UNASSIGNED: Simultaneous involvement of multiple distinct brain regions occurs in 2-5% of all high-grade gliomas (HGG) and is associated with poor prognosis. Whereas radiotherapy (RT) is an important and well-established treatment for high-grade glioma, the role of dose-escalated radiotherapy has yet to be established. In this case series, we report upon the dosimetry, adverse effects, and response in patients with multiple un-methylated high-grade gliomas receiving dose-escalated radiation.
UNASSIGNED: We reviewed charts of patients with multifocal high grade glioma treated at our institution since January 2022. All patients had stereotactic biopsies after an magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast-enhanced with T1, T2, FLAIR sequences and were discussed in a multidisciplinary oncology team. MGMT-positive patients received either TMZ alone or RT with TMZ and were excluded from this analysis. Un-methylated patients received dose-escalated RT without temezolamide (TMZ). Following computed tomography (CT) and MR simulation, the gros tumor volume (GTV) was delineated and prescribed 52.5 Gy in 15 fractions within the standard 40.05 Gy planning treatment volume (PTV). Treatment planning was volumetric modulated arc therapy.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 20 patients with multiple un-methylated MGMT glioblastoma multiforme were treated with dose-escalated radiation therapy between January 2022 and June 2023. All patients completed dose escalated radiotherapy without acute adverse effects. Progression-free survival at six months was 85%, as defined by the RANO criteria.
UNASSIGNED: In this case series, we showed that un-methylated multiple high-grade glioma could be safely treated with dose escalation. Results of progression-free survival should be validated in a larger prospective clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical response at week 52 in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who received secukinumab 300 vs 150 mg after inadequate response to 150 mg at week 16.
METHODS: ASLeap (NCT03350815) was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 4 trial. After 16 weeks of open-label secukinumab 150 mg (Treatment Period 1), patients who did not achieve inactive disease (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS] <1.3) at both Weeks 12 and 16 were considered to have an inadequate response and were randomized 1:1 to receive secukinumab 300 or 150 mg every 4 weeks until week 52 (Treatment Period 2). The primary efficacy variable was achievement of ASDAS <1.3 at week 52 using week 16 as baseline. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events through week 52.
RESULTS: Of 322 patients treated with secukinumab in Treatment Period 1, 207 (64.3%) had inadequate response. Similar proportions of patients with inadequate response randomized to secukinumab 300 mg (n = 101) and 150 mg (n = 105) in Treatment Period 2 completed the study (83.8% and 84.3%, respectively). At week 52, 8.8% and 6.7% of patients receiving secukinumab 300 and 150 mg, respectively, achieved ASDAS <1.3. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in both groups through week 52. No new safety signals were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AS who did not achieve ASDAS <1.3 after receiving secukinumab 150 mg for 16 weeks experienced similar clinical response and safety through week 52 regardless of dose escalation.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03350815.

UNASSIGNED: Anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic properties maximize the therapeutic potential of bone marrow aspiration concentrate (BMAC) in osteoarthritis (OA) knee. There is a lack of studies to standardize the treatment procedure to make the studies done across various centers comparable to understand the lacunae better and develop further the deficiency in our understanding of BMAC for OA knee. We aimed to assess the degree of pain relief, functional outcome, and cartilage thickness with different doses of BMAC in primary OA knee.
UNASSIGNED: A single-centered prospective observational study was conducted with 80 patients of OA knee who were divided into 4 groups where group A (n = 20), group B (n = 20), group C (n = 20), and group D (n = 20) received intra-articular 1, 2, 5 million BMAC cells per kg body weight, and intra-articular saline, respectively. All patients were followed up with Visual Analog Scale (VAS), knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores both pre and post-procedurally at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up.
UNASSIGNED: The study found no significant differences in demographics or co-morbidities across four participant groups (A, B, C, D). However, clinical outcomes varied markedly: Groups B and C showed significant improvements in pain perception (VAS scores), knee function, and quality of life (KOOS and WOMAC scores), while Group A showed marginal or non-significant changes, and Group D exhibited no significant improvements. These findings suggest that treatments in Groups B and C reached the Minimal Clinically Important Difference, significantly enhancing patient-reported outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: A dose of 2 million BMAC cells per kg body weight for knee OA serves as the better regenerative modality of choice in cartilage regeneration. With our dose-escalation study, we would be able to standardize the treatment procedure and enable global comparison of the treatment method across various regions of the world.
UNASSIGNED:

OBJECTIVE: We determine the maximum tolerated tumour focused dose (MTD) for the radical treatment of muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) enabled by image guided adaptive radiotherapy (IGART) and long-term clinical outcomes.
METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with T2-T4aN0M0 unifocal urothelial MIBC suitable for daily radical radiotherapy were recruited prospectively to an ethics approved protocol (XX). The uninvolved bladder (PTVbladder) was planned to 52Gy in 32 fractions (f). The bladder tumour (PTVtumour) was planned to an assigned dose level of 68, 70, 72, or 74Gy. If organ at risk (OAR) dose constraints were violated, then PTVtumour was planned to 64Gy. Dose level allocation was determined by concurrent toxicity assessment of all previous patients recruited. Acute toxicity was evaluated using CTCAE v3.0; late toxicity was evaluated using RTOG criteria. The MTD was predefined as the highest dose level with estimated probability of ≤ 15% ≥G3 late toxicity and observed rate <50% acute G3 and <10% acute G4 toxicity.
RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were assigned to 68Gy, of whom 6 were planned to 64Gy; 29 patients were assigned to 70Gy of whom 1 was planned to 68Gy, 2 patients were assigned and planned to 72Gy; no patients were assigned to 74Gy. Three patients did not complete treatment as planned, of whom only 1 patient stopped treatment because dose limiting toxicity occurred. The MTD was 70Gy. Acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) G3 acute toxicity was seen in 19% and 7% patients respectively. No grade 4 GU or GI toxicity was seen. Late toxicity (any) G3 and G4 was seen in 14% and 2% patients respectively. The 5-year overall survival was 58% (95% CI 44-71%). The bladder preservation rate was 89% (95% CI, 88 to 96%) with 6 patients not retaining native bladder function.
CONCLUSIONS: Bladder tumour focused dose escalation to 70Gy using IGART is feasible with acceptable toxicity. This dose level has been evaluated in a phase II randomised control trial (XXXXX).

Ustekinumab is a monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of IBD. This drug has a well-established efficacy; however, patients may not respond or lose response. The availability of other biological therapies prompts the need for comparative data between different agents to suggest first- or second-line strategies. Aim of this review is to compare the effectiveness of ustekinumab to other biologics in Crohn\'s disease and ulcerative colitis, as well as report the available data on dose escalation and reinduction. A systematic electronic search of the English literature was performed up to November 2023, using Medline (PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Conference proceedings were also screened. Out of 659 citations, 80 relevant articles were selected and included in the present narrative review. Head-to-head comparisons of different biological drugs are relatively scarce, mostly deriving from indirect comparison or retrospective studies. Overall available data indicate similar effectiveness in the treatment of IBD patients. Dose escalation and reinduction strategies are well documented, but the optimal treatment schedule is still to be defined. Response and remission rates vary in different studies, and a proportion of patients fail to achieve clinical and endoscopic outcomes. However, both approaches are effective and safe in nonresponders and secondary loss of response. IBD patients may benefit from dose escalation or reinduction. Both strategies prove effective in regaining response in a proportion of patients, avoiding unnecessary early switch. Head-to-head trials are still needed to determine the exact placement of this drug compared to other biologics.

BACKGROUND: The multi-centre two-stage SCALOP-2 trial (ISRCTN50083238) assessed whether dose escalation of consolidative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or concurrent sensitization using the protease inhibitor nelfinavir improve outcomes in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) following four cycles of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel.
METHODS: In stage 1, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of nelfinavir concurrent with standard-dose CRT (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions) was identified from a cohort of 27 patients. In stage 2, 159 patients were enrolled in an open-label randomized controlled comparison of standard versus high dose (60 Gy in 30 fractions) CRT, with or without nelfinavir at MTD. Primary outcomes following dose escalation and nelfinavir use were respectively overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
RESULTS: High dose CRT did not improve OS (16.9 (60 % confidence interval, CI 16.2-17.7) vs. 15.6 (60 %CI 14.3-18.2) months; adjusted hazard ratio, HR 1.13 (60 %CI 0.91-1.40; p = 0.68)). Similarly, median PFS was not improved by nelfinavir (10.0 (60 %CI 9.9-10.2) vs. 11.1 (60 %CI 10.3-12.8) months; adjusted HR 1.71 (60 %CI 1.38-2.12; p = 0.98)). Local progression at 12 months was numerically lower with high-dose CRT than with standard dose CRT (n = 11/46 (23.9 %) vs. n = 15/45 (33.3 %)). Neither nelfinavir nor radiotherapy dose escalation impacted on treatment compliance or grade 3/4 adverse event rate. There were no sustained differences in HRQoL scores between treatment groups over 28 weeks post-treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Dose-escalated CRT may improve local tumour control and is well tolerated when used as consolidative treatment in LAPC but does not impact OS. Nelfinavir use does not improve PFS.

BACKGROUND:  Treatment options for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) who experience disease progression on lenvatinib treatment are limited. Although dose escalation of treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors at disease progression has been reported across cancer types, clinical significance in patients with DTC has not been investigated.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with DTC who experienced disease progression on lenvatinib treatment from September 2011 to June 2022. We compared subjects who received dose-escalation treatment with standard treatment of termination at the time of initial disease progression. The escalated dose was decided by referencing to the previous effective and tolerated dose.
RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were identified, 15 with dose escalation and 18 with lenvatinib termination. In both groups, the starting dose of lenvatinib was 24 mg/day, and the median dose at initial disease progression was 10 mg/day. In the former, the median dose escalation was 6 mg/day (range: 4-12). Objective response rate, clinical benefit rate by escalation, and median treatment duration of the dose-escalation phase were 13.3%, 73.3%, and 9.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.71-27.6), respectively. Median overall survival from initial disease progression was significantly longer in the dose-escalation group (median OS: 20.4 months [95% CI 7.0-NA] vs. 3.9 months [95% CI 1.7-7.9], log-rank p-value; 0.0004, hazard ratio; 0.22 [95% CI 0.09-0.55]). There were no grade 5 adverse events, and one patient discontinued due to a grade 3 lung abscess.
CONCLUSIONS: The dose-escalation strategy appears to be a safe and effective treatment option after disease progression in patients treated with lenvatinib for DTC.

OBJECTIVE: Re-irradiation (reRT) is an effective treatment modality for patients with recurrent glioma. Data on dose escalation, the use of simulated integrated boost and concomitant therapy to reRT are still scarce. In this monocentric cohort of n = 223 patients we investigated the influence of reRT dose escalation as well as the concomitant use of bevacizumab (BEV) with regard to post-recurrence survival (PRS) and risk of radionecrosis (RN).
METHODS: Patients with recurrent glioma treated between July 2008 and August 2022 with reRT with BEV, reRT with temozolomide (TMZ) and reRT without concomitant systemic therapy were retrospectively analyzed. PRS and RN-free survival (RNFS) were calculated for all patients using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Univariable and multivariable cox regression was performed for PRS and for RNFS. The reRT Risk Score (RRRS) was calculated for all patients.
RESULTS: Good, intermediate and poor risk of the RRRS translated into 11 months, 9 months and 7 months of median PRS (univariable: p = 0.008, multivariable: p = 0.013). ReRT was applied with a dose of ≤36 Gy (n = 140) or >36 Gy (n = 83). Concomitant bevacizumab (BEV) therapy was performed in n = 122 and concomitant temozolomide (TMZ) therapy in n = 32 patients. Median PRS was 10 months in patients treated with >36 Gy and 8 months in patients treated with ≤36 Gy (univariable: p = 0.032, multivariable: p = 0.576). Regarding concomitant TMZ therapy, median PRS was 14 months vs. 9 months for patients treated with or without TMZ (univariable: p = 0.041, multivariable: p = 0.019). No statistically significant influence on PRS was seen for concomitant BEV therapy in this series. RN was less frequent for reRT with concomitant BEV, (17/122; 13.9 %) than for reRT without BEV (30/101; 29.7 %). Regarding RNFS, the hazard ratio for reRT with BEV was 0.436 (univariable; p = 0.006) and 0.479 (multivariable; p = 0.023), respectively. ReRT dose did not show statistical significance in regards to RN (univariable: p = 0.073, multivariable: p = 0.404). RNFS was longer for patients receiving concomitant BEV to reRT than for patients treated with reRT only (mean 31.7 vs. 30.9 months, p = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, in patients treated with concomitant BEV therapy RN was less frequently detected and in patients treated with concomitant TMZ longer PRS was observed. Based on these results, the best concomitant therapy and the optimal dose should be decided on a patient-by-patient basis.

The use of radiation therapy (RT) for pancreatic cancer continues to be controversial, despite recent technical advances. Improvements in systemic control have created an evolving role for RT and the need for improved local tumor control, but currently, no standardized approach exists. Advances in stereotactic body RT, motion management, real-time image guidance, and adaptive therapy have renewed hopes of improved outcomes in this devastating disease with one of the lowest survival rates. This case-based guide provides a practical framework for delivering stereotactic body RT for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. In conjunction with multidisciplinary care, an intradisciplinary approach should guide treatment of the high-risk cases outlined within these guidelines for prospective peer review and treatment safety discussions.

BACKGROUND: With locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), uncontrolled local tumor growth frequently leads to mortality. Advancements in radiotherapy (RT) techniques have enabled conformal delivery of escalated-dose RT (EDR), which may have potential local control and overall survival (OS) benefits based on retrospective and early prospective studies. With evidence for EDR emerging, we characterized the adoption of EDR across the United States and its associated outcomes.
METHODS: We searched the National Cancer Database for nonsurgically managed LAPC patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2019. Pancreas-directed RT with biologically effective doses (BED10) ≥39 and ≤70 Gy was labeled conventional-dose RT (CDR), and BED10 >70 and ≤132 Gy was labeled EDR. We identified associations of EDR and OS using logistic and Cox regressions, respectively.
RESULTS: Among the definitive therapy subset (n = 54,115) of the entire study cohort (n = 91,493), the most common treatments were chemotherapy alone (69%), chemotherapy and radiation (29%), and RT alone (2%). For the radiation therapy subset (n = 16,978), use of pancreas-directed RT remained between 13% and 17% over the study period (ptrend > 0.999). Using multivariable logistic regression, treatment at an academic/research facility (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.46, p < 0.001) and treatment between 2016 and 2019 (aOR 2.54, p < 0.001) were associated with greater receipt of EDR, whereas use of chemotherapy (aOR 0.60, p < 0.001) was associated with less receipt. Median OS estimates for EDR and CDR were 14.5 months and 13.0 months (p < 0.0001), respectively. For radiation therapy subset patients with available survival data (n = 13,579), multivariable Cox regression correlated EDR (adjusted hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.91; p < 0.001) with longer OS versus CDR.
CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of EDR has increased since 2016, but overall utilization of RT for LAPC has remained at less than one in five patients for almost two decades. These real-world results additionally provide an estimate of effect size of EDR for future prospective trials.