Explore the vast range of titles available.

Brain metastases are a very common manifestation of cancer that have historically been approached as a single disease entity given the uniform association with poor clinical outcomes. Fortunately, our understanding of the biology and molecular underpinnings of brain metastases has greatly improved, resulting in more sophisticated prognostic models and multiple patient-related and disease-specific treatment paradigms. In addition, the therapeutic armamentarium has expanded from whole-brain radiotherapy and surgery to include stereotactic radiosurgery, targeted therapies and immunotherapies, which are often used sequentially or in combination. Advances in neuroimaging have provided additional opportunities to accurately screen for intracranial disease at initial cancer diagnosis, target intracranial lesions with precision during treatment and help differentiate the effects of treatment from disease progression by incorporating functional imaging. Given the numerous available treatment options for patients with brain metastases, a multidisciplinary approach is strongly recommended to personalize the treatment of each patient in an effort to improve the therapeutic ratio. Given the ongoing controversies regarding the optimal sequencing of the available and expanding treatment options for patients with brain metastases, enrolment in clinical trials is essential to advance our understanding of this complex and common disease. In this Review, we describe the key features of diagnosis, risk stratification and modern paradigms in the treatment and management of patients with brain metastases and provide speculation on future research directions.Brain metastases are a frequent manifestation of several common solid tumour types, including lung cancer, breast cancer and melanoma. Although the presence of brain-metastatic disease continues to be associated with poor outcomes, advances in surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapies that can permeate the blood–brain barrier are beginning to improve patient outcomes. In this Review, the authors provide an overview of contemporary advances in the management of brain metastases over the past decade.

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) has long limited therapeutic access to brain tumor and peritumoral tissue. In animals, MR-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) with intravenously injected microbubbles can temporarily and repeatedly disrupt the BBB in a targeted fashion, without open surgery. Our objective is to demonstrate safety and feasibility of MRgFUS BBB opening with systemically administered chemotherapy in patients with glioma in a phase I, single-arm, open-label study. Five patients with previously confirmed or suspected high-grade glioma based on imaging underwent the MRgFUS in conjunction with administration of chemotherapy (n = 1 liposomal doxorubicin, n = 4 temozolomide) one day prior to their scheduled surgical resection. Samples of “sonicated” and “unsonicated” tissue were measured for the chemotherapy by liquid-chromatography-mass spectrometry. Complete follow-up was three months. The procedure was well-tolerated, with no adverse clinical or radiologic events related to the procedure. The BBB within the target volume showed radiographic evidence of opening with an immediate 15–50% increased contrast enhancement on T1-weighted MRI, and resolution approximately 20 hours after. Biochemical analysis of sonicated versus unsonicated tissue suggest chemotherapy delivery is feasible. In this study, we demonstrated transient BBB opening in tumor and peritumor tissue using non-invasive low-intensity MRgFUS with systemically administered chemotherapy was safe and feasible. The characterization of therapeutic delivery and clinical response to this treatment paradigm requires further investigation.

This study investigated the effectiveness of pre-treatment quantitative MRI and clinical features along with machine learning techniques to predict local failure in patients with brain metastasis treated with hypo-fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT). The predictive models were developed using the data from 100 patients (141 lesions) and evaluated on an independent test set with data from 20 patients (30 lesions). Quantitative MRI radiomic features were derived from the treatment-planning contrast-enhanced T1w and T2-FLAIR images. A multi-phase feature reduction and selection procedure was applied to construct an optimal quantitative MRI biomarker for predicting therapy outcome. The performance of standard clinical features in therapy outcome prediction was evaluated using a similar procedure. Survival analyses were conducted to compare the long-term outcome of the two patient cohorts (local control/failure) identified based on prediction at pre-treatment, and standard clinical criteria at last patient follow-up after SRT. The developed quantitative MRI biomarker consists of four features with two features quantifying heterogeneity in the edema region, one feature characterizing intra-tumour heterogeneity, and one feature describing tumour morphology. The predictive models with the radiomic and clinical feature sets yielded an AUC of 0.87 and 0.62, respectively on the independent test set. Incorporating radiomic features into the clinical predictive model improved the AUC of the model by up to 16%, relatively. A statistically significant difference was observed in survival of the two patient cohorts identified at pre-treatment using the radiomics-based predictive model, and at post-treatment using the the RANO-BM criteria. Results of this study revealed a good potential for quantitative MRI radiomic features at pre-treatment in predicting local failure in relatively large brain metastases undergoing SRT, and is a step forward towards a precision oncology paradigm for brain metastasis.

This special focus issue from the 2023-2024 AOSpine Knowledge Forum Tumor represents a culmination of years of experience devoted to advancing the care of patients with both metastatic and primary spinal tumors. We have learned much since the fundamental assessments of instability that led to the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), the grading of epidural disease utilizing the Epidural Spinal Cord Compression Scale (aka Bilsky grade), as well as the development of tumor-specific health related quality of life assessments such as the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcome Questionnaire (SOSGOQ). These tools have enabled us to make several prior recommendations for the appropriate use of advanced surgical techniques such as en bloc resection and the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to optimize patient care.

Conventional external beam radiotherapy is the standard palliative treatment for spinal metastases; however, complete response rates for pain are as low as 10–20%. Stereotactic body radiotherapy delivers high-dose, ablative radiotherapy. We aimed to compare complete response rates for pain after stereotactic body radiotherapy or conventional external beam radiotherapy in patients with painful spinal metastasis. This open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial was done at 13 hospitals in Canada and five hospitals in Australia. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years and older, and had painful (defined as ≥2 points with the Brief Pain Inventory) MRI-confirmed spinal metastasis, no more than three consecutive vertebral segments to be included in the treatment volume, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, a Spinal Instability Neoplasia Score of less than 12, and no neurologically symptomatic spinal cord or cauda equina compression. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a web-based, computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either stereotactic body radiotherapy at a dose of 24 Gy in two daily fractions or conventional external beam radiotherapy at a dose of 20 Gy in five daily fractions using standard techniques. Treatment assignment was done centrally by use of a minimisation method to achieve balance for the stratification factors of radiosensitivity, the presence or absence of mass-type tumour (extraosseous or epidural disease extension, or both) on imaging, and centre. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a complete response for pain at 3 months after radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and all safety and quality assurance analyses were done in the as-treated population (ie, all patients who received at least one fraction of radiotherapy). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02512965. Between Jan 4, 2016, and Sept 27, 2019, 229 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive conventional external beam radiotherapy (n=115) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (n=114). All 229 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median follow-up was 6·7 months (IQR 6·3–6·9). At 3 months, 40 (35%) of 114 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group, and 16 (14%) of 115 patients in the conventional external beam radiotherapy group had a complete response for pain (risk ratio 1·33, 95% CI 1·14–1·55; p=0·0002). This significant difference was maintained in multivariable-adjusted analyses (odds ratio 3·47, 95% CI 1·77–6·80; p=0·0003). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event was grade 3 pain (five [4%] of 115 patients in the conventional external beam radiotherapy group vs five (5%) of 110 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group). No treatment-related deaths were observed. Stereotactic body radiotherapy at a dose of 24 Gy in two daily fractions was superior to conventional external beam radiotherapy at a dose of 20 Gy in five daily fractions in improving the complete response rate for pain. These results suggest that use of conformal, image-guided, stereotactically dose-escalated radiotherapy is appropriate in the palliative setting for symptom control for selected patients with painful spinal metastases, and an increased awareness of the need for specialised and multidisciplinary involvement in the delivery of end-of-life care is needed. Canadian Cancer Society and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

The use of stereotactic body radiotherapy for metastatic spinal tumours is increasing. Serious adverse events for this treatment include vertebral compression fracture (VCF) and radiation myelopathy. Although VCF is a fairly low-risk adverse event (approximately 5% risk) after conventional radiotherapy, crude risk estimates for VCF after spinal SBRT range from 11% to 39%. In this Review, we summarise the evidence and predictive factors for VCF induced by spinal SBRT, review the pathophysiology of VCF in the metastatic spine, and discuss strategies used to prevent and manage this potentially disabling complication.

Abstract BACKGROUND Vertebral compression fracture (VCF) is a challenging and not infrequent complication observed following spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). OBJECTIVE To summarize the data from the multiple studies that have been published, addressing the risk and predictive factors for VCF post-SBRT. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted. Studies were selected if they specifically addressed risk factors for post-SBRT VCF in their analyses. RESULTS A total of 11 studies were identified, reporting both the risk of VCF post-SBRT and an analysis of risk factors based on univariate and multivariate analysis. A total of 2911 spinal segments were treated with a crude VCF rate of 13.9%. The most frequently identified risk factors on multivariate analysis were: lytic disease (hazard ratio [HR] range, 2.76-12.2), baseline VCF prior to SBRT (HR range, 1.69-9.25), higher dose per fraction SBRT (HR range, 5.03-6.82), spinal deformity (HR range, 2.99-11.1), older age (HR range, 2.15-5.67), and more than 40% to 50% of vertebral body involved by tumor (HR range, 3.9-4.46). In the 9 studies that specifically reported on the use of post-SBRT surgical procedures, 37% of VCF had undergone an intervention (range, 11%-60%). CONCLUSION VCF is an important adverse effect following SBRT. Risk factors have been identified to guide the selection of high-risk patients. Evidence-based algorithms with respect to patient selection and intervention are needed.

Older patients with glioblastoma appear to benefit more from treatment combining a shorter course (3 weeks rather than 6 weeks) of radiotherapy together with temozolomide than from radiotherapy alone. Glioblastoma is a fatal illness that is associated with a median survival of less than 2 years. Population studies of glioblastoma have shown that survival declines with increasing age, 1 , 2 and the incidence of glioblastoma is increasing, especially among the elderly. 3 Older patients have been underrepresented in most randomized trials, in which the average age of participants is approximately 55 years, as compared with the population-based median for patients with glioblastoma of 65 years of age. 2 In 2005, a phase 3 trial of radiotherapy alone (60 Gy over a period of 6 weeks) versus radiotherapy plus temozolomide showed longer survival . . .

Patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) are at high risk for intracranial metastatic disease (IMD). Although stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has supplanted whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as first-line treatment for IMD in most solid cancers, WBRT remains first-line treatment for IMD in patients with SCLC. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of SRS in comparison with WBRT and assess treatment outcomes following SRS. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and grey literature sources for controlled trials and cohort studies published in English reporting on SRS for IMD treatment in patients with SCLC from inception to March 23, 2022. Studies were excluded that did not report on SRS for IMD secondary to SCLC. Summary data were extracted. The primary outcome was overall survival, presented as pooled hazard ratios (HR) through random-effects meta-analysis for studies comparing SRS with WBRT with or without SRS boost, and as medians for single-arm SRS studies. This study is registered with the Open Science Framework, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8M4HC, and PROSPERO, CRD42021258197. Of 3823 identified records, 31 were eligible for inclusion; seven were included in the meta-analysis. Overall survival following SRS was longer than following WBRT with or without SRS boost (HR 0·85; 95% CI 0·75–0·97; n=7 studies; n=18 130 patients), or WBRT alone (0·77; 0·72–0·83; n=7 studies; n=16 961 patients), but not WBRT plus SRS boost (1·17, 0·78–1·75; n=4 studies; n=1167 patients). Using single-arm studies, pooled median overall survival from SRS was 8·99 months (95% CI 7·86–10·16; n=14 studies; n=1682 patients). Between-study heterogeneity was considerable when pooled among all comparative studies (I2=71·9%). These results suggest survival outcomes are equitable following treatment with SRS compared with WBRT in patients with SCLC and IMD. Future prospective studies should focus on tumour burden and differences in local and distant intracranial progression between WBRT-treated and SRS-treated patients with SCLC. None.

Surgery is the standard of care for patients with primary renal cell carcinoma. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a novel alternative for patients who are medically inoperable, technically high risk, or who decline surgery. Evidence for using SBRT in the primary renal cell carcinoma setting is growing, including several rigorously conducted prospective clinical trials. This systematic review was performed to assess the safety and efficacy of SBRT for primary renal cell carcinoma. Review results then formed the basis for the practice guidelines described, on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society. 3972 publications were screened and 36 studies (822 patients) were included in the analysis. Median local control rate was 94·1% (range 70·0–100), 5-year progression-free survival was 80·5% (95% CI 72–92), and 5-year overall survival was 77·2% (95% CI 65–89). These practice guidelines addressed four key clinical questions. First, the optimal dose fractionation was 25–26 Gy in one fraction, or 42–48 Gy in three fractions for larger tumours. Second, routine post-treatment biopsy is not recommended as it is not predictive of patient outcome. Third, SBRT for primary renal cell carcinoma in a solitary kidney is safe and effective. Finally, guidelines for post-treatment follow-up are described, which include cross-axial imaging of the abdomen including both kidneys, adrenals, and surveillance of the chest initially every 6 months. This systematic review and practice guideline support the practice of SBRT for primary renal cell carcinoma as a safe and effective standard treatment option. Randomised trials with surgery and invasive ablative therapies are needed to further define best practice.