Search

The incidence of brain metastases of solid tumors is increasing. Local treatment of brain metastases is generally straightforward: cranial radiotherapy (e.g., whole-brain radiotherapy or stereotactic radiosurgery) or resection when feasible. However, treatment becomes more complex when brain metastases occur while other metastases, outside of the central nervous system, are being controlled with systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, or monoclonal antibodies). It is known that some anticancer agents can increase the risk for neurotoxicity when used concurrently with radiotherapy. Increased neurotoxicity decreases quality of life, which is undesirable in this predominantly palliative patient group. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to identify the compounds that should be temporarily discontinued when cranial radiotherapy is needed.This review summarizes the (neuro)toxicity data for combining systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, or monoclonal antibodies) with concurrent radiotherapy of brain metastases. Because only a limited amount of high-level data has been published, a risk assessment of each agent was done, taking into account the characteristics of each compound (e.g., lipophilicity) and the microenvironment of brain metastasis. The available trials suggest that only gemcitabine, erlotinib, and vemurafenib induce significant neurotoxicity when used concurrently with cranial radiotherapy. We conclude that for most systemic therapies, the currently available literature does not show an increase in neurotoxicity when these therapies are used concurrently with cranial radiotherapy. However, further studies are needed to confirm safety because there is no high-level evidence to permit definitive conclusions. The Oncologist 2017;22:222-235 Implications for Practice: The treatment of symptomatic brain metastases diagnosed while patients are receiving systemic therapy continues to pose a dilemma to clinicians. Will concurrent treatment with cranial radiotherapy and systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, and monoclonal antibodies), used to control intra- and extracranial tumor load, increase the risk for neurotoxicity? This review addresses this clinically relevant question and evaluates the toxicity of combining systemic therapies with cranial radiotherapy, based on currently available literature, in order to determine the need to and interval to interrupt systemic treatment., (© AlphaMed Press 2017.)

To obtain a favorable tradeoff between treatment benefits and morbidity ("therapeutic ratio"), radiotherapy (RT) dose is prescribed according to the tumor volume, with the goal of controlling the disease while respecting normal tissue tolerance levels. We propose a new paradigm for tumor dose prescription in stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) based on organ-at-risk (OAR) tolerance levels called isotoxic dose prescription (IDP), which is derived from experiences and limitations of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. With IDP, the radiation dose is prescribed based on the predefined level of normal tissue complication probability of a nearby dose-limiting OAR at a prespecified dose-volume constraint. Simultaneously, the prescribed total tumor dose (TTD) is maximized to the technically highest achievable level in order to increase the local tumor control probability (TCP). IDP is especially relevant for tumors located at eloquent locations or for large tumors in which severe toxicity has been described. IDP will result in a lower RT dose or a treatment scheduled with more fractions if the OAR tolerance level is exceeded, and potential dose escalation occurs when the OAR tolerance level allows it and when it is expected to be beneficial (if TCP < 90%). For patients with small tumors at noneloquent sites, the current SABR dose prescription already results in high rates of local control at low toxicity rates. In this review, the concept of IDP is described in the context of SABR., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: To understand wound healing after drug-eluting stents (DES) placement in humans, we studied the histology of in-stent restenosis (ISR) tissue obtained by atherectomy from bare metal stents (BMS) and DES in comparison with de novo atherosclerosis., Methods and Results: The tissue was retrieved from ISR in ten sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and nine paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), six BMS, and nine stenotic de novo atherosclerotic lesions and processed for histology and immunocytochemistry. Patients with ISR in PES showed a significantly higher incidence of unstable angina upon presentation for re-intervention (P = 0.046). De novo tissue tended to be more collagen rich, whereas ISR tissue tended to be more proteoglycan rich. In all groups, cell content consisted almost exclusively of smooth muscle cells. Histology showed that fibrinoid in ISR tissue was present only in DES (P = 0.004), as late as 2 years following DES placement, indicating a persistent incomplete healing response. The amount of fibrinoid, given as a percentage of total tissue in each atherectomy specimen, was greater in PES than in SES (17 vs. 5%, P = 0.026)., Conclusion: ISR in DES shows incomplete neointimal healing as late as 2 years after implantation. Patients with ISR in PES presented with more unstable angina and showed more pronounced signs of delayed healing than SES.