Radiotherapeutic and surgical management for newly diagnosed brain metastasis(es): An American Society for Radiation Oncology evidence-based guideline

PurposeTo systematically review the evidence for the radiotherapeutic and surgical management of patients newly diagnosed with intraparenchymal brain metastases.Methods and MaterialsKey clinical questions to be addressed in this evidence-based Guideline were identified. Fully published randomized controlled trials dealing with the management of newly diagnosed intraparenchymal brain metastases were searched systematically and reviewed. The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force levels of evidence were used to classify various options of management.ResultsThe choice of management in patients with newly diagnosed single or multiple brain metastases depends on estimated prognosis and the aims of treatment (survival, local treated lesion control, distant brain control, neurocognitive preservation).Single brain metastasis and good prognosis (expected survival 3 months or more): For a single brain metastasis larger than 3 to 4 cm and amenable to safe complete resection, whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and surgery (level 1) should be considered. Another alternative is surgery and radiosurgery/radiation boost to the resection cavity (level 3). For single metastasis less than 3 to 4 cm, radiosurgery alone or WBRT and radiosurgery or WBRT and surgery (all based on level 1 evidence) should be considered. Another alternative is surgery and radiosurgery or radiation boost to the resection cavity (level 3). For single brain metastasis (less than 3 to 4 cm) that is not resectable or incompletely resected, WBRT and radiosurgery, or radiosurgery alone should be considered (level 1). For nonresectable single brain metastasis (larger than 3 to 4 cm), WBRT should be considered (level 3).Multiple brain metastases and good prognosis (expected survival 3 months or more): For selected patients with multiple brain metastases (all less than 3 to 4 cm), radiosurgery alone, WBRT and radiosurgery, or WBRT alone should be considered, based on level 1 evidence. Safe resection of a brain metastasis or metastases causing significant mass effect and postoperative WBRT may also be considered (level 3).Patients with poor prognosis (expected survival less than 3 months): Patients with either single or multiple brain metastases with poor prognosis should be considered for palliative care with or without WBRT (level 3).It should be recognized, however, that there are limitations in the ability of physicians to accurately predict patient survival. Prognostic systems such as recursive partitioning analysis, and diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment may be helpful.ConclusionsRadiotherapeutic intervention (WBRT or radiosurgery) is associated with improved brain control. In selected patients with single brain metastasis, radiosurgery or surgery has been found to improve survival and locally treated metastasis control (compared with WBRT alone).     

Palliative thoracic radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer: 2018 Update of an American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Evidence-Based Guideline

Purpose

To revise the recommendation on the use of concurrent chemotherapy (CC) with palliative thoracic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) made in the original 2011 American Society for Radiation Oncology guideline on palliative thoracic radiation for lung cancer.

Patterns of practice in radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer among members of the American Society for Radiation Oncology

PurposeTo better define patterns of practice for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the United States.Methods and MaterialsA survey of 36 questions was designed to collect information regarding practice patterns of radiation oncologists for the management of patients with NSCLC. All American Society for Radiation Oncology members were invited to respond.ResultsFour hundred twenty-four responses from radiation oncologists in the United States were received. The response rate for the survey was approximately 20%. Substantial discrepancies were seen in the use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with peripherally and centrally located early-stage tumors and in the recommended SBRT dose. There was a near consensus opinion regarding the use of concurrent chemotherapy and the radiation dose for patients with inoperable stage II and III NSCLC with a good performance status; however, in patients with a poor performance status or in patients with stage IV disease treatment recommendations differed remarkably. Additionally, the use of elective nodal irradiation and the assessment of tumor motion during simulation were highly variable. Thoracic radiation oncologists were more likely to prescribe higher doses, omit elective nodal irradiation, and use advanced technologies (P < .001).ConclusionsSubstantial variations were seen in the management of patients with stage I and IV NSCLC in addition to the incorporation of new technology. This information can be used to help design meaningful clinical trials.     

American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the role of bisphosphonates in breast cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology Bisphosphonates Expert Panel.

PURPOSE: To determine clinical practice guidelines for the use of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of bone metastases in breast cancer and their role relative to other therapies for this condition. METHODS: An expert multidisciplinary panel reviewed pertinent information from the published literature and meeting abstracts through May 1999. Additional data collected as part of randomized trials and submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration were also reviewed, and investigators were contacted for more recent information. Values for levels of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned by expert reviewers and approved by the panel. Expert consensus was used if there were insufficient published data. The panel addressed which patients to treat and when in their course of disease, specific drug delivery issues, duration of therapy, management of bony metastases with other therapies, and the public policy implications. The guideline underwent external review by selected physicians, members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee, and the ASCO Board of Directors. RESULTS: Bisphosphonates have not had an impact on the most reliable cancer end point: overall survival. The benefits have been reductions in skeletal complications, ie, pathologic fractures, surgery for fracture or impending fracture, radiation, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia. Intravenous (IV) pamidronate 90 mg delivered over 1 to 2 hours every 3 to 4 weeks is recommended in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have imaging evidence of lytic destruction of bone and who are concurrently receiving systemic therapy with hormonal therapy or chemotherapy. For women with only an abnormal bone scan but without bony destruction by imaging studies or localized pain, there is insufficient evidence to suggest starting bisphosphonates. Starting bisphosphonates in patients without evidence of bony metastasis, even in the presence of other extraskeletal metastases, is not recommended. Studies of bisphosphonates in the adjuvant setting have yielded inconsistent results. Starting bisphosphonates in patients at any stage of their nonosseous disease, outside of clinical trials, despite a high risk for future bone metastasis, is currently not recommended. Oral bisphosphonates are one of several options which can be used for preservation of bone density in premenopausal patients with treatment-induced menopause. The panel suggests that, once initiated, IV bisphosphonates be continued until evidence of substantial decline in a patient's general performance status. The panel stresses that clinical judgment must guide what is a substantial decline. There is no evidence addressing the consequences of stopping bisphosphonates after one or more adverse skeletal events. Symptoms in the spine, pelvis, or femur require careful evaluation for spinal cord compression and pathologic fracture before bisphosphonate use and if symptoms recur, persist, or worsen during therapy. The panel recommends that current standards of care for cancer pain, analgesics and local radiation therapy, not be displaced by bisphosphonates. IV pamidronate is recommended in women with pain caused by osteolytic metastasis to relieve pain when used concurrently with systemic chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy, since it was associated with a modest pain control benefit in controlled trials. CONCLUSION: Bisphosphonates provide a meaningful supportive but not life-prolonging benefit to many patients with bone metastases from cancer. Further research is warranted to identify clinical predictors of when to start and stop therapy, to integrate their use with other treatments for bone metastases, to identify their role in the adjuvant setting in preventing bone metastases, and to better determine their cost-benefit consequences.     

Colorectal cancer surveillance: 2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline.

PURPOSE: To update the 2000 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on colorectal cancer surveillance. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on results from three independently reported meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials that compared low-intensity and high-intensity programs of colorectal cancer surveillance, and on recent analyses of data from major clinical trials in colon and rectal cancer, the Panel recommends annual computed tomography (CT) of the chest and abdomen for 3 years after primary therapy for patients who are at higher risk of recurrence and who could be candidates for curative-intent surgery; pelvic CT scan for rectal cancer surveillance, especially for patients with several poor prognostic factors, including those who have not been treated with radiation; colonoscopy at 3 years after operative treatment, and, if results are normal, every 5 years thereafter; flexible proctosigmoidoscopy [corrected] every 6 months for 5 years for rectal cancer patients who have not been treated with pelvic radiation; history and physical examination every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 months during years 4 and 5, and subsequently at the discretion of the physician; and carcinoembryonic antigen every 3 months postoperatively for at least 3 years after diagnosis, if the patient is a candidate for surgery or systemic therapy. Chest x-rays, CBCs, and liver function tests are not recommended, and molecular or cellular markers should not influence the surveillance strategy based on available evidence.     

The risk of lymphedema after postoperative radiation therapy in endometrial cancer

Objective

Lower extremity lymphedema adversely affects quality of life by causing discomfort, impaired mobility and increased risk of infection. The goal of this study is to investigate factors that influence the likelihood of lymphedema in patients with endometrial cancer who undergo adjuvant radiation with or without chemotherapy.

Methods

A retrospective chart review identified all stage I–III endometrial cancer patients who had a hysterectomy with or without complete staging lymphadenectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy between January 2006 and February 2013. Patients with new-onset lymphedema after treatment were identified. Logistic regression was used to find factors that influenced lymphedema risk.

Results

Of 212 patients who met inclusion criteria, 15 patients (7.1%) developed new-onset lymphedema. Lymphedema was associated with lymph-node dissection (odds ratio [OR], 5.6; 95% CI, 1.01 to 105.5; p=0.048) and with the presence of pathologically positive lymph nodes (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.4 to 12.3; p=0.01). Multivariate logistic regression confirmed the association with lymph-node positivity (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.0007 to 10.7; p=0.0499) when controlled for lymph-node dissection. Median time to lymphedema onset was 8 months (range, 1 to 58 months) with resolution or improvement in eight patients (53.3%) after a median of 10 months.

Conclusion

Lymph-node positivity was associated with an increased risk of lymphedema in endometrial cancer patients who received adjuvant radiation. Future studies are needed to explore whether node-positive patients may benefit from early lymphedema-controlling interventions.     

The role of radiation therapy in locally advanced endometrial cancer

Locally advanced endometrial cancer comprises those patients considered at high risk for recurrence of disease and death from cancer, which include patients with pathologic stage III and IV endometrioid adenocarcinoma and patients with uterine papillary serous carcinoma regardless of stage. The management of locally advanced endometrial cancer patients remains an evolving issue. The primary treatment for these patients is surgical resection. Controversy exists over the optimal adjuvant treatment, particularly in patients whose disease is completely resected. This article addresses the role of adjuvant radiation therapy for these locally advanced high-risk endometrial cancer patients. In addition, this article reviews the current data and treatment approaches using radiation therapy in the management of these high-risk patients.     

The evolving role of postoperative adjuvant radiation therapy for pancreatic cancer

The benefit of postoperative adjuvant chemoradiation in the treatment of resected pancreatic cancers was first established by a randomized trial conducted by the Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group in 1974. During the past 3 decades, treatment has evolved toward more dose-intensive regimens of chemoradiation. Historical split-course conventional radiation therapy has been replaced by continuous-course radiotherapy to higher doses, and gemcitabine is being actively investigated as a potentially more effective agent than 5-fluorouracil. This article critically examines the results of important randomized multi-institutional trials and reviews the evolution toward dose-intensive adjuvant treatment regimens. Implications of the recently completed intergroup study are discussed, modern radiation therapy delivery techniques are reviewed, and suggestions for future trials are made.     

American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and American College of Radiology (ACR) practice guideline for the transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer

Transperineal permanent prostate brachytherapy is a safe and efficacious treatment option for patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Careful adherence to established brachytherapy standards has been shown to improve the likelihood of procedural success and reduce the incidence of treatment-related morbidity. A collaborative effort of the American College of Radiology (ACR) and American Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has produced a practice guideline for permanent prostate brachytherapy. The guideline defines the qualifications and responsibilities of all the involved personnel, including the radiation oncologist, physicist and dosimetrist. Factors with respect to patient selection and appropriate use of supplemental treatment modalities such as external beam radiation and androgen suppression therapy are discussed. Logistics with respect to the brachytherapy implant procedure, the importance of dosimetric parameters, and attention to radiation safety procedures and documentation are presented. Adherence to these practice guidelines can be part of ensuring quality and safety in a successful prostate brachytherapy program.     

Radiation Therapy for Endometrial Cancer: An American Society for Radiation Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

PurposeWith the results of several recently published clinical trials, this guideline informs on the use of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) and systemic therapy in the treatment of endometrial cancer. Updated evidence-based recommendations provide indications for adjuvant RT and the associated techniques, the utilization and sequencing of adjuvant systemic therapies, and the effect of surgical staging techniques and molecular tumor profiling.MethodsThe American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a multidisciplinary task force to address 6 key questions that focused on the adjuvant management of patients with endometrial cancer. The key questions emphasized the (1) indications for adjuvant RT, (2) RT techniques, target volumes, dose fractionation, and treatment planning aims, (3) indications for systemic therapy, (4) sequencing of systemic therapy with RT, (5) effect of lymph node assessment on utilization of adjuvant therapy, and (6) effect of molecular tumor profiling on utilization of adjuvant therapy. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and system for quality of evidence grading and strength of recommendation.ResultsThe task force recommends RT (either vaginal brachytherapy or external beam RT) be given based on the patient's clinical-pathologic risk factors to reduce risk of vaginal and/or pelvic recurrence. When external beam RT is delivered, intensity modulated RT with daily image guided RT is recommended to reduce acute and late toxicity. Chemotherapy is recommended for patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I to II with high-risk histologies and those with FIGO stage III to IVA with any histology. When sequencing chemotherapy and RT, there is no prospective data to support an optimal sequence. Sentinel lymph node mapping is recommended over pelvic lymphadenectomy for surgical nodal staging. Data on sentinel lymph node pathologic ultrastaging status supports that patients with isolated tumor cells be treated as node negative and adjuvant therapy based on uterine risk factors and patients with micrometastases be treated as node positive. The available data on molecular characterization of endometrial cancer are compelling and should be increasingly considered when making recommendations for adjuvant therapy.ConclusionsThese recommendations guide evidence-based best clinical practices on the use of adjuvant therapy for endometrial cancer.