Prospective Study of Patients Treated with Palliative Radiation Therapy While on Immunotherapy

IF 2.2 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Georgia Harris MBBS, MPH , Andrew Bang MD , Rebecca K.S. Wong MB ChB, MSc , Jolie Ringash MD , Andrea Bezjak MD , Bernard Cummings MB ChB , Barbara-Ann Millar MB ChB , Zhihui A. Liu PhD , Laura A. Dawson MD
{"title":"Prospective Study of Patients Treated with Palliative Radiation Therapy While on Immunotherapy","authors":"Georgia Harris MBBS, MPH ,&nbsp;Andrew Bang MD ,&nbsp;Rebecca K.S. Wong MB ChB, MSc ,&nbsp;Jolie Ringash MD ,&nbsp;Andrea Bezjak MD ,&nbsp;Bernard Cummings MB ChB ,&nbsp;Barbara-Ann Millar MB ChB ,&nbsp;Zhihui A. Liu PhD ,&nbsp;Laura A. Dawson MD","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2025.101741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To prospectively document the outcomes of patients treated with palliative radiation therapy (RT) who are receiving immunotherapy.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>Patients with advanced cancer receiving or planning to commence immunotherapy within 28 days who were referred for palliative RT at our center between January 2017 and September 2019 were screened for participation in this prospective observational study. Demographic and treatment data, along with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale for cancer, were collected at baseline, after 1 month, and then every 3 months for up to 1 year or until death. RT dose and fractionation were at the discretion of the treating radiation oncologist. Immunotherapy was given as per the standard of care protocol. The primary outcome was 3-month toxicity. Secondary outcomes included response evaluation criteria in solid tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) response on computed tomography scan performed 1, 3, and 6 months post-RT. The feasibility of enhancing PRO compliance using caregiver-aided PROs and virtual PRO collection was explored.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirty-nine patients who received 50 courses of palliative RT (most often for pain) and who also received immunotherapy within 28 days of RT were evaluated for toxicity at 3 months post-RT. The most common primary cancer was non-small cell lung cancer (38%), followed by melanoma (36%). The most common RT dose was 20 Gy in 5 fractions (42%). 87% of patients (34/39) received a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor alone. An interval of &lt;14 days between RT and immunotherapy. No grade 3 or higher toxicity was attributable to combined treatment. The median survival for the cohort was 11 months. At 3 months, 26 patients had imaging available for RECIST v1.1; 14 of 26 (54%) had an in-field response, and 3 of 26 (12%) had stable disease (with mixed out-of-field response). Compliance with PROs was 79% (31/39) at 1 month and 69% (27/39) at 3 months. Ten of the 31 patients (32%) and 11 of 31 patients (41%) used caregiver-aided PRO collection.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Palliative RT appears safe in patients receiving immunotherapy with no apparent increase in toxicity because of the combination. Responses out of irradiated volumes were no better than expected than with immunotherapy alone. Caregiver-aided PROs improved compliance with PRO data collection and were feasible.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"10 4","pages":"Article 101741"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109425000296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To prospectively document the outcomes of patients treated with palliative radiation therapy (RT) who are receiving immunotherapy.

Methods and Materials

Patients with advanced cancer receiving or planning to commence immunotherapy within 28 days who were referred for palliative RT at our center between January 2017 and September 2019 were screened for participation in this prospective observational study. Demographic and treatment data, along with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale for cancer, were collected at baseline, after 1 month, and then every 3 months for up to 1 year or until death. RT dose and fractionation were at the discretion of the treating radiation oncologist. Immunotherapy was given as per the standard of care protocol. The primary outcome was 3-month toxicity. Secondary outcomes included response evaluation criteria in solid tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) response on computed tomography scan performed 1, 3, and 6 months post-RT. The feasibility of enhancing PRO compliance using caregiver-aided PROs and virtual PRO collection was explored.

Results

Thirty-nine patients who received 50 courses of palliative RT (most often for pain) and who also received immunotherapy within 28 days of RT were evaluated for toxicity at 3 months post-RT. The most common primary cancer was non-small cell lung cancer (38%), followed by melanoma (36%). The most common RT dose was 20 Gy in 5 fractions (42%). 87% of patients (34/39) received a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor alone. An interval of <14 days between RT and immunotherapy. No grade 3 or higher toxicity was attributable to combined treatment. The median survival for the cohort was 11 months. At 3 months, 26 patients had imaging available for RECIST v1.1; 14 of 26 (54%) had an in-field response, and 3 of 26 (12%) had stable disease (with mixed out-of-field response). Compliance with PROs was 79% (31/39) at 1 month and 69% (27/39) at 3 months. Ten of the 31 patients (32%) and 11 of 31 patients (41%) used caregiver-aided PRO collection.

Conclusions

Palliative RT appears safe in patients receiving immunotherapy with no apparent increase in toxicity because of the combination. Responses out of irradiated volumes were no better than expected than with immunotherapy alone. Caregiver-aided PROs improved compliance with PRO data collection and were feasible.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advances in Radiation Oncology
Advances in Radiation Oncology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
208
审稿时长
98 days
期刊介绍: The purpose of Advances is to provide information for clinicians who use radiation therapy by publishing: Clinical trial reports and reanalyses. Basic science original reports. Manuscripts examining health services research, comparative and cost effectiveness research, and systematic reviews. Case reports documenting unusual problems and solutions. High quality multi and single institutional series, as well as other novel retrospective hypothesis generating series. Timely critical reviews on important topics in radiation oncology, such as side effects. Articles reporting the natural history of disease and patterns of failure, particularly as they relate to treatment volume delineation. Articles on safety and quality in radiation therapy. Essays on clinical experience. Articles on practice transformation in radiation oncology, in particular: Aspects of health policy that may impact the future practice of radiation oncology. How information technology, such as data analytics and systems innovations, will change radiation oncology practice. Articles on imaging as they relate to radiation therapy treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信