Organ Preservation in Rectal Cancer: The Patients' Perspective

Organ preservation after a clinical complete response to radiochemotherapy is currently one of the most discussed topics in the management of rectal cancer. However, the patients' perspective has only been poorly studied so far. In this multicenter study, we examined 49 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The willingness to participate in an organ preservation study and the acceptance of the associated aspects such as intensified radiochemotherapy protocols, the need for close follow-up examinations and local regrowth rates were assessed. Attitudes were correlated with baseline quality of life parameters and psychological scales for “fear of progression”, “locus of control”, “depression”, and the “willingness to take risks”. A total of 83% of patients would consider the deferral of surgery in case of a clinical complete response (cCR). Three monthly follow-up studies and a 25% local regrowth rate are considered acceptable by 95% and 94% respectively. While 41% would be willing to exchange cure rates for a non-operative treatment strategy, a potentially more toxic radiochemotherapy in order to increase the probability of a cCR was the aspect with the lowest acceptance (55%). Psychological factors, in particular “locus of control” and “willingness to take risks”, influenced patient preferences regarding most of the assessed parameters. While in general a broad acceptance of an organ-preserving treatment can be expected, patient preferences and concerns regarding different aspects of this strategy vary widely and require specific consideration during shared decision making

MR-guided radiotherapy for liver malignancies

MR guided radiotherapy represents one of the most promising recent technological innovations in the field. The possibility to better visualize therapy volumes, coupled with the innovative online adaptive radiotherapy and motion management approaches, paves the way to more efficient treatment delivery and may be translated in better clinical outcomes both in terms of response and reduced toxicity. The aim of this review is to present the existing evidence about MRgRT applications for liver malignancies, discussing the potential clinical advantages and the current pitfalls of this new technology

MR-Guided Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: Current Perspective on Organ Preservation

Online MRI-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is one of the most recent technological advances in radiotherapy. MRgRT permits the visualization of tumorous and healthy tissue while the patient is on the treatment table and online daily plan adaptations following the observed anatomical changes. In the context of rectal cancer, online MRgRT is a very promising modality due to the pronounced geographical variability of tumor tissues and the surrounding healthy tissues. This current paper will discuss the possible applications of online MRgRT, in particular, in terms of radiotherapy dose escalation and response prediction in organ preservation approaches for rectal cancer

Local control and patient reported outcomes after online MR guided stereotactic body radiotherapy of liver metastases

IntroductionStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is used to treat liver metastases with the intention of ablation. High local control rates were shown. Magnetic resonance imaging guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) provides the opportunity of a marker-less liver SBRT treatment due to the high soft tissue contrast. We report herein on one of the largest cohorts of patients treated with online MRgRT of liver metastases focusing on oncological outcome, toxicity, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), quality of life.Material and methodsPatients treated for liver metastases with online MR-guided SBRT at a 1,5 T MR-Linac (Unity, Elekta, Crawley, UK) between March 2019 and December 2021 were included in this prospective study. UK SABR guidelines were used for organs at risk constraints. Oncological endpoints such as survival parameters (overall survival, progression-free survival) and local control as well as patient reported acceptance and quality of life data (EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire) were assessed. For toxicity scoring the Common Toxicity Criteria Version 5 were used.ResultsA total of 51 patients with 74 metastases were treated with a median of five fractions. The median applied BED GTV D98 was 84,1 Gy. Median follow-up was 15 months. Local control of the irradiated liver metastasis after 12 months was 89,6%, local control of the liver was 40,3%. Overall survival (OS) after 12 months was 85.1%. Progression free survival (PFS) after 12 months was 22,4%. Local control of the irradiated liver lesion was 100% after three years when a BED ≥100 Gy was reached. The number of treated lesions did not impact local control neither of the treated or of the hepatic control. Patient acceptance of online MRgSBRT was high. There were no acute grade ≥ 3 toxicities. Quality of life data showed no significant difference comparing baseline and follow-up data.ConclusionOnline MR guided radiotherapy is a noninvasive, well-tolerated and effective treatment for liver metastases. Further prospective trials with the goal to define patients who actually benefit most from an online adaptive workflow are currently ongoing

Magnetic Resonance Guided Radiation Therapy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Advantages, Challenges, Current Approaches, and Future Directions

Introduction: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) has some of the worst treatment outcomes for any solid tumor. PAC creates substantial difficulty for effective treatment with traditional RT delivery strategies primarily secondary to its location and limited visualization using CT. Several of these challenges are uniquely addressed with MR-guided RT. We sought to summarize and place into context the currently available literature on MR-guided RT specifically for PAC. Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify manuscript publications since September 2014 that specifically used MR-guided RT for the treatment of PAC. Clinical outcomes of these series are summarized, discussed, and placed into the context of the existing pancreatic literature. Multiple international experts were involved to optimally contextualize these publications. Results: Over 300 manuscripts were reviewed. A total of 6 clinical outcomes publications were identified that have treated patients with PAC using MR guidance. Successes, challenges, and future directions for this technology are evident in these publications. MR-guided RT holds theoretical promise for the treatment of patients with PAC. As with any new technology, immediate or dramatic clinical improvements associated with its use will take time and experience. There remain no prospective trials, currently publications are limited to small retrospective experiences. The current level of evidence for MR guidance in PAC is low and requires significant expansion. Future directions and ongoing studies that are currently open and accruing are identified and reviewed. Conclusions: The potential promise of MR-guided RT for PAC is highlighted, the challenges associated with this novel therapeutic intervention are also reviewed. Outcomes are very early, and will require continued and long term follow up. MR-guided RT should not be viewed in the same fashion as a novel chemotherapeutic agent for which dosing, administration, and toxicity has been established in earlier phase studies. Instead, it should be viewed as a novel procedural intervention which must be robustly tested, refined and practiced before definitive conclusions on the potential benefits or detriments can be determined. The future of MR-guided RT for PAC is highly promising and the potential implications on PAC are substantial

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Combined with Regional Hyperthermia in Locally Advanced or Recurrent Rectal Cancer

Background: To prospectively analyze feasibility and pathological complete response (pCR) rates of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with regional hyperthermia (RHT) in patients with locally advanced (LARC) or recurrent (LRRC) rectal cancer. Methods: between 2012 and 2018, 111 patients with UICC stage IIB-IV or any locally recurrent rectal cancer were included (HyRec-Trial, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01716949). Patients received radiotherapy with concurrent 5-Fluororuracil (5-FU)/Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin, and RHT. Stage 1 feasibility analysis evaluated dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) after 19 patients, stage 2 after 59 evaluable patients. Analysis of the pCR rate was based on histopathological reports. Results: the feasibility rates for stages 1 and 2 were 90% (17/19) and 73% (43/59), respectively. In the intention-to-treat population the pCR rate was 19% (20/105; 90% confidence interval (CI) 13.0–26.5). In the per-protocol-analysis, complete tumor regression was seen in 28% (18/64) and 38% (3/8) of the patients with LARC and LRRC, respectively. Complete resection rates (R0) among patients with LARC and LRRC who received surgery were 99% (78/84) and 67% (8/12). Conclusions: the intensified neoadjuvant and multimodality treatment schedule was feasible and led to comparable early toxicity rates as described by other trials that used the similar chemoradiation protocol. The presented treatment regimen resulted in a very high pCR rate and appears as a promising option for patients with LRRC

Definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A Delphi consensus study in Europe

BACKGROUND Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). CONCLUSION The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials

Local Control Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Liver Oligometastases: Lessons from a Quarter Century

The utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy for the treatment of liver metastasis has been widely studied and has demonstrated favorable local control outcomes. However, several predictive factors play a crucial role in the efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy, such as the number and size (volume) of metastatic liver lesions, the primary tumor site (histology), molecular biomarkers (e.g., KRAS and TP53 mutation), the use of systemic therapy prior to SBRT, the radiation dose, and the use of advanced technology and organ motion management during SBRT. These prognostic factors need to be considered when clinical trials are designed to evaluate the efficacy of SBRT for liver metastases

Impact of endorectal filling on interobserver variability of MRI based rectal primary tumor delineation

Background: Online adaptive MR-guided radiotherapy allows for the reduction of safety margins in dose escalated treatment of rectal tumors. With the use of smaller margins, precise tumor delineation becomes more critical. In the present study we investigated the impact of rectal ultrasound gel filling on interobserver variability in delineation of primary rectal tumor volumes. Methods: Six patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were scanned on a 1.5 T MRI-Linac without (MRI_e) and with application of 100 cc of ultrasound gel transanally (MRI_f). Eight international radiation oncologists expert in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancers delineated the gross tumor volume (GTV) on both MRI scans. MRI_f scans were provided to the participating centers after MRI_e scans had been returned. Interobserver variability was analyzed by either comparing the observers’ delineations with a reference delineation (approach 1) and by building all possible pairs between observers (approach 2). Dice Similarity Index (DICE) and 95 % Hausdorff-Distance (95 %HD) were calculated. Results: Rectal ultrasound gel filling was well tolerated by all patients. Overall, interobserver agreement was superior in MRI_f scans based on median DICE (0.81 vs 0.74, p < 0.005 for approach 1 and 0.76 vs 0.64, p < 0.0001 for approach 2) and 95 %HD (6.9 mm vs 4.2 mm for approach 1, p = 0.04 and 8.9 mm vs 6.1 mm, p = 0.04 for approach 2). Delineated median tumor volumes and inter-quartile ranges were 26.99 cc [18.01–50.34 cc] in MRI_e and 44.20 [19.72–61.59 cc] in MRI_f scans respectively, p = 0.012. Conclusions: Although limited by the small number of patients, in this study the application of rectal ultrasound gel resulted in higher interobserver agreement in rectal GTV delineation. The endorectal gel filling might be a useful tool for future dose escalation strategies

Innovative radiation oncology Together – Precise, Personalized, Human : Vision 2030 for radiotherapy & radiation oncology in Germany

Purpose Scientific and clinical achievements in radiation, medical, and surgical oncology are changing the landscape of interdisciplinary oncology. The German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) working group of young clinicians and scientists (yDEGRO) and the DEGRO representation of associate and full professors (AKRO) are aware of the essential role of radiation oncology in multidisciplinary treatment approaches. Together, yDEGRO and AKRO endorsed developing a German radiotherapy & radiation oncology vision 2030 to address future challenges in patient care, research, and education. The vision 2030 aims to identify priorities and goals for the next decade in the field of radiation oncology. Methods The vision development comprised three phases. During the first phase, areas of interest, objectives, and the process of vision development were defined jointly by the yDEGRO, AKRO, and the DEGRO board. In the second phase, a one-day strategy retreat was held to develop AKRO and yDEGRO representatives’ final vision from medicine, biology, and physics. The third phase was dedicated to vision interpretation and program development by yDEGRO representatives. Results The strategy retreat’s development process resulted in conception of the final vision “Innovative radiation oncology Together – Precise, Personalized, Human.” The first term “Innovative radiation oncology” comprises the promotion of preclinical research and clinical trials and highlights the development of a national committee for strategic development in radiation oncology research. The term “together” underpins collaborations within radiation oncology departments as well as with other partners in the clinical and scientific setting. “Precise” mainly covers technological precision in radiotherapy as well as targeted oncologic therapeutics. “Personalized” emphasizes biology-directed individualization of radiation treatment. Finally, “Human” underlines the patient-centered approach and points towards the need for individual longer-term career curricula for clinicians and researchers in the field. Conclusion The vision 2030 balances the ambition of physical, technological, and biological innovation as well as a comprehensive, patient-centered, and collaborative approach towards radiotherapy & radiation oncology in Germany