapy and targeted BRAF/MEK inhibitors (i) have revolutionised the systemic management of advanced melanoma. Given the role of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the local management of brain metastases, we sought to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) treated with SRS and various systemic therapies. METHODS Patients were included if MBM were diagnosed and treated with SRS within 3 months of receiving anti-PD-1+CTLA-4 therapy, anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK-i, BRAF-i, or conventional chemotherapy. Comparisons between groups were made for overall survival (OS), distant MBM control, local MBM, systemic progression-free survival (sPFS), and neurotoxicity. RESULTS In total, 257 patients with 1048 MBM treated over 368 SRS sessions between 2011 and 2020 were identified. On MVA, treatment with anti-PD1+anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, and BRAF/MEK-i improved distant intracranial control over conventional chemotherapy. No significant differences were noted in local control (LC) between groups (p = 0.78). Kaplan-Meier OS at 12 months for anti-PD-1 + CTLA-4 therapy, anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK-i, BRAF-i, and conventional chemotherapy was 68%, 59%, 45%, 62%, 21%, and 15%, respectively (p = <0.0001). The sPFS rates at 12 months were 57%, 53%, 42%, 45%, 14%, and 6% (p = <0.0001). No significant differences were noted in rates of radiation necrosis (p = 0.93). CONCLUSIONS This is among the largest series evaluating MBM treated with SRS and various systemic therapy regimens. Our analysis noted significant differences in OS, distant MBM control, and sPFS by systemic therapy. No differences in LC or radiation necrosis risk were noted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ammoren E Dohm
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Justyn Y Nakashima
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Hruday Kalagotla
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Shirley X Jiang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Joseph D Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Menal Bhandari
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Youngchul Kim
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Jasmine A Graham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Nikhil I Khushalani
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Peter A Forsyth
- Department of Neuro-Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Arnold B Etame
- Department of Neuro-Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - James K Liu
- Department of Neuro-Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Nam D Tran
- Department of Neuro-Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Michael A Vogelbaum
- Department of Neuro-Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Evan J Wuthrick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Hsiang-Hsuan Michael Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Daniel E Oliver
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Kamran A Ahmed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sandoval ML, Sim AJ, Bryant JM, Bhandari M, Wuthrick EJ, Perez BA, Dilling TJ, Redler G, Andreozzi J, Nardella L, Feygelman V, Latifi K, Rosenberg SA. MR-Guided SBRT/Hypofractionated RT for Metastatic and Primary Central and Ultracentral Lung Lesions. JTO Clin Res Rep 2023; 4:100488. [PMID: 37159821 PMCID: PMC10163640 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2023.100488] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2022] [Revised: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 02/21/2023] [Indexed: 04/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction The recent results from the Nordic-HILUS study indicate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is associated with high-grade toxicity for ultracentral (UC) tumors. We hypothesized that magnetic resonance-guided SBRT (MRgSBRT) or hypofractionated radiation therapy (MRgHRT) enables the safe delivery of high-dose radiation to central and UC lung lesions. Methods Patients with UC or central lesions were treated with MRgSBRT/MRgHRT with real-time gating or adaptation. Central lesions were defined as per the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and UC as per the HILUS study definitions: (1) group A or tumors less than 1 cm from the trachea and/or mainstem bronchi; or (2) group B or tumors less than 1 cm from the lobar bronchi. The Kaplan-Meier estimate and log-rank test were used to estimate survival. Associations between toxicities and other patient factors were tested using the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. Results A total of 47 patients were included with a median follow-up of 22.9 months (95% confidence interval: 16.4-29.4). Most (53%) had metastatic disease. All patients had central lesions and 55.3% (n = 26) had UC group A. The median distance from the proximal bronchial tree was 6.0 mm (range: 0.0-19.0 mm). The median biologically equivalent dose (α/β = 10) was 105 Gy (range: 75-151.2). The most common radiation schedule was 60 Gy in eight fractions (40.4%). Most (55%) had previous systemic therapy, 32% had immunotherapy and 23.4% had previous thoracic radiation therapy. There were 16 patients who underwent daily adaptation. The 1-year overall survival was 82% (median = not reached), local control 87% (median = not reached), and progression-free survival 54% (median = 15.1 mo, 95% confidence interval: 5.1-25.1). Acute toxicity included grade 1 (26%) and grade 2 (21%) with only two patients experiencing grade 3 (4.3%) in the long term. No grade 4 or 5 toxicities were seen. Conclusions Previous studies noted high rates of toxicity after SBRT to central and UC lung lesions, with reports of grade 5 toxicities. In our cohort, the use of MRgSBRT/MRgHRT with high biologically effective doses was well tolerated, with two grade 3 toxicities and no grade 4/5.
Collapse
|
4
|
Sondak VK, Neves RI, Wuthrick EJ, Messina JL, Khushalani NI. Current and future approaches in the surgical management of T3b/T4 primary and locoregionally advanced melanoma. Cancer 2022; 128:3764-3771. [PMID: 36066835 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34449] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2022] [Revised: 06/25/2022] [Accepted: 07/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Currently accepted principles of surgical management-margin width, use of sentinel node biopsy, performance of radical node dissections for node-positive cases-and some aspects of postoperative management (use of radiation for desmoplastic melanoma primaries and for clinically node-positive disease) will change in the future with the potential widespread adoption of adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vernon K Sondak
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA
| | - Rogerio I Neves
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA.,Reconstructive and Plastic Surgery Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA
| | - Evan J Wuthrick
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA
| | - Jane L Messina
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA.,Department of Anatomic Pathology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA
| | - Nikhil I Khushalani
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Linkowski LC, Sim AJ, Redler G, Brohl AS, Rosenberg SA, Wuthrick EJ. Delivery of Online Adaptive MRI-Guided Radiation Therapy for a Deaf Patient. Cureus 2022; 14:e27558. [PMID: 36059359 PMCID: PMC9429821 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27558] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
MRI-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) enables real-time imaging during treatment and daily online adaptive planning. It is particularly useful for areas of treatment that have been previously excluded or restricted from ablative doses due to potential damage to adjacent normal tissue. In certain cases, ablative doses to metastatic lesions may be justified and treated with MRgRT using video-assisted gated breath-hold adjustments throughout delivery. The workflow relies on patient biofeedback and auditory cues. A 74-year-old deaf male with a history of prostate cancer status post prostatectomy was found to have an enlarged cervical lymph node, which was excised with histopathology demonstrating Merkel cell carcinoma. Approximately one year after treatment with two cycles of pembrolizumab, which was subsequently discontinued due to toxicity, surveillance imaging demonstrated an enlarging left adrenal nodule. It was initially stable for an additional seven months with pembrolizumab rechallenge but was again found enlarged on subsequent imaging. The patient underwent MRg stereotactic body radiation therapy (MRgSBRT) to a total dose of 60 Gy in five fractions to this isolated site of progression. The patient was equipped with mirrored glasses to view the tracking structure with respect to gating the boundary structure, and the traditional reliance on verbal cues for coaching was reimagined to rely on visual cues instead. Follow-up positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) two weeks after treatment demonstrated interval resolution of the left adrenal metastatic nodule and a return to symmetric bilateral adrenal gland metabolic activity. The necessary MRgSBRT treatment for single metastatic lesions near normal tissue structures relies on verbal cues and coaching. However, deaf patients are unable to receive this treatment according to the traditional workflow model. Unique opportunities exist for the implementation of culturally competent care for the Deaf community, relying more heavily on visual cues, in radiation oncology practice.
Collapse
|
6
|
Yaney AC, Rossfeld KK, Wu TC, Agnese DM, Terando AM, Wuthrick EJ, Howard JH. Adjuvant Radiation Does Not Affect Locoregional Control Following Resection of Melanoma Satellitosis or In-Transit Disease. Am Surg 2021:31348211047492. [PMID: 34645291 DOI: 10.1177/00031348211047492] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study evaluates the association of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) with improved locoregional (LR) recurrence for resected melanoma satellitosis and in-transit disease (ITD). MATERIALS AND METHODS Data were collected retrospectively for resected melanoma satellitosis/ITD from 1996 to 2017. RESULTS 99 patients were identified. 20 patients (20.2%) received adjuvant RT while 79 (79.8%) did not. Mean follow-up in the RT group was 4.3 years and 4.7 years in the non-RT group. 80% of patients who underwent RT suffered a complication, most commonly dermatitis. Locoregional recurrence occurred in 9 patients (45%) treated with adjuvant RT and 30 patients (38%) in the non-RT group (P = 0.805). Median LR-DFS was 5.8 years in the RT group and 9.5 years in the non-RT group (P = 0.604). On multivariable analysis, having a close or positive margin was the only independent predictor of LR-DFS (HR 3.8 95% CI 1.7-8.7). In-transit disease was associated with improved overall survival when compared to satellitosis (HR 0.260, 95% CI 0.08-0.82). DISCUSSION The use of adjuvant RT is not associated with improved locoregional control in resected melanoma satellitosis or ITD. Close or positive margin was the only treatment-related factor associated with decreased LR-DFS after surgical resection of satellitosis/ITD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander C Yaney
- 12306The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Kara K Rossfeld
- 12306The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Trudy C Wu
- 21767UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Doreen M Agnese
- 12306The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | | | - Evan J Wuthrick
- 25301H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - John H Howard
- 21822University of South Alabama Medical Center, Mobile, AL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Straker RJ, Song Y, Sun J, Shannon AB, Cohen LS, Muradova E, Daou H, Krause K, Li S, Frederick DT, Rhodin KE, Brizel DM, Boland GM, Beasley GM, Wuthrick EJ, Sondak VK, Zager JS, Lin A, Lukens JN, Karakousis GC. Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Clinical Stage III Melanoma in the Modern Therapeutic Era. Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 28:3512-3521. [PMID: 33230747 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-09384-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2020] [Accepted: 10/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) can decrease lymph node basin (LNB) recurrences in patients with clinically evident melanoma lymph node (LN) metastases following lymphadenectomy, but its role in the era of modern systemic therapies (ST), immune checkpoint or BRAF/MEK inhibitors, is unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients at four institutions who underwent lymphadenectomy (1/1/2010-12/31/2019) for clinically evident melanoma LN metastases and received neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant ST with RT, or ST alone, but met indications for RT, were identified. Comparisons were made between ST alone and ST/RT groups. The primary outcome was 3-year cumulative incidence (CI) of LNB recurrence. Secondary outcomes included 3-year incidences of in-transit/distant recurrence and survival estimates. RESULTS Of 98 patients, 76 received ST alone and 22 received ST/RT. Median follow-up time for patients alive at last follow-up was 44.6 months. The ST/RT group had fewer inguinal node metastases (ST 36.8% versus ST/RT 9.1%; P = 0.04), and more extranodal extension (ST 50% versus ST/RT 77.3%; P = 0.02) and positive lymphadenectomy margins (ST 2.6% versus ST/RT 13.6%; P = 0.04). The 3-year CI of LNB recurrences was lower for the ST/RT group compared with the ST group (13.9% versus 25.2%), but this reduction was not statistically significant (P = 0.36). Groups did not differ significantly in in-transit/distant recurrences (P = 0.24), disease-free survival (P = 0.14), or melanoma-specific survival (P = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS In the era of modern ST, RT may still have value in reducing LNB recurrences in melanoma with clinical LN metastases. Further research should focus on whether select patient populations derive benefit from combination therapy, and optimizing indications for RT following neoadjuvant ST.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard J Straker
- Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - Yun Song
- Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - James Sun
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Adrienne B Shannon
- Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Leah S Cohen
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Elnara Muradova
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Hala Daou
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Kate Krause
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Siming Li
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Dennie T Frederick
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - David M Brizel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Genevieve M Boland
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Evan J Wuthrick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Vernon K Sondak
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Jonathan S Zager
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Alexander Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - John N Lukens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Giorgos C Karakousis
- Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Sim AJ, Palm RF, DeLozier KB, Feygelman V, Latifi K, Redler G, Washington IR, Wuthrick EJ, Rosenberg SA. MR-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy for intracardiac and pericardial metastases. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2020; 25:102-106. [PMID: 33204858 PMCID: PMC7653008 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2020.10.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2020] [Revised: 10/25/2020] [Accepted: 10/26/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Radiation is not typical in the standard of care for cardiac metastases. MR-guided radiation uses real-time imaging and offers better soft tissue contrast. Real-time MR-guidance allows for safe high dose radiation to cardiac metastases. MR-guided stereotactic radiation can improve symptoms without acute toxicity.
Aims To assess the safety and efficacy of MR-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy (MRgSBRT) for cardiac metastases. Materials/methods This single institution retrospective analysis evaluated our experience with MRgSBRT for cardiac metastases. Response rate was compared between pre-RT and post-RT imaging. Symptomatic changes were also tracked and documented. Results Between 4/2019 and 3/2020, five patients with cardiac metastases (4 intracardiac and 1 pericardial) were treated with MRgSBRT. Median age at treatment was 73 years (range 64–80) and two patients had pre-existing cardiac disease. Histologies included melanoma and breast adenocarcinoma. Median lesion diameter was 2 cm (range 1.96–5.8 cm). Three patients were symptomatic, one of whom had pulmonary hypertension and RV enlargement. Another patient had an asymptomatic arrythmia. Median PTV prescribed dose was 40 Gy (range 40–50 Gy) and delivered in five fractions on nonconsecutive days. Median PTV volume was 53.4 cc (range 8.7–116.6 cc) and median coverage was 95% (range 84.1–100%). A uniform 3 mm margin was used for real-time gating, allowing a median 7% (range 5–10%) pixel excursion tolerance. Median follow-up was 4.7 months (range 0.9–12.3). Two patients exhibited stable disease, two had a partial response and one exhibited a complete response. All symptomatic patients experienced some relief. There were no acute adverse events, however, one patient without prior cardiac disease developed atrial fibrillation 6 months after treatment. Two patients died of causes unrelated to cardiac MRgSBRT. Conclusion In this largest known series of cardiac metastasis MRgSBRT, real-time image guidance enables safe treatment resulting in good response with improving presenting symptoms without acute adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Austin J Sim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States
| | - Russell F Palm
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States
| | - Kirby B DeLozier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States
| | - Vladimir Feygelman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States
| | - Kujtim Latifi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States
| | - Gage Redler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States
| | - Iman R Washington
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States
| | - Evan J Wuthrick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States
| | - Stephen A Rosenberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Farley CR, Perez MC, Soelling SJ, Delman KA, Harit A, Wuthrick EJ, Messina JL, Sondak VK, Zager JS, Lowe MC. Correction to: Merkel Cell Carcinoma Outcomes: Does AJCC8 Underestimate Survival? Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 27:983. [PMID: 32699930 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-08871-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
C.R. Farley and M.C. Perez contributed equally to this publication and are co-first authors. J.S. Zager and M.C. Lowe contributed equally to this publication and are co-corresponding authors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C R Farley
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - M C Perez
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - S J Soelling
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - K A Delman
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - A Harit
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - E J Wuthrick
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - J L Messina
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - V K Sondak
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - J S Zager
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
| | - M C Lowe
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Patel AK, Pan X, Vila DM, Frankel WL, Chen W, Perry KA, Merritt RE, D'Souza DM, Wuthrick EJ, Williams TM. Perineural invasion predicts for locoregional failure in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. J Clin Pathol 2020; 74:228-233. [PMID: 32317290 DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2020-206424] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/01/2020] [Revised: 03/06/2020] [Accepted: 03/21/2020] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
AIM The prognostic significance of perineural invasion (PNI) in oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is unclear. We examined the association of PNI with clinical outcomes in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and surgery. METHODS We performed a single institutional retrospective study. We evaluated the association of PNI with locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival using log-rank and Cox proportional hazard modelling. RESULTS 29 out of 73 patients (40%) had PNI at the time of surgery. The median follow-up was 20.1 months. The median DFS was 18.4 months for patients with PNI vs 41.3 months for patients without PNI (p<0.05). The median LRFS was 23.3 months for patients with PNI and median not reached for patients without PNI (p<0.01). In a multivariate model including age and pathological variables, PNI remained a significant independent predictor of LRFS (HR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60; p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS For patients with EAC treated with nCRT, PNI found at the time of surgery is significantly associated with worse LRFS. Our data support attempts to validate this finding and perhaps testing the role of adjuvant therapy in patients with PNI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ankur K Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Xueliang Pan
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Diana M Vila
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Wendy L Frankel
- Department of Pathology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Wei Chen
- Department of Pathology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Kyle A Perry
- Division of General and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Robert E Merritt
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Desmond M D'Souza
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Evan J Wuthrick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Terence M Williams
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Farley CR, Perez MC, Soelling SJ, Delman KA, Harit A, Wuthrick EJ, Messina JL, Sondak VK, Zager JS, Lowe MC. Merkel Cell Carcinoma Outcomes: Does AJCC8 Underestimate Survival? Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 27:1978-1985. [PMID: 32103415 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-08187-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2019] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC8) Staging Manual provides important information for staging and prognostication; however, survival estimates for patients with Stage I-III Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), a rare disease, may be as practical using data from large-volume centers as that collated for the AJCC analysis. As such, we compared our institutional outcomes to AJCC8. METHODS Patients who presented from 2005 to 2017 with MCC to two high-volume centers were included. Demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, survival and recurrence data were compiled, and outcomes compared to AJCC8. RESULTS A total of 409 patients were included. Median age was 75 (range 29-98) years, and 68% were male. Median follow-up was 16 months (0-157). Five-year overall survival (OS) was 70%; 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) was 84%. When stratified by extent of disease, 5-year OS was higher for patients with local disease compared to those with nodal disease (72.6% vs 62.7%, p=0.005). Similarly, patients with local disease had higher 5-year DSS than those with nodal disease (90.1% vs 76.8%, p=0.002). Five-year recurrence-free survival was 59.2% for all patients, 65.0% for local disease and 48.3% for nodal disease (p=0.033). CONCLUSIONS Here, MCC patients with local or nodal disease have substantially higher OS rates than predicted in AJCC8 (5-year: 72.6% vs 50.6%; 62.7% vs 35.4%, respectively). Importantly, 5-year DSS was significantly better than the OS rates reported presently and in AJCC8. As clinicians and patients rely on AJCC to accurately prognosticate and guide treatment decisions, these estimates should be reassessed and updated to more accurately predict survival outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C R Farley
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
| | - M C Perez
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - S J Soelling
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - K A Delman
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - A Harit
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - E J Wuthrick
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - J L Messina
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - V K Sondak
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - J S Zager
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - M C Lowe
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Oliver DE, Mohammadi H, Figura N, Frakes JM, Yamoah K, Perez BA, Wuthrick EJ, Naghavi AO, Caudell JJ, Harrison LB, Torres-Roca JF, Ahmed KA. Novel Genomic-Based Strategies to Personalize Lymph Node Radiation Therapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2019; 29:111-125. [DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2018.11.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
|
13
|
Abstract
Immunotherapy agents have significantly changed the landscape of melanoma treatment over the past decade. Paradigm shifts in treatment require reanalysis of the treatment algorithms in melanoma. Despite surgical excision, certain high risk patients with desmoplastic melanoma remain at high risk for local recurrence and retrospective data suggests improvement in local control with adjuvant radiation therapy. Likewise, despite surgical excision and effective systemic therapy agents, patients with extracapsular extension and other high risk features are at substantial risk of nodal basin (regional) recurrence. Adjuvant radiation therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the local recurrence risk. Despite these benefits, adjuvant radiation therapy in melanoma remains controversial in part because its use has not been definitively demonstrated to improve overall or disease-free survival in a randomized prospective study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Evan J Wuthrick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL.
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Perez MC, Oliver DE, Weitman ES, Boulware D, Messina JL, Torres-Roca J, Cruse CW, Gonzalez RJ, Sarnaik AA, Sondak VK, Wuthrick EJ, Harrison LB, Zager JS. Management of Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Merkel Cell Carcinoma: Completion Lymphadenectomy, Radiation, or Both? Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 26:379-385. [PMID: 30311164 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6810-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2018] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Approximately 30% of patients with clinically localized Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) show nodal involvement on sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Optimal management of SLNB-positive disease has not been defined. This study compared outcomes after completion lymphadenectomy (CLND), radiation, and combined CLND plus radiation after a positive SLNB. METHODS All patients treated at a single institution for SLNB-positive MCC (1998-2015) were retrospectively evaluated, with examination of patient demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, outcomes, and regional toxicity. RESULTS The study identified 71 evaluable patients with SLNB-positive disease. The median age of these patients was 76 years, and 76.1% were men. Of the 71 patients, 11 (15.5%) underwent CLND, 40 (56.3%) received radiation, and 20 (28.2%) underwent CLND plus postoperative radiation. Lymphovascular invasion was significantly more common in the radiation-alone cohort (p = 0.04). For the three cohorts, the median percentages of nodal involvement were respectively 2, 10, and 30% (p = 0.06). After a median follow-up period of 22.3 months, four patients had recurrence in their regional nodal basin (3 radiation-alone patients and 1 CLND + radiation patient). The three cohorts did not differ significantly in the development of distant metastases (p = 0.68) or overall survival (p = 0.72). Six patients experienced surgical-site infections (2 CLND and 4 CLND + radiation patients), and three patients experienced symptomatic lymphedema (1 CLND patient and 2 CLND + radiation patients). CONCLUSIONS Regional failure was infrequent (≤ 10%) regardless of treatment, and morbidity appeared to be low with all approaches. Given that multiple treatment approaches can be successful in treating micrometastatic MCC, future efforts should be directed at refining criteria for allocating patients to a specific method, or possibly no further nodal basin treatment, in an effort to maximize regional control at the lowest cost and morbidity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew C Perez
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Daniel E Oliver
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Evan S Weitman
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - David Boulware
- Department of Biostatistics, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Jane L Messina
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.,Department of Pathology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | | - C Wayne Cruse
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | | - Amod A Sarnaik
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Vernon K Sondak
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Evan J Wuthrick
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Louis B Harrison
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Jonathan S Zager
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Perez MC, de Pinho FR, Holstein A, Oliver DE, Naqvi SMH, Kim Y, Messina JL, Burke E, Gonzalez RJ, Sarnaik AA, Cruse CW, Wuthrick EJ, Harrison LB, Sondak VK, Zager JS. Resection Margins in Merkel Cell Carcinoma: Is a 1-cm Margin Wide Enough? Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 25:3334-3340. [PMID: 30073600 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6688-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2018] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Guidelines regarding specific resection margins for primary Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) are not well established. The current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend 1- to 2-cm resection margins. This study aimed to determine the impact of margin width on local recurrence (LR), disease-specific survival (DSS), overall survival (OS), and type of wound closure. METHODS All patients who underwent resection of primary MCC at a single institution from 2000 to 2015 were reviewed. Patient demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, treatments, and outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS A total of 240 patients underwent resection of primary MCC with resection margin width identified in the operative report. The median age was 76 years, and 65.8% of the patients were men. Of the 240 patients, 85 (35.4%) had head and neck primaries, 140 (58.3%) had extremity primaries, and 15 (6.3%) had trunk primaries. In terms of margins, 69 patients (28.8%) had a margin of 1 cm, 36 patients (15%) had a margin of 1.1-1.9 cm, and 135 patients (56.2%) had a margin of 2 cm or more. The median follow-up period was 21 months. The LR rate was 2.9% for a margin of 1 cm, 2.8% for a margin of 1.1-1.9 cm, and 5.2% for a margin of 2 cm or more (p = 0.80). The 5-year OS was 63.6% for a margin of 1 cm, 59.7% for a margin of 1.1-1.9, and 70.7% for a margin of 2 cm or more (p = 0.66). The 5-year DSS was 80.3% for a margin of 1 cm, 66.2% for a margin of 1.1-1.9 cm, and 91.8% for a margin of 2 cm or more (p = 0.28). For wound closure, 43.5, 50, and 65.9% of the patients respectively required a flap or graft with a margin of 1, 1.1-1.9, and 2 cm or more (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS A 1-cm resection margins did not increase the risk of LR. Margin width did not make a significant difference in DSS or OS. Larger resection margins increase the need for a graft or flap closure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew C Perez
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Felipe R de Pinho
- Department of Oncology, Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Amanda Holstein
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Daniel E Oliver
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Syeda M H Naqvi
- Department of Biostatistics, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Youngchul Kim
- Department of Biostatistics, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Jane L Messina
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Erin Burke
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | | - Amod A Sarnaik
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - C Wayne Cruse
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Evan J Wuthrick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Louis B Harrison
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Vernon K Sondak
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Jonathan S Zager
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Makary MS, Krishner LS, Wuthrick EJ, Bloomston MP, Dowell JD. Yttrium-90 microsphere selective internal radiation therapy for liver metastases following systemic chemotherapy and surgical resection for metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma. World J Clin Oncol 2018; 9:20-25. [PMID: 29468134 PMCID: PMC5807889 DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v9.i1.20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2017] [Revised: 11/05/2017] [Accepted: 12/05/2017] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignancy with generally poor outcomes and limited treatment options. While surgical resection can be curative for early local disease, most patients present with advanced ACC owing to nonspecific symptoms. For those patients, treatment options include systemic chemotherapy and locoregional therapies including radiofrequency ablation and transarterial chemoembolization. We present the first reported case of utilizing yttrium-90 microsphere selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) in combination with first line EDP-M (Etoposide, Doxorubicin, Cisplatin, Mitotane) chemotherapy and debulking surgical primary tumor resection for treatment of metastatic ACC. Stable complete radiologic response has been maintained after twelve months with resolution of clinical symptoms. These findings prompt the need for further consideration and studies to elucidate the role of SIRT in combination with systemic and surgical treatment for metastatic ACC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mina S Makary
- Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH 43210, United States
| | - Lawrence S Krishner
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH 43210, United States
| | - Evan J Wuthrick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH 43210, United States
| | - Mark P Bloomston
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery and James Cancer Hospital and Richard Solove Research Institute, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH 43210, United States
| | - Joshua D Dowell
- Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH 43210, United States
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Binzel K, Adelaja A, Wright CL, Scharre D, Zhang J, Knopp MV, Teoh EJ, Bottomley D, Scarsbrook A, Payne H, Afaq A, Bomanji J, van As N, Chua S, Hoskin P, Chambers A, Cook GJ, Warbey VS, Chau A, Ward P, Miller MP, Stevens DJ, Wilson L, Gleeson FV, Scheidhauer K, Seidl C, Autenrieth M, Bruchertseifer F, Apostolidis C, Kurtz F, Horn T, Pfob C, Schwaiger M, Gschwend J, D'Alessandria C, Morgenstern A, Uprimny C, Kroiss A, Decristoforo C, von Guggenberg E, Nilica B, Horninger W, Virgolini I, Rasul S, Poetsch N, Woehrer A, Preusser M, Mitterhauser M, Wadsak W, Widhalm G, Mischkulnig M, Hacker M, Traub-Weidinger T, Wright CL, Binzel K, Wuthrick EJ, Miller ED, Maniawski P, Zhang J, Knopp MV, Rep S, Hocevar M, Vaupotic J, Zdesar U, Zaletel K, Lezaic L, Mairinger S, Filip T, Sauberer M, Flunkert S, Wanek T, Stanek J, Okamura N, Langer O, Kuntner C, Fornito MC, Balzano R, Di Martino V, Cacciaguerra S, Russo G, Seifert D, Kleinova M, Cepa A, Ralis J, Hanc P, Lebeda O, Mosa M, Vandenberghe S, Mikhaylova E, Borys D, Viswanath V, Stockhoff M, Efthimiou N, Caribe P, Van Holen R, Karp JS, Binzel K, Zhang J, Wright CL, Maniawski P, Knopp MV, Haller PM, Farhan C, Piackova E, Jäger B, Knoll P, Kiss A, Podesser BK, Wojta J, Huber K, Mirzaei S, Traxl A, Komposch K, Glitzner E, Wanek T, Mairinger S, Sibilia M, Langer O, Fornito MC, Russello M, Russo G, Balzano R, Sorko S, Gallowitsch HJ, Kohlfuerst S, Matschnig S, Rieser M, Sorschag M, Lind P, Ležaič L, Rep S, Žibert J, Frelih N, Šuštar S, Binzel K, Adelaja A, Wright CL, Scharre D, Zhang J, Knopp MV, Baum RP, Langbein T, Singh A, Shahinfar M, Schuchardt C, Volk GF, Kulkarni HR, Fornito MC, Cacciaguerra S, Balzano R, Di Martino GV, Russo G, Thomson WH, Kudlacek M, Karik M, Farhan C, Rieger H, Pokieser W, Glaser K, Mirzaei S, Petz V, Tugendsam C, Buchinger W, Schmoll-Hauer B, Schenk IP, Rudolph K, Krebs M, Zettinig G, Zoufal V, Wanek T, Krohn M, Mairinger S, Stanek J, Sauberer M, Filip T, Pahnke J, Langer O, Weitzer F, Pernthaler B, Salamon S, Aigner R, Koranda P, Henzlová L, Kamínek M, Váchalová M, Bachleda P, Summer D, Garousi J, Oroujeni M, Mitran B, Andersson KG, Vorobyeva A, Löfblom JN, Orlova A, Tolmachev V, Decristoforo C, Kaeopookum P, Summer D, Orasch T, Lechner B, Petrik M, Novy Z, Rangger C, Haas H, Decristoforo C. Abstracts of the 33rd International Austrian Winter Symposium : Zell am See, Austria. 24-27 January 2018. EJNMMI Res 2018; 8:5. [PMID: 29362999 PMCID: PMC5780335 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-017-0354-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- K Binzel
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - A Adelaja
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - C L Wright
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - D Scharre
- Department of Neurology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - J Zhang
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - M V Knopp
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - E J Teoh
- Departments of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - D Bottomley
- The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - A Scarsbrook
- The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - H Payne
- University College London, London, UK
| | - A Afaq
- University College London, London, UK
| | - J Bomanji
- University College London, London, UK
| | - N van As
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - S Chua
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - P Hoskin
- Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, London, UK
| | | | - G J Cook
- King's College London, London, UK
| | | | - A Chau
- Blue Earth Diagnostics, Oxford, UK
| | - P Ward
- Blue Earth Diagnostics, Oxford, UK
| | | | | | - L Wilson
- Blue Earth Diagnostics, Oxford, UK
| | - F V Gleeson
- Departments of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - K Scheidhauer
- TU München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Nuklearmedizin, München, Germany
| | - C Seidl
- TU München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Nuklearmedizin, München, Germany
| | - M Autenrieth
- TU München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Urologie, München, Germany
| | | | | | - F Kurtz
- TU München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Urologie, München, Germany
| | - T Horn
- TU München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Urologie, München, Germany
| | - C Pfob
- TU München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Nuklearmedizin, München, Germany
| | - M Schwaiger
- TU München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Nuklearmedizin, München, Germany
| | - J Gschwend
- TU München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Urologie, München, Germany
| | - C D'Alessandria
- TU München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Nuklearmedizin, München, Germany
| | | | - C Uprimny
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 32, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - A Kroiss
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 32, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - C Decristoforo
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 32, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - E von Guggenberg
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 32, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - B Nilica
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 32, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - W Horninger
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 32, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - I Virgolini
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 32, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - S Rasul
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - N Poetsch
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - A Woehrer
- Clinical Institute of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - M Preusser
- Clinical University of Internal Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - M Mitterhauser
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - W Wadsak
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- CBmed GmbH, Center for Biomarker Research in Medicine, Graz, Austria
| | - G Widhalm
- Clinical University of Neuro-surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - M Mischkulnig
- Clinical University of Neuro-surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - M Hacker
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - T Traub-Weidinger
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - C L Wright
- Wright Center of Innovation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - K Binzel
- Wright Center of Innovation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - E J Wuthrick
- Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - E D Miller
- Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - P Maniawski
- Clinical Science, Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - J Zhang
- Wright Center of Innovation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - M V Knopp
- Wright Center of Innovation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Sebastijan Rep
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Marko Hocevar
- Department of Oncological Surgery, Oncology Institute Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | | | - Urban Zdesar
- Institute of Occupational Safety Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Katja Zaletel
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Luka Lezaic
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - S Mairinger
- Biomedical Systems, Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
| | - Thomas Filip
- Biomedical Systems, Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
| | - M Sauberer
- Biomedical Systems, Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
| | - S Flunkert
- Neuropharmacology, QPS Austria GmbH, Grambach, Austria
| | - T Wanek
- Biomedical Systems, Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
| | - J Stanek
- Biomedical Systems, Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - N Okamura
- Division of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Sendai, Japan
| | - O Langer
- Biomedical Systems, Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - C Kuntner
- Biomedical Systems, Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
| | - M C Fornito
- Nuclear Medicine Department PET/TC center Arnas Garibaldi Catania, Catania, Italy
| | - R Balzano
- Nuclear Medicine Department PET/TC center Arnas Garibaldi Catania, Catania, Italy
| | - V Di Martino
- Nuclear Medicine Department PET/TC center Arnas Garibaldi Catania, Catania, Italy
| | - S Cacciaguerra
- Pediatric Surgery Department Arnas Garibaldi Catania, Catania, Italy
| | - G Russo
- H. Pharmacy Department Arnas Garibaldi Catania, Catania, Italy
| | - D Seifert
- Nuclear Physics Institute of the CAS, Rez, Czech Republic
| | - M Kleinova
- Nuclear Physics Institute of the CAS, Rez, Czech Republic
| | - A Cepa
- Nuclear Physics Institute of the CAS, Rez, Czech Republic
| | - J Ralis
- Nuclear Physics Institute of the CAS, Rez, Czech Republic
| | - P Hanc
- Nuclear Physics Institute of the CAS, Rez, Czech Republic
| | - O Lebeda
- Nuclear Physics Institute of the CAS, Rez, Czech Republic
| | - M Mosa
- Charles university Faculty of Science Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - S Vandenberghe
- MEDISIP research group, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | | | - D Borys
- Silesian University of Technology Gliwice, Gliwice, Poland
| | - V Viswanath
- PET instrumentation group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - M Stockhoff
- MEDISIP research group, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - N Efthimiou
- MEDISIP research group, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - P Caribe
- MEDISIP research group, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - R Van Holen
- MEDISIP research group, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - J S Karp
- PET instrumentation group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - K Binzel
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - J Zhang
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - C L Wright
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | | | - M V Knopp
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - P M Haller
- 3rd Department of Medicine, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Chest Pain Unit, Wilhelminenhospital Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Ludwig Boltzmann Cluster for Cardiovascular Research, Vienna, Austria
| | - C Farhan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine with PET-Center, Wilhelminenhospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - E Piackova
- 3rd Department of Medicine, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Chest Pain Unit, Wilhelminenhospital Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Ludwig Boltzmann Cluster for Cardiovascular Research, Vienna, Austria
| | - B Jäger
- 3rd Department of Medicine, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Chest Pain Unit, Wilhelminenhospital Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Ludwig Boltzmann Cluster for Cardiovascular Research, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Internal Medicine II, Division of Cardiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - P Knoll
- Department of Nuclear Medicine with PET-Center, Wilhelminenhospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - A Kiss
- Department of Biomedical Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - B K Podesser
- Ludwig Boltzmann Cluster for Cardiovascular Research, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Biomedical Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - J Wojta
- Ludwig Boltzmann Cluster for Cardiovascular Research, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Internal Medicine II, Division of Cardiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - K Huber
- 3rd Department of Medicine, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Chest Pain Unit, Wilhelminenhospital Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Ludwig Boltzmann Cluster for Cardiovascular Research, Vienna, Austria
- Sigmund Freud University, Medical Faculty, Vienna, Austria
| | - S Mirzaei
- Department of Nuclear Medicine with PET-Center, Wilhelminenhospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - A Traxl
- Center for Health & Bioresources, Biomedical Systems, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
| | - K Komposch
- Institute of Cancer Research, Department of Medicine I, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Elisabeth Glitzner
- Institute of Cancer Research, Department of Medicine I, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - T Wanek
- Center for Health & Bioresources, Biomedical Systems, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
| | - S Mairinger
- Center for Health & Bioresources, Biomedical Systems, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
| | - M Sibilia
- Institute of Cancer Research, Department of Medicine I, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - O Langer
- Center for Health & Bioresources, Biomedical Systems, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - M C Fornito
- Nuclear Medicine Department PET/TC Center ARNAS Garibaldi, Catania, Italy
| | - M Russello
- Liver Unit ARNAS Garibaldi, Catania, Italy
| | - G Russo
- H.Pharmacy Department ARNAS Garibaldi, Catania, Italy
| | - R Balzano
- Nuclear Medicine Department PET/TC Center ARNAS Garibaldi, Catania, Italy
| | - S Sorko
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrinology, PET/CT Center, Klinikum Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria
| | - H J Gallowitsch
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrinology, PET/CT Center, Klinikum Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria
| | - S Kohlfuerst
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrinology, PET/CT Center, Klinikum Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria
| | - S Matschnig
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrinology, PET/CT Center, Klinikum Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria
| | - M Rieser
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrinology, PET/CT Center, Klinikum Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria
| | - M Sorschag
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrinology, PET/CT Center, Klinikum Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria
| | - P Lind
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Endocrinology, PET/CT Center, Klinikum Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria
| | - L Ležaič
- Departments of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - S Rep
- Departments of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - J Žibert
- Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - N Frelih
- Departments of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - S Šuštar
- Departments of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - K Binzel
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - A Adelaja
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - C L Wright
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - D Scharre
- Department of Neurology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - J Zhang
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - M V Knopp
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - R P Baum
- Theranostics Center for Molecular Radiotherapy and Molecular ImagZentralklinik Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany
| | - T Langbein
- Theranostics Center for Molecular Radiotherapy and Molecular ImagZentralklinik Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany
| | - A Singh
- Theranostics Center for Molecular Radiotherapy and Molecular ImagZentralklinik Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany
| | - M Shahinfar
- Theranostics Center for Molecular Radiotherapy and Molecular ImagZentralklinik Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany
| | - C Schuchardt
- Theranostics Center for Molecular Radiotherapy and Molecular ImagZentralklinik Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany
| | - G F Volk
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany
| | - H R Kulkarni
- Theranostics Center for Molecular Radiotherapy and Molecular ImagZentralklinik Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany
| | - M C Fornito
- Nuclear Medicine Department Arnas Garibaldi, Catania, Italy
| | | | - R Balzano
- Nuclear Medicine Department Arnas Garibaldi, Catania, Italy
| | - G V Di Martino
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany
| | - G Russo
- Pharmacy H. Department Arnas Garibaldi, Catania, Italy
| | - W H Thomson
- Physics and Nuclear Medicine, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - M Kudlacek
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine with PET-Center, Wilhelminenspital, Vienna, Austria
| | - M Karik
- Department of Viceral and General Surgery, Wilhelminenspital, Vienna, Austria
| | - C Farhan
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine with PET-Center, Wilhelminenspital, Vienna, Austria
| | - H Rieger
- Institute of Pathology and Microbiology, Wilhelminenspital, Vienna, Austria
| | - W Pokieser
- Institute of Pathology and Microbiology, Wilhelminenspital, Vienna, Austria
| | - K Glaser
- Department of Viceral and General Surgery, Wilhelminenspital, Vienna, Austria
| | - S Mirzaei
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine with PET-Center, Wilhelminenspital, Vienna, Austria
| | - V Petz
- Schilddruesenpraxis Josefstadt, Vienna, Austria
| | - C Tugendsam
- Schilddruesenpraxis Josefstadt, Vienna, Austria
| | - W Buchinger
- Schilddrueseninstitut Gleisdorf, Gleisdorf, Austria
| | - B Schmoll-Hauer
- Schilddruesenpraxis Josefstadt, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Krankenanstalt Rudolfstiftung, Vienna, Austria
| | - I P Schenk
- Schilddruesenpraxis Josefstadt, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Sozialmedizinisches Zentrum Hietzing, Vienna, Austria
| | - K Rudolph
- Schilddruesenpraxis Josefstadt, Vienna, Austria
| | - M Krebs
- Schilddruesenpraxis Josefstadt, Vienna, Austria
- Clinical Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - G Zettinig
- Schilddruesenpraxis Josefstadt, Vienna, Austria
| | - V Zoufal
- Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
| | - T Wanek
- Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
| | - M Krohn
- Department of Neuro-/Pathology, University of Oslo (UiO) and Oslo University Hospital (OUS), Oslo, Norway
| | - S Mairinger
- Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
| | - J Stanek
- Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - M Sauberer
- Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
| | - T Filip
- Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
| | - J Pahnke
- Department of Neuro-/Pathology, University of Oslo (UiO) and Oslo University Hospital (OUS), Oslo, Norway
| | - O Langer
- Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - F Weitzer
- Meduni Graz, Univ. Klinik für Radiologie, Abteilung für Nuklearmedizin, Graz, Austria
| | - B Pernthaler
- Meduni Graz, Univ. Klinik für Radiologie, Abteilung für Nuklearmedizin, Graz, Austria
| | - S Salamon
- Meduni Graz, Univ. Klinik für Radiologie, Abteilung für Nuklearmedizin, Graz, Austria
| | - R Aigner
- Meduni Graz, Univ. Klinik für Radiologie, Abteilung für Nuklearmedizin, Graz, Austria
| | - P Koranda
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Olomouc and Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
| | - L Henzlová
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Olomouc and Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
| | - M Kamínek
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Olomouc and Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
| | - Mo Váchalová
- Department of Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Olomouc and Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
| | - P Bachleda
- Department of Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Olomouc and Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
| | - D Summer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - J Garousi
- Institute of Immunology, Genetic and Pathology, Uppsala University, SE-75185, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - M Oroujeni
- Institute of Immunology, Genetic and Pathology, Uppsala University, SE-75185, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - B Mitran
- Division of Molecular Imaging, Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Uppsala University, SE-751 83, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - K G Andersson
- Division of Protein Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-10691, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - A Vorobyeva
- Institute of Immunology, Genetic and Pathology, Uppsala University, SE-75185, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - J N Löfblom
- Division of Protein Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-10691, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - A Orlova
- Division of Molecular Imaging, Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Uppsala University, SE-751 83, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - V Tolmachev
- Institute of Immunology, Genetic and Pathology, Uppsala University, SE-75185, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - C Decristoforo
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - P Kaeopookum
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
- Research and Development Division, Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology, Nakhonnayok, Thailand
| | - D Summer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - T Orasch
- Division of Molecular Biology, Biocenter, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - B Lechner
- Division of Molecular Biology, Biocenter, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - M Petrik
- Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Institute of Molecular and Translation Medicine, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
| | - Z Novy
- Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Institute of Molecular and Translation Medicine, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
| | - C Rangger
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - H Haas
- Division of Molecular Biology, Biocenter, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - C Decristoforo
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Williams NL, Wuthrick EJ, Kim H, Palmer JD, Garg S, Eldredge-Hindy H, Daskalakis C, Feeney KJ, Mastrangelo MJ, Kim LJ, Sato T, Kendra KL, Olencki T, Liebner DA, Farrell CJ, Evans JJ, Judy KD, Andrews DW, Dicker AP, Werner-Wasik M, Shi W. Phase 1 Study of Ipilimumab Combined With Whole Brain Radiation Therapy or Radiosurgery for Melanoma Patients With Brain Metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 99:22-30. [PMID: 28816150 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.05.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 85] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2016] [Revised: 05/08/2017] [Accepted: 05/18/2017] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE We performed a phase 1 study to determine the maximum tolerable dose and safety of ipilimumab with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in patients with brain metastases from melanoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS Based on the intracranial disease burden, patients underwent WBRT (arm A) or SRS (arm B). The ipilimumab starting dose was 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, starting on day 3 of WBRT or 2 days after SRS. The ipilimumab dose was escalated to 10 mg/kg using a 2-stage, 3+3 design. The primary endpoint was to determine the maximum tolerable dose of ipilimumab combined with radiation therapy. The secondary endpoints were overall survival, intracranial and extracranial control, progression-free survival, and toxicity. The ClinicalTrials.gov registration number is NCT01703507. RESULTS The characteristics of the 16 patients enrolled between 2011 and 2014 were mean age, 60 years; median number of brain metastases, 2 (range 1->10); and number with EC disease, 13 (81%). Treatment included WBRT (n=5), SRS (n=11), and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (n=7) or 10 mg/kg (n=9). The median follow-up was 8 months (arm A) and 10.5 months (arm B). A total of 21 grade 1 to 2 neurotoxic effects occurred, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient experienced grade 3 neurotoxicity before ipilimumab administration. Ten additional grade 3 toxicities were reported, with gastrointestinal toxicities (n=5; 31%) the most common. No patient developed grade 4 or 5 toxicity. The median progression-free survival and overall survival in arm A was 2.5 months and 8 months and in arm B was 2.1 months and not reached, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Concurrent ipilimumab 10 mg/kg with SRS is safe. The WBRT arm was closed early because of slow accrual but demonstrated safety with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg. No patient experienced dose-limiting toxicity. Larger studies, including those with combination checkpoint inhibitor therapy and SRS, are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Noelle L Williams
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Evan J Wuthrick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Hyun Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Joshua D Palmer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Shivank Garg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | | | | - Kendra J Feeney
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Michael J Mastrangelo
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Lyndon J Kim
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Takami Sato
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Kari L Kendra
- Division of Medical Oncology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Thomas Olencki
- Division of Medical Oncology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - David A Liebner
- Division of Medical Oncology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Christopher J Farrell
- Department of Neurosurgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - James J Evans
- Department of Neurosurgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Kevin D Judy
- Department of Neurosurgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - David W Andrews
- Department of Neurosurgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Adam P Dicker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Maria Werner-Wasik
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Wenyin Shi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Wright CL, Binzel K, Zhang J, Wuthrick EJ, Knopp MV. Clinical feasibility of 90Y digital PET/CT for imaging microsphere biodistribution following radioembolization. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017; 44:1194-1197. [PMID: 28405728 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-017-3694-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2017] [Accepted: 03/27/2017] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical feasibility of next generation solid-state digital photon counting PET/CT (dPET/CT) technology and imaging findings in patients following 90Y microsphere radioembolization in comparison with standard of care (SOC) bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT (bSPECT/CT). METHODS Five patients underwent SOC 90Y bremsstrahlung imaging immediately following routine radioembolization with 3.5 ± 1.7 GBq of 90Y-labeled glass microspheres. All patients also underwent dPET/CT imaging at 29 ± 11 h following radioembolization. Matched pairs comparison was used to compare image quality, image contrast and 90Y biodistribution between dPET/CT and bSPECT/CT images. Volumetric assessments of 90Y activity using different isocontour thresholds on dPET/CT and bSPECT/CT images were also compared. RESULTS Digital PET/CT consistently provided better visual image quality and 90Y-to-background image contrast while depicting 90Y biodistribution than bSPECT/CT. Isocontour volumetric assessment using a 1% threshold precisely outlined 90Y activity and the treatment volume on dPET/CT images, whereas a more restrictive 20% threshold on bSPECT/CT images was needed to obtain comparable treatment volumes. The use of a less restrictive 10% threshold isocontour on bSPECT/CT images grossly overestimated the treatment volume when compared with the 1% threshold on dPET/CT images. CONCLUSIONS Digital PET/CT is clinically feasible for the assessment of 90Y microsphere biodistribution following radioembolization, and provides better visual image quality and image contrast than routine bSPECT/CT with comparable acquisition times. With further optimization and clinical validation, dPET technology may allow faster and more accurate imaging-based assessment of 90Y microsphere biodistribution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chadwick L Wright
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 395 W 12th Avenue, Room 430, 4th Floor, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA
| | - Katherine Binzel
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 395 W 12th Avenue, Room 430, 4th Floor, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA
| | - Jun Zhang
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 395 W 12th Avenue, Room 430, 4th Floor, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA
| | - Evan J Wuthrick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Michael V Knopp
- Wright Center of Innovation in Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 395 W 12th Avenue, Room 430, 4th Floor, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Abstract
Imaging of Y internal pair production with conventional photomultiplier detector PET technology has been previously reported for patients with malignant/metastatic liver lesions treated with Y radioembolization (RE). We present a 54-year-old man with unresectable liver metastases from rectal carcinoma (involving the right and left lobes) who was referred for Y RE and subsequently imaged using new solid-state digital photon counting technology (Vereos 64 Time-of-Flight PET/CT; Philips, Cleveland, OH). Despite imaging at 26 hours following RE, digital PET/CT provides improved image quality and Y-to-background contrast as well as accurate visualization of Y biodistribution when compared with Bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chadwick L Wright
- From the *Wright Center of Innovation and Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, and †Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Wuthrick EJ, Zhang Q, Machtay M, Rosenthal DI, Nguyen-Tan PF, Fortin A, Silverman CL, Raben A, Kim HE, Horwitz EM, Read NE, Harris J, Wu Q, Le QT, Gillison ML. Institutional clinical trial accrual volume and survival of patients with head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014; 33:156-64. [PMID: 25488965 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2014.56.5218] [Citation(s) in RCA: 181] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) receive treatment at centers with expertise, but whether provider experience affects survival is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS The effect of institutional experience on overall survival (OS) in patients with stage III or IV HNC was investigated within a randomized trial of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG 0129), which compared cisplatin concurrent with standard versus accelerated fractionation radiotherapy. As a surrogate for experience, institutions were classified as historically low- (HLACs) or high-accruing centers (HHACs) based on accrual to 21 RTOG HNC trials (1997 to 2002). The effect of accrual volume on OS was estimated by Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS Median RTOG accrual (1997 to 2002) at HLACs was four versus 65 patients at HHACs. Analysis included 471 patients in RTOG 0129 (2002 to 2005) with known human papillomavirus and smoking status. Patients at HLACs versus HHACs had better performance status (0: 62% v 52%; P = .04) and lower T stage (T4: 26.5% v 35.3%; P = .002) but were otherwise similar. Radiotherapy protocol deviations were higher at HLACs versus HHACs (18% v 6%; P < .001). When compared with HHACs, patients at HLACs had worse OS (5 years: 51.0% v 69.1%; P = .002). Treatment at HLACs was associated with increased death risk of 91% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.65) after adjustment for prognostic factors and 72% (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.40) after radiotherapy compliance adjustment. CONCLUSION OS is worse for patients with HNC treated at HLACs versus HHACs to cooperative group trials after accounting for radiotherapy protocol deviations. Institutional experience substantially influences survival in locally advanced HNC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Evan J Wuthrick
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
| | - Qiang Zhang
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
| | - Mitchell Machtay
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
| | - David I Rosenthal
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
| | - Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
| | - André Fortin
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
| | - Craig L Silverman
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
| | - Adam Raben
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
| | - Harold E Kim
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
| | - Eric M Horwitz
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
| | - Nancy E Read
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
| | - Jonathan Harris
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
| | - Qian Wu
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
| | - Quynh-Thu Le
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
| | - Maura L Gillison
- Evan J. Wuthrick and Maura L. Gillison, Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus; Mitchell Machtay, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Qiang Zhang, Jonathan Harris, and Qian Wu, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Statistical Center; Eric M. Horwitz, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; David I. Rosenthal, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Notre Dame, Montreal; André Fortin, Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec; Nancy E. Read, Western University, London Regional Cancer Center, London, Ontario, Canada; Craig L. Silverman, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Adam Raben, Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Harold E. Kim, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; and Quynh-Thu Le, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Wuthrick EJ, Curran WJ, Camphausen K, Lin A, Glass J, Evans J, Andrews DW, Axelrod R, Shi W, Werner-Wasik M, Haacke EM, Hillman GG, Dicker AP. A pilot study of hypofractionated stereotactic radiation therapy and sunitinib in previously irradiated patients with recurrent high-grade glioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 90:369-75. [PMID: 25104067 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.05.034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2013] [Revised: 05/06/2014] [Accepted: 05/07/2014] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Angiogenic blockade with irradiation may enhance the therapeutic ratio of radiation therapy (RT) through vascular normalization. We sought to determine the safety and toxicity profile of continuous daily-dosed sunitinib when combined with hypofractionated stereotactic RT (fSRT) for recurrent high-grade gliomas (rHGG). METHODS AND MATERIALS Eligible patients had malignant high-grade glioma that recurred or progressed after primary surgery and RT. All patients received a minimum of a 10-day course of fSRT, had World Health Organization performance status of 0 to 1, and a life expectancy of >3 months. During fSRT, sunitinib was administered at 37.5 mg daily. The primary endpoint was acute toxicity, and response was assessed via serial magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS Eleven patients with rHGG were enrolled. The fSRT doses delivered ranged from 30 to 42 Gy in 2.5- to 3.75-Gy fractions. The median follow-up time was 40 months. Common acute toxicities included hematologic disorders, fatigue, hypertension, and elevated liver transaminases. Sunitinib and fSRT were well tolerated. One grade 4 mucositis toxicity occurred, and no grade 4 or 5 hypertensive events or intracerebral hemorrhages occurred. One patient had a nearly complete response, and 4 patients had stable disease for >9 months. Two patients (18%) remain alive and progression-free >3 years from enrollment. The 6-month progression-free survival was 45%. CONCLUSIONS Sunitinib at a daily dose of 37.5 mg given concurrently with hypofractionated stereotactic reirradiation for rHGG yields acceptable toxicities and an encouraging 6-month progression-free survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Evan J Wuthrick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
| | - Walter J Curran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Kevin Camphausen
- Department of Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Alexander Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Jon Glass
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - James Evans
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - David W Andrews
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Rita Axelrod
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Wenyin Shi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Maria Werner-Wasik
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - E Mark Haacke
- Department of Radiology, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Gilda G Hillman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Adam P Dicker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Wuthrick EJ, Kamrava M, Curran WJ, Werner-Wasik M, Camphausen KA, Hyslop T, Axelrod R, Andrews DW, Glass J, Machtay M, Dicker AP. A phase 1b trial of the combination of the antiangiogenic agent sunitinib and radiation therapy for patients with primary and metastatic central nervous system malignancies. Cancer 2011; 117:5548-59. [PMID: 21647871 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26216] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2011] [Revised: 03/22/2011] [Accepted: 03/25/2011] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In this phase 1 trial, the authors evaluated sunitinib combined with radiation therapy (RT) for the treatment of primary or metastatic central nervous system (CNS) malignancies. METHODS Eligible patients had CNS malignancies that required a (minimum) 2-week course of RT. Sunitinib (37.5 mg) was administered daily for the duration of RT with optional treatment extension of 1 month. Urine was collected at 3 time points for correlative biomarker studies. The primary endpoint was acute toxicity defined according to Common Toxicity Criteria version 3. RESULTS Fifteen patients were enrolled (12 with CNS metastasis and 3 with primary tumors). RT doses ranged from 14 Gray (Gy) to 70 Gy (1.8-3.5 Gy per fraction). Acute toxicities included hematologic, nausea, hyperglycemia, fatigue, hypocalcemia, and diarrhea. Six patients (40%) developed grade ≤ 2 toxicities. Grade 3 toxicities occurred in 7 patients (47%) and included hematologic toxicity, fatigue, deep vein thrombosis, dysphasia, hyperglycemia, and hyponatremia. No grade 3 through 5 hypertensive events or intracerebral hemorrhages occurred. Two grade 5 adverse events attributed to disease progression occurred. The median follow-up was 34.2 months. Two patients (13%) achieved a partial response, 9 patients (60%) had stable disease, and 2 patients (13%) patients had progressive disease. The 6-month progression-free survival rate for patients who had brain metastasis was 58%. Grade 3 hematologic toxicity was correlated with greater changes in vascular endothelial growth factor levels changes between baseline and the completion of RT. CONCLUSIONS Continuous 37.5-mg sunitinib combined with RT in patients who had CNS malignancies yielded acceptable toxicities and adverse events. The current results indicated that changes in urine vascular endothelial growth factor levels are associated with hematologic toxicity, and this association should be analyzed in a larger cohort. The feasibility, safety, and early response results warrant a phase 2 trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Evan J Wuthrick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|