Carol A. Hahn

Palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: An ASTRO evidence-based guideline

PURPOSE To present guidance for patients and physicians regarding the use of radiotherapy in the treatment of bone metastases according to current published evidence and complemented by expert opinion. METHODS AND MATERIALS A systematic search of the National Library of Medicines PubMed database between 1998 and 2009 yielded 4,287 candidate original research articles potentially applicable to radiotherapy for bone metastases. A Task Force composed of all authors synthesized the published evidence and reached a consensus regarding the recommendations contained herein. RESULTS The Task Force concluded that external beam radiotherapy continues to be the mainstay for the treatment of pain and/or prevention of the morbidity caused by bone metastases. Various fractionation schedules can provide significant palliation of symptoms and/or prevent the morbidity of bone metastases. The evidence for the safety and efficacy of repeat treatment to previously irradiated areas of peripheral bone metastases for pain was derived from both prospective studies and retrospective data, and it can be safe and effective. The use of stereotactic body radiotherapy holds theoretical promise in the treatment of new or recurrent spine lesions, although the Task Force recommended that its use be limited to highly selected patients and preferably within a prospective trial. Surgical decompression and postoperative radiotherapy is recommended for spinal cord compression or spinal instability in highly selected patients with sufficient performance status and life expectancy. The use of bisphosphonates, radionuclides, vertebroplasty, and kyphoplasty for the treatment or prevention of cancer-related symptoms does not obviate the need for external beam radiotherapy in appropriate patients. CONCLUSIONS Radiotherapy is a successful and time efficient method by which to palliate pain and/or prevent the morbidity of bone metastases. This Guideline reviews the available data to define its proper use and provide consensus views concerning contemporary controversies or unanswered questions that warrant prospective trial evaluation.

Radiotherapeutic and surgical management for newly diagnosed brain metastasis(es): An American Society for Radiation Oncology evidence-based guideline

Purpose To systematically review the evidence for the radiotherapeutic and surgical management of patients newly diagnosed with intraparenchymal brain metastases. Methods and Materials Key clinical questions to be addressed in this evidence-based Guideline were identified. Fully published randomized controlled trials dealing with the management of newly diagnosed intraparenchymal brain metastases were searched systematically and reviewed. The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force levels of evidence were used to classify various options of management. Results The choice of management in patients with newly diagnosed single or multiple brain metastases depends on estimated prognosis and the aims of treatment (survival, local treated lesion control, distant brain control, neurocognitive preservation). Single brain metastasis and good prognosis (expected survival 3 months or more): For a single brain metastasis larger than 3 to 4 cm and amenable to safe complete resection, whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and surgery (level 1) should be considered. Another alternative is surgery and radiosurgery/radiation boost to the resection cavity (level 3). For single metastasis less than 3 to 4 cm, radiosurgery alone or WBRT and radiosurgery or WBRT and surgery (all based on level 1 evidence) should be considered. Another alternative is surgery and radiosurgery or radiation boost to the resection cavity (level 3). For single brain metastasis (less than 3 to 4 cm) that is not resectable or incompletely resected, WBRT and radiosurgery, or radiosurgery alone should be considered (level 1). For nonresectable single brain metastasis (larger than 3 to 4 cm), WBRT should be considered (level 3). Multiple brain metastases and good prognosis (expected survival 3 months or more): For selected patients with multiple brain metastases (all less than 3 to 4 cm), radiosurgery alone, WBRT and radiosurgery, or WBRT alone should be considered, based on level 1 evidence. Safe resection of a brain metastasis or metastases causing significant mass effect and postoperative WBRT may also be considered (level 3). Patients with poor prognosis (expected survival less than 3 months): Patients with either single or multiple brain metastases with poor prognosis should be considered for palliative care with or without WBRT (level 3). It should be recognized, however, that there are limitations in the ability of physicians to accurately predict patient survival. Prognostic systems such as recursive partitioning analysis, and diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment may be helpful. Conclusions Radiotherapeutic intervention (WBRT or radiosurgery) is associated with improved brain control. In selected patients with single brain metastasis, radiosurgery or surgery has been found to improve survival and locally treated metastasis control (compared with WBRT alone).

Fractionation for whole breast irradiation: An American society for radiation oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based guideline

PURPOSE In patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery, randomized trials have found little difference in local control and survival outcomes between patients treated with conventionally fractionated (CF-) whole breast irradiation (WBI) and those receiving hypofractionated (HF)-WBI. However, it remains controversial whether these results apply to all subgroups of patients. We therefore developed an evidence-based guideline to provide direction for clinical practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS A task force authorized by the American Society for Radiation Oncology weighed evidence from a systematic literature review and produced the recommendations contained herein. RESULTS The majority of patients in randomized trials were aged 50 years or older, had disease Stage pT1-2 pN0, did not receive chemotherapy, and were treated with a radiation dose homogeneity within ±7% in the central axis plane. Such patients experienced equivalent outcomes with either HF-WBI or CF-WBI. Patients not meeting these criteria were relatively underrepresented, and few of the trials reported subgroup analyses. For patients not receiving a radiation boost, the task force favored a dose schedule of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions when HF-WBI is planned. The task force also recommended that the heart should be excluded from the primary treatment fields (when HF-WBI is used) due to lingering uncertainty regarding late effects of HF-WBI on cardiac function. The task force could not agree on the appropriateness of a tumor bed boost in patients treated with HF-WBI. CONCLUSION Data were sufficient to support the use of HF-WBI for patients with early-stage breast cancer who met all the aforementioned criteria. For other patients, the task force could not reach agreement either for or against the use of HF-WBI, which nevertheless should not be interpreted as a contraindication to its use.

Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: AUA/ASTRO guideline

PURPOSE The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the use of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy as adjuvant or salvage therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic literature review using the PubMed®, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the use of radiotherapy after prostatectomy. The review yielded 294 articles; these publications were used to create the evidence-based guideline statements. Additional guidance is provided as Clinical Principles when insufficient evidence existed. RESULTS Guideline statements are provided for patient counseling, the use of radiotherapy in the adjuvant and salvage contexts, defining biochemical recurrence, and conducting a re-staging evaluation. CONCLUSIONS Physicians should offer adjuvant radiotherapy to patients with adverse pathologic findings at prostatectomy (i.e., seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension) and should offer salvage radiotherapy to patients with prostatic specific antigen or local recurrence after prostatectomy in whom there is no evidence of distant metastatic disease. The offer of radiotherapy should be made in the context of a thoughtful discussion of possible short- and long-term side effects of radiotherapy as well as the potential benefits of preventing recurrence. The decision to administer radiotherapy should be made by the patient and the multi-disciplinary treatment team with full consideration of the patients history, values, preferences, quality of life, and functional status. Please visit the ASTRO and AUA websites (http://www.redjournal.org/webfiles/images/journals/rob/RAP%20Guideline.pdf and http://www.auanet.org/education/guidelines/radiation-after-prostatectomy.cfm) to view this guideline in its entirety, including the full literature review.

Prospective study of neuropsychologic testing and quality-of-life assessment of adults with primary malignant brain tumors

PURPOSE To identify the characteristics of adult patients with newly diagnosed primary brain tumors associated with identifiable deficits in neuropsychologic function to target interventions to improve function and quality of life (QOL). MATERIALS AND METHODS Adult patients with newly diagnosed primary brain tumors and their caregivers were enrolled and underwent a battery of standardized neuropsychologic tests, allowing for qualitative and quantitative assessment and sensitive to the effects of the brain tumor, QOL, or caregiver stress. RESULTS We enrolled 68 patients with no prior radiotherapy. Patients with left hemisphere tumors reported significantly more memory problems and depressive symptoms. They also exhibited poorer attention and were more distractible, with poorer verbal fluency and poorer verbal learning. Patients with glioblastoma multiforme demonstrated poorer psychomotor speed and visual tracking than patients with non-glioblastoma multiforme histologic features. Patients and caregivers perceived QOL in a similar fashion, with significant correlation between patient and caregiver on hope testing and general QOL on the Linear Analog Self-Assessment Scale. CONCLUSIONS Patients with left hemisphere tumors and glioblastoma multiforme histologic features demonstrated testable differences in neuropsychologic function and QOL that may be amenable to improvement with medical therapy or tailored rehabilitation programs. Caregiver assessments can predict patient QOL, which may be useful in patients with declining status.

Update of the International Consensus on Palliative Radiotherapy Endpoints for Future Clinical Trials in Bone Metastases

PURPOSE To update the international consensus on palliative radiotherapy endpoints for future clinical trials in bone metastases by surveying international experts regarding previous uncertainties within the 2002 consensus, changes that may be necessary based on practice pattern changes and research findings since that time. METHODS AND MATERIALS A two-phase survey was used to determine revisions and new additions to the 2002 consensus. A total of 49 experts from the American Society for Radiation Oncology, the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, the Faculty of Radiation Oncology of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, and the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology who are directly involved in the care of patients with bone metastases participated in this survey. RESULTS Consensus was established in areas involving response definitions, eligibility criteria for future trials, reirradiation, changes in systemic therapy, radiation techniques, parameters at follow-up, and timing of assessments. CONCLUSION An outline for trials in bone metastases was updated based on survey and consensus. Investigators leading trials in bone metastases are encouraged to adopt the revised guideline to promote consistent reporting. Areas for future research were identified. It is intended for the consensus to be re-examined in the future on a regular basis.

Adjuvant and salvage radiation therapy after prostatectomy: American society for radiation oncology/american urological association guidelines

PURPOSE The purpose of this guideline was to provide a clinical framework for the use of radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy as adjuvant or salvage therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS A systematic literature review using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane database was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the use of radiation therapy after prostatectomy. The review yielded 294 articles; these publications were used to create the evidence-based guideline statements. Additional guidance is provided as Clinical Principles when insufficient evidence existed. RESULTS Guideline statements are provided for patient counseling, use of radiation therapy in the adjuvant and salvage contexts, defining biochemical recurrence, and conducting a restaging evaluation. CONCLUSIONS Physicians should offer adjuvant radiation therapy to patients with adverse pathologic findings at prostatectomy (ie, seminal vesicle invastion, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension) and salvage radiation therapy to patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or local recurrence after prostatectomy in whom there is no evidence of distant metastatic disease. The offer of radiation therapy should be made in the context of a thoughtful discussion of possible short- and long-term side effects of radiation therapy as well as the potential benefits of preventing recurrence. The decision to administer radiation therapy should be made by the patient and the multidisciplinary treatment team with full consideration of the patients history, values, preferences, quality of life, and functional status. The American Society for Radiation Oncology and American Urological Association websites show this guideline in its entirety, including the full literature review.

Palliative thoracic radiotherapy in lung cancer: An American Society for Radiation Oncology evidence-based clinical practice guideline

Purpose To provide guidance to physicians and patients with regard to the use of external beam radiotherapy, endobronchial brachytherapy, and concurrent chemotherapy in the setting of palliative thoracic treatment for lung cancer, based on available evidence complemented by expert opinion. Methods and Materials A Task Force authorized by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Board of Directors synthesized and assessed evidence from 3 systematic reviews on the following topics: (1) dose fractionation in thoracic external beam radiotherapy (EBRT); (2) clinical utility of initial and salvage endobronchial brachytherapy (EBB); and (3) use of concurrent chemotherapy (CC) with palliative thoracic radiotherapy. Practice guideline recommendations were produced and are contained herein. Results Studies suggest that higher dose/fractionation palliative EBRT regimens (eg, 30 Gy/10 fraction equivalent or greater) are associated with modest improvements in survival and total symptom score, particularly in patients with good performance status. As these improvements are associated with an increase in esophageal toxicity, various shorter EBRT dose/fractionation schedules (eg, 20 Gy in 5 fractions, 17 Gy in 2 weekly fractions, 10 Gy in 1 fraction), which provide good symptomatic relief with fewer side effects, can be used for patients requesting a shorter treatment course and/or in those with a poor performance status. No defined role for EBB in the routine initial palliative treatment of chest disease has been demonstrated; however, EBB can be a reasonable option for the palliation of endobronchial lesions causing obstructive symptomatology including lung collapse, or for hemoptysis after EBRT failure. The integration of concurrent chemotherapy with palliative intent/fractionated radiotherapy is not currently supported by the medical literature. Conclusion This Guideline is intended to serve as a guide for the use of EBRT, EBB, and CC in thoracic palliation of lung cancer outside the clinical trial setting. Further prospective clinical investigations with relevant palliative endpoints into the respective roles of EBB and CC/targeted therapy in the thoracic palliation of lung cancer are warranted, given the current state of the medical literature in these areas.

Gastrointestinal toxicity of transperineal interstitial prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE To characterize the severity and time course of rectal toxicity following transperineal prostate brachytherapy using prospectively recorded data, and to determine factors associated with toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS One hundred thirty-four patients with prostate cancer treated with transperineal brachytherapy from 1997 to 1999 had rectal toxicity data available for analysis. Patients with Gleason score (GS) > 6, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 6, or stage > T2a were treated initially with external beam radiation therapy followed by brachytherapy boost; patients with none of these features were treated with brachytherapy alone. Both iodine-125 and palladium-103 sources were used, and loaded according to a modified Quimby distribution. At each follow-up, toxicity was recorded according to a modified RTOG gastrointestinal scale. RESULTS Thirty-nine percent of patients experienced gastrointestinal toxicity, mostly Grade 1. Median duration of symptoms was 6 months. Two patients experienced Grade 3 toxicity, both of whom had minimal symptoms until their 12-month follow-up. There was no Grade 4 or 5 toxicity. The addition of external beam radiation therapy (p = 0.003), higher clinical stage (p = 0.006), and Caucasian race (p = 0.01) were associated with increased incidence of toxicity. CONCLUSION Most patients with rectal toxicity have very mild symptoms. There is a small risk of severe late toxicity. External beam radiation, higher stage, and race are associated with toxicity.

Palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases: Update of an ASTRO Evidence-Based Guideline.

PURPOSE The purpose is to provide an update the Bone Metastases Guideline published in 2011 based on evidence complemented by expert opinion. The update will discuss new high-quality literature for the 8 key questions from the original guideline and implications for practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS A systematic PubMed search from the last date included in the original Guideline yielded 414 relevant articles. Ultimately, 20 randomized controlled trials, 32 prospective nonrandomized studies, and 4 meta-analyses/pooled analyses were selected and abstracted into evidence tables. The authors synthesized the evidence and reached consensus on the included recommendations. RESULTS Available literature continues to support pain relief equivalency between single and multiple fraction regimens for bone metastases. High-quality data confirm single fraction radiation therapy may be delivered to spine lesions with acceptable late toxicity. One prospective, randomized trial confirms both peripheral and spine-based painful metastases can be successfully and safely palliated with retreatment for recurrence pain with adherence to published dosing constraints. Advanced radiation therapy techniques such as stereotactic body radiation therapy lack high-quality data, leading the panel to favor its use on a clinical trial or when results will be collected in a registry. The panels conclusion remains that surgery, radionuclides, bisphosphonates, and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty do not obviate the need for external beam radiation therapy. CONCLUSION Updated data analysis confirms that radiation therapy provides excellent palliation for painful bone metastases and that retreatment is safe and effective. Although adherence to evidence-based medicine is critical, thorough expert radiation oncology physician judgment and discretion regarding number of fractions and advanced techniques are also essential to optimize outcomes when considering the patients overall health, life expectancy, comorbidities, tumor biology, anatomy, previous treatment including prior radiation at or near current site of treatment, tumor and normal tissue response history to local and systemic therapies, and other factors related to the patient, tumor characteristics, or treatment.