Efficacy of Single-Fraction Postoperative Radiotherapy in Resected, Early-Stage Merkel Cell Carcinoma with High-Risk Features

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is an aggressive skin cancer with a high recurrence risk. Postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) improves the local recurrence rate (LRR) in early-stage MCC with risk factors per NCCN guidelines: primary tumor size > 1cm, head/neck (HN) location, immunosuppression, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and positive/narrow surgical margins. Conventionally fractionated PORT (C-PORT, ∼50 Gy in 25 fractions) is often recommended for localized MCC with these risk factors; however, some institutions elect observation. Prior studies suggest LRR of ∼20% for stage I/II MCC with high-risk features managed with surgery alone. C-PORT significantly decreases LRR but may cause significant morbidity and financial toxicity. We have previously reported that single fraction (SF)-PORT with 8 Gy achieves high rates of in-field control both in the metastatic and adjuvant settings with minimal morbidity. Here, we present updated long-term outcomes of SF-PORT, offered as an alternative to C-PORT with the hypothesis that it improves LRR relative to observation while minimizing toxicity, for resected stage I/II MCC.

MATERIALS/METHODS

A retrospective, single-institution analysis was completed for stage I/II MCC patients receiving SF-PORT following surgical management. The primary objective was estimating the LRR, defined as recurrence within 2 cm of the primary tumor. Patients with resected, stage I/II MCC with at least one high-risk feature were offered C-PORT as standard of care or SF-PORT as an alternative.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients (median age: 74.5; range 50-96 years) received SF-PORT to the primary tumor site at a median 44 days after wide local excision (85%), shave/excisional biopsy (13%), or Mohs (2%). Fifty-four percent of patients had 1 high-risk feature, 35% had 2, and 11% had 3 or more. HN (74%) was the most common primary site, 26% of tumors were > 1cm, 26% were LVI+, and 15% of patients were immunosuppressed (pathological margin status was often not available). There were no local recurrences (LRR = 0%) at a median follow-up time of 2.3 years. In-field locoregional control was 96% (44/46 patients) with 2 in-field, regional recurrences observed in draining nodal basins of HN primary lesions. There were 2 out-of-field regional nodal recurrences (1 patient with IMS; neither received elective nodal SFRT). Of 9 patients who received elective nodal SF-PORT, 8 did not have a successful sentinel lymph node biopsy. No MCC-specific deaths were observed. The most common side effect was in-field, grade 1 erythema (13%); no side effects > grade 1 (CTCAE v5) were noted.

CONCLUSION

SF-PORT is associated with a very low LRR which has proven durable with long-term follow-up. The LRR for SF-PORT appears lower than historical controls treated with surgery alone for patients with resected, stage I/II MCC with high-risk features.

Multi-Institutional Validation of the Recursive Partitioning Analysis for Overall Survival in Patients Undergoing Spine Radiosurgery for Spine Metastasis

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

The recently published spine radiosurgery (sSRS) recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) for overall survival (OS) separated patients into 3 distinct prognostic groups. We sought to externally validate this RPA using 3 separate multi-institutional datasets.

MATERIALS/METHODS

A total of 444 patients were utilized to develop the recently published sSRS RPA predictive of OS in patients with spine metastases. The RPA identified three distinct prognostic classes. RPA Class 1 was defined as KPS >70 and controlled systemic disease (n = 142); RPA Class 2 was defined as KPS>70 with uncontrolled systemic disease or KPS ≤70, age ≥54 and absence of visceral metastases (n = 207); RPA Class 3 was defined as KPS ≤70 and age <54 years or KPS≤70, age ≥54 years and presence of visceral metastases (n = 95). We utilized data from 3 large tertiary care centers to independently validate this RPA. Data from each institution was utilized independently to validate the RPA to minimize confounding based on institutional differences in patient selection. A total of 1,184 patients (221 patients from institution A, 749 institution B, and 214 from institution C) were in the validation cohort and were divided based on their RPA Class. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS and log-rank test was used to compare OS between RPA classes.

RESULTS

In each of the validation cohorts, the median OS was 19.9 months (institution A), 11.0 months (institution B), and 24.4 months (institution C). The patient distribution into RPA classification based on Institution A/B/C was, Class 1 (19.4%, 15.1%, 50.5%), Class 2 (74.7%, 57.7%%, 37.9%), and Class 3 (5.9%, 27.2%%, 11.2%), respectively. The median OS for patients in the validation cohort at Institution A/B/C based on RPA class was Class 1 (54 months, 27.1 months, 50.0 months), Class 2 (15.9 months, 13.0 months, 15.1 months) and Class 3 (6.9 months, 3.5 months, 6.1 months), respectively. Patients in RPA Class 1 had a significantly better OS compared to those in Class 2 of the each of the three external institution validation cohorts (p<0.01). Similarly, patients in RPA Class 2 had a significantly better OS compared to those in Class 3 (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

The external datasets from three large institutions independently validated the spine SRS RPA successfully for OS in patients undergoing sSRS for spinal metastases. This is the first RPA for OS to have been externally validated using multiple large datasets. Based on this validation, upfront spine SRS is strongly supported for patients in RPA Class 1 and Class 2 and is also cost effective with median OS >11 months for these patients. Patients in RPA Class 3 would benefit most from upfront conventional radiotherapy given their poor expected survival. Given successful external validation, this RPA helps guide physicians to identify those patients with spinal metastases who most benefit from sSRS.

Dosimetric Impact of Radiolucent Carbon Fiber Hardware for Post-Operative Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

The spine is the most common site of osseous metastases. In the non-operative setting, there is growing support for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) over conventional radiation therapy for improved pain relief and local control. Hybrid therapy consisting of separation surgery and post-operative SBRT is considered in patients with biomechanical instability and epidural cord compression. Surgery traditionally requires titanium (Ti) implants, which introduce artifacts on post-operative imaging in addition to increased uncertainty and beam attenuation. Use of radiolucent carbon fiber reinforced polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK) hardware has been shown to provide safe and comparable surgical outcomes as compared to Ti. Our primary objective is to assess the dosimetric impact of Ti versus carbon fiber implants in spine SBRT.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Single institution retrospective series of post-operative spine SBRT from 2019-2020. Re-irradiation cases were excluded. The electronic medical record and treatment planning systems (TPS) were queried. Dosimetric analyses compared original Ti plans with reoptimized plans, replacing Ti hardware electronic density with carbon fiber. Maintaining clinical goals, dose calculations were performed in a treatment planning system using a collapsed cone algorithm. All treatments used step and shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy to avoid beam angles with significant metal along the beam path. Metallic artifacts were contoured and assigned the appropriate tissue density. A D'Agostino-Pearson test was used to assess data for normality. We used paired Student's t-tests to compare three dosimetric outcomes in the setting of Ti and carbon fiber implants. Planning target volume (PTV) coverage was represented by the volume receiving at least the prescribed dose (%), the maximum point dose (dmax, cGy) to the spinal cord planning risk volume (PRV, 2 mm margin), and the overall hot spot intensity (plan dmax).

RESULTS

A series of 14 consecutive SBRT cases were evaluated (dose 27-30 Gy in 3-5 fractions). All dosimetric outcomes were normally distributed (p>0.05). We found a statistically significant difference in PTV coverage between the original SBRT treatment plans with Ti hardware (mean 85.1 ± 7.9%) and reoptimized carbon fiber hardware (87.3 ± 6.6%; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in mean spinal cord PRV dmax between Ti and carbon fiber plans (1846 ± 483 cGy vs. 1842 ± 495 cGy; p>0.05). We observed a nonsignificant increase in mean overall dmax from 3932 ± 416 cGy in the Ti cohort to 4111 ± 906 cGy in the carbon fiber cohort (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Carbon fiber implants provide a significant increase in SBRT target coverage, without impacting the overall plan and spinal cord PRV dmax in this retrospective series. In addition to improved post-operative imaging and reduced uncertainty, carbon fiber hardware may offer dosimetric advantages as compared to traditional Ti spinal implants, and warrants further investigation in a larger cohort.