Why don't we discuss on patients?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Palex80

RAD ON
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
3,413
Reaction score
4,444
Hello everybody.

I was actually wondering why we seldom discuss patient-related issues here.
How about talking about indications, fractionations, doses, etc in cases that we are not sure about what to do in our field?
Surely one can read most of the stuff up, but sometimes a textbook does not answer all the questions one has and randomised trials have not answered all of our questions.
I wonder why we never actually discuss such things in this board?
Were you guys never interested in knowing how another fellow radiooncologist would treat the same patient in his/her institution?

Members don't see this ad.
 
For better or worse, this board is overwhelmingly dedicated to applicants and the painful process by which they obtain residency spots.

Also, most participants on this board are med students and probably wouldn't know much about the more esoteric topics in radiation oncology.

However I am very open to branching out so feel free to post any issues/questions/comments.
 
I would stress that you need to make sure you don't violoate patient confidentiality/HIPPA.

While it is OK to say "we treat rectal cancer pre-op with 5 Gy x 5", it is probably not OK to say today I saw a 54 yo man .....

Also, if you start doing this, you potentially open up the forum to patients/family/friends posting thier cases, and seeking advice.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Ok, then let me start this one off:


How many of you do WBRT in patients with solitary brain metastases after SRS?
 
Our institutional bias is to avoid WBRT like the plauge due to perceived toxicity. Like many we do a triple-gad MRI scan prior to SBRT to look for small mets. Though we don't have a hard number cut-off, most attendings will perform SBRT for < 10 mets. Our LC is high (> 90% for most histologies).
 
Do you perform SBRT fractionated or as radiosurgery? Ring or mask fixation? And all mets at once with one plan or in batches of say 2-3 mets?

LOL, lots of questions...
 
Do you perform SBRT fractionated or as radiosurgery? Ring or mask fixation? And all mets at once with one plan or in batches of say 2-3 mets?

LOL, lots of questions...

We perform RS w/ a Leksel Perfexion GK unit. Ring fixation w/ all mets at once.
 
We perform RS w/ a Leksel Perfexion GK unit. Ring fixation w/ all mets at once.

That's interesting to hear.

I've heard of a lot of institutions doing RS for 2-3 or even 4 mets.
But doing RS for 8-9 mets is news to me.
 
That's interesting to hear.

I've heard of a lot of institutions doing RS for 2-3 or even 4 mets.
But doing RS for 8-9 mets is news to me.

Yep, the funny thing is that it is not driven by reimbursement. We get the same $ for 1 met as 9. So it is really a philosophical position.
 
Yup ... if they have good PS, usually they get SRS. We've treated atleast 13 mets in a single setting on Perfexion.

After solitary, most of our attendings don't do WBRT. I probably wouldn't either, but what do I know? It just seems patients are savvier and understand there is the risk of toxicity. There doesn't seem to be added survival benefit or QOL benefit, so why not just avoid it ...
 
I agree! I'll be starting my training next year, so I will also like to discuss/read about different issues other than the application process. I'd also be interested in discussing/hearing what everyone thinks about general advice for starting residency and boards preparation materials! is this the only forum people use to discuss current rad onc topics?
Areion
PS: Gfunk, that is a fantastic picture

Hello everybody.

I was actually wondering why we seldom discuss patient-related issues here.
How about talking about indications, fractionations, doses, etc in cases that we are not sure about what to do in our field?
Surely one can read most of the stuff up, but sometimes a textbook does not answer all the questions one has and randomised trials have not answered all of our questions.
I wonder why we never actually discuss such things in this board?
Were you guys never interested in knowing how another fellow radiooncologist would treat the same patient in his/her institution?
 
It's funny how this has evolved since I began training (just a few years ago when it was WBRT automatically for everyone) to the present (out in practice for a little while and the treatment algorithm has gotten murky).

We generally do radiosurgery for =< 4 lesions and WBRT for patients with more lesions than that. Performance status and systemic disease control factor in too obviously. Usually 30/10 for patients with uncontrolled systemic disease or "radioresistant" primaries, 37.5/15 for patients with good prognostic factors.

The thing that makes me feel more comfortable with SRS alone is frequent surveillance. How often do you guys rescan? Is the surveillance schedule any different after WBRT than it is after SRS? I generally do 1 month after SRS/WBRT and then q3mos.
 
How do you treat patients with brain metastases that were resected.

For example, if you have a colorectal cancer patient with a singular brain metatasis, which was resected (let's say this patients has a couple of small liver mets as well, his primary tumor has been resected already), how would you treat him?
Would you offer him WBRT?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'd also be interested in discussing/hearing what everyone thinks about general advice for starting residency and boards preparation materials!

To be honest w/ you it depends significantly on the strength of your residency educational program. Residents in stronger programs sometimes only need Hall for RadBio and can get by w/ old RAPHEX exams and physics notes.

For the clinical written, recalls are invaluable. Residents often study in groups but, honestly, if you come from a decent program clinical written boards should be a cake walk. Many seniors I have spoken to said that they over studied for it.
 
How do you treat patients with brain metastases that were resected.

For example, if you have a colorectal cancer patient with a singular brain metatasis, which was resected (let's say this patients has a couple of small liver mets as well, his primary tumor has been resected already), how would you treat him?
Would you offer him WBRT?

In general, I would recommend following up with WBRT, based on Patchell (PMID: 9809728).
 
In general, I would recommend following up with WBRT, based on Patchell (PMID: 9809728).

At our institution, if resection is performed and a GTR is achieved we generally do not recommend XRT. In cases of particularly large and complex resections and/or residual disease we would add RS.

Patchell compared WBRT vs WBRT + surgery w/o a surgery alone arm; it has been argued by some smarter than me that surgery = RS for most intents and purposes.
 
At our institution, if resection is performed and a GTR is achieved we generally do not recommend XRT. In cases of particularly large and complex resections and/or residual disease we would add RS.

Patchell compared WBRT vs WBRT + surgery w/o a surgery alone arm; it has been argued by some smarter than me that surgery = RS for most intents and purposes.

Well, patchell did publish on WBRT vs. WBRT + surgery (PMID 3008025). However, I referenced his trial of surgery vs. surgery + WBRT (PMID 9809728). The text is below. While there is no survival advantage, the addition of WBRT confers an advantage in local control, elsewhere in brain failure, and in death from neurological causes.

I do agree that WBRT + RS is essentially equivalent to surgery + WBRT in many cases. In fact, WBRT + RS is more common than resection + WBRT at my institution.

JAMA. 1998 Nov 4;280(17):1485-9.

Postoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of single metastases to the brain: a randomized trial.

Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, Dempsey RJ, Mohiuddin M, Kryscio RJ, Markesbery WR, Foon KA, Young B.

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington 40536-0084, USA. [email protected]

CONTEXT: For the treatment of a single metastasis to the brain, surgical resection combined with postoperative radiotherapy is more effective than
treatment with radiotherapy alone. However, the efficacy of postoperative radiotherapy after complete surgical resection has not been established.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if postoperative radiotherapy resulted in improved neurologic control of disease and increased survival.

DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, parallel group trial. SETTING: University-affiliated cancer treatment facilities.
PATIENTS: Ninety-five patients who had single metastases to the brain that were treated with complete surgical resections (as verified by postoperative magnetic resonance imaging) between September 1989 and November 1997 were entered into the study.

INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with postoperative whole-brain radiotherapy (radiotherapy group, 49 patients) or no further treatment (observation group, 46 patients) for the brain metastasis, with median follow-up of 48 weeks and 43 weeks, respectively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was recurrence of tumor in the brain; secondary end points
were length of survival, cause of death, and preservation of ability to function independently.

RESULTS: Recurrence of tumor anywhere in the brain was less frequent in the radiotherapy group than in the observation group (9 [18%] of 49 vs 32 [70%] of 46; P<.001). Postoperative radiotherapy prevented brain recurrence at the site of the original metastasis (5 [10%] of 49 vs 21 [46%] of 46; P<.001) and at other sites in the brain (7 [14%] of 49 vs 17 [37%] of 46; P<.01). Patients in the radiotherapy group were less likely to die of neurologic causes than patients in the observation group (6 [14%] of 43 who died vs 17 [44%] of 39; P=.003). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in overall length of survival or the length of time that patients remained functionally
independent.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer and single metastases to the brain who receive treatment with surgical resection and postoperative radiotherapy have
fewer recurrences of cancer in the brain and are less likely to die of neurologic causes than similar patients treated with surgical resection alone.
 
I do agree that WBRT + RS is essentially equivalent to surgery + WBRT in many cases. In fact, WBRT + RS is more common than resection + WBRT at my institution.

Usually it will come down to tumor size (i.e. >3-4 cm) and the severity of symptoms at initial presentation. If it's a superficial enough lesion, it makes sense for the neurosurgeon to go in there and just take it out. It's also good for a therapeutic Bx in case the patient presents with a mass and neurologic Sx without a Dx.

As for the utility of adjuvant WBRT after SRS or resection, it's still not clear to me that the toxicity of WBRT is worse than the toxicity of in-brain recurrences. In patchell's study, upfront WBRT decreased the incidence of death from neurologic causes. It's unfortunate that the PCI trial for Non-small cell closed due to poor accrual. For someone who might live longer (say in Breast CA), I think the concern of WBRT toxicity becomes more of an issue.
 
Last edited:
A crucial point of Patchell II (S+WBRT vs S) is that the two arms should be looked at as upfront WBRT vs. WBRT at relapse. Majority of pts in the S only arm actually ended up getting WBRT because they recurred. Without salvage WBRT, the RT arm probably would have had survival advantage. Besides, the group that were spared WBRT ended up having worse neuro outcome so the argument that WBRT is detrimental to neuro fxn doesn't stand here (At least, it's not as bad as recurrent brain mets).

A counter argument, however, is that the surveillance on Patchell II was with CT, and, with improved imaging done frequently nowadays, one may catch small mets early enough to have little neuro sequalae; a feasible argument that I am not sure if anyone really looked at. If you subscribe to this, you can offer SRS to multiple small mets as they come and reserve WBRT until repeated SRS becomes futile.

The strategy that is based on most evidence would be to resect single met then WBRT [Patchell I and II] One can SRS + WBRT as well [Andrews, Aoyama]

In the real world, I think much depends on where you practice and, unfortunately, what machines you have. The programs that are particularly strong on SRS (e.g. Pitt, UCSF) would advocate sparing WBRT. The standard approach at UT Southwestern (although we have Gamma Knife and Cyberknife) is to offer WBRT for most histology (i.e. not RCC, melanoma, etc) oligo brain mets after S or SRS.
 
Last edited:
A crucial point of Patchell II (S+WBRT vs S) is that the two arms should be looked at as upfront WBRT vs. WBRT at relapse. Majority of pts in the S only arm actually ended up getting WBRT because they recurred. Without salvage WBRT, the RT arm probably would have had survival advantage. Besides, the group that were spared WBRT ended up having worse neuro outcome so the argument that WBRT is detrimental to neuro fxn doesn't stand here (At least, it's not as bad as recurrent brain mets).

good points
 
Great discussion!

In the real world, I think much depends on where you practice and, unfortunately, what machines you have. The programs that are particularly strong on SRS (e.g. Pitt, UCSF) would advocate sparing WBRT. The standard approach at UT Southwestern (although we have Gamma Knife and Cyberknife) is to offer WBRT for most histology (i.e. not RCC, melanoma, etc) oligo brain mets after S or SRS.

As you stated, I suspect the UTSW standard is probably the standard at most places. We tend to avoid WBRT like the plague due in part to excellent local control w/ RS alone, even with so-called "radio-resistant" mets.

A retrospective, multi-institutional study by our institution (PMID: 12062592) did not find a survival difference by omitting up-front WBRT.

This is definitely a controversial subject and I'm glad we are discussing it.
 
So, in Patchell II the WBRT fractionation is 50.4 Gy/28 fractions ... does anyone treat like that? I've never done it that way.

The results of the trial didn't show neurotoxicity from WBRT, but 1.8 Gy fractions are significantly different than the 30 Gy/10 fx or 35 Gy/14 fx that seem to be 'standard'. So, that's why I worry about WBRT.

I certainly have my institution's bias, and I agree with the philosophy of frequent imaging with MRI and treating mets with SRS as they come ... although, the cost of this practice must be astronomical.

This was on the in-service last year and the 'correct' answer was surgery + WBRT.

-S
 
While witholding WBRT does not impact OS, there is the question of quality of life. Bill Regine has reported that the vast majority of patients who recur are symptomatic at recurrence.. Anyway, worth considering.
 
So, in Patchell II the WBRT fractionation is 50.4 Gy/28 fractions ... does anyone treat like that? I've never done it that way.

The results of the trial didn't show neurotoxicity from WBRT, but 1.8 Gy fractions are significantly different than the 30 Gy/10 fx or 35 Gy/14 fx that seem to be 'standard'. So, that's why I worry about WBRT.

I certainly have my institution's bias, and I agree with the philosophy of frequent imaging with MRI and treating mets with SRS as they come ... although, the cost of this practice must be astronomical.

This was on the in-service last year and the 'correct' answer was surgery + WBRT.

-S

I know of only one person who actually gives 50 Gy in standard fractionation (specifically because that's how it was done in the trial). I do not, and I take your point about dose/fraction.
 
The reason for me asking this provocative question is simple:

If one states that after surgery for a brain methe would definetely recommend WBRT, then one has to ponder for what reasons?
1. For better local control?
2. For better control of other non-detectable micromets?

If 1. is the sole reason, then one can also argue that we shouldn't do any WBRT but simply keep up doing checkups with MRI and do SRS or reoperate at the first sign of local recurrence.
If 2. is a reason too, then we offer the patient WBRT now. If we wait until he/she develops multiple mets and then offer WBRT or SRS, then there's a fair chance that he/she will already have a declining neurologic function. Therefore the postOP WBRT would safeguard intact neurological function.

Now, if you consider 2. a valid point, then comes the real problem:
Why are we only offering SRS to our patients with solitary mets and don?t give them SRS+WBRT.

I know there's one randomised study out there (Aoyama) and a couple of retrospective series, which all show that updfront is not necessary, but I am merely playing the devil's advocate here.

To be honest, I would give SRS myself too to patients too. But there are some patients, where I would consider giving WBRT upfront too. There are other parameters here that play a role here, for example
a) If the patient has a NSCLC or RCC
b) If the patient has only the primary and the one brain met, or the primary, the one brain met and twenty other visceral mets.

I would never perform SRS without upfront WBRT for SCLC by the way.

We treat all brain mets with 10 x 3 Gy as a standard.
Patients with low performance index or life expectancy (4th+ line of chemotherapy and multiple mets growing extracranial) get 5 x 4 Gy.
 
I would never perform SRS without upfront WBRT for SCLC by the way.

I don't know that I would offer SRS to any SCLC patient upfront.

For progressive intracranial disease s/p PCI or WBRT, perhaps. But then again, I would only consider it if the patient has a decent PS and good extracranial disease control (particularly in SCLC, where these patients seem to do quite poorly with multiple metastatic sites).
 
Last edited:
What is the consensus on patients' that present with bronchogenic malignancy and a solitary site of metastasis?

For example, a 67 year-old non-smoking man with history of HTN that is otherwise healthy is diagnosed with NSCLC after presenting with R hip pain. The work-up that ensued started with a plain film of his hip that revealed a lucency in the R femoral head concerning for a met, so they went to work looking for a primary. Contrast CT imaging is performed and a 3.5cm mass is seen in the R lung, 4cm away from mainstem bronchus, minor atelectasis, not involving the whole lung. 2 mediastinal LNs that are >1cm. Abdomen and pelvis CT are negative. Biopsy of lung mass and femoral head both reveal adenoCA. MRI of brain is negative. PET/CT shows FDG avidity in the lung mass, and mediastinal stations 5,6, and in the R femoral head. He has not lost any weight in the last 6 months, and on exam there is tenderness on the R hip near the biopsy site. Otherwise, he's bueno.

What the people think should be done? Do people look at this like a Stage IV and try nothing curative or as a modified Stage III?

1. palliative systemic therapy alone + RT to hip
2. systemic tx --> re-eval with imaging, and if responsive, concurrent chemo-RT to disease in chest + RT to the hip
3. concurrent chemo-RT (definitive) to chest + RT to hip +/- adjuvant systemic tx
4. concurrent chemo-RT (pre-op) to chest/hip and referral to surgeon for potential resection +/- adjuvant systemic tx.

We have had quite a few cases like this and treat with option 2 or 3 ... What do y'all think?

-S
 
I am really glad that we are starting to talk about patients. There are so many questions out there just like this case, that no randomized trial can fully answer.

So, I'll give it a shot.

Option 1:
That's the easy way out.
Actually it's not wrong, but I presume that since the patients only has 1 met, that in the long term the chest mass is going to become a problem. A problem, which chemotherapy alone may not be able to control.

Option 2:
I like this option.
Reevaluatiing patients is a good idea and we have the example of extensive disease SCLC. There we have Level II evidence of a benefit from consolidation thoracic RT after good response to chemotherapy.
Perhaps I would consider giving RT to the hip however concurrent to the systemic chemotherapy in the beginning and not wait for remission evaluation, since the patient is in pain and he's gonna need RT anyway at some point. Toxicity should not be limiting if you irradiate the hip only.

Option 3:
That's like the "ostrich" option. Stick your head in the sand and ignore it's a Stage IV disease. You can surely do it, but I would be very tempted to limit the dose or the aggressiveness of a such a schedule at the first sign of the patient's condition worsening. Concurrent RT to chest+hip with chemo is quite toxic.

Option 4:
I wouldn't do it.
If you forget about the hip, we are talking about a Stage IIIA/B in the lung.
There is no clear benefit for surgery in this case.
The toxicity of this multimodal approach seems to be excessive.

How about Option 5:
You could go for a primary surgery for the hip, while doing the workup for the chemotherapy. This may allow for a better long term functional result. As soon as the hip is done and the patient has recovered (in 2-3 weeks?) you can start full dose chemotherapy. During chemo-cycle 2 you could then do the hip-RT. I think I would reevaluate the patient before cycle 3. If he shows response in the lung and no further mets, then you can start thoracic RT together with cycle 3+4.
I understand that thoracic RT is best delivered during cycle 1+2 and not 3+4 (Level I+II evidence) in Stage IIIA/B, but:
a) we have a Stage IV here with a high potential for further mets, so evaluating response to chemotherapy isn't a bad idea after all. If the patient does not respond at all or shows progression, then you don't need RT in "curative" intention any longer.
b) we want to operate the hip first. Which means he may not be able to undergo concurrent radiochemo soon after surgery.
 
Top