Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Undergoing Radiation Therapy: Insights from a Ten-Year Tertiary Center Experience

Background: The number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) receiving radiotherapy (RT) is increasing. The management of CIED-carriers undergoing RT is challenging and requires a collaborative multidisciplinary approach. Aim: The aim of the study is to report the real-world, ten-year experience of a tertiary multidisciplinary teaching hospital. Methods: We conducted an observational, real-world, retrospective, single-center study, enrolling all CIED-carriers who underwent RT at the San Raffaele University Hospital, between June 2010 and December 2021. All devices were MRI-conditional. The devices were programmed to an asynchronous pacing mode for patients who had an intrinsic heart rate of less than 40 beats per minute. An inhibited pacing mode was used for all other patients. All tachyarrhythmia device functions were temporarily disabled. After each RT session, the CIED were reprogrammed to the original settings. Outcomes included adverse events and changes in the variables that indicate lead and device functions. Results: Between June 2010 and December 2021, 107 patients were enrolled, among which 63 (58.9%) were pacemaker carriers and 44 (41.1%) were ICD carriers. Patients were subjected to a mean of 16.4 (±10.7) RT sessions. The most represented tumors in our cohort were prostate cancer (12; 11%), breast cancer (10; 9%) and lung cancer (28; 26%). No statistically significant changes in device parameters were recorded before and after radiotherapy. Generator failures, power-on resets, changes in pacing threshold or sensing requiring system revision or programming changes, battery depletions, pacing inhibitions and inappropriate therapies did not occur in our cohort of patients during a ten-year time span period. Atrial arrhythmias were recorded during RT session in 14 patients (13.1%) and ventricular arrhythmias were observed at device interrogation in 10 patients (9.9%). Conclusions: Changes in device parameters and arrhythmia occurrence were infrequent, and none resulted in a clinically significant adverse event

Ten Year Results of Extensive Nodal Radiotherapy and Moderately Hypofractionated Simultaneous Integrated Boost in Unfavorable Intermediate-, High-, and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Aims: To report 10-year outcomes of WPRT and HD moderately hypofractionated SIB to the prostate in UIR, HR, and VHR PCa. Methods: From 11/2005 to 12/2015, 224 UIR, HR, and VHR PCa patients underwent WPRT at 51.8 Gy/28 fractions and SIB at 74.2 Gy (EQD2 88 Gy) to the prostate. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was prescribed in up to 86.2% of patients. Results: Median follow-up was 96.3 months (IQR: 71–124.7). Median age was 75 years (IQR: 71.3–78.1). At last follow up, G3 GI–GU toxicity was 3.1% and 8%, respectively. Ten-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) was 79.8% (95% CI: 72.3–88.1%), disease-free survival (DFS) 87.8% (95% CI: 81.7–94.3%), overall survival (OS) 65.7% (95% CI: 58.2–74.1%), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) 94.9% (95% CI: 91.0–99.0%). Only two patients presented local relapse. At univariate analysis, VHR vs. UIR was found to be a significant risk factor for biochemical relapse (HR: 2.8, 95% CI: 1.17–6.67, p = 0.021). After model selection, only Gleason Score ≥ 8 emerged as a significant factor for biochemical relapse (HR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.12–4.9, p = 0.023). Previous TURP (HR = 3.5, 95% CI: 1.62–7.54, p = 0.001) and acute toxicity ≥ G2 (HR = 3.1, 95% CI = 1.45–6.52, p = 0.003) were significant risk factors for GU toxicity ≥ G3. Hypertension was a significant factor for GI toxicity ≥ G3 (HR = 3.63, 95% CI: 1.06–12.46, p = 0.041). ADT (HR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.12–0.8, p = 0.015) and iPsa (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16–0.83, p = 0.0164) played a protective role. Conclusions: WPRT and HD SIB to the prostate combined with long-term ADT, in HR PCa, determine good outcomes with acceptable toxicity