SBRT for lung oligometastases: Who is the perfect candidate?

AimTo analyze the literature data about lung oligometastatic patients who underwent SBRT with regard to doses, fractionation, outcomes, response assessment and prognostic factors, trying to define “the right patient” for the local treatment.Background“Oligometastatic disease” is defined as a state in which metastases are limited in number and site and characterized by unusual cancer biology and behavior. In this setting local therapy could have a potential curative role. Recently, technological advances in Radiation Oncology permitted the introduction of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT), a novel treatment modality that delivers ablative dose of radiation to the extra-cranial sites with high precision using single or a small number of fractions.Materials and methodsWe performed a literature search using Medical Subject Heading terms “stereotactic body radiation therapy” and “lung metastases”, considering a period of 10 years.ResultsMany non-randomized studies have shown that SBRT for lung oligometastases is safe and effective, with local control rates of about 80%. To date SBRT represents an alternative and competitive option in patients with lung oligometastatic disease who refuse surgical treatment or unsuitable for surgery. Based on published studies, SBRT might have major benefit for a patient with breast histology, disease-free interval ≥12 months, control of the primary tumor, small lesions, limited number of lesions and higher radiation dose delivered.ConclusionsWell-designed collaborative trials are necessary to draw final conclusions. To date, the discussion within a multidisciplinary team becomes crucial to perform a careful patients’ selection in the setting of oligometastatic disease

Critical appraisal of the role of volumetric modulated arc therapy in the radiation therapy management of breast cancer

Background: The aim of this review is the critical appraisal of the current use of volumetric modulated arc therapy for the radiation therapy management of breast cancer. Both clinical and treatment planning studies were investigated. Material and methods: A Pubmed/MEDLINE search of the National Library of Medicine was performed to identify VMAT and breast related articles. After a first order rejection of the irrelevant findings, the remaining articles were grouped according to two main categories: clinical vs. planning studies and to some sub-categories (pointing to significant technical features). Main areas of application, dosimetric and clinical findings as well as areas of innovations were defined. Results: A total of 131 articles were identified and of these, 67 passed a first order selection. Six studies reported clinical results while 61 treatment dealed with treatment planning investigations. Among the innovation lines, the use of high intensity photon beams (flattening filter free), altered fractionation schemes (simultaneous integrated boost, accelerated partial breast irradiation, single fraction), prone positioning and modification of standard VMAT (use of dynamic trajectories or hybrid VMAT methods) resulted among the main relevant fields of interest. Approximately 10% of the publications reported upon respiratory gating in conjunction with VMAT. Conclusions: The role of VMAT in the radiation treatment of breast cancer seems to be consolidated in the in-silico arena while still limited evidence and only one phase II trial appeared in literature from the clinical viewpoint. More clinical reports are needed to fully proove the expected dosimetric benefits demonstrated in the planning investigations

Multimodality therapy approaches, local and systemic treatment, compared with chemotherapy alone in recurrent glioblastoma

BACKGROUND: Long-term local control in Glioblastoma is rarely achieved and nearly all patients relapse. In this study we evaluated the clinical effect of different treatment approaches in recurrent patients. METHODS: Forty-three patients, with median age of 51 years were evaluated for salvage treatment: re-resection and/or re-irradiation plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Response was recorded using the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria. Hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities were graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 4.0. Twenty-one patients underwent chemotherapy combined with local treatment, surgery and/or radiation therapy, and 22 underwent chemotherapy only. RESULTS: The median follow up was 7 months (range 3–28 months). The 1 and 2-years Progression Free Survival was 65 and 10 % for combined treatment and 22 and 0 % for chemotherapy alone (p < 0.01). The 1 and 2-years overall survival was 69 and 29 % for combined and 26 and 0 % for chemotherapy alone (p < 0.01). No toxicity greater than grade 2 was recorded. CONCLUSION: These data showed that in glioblastoma recurrence the combination of several approaches in a limited group of patients is more effective than a single treatment alone. This stress the importance of multimodality treatment whenever clinically feasible

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) in inoperable oligometastatic disease from colorectal cancer: a safe and effective approach

Background: To assess the safety and efficacy of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) in oligometastatic patients from colorectal cancer. Methods: 82 patients with 1-3 inoperable metastases confined to one organ (liver or lung), were treated with SABR for a total of 112 lesions in an observational study. Prescription dose ranged between 48 and 75Gy in 3 or 4 consecutive fractions. Primary end-points were local control (LC), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-point was toxicity. Results: Median follow-up was 24 months (range 3-47). One, two and three years LC rate was 90%,80% and 75% (85%,75% and 70% for lung and 95%, 90% and 85% for liver metastases; no statistically significance was found). The difference in LC between the subgroup of lesions treated with >= 60 Gy (n = 58) and those irradiated with 3 cm (p 3 toxicity. Conclusions: SABR is a safe and feasible alternative treatment of oligometastatic colorectal liver and lung metastases in patients not amenable to surgery or other ablative treatments

AIRO Breast Cancer Group Best Clinical Practice 2022 Update

Introduction: Breast cancer is the most common tumor in women and represents the leading cause of cancer death. Radiation therapy plays a key-role in the treatment of all breast cancer stages. Therefore, the adoption of evidence-based treatments is warranted, to ensure equity of access and standardization of care in clinical practice.Method: This national document on the highest evidence-based available data was developed and endorsed by the Italian Association of Radiation and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) Breast Cancer Group.We analyzed literature data regarding breast radiation therapy, using the SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) methodology (www.sign.ac.uk). Updated findings from the literature were examined, including the highest levels of evidence (meta-analyses, randomized trials, and international guidelines) with a significant impact on clinical practice. The document deals with the role of radiation therapy in the treatment of primary breast cancer, local relapse, and metastatic disease, with focus on diagnosis, staging, local and systemic therapies, and follow up. Information is given on indications, techniques, total doses, and fractionations.Results: An extensive literature review from 2013 to 2021 was performed. The work was organized according to a general index of different topics and most chapters included individual questions and, when possible, synoptic and summary tables. Indications for radiation therapy in breast cancer were examined and integrated with other oncological treatments. A total of 50 questions were analyzed and answered.Four large areas of interest were investigated: (1) general strategy (multidisciplinary approach, contraindications, preliminary assessments, staging and management of patients with electronic devices); (2) systemic therapy (primary, adjuvant, in metastatic setting); (3) clinical aspects (invasive, non-invasive and micro-invasive carcinoma; particular situations such as young and elderly patients, breast cancer in males and cancer during pregnancy; follow up with possible acute and late toxicities; loco-regional relapse and metastatic disease); (4) technical aspects (radiation after conservative surgery or mastectomy, indications for boost, lymph node radiotherapy and partial breast irradiation).Appendixes about tumor bed boost and breast and lymph nodes contouring were implemented, including a dedicated web application. The scientific work was reviewed and validated by an expert group of breast cancer key-opinion leaders.Conclusions: Optimal breast cancer management requires a multidisciplinary approach sharing therapeutic strategies with the other involved specialists and the patient, within a coordinated and dedicated clinical path. In recent years, the high-level quality radiation therapy has shown a significant impact on local control and survival of breast cancer patients. Therefore, it is necessary to offer and guarantee accurate treatments according to the best standards of evidence-based medicine

Response assessment and follow-up by imaging in breast tumors

Primary systemic chemotherapy was first introduced for managing inoperable and large or locally advanced breast tumors (Bonadonna et al. 1995). It is also now used for operable tumors that would require mastectomy, trying to reduce tumor size and increase the rate of breast-conserving surgery (Avril et al. 2009). Thus, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has become the standard treatment not only in patients with locally advanced breast cancer but also in patients with early invasive breast cancer in an attempt to downstage the primary cancer and to reduce micrometastases (You et al. 2015). Approximately 70% of patients demonstrate a clinical response either in physical examination or in anatomic imaging, but lastly, only 3–27% achieve a complete histopathologic response (van der Hage et al. 2001). For this reason, there is a need for accurate methods to monitor therapeutic effectiveness early during therapy (Avril et al. 2009)