Radiation therapy (RT) plays a crucial role in the treatment of head and neck cancers (HNCs). This paper emphasizes the importance of effective communication and collaboration between radiation oncologists and dental specialists in the HNC care pathway. It also provides an overview of the role of RT in HNC treatment and illustrates the interdisciplinary collaboration between these teams to optimize patient care, expedite treatment, and prevent post-treatment oral complications. The methods utilized include a thorough analysis of existing research articles, case reports, and clinical guidelines, with terms such as dental management, oral oncology, head and neck cancer, and radiotherapy included for this review. The findings underscore the significance of the early involvement of dental specialists in the treatment planning phase to assess and prepare patients for RT, including strategies such as prophylactic tooth extraction to mitigate potential oral complications. Furthermore, post-treatment oral health follow-up and management by dental specialists are crucial in minimizing the incidence and severity of RT-induced oral sequelae. In conclusion, these proactive measures help minimize dental and oral complications before, during, and after treatment.

Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the time interval between planning imaging and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivery on tumor volumes and spatial anatomic displacements of brain metastases (BM).

Methods

Consecutive patients diagnosed with BM treated with SRS over a 3-year period were evaluated. Only patients who underwent an institutionally standardized diagnostic MRI (MRI-1) and a treatment planning MRI (MRI-2) were included. The impact of histology, inter-scan time interval, lesion location, tumor volume, and diameter were evaluated on final lesion diameter, volume, anatomic displacement, and ultimate need for change in management (ie, expanding margins, rescanning).

Results

101 patients (531 lesions) with a median inter-scan time interval of 8 days (range: 1-42 days) met the inclusion criteria. The median percentage increase in BM diameter and volume were 9.5% (IQR: 2.25%-24.0%) and 20% (IQR: 0.7%-66.7%). Overall, 147 lesions (27.7%) in 57 patients (56.4%) required a change in management. There was a statistically significant relationship between initial tumor diameter (cm) and change in management (OR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.93-3.75; P < .001). Each day between MRI-1 and MRI-2 was associated with a change in management with an OR of 1.05 (95% CI: 1.03-1.07; P < .001).

Conclusions

Changes in tumor diameter, volume, and spatial position occur as a function of time. Planning imaging for SRS is recommended to occur in close temporal proximity to treatment; for those with delays, a larger setup margin may need to be used to ensure tumor coverage and account for positional changes.

We compared the clinical outcomes of BM treated with mask immobilization with zero-SM (i.e., zero-PTV) to standard zero-SM frame immobilization SRS. Consecutive patients with BM, 0.5−2.0 cm in maximal diameter, treated with single-fraction SRS (22−24 Gy) during March 2019−February 2021 were included. Univariable and multivariable analysis were performed using the Kaplan−Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. A total of 150 patients with 453 BM met inclusion criteria. A total of 129 (28.5%) lesions were treated with a zero-SM mask immobilization and 324 (71.5%) with zero-SM frame immobilization. Frame immobilization treatments were associated with a higher proportion of gastrointestinal and fewer breast-cancer metastases (p = 0.024), and a higher number of treated lesions per SRS course (median 7 vs. 3; p < 0.001). With a median follow up of 15 months, there was no difference in FFLF between the mask and frame immobilization groups on univariable (p = 0.29) or multivariable analysis (p = 0.518). Actuarial FFLF at 1 year was 90.5% for mask and 92% for frame immobilization (p = 0.272). Radiation necrosis rates at 1 year were 12.5% for mask and 4.1% for frame immobilization (p = 0.502). For BM 0.5−2.0 cm in maximal diameter treated with single-fraction SRS using 22−24 Gy, mask immobilization with zero SM produces comparable clinical outcomes to frame immobilization. The initial findings support omitting a SM when using mask immobilization with this treatment approach on a Gamma Knife® Icon™.

We evaluated the effect of lesion number and volume for brain metastasis treated with SRS using GammaKnife^® ICON™ (GK) and CyberKnife^® M6™ (CK). Four sets of lesion sizes (<5 mm, 5-10 mm, >10-15 mm, and >15 mm) were contoured and prescribed a dose of 20 Gy/1 fraction. The number of lesions was increased until a threshold mean brain dose of 8 Gy was reached; then individually optimized to achieve maximum conformity. Across GK plans, mean brain dose was linearly proportional to the number of lesions and total GTV for all sizes. The numbers of lesions needed to reach this threshold for GK were 177, 57, 29, and 10 for each size group, respectively; corresponding total GTVs were 3.62 cc, 20.37 cc, 30.25 cc, and 57.96 cc, respectively. For CK, the threshold numbers of lesions were 135, 35, 18, and 8, with corresponding total GTVs of 2.32 cc, 12.09 cc, 18.24 cc, and 41.52 cc respectively. Mean brain dose increased linearly with number of lesions and total GTV while V8 Gy, V10 Gy, and V12 Gy showed quadratic correlations to the number of lesions and total GTV. Modern dedicated intracranial SRS systems allow for treatment of numerous brain metastases especially for ≤10 mm; clinical evidence to support this practice is critical to expansion in the clinic.

Recurrent high-grade intracranial malignancies have a grim prognosis and uniform management guidelines are lacking. Re-irradiation is underused due to concerns about irreversible side effects. Pulsed-reduced dose rate radiotherapy (PRDR) aims to reduce toxicity while improving tumor control by exploiting dose-rate effects. We share our initial experience with temporally modulated pulsed proton re-irradiation (TMPPR), focusing on workflow, safety, feasibility, and outcomes for the first patient cohort. TMPPR was administered to patients with recurrent or progressive central nervous system malignancies using intensity modulated proton therapy with three fields. Patient and treatment data were collected, responses categorized using RANO assessment, and toxicities graded using CTCAE v5.0. Five patients received TMPPR between October 2022 and May 2023, with a median age of 54 years (Range: 32-72), and a median time from initial radiotherapy to re-RT of 23 months (Range 14-40). Treatment was completed without delay, with a median dose of 60 GyRBE in 30 fractions. Initial treatment response assessment showed complete (n = 1) or partial (n = 3) responses. Limited toxicity was observed, primarily grade 2 alopecia and one case of radiation necrosis graded at 2. This early experience demonstrates the feasibility of TMPPR delivery, highlighting the importance of prospective evaluations in the re-irradiation setting.

PURPOSE: Patients with lung cancer and brain metastases represent a markedly heterogeneous population. Accurate prognosis is essential to optimally individualize care. In prior publications, we described the graded prognostic assessment (GPA), but a GPA for patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has never been reported, and in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the effect of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) was unknown. The 3-fold purpose of this work is to provide the initial report of an SCLC GPA, to evaluate the effect of PD-L1 on survival in patients with NSCLC, and to update the Lung GPA accordingly. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multivariable analysis of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival was performed on 4183 patients with lung cancer (3002 adenocarcinoma, 611 nonadenocarcinoma, 570 SCLC) with newly diagnosed brain metastases between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, using a multi-institutional retrospective database. Significant variables were used to update the Lung GPA. RESULTS: Overall median survival for lung adenocarcinoma, SCLC, and nonadenocarcinoma was 17, 10, and 8 months, respectively, but varied widely by GPA from 2 to 52 months. In SCLC, the significant prognostic factors were age, performance status, extracranial metastases, and number of brain metastases. In NSCLC, the distribution of molecular markers among patients with lung adenocarcinoma and known primary tumor molecular status revealed alterations/expression in PD-L1 50% to 100%, PD-L1 1% to 49%, epidermal growth factor receptor, and anaplastic lymphoma kinase in 32%, 31%, 30%, and 7%, respectively. Median survival of patients with lung adenocarcinoma and brain metastases with 0, 1% to 49%, and ≥50% PD-L1 expression was 17, 19, and 24 months, respectively (P < .01), confirming PD-L1 is a prognostic factor. Previously identified prognostic factors for NSCLC (epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase status, performance status, age, number of brain metastases, and extracranial metastases) were reaffirmed. These factors were incorporated into the updated Lung GPA with robust separation between subgroups for all histologies. CONCLUSIONS: Survival for patients with lung cancer and brain metastases has improved but varies widely. The initial report of a GPA for SCLC is presented. For patients with NSCLC-adenocarcinoma and brain metastases, PD-L1 is a newly identified significant prognostic factor, and the previously identified factors were reaffirmed. The updated indices establish unique criteria for SCLC, NSCLC-nonadenocarcinoma, and NSCLC-adenocarcinoma (incorporating PD-L1). The updated Lung GPA, available for free at brainmetgpa.com, provides an accurate tool to estimate survival, individualize treatment, and stratify clinical trials.