Search

PurposeDosimetric and clinical predictors of radiation-induced optic nerve/chiasm neuropathy (RION) after single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or hypofractionated (2-5 fractions) radiosurgery (fSRS) were analyzed from pooled data that were extracted from published reports (PubMed indexed from 1990 to June 2015). This study was undertaken as part of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Working Group on Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy, investigating normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) after hypofractionated radiation.Methods and materialsEligible studies described dose delivered to optic nerve/chiasm and provided crude or actuarial toxicity risks, with visual endpoints (ie, loss of visual acuity, alterations in visual fields, and/or blindness/complete vision loss). Studies of patients with optic nerve sheath tumors, optic nerve gliomas, or ocular/uveal melanoma were excluded to obviate direct tumor effects on visual outcomes, as were studies not specifying causes of vision loss (ie, tumor progression vs RION).ResultsThirty-four studies (1578 patients) were analyzed. Histologies included pituitary adenoma, cavernous sinus meningioma, craniopharyngioma, and malignant skull base tumors. Prior resection (76% of patients) did not correlate with RION risk (P = .66). Prior irradiation (6% of patients) was associated with a crude 10-fold increased RION risk versus no prior radiation therapy. In patients with no prior radiation therapy receiving SRS/fSRS in 1-5 fractions, optic apparatus maximum point doses resulting in

Simple Summary: Around 25–30% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) present with locally advanced, unresectable disease where treatment with concurrent chemo/radiation followed by durvalumab remains the standard of care. However, only about one third of patients are alive without progression at 5 years. Therefore, there is a great need for improvement. Due to flaws of the past trial designs, the use of anti-angiogenic agents with radiation have been abandoned for Stage III NSCLC. We review how to use anti-angiogenic therapy safely in the locally advanced setting and discuss its expected beneficial effects. We also will review the how combined chemotherapy, anti-angiogenic therapy and immunotherapy (AIC) can be used in the metastatic setting and how it can be used as a strategy of choice for patients with liver/brain metastases as well as those with mutations that are considered to be less responsive to immunotherapy, such as, STK11, KRAS, and KEAP1. Additionally, we review trials and discuss the benefits of using AIC therapy in patients with metastatic EGFR mutations in the thirdline setting. Innovative trial designs are proposed using AIC therapy in the locally advanced setting as well as for the upfront treatment of patients suffering from brain metastases. Immunotherapy has made recent improvements in disease-free survival (DFS) and/or overall survival (OS) in all stages of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we review the tumor microenvironment and its immunosuppressive effects and discuss how anti-angiogenic therapies may potentiate the anti-carcinogenic effects of immunotherapy. We also review all the past literature and discuss strategies of combining anti-angiogenic therapy and immunotherapy +/− chemotherapy and hypothesize how we can use this strategy for non-small-cell lung cancer in metastatic previously untreated/previously treated settings in previously treated EGFR-mutated NSCLC for the upfront treatment of brain metastases prior to radiation therapy and for the incorporation of this strategy into stage III unresectable disease. We assert the use of anti-angiogenic therapy and immunotherapy when combined appropriately with chemotherapy and radiotherapy has the potential to increase the long-term survivals in both the stage III and metastatic setting so that we can now consider more patients to experience curative treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the original publication [1] two author names were missing the middle names. The corrected versions can be found in this Erratum.

PurposeTo investigate radiation oncologists' opinions on important considerations to offering re-irradiation (re-RT) as a treatment option for recurrent glioma.Materials and methodsA survey was conducted with 13 radiation oncologists involved in the care of central nervous system tumor patients. The survey was comprised of 49 questions divided into 2 domains: a demographic section (10 questions) and a case section (5 re-RT cases with 5 to 6 questions representing one or several re-RT treatment dilemmas as may be encountered in the clinic). Respondents were asked to rate the relevance of various factors to offering re-RT, respond to the cases with a decision to offer re-RT vs. not, volume to be treated, margins to be employed, dose/fractionation suggested and any additional comments with respect to rationale in each scenario.ResultsSixty nine percent of responders have been practicing for greater than 10 years and 61% have re-RT 20 to 100 patients to date, with 54% seeing 2-5 re-RT cases per month and retreating 1-2 patients per month. Recurrent tumor volume, time since previous radiation therapy, previously administered dose to organs at risk and patient performance status were rated by the majority of responders (85%, 92%, 77%, and 69% respectively) as extremely relevant or very relevant to offering re-RT as an option.ConclusionThe experts' practice of re-RT is still heterogeneous, reflecting the paucity of high-quality prospective data available for decision-making. Nevertheless, practicing radiation oncologists can support own decisions by referring to the cases found suitable for re-RT in this survey.