Yu, Nathan Y.

AbstractBackgroundParallel‐opposed lateral beams are the conventional beam arrangements in proton therapy for prostate cancer. However, when considering linear energy transfer (LET) and RBE effects, alternative beam arrangements should be investigated.PurposeTo investigate the dose and dose averaged LET (LETd) impact of using new beam arrangements rotating beams 5°–15° posteriorly to the laterals in prostate cancer treated with pencil‐beam‐scanning (PBS) proton therapy.MethodsTwenty patients with localized prostate cancer were included in this study. Four proton treatment plans for each patient were generated utilizing 0°, 5°, 10°, and 15° posterior oblique beam pairs relative to parallel‐opposed lateral beams. Dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) from posterior oblique beams were analyzed. Dose‐LETd‐volume histogram (DLVH) was employed to study the difference in dose and LETd with each beam arrangement. DLVH indices, , defined as the cumulative absolute volume that has a dose of at least d (Gy[RBE]) and a LETd of at least l (keV/µm), were calculated for both the rectum and bladder to the whole group of patients and two‐sub groups with and without hydrogel spacer. These metrics were tested using Wilcoxon signed‐rank test.ResultsRotating beam angles from laterals to slightly posterior by 5°–15° reduced high LETd volumes while it increased the dose volume in the rectum and increased LETd in bladders. Beam angles rotated five degrees posteriorly from laterals (i.e., gantry in 95° and 265°) are proposed since they achieved the optimal balance of better LETd sparing and minimal dose increase in the rectum. A reduction of V(50 Gy[RBE], 2.6 keV/µm) from 7.41 to 3.96 cc (p < 0.01), and a slight increase of V(50 Gy[RBE], 0 keV/µm) from 20.1 to 21.6 cc (p < 0.01) were observed for the group without hydrogel spacer. The LETd sparing was less effective for the group with hydrogel spacer, which achieved the reduction of V(50 Gy[RBE], 2.6 keV/µm) from 4.28 to 2.10 cc (p < 0.01).ConclusionsPosterior oblique angle plans improved LETd sparing of the rectum while sacrificing LETd sparing in the bladder in the treatment of prostate cancer with PBS. Beam angle modification from laterals to slightly posterior may be a strategy to redistribute LETd and perhaps reduce rectal toxicity risks in prostate cancer patients treated with PBS. However, the effect is reduced for patients with hydrogel spacer.

Patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) are at significant risk of developing brain metastases during their disease course. Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) has been incorporated into SCLC treatment guidelines to diminish the risk of developing brain metastases. In 2007, a randomized trial suggested that PCI decreases the incidence of brain metastases and prolongs overall survival (OS) in patients with extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC) who have responded to initial therapy. However, this study did not include modern central nervous system imaging with CT or MRI prior to randomization. A more recent Japanese trial with MRI staging and surveillance demonstrated that PCI diminished the incidence of brain metastases but did not improve survival. This review examines the largest clinical studies, controversies, and future directions of PCI in patients with ES-SCLC.

Abstract Purpose The multiple energy extraction (MEE) delivery technique for synchrotron‐based proton delivery systems reduces beam delivery time by decelerating the beam multiple times during one accelerator spill, but this might cause additional plan quality degradation due to intrafractional motion. We seek to determine whether MEE causes significantly different plan quality degradation compared to single energy extraction (SEE) for lung cancer treatments due to the interplay effect. Methods Ten lung cancer patients treated with IMPT at our institution were nonrandomly sampled based on a representative range of tumor motion amplitudes, tumor volumes, and respiratory periods. Dose‐volume histogram (DVH) indices from single‐fraction SEE and MEE four‐dimensional (4D) dynamic dose distributions were compared using the Wilcoxon signed‐rank test. Distributions of monitor units (MU) to breathing phases were investigated for features associated with plan quality degradation. SEE and MEE DVH indices were compared in fractionated deliveries of the worst‐case patient treatment scenario to evaluate the impact of fractionation. Results There were no clinically significant differences in target mean dose, target dose conformity, or dose to organs‐at‐risk between SEE and MEE in single‐fraction delivery. Three patients had significantly worse dose homogeneity with MEE compared to SEE (single‐fraction mean D 5% ‐D 95% increased by up to 9.6% of prescription dose), and plots of MU distribution to breathing phases showed synchronization patterns with MEE but not SEE. However, after 30 fractions the patient in the worst‐case scenario had clinically acceptable target dose homogeneity and coverage with MEE (mean D 5% –D 95% increased by 1% compared to SEE). Conclusions For some patients with breathing periods close to the mean spill duration, MEE resulted in significantly worse single‐fraction target dose homogeneity compared to SEE due to the interplay effect. However, this was mitigated by fractionation, and target dose homogeneity and coverage were clinically acceptable after 30 fractions with MEE.

8569 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (atezolizumab or durvalumab) combined with platinum-etoposide is the standard first-line therapy for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The phase III clinical trials that led to the approval of chemoimmunotherapy in ES-SCLC, excluded patients with an Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) of Two or Greater. Therefore, data on efficacy of this combination in this subgroup of ES-SCLC patients whose performance status two or greater is limited. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients diagnosed with ES-SCLC who received chemoimmunotherapy (atezolizumab or durvalumab) within the Mayo Clinic Health System between January 2016 and January 2021. Cases were identified from clinical databases at Mayo Clinic. Data on demographics, ECOG-PS, date of diagnosis, date of progression, whole brain radiation, CNS involvement, liver involvement, stereotactic body radiation, chest consolidation, platinum sensitivity, lines of therapy and last follow up date were extracted. Overall Survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) for ECOG-PS 2-3 were compared to patients with an ECOG-PS 0-1. Results: A total of 84 patients were identified with a median age of 68.2 (48-88) years old. Of these, 54 patients were identified with an ECOG-PS 0-1 and 30 patients with an ECOG-PS 2-3. The median PFS for the ECOG PS 0-1 cohort was 5.2 months (95% CI 4.6-6.1) while the median PFS for the ECOG-PS 2-3 cohort was 6.0 months (95% CI 4.2-7.7; logrank p = 0.93). The median OS for the ECOG-PS 0-1 cohort was 10.8 months (95% CI 8.5-12.9) while the median OS for the ECOG-PS 2-3 cohort was 10.3 months (95% CI 6.0-14.1; logrank p = 0.39). Hazard ratios of ECOG-PS 0-1 versus 2-3 showed no tendency of increased PFS or OS for either group within cox proportional hazards models. Forty-three percent of ECOG-PS 0-1 achieved a partial response (PR) and 57% of patients who had ECOG-PS 2-3 also achieved a PR (Fisher’s exact p = 0.23). A complete response was found in 4% of ECOG-PS 0-1 compared to 3% in the ECOG-PS 2-3 cohort. For patients who responded to initial therapy, 46% of ECOG-PS 2-3 patients had a platinum sensitive relapse while only 33% of ECOG-PS 0-1 were still platinum sensitive at the time of relapse. Five ECOG-PS 2-3 patients were able to receive a second-line therapy. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate chemoimmunotherapy in the subgroup of ES-SCLC patients with an ECOG-PS 2 or greater. This retrospective study demonstrated no significant difference in PFS, OS, and ability to achieve a least a PR in ECOG-PS 2-3 cohort when compared to ECOG-PS 0-1. Therefore, chemoimmunotherapy should not be reserved for only an ECOG-PS of 0-1 but should be considered for all treatment eligible patients.

Purpose To compare the dosimetric performances of small‐spot three‐dimensional (3D) and four‐dimensional (4D) robustly optimized intensity‐modulated proton (IMPT) plans in the presence of uncertainties and interplay effect simultaneously for distal esophageal carcinoma. Method and Materials Thirteen (13) patients were selected and re‐planned with small‐spot ( ~ 2–6 mm) 3D and 4D robust optimization in IMPT, respectively. The internal clinical target volumes (CTV high3d , CTV low3d ) were used in 3D robust optimization. Different CTVs (CTV high4d , CTV low4d ) were generated by subtracting an inner margin of the motion amplitudes in three cardinal directions from the internal CTVs and used in 4D robust optimization. All patients were prescribed the same dose to CTVs (50 Gy[RBE] for CTV high3d /CTV high4d and 45 Gy[RBE] for CTV low3d /CTV low4d ). Dose–volume histogram (DVH) indices were calculated to assess plan quality. Comprehensive plan robustness evaluations that consisted of 300 perturbed scenarios (10 different motion patterns to consider irregular motion (sampled from a Gaussian distribution) and 30 different uncertainties scenarios (sampled from a 4D uniform distribution) combined), were performed to quantify robustness to uncertainties and interplay effect simultaneously. Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used for statistical analysis. Results Compared to 3D robustly optimized plans, 4D robustly optimized plans had statistically improved target coverage and better sparing of lungs and heart (heart D mean , P = 0.001; heart V 30Gy[RBE] , P = 0.001) in the nominal scenario. 4D robustly optimized plans had better robustness in target dose coverage (CTV high4d V 100% , P = 0.002) and the protection of lungs and heart (heart D mean , P = 0.001; heart V 30Gy[RBE] , P = 0.001) when uncertainties and interplay effect were considered simultaneously. Conclusions Even with small spots in IMPT, 4D robust optimization outperformed 3D robust optimization in terms of normal tissue protection and robustness to uncertainties and interplay effect simultaneously. Our findings support the use of 4D robust optimization to treat distal esophageal carcinoma with small spots in IMPT.

Malignant melanoma of the lacrimal sac is an exceptionally rare tumor with a poor prognosis. We report two cases of malignant melanoma of the lacrimal sac: a 73 year-old female treated with primary surgical resection and a 75 year-old male treated with surgical resection, adjuvant proton beam radiotherapy, and adjuvant immunotherapy. We discuss the role of post-operative proton beam therapy and recent advancements in immunotherapy. These cases highlight the importance of early diagnosis and multi-modality treatment in this aggressive malignancy.

Objectives: To report long-term outcomes of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) in immunosuppressed cardiac and liver transplant recipients (CLTR). Materials and Methods: The authors reviewed CLTR at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona from 1986 to 2013. Patient and tumor characteristics were recorded. Survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patient-specific and lesion-specific analyses were performed. Univariate and multivariate cox regressions were performed for comparisons. Results: Seven-hundred and forty-seven patients underwent cardiac (138) or liver (609) transplantation and of these, 97 patients (13%) developed 382 invasive NMSC. The median follow-up was 11 (range, 3 to 27) years for surviving patients. Primary treatment was mainly surgery alone. At 10 years, the local recurrence (LR) rate was 20% (95% confidence interval, 15%-28%), and 14% of patients had multiple LRs. At 10 years, LR rates were higher for T3/T4 tumors when compared with T1/T2 tumors (32.5% vs. 20%, P=0.05). At 10 years, overall survival was 79% (95% confidence interval, 64%-88%). On multivariate analysis, age 61 years and more demonstrated inferior overall survival (P<0.01). Conclusions: This is the first study describing the AJCC 8th edition stage-based patterns of recurrence and long-term outcomes of surgically managed NMSC in a large cohort of immunosuppressed CLTRs. T3 and T4 tumors recur more often than early stage tumors. Further study is required to identify factors related to recurrence and guide upfront treatment intensification in this high-risk population.

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.