Search

Simple Summary: Talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC), a modified virus, is a local injected therapy that has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment in patients with advanced melanoma. Recent reports have suggested that radiation treatment (RT) may activate the immune system when combined with TVEC to further improve both local and systemic responses. However, studies on the combined effect of TVEC and RT remain limited. Here, we reviewed twenty melanoma patients who had received TVEC and RT (fourteen patients to the same region and six patients to different regions of the body) and found a benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) and time to distance metastasis (DM) with a combined regional approach of TVEC and RT. These results suggest that the regional approach of using these two treatment modalities may confer a therapeutic benefit. Talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC) is a genetically modified oncolytic herpes simplex virus (HSV-1) that is used for the intralesional treatment of advanced or metastatic melanoma. Given that TVEC produces the granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), recent reports have suggested that radiation treatment (RT) given in conjunction with TVEC may provide synergistic immune activation at the site, and possibly systemically. However, studies on combining RT with TVEC remain limited. We conducted a retrospective review of melanoma patients from a single cancer center who received TVEC and RT in the same region of the body and compared them to patients who received TVEC with RT at another site (other than the site of TVEC injection). Between January 2015 and September 2022, we identified twenty patients who were treated with TVEC and RT; fourteen patients received TVEC and RT in the same region, and six had treatments in separate regions. Regions were determined at the time of analysis and were based on anatomic sites (such as arm, leg, torso, etc.). Kaplan–Meier analysis of progression-free survival (PFS), analyses of time to distant metastasis (DM), overall survival (OS), and locoregional control (LRC), and the corresponding log-rank test were performed. With a median follow-up of 10.5 months [mos] (range 1.0–58.7 mos), we found an improvement in PFS with TVEC and RT in the same region compared to different regions, which were 6.4 mos (95% CI, 2.4–NR mos) and 2.8 mos (95% CI, 0.7–4.4 mos), respectively; p = 0.005. There was also a significant improvement in DM when TVEC and RT were used in the same region compared to different regions: 13.8 mos (95% CI, 4.6–NR mos) and 2.8 mos (95% CI, 0.7–4.4 mos), respectively (p = 0.001). However, we found no difference in overall survival (OS) between patients who had TVEC and RT in the same region (19.0 mos, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1–not reached [NR] mos) and those who received treatments in different regions (18.5 mos, 95% CI, 1.0–NR mos); p = 0.366. There was no statistically significant improvement in locoregional control (LRC) in patients who had TVEC and RT in the same region was 26.0 mos (95% CI, 6.4–26.0 mos) compared to patients who received TVEC and RT in different regions (4.4 mos) (95% CI, 0.7–NR mos) (p = 0.115). No grade 3 or higher toxicities were documented in either group. Overall, there were improvements in PFS and DM when TVEC and RT were delivered to the same region of the body compared to when they were used in different regions. However, we did not find a significant difference in locoregional recurrence or OS. Future studies are needed to assess the sequence and timing of combining RT and TVEC to potentially enhance the immune response both locally and distantly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Bridging therapy (BT) in the form of systemic therapy (ST), radiation therapy (RT), or combined-modality therapy (CMT) is increasingly being utilized prior to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Prior institutional experiences with BT, and RT in particular, suggest it does not lead to increased toxicity or compromise outcomes. Further investigation of the optimal use of BT is warranted. In this research, we sought to evaluate the impact of BT in a large institutional cohort of patients who received commercial CAR T-cell therapy for LBCL, specifically examining the effect of BT modality and disease burden on outcomes. Here, we report the long-term outcomes of our CAR T cohort. The patients with limited disease treated with RT had favorable outcomes. Prospective studies are warranted to better characterize the optimal management of patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL who are planning to undergo CAR T-cell therapy to optimize treatment. Background: Bridging therapy (BT) with systemic therapy (ST), radiation therapy (RT), or combined-modality therapy (CMT) is increasingly being utilized prior to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). We report the long-term outcomes of the patients who received commercial CAR T-cell therapy with or without BT. Methods: The patients with LBCL who underwent infusion of a commercial CD19 CAR T product were eligible. The radiation was stratified as comprehensive or focal. The efficacy outcomes and toxicity were analyzed. Results: In total, 156 patients were included and, of them, 52.5% of the patients received BT. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 0.65 years in the BT cohort compared to 1.45 years in the non-BT cohort. The median overall survival (OS) was 3.16 years in the BT cohort and was not reached in the non-BT cohort. The patients who received comprehensive radiation (versus focal) had significantly improved PFS and OS, achieving a 1-year PFS of 100% vs. 9.1% and 1-year OS of 100% vs. 45.5%. There was no difference in the severe toxicity between any of the nonbridging or BT cohorts. Conclusions: BT did not appear to compromise outcomes with respect to response rates, disease control, survival, and toxicity. The patients with limited disease treated with RT had favorable outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to oligometastases may improve outcomes in patients with oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (oHSPC). Follow-up on this cohort has been limited to <5 years and prospective data on de novo patients with oHSPC are lacking. We reviewed the long-term outcomes of patients with oHSPC treated with EBRT and androgen deprivation therapy on a prospective trial.Methods and Materials: From 2006 to 2011, patients with oHSPC with 1 to 5 metastases received 36 weeks of androgen deprivation therapy (luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist + bicalutamide) and up to 53 Gy to all visible metastases. When indicated, the primary tumor or prostate bed was treated with EBRT up to 78 or 66 Gy, respectively.Results: Twenty-nine patients were treated: 15 de novo, 14 oligorecurrent, and 21 patients (72.4%) had bone metastases. Median number of metastases per patient was 1 (range, 1-5). EBRT was administered to 52 lesions (38 bone, 12 pelvic lymph nodes [LNs], 2 nonpelvic LNs) up to 53 Gy (range, 47-66). Median follow-up was 9.9 years (years; range, 0.2-14.4). Median overall survival was 9.7 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8-not reached). Median progression-free survival was 1.9 years (95% CI, 1.6-2.2). Patients who presented with prostate cancer-defined de novo metastases had significantly improved (P = .04) median progression-free survival (2.0 years; 95% CI, 1.3-6.0) compared with oligorecurrent patients (1.8 years; 95% CI, 1.0-2.0). Patients who presented with LN-only metastases had numerically improved (P = .13) median PFS (5.8 years; 95% CI, 1.2-not reached) compared with patients with bony metastases (1.8 years; 95% CI, 1.3-2.0). At last follow-up, 17 patients (58.6%) had local control of all EBRT-treated metastases. The metastases that locally progressed had previously been controlled for median 3.5 years (range, 1.7-10.5).Conclusions: Our results compare favorably with other reported studies of patients with oHSPC and provide new insights into their long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Based on recent clinical trials, radiation is a standard treatment option for limited metastatic sites in metastatic breast cancer, with the potential to improve survival. This is typically given in the form of high-dose radiation called stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). However, SBRT is a newer technology that is not on option for all patients and does not have long-term follow-up. Prior to the widespread implementation of SBRT, we performed a clinical trial utilizing high-dose chemotherapy and standard radiation for metastases in patients with limited metastatic breast cancer. In this research, we analyzed the long-term outcomes of these patients. We found that, despite not using SBRT, radiation provided promising long-term disease control and survival. Therefore, conventional radiation might still be considered if SBRT in not an option for a patient, and our results also help suggest what long-term outcomes of SBRT treatment might look like. Background: Patients with oligometastatic breast cancer (oMBC) may benefit from aggressive local therapy. We sought to assess the effects of consolidative radiation therapy (RT) on outcomes in oMBC patients treated on a prospective phase II trial of high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT). Methods: Between 2005 and 2009, 12 patients with oMBC (≤3 metastatic sites) cancer were treated on protocol. Patients were to receive tandem HDCT supported by hematopoietic cell rescue (HCR). All radiographically identifiable oligometastatic sites received targeted radiation. Results: HDCT was initiated at a median of 6.7 (3.5–12.7) months after diagnosis of oMBC. Hormone receptors (HR) were positive in 91.6% of patients, and HER2 was overexpressed in 25% of patients. Median radiation dose (EQD2) was 41.2 (37.9–48.7) Gy. Median follow-up was 13.1 (6.8–15.1) years for living patients. Ten-year PFS and OS were 33% (95%CI, 10–59%) and 55% (95%CI, 22–79%), respectively. Durable local control of treated lesions was 87.5%. At the last follow up, two patients remained progression free and two more were without evidence of disease following additional salvage treatment. Conclusions: Although modern systemic therapies have obviated the use of HDC, aggressive local therapy warrants further evaluation and fractionated radiotherapy is a viable alternative if SBRT is not available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Brachytherapy is a key component of radiation treatment in the curative treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer. To improve the delivery of brachytherapy, recent studies have explored the use of imaging, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in treatment planning. In this review, we reviewed the current evidence for image-guided brachytherapy and discussed future directions for research. Purpose: The standard of care for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer is definitive chemoradiation followed by a brachytherapy boost. This review describes the current status and future directions of image-guided adaptive brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov databases was performed, focusing on studies published within the last 10 years. The search queried "cervical cancer [AND] image-guided brachytherapy [OR] magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [OR] adaptive brachytherapy". Discussion: The retroEMBRACE and EMBRACE-I trials have established the use of MRI as the standard imaging modality for brachytherapy application and planning. Quantitative imaging and radiomics have the potential to improve outcomes, with three ongoing prospective studies examining the use of radiomics to further risk-stratify patients and personalize brachytherapy. Another active area of investigation includes utilizing the superior soft tissue contrast provided by MRI to increase the dose per fraction and decrease the number of fractions needed for brachytherapy, with several retrospective studies demonstrating the safety and feasibility of three-fraction courses. For developing countries with limited access to MRI, trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) appears to be an effective alternative, with several retrospective studies demonstrating improved target delineation with the use of TRUS in conjunction with CT guidance. Conclusions: Further investigation is needed to continue improving outcomes for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with image-guided brachytherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]