UNASSIGNED: non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for more than 80% of all lung cancer populations. Stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) is mainly suitable for early NSCLC patients who are not suitable for surgery or refuse surgery.
UNASSIGNED: To analyze the effects of stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) plus immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients on their immune status and survival quality.
UNASSIGNED: NSCLC patients admitted to our hospital from 2019-2022 were divided into 61 cases in control group (SBRT) and 60 cases in observation group (SBRT plus immunotherapy) by the randomized numerical table method to compare the efficacy, the level of tumor markers in the serum, the level and activity of the immune cells in the peripheral blood and the Kahlil\'s functional status (KPS) scores.
UNASSIGNED: The observation group had a higher efficacy rate than that of the control group (P< 0.05). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in serum tumor marker content, immune cell level and activity in peripheral blood and KPS score before treatment (P> 0.05). After treatment, serum tumor markers were lower than those in control group, and immune cell level, NK cell-related activity and KPS score were higher than those in control group (P< 0.05).
UNASSIGNED: SBRT plus immunotherapy can reduce the level of various tumor markers, improve the immune status and quality of survival for NSCLC patients.

OBJECTIVE: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is increasingly used for early-stage lung cancer, however the impact of dose to the heart and cardiac substructures remains largely unknown. The study investigated doses received by cardiac substructures in SABR patients and impact on survival.
METHODS: SSBROC is an Australian multi-centre phase II prospective study of SABR for stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Patients were treated between 2013 and 2019 across 9 centres. In this secondary analysis of the dataset, a previously published and locally developed open-source hybrid deep learning cardiac substructure automatic segmentation tool was deployed on the planning CTs of 117 trial patients. Physical doses to 18 cardiac structures and EQD2 converted doses (α/β = 3) were calculated. Endpoints evaluated include pericardial effusion and overall survival. Associations between cardiac doses and survival were analysed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: Cardiac structures that received the highest physical mean doses were superior vena cava (22.5 Gy) and sinoatrial node (18.3 Gy). The highest physical maximum dose was received by the heart (51.7 Gy) and right atrium (45.3 Gy). Three patients developed grade 2, and one grade 3 pericardial effusion. The cohort receiving higher than median mean heart dose (MHD) had poorer survival compared to those who received below median MHD (p = 0.00004). On multivariable Cox analysis, male gender and maximum dose to ascending aorta were significant for worse survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with lung SABR may receive high doses to cardiac substructures. Dichotomising the patients according to median mean heart dose showed a clear difference in survival. On multivariable analyses gender and dose to ascending aorta were significant for survival, however cardiac substructure dosimetry and outcomes should be further explored in larger studies.

UNASSIGNED: The aim of our study was to compare dosimetric aspects of three radioablation modalities - direct high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and virtually planned stereotactic body radiation therapy performed on CyberKnife (SBRTck) and Elekta Versa HD LINAC (SBRTe) applied in patients with liver metastases.
UNASSIGNED: We selected 30 patients with liver metastases, who received liver interstitial HDR-BT and virtually prepared plans for SBRTck and SBRTe. In all the cases, the prescribed dose was a single fraction of 25 Gy. Treatment delivery time, doses delivered to PTV and organs at risk, as well as conformity indices, were calculated and compared.
UNASSIGNED: The longest median treatment delivery time was observed in SBRTck in contrast to HDR-BT and SBRTe which were significantly shorter and comparable. HDR-BT plans achieved better coverage of PTV (except for D98%) in contrast to SBRT modalities. Between both SBRT modalities, SBRTck plans resulted in better dose coverage in Dmean, D50%, and D90% values compared to SBRTe without difference in D98%. The SBRTe was the most advantageous considering the PCI and R100%. SBRTck plans achieved the best HI, while R50% value was comparable between SBRTe and SBRTck. The lowest median doses delivered to uninvolved liver volume (V5Gy, V9.1Gy) were achieved with HDR-BT, while the difference between SBRT modalities was insignificant. SBRT plans were better regarding more favourable dose distribution in the duodenum and right kidney, while HDR-BT achieved lower doses in the stomach, heart, great vessels, ribs, skin and spinal cord. There were no significant differences in bowel and biliary tract dose distribution between all selected modalities.
UNASSIGNED: HDR-BT resulted in more favourable dose distribution within PTVs and lower doses in organs at risk, which suggests that this treatment modality could be regarded as an alternative to other local ablative therapies in carefully selected patients\' with liver malignancies. Future studies should further address the issue of comparing treatment modalities in different liver locations and clinical scenarios.

UNASSIGNED: Osteolytic spinal metastases (SM) have a higher risk of fracture. In this study we aim to confirm the remineralization of lytic SM after radiation therapy. Secondary the influence of SBRT compared to cEBRT and tumor type will be analyzed.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective cohort study was performed.
UNASSIGNED: 87 patients, 100 SM were included. 29 received SBRT, 71 cEBRT. Most common primary tumors were breast (35 %), lung (26 %) and renal (11 %). Both cEBRT and SBRT resulted in a significant increase of bone mineral density (BMD) (83.76 HU ± 5.72 → 241.41 HU ± 22.58 (p < 0.001) and 82.45 ± 9.13 → 179.38 ± 47.83p = 0.026). There was a significant increase in absolute difference of BMD between the SM and reference vertebrae (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between SBRT and cEBRT. There was no increase of BMD in renal lytic SM after radiation therapy (pre-treatment: 85.96 HU ± 19.07; 3 m 92.00 HU ± 21.86 (p = 0.882); 6 m 92.06 HU ± 23.94 (p = 0.902); 9 m 70.44 HU ± 7.45 (p = 0.213); 12 m 98.08 HU ± 11.24 (p = 0.740)). In all other primary tumors, a significant increase of BMD after radiation therapy was demonstrated (p < 0,05).
UNASSIGNED: We conclude that the BMD of lytic SM increases significantly after radiation therapy. Lytic SM of primary renal tumors are the exception; there is no significant remineralization of renal lytic SM after radiation therapy. There is no benefit of SBRT over cEBRT in this remineralization. These findings should be taken into account when deciding on surgery in the potentially unstable group defined by the spinal instability neoplastic score.

OBJECTIVE: To present the final results of a phase I trial on stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivered using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with primary or metastatic tumors in different extracranial sites.
METHODS: The DESTROY-2 trial, planned as a prospective dose escalation study in oligometastatic (one to five lesions) cancer patients relied on the delivery of a single high dose of radiation utilizing high-precision technology. The primary study endpoint was the definition of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of SRS-VMAT. The secondary objectives of the study were the evaluation of safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes. All patients consecutively observed at our radiotherapy unit matching the inclusion criteria were enrolled. Each enrolled subject was included in a different phase I study arm, depending on the tumor site and the disease stage (lung, liver, bone, other), and sequentially assigned to a particular dose level.
RESULTS: Two hundred twenty seven lesions in 164 consecutive patients (male/female: 97/67, median age: 68 years; range: 29-92) were treated. The main primary tumors were: prostate cancer (60 patients), colorectal cancer (47 patients), and breast cancer (39 patients). The maximum planned dose level was achieved in all study arms, and the MTD was not exceeded. 34 Gy, 32 Gy, 24 Gy, and 24 Gy were established as the single-fraction doses for treating lung, liver, bone, and other extracranial lesions, respectively. The prescribed BED 2Gyα/β:10 to the planning target volume ranged from 26.4 Gy to 149.6 Gy. Twenty-seven patients (16.5%) experienced grade 1-2 and only one grade 3 acute toxicity, which was a pulmonary one. In terms of late toxicity, we registered only 5 toxicity>G2: a G3 gastro-intestinal one, three G3 bone toxicity, and a G3 laryngeal toxicity. The overall response was available for 199 lesions: 107 complete response (53.8%), 50 partial response (25.1%), and 31 stable disease (15.6%), leading to an overall response rate of 94.5%. Progression was registered only in 11 cases (5.5%). The overall response rate in each arm ranged from 88.6% to 96.4%. The overall two-year local control, distant metastasis free survival, disease free survival, and overall survival were 81.7%, 33.0%, 25.4%, and 78.7% respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the planned doses of 34 Gy, 32 Gy, 24 Gy, and 24 Gy were successfully administered as single-fractions for the treatment of lung, liver, bone, and other extracranial lesions, respectively, in a prospective SRS dose-escalation trial. No dose-limiting toxicities were registered, and minimal acute and late toxicity were reported. New indications for SRS are currently being studied in oligoprogressive patients receiving targeted drugs or in combination with immunotherapy. The DESTROY-2 trial represents, in our opinion, a credible starting point for future modern radiosurgery trials.

All known randomized trials of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) versus whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for brain metastases (BMs) comprise mixed histologies. The phase III HYBRID trial (NCT02882984) attempted to evaluate the non-inferiority of SRT vs. WBRT specifically for EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (EGFRm NSCLC) BMs.
Inclusion criteria were ≤ 5 BMs (any size) from treatment-naïve EGFRm NSCLC. All patients started a first-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor on the first day of WBRT (37.5 Gy/15 fractions) or SRT (25-40 Gy/5 fractions per tumor volume). The primary endpoint was 18-month intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS; intention-to-treat).
The trial commenced in June 2015 and was closed in April 2021 after screening 208 patients but enrolling 85 (n = 41 WBRT, n = 44 SRT; median follow-up 31 and 36 months, respectively). Respectively, 9.5 % vs. 10.2 % of patients experienced intracranial progression at 18 months, and the median iPFS was 21.4 vs. 22.3 months (p > 0.05 for all). The SRT arm experienced higher overall survival and cognitive preservation (p < 0.05 for all). The most notable reason for low enrollment was patients not wishing to risk neurocognitive decline from WBRT.
Although this phase III trial was underpowered, there was no evidence that SRT yielded outcome detriments compared to WBRT for EGFRm NSCLC BMs. Lessons from prematurely closed trials are valuable, as they often provide important experiential perspectives for investigators designing/executing future trials. In the current era, randomized trials involving WBRT without cognitive sparing measures may be at high risk of underaccrual; trial investigators are encouraged to carefully consider our experience when attempting to design such trials. However, trials of molecular-/biologically-stratified patients are highly recommended as the notion of \"individualized medicine/oncology\" continues to expand.

Oligometastases in mediastinal nodes are increasingly prevalent, posing challenges for treatment with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) due to proximity to organs at risk (OARs). We report the results of a single prospective observational phase II trial on ablative SBRT for medically inoperable thoracic nodes metastases (NCT02970955).
Since 2017, patients with < 3 nodal metastases were evaluated by the tumor board and included if deemed inoperable. SBRT was delivered using risk adaptive approach based on number, site and size of metastatic nodes (50 Gy/5fractions, 60 Gy/8fractions, 70 Gy/10 fractions). Planning target volume (PTV) partial underdosage was allowed. The primary end point was local control (LC) at 12 months. Secondary end points were: acute and late toxicities, overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and time to next systemic therapy (TTNS).
Between 03/2017-11/2021, 32 patients (41 nodal metastases) were included. NSCLC (13pts), breast (5pts) and colorectal cancer (4pts) were the most represented primary tumour. In 66 % cases, partial PTV undercoverage was necessary. LC at 1 and 2 years was 93.5 % and 82.3 %, respectively. Treatment was well-tolerated with no acute or late toxicity ≥ G3. Median OS was 59.7 months. OS at 1 and 2 years was 96.9 % and 83.8 % respectively. Median PFS was 12.2 months. PFS at 1 and 2 years was 53.1 % and 31.3 %, respectively.
This trial supported the feasibility and safety of ablative SBRT for thoracic nodes metastases thanks to risk adaptive approach allowing to delay of new systemic therapies. Larger studies are needed to confirm these observations.

Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a new treatment option for patients with metastatic triple-negative and hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. This antibody-drug conjugate is currently approved as monotherapy. Palliative radiotherapy is frequently used to treat symptomatic metastases locally. Concurrent use of SG and irradiation was excluded in clinical trials of SG, and there are currently limited published data. We report here a systematic review, as well as a retrospective multi-center study of 17 patients with triple-negative breast cancer who received concurrent SG and radiotherapy. In these patients, concurrent use was found to be efficient, safe and well tolerated. There were no apparent differences in moderate or severe acute toxicity according to the timing of SG administration.

OBJECTIVE: The use of stereotactic body radiation therapy for tumors in close proximity to the central mediastinal structures has been associated with a high risk of toxicity. This study (NCT03306680) aimed to determine the maximally tolerated dose of stereotactic body radiation therapy for ultracentral non-small cell lung carcinoma, using a time-to-event continual reassessment methodology.
METHODS: Patients with T1-3N0M0 (≤6 cm) non-small cell lung carcinoma were eligible. The maximally tolerated dose was defined as the dose of radiation therapy associated with a ≤30% rate of grade (G) 3 to 5 prespecified treatment-related toxicity occurring within 2 years of treatment. The starting dose level was 60 Gy in 8 daily fractions. The dose-maximum hotspot was limited to 120% and within the planning tumor volume; tumors with endobronchial invasion were excluded. This primary analysis occurred 2 years after completion of accrual.
RESULTS: Between March 2018 and April 2021, 30 patients were enrolled at 5 institutions. The median age was 73 years (range, 65-87) and 17 (57%) were female. Planning tumor volume was abutting proximal bronchial tree in 19 (63%), esophagus 5 (17%), pulmonary vein 1 (3.3%), and pulmonary artery 14 (47%). All patients received 60 Gy in 8 fractions. The median follow-up was 37 months (range, 8.9-51). Two patients (6.7%) experienced G3-5 adverse events related to treatment: 1 patient with G3 dyspnea and 1 G5 pneumonia. The latter had computed tomography findings consistent with a background of interstitial lung disease. Three-year overall survival was 72.5% (95% CI, 52.3%-85.3%), progression-free survival 66.1% (95% CI, 46.1%-80.2%), local control 89.6% (95% CI, 71.2%-96.5%), regional control 96.4% (95% CI, 77.2%-99.5%), and distant control 85.9% (95% CI, 66.7%-94.5%). Quality-of-life scores declined numerically over time, but the decreases were not clinically or statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Sixty Gy in 8 fractions, planned and delivered with only a moderate hotspot, has a favorable adverse event rate within the prespecified acceptability criteria and results in excellent control for ultracentral tumors.

BACKGROUND: Dose-escalated radiotherapy is known to improve progression free survival in patients with localized prostate cancer, and recent advances have led to the standardization of ultrahypofractionated stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) delivered in just 5-fractions. Based on the known effectiveness of the accepted though invasive 2-fraction treatment method of high-dose-rate brachytherapy and given the ubiquity of prostate cancer, a further reduction in the number of treatments of external-beam SABR is possible. This study aims to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and non-inferiority of generalizable 2-fraction SABR compared to the current 5-fraction regimen.
METHODS: 502 patients will be enrolled on this phase II/III randomized control trial. Eligible patients will have previously untreated low- or favorable intermediate-risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Patients will be randomized between standard SABR of 40 Gy in 5 fractions given every-other-day and 27 Gy in 2 fractions at least two days apart but completing within seven days. MRI-based planning, radiopaque hydrogel spacer insertion, and fiducial marker placement are required, and SABR will be delivered on either a standard CT-guided linear accelerator or MR-LINAC. The primary endpoint will be freedom from disease progression, with additional secondary clinical, toxicity, and quality of life endpoints.
CONCLUSIONS: This study will be the largest prospective randomized trial, adequately powered to demonstrate non-inferiority, comparing 2-fraction SABR to standard 5-fraction SABR for localized prostate cancer. As the protocol does not obligate use of an MRI-LINAC or other adaptive technologies, results will be broadly generalizable to the wider community.
BACKGROUND: This trial is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06027892.