Search

Radioembolization using Yttrium-90 (90 Y) microspheres is widely used to treat primary and metastatic liver tumors. The present work provides minimum practice guidelines for establishing and supporting such a program. Medical physicists play a key role in patient and staff safety during these procedures. Products currently available are identified and their properties and suppliers summarized. Appropriateness for use is the domain of the treating physician. Patient work up starts with pre-treatment imaging. First, a mapping study using Technetium-99m (Tc-99m ) is carried out to quantify the lung shunt fraction (LSF) and to characterize the vascular supply of the liver. An MRI, CT, or a PET-CT scan is used to obtain information on the tumor burden. The tumor volume, LSF, tumor histology, and other pertinent patient characteristics are used to decide the type and quantity of 90 Y to be ordered. On the day of treatment, the appropriate dose is assayed using a dose calibrator with a calibration traceable to a national standard. In the treatment suite, the care team led by an interventional radiologist delivers the dose using real-time image guidance. The treatment suite is posted as a radioactive area during the procedure and staff wear radiation dosimeters. The treatment room, patient, and staff are surveyed post-procedure. The dose delivered to the patient is determined from the ratio of pre-treatment and residual waste exposure rate measurements. Establishing such a treatment modality is a major undertaking requiring an institutional radioactive materials license amendment complying with appropriate federal and state radiation regulations and appropriate staff training commensurate with their respective role and function in the planning and delivery of the procedure. Training, documentation, and areas for potential failure modes are identified and guidance is provided to ameliorate them.

PURPOSE: Concurrent chemoradiation plays an integral role in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Proton beam radiation therapy has the potential to spare adjacent critical organs, improving toxicity profiles and potentially improving clinical outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We evaluated the REG001-09 registry for patients undergoing proton radiation therapy for esophageal cancer. Demographic, clinicopathologic, toxicity, and dosimetry information were compiled. RESULTS: We identified 155 patients treated at 10 institutions between 2010 and 2019. One hundred twenty (77%) had adenocarcinoma and 34 (22%) had squamous cell carcinoma. One hundred thirty-seven (88%) received concurrent chemotherapy. The median delivered dose was 50.51 Gy-equivalent (GyE; range, 41.4-70.1). Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 22 (14%) of patients and were most commonly dysphagia (6%), esophagitis (4%), anorexia (4%), and nausea (2%). There were no episodes of grade ≥4 lymphopenia and no grade 5 toxicities. The average mean heart, lung, and liver doses and average maximum spinal cord dose were 10.0 GyE, 4.8 GyE, 3.8 GyE, and 34.2 GyE, respectively. For gastroesophageal junction tumors, 8% of patients developed acute grade ≥3 toxicity and the mean heart, liver, right kidney, and left kidney doses were 10.5 GyE, 3.9 GyE, 0.4 GyE, and 4.9 GyE, respectively. Gastroesophageal junction location was protective against development of grade ≥3 toxicity on univariate (P = .0009) and multivariate (P = .004) analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Proton beam radiation therapy affords excellent dosimetric parameters and low toxicity in patients with esophageal cancer treated with curative intent. Prospective trials are underway investigating the comparative benefit of proton-based therapy.

PurposeConventional wisdom has rendered patients with brain metastases ineligible for clinical trials for fear that poor survival could mask the benefit of otherwise promising treatments. Our group previously published the diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). Updates with larger contemporary cohorts using molecular markers and newly identified prognostic factors have been published. The purposes of this work are to present all the updated indices in a single report to guide treatment choice, stratify research, and define an eligibility quotient to expand eligibility.MethodsA multi-institutional database of 6,984 patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases underwent multivariable analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival for each primary site. Significant factors were used to define the updated GPA. GPAs of 4.0 and 0.0 correlate with the best and worst prognoses, respectively.ResultsSignificant prognostic factors varied by diagnosis and new prognostic factors were identified. Those factors were incorporated into the updated GPA with robust separation (P < .01) between subgroups. Survival has improved, but varies widely by GPA for patients with non-small-cell lung, breast, melanoma, GI, and renal cancer with brain metastases from 7-47 months, 3-36 months, 5-34 months, 3-17 months, and 4-35 months, respectively.ConclusionMedian survival varies widely and our ability to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases has improved. The updated GPA (available free at brainmetgpa.com) provides an accurate tool with which to estimate survival, individualize treatment, and stratify clinical trials. Instead of excluding patients with brain metastases, enrollment should be encouraged and those trials should be stratified by the GPA to ensure those trials make appropriate comparisons. Furthermore, we recommend the expansion of eligibility to allow for the enrollment of patients with previously treated brain metastases who have a 50% or greater probability of an additional year of survival (eligibility quotient > 0.50).

BackgroundBreast cancer treatment is based on estrogen receptors (ERs), progesterone receptors (PRs), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). At the time of metastasis, receptor status can be discordant from that at initial diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of discordance and its effect on survival and subsequent treatment in patients with breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM).MethodsA retrospective database of 316 patients who underwent craniotomy for BCBM between 2006 and 2017 was created. Discordance was considered present if the ER, PR, or HER2 status differed between the primary tumor and the BCBM.ResultsThe overall receptor discordance rate was 132/316 (42%), and the subtype discordance rate was 100/316 (32%). Hormone receptors (HR, either ER or PR) were gained in 40/160 (25%) patients with HR-negative primary tumors. HER2 was gained in 22/173 (13%) patients with HER2-negative primary tumors. Subsequent treatment was not adjusted for most patients who gained receptors-nonetheless, median survival (MS) improved but did not reach statistical significance (HR, 17-28 mo, P = 0.12; HER2, 15-19 mo, P = 0.39). MS for patients who lost receptors was worse (HR, 27-18 mo, P = 0.02; HER2, 30-18 mo, P = 0.08).ConclusionsReceptor discordance between primary tumor and BCBM is common, adversely affects survival if receptors are lost, and represents a missed opportunity for use of effective treatments if receptors are gained. Receptor analysis of BCBM is indicated when clinically appropriate. Treatment should be adjusted accordingly.Key points1. Receptor discordance alters subtype in 32% of BCBM patients.2. The frequency of receptor gain for HR and HER2 was 25% and 13%, respectively.3. If receptors are lost, survival suffers. If receptors are gained, consider targeted treatment.

PurposeBrain metastases are a common sequelae of breast cancer. Survival varies widely based on diagnosis-specific prognostic factors (PF). We previously published a prognostic index (Graded Prognostic Assessment [GPA]) for patients with breast cancer with brain metastases (BCBM), based on cohort A (1985-2007, n = 642), then updated it, reporting the effect of tumor subtype in cohort B (1993-2010, n = 400). The purpose of this study is to update the Breast GPA with a larger contemporary cohort (C) and compare treatment and survival across the 3 cohorts.Methods and materialsA multi-institutional (19), multinational (3), retrospective database of 2473 patients with breast cancer with newly diagnosed brain metastases (BCBM) diagnosed from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2017, was created and compared with prior cohorts. Associations of PF and treatment with survival were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were compared with log-rank tests. PF were weighted and the Breast GPA was updated such that a GPA of 0 and 4.0 correlate with the worst and best prognoses, respectively.ResultsMedian survival (MS) for cohorts A, B, and C improved over time (from 11, to 14 to 16 months, respectively; P < .01), despite the subtype distribution becoming less favorable. PF significant for survival were tumor subtype, Karnofsky Performance Status, age, number of BCBMs, and extracranial metastases (all P < .01). MS for GPA 0 to 1.0, 1.5-2.0, 2.5-3.0, and 3.5-4.0 was 6, 13, 24, and 36 months, respectively. Between cohorts B and C, the proportion of human epidermal receptor 2 + subtype decreased from 31% to 18% (P < .01) and MS in this subtype increased from 18 to 25 months (P < .01).ConclusionsMS has improved modestly but varies widely by diagnosis-specific PF. New PF are identified and incorporated into an updated Breast GPA (free online calculator available at brainmetgpa.com). The Breast GPA facilitates clinical decision-making and will be useful for stratification of future clinical trials. Furthermore, these data suggest human epidermal receptor 2-targeted therapies improve clinical outcomes in some patients with BCBM.

BackgroundPatients with gastrointestinal cancers and brain metastases (BM) represent a unique and heterogeneous population. Our group previously published the Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (DS-GPA) for patients with GI cancers (GI-GPA) (1985-2007, n = 209). The purpose of this study is to update the GI-GPA based on a larger contemporary database.MethodsAn IRB-approved consortium database analysis was performed using a multi-institutional (18), multi-national (3) cohort of 792 patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, with newly-diagnosed BM diagnosed between 1/1/2006 and 12/31/2017. Survival was measured from date of first treatment for BM. Multiple Cox regression was used to select and weight prognostic factors in proportion to their hazard ratios. These factors were incorporated into the updated GI-GPA.ResultsMedian survival (MS) varied widely by primary site and other prognostic factors. Four significant factors (KPS, age, extracranial metastases and number of BM) were used to formulate the updated GI-GPA. Overall MS for this cohort remains poor; 8 months. MS by GPA was 3, 7, 11 and 17 months for GPA 0-1, 1.5-2, 2.5-3.0 and 3.5-4.0, respectively. >30% present in the worst prognostic group (GI-GPA of ≤1.0).ConclusionsBrain metastases are not uncommon in GI cancer patients and MS varies widely among them. This updated GI-GPA index improves our ability to estimate survival for these patients and will be useful for therapy selection, end-of-life decision-making and stratification for future clinical trials. A user-friendly, free, on-line app to calculate the GPA score and estimate survival for an individual patient is available at brainmetgpa.com.

The literature describing the prognosis of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers and brain metastases (BM) is sparse. Our group previously published a prognostic index, the Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) for GI cancer patients with BM, based on 209 patients diagnosed from 1985-2005. The purpose of this analysis is to identify prognostic factors for GI cancer patients with newly diagnosed BM in a larger contemporary cohort. A multi-institutional retrospective IRB-approved database of 792 GI cancer patients with new BM diagnosed from 1/1/2006 to 12/31/2016 was created. Demographic data, clinical parameters, and treatment were correlated with survival and time from primary diagnosis to BM (TPDBM). Kaplan-Meier median survival (MS) estimates were calculated and compared with log-rank tests. The MS from time of first treatment for BM for the prior and current cohorts were 5 and 8 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Eight prognostic factors (age, stage, primary site, resection of primary tumor, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), extracranial metastases, number of BM and Hgb were found to be significant for survival, in contrast to only one (KPS) in the prior cohort. In this cohort, the most common primary sites were rectum (24%) and esophagus (23%). Median TPDBM was 22 months. Notably, 37% (267/716) presented with poor prognosis (GPA 0-1.0). Although little improvement in overall survival in this cohort has been achieved in recent decades, survival varies widely and multiple new prognostic factors were identified. Future work will translate these factors into a prognostic index to facilitate clinical decision-making and stratification of future clinical trials.

Simple Summary: Magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is expanding worldwide thanks to advances in soft tissue imaging, continuous visualization of the target and normal organs-at-risk during treatment, automated intelligently gated beam delivery within predefined targeting boundaries, and on-table adaptive replanning, all of which permit improved treatment efficacy, toxicity reduction, and shortened fractionation regimens. This, however, is still a nascent technology which can be more time- and resource-intensive than standard radiotherapy, and hence its optimal utilization and deployment remain in constant flux and evolution. We retrospectively analyzed our institutional MRgRT utilization across 823 treatment courses over a 6-year period, which predominantly included abdominal and pelvic tumors treated with dose-escalated ultra-hypofractionation. Background/Objectives: Over the past decade, significant advances have been made in image-guided radiotherapy (RT) particularly with the introduction of magnetic resonance (MR)-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT). However, the optimal clinical applications of MRgRT are still evolving. The intent of this analysis was to describe our institutional MRgRT utilization patterns and evolution therein, specifically as an early adopter within a center endowed with multiple other technology platforms. Materials/Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patterns of MRgRT utilization for patients treated with a 0.35-Tesla MR-Linac at our institution from April 2018 to April 2024. We analyzed changes in utilization across six annualized periods: Period 1 (April 2018–April 2019) through Period 6 (April 2023–April 2024). We defined ultra-hypofractionation (UHfx) as 5 or fewer fractions with a minimum fractional dose of 5 Gy. Electronic health records were reviewed, and data were extracted related to patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Results: A total of 823 treatment courses were delivered to 712 patients treated for 854 lesions. The most commonly treated sites were the pancreas (242 [29.4%]), thorax (172; 20.9%), abdominopelvic lymph nodes (107; 13.0%), liver (72; 8.7%), and adrenal glands (68; 8.3%). The median total prescribed dose of 50 Gy in five fractions (fxs) was typically delivered in consecutive days with automatic beam gating in inspiration breath hold. The median biologically effective dose (α/β = 10, BED10) was 94.4 Gy with nearly half (404, 49.1%) of all courses at a prescribed BED10 ≥ 100 Gy, which is widely regarded as a highly effective ablative dose. Courses in Period 6 vs. Period 1 more often had a prescribed BED10 ≥ 100 Gy (60.2% vs. 41.6%; p = 0.004). Of the 6036 total delivered fxs, nearly half (2643, 43.8%) required at least one fx of on-table adaptive radiotherapy (oART), most commonly for pancreatic tumors (1081, 17.9%). UHfx was used in over three quarters of all courses (630, 76.5%) with 472 (57.4%) of these requiring oART for at least one fraction. The relative utilization of oART increased significantly from Period 1 to Period 6 (37.6% to 85.0%; p < 0.001); a similar increase in the use of UHfx (66.3% to 89.5%; p < 0.001) was also observed. The median total in-room time for oART decreased from 81 min in Period 1 to 45 min in Period 6, while for non-oART, it remained stable around 40 min across all periods. Conclusions: Our institution implemented MRgRT with a priority for targeting mobile extracranial tumors in challenging anatomic locations that are frequently treated with dose escalation, require enhanced soft-tissue visualization, and could benefit from an ablative radiotherapy approach. Over the period under evaluation, the use of high-dose ablative doses (BED10 ≥ 100 Gy), oART and UHfx (including single-fraction ablation) increased significantly, underscoring both a swift learning curve and ability to optimize processes to maximize throughput and efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]