Proton therapy for adults with mediastinal lymphomas: The international lymphoma radiation oncology group guidelines

Among adult lymphoma survivors, radiation treatment techniques that increase the excess radiation dose to organs at risk (OARs) put patients at risk for increased side effects, especially late toxicities. Minimizing radiation to OARs in adults patients with Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas involving the mediastinum is the deciding factor for the choice of treatment modality. Proton therapy may help to reduce the radiation dose to the OARs and reduce toxicities, especially the risks for cardiac morbidity and second cancers. Becauseproton therapymay have some disadvantages, identifying the patients and the circumstances that may benefit the most from proton therapy is important. We present modern guidelines to identify adult lymphoma patients who may derive the greatest benefit from proton therapy, along with an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of proton treatment. (Blood. 2018;132(16):1635-1646)

Evaluating Disparities in Proton Radiation Therapy Use in AHOD1331, a Contemporary Children\u27s Oncology Group Trial for Advanced-Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma

The indications for proton radiation therapy carry the strongest evidence in pediatric cancers. In a recently published letter, Bitterman et al reviewed factors associated with receipt of proton radiation therapy in patients enrolled in Children\u27s Oncology Group (COG) solid tumor and CNS tumor trials. They demonstrated that Black children were less likely to receive this treatment than non-Hispanic white patients, a disparity that persisted when controlling for other demographic and clinical variables. We strongly commend them for their work, as addressing racism and infrastructural barriers to care requires its identification

Proton Therapy With Concurrent Chemotherapy for Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: Toxicity, Disease Control, and Survival Outcomes

PURPOSE: When treating esophageal cancer with radiation therapy, it is critical to limit the dose to surrounding structures, such as the lung and/or heart, as much as possible. Proton radiation therapy allows a reduced radiation dose to both the heart and lungs, potentially reducing the risk of cardiopulmonary toxicity. Here, we report disease control, survival, and toxicity outcomes among patients with esophageal cancer treated with proton radiation therapy and concurrent chemotherapy (chemoradiation therapy; CRT) with or without surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled 17 patients with thoracic esophageal carcinoma on a prospective registry between 2010 and 2021. Patients received proton therapy to a median dose of 50.4-GyRBE (range, 50.4-64.8) in 1.8-Gy fractions.Acute and late toxicities were graded per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0 (US National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland). In addition, disease control, patterns of failure, and survival outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Nine patients received preoperative CRT, and 8 received definitive CRT. Overall, 88% of patients had adenocarcinoma, and 12% had squamous cell carcinoma. With a median follow-up of 2.1 years (range, 0.5-9.4), the 3-year local progression-free, disease-free, and overall survival rates were 85%, 66%, and 55%, respectively. Two patients (1 with adenocarcinoma and 1 with squamous cell carcinoma) recurred at the primary site after refusing surgery after a complete clinical response to CRT. The most common acute nonhematologic and hematologic toxicities, respectively, were grades 1 to 3 esophagitis and grades 1 to 4 leukopenia, both affecting 82% of patients. No acute cardiopulmonary toxicities were observed in the absence of surgical resection. Reagarding surgical complications, 3 postoperative cardiopulmonary complications occurred as follows: 1 grade 1 pleural effusion, 1 grade 3 pleural effusion, and 1 grade 2 anastomotic leak. Two severe late CRT toxicities occurred: 1 grade 5 tracheoesophageal fistula and 1 grade 3 esophageal stenosis requiring a feeding tube. CONCLUSION: Proton radiation therapy is a safe, effective treatment for esophageal cancer with increasing evidence supporting its role in reducing cardiopulmonary toxicity

Cardiac Substructure Radiation Dose and Risk of Late Cardiac Disease in Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study

PURPOSE: Radiation-associated cardiac disease is a major cause of morbidity/mortality among childhood cancer survivors. Radiation dose-response relationships for cardiac substructures and cardiac diseases remain unestablished. METHODS: Using the 25,481 5-year survivors of childhood cancer treated from 1970 to 1999 in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, we evaluated coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF), valvular disease (VD), and arrhythmia. We reconstructed radiation doses for each survivor to the coronary arteries, chambers, valves, and whole heart. Excess relative rate (ERR) models and piecewise exponential models evaluated dose-response relationships. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence 35 years from diagnosis was 3.9% (95% CI, 3.4 to 4.3) for CAD, 3.8% (95% CI, 3.4 to 4.2) for HF, 1.2% (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5) for VD, and 1.4% (95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6) for arrhythmia. A total of 12,288 survivors (48.2%) were exposed to radiotherapy. Quadratic ERR models improved fit compared with linear ERR models for the dose-response relationship between mean whole heart and CAD, HF, and arrhythmia, suggesting a potential threshold dose; however, such departure from linearity was not observed for most cardiac substructure end point dose-response relationships. Mean doses of 5-9.9 Gy to the whole heart did not increase the risk of any cardiac diseases. Mean doses of 5-9.9 Gy to the right coronary artery (rate ratio [RR], 2.6 [95% CI, 1.6 to 4.1]) and left ventricle (RR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.3 to 3.7]) increased risk of CAD, and to the tricuspid valve (RR, 5.5 [95% CI, 2.0 to 15.1]) and right ventricle (RR, 8.4 [95% CI, 3.7 to 19.0]) increased risk of VD. CONCLUSION: Among children with cancer, there may be no threshold dose below which radiation to the cardiac substructures does not increase the risk of cardiac diseases. This emphasizes their importance in modern treatment planning

Evidence-based Review on the Use of Proton Therapy in Lymphoma From the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group (PTCOG) Lymphoma Subcommittee.

n/

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Hodgkin Lymphoma-Favorable Prognosis Stage I and II

This topic addresses the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with favorable prognosis stage I and II Hodgkin lymphoma. In most cases, combined modality therapy (chemotherapy followed by involved site radiation therapy) constitutes the current standard of care. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. By combining the most recent medical literature and expert opinion, this revised guideline can aid clinicians in the appropriate use of combined modality therapy for favorable prognosis stage I and II Hodgkin lymphoma. Increasing information about the late effects of treatment has led to attempts to decrease toxicity by using less chemotherapy (decreased duration and/or intensity or different agents) and less radiation therapy (reduced volume and/or dose) while maintaining excellent efficacy

Comparative effectiveness study of patient‐reported outcomes after proton therapy or intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106701/1/cncr28536.pd

Nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin with or without bendamustine for R/R Hodgkin lymphoma in children, adolescents, and young adults

Children, adolescents, and young adults (CAYA) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) without complete metabolic response (CMR) before autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) have poor survival outcomes. CheckMate 744, a phase 2 study for CAYA (aged 5-30 years) with R/R cHL, evaluated a risk-stratified, response-adapted approach with nivolumab plus brentuximab vedotin (BV) followed by BV plus bendamustine for patients with suboptimal response. Risk stratification was primarily based on time to relapse, prior treatment, and presence of B symptoms. We present the primary analysis of the standard-risk cohort. Data from the low-risk cohort are reported separately. Patients received 4 induction cycles with nivolumab plus BV; those without CMR (Deauville score &gt;3, Lugano 2014) received BV plus bendamustine intensification. Patients with CMR after induction or intensification proceeded to consolidation (high-dose chemotherapy/auto-HCT per protocol). Primary end point was CMR any time before consolidation. Forty-four patients were treated. Median age was 16 years. At a minimum follow-up of 15.6 months, 43 patients received 4 induction cycles (1 discontinued), 11 of whom received intensification; 32 proceeded to consolidation. CMR rate was 59% after induction with nivolumab plus BV and 94% any time before consolidation (nivolumab plus BV ± BV plus bendamustine). One-year progression-free survival rate was 91%. During induction, 18% of patients experienced grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events. This risk-stratified, response-adapted salvage strategy had high CMR rates with limited toxicities in CAYA with R/R cHL. Most patients did not require additional chemotherapy (bendamustine intensification). Additional follow-up is needed to confirm durability of disease control. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02927769.</p

Nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin with or without bendamustine for R/R Hodgkin lymphoma in children, adolescents, and young adults

Children, adolescents, and young adults (CAYA) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) without complete metabolic response (CMR) before autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) have poor survival outcomes. CheckMate 744, a phase 2 study for CAYA (aged 5-30 years) with R/R cHL, evaluated a risk-stratified, response-adapted approach with nivolumab plus brentuximab vedotin (BV) followed by BV plus bendamustine for patients with suboptimal response. Risk stratification was primarily based on time to relapse, prior treatment, and presence of B symptoms. We present the primary analysis of the standard-risk cohort. Data from the low-risk cohort are reported separately. Patients received 4 induction cycles with nivolumab plus BV; those without CMR (Deauville score &gt;3, Lugano 2014) received BV plus bendamustine intensification. Patients with CMR after induction or intensification proceeded to consolidation (high-dose chemotherapy/auto-HCT per protocol). Primary end point was CMR any time before consolidation. Forty-four patients were treated. Median age was 16 years. At a minimum follow-up of 15.6 months, 43 patients received 4 induction cycles (1 discontinued), 11 of whom received intensification; 32 proceeded to consolidation. CMR rate was 59% after induction with nivolumab plus BV and 94% any time before consolidation (nivolumab plus BV ± BV plus bendamustine). One-year progression-free survival rate was 91%. During induction, 18% of patients experienced grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events. This risk-stratified, response-adapted salvage strategy had high CMR rates with limited toxicities in CAYA with R/R cHL. Most patients did not require additional chemotherapy (bendamustine intensification). Additional follow-up is needed to confirm durability of disease control. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02927769.</p