Ashman, Jonathan B.

Abstract Background: Recent advances in radiotherapy techniques have allowed ablative doses to be safely delivered to inoperable liver tumors. In this setting, proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) provides the means to escalate radiation dose to the target volume while sparing the uninvolved liver. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of hypofractionated PBT for liver tumors, predominantly hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).Methods: We evaluated the prospective registry of the Proton Collaborative Group for patients undergoing definitive PBT for liver tumors. Demographic, clinicopathologic, toxicity, and dosimetry information were compiled.Results: To date, 63 patients have been treated at 9 institutions between 2013-2019. Thirty (48%) had HCC and 25 (40%) had ICC. The median dose and biological equivalent dose (BED) delivered was 58.05 GyE (range, 32.5-75) and 80.5 GyE (range, 53.6-100), respectively. The median mean liver BED was 13.9 GyE. Three (4.8%) patients experienced at least one grade ³3 toxicity. With median follow-up of 5.1 months (range, 0.1-40.8), the local control (LC) rate at 1 year was 91.2% for HCC and 90.9% for ICC. The 1-year LC was significantly higher (95.7%) for patients receiving BED greater than 75.2 GyE than for patients receiving BED of 75.2 GyE or lower (84.6%, p = 0.029). The overall survival rate at 1 year was 65.6% for HCC and 81.8% for ICC. Conclusions: Hypofractionated PBT results in excellent LC, sparing of the uninvolved liver, and low toxicity, even in the setting of dose-escalation. Higher dose correlates with improved LC, highlighting the importance of PBT especially in patients with recurrent or bulky disease.

Abstract Purpose To compare the dosimetric performances of intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans generated with two different beam angle configurations (the Right–Left oblique posterior beams and the Superior–Inferior oblique posterior beams) for the treatment of distal esophageal carcinoma in the presence of uncertainties and interplay effect. Methods and Materials Twenty patients’ IMPT plans were retrospectively selected, with 10 patients treated with the R‐L oblique posterior beams (Group R‐L) and the other 10 patients treated with the S‐I oblique posterior beams (Group S‐I). Patients in both groups were matched by their clinical target volumes (CTVs—high and low dose levels) and respiratory motion amplitudes. Dose‐volume‐histogram (DVH) indices were used to assess plan quality. DVH bandwidth was calculated to evaluate plan robustness. Interplay effect was quantified using four‐dimensional (4D) dynamic dose calculation with random respiratory starting phase of each fraction. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for heart, liver, and lung was calculated, respectively, to estimate the clinical outcomes. Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used for statistical comparison between the two groups. Results Compared with plans in Group R‐L, plans in Group S‐I resulted in significantly lower liver D mean and lung V 30Gy[RBE] with slightly higher but clinically acceptable spinal cord D max . Similar plan robustness was observed between the two groups. When interplay effect was considered, plans in Group S‐I performed statistically better for heart D mean and V 30Gy[RBE] , lung Dmean and V 5Gy[RBE] , and liver D mean , with slightly increased but clinically acceptable spinal cord D max . NTCP for liver was significantly better in Group S‐I. Conclusions IMPT plans in Group S‐I have better sparing of liver, heart, and lungs at the slight cost of spinal cord maximum dose protection, and are more interplay‐effect resilient compared to IMPT plans in Group R‐L. Our study supports the routine use of the S‐I oblique posterior beams for the treatments of distal esophageal carcinoma.

Abstract Background: Recent advances in radiotherapy techniques have allowed ablative doses to be safely delivered to inoperable liver tumors. In this setting, proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) provides the means to escalate radiation dose to the target volume while sparing the uninvolved liver. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of hypofractionated PBT for liver tumors, predominantly hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).Methods: We evaluated the prospective registry of the Proton Collaborative Group for patients undergoing definitive PBT for liver tumors. Demographic, clinicopathologic, toxicity, and dosimetry information were compiled.Results: To date, 63 patients have been treated at 9 institutions between 2013-2019. Thirty (48%) had HCC and 25 (40%) had ICC. The median dose and biological equivalent dose (BED) delivered was 58.05 GyE (range, 32.5-75) and 80.5 GyE (range, 53.6-100), respectively. The median mean liver BED was 13.9 GyE. Three (4.8%) patients experienced at least one grade ³3 toxicity. With median follow-up of 5.1 months (range, 0.1-40.8), the local control (LC) rate at 1 year was 91.2% for HCC and 90.9% for ICC. The 1-year LC was significantly higher (95.7%) for patients receiving BED greater than 75.2 GyE than for patients receiving BED of 75.2 GyE or lower (84.6%, p = 0.029). The overall survival rate at 1 year was 65.6% for HCC and 81.8% for ICC. Conclusions: Hypofractionated PBT results in excellent LC, sparing of the uninvolved liver, and low toxicity, even in the setting of dose-escalation. Higher dose correlates with improved LC, highlighting the importance of PBT especially in patients with recurrent or bulky disease.

494 Background: Our aim was to compare survival between patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation and orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT group) versus definitive chemoradiation (CRT group) for extrahepatic or hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Methods: 49 patients (20 in OLT group vs. 29 in CRT group) with unresectable hilar/extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma were treated at Mayo Clinic Arizona between Feb. 1998–Sep. 2019. Treatment included external beam radiation therapy (median 4500cGy) and boost (median 900cGy) with either continuous 5-flurouracil (dose range 180–225 mg/m2) or capecitabine (dose range 825–1000 mg/m2 BID) prior to or without OLT. Radiation boosts were delivered with EBRT or bile duct brachytherapy. Patients were between 27.9–84.3 years (median 64.3) at diagnosis. 18 patients had previous diagnosis of PSC. Results: Between Feb. 1998–Sep. 2019, 31(63%) of 49 patients died by the end of follow-up. Of patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy and OLT, 7(35%) of 20 patients died. 24(86%) of 28 patients treated with definitive therapy died. The OLT cohort were younger (mean age 56.5 vs. 69.0 years), more likely to have PSC and UC (65% vs. 17%), and had a lower CA 19-9 (median 43 vs. 535)(P < 0.003). From the end date of radiation, median overall survival was 76.8 months vs. 15.6 months for the OLT and CRT groups, respectively. Survival rates at 3 and 5 years were 78% and 69% in the OLT group compared to 19% and 6% in the CRT group (HR 7.73; 3.04-19.65:(P < 0.0001)). Progression-free survival (89% vs. 30% at 3 years), and distant metastasis-free survival (88% vs. 66% at 3 years) favored OLT versus CRT alone (HR 5.74;1.12-29.34:(P < 0.02)). Univariate analysis demonstrated that the method of treatment (OLT vs. CRT) was the only variable associated with better clinical outcomes. Conclusions: In patients with unresectable extrahepatic/hilar cholangiocarcinoma, survival was higher in those who underwent chemoradiation and OLT. Patients who received definitive chemoradiation in the absence of OLT were expected to have worse overall, progression-free, and metastasis-free survival.

Objective:Radiation therapy (RT) is the primary treatment of intracranial metastasis (ICM) from lung cancer (LC). Radiation necrosis (RN) has been reported post-RT with an incidence of 5% to 24%. We reviewed the spectrum of imaging changes in patients treated with RT for ICM from LC in an effort to identify potential risk factors for RN.Methods:We reviewed 63 patients with LC and ICM who received RT (radiosurgery [stereotactic radiosurgery] with/without whole brain radiation therapy) at our institution between 2013 and 2018. Data evaluated included demographics, tumor type, ICM burden and location, chemotherapy, surgery, and RT details as well as treatment choices and outcomes.Results:Of the 63 patients, clinical and radiographic criteria for RN were noted in 24 (38%) as early as 2 months and as late as 5 years posttreatment. Six patients required surgical resection due to refractory symptoms revealing pathology-proven RN and occasionally tumor. Patients were significantly more likely to develop RN if they had surgical resection of an ICM (45.8% vs. 20.5%,P=0.05). No differences were found in location, size, or genetic profile of lesions. In total, 80% of patients received treatment for symptoms and/or radiographic change. This was generally a combination of steroids, bevacizumab, laser interstitial thermal treatment, or surgical resection. Most patients required >1 treatment modality.Conclusions:This review of outcomes of RT for ICM in LC demonstrates a higher rate of RN than previously reported in the literature in those having had a surgical resection plus stereotactic radiosurgery. Our observation of RN as late as 5 years post-RT for ICM necessitates clinician awareness.

Abstract BACKGROUND Radiation is an integral component of the multidisciplinary treatment of patients with intracranial metastasis (ICM) from melanoma. The risk of radiation necrosis (RN) post-treatment can range from 5–25%. We retrospectively evaluated pre- and post-radiation clinical and radiographical characteristics in patients with ICM from melanoma to identify potential risk factors for RN. METHODS After IRB approval, patients with ICM from melanoma who received radiation at our institution between 2013 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. We recorded demographics, intracranial metastasis (burden and location), systemic therapy, resection, stereotactic radiosurgery versus whole brain radiation, and outcomes. Brain MRI was evaluated using the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria (RANO). RESULTS A total of 27 patients were included in the study. RN was diagnosed in 14 patients (52%) at one month to three years following radiation. Cerebellar location (n=7) was significantly associated with RN (p=0.0058). Metastasis-associated hemorrhage was present in 7 patients, 6 of which developed RN (43% vs 8%, p=0.08). Surgical resection prior to radiation was performed in 9 patients, 7 of which developed RN (50% vs 15%, p=0.1). RN appeared to be less often diagnosed when ICM were treated with higher doses of radiation (24 Gy vs 20 Gy, p=0.07). Systemic treatment was administered prior to radiation in 25 patients and we found no relationship with systemic therapy type and RN. Presumed RN was treated in 12 of 14 patients (86%). Steroids or surgical resection were the primary treatment modalities, with laser ablation used in 1 case. Following treatment, improvement was noted in 3 patients radiographically and in 1 of these clinically. CONCLUSIONS This series of patients with radiotherapy-treated brain metastases from melanoma reveals cerebellar involvement, hemorrhage, and prior surgical resection as potential risk factors for radiation necrosis. Neoadjuvant systemic treatment did not appear to be a risk factor in our review.

Abstract Background Guidelines to provide recommendations about driving restrictions for patients with brain metastases are lacking. We aim to determine whether clinical neurologic examination is sufficient to predict suitability to drive in these patients by comparison with an occupational therapy driving assessment (OTDA). Methods We prospectively evaluated the concordance between neurology assessment of suitability to drive (pass/fail) and OTDA in 41 individuals with brain metastases. Neuro-oncology evaluation included an interview and neurological examination. Participants subsequently underwent OTDA during which a battery of objective measures of visual, cognitive, and motor skills related to driving was administered. Results The mean age of patients who failed OTDA was age 68.9 years vs 59.3 years in the group members who passed (P = .0046). The sensitivity of the neurology assessment to predict driving fitness compared with OTDA was 16.1% and the specificity 90%. The 31 patients who failed OTDA were more likely to fail Vision Coach, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Trail Making B tests. Conclusions There was poor association between the assessment of suitability to drive by neurologists and the outcome of the OTDA in patients with brain metastases. Subtle deficits that may impair the ability to drive safely may not be evident on neurologic examination. The positive predictive value was high to predict OTDA failure. Age could be a factor affecting OTDA performance. The results raise questions about the choice of assessments in making recommendations about driving fitness in people with brain metastases. OTDA should be strongly considered in patients with brain metastases who wish to continue driving.

BackgroundEsophageal carcinoma is the eighth most common cancer in the world. Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is widely used to treat distal esophageal carcinoma due to high conformality to the target and good sparing of organs at risk (OAR). It is not clear if small‐spot intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) demonstrates a dosimetric advantage over VMAT. In this study, we compared dosimetric performance of VMAT and small‐spot IMPT for distal esophageal carcinoma in terms of plan quality, plan robustness, and interplay effects.Methods35 distal esophageal carcinoma patients were retrospectively reviewed; 19 patients received small‐spot IMPT and the remaining 16 of them received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTVs) on phase‐averaged 4D‐CT's. The dose‐volume‐histogram (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases for each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank‐sum test. For fair comparison, all the treatment plans were normalized to have the same CTVhigh D95% in the nominal scenario relative to the prescription dose.ResultsIn the nominal scenario, small‐spot IMPT delivered statistically significantly lower liver Dmean and V30Gy[RBE], lung Dmean, heart Dmean compared with VMAT. CTVhigh dose homogeneity and protection of other OARs were comparable between the two treatments. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT and VMAT plans were comparable for kidney V18Gy[RBE], liver V30Gy[RBE], stomach V45Gy[RBE], lung Dmean, V5Gy[RBE], and V20Gy[RBE], cord Dmax and , liver Dmean, heart V20Gy[RBE], and V30Gy[RBE], but IMPT was significantly worse for CTVhigh D95%, , and D5%‐D95%, CTVlow D95%, heart Dmean, and V40Gy[RBE], requiring careful and experienced adjustments during the planning process and robustness considerations. The small‐spot IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements after interplay effects were considered.ConclusionsSmall‐spot IMPT decreases doses to heart, liver, and total lung compared to VMAT as well as achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness. Our study supports the use of small‐spot IMPT for the treatment of distal esophageal carcinoma.