An Analysis of Patients Treated with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Metastatic Urinary Tract Tumors to Identify Predictors of Response.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023;
117:e424-e425. [PMID:
37785392 DOI:
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.1583]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)
To identify selection criteria linked to outcomes in patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for metastatic tumors of the urinary tract (UT).
MATERIALS/METHODS
Single institution retrospective analysis of SBRT treated patients for oligometastatic/progressive UT tumors from 2006-2022. Charts were queried for M1 status at diagnosis or during disease course, treatment details (surgery, SBRT, systemic therapy), metabolic status (diabetes [DM], BMI) and outcomes. A linear quadratic formula was used to calculate the biologically effective dose (BED) using an α/β of 10 for tumor. Descriptive statistics portrayed the cohort, and analyses were done at patient and site level. Time-to-event analyses, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from SBRT, were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression was used for univariable (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA) to identify predictors of outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 35 patients were treated at 44 metastatic sites, including: bone (25%), node (36.4%), lung (20.5%), soft tissue (13.6%) and liver (4.5%). Most were male (74.3%) with a median age of 70 (range: 51-89), without DM (60%) having a median BMI of 29.8, and ECOG <2 (97.1%) at time of SBRT. Six (17.1%) patients were M1 at diagnosis. Of the 29 non-M1 patients, 86.2% received definitive local therapy (LT), 58.6% had at least T3/N+ disease, 75.8% received systemic therapy with a median of 2 agents (range: 1-6) prior to SBRT. Sixteen (45.7%) received immunotherapy (IO) with most receiving this before (75%) and after (56.2%) SBRT. Six patients had positive PD-L1 status (n = 10). The median RT dose, fractionation and BED was 40 Gy (range: 14-46), 5 fractions, and 72 (range: 28-132), respectively. At a median follow-up of 34.8, the median OS was 18.4 m (range: 9.3-27.4) with a 2-year OS of 35.9%. At patient level, 62.8% recurred after SBRT. The median PFS after SBRT was 5.3 m (range: 1.8-8.7) with a 2-yr PFS of 29.3%. Patient-level PFS was improved with LT (6.7 vs 1.4 m; p = 0.001) and DM (NR vs 2.9 m; p = 0.015), whereas improved OS was related with LT (18.9 vs 6.6 m; p = 0.03), DM (p = 0.04), ECOG (p = 0.004), and no relapse after SBRT (NR vs 9.8 m; p <0.001). Exposure to < 3 systemic agents prior to SBRT portended better PFS (6.7 vs 2.6 m; p = 0.04) without any impact by IO. At site level, 20.4% of sites had local relapse with 4 being the first event. Site was related with PFS (p = 0.009) with order of increased relapse risk being liver > bone > soft tissue > node > lung. No dosimetric feature was related with recurrence risk. On MVA, both DM (p = 0.02) and LT (p = 0.002) were predictive for PFS. Only recurrence after SBRT predicted for OS on MVA (HR: 6.7, 95% CI: 1.4-31; p = 0.014). In the IO subset, median PFS was 5.3 m and OS was 9.4 m, with no difference seen with IO-SBRT sequence or PDL1 status.
CONCLUSION
Optimized selection criteria for metastasis-directed therapy in patients with UT tumors is unclear, notably with IO. Future studies may benefit by assessing circulating tumor markers prior to SBRT.
Collapse