Sarah E. Hoffe

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is effective and well tolerated.

PURPOSE Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) provides high rates of local control (LC) and margin-negative (R0) resections for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC), respectively, with minimal toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS A single-institution retrospective review was performed for patients with nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer treated with induction chemotherapy followed by SBRT. SBRT was delivered over 5 consecutive fractions using a dose painting technique including 7-10 Gy/fraction to the region of vessel abutment or encasement and 5-6 Gy/fraction to the remainder of the tumor. Restaging scans were performed at 4 weeks, and resectable patients were considered for resection. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS Seventy-three patients were evaluated, with a median follow-up time of 10.5 months. Median doses of 35 Gy and 25 Gy were delivered to the region of vessel involvement and the remainder of the tumor, respectively. Thirty-two BRPC patients (56.1%) underwent surgery, with 31 undergoing an R0 resection (96.9%). The median OS, 1-year OS, median PFS, and 1-year PFS for BRPC versus LAPC patients was 16.4 months versus 15 months, 72.2% versus 68.1%, 9.7 versus 9.8 months, and 42.8% versus 41%, respectively (all P>.10). BRPC patients who underwent R0 resection had improved median OS (19.3 vs 12.3 months; P=.03), 1-year OS (84.2% vs 58.3%; P=.03), and 1-year PFS (56.5% vs 25.0%; P<.0001), respectively, compared with all nonsurgical patients. The 1-year LC in nonsurgical patients was 81%. We did not observe acute grade ≥3 toxicity, and late grade ≥3 toxicity was minimal (5.3%). CONCLUSIONS SBRT safely facilitates margin-negative resection in patients with BRPC pancreatic cancer while maintaining a high rate of LC in unresectable patients. These data support the expanded implementation of SBRT for pancreatic cancer.

Colon cancer, version 1.2017: Clinical practice guidelines in oncology

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on systemic therapy for muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, as substantial revisions were made in the 2017 updates, such as new recommendations for nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer addresses additional aspects of the management of bladder cancer, including non-muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer and nonurothelial histologies, as well as staging, evaluation, and follow-up.

The Confluence of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy and Tumor Immunology

Stereotactic radiation approaches are gaining more popularity for the treatment of intracranial as well as extracranial tumors in organs such as the liver and lung. Technology, rather than biology, is driving the rapid adoption of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), also known as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), in the clinic due to advances in precise positioning and targeting. Dramatic improvements in tumor control have been demonstrated; however, our knowledge of normal tissue biology response mechanisms to large fraction sizes is lacking. Herein, we will discuss how SABR can induce cellular expression of MHC I, adhesion molecules, costimulatory molecules, heat shock proteins, inflammatory mediators, immunomodulatory cytokines, and death receptors to enhance antitumor immune responses.

Randomized Phase III Multi-Institutional Study of TNFerade Biologic With Fluorouracil and Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Final Results

PURPOSE TNFerade biologic is a novel means of delivering tumor necrosis factor alpha to tumor cells by gene transfer. We herein report final results of the largest randomized phase III trial performed to date among patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and the first to test gene transfer against this malignancy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In all, 304 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to standard of care plus TNFerade (SOC + TNFerade) versus standard of care alone (SOC). SOC consisted of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent fluorouracil (200 mg/m(2) per day continuous infusion). TNFerade was injected intratumorally before the first fraction of radiotherapy each week at a dose of 4 × 10(11) particle units by using either a percutaneous transabdominal or an endoscopic ultrasound approach. Four weeks after chemoradiotherapy, patients began gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) intravenously) with or without erlotinib (100 to 150 mg per day orally) until progression or toxicity. RESULTS The analysis included 187 patients randomly assigned to SOC + TNFerade and 90 to SOC by using a modified intention-to-treat approach. Median follow-up was 9.1 months (range, 0.1 to 50.5 months). Median survival was 10.0 months for patients in both the SOC + TNFerade and SOC arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.22; P = .26). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months for SOC + TNFerade versus 7.0 months for SOC (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.32; P = .51). Among patients treated on the SOC + TNFerade arm, multivariate analysis showed that TNFerade injection by an endoscopic ultrasound-guided transgastric/transduodenal approach rather than a percutaneous transabdominal approach was a risk factor for inferior PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.06 to 4.06; P = .032). The patients in the SOC + TNFerade arm experienced more grade 1 to 2 fever and chills than those in the SOC arm (P < .001) but both arms had similar rates of grade 3 to 4 toxicities (all P > .05). CONCLUSION SOC + TNFerade is safe but not effective for prolonging survival in patients with LAPC.

Neoadjuvant GTX Chemotherapy and IMRT-Based Chemoradiation for Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

To improve the likelihood of achieving a margin‐free resection, neoadjuvant induction chemotherapy with GTX (gemcitabine, docetaxel, and capecitabine) followed by 5‐FU‐IMRT was administered to patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. The utility of computed tomography (CT), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), positron emission tomography (PET), and CA 19‐9 during diagnostic workup and assessment of response was also examined.

Long-term outcomes of induction chemotherapy and neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiotherapy for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Abstract Purpose. Limited data are available to guide neoadjuvant treatment of borderline resectable (BRPC) and locally advanced (LAPC) pancreatic cancer. Material and methods. We updated our institutional outcomes with a neoadjuvant chemotherapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) approach. An IRB-approved analysis was performed of all BRPC and LAPC patients treated with our departmental treatment protocol. After staging, medically fit patients underwent chemotherapy for 2–3 months, with regimen at the discretion of the treating medical oncologist. Patients then received SBRT delivered in five consecutive daily fractions with median total radiation doses of 30 Gy to tumor and 40 Gy dose painted to tumor-vessel interfaces. This was followed by restaging imaging for possible resection. Overall survival (OS), event free survival (EFS), and locoregional control (LRC) rates were estimated and compared by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. Results. We identified 159 patients, 110 BRPC and 49 LAPC, with 14.0 months median overall follow-up. The resection and margin negative (R0) rate for BRPC patients who completed neoadjuvant therapy was 51% and 96%, respectively. Estimated median OS was 19.2 months for BRPC patients and 15.0 months for LAPC patients (p = 0.402). Median OS was 34.2 months for surgically resected patients versus 14.0 months for unresected patients (p < 0.001). Five of 21 (24%) LAPC patients receiving FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy underwent R0 resection. In LAPC, FOLFIRINOX recipients underwent R0 resection more often than other chemotherapy recipients (5 of 21 vs. 0 of 28, p = 0.011). There was a trend for improved survival in those resected LAPC patients (p = 0.09). For those not undergoing resection, one year LRC was 78%. Any grade ≥ 3 potentially radiation-related toxicity rate was 7%. Conclusions. These data underscore the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of neoadjuvant SBRT and chemotherapy for BRPC and LAPC.

Review of current best practice and priorities for research in radiation oncology for elderly patients with cancer: the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) task force

Radiotherapy (RT) is a key component of the management of older cancer patients. Level I evidence in older patients is limited. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) established a task force to make recommendations for curative RT in older patients and to identify future research priorities. Evidence-based guidelines are provided for breast, lung, endometrial, prostate, rectal, pancreatic, oesophageal, head and neck, central nervous system malignancies and lymphomas. Patient selection should include comorbidity and geriatric evaluation. Advances in radiation planning and delivery improve target coverage, reduce toxicity and widen eligibility for treatment. Shorter courses of hypofractionated whole breast RT are safe and effective. Conformal RT and involved-field techniques without elective nodal irradiation have improved outcomes in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without increasing toxicity. Where comorbidities preclude surgery, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an option for early-stage NSCLC and pancreatic cancer. Modern involved-field RT for lymphoma based on pre-treatment positron emission tomography data has reduced toxicity. Significant comorbidity is a relative contraindication to aggressive treatment in low-risk prostate cancer (PC). For intermediate-risk disease, 4-6 months of hormones are combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). For high-risk PC, combined modality therapy (CMT) is advised. For high-intermediate risk, endometrial cancer vaginal brachytherapy is recommended. Short-course EBRT is an alternative to CMT in older patients with rectal cancer without significant comorbidities. Endorectal RT may be an option for early disease. For primary brain tumours, shorter courses of postoperative RT following maximal debulking provide equivalent survival to longer schedules. MGMT methylation status may help select older patients for temozolomide alone. Stereotactic RT provides an alternative to whole-brain RT in patients with limited brain metastases. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy provides an excellent technique to reduce dose to the carotids in head and neck cancer and improves locoregional control in oesophageal cancer. Best practice and research priorities are summarised.

Cancer and Age: General Considerations

Cancer in the older person is increasingly common. The biological interactions of cancer with age are only partly understood and may provide some clues to future forms of cancer prevention and treatment. Management-related decisions in a population with limited life expectancy and limited functional reserve should be based on the natural history of the cancer, the patient’s life expectancy, and the patient’s tolerance of treatment. In addition, financial and caregiver considerations are important in assessing the treatment’s benefits and risks. Cooperation between geriatricians and oncologists seems to be essential to generate predictive models, as well as outcome information to improve the decision making in older cancer patients. It may also be essential in caring for a host of older cancer survivors. In France, this cooperation is already a reality that finds its expression in a network of units of oncogeriatrics distributed throughout the country.

Radiation Therapy and Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND Squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma account for more than 90% of all esophageal cancer cases. Although the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma has declined, the incidence of adenocarcinoma has risen due to increases in obesity and gastroesophageal reflux disease. METHODS The authors examine the role of radiation therapy alone (external beam and brachytherapy) for the management of esophageal cancer or combined with other modalities. The impact on staging and appropriate stratification of patients referred for curative vs palliative intent with modalities is reviewed. The authors also explore the role of emerging radiation technologies. RESULTS Current data show that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection is the accepted standard of care, with 3-year overall survival rates ranging from 30% to 60%. The benefit of adjuvant radiation therapy is limited to patients with node-positive cancer. The survival benefit of surgical resection after chemoradiotherapy remains controversial. External beam radiation therapy alone results in few long-term survivors and is considered palliative at best. Radiation dose-escalation has failed to improve local control or survival. Brachytherapy can provide better long-term palliation of dysphagia than metal stent placement. Although three-dimensional conformal treatment planning is the accepted standard, the roles of IMRT and proton therapy are evolving and potentially reduce adverse events due to better sparing of normal tissue. CONCLUSIONS Future directions will evaluate the benefit of induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy, the role of surgery in locally advanced disease, and the identification of responders prior to treatment based on microarray analysis.

Overview of Diagnosis and Management of Metastatic Disease to Bone

BACKGROUND Bone metastases occur frequently in patients with advanced cancer and are a serious complication of cancer. The decision to treat is often individualized, based on each patients clinical presentation, life expectancy, and quality of life. METHODS We reviewed the current literature pertaining to management of metastatic disease to bone, and the medical, radiotherapeutic, and surgical treatment options for management of bone metastasis are discussed. RESULTS Current management of skeletal metastasis includes analgesia, systemic therapy, radiation therapy, and surgery. We propose treatment algorithms for management of vertebral and nonvertebral bone metastases and suggest individualized interventions based on clinical presentation. CONCLUSIONS Management of bone metastases is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach. The goal of treatment is often palliative, and intervention and treatment regimens should be individualized based on the specific clinical presentation of each patient.