Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) is clinically detected in 5% to 10% of patients with solid tumors and is a source of substantial morbidity and mortality. Prognosis for this entity remains poor and treatments are palliative. Radiation therapy (RT) is an essential tool in the management of LMD, and a recent randomized trial demonstrated a survival benefit for proton craniospinal irradiation (CSI) in select patients. In the setting of this recent advance, we conducted a review of the role of RT in LMD from solid tumors to evaluate the evidence basis for RT recommendations. METHODS AND MATERIALS/UNASSIGNED:In November 2022, we conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, as well as a review of ongoing clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, to inform a discussion on the role of RT in solid tumor LMD. Because of the paucity of high-quality published evidence, discussion was informed more by expert consensus and opinion, including a review of societal guidelines, than evidence from clinical trials. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Only 1 prospective randomized trial has evaluated RT for LMD, demonstrating improved central nervous system progression-free survival for patients with breast and lung cancer treated with proton CSI compared with involved-field RT. Modern photon CSI techniques have improved upon historical rates of acute hematologic toxicity, but the overall benefit of this modality has not been prospectively evaluated. Multiple retrospective studies have explored the use of involved-field RT or the combination of RT with chemotherapy, but clear evidence of survival benefit is lacking. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Optimal management of LMD with RT remains reliant upon expert opinion, with proton CSI indicated in patients with good performance status and extra-central nervous system disease that is either well-controlled or for which effective treatment options are available. Photon-based CSI traditionally has been associated with increased marrow and gastrointestinal toxicities, though intensity modulated RT/volumetric-modulated arc therapy based photon CSI may have reduced the toxicity profile. Further work is needed to understand the role of radioisotopes as well as combined modality treatment with intrathecal or central nervous system penetrating systemic therapies.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:Colorectal liver metastases (CLMs) represent a radioresistant histology. We aimed to investigate CLM radiation therapy (RT) outcomes and explore the association with treatment parameters. METHODS AND MATERIALS/UNASSIGNED:This retrospective analysis of CLM treated with RT at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center used Kaplan-Meier analysis to estimate freedom from local progression (FFLP), hepatic progression-free, progression-free, and overall survival (OS). Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate association with clinical factors. Dose-response relationship was further evaluated using a mechanistic tumor control probability (TCP) model. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< .001) on univariate analyses, which remained significant or marginally significant on multivariate analyses. A mechanistic Tumor Control Probability (TCP) model showed a higher 2-Gy equivalent dose needed for local control in patients who had been exposed to ≥ 3 lines of chemotherapy versus 0 to 2 (250 ± 29 vs 185 ± 77 Gy for 70% TCP). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:In a large single-institution series of heavily pretreated patients with CLM undergoing liver RT, low BED10 and multiple prior lines of systemic therapy were associated with lower local control and OS. These results support continued dose escalation efforts for patients with CLM.

BACKGROUND:Most patients with metastatic cancer eventually develop resistance to systemic therapy, with some having limited disease progression (ie, oligoprogression). We aimed to assess whether stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) targeting oligoprogressive sites could improve patient outcomes. METHODS:We did a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial of SBRT in patients with oligoprogressive metastatic breast cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after having received at least first-line systemic therapy, with oligoprogression defined as five or less progressive lesions on PET-CT or CT. Patients aged 18 years or older were enrolled from a tertiary cancer centre in New York, NY, USA, and six affiliated regional centres in the states of New York and New Jersey, with a 1:1 randomisation between standard of care (standard-of-care group) and SBRT plus standard of care (SBRT group). Randomisation was done with a computer-based algorithm with stratification by number of progressive sites of metastasis, receptor or driver genetic alteration status, primary site, and type of systemic therapy previously received. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, measured up to 12 months. We did a prespecified subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint by disease site. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03808662, and is complete. FINDINGS:From Jan 1, 2019, to July 31, 2021, 106 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=51; 23 patients with breast cancer and 28 patients with NSCLC) or SBRT plus standard of care (n=55; 24 patients with breast cancer and 31 patients with NSCLC). 16 (34%) of 47 patients with breast cancer had triple-negative disease, and 51 (86%) of 59 patients with NSCLC had no actionable driver mutation. The study was closed to accrual before reaching the targeted sample size, after the primary efficacy endpoint was met during a preplanned interim analysis. The median follow-up was 11·6 months for patients in the standard-of-care group and 12·1 months for patients in the SBRT group. The median progression-free survival was 3·2 months (95% CI 2·0-4·5) for patients in the standard-of-care group versus 7·2 months (4·5-10·0) for patients in the SBRT group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·35-0·81; p=0·0035). The median progression-free survival was higher for patients with NSCLC in the SBRT group than for those with NSCLC in the standard-of-care group (10·0 months [7·2-not reached] vs 2·2 months [95% CI 2·0-4·5]; HR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·75; p=0·0039), but no difference was found for patients with breast cancer (4·4 months [2·5-8·7] vs 4·2 months [1·8-5·5]; 0·78, 0·43-1·43; p=0·43). Grade 2 or worse adverse events occurred in 21 (41%) patients in the standard-of-care group and 34 (62%) patients in the SBRT group. Nine (16%) patients in the SBRT group had grade 2 or worse toxicities related to SBRT, including gastrointestinal reflux disease, pain exacerbation, radiation pneumonitis, brachial plexopathy, and low blood counts. INTERPRETATION:The trial showed that progression-free survival was increased in the SBRT plus standard-of-care group compared with standard of care only. Oligoprogression in patients with metastatic NSCLC could be effectively treated with SBRT plus standard of care, leading to more than a four-times increase in progression-free survival compared with standard of care only. By contrast, no benefit was observed in patients with oligoprogressive breast cancer. Further studies to validate these findings and understand the differential benefits are warranted. FUNDING:National Cancer Institute.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:External-beam radiation therapy (RT) is standard of care (SOC) for pain relief of symptomatic bone metastases. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of radiation to asymptomatic bone metastases in preventing skeletal-related events (SRE). METHODS:In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, adult patients with widely metastatic solid tumor malignancies were stratified by histology and planned SOC (systemic therapy or observation) and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive RT to asymptomatic high-risk bone metastases or SOC alone. The primary outcome of the trial was SRE. Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations for SRE and overall survival (OS). RESULTS:= .01). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Radiation delivered prophylactically to asymptomatic, high-risk bone metastases reduced SRE and hospitalizations. We also observed an improvement in OS with prophylactic radiation, although a confirmatory phase III trial is warranted.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Management of CNS involvement in leukemia may include craniospinal irradiation (CSI), though data on CSI efficacy are limited. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed leukemia patients who underwent CSI at our institution between 2009 and 2021 for CNS involvement. CNS local recurrence (CNS-LR), any recurrence, progression-free survival (PFS), CNS PFS, and overall survival (OS) were estimated. RESULTS:Of thirty-nine eligible patients treated with CSI, most were male (59%) and treated as young adults (median 31 years). The median dose was 18 Gy to the brain and 12 Gy to the spine. Twenty-five (64%) patients received CSI immediately prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant, of which 21 (84%) underwent total body irradiation conditioning (median 12 Gy). Among 15 patients with CSF-positive disease immediately prior to CSI, all 14 assessed patients had pathologic clearance of blasts (CNS-response rate 100%) at a median of 23 days from CSI start. With a median follow-up of 48 months among survivors, 2-year PFS and OS were 32% (95% CI 18-48%) and 43% (95% CI 27-58%), respectively. Only 5 CNS relapses were noted (2-year CNS-LR 14% (95% CI 5-28%)), which occurred either concurrently or after a systemic relapse. Only systemic relapse after CSI was associated with higher risk of CNS-LR on univariate analysis. No grade 3 or higher acute toxicity was seen during CSI. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:CSI is a well-tolerated and effective treatment option for patients with CNS leukemia. Control of systemic disease after CSI may be important for CNS local control. CNS recurrence may reflect reseeding from the systemic space.

Leptomeningeal metastases/diseases (LMDs) are a late-stage complication of solid tumor or hematologic malignancies. LMD is spread of cancer cells to the layers of the leptomeninges (pia and arachnoid maters) and subarachnoid space seen in 3 to 5% of cancer patients. It is a disseminated disease which carries with it significant neurologic morbidity and mortality. Our understanding of disease pathophysiology is currently lacking; however, advances are being made. As our knowledge of disease pathogenesis has improved, treatment strategies have evolved. Mainstays of treatment such as radiotherapy have changed from involved-field radiotherapy strategies to proton craniospinal irradiation which has demonstrated promising results in recent clinical trials. Systemic treatment strategies have also improved from more traditional chemotherapeutics with limited central nervous system (CNS) penetration to more targeted therapies with better CNS tumor response. Many challenges remain from earlier clinical detection of disease through improvement of active treatment options, but we are getting closer to meaningful treatment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Malignant epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC), often presenting with back pain and motor/sensory deficits, is associated with poor survival, particularly when there is loss of ambulation. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the literature and discuss appropriate workup and management of MESCC, specifically in the emergent setting. METHODS:A PubMed search was conducted on "spinal cord compression" and "radiation therapy." Articles were analyzed for the purpose of this narrative review. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS/UNASSIGNED:If MESCC is suspected, neurologic examination and complete spine imaging are recommended. Emergent treatment is indicated if there is radiographic evidence of high-grade compression and/or clinically significant motor deficits. Treatment involves a combination of medical management, surgical decompression, radiation therapy (RT), and rehabilitation. For motor deficits, emergent initiation of high dose steroids is recommended. Circumferential surgical decompression ± stabilization followed by RT provides superior clinical outcomes than RT alone. For patients whom surgery is not reasonable, RT alone may provide significant treatment response which depends on radioresponsiveness of the pathology. Systemic therapy, if indicated, is typically reserved till after primary treatment of MESCC, but patients with chemoresponsive tumors may receive primary chemotherapy. The selected RT schedule should be personalized to each patient and commonly is 30 Gy in 10 fractions (fx), 20 Gy in 5 fx, or 8 Gy in 1 fx. MESCC recurrence may be treated with additional RT, if within the spinal cord tolerance, or surgery. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been used for high grade MESCC in patients with relatively intact neurologic function at a few centers with a very robust infrastructure to support rapid initiation of treatment within a short period of time, but is generally not feasible for most clinical practices. SBRT may be advantageous for low grade MESCC, recurrence, or in the post-operative setting. Detection of MESCC prior to development of high-grade compression or deterioration of neurologic function may allow patients to benefit more from advanced therapies and improve prognosis. CONCLUSIONS:MESCC is a devastating condition; optimal treatment should be personalized to each patient and approached collaboratively by a multidisciplinary team.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:As novel systemic therapies allow patients to live longer with cancer, the risk of developing central nervous system (CNS) metastases increases and providers will more frequently encounter emergent presentation of brain metastases (BM) and leptomeningeal metastases (LM). Management of these metastases requires appropriate work-up and well-coordinated multidisciplinary care. We set out to perform a review of emergent radiotherapy (RT) for CNS metastases, specifically focusing on BM and LM. METHODS:We review the appropriate pathways for workup and initial management of BM and LM, while reviewing the literature supporting emergent treatment of these entities with surgery, systemic anti-cancer therapy, and RT. To inform this narrative review, literature searches in PubMed and Google Scholar were conducted, with preference given to articles employing modern RT techniques, when applicable. Due to the paucity of high-quality evidence for management of BM and LM in the emergent setting, discussion was supplemented by the authors' expert commentary. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS/UNASSIGNED:This work highlights the importance of surgical evaluation, particularly for patients presenting with significant mass effect, hemorrhagic metastases, or increased intracranial pressure. We review the rare situations where emergent initiation of systemic anti-cancer therapy is indicated. When defining the role of RT, we review factors guiding selection of appropriate modality, treatment volume, and dose-fractionation. Generally, 2D- or 3D-conformal treatment techniques prescribed as 30 Gy in 10 fractions or 20 Gy in 5 fractions, should be employed in the emergent setting. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with BM and LM present from a diverse array of clinical situations, requiring well-coordinated multidisciplinary management, and there is a paucity of high-quality evidence guiding such management decisions. This narrative review aims to more thoroughly prepare providers for the challenging situation of emergent management of BM and LM.

CONTEXT:Individual goals and values should drive medical decision making for patients with serious illness. Unfortunately, clinicians' existing strategies to encourage reflection and communication regarding patients' personal values are generally time-consuming and limited in scope. OBJECTIVES:Herein, we develop a novel intervention to facilitate at-home reflection and discussion about goals and values. We then conduct a pilot study of our intervention in a small population of patients with metastatic cancer. METHODS:We first engaged former cancer patients and their families to adapt an existing serious illness communication guide to a worksheet format. We then distributed this adapted "Values Worksheet" to 28 patients with metastatic cancer. We surveyed participants about their perceptions of the Worksheet to assess its feasibility. RESULTS:Of 30 patients approached, 28 agreed to participate. Seventeen participants completed the Values Worksheet, and of those 11 (65%) responded to the follow-up survey. Seven of eleven reported that the Values Worksheet was a good use of time, and nine of eleven would be likely to recommend it to other patients with cancer. Eight of ten reported mild distress, two of ten reported moderate to severe distress. CONCLUSION:The Values Worksheet was a feasible way to facilitate at-home discussions of goals and values for select patients with metastatic cancer. Further research should focus on identifying which patients are most likely to benefit from the Values Worksheet, and should employ the Worksheet as one tool to facilitate reflection on the questions that arise around serious illness, as an adjunct to serious illness conversations with a physician.

PURPOSE:Proton craniospinal irradiation (pCSI) is a promising treatment for patients with solid tumor leptomeningeal metastasis (LM). We hypothesize that genetic characteristics before and changes resulting after pCSI will reflect clinical response to pCSI. We analyzed the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients receiving pCSI for LM and explored genetic variations associated with response. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:We subjected CSF from 14 patients with LM before and after pCSI to cell-free DNA sequencing using a targeted-sequencing panel. In parallel, plasma ctDNA and primary tumors were subjected to targeted sequencing. Variant allele frequency (VAF) and cancer cell fraction (CCF) were calculated; clonality of observed mutations was determined. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to associate genomic changes with survival. RESULTS:The median overall survival (OS) for the cohort was 9 months [interquartile range (IQR), 5-21 months]. We showed clonal evolution between tumor and ctDNA of the CSF and plasma with unique mutations identified by compartment. Higher CSF ctDNA mean VAF before pCSI (VAFpre) had worse OS (6 months for VAFpre ≥ 0.32 vs. 9 months for VAFpre < 0.32; P = 0.05). Similarly, increased VAF after pCSI portended worse survival (6 vs. 18 months; P = 0.008). Higher mean CCF of subclonal mutations appearing after pCSI was associated with worse OS (8 vs. 17 months; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with solid tumor LM undergoing pCSI, we found unique genomic profiles associated with pCSI through CSF ctDNA analyses. Patients with reduced genomic diversity within the leptomeningeal compartment demonstrated improved OS after pCSI suggesting that CSF ctDNA analysis may have use in predicting pCSI response.