PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: Metastasis-directed therapy with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the setting of oligometastatic disease is a rapidly evolving paradigm given ongoing improvements in systemic therapies and diagnostic modalities. However, SBRT to targets in the abdomen and pelvis is historically associated with concerns about toxicity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SBRT to the abdomen and pelvis for women with oligometastases from primary gynecological tumors. MATERIALS/ METHODS: From our IRB-approved registry, all patients who were treated with SBRT between 2014 and 2020 were identified. Oligometastatic disease was defined as 1 to 5 discrete foci of clinical metastasis radiographically diagnosed by positron emission tomography (PET) and/or computerized tomography (CT) imaging. The primary endpoint was local control at 12 months. Local and distant control rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Time intervals for development of local progression and distant progression were calculated based on follow up visits with re-staging imaging. Acute and late toxicity outcomes were determined based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0. RESULTS: We identified 34 women with 43 treated lesions. Median age was 68 years (range 32-82), and median follow up time was 12 months (range 0.2-54.0). Most common primary tumor sites were ovarian (n=12), uterine (n=11), and cervical (n=7). Median number of previous lines of systemic therapy agents at time of SBRT was 2 (range 0-10). Overall, SBRT was delivered to 1 focus of oligometastasis in 29 cases, 2 foci in 2 cases, 3 foci in 2 cases, and 4 foci in 1 case. All patients were treated comprehensively with SBRT to all sites of oligometastasis. Median prescription dose was 24 Gy (range 18-54 Gy) in 3 fractions (range 3-6) to a median prescription isodose line of 83.5% (range 52-95). Local control by lesion at 12 and 24 months was 92.5% for both time points. Local failure was observed in three treated sites among two patients, two of which were at 11 months in one patient, and the other at 30 months. Systemic control rate was 60.2% at 12 months. Overall survival at 12 and 24 months was 85% and 70.2%, respectively. Acute grade 2 toxicities included nausea (n=3), and there were no grade > 3 acute toxicities. Late grade 1 toxicities included diarrhea (n=1) and fatigue (n=1), and there were no grade > 2 toxicities. CONCLUSION: SBRT to oligometastatic gynecologic malignancies in the abdomen and pelvis is feasible with encouraging preliminary safety and local control outcomes. This approach is associated with excellent local control and low rates of toxicity during our follow-up interval. Further investigations into technique, dose-escalation and utilization are warranted.
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: Metastasis-directed therapy with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the setting of oligometastatic disease is a rapidly evolving paradigm given ongoing improvements in systemic therapies and diagnostic modalities. However, SBRT to targets in the abdomen and pelvis is historically associated with concerns about toxicity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SBRT to the abdomen and pelvis for women with oligometastases from primary gynecological tumors. MATERIALS/ METHODS: From our IRB-approved registry, all patients who were treated with SBRT between 2014 and 2020 were identified. Oligometastatic disease was defined as 1 to 5 discrete foci of clinical metastasis radiographically diagnosed by positron emission tomography (PET) and/or computerized tomography (CT) imaging. The primary endpoint was local control at 12 months. Local and distant control rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Time intervals for development of local progression and distant progression were calculated based on follow up visits with re-staging imaging. Acute and late toxicity outcomes were determined based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0. RESULTS: We identified 34 women with 43 treated lesions. Median age was 68 years (range 32-82), and median follow up time was 12 months (range 0.2-54.0). Most common primary tumor sites were ovarian (n=12), uterine (n=11), and cervical (n=7). Median number of previous lines of systemic therapy agents at time of SBRT was 2 (range 0-10). Overall, SBRT was delivered to 1 focus of oligometastasis in 29 cases, 2 foci in 2 cases, 3 foci in 2 cases, and 4 foci in 1 case. All patients were treated comprehensively with SBRT to all sites of oligometastasis. Median prescription dose was 24 Gy (range 18-54 Gy) in 3 fractions (range 3-6) to a median prescription isodose line of 83.5% (range 52-95). Local control by lesion at 12 and 24 months was 92.5% for both time points. Local failure was observed in three treated sites among two patients, two of which were at 11 months in one patient, and the other at 30 months. Systemic control rate was 60.2% at 12 months. Overall survival at 12 and 24 months was 85% and 70.2%, respectively. Acute grade 2 toxicities included nausea (n=3), and there were no grade > 3 acute toxicities. Late grade 1 toxicities included diarrhea (n=1) and fatigue (n=1), and there were no grade > 2 toxicities. CONCLUSION: SBRT to oligometastatic gynecologic malignancies in the abdomen and pelvis is feasible with encouraging preliminary safety and local control outcomes. This approach is associated with excellent local control and low rates of toxicity during our follow-up interval. Further investigations into technique, dose-escalation and utilization are warranted.
Authors: Concetta Laliscia; Maria Grazia Fabrini; Durim Delishaj; Riccardo Morganti; Carlo Greco; Martina Cantarella; Roberta Tana; Fabiola Paiar; Angiolo Gadducci Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Gabriella Macchia; Roberta Lazzari; Nicoletta Colombo; Concetta Laliscia; Giovanni Capelli; Giuseppe Roberto D'Agostino; Francesco Deodato; Ernesto Maranzano; Edy Ippolito; Sara Ronchi; Fabiola Paiar; Marta Scorsetti; Savino Cilla; Rossana Ingargiola; Alessandra Huscher; Anna Maria Cerrotta; Andrei Fodor; Lisa Vicenzi; Donatella Russo; Simona Borghesi; Elisabetta Perrucci; Sandro Pignata; Cynthia Aristei; Alessio Giuseppe Morganti; Giovanni Scambia; Vincenzo Valentini; Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa; Gabriella Ferrandina Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-10-10
Authors: Basel Altoos; Arya Amini; Muthanna Yacoub; Maria T Bourlon; Elizabeth E Kessler; Thomas W Flaig; Christine M Fisher; Brian D Kavanagh; Elaine T Lam; Sana D Karam Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Roman O Kowalchuk; Michael R Waters; K Martin Richardson; Kelly Spencer; James M Larner; William P Irvin; Charles R Kersh Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Puneeth Iyengar; Zabi Wardak; David E Gerber; Vasu Tumati; Chul Ahn; Randall S Hughes; Jonathan E Dowell; Naga Cheedella; Lucien Nedzi; Kenneth D Westover; Suprabha Pulipparacharuvil; Hak Choy; Robert D Timmerman Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Charles A Kunos; James Brindle; Steven Waggoner; Kristine Zanotti; Kimberly Resnick; Nancy Fusco; Ramon Adams; Robert Debernardo Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2012-12-05 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Ryan Phillips; William Yue Shi; Matthew Deek; Noura Radwan; Su Jin Lim; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Steven P Rowe; Ashley E Ross; Michael A Gorin; Curtiland Deville; Stephen C Greco; Hailun Wang; Samuel R Denmeade; Channing J Paller; Shirl Dipasquale; Theodore L DeWeese; Daniel Y Song; Hao Wang; Michael A Carducci; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Pomper; Adam P Dicker; Mario A Eisenberger; Ash A Alizadeh; Maximilian Diehn; Phuoc T Tran Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 31.777