Hepatic radioembolization from transradial access: initial experience and comparison to transfemoral access

PURPOSE:Despite the growing evidence in the cardiology literature that transradial approach has substantial benefits over transfemoral access, this technique is rarely used during interventions in the systemic circulation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of transradial approach for hepatic radioembolization and to compare it with transfemoral approach.METHODS:Sixty-four hepatic radioembolizations performed in 50 patients were included in the study. Thirty-three procedures were performed via radial access in 27 patients, and 31 procedures were performed via femoral access in 23 patients.RESULTS:There was 100% technical success in performing hepatic radioembolization in both groups. The majority (97%) of the patients who underwent transradial radioembolization reported preference for radial artery access. The fluoroscopy time was significantly longer (9.45±5.09 min vs. 5.72±3.67 min, P < 0.01) and the radiation dose was significantly higher (597.8±585.2 mGy vs. 302.8±208.3 mGy, P < 0.01) in the radial group compared with the femoral group. The direct cost savings using radial access versus femoral access is approximately $100/procedure. In addition, there was a one hour (50%) shorter postprocedural stay for patients who underwent the transradial procedure.CONCLUSION:Transradial access is feasible for hepatic radioembolization. The transradial approach is cheaper and offers improved patient comfort. However, it is technically challenging, with longer fluoroscopy times and higher radiation doses. Transradial approach should be considered as a primary choice in patients with low platelet count and/or morbid obesity. Transradial access should be in the procedural repertoire of every interventional radiologist

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

The confluence of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy and tumor

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

Greco-2: A randomized, phase 2 study of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in combination with rucosopasem (GC4711) in the treatment of locally advanced or borderline resectable nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer

Background: While treatment of pancreatic cancer has advanced, survival rates remain low. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT; high dose per fraction radiation) may exhibit improved clinical outcomes in locally advanced pancreatic cancer but carries potential gastrointestinal toxicity risks. Rucosopasem (GC4711) is one of a class of investigational selective dismutase mimetics that rapidly and specifically converts superoxide to hydrogen peroxide. Studies have shown that normal cells tolerate hydrogen peroxide fluxes better than cancer cells. As radiation response modifiers, dismutase mimetics have the potential to increase tumor control of SBRT without compromising radiation safety. In a pilot phase 1/2 trial in patients with pancreatic cancer, avasopasem, a dismutase mimetic related to rucosopasem, nearly doubled median overall survival in patients receiving SBRT vs placebo plus SBRT. Improvements versus placebo were also observed in local tumor control, time to metastases, and progression-free survival. Altogether, these data support the hypothesis that rucosopasem may improve survival and the benefit-risk ratio of SBRT by improving efficacy without increasing gastrointestinal toxicity. Methods: GRECO-2 is a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT04698915) to determine the effect of adding rucosopasem to SBRT on overall survival in patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced, unresectable nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer following initial chemotherapy with a FOLFIRINOX-based regimen or a gemcitabine doublet. Approximately 160 patients will be randomized (approximately 35 sites) to receive rucosopasem 100 mg or placebo via IV infusion over 15 minutes, prior to each SBRT fraction (5 x 10 Gy). Patients judged to be resectable will undergo surgical exploration within 8 weeks after SBRT. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, locoregional control, time to metastasis, surgical resection rate, RO resection rate, best overall response, in-field local response, and safety (acute and late toxicities). Exploratory endpoints include PRO-CTCAE and CA19-9 normalization

FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine-based Chemotherapy for Borderline Resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Multi-institutional, Patient-Level, Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

BackgroundPancreatic cancer often presents as locally advanced (LAPC) or borderline resectable (BRPC). Neoadjuvant systemic therapy is recommended as initial treatment. It is currently unclear what chemotherapy should be preferred for patients with BRPC or LAPC.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and multi-institutional meta-analysis of patient-level data regarding the use of initial systemic therapy for BRPC and LAPC. Outcomes were reported separately for tumor entity and by chemotherapy regimen including FOLFIRINOX (FIO) or gemcitabine-based.ResultsA total of 23 studies comprising 2930 patients were analyzed for overall survival (OS) calculated from the beginning of systemic treatment. OS for patients with BRPC was 22.0 months with FIO, 16.9 months with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (Gem/nab), 21.6 months with gemcitabine/cisplatin or oxaliplatin or docetaxel or capecitabine (GemX), and 10 months with gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem-mono) (p &lt; 0.0001). In patients with LAPC, OS also was higher with FIO (17.1 months) compared with Gem/nab (12.5 months), GemX (12.3 months), and Gem-mono (9.4 months; p &lt; 0.0001). This difference was driven by the patients who did not undergo surgery, where FIO was superior to other regimens. The resection rates for patients with BRPC were 0.55 for gemcitabine-based chemotherapy and 0.53 with FIO. In patients with LAPC, resection rates were 0.19 with Gemcitabine and 0.28 with FIO. In resected patients, OS for patients with BRPC was 32.9 months with FIO and not different compared to Gem/nab, (28.6 months, p = 0.285), GemX (38.8 months, p = 0.1), or Gem-mono (23.1 months, p = 0.083). A similar trend was observed in resected patients converted from LAPC.ConclusionsIn patients with BRPC or LAPC, primary treatment with FOLFIRINOX compared with Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy appears to provide a survival benefit for patients that are ultimately unresectable. For patients that undergo surgical resection, outcomes are similar between GEM+ and FOLFIRINOX when delivered in the neoadjuvant setting

ASO Visual Abstract: FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine Based Chemotherapy for Borderline Resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Multi-Institutional, Patient-Level Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

N/

Radiation Therapy for Liver Tumors: Future Directions

Radiation therapy for liver tumors has changed dramatically in the last few decades, from purely palliative to now potentially curative in the form of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Recent progress with imaging suggests that prospective characterization of individual tumor subpopulations within these tumors may not only have prognostic value but also may allow personalized heterogeneous radiotherapy dosing. Improved on-board radiation treatment imaging strategies may lead to real-time adapted treatment tailored to the patient’s individual tumor and functional response. The future question is how best to optimize the power of SBRT both to ablate the local tumor and to potentially work with immune therapy agents to produce a systemic antitumor effect

Toxicity reduction required for MRI-guided radiotherapy to be cost-effective in the treatment of localized prostate cancer

Objective: To determine the toxicity reduction required to justify the added costs of MRI-guided radiotherapy (MR-IGRT) over CT-based image guided radiotherapy (CT-IGRT) for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Methods: The costs of delivering prostate cancer radiotherapy with MR-IGRT and CT-IGRT in conventional 39 fractions and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) 5 fractions schedules were determined using literature values and cost accounting from two institutions. Gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity rates associated with CT-IGRT were summarized from 20 studies. Toxicity-related costs and utilities were obtained from literature values and cost databases. Markov modeling was used to determine the savings per patient for every 1% relative reduction in acute and chronic toxicities by MR-IGRT over 15 years. The costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) saved with toxicity reduction were juxtaposed with the cost increase of MR-IGRT to determine toxicity reduction thresholds for cost-effectiveness. One way sensitivity analyses were performed. Standard $100,000 and$50,000 per QALY ratios were used. Results: The added cost of MR-IGRT was $1,459 per course of SBRT and$10,129 per course of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. Relative toxicity reductions of 7 and 14% are required for SBRT to be cost-effective using $100,000 and$50,000 per QALY, respectively. Conventional radiotherapy requires relative toxicity reductions of 50 and 94% to be cost-effective. Conclusion: From a healthcare perspective, MR-IGRT can reasonably be expected to be cost-effective. Hypofractionated schedules, such a five fraction SBRT, are most likely to be cost-effective as they require only slight reductions in toxicity (7–14%). Advances in knowledge: This is the first detailed economic assessment of MR-IGRT, and it suggests that MR-IGRT can be cost-effective for prostate cancer treatment through toxicity reduction alone