Schild, Steven E.

PURPOSE RTOG 0617 compared standard-dose (SD; 60 Gy) versus high-dose (HD; 74 Gy) radiation with concurrent chemotherapy and determined the efficacy of cetuximab for stage III non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS The study used a 2 × 2 factorial design with radiation dose as 1 factor and cetuximab as the other, with a primary end point of overall survival (OS). RESULTS Median follow-up was 5.1 years. There were 3 grade 5 adverse events (AEs) in the SD arm and 9 in the HD arm. Treatment-related grade ≥3 dysphagia and esophagitis occurred in 3.2% and 5.0% of patients in the SD arm v 12.1% and 17.4% in the HD arm, respectively ( P = .0005 and < .0001). There was no difference in pulmonary toxicity, with grade ≥3 AEs in 20.6% and 19.3%. Median OS was 28.7 v 20.3 months ( P = .0072) in the SD and HD arms, respectively, 5-year OS and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 32.1% and 23% and 18.3% and 13% ( P = .055), respectively. Factors associated with improved OS on multivariable analysis were standard radiation dose, tumor location, institution accrual volume, esophagitis/dysphagia, planning target volume and heart V5. The use of cetuximab conferred no survival benefit at the expense of increased toxicity. The prior signal of benefit in patients with higher H scores was no longer apparent. The progression rate within 1 month of treatment completion in the SD arm was 4.6%. For comparison purposes, the resultant 2-year OS and PFS rates allowing for that dropout rate were 59.6% and 30.7%, respectively, in the SD arms. CONCLUSION A 60-Gy radiation dose with concurrent chemotherapy should remain the standard of care, with the OS rate being among the highest reported in the literature for stage III NSCLC. Cetuximab had no effect on OS. The 2-year OS rates in the control arm are similar to the PACIFIC trial.

The NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates in immunotherapy. For the 2020 update, all of the systemic therapy regimens have been categorized using a new preference stratification system; certain regimens are now recommended as “preferred interventions,” whereas others are categorized as either “other recommended interventions” or “useful under certain circumstances.”

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.

PurposeThe dose‐averaged linear energy transfer (LETd) for intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) calculated by one‐dimensional (1D) analytical models deviates from more accurate but time‐consuming Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. We developed a fast hybrid three‐dimensional (3D) analytical LETd calculation that is more accurate than 1D analytical model.MethodsWe used the Geant4 MC code to generate 3D LETd distributions of monoenergetic proton beams in water for all energies and used a customized error function to fit the LETd lateral profiles at various depths to the MC simulation. The 3D LETd calculation kernel was a lookup table of these fitted coefficients, and LETd was determined directly from spot energies and voxel coordinates during analytical dose calculations. We validated our new method by comparing the calculated LETd distributions to MC results using 3D Gamma index analysis with 3%/2 mm criteria in 12 patient geometries. The significance of the improvement in Gamma index analysis passing rates over the 1D analytical model was determined using the Wilcoxon rank‐sum test.ResultsThe passing rate of 3D Gamma analysis comparing LETd distributions from the hybrid 3D method and the 1D method to MC simulations was significantly improved from 94.0% ± 2.5% to 98.0% ± 1.0% (P = 0.0003). The typical time to calculate dose and LETd simultaneously using an Intel Xeon E5‐2680 2.50 GHz workstation was approximately 2.5 min.ConclusionsOur new method significantly improved the LETd calculation accuracy compared to the 1D method while maintaining significantly shorter calculation time even comparing with the GPU‐based fast MC code.

Purpose: To describe and validate the dose calculation algorithm of an independent second-dose check software for spot scanning proton delivery systems with full width at half maximum between 5 and 14 mm and with a negligible spray component. Methods: The analytical dose engine of our independent second-dose check software employs an altered pencil beam algorithm with 3 lateral Gaussian components. It was commissioned using Geant4 and validated by comparison to point dose measurements at several depths within spread-out Bragg peaks of varying ranges, modulations, and field sizes. Water equivalent distance was used to compensate for inhomogeneous geometry. Twelve patients representing different disease sites were selected for validation. Dose calculation results in water were compared to a fast Monte Carlo code and ionization chamber array measurements using dose planes and dose profiles as well as 2-dimensional–3-dimensional and 3-dimensional–3-dimensional γ-index analysis. Results in patient geometry were compared to Monte Carlo simulation using dose–volume histogram indices, 3-dimensional–3-dimensional γ-index analysis, and inpatient dose profiles. Results: Dose engine model parameters were tuned to achieve 1.5% agreement with measured point doses. The in-water γ-index passing rates for the 12 patients using 3%/2 mm criteria were 99.5% ± 0.5% compared to Monte Carlo. The average inpatient γ-index analysis passing rate compared to Monte Carlo was 95.8% ± 2.9%. The average difference in mean dose to the clinical target volume between the dose engine and Monte Carlo was −0.4% ± 1.0%. For a typical plan, dose calculation time was 2 minutes on an inexpensive workstation. Conclusions: Following our commissioning process, the analytical dose engine was validated for all treatment sites except for the lung or for calculating dose–volume histogram indices involving point doses or critical structures immediately distal to target volumes. Monte Carlo simulations are recommended for these scenarios.

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.

PurposeApproximate dose calculation methods were used in the nominal dose distribution and the perturbed dose distributions due to uncertainties in a commercial treatment planning system (CTPS) for robust optimization in intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT). We aimed to investigate whether the approximations influence plan quality, robustness, and interplay effect of the resulting IMPT plans for the treatment of locally advanced lung cancer patients.Materials and methodsTen consecutively treated locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were selected. Two IMPT plans were created for each patient using our in‐house developed TPS, named “Solo,” and also the CTPS, EclipseTM (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA), respectively. The plans were designed to deliver prescription doses to internal target volumes (ITV) drawn by a physician on averaged four‐dimensional computed tomography (4D‐CT). Solo plans were imported back to CTPS, and recalculated in CTPS for fair comparison. Both plans were further verified for each patient by recalculating doses in the inhalation and exhalation phases to ensure that all plans met clinical requirements. Plan robustness was quantified on all phases using dose‐volume‐histograms (DVH) indices in the worst‐case scenario. The interplay effect was evaluated for every plan using an in‐house developed software, which randomized starting phases of each field per fraction and accumulated dose in the exhalation phase based on the patient's breathing motion pattern and the proton spot delivery in a time‐dependent fashion. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank‐sum test.ResultsCompared to the plans generated using CTPS on the averaged CT, Solo plans had significantly better target dose coverage and homogeneity (normalized by the prescription dose) in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 98.04% vs 96.28%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.020; ITV D5%–D95%: 7.20% vs 9.03%, P = 0.049] while all DVH indices were comparable in the nominal scenario. On the inhalation phase, Solo plans had better target dose coverage and cord Dmax in the nominal scenario [ITV D95%: 99.36% vs 98.45%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.014; cord Dmax: 20.07 vs 23.71 Gy(RBE), P = 0.027] with better target coverage and cord Dmax in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 97.89% vs 96.47%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.037; cord Dmax: 24.57 vs 28.14 Gy(RBE), P = 0.037]. On the exhalation phase, similar phenomena were observed in the nominal scenario [ITV D95%: 99.63% vs 98.87%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.037; cord Dmax: 19.67 vs 23.66 Gy(RBE), P = 0.039] and in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 98.20% vs 96.74%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.027; cord Dmax: 23.47 vs 27.93 Gy(RBE), P = 0.027]. In terms of interplay effect, plans generated by Solo had significantly better target dose coverage and homogeneity, less hot spots, and lower esophageal Dmean, and cord Dmax [ITV D95%: 101.81% vs 98.68%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.002; ITV D5%–D95%: 2.94% vs 7.51%, P = 0.002; cord Dmax: 18.87 vs 22.29 Gy(RBE), P = 0.014].ConclusionsSolo‐generated IMPT plans provide improved cord sparing, better target robustness in all considered phases, and reduced interplay effect compared with CTPS. Consequently, the approximation methods currently used in commercial TPS programs may have space for improvement in generating optimal IMPT plans for patient cases with locally advanced lung cancer.

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.