Ellery Koelker-Wolfe, Karen J Marcus, Steven G DuBois, Paul J Catalano, Suzanne Shusterman, Myrsini Ioakeim-Ioannidou, Hesham Elhalawani, Torunn I Yock, Shannon M MacDonald, Daphne A Haas-Kogan, Kevin X Liu
{"title":"Hypofractionated Palliative Radiotherapy for Relapsed and Refractory High-Risk Neuroblastoma.","authors":"Ellery Koelker-Wolfe, Karen J Marcus, Steven G DuBois, Paul J Catalano, Suzanne Shusterman, Myrsini Ioakeim-Ioannidou, Hesham Elhalawani, Torunn I Yock, Shannon M MacDonald, Daphne A Haas-Kogan, Kevin X Liu","doi":"10.3390/curroncol32030124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> While palliative radiotherapy (RT) is frequently used in the management of relapsed/refractory high-risk neuroblastoma (HR-NBL); outcomes after palliative hypofractionated RT (hypo-RT) remain poorly characterized. <b>Methods</b>: We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective study of 38 patients who were diagnosed with HR-NBL between 1997 and 2021 and received palliative RT. Conventional RT (conv-RT) and hypo-RT were defined as palliative treatment courses using dose ≤2 or >2 Gy per fraction, respectively. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of in-field progression using Gray's test. Univariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. <b>Results</b>: When analyzing by first course of palliative RT, 16 patients received conventionally fractionated RT (43%) and 21 received hypo-RT (57%). Clinical characteristics were similar between the two groups. With a median follow-up of 10.3 months (range: 0.3-104.0), the cumulative incidence of in-field progression was not statistically significantly different between hypo-RT and conv-RT (30% vs. 20% at 10 months; <i>p</i> = 0.80). Clinical response, defined as symptomatic improvement or decrease in the size of the lesion, was not statistically different between the two groups (92% conv-RT vs. 90% hypo-RT; <i>p</i> = 1.00). No grade ≥4 toxicities were observed. On univariate analysis, hypo-RT (HR 1.50; 95% CI 0.47-4.76; <i>p</i> = 0.493) was not statistically significantly associated with time to in-field progression, but <i>MYCN</i> amplification was associated with significantly longer time to in-field progression (HR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.05-0.77; <i>p</i> = 0.020). <b>Conclusions</b>: We found no statistically significant difference in cumulative incidence of in-field progression and clinical outcomes between the conv-RT and hypo-RT groups. Palliative hypo-RT can be considered for relapsed/refractory HR-NBL, especially when shorter treatments may offer improved quality of life.</p>","PeriodicalId":11012,"journal":{"name":"Current oncology","volume":"32 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11941608/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol32030124","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: While palliative radiotherapy (RT) is frequently used in the management of relapsed/refractory high-risk neuroblastoma (HR-NBL); outcomes after palliative hypofractionated RT (hypo-RT) remain poorly characterized. Methods: We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective study of 38 patients who were diagnosed with HR-NBL between 1997 and 2021 and received palliative RT. Conventional RT (conv-RT) and hypo-RT were defined as palliative treatment courses using dose ≤2 or >2 Gy per fraction, respectively. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of in-field progression using Gray's test. Univariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: When analyzing by first course of palliative RT, 16 patients received conventionally fractionated RT (43%) and 21 received hypo-RT (57%). Clinical characteristics were similar between the two groups. With a median follow-up of 10.3 months (range: 0.3-104.0), the cumulative incidence of in-field progression was not statistically significantly different between hypo-RT and conv-RT (30% vs. 20% at 10 months; p = 0.80). Clinical response, defined as symptomatic improvement or decrease in the size of the lesion, was not statistically different between the two groups (92% conv-RT vs. 90% hypo-RT; p = 1.00). No grade ≥4 toxicities were observed. On univariate analysis, hypo-RT (HR 1.50; 95% CI 0.47-4.76; p = 0.493) was not statistically significantly associated with time to in-field progression, but MYCN amplification was associated with significantly longer time to in-field progression (HR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.05-0.77; p = 0.020). Conclusions: We found no statistically significant difference in cumulative incidence of in-field progression and clinical outcomes between the conv-RT and hypo-RT groups. Palliative hypo-RT can be considered for relapsed/refractory HR-NBL, especially when shorter treatments may offer improved quality of life.
期刊介绍:
Current Oncology is a peer-reviewed, Canadian-based and internationally respected journal. Current Oncology represents a multidisciplinary medium encompassing health care workers in the field of cancer therapy in Canada to report upon and to review progress in the management of this disease.
We encourage submissions from all fields of cancer medicine, including radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, pediatric oncology, pathology, and cancer rehabilitation and survivorship. Articles published in the journal typically contain information that is relevant directly to clinical oncology practice, and have clear potential for application to the current or future practice of cancer medicine.