Faculty Bibliography

The abscopal effect, first described in 1953, refers to the regression of distant, non-irradiated tumors following localized therapy. Historically considered rare, interest in this phenomenon has increased with the introduction of immunotherapy and local treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This review summarizes the current evidence on the pathophysiology, clinical observations, and assessment of the abscopal effect in NSCLC following radiotherapy, lung ablation, and combined multimodality therapies. Preclinical and early clinical studies suggest that radiotherapy and ablative techniques such as cryoablation, microwave ablation, and pulsed electric field therapy may induce immunogenic cell death, leading to the release of tumor antigens and danger-associated molecular patterns that can activate systemic antitumor immune responses. When combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors, these local therapies may enhance immune activation, potentially improving both local and distant tumor control. However, recognition of abscopal effects remains inconsistent, largely due to limitations of conventional response assessment criteria. While iRECIST partly captures atypical response patterns, unequivocal out-of-field tumor regression is not systematically recorded in most clinical trials. The available evidence, primarily from preclinical models and early-phase studies, suggests that the true incidence of abscopal effects in NSCLC may be underrecognized. Accordingly, we propose a working definition of the abscopal effect in NSCLC: the regression (complete or partial response by iRECIST) of one or more non-irradiated lesions distant from the primary treatment site, occurring after localized therapy with or without systemic treatment, and confirmed by follow-up imaging within 4-8 weeks. Establishing standardized terminology and assessment criteria will be essential for accurately identifying and integrating potential abscopal responses in future NSCLC research and clinical practice.

In this article, we summarize the progress made in lung cancer, mesothelioma, and thymic epithelial malignancy during the period 2005-2025. We enlisted multidisciplinary thoracic oncologic experts to tackle this task. The main focus of the article concerns how basic science with translational impact has improved the diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy of these cancers. During the past 20 years, we have come to the realization that "lung cancer" is a name that encompasses tumors with vast histologic, immune, and genomic differences that in turn influence prognosis and response to therapy. For example, programmed death-ligand 1 levels are being used as an immune signature which guides the use of immunotherapy. There is an 85% higher risk for developing lung cancer among first-degree relatives of patients with lung cancer. Accordingly, an increasing number of lung cancers are being identified in carriers of predisposing germline pathogenic inactivating mutations, suggesting that screening programs for early lung cancer detection may benefit family members. Underscoring the role of genetics, and the importance of germline testing, a different variant of mesothelioma has been identified developing in carriers of inactivating heterozygous germline mutations of BAP1 and of other tumor suppressor genes, including a new variant of mesothelioma caused by fusion genes. These variants of mesothelioma are characterized by specific histologic and molecular genetic alterations. These patients benefit from screening programs as they are at risk of multiple malignancies, their tumors are usually much less aggressive, and they are more responsive to therapy compared with sporadic, asbestos-induced mesotheliomas. Thus, the tailored therapeutic approach that is described here for lung cancer may extend to patients with mesothelioma, rather than the previous "one therapy fits all" approach. Progress in the rare thymic epithelial tumors has been less marked; however, recent insights into the biology of thymic tumors have resulted in the development of clinically relevant interventions.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:The goal of this study is to report the feasibility and outcomes of hypofractionated proton reirradiation in patients with recurrent thoracic tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Data were retrospectively collected for patients who received hypofractionated proton therapy for recurrent lung cancer at a single facility. Proton reirradiation was delivered using a total of 15 fractions. Patient and tumor characteristics, adverse events, and dose-volume histogram parameters were collected and analyzed descriptively. Tumor control and patient survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier statistics. Univariate logistic regression was performed to analyze the relationship between dose-volume histogram parameters and acute and late toxicity. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = .041). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:This study demonstrates the feasibility and efficacy of a hypofractionated course of proton reirradiation for recurrent thoracic tumors. DATA AVAILABILITY/UNASSIGNED:The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:We present the preclinical rationale and clinical data from a phase 1b trial investigating the STING agonist dazostinag plus pembrolizumab following hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), or squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) whose disease had progressed on prior checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) (NCT04879849). PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:Eligible patients received radiation (8 Gy ×3 fractions) followed (≥40h) by pembrolizumab 200 mg every three weeks, and dazostinag in escalating doses (0.2-5.0 mg). Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included preliminary antitumor activity in irradiated and non-irradiated lesions, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic analyses. RESULTS:Preclinical studies demonstrated tumor control and enhanced intratumoral immune activation in mice treated with dazostinag plus radiation. Thirty-four patients (NSCLC: 15, SCCHN: 10, TNBC: 9) with a median number of six prior treatments were enrolled. Thirty-three (97.1%) patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), none were dose-limiting toxicities; the most common were fatigue (52.9%), constipation (26.5%) and cough (20.6%). Dazostinag-related TEAEs occurred in 17 patients (50.0%); the most common were fatigue (26.5%), chills (8.8%), diarrhea, arthralgia, and myalgia (5.9% each). Antitumor activity, per RECIST v.1.1, was confirmed in two (7.1%) patients (one complete response and one partial response). Pharmacodynamic analyses indicated activation of STING and interferon-γ pathways across multiple dose levels, and induced immune responses, consistent with preclinical studies. CONCLUSIONS:Dazostinag, combined with pembrolizumab after radiotherapy, was well tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity in some patients with advanced/metastatic tumors whose disease had progressed on CPIs.

Radiation recall dermatitis is a known but rare adverse effect that is characterized by the development of dermatitis in the region of prior irradiated tissue triggered by exposure to a systemic agent. Capivasertib is a small-molecule inhibitor targeting the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/protein kinase B pathway recently approved in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer; however, the safety of its use in the setting of palliative radiation is currently unclear. Here, we report a case of radiation recall dermatitis in a patient with metastatic breast cancer on capivasertib with history of radiation to the right lower extremity managed with corticosteroids, antibiotics, and switching to alpelisib.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is effective for patients with medically refractory trigeminal neuralgia with a 75%-90% response rate. Consideration of the integral dose (ID) to the target nerve within the 50% isodose line was reported to help select prescription doses to maximize effectiveness and minimize bothersome numbness. The objective of this study was to externally validate the ID as a predictor of outcomes after SRS. METHODS:We reviewed the outcomes and parameters of 94 consecutive patients of type 1 trigeminal neuralgia who had SRS for the first time where nerve ID was calculated. 70% of the prescription doses were 80 Gy, with 28% at 85 Gy, and 2% at 70 Gy. RESULTS:The median follow-up time was 14.4 months. A total of 85 (90%) patients reported significant pain relief (Barrow Neurological Institute I-III) after initial SRS. The median pain recurrence-free survival was 82 months (95% CI 41.1-NA), and estimates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 80.5%, 65.5%, and 55.9%, respectively. The ID was not significantly associated with initial pain relief, or affect the risk of pain recurrence or sensory dysfunction after SRS using the Cox proportional hazards model. A nerve mean dose ≥65 Gy was associated with a reduced risk of pain recurrence on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 0.408, P = .039). Twenty (21%) patients experienced sensory dysfunction after SRS with 3 (3%) requiring further medications, which was not correlated with the prescription dose or brainstem maximum dose. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The ID did not predict recurrence-free survival or sensory dysfunction. Our observations suggest improved nerve coverage by the most powerful area of the isocenter, for instance, by targeting a narrower segment if feasible, could result in more durable pain relief. Further studies to validate these findings are needed.