Search

Brain metastases are an increasing global public health concern, even as survival rates improve for patients with metastatic disease. Both metastases and the sequelae of their treatment are key determinants of the inter-related priorities of patient survival, function, and quality of life, mandating a multidimensional approach to clinical care and research. At a virtual National Cancer Institute Workshop in September, 2022, key stakeholders convened to define research priorities to address the crucial areas of unmet need for patients with brain metastases to achieve meaningful advances in patient outcomes. This Policy Review outlines existing knowledge gaps, collaborative opportunities, and specific recommendations regarding consensus priorities and future directions in brain metastases research. Achieving major advances in research will require enhanced coordination between the ongoing efforts of individual organisations and consortia. Importantly, the continual and active engagement of patients and patient advocates will be necessary to ensure that the directionality of all efforts reflects what is most meaningful in the context of patient care.

BackgroundPatients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is resistant to PD-1 and PD-L1 (PD[L]-1)-targeted therapy have poor outcomes. Studies suggest that radiotherapy could enhance antitumour immunity. Therefore, we investigated the potential benefit of PD-L1 (durvalumab) and CTLA-4 (tremelimumab) inhibition alone or combined with radiotherapy.MethodsThis open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial was done by the National Cancer Institute Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network at 18 US sites. Patients aged 18 years or older with metastatic NSCLC, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and progression during previous PD(L)-1 therapy were eligible. They were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in a web-based system by the study statistician using a permuted block scheme (block sizes of three or six) without stratification to receive either durvalumab (1500 mg intravenously every 4 weeks for a maximum of 13 cycles) plus tremelimumab (75 mg intravenously every 4 weeks for a maximum of four cycles) alone or with low-dose (0·5 Gy delivered twice per day, repeated for 2 days during each of the first four cycles of therapy) or hypofractionated radiotherapy (24 Gy total delivered over three 8-Gy fractions during the first cycle only), 1 week after initial durvalumab-tremelimumab administration. Study treatment was continued until 1 year or until progression. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (best locally assessed confirmed response of a partial or complete response) and, along with safety, was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02888743, and is now complete.FindingsBetween Aug 24, 2017, and March 29, 2019, 90 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, of whom 78 (26 per group) were treated. This trial was stopped due to futility assessed in an interim analysis. At a median follow-up of 12·4 months (IQR 7·8-15·1), there were no differences in overall response rates between the durvalumab-tremelimumab alone group (three [11·5%, 90% CI 1·2-21·8] of 26 patients) and the low-dose radiotherapy group (two [7·7%, 0·0-16·3] of 26 patients; p=0·64) or the hypofractionated radiotherapy group (three [11·5%, 1·2-21·8] of 26 patients; p=0·99). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were dyspnoea (two [8%] in the durvalumab-tremelimumab alone group; three [12%] in the low-dose radiotherapy group; and three [12%] in the hypofractionated radiotherapy group) and hyponatraemia (one [4%] in the durvalumab-tremelimumab alone group vs two [8%] in the low-dose radiotherapy group vs three [12%] in the hypofractionated radiotherapy group). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in one (4%) patient in the durvalumab-tremelimumab alone group (maculopapular rash), five (19%) patients in the low-dose radiotherapy group (abdominal pain, diarrhoea, dyspnoea, hypokalemia, and respiratory failure), and four (15%) patients in the hypofractionated group (adrenal insufficiency, colitis, diarrhoea, and hyponatremia). In the low-dose radiotherapy group, there was one death from respiratory failure potentially related to study therapy.InterpretationRadiotherapy did not increase responses to combined PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 inhibition in patients with NSCLC resistant to PD(L)-1 therapy. However, PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 therapy could be a treatment option for some patients. Future studies should refine predictive biomarkers in this setting.FundingThe US National Institutes of Health and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

Cellular senescence is an essential tumor suppressive mechanism that prevents the propagation of oncogenically activated, genetically unstable, and/or damaged cells. Induction of tumor cell senescence is also one of the underlying mechanisms by which cancer therapies exert antitumor activity. However, an increasing body of evidence from preclinical studies demonstrates that radiation and chemotherapy cause accumulation of senescent cells (SnCs) both in tumor and normal tissue. SnCs in tumors can, paradoxically, promote tumor relapse, metastasis, and resistance to therapy, in part, through expression of the senescence-associated secretory phenotype. In addition, SnCs in normal tissue can contribute to certain radiation- and chemotherapy-induced side effects. Because of its multiple roles, cellular senescence could serve as an important target in the fight against cancer. This commentary provides a summary of the discussion at the National Cancer Institute Workshop on Radiation, Senescence, and Cancer (August 10-11, 2020, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD) regarding the current status of senescence research, heterogeneity of therapy-induced senescence, current status of senotherapeutics and molecular biomarkers, a concept of "one-two punch" cancer therapy (consisting of therapeutics to induce tumor cell senescence followed by selective clearance of SnCs), and its integration with personalized adaptive tumor therapy. It also identifies key knowledge gaps and outlines future directions in this emerging field to improve treatment outcomes for cancer patients.

Cellular senescence is an essential tumor suppressive mechanism that prevents the propagation of oncogenically activated, genetically unstable, and/or damaged cells. Induction of tumor cell senescence is also one of the underlying mechanisms by which cancer therapies exert antitumor activity. However, an increasing body of evidence from preclinical studies demonstrates that radiation and chemotherapy cause accumulation of senescent cells (SnCs) both in tumor and normal tissue. SnCs in tumors can, paradoxically, promote tumor relapse, metastasis, and resistance to therapy, in part, through expression of the senescence-associated secretory phenotype. In addition, SnCs in normal tissue can contribute to certain radiation- and chemotherapy-induced side effects. Because of its multiple roles, cellular senescence could serve as an important target in the fight against cancer. This commentary provides a summary of the discussion at the National Cancer Institute Workshop on Radiation, Senescence, and Cancer (August 10-11, 2020, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD) regarding the current status of senescence research, heterogeneity of therapy-induced senescence, current status of senotherapeutics and molecular biomarkers, a concept of "one-two punch" cancer therapy (consisting of therapeutics to induce tumor cell senescence followed by selective clearance of SnCs), and its integration with personalized adaptive tumor therapy. It also identifies key knowledge gaps and outlines future directions in this emerging field to improve treatment outcomes for cancer patients.

PurposeProspective human data are lacking regarding safety, efficacy, and immunologic impacts of different radiation doses administered with combined PD-L1/CTLA-4 blockade.Patients and methodsWe performed a multicenter phase II study randomly assigning patients with metastatic microsatellite stable colorectal cancer to repeated low-dose fractionated radiation (LDFRT) or hypofractionated radiation (HFRT) with PD-L1/CTLA-4 inhibition. The primary endpoint was response outside the radiation field. Correlative samples were analyzed using multiplex immunofluorescence (IF), IHC, RNA/T-cell receptor (TCR) sequencing, cytometry by time-of-flight (CyTOF), and Olink.ResultsEighteen patients were evaluable for response. Median lines of prior therapy were four (range, 1-7). Sixteen patients demonstrated toxicity potentially related to treatment (84%), and 8 patients had grade 3-4 toxicity (42%). Best response was stable disease in 1 patient with out-of-field tumor shrinkage. Median overall survival was 3.8 months (90% confidence interval, 2.3-5.7 months). Correlative IF and RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) revealed increased infiltration of CD8+ and CD8+/PD-1+/Ki-67+ T cells in the radiation field after HFRT. LDFRT increased foci of micronuclei/primary nuclear rupture in two subjects. CyTOF and RNA-seq demonstrated significant declines in multiple circulating immune populations, particularly in patients receiving HFRT. TCR sequencing revealed treatment-associated changes in T-cell repertoire in the tumor and peripheral blood.ConclusionsWe demonstrate the feasibility and safety of adding LDFRT and HFRT to PD-L1/CTLA-4 blockade. Although the best response of stable disease does not support the use of concurrent PD-L1/CTLA-4 inhibition with HFRT or LDFRT in this population, biomarkers provide support that both LDFRT and HFRT impact the local immune microenvironment and systemic immunogenicity that can help guide future studies.

Recent evidence indicates that ionizing radiation can enhance immune responses to tumors. Advances in radiation delivery techniques allow hypofractionated delivery of conformal radiotherapy. Hypofractionation or other modifications of standard fractionation may improve radiation's ability to promote immune responses to tumors. Other novel delivery options may also affect immune responses, including T-cell activation and tumor-antigen presentation changes. However, there is limited understanding of the immunological impact of hypofractionated and unique multifractionated radiotherapy regimens, as these observations are relatively recent. Hence, these differences in radiotherapy fractionation result in distinct immune-modulatory effects. Radiation oncologists and immunologists convened a virtual consensus discussion to identify current deficiencies, challenges, pitfalls and critical gaps when combining radiotherapy with immunotherapy and making recommendations to the field and advise National Cancer Institute on new directions and initiatives that will help further development of these two fields.This commentary aims to raise the awareness of this complexity so that the need to study radiation dose, fractionation, type and volume is understood and valued by the immuno-oncology research community. Divergence of approaches and findings between preclinical studies and clinical trials highlights the need for evaluating the design of future clinical studies with particular emphasis on radiation dose and fractionation, immune biomarkers and selecting appropriate end points for combination radiation/immune modulator trials, recognizing that direct effect on the tumor and potential abscopal effect may well be different. Similarly, preclinical studies should be designed as much as possible to model the intended clinical setting. This article describes a conceptual framework for testing different radiation therapy regimens as separate models of how radiation itself functions as an immunomodulatory 'drug' to provide alternatives to the widely adopted 'one-size-fits-all' strategy of frequently used 8 Gy×3 regimens immunomodulation.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has emerged as a major cause of cancer deaths globally. The landscape of systemic therapy has recently changed, with six additional systemic agents either approved or awaiting approval for advanced stage HCC. While these agents have the potential to improve outcomes, a survival increase of 2-5 months remains poor and falls short of what has been achieved in many other solid tumor types. The roles of genomics, underlying cirrhosis, and optimal use of treatment strategies that include radiation, liver transplantation, and surgery remain unanswered. Here, we discuss new treatment opportunities, controversies, and future directions in managing HCC.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a major public health problem as the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Of an estimated 140,000 newly diagnosed CRC cases in 2018, roughly one-third of these patients will have a primary tumor located in the distal large bowel or rectum. The current standard-of-care approach includes curative-intent surgery, often after preoperative (neoadjuvant) radiotherapy (RT), to increase rates of tumor down-staging, clinical and pathologic response, as well as improving surgical resection quality. However, despite advancements in surgical techniques, as well as sharpened precision of dosimetry offered by contemporary RT delivery platforms, the oncology community continues to face challenges related to disease relapse. Ongoing investigations are aimed at testing novel radiosensitizing agents and treatments that might exploit the systemic antitumor effects of RT using immunotherapies. If successful, these treatments may usher in a new curative paradigm for rectal cancers, such that surgical interventions may be avoided. Importantly, this disease offers an opportunity to correlate matched paired biopsies, radiographic response, and molecular mechanisms of treatment sensitivity and resistance with clinical outcomes. Herein, the authors highlight the available evidence from preclinical models and early-phase studies, with an emphasis on promising developmental therapeutics undergoing prospective validation in larger scale clinical trials. This review by the National Cancer Institute's Radiation Research Program Colorectal Cancer Working Group provides an updated, comprehensive examination of the continuously evolving state of the science regarding radiosensitizer drug development in the curative treatment of CRC.

Radiotherapy (RT) has been a fundamental component of the anti-cancer armamentarium for over a century. Approximately half of all cancer patients are treated with radiotherapy during their disease course. Over the two past decades, there has been a growing body of preclinical evidence supporting the immunomodulatory effects of radiotherapy, particularly when combined with immunotherapy, but only anecdotal clinical examples existed until recently. The renaissance of immunotherapy and the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and other immuno-oncology (IO) agents in multiple cancers provides the opportunity to investigate how localized radiotherapy can induce systemic immune responses. Early clinical experiences have demonstrated feasibility of this approach but additional preclinical and clinical investigation is needed to understand how RT and immunotherapy can be optimally combined.To address questions that are critical to successful incorporation of radiation oncology into immunotherapy, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) organized a collaborative scientific workshop, Incorporating Radiation Oncology into Immunotherapy, that convened on June 15 and 16 of 2017 at the Natcher Building, NIH Campus in Bethesda, Maryland. This report summarizes key data and highlights from each session.

A workshop entitled "Radiation-Induced Fibrosis: Mechanisms and Opportunities to Mitigate" (held in Rockville, MD, September 19, 2016) was organized by the Radiation Research Program and Radiation Oncology Branch of the Center for Cancer Research (CCR) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), to identify critical research areas and directions that will advance the understanding of radiation-induced fibrosis (RIF) and accelerate the development of strategies to mitigate or treat it. Experts in radiation biology, radiation oncology and related fields met to identify and prioritize the key areas for future research and clinical translation. The consensus was that several known and newly identified targets can prevent or mitigate RIF in pre-clinical models. Further, basic and translational research and focused clinical trials are needed to identify optimal agents and strategies for therapeutic use. It was felt that optimally designed preclinical models are needed to better study biomarkers that predict for development of RIF, as well as to understand when effective therapies need to be initiated in relationship to manifestation of injury. Integrating appropriate endpoints and defining efficacy in clinical trials testing treatment of RIF were felt to be critical to demonstrating efficacy. The objective of this meeting report is to (a) highlight the significance of RIF in a global context, (b) summarize recent advances in our understanding of mechanisms of RIF,

Treating radioresistant and bulky tumors is challenging due to their inherent resistance to standard therapies and their large size. GRID and lattice spatially fractionated radiation therapy (simply referred to GRID RT and LRT) offer promising techniques to tackle these issues. Both approaches deliver radiation in a grid-like or lattice pattern, creating high-dose peaks surrounded by low-dose valleys. This pattern enables the destruction of significant portions of the tumor while sparing healthy tissue. GRID RT uses a 2-dimensional pattern of high-dose peaks (15-20 Gy), while LRT delivers a three-dimensional array of high-dose vertices (10-20 Gy) spaced 2-5 cm apart. These techniques are beneficial for treating a variety of cancers, including soft tissue sarcomas, osteosarcomas, renal cell carcinoma, melanoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), pancreatic cancer, glioblastoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The specific grid and lattice patterns must be carefully tailored for each cancer type to maximize the peak-to-valley dose ratio while protecting critical organs and minimizing collateral damage. For gynecologic cancers, the treatment plan should align with the international consensus guidelines, incorporating concurrent chemotherapy for optimal outcomes. Despite the challenges of precise dosimetry and patient selection, GRID RT and LRT can be cost-effective using existing radiation equipment, including particle therapy systems, to deliver targeted high-dose radiation peaks. This phased approach of partial high-dose induction radiation therapy with standard fractionated radiation therapy maximizes immune modulation and tumor control while reducing toxicity. Comprehensive treatment plans using these advanced techniques offer a valuable framework for radiation oncologists, ensuring safe and effective delivery of therapy for radioresistant and bulky tumors. Further clinical trials data and standardized guidelines will refine these strategies, helping expand access to innovative cancer treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]