1
|
Romesser PB, Capdevila J, Garcia-Carbonero R, Philip T, Fernandez Martos C, Tuli R, Rodriguez-Gutierrez A, Kuipers M, Becker A, Coenen-Stass A, Sarholz B, You X, Miller ED. A Phase Ib Study of the DNA-PK Inhibitor Peposertib Combined with Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2024; 30:695-702. [PMID: 38051750 PMCID: PMC10870114 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-23-1129] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2023] [Revised: 07/31/2023] [Accepted: 12/01/2023] [Indexed: 12/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Peposertib-an orally administered DNA-dependent protein kinase inhibitor-has shown potent radiosensitization in preclinical models. This dose-escalation study (NCT03770689) aimed to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of peposertib plus capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and assessed its safety and efficacy in locally advanced rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were treated for 5 to 5.5 weeks with 50- to 250-mg peposertib once daily, capecitabine 825 mg/m2 twice daily, and radiotherapy (RT), 5 days per week. Following clinical restaging (8 weeks after CRT completion), patients with clinical complete response (cCR) could opt for surveillance. Total mesorectal excision was recommended upon incomplete response (IR). RESULTS Nineteen patients were treated with peposertib at doses of 50 mg (n = 1), 100 mg, 150 mg, and 250 mg (n = 6 each). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in one out of five (100 mg), one out of six (150 mg), and three out of six (250 mg) evaluable patients. Peposertib ≤150 mg once daily was tolerable in combination with CRT. After 8 weeks of treatment with peposertib and CRT, the cCR was 15.8% (n = 3). Among the three patients with cCR, two underwent surgery and had residual tumors. Among the 16 patients with IR, seven underwent surgery and had residual tumors; five of the remaining nine patients opted for consolidative chemotherapy. The combined cCR/pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 5.3% (n = 1, 100 mg cohort). CONCLUSIONS Peposertib did not improve complete response rates at tolerable dose levels. The study was closed without declaring the MTD/RP2D.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jaume Capdevila
- Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), IOB Quiron-Teknon, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Tony Philip
- Northwell Health Cancer Institute, Lake Success, New York
| | | | - Richard Tuli
- USF Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida
| | | | - Mirjam Kuipers
- The health care business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Andreas Becker
- The health care business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
| | | | | | | | - Eric D. Miller
- Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ocanto A, Torres L, Montijano M, Rincón D, Fernández C, Sevilla B, Gonsalves D, Teja M, Guijarro M, Glaría L, Hernánz R, Zafra-Martin J, Sanmamed N, Kishan A, Alongi F, Moghanaki D, Nagar H, Couñago F. MR-LINAC, a New Partner in Radiation Oncology: Current Landscape. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:270. [PMID: 38254760 PMCID: PMC10813892 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16020270] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/05/2024] [Indexed: 01/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Technological advances in radiation oncology are oriented towards improving treatment precision and tumor control. Among these advances, magnetic-resonance-image-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) stands out, with technological advances to deliver targeted treatments adapted to a tumor's anatomy on the day while minimizing incidental exposure to organs at risk, offering an unprecedented therapeutic advantage compared to X-ray-based IGRT delivery systems. This new technology changes the traditional workflow in radiation oncology and requires an evolution in team coordination to administer more precise treatments. Once implemented, it paves the way for newer indication for radiation therapy to safely deliver higher doses than ever before, with better preservation of healthy tissues to optimize patient outcomes. In this narrative review, we assess the technical aspects of the novel linear accelerators that can deliver MRgRT and summarize the available published experience to date, focusing on oncological results and future challenges.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abrahams Ocanto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (L.T.); (M.M.); (D.R.); (C.F.); (B.S.); (D.G.); (M.T.); (M.G.); (L.G.); (R.H.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain
| | - Lisselott Torres
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (L.T.); (M.M.); (D.R.); (C.F.); (B.S.); (D.G.); (M.T.); (M.G.); (L.G.); (R.H.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain
| | - Miguel Montijano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (L.T.); (M.M.); (D.R.); (C.F.); (B.S.); (D.G.); (M.T.); (M.G.); (L.G.); (R.H.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain
| | - Diego Rincón
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (L.T.); (M.M.); (D.R.); (C.F.); (B.S.); (D.G.); (M.T.); (M.G.); (L.G.); (R.H.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain
| | - Castalia Fernández
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (L.T.); (M.M.); (D.R.); (C.F.); (B.S.); (D.G.); (M.T.); (M.G.); (L.G.); (R.H.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain
| | - Beatriz Sevilla
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (L.T.); (M.M.); (D.R.); (C.F.); (B.S.); (D.G.); (M.T.); (M.G.); (L.G.); (R.H.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain
| | - Daniela Gonsalves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (L.T.); (M.M.); (D.R.); (C.F.); (B.S.); (D.G.); (M.T.); (M.G.); (L.G.); (R.H.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain
| | - Macarena Teja
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (L.T.); (M.M.); (D.R.); (C.F.); (B.S.); (D.G.); (M.T.); (M.G.); (L.G.); (R.H.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain
| | - Marcos Guijarro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (L.T.); (M.M.); (D.R.); (C.F.); (B.S.); (D.G.); (M.T.); (M.G.); (L.G.); (R.H.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain
| | - Luis Glaría
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (L.T.); (M.M.); (D.R.); (C.F.); (B.S.); (D.G.); (M.T.); (M.G.); (L.G.); (R.H.); (F.C.)
| | - Raúl Hernánz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (L.T.); (M.M.); (D.R.); (C.F.); (B.S.); (D.G.); (M.T.); (M.G.); (L.G.); (R.H.); (F.C.)
| | - Juan Zafra-Martin
- Group of Translational Research in Cancer Immunotherapy, Centro de Investigaciones Médico-Sanitarias (CIMES), Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga (IBIMA), Universidad de Málaga (UMA), 29010 Málaga, Spain;
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, 29010 Málaga, Spain
| | - Noelia Sanmamed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, 28040 Madrid, Spain;
| | - Amar Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA;
| | - Filippo Alongi
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, Cancer Care Center, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, 37024 Negrar, Italy;
- University of Brescia, 25121 Brescia, Italy
| | - Drew Moghanaki
- UCLA Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA;
| | - Himanshu Nagar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 10065, USA;
| | - Felipe Couñago
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, GenesisCare, 28002 Madrid, Spain; (L.T.); (M.M.); (D.R.); (C.F.); (B.S.); (D.G.); (M.T.); (M.G.); (L.G.); (R.H.); (F.C.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010 Madrid, Spain
- GenesisCare, 28043 Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Barsky AR, George J, Wroe AJ, Mittauer KE, Kaiser A, Herrera R, Yu J, Gutierrez AN, Alvarez D, McCulloch J, Kasper ME, Mehta MP, Chuong MD. Dosimetric comparison of magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy, intensity-modulated proton therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for distal esophageal cancer. Med Dosim 2023; 49:121-126. [PMID: 38001010 DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2023.09.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2022] [Revised: 09/25/2023] [Accepted: 09/26/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023]
Abstract
Advances in radiotherapy (RT) technologies permit significant decreases in the dose delivered to organs at risk (OARs) for patients with esophageal cancer (EC). Novel RT modalities such as proton beam therapy (PBT) and magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT), as well as motion management techniques including breath hold (BH) are expected to further improve the therapeutic ratio. However, to our knowledge, the dosimetric benefits of PBT vs MRgRT vs volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) have not been directly compared for EC. We performed a retrospective in silico evaluation using the images and datasets of nine distal EC patients who were treated at our institution with a 0.35-Tesla MR linac to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions in mid-inspiration BH (BH-MRgRT). Comparison free-breathing (FB) intensity-modulated PBT (FB-IMPT) and FB-VMAT plans were retrospectively created using the same prescription dose, target volume coverage goals, and OAR constraints. A 5 mm setup margin was used for all plans. BH-IMPT and BH-VMAT plans were not evaluated as they would not reflect our institutional practice. Planners were blinded to the results of the treatment plans created using different radiation modalities. The primary objective was to compare plan quality, target volume coverage, and OAR doses. All treatment plans met pre-defined target volume coverage and OAR constraints. The median conformity and homogeneity indices between FB-IMPT, BH-MRgRT and FB-VMAT were 1.13, 1.25, and 1.43 (PITV) and 1.04, 1.15, 1.04 (HI), respectively. For FB-IMPT, BH-MRgRT and FB-VMAT the median heart dose metrics were 52.8, 79.3, 146.8 (V30Gy, cc), 35.5, 43.8, 77.5 (V40Gy, cc), 16.9, 16.9, 32.5 (V50Gy, cc) and 6.5, 14.9, 17.3 (mean, Gy), respectively. Lung dose metrics were 8.6, 7.9, 18.5 (V20Gy, %), and 4.3, 6.3, 11.2 (mean, Gy), respectively. The mean liver dose (Gy) was 6.5, 19.6, 22.2 respectively. Both FB-IMPT and BH-MRgRT achieve substantial reductions in heart, lung, and liver dose compared to FB-VMAT. We plan to evaluate dosimetric outcomes across these RT modalities assuming consistent use of BH.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew R Barsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Lynn Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Boca Raton, FL 33486, USA.
| | - Jerry George
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Orlando Health Cancer Institute, Orlando, FL 32806, USA
| | - Andrew J Wroe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, 33176, USA
| | - Kathryn E Mittauer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, 33176, USA
| | - Adeel Kaiser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, 33176, USA
| | - Roberto Herrera
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, 33176, USA
| | - Jen Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, 33176, USA
| | - Alonso N Gutierrez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, 33176, USA
| | - Diane Alvarez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, 33176, USA
| | - James McCulloch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, 33176, USA
| | - Michael E Kasper
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Lynn Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Boca Raton, FL 33486, USA
| | - Minesh P Mehta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, 33176, USA
| | - Michael D Chuong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, 33176, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
McDonald J, Chuang CY, Hicks JK, Berry DK, Imanirad I, Rishi A, Frakes JM, Hoffe SE, Felder S. FANCD2 Mutation in a Patient With Early Rectal Cancer Receiving Definitive Chemoradiation. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 6:100717. [PMID: 34258475 PMCID: PMC8260782 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100717] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2021] [Revised: 04/13/2021] [Accepted: 04/20/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Seth Felder
- Surgical Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Dohm A, Sanchez J, Stotsky-Himelfarb E, Willingham FF, Hoffe S. Strategies to Minimize Late Effects From Pelvic Radiotherapy. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2021; 41:158-168. [PMID: 34010045 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_320999] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
During the past 30 years, radiation treatment techniques have significantly improved, from conventional external-beam radiation therapy, to three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, to current intensity-modulated radiation therapy, benefiting patients who undergo treatment of pelvic malignancies. Modern treatment options also include proton beam irradiation as well as low and high dose rate brachytherapy. Although the acute adverse effects of these modalities are well documented in clinical trials, less well known are the true incidence and optimal management of those late adverse effects that can occur months to years later. In a population of survivors of cancer that is steadily increasing, with many such patients receiving radiotherapy at some time during their disease course, these late effects can become a considerable management and quality-of-life issue. This review will examine the range of late toxicities that can occur from pelvic radiotherapy and explore strategies to prevent and mitigate them.
Collapse
|