Theodore S. Hong

Elective clinical target volumes for conformal therapy in anorectal cancer: a radiation therapy oncology group consensus panel contouring atlas.

PURPOSE To develop a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) atlas of the elective clinical target volume (CTV) definitions to be used for planning pelvic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for anal and rectal cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS The Gastrointestinal Committee of the RTOG established a task group (the nine physician co-authors) to develop this atlas. They responded to a questionnaire concerning three elective CTVs (CTVA: internal iliac, presacral, and perirectal nodal regions for both anal and rectal case planning; CTVB: external iliac nodal region for anal case planning and for selected rectal cases; CTVC: inguinal nodal region for anal case planning and for select rectal cases), and to outline these areas on individual computed tomographic images. The imaging files were shared via the Advanced Technology Consortium. A program developed by one of the co-authors (I.E.N.) used binomial maximum-likelihood estimates to generate a 95% group consensus contour. The computer-estimated consensus contours were then reviewed by the group and modified to provide a final contouring consensus atlas. RESULTS The panel achieved consensus CTV definitions to be used as guidelines for the adjuvant therapy of rectal cancer and definitive therapy for anal cancer. The most important difference from similar atlases for gynecologic or genitourinary cancer is mesorectal coverage. Detailed target volume contouring guidelines and images are discussed. CONCLUSION This report serves as a template for the definition of the elective CTVs to be used in IMRT planning for anal and rectal cancers, as part of prospective RTOG trials.

Radiological and surgical implications of neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE On the basis of the ACCORD trial, FOLFIRINOX is effective in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), making it a rational choice for locally advanced PDAC (LA). Aims of this study are to evaluate the accuracy of imaging in determining the resectability of PDAC and to determine the surgical and clinicopathologic outcomes of pancreatic resections after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Clinicopathologic data were retrospectively collected for surgical PDAC patients receiving neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or no neoadjuvant therapy between April 2011 and February 2014. Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association/Society of Surgical Oncology/Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract consensus guidelines defined LA and borderline. Imaging was reviewed by a blinded senior pancreatic surgeon. RESULTS Of 188 patients undergoing resection for PDAC, 40 LA/borderline received FOLFIRINOX and 87 received no neoadjuvant therapy. FOLFIRINOX resulted in a significant decrease in tumor size, yet 19 patients were still classified as LA and 9 as borderline. Despite post-FOLFIRINOX imaging suggesting continued unresectability, 92% had an R0 resection. When compared with no neoadjuvant therapy, FOLFIRINOX resulted in significantly longer operative times (393 vs 300 minutes) and blood loss (600 vs 400 mL), but significantly lower operative morbidity (36% vs 63%) and no postoperative pancreatic fistulas. Length of stay (6 vs 7 days), readmissions (20% vs 30%), and mortality were equivalent (1% vs 0%). On final pathology, the FOLFIRINOX group had a significant decrease in lymph node positivity (35% vs 79%) and perineural invasion (72% vs 95%). Median follow-up was 11 months with a significant increase in overall survival with FOLFIRINOX. CONCLUSIONS After neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX imaging no longer predicts unresectability. Traditional pathologic predictors of survival are improved, and morbidity is decreased in comparison to patients with clearly resectable cancers at the time of presentation.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: is there a survival difference for R1 resections versus locally advanced unresectable tumors? What is a "true" R0 resection?

Objective:Patients who undergo an R0 resection of their pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have an improved survival compared with patients who undergo an R1 resection. It is unclear whether an R1 resection confers a survival benefit over locally advanced (LA) unresectable tumors. Our aim was to compare the survival of patients undergoing an R1 resection with those having LA tumors and to explore the prognostic significance of a 1-mm surgical margin. Methods:Clinicopathologic data from a pancreatic cancer database between January 1993 and July 2008 were reviewed. Locally advanced tumors had no evidence of metastatic disease at exploration. Results:A total of 1705 patients were evaluated for PDAC in the Department of Surgery. Of the 1084 (64%) patients who were surgically explored, 530 (49%) were considered unresectable (286 locally unresectable, 244 with distant metastasis). One hundred fifty-seven (28%) of the resected PDACs had an R1 resection. Patients undergoing an R1 resection had a slightly longer survival compared with those who had locally advanced unresectable cancers (14 vs 11 months; P < 0.001). Patients with R0 resections had a favorable survival compared with those with R1 resections (23 vs 14 months; P < 0.001), but survival after resections with 1-mm margin or less (R0-close) were similar to R1 resections: both groups had a significantly shorter median survival than patients with a margin of greater than 1 mm (R0-wide) (16 vs 14 vs 35 months, respectively; P < 0.001). Conclusions:Patients undergoing an R1 resection still have an improved survival compared with patients with locally advanced unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. R0 resections have an improved survival compared with R1 resections, but this survival benefit is lost when the tumor is within 1 mm of the resection margin.

FOLFIRINOX in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: The Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center Experience

The objective of our retrospective institutional experience is to report the overall response rate, R0 resection rate, progression-free survival, and safety/toxicity of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil [5-FU], oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and leucovorin) and chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Patients with LAPC treated with FOLFIRINOX were identified via the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center pharmacy database. Demographic information, clinical characteristics, and safety/tolerability data were compiled. Formal radiographic review was performed to determine overall response rates (ORRs). Twenty-two patients with LAPC began treatment with FOLFIRINOX between July 2010 and February 2012. The ORR was 27.3%, and the median progression-free survival was 11.7 months. Five of 22 patients were able to undergo R0 resections following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and chemoradiation. Three of the five patients have experienced distant recurrence within 5 months. Thirty-two percent of patients required at least one emergency department visit or hospitalization while being treated with FOLFIRINOX. FOLFIRINOX possesses substantial activity in patients with LAPC. The use of FOLFIRINOX was associated with conversion to resectability in >20% of patients. However, the recurrences following R0 resection in three of five patients and the toxicities observed with the use of this regimen raise important questions about how to best treat patients with LAPC.

FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and patient-level meta-analysis

BACKGROUND 35% of patients with pancreatic cancer have unresectable locally advanced disease at diagnosis. Several studies have examined systemic chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin and fluorouracil plus irinotecan and oxaliplatin) in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment in this patient population. METHODS We systematically searched Embase, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed Publisher, Cochrane, and Google Scholar from July 1, 1994, to July 2, 2015, for studies of treatment-naive patients of any age who received FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival; rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events; and the proportion of patients who underwent radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, surgical resection after FOLFIRINOX, and R0 resection. We evaluated survival outcomes with the Kaplan-Meier method with patient-level data. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and the proportion of patients who underwent subsequent radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or resection, were pooled in a random-effects model. FINDINGS We included 13 studies comprising 689 patients, of whom 355 (52%) patients had locally advanced pancreatic cancer. 11 studies, comprising 315 patients with locally advanced disease, reported survival outcomes and were eligible for patient-level meta-analysis. Median overall survival from the start of FOLFIRINOX ranged from 10·0 months (95% CI 4·0-16·0) to 32·7 months (23·1-42·3) across studies with a pooled patient-level median overall survival of 24·2 months (95% CI 21·7-26·8). Median progression-free survival ranged from 3·0 months (95% CI not calculable) to 20·4 months (6·5-34·3) across studies with a patient-level median progression-free survival of 15·0 months (95% 13·8-16·2). In ten studies comprising 490 patients, 296 grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported (60·4 events per 100 patients). No deaths were attributed to FOLFIRINOX toxicity. The proportion of patients who underwent radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy ranged from 31% to 100% across studies. In eight studies, 154 (57%) of 271 patients received radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy after FOLFIRINOX. The pooled proportion of patients who received any radiotherapy treatment was 63·5% (95% CI 43·3-81·6, I(2) 90%). The proportion of patients who underwent surgical resection for locally advanced pancreatic cancer ranged from 0% to 43%. The proportion of patients who had R0 resection of those who underwent resection ranged from 50% to 100% across studies. In 12 studies, 91 (28%) of 325 patients underwent resection after FOLFIRINOX. The pooled proportion of patients who had resection was 25·9% (95% CI 20·2-31·9, I(2) 24%). R0 resection was reported in 60 (74%) of 81 patients. The pooled proportion of patients who had R0 resection was 78·4% (95% CI 60·2-92·2, I(2) 64%). INTERPRETATION Patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with FOLFIRINOX had a median overall survival of 24·2 months-longer than that reported with gemcitabine (6-13 months). Future research should assess these promising results in a randomised controlled trial, and should establish which patients might benefit from radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or resection after FOLFIRINOX. FUNDING None.

Dose-Painted Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Anal Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Report of Acute Toxicity and Response to Therapy

PURPOSE Chemoradiation for anal cancer yields effective tumor control, but is associated with significant acute toxicity. We report our multi-institutional experience using dose-painted IMRT (DP-IMRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between August 2005 and May 2009, 43 patients were treated with DP-IMRT and concurrent chemotherapy for biopsy-proven, squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal at two academic medical centers. DP-IMRT was prescribed as follows: T2N0: 42 Gy, 1.5 Gy/fraction (fx) to elective nodal planning target volume (PTV) and 50.4 Gy, 1.8 Gy/fx to anal tumor PTV; T3-4N0-3: 45 Gy, 1.5 Gy/fx to elective nodal PTV, and 54 Gy, 1.8 Gy/fx to the anal tumor and metastatic nodal PTV >3 cm with 50.4 Gy, 1.68 Gy/fx to nodal PTVs ≤ 3 cm in size. Acute and late toxicity was reported by the treating physician. Actuarial analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Median age was 58 years; 67% female; 16% Stage I, 37% II; 42% III; 5% IV. Fourteen patients were immunocompromised: 21% HIV-positive and 12% on chronic immunosuppression. Median follow-up was 24 months (range, 0.6-43.5 months). Sixty percent completed chemoradiation without treatment interruption; median duration of treatment interruption was 2 days (range, 2-24 days). Acute Grade 3+ toxicity included: hematologic 51%, dermatologic 10%, gastrointestinal 7%, and genitourinary 7%. Two-year local control, overall survival, colostomy-free survival, and metastasis-free survival were 95%, 94%, 90%, and 92%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Dose-painted IMRT appears effective and well-tolerated as part of a chemoradiation therapy regimen for the treatment of anal canal cancer.

Tumor heterogeneity and lesion-specific response to targeted therapy in colorectal cancer

UNLABELLED How genomic heterogeneity associated with acquired resistance to targeted agents affects response to subsequent therapy is unknown. We studied EGFR blockade in colorectal cancer to assess whether tissue and liquid biopsies can be integrated with radiologic imaging to monitor the impact of individual oncogenic alterations on lesion-specific responses. Biopsy of a patients progressing liver metastasis following prolonged response to cetuximab revealed a MEK1(K57T) mutation as a novel mechanism of acquired resistance. This lesion regressed upon treatment with panitumumab and the MEK inhibitor trametinib. In circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), mutant MEK1 levels declined with treatment, but a previously unrecognized KRAS(Q61H) mutation was also identified that increased despite therapy. This same KRAS mutation was later found in a separate nonresponding metastasis. In summary, parallel analyses of tumor biopsies and serial ctDNA monitoring show that lesion-specific radiographic responses to subsequent targeted therapies can be driven by distinct resistance mechanisms arising within separate tumor lesions in the same patient. SIGNIFICANCE Molecular heterogeneity ensuing from acquired resistance drives lesion-specific responses to subsequent targeted therapies. Analysis of a single-lesion biopsy is inadequate to guide selection of subsequent targeted therapies. ctDNA profiles allow the detection of concomitant resistance mechanisms residing in separate metastases and assessment of the effect of therapies designed to overcome resistance.

Scanned proton radiotherapy for mobile targets-the effectiveness of re-scanning in the context of different treatment planning approaches and for different motion characteristics

The most advanced delivery technique for proton radiotherapy is active spot scanning. So far, predominantly static targets have been treated with active spot scanning, since mobile targets in combination with dynamic treatment delivery can lead to interplay effects, causing inhomogeneous dose distributions. One way to mitigate motion effects is re-scanning. In this study we investigate the effectiveness of re-scanning in relation to different plan parameters (number of fields, field directions, number of re-scans) as well as in respect to different motion parameters (motion amplitude, motion starting phase). A systematic study was performed for three liver patients, for which ten different plans have been calculated, respectively. The treatment plans were evaluated for three different scenarios (static, motion/single-scan-delivery, motion/re-scanned-delivery). The choice of motion parameters was based on an evaluation of the 4D CT data sets of the three patients. It is shown that the effect of motion/re-scanning per fraction is largest the fewer fields per plan are used and the more the field direction differs from the main motion direction. For amplitudes up to 6 mm, re-scanning may not be required if multiple fields are used, since only dose blurring effects appear that cannot be compensated by re-scanning. For larger motion amplitudes two planning strategies are proposed.

Motility-related protein (MRP-1/CD9) and KAI1/CD82 expression inversely correlate with lymph node metastasis in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

SummaryAlthough the mechanisms of action of the transmembrane superfamilies, motility-related protein-1 (MRP-1/CD9) and KAI1/CD82, are not well known, they are reported to suppress the metastasis of several kinds of cancers. The suppression of cell motility by MRP-1/CD9 may cause suppression of the metastasis. As we could not find any reports concerning the expression of MRP-1/CD9 and KAI1/CD82 in oesophageal cancers we investigated their expression in oesophageal specimens. We conducted immunohistochemical staining for MRP-1/CD9 against 108 cases of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma using anti-MRP-1/CD9 monoclonal antibody M31-15, and for KAI1/CD82 against 104 cases using anti-KAI1/CD82 monoclonal antibody C33. To investigate the gradual expression of MRP-1/CD9 and KAI1/CD82, 24 oesophageal dysplasias were immunohistochemically stained using the same method and then investigated.The expression of both MRP-1/CD9 and KAI1/CD82 were positive on the cell membranes of normal oesophageal epithelial cells, but reduced or negative in the cancer cells. Reduced MRP-1/CD9 expressions significantly correlated to tumour depth (P = 0.0009). We found a significantly greater number of reduced or negative expression of MRP-1/CD9 and KAI1/CD82 in lymph node metastatic cases (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.0129, respectively), but not in distant metastatic cases. The 5-year survival rate of MRP-1/CD9-negative and reduced patients was significantly worse than those of positive patients (n = 108, curative cases, RO). Few cases remained KAI1/CD82-positive (9.6%; 10/104) in oesophageal cancer. Twenty (83.3%) and twenty-two (91.7%) cases out of 24 dysplasias were defined as KAI1/CD82-positive and MRP-1/CD9-positive, respectively. The decrease in MRP-1/CD9 and KAI1/CD82 expression may facilitate lymph node metastasis in oesophageal squamous cell carcinomas. Knowing the status of the expression of MRP-1/CD9 appears helpful in predicting the prognosis for each patient.

Potentially Curable Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others on potentially curative therapy for patients with localized pancreatic cancer. METHODS ASCO convened a panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, palliative care, and advocacy experts and conducted a systematic review of literature from January 2002 to June 2015. Outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS Nine randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS A multiphase computed tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis or magnetic resonance imaging should be performed for all patients to assess the anatomic relationships of the primary tumor and for the presence of intra-abdominal metastases. Baseline performance status, comorbidity profile, and goals of care should be evaluated and established. Primary surgical resection is recommended for all patients who have no metastases, appropriate performance and comorbidity profiles, and no radiographic interface between primary tumor and mesenteric vasculature. Preoperative therapy is recommended for patients who meet specific characteristics. All patients with resected pancreatic cancer who did not receive preoperative therapy should be offered 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy in the absence of contraindications. Adjuvant chemoradiation may be offered to patients who did not receive preoperative therapy with microscopically positive margins (R1) after resection and/or who had node-positive disease after completion of 4 to 6 months of systemic adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients should have a full assessment of symptoms, psychological status, and social supports and should receive palliative care early. Patients who have completed treatment and have no evidence of disease should be monitored. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/PCPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.