Surgical perspectives from a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter study of breast conserving surgery and adjuvant electronic brachytherapy for the treatment of breast cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) may be used to deliver radiation to the tumor bed post-lumpectomy in eligible patients with breast cancer. Patient and tumor characteristics as well as the lumpectomy technique can influence patient eligibility for APBI. This report describes a lumpectomy procedure and examines patient, tumor, and surgical characteristics from a prospective, multicenter study of electronic brachytherapy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study enrolled 65 patients of age 45-84 years with ductal carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ, and 44 patients, who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, were treated with APBI using the Axxent^®electronic brachytherapy system following lumpectomy. The prescription dose was 34 Gy in 10 fractions over 5 days.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The lumpectomy technique as described herein varied by site and patient characteristics. The balloon applicator was implanted by the surgeon (91%) or a radiation oncologist (9%) during or up to 61 days post-lumpectomy (mean 22 days). A lateral approach was most commonly used (59%) for insertion of the applicator followed by an incision site approach in 27% of cases, a medial approach in 5%, and an inferior approach in 7%. A trocar was used during applicator insertion in 27% of cases. Local anesthetic, sedation, both or neither were administered in 45%, 2%, 41% and 11% of cases, respectively, during applicator placement. The prescription dose was delivered in 42 of 44 treated patients.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Early stage breast cancer can be treated with breast conserving surgery and APBI using electronic brachytherapy. Treatment was well tolerated, and these early outcomes were similar to the early outcomes with iridium-based balloon brachytherapy.</p

Comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy for whole brain hippocampal sparing treatment plans based on radiobiological modeling

Introduction: In this article, we report the results of our investigation on comparison of radiobiological aspects of treatment plans with linear accelerator-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for patients having hippocampal avoidance whole-brain radiation therapy. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study using the dose-volume histogram, we calculated and compared biophysical indices of equivalent uniform dose, tumor control probability, and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for 15 whole-brain radiotherapy patients. Results and Discussions: Dose-response models for tumors and critical structures were separated into two groups: mechanistic and empirical. Mechanistic models formulate mathematically with describable relationships while empirical models fit data through empirical observations to appropriately determine parameters giving results agreeable to those given by mechanistic models. Conclusions: Techniques applied in this manuscript could be applied to any other organs or types of cancer to evaluate treatment plans based on radiobiological modeling

ACTR-32. NRG ONCOLOGY RTOG 1205: RANDOMIZED PHASE II TRIAL OF CONCURRENT BEVACIZUMAB AND RE-IRRADIATION VS. BEVACIZUMAB ALONE AS TREATMENT FOR RECURRENT GLIOBLASTOMA

This study sought to determine whether re-irradiation (ReRT) and concurrent bevacizumab (BEV) improves overall survival (OS) compared to BEV alone in recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). Patients (pts) were randomized 1:1 to ReRT (35 Gy/10 fractions) plus BEV (IV 10 mg/kg q2 wks) vs. BEV alone. With 160 pts, there was 80% power to detect a 31% reduction in death hazard for BEV+RT at a one-sided significance level of 0.10 using a log rank test. OS and PFS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and HRs estimated by exact binomial distribution. Objective response was assessed using MacDonald and RANO criteria. From 11/2012 to 4/2016, 182 pts were randomized, with 170 eligible, analyzable pts. 11 pts did not receive protocol treatment. Patient characteristics (age, KPS, re-resection rates) were balanced between arms. Median f/u for censored pts was 12.8 months (mos; min-max, 0.03–52.8). BEV+ReRT did not improve OS vs BEV alone, with median OS of 10.1 vs 9.7 mos, (HR=0.98, 95% CI=0.70–1.38, p=0.46). Median PFS for BEV+RT and BEV was 7.1 vs. 3.8 mos, respectively (HR=0.73, 95% CI=0.53–1.0, p=0.051). BEV+ReRT improved 6-mo PFS rate (PFS6): 54 vs. 29%, (HR=0.42, 95% CI=0.34–0.5, p=0.001). Overall, treatment was well tolerated: 5% acute and 0% delayed grade 3+ treatment-related AE. Most patients died from recurrent GBM. CONCLUSION: RTOG 1205 is the first, prospective, randomized multi-institutional study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ReRT in recurrent GBM using modern RT techniques. Overall, ReRT was shown to be safe and well tolerated. BEV+ReRT did not demonstrate a benefit in OS but an improved PFS6, and clinically meaningful PFS improvement. Molecular correlates of response analyses are ongoing. Funded by U10CA180868, U10CA180822 from the National Cancer Institute

NRG Oncology/RTOG1205: A Randomized Phase II Trial of Concurrent Bevacizumab and Reirradiation Versus Bevacizumab Alone as Treatment for Recurrent Glioblastoma

To assess whether reirradiation (re-RT) and concurrent bevacizumab (BEV) improve overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS), compared with BEV alone in recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). The primary objective was OS, and secondary objectives included PFS, response rate, and treatment adverse events (AEs) including delayed CNS toxicities. NRG Oncology/RTOG1205 is a prospective, phase II, randomized trial of re-RT and BEV versus BEV alone. Stratification factors included age, resection, and Karnofsky performance status (KPS). Patients with recurrent GBM with imaging evidence of tumor progression ≥ 6 months from completion of prior chemo-RT were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to re-RT, 35 Gy in 10 fractions, with concurrent BEV IV 10 mg/kg once in every 2 weeks or BEV alone until progression. From December 2012 to April 2016, 182 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 170 were eligible. Patient characteristics were well balanced between arms. The median follow-up for censored patients was 12.8 months. There was no improvement in OS for BEV + RT, hazard ratio, 0.98; 80% CI, 0.79 to 1.23; = .46; the median survival time was 10.1 versus 9.7 months for BEV + RT versus BEV alone. The median PFS for BEV + RT was 7.1 versus 3.8 months for BEV, hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.0; = .05. The 6-month PFS rate improved from 29.1% (95% CI, 19.1 to 39.1) for BEV to 54.3% (95% CI, 43.5 to 65.1) for BEV + RT, = .001. Treatment was well tolerated. There were a 5% rate of acute grade 3+ treatment-related AEs and no delayed high-grade AEs. Most patients died of recurrent GBM. To our knowledge, NRG Oncology/RTOG1205 is the first prospective, randomized multi-institutional study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of re-RT in recurrent GBM using modern RT techniques. Overall, re-RT was shown to be safe and well tolerated. BEV + RT demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in PFS, specifically the 6-month PFS rate but no difference in OS

NRG Oncology/RTOG1205: A Randomized Phase II Trial of Concurrent Bevacizumab and Reirradiation Versus Bevacizumab Alone as Treatment for Recurrent Glioblastoma

PURPOSE To assess whether reirradiation (re-RT) and concurrent bevacizumab (BEV) improve overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS), compared with BEV alone in recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). The primary objective was OS, and secondary objectives included PFS, response rate, and treatment adverse events (AEs) including delayed CNS toxicities. METHODS NRG Oncology/RTOG1205 is a prospective, phase II, randomized trial of re-RT and BEV versus BEV alone. Stratification factors included age, resection, and Karnofsky performance status (KPS). Patients with recurrent GBM with imaging evidence of tumor progression ≥ 6 months from completion of prior chemo-RT were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to re-RT, 35 Gy in 10 fractions, with concurrent BEV IV 10 mg/kg once in every 2 weeks or BEV alone until progression. RESULTS From December 2012 to April 2016, 182 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 170 were eligible. Patient characteristics were well balanced between arms. The median follow-up for censored patients was 12.8 months. There was no improvement in OS for BEV + RT, hazard ratio, 0.98; 80% CI, 0.79 to 1.23; P = .46; the median survival time was 10.1 versus 9.7 months for BEV + RT versus BEV alone. The median PFS for BEV + RT was 7.1 versus 3.8 months for BEV, hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.0; P = .05. The 6-month PFS rate improved from 29.1% (95% CI, 19.1 to 39.1) for BEV to 54.3% (95% CI, 43.5 to 65.1) for BEV + RT, P = .001. Treatment was well tolerated. There were a 5% rate of acute grade 3+ treatment-related AEs and no delayed high-grade AEs. Most patients died of recurrent GBM. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, NRG Oncology/RTOG1205 is the first prospective, randomized multi-institutional study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of re-RT in recurrent GBM using modern RT techniques. Overall, re-RT was shown to be safe and well tolerated. BEV + RT demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in PFS, specifically the 6-month PFS rate but no difference in OS