Search

Radiotherapy is a valuable treatment in the management algorithm of pituitary adenomas and craniopharyngiomas. However, the risk of second brain tumour following radiotherapy is a major concern. We assessed this risk using non-irradiated patients with the same primary pathology and imaging surveillance as controls.In this multicentre, retrospective cohort study, 4292 patients with pituitary adenoma or craniopharyngioma were identified from departmental registries at six adult endocrine centres (Birmingham, Oxford, Leeds, Leicester, and Bristol, UK and Ferrara, Italy). Patients with insufficient clinical data, known genetic predisposition to or history of brain tumour before study entry (n=532), and recipients of proton beam or stereotactic radiotherapy (n=81) were excluded. Data were analysed for 996 patients exposed to 2-dimensional radiotherapy, 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, or intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and compared with 2683 controls.Over 45 246 patient-years, second brain tumours were reported in 61 patients (seven malignant [five radiotherapy, two controls], 54 benign [25 radiotherapy, 29 controls]). Radiotherapy exposure and older age at pituitary tumour detection were associated with increased risk of second brain tumour. Rate ratio for irradiated patients was 2·18 (95% CI 1·31-3·62, p0·0001). Cumulative probability of second brain tumour was 4% for the irradiated and 2·1% for the controls at 20 years.Irradiated adults with pituitary adenoma or craniopharyngioma are at increased risk of second brain tumours, although this risk is considerably lower than previously reported in studies using general population controls with no imaging surveillance. Our data clarify an important clinical question and guide clinicians when counselling patients with pituitary adenoma or craniopharyngioma on the risks and benefits of radiotherapy.Pfizer.

AIMS The audit evaluates the value of MDT, including neuro-radiologist and neuro-surgeon, review of contouring carried out by a clinical oncologist in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). METHOD Lesions were contoured first by clinical oncologist then reviewed/edited by MDT. Iinitial contour was compared with final using Jaccard conformity and geographical miss indices. Dosimetric impact of contouring change was assessed using plan metrics to both original and final contour. The impact of contouring review on local relapse, overall survival and radio necrosis rate was evaluated with at least 24 months follow up. RESULTS 113 patients and 142 lesions treated over 22 months were identified. Mean JCI was 0.92 (0.32-1.00) and 38% needed significant editing (JCI0.05). Resection cavities showed more changes, with lower JCI and higher GMI (p CONCLUSION MDT contour review adds significant value to SRS resulting in reduced local recurrence rates. No improvement in clinical oncologist contouring over time was shown indicating a collaborative approach is needed regardless of experience of clinical oncologist - particularly for resection cavities.

AIMS Elderly patients with glioblastoma are perceived to face a poor prognosis with perceptions surrounding older age and a relative lack of randomized data contributing. This study aimed to evaluate survival prognosticators in elderly glioblastoma patients to more accurately guide their treatment. METHOD The records of 169 elderly (≥70 years) patients with a new diagnosis of glioblastoma who had undergone neurosurgical intervention were retrospectively examined for patient sex, age, performance status, comorbidities, MGMT promoter methylation, surgical intervention and chemoradiation regime. The adjusted survival impact of these factors was determined using Cox proportional hazards model and used to devise a two-stage scoring system to estimate patient survival at the stage of surgical (Elderly Glioblastoma Surgical Score, EGSS) and oncological management (Elderly Glioblastoma Oncological Score, EGOS). RESULTS The median overall survival (mOS) of the cohort was 28.8 weeks. Gross-total and subtotal resection were associated with improved survival compared to biopsy alone (respective mOS 65.3 and 28.1 vs 15.7 weeks, p CONCLUSION Where appropriate and safe, elderly glioblastoma patients may benefit from surgical resection and combined chemoradiotherapy with Temozolomide. The proposed EGSS and EGOS scores take into account important prognostic factors to help guide which patients should receive such treatment.

BACKGROUND The audit evaluates the value of MDT, including neuro-radiologist and neuro-surgeon, review of contouring carried out by a clinical oncologist in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). MATERIAL AND METHODS A sequential audit was conducted of all patients receiving intracranial SRS at our local institution for the first 22 months of a new SRS service. Lesions were contoured first by clinical oncologist then reviewed/edited by the MDT. The initial contour was compared with final contour using Jaccard conformity and geographical miss indices. The dosimetric impact of a contouring change was assessed using plan metrics to both original and final contour. The impact of the contouring review on local relapse, overall survival and radio necrosis rate was evaluated with at least 24 months follow up (24–46 months). RESULTS 113 patients and 142 lesions treated over 22 months were identified. Mean JCI was 0.92 (0.32–1.00) and 38% needed significant editing (JCI0.05). Resection cavities showed more changes, with lower JCI and higher GMI (p CONCLUSION This work highlights that a MDT contour review adds significant value to SRS and the approach translates into reduced local recurrence rates at our local institution compared with previously published data. Radio-necrosis rates are below 10%. No improvement in clinical oncologist contouring over time was shown indicating a collaborative approach is needed regardless of experience of clinical oncologist. MDT input is recommended in particular in contouring of resection cavities.

Background: Advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC) has a poor prognosis for which cisplatin-gemcitabine is the reference first-line chemotherapy. No robust evidence is available for second-line chemotherapy. Methods: Patients with ABC who progressed on first-line cisplatin-gemcitabine were randomised to active symptom control (ASC) and oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or ASC alone. The primary end-point was overall survival (OS); recruitment of 162 patients was required, to deliver 148 events (hypothesised hazard ratio (HR) 0.63; 80% power; 5% two-sided alpha). Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (ASC+FOLFOX arm only). Results: A total of 162 patients were randomised (81 in each arm) between 27-Mar-2014 and 04-Jan-2018). The median age was 65 years (range 26-84); 80 (49%) were male and the primary tumour sites were intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) 72 (44%), extrahepatic CCA 45 (28%), gallbladder 34 (21%) and ampullary cancer 11 (7%). After 150 OS events, the adjusted HR was 0.69 (95%CI-0.50-0.97; p=0.031; ASC+FOLFOX vs ASC). Median OS (months (m)), 6m and 12m OS-rate (%) were 6.2m, 50.6% and 25.9% for the ASC+FOLFOX and 5.3m, 35.5%, 11.4% for the ASC arm, respectively. The median PFS was 4.0 months (95%-CI 3.2-5.0); the response rate was 5% and the disease control rate 33%. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported in 56 (69%) and 42 (52%) patients in the ASC+FOLFOX and ASC arm, respectively, including two chemotherapy-related deaths. Conclusion: FOLFOX improved OS after progression to cisplatin-gemcitabine with a clinically-meaningful increase in 6m and 12m OS rate. FOLFOX should become standard-of-care in second-line for ABC. Trial Registration: NCT01926236, EudraCT: 2013-001812-30. Funding Statement: The study was sponsored by The Christie NHS Foundation Trust. The ABC-6 study was funded by Cancer Research UK (CRUK/13/004), StandUpToCancer, AMMF (The UK Cholangiocarcinoma Charity) and The Christie Charity. The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation provided funding translational research. Dr Angela Lamarca received funding from ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology), SEOM (Sociedad Espanola de Oncologia Medica) and Conquer Cancer Foundation (Young Investigator Award) fellowship programs and from The Christie Charity. Declaration of Interests: Dr Angela Lamarca received travel and educational support from Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, AAA, SirtEx, Novartis, Mylan and Delcath; speaker honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Ipsen and Incyte; advisory honoraria from EISAI, Nutricia Ipsen, QED and Roche; she is also a member of the Knowledge Network and NETConnect Initiatives funded by Ipsen. Prof Daniel H Palmer declares research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Nucana, Sirtex; and Consulting or Advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, MSD, Servier, Roche. Harpreet Singh Wasan declares no conflict of interest associated to this work. Dr Paul J Ross declares research grants from research grants from Sanofi, Bayer; Consulting or Advisory roles for Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Sirtex, Roche; speaker fees from Amgen, Roche, Servier; Travel grants from Bayer, Roche, Servier. Dr Yuk Ting Ma declares speaker honoraria and advisory roles for Bayer, Eisai and Roche. Dr Arvind Arora declares no conflict of interest. Dr Stephen Flak declares no conflict of interest. Dr Roopinder Gilmore declares no conflict of interest. Prof Jon Wadsley declares research grants from AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Genzyme and Consulting or Advisory roles for Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi Genyme, Eisai, AAA, Roche, Novartis, Ipsen. Dr Kinnari Patel declares no conflict of interest. Alan Anthony declares no conflict of interest. Prof Anthony Maraveyas declares research grants from Pfizer, BMS and Bayer. Speaker fees from BMS. Bayer Ipsen, EUSA Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer and advisory roles for Bayer ,BMS, Leo, Pfizer, Merck and Ipsen. Dr Tim Iveson declares no conflict of interest. Dr Justin S Walters received educational support for travel and conference attendance from Mylan and Ipsen, and speaker honoraria from Mylan. Dr Claire Hobbs declares no conflict of interest. Safia Barber declares no conflict of interest. David Ryder declares no conflict of interest. Prof John Ramage declares research grants, speaker fees and advisory roles for Ipsen, Novartis and AAA. Linda M Davies declares no conflict of interest. Prof John Bridgewater declares Consulting or Advisory role for Merck Serono, SERVIER, Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Incyte and Basilea; travel support from MSD oncology, Merck Serono, Servier and BMS. Prof Juan W Valle declares Consulting or Advisory role for Agios, AstraZeneca, Delcath Systems, Keocyt, Genoscience Pharma, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck, Mundipharma EDO, Novartis, PCI Biotech, Pfizer, PierisPharmaceuticals, QED and Wren Laboratories; Speakers’ Bureau for Imaging Equipment Limited Ipsen Novartis Nucana; and Travel Grants from Celgene and Nucana. Ethics Approval Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by a research ethics committee and all patients were required to provide written informed consent.

Aims Melanoma brain metastases (MBM) are a common presentation to the neuro-oncology MDT. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a highly effective treatment for cerebral metastases, with at least 70% control rates of individual metastases,[1] whilst immune checkpoint blockade has revolutionised the management of metastatic melanoma in recent years.[2] Recent studies have demonstrated that immune checkpoint inhibition alone also has activity in the brain, with MBM response rates of 50% or more.[3, 4] When MBM are treated with combination immunotherapy and SRS together, 12-month intracranial progression free survival (PFS) rates of 85% have been achieved.[4, 5] The aim of the current study was to evaluate the local control of MBM treated at our tertiary referral centre, which benefits from specialist neuro-radiology peer review of SRS contour volumes, and further to investigate whether overall survival is also improved, and what the mechanism of this may be. Method A retrospective analysis of all patients treated with SRS for brain metastases at our teriary SRS centre between June 2017 – January 2020 was performed. Inclusion criteria included patients treated for MBM, who received at least 2 doses of any combination of immune checkpoint inhibition concurrently with (defined as at the time of or commenced within 3 months of) SRS. The primary endpoints were the intracranial and extracranial response rates and survival rate at 12 months. Response was defined as complete response, partial response or stable disease. Secondary endpoints included the rate of imaging-defined radionecrosis, median lesional progression free survival (mPFSlesion), non-lesional intracranial PFS (mPFSintracranial), extracranial PFS (mPFSextracranial) and overall survival (mOS), measured from the start date of SRS to the date of event or censored at the start date of data collection. Kaplan-Meier curves and survival statistics were generated using SPSS v26. Results 33 MBM from 18 patients were identified. The median follow up was 25.8 months (minimum 12 months). Of the 18 patients: the median age was 60 (IQR 48 – 72); 17 (94%) patients were ECOG performance status 0-1; the median number of extracranial disease sites was 2 (pre-immunotherapy) and 1 (pre-SRS); the median duration of immunotherapy treatment was 17.6 (12.9 – 28.5) months, and the median number of metastases treated per patient was 2. Of the 33 metastases: 31 (94%) were supratentorial; 6 (18%) underwent prior neurosurgical resection; the median GTV volume (cc) of unresected metastases was 0.5cc (0.1 – 2.7), and 21 (64%) were treated with single fraction SRS. The median OS and PFS for all subtypes were not reached. The rates of OS, PFSlesion, PFSintracranial and PFSextracranial at 12 months were 93.9%, 87.9%, 81.8% & 75.8% respectively. Conclusion Our cohort of MBM patients appear to perform favourably when compared with the current literature. When compared to a recent extensive systematic review of modern management of MBM, our lesional control rate is as good as the weighted average of concurrent SRS + immunotherapy studies (87.9% vs 85.4% 12-month PFS), however we demonstrate a significantly improved 12-month OS rate (93.9% vs 52.8%) compared to the same (mOS of 15.8 – 17.4 months in other studies).[6,7] Our extra-lesional PFS is high and, compared to extracranial PFS rates from 51% at 6-months to 70.4% at 9-months in the literature,[3,4] our 75.8% control at 12 months suggests that extracranial control could drive the OS benefit. This suggests a benefit of SRS beyond the local control of MBM and questions whether patients without brain metastases may benefit from body SABR to extracranial metastases, to elicit a similar, potentially abscopal type effect.

Purpose: Our purpose was to demonstrate the use of novel planning techniques in producing high-quality stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plans using a standard 5 mm multileaf collimator (MLC) and multiple isocenters delivered clinically at a local institution. Methods and Materials: Novel planning techniques consisted of offset isocenter, variable asymmetrical jaws, and Digital Imagine and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) edits to reduce leaf tip transmission, all with the aim of maximizing dose conformity. A local institution clinical cohort was planned (1-4 targets), and plan conformity metrics common to SRS were compared against conformity metrics from selected previous publications comparing Gamma Knife to linear accelerator SRS using high-definition MLC (2.5 mm). Additionally, local institution plan conformity metrics for 2 benchmark SRS planning cases (3 and 7 targets) were compared with metrics from other centers treating SRS clinically in England. Pretreatment quality assurance results, both point dose measurement and film analysis, are presented to demonstrate plan deliverability. Results: Clinical conformity metrics are shown to be comparable to previously published results using either Gamma Knife or linear accelerator with high-definition MLC. Metrics from benchmark planning cases are shown to be comparable and to have better prescription dose conformity than average nationally in England. Pretreatment quality assurance results demonstrate suitable plan deliverability. Conclusions: SRS planning using standard 5 mm MLC and multiple isocenters produces high-quality treatment plans for a limited number of targets with a high degree of dose conformity and dose fall off when employing novel planning techniques to compensate for MLC leaf size and multiple isocenters.

Importance: Older and/or frail patients are underrepresented in landmark cancer trials. Tailored research is needed to address this evidence gap. Objective: The GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty. Interventions: There were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m 2twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care. Main Outcomes and Measures: First, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival. Results: A total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P =.34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN44687907.

4003 Background: Level A evidence supports use of CisGem as first-line chemotherapy for ABC; no robust evidence is available for second-line chemotherapy. Methods: Pts diagnosed with ABC with disease progression after prior CisGem were randomised (1:1) to either ASC+mFOLFOX or ASC. Randomisation was stratified by serum albumin levels ( < 35 vs ≥35 g/L), platinum sensitivity (determined from first-line CisGem) and disease extent (locally advanced vs metastatic). Pts with ECOG PS0-1, adequate haematological, renal and liver function, and adequate biliary drainage were eligible. Primary end-point was overall survival (OS) (multivariable Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors); sample size: 162 pts delivering 148 events were required (80% power; 5% two-sided alpha) for a hypothesised hazard ratio (HR) of 0.63. Assumed median survival for ASC was 4 months. Results: 162 pts (81 in each arm) were randomised (27 March ‘14 - 04 Jan ‘18); median age 65 yrs (range 26-84); sex: 80 (49%) male, 82 (51%) female; primary site: intrahepatic 72 (44%), extrahepatic 45 (28%), gallbladder 34 (21%) and ampullary 11 (7%). Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms except platinum sensitivity (ASC+mFOLFOX 27 pts (33%); ASC 34 pts (42%)). After 150 OS events, the adjusted HR was 0.69 (95% CI 0.50-0.97; p = 0.031; ASC+mFOLFOX vs ASC). Median OS (months (m)), 6m and 12m OS-rate (%) were 6.2m, 50.6% and 25.9% for the ASC+mFOLFOX and 5.3m, 35.5%, 11.4% for the ASC arm, respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicities were reported in 48 (59%) and 32 (39%) pts in the ASC+mFOLFOX and ASC arm, respectively; these were balanced between arms except for fatigue and neutropenia (more frequent in ASC+mFOLFOX arm); data cleaning is ongoing. No chemotherapy-related deaths were reported. Conclusion: Survival with ASC was greater than assumed; ASC+mFOLFOX improved OS after progression to CisGem with a clinically meaningful increase in 6m and 12m OS rate. ASC+mFOLFOX should become standard of care in second-line for ABC. Clinical trial information: NCT01926236.

Variability exists between clinical oncologists when contouring gross tumour volume (GTV) and normal tissue organs at risk (OAR) volumes. This variability is the ‘weakest link’ in the context of the highly conformal and highly accurate treatment delivery used for SRS and fSRT. In 2016-17NHS England commissioned 17 SRS centres. The service specification mandates “treatment protocols will ensure that target definition is performed by either a sub-specialised neuro-surgeon and / or neuro-oncologist (clinical oncologist) with input from a neuro-radiologist before a treatment plan is created.” To evaluate the additional contribution by the neuro radiologist we analysed contouring conformality for 90 patients with benign conditions treated in our centre (September 2014 – February 2018) using fSRT or SRS. GTV margins contoured by the clinical oncologist were copied and amended with the neuro-radiologist and sometimes neurosurgeon. Clinical target volumes (CTV) were added depending on the tumour type and grade, 1 mm margin was added to CTV for the planning target volume (PTV). The 90 patients included 71 meningioma, 10 pituitary adenoma, 6 craniopharyngioma, 3 other. Doses used were: 45–59.4 Gy in 30–33 fractions for fSRT and 14-16Gy for SRS. We used Eclipse TPS (v13.7) for Varian (Palo Alto, CA) Clinac iX with millennium MLC (5 mm) and Exactrac imaging system (Brainlab, Munich DE). All plans were created either using dynamic conformal arc (DCA) or VMAT RapidArc (RA) techniques with 6 MV photons and calculated using AAA (v10) on a 1 mm dose grid. Values for the final treated GTV and PTV (A) were compared with the GTV and PTV that were generated by the Clinical oncologist alone (B) will be compared using the Conformity analysis consisted of Jaccard coefficient, Dice coefficient, Geographical Miss and Discordance index as defined below. Results will be presented.

Variability exists between clinical oncologists when contouring gross tumour volume (GTV) and normal tissue organs at risk (OAR) volumes. This variability is the ‘weakest link’ in the context of the highly conformal and highly accurate treatment delivery used for SRS. In 2016-17NHS England commissioned 17 SRS centres. The service specification mandates “treatment protocols will ensure that target definition is performed by either a sub-specialised neuro-surgeon and / or neuro-oncologist (clinical oncologist) with input from a neuro-radiologist before a treatment plan is created.”. To evaluate the additional contribution by the neuro radiologist we analysed contouring conformality for all 47 patients treated in our centre between June 2017 and February 2018. GTV margins were contoured first by the clinical oncologist, and then copied and amended with input from the neuroradiologist and sometimes neurosurgeon. 1 mm margin was added to the GTV for the planning target volume (PTV). 47 patients, each with 1–4 metastases/resection cavities, resulted in treatment plans for 67 metastases/cavities. Doses used were: 15-24Gy in 1 fraction, 24Gy in 3 fractions or 25-30Gy in 5 fractions (if close to critical optic structures or brainstem). We used Eclipse TPS (v13.7) for Varian (Palo Alto, CA) Clinac iX with millennium MLC (5 mm) and Exactrac imaging system (Brainlab, Munich DE). All plans were created either using dynamic conformal arc (DCA) or VMAT RapidArc (RA) techniques with 6 MV photons and calculated using AAA (v10) on a 1 mm dose grid. Values for the final treated GTV and PTV (A) were compared with the GTV and PTV that were generated by the Clinical oncologist alone (B) will be compared using the Conformity analysis consisted of Jaccard coefficient, Dice coefficient, Geographical Miss and Discordance index as defined below. Results will be presented.