Search

Purpose: Noncoplanar plans (NCPs) are commonly used for proton treatment of bilateral head and neck (HN) malignancies. NCP requires additional verification setup imaging between beams to correct residual errors of robotic couch motion, which increases imaging dose and total treatment time. This study compared the quality and robustness of NCPs with those of coplanar plans (CPs). Methods and Materials: Under an IRB‐approved study, CPs were created retrospectively for 10 bilateral HN patients previously treated with NCPs maintaining identical beam geometry of the original plan but excluding couch rotations. Plan robustness to the inter‐fractional variation (IV) of both plans was evaluated through the Dose Volume Histograms (DVH) of weekly quality assurance CT (QACT) sets (39 total). In addition, delivery efficiency for both plans was compared using total treatment time (TTT) and beam‐on time (BOT). Results: No significant differences in plan quality were observed in terms of clinical target volume (CTV) coverage (D95) or organ‐at‐risk (OAR) doses (p > 0.4 for all CTVs and OARs). No significant advantage of NCPs in the robustness to IV was found over CP, either. Changes in D95 of QA plans showed a linear correlation (slope = 1.006, R2 > 0.99) between NCP and CP for three CTV data points (CTV1, CTV2, and CTV3) in each QA plan (117 data points for 39 QA plans). NCPs showed significantly higher beam delivery time than CPs for TTT (539 ± 50 vs. 897 ± 142 s; p < 0.001); however, no significant differences were observed for BOT. Conclusion: NCPs are not more robust to IV than CPs when treating bilateral HN tumors with pencil‐beam scanning proton beams. CPs showed plan quality and robustness similar to NCPs while reduced treatment time (∼6 min). This suggests that CPs may be a more efficient planning technique for bilateral HN cancer proton therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To identify prognostic factors, define evolving patterns of care, and the effect of targeted therapies in a larger contemporary cohort of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with new brain metastases (BM).Methods and Materials: A multi-institutional retrospective institutional review board-approved database of 711 RCC patients with new BM diagnosed from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2015, was created. Clinical parameters and treatment were correlated with median survival and time from primary diagnosis to BM. Multivariable analyses were performed.Results: The median survival for the prior/present cohorts was 9.6/12 months, respectively (P < .01). Four prognostic factors (Karnofsky performance status, extracranial metastases, number of BM, and hemoglobin b) were significant for survival after the diagnosis of BM. Of the 6 drug types studied, only cytokine use after BM was associated with improved survival. The use of whole-brain radiation therapy declined from 50% to 22%, and the use of stereotactic radiosurgery alone increased from 46% to 58%. Nonneurologic causes of death were twice as common as neurologic causes.Conclusions: Additional prognostic factors refine prognostication in this larger contemporary cohort. Patterns of care have changed, and survival of RCC patients with BM has improved over time. The reasons for this improvement in survival remain unknown but may relate to more aggressive use of local brain metastasis therapy and a wider array of systemic treatment options for those patients with progressive extracranial tumor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Brain metastases are a common problem in patients with melanoma, but little is known about the effect of gene mutations on survival in these patients.Methods and Materials: We created a retrospective multi-institutional database of 823 patients with melanoma and brain metastases diagnosed between 2006 and 2015. Clinical parameters, gene mutation status (BRAF, C-KIT, NRAS), and treatment were correlated with survival. Treatment patterns and outcomes were compared with a prior era (1985-2005).Results: BRAF status was known in 584 of 823 patients (71%). BRAF, NRAS, and C-KIT mutations were present in 51%, 22%, and 11% of tested patients, respectively. The median time from primary diagnosis to brain metastasis was 32 months, and overall median survival (MS) from the time of initial treatment of brain metastases was 10 months. MS for BRAF-positive and BRAF-negative patients was 13 months and 9 months, respectively (P=.02). There was no significant difference in MS in patients with or without NRAS or C-KIT mutations. The time from primary diagnosis to brain metastasis did not vary by mutation and was not associated with survival after the diagnosis of brain metastases. MS for the 1985 to 2005 and 2006 to 2015 cohorts was 6.7 months and 10.0 months, respectively (P<.01). Reflecting treatment-trend changes, use of whole-brain radiation therapy decreased from 48% to 26% during this period. Among BRAF-positive patients, 71% received targeted BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors and 57% received some combination of targeted therapy, chemotherapy, and/or immunotherapy.Conclusions: For melanoma patients with brain metastases, BRAF-positive patients survive longer than BRAF-negative patients and overall survival has improved from 1985-2005 to 2006-2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]