Mehran B Yusuf1, Mark J Amsbaugh2, Eric Burton3, Jason Chesney4, Shiao Woo1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. Electronic address: mjamsb01@louisville.edu. 3. Department of Neurology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) administered with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and determine the effects of relative treatment timing on lesion response. METHODS: A prospective institutional database of all patients with intact brain metastases treated with SRS from 2008 to 2015 was reviewed for patients diagnosed with malignant melanoma. Lesion response was determined using a modified RECIST v1.1 criteria. Patients were grouped according to if they received ICT and the timing of ICT relative to SRS. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of lesion failure (LF) and distant brain failure (DBF). The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare median lesion regression after SRS between treatment groups. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with 167 metastases were evaluated. Eighteen patients (59 lesions) were treated with peri-SRS ICT with anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 or antiprogrammed cell death protein 1 therapy. Peri-SRS ICT was a significant favorable predictor for reduced hazard of LF (hazard ratio, 0.131; confidence interval, 0.028-0.610). Concurrent ICT given with SRS (hazard ratio, 0.364; confidence interval, 0.161-0.825) significantly predicted freedom from DBF. When quantitative lesion response was examined, peri-SRS ICT resulted in a significantly greater median percent lesion regression than did SRS alone at 1.5 (-30.7% vs. -14.6%; P = 0.018), 4 (-42.3% vs. -18.8%; P = 0.031), and 5 months after SRS (-52.01 vs. -14.9%; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: ICT combined with SRS was associated with greater lesion regression of melanoma brain metastases and decreased LF. When given concurrently, combined SRS and ICT may result in improved freedom from DBF.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) administered with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and determine the effects of relative treatment timing on lesion response. METHODS: A prospective institutional database of all patients with intact brain metastases treated with SRS from 2008 to 2015 was reviewed for patients diagnosed with malignant melanoma. Lesion response was determined using a modified RECIST v1.1 criteria. Patients were grouped according to if they received ICT and the timing of ICT relative to SRS. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of lesion failure (LF) and distant brain failure (DBF). The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare median lesion regression after SRS between treatment groups. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with 167 metastases were evaluated. Eighteen patients (59 lesions) were treated with peri-SRS ICT with anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 or antiprogrammed cell death protein 1 therapy. Peri-SRS ICT was a significant favorable predictor for reduced hazard of LF (hazard ratio, 0.131; confidence interval, 0.028-0.610). Concurrent ICT given with SRS (hazard ratio, 0.364; confidence interval, 0.161-0.825) significantly predicted freedom from DBF. When quantitative lesion response was examined, peri-SRS ICT resulted in a significantly greater median percent lesion regression than did SRS alone at 1.5 (-30.7% vs. -14.6%; P = 0.018), 4 (-42.3% vs. -18.8%; P = 0.031), and 5 months after SRS (-52.01 vs. -14.9%; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS:ICT combined with SRS was associated with greater lesion regression of melanoma brain metastases and decreased LF. When given concurrently, combined SRS and ICT may result in improved freedom from DBF.
Authors: Pierre-Yves Borius; Jean Régis; Alexandre Carpentier; Michel Kalamarides; Charles Ambroise Valery; Igor Latorzeff Journal: Cancer Metastasis Rev Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 9.264
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Martin Kocher; Garry Ceccon; Jan-Michael Werner; Anna Brunn; Martina Deckert; Whitney B Pope; Riccardo Soffietti; Emilie Le Rhun; Michael Weller; Jörg C Tonn; Gereon R Fink; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Shearwood McClelland; Tim Lautenschlaeger; Yong Zang; Nasser H Hanna; Kevin Shiue; Aaron P Kamer; Namita Agrawal; Susannah G Ellsworth; Ryan M Rhome; Gordon A Watson Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2020-04-23
Authors: Balamurugan A Vellayappan; Tresa McGranahan; Jerome Graber; Lynne Taylor; Vyshak Venur; Richard Ellenbogen; Andrew E Sloan; Kristin J Redmond; Matthew Foote; Samuel T Chao; John H Suh; Eric L Chang; Arjun Sahgal; Simon S Lo Journal: Curr Treat Options Oncol Date: 2021-06-07
Authors: Maike Trommer-Nestler; Simone Marnitz; Martin Kocher; Daniel Rueß; Max Schlaak; Sebastian Theurich; Michael von Bergwelt-Baildon; Janis Morgenthaler; Karolina Jablonska; Eren Celik; Maximilian I Ruge; Christian Baues Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Eric J Lehrer; Heather M McGee; Jennifer L Peterson; Laura Vallow; Henry Ruiz-Garcia; Nicholas G Zaorsky; Sonam Sharma; Daniel M Trifiletti Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2018-10-07 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Mark P van Opijnen; Linda Dirven; Ida E M Coremans; Martin J B Taphoorn; Ellen H W Kapiteijn Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-11-23 Impact factor: 7.396