Ko, Stephen J.

125 Background: Treatment for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is radiation and chemotherapy, with or without surgery. Radiation has traditionally been delivered with 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT). This study evaluates late toxicity in patients treated with IMRT as well as early outcomes and acute toxicity. Methods: This is a retrospective review of 32 patients with esophageal carcinoma treated with IMRT at Mayo Clinic Florida from 2008 -2012. Pathology includes squamous cell and adenocarcinomas. Tumor sites include middle and lower thoracic and GE junction. Clinical stages are TX-T3, N0-3, M0-1. All patients received at least one cycle of concurrent chemotherapy. IMRT dose was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions prescribed to a target volume including the tumor and regional lymphatics. IMRT plans utilized coplaner beams in a 7-9 beam arrangement or volumetric modulated arc therapy. Results: Median follow-up is 8.9 months (range 2.4-23.0) for all patients and 13.1 months (range 2.8-23.0 months) in surviving patients. Median patient age is 69 (range 46-87). Trimodality treatment was completed in 20 patients (62.5%). Surgery was either an open or minimally invasive esophagogastrectomy. The incidence of grade 3 or greater late toxicity at 1 year was 48% in surgery patients and 26% in non-surgery patients. The most common grade 3 or higher toxicity was esophageal strictures in 25%. The incidence of any grade 3 or greater acute toxicity was 65% in the surgery patients and 75% in the non-surgery patients. Overall survival (OS) for all patients at 18 months is 57% (CI 37-86%) and progression-free survival (PFS) is 60% (36-99%). OS and PFS for trimodality therapy at 12 months is 83% (66-100%) and 81% (63-100%) respectively and for bimodality therapy is 34% (12-93%) and 70% (33-100%) respectively. Conclusions: Increased late toxicity occurs in surgery patients, and increased acute toxicity in non-surgery patients. Lower survival in non-surgery patients may be due to early progression, morbidities which preclude surgery or improved survival with surgery. Overall, IMRT is a feasible treatment modality, which may be equally efficacious to 3D CRT for the treatment of esophageal carcinoma.

211 Background: The current standard of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer includes chemoradiotherapy with or without surgery. Radiation is usually delivered via a 3D technique. IMRT has been utilized in the treatment of multiple tumors and demonstrated similar efficacy while offering the possibility of decreased toxicity. Methods: Thirty-six patients were treated with IMRT and chemotherapy. Twenty-one patients underwent surgical resection. Eleven underwent open surgery and the remainder underwent minimally invasive surgery. Chemotherapy consisted primarily of 5-FU with oxaliplatin or cisplatin. All but two patients received 50.4 Gy; one patient received 41.4 Gy without surgery and one patient discontinued treatment after 25.2 Gy. Eleven patients required a treatment break during radiotherapy. The median age was 69 (range 46-87). Approximately two-thirds of tumors were adenocarcinomas located in the lower thorax. Two thirds of patients were staged as T3 and had positive lymph nodes. The median tumor size was 5 cm (range 2-13). Results: With a median follow-up of 21.3 months (range 2.4-44.8) and 33.9 months for survivors (range 3.7-44.8), overall survival at 24 months was 55%. The 24 month overall survival was 75% vs 24% for surgical and non-surgical patients, respectively. Seven patients had a complete pathologic response. Twenty-four patients experienced grade 3 or higher acute toxicity and there was one grade 5 toxicity. Acute toxicity was similar between surgery and non-surgery patients. Fourteen patients experienced grade 3 or higher late toxicity; 9 surgery and 5 non-surgery patients. The most frequent late toxicity was grade 3 stricture (21%). On multivariate analysis, advanced age (RR [10 year increase] 2.01, p=0.032) and heart maximum dose >55 Gy (RR 3.73, p=0.011) were associated with decreased survival. Conclusions: Patients who undergo surgery after chemoradiotherapy demonstrate improved survival; however, this may be related to underlying comorbidities that preclude surgery. IMRT appears to be a reasonable treatment option that may reduce complications from radiotherapy. Careful attention should be given to heart dose during treatment planning.

88 Background: There is not yet a consensus on the efficacy and safety of IMRT for the treatment of patients with esophageal carcinomas. We report on our experience with outcomes and toxicity with IMRT for these patients. Methods: Fifty-five patients with esophageal carcinoma were treated with IMRT at our institution from 12/2008 and 12/2014. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed. All patients received concurrent chemotherapy (majority 5-FU with oxaliplatin). Thirty-one (56%) patients underwent surgery. Fifty (91%) received 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Seventy-three percent of cases were adenocarcinoma. Regions include mid-thoracic (15%), lower thoracic (64%), and GE junction (22%). Clinical uT-stages were as follows: T1 (2%), T2 (20%), T3 (69%), and T4a (5%). Clinical N-stages were as follows: N0 (33%), N1 (53%), N2 (13%), and N3 (2%). Results: Median follow-up for all patients was 15 months (1.5 - 64.5) and 25.5 months (1.5 - 64.5) for patients who were alive at follow-up (n = 31). Fifty-one (93%) patients completed RT. Of the 31 patients who underwent surgery, 9 (29%) were found to have a complete pathologic response. Site of first recurrence was local (n = 2, 4%), regional (n = 3, 6%), and distant (n = 14, 26%). At 12 and 24 months, overall survival was 72% and 58%, freedom from recurrence was 78% and 65%, and freedom from distant recurrence was 78% and 68%. On univariate analysis, improved OS was noted with patients who underwent surgery (RR 0.29) or were cN0 (RR 0.27). Twenty eight patients (51%) experienced > / = CTCAE v.4grade 3 acute toxicity; notable were hematologic (n = 14, 25%), esophagitis (n = 6, 11%), acute coronary event (n = 1, 2%), and post-chemoRT pneumonia (n = 1, 2%). Fifteen patients (31%) experienced > grade 3 late toxicity; notable were esophageal stricture (n = 7, 14%), post-op pneumonia (n = 3, 6%), post-CRT pneumonia (n = 2, 4%), and COPD exacerbation (n = 1, 2%). Conclusions: Patient receiving IMRT with concurrent chemotherapy for esophageal carcinomas have good LC rates, with or without surgery. Majority of patients are able to finish treatment with acceptable rates of late toxicity. Patient who underwent surgery or were cN0 had better OS.

524 Background: Psychosocial distress during radiotherapy (RT) for gastrointestinal tumors is poorly characterized. Since 2012, patients receiving RT in our clinic have been prospectively screened for causes of distress. The results of our screening were reviewed in order to elucidate concerns of GI cancer patients and to delineate patterns within patient reported distress (PRD). Methods: Patients treated with RT at our institution receive a 30 question PRD survey that also includes a linear analog measure of overall distress at the start and during RT. The PRD survey asks patients to rate forms of distress on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the most distressed). The survey also asks patients to rate overall distress according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer on a scale 0 to 10. The reported results were retrospectively reviewed in patients receiving definitive RT for GI cancers from 04/02/2012 to 08/05/2015. Results: PRD surveys were completed by 113 patients, 55 (48.7%) male and 58 (51.3%) female. Median age was 65 years (range 28 to 93). The most common tumor histology was adenocarcinoma, 67 (59.3%). 105 patients (93.0%) received chemotherapy and 66 (58.4%) underwent surgery. Overall, NCCN distress thermometer results ranged from 0 to 10, with a median of 4.3. The mean distress scores for the top five complaints ranged from 1.27 to 2.63. Top distresses were “How will I feel during treatment” (2.63), “Fatigue” (2.45), “Pain that affects daily functioning” (2.35), “Out of pocket medical costs” (2.31), and “Sleep difficulties” (2.31). The least concerning complaints were “Housing during treatment” (1.27), “A loved one relying on me for their physical care” (1.30), “Spirituality” (1.33),“Family communication about my illness”(1.37), and “Transportation” (1.38). Conclusions: Patients’ major concerns were aligned with daily quality of life, such as fatigue, pain and insomnia. Highest reported distress was linked with the process of RT and side effects associated with treatment. Medical expenses were also perceived as a burden. Medical providers should identify psychosocial stressors during RT in order to effectively communicate and provide resources to improve quality of life.

284 Background: Frameless stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is single fraction radiation therapy delivered to an intracranial lesion. Rather than with a rigid head frame, frameless SRS uses a thermoplastic mask for immobilization. The benefit of this mask includes the ability to simulate and treat the patient at different times, ease of patient set-up and improved patient comfort. Clinically, frameless SRS is used for primary brain tumors and metastatic lesions. The length of the treatments may vary based on a number of factors, including total treatment dose, number of monitor units, number and arrangement of beams, and equipment manipulations. This is a single institution review of patients treated with SRS with positional checks made before, during and at the completion of treatment to evaluate intrafraction motion. Methods: Patients were treated with SRS at Mayo Clinic Florida between 2010 and 2011. All patients were immobilized with a thermoplastic mask and treated on a Varian IX Clinac. KV Cone beam CT was taken prior to the initiation of treatment to verify the treatment position. Cone beam CT’s were also performed at the midpoint and conclusion of treatment. The same physician analyzed all cone beam CT’s. Adjustments were recorded in each dimension and analyzed to determine intrafraction motion. Results: Intrafraction motion was evaluated during six separate SRS cases. The mean displacements at mid-treatment were 0.67±0.52 mm, 0.50±0.55 mm, 0.83±0.75 mm, and 1.35±0.78 mm in the medial/lateral, superior/inferior, anterior/posterior, and vectoral direction, respectively. The mean post-treatment displacements were 0.17±0.41 mm, 0.67±0.82 mm, 0.50±0.84 mm, and 1.11±0.96 mm in the medial/lateral, superior/inferior, anterior/posterior, and vectoral direction, respectively. Estimated overall margins to accommodate intrafraction motion in 90% of patients were 2.63 mm and 2.69 mm at mid-treatment and post-treatment, respectively. Conclusions: The majority of intrafraction motion occurred during the first portion of treatment. Intrafraction motion during the course of frameless SRS treatment is not negligible and approximately a 2.5 mm margin should be taken into account during the planning process.

211 Background: Distress is known to be elevated in patients receiving cancer therapy, such as palliative radiotherapy (PRT). Many patients will experience distress during treatment and it is not always addressed in part due to a lack of guidance regarding the significance of distress. Methods: All RT patients in our clinic are asked to complete a patient reported distress (PRD) survey during treatment course. PRD forms consist of 30 categorical questions that assess distress subscales. Patients have the option to rate each question from 1 (low distress) to 5 (high distress). The survey also includes the National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer, which allows patients to rate overall distress level from 0 (no distress) to 10 (extreme distress). Patients’ records were retrospectively reviewed to abstract the needed information to assess survivorship. Results: 270 patients were included from 01/18/2012-08/07/2015. Overall PRD was analyzed as a continuous and a categorical variable (low: 0-3, moderate: 4-6, high: 7-10). Continuous and categorical variable PRD did not show a correlation of distress to survival (P = 0.26) and (P = 0.10) respectively. A correlation was noted in moderate distress category (RR: 1.51, P = 0.034), however, this was not noted in high distress category (RR: 1.25, P = 0.33). There was no statistical significant correlation with the adjusted variables. Patients with primary site of gastrointestinal cancer had worst prognosis (RR: 1.34, P: 0.14), while hematological origin had best prognosis (RR: 0.35, P: 0.038).Age had the strongest correlation with survival, as older patients receiving RT had poorer survival (RR: 1.13, P: 0.079). Conclusions: This study suggests that PRD is not predictive of survival in PRT. The primary goal of PRT is to improve quality of life (QoL) by assessing, anticipating and alleviating suffering; not necessarily improve survival. It also demonstrated that the most common stressors were related to reversible short-term side effects of RT such as fatigue and pain rather than long-term stressors related to daily activities and social measures which might affect QoL. It is imperative to explore assessment tools to mitigate suffering and improve strategies to enhance QoL in all medical disciplines.

Recurrent invasive high-grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the larynx and hypopharynx is a rare occurrence. These tumors have been commonly associated with salivary gland tumors, most commonly the parotid gland. The patient usually presents with the following symptoms: hoarseness (if larynx is involved), or changes in voice character, sore throat, cough, odynophagia, dysphagia, otalgia, difficulty breathing, weight loss, lymphadenopathy. Here we present a case of a recurrent invasive high-grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma of larynx and hypopharynx. The patient was a 67-year-old male that originally presented in 2006. At that time he underwent a wide field laryngectomy, right thyroid lobectomy, and biopsy of the right digastric node. He was a clinical stage III, pT3N0M0. No adjuvant radiation therapy was given at that time. The patient remained asymptomatic until February 2014, when he presented with dysphagia and neck swelling. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography showed evidence of recurrence. The patient was treated with definitive intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with concurrent chemotherapy. Treatment for this disease is gathered by scattered case reports. If surgery is a possibility it is considered as first line therapy. Post-surgical radiation is then offered. However, in this case the recurrent tumor was located near the carotid artery, and thus surgery was not a possibility. Therefore, concurrent chemotherapy and radiation with IMRT and weekly cis-platinum was given. While the optimum combination of treatment has not yet been established because of the rarity of this cancer's location site, the current patient appeared to have an excellent response from the definitive IMRT and chemotherapy treatment.

Hidradenocarcinoma is a rare aggressive form of cutaneous adnexal skin carcinoma originating from the sweat gland. Due to its low incidence, prognostic and treatment strategies are still being explored both for primary and advanced disease. This tumor most often presents as either solid or cystic appearing subcutaneous nodules, which may be associated with pruritus or ulceration. To date the mainstay of treatment for local disease has been surgical excision; however, the paucity of historical data available has shown that these tumors often behave aggressively with high rates of local recurrence, metastasis, and poor overall outcomes. There are few case reports describing the utility of radiation therapy in the treatment of hidradenocarcinoma. Herein, we present a case of metastatic apocrine hidradenocarcinoma in a 32-year-old Caucasian male. The patient initially underwent excisional biopsy which confirmed the diagnosis of poorly differentiated, highly infiltrative, apocrine hidradenocarcinoma. He received systemic chemotherapy for metastatic disease, followed by radiation therapy to areas of grossly palpable adenopathy. Prior to radiation therapy the patient had an enlarged hypermetabolic conglomerate of lymph nodes in the right axilla, and borderline enlarged low activity nodes within the left axilla. He received 3 cycles of chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen and radiation therapy (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions) to areas of progressive disease in the bilateral axilla, lower neck, and axillary skin. Following treatment, the patient had complete resolution of skin nodules and improvement of his pruritus. While the role of radiation therapy in the treatment of hidradenocarcinoma has not been well established, this case report demonstrated the potential benefit of external beam radiotherapy in the management of this rare disease.

Objective To update a previously proposed prognostic scoring system that predicts risk of biochemical recurrence ( BCR ) after salvage radiation therapy ( SRT ) for recurrent prostate cancer when using additional patients and a PSA value of 0.2 ng/ mL and rising as the definition of BCR . Patients and Methods We included 577 patients who received SRT for a rising PSA after radical prostatectomy in this retrospective cohort study. Clinical, pathological, and SRT characteristics were evaluated for association with BCR using relative risks ( RR s) from multivariable Cox regression models. Results With a median follow‐up of 5.5 years after SRT , 354 patients (61%) experienced BCR . At 5 years after SRT , 40% of patients were free of BCR . Independent associations with BCR were identified for the PSA level before SRT ( RR [doubling]: 1.25, P < 0.001), pathological tumour stage ( RR [T3a vs T2] 1.21, P = 0.19; RR [T3b/T4 vs T2] 2.09, P < 0.001; overall P < 0.001), Gleason score ( RR [7 vs <7] 1.63, P < 0.001; RR [8–10 vs <7] 2.28, P < 0.001; overall P < 0.001), and surgical margin status ( RR [positive vs negative] 0.71, P = 0.003). We combined these four variables to create a prognostic scoring system that predicted BCR risk with a c ‐index of 0.66. Scores ranged from 0 to 7, and 5‐year freedom from BCR for different levels of the score was as follows: Score = 0–1: 66%, Score = 2: 46%, Score = 3: 28%, Score = 4: 19%, and Score = 5–7: 15%. Conclusion We developed a scoring system that provides an estimation of the risk of BCR after SRT . These findings will be useful for patients and physicians in decision making for radiation therapy in the salvage setting.