Ben G. L. Vanneste

Adaptive 3D Image-Guided Brachytherapy: A Strong Argument in the Debate on Systematic Radical Hysterectomy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer

PURPOSE To evaluate the outcomes of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with three-dimensional image-guided brachytherapy (IGABT) after concomitant chemoradiation (CCRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS Data from patients treated with CCRT followed by magnetic resonance imaging-guided or computed tomography-guided pulsed-dose-rate brachytherapy, performed according to the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology guidelines, were reviewed. At first, stage I or II patients systematically underwent radical hysterectomy or were offered a randomized study evaluating hysterectomy. Then, hysterectomy was limited to salvage treatment. RESULTS Of 163 patients identified, 27% had stage IB, 57% had stage II, 12% had stage III, and 3% had stage IVA disease. The mean dose delivered (in 2-Gy dose equivalents) to 90% of the high-risk clinical target volume was 78.1 ± 9.6 Gy, whereas the doses delivered to organs at risk were maintained under the usual thresholds. Sixty-one patients underwent a hysterectomy. Macroscopic residual disease was found in 13 cases. With a median follow-up of 36 months (range, 5-79 months), 45 patients had relapsed. The 3-year overall survival rate was 76%. Local and pelvic control rates were 92% and 86%, respectively. According to the Common Toxicity Criteria 3.0, 7.4% of patients experienced late grade 3 or 4 toxicity. Most of those had undergone postradiation radical surgery (2.9% vs. 14.8; p = .005). CONCLUSION IGABT combined with CCRT provides excellent locoregional control rates with low treatment-related morbidity, justifying the elimination of hysterectomy in the absence of obvious residual disease. Distant metastasis remains an important first relapse and may warrant more aggressive systemic treatment.

Modern clinical research: How rapid learning health care and cohort multiple randomised clinical trials complement traditional evidence based medicine.

ABSTRACT Background. Trials are vital in informing routine clinical care; however, current designs have major deficiencies. An overview of the various challenges that face modern clinical research and the methods that can be exploited to solve these challenges, in the context of personalised cancer treatment in the 21st century is provided. Aim. The purpose of this manuscript, without intending to be comprehensive, is to spark thought whilst presenting and discussing two important and complementary alternatives to traditional evidence-based medicine, specifically rapid learning health care and cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design. Rapid learning health care is an approach that proposes to extract and apply knowledge from routine clinical care data rather than exclusively depending on clinical trial evidence, (please watch the animation: http://youtu.be/ZDJFOxpwqEA). The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design is a pragmatic method which has been proposed to help overcome the weaknesses of conventional randomised trials, taking advantage of the standardised follow-up approaches more and more used in routine patient care. This approach is particularly useful when the new intervention is a priori attractive for the patient (i.e. proton therapy, patient decision aids or expensive medications), when the outcomes are easily collected, and when there is no need of a placebo arm. Discussion. Truly personalised cancer treatment is the goal in modern radiotherapy. However, personalised cancer treatment is also an immense challenge. The vast variety of both cancer patients and treatment options makes it extremely difficult to determine which decisions are optimal for the individual patient. Nevertheless, rapid learning health care and cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design are two approaches (among others) that can help meet this challenge.

Decision support systems for personalized and participative radiation oncology.

Abstract A paradigm shift from current population based medicine to personalized and participative medicine is underway. This transition is being supported by the development of clinical decision support systems based on prediction models of treatment outcome. In radiation oncology, these models ‘learn’ using advanced and innovative information technologies (ideally in a distributed fashion — please watch the animation: http://youtu.be/ZDJFOxpwqEA) from all available/appropriate medical data (clinical, treatment, imaging, biological/genetic, etc.) to achieve the highest possible accuracy with respect to prediction of tumor response and normal tissue toxicity. In this position paper, we deliver an overview of the factors that are associated with outcome in radiation oncology and discuss the methodology behind the development of accurate prediction models, which is a multi‐faceted process. Subsequent to initial development/validation and clinical introduction, decision support systems should be constantly re‐evaluated (through quality assurance procedures) in different patient datasets in order to refine and re‐optimize the models, ensuring the continuous utility of the models. In the reasonably near future, decision support systems will be fully integrated within the clinic, with data and knowledge being shared in a standardized, dynamic, and potentially global manner enabling truly personalized and participative medicine. Graphical abstract Figure. No caption available.

Spacers in radiotherapy treatment of prostate cancer: is reduction of toxicity cost-effective?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE To compare the cost-effectiveness of treating prostate cancer patients with intensity-modulated radiation therapy and a spacer (IMRT+S) versus IMRT-only without a spacer (IMRT-O). MATERIALS AND METHODS A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to examine the effect of late rectal toxicity and compare the costs and quality-adjusted Life Years (QALYs) of IMRT-O and IMRT+S. The main assumption of this modeling study was that disease progression, genito-urinary toxicity and survival were equal for both comparators. RESULTS For all patients, IMRT+S revealed a lower toxicity than IMRT-O. Treatment follow-up and toxicity costs for IMRT-O and IMRT+S amounted to €1604 and €1444, respectively, thus saving €160 on the complication costs at an extra charge of €1700 for the spacer in IMRT+S. The QALYs yielded for IMRT-O and IMRT+S were 3.542 and 3.570, respectively. This results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €55,880 per QALY gained. For a ceiling ratio of €80,000, IMRT+S had a 77% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION IMRT+S is cost-effective compared to IMRT-O based on its potential to reduce radiotherapy-related toxicity.

Chronic radiation proctitis: tricks to prevent and treat.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to give an overview of the measures used to prevent chronic radiation proctitis (CRP) and to provide an algorithm for the treatment of CRP.MethodsMedical literature databases including PubMed and Medline were screened and critically analyzed for relevance in the scope of our purpose.ResultsCRP is a relatively frequent late side effect (5–20%) and mainly dependent on the dose and volume of irradiated rectum. Radiation treatment (RT) techniques to prevent CRP are constantly improving thanks to image-guided RT and intensity-modulated RT. Also, newer techniques like protons and new devices such as rectum spacers and balloons have been developed to spare rectal structures. Biopsies do not contribute to diagnosing CRP and should be avoided because of the risk of severe rectal wall damage, such as necrosis and fistulas. There is no consensus on the optimal treatment of CRP. A variety of possibilities is available and includes topical and oral agents, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and endoscopic interventions.ConclusionsCRP has a natural history of improving over time, even without treatment. This is important to take into account when considering these treatments: first be conservative (topical and oral agents) and be aware that invasive treatments can be very toxic.

Image-guided stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the liver: A safe and effective treatment

AIMS Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a non-invasive treatment option for inoperable patients or patients with irresectable liver tumors. Outcome and toxicity were evaluated retrospectively in this single-institution patient cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between 2010 and 2014, 39 lesions were irradiated in 33 consecutive patients (18 male, 15 female, median age of 68 years). All the lesions were liver metastases (n = 34) or primary hepatocellular carcinomas (n = 5). The patients had undergone four-dimensional respiration-correlated PET-CT for treatment simulation to capture tumor motion. We analyzed local control with a focus on CT-based response at three months, one year and two years after treatment, looking at overall survival and the progression pattern. RESULTS All patients were treated with hypofractionated image-guided stereotactic radiotherapy. The equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions varied from 62.5 Gy to 150 Gy, delivered in 3-10 fractions (median dose 93.8 Gy, alpha/beta = 10). The CT-based regression pattern three months after radiotherapy revealed partial regression in 72.7% of patients with a complete remission in 27.3% of the cases. The site of first progression was predominantly distant. One- and two-year overall survival rates were 85.4% and 68.8%, respectively. No toxicity of grade 2 or higher according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 was observed. CONCLUSION SABR is a safe and efficient treatment for selected inoperable patients or irresectable tumors of the liver. Future studies should combine SABR with systemic treatment acting in synergy with radiation, such as immunological interventions or hypoxic cell radiosensitizers to prevent distant relapse.

Can metformin improve ‘the tomorrow’ of patients treated for oesophageal cancer?

INTRODUCTION Recent studies suggest that the use of metformin is associated with reduced cancer incidence and improved prognosis in patients with oesophageal cancer. We explored the relationship between the use of metformin and outcome (pathologic response rate, distant metastasis-free and overall survival) in our mono-institutional cohort of patients treated for oesophageal cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS Between 2008 and 2014, a total of 196 patients with oesophageal cancer (ages ranged from 37 to 82 years) eligible for curative treatment entered the study. Patients were categorized as non-diabetic (n = 172), diabetic not taking metformin (n = 5) or diabetic taking metformin (n = 19). The majority of patients were treated with trimodality therapy (n = 189). Pathologic response was graded according to Mandards tumour regression score at the time of surgery. Distant metastasis-free and overall survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method with log rank comparisons performed to determine significance. RESULTS The overall pathologic complete response rate for the study population was 26%. It was 25% for patients not using metformin and 39% for diabetics taking metformin (p = 0.260). The two-year overall survival rate for the whole group was 59%. Use of metformin was associated with a significantly better distant metastasis-free survival rate (p = 0.040) or overall survival rate (p = 0.012). Multivariate analysis using Cox regression found that metformin treatment significantly prolonged survival (p = 0.043). CONCLUSION In our population-based study, the use of metformin was associated with an improved overall and distant metastasis-free survival rate in patients with oesophageal cancer. These data are complementary to one other clinical study and warrant further prospective study.

A qualitative synthesis of the evidence behind elective lymph node irradiation in oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Oesophageal cancer is the sixth leading cause of cancer death worldwide and radiotherapy plays a prominent role in its treatment. The presence of lymph node (LN) metastasis has been demonstrated to be one of the most significant prognostic factors related to oesophageal cancer. The use of elective lymph node irradiation (ENI) is still a topic of persistent controversy. The conservative school is to irradiate positive lymph nodes only; the other school is to prophylactically irradiate the regional lymph node area according to different tumour sites. This review investigated the justification for including ENI in the treatment of patients with oesophageal cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS We performed a systematic literature search to find surgical data about lymph node distribution depending on different tumour subgroups: early, cervical, thoracic and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Furthermore, we performed a qualitative assessment of recurrence patterns in patients treated with or without ENI to derive estimates of the potential area at risk for lymph node harvest. RESULTS We identified and reviewed 49 studies: 10 in early, 8 in cervical, 10 in thoracic and the remaining 21 in gastroesophageal junction cancer. In general, these studies were conclusive in incidence and location of pathologic lymph nodes for different subgroups. Data for lymph node recurrence patterns are scarce and contributed little to our review. CONCLUSIONS This review resulted in five recommendations for radiation oncologists in daily practice. We used the available evidence about metastatic lymph node distribution to develop a careful reasonable radiation protocol for the corresponding tumour subgroups.

Who will benefit most from hydrogel rectum spacer implantation in prostate cancer radiotherapy? A model-based approach for patient selection

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Previous studies confirmed that implantable rectum spacers (IRS) decreased acute gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity in a significant percentage of prostate cancer patients undergoing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We developed decision rules based on clinical risk factors (CRFs) to select those patients who are expected to benefit most from IRS implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS For 26 patients dose distributions with (IMRT+IRS) and without (IMRT-IRS) IRS were calculated. Validated nomograms based on CRFs and dosimetric criteria (anorectal V40Gy and V75Gy) were used to predict probabilities for grade 2-3 (G2-3) acute GI toxicity, G2-3 late rectal bleeding (LRB), G3 LRB, and G2-3 faecal incontinence (FI) for IMRT+IRS and IMRT-IRS. All permutations of CRFs were generated to identify most benefit scenarios (MBS) in which a predicted toxicity reduction of ⩾5% points in ⩾25% of the cohort was present due to IRS implantation. RESULTS IMRT+IRS revealed a significant reduction in V40Gy (p=0.0357) and V75Gy (p<0.0001) relative to IMRT-IRS. For G2-3 acute GI toxicity and G2-3 LRB, the predicted toxicity rates decreased in 17/26 (65%) and 20/26 (77%) patients, and decision rules were derived for 22/32 (69%) and 12/64 (19%) MBS, respectively. From the decision rules, it follows that diabetes status has no impact on G2-3 acute toxicity, and in absence of pre-RT abdominal surgery, the implantation of an IRS is predicted to show no clinically relevant benefit for G2-3 LRB. CONCLUSIONS Prostate cancer patients who are expected to benefit most from IRS implantation can be identified prior to IMRT based on their CRFs profile.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy: What Do Clinicians Have to Know?

Radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PC) has steadily evolved over the last decades, with improving biochemical disease-free survival. Recently population based research also revealed an association between overall survival and doses ≥ 75.6 Gray (Gy) in men with intermediate- and high-risk PC. Examples of improved RT techniques are image-guided RT, intensity-modulated RT, volumetric modulated arc therapy, and stereotactic ablative body RT, which could facilitate further dose escalation. Brachytherapy is an internal form of RT that also developed substantially. New devices such as rectum spacers and balloons have been developed to spare rectal structures. Newer techniques like protons and carbon ions have the intrinsic characteristics maximising the dose on the tumour while minimising the effect on the surrounding healthy tissue, but clinical data are needed for confirmation in randomised phase III trials. Furthermore, it provides an overview of an important discussion issue in PC treatment between urologists and radiation oncologists: the comparison between radical prostatectomy and RT. Current literature reveals that all possible treatment modalities have the same cure rate, but a different toxicity pattern. We recommend proposing the possible different treatment modalities with their own advantages and side-effects to the individual patient. Clinicians and patients should make treatment decisions together (shared decision-making) while using patient decision aids.