• Canada
• International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics close

Abstract Purpose: To assess the palliative benefit of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and radiotherapy in patients with surgically unresectable localized pancreatic cancer. Methods and Materials: Twenty-five patients with locally advanced surgically unresectable symptomatic pancreatic cancer received 5-FU chemotherapy and local radiation therapy. They were retrospectively reviewed in regard to their clinical benefit response (a composite of measurement of pain assessment, weight, and Karnofsky performance status [KPS]), as well as radiological response, time to progression, and overall survival. Results: Median survival for the 25 patients was 9 months and median progression-free survival was 6 months. Thirty-two percent of patients survived in excess of 1 year. Analgesic requirements increased >50% in 2 patients and KPS deteriorated in 10 patients. Of the 13 remaining patients, 2 sustained a >7% weight loss and 2 gained weight post-treatment. Six patients improved in one parameter of analgesic consumption, weight loss or KPS without deteriorating in any others. Thus, the clinical benefit response index for 5-FU–radiation was 6/25 (24%). In terms of tumor response, 8 patients (44%) demonstrated a reduction in tumor volume post-treatment, 4 of whom (22%) experienced a >50% reduction. Four additional patients had radiologically stable disease. Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, the clinical benefit response index for 5-FU–radiation was 24%, a value similar to the 23.8% reported for single agent gemcitabine. The median survival of 7 months was also similar to the 5.65 months reported for gemcitabine. The radiological partial response rate of 22% and the 1-year survival of 32% were higher for 5-FU–radiation than the reported values for gemcitabine. A randomized trial would be necessary to compare 5-FU–radiation to gemcitabine directly; however, from this review it did not appear that the overall palliative benefit of 5-FU–radiation was inferior to gemcitabine.

Purpose Use of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for subcentimeter lung tumors is controversial. We report our outcomes for tumors with diameter ≤1 cm and their visibility on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and retrospectively evaluate the planned dose using a deterministic dose calculation algorithm (Acuros XB [AXB]). Methods and Materials We identified subcentimeter tumors from our institutional SABR database. Tumor size was remeasured on an artifact-free phase of the planning 4-dimensional (4D)-CT. Clinical plan doses were generated using either a pencil beam convolution or an anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA). All AAA plans were recalculated using AXB, and differences among D95 and mean dose for internal target volume (ITV) and planning target volume (PTV) on the average intensity CT dataset, as well as for gross tumor volume (GTV) on the end respiratory phases were reported. For all AAA patients, CBCT scans acquired during each treatment fraction were evaluated for target visibility. Progression-free and overall survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Thirty-five patients with 37 subcentimeter tumors were eligible for analysis. For the 22 AAA plans recalculated using AXB, Mean D95 ± SD values were 2.2 ± 4.4% (ITV) and 2.5 ± 4.8% (PTV) lower using AXB; whereas mean doses were 2.9 ± 4.9% (ITV) and 3.7 ± 5.1% (PTV) lower. Calculated AXB doses were significantly lower in one patient (difference in mean ITV and PTV doses, as well as in mean ITV and PTV D95 ranged from 22%-24%). However, the end respiratory phase GTV received at least 95% of the prescription dose. Review of 92 CBCT scans from all AAA patients revealed that the tumor was visualized in 82 images, and its position could be inferred in other images. The 2-year local progression-free survival was 100%. Conclusions Patients with subcentimeter lung tumors are good candidates for SABR, given the dosimetry, ability to localize tumors with image guidance, and excellent local control.

Abstract Purpose: To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline that would address the following questions: (a) What is the role of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in patients with limited or extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who have achieved complete remission in response to induction therapy (chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy)? (b) What dose and fractionation schedules of PCI are optimal? (c) Does the use of PCI in patients with SCLC in complete remission affect quality of life? Survival, disease-free survival, quality of life, and adverse effects were the outcomes of interest. Methods and Materials: A systematic review of the published literature was undertaken to provide the data for an evidence-based practice guideline. Results: Six randomized controlled trials and one fully published individual patient data meta-analysis were included in the systematic review of the evidence. For patients who have achieved complete response after induction therapy, there is evidence of a disease-free survival benefit (4 of 6 trials) and an overall survival benefit (meta-analysis). There is insufficient evidence to make a definitive recommendation with respect to dose. There is some indication that 30–36 Gy in 2–3 Gy per fraction, or a biologically equivalent dose, may produce a better outcome than a lower dose or less aggressive fractionation regimen. The schedule commonly used in Canada is 25 Gy in 10 fractions over 2 weeks. Data from further research, including a trial currently ongoing that compares 25 Gy in 10 fractions with 36 Gy in 18 fractions, will be required to determine optimal dose of PCI. There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations concerning the optimal timing of PCI in relation to the administration of chemotherapy. Lung DSG members generally felt that it should be given as soon as possible after completion of chemotherapy. There is evidence from trials with data for up to 2 years of follow-up that prophylactic cranial irradiation does not produce significant late neurotoxicity. There is evidence from one trial that prophylactic cranial irradiation does not have a detrimental effect on quality of life in the first 12 months following the completion of therapy. There is insufficient evidence to comment on the long-term effects of prophylactic cranial irradiation on quality of life. Conclusion: For adult patients with limited or extensive SCLC who achieve a complete remission with induction therapy, PCI is recommended.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases is a relatively well-studied technology with established guidelines regarding patient selection, although its implementation is technically complex. We evaluated the extent to which local availability of SRS affected the treatment of patients with brain metastases.We identified 3030 patients who received whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) for brain metastases in 1 of 7 cancer centers in Ontario. Clinical data were abstracted for a random sample of 973 patients. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the use of SRS as a boost within 4 months following WBRT or at any time following WBRT.Of 898 patients eligible for analysis, SRS was provided to 70 (7.8%) patients at some time during the course of their disease and to 34 (3.8%) patients as a boost following WBRT. In multivariable analyses, factors significantly associated with the use of SRS boost following WBRT were fewer brain metastases (odds ratio [OR] = 6.50), controlled extracranial disease (OR = 3.49), age (OR = 0.97 per year of advancing age), and the presence of an on-site SRS program at the hospital where WBRT was given (OR = 12.34; all P values were.05). Similarly, availability of on-site SRS was the factor most predictive of the use of SRS at any time following WBRT (OR = 5.98). Among patients with 1-3 brain metastases, good/fair performance status, and no evidence of active extracranial disease, SRS was provided to 40.3% of patients who received WBRT in a hospital that had an on-site SRS program vs 3.0% of patients who received WBRT at a hospital without SRS (P.01).The availability of on-site SRS is the factor most strongly associated with the provision of this treatment to patients with brain metastases and appears to be more influential than accepted clinical eligibility factors.

Purpose To examine whether treatment workload and complexity associated with palliative radiation therapy contribute to medical errors. Methods and Materials In the setting of a large academic health sciences center, patient scheduling and record and verification systems were used to identify patients starting radiation therapy. All records of radiation treatment courses delivered during a 3-month period were retrieved and divided into radical and palliative intent. "Same day consultation, planning and treatment" was used as a proxy for workload and "previous treatment" and "multiple sites" as surrogates for complexity. In addition, all planning and treatment discrepancies (errors and "near-misses") recorded during the same time frame were reviewed and analyzed. Results There were 365 new patients treated with 485 courses of palliative radiation therapy. Of those patients, 128 (35%) were same-day consultation, simulation, and treatment patients; 166 (45%) patients had previous treatment; and 94 (26%) patients had treatment to multiple sites. Four near-misses and 4 errors occurred during the audit period, giving an error per course rate of 0.82%. In comparison, there were 10 near-misses and 5 errors associated with 1100 courses of radical treatment during the audit period. This translated into an error rate of 0.45% per course. An association was found between workload and complexity and increased palliative therapy error rates. Conclusions Increased complexity and workload may have an impact on palliative radiation treatment discrepancies. This information may help guide the necessary recommendations for process improvement for patients who require palliative radiation therapy.

To evaluate the results of combined decongestive therapy and manual lymphatic drainage in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema.The data from 250 patients were reviewed. The pre- and posttreatment volumetric measurements were compared, and the correlation with age, body mass index, and type of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy was determined. The Spearman correlation coefficients and Wilcoxon two-sample test were used for statistical analysis.Of the 250 patients, 138 were included in the final analysis. The mean age at presentation was 54.3 years. Patients were stratified on the basis of the treatment modality used for breast cancer management. Lymphedema was managed with combined decongestive therapy in 55%, manual lymphatic drainage alone in 32%, and the home program in 13%. The mean pretreatment volume of the affected and normal arms was 2929 and 2531 mL. At the end of 1 year, the posttreatment volume of the affected arm was 2741 mL. The absolute volume of the affected arm was reduced by a mean of 188 mL (p0.0001). The type of surgery (p = 0.0142), age (p = 0.0354), and body mass index (p0.0001) were related to the severity of lymphedema.Combined decongestive therapy and manual lymphatic drainage with exercises were associated with a significant reduction in the lymphedema volume.

Purpose Recent randomized studies have suggested improvements in progression-free and overall survival with the addition of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT, also known as SABR) in patients with oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Given the novelty and complexity of incorporating SBRT in the oligometastatic setting, the multidisciplinary American Radium Society Lung Cancer Panel was assigned to create appropriate use criteria on SBRT as part of consolidative local therapy for patients with oligometastatic and oligoprogressive non-small cell lung cancer. Methods and Materials A review of the current literature was conducted from January 1, 2008, to December 25, 2020, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to systematically search the PubMed database to retrieve a comprehensive set of relevant articles. Results Based on representation in existing randomized trials, the panel defined the term “oligometastasis” as ≤3 metastatic deposits (not including the primary tumor) in the previously untreated setting or after first-line systemic therapy after the initial diagnosis. “Oligoprogression” also referred to ≤3 discrete areas of progression in the setting of prior or ongoing receipt of systemic therapy. In all appropriate patients, the panel strongly recommends enrollment in a clinical trial whenever available. For oligometastatic disease, administering first-line systemic therapy followed by consolidative radiation therapy (to all sites plus the primary/nodal disease) is preferred over up-front radiation therapy. Owing to a dearth of data, the panel recommended that consolidative radiation therapy be considered on a case-by-case basis for 4 to 5 sites of oligometastatic disease, driver mutation-positive oligometastatic disease without progression on up-front targeted therapy, and oligoprogressive cases. Conclusions Although SBRT/SABR appears to be both safe and effective in treating patients with limited metastatic sites of disease, many clinical circumstances require individualized management and strong multidisciplinary discussion on account of the limited existing data.