Radiation and Systemic Therapy for Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Progress in the overall treatment of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) has moved at a slower pace than non-small-cell lung cancer. In fact, the standard treatment regimen for limited stage SCLC has not appreciably shifted in more than 20 years, consisting of four to six cycles of cisplatin and etoposide chemotherapy concurrent with thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for responsive disease. Nevertheless, long-term outcomes have improved with median survival approaching 25-30 months, and approximately one third of patients now survive 5 years. This is likely attributable in part to improvements in staging, including use of brain magnetic resonance imaging and fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography imaging, advances in radiation treatment planning, and supportive care. The CONVERT and CALGB 30610 phase III trials failed to demonstrate a survival advantage for high-dose, once-daily TRT compared with standard 45 Gy twice-daily TRT, although high-dose, once-daily TRT remains common in practice. A phase III comparison of high-dose 60 Gy twice-daily TRT versus 45 Gy twice-daily TRT aims to confirm the provocative outcomes reported with 60 Gy twice daily in the phase II setting. Efforts over time have shifted from intensifying PCI, to attempting to reduce treatment-related neurotoxicity, to more recently questioning whether careful magnetic resonance imaging surveillance may obviate the routine need for PCI. The addition of immunotherapy has resulted in mixed success in extensive-stage SCLC with modest benefit observed with programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, and several ongoing trials assess programmed death-ligand 1 inhibition concurrent or adjuvant to chemoradiotherapy in limited-stage SCLC. Major advances in future treatment will likely depend on a better understanding and exploiting of molecular characteristics of SCLC with increasing personalization of therapy.

Therapeutic effect of osimertinib plus cranial radiotherapy compared to osimertinib alone in NSCLC patients with EGFR-activating mutations and brain metastases: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to compare the efficacy of osimertinib plus cranial radiotherapy (RT) with osimertinib alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and brain metastases (BMs).

METHODS

The clinical data of advanced NSCLC patients with BMs who received osimertinib were retrospectively collected. The patients were assigned to one of the two groups according to the therapeutic modality used: the osimertinib monotherapy group or the osimertinib plus RT group.

RESULTS

This was a retrospective study and 61 patients were included from December 2015 to August 2020. Forty patients received osimertinib monotherapy, and twenty-one patients received osimertinib plus RT. Radiotherapy included whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT, n = 14), WBRT with simultaneous integrated boost (WBRT-SIB, n = 5) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS, n = 2). The median number of prior systemic therapies in the two groups was one. Intracranial and systemic ORR and DCR were not significantly different between the two groups. No difference in iPFS was observed between the two groups (median iPFS: 16.67 vs. 13.50 months, P = 0.836). The median OS was 29.20 months in the osimertinib plus RT group compared with 26.13 months in the osimertinib group (HR = 0.895, P = 0.826). In the L858R mutational subgroup of 31 patients, the osimertinib plus RT group had a longer OS (P = 0.046). In the exon 19 deletion mutational subgroup of 30 patients, OS in the osimertinib alone group was longer than that in the osimertinib plus RT group (P = 0.011). The incidence of any-grade adverse events was not significantly different between the osimertinib plus RT group and the osimertinib alone group (47.6% vs. 32.5%, P = 0.762). However, six patients (28.5%) experienced leukoencephalopathy in the osimertinib plus RT group, and 50% (3/6) of the leukoencephalopathy was greater than or equal to grade 3.

CONCLUSION

The therapeutic effect of osimertinib with RT was similar to that of osimertinib alone in EGFR-positive NSCLC patients with BM. However, for patients with the L858R mutation, osimertinib plus RT could provide more benefit than osimertinib alone.

Clinical features of head and neck cancer patients with brain metastases: A retrospective study of 88 cases

OBJECTIVES

Brain metastases (BM) arising from head and neck cancer (HNC) are rare and not well characterized. This study aims to describe the clinicopathological features, treatments, prognostic factors, and survival in HNC patients with BM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Non-thyroid HNC patients referred to BC Cancer from 1998 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed for BM. The Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox regression analysis were used to assess post-BM survival and prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Out of 9432 HNC patients, 88 patients developed BM (0.9%, median follow-up 3.4 years). On average, the BM were diagnosed 18.5 months after the primary diagnosis and tended to arise after distant metastases to extracranial sites (85%) such as the lungs (78%). At BM presentation, 84% were symptomatic and two thirds had a poor performance status (ECOG ≥ 2, 68%). The median post-BM survival was 2.5 months (95% CI 2.1-3.3 months). On multivariable analysis, management of BM with radiotherapy (RT) alone (3.3 months, 95% CI 2.3-4.6, p = 0.005) and RT with surgery (4.4 months, 95% CI 2.8-6.9, p < 0.001) was associated with longer survival compared to best supportive care alone (1.4 months, 95% CI 1.0-2.0 months). Age, sex, performance status, sub-localization of the primary HNC, presence of extracranial metastases, and number of intracranial metastases were not associated with post-BM survival (all p ≥ 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest study to date in BM from HNC. BM occur late in the course of HNC and carry a poor prognosis. Treatment with intracranial radiotherapy both with and without surgery was associated with improved survival.

External beam radiation dose escalation for high grade glioma

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 8, 2016. High grade glioma (HGG) is a rapidly growing brain tumour in the supporting cells of the nervous system, with several subtypes such as glioblastoma (grade IV astrocytoma), anaplastic (grade III) astrocytoma and anaplastic (grade III) oligodendroglioma. Studies have investigated the best strategy to give radiation to people with HGG. Conventional fractionated radiotherapy involves giving a daily radiation dose (called a fraction) of 180 cGy to 200 cGy. Hypofractionated radiotherapy uses higher daily doses, which reduces the overall number of fractions and treatment time. Hyperfractionated radiotherapy which uses a lower daily dose with a greater number of fractions and multiple fractions per day to deliver a total dose at least equivalent to external beam daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in the same time frame. The aim is to reduce the potential for late toxicity. Accelerated radiotherapy (dose escalation) refers to the delivery of multiple fractions per day using daily doses of radiation consistent with external beam daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy doses. The aim is to reduce the overall treatment time; typically, two or three fractions per day may be delivered with a six to eight hour gap between fractions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of postoperative external beam radiation dose escalation in adults with HGG.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid and Embase Ovid to August 2019 for relevant randomised phase III trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included adults with a pathological diagnosis of HGG randomised to the following external beam radiation regimens: daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy; hypofractionated radiotherapy versus daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy; hyperfractionated radiotherapy versus daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy or accelerated radiotherapy versus daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were overall survival and adverse effects. The secondary outcomes were progression free survival and quality of life. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Since the last version of this review, we identified no new relevant trials for inclusion. We included 11 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 2062 participants and 1537 in the relevant arms for this review. There was an overall survival benefit for people with HGG receiving postoperative radiotherapy compared to the participants receiving postoperative supportive care. For the four pooled RCTs (397 participants), the overall hazard ratio (HR) for survival was 2.01 favouring postoperative radiotherapy (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 2.55; P < 0.00001; moderate-certainty evidence). Although these trials may not have completely reported adverse effects, they did not note any significant toxicity attributable to radiation. Progression free survival and quality of life could not be pooled due to lack of data. Overall survival was similar between hypofractionated and conventional radiotherapy in five trials (943 participants), where the HR was 0.95 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.17; P = 0.63; very low-certainty evidence. The trials reported that hypofractionated and conventional radiotherapy were well tolerated with mild acute adverse effects. These trials only reported one participant in the hypofractionated arm developing symptomatic radiation necrosis that required surgery. Progression free survival and quality of life could not be pooled due to the lack of data. Overall survival was similar between hypofractionated and conventional radiotherapy in the subset of two trials (293 participants) which included participants aged 60 years and older with glioblastoma. For this category, the HR was 1.16 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.46; P = 0.21; high-certainty evidence). There were two trials which compared hyperfractionated radiotherapy versus conventional radiation and one trial which compared accelerated radiotherapy versus conventional radiation. However, the results could not be pooled. The conventionally fractionated radiotherapy regimens were 4500 cGy to 6000 cGy given in 180 cGy to 200 cGy daily fractions, over five to six weeks. All trials generally included participants with World Health Organization (WHO) performance status from 0 to 2 and Karnofsky performance status of 50 and higher. The risk of selection bias was generally low among these RCTs. The number of participants lost to follow-up for the outcome of overall survival was low. Attrition, performance, detection and reporting bias for the outcome of overall survival was low. There was unclear attrition, performance, detection and reporting bias relating to the outcomes of adverse effects, progression free survival and quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative conventional daily radiotherapy probably improves survival for adults with good performance status and HGG compared to no postoperative radiotherapy. Hypofractionated radiotherapy has similar efficacy for survival compared to conventional radiotherapy, particularly for individuals aged 60 years and older with glioblastoma. There are insufficient data regarding hyperfractionation versus conventionally fractionated radiation (without chemotherapy) and for accelerated radiation versus conventionally fractionated radiation (without chemotherapy). There are HGG subsets who have poor prognosis even with treatment (e.g. glioblastoma histology, older age and poor performance status). These HGG individuals with poor prognosis have generally been excluded from randomised trials based on poor performance status. No randomised trial has compared comfort measures or best supportive care with an active intervention using radiotherapy or chemotherapy in these people with poor prognosis. Since the last version of this review, we found no new relevant studies. The search identified three new trials, but all were excluded as none had a conventionally fractionated radiotherapy arm.

The effects of prophylactic cranial irradiation versus control on survival of patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of 14 trials

BACKGROUND

A recent Japanese study suggested prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) failed to improve survival of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, previous studies showed that PCI was beneficial in reducing the rate of mortality for extensive-stage SCLC. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of PCI on the survival of patients diagnosed with extensive-stage SCLC by meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library and Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM) were systematically searched to identify eligible clinical studies assessing the efficacy of PCI in extensive-stage SCLC patients. After extracting survival data, brain metastasis, and response rates, the pooled estimates were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 14 clinical studies were included, involving 1221 cases in the PCI group and 5074 in the control group. The results showed that PCI significantly improved overall survival (Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47, 0.69; p < 0.001) and brain metastasis (risk ratio (RR) =0.47, 95%CI: 0.33, 0.69; p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis along with sensitivity analysis suggested that PCI effects on overall survival were independent of region, pre-PCI brain metastasis status and PCI administration timing.

CONCLUSION

PCI improves overall survival in extensive-stage SCLC. More randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our findings.

Surgery versus stereotactic radiotherapy for people with single or solitary brain metastasis

BACKGROUND

Brain metastases occur when cancer cells spread from their original site to the brain and are a frequent cause of morbidity and death in people with cancer. They occur in 20% to 40% of people during the course of their disease. Brain metastases are also the most frequent type of brain malignancy. Single and solitary brain metastasis is infrequent and choosing the most appropriate treatment is a clinical challenge. Surgery and stereotactic radiotherapy are two options. For surgery, tumour resection is performed using microsurgical techniques, while in stereotactic radiotherapy, external ionising radiation beams are precisely focused on the brain metastasis. Stereotactic radiotherapy may be given as a single dose, also known as single dose radiosurgery, or in a number of fractions, also known as fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. There is uncertainty regarding which treatment (surgery or stereotactic radiotherapy) is more effective for people with single or solitary brain metastasis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of surgery versus stereotactic radiotherapy for people with single or solitary brain metastasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, March 2018), MEDLINE and Embase up to 25 March 2018 for relevant studies. We also searched trials databases, grey literature and handsearched relevant literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgery versus stereotactic radiotherapy, either a single fraction (stereotactic radiosurgery) or multiple fractions (fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy) for treatment of single or solitary brain metastasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened all references, evaluated the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias, and performed data extraction. The primary outcomes were overall survival and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival and quality of life . We analysed overall survival and progression-free survival as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and analysed adverse events as risk ratios (RRs). For quality of life we used mean difference (MD).

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs including 85 participants met our inclusion criteria. One study included people with single untreated brain metastasis (n = 64), and the other included people with solitary brain metastasis (22 consented to randomisation and 21 were analysed). We identified a third trial reported as completed and pending results this may be included in future updates of this review. The two included studies were prematurely closed due to poor participant accrual. One study compared surgery plus whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) versus stereotactic radiosurgery alone, and the second study compared surgery plus WBRT versus stereotactic radiosurgery plus WBRT. Meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity between trial interventions. The overall certainty of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes due to high risk of bias and imprecision.We found no difference in overall survival in either of the two comparisons. For the comparison of surgery plus WBRT versus stereotactic radiosurgery alone: HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.77; 64 participants, very low-certainty evidence. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision. For the comparison of surgery plus WBRT versus stereotactic radiosurgery plus WBRT: HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.42; 21 participants, low-certainty evidence. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Adverse events were reported in both trial groups in the two studies, showing no differences for surgery plus WBRT versus stereotactic radiosurgery alone (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.44; 64 participants) and for surgery plus WBRT versus stereotactic radiosurgery plus WBRT (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.98; 21 participants). Most of the adverse events were related to radiation toxicities. We considered the certainty of the evidence from the two comparisons to be very low due to risk of bias and imprecision.There was no difference in progression-free survival in the study comparing surgery plus WBRT versus stereotactic radiosurgery plus WBRT (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.38; 21 participants, low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence to low certainty due to imprecision. This outcome was not clearly reported for the other comparison. In general, there were no differences in quality of life between the two studies. The study comparing surgery plus WBRT versus stereotactic radiosurgery plus WBRT found no differences after two months using the QLQ-C30 global scale (MD -10.80, 95% CI -44.67 to 23.07; 14 participants, very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no definitive evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of surgery versus stereotactic radiotherapy on overall survival, adverse events, progression-free survival and quality of life in people with single or solitary brain metastasis, and benefits must be decided on a case-by-case basis until well powered and designed trials are available. Given the difficulties in participant accrual, an international multicentred approach should be considered for future studies.

Outcome of patients with intracranial non-germinomatous germ cell tumors-lessons from the SIOP-CNS-GCT-96 trial

Background

Following promising results to increase survival and reduce treatment burden in intracranial non-germinomatous germ cell tumors (NGGCTs), we conducted a European study using dose-intense chemotherapy followed by risk-adapted radiotherapy.

Methods

All patients received 4 courses of cisplatin/etoposide/ifosfamide. Non-metastatic patients then received focal radiotherapy only (54 Gy); metastatic patients received 30 Gy craniospinal radiotherapy with 24 Gy boost to primary tumor and macroscopic metastatic sites.

Results

Patients with localized malignant NGGCT (n = 116) demonstrated 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of 0.72 ± 0.04 and 0.82 ± 0.04, respectively. Primary tumor sites were: 67 pineal, 35 suprasellar, 5 bifocal, 9 others. One patient died postsurgery in clinical remission; 3 patients progressed during treatment and 27 (23%) relapsed afterward. Fourteen were local, 6 combined, and 7 distant relapses (outside radiation field). Seventeen of the 27 relapsed patients died of disease. Patients with metastatic disease (n = 33) demonstrated 5-year PFS and OS of 0.68 ± 0.09 and 0.75 ± 0.08, respectively; 1 patient died following progression on treatment and 9 (27%) relapsed afterward (5 local, 1 combined, 3 distant). Only one metastatic patient with recurrence was salvaged. Multivariate analysis identified diagnostic alpha-fetoprotein level (serum and/or cerebrospinal fluid level >1000 ng/mL, 19/149 patients, of whom 11 relapsed; P < 0.0003) and residual disease following treatment, including after second-look surgery (n = 52/145 evaluable patients, 26 relapsed; P = 0.0002) as significant prognostic indicators in this cohort.

Conclusion

In localized malignant NGGCT, craniospinal radiotherapy could be avoided without increased relapses outside the radiotherapy field. Chemotherapy and craniospinal radiotherapy remain the gold standard for metastatic disease.

Risk-adapted therapy for young children with medulloblastoma (SJYC07): therapeutic and molecular outcomes from a multicentre, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Young children with medulloblastoma have a poor overall survival compared with older children, due to use of radiation-sparing therapy in young children. Radiotherapy is omitted or reduced in these young patients to spare them from debilitating long-term side-effects. We aimed to estimate event-free survival and define the molecular characteristics associated with progression-free survival in young patients with medulloblastoma using a risk-stratified treatment strategy designed to defer, reduce, or delay radiation exposure.

METHODS

In this multicentre, phase 2 trial, we enrolled children younger than 3 years with newly diagnosed medulloblastoma at six centres in the USA and Australia. Children aged 3-5 years with newly diagnosed, non-metastatic medulloblastoma without any high-risk features were also eligible. Eligible patients were required to start therapy within 31 days from definitive surgery, had a Lansky performance score of at least 30, and did not receive previous radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Patients were stratified postoperatively by clinical and histological criteria into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk treatment groups. All patients received identical induction chemotherapy (methotrexate, vincristine, cisplatin, and cyclophosphamide), with high-risk patients also receiving an additional five doses of vinblastine. Induction was followed by risk-adapted consolidation therapy: low-risk patients received cyclophosphamide (1500 mg/m2 on day 1), etoposide (100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2), and carboplatin (area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min on day 2) for two 4-week cycles; intermediate-risk patients received focal radiation therapy (54 Gy with a clinical target volume of 5 mm over 6 weeks) to the tumour bed; and high-risk patients received chemotherapy with targeted intravenous topotecan (area under the curve 120-160 ng-h/mL intravenously on days 1-5) and cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1-5). After consolidation, all patients received maintenance chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, topotecan, and erlotinib. The coprimary endpoints were event-free survival and patterns of methylation profiling associated with progression-free survival. Outcome and safety analyses were per protocol (all patients who received at least one dose of induction chemotherapy); biological analyses included all patients with tissue available for methylation profiling. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00602667, and was closed to accrual on April 19, 2017.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 27, 2007, and April 19, 2017, we enrolled 81 patients with histologically confirmed medulloblastoma. Accrual to the low-risk group was suspended after an interim analysis on Dec 2, 2015, when the 1-year event-free survival was estimated to be below the stopping rule boundary. After a median follow-up of 5·5 years (IQR 2·7-7·3), 5-year event-free survival was 31·3% (95% CI 19·3-43·3) for the whole cohort, 55·3% (95% CI 33·3-77·3) in the low-risk cohort (n=23) versus 24·6% (3·6-45·6) in the intermediate-risk cohort (n=32; hazard ratio 2·50, 95% CI 1·19-5·27; p=0·016) and 16·7% (3·4-30·0) in the high-risk cohort (n=26; 3·55, 1·66-7·59; p=0·0011; overall p=0·0021). 5-year progression-free survival by methylation subgroup was 51·1% (95% CI 34·6-67·6) in the sonic hedgehog (SHH) subgroup (n=42), 8·3% (95% CI 0·0-24·0%) in the group 3 subgroup (n=24), and 13·3% (95% CI 0·0-37·6%) in the group 4 subgroup (n=10). Within the SHH subgroup, two distinct methylation subtypes were identified and named iSHH-I and iSHH-II. 5-year progression-free survival was 27·8% (95% CI 9·0-46·6; n=21) for iSHH-I and 75·4% (55·0-95·8; n=21) for iSHH-II. The most common adverse events were grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia (48 patients [59%]), neutropenia (21 [26%]), infection with neutropenia (20 [25%]), leucopenia (15 [19%]), vomiting (15 [19%]), and anorexia (13 [16%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred.

INTERPRETATION

The risk-adapted approach did not improve event-free survival in young children with medulloblastoma. However, the methylation subgroup analyses showed that the SHH subgroup had improved progression-free survival compared with the group 3 subgroup. Moreover, within the SHH subgroup, the iSHH-II subtype had improved progression-free survival in the absence of radiation, intraventricular chemotherapy, or high-dose chemotherapy compared with the iSHH-I subtype. These findings support the development of a molecularly driven, risk-adapted, treatment approach in future trials in young children with medulloblastoma.

FUNDING

American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, NCI Cancer Center, Alexander and Margaret Stewart Trust, Sontag Foundation, and American Association for Cancer Research.

Whole brain radiotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple brain metastases

BACKGROUND

This is an update to the review published in the Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 4).It is estimated that 20% to 40% of people with cancer will develop brain metastases during the course of their illness. The burden of brain metastases impacts quality and length of survival.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) given alone or in combination with other therapies to adults with newly diagnosed multiple brain metastases.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase to May 2017 and the National Cancer Institute Physicians Data Query for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing WBRT versus other treatments for adults with newly diagnosed multiple brain metastases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and abstracted information in accordance with Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We added 10 RCTs to this updated review. The review now includes 54 published trials (45 fully published reports, four abstracts, and five subsets of data from previously published RCTs) involving 11,898 participants.Lower biological WBRT doses versus controlThe hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) with lower biological WBRT doses as compared with control (3000 cGy in 10 daily fractions) was 1.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.40; P = 0.01; moderate-certainty evidence) in favour of control. The HR for neurological function improvement (NFI) was 1.74 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.84; P = 0.03; moderate-certainty evidence) in favour of control fractionation.Higher biological WBRT doses versus controlThe HR for OS with higher biological WBRT doses as compared with control (3000 cGy in 10 daily fractions) was 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.12; P = 0.65; moderate-certainty evidence). The HR for NFI was 1.14 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.42; P = 0.23; moderate-certainty evidence).WBRT and radiosensitisersThe addition of radiosensitisers to WBRT did not confer additional benefit for OS (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.12; P = 0.12; moderate-certainty evidence) or for brain tumour response rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.11; P = 0.22; high-certainty evidence).Radiosurgery and WBRT versus WBRT aloneThe HR for OS with use of WBRT and radiosurgery boost as compared with WBRT alone for selected participants was 0.61 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.39; P = 0.24; moderate-certainty evidence). For overall brain control at one year, the HR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.60; P < 0.0001; high-certainty evidence) favouring the WBRT and radiosurgery boost group.Radiosurgery alone versus radiosurgery and WBRTThe HR for local brain control was 2.73 (95% CI 1.87 to 3.99; P < 0.00001; high-certainty evidence)favouring the addition of WBRT to radiosurgery. The HR for distant brain control was 2.34 (95% CI 1.73 to 3.18; P < 0.00001; high-certainty evidence) favouring WBRT and radiosurgery. The HR for OS was 1.00 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.25; P = 0.99; moderate-certainty evidence). Two trials reported worse neurocognitive outcomes and one trial reported worse quality of life outcomes when WBRT was added to radiosurgery.We could not pool data from trials related to chemotherapy, optimal supportive care (OSC), molecular targeted agents, neurocognitive protective agents, and hippocampal sparing WBRT. However, one trial reported no differences in quality-adjusted life-years for selected participants with brain metastases from non-small-cell lung cancer randomised to OSC and WBRT versus OSC alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

None of the trials with altered higher biological WBRT dose-fractionation schemes reported benefit for OS, NFI, or symptom control compared with standard care. However, OS and NFI were worse for lower biological WBRT dose-fractionation schemes than for standard dose schedules.The addition of WBRT to radiosurgery improved local and distant brain control in selected people with brain metastases, but data show worse neurocognitive outcomes and no differences in OS.Selected people with multiple brain metastases from non-small-cell lung cancer may show no difference in OS when OSC is given and WBRT is omitted.Use of radiosensitisers, chemotherapy, or molecular targeted agents in conjunction with WBRT remains experimental.Further trials are needed to evaluate the use of neurocognitive protective agents and hippocampal sparing with WBRT. As well, future trials should examine homogeneous participants with brain metastases with focus on prognostic features and molecular markers.

Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) alone versus WBRT and radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastases

BACKGROUND

Historically, whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) has been the main treatment for brain metastases. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivers high-dose focused radiation and is being increasingly utilized to treat brain metastases. The benefit of adding SRS to WBRT is unclear. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 9, 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of WBRT plus SRS versus WBRT alone in the treatment of adults with brain metastases.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review, in 2009 we searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CancerLit in order to identify trials for inclusion in this review. For the first update the searches were updated in May 2012.For this update, in May 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in order to identify trials for inclusion in the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We restricted the review to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared use of WBRT plus SRS versus WBRT alone for upfront treatment of adults with newly diagnosed metastases (single or multiple) in the brain resulting from any primary, extracranial cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the generic inverse variance method, random-effects model in Review Manager 5 for the meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three studies and one abstract for inclusion but we could only include two studies, with a total of 358 participants in a meta-analysis. This found no difference in overall survival (OS) between the WBRT plus SRS and WBRT alone groups (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.02; 2 studies, 358 participants; moderate-quality evidence). For participants with one brain metastasis median survival was significantly longer in the WBRT plus SRS group (6.5 months) versus WBRT group (4.9 months; P = 0.04). Participants in the WBRT plus SRS group had decreased local failure compared to participants who received WBRT alone (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.52; 2 studies, 129 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Furthermore, we observed an improvement in performance status scores and decrease in steroid use in the WBRT plus SRS group (risk ratio (RR) 0.64 CI 0.42 to 0.97; 1 study, 118 participants; low-quality evidence). Unchanged or improved Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) at six months was seen in 43% of participants in the combined therapy group versus only 28% in the WBRT-alone group (RR 0.78 CI 0.61 to 1.00; P value = 0.05; 1 study, 118 participants; low-quality evidence). Overall, risk of bias in the included studies was unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review we have identified one new study that met the inclusion criteria. However, due to a lack of data from this study we were not able to include it in a meta-analysis. Given the unclear risk of bias in the included studies, the results of this analysis have to be interpreted with caution. In our analysis of all included participants, SRS plus WBRT did not show a survival benefit over WBRT alone. However, performance status and local control were significantly better in the SRS plus WBRT group. Furthermore, significantly longer OS was reported in the combined treatment group for recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) Class I patients as well as patients with single metastasis. Most of our outcomes of interest were graded as moderate-quality evidence according to the GRADE criteria and the risk of bias in the majority of included studies was mostly unclear.

Predicting overall survival in patients with brain metastases from esophageal cancer

AIM

To identify survival predictors and develop a survival score for patients with brain metastases from esophageal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In 16 patients, seven factors were analyzed including age, gender, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), time from diagnosis of esophageal cancer to irradiation, number of brain metastases, histology, and presence of extracerebral metastases.

RESULTS

Improved survival was significantly associated with KPS≥80 (p<0.001), the presence of one brain metastasis (p=0.007), and no extra-cerebral metastases (p=0.002). These factors were included in the final score. Factor scores were calculated by dividing 6-month survival rates by 10. Total survival scores represented the sums of factor scores and were 2, 7, 10, 19 or 24 points. Six-month survival rates by score were 0%, 0%, 0%, 67% and 100%, respectively. Two groups were formed, those of patients with 2-10 points and those with 19-24 points; 6-month survival was 0% and 88%, respectively (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

This new score facilitates the selection of individual therapies for patients with brain metastases from esophageal cancer.

Secondary analysis of RTOG 9508, a phase 3 randomized trial of whole-brain radiation therapy versus WBRT plus stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with 1-3 brain metastases; poststratified by the graded prognostic assessment (GPA)

PURPOSE

Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9508 showed a survival advantage for patients with 1 but not 2 or 3 brain metastasis (BM) treated with whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) versus WBRT alone. An improved prognostic index, the graded prognostic assessment (GPA) has been developed. Our hypothesis was that if the data from RTOG 9508 were poststratified by the GPA, the conclusions may vary.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In this analysis, 252 of the 331 patients were evaluable by GPA. Of those, 211 had lung cancer. Breast cancer patients were excluded because the components of the breast GPA are not in the RTOG database. Multiple Cox regression was used to compare survival between treatment groups, adjusting for GPA. Treatment comparisons within subgroups were performed with the log-rank test. A free online tool (brainmetgpa.com) simplified GPA use.

RESULTS

The fundamental conclusions of the primary analysis were confirmed in that there was no survival benefit overall for patients with 1 to 3 metastases; however, there was a benefit for the subset of patients with GPA 3.5 to 4.0 (median survival time [MST] for WBRT + SRS vs WBRT alone was 21.0 versus 10.3 months, P=.05) regardless of the number of metastases. Among patients with GPA 3.5 to 4.0 treated with WBRT and SRS, the MST for patients with 1 versus 2 to 3 metastases was 21 and 14.1 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This secondary analysis of predominantly lung cancer patients, consistent with the original analysis, shows no survival advantage for the group overall when treated with WBRT and SRS; however, in patients with high GPA (3.5-4), there is a survival advantage regardless of whether they have 1, 2, or 3 BM. This benefit did not extend to patients with lower GPA. Prospective validation of this survival benefit for patients with multiple BM and high GPA when treated with WBRT and SRS is warranted.

Erlotinib versus radiation therapy for brain metastases in patients with EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

Radiation therapy (RT) is the principal modality in the treatment of patients with brain metastases (BM). However, given the activity of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the central nervous system, it is uncertain whether upfront brain RT is necessary for patients with EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinoma with BM.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinoma and newly diagnosed BM were identified.

RESULTS

222 patients were identified. Exclusion criteria included prior erlotinib use, presence of a de novo erlotinib resistance mutation, or incomplete data. Of the remaining 110 patients, 63 were treated with erlotinib, 32 with whole brain RT (WBRT), and 15 with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). The median overall survival (OS) for the whole cohort was 33 months. There was no significant difference in OS between the WBRT and erlotinib groups (median, 35 vs 26 months; P=.62), whereas patients treated with SRS had a longer OS than did those in the erlotinib group (median, 64 months; P=.004). The median time to intracranial progression was 17 months. There was a longer time to intracranial progression in patients who received WBRT than in those who received erlotinib upfront (median, 24 vs 16 months, P=.04). Patients in the erlotinib or SRS group were more likely to experience intracranial failure as a component of first failure, whereas WBRT patients were more likely to experience failure outside the brain (P=.004).

CONCLUSIONS

The survival of patients with EGFR-mutant adenocarcinoma with BM is notably long, whether they receive upfront erlotinib or brain RT. We observed longer intracranial control with WBRT, even though the WBRT patients had a higher burden of intracranial disease. Despite the equivalent survival between the WBRT and erlotinib group, this study underscores the role of WBRT in producing durable intracranial control in comparison with a targeted biologic agent with known central nervous system activity.

The role of whole-brain radiation therapy after stereotactic radiation surgery for brain metastases

The benefit of whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) following stereotactic radiation surgery (SRS) for brain metastases is controversial. We conducted a systematic analysis of published literature to explore the outcome of brain metastases treated with SRS and WBRT versus SRS alone using PubMed and MEDLINE. Outcomes including survival, control, salvage therapy, and other quality of life measures were reported. Three randomized controlled trials involving 389 patients with 1 to 4 brain metastases were selected. In 2 of these trials (n = 190), the mean 1-year survival was 33.2% for SRS + WBRT and 38.7% for SRS alone (P = .5233); 1-year local control was 89% for SRS + WBRT and 71% for SRS alone (P < .001). Mean crude distant recurrence rate for SRS + WBRT was 36.6% and 54% for SRS alone (P < .001). Patients without WBRT were over 3 times more likely to require salvage therapy (P < .001). The addition of WBRT was associated with a decreased health-related quality of life assessment, mini mental status exam, and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (P < .05). Five retrospective studies (n = 1122) were also included in a separate analysis and yielded findings that supported results from the randomized trials. Our systematic analysis demonstrates that adjuvant WBRT following SRS for the treatment of oligometastases in the brain is more effective at controlling local and distant recurrence than SRS alone, but there is no apparent benefit for survival or symptomology. The proven cognitive decline and neurotoxicity present with WBRT should be weighed against the benefit of local control. Prognosis of brain metastasis is poor regardless of current treatment and further exploration for alternative adjuvant treatment for SRS is warranted.

Experience with intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

Studies using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of head and neck tumors have shown to decrease acute and late radiation toxicity. However, the high conformity of this technique can increase the risk of recurrence due to geographic miss. The aim of this study was to analyze whether the results of IMRT met the theoretical expectations concerning treatment efficacy.

METHODS

From a total of 185 patients (152 males and 33 females, mean age 58±10.36 years) 176 were evaluable and were studied. Eighty-nine (48.1%) patients had surgical treatment and 50 of them were scheduled for concomitant cisplatin chemotherapy. Irradiation was performed using IMRT, a sliding window with 9 fields in a Varian 2100 C/D linear accelerator, X-ray beam, 6 MeV. The prescribed dose in the planning treatment volume (PTV1), i.e., the area of the primary tumor and nodal area, was 66 Gy/2.2 Gy-70 Gy/2.12 Gy. In the PTV2 (the area at high risk) the dose was 60Gy/2 Gy-59.4 Gy/ 1.8 Gy, and in the PTV 3 (the area treated with prophylactic irradiation) the prescribed dose was 54 Gy/1.8 Gy/50.4 Gy/1.53 Gy.

RESULTS

The 3-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) of IMRT-treated patients, most of whom were in stages III and IV (158 out of 177), were 50 and 57%, respectively. Using postoperative radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy 3-year locoregioncal control was achieved in 75% of the cases as compared with 35% in non-operated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The worst outcomes were found in oral cavity and hypopharyngeal tumors, and the best in laryngeal and oropharyngeal tumors. Better results were found in surgically treated patients, and in lower disease stages. Despite the high conformity of dose distribution and efforts to spare healthy tissues, most cases of locoregional relapse occurred in areas receiving the full radiation dose. If dividing relapses into cases of persistence and local recurrence, the former predominated.

Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) alone versus WBRT and radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastases

BACKGROUND

Historically, whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) has been the main treatment for brain metastases. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivers high-dose focused radiation and is being increasingly utilized to treat brain metastases. The benefit of adding SRS to WBRT is unclear. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 6, 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of WBRT plus SRS versus WBRT alone in the treatment of brain metastases.

SEARCH METHODS

In the original review we searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to 2009), EMBASE (1980 to 2009), and CancerLit (1975 to 2009) in order to identify trials for inclusion in this review.In this update we searched the following electronic databases in May 2012: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 5, 2012), MEDLINE (2009 to May week 4 2012), and EMBASE (2009 to 2012 week 21) in order to identify trials for inclusion in the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The review was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared use of WBRT plus SRS versus WBRT alone for upfront treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed metastases (single or multiple) in the brain resulting from any primary, extracranial cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The Generic Inverse Variance method, random-effects model in RevMan 5 was used for the meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

A meta-analysis of two trials with a total of 358 participants, found no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) between WBRT plus SRS and WBRT alone groups (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.02). For patients with one brain metastasis median survival was significantly longer in WBRT plus SRS group (6.5 months) versus WBRT group (4.9 months; P = 0.04). Patients in the WBRT plus SRS group had decreased local failure compared to patients who received WBRT alone (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.52). Furthermore, a statistically significant improvement in performance status scores and decrease in steroid use was seen in the WBRT plus SRS group. Unchanged or improved Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) at 6 months was seen in 43% of patients in the combined therapy group versus only 28% in WBRT group (P = 0.03). Overall, risk of bias in the included studies was unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review no new studies were found that met the inclusion criteria. Given the unclear risk of bias in the included studies, the results of this analysis have to be interpreted with caution. Analysis of all included patients, SRS plus WBRT, did not show a survival benefit over WBRT alone. However, performance status and local control were significantly better in the SRS plus WBRT group. Furthermore, significantly longer OS was reported in the combined treatment group for recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) Class I patients as well as patients with single metastasis.

Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) alone versus WBRT and radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastases

BACKGROUND

Historically, whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) has been the main treatment for brain metastases. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivers high dose focused radiation and is being increasingly utilized to treat brain metastases. The benefit of adding radiosurgery to WBRT is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of WBRT plus radiosurgery versus WBRT alone in the treatment of of brain metastases.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to 2009), EMBASE (1980 to 2009) and CancerLit (1975 to 2009) in order to identify trials for inclusion in this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The review was restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared use of radiosurgery and WBRT versus WBRT alone for upfront treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed metastases (single or multiple) in the brain resulting from any primary, extracranial cancer

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The Generic Inverse Variance method, random effects model in RevMan 5 was used for the meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

A meta-analysis of two trials with a total of 358 participants, found no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) between WBRT plus radiosurgery and WBRT alone groups (HR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.02). For patients with one brain metastasis median survival was significantly longer in WBRT plus SRS group (6.5 months) versus WBRT group (4.9 months, P = 0.04). Patients in the WBRT plus radiosurgery group had decreased local failure compared to patients who received WBRT alone (HR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.52). Furthermore, a statistically significant improvement in performance status scores and decrease in steroid use was seen in the WBRT plus SRS group. Unchanged or improved KPS at 6 months was seen in 43% of patients in the combined therapy group versus only 28% in WBRT group (P = 0.03). Overall, risk of bias in the included studies was unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the unclear risk of bias in the included studies, the results of this analysis have to be interpreted with caution. Analysis of all included patients, SRS plus WBRT, did not show a survival benefit over WBRT alone. However, performance status and local control were significantly better in the SRS plus WBRT group. Furthermore, significantly longer OS was reported in the combined treatment group for RPA Class I patients as well as patients with single metastasis.

The impact of whole-brain radiation therapy on the long-term control and morbidity of patients surviving more than one year after gamma knife radiosurgery for brain metastases

PURPOSE

To better analyze how whole-brain radiotherapy (WBXRT) affects long-term tumor control and toxicity from the initial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases, we studied these outcomes in patients who had survived at least 1 year from SRS.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We evaluated the results of gamma knife radiosurgery for 160 brain metastases in 110 patients who were followed for a median of 18 months (range, 12-122 months) after SRS. Eighty-two patients had a solitary brain metastasis and 28 patients had multiple metastases. Seventy patients (116 tumors) were treated with initial radiosurgery and WBXRT, whereas 40 patients (44 lesions) initially received radiosurgery alone. Median treatment volume was 1.9 cc in the entire group, 2.3 cc in the WBXRT group, and 1.6 cc in the SRS alone group. Median tumor dose was 16 Gy (range, 12-21 Gy).

RESULTS

At 1, 3, and 5 years, local tumor control was 84.1% +/- 5.5%, 68.6% +/- 8.7%, and 68.6% +/- 8.7% with SRS alone compared with 93.1% +/- 2.4%, 87.7% +/- 4.9%, and 65.7% +/- 10.2%. with concurrent WBXRT and SRS (p = 0.0228, univariate). We found that WBXRT improved local control in patient subsets tumor volume > or =2 cc, peripheral dose < or =16 Gy, single metastases, nonradioresistant tumors, and lung cancer metastases (p = 0.0069, 0.0080, 0.0083, 0.0184, and 0.0348). Distal intracranial failure developed at 1, 3, and 5 years in 26.0% +/- 7.1%, 74.5% +/- 9.4%, and 74.5% +/- 9.4% with SRS alone compared with 20.7% +/- 4.9%, 49.0% +/- 8.7%, and 61.8% +/- 12.8% with concurrent WBXRT and SRS (p = 0.0657). We found a trend for improved distal intracranial control with WBXRT for only nonradioresistant tumors (p = 0.054). Postradiosurgery complications developed in 2.8% +/- 1.2% and 10.7% +/- 3.5% at 1 and 3-5 years and was unaffected by WBXRT (p = 0.7721). WBXRT did not improve survival in the entire series (p = 0.5027) or in any subsets.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study of 1-year survivors of SRS for brain metastases, the addition of concurrent WBXRT to SRS was associated with an improved local control rate in patient subsets with tumor volume > or =2 cc, peripheral dose < or =16 Gy, single metastases, nonradioresistant tumors, and specifically lung cancer metastases. A trend was noted for improved distal intracranial control for patients having nonradioresistant tumors. Distant intracranial relapse >1 year posttreatment is a significant problem with or without initial WBXRT.

A multi-institutional review of radiosurgery alone vs. radiosurgery with whole brain radiotherapy as the initial management of brain metastases

PURPOSE

Data collected from 10 institutions were reviewed to compare survival probabilities of patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases managed initially with radiosurgery (RS) alone vs. RS + whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A database was created from raw data submitted from 10 institutions on patients treated with RS for brain metastases. The major exclusion criteria were resection of a brain metastasis and interval from the end of WBRT until RS >1 month (to try to ensure that the up-front intent was to combine RS + WBRT and that RS was not given for recurrent brain metastases). Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method from the date of first treatment for brain metastases until death or last follow-up. Survival times were compared for patients managed initially with RS alone vs. RS + WBRT using the Cox proportional hazards model to adjust for known prognostic factors or Radiation Therapy Oncology Group recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class.

RESULTS

Out of 983 patients, 31 were excluded because treatment began after 6/1/98; 159 were excluded because brain metastases were resected; 179 were excluded because there was an interval >1 month from WBRT until RS; and 45 were excluded for other reasons. Of the 569 evaluable patients, 268 had RS alone initially (24% of whom ultimately had salvage WBRT), and 301 had RS + up-front WBRT. The median survival times for patients treated with RS alone initially vs. RS + WBRT were 14.0 vs. 15.2 months for RPA Class 1 patients, 8.2 vs. 7.0 months for Class 2, and 5.3 vs. 5.5 months for Class 3, respectively. With adjustment by RPA class, there was no survival difference comparing RS alone initially to RS + up-front WBRT (p = 0.33, hazard ratio = 1.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Omission of up-front WBRT does not seem to compromise length of survival in patients treated with RS for newly diagnosed brain metastases.

Hypothetical mortality risk associated with spiral computed tomography of the maxilla and mandible

In the present study, dose measurements have been conducted following examination of the maxilla and mandible with spiral computed tomography (CT). The measurements were carried out with 2 phantoms, a head and neck phantom and a full body phantom. The analysis of applied thermoluminescent dosimeters yielded radiation doses for organs and tissues in the head and neck region between 0.6 and 16.7 mGy when 40 axial slices and 120 kV/165 mAs were used as exposure parameters. The effective dose was calculated as 0.58 and 0.48 mSv in the maxilla and mandible, respectively. Tested methods for dose reduction showed a significant decrease of radiation dose from 40 to 65%. Based on these results, the mortality risk was estimated according to calculation models recommended by the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations and by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Both models resulted in similar values. The mortality risk ranges from 46.2 x 10.6 for 20-year-old men to 11.2 x 10(-6) for 65-year-old women. Using 2 methods of dose reduction, the mortality risk decreased by approximately 50 to 60% to 19.1 x 10(-6) for 20-year-old men and 5.5 x 10(-6) for 65-year-old women. It can be concluded that a CT scan of the maxillofacial complex causes a considerable radiation dose when compared with conventional radiographic examinations. Therefore, a careful indication for this imaging technique and dose reduction methods should be considered in daily practice.

Management of brain metastases: past, present, and future

Brain metastasis is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. Because most of these patients die of systemic disease, the primary therapeutic goal is to improve the quality of life. Conventional therapy for brain metastases is usually whole-brain irradiation. Chemotherapy often results in regression of brain metastases in chemosensitive tumors. We review our institutional experience in the treatment of brain metastasis with both radiation and chemotherapy. In the future, improvement in the management of brain metastases will depend on improved chemotherapy, radiosensitizers, and radiotherapy techniques such as stereotactic radiosurgery.