Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2) (remove)
Keywords
- Non-small cell lung cancer (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Purpose: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an established primary treatment for newly diagnosed brain metastases with high local control rates. However, data about local re-irradiation in case of local failure after SRS (re-SRS) are rare. We evaluated the feasibility, efficacy and patient selection characteristics in treating locally recurrent metastases with a second course of SRS.
Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with brain metastases treated with re-SRS for local tumor progression between 2011 and 2017. Patient and treatment characteristics as well as rates of tumor control, survival and toxicity were analyzed.
Results: Overall, 32 locally recurrent brain metastases in 31 patients were irradiated with re-SRS. Median age at re-SRS was 64.9 years. The primary histology was breast cancer and non-small-cellular lung cancer (NSCLC) in respectively 10 cases (31.3%), in 5 cases malignant melanoma (15.6%). In the first SRS-course 19 metastases (59.4%) and in the re-SRS-course 29 metastases (90.6%) were treated with CyberKnife® and the others with Gamma Knife. Median planning target volume (PTV) for re-SRS was 2.5 cm3 (range, 0.1–37.5 cm3) and median dose prescribed to the PTV was 19 Gy (range, 12–28 Gy) in 1–5 fractions to the median 69% isodose (range, 53–80%). The 1-year overall survival rate was 61.7% and the 1-year local control rate was 79.5%. The overall rate of radiological radio-necrosis was 16.1% and four patients (12.9%) experienced grade ≥ 3 toxicities.
Conclusions: A second course of SRS for locally recurrent brain metastases after prior local SRS appears to be feasible with acceptable toxicity and can be considered as salvage treatment option for selected patients with high performance status. Furthermore, this is the first study utilizing robotic radiosurgery for this indication, as an additional option for frameless fractionated treatment.
Objectives: In the AURA3 trial, individuals received osimertinib 80 mg once daily or chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Here, we explore patient-reported symptoms possibly related to treatment.
Materials and methods: AURA3 was an open-label, randomized phase III trial involving 419 patients. As part of the trial’s exploratory objectives, individuals were asked to complete the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) electronically, first weekly for 18 weeks and then every 3 weeks for up to 57 weeks, subject to the availability of validated local-language versions (English, German, Japanese and Spanish versions were available).
Results: In total, 161 patients (38%; 102 receiving osimertinib, 59 receiving chemotherapy) provided data for PRO-CTCAE analyses (mean age: 64 years; 63% women). Diarrhea was reported more commonly with osimertinib than with chemotherapy, and was mostly graded as occurring rarely or occasionally. Decreased appetite was reported less commonly with osimertinib than with chemotherapy. The proportion of patients reporting nausea changed little from baseline with osimertinib and increased with chemotherapy. Few patients reported vomiting. Both nausea and vomiting were generally graded as mild in severity. Fatigue was reported less commonly with osimertinib than with chemotherapy, and was mostly graded as mild or moderate. Of patients reporting fatigue, the proportion grading it as interfering at least ‘somewhat’ with their usual or daily activities was lower with osimertinib than with chemotherapy.
Conclusion: Symptoms were generally mild and not frequent, with some differences in symptom patterns between the two treatment groups. The results support and complement the AURA3 trial data and give insight into patients’ experience with treatment.