Absolute Clinical Radiation Oncology Review (PDFDrive) PDF

Absolute Clinical
Radiation Oncology
Review
Daniel M. Trifiletti
Nicholas G. Zaorsky
Editors
https://t.me/MBS_MedicalBooksStore
123
Absolute Clinical Radiation
Oncology Review
Daniel M. Trifiletti • Nicholas G. Zaorsky
Editors
Absolute Clinical
Radiation Oncology
Review
Editors
Daniel M. Trifiletti Nicholas G. Zaorsky
Department of Radiation Oncology Department of Radiation Oncology
Mayo Clinic Penn State Cancer Institute
Jacksonville, FL Hershey, PA
USA USA
ISBN 978-3-319-96808-7 ISBN 978-3-319-96809-4 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018964264
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or
part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way,
and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,
or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in
this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor
the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material
contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains
neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents
1 General Principles of Radiation Oncology�� 1

Nicholas G. Zaorsky, Daniel M. Trifiletti,
and Daniel W. Golden
2 Pediatrics Cancers�� 29
and Christine E. Hill-Kayser
3 Central Nervous System Cancers �� 83
Sameer K. Nath, Daniel M. Trifiletti, Nicholas G. Zaorsky,
and Chad G. Rusthoven
4 Head and Neck Cancers�� 133
Daniel M. Trifiletti, Nicholas G. Zaorsky,
and Henry S. Park
5 Lung Cancer �� 197
and Henry Wagner Jr
6 Breast Cancer �� 233
Nicholas G. Zaorsky, Daniel M. Trifiletti, and Jennifer
Rosenberg
7 Gastrointestinal Cancers �� 265
Daniel M. Trifiletti, Leila Tchelebi, Nicholas G. Zaorsky,
and Einsley Marie Janowski
8 Genitourinary Cancers�� 313
Nicholas G. Zaorsky, Daniel M. Trifiletti, and Katherine Tzou
9 Gynecologic Cancers�� 361
Daniel M. Trifiletti, Nicholas G. Zaorsky, and Surbhi Grover
10 Hematologic Cancers �� 397
Nicholas G. Zaorsky, Daniel M. Trifiletti, and Jennifer L.
Peterson
11 Soft Tissue Cancers�� 431
and Heath B. Mackley
v
vi Contents
12 Bone/Spine Cancers �� 455

and Daniel E. Spratt
13 Physics and Radiobiology�� 467
and David J. Schlesinger
Index�� 481
Contributors
Daniel W. Golden, MD University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

Surbhi Grover, MD University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Christine E. Hill-Kayser, MD University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA, USA
Einsley Marie Janowski, MD, PhD University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
VA, USA
Heath B. Mackley, MD, FACRO Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA,
USA
Sameer K. Nath, MD University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora,
CO, USA
Henry S. Park, MD, MPH Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
Jennifer L. Peterson, MD Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
Jennifer Rosenberg, MD Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA, USA
Chad G. Rusthoven, MD University of Colorado School of Medicine,
Aurora, CO, USA
David J. Schlesinger, PhD University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Daniel E. Spratt, MD University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Leila Tchelebi, MD Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA, USA
Daniel M. Trifiletti, MD Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
Katherine Tzou, MD Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
Henry Wagner Jr, MD Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA, USA
Nicholas G. Zaorsky, MD Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA, USA
vii
Abbreviations
2D Two-dimensional
3D Three-dimensional
3D-CRT Three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy
5-FU 5-Fluorouracil
ABMT Autologous bone marrow transplant
APBI Accelerated partial breast irradiation
abnl Abnormal
ACTH Adrenocorticotropic hormone
ADH Antidiuretic hormone
adj Adjuvant
Adr Adriamycin
AFP Alpha-fetoprotein
AIDS Acquired immune deficiency syndrome
AJCC American Joint Committee on Cancer
aka Also known as
alk phos Alkaline phosphatase
Alt Alternated with
am Morning (ante meridian)
ANC Absolute neutrophil count (lab)
ant Anterior
anterolat Anterolateral
AP Anterior-posterior
APC Adenomatous polyposis coli (gene mutation)
appx Approximately
APR Abdominoperineal resection
ARUBA A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous
Malformations
ASCUS Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance
ASTRO American Society for Radiation Oncology
AUC Area under the curve
avg Average
BAT B-mode acquisition and targeting
b/c Because
b/t Between
bFFP Biochemical freedom from progression
b-HCG Beta-human chorionic gonadotropin
bid Twice daily
ix
x Abbreviations
bilat Bilateral
BM Bone marrow
BMI Body mass index
BMP Basic metabolic panel
BMT Bone marrow transplant
BTSG Brain Tumor Study Group
BWS Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome
Bx Biopsy/biopsies
C Cervical (spine level)
c/w Compared with
CA19-9 Cancer antigen 19-9
CA 125 Cancer antigen 125
CALGB Cancer and Leukemia Group B
C/A/P Chest/abdomen/pelvis
CBC Complete blood count (lab)
CCCG Colorectal Cancer Collaborative Group
cCR Clinical complete response
CD Cone-down
CD4 Cluster of differentiation 4 (for immune cells)
CEA Carcinoembryonic antigen
CESS Cooperative Ewing Sarcoma Study
CHART Continuous Hyperfractionated Accelerated Radiotherapy Trial
chemo Chemotherapy
CHF Congestive heart failure
CIN Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
CIS Carcinoma in situ
cm Centimeter/centimeters
CMP Complete metabolic panel (lab)
c-myc Proto-oncogene, part of the Myc gene family
cN0 Clinically node-negative
CN Cranial nerve
CNS Central nervous system
Co-60 Cobalt-60
COG Children’s Oncology Group
contralat Contralateral
CPT Common procedural terminology
Cr Creatinine
CR Complete response
CRT Chemoradiation
CSF Cerebrospinal fluid
CSI Craniospinal irradiation
CSM Cancer-specific mortality
CSS Cause-specific survival
CT Computed tomography
cT Clinical T-stage
CTV Clinical target volume
Cx Cervical (spine level)
CXR Chest x-ray
Abbreviations xi
D/C Discontinue/discontinued
D&C Dilation and curettage
DCC Deleted in colorectal cancer (gene)
DDx Differential diagnosis
DFS Disease free survival
DI Diabetes insipidus
DLBCL Diffuse large-B cell lymphoma
DLCO Lung diffusion capacity testing
DM Distant metastasis
DMFS Distant metastasis free survival
DOI Depth of invasion
DRE Digital rectal examination
DSS Disease-specific survival
d/t Due to
DVH Dose volume histogram
DVT Deep venous thrombosis
Dx Diagnosis/diagnoses
Dz Disease/diseases
EB External beam
EBRT External beam radiation therapy
EBUS Endobronchial ultrasound
EBV Epstein-Barr virus
ECE Extracapsular extension
ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
EFRT Extended field radiotherapy
EFS Event free survival
e.g. For example
EGFR Epidermal growth factor receptor
EM Electron microscopy
ENI Elective nodal irradiation
EORTC European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer
Epo Erythropoietin
ESR Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (lab)
et al. And others
EUA Exam under anesthesia
EUS Endoscopic ultrasound
EWS Ewing sarcoma
exam Examination
f/b Followed by
FAP Familial adenomatous polyposis
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FDG Fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose
FEV Forced expiratory volume
FFS Failure-free survival
FFTF Freedom from treatment failure
FIGO International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics
FH Favorable histology
FHIT Fragile histidine triad
xii Abbreviations
FISH Fluorescence in situ hybridization

FKHR Forkhead (Drosophila) homolog 1 (rhabdomyosarcoma)
(gene)
FLAIR Fluid attenuation inversion recovery
F:M Female to male ratio
FN Rate false-negative rate
FNA Fine needle aspiration
FOLFOX 5-FU/leukovorin/oxaliplatin
FPR False-positive rate
FSH Follicle-stimulating hormone
FSR Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy
fx Fraction/fractions
GBM Glioblastoma multiforme
GH Growth hormone
GI Gastrointestinal
GM-CSF Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor
GnRH Gonadotropin-releasing hormone
GTR Gross total resection
GTV Gross target volume
GU Genitourinary
Gy Gray
gyn Gynecologic
H&N Head and neck
H&P History and physical
HA Headache
HAART Highly active antiretroviral therapy
HCG Human chorionic gonadotropin (lab test)
HDC+SCT High-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplant
HDR High dose rate
Hgb Hemoglobin
HGG High-grade glioma
HGSIL High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion
HIV Human immunodeficiency virus
HNPCC Hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer
HPV Human papilloma virus
hr/hrs Hour/hours
HR Hazard ratio
HRT Hormone replacement therapy
HSV Herpes simplex virus
HTN Hypertension
HVA Homovanillic acid
Hx History/histories
Hyperfx Hyperfractionation
IBCSG International Breast Cancer Study Group
IC Internal carotid
ICP Intracranial pressure
IDL Isodose line
i.e. That is
Abbreviations xiii
IFN Interferon
IgA Immunoglobulin A
IGF Insulin-like growth factor
IgG Immunoglobulin G
IGRT Image-guided radiation therapy
IJROBP International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and
Physics
IMA Inferior mesenteric artery
IMRT Intensity-modulated radiation therapy
inf Inferior
INR International normalized ratio
intraop Intraoperative
IORT Intraoperative radiation therapy
ipsi Ipsilateral
IQ Intelligence quotient
ITV Internal target volume
IVC Inferior vena cava
JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association
JCO Journal of Clinical Oncology
JCOG Japan Clinical Oncology Group
JCRT Joint Center for Radiation Therapy
JHH Johns Hopkins Hospital
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
JPA Juvenile pilocytic astrocytoma
KPS Karnofsky Performance Status
L Lumbar (spine level)
LA Lymphadenopathy
lab Laboratory/laboratory test
LAD Lymphadenopathy
LAMP Locally Advanced Multimodality Protocol
LAO Left anterior oblique
lat Lateral
LC Local control
LDH Lactate dehydrogenase
LDR Low dose rate
LE Lower extremity
LEEP Loop electrosurgical excision procedure
LF Local failure
LFT Liver function test
LGSIL Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion
LH Luteinizing hormone
LINAC Linear accelerator
LLL Left lower lobe
LML Left middle lobe
LN Lymph node
LND Lymph node dissection
LOH Loss of heterozygosity
LP Lumbar puncture
xiv Abbreviations
LPO Left posterior oblique

LR Local recurrence
LRC Locoregional control
LRF Locoregional failure
LRFS Local recurrence free survival
LRR Locoregional recurrence
LUL Left upper lobe
LVI Lymphovascular invasion
LVSI Lymphovascular stromal invasion
MALT Mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue
max Maximal/maximum
MB Medulloblastoma
MDACC MD Anderson Cancer Center
med Medication
MEN Multiple endocrine neoplasia
mets Metastasis/metastases
M:F Male to female ratio
MFS Metastasis free survival
MGMT O6-methylguanine DNA-methyltransferase
MI Myocardial infarction
MIBG Metaiodobenzylguanidine
min Minimal/minimum
MLD Mean lung dose
MN Mediastinal node
mo/mos Month/months
MRC Medical Research Council
MRI Magnetic resonance imaging
MS Median survival
MSKCC Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
MTD Maximum tolerated/tolerable dose
Mtx Methotrexate
MVA Multivariate analysis
NB Neuroblastoma
N/C Nuclear to cytoplasm ratio
NCCN National Comprehensive Cancer Network
NCCTG North Central Cancer Treatment Group
NCI National Cancer Institute
NCIC National Cancer Institute of Canada
NED No evidence of disease
NEJM New England Journal of Medicine
neoadj Neoadjuvant
NF Neurofibromatosis
NGGCT Nongerminomatous germ cell tumor
NHL Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
NPCR National Program of Cancer Registries
NPV Negative predictive value
NPX Nasopharynx
NR No response
Abbreviations xv
NSABP National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project

NSAID Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug
NSE Neuron-specific enolase
NSS Not statistically significant
NTR Near-total resection
n/v Nausea/vomiting
NWTS National Wilms Tumor Study
NZ New Zealand
OPX Oropharynx
OR Odds ratio
ORN Osteoradionecrosis
ORR Overall response rate
OS Overall survival
PA Posterior-anterior
PAP Papanicolaou smear
PCI Prophylactic cranial irradiation
PCNSL Primary CNS lymphoma
PCP Pneumocystic pneumonia
PCR Polymerase chain reaction
pCR Pathologic complete response
PDGFR Platelet-derived growth factor receptor
PEG (Tube) Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube
periop Perioperative
PET Positron emission tomography
PF Posterior fossa
PFS Progression free survival
PFT Pulmonary function test
Plt Platelets
pm Afternoon (post meridian)
PM Para-meningeal (for rhabdomyosarcoma)
PMH Princess Margaret Hospital
pN0 Pathologically node negative
PNET Primitive neuroectodermal tumor
PNI Perineural invasion
PNS Paranasal sinuses
PORT Postoperative radiation therapy
post Posterior
posterolat Posterolateral
postop Postoperative
PPV Positive predictive value
PR Partial response
PrA Para-aortic (for lymph nodes)
PrT Paratesticular (for rhabdomyosarcoma)
preop Preoperative
PS Performance status
PSA Prostate-specific antigen
pt/pts Patient/patients
PTHrP Parathyroid hormone–related peptide
xvi Abbreviations
PT Prothrombin time
pT Pathologic tumor stage
PTV Planning target volume
PUVA Psoralen and long-wave ultraviolet radiation
q Every
qd Daily
QOL Quality of life
QUANTEC Quantitative analysis of normal tissue effect in the clinic
R1 Microscopically positive margin
R2 Macroscopically positive margin
RAO Right anterior oblique
RASSFIA Ras association (RalGDS/AF-6) domain family member 1A
RB Retinoblastoma
RBE Relative biologic effectiveness
RCC Renal cell carcinoma
RCT Randomized controlled trial
rcv Receive/received
RFS Relapse free survival
RLL Right lower lobe
RML Right middle lobe
RMS Rhabdomyosarcoma
r/o Rule out
ROM Range of motion
RPO Right posterior oblique
RR Relative risk
RT Radiation or radiation therapy
RTOG Radiation Therapy Oncology Group
RUL Right upper lobe
RUQ Right upper quadrant
Rx Prescription/prescriptions
S Sacral (spine level)
SBO Small bowel obstruction
SC Spinal cord
SCC (or SCCa) Squamous cell carcinoma
SCV Supraclavicular
Sg Surgery
SEER Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (data)
SFOP French Society of Pediatric Oncology
Sg Surgery
SIADH Syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone
SIL Squamous intraepithelial lesion
SQ Subcutaneous
s/p Status post
SPECT Single photon emission computed tomography
SRS Stereotactic radiosurgery
SS Statistically significant
SSD Source to skin distance
ST Soft tissue (as in sarcoma)
Abbreviations xvii
STD Sexually transmitted disease

STR Subtotal resection
STS Soft-tissue sarcoma
sup Superior
SVC Superior vena cava
Sx Symptom/symptoms
T Thoracic (spine level)
TD Tolerance dose
TFT Thyroid function test
tid Three times a day
TMZ Temozolomide
TNM Tumor/node/metastasis
trilat Trilateral
TRUS Transrectal ultrasound
TSH Thyroid-stimulating hormone
Tx Treatment/treatments
UA Urinalysis
UCSF University of California at San Francisco
UE Upper extremity
UH Unfavorable histology
UK United Kingdom
unilat Unilateral
US Ultrasound
U.S. United States
UV Ultraviolet
VALCSG Veterans Administration Lung Cancer Study Group
VCE Vincristine, carboplatin, etoposide (chemo regimen)
VMA Vanillylmandelic acid
vs. Versus
w With
WBC White blood cell
WBRT Whole brain radiation therapy
WHO World Health Organization
wk/wks Week/weeks
WLE Wide local excision
yo Year old/years old
yr/yrs Year/years
Symbols
+ Meaning with or and (as in Surgery + RT)

→ Meaning followed by
↑ Meaning increasing, high(er), or elevated
↓ Meaning decreasing or low(er)
General Principles of Radiation
Oncology 1
and Daniel W. Golden
Abstract
This chapter discusses the general manage-
ment and thought process used by radiation
oncologists. Several broad and basic principles
of radiation oncology are discussed.
N. G. Zaorsky (*)
Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA, USA
e-mail: nzaorsky@pennstatehealth.psu.edu
D. M. Trifiletti
Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
e-mail: Trifiletti.daniel@mayo.edu
D. W. Golden
University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
e-mail: dgolden@radonc.uchicago.edu
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

D. M. Trifiletti, N. G. Zaorsky (eds.), Absolute Clinical Radiation Oncology Review,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4_1
2 N. G. Zaorsky et al.
Tumor GTV: gross tumor volume

epicenter • All tumor that can be seen on a scan
• For reference, a 1 cm tumor has about 109 billion cells
CTV: clinical target volume

• The volume that has to be treated to achieve cure or palliation
• Should be defined before choosing a treatment modality
• Includes "crablike" extensions of the cancer, which contain:
• microscopic cancer cells that cannot be seen on a scan
• “Elective” lymph nodes that we think the cancer spread to
• CTV = GTV + a margin of where we think microscopic disease is
located
IM
IM: internal margin
• Variations in size, shape, and position of CTV relative to
anatomic reference points (e.g. from breathing)
SM ITV: internal target volume
• Volume that encompasses movement of the CTV and the IM
• ITV = CTV + IM
Normal SM: setup margin

• Uncertainties in patient positioning and alignment of therapeutic
Nicholas G Zaorsky, MD tissue
beams during treatment planning, and all treatment sessions
PTV: planning target volume
• Volume that encompasses movement of the CTV, the IM, and
errors in setup / position of the patient and penumbra
• PTV = CTV + IM + SM
Disease Scenario General protocol CTV PTV Dose Chemo Outcome
WHO IV (GBM) Standard (Stupp): MRI in 48h of surg. CTV46 = Post-op T2 FLAIR + cavity + 2 cm + 3 mm w daily 46 Gy to FLAIR, 60 Gy to +TMZ 75 mg/m2 QD, then 1m GBM
and WHO III (AA, AO, AOA) < ~65–70 yo, KPS > Send tissue for MGMT, CTV60 = post-op cavity + CBCT enhancement break, then 150 mg x 5d q 28d x 6c. RPA III: 22 m
1p19q non-codel; Unidel; AA ~60–70 IDH1/2, TERT promoter, residual enhancement + 2 cm (cropped to 5 mm at Consider TTF RPA IV: 15 m
Rim-enhancing (signifying EGFR natural barriers) No Avastin upfront RPA V: 10 m
central necrosis), irregular.
Pathology: pseudo- >65–70 yo and good Decadron + PPI CTV = T1post enhancement + 2 cm + 3 mm w daily 40 Gy / 10 @ 4 + TMZ → TMZ (Perry) No TMZ in Canada/Roa, Perry: MST 9.3 vs 7.6 m
palisading necrosis. High KPS Keppra 500 mg BID if sz CBCT 40.05 Gy / 15 @2.7 Gy (Roa 1; also WHO yes TMZ in Nordic/Perry
grade = Mitoses, Endothelial III KPS≤60), 75% of dose
prolif, Atypia, Necrosis. 25 Gy / 5 @ 5 Gy (Roa 2: 40/15=25/5)
IDH 1 WT = molecular GBM 34 Gy / 10 @ 3.4 Gy (Nordic: 34/10 better
than 60/30)
IDH1 = 2ndary GBM (LGG
=>HGG) KPS ≤ 60 TMZ alone (Nordic) for poor KPS
Recurrence GTV + 3 mm w daily 35 Gy / 10 Bev alone
CBCT
WHO III (AA, AO, AOA); 1p19q co-del (all are MRI in 48h of surg. CTV45 = Post-op T2 FLAIR + cavity + 2 cm + 3 mm w daily 45 Gy to FLAIR, and 59.4 Gy to Adjuvant PCV q6w x 6c 94–02 GIII AO, AOA:
IDH1mut); Send tissue for 1p/19q and (cropped to 5 mm at natural barriers) CBCT conedown / 1.8 Gy RT vs RT, adj PCV
others per WHO IV IDH1 for oligo (all 1p19q CTV59.4 = If enhancing: post-op cavity + 1p/19q co-del (all IDH1 mut): 7yr vs. 14.9yr
standard codel are also IDH1 mut) residual enhancement + 2 cm (cropped to 1p/19q intact, IDH1 mut: 3.3 vs. 5.5
5 mm at natural barriers). If non- Intact/WT: 1.3 vs. 1.0
enhancing: T2-FLAIR +5mm
LGG (diffuse astro: oligo, New hi risk: > 40 yo or options: CTV = T2 FLAIR + tumor bed + 1 cm + 3 mm w daily 50.4–54 Gy High Risk options: Low risk: OS5 = 90%; PFS5 = 50%
astro, mixed oligoastro; STR Old hi risk (also): RT + adjuvant PCV CBCT RT + adjuvant procarbazine High risk: OS5 = 70%; PFS5 = 50%
pilomyxoid; pleomorphic size 6+ cm, astrocytoma, RT + concurrent TMZ (prefer POD8–21, CCNU d1,
neuro deficit preop, for MGMTm) vincristine (PCV)
General Principles of Radiation Oncology
xanthoastro) G1 subtypes:
cross midline, 1p19q
JPA, pleomorphic non-co-del, IDH1/2 Decadron + PPI RT + concurrent TMZ
xanthoastro, SEGC non-mut Keppra 500 mg BID if sz
astrocytoma, Low risk: <40 yo Options: Obs vs RT alone if Low risk option:
subependymoma, AND GTR sx or difficult to salvage vs. TMZ alone if 1p19q co
gangliogliomas TMZ alone if 1p19q codel deleted
Ependymoma, brain G1 = subependymomas MRI in 48h of surg. CTV = initial tumor vol, tumor bed + 3 mm w daily G2: 54 Gy Chemo no proven benefit EFS5 GTR: 80%
and myxopapillary RT in 8w. + 1 cm CBCT G3: 59.4 Gy. If MRI spine/LP+, CSI EFS5 STR: 40%
G2 = classic to 36 Gy. Boost spine GTVs to 45 Gy
Ependymoma, spine ependymomas R0 = observe (only G1/2) + 3 mm w daily Limited field = 50.4 Gy. If MRI spine/LP+,
G3 = anaplastic R+ = limited field RT CBCT CSI to 36 Gy. Boost spine GTVs to
ependymomas Spine mets = CSI + boost 45 Gy
Ependymoblastoma treat like STPNET/high CSI 36 Gy. Boost to 55.8 Gy
risk medullo
Meningioma G1 Simpson1–3 (R0): obs Do not cover dural tail!!! + 3 mm w daily RTOG 0539: G1: 90% LC in def EBRT, R0, R1+EBRT
G1 Simpson4–5 (R+): obs G1: CTV54 = GTV + bed + 1 cm CBCT PTV54 to tumor/bed +1–2 cm G2: MST 12y. LC 60% if R0, 70% LC surg
vs RT hi risk vol G2/3: PTV60 to G2/3 tumor bed + 1 cm + EBRT
Recur: surg vs RT CTV54 = GTV + bed + 2 cm Consider SRS 13 Gy (up to 17 Gy if G3), G3: MST 3y. OS5 50%.
G2-3 (<10%): EBRT CTV60 = GTV + bed + 1 cm but not 1st choise. Optic n sheath: 45 Gy
Pituitary adenoma: RT if: Inoperable; TSH Endo panel: TSH, FSH, LH, CTV= GTV + bed + 2 mm + 3 mm w daily Functioning: 54 Gy. Or SRS 20 Gy GH or TSH: Somatostatin If no hormone normalization after surg, RT,
Macro: ³ 1 cm, micro < 1 cm secreting (always post- GH/IGF-1, cortisol, ACTH, CBCT Non-functioning 50.4 Gy. Or SRS ACTH: Ketoconazole meds,:
PRL (30%), GH (25%), op); R+ with persistent PRL. Dex text. 18 Gy Cushing’s => adrenalectomy
ACTH (15%). PRL: hypersecretion or TSH => thyroidectomy
amenorrhea, galactorrhea.
Cushing (ACTH): obesity, residual near critical
HTN, DM, hirsutism, skin, structures;
osteoporosis. Acromegaly Recur after surg
(GH): bones, HA, cardiac dz
AVM SRS best if < 3 cm, + 1 mm SRS 16–20 Gy None SRS reduces bleed risk 50% in latency period,
deep, defined focus 88% after obliteration. 2y obliteration = 90%
Acoustic neuroma No mass effect. If mass Audiometry to check SRS: if < 3 cm. GTV = PTV. SRS = none SRS = 12.5 Gy No
effect, needs surg serviceable hearing FSRT: if > 3 cm. PTV = GTV + 3 mm. FSRT = +3 mm w FSRT = 50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy or 25
daily CBCRT Gy / 5
PCNSL Vz exam. Slip lamp exam If no ocular involvement, iso at bony Chemo. If CR, WBRT to 23.4 Gy. If R-MPV x 7c + IT MTX first 80% CR to chemo
(20% ocular involvement). canthi and ½ beam block. Cover post PR, WBRT to 30, boost GTV to 45 (per RTOG 93–10) OS5: 80% for pts who received WBRT
CBC, CMP, HIV, EBV, 1/3 orbit if slit lamp neg. Cover brain Gy If orbit involved, and if CR, 23.4 PCNSL = Ocular involvement in 20%
testicular exam, MRI spine. and cribriform, down to C2/3. Gy to orbit; if PR 36 Gy. Ocular lymphoma = 80% risk of PCNSL
Bx first. No steroids bc If no chemo: WBRT 36 Gy, boost GTV to later
40% response. 45 Gy. Avoid RT if > 60yo
Primary ocular DLBCL 36 Gy / 1.8 Gy fx. Half beam block
post at post optic canal (tx CN II).
If only 1 eye, tx ipsi globe, CN II.
Trigeminal neuralgia MRI thin slices Single 4-mm isocenter; target is 3–6 SRS 80 Gy to 100 % IDL. Median time to pain relief: 1–2m
mm anterior from junction of the 60% pain free, 20% have decrease, 15%
trigeminal nerve and pons no change. <10% facial numbness
Brian mets MRI w contrast. Always do Intact = GTV + 1 mm RTOG 90–05. SRS to 80% IDL on
workup for primary: breast, Post-op = cavity + 2 mm linac. 0–2cm: 24 Gy, but use 22 Gy,
lung, RCC most common >2–3 cm: 18 Gy, >3–4 cm: 15 Gy
3
4
Disease Association Workup Treatment
HL CD15/30+, I-II F MC = EBV CBC, CMP, LDH, HIV, pregnancy ABVD x 2, restage w/ PET , Deauville 1–3, ISRT 20 Gy, Deauville 4, ISRT 30 Gy
LD = HIV, old test, EBV, albumin, ESR, UK RAPID: ABVD x3, interim PET. D1–2: observe or ABVDx1; D3–4 ABVDx1, then ISRT 30 Gy.
albumin, echo, excisional bx,
CSF if HIV+/testicular
HL CD15/30+, I-II UF + BM bx ABVD x 4, restage w/ PET,
Deauville 1–3 = ISRT 30 Gy
Deauville 4 , ABVD x 2, restage w/ PET
Deauville 1–3, ISRT 30 Gy
Persistent Deauville 4 or 5 needs bx, if (+) it is refractory
HL III-IV (MASH ALL): Male, Age ≥45, Stage IV, + BM bx ABVD x 2, restage w/ PET
Hgb <10.5, Alb <4, Leukocytosis >15k, Deauville 1–3 = ABVD x4, then observe
lymphocytopenia <0.6k/mL (or <8%)] Deauville 4 = ABVD x 4, restage w/ PET Deauville 1–3 ISRT to bulky sites to 36 Gy
NLPHL CD20/45+, I-II ISRT 30 Gy (larger margin than HL), then PET. CR = observe. PR = R-CHOP or ABVD.
NHL relapse/refractory RT after salvage chemo in pero-txp prior. Pre transplant 24–30 Gy / 20 fx BID 6 hours apart. Post txp 30 Gy in
17–20 Gy. If non-txp candidate, then 30 Gy for CR.
NHL, high grade: t(8:14): Burkitt’s + beta2 micro, + LDH, + da-R-EPOCH or R-CHOP x 6c, then PET-CT, then 30 Gy ISRT for PR
• Burkitt, lymphoblastic lymphoma HBV, + EGD, + CSF, + BM bx
NHL, G2, Stage I–II: t(11:14): BCL-1, mantle Above, but no CSF I-II (non-X, i.e. < 7.5 cm): For IPI 0-1, RCHOP x 3c. Then PET. Then ISRT 30–36 Gy. Boost FDG-avid residual dz to 40–46 Gy.
• follicular (G3B), mantle cell, DLBCL, T/NK cell, cell lymphoma + c-scope for mantle For IPI 2–4 or X, RCHOP x 6c. Then PET. Then +/–ISRT 30–36 Gy.
peripheral T cell, anaplastic large cell “Double hit”: bcl-2, c-myc If unable to tolerate chemo, then 36–45 Gy ISRT,boost to 40–46 Gy.
IPI: APLES: Age > 60, Performance >2, LDH > “Triple hit”: above + bcl-6 If high IPI, clinical trial for high dose chemo with autologous stem cell rescue. ISRT 36 Gy only to initial bulk dz.
ULN, 2+ E sites, Stage III/IV
NHL, intermediate grade, III–IV III-IV: If high IPI, clinical trial for high dose chemo with autologous stem cell rescue.
R-CHOP x 4, restage w/ PET. If CR, R-CHOP x 2, observe. Consider ISRT only to initial bulk (36 Gy), per German group. If PR,
R-CHOP x 2, restage w/ PET. If PET negative: ISRT only to initial bulk (36 Gy)
If PET positive: refractory, go to transplant.
• DLBCL, gastric R-CHOP x 3, ISRT 30 Gy
• DLBCL, testicular Orchiectomy, R-CHOP x 6 w/ IT-MTX, scrotal RT to 30 Gy. Electrons 9–12 MeV. No bolus.
• DLBCL, bone R-CHOP x3c, ISRT 30 Gy if CR, 40 if PR
• DLBCL, breast R-CHOP x 6c + RT 36 Gy to whole breast
Primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma (PMBCL) 35yo woman DA-EPOCH-R x 6c. NO RT unless persistent focal dz, then 30 Gy.
Mediastinal gray zone lymphoma (GZL) 35yo man DA-EPOCH-R or R-EPOCH x 6c. Always consolidate 30 Gy + 10 Gy boost for PR.
NHL, low grade / indolent: t(14:18), BCL 2, follicular Stage I–II, G1, no X: ISRT, 24–30 Gy / 2 Gy fx
• FL G1–2, MZL, MALT, SLL/CLL, MF lymphoma Stage I–II, X, or unfav molecular: Chemo w R-bendamustine, then ISRT, 24–30 Gy / 2 Gy fx
FLIPI for FL (“NoooooLASH”): Sites: ≥5, LDH > del13, t(14,19), tri12, Stage I–II G1, non-X and non-contiguous: chemo alone
ULN, Age ≥60, Stage III/IV, Hgb < 12. FLIPI-2: SLL, CLL Stage III–IV: no cure. Palliate PRN. 2 Gy x 2
B2 micro, BM, Hgb < 12, LN > 6 cm, age ≥ 60
• MALT, gastric t(11:18) usually abx EGD, urea breath test, Bismuth, lansoprazole, tetracycline, metronidazole. Wait 1 year. 30 Gy / 20 (@1.5) ISRT if refractory.
refractory bacteria test Tx planning: NPO, 4D, 100 cc PO contrast.
• MALT, orbital Chlamydia psittaci bacteria test Doxycycline. RT if refractory, 24 Gy / 12 fx. Treat whole orbit.
• MALT, salivary Sjogren Abx. Surg. If R0, observe. Else, RT 24 Gy / 12 fx.
• MALT, small bowel Campylobacter jejuni bacteria test Abx. Surg. If R0, observe. Else, RT 24 Gy / 12 fx.
• MALT, testis RT 24 Gy / 12 fx to contralattestis.
• MALT, thyroid Hashimoto Surg. If R0, observe. RT 24 Gy / 12 fx.
• MALT, spleen HCV Surg. If R0, observe. RT 24 Gy / 12 fx.
• MALT, breast RT 24 Gy / 12 fx. WBI.
• MALT, lung Surg. If R0, observe. RT 24 Gy / 12 fx.
Advanced stage: chemo + ISRT
• MALT, skin (Primary cutaneous MZL) Borrelia burgdorferi Surg. If R0, observe. RT 24 Gy / 12 fx. CTV = GTV + 1 cm. Palliate 2 Gy x 2.
Plasmacytoma
• SEP Lesion visible, CRP, LDH, ALP, albumin, B2 PTV1 to 50.4 Gy, ENI to 40 Gy.
plasmacytoma by bx micro, Ca, SPEP/UPEP, serum
• SBP (<5% plasma cells), no Bone with 2–3cm margin. Spine: whole VB
free light chain. Bx. No Tc99 BS.
CRAB Standard tx is RT, 40–50 Gy
MM BM bx > 10% plasma Bortezomib and dexamethasone x 2 c. Palliative 30 Gy / 10 fx
cells, M-spike on SPEP
or UPEP, CRAB
MF T1: PUVA, steroids, topical chemo, local electrons 24 Gy / 2 Gy
T2–4: TSEBT 24 Gy / 12 fx, 4 days per week, 3 positions QOD.
Nasal NK/T cell NHL EBV Concurrent Chemo-RT (54 Gy) to involved dz w/ concurrent cisplatinum, 3c DeVIC
Chloroma / myeloid sarcoma 24 Gy / 12 fx
N. G. Zaorsky et al.
Site Work-Up Scenario Treatment CTV PTV Dose Chemo Follow-Up Outcomes
Esophageal - H/P: GERD, alcohol, T2–4 or N+ Neoadjuvant CRT (followed ITV + 4cm sup/inf and 1cm CTV + 0.5cm 50.4Gy [can also do 45Gy Neoadjuvant: Carbo H/P Q 3–6mos for yrs 5-Yr OS:
smoking, dysphagia, by restaging PET/CT +/– radial + 5.4Gy CD if preop – CD AUC 2/ Taxol 50mg/m2 1–2, then Q6–12mos for Stage I: > 90%
weight loss EGD w/ Bx in 4 weeks) volume = GTV + 1cm per weekly yrs 3–5, then annually Stage II: 40%
- EGD + Bx surgery ENI: SCLV if proximal 1/3; celiac RTOG 1010] Stage III: 10%
-CT C/A/P +C if distal 1/3; paraesophageal for Definitive: cisplatin CT C/A/P Q4–6mos yr 1, Stage IV: < 5%
-EUS if M0 Or everyone 75mg/m2 + 5FU then decr freq
-PET/CT 1000mg/m2 on weeks pCR=30%
-Smoking Cessation Definitive CRT 1, 5, 8, 11 EGD Q 3–6mos for yrs R0=90%
-PEG/PEJ 1–2, then Q6mos yr 3
-Bronch if above carina
(25cm)
Gastric -H/P: satiety, hematemesis, High risk T2 Surgery Adjuvant CRT Gastric Bed CTV = 0.5cm 45Gy in 25 fractions 1c of capecitabine H/P Q 3–6mos for yrs 5-yr OS:
detailed nodal exam [G3, LVSI, PNI, Anastomosis (1000mg/m2 BID)D1– 1–2, then Q6–12mos for Stage I: 65%
(cervical axillary, no D2 LNs: SMA, perigastric, celiac for 5.4Gy boost if +SM 14 followed by yrs 3–5, then annually Stage II: 40%
periumbilical, SCLV), dissection] all; add 825mg/m2 BID Stage III: 15%
ascites, HSM paraesophageal + splenic If 9Gy boost if GRD capecitabine Monitor for B12 and iron Stage IV: 5%
-EGD + Bx T3–4 or N+ proximal/GEJ; add concurrent with RT deficiency
-CT C/A/P +C pancreaticoduodenal and followed by 2c of
-PET/CT if >T2,N+,M0 splenic if middle; add capecitabine Labs, imaging and EGD
-EUS if M0 pancreaticoduodenal + (1000mg/m2 BID)D1 as clinically indicated
General Principles of Radiation Oncology
-Nutritional c/s +/– PEJ duodenal stump if distal –14

-Laparoscopy if >T1b or N+
Pancreas -H/P: painless jaundice, abdo Any If resectable: resect Resected: CTV + 0.5cm 50.4Gy in 28Fx Capecitabine H/P Q3–6mos for 2 yrs, Resectable: MS 2 yrs ,
exam, weight loss chemo (4c Gem/abraxane or CTV: [(proximal 1.5cm of CA, 825mg/m2 BID on then Q6–12mos w/ CA 3-yr OS=30%, LC
-Pancreatic protocol CT FOLFOX) CRT prox 3cm of SMA, PV, PJ, preop radiation days 19–9 and CT (cat 2B) 70–80%
-EUS + FNA Bx tumor volume) + 1cm] + [Aorta
-ERCP w/ stent if obstructed If unresectable: 4c chemo + (3cm to the R + 1cm to the L + Pancreatic enzyme Unresectable: MS
-CT chest CRT 2cm anteriorly + 0.2cm replacement 10mos, 2-yr
posteriorly)] OS 10–20%
Definitive: ITV (gross disease

and involved LNs) + 1cm
Rectal -H/P: anemia, prior RT, IBD, [TAE alone if: Neoadjuvant CRT Surgery Mesorectum up to CTV + 0.7cm 45Gy to whole pelvis f/b Concurrent H/P Q3mos for 2yrs w/ 50% LRF reduction w/
DRE, pelvic exam in women, <8cm from adjuvant CT rectosigmoid or 2cm superior 5.4Gy boost to GTV + Capecitabine CEA if elevated at dx, RT
FHx verge, <30% to gross dz (whichever is more Fields: 2cm 825mg/m2 BID on then Q6 mos for yrs 3–5 LRR < 10% at 10yrs
-CEA circum, <3cm, proximal) and 2cm distal to PA: L5/S1 radiation days f/b 4 with naCRT; 30% DMs
-colonoscopy, proctoscopy G1, margin gross dz 3cm below months of CAPOX or Colonoscopy in 1 yr then
-EUS or MRI >3mm, no tumor + 2cm on FOLFOX [total of 6 Q5yrs 5-yr OS:
-CT C/A/P +C LVSI] If cT1/2 taken for surgery Presacral and internal iliac LNs pelvic brim months of chemo] Stage I: 90%
and found to be T3/4 or N+ laterally CT C/A/P annually for T3 or N+: 75%
T3–4 or N+ or +SM, give postop CRT If T4 : ext iliac Lats: behind 5yrs T4N+: 50%
CT PS (in front if M1, resectable liver:
If anal canal involved:+/– T4) behind 30–40%
inguinals sacrum
Anal -H/P: sphincter tone, HIV, IBD, Any Definitive CRT CTV_A: [GTV + anal canal] + CTV + 1cm T2N0: 50.4 Gy in 28Fx to Concurrent MMC H/P in 8–12 weeks. If CR, 5-yr OS:
prior RT, pelvic exam with pap 2–2.5cm CTV_A and 42Gy in 28Fx 10mg/m2 and 5-FU DRE and inguinal nodal Stage I: 85%
and HPV testing in women to CTV_C 1000mg/m2 exam Q3–6mos for 5 yrs; Stage II: 75%
-Labs: HIV CTV_B: Involved LN(s) + 1cm on D1 and D29 Anoscopy Q6–12mos for Stage III: 50%
-Anoscopy + Biopsy T3/4N0: 54Gy in 30Fx to 3 yrs, CT C/A/P annually Stage IV: 5%
-CT C/A/P +C CTV_C: Elective LNs (internal CTV_A and 45GY in 30Fx for 3 yrs
-PET/CT iliac, external iliac, inguinal) + to CTV_C
1cm If persistent disease at
N+: 54Gy in 30Fx to CTV_ 8–12 weeks, re-evaluate
A., 54Gy in 30Fx to at 4 weeks. If persistent
CTV_B if LN > 3cm OR disease, restage.
50.4Gy in 30Fx to CTV_B
if LN < 3cm; 45Gy in 30Fx If progressive dz at 8–12
to CTV_C weeks, re-stage.
5
6
Disease Workup Scenario Contraindications Treatment CTV PTV Dose Systemic tx
Prostate PSA, MRI, Biopsy VLR, LR AS PSA q 6m, DRE/bx no more than q No
12m
After 12-month bx, alternate
mpMRI w/ bx. Indications to tx: in #
cores, % involvement, ≥ G4;
PSA DT < 3 years
LR (T1-T2a, GS6, PSA <10) EBRT Prostate + prox SVs + 5 mm 78 Gy No
+ BS if T2 and PSA >10 IR (T2b-c, GS7, PSA 10–20) EBRT Prostate + prox SVs + 5 mm PTV1 = 80 Gy Consider ADT 6m in unfav IR
Distal SVs PTV2 = 46 Gy
+ BS HR (GS 8+, T3+, PSA >20) EBRT Prostate + prox SVs + 5 mm PTV1 = 80 Gy ADT x 2–3y
+ T, LFTs, CBC, CMP, Dexa, + ADT Distal SVs + pelvic LNs PTV2 = 46 Gy Lupron (7.5 mg = 1 month; 22.5 mg = 3 months) = GnRH
Ca, Vit D agonist (Degarelix = GnRH antagonist). Menopausal sx.
Bicalutamide (50 mg/day) = anti-androgen. Check LFTs
monthly. Diarrhea.
> 60 cc, < 20 cc (if too large give LDR-BT Prostate 0 mm I125, 145 Gy mono 110/50.4 Gy boost
ADT to shrink by 1/3) Pd103, 110 Gy mono, 100/50.4 Gy
TURP defect boost
Large median lobe
Pubic arch interference HDR-BT Prostate 0 mm 13.5 x 2, one week apart
IPSS > 15 (> 20 absolute) 15 Gy + 50.4 Gy
Anesthesia/sedation risk
IBD/prior RT
MRI Post RP 1 cm below UVA, lat to + 5 mm 68 Gy. 74 Gy if GTV aRT, N0 = RT alone (shared decision making about ADT)
BS if PSA > 10 Adjuvant: T3, R+ obturator internus, post to aRT, N+ = RT + 2y of ADT (Messing was life)
Salvage: Persistent or rectum, ant entire bladder sRT, N0 = RT + 6 months ADT if pre-RT PSA <0.7 ng/mL;
rising PSA post-RP below pubic symphysis, and else, 2y
1 m of it superior to it. sRT, N+ = RT + 2y of ADT
Pelvic LNs if pLN+
Bladder GU/rectal/GYN exam Ta-LG Obs

Cystoscopy w/ mapping +
TURBT + random biopsies
[Trigone/neck urethral] CIS BCG x 6
CT C/A/P w/ CT urethrogram to
evaluate UUT for synchronous
cT1/Ta-HG reTURBT, then BCG x6
lesions and evaluate LN
residual: BCG x 6 or
ALP or sx BS
cystectomy
cT2-T4aN0 Tumor>5cm, Hydronephrosis, RT Bladder, prostate, prox + 5–7 mm 60 Gy, 66 Gy / 30 fx Cisplatin (40 mg/m2 weekly)
multifocal, poor bladder fx, urethra
carcinoma in situ (CIS), incomplete
TURBT, non-TCC histology, M+
disease, near ureteral orifices
Testicular LDH, HCG, AFP; do bilat IS: Any pT N0 M0 S1-3 obs

testicular exam, supraclav and
inguinal LN exam; CBC, CMP; IA/B: T1-T4 but N0 M0 S0
Carbo1c AUC7 Carbo1c AUC7
CT CAP; fertility; sperm bank
20 Gy PA T11/12-L5/S1 PTV= CTV + 0.5 cm. A
CTV= (IVC+1.2cm) + 0.7cm uniform margin
(Aorta + 1.9cm) around PTV to block edge
accounts for penumbra.
IIA: T1–4 N1 (all ≤ 2cm (no 20 Gy DL + 10 Gy CD From T11/T12, contour PTV = CTV + 0.7cm to
more than 5 total pN+) S0-2 aorta and IVC down to the block edge
ipsilateral iliac arteries and
IIB: T1–4 N2 (all 2 -≤ 5cm, or 20 Gy DL + 16 Gy CD veins stopping at the top of Block edge CD = LN + 2 cm
more than 5 pN+, or ECE) the acetabulum
S0-2
III BEP 3c
General Principles of Radiation Oncology 7
General Principles [1–22] Resection Nomenclature

CNS and
Cancer Death Worldwide peds CNS and peds
Resection protocol protocol
1. Lung 1.59 M type Definition terms description
2. Liver 745 K R0 Negative GTR1 Not visible on
3. Stomach 723 K margins operative
microscope or
4. Colorectal 694 K postoperative
5. Breast 521 K imaging
6. Esophagus 400 K R1 Grossly GTR2 Visible on
negative but operative
pathologic microscope
positive Not visible on
Cancer Visibility and Tumoricidal margin postop imaging
Dose R2 Grossly NTR Residual evident
positive on postop
Dose margin imaging,
necessary to (surgeon can nodularity
Number CT scan kill cells see with <5 mm. Linear
of cells visibility Example case (EQD2) their eye) “streak”
108 Not R1 resection ~50 Gy enhancement
visible status STR Surgically
post-chemo removing tumor
with CR tissue
109 1 cm3 R2 resection ~66–70 Gy Residual evident
Most visible on postoperative
cancers, imaging,
including LNs nodularity
1010 10 cm3 Bulky disease >5 mm
Dose necessary to kill 1 log = ~10–20 Gy
Radiobiology
he “4 Rs” of Radiobiology
T
–– Redistribution
–– Repopulation
–– Repair
–– Reoxygenation
–– Lethal damage = DNA double-strand breaks
–– 1 Gy of radiation = ~20–40 DSBs
–– Majority of radiation-induced cell
death = mitotic catastrophe
ell Cycle and Radiosensitivity

C
–– Cell cycle: G1 → S → G2 → M
–– Cells in late G2/mitosis = most radiosensitive
–– Cells in late S/early G2 = most radioresistant
Blood Vessel Radiosensitivity

–– Capillaries > arteries > veins.
–– Arteries can tolerate 50–70 Gy CFRT.
–– Veins are highly radioresistant.
Physics ife Expectancy (US Social Security

L
–– 1 Gray (Gy) = 1 Joule/Kg energy deposited in Data)
tissue
M F
–– The difference between γ-rays and X-rays is
65 y/o 18 y 20 y
the source. γ-ray = natural decay of radioiso-
70 y/o 14 y 17 y
tope, e.g., Cobalt-60, X-ray = manmade, e.g., 75 y/o 11 y 13 y
linear accelerator 80 y/o 8y 10 y
–– Photon nuclear interactions: 85 y/o 6y 7y
–– (1) Coherent scattering (≈E)
–– (2) Photoelectric effect (≈Z3/E3) used for
diagnostic imaging EACHH Model: Life Expectancy
T
–– (3) Compton effect (≈electron density) of M+ Patients
dominates in radiotherapy
–– (4) Pair production (≈E) –– Type of cancer. +1 if not breast or prostate
–– ECOG. +1 if 2. + 2 if 3–4.
Clinical Care Path –– Age. +1 if > 60
• Consultation → Simulation → Treatment –– Chemo (prior courses). +1 if >2
planning → Quality assurance → Treatment –– Hospitalizations. +1 if yes
→ Follow-up –– Hepatic mets. +1 if yes
LN Metastasis Nomenclature Groups

–– A (0–1): 20 m
–– Sister Mary Joseph nodule: periumbilical met –– B (2–4): MST 5 m
through falciform ligament –– C (5, 6): MST 2 m
–– Virchow’s node: L supraclavicular mass where
thoracic duct inserts into left venous angle and
Palliative Care
thoracic duct drains from cisterna chyli
–– Krukenberg tumor: ovarian metastasis from
–– Temel, NEJM, 2010: 151 NSCLC M+ patients
breast, gastric, and others
randomized to SOC +/− early palliative care.
–– Irish LN: L axillary mass
Palliative care is meeting with palliative care
–– Blumer’s shelf: tumor spread to retrouterine
team member within 3-week enrollment, and
or rectovesical space (pouch of Douglas)
then monthly. Improved QOL, lower depres-
Preoperative vs Postoperative RT sion, less aggressive end-of-life care (54% vs
Advantages of preop Advantages of postop 33%), more resuscitation preferences docu-
Improved blood supply/ Smaller target volume after mented in medical record, and longer OS
tumor oxygenation resection/debulking (11.6 m vs 8.9 m MST).
Target delineation more Plan based on pathologic –– ENABLE II: n = 322. Randomize to nursing-
clear information
led multicomponent psycho-educational inter-
Radiated tissue is resected
No tumor repopulation
vention vs usual care. Improved QOL,
during healing symptom intensity, and mood. No difference
in resource usage.
–– ENABLE III, Alabama (Bakitas, 2015):
Young Patients advanced cancer patients and oncologist deter-
mined prognosis 6–14 months. Randomize to
–– Fertility counseling early (at enrollment) vs delayed (after 3 m)
–– Pregnancy testing palliative care. Palliative care is telehealth RN
–– Consider options to minimize normal tissue coaching session, monthly FU. One year OS
exposure (reduced RT protocol, protons) was improved in early intervention group. KM
1-year OS 63% vs 48%, a 15% absolute bene- KPS vs ECOG

fit. No change in QOL between groups.
–– Kumar, JCO 2017: interview 2300 families of KPS ECOG Description
deceased patients with advanced lung or 90 1 Restricted in strenuous activity
70 2 Unable to work. Out of bed >50% of
colorectal cancer. Patients enrolled in hospice waking hours
had more pain, the right amount of pain med, 50 3 Limited self-care. Out of bed <50% of
help with dyspnea, EOL wishes followed, waking hours
excellent quality with EOL care, and highest 30 4 No self-care
QOL.
Immunotherapy CT Scans
Immune activation –– 0 Hounsfield units (HU) = density of water,

air = −1000 HU, bone = >1000 HU level is the
HU at the center of the window/level scale.
–– Window is the HUs displayed across the avail-
T-cell able shades of gray.
–– Anything outside of range is black (less dense
Suppression of than lower end of window) or white (more
inhibition dense than upper end of window).
TCR CD28 CTLA-4 PD-1 –– Must consider window/level of CT scans
when contouring target volumes.
Nivolumab
Pembrolizumab
Ipilimumab
Tremelimumab
Atezolizumab Depression
durvalumab
avelumab
Symptoms
MHC B7 B7 PD-L1
Five symptoms × 2 weeks:
–– Sleep changes: increase during day or

APC or tumor cell
decreased sleep at night
Nicholas G Zaorsky, MD
–– Interest: loss of interest in activities
–– Guilt (worthless)
–– Energy (lack): common presenting symptom
Plan Evaluation (fatigue)
–– CB CHOP – contours, beams, coverage, hot/ –– Cognition/concentration: reduced cognition
cold spots [23], organs at risk, and prescription and concentration
–– Appetite (wt. loss): usually declined
–– Psychomotor: agitation (anxiety) or retarda-
Not Meeting Dose Constraints tions (lethargic)
–– Suicide/death ideation
–– Consider reducing PTV (probably don’t want
to do this if possible).
–– Consider induction chemo to shrink tumor. Nausea/Vomiting
–– Consider gating or DIBH.
–– Consider resimulation with alternative patient • Ondansetron, orally dissolving tablet (ODT)
positioning (prone, full bladder, belly board, available.
etc.) • Compazine.
–– Review QUANTEC and national protocol • Reglan.
OAR constraints; they may provide protocol • Olanzapine. 2.5 or 5 mg. ODT available.
deviation/not violation options (less stringent Sedating, so start at bedtime.
constraints). • Dexamethasone.
–– Consider resimulation/replan during • Lorazepam.
treatment.
–– Hyperfractionate to reduce late effects (e.g.,
HNSCC), or use 1.8 Gy instead of 2 Gy doses
for CNS or the breast.
Pituitary hormones Timing: (“G FLAT”)

–– GH.
~100% of patients will develop deficiency in at –– FSL/LH.
least one –– TSH/ACTH.
–– No effect on ADH; thus, there is no DI (how-
ever, DI is a common complication after pitu-
itary surgery).
Disorders, Syndromes, and Genetics

Disorder or
syndrome Chromosome (sorted by #) Tumor, disorders
Li-Fraumeni p53 Glioma, choroid plexus papilloma, osteosarcoma
Cowden Meningioma
Gorlin Basal cell carcinoma, Medulloblastoma
Turcot Medulloblastoma (Wnt), GBM, GI polyps
FAP APC gene, causes WNT/beta Desmoid tumors
catenin pathway irregularity
VHL 3p Hemangioblastoma, clear cell RCC, pheochromocytoma,
pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors
Trisomy 12 MALT lymphoma
4q GIST
t(8:14) and t(8:22) Burkitts, B-cell ALL
Tuberous Chromosome 9 Subependymal giant cell astrocytoma, retinal hamartoma
sclerosis
Gardner “SOD”: sebaceous cysts, osteomas, desmoid tumors
t(9;22) CML
WAGR del 11p13, WT1 Wilms, aniridia, GU anomalies,
Denys-Drash 11p, WT1 mutation renal dz, male pseudohermaphroditism, Wilms
Retinoblastoma Pineoblastoma, osteosarcoma
MEN-1 11q13. 3Ps: pituitary, parathyroid, pancreas
t(11;14) Mantle cell lymphoma
t(11;18) MALT lymphoma
t(11,22) Ewing sarcoma, PNET
ATM PCNSL
Beckwith- WT2 mut, 11p15.5: IGF-2 Macroglossia, gigantism, hernia, macrosomia, inc risk Wilms,
Wiedemann overactivity, no active copy pancreatic hepatoblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, macrosomia,
of CDKN1C macroglossia, omphalocele, prominent facial features (earlobe
pits, creases), large kidneys, hemihypertrophy
Gain chr12→ PCNSL
↑MDM2→↓p53
12q amp → ↑MDM2→↓p53 Well-differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcoma
t(12;16) Myxoid round cell liposarcoma
t(2:13) and t(1:13) Alveolar Rhabdomyosarcoma
t(14;18) → ↑Bcl-2 Intraocular lymphoma, follicular B-cell lymphoma
t(X:18) Synovial cell sarcoma
t(14:19) CLL (BCL3)
NF-1 17q11.1/neurofibromin Optic glioma, JPA
NF-2 chr 22 tumor suppressor Bilac acoustic neuroma, spinal ependymoma
missing
22q deletion, INI-1/hSNF5 ATRT and malignant rhabdoid
inactivation
Osler-Weber- AVM
Rendu
Sturge-Weber AVM
Tolosa-Hunt OP with cavernous sinus involvement
High-Yield Neoadjuvant RT and pCR Rates

pCR %
pCR % (w w/o
Study Site Treatment NA-RT) NA-RT
SWOG 9416/INT NSCLC – Of T3/4 N0/1 induction CRT to 45 Gy/25 with cis 29 (26% 0
0160 [24] pancoast/ 50 mg/m2 + etop 50 mg/m2. Repeat CT during last week with
superior of RT (week 5) to allow surgeon to make decision minimal
sulcus resectability. If ineligible, continue RT to 61.2/1.8. Then residual)
surgery and postop chemo. 20% of unresectable went to
complete RT. Of 80% going to surg, 94% had R0
SAKK [25] NSCLC IIIA/N2 NSCLC. Rando to (1) neoadjuvant chemo (cis 16 12
100 mg/m2 and docetaxel 85 mg/m2) then RT (42/22)
then surg vs (2) 3 c neoadjuvant chemo, then surg
POET [26] Esophagus T3-4 Nx adeno of lower esoph and gastric cardia → 15.6 2
neoadjuvant chemo 2.5 c of cis/5-FU/leucovorin vs 2 c
same chemo followed by CRT (30/15 + etoposide/cis).
All got surg
CROSS [27] Esophagus 368 patients (75% adeno, 23% SCC, 2% large cell 29% 0
undif) → surgery +/−preop CRT. 41.4 Gy in 23 fx with overall.
carbo/taxol. Carbo was AUC 2 and paclitaxel was pCR 23%
50 mg/m2 weekly during RT adeno and
49% SCC
RTOG 9904 [28] Gastric Preop CRT (45 Gy with 5FU + taxol) 26%
ACCORD-12 [29] Rectal T3-4 Nx resectable rectal cancer. n = 598. Rando to 19 14
45/25 + cape vs 50/25 + cape + oxali. TME planned 6w
after CRT. 3 year OS 88% for both. Similar pCR
German [30] Rectal T3+ or N + → preop 50.4 + 5FU (1000 mg x2c) vs 8 0
postop 55.8/31 + 5FU (1000 mg x2c on d1-5, w1 and
w5). All patients got postop 5FU (500 mg/m2/day × 4c)
Polish [31] Rectal T3-4 resectable rectal cancer. Rando to 25/5 + surgery in 16, long
7d vs NA CRT 50.4/28 with concurrent bolus 5-FU and course
leucovorin, surg in 4-6w 1, short
course
TROG 01.04 [32] Rectal T3 N0-2 rectal adeno. 5x5, surg, 6 x 5FU vs 15, long N/A
50.4/1.8 + 5FU, surg, and then 5FU × 4c. DFS, OR no course
difference. Similar G3+ acute tox: 6%; chronic: 8%. 1, short N/A
Increased pCR in long-course arm course
Meta-analysis Bladder Chemo-RT per protocol for MIBC 69
RTOG 8802,
9506, 9706, 9906,
and 0233 [33]
GOG 205 [34] Vulvar Phase II, T3-4 unresectable→inguinal LND → preop 78
CRT (cisplatin 40 mg/m2 qw + 57.6Gy/32fx). 45 Gy AP/
PA pelvis, 12.6 Gy boost. Then resection or biopsy to
confirm CR. 78% pCR, 64% cCR, 40% 2 yr OS
GOG 101 [35] Vulvar Advanced primary or nodes→cisplatin/5FU + RT; 31
47.6 Gy BID. 97% converted to resectable
GOG 123 [36] Cervix WPRT 45 Gy then LDR BT, total point A dose of 75 Gy. 52 41
Concurrent RT arm was cis 40 mg/m2 qw × 6w. Wait 3–6
weeks, and then the surgery was class I extrafacial histo
CTCAE v4.0 Grading [6]

1 2 3 4
General Asymptomatic or Moderate symptoms; Severe sx; limiting Almost died;
mild, clinical or limiting instrumental ADL; self-care ADL, emergent care
diagnostic endoscopic or minor elective operation needed (e.g., ICU
observations; procedure indicated; indicated admission)
intervention not medical management
indicated indicated
Instrumental ADLs: Self-care ADLs:
preparing meals, shopping bathing, dressing,
for groceries, using phone feeding, using toilet,
managing money taking meds, not
bedridden
Headache Mild Moderate Severe
Memory Mild; forgetting car Moderate
keys, grocery list
Eye blindness > 20/40 <20/40 but >20/200 Blindness
(unilateral or
bilateral)
Eye dryness Relieved with Multiple agents needed Vis acuity <20/40 but N/A
lubricants >20/200
HN dysgeusia Altered taste, no Altered taste, change in N/A N/A
change in diet diet (e.g., supplement),
unpleasant taste, loss of
taste
HN – Moderate pain Severe pain; TFs or
odynophagia TPN
Ear – External otitis with moist Mastoiditis, stenosis Urgent op
desquamation desquamation, edema, or osteomyelitis,
cerumen; TM perf; necrosis of the soft
tympanostomy tissue or bone
Ear – hearing Hearing loss but aid not Unilat hearing loss Profound bilateral
indicated and aid or hearing loss,
intervention indicated non-serviceable
Breast Brisk erythema, patchy Moist desquamation Skin necrosis or
moist desquamation outside of creases, ulceration,
bleeding spontaneous
bleeding, skin graft
Heart EKG or physical Symptomatic pericarditis Pericarditis with Life-threatening;
findings only (i.e., chest pain) physiologic urgent intervention
consequences (e.g., needed
pericardial
constriction)
Lung – dyspnea SOB with moderate SOB with minimal SOB at rest Urgent care needed
exertion exertion
Lung – cough Mild dry cough or Requires narc antitussives Severe cough not Continuous O2 or
DOE, no intervention response to narcs or vent
dyspnea at rest,+/−
intermittent O2 or
steroids
1 2 3 4
GI – diarrhea <4 stools over 4–6 stools/d over baseline, 7+ stools/d over Acute or subacute
baseline, mild increase mod increase ostomy baseline, obstruction, fistula
ostomy output output, incontinence; or perforation’ GIB
antidiarrheal med hospitalized, severe requiring
increase in ostomy transfusion
output,
parenteral support
GI – constipation Occasional sx, Persistent sx with regular Obstipation with Urgent intervention
occasional stool use of laxatives or enema manual evacuation indicated
softeners, laxatives, indicated
enema
GI – LGIB Mild, no intervention Moderate, medical Transfusion, Urgent care needed
intervention, or minor radiologic,
cauterization endoscopic, or
elective operation
indicated
GI – fistula Altered GI function TPN or hospitalized, Life threatening
elective operation
GU renal (units eGFR < LLN – 60 59–30 29–15 <15
for CrCl are ml/ or proteinuria 2+
min/1.73 m2)
GU sexual Meds or penile pump Penile prosthesis
GU frequency Present Meds indicated N/A N/A
GU ejaculation Diminished Anejaculation or
retrograde
GU sperm N/A N/A Azoospermia N/A
(absence of sperm in
ejaculate)
GYN – Menopause: ovarian
menopause failure prior to 40 y/o
GYN – Mild pain, relieved Moderate pain, partially Severe discomfort or
dyspareunia with lubricants or relieved with lubricants or pain, unrelieved with
estrogen estrogen lubricants or estrogen
Weight Loss 5–10% Loss 10–20%, nutritional Loss 20 + %, TF or N/A
support indicated TPN needed
WBC < LLN – 1500/mm3 <1500–1000/mm3 <1000–500/mm3 <500/mm3
Limb length < 2 cm discrepancy 2–5 cm discrepancy, shoe >5 cm discrepancy,
lift indicated operation indicated
Lethargy Reduced alertness and Moderate, limited N/A N/A
awareness instrumental ADLs
Somnolence Mild drowsiness or Moderate sedation, Obtundation or stupor
sleepiness limiting instrumental
ADLs
Hypohidrosis, N/A Symptomatic, limiting Increase in body Heat stroke
body temp instrumental ADL temp
Dose Constraints
Daniel M. Trifiletti
Nicholas G. Zaorsky
Daniel W. Golden
University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
QUANTEC Dose Constraints

Dose/ Max Toxicity
Critical structure Volume volume dose rate Toxicity endpoint
Brain <60 Gy <3% Symptomatic necrosis
Brain 72 Gy 5% Symptomatic necrosis
Brain 90 Gy 10% Symptomatic necrosis
Brain stem <54 Gy <5% Neuropathy or necrosis
Brain stem D1–10 cc <= 59 Gy <5% Neuropathy or necrosis
Brain stem <64 Gy <5% Neuropathy or necrosis
Optic nerve/chiasm <55 Gy <3% Optic neuropathy
Optic nerve/chiasm 55– 3–7% Optic neuropathy
60 Gy
Optic nerve/chiasm >60 Gy >7–20% Optic neuropathy
Spinal cord 50 Gy 0.2% Myelopathy
Spinal cord 60 Gy 6% Myelopathy
Spinal cord 69 Gy 50% Myelopathy
Cochlea Mean <=45 Gy <30% Sensory-neural hearing loss
Parotid, bilateral Mean <=25 Gy <20% Long-term salivary function
<25%
Parotid, bilateral Mean <=39 Gy <50% Long-term salivary function
<25%
Parotid, unilateral Mean <=20 Gy <20% Long-term salivary function
<25%
Pharyngeal constrictors Mean <=50 Gy <20% Symptomatic dysphagia and
aspiration
Larynx <66 Gy <20% Vocal dysfunction
Larynx Mean <50 Gy <30% Aspiration
Larynx Mean <44 Gy <20% Edema
Larynx V50 <27% <20% Edema
Lung V20 <=30% <20% Symptomatic pneumonitis
Lung Mean 7 Gy 5% Symptomatic pneumonitis
Esophagus Mean <34 Gy 5–20% Grade 3+ esophagitis
Esophagus V35 <50% <30% Grade 2+ esophagitis
Heart (Pericardium) Mean <26 Gy <15% Pericarditis
Heart (Pericardium) V30 <46% <15% Pericarditis
Heart V25 <10% <1% Long-term cardiac mortality
Liver Mean <30–32 Gy <5% RILD (in normal liver function)
Liver Mean <42 Gy <50% RILD (in normal liver function)
Liver Mean <28 Gy <5% RILD (in Child-Pugh A or HCC)
Liver Mean <36 Gy <50% RILD (in Child-Pugh A or HCC)
Kidney, bilateral Mean <15–18 Gy <5% Clinical dysfunction
Kidney, bilateral Mean <28 Gy <50% Clinical dysfunction
Kidney, bilateral V12 <55% <5% Clinical dysfunction
Stomach D100 <45 Gy <7% Ulceration
Dose/ Max Toxicity

Critical structure Volume volume dose rate Toxicity endpoint
Small bowel (individual V15 <120 cc <10% Grade 3+ toxicity
loops)
Small bowel (peritoneal V45 <195 cc <10% Grade 3+ toxicity
cavity)
Rectum V50 <50% <10% Grade 3+ toxicity
Bladder (bladder cancer) <65 <6% Grade 3+ toxicity
Bladder (prostate cancer) V65 <50% Grade 3+ toxicity
Penile bulb Mean dose to <50 Gy <35% Severe erectile dysfunction
95% gland
Penile bulb D90 <50 Gy <35% Severe erectile dysfunction
Penile bulb D60–70 <70 Gy <55% Severe erectile dysfunction
Dose
Site Organ at risk Dose constraint 1 Dose constraint 2 constraint 3 Notes
Pediatrics Long bone V40 < 64% Mean < 37 Gy Max 59 Gy
Pediatrics Kidney V10 < 80%
Pediatrics Flat bone Minimize V35
Pediatrics VB V18 all or none 18 Gy over entirety if
receiving any RT; this
will prevent scoliosis
Pediatrics Skin/lymphedema Keep longitudinal
2–3 cm strip of
extremity to <15 Gy
Pediatrics Soft tissue (to V60
prevent
RT-induced
sarcoma)
CNS Cauda equina 0.03 cc < 16 Gy 5 cc < 14 Gy
CNS (SRS) Brain stem 0.5 cc < 10 Gy
CNS (SRS) Optic nerves/ 0.2 cc < 8 Gy
Chiasm
CNS (SRS) Spinal cord 0.35 cc < 10 Gy Max 18 Gy / 3 fx Kilpatrick (2010) [1]
(RTOG 0236,
0618)
H&N Mandible 0.1 cc < 70 Gy
H&N Temporal Lobe 0.03 cc < 68 Gy 1 cc < 58 Gy
H&N/Lung Brachial Plexus 0.1 cc < 66 Gy
H&N Brainstem 0.1 cc < 55 Gy
H&N Optic Nerves/ 0.1 cc < 55 Gy
Chiasm
H&N Spinal cord (+ 0.1 cc < 50 Gy PRV
3 mm)
H&N Uninvolved Mean < 45 Gy
constrictor
H&N Contralateral Mean < 39 Gy
SMG
H&N GSL Mean < 35 Gy
H&N Cochlea [2] Mean < 35 Gy <12–14 Gy/1 fx For mean < 45 Gy, risk
of hearing loss <30%.
H&N Oral cavity Mean < 30–40 Gy
H&N Lacrimal gland Mean < 34 Gy
H&N Combination Mean < 25 Gy
parotid [3]
H&N Contralateral Mean < 20 Gy
parotid
GI Small bowel/ 1 cc < 60 Gy V50 < 2%
Stomach
GI Duodenum 2 cc < 55 Gy
GI Liver V30 < 60% Mean < 25 Gy
GI (SBRT) Liver 700 cc < 21 Gy
GI (SBRT) Duodenum V15 < 9cc/1 fx Murphy (2010) [4]
V20 < 3cc/1 fx
Dmax <23 Gy
GI Kidney [3]
GI Kidney V18 < 66%
GI Bladder V40 < 35% Same as prostate
GI Femoral heads 1 cc < 45 Gy V40 < 35%
GI Heart V40 < 100% V50 < 33%
Dose
Site Organ at risk Dose constraint 1 Dose constraint 2 constraint 3 Notes
GI Lung V5 < 50% V20 < 20% Mean < 12 Gy
Thoracic Lung (−PTV) V5 < 60% V20 < 30% Mean < 18 Gy Lung V5 not
associated with
toxicity per secondary
analysis of RTOG
0617 [5]
Thoracic Lung [3] <20% risk of
pneumonitis
Thoracic Contra lung after V20 < 7% Rice (2007) [6]
EPP [6]
Thoracic Heart V45 < 2/3 V50 < 25% V60 < 30% RTOG 0617
Thoracic Heart V30 < 50% V45 < 35% RTOG 1308
Thoracic Heart
Thoracic Esophagus V60 < 30% Mean < 34 Gy
Thoracic Spinal cord 0.1 cc < 45 Gy Max dose 54 Gy has
<1% RT myelopathy
per QUANTEC
Breast Heart V30 < 1% Mean < 4 Gy NSABP B51
Breast Lung V20 < 15%
Breast Breast 0.03 cc < 115% NSABP B51
GU Bladder V40 < 50% V65 < 25%
GU Femoral heads V50 < 10%
GU Rectum V40 < 35% V65 < 17%
GU Rectum V50 < 3cc (50 Gy V24 < 35% of Kim (2014). Using
SBRT) rectal wall 45–50 Gy/5 fractions
circumference for prostate cancer [7]
GU Penile bulb
GU Kidney
GU (HDR) Bladder V75 < 1 cc
GU (HDR) Rectum V100 < 1 cc
GU (HDR) Urethra V125 < 1 cc V150 = 0 cc
GYN Rectum V40 < 60% RTOG 0724 (postop
cervix)
GYN Rectum V40 < 80% RTOG 1203 (cervix +
endometrial)
GYN Bowel space (SB, V40 < 30% RTOG 0724, RTOG
colon, sigmoid) 1203
GYN Bladder V45 < 35% RTOG 0724, RTOG
1203
GYN Bone marrow V10 < 90% V40 < 37% RTOG 1203
GYN Bladder pt <75 Gy, <80% of D2cc < 90 Gy
dose,
GYN Rectal pt <70 Gy, <70% of D2cc < 75 Gy
dose
GYN Sigmoid D2cc <75 Gy
GYN Small bowel D2cc < 60 Gy V55 < 15 cc Verma (2014) [8]
Gyn (HDR) Rectum/Sigmoid 2cc < 75 Gy D2cc = the minimum
dose to the maximally
irradiated 2cc
Gyn (HDR) Bladder 2cc < 90 Gy
Gyn (HDR) Upper vagina Point <120 Gy
Gyn (HDR) Lower vagina Point <90 Gy
HN, CNS
Protocols, institutional SRS (for brain)
PTV HN: Max < 110% GBM: CI < 1.5–2
Rx. D95% > 100% D95% = 60 Gy
Rx. D99% > 93% Rx D99% = 54 Gy
Temporal lobe max < 68 Gy, 1 cc < 58 Gy
Normal brain Max 60 Gy V12 < 10 cc (RN predictor)
Brainstem Max < 54 Gy (HN), 60 Gy (RTOG 0529, Max 12 Gy (required)
0825), 64 Gy (QUANTEC) Max 45 Gy (for trigem neuralgia)
V54 < 20% (ependymoma)
Chiasm; Optic N Max 54 Gy (HN) – 55 (GBM) Max 8–10 Gy (prefer), 12Gy
(required). Stay >3 mm from GTV
Pituitary max 50 Gy
Hippocampus (RTOG 0933) Max 16–17 Gy D100 < 9 Gy
Spinal cord PRV max 45–50 Gy Max 14 Gy
Retina max < 45 (HN) – 50 (GBM)
Lens max < 7–10 Gy
Lacrimal gland mean < 34 Gy (41.4in RMS)
Cochlea max 35 Gy. 55 in NPX. Max 9 Gy
mean < 35–45 Gy (also peds) Mean < 4 Gy
V30 < 50%
Inner ear max < 50 Gy
Dorsal vagal complex mean < 12 Gy
Parotid, contra mean < 20 Gy (<20% D salivation)
Parotids, combo mean < 26 Gy
SMG, contra mean < 35–39 Gy
GSL (larynx) max < 66 Gy
mean < 35–45 Gy (involved)
mean < 20 Gy (uninvolved)
V55 < 10%
Oral cavity, ant V35 < 35%
V30 < 65%
Oral cavity, uninvolved max < 60 Gy
mean < 30–40 Gy
Lips mean < 20 Gy
Mandible 0.1cc < 70 Gy, 1 cc < 75 Gy
Pharyngeal constrictor, sup V65 < 30%
V55 < 80%
Pharyngeal constrictor, mid V65 < 75%
Pharyngeal constrictor, V60 < 15%
uninvolved V50 < 33%
mean < 45 Gy
Esophagus mean < 30–34 Gy Max < 16 Gy
V11 < 5 cc
Brachial plexus (1 of 2) Max < 66–70 Gy
Lung
Lung, 5 fx SBRT Lung, 30-35 fx
(RTOG 0813) (RTOG 1306/1308, LungART)
PTV Rx to 60–90% IDL
V100 > 95%
Max < 120%
Cord Max 30 Max < 45–50

(<36–41 if BID)
Block at 41.4 (meso)
Brachial plexus Max 32 (say 30) Max 66–70 Gy
Trachea/PBT 105% PTV Rx
18 Gy to < 4 cc
Great vessels 105% PTV Rx
18 Gy to < 4 cc
Chest wall (lung + 2 cm rind) V30 < 30 cc
V60 < 1 cc
Skin Skin max 32 Gy
Esophagus 105% PTV Rx 105% PTV Rx
27.5 Gy to < 5cc Mean < 34
V60 < 17%
Lungs (-PTV or ITV) V20 (bilat) < 10% V20 < 35% (<25% if BID)
V20 (ipsi) < 25% V20 < 31% (if PORT)
D1.5L max 12.5 Gy V20 < 8% (if meso)
D1L max 13.5 Gy V5 < 60%
Mean < 20 (<13 if BID, <8 if
meso)
Heart 32 Gy to < 15 cc V60 < 30%
105% PTV Rx V45 < 35% (1308)
V35 < 30% (Lung ART)
V30 < 50% (1308)
Mean < 26 Gy (not 35), < 9 for
meso
heart block at 19.8 (meso)
Stomach NS Block entirely for meso
Liver Block entirely for meso
GI
Esophagus Gastric Liver SBRT, 5 fraction Pancreatic Rectal Anal
(RTOG 1010) (RTOG 0114) (RTOG 1112) (RTOG 0848) (RTOG 0822) (RTOG 0529)
IMRT IMRT IMRT 3D
PTV Max < 110%
D95 = 100
Cord Max <45 Max <45 Max 20–25 Gy Max < 45
Esophagus Max 32 Gy
Lungs (-PTV or V30 < 20% V30 < 20%
ITV) V20 < 25% V20 < 25%
V10 < 40% V10 < 40%
V5 < 50% V5 < 50%
Mean < 20 (5–8) Mean < 20 (5–8)
Heart Max 50 Gy Max 50
Mean < 30 Gy Mean < 30
V40 < 30–50% V40 < 30%
Stomach Max 30 Gy
Liver Mean < 21 V30 < 60% 700 cc < 21 Gy Mean < 21–25
V30 < 30% Mean < 15 V30 < 30%
liver < 35 (10% risk)
liver < 50 (50% risk)
Small bowel Max < 56 Max 30 Gy Max < 54 V45 < 65 cc Max < 50 Gy
D15% < 45 V40 < 100 cc V45 < 20 cc
D10% < 50 V35 < 180 cc V35 < 150 cc
V30 < 300 cc V30 < 200 cc
Large bowel Max 32 Gy V50 < 0.5 cc V45 < 20 cc
V35 < 150 cc
V30 < 200 cc
Kidneys (1 of 2) Max 45 Mean < 18 Mean < 10 Gy D30-50% < 18 V18 < 2/3 of
V20 < 30% V20 < 30% Mean < 18 kidney
Kidney (1 of 1) V20 < 20% V20 < 20% V10 < 10% D15% < 18
V20 < 20%
Femoral heads V50 < 0.5 cc V44 < 5%
V40 < 35%
V30 < 50%
Bladder V50 < 0.5 cc V50 < 5%
V40 < 40% V40 < 35%
V35 < 50%
Iliac crest V50 < 5%
V40 < 35%
V30 < 50%
Genitalia V40 < 5%
V30 < 35%
V20 < 50%
GU
24
Prostate Prostate hypofrac Prostate Prostate post- Prostate SBRT Prostate LDR Prostate HDR Bladder Seminoma
conventional 80 70.2 Gy/26 hypofrac op 36.25/7.25 Gy 145 Gy mono I125 13.5 Gy x 2 mono 45 Gy, CD to 64.8 20–36 Gy
Gy/20 (Pollack/FCCC) 70 Gy/25 68 Gy/34 (RTOG 0938) Ir192 Gy
(Pollack/FCCC) (RTOG 0415) (Pollack/RTOG
0534)
PTV D100% > 95% D100% > 95% V100 >98% D100% > 95% D0.03cc <107% D90 > 100% of dose V100 > 90–95% of
V95% > 100% V95% > 100% Max < 107% V95% > 100% Rx CK V100 > 90–95% dose
Dmax < 115% D0.03cc <120% V150 < 50–60%
Rx non-CK
V100 >95%
D0.03 >95% Rx
Kidney (1 of 2) D50 < 8 Gy

Kidney (1 of 1) D15 < 20 Gy
Small/large bowel V45 < 150 cc V50 < 5%
potential space
Urethra D1cc <107% Rx UV150 ~0 (in volume) D0.1 £ 120 Gy

UV5 < 150% EQD2
UV30 < 125% D10 £ 120 Gy EQD2
D30 £ 105 Gy EQD2
D1cc < 150% dose
(FCCC)
Bladder (-CTV) V65 <25% V50 < 25% V79 <15% V65 < 50% D1cc <105%
V40 < 50% V31 < 50% V74 <25% V40 < 70% D90% <90% Rx
V69 <35% D50% <50% Rx
V64 <50%
Rectum V65 < 17.5% V50 < 25% V74 <15% V65 < 35% D1cc <105% RV100: <1 cc on D2cc £ 75 Gy V60 < 5%
V40 <35% V31 < 50% V69 <25% V40 < 55% D90% <90% Rx day 0; and < 1.3 cc EQD2 V30 < 50%
V64 <35% D80% <80% Rx on day 30 D2cc < D1cc < 100% of
V59 <50% D50% <50% Rx prescribed dose; and dose (FCCC)
D0.1cc < 200 Gy
Testis Sterilize: 2 PA: < 0.1 Gy

Gy DL: < 0.3–0.4 Gy
Penile bulb Dmax < 50 Gy Mean £51 Gy D90 < 50 Gy D1cc <100% Rx
V20 <3cc
Femoral head V50 < 5% V50 < 10% V20 <10cc V50 < 10%
(both)
D1cc <81% Rx
GYN/STS
Cervix Endometrial Sarcoma
45 Gy WPRT+ 6 Gy x 3 BT boost + 50 Gy / 25
CD to 54 Gy PMB 45-50.4 WPRT
+/– CD 60 to LN Vag 45 Gy + 6x3
+ 6 Gy x 5 BT (RTOG 0418; GOG 279)
RT alone:
5x5 + 45 Gy
PTV HR-CTV = 85 Gy
Point A = 85 Gy
Point B = 60 Gy
Kidney (1 of 2)
Kidney (1 of 1)
Small/large bowel Dmax 60 Gy V55 < 5 cc
potential space V45 < 200 cc
SB V40 < 30%
Bladder (-CTV) D2cc £ 90 Gy D2cc £ 90 Gy
(4 Gy/fx in 5 fx) V45 < 35%
Bladder pt £ 70 Gy V40 < 50%
Rectum D2cc £ 70 Gy (4.5 D2cc £ 70 Gy
Gy/fx in 5 fx) V40 < 80%
Rectal point £ 70 Gy V30 < 60%
Sigmoid D2cc £ 70 Gy
Vagina Surface < 140% pt A Upper 1/3: 120 Gy Anus/vulva:
dose Mid 1/3: 90 Gy V30 < 50%
Low 1/3: 70 Gy
VSD = ~150% rx
Ovary Sterilize: 2 Gy;
Fail: 5-10 Gy
Testis Sterilize: 2 Gy V3 < 5%
Vagina upper third: 120 Gy upper third: 120 Gy
middle third: 80–90 Gy middle third: 80–90 Gy
lower third: 60–70 Gy lower third: 60–70 Gy
Femoral head V30 < 15% V60 < 50%
V44 < 5%
Wt bearing bone V50 < 50%
Epiphysis max 20
Skin strip V20 < 50%
Lymphoma
Constraint
Rule of thumb use mean 5 Gy on every OAR.
If can't meet this, then use constraints below.
Lung V20 < 20%
Mean < 12 Gy
Heart Mean < 15 Gy
Bone Mean < 8 Gy
Breast < 5–10 Gy
Thyroid Mean < 15 Gy
Kidney Mean < 20 Gy
Liver V25 < 50%
Testes 2 Gy – sterility
0.5 Gy – acute azospermia
Ovary 5-10 Gy failure
2 Gy – sterility
Peds
Organ Constraint
Lacrimal gland Max 41.4 Gy (RMS)
Lens Max 14.4 Gy
Globes Max 35 Gy (Ependymoma)
Optic N Max 56 Gy (Ependymoma)
Max 45–54 Gy (RMS)
Brainstem Max < 63 Gy (Ependymoma)
D90% < 44 Gy (Ependymoma)
Cord Max < 56 Gy
D90% < 3 Gy
(Ependymoma)
Chiasm Max 46.8–54 Gy (RMS)
Heart Max 30.6 Gy (RMS, Wilms)
Lungs (<1/2 of 15 Gy/1.5 Gy max (RMS)
combined lung V15 < 33% (NB)
volume in PTV)
Kidney V14.4 Gy < 100% (NB/Wilms)
100% kidney < 14.4 Gy (NB/Wilms)
Ipsi V19.8 Gy < 50% (NB/Wilms)
Contra kidney V12 < 20% (NB/Wilms)
Max 19.8Gy (RMS)
Liver V9 < 50% (NB/Wilms)
V18 < 25% (NB/Wilms)
V30 < 15% (NB/Wilms)
Max 23.4 Gy (RMS, Wilms)
Bladder Max 45 Gy (Wilms)
Vertebral body If in close proximity, treat whole VB to 18 Gy.
Small bowel V45 < 50% (RMS)
Rectum Max 45 Gy (Wilms)
References 15. Mukesh M, Harris E, Jena R, et al. Relationship

between irradiated breast volume and late normal
tissue complications: a systematic review. Radiother
1. Kirkpatrick JP, van der Kogel AJ, Schultheiss
Oncol. 2012;104:1–10.
TE. Radiation dose-volume effects in the spinal cord.
16. Lee TF, Fang FM. Quantitative analysis of normal tis-
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:S42–9.
sue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC) guideline vali-
2. Bhandare N, Jackson A, Eisbruch A, et al. Radiation
dation using quality of life questionnaire datasets for
therapy and hearing loss. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
parotid gland constraints to avoid causing xerostomia
2010;76:S50–7.
during head-and-neck radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol.
3. Marks LB, Yorke ED, Jackson A, et al. Use of normal
2013;106:352–8.
tissue complication probability models in the clinic.
17.
Wedenberg M. Assessing the uncertainty in
QUANTEC's dose-response relation of lung and spi-
4. Murphy JD, Christman-Skieller C, Kim J, et al. A
nal cord with a bootstrap analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol
dosimetric model of duodenal toxicity after stereo-
Biol Phys. 2013;87:795–801.
tactic body radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Int J
18. Appelt AL, Vogelius IR, Farr KP, et al. Towards indi-
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78:1420–6.
vidualized dose constraints: adjusting the QUANTEC
5. Chun SG, Hu C, Choy H, et al. Impact of intensity-
radiation pneumonitis model for clinical risk factors.
modulated radiation therapy technique for locally
Acta Oncol. 2014;53:605–12.
advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a secondary
19. Moiseenko V, Einck J, Murphy J, et al. Clinical evalu-
analysis of the NRG oncology RTOG 0617 random-
ation of QUANTEC guidelines to predict the risk
ized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:56–62.
of cardiac mortality in breast cancer patients. Acta
6. Rice DC, Smythe WR, Liao Z, et al. Dose-dependent
Oncol. 2016;55:1506–10.
pulmonary toxicity after postoperative intensity-
20. Gabrys HS, Buettner F, Sterzing F, et al. Parotid gland
modulated radiotherapy for malignant pleural
mean dose as a xerostomia predictor in low-dose
mesothelioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
domains. Acta Oncol. 2017;56:1197–203.
2007;69:350–7.
21. Krishnan MS, Epstein-Peterson Z, Chen YH, et al.
7. Kim DW, Cho LC, Straka C, et al. Predictors of rectal
Predicting life expectancy in patients with meta-
tolerance observed in a dose-escalated phase 1-2 trial
static cancer receiving palliative radiotherapy: the
of stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate can-
TEACHH model. Cancer. 2014;120:134–41.
cer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89:509–17.
22. Kumar P, Wright AA, Hatfield LA, et al. Family per-
8. Verma J, Sulman EP, Jhingran A, et al. Dosimetric
spectives on hospice care experiences of patients with
predictors of duodenal toxicity after intensity modu-
cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:432–9.
lated radiation therapy for treatment of the para-aortic
23. Dean M, Jimenez R, Mellon E, Fields E, Yechieli
nodes in gynecologic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
R, Mak R. CB-CHOP: a simple acronym for evalu-
Phys. 2014;88:357–62.
ating a radiation treatment plan. Appl Rad Oncol.
9. Bakitas M, Lyons KD, Hegel MT, et al. Effects of a
2017;6(4):28–30.
palliative care intervention on clinical outcomes in
24.
Barnes JB, Johnson SB, Dahiya RS, et al.
patients with advanced cancer: the Project ENABLE II
Concomitant weekly cisplatin and thoracic radiother-
randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302:741–9.
apy for Pancoast tumors of the lung: pilot experience
1 0. Bakitas MA, Tosteson TD, Li Z, et al. Early versus
of the San Antonio Cancer Institute. Am J Clin Oncol.
delayed initiation of concurrent palliative oncology
2002;25:90–2.
care: patient outcomes in the ENABLE III random-
25. Stahel RA, Riesterer O, Xyrafas A, et al. Neoadjuvant
ized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1438–45.
chemotherapy and extrapleural pneumonectomy of
11. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, et al. Early pal-
malignant pleural mesothelioma with or without
liative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell
hemithoracic radiotherapy (SAKK 17/04): a ran-
lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:733–42.
domised, international, multicentre phase 2 trial.
12. Bentzen SM, Constine LS, Deasy JO, et al.

Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1651–8.
Quantitative Analyses of Normal Tissue Effects in the
26. Stahl M, Walz MK, Riera-Knorrenschild J, et al.

Clinic (QUANTEC): an introduction to the scientific
Preoperative chemotherapy versus chemoradio-
issues. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:S3–9.
therapy in locally advanced adenocarcinomas of
13. Jackson A, Marks LB, Bentzen SM, et al. The les-
the oesophagogastric junction (POET): long-term
sons of QUANTEC: recommendations for reporting
results of a controlled randomised trial. Eur J Cancer.
and gathering data on dose-volume dependencies of
2017;81:183–90.
treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
27. van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al.
2010;76:S155–60.
Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or
14. Liu M, Moiseenko V, Agranovich A, et al. Normal Tissue
junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2074–84.
Complication Probability (NTCP) modeling of late
28. Ajani JA, Winter K, Okawara GS, et al. Phase II trial
rectal bleeding following external beam radiotherapy for
of preoperative chemoradiation in patients with local-
prostate cancer: a test of the QUANTEC-recommended
ized gastric adenocarcinoma (RTOG 9904): quality of
NTCP model. Acta Oncol. 2010;49:1040–4.
combined modality therapy and pathologic response. Radiation Oncology Group Trial (TROG 01.04). Ann
J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3953–8. Surg. 2017;265:882–8.
29. Gerard JP, Azria D, Gourgou-Bourgade S, et al.
33. Mak RH, Hunt D, Shipley WU, et al. Long-term out-
Clinical outcome of the ACCORD 12/0405 PRODIGE comes in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer
2 randomized trial in rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. after selective bladder-preserving combined-modality
2012;30:4558–65. therapy: a pooled analysis of Radiation Therapy
30. Rodel C, Graeven U, Fietkau R, et al. Oxaliplatin Oncology Group protocols 8802, 8903, 9506, 9706,
added to fluorouracil-based preoperative chemo- 9906, and 0233. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3801–9.
radiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy of 34. Moore DH, Ali S, Koh WJ, et al. A phase II trial of
locally advanced rectal cancer (the German CAO/ radiation therapy and weekly cisplatin chemotherapy
ARO/AIO-04 study): final results of the multicentre, for the treatment of locally-advanced squamous cell
open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. carcinoma of the vulva: a gynecologic oncology
2015;16:979–89. group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124:529–33.
31. Bujko K, Wyrwicz L, Rutkowski A, et al. Long-course 35. Moore DH, Thomas GM, Montana GS, et al.

oxaliplatin-based preoperative chemoradiation versus Preoperative chemoradiation for advanced vul-
5 x 5 Gy and consolidation chemotherapy for cT4 or var cancer: a phase II study of the Gynecologic
fixed cT3 rectal cancer: results of a randomized phase Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
III study. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:834–42. 1998;42:79–85.
32. Ansari N, Solomon MJ, Fisher RJ, et al. Acute
36. Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, et al. Cisplatin,
adverse events and postoperative complications in a radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared
randomized trial of preoperative short-course radio- with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for
therapy versus long-course chemoradiotherapy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med.
T3 adenocarcinoma of the rectum: Trans-Tasman 1999;340:1154–61.
Pediatrics Cancers
2
and Christine E. Hill-Kayser
Abstract • ATRT
This chapter discusses the general manage- • Mets
ment of patients with various pediatric solid
tumors, with special focus on principles that
Posterior Fossa Syndrome
guide radiotherapy management. Several key
• Mnemonic: SAME
components of pediatric cancer care are
• Swallowing dysfunction
discussed.
• Ataxia
• Mutism
• Emotional lability
• Occurs postop after resection
Pediatrics Pearls [1]
DDx Posterior Fossa Tumor DDx Suprasellar Mass
• Mnemonic: MADE JAM • Mnemonic: COP GEMM

• Medulloblastoma • Craniopharyngioma
• Astrocytoma • Optic glioma
• DIPG (pontine expansion) • Pituitary adenoma
• Ependymoma (solid + calcs may track into • GCT
foramina of Luschka-Magendie) • Ependymoma
• JPA (cystic/solid w/ enhancing mural nodule) • Meningioma
• Mets
N. G. Zaorsky (*)
D. M. Trifiletti
C. E. Hill-Kayser
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4_2
DDx Pineal Tumor BM Biopsy for
• GCT • Basically everything except medullo, non-

• Pineoblastoma clear cell Wilms, most brain tumors
• Pineocytoma • ATRT
• Glioma • Rhabdoid/clear cell Wilms, Ewing, RMS, NMS
• Meningioma • HL III/IV or B
• Lymphoma
• Benign cyst LP for
• Mnemonic: (PAGE Neurosurgery)

Small-Round-Blue-Cell Tumors • Parameningeal RMS
(SRBCTs) • ATRT
• Germ cell tumors
• Mnemonic: LEARN NMR • Ependymoma
• Lymphoma • Medullo/Medullo-like (SPNET)
• Ewing family: Ewing sarcoma, extraskeletal (neuroendocrine)
Ewing, Askin (small cell of thoracopulmonary
region), PNET Molecular Markers
• ALL
• Rhabdomyosarcoma NSE Desmin Actin Vimentin LCA
• Neuroepithelioma PNET + −/+ +/− +/− −/+
• All blastomas Neuroblastoma + + − − −
–– Neuroblastoma RMS +/− + + + −
–– Nephroblastoma (Wilms) Ewing − − − + −
sarcoma
–– Medulloblastoma
Lymphoma − − − + +
–– Retinoblastoma
Pediatrics Cancersr 31
CSI and 13th fraction or every 9 Gy. Cold

spine match is preferred over hot. In
Sim: doing so, WBRT collimator angle will
• Consent patient and family. stay the same, but the couch kick would
• Discuss need for anesthesia. need to be recalculated (below).
• Protons are preferred. • Therapist will put marker on patients’ back
• Supine in five-point face mask with head each day to label field edges.
extended and shoulders pulled down. Supine • Prescribe to post aspect of VB at central
has easier access to airway, more reproducible axis. If too much variation, use
head tilt, and it is more comfortable. compensators
• Make sure spine is straight. 2 . WBRT should be planned second.
• Scan top of skull to coccyx. • Iso behind lenses.
• Contour the CSF. In spine include the FULL • Two angles.
roots. In the brain, include all of CN II to the • Rotate collimator to match divergence of
back of globe and the cribriform. spine field.
–– θ = arctan (½ length of thorax field/
1. Upper spine should be planned first. SSD)
• Each half must be <18 cm to allow –– ~10.5 degrees
feathering. • Kick couch, feet toward gantry, to avoid
• If the spine is too long, do extended SSD or divergence of WBRT field into spine field
split field into two, but leave gap at cord –– θ = arctan (½ length of cranial field/
and feather jxn weekly (every 9 Gy). SAD)
–– Extended SSD causes more divergence, –– ~7.5 degrees
scatter, and MUs. • Also, angle WB gantry to avoid contralat-
–– Two PA beams: preferred, match beams eral retina/lens.
ant to cord at posterior VB (avoid over- –– Photons: RAO and LAO
lap in cord). –– Protons: RPO and LPO
• inf: bottom of thecal sac + margin (deter- • Be sure to contour and cover the cribriform
mined from MRI, ~S2-3). plate (1 cm to block edge), prost 1/3 orbits,
• sup: C5–6 or as low as possible while still and temporal lobes.
clearing shoulders on WB. • Block anterior to VB.
–– This low border makes sure you won’t • Inf border as low as possible, just sup to
go through the brain or mouth when you shoulders.
feather up.
• Lateral: ~1 cm lateral to pedicles of VB
and catch sacral nerve roots inferiorly; Protons
field widens within the pelvis. Typical field
width is 4–6 cm. • Always consider protons, unless covering
• Gap calculation usually around 3 mm large volume (e.g., WART in Wilms)
• If you have to use two fields: • For CSI, protons decrease dose anterior to
–– Skin gap = ([0.5 × Length1 × d]/ VBs
SSD1) + ([0.5 × Length2 × d]/SSD2): • If child is growing, the entire VB should be
where d is the distance from the skin to covered, or there will be growth asymmetry
were fields match. with aging. Proton planning differs signifi-
–– Feather: avoids hotspots on cord. Move cantly and should be done at a specialized
the junction superiorly 0.5 cm on 7th center.
Pain Management in Peds Second Neoplasm

• Opioids often used as early intervention.
• NSAIDs and acetaminophen are avoided • Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, Friedman,
because NSAIDs have antiplatelet activity, the 2010: Overall, peds cancer survivors have six-
antipyretic effects may mask neutropenic fold increase in malignancy after treatment vs
fever, RCTs have shown inefficacy of NSAIDs general population. At 30y, for 5-year-old
for pain management, and there are renal/GI peds patients, there is a 21% risk of subse-
toxicities with combination chemos. quent neoplasms (0.7%/year) and 8% risk of
secondary malignant neoplasms (0.4%/year)
survivors. HL has the greatest incidence, with
SIR of 8.7 at 30 y. Sarcoma has RR of 3.1.
Treatment Comparison for Pediatric Tumors
Location and
classic Bad
Tumor presentation Med age Buzzwords prognostics Bx tumor? BM bx? Tx paradigm Start RT by CSI Dose Volumes
RMS Mass. Fav or 2–6 FOXO1, FOXO1, Yes, can Y Surg, then risk LR: 13w N Group I: UH gets 36 Gy CTV = preop,
Pediatrics Cancersr
unfav subsites emb15– FKR FKR (bad) plan w adapted IR: 4w Group II: pre-chemo GTV + 1 cm
19 alv t(2:13) surgery Group I tage 1–3: HR: 20w R1: 36 Gy; 41.4 Gy PTV = CTV + 0.5; or
t(1:13) VAC, no RT CNS: 0w pLN+ to entire LN PTV = preop,
NF1, Everyone else: chain pre-chemo GTV +
Li-Fraumeni, VAC and RT Group III: 1.8–2 cm
Beckwith- 45 Gy orbit; 50.4 Gy
Wiedemann others
SRBCT
NRSTS Bone pain Synovial Yes Y Surg, then PORT N All LG → observe GTV = tumor on MRI
sarcoma, for R1 HG, ≤ 5 cm R0 → post contrast
t(X;18) HGs + chemo if observe CTV = 1.5 cm radially
MPNST >5 cm HGs HG, ≤ 5 cm R1 → and longitudinally
55.8 Gy PTV = CTV + 0.5 cm
HG, > 5 cm → w/ daily KV imaging
55.8 Gy + Ifos/Doxo x 5
Unresected → NA CRT
(45 Gy)
Langer- HSC: skull 2 Birbeck LSD, Yes Y/N If multiorgan 14d for DI N DI: 15 Gy to pituitary/
hans cell lesions, DI, granules multisys- involvement: HD hypothalamus
histiocy- exophthalmos Hand- tem pred + vinblastine Bone: 5–10 Gy (e.g.,
tosis LSD: hepato- Schuller- involve- If single bone, 3 Gy x 3 fractions with
(LCH) splenomegaly, Christian dz ment then RT small margin)
LAD, lung Letterer-Siwe Adult: 15–24 Gy/2 Gy
lesions, bone disease fraction
lesions
33
34
Location and
classic Bad
Tumor presentation Med age Buzzwords prognostics Bx tumor? BM bx?
Tx paradigm Start RT by CSI Dose Volumes
Ewing Soft tissue (e.g., 14, t(11:22), Yes Y
Neoadj chemo w chemo, N R1/pN+/definitive VB: GTV1 = pre-chemo dz
sarcoma femur), “awakens skewed t(21:22), VDC-IE x 12w. restage, then 50.4 Gy/25 fxs in tissue + bone
from sleep,” right EWS Restage at week week 13 R2/definitive elsewhere: CTV1 = GTV1 +
“growing pains” SRBCT 12 45 Gy to pre-chemo 1–1.5 cm
“moth eaten,” MRI + PET. Then preop +1.5 cm, boost GTV2 = pre-chemo dz
“sunburst,” surg or RT. PORT GTV + 1 cm to in the bone and
“onion skin,” if indicated. Hold 55.8 Gy/31 fxs post-chemo dz in tissue
“laminated,” adria and All w concurrent chemo CTV2 = GTV2 + 1 cm
Codman’s actinomycin (VC/IE), but hold adria
triangle, during RT. Adj M+: after all chemo,
sclerosis chemo for all 48 WLI to 15 Gy. Boost
w. residual to 43 Gy
PORT if R+
(<5 mm), spill,
>10% viable
Nephro- Intrarenal, 4y WT1: WAGR Del ch22q, No Y, for Surg for all. Then POD 8 N Stages I–II, FH: no RT usually AP/PA,
blastoma/ circumscribed unilat2.5y (del 11p13, LOH 1p, (becomes rhab- risk adapted (UH), max Stage III or UH: Preop GTV + 1–2 cm
Wilms Can spill bilat WT1) LOH 16q, Stage III), doid Chemo for low 14 for FH 10.8 Gy to flank based on CT, US, MRI,
(WT) Abdominal mass 90% are Denys-Drash gain 1q, unless and CC risk Diffuse anaplasia or IVP
Wilms = well. <5yo (WT1 mut) blastemal Stage V Chemo, then RT rhabdoid: 19.8 Gy to
Rarely crosses WT2: histo, suspected for std risk flank
midline. Won’t Beckwith- anaplasia, Avoid R2: boost another
move w Wiedemann CCSK, vigorous 10.8 Gy (21.6 Gy total)
inspiration. (11p) Rhabdoid exam Spill or rupture:
Macroglossia, No calcs 10.5 Gy WART + boost
aniridia, GU Stage residual by 10.5 Gy/7
hypospadias or III = BSS- (21 Gy total)
cryptorchidism. LURPP All w concurrent vinc
CCSK: the bone, SRBCT Liver or unresected LN:
brain mets; 19.8 Gy
Rhaboid: brain Whole lung
mets. Lung mets 12/8 + boost residual to
> bone (vs NB). 19.5 or resect
WBRT: 21.6 Gy/12
Focal liver: 19.8 Gy/11
fxs
Neuro- Extrarenal, 1.5y #1 extracra- SANDS: Yes, after Y Surg for all. 4–6 weeks N No RT for low or int preop, post-chemo
blastoma ill-defined nial solid ↑stage, ruling out Chemo for low after ASCT risk; 24 Gy if cord tumor vol + 1.5 cm
(NB) margins. 65% tumor in peds ↑age, Wilms risk+. RT rarely with CAPE compression, residual Boost postop
have abd mass Homer- n-myc, +BM bx needed for low or High risk: M2: CTV = 1 cm to
(adrenal or Wright diploid +MIBG std risk. For high PTV = GTV + 1.5 cm. 55.8 Gy
paraspinal). “Not rosette (hypodip- risk (Stage 21.6/1.8 Gy +/− M3
Pediatrics Cancersr
well.” Cross Calcified loid good), 2–4 N-myc+; 14.4 Gy for residual dz Diffuse: CSI 39.6
midline. HTN, Blueberry Shimada Stage 4 N-myc+), (> 1 cc or MIBG-avid) GTV above vs below
renal art muffin. 1p/11q loss induct chemo, Met site: 21.6 Gy, no conus: 45 vs 50.4 Gy
compression. Raccoon eyes surg resection, boost
Opsoclonus. SRBCT myeloblat chemo, If cord compression:
Calcified. HMA/ SCT, EBRT, surg, then chemo
VMA+. Bone immunotherapy Cord compression: 9 Gy
mets > lung (vs if <3. 21.6 if >3yo
WT) After RT, cis-retinoic
acid
Massive HSM:
4.5 Gy/1.5 Gy
Retino- Retina. Opthalm infant RB1 on ON No bx will N Chemo w vinc/ N EBRT to 40 Gy Pre-chemo and
blastoma sx: leukocoria, ch13, G1/S involve- seed. EUA carbo.etop x 6c. I125 plaque BT 40 Gy presurgical disease
strabismus checkpoint ment, by Then local to apex +5 mm = CTV
Flexner- extraocular opthal- therapy (cryo, ARET0321: Induction PTV = CTV + 5 mm
Wintersteiner m mologist surgery, or RT) chemo, consolidation w
rosette involve- w retinal Bilat are txd as SCT (stage IVA/IVB
“trilateral” ment. Thus, mapping separate only), and response-
SRBCT need bone primaries. adapted EBRT:
scan, BM II–III: if residual, dose
bx, CSF. is 45 Gy
IVA: <5 mm residual or
CR: no RT
IVA: > 5 mm residual,
36 Gy
IVB: 36 Gy CSI, 45 Gy
to cranium, 50.4 Gy to
pineal gland
(continued)
35
36
Location and
classic Bad
Medul- CNS. 4th vent. 7-9yo + Chang Myc No bx. N Resection. If MRI brain Y <3yo: Resect, chemo, CTV = preop tumor +
loblas- Neuro sx 25yo staging Group 3 Surg for <3yo, chemo. If 24–48 h some centers radiate postop cavity +1.5 cm
toma Child = mid COG: avg or all. No LP >3yo, Then RT w postop.MRI tumor bed only PTV = CTV + 5 mm
(and Adult = lat High risk if hi ICP vincristine.RT spine Consider CSI at 3yo.
supratent Blocks Aqueduct WNT (good) dose depends on 10–14d Std risk: CSI 23.4.
PNET) of Sylvius Group 4 risk group. Avg postop Cavity boost to 54 Gy.
(intermed) risk is >3 yo, < Then CSI by High risk: CSI to
MYC (bad) 1.5 cm2, M0, not POD31 36 Gy. Cavity boost to
Group 3 (v PNET. 54–55.8 Gy
bad) Brain mets: 55.8 Gy
Post-fossa Spine mets: 45 Gy
syndrome
Homer-
Wright
rosette
Perivascular
pseudorosette
SRBCT
ATRT CNS. 4th vent. <3 INI-1/ No bx. Y Like high risk MRI brain Y >3yo: 36 Gy CSI; boost CTV = preop tumor +
Neuro sx SMARCB1 Surg for medullo 24–48 h to 54–55.8 Gy. If M+, postop cavity +1 cm
loss all. No LP Surg for all. postop, MRI boost spine dz to 45 Gy PTV = CTV + 5 mm
Vimentin, if hi ICP Chemo investiga- spine < 3yo: 50.4–54 Gy to
EPA, SMA tional. PORT 10–14d primary alone
postop
Then CSI by
POD31
Pineo- CNS Homer- Surg for Like high risk Y If >3yo, CSI to 36,
blastoma Wright all. No LP medullo, but boost to 54 Gy. If <3yo,
rosette if hi ICP lower boost. Surg 50.4–54 Gy to primary
Flexner- for all. Adj RT site
Wintersteiner
rosette
Pineocy- Surg for N Like LGG N If R0, obs. If R+, 54 Gy
toma all
Ependy- CNS. 4th vent. 5yo + WHO G1–4 Surg for N Surg for all. MRI MRI spine N, Resid tumor + bed to Pre- and postop
moma 70% infratent, 35yo Ependymal all. No LP brain >10d postop and CSF usly 54, G3 or R1, boost to CTV = GTV + 1 cm
30% supratent. rosettes if hi ICP if wasn’t done cytology 59.4 respecting
Neuro sx, Perivasc preop 10–14d brainstem
Calcified pseudoro- RT if R+ or G2+. postop CSI only if M+ in CSF,
settes Role of chemo to 36 Gy, boost to 45 Gy
Pediatrics Cancersr
NF2 unknown or 50–54 if no cord in

Calcs usually field
PNET is G4
Optic Vis sx NF-1, café au No bx, N <10yo: surveil- N/A N 50–54 Gy
pathway lait esp. if lance, Never SRS
glioma NF1 carbo+vinc.
>10yo: RT+
carbo+vinc
LGG CNS. Neuro sx Rosenthal Surg N Can observe JPA N <5 yo: vinc+carbo to GTV = visible tumor
(JPA, fibers (JPA) in very young. delay RT on MRI (T1 post and
DFA) Loss of 1p or Surg w GTR 10 + yo: 50.4–54 Gy in T2/FLAIR)
19q sufficient. 1.8 Gy CTV = GTV + 0.5 cm
(oligode- Consider chemo PTV = + 3 mm
nodglioma) and/or RT if
unresectable or
recurrent. NF-1
kids can regress
HGG CNS. Neuro sx Surg N Adjuvant ~1–2 m N MSR, then RT + TMZ CTV1 = T2 FLAIR
RT + temodar FLAIR to 45 Gy, then +2 cm
CD to enhancement CTV2 = T1 post con +
59.4 Gy GTV + 1.5PTV = +
0.5 mm
DIPG/ Brainstem. Neuro Palsy of VI, No bx N Steroids for N/A N 54–55.8 Gy. CTV = GTV + 1 cm
midline sx for 6+ months VII; then IX, upfront sx Re-RT 2 Gy dx 12 including entire BS.
glioma X, XI, XII; management. fractions to limited by bone, falx,
then III, IV, Definitive RT for GTV + 0.5 cm tent
V all. Chemo only
on study
(continued)
37
38
Location and
classic Bad
Cranio- Rathke’s pouch. BRAF Surg N Limited surgery N/A N RT to 54 Gy GTV = residual dz, inc
pharyn- Neuro sx. mutated with RT at time SRS 12 Gy if <2 cm cysts
gioma Pituitary Bimodal (10 of recurrence or and > 5 mm from optics CTV = GTV +
abnormalities or 50yo) after STR. Bleo, 0.5–1 cm
β-emitters. No PTV = + 3 mm
chemo
GCT/ Pineal or Chang NGGCT do Shunt for N GCT: CSF-, then N/A If + Control: CTV1 = pre-chemo
NGGCT suprasellar. Staging worse hydro, vis WVRT only CSF If CSF-, WVRT is GTV + 1 cm
Parinaud’s. isochromo 12 sx If CSF+, treat like 21–24 Gy CTV2 = WVW + 1 cm
DI. Bi temp Poly-X Bx if low-risk medullo: If CSF+, CSI is 24 Gy, PTV = CTV + 5 mm
hemianopsia. Loss 1p and normal CSI to 24, WVRT plus WVRT. Boost
GCT and 6q HCG, 21 Gy. If PR or gross dz to 45 Gy
NGGCT look Germinoma AFP PD, consider Experimental: 2-4c
similar on MRI C-Kit+, No surg different dx. No carbo/etop. If CR:
HCG+/−, for chemo 21 Gy WVRT; 30 Gy
AFP- germi- IFRT
Endodermal noma
sinus: AFP+, Possible NGGCT: all get N/A Y All get chemo. Assess
HCG-, c-Kit- chemo (carbo, response. If RT, then
Choriocarci- ifos, etop) and 36 Gy CSI, then 54 Gy
noma: CSI. May need PF boost. If PR/SD,
HCG+, surgery and then surg, if R+, HDSCT,
c-Kit- adj chemo, CSI, then RT
Teratoma: all and IFRT
neg
Pediatric Leukemia (T-ALL, B-ALL) [2, 3]
Pediatric leukemia (T-ALL, B-ALL)2,3
CNS stage Definition Notes Incidence, %

1 neg cytology (no blasts) 27
2 < 5 WBCs/uL, age 1–20 32
3 ≥5 WBCs/uL (or > 50/103 uL), CN CNS involvement found in 3% children at 37
deficit, or CNS lesion on imaging diagnosis w ALL.
More common in AMML (20%) > ALL > AML,
CML, CLL
“very high t(9:22): (Ph+ ALL) Any of these criteria! 4
risk” BCR-ABL fusion +/– t(9:22)
hypodiploid (<44 chromosomes)
DNA index < 0.98
B-cell risk Definition

group
Low Favorable response to treatment
Favorable age (<10 yo)
Low WBC count
Hyperploidy, ETV6-RUNX1 positive(t[12;21] translocation
associated w fusion protein formerly known at TEL-AML1),
trisomies of Ch 17,10,4
Neg cytology (no blasts)
Standard Favorable response to treatment

Favorable age (<10 yo)
< 5 WBCs/uL (aka < 50,000)
No cytogenetic changes as seen in low risk group
High Residual dz in bone marrow after induction chemo (>0.01% at
d28–36)
Age > 10 yo
Unfavorable cytogenetic findings (e.g. ,9:22)
(note, <1 yo not included in risk groups, but considered high risk)
Very high No remission after induction (>5% blasts d28)

risk Hypodiploid (<44 chromosomes), DNA index < 0.98
t(9:22): (Ph+)
BCR-ABL fusion +/– t(9:22)
T(4;11) MLL rearrangement
iAMP21 amplification
Treatment
Risk group Treatment

Low risk CNS 1–2 No cranial RT
T-ALL, no CNS disease, intermediate or high risk, CNS 1-2 No cranial RT (COG 1231)
Lymphoblastic leukemia CNS 1–2
High risk because age > 10 or < 1, >50K WBC, 9:22, T-cell PCI 12 Gy at 1.5 Gy / fx
Any CNS3 Therapeutic WBRT 18 Gy / 1.8 Gy fx
Relapsed < 18 mo CSI 24 Gy
General T-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

–– Leukemia is the most common pediatric (T-ALL) Literature
malignancy (30%), followed by CNS malig- –– AALL0434: T-ALL w testicular involvement.
nancies (20–25%). Get four drug inductions. Response adapted.
–– Risk factors: Down syndrome, Bloom syn- CNS 3 gets 18 Gy. CNS 1–2 intermediate- or
drome, Fanconi anemia, ATM, radiation expo- high-risk get 12 Gy. Testic RT only if testicle
sure, and chemicals. remains positive (often by bx) at the end of
induction for both newly dxd and relapse.
Presentation Dose to testicle is 24 Gy/12 fx.
–– Fever, bleeding, bone pain, and
lymphadenopathy
–– Testicular enlargement Target
–– Mediastinal mass (more common in boys w/ –– Posterior ½ of globes and optic nerves
T-cell ALL) –– Inf border is C2/C3. Rationale for this is that
dura is thicker above this level and high-dose
Workup chemo is less likely to penetrate (as opposed
–– HP, labs, peripheral blood smear, LP, MRI to spinal cord)
brain, BM biopsy, US, or MRI testes
Testicular Leukemia
Histology –– If ever involvement of one testicle must bx
–– 80% are B-cell origin. other side.
–– 20% are T-cell origin. –– Standard tx is chemo, response eval, and SCT
+/− maintenance chemo.
Genetics –– If bulky dz, orchiectomy or 24 Gy.
–– t(12:21): TEL/AML1. Good prognosis –– Can also treat per AALL0434, where pts
–– t(9:22): (Ph+ ALL) undergo four drug inductiona, and then
–– BCR-ABL fusion +/– t(9:22): poor prognosis according to response, they get different dose
–– hypodiploid (<44 chromosomes): poor levels of MTX. If CNS 1 or 2 and intermediate
prognosis or high-risk, then 12 Gy. If CNS 3, then 18 Gy.
–– DNA index < 0.98 Patients only receive testicular RT if testicle
remains positive, by bx, at end of induction for
Treatment both nely dxd and testicular relapse patients.
–– Induction chemo→ intensification/consolida- Dose is 24/2.
tion → CNS-directed tx as indicated → main-
tenance chemo
–– *Multi-agent chemo (i.e., hyper-CVAD
[cyclophosphamide, vincristine, adria,
dexamethasone])
ALL Chemo
–– Very commonly used. Causes neuropathic
pain in 35%.
–– For CNS-directed therapy, IC MTX is usually
used.
Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) [4–15]

Histology (Green = Freq Genetics Locations Age OS
fav; red = unfav)
Fusion-negative 65% LOH 11p15 orbit, H&N or GU 2–6 yo 66%
(formerly (IGF2
embryonal) deletion)
poly Ch8
Botryoid 10% GU (vag, bladder), Infant 95%
NPX, biliary
Spindle cell <5% paratesticular 88%
Alveolar FOX01- FOXO1- >90%
Undiff 5% 40%
Fusion-positive 25% FOXO1+; Trunk or abd 15–19 54%
(formerly t(2;13):
Alveolar) PAX3/FKHR
t(1;13):
PAX7/FKHR
• T1 – confined to site of origin

• T1a – ≤5 cm
• T1b – >5 cm
• T2 – extension beyond site of origin
• T2a – ≤5 cm
• T2b – >5 cm
• N1 – nodes
Risk group (in Stage Group When to start

color) RT
Low risk EMB 1 (fav site) I–III, fav sites; 13w post-op
EMB 2–3 (unfav site) I–II (R1, LN)
Intermediate EMB 2–3 III 4w post-op

risk ALV any
High risk 4 IV 20w post-op
Risk group [in color] as a function of stage, group, and histology

Group (post-op; not after induction chemo)
Description Sites TNM 5 yr III:
II:
OS I: (R0, localized) (GTV: unresectable/ R2/ IV: (M+)
(IIA: R1/IIB: pLN+/IIC: A+B)
excis bx)
Fav site, Fav site: Orbit, Any T, 90%
M0 non-PM H&N, Any N
non- Low Intermed Low Intermed Low Intermed
1 High
Bladder/Prostate (embryonal) (alveolar) (embryonal) (alveolar) (embryonal) (alveolar)
GU, Biliary
Stage (pre-op)
Unfav site, Unfav site: ≤5cm 85%

small Parameningeal, and
Bladder/Prostate, N0
Extremity, Low Intermed Low Intermed
2 Intermed (alveolar) High
Trunk, (embryonal) (alveolar) (embryonal) (alveolar)
retroperitoneal,
Other
>5 cm or Unfav site >5cm 70% Low Intermed Low Intermed

3 Intermed (alveolar) High
N1 or N1 (embryonal) (alveolar) (embryonal) (alveolar)
4 M+ – M1 30% High High High High
Overview IHC: Myogenin and MyoD1+ 97% sensitiv-

–– ~3% of childhood cancers ity. In alveolar RMS, most cells stain +for MyoD;
–– 50% of child soft tissue malignancy in embryonal RMS, only select cells stain.
–– Arises from mesenchymal stem cells
–– SRBCT Genetics
–– VAC: vincristine/actinomycin-D/ –– Alveolar associated with:
cyclophosphamide • t(2;13): PAX3 + FKHD
• t(1;13): PAX7 + FOXO1. Not all alveolar
Genetics: NF1, Li-Fraumeni, Beckwith- are FOXO1. PAX/FOXO1 is more impor-
Wiedemann, Costello, and Noonan tant than histology.
–– Embryonal associated with LOH 11p15.5.
Parameningeal Sites LOH 11p15; Ch8 gains are good; hyperdip-
–– (IMMNNOPPP – “I Make Money Nuking loid is good.
Numerous Petite Pediatric Patients”) [not
orbital] Chemo
–– Infratemporal fossa –– VAC: vincristine, actinomycin-D, and cyclo-
–– Middle ear phosphamide. SOC for M0 RMS.
–– Mastoid region –– Vincristine causes neurotoxicity, CNS depres-
–– Nasal cavity sion, palsies, bowel atonis, cramping, diar-
–– Nasopharynx rhea, bladder atonia, leukopenia, and
–– Pterygopalatine fossa thrombocytopenia.
–– Paranasal sinus –– Cyclophosphamide causes alopecia, infertil-
–– Parapharyngeal region ity, second malignancy, gonadal suppression,
–– Non-PM HN sites: scalp, cheek, parotid, OC, hemorrhagic cystitis, leukopenia, SIADH,
OPX, LX vasogenic sx, and renal failure.
–– Favorable sites: biliary, orbit, non-–– Actinomycin D causes sloughing, erythema,
parameningeal HN, and non-bladder/prostate stomatitis, mucositis, myalgias, hepatotoxic-
GU (vaginal or paratesticular) (“BONG”) ity, ascites, abdominal pain, and
myelosuppression.
Workup –– VAC/VI may have improved efficacy in
–– H&P and labs. intermediate-risk patients.
–– CT/MRI.
–– PET. Trials
–– BM bx. –– Heyn 1974: VA after surgery improved OS.
–– If parameningeal: LP with cytology +/− neur- –– IRS I: group I patients didn’t benefit from RT
axis MRI. unless alveolar/undiff. Huge RT fields don’t
–– If bladder: EUA and cystoscopy. help. No dose response. 5-yr OS 55%.
–– If T1 N0 then no metastatic workup –– IRS II: LC improved for >40Gy (93% LC).
necessary. RT was tumor +5cm. 5 yr. OS 63%.
–– If T2 N0 FH, then CT chest +/− bone scan. If –– IRS I-II: prostate had 40% LN+ dz.
N+ or UH, then full metastatic workup. –– IRS III: RT was tumor+2 cm, and bladder/
vagina/uterus doesn’t need RT after CR to
Natural history: LN involvement varies chemo. 5-yrOS 73%.
widely by primary site. Orbit <1%. Extremity –– IRS IV: VIE, VAC, and VAI have the same
15%. Paratesticular 30%. DMs in <25%, most PFS. QD or BID RT has the same PFS. oc
common: the lung and bone. cN0, 17% were pN+; thus, LND became
–– Most are v radiosensitive and chemosensitive routine. 3-y FFS for pts w 1–2 mets were
–– 65% embryonal, 25% alveolar, and 10% other 40%.
–– IRS V: EFS for low risk ~87%, intermed risk • Stage 1, Group II: surgery→chemo(VA) +
73%, high risk 32%. Intermed pts rando to RT at week 13 (36Gy for N0, 41.4Gy for
VAC vs VTC + 2nd look surg. VAC alone N1)
won. High-risk pts VCR + I vs I alone. • Stage 1, Group III: surgery→chemo
VCR + I won. (VA) + RT (50.4Gy except orbit = 45Gy)
–– IRS-VI: • Stage 2 Group II: surgery→VAC → RT at
–– COG D9803: intermed risk→ VAC vs VAC alt wk 13 (36Gy)
with VTC. No difference in DFS or LF. • Stage 3, Group II: surgery→VAC → RT at
–– Mandell 1990: retrospective of group II pts. wk 13 (36Gy for N0, 41.4 for N1)
No LC difference between <40 and >40Gy. –– Intermed Risk
–– ARST0331: goal to decrease Cytoxan dose to • Surgery→chemo→(repeat surgery if
decrease sterility. RCT initially allowed omis- possible)→RT(50.4Gy).
sion of RT for group II/III females w vaginal –– High Risk
RMS w excellent response to chemo but • Chemo (VCPT→VAC). RT to primary and
amended to mandate RT for them. metastatic sites (45–50.4Gy). RT may be
initiated week 0 for symptomatic intracra-
nial extension or cord compression. Dose is
Management 50.4 for Group 3 tumors, unless orbital,
–– GTR. RPLND for paratesticular, axillary or where dose is 45 Gy.
inguinal LND for extremity, and if positive, • For M+ PAX/FOXO1 negative, usually no
then they are M+. RT to mets.
–– Bladder/prostate → pelvic LN sampling (if + • For M+ PAX/FOXO1 negative, RT to mets.
→ LND). NPX has high LN involvement, but • High-risk non-CR/R0 mets:
no LND unless cN+. • Try to tx at week 20 when tx primary, if
• →VAC not possible give at end
• →RT • R0 resection or CR after chemo = No RT
• →chemo • R1 resection = 36 Gy
–– Start RT based on risk classification. • R2 resection or no surgery = 50.4 Gy
–– Dose of RT based on grouping.
Lung Mets
No Surgery for • Always treat lung mets even if CR. Give WLI
–– Parameningeal at the end of all tx
–– Bladder/prostate (except if residual dz) • WLI 15 Gy/1.5 (12 Gy if <6yo),
–– Vagina/cervix/uterine • then boost limited gross lung disease to
–– Orbit 50.4 Gy if feasible
• boost limited lung disease to 54 Gy (give at
No RT Given Only if end of all chemo).
–– Vagina/cervix/uterus AND embryonal with
CR after induction chemo Technique
–– Bx→VAC –– Orbit: biopsy only→45 Gy to tumor+1 cm
–– Group I extremity s/p amputation (5 mm CTV and 5 mm PTV; per IRS-VI),
–– Group I paratesticular s/p orchiectomy crop anatomic boundaries (pre-chemo
–– Metastatic site R0 scans).
–– Otherwise CTV = GTV + 1–1.5 cm. Note
General Guidelines 1 cm used on IRS-VI. Definitive non-orbit
–– Low Risk dose is 50.4 Gy.
• Stage 1–3, Group I: surgery→chemo (VA –– Contours should be preop and pre-chemo
or VAC). No RT volume.
–– PTV = CTV + 0.5 cm, i.e., • Never deliver actinomycin or adria w RT.
PTV = GTV + 1.8–2 cm • Cytoxan + RT can cause mucositis and
–– Include the entire LN chain if N+ consider dose reduction.
–– Site-specific recs: • Lung metastases are not common, and
• Confine orbital CTV to orbit unless tumor management is not well studied, but whole-
extent beyond. lung RT (15 Gy in 10 fractions) may be
• Boys 10+ with paratesticular tumors need considered in setting of multiple lung
aggressive LN sampling. Boys <10yo metastases.
should have thin-cut CT (5 mm slices) or
retroperitoneum and pelvis, w further Timing
workup for suspicious LNs. Boys all ages • For FH: usually w 13 unless reason to delay
need LND if cLN+. (e.g., marrow preservation).
• Radiate only regionally involved LN • For UH: w4.
basins. • If symptomatic intracranial extent can con-
• Gen no ENI in orbit, HN, and female GU. sider RT at w0.
• Can move and replant gonads. • Timing (week 4 vs 13) probably is not impor-
• LND required for paratesticular, pelvic, tant (Spalding, IJROBP, 2013).
and extremities (>20% LN+ rate). • WLI, if indicated, may be deferred until com-
• CR after chemo in bladder/vagina/uterus pletion of planned chemotherapy.
doesn’t need RT.
Group Other RT timing Dose

(Risk in color)
I FH Embryonal N/A 0 (NONE)
I UH Alveolar w4 36 Gy
II R1 FH and UH get the FH: w13 UH: w4 36 Gy
II pN+ same dose 41.4 Gy
III R2/bx Orbit (w/ VAC) w13 45 Gy
III Non-orbit w4 <5 cm: 50.4 Gy
>5 cm: 59.4 Gy
IV M+ w20 to primary and R1: 36 Gy
mets; or finish all chemo R2+: 50.4 Gy
if too many mets;
w0 if CNS sx not
Lung mets 15/1.5
responding to chemo
or 12/1.5
Group (post-op)
Descripti I II III IV
Sites TNM
on (Ro) (IIA: R1 / IIB: pLN+) (R2 / GTV) (M+)
Fav site, Fav Any T,
M0 site Any N Orbit:
UH (w13): 45 Gy
1
36 Gy Low High
w13
Stage (pre-op)
Except FH (w13) or UH (w4)

Unfav Unfav ≤5cm and FH: usually extremity s/p FH *w13) or UH (w4): Non-orbit: 50.4 Gy
site, site N0 no RT amputation or R1: 36 Gy Exceptions:
small LN+:41.4 Gy vaginal/uterine, then VAC; if
2 paratesticular Low High
s/p CR, then no RT
orchiectomy
ro
All else Same >5cm or
3
as II N1
Low High
embryonal alveolar
4 M+ - M1 High High High High
High-Yield Cases Vaginal/uterine: stage I, group III
Orbit: stage I, group III –– Bx → VAC. If CR, no RT

–– GTV = pre-chemo volume,
CTV = GTV + 1 cm (do not need to include Bladder/prostate: stage II, group III
whole orbit)
• Dose = 45 Gy, wk 13 –– w/u = EUA w/cystoscopy
• Constraints: lacrimal gland = 41.4 Gy, –– Bx + pelvic LN sampling → VAC → RT →
lens = 14 Gy, optic nerve = 45 Gy. IMRT or salvage surgery if necessary (60% bladder
wedged pair preservation)
–– Dose = 50.4 Gy, wk 4
HN, Non-PM
–– Oral cavity: stage I, group I, embryonal Extremity: stage III, group 1
• No RT
–– Oral cavity: s/p bx only. stage I, group –– Sx = WLE + SLNBx
III. Low risk. 50.4 Gy/28 –– Dose = 36 Gy
–– *amputation → no RT (tumor bed has been
HN, PM removed)
–– Middle ear: stage II, group III Dose constraint from
–– GTV = pre-chemo volume, Organ COG-D9602
CTV = GTV + 1 cm Kidney 19.8 Gy max
–– Dose = 50.4 Gy, wk 4 Liver max 23.4 Gy max
–– IMRT Chiasm 46.8 Gy max
Heart 30.6 max
Abd/pelvis 24 Gy/1.5 Gy max
GU, Non-BP
Lungs (<1/2 of combined 15 Gy/1.5 Gy max
Paratesticular: stage I, group I, alveolar lung volume in PTV)
Lacrimal gland 41.4 Gy max
–– Surgery with inguinal orchiectomy with high Lens 14 Gy
ligation of spermatic cord + ipsilateral RPLND Optic N 45 Gy max
if <10 and CT + or ≥ 10 yo
–– No RT (tumor bed has been removed)
–– *if +pN (Group 2) → 41.4 Gy dog leg, wk 4
–– *if residual (Group 3) → 50.4 Gy
on Rhabdoid Soft Tissue Sarcoma

N
(NRSTS)
Most Common Histologies

–– Synovial sarcoma, t (X;18)
–– MPNST
ARST0332 Treatment Paradigm

–– All LG → observe
–– HG, ≤ 5 cm R0 → observe
–– HG, ≤ 5 cm R1 → 55.8 Gy
–– HG, > 5 cm → 55.8 Gy + Ifos/Doxo x 5
–– Unresected → Neoadjuvant CRT (45 Gy)
–– COG volume definition (≤ 18 y)
• GTV = tumor on MRI post contrast
• CTV = 1.5 cm radially and longitudinally
• PTV = CTV + 0.5 cm w/daily KV
imaging
Ewing Sarcoma [4–8, 16–21] –– Chest imaging necessary to rule out RMS,
Wilms
Overview –– LDH
–– Three hundred cases/yr. Median age 14, –– Bx: open is best. Longitudinal cut
skewed right. –– BMBx
–– Caucasian. –– Cytogenetics bc t(11;22) found in 85%
–– Can arise in bone or soft tissue. –– Fertility preservation
–– Tends to be radiosensitive. • Male (infertility = 2 Gy) → sperm bank +
–– Ewing sarcoma is generally staged as local vs clam shell
metastatic but refers to STS chapter for refer- • Female (ovarian failure = 8 Gy) → ovarian
ence for a formal staging system transposition
–– DDx (“EGMODE”)
Natural History • Epiphysis = Giant cell
–– Location • Soap bubble appearance
• 25% in axial skeleton (CW, spine, skull) • Metaphysis = osteosarcoma
• 20% in pelvis • Sunburst, Codman’s triangle
• 65% in lower skeleton (30% in femur, 10% • Diaphysis = Ewing
in tibia) • Moth-eaten, onion skin
• 15% in upper skeleton • MRI findings: T1 hypointense, T2
–– 80% localized but 25% have macromets and heterogeneous
nearly all have micromets • Other: met, trauma, osteomyelitis, lipoma,
–– Strong rationale for local therapy to DM, Legg-Calve-Perthes, osteosarcoma, RMS,
being investigated on open COG study sarcoma, lymphoma, neuroblastoma
currently –– DMs are principle concern
–– DM sites: the lungs, bone, marrow –– Plain film: “moth eaten,” “sunburst,” “onion
skin,” “laminated,” Codman’s triangle, sclero-
Histology sis, permeative. Usually lytic at diaphysis
–– SRBCT
–– Ewing family: Ewing sarcoma (87%), Poor prognostics: central lesions, >8 cm
Extraosseous Ewing (8%), PNET (5%), (200 cc), M, high LDH, soft tissue extension,
Askin’s tumor (a Ewing of the chest wall) poor chemo response
–– EWS: RNA-binding protein
–– EWS and FLI work as chimeric TF Trials
–– t(11:22): involves the FLI1 on ch11 and EWS –– IESS-1: nonmetastatic dz → VAC + D vs VAC
gene on ch22 vs VAC + prophylactic whole-lung
–– t(21:22): 5–10%. ERG and EWS RT. VAC + D won. 5 yr. RFS (60 → 24 → 44%).
–– ↑c-myc activity (↑n-myc in neuroblastoma) –– IESS-2: VAC + D high dose vs continuous.
–– CD99+, vimentin+, NSE- (PNETs are CD99+, High dose improved RFS but not OS.
vimentin+, NSE+) –– IESS-3: VACD +/− IE. More chemo won. 5 yr
OS 61 → 72%. Did not improve OS for M1
Disease 5y OS % disease.
Localized 70 –– CESS 86: chemo→ surgery vs surgery+PORT
Single met 50
vs RT alone. No difference in 5 yr OS
Diffuse mets 30
(69%). LC worse without surgery
(100 → 95 → 86%).
Workup –– POG 8346, Donaldson 1998: chemo→surgery
–– H&P, labs, plain film or RT. RT was randomized whole bone
–– CT/MRI, bone scan or PET-CT, CT chest 39.6 + boost 16 Gy vs 4 cm margin to
55.6 Gy/1.8 Gy fx. Central path and RT • Surg margin: 2–5 cm is preferable for bone
review. No difference in LC or RFS. LC was but accepts >1 cm, >0.5 cm for soft tissue
53% in both RT arms. Thus, do not treat whole (fat, muscle, medullary bone), >0.2 cm for
bone. LC was 80% in extremity, 69% proxi- fascia, periosteum, and septae.
mal, 82% central, 44% pelvis. Protocol devia- • Unresectable bones (more likely axial) are
tion → poor outcomes. maxilla, BOS, vertebrae, and periacetabu-
–– EICESS analysis: any patients with lung mets lar pelvis. Also soft tissue. These typically
benefited from WLI with improved EFS. receive RT.
–– Schuck 2002: Askin tumors. 7 yr EFS • If giving RT, adriamycin and actinomycin-
improved with hemithorax RT and boost to D are held during RT.
primary. –– (3) PORT if necessary. Indications: R+ (<5–
–– No RCTs to guide surgery, RT, surg + 10 mm) and poor response from chemo (<90%
RT. Selection bias confounds data; central tumor necrosis)
tumors likey to get RT, while peripheral likely –– (4) Adjuvant chemo, up to 48w
to get surgery. –– LC w RT alone is >70%. LC is lowest in pel-
–– AWES0031: chemotherapy Q2 weeks vis is 70–80% and 90–95% in the
improved EFS compared to Q3 weeks. extremities
–– AEWS 1221: current COG M+ ES protocol –– Doses >60 Gy have high-risk bone
examining anti IGF-1R mAb ganitumab. All malignancy
pts have local therapy to primary + DMs. RT –– Doses <40 Gy have high LR rates
to metastatic sites is a study question. SBRT
recommended for DMs in bone <5 cm in max
dimension. NCCN
–– Preop RT (Rare to do this!)
Chemo • 36 Gy.
–– VDC/IE: vincristine, adriamycin, cyclophos- –– Definitive RT
phamide, ifosfamide, and etoposide. The stan- • MRI essential, inc T2/FLAIR.
dard in the USA. • GTV1 = pre-chemo dz in tissue + bone.
–– VTC/VDC: vincristine, topotecan, and cyclo- • CTV1 = GTV1 + 1–1.5 cm.
phosphamide/VDC. This is on AEWS1031 • GTV2 = pre-chemo dz in bone and post-
–– VIDE: vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, chemo dz in tissue. If dz is pushing on an
and etoposide. The standard in Europe. organ but not invading, and has response,
do not pre-chemo volume.
Ewing Treatment Paradigm • CTV2 = GTV2 + 1 cm.
–– (1) NAC w VDC, alt with IE x 12 weeks. Note • PTV = CTV + ~0.5 cm.
that on AEWS1031, randomization to VDC/ • PTV1: 45 Gy/25 fxs. Exception is extraos-
IE vs VTC/VDC. seous ESFT with CR to chemo, then dose
Preop RT indications: Expect R+. Preop dose is 50.4/28 fx and then no PTV2.
36–45 Gy. • PTV2: boost 10.8 Gy/6 fxs, total to 55.8 Gy
–– (2) Then at week 12, local treatment: surgery (unless at cord tolerance, then stop at 45–
or RT (try to avoid both). Surgery is preferred, 50.4 Gy). COG and IESS both have defini-
unless unresectable. tive dose of 55.8 Gy.
• “Expendable bones” are ribs, fibula, clavi- • All w concurrent chemo hold adria and
cle (lateral 4/5ths), and ilium. actinomycin.
• “Borderline resectable” bones are long • Consider boosting to 59.4 for chemo
bones and mandible. With wide resection response <50%.
and good response, 1% LR rate. If poor
response, 12% LR.
–– Postop RT –– Lung mets: WLI.

• Wire scars and drain sites. Bolus. • <6 yo: 12 Gy at 1.5/fx.
• GTV1 and CTV1 are the same. • 6–14 yo: 15 Gy at 1.5/fx.
• GTV2 is residual bone, microscopic mar- • >14 yo: 18 Gy at 1.5/fx.
gin soft tissue abnormality. • Even if CR, some institutions omit WLI
• R0: observe. with CR to chemotherapy.
• R1: 50.4 Gy/28 fxs. • Boost residual mets (if no CR to chemo)
• R2/bx/GTV: 45–50.4 Gy + boost to 27 Gy, to 43 Gy total.
55.8 Gy/31 fxs (like in definitive). –– Preop CRT to 36 Gy may be used to improve
• Concurrent chemo. chance of R0 resection, not to covert inopera-
ble to operable.
Other Treatment Considerations
–– N+
• If resected, 50.4 Gy to nodal bed. Chemotherapy Toxicity
• If not resected, 55.8 to gross sz. –– Secondary leukemia (AML): Ifos, Cyc,
–– Bladder: avoid bladder RT w cyclophospha- Etoposide, and Dox (higher doses in arm C/
mide or ifosfamide bc of risk of hemorrhagic INT 0091 ~11%)
cystitis –– Cardiomyopathy (Dox): doses < 450 mg/m2
–– Paraspinal tumors stop at 45–50.4 Gy (cord or 300 mg/m2 with thoracic RT
tolerance) –– Infertility: > males (Cyc, Ifos) sperm banking
–– Lung primary (Askin’s): hemithorax RT –– Renal toxicity: Ifosfamide
(15–20 Gy at 1.5/fx) followed by boost of –– Cystitis: cyclophosphamide
primary
• Recommended if pulm mets. Level 4 evi- Follow-Up
dence for improved EFS. –– Physical exam and imaging or primary site
• Target bilat lungs. No cardiac shield. Shield and chest q2–3 months.
bilat shoulders. –– Labs as necessary.
–– Metastatic disease: current study is AEWS –– Can make imaging annual after 5 y.
1221 and requires RT. –– Most common second malignancy after RT is
• M+ has same tx paradigm, except 42 w of sarcoma.
chemo (VAI). Local tx is w13 to all M+
sites except the lung, which is treated with
WLI.
Nephroblastoma (Wilms’ Tumor/WT) [4–8, 22–29]

Description Incidence 4y OS DA 4y OS FA
Stage I R0, Limited to kidney, capsule intact, LN neg 40 83 100
Stage II R0, capsule broken, into vessels/sinus 20 83 93
Stage III Some dz may be left in abdomen (“BSSLURPP”): 20 65 90
Biopsy
Subtotal residual (R1, R2)
c/pLN+
Unresectable (get pre-op chemo)
Rupture/spillage
Piecemeal
Peritoneal implant
Stage IV Distant mets or LN outside abd/pelv 10 33 80
Location: lung (80%) > liver > bone > brain (CC)
Note: adrenal+ is not M+
Stage V Bilateral tumors 5
Risk class Meaning Tx after nephrectomy RT on POD

(all POSTOP)
Very low risk Stage I, <2 yo, tumor <550g, no LOH Obs (on AREN 0532; note these are the risk factors on trial) N/A
FH (1p, 16q), no gain of 1p, FH
Low risk FH Stage I-II, 2 yo, tumor 550g, no VA (vinc, actinomycin) chemo x 18w. No RT. N/A
LOH (1p, 16q), no gain of 1p, FH
Standard risk Stage III, FH Flank 10.8 Gy/6 fxs at1.8 Gy w concurrent vinc 8–10
Stage III, FH, local spillage + 10.8 Gy for gross residual (total 21.6 Gy)
Stage I–II, FH, but LOH 1p, 16q Then chemo usually VAD x 24w
Stage I–II, UH (e.g. focal anaplasia),
<16 yo
FH: Whole abdomen, 10.5 Gy/7 fxs at 1.5 Gy w concurrent vinc 8–10
Stage III with SPAR (spillage in
High Risk + Boost residual by 10.5 Gy/7 fxs at1.5 Gy to 21 Gy total.
abdomen, peritoneal seeding,
(ruptured) UH: Whole abdomen, 19.8 Gy/11 fx at 1.8 Gy
ascites, rupture)
Then VAD chemo x 24w
Flank 19.8 Gy/1.8 w concurrent vinc 8–10
Stage III, UH, > 16 yo
High Risk GTV/R2: + 10.8 Gy (total 30.6 Gy)
Stage I–III Rhabdoid > 12 mo
(non-ruptured) Shield kidney after to limit dose to < 14.4 Gy
Stage I–III, diffuse anaplasia
Then VAD/C/E chemo x 24w for UH.
Special unresected LNs GTV, 19.8 Gy/11 fxs or 21 Gy/14 fxs. 8–10
scenario Lung mets Whole lung: >12 mo: 10.5 Gy/7 vs. <12 mo: 12 Gy/8 fxs. Boost With flank or
residual to 19.5 Gy or resect w concurrent vinc. after 6w chemo
If rapid CR with chemo, omit RT(on ARST0533)
Histology affects WLI dose and chemo type
Liver mets (diffuse) Whole liver 19.8 Gy/1.8. 8–10
Brain mets Per AREN 0532/0533
>16yo: 30.6/1.8 Gy WBRT, no boost
<16yo: 21.6 Gy WBRT in 12 fxs + 10.8 Gy boost (total 32.4 Gy)
Historical dose: 25.2 Gy + 10 Gy
Bone mets <16 yo: 25.2 Gy
>16 yo: 30.6 Gy
Overview Presentation
– – 450 cases/yr usually 3–4 year olds. 2.5y –– Smooth, nontender abdominal mass or swell-
for V ing, in absence of other sx
–– Fourth most common childhood cancer –– Wilms = “well”; Neuroblastoma = “not
–– Intrarenal well”
–– Favorable histo (FH, 90% of cases): –– Bilat dz 7%
Blastemal, stromal, and epithelial. Mixed his- –– Multifocal dz 12%
tology is most common (~40%) –– Renal v invasion 10%
–– Unfavorable histology (UH): anaplastic, sar- –– LN+ 20%
comatous, clear cell sarcoma of kidney –– M+ 10%
(CCSK), and rhabdoid (RTK, technically not
Wilms) DDx: Wilms, neuroblastoma, nephroma, and
–– Diffuse anaplasia (DA): nonlocalized, RCC
localized w severe dysplasia elsewhere,
anaplasia outside capsule or M+, and ana- Workup
plasia in random bx –– H&P, US abd is the first test of choice: CT/
–– SRBCT MRI, CT chest (not CXR), urine catechol-
–– Most common abdominal tumor of children amines, LFTs, CMP, ECG, and echo
–– Very radiosensitive. Typical doses –– Will be intrarenal
10.5–21 Gy • CT assesses mass size, contra involvement,
–– 90% will be resectable capsule rupture, and ascites (most likely
–– AA > white > Asian from rupture). CT for Wilms has calcs in
10% vs 70–90% of neuroblastomas have
Genetics calcs.
–– WT1 tumor suppressor gene on 11p13. –– Do not do: Bx, unless unresectable or bilat,
Associated syndromes vigorous abdominal exams. Auto-upgrade to
• WAGR syndrome (del 11p13, WT1): stage III and PORT recommended bc of
Wilms, aniridia, GU anomalies, and seeding
retardation –– Bx for: unresectable, bilateral dz. If possible,
• Denys-Drash syndrome (WT1 mutation. use post approach
WT1 is a Zn finger protein): renal dz, male –– After surgery:
pseudohermaphroditism, and Wilms • Rhabdoid: add MRI brain (15% have syn-
–– WT2 tumor suppressor gene on 11p15. chronous brain tumor, 2nd primary ATRT),
Associated syndromes BMBx
• Beckwith-Wiedemann syn (WT2 mut, • Clear cell: add MRI brain, BMBx, bone
11p15.5): IGF-2 overactivity, no active scan (25% have bone mets)
copy of CDKN1C, macrosomia, macro- –– Prognosis: DA < rhabdoid, < clear cell <
glossia, omphalocele, prominent facial fea- others
tures (earlobe pits, creases), large kidneys, –– OS5:
and hemihypertrophy –– FH > 90% (stage IV 80%)
–– 2% of Wilms is familial. –– FA/DA 80%
–– 10% of Wilms is assoc with congenital abn. –– CCSK 75%
–– Del ch22q, LOH 1p and LOH 16q, gain 1q –– RTK 30%
have poorer RFS and OS.
–– Clear cell and Rhabdoid are not actually Treatment Paradigms
Wilms tumors and are treated differently. –– Biopsy is avoided because it may cause tumor
–– FH: fathers who are welders (RR 5.3); moth- spill.
ers who use hair dyes (RR 3.6). –– NWTS: The USA. Surgery, then adjuvant tx.
• Note: USA staging typically postop must omit WLI. Slow responders get WLI and dif-
assess regional LNs, contra kidney, perito- ferent chemo.
neum, liver, and renal vein/IVC
involvement Chemo Types
–– SIOP: Europe. Preop chemo, and then resect. –– EE4A (VA): vincristine and dactinomycin.
And then assess adjuvant tx. Consider if stages Used in FH
IV and V or if would likely be stage III (R+/ –– DD4A (VAD): EE4A + doxorubicin. Used
spill). Gain of 1q has worse 5y EFS 88% vs when inc risk (e.g., FH w lung mets, UH)
75% and OS, 94% vs 88%. –– M: DD4A + cytoxan+etoposide
–– UKW3: RCT of NWTS vs SIOP approaches. –– CAVE for CCSK: cytoxan, adriamycin, vin-
SIOP has imp stage dist, 20% reduced use of cristine, and etoposide
RT, doxorubicin. Similar EFS and OS. –– CEC for RTK: carbo, etoposide, and
cytoxan
What Do You Want to Know from Surgery?
–– Extent of resection RT General Rules
–– Nodal status –– All patients get an overall stage and a local
–– Extent outside kidney stage.
–– Spillage (focal or diffuse), cytology, and –– All get postop RT except FH I/II and CCSK I
implants (review by central pathology).
–– Pathology: FH versus FA/DA/CCSK/RTK –– RT to primary site: for all pts w unfavorable
–– 1p, 16q, del ch22q status histology (e.g., focal anaplasia).
–– Review by central pathology –– RT should be initiated by day 10 concurrent
with start of chemo. Hold adria during RT.
Trials –– Treat abdominal stage when pt has stage IV dz
–– NWTS 1: showed no RT needed for group 1, (i.e., if stage IV by pulm mets, but abdomen is
<2 yo if given chemo. RT starts <9d after sur- stage II, and FH do not tx abdomen).
gery. FH 2y CSM 7% vs 44% for UH. V + A –– When to WART: (“SPAR”) tumor spill, perito-
better than V or A alone. WAI is not needed if neal mets, Ascites/gross dz, and preop rupture.
local spill; just use flank. Note that Bx not always = spill.
–– NWTS 2: showed RT not needed for all group –– When to use >10 Gy: any residual dz (e.g.,
1. Adding Adriamycin can improve OS for unresected, mets).
group 2–4. –– Always RT for anaplasia. 10.8 Gy for focal
–– NWTS 3: showed RT is not needed for stage II anaplasia and 19.8 Gy for stage III–IV diffuse
if chemo given. 10 Gy for stage III if anaplasia.
Adriamycin used. Must start RT w/in 9 days, –– RTK stage I–IV all need RT, 19.8 Gy; some
at latest 14d. centers use higher doses.
–– NWTS 4: showed pulse-intensive chemo (6 m –– Only stage III–IV w FH require RT.
vs 15 m) less toxic than standard
–– NWTS 5: stage I, FH and <550 g tumor can be Bilateral Wilms’ Approach
observed after surgery (2 yr DFS 87%, OS –– Bx and stage each site.
100%). LOH 1p or 16q assoc with relapse and –– Ex-lap w bilateral renal bx.
death. For UH, etoposide improved OS. Vinc/ –– Preop chemo by worst histo.
Adr/cyclophos/etoposide improved outcomes –– Then, either bilatal partial nephrectomy or
in II-IV w DA. additional chemo if unresectable. Once it is
–– AREN 0533: higher risk FH WT. Resection, resectable, do bilat partial nephrectomy and
local RT, chemo, RT to non-lung mets. If rapid then adjuvant chemo and RT by most aggres-
responder (CR after 2 cycles DD4A), and then sive dz. If it never becomes unresectable,
preop RT 12–16 Gy reassess.
Technique • Include diaphragm and shield fem

–– All AP/PA, all fields treated together heads.
–– Not held for low counts and unless life- • Treat the entire vertebral body to avoid
threatening (ANC < 300, platelets<40), give scoliosis.
G-CSF. If 4–7-d breaks, add 1 fx. If >7d and • If abdomen pLN+, then tx PA LNs from
add 2 fx. diaphragm crux to bottom of obturator
–– CT sim under anesthesia, non-contrast. 3D foramen. Cross midline 1 cm beyond VB if
planning can be used, but 2D is acceptable. treating AP PA.
Usually no IMRT for the abdomen. Consider • Stage I-II, FH: no RT.
arms up since preop imaging usually arms up. • Stage III or UF: 10.8 Gy to flank.
–– Start by day 9 postop, max 14 (for FH). • Diffuse anaplasia or rhabdoid: 19.8Gy to
–– Flank RT: flank.
• Usually AP/PA, 1.8Gy/fx. Preop • R2: boost another 10.8 Gy.
GTV + 1 cm based on CT, US, MRI, and • If LN+, treat paraaortics, T11-L4.
IVP.
Lung volume
T11
Remaining
kidney
Pre-op
Remaining GTV
kidney
L4 L1
Remaining
kidney
Flank RT: Whole abdominal RT (WART): Whole lung irradiation (WRI):

• usually AP/PA, 1.8Gy/fx. • Indications: Spillage, Peritoneal seeding, • full lung, costophrenic recesses, and mediastinum + 1 cm to
• Preop GTV+1 cm based on CT, US, MRI, IVP. block edge. Flash laterally, supraclav fossa.
• Include diaphragm, shield fem heads,
Ascites, Rupture (“SPAR”)
• Tx concurrently w one large field vs two separate fields
• Treat entire vertebral body to avoid scoliosis • Sup border 1.5 cm above diaphragm, inf matching w appropriate gaps and feathering to avoid excessive
• If abdomen pLN+, then txPA LNs from diaphragm crux border pubic symphysis, flash skin, block liver RT, kidney RT.
to bottom of obturator foramen. Cross midline 1 cm femoral heads. • If treating flank, give flank 10.5 Gy and raise inf border for last
beyond VB if treating AP PA.
WLI fraction
• If LN+, treat para-aortics, T11-L4
• Both lungs irradiated regardless of location or numbers of mets.
• Block humeral heads.
• Sup is 1 cm above 1strib. inf is L1. Check sagittal view to ensure
coverage of lung tissue.
–– Whole abdomen RT (WART): • SIOP trials show 5-year OS 83% w preop

• Indications: spillage, peritoneal seeding, chemo and metastasectomy or WLI if no CR.
ascites, and rupture (“SPAR”).
• Sup border 1.5 cm above the diaphragm, –– Brain mets
inf border pubic symphysis, flash skin, and • <16 yo: 21.6 Gy WBRT with 10.8 Gy boost
block femoral heads. (if <4 lesions).
• Opposite kidney ≤14.4 Gy. • >16 yo: 30.6 Gy in 17 fx WBRT.
–– Liver mets:
–– Whole lung irradiation (WLI): • If solitary met removed prior to chemo, R0,
• AREN 0533: flank/abd RT and WLI then no RT.
occur together on w1. If unresectable • All other situations: Met +2 cm to 19.8 Gy.
primary, LOH, lung mets, and then do Boost limited vol + 5.4–10.8 Gy.
both on w7. –– Bone mets
• AREN 0334 showed that lung RT can be • 25.2 Gy in 14 fx (2–3 cm margin); 30.6 Gy
avoided if a CR to first 6 weeks of chemo- if >16 yo.
therapy. For patients with lung mets who
need flank or abdominal RT, DELAY until Late Effects
restaging at 6 weeks. At that point, treat –– OM25y: 6%
flank or abdominal field with or without –– Renal: more common in bilateral, RT nephri-
WLI, depending on treatment response. tis, Denys-Drash, and WAGR. Reirradiation
• If treating include full lung, costophrenic tolerance of kidney decreases w time. TD 5/5
recesses and mediastinum +1 cm to block is 23 Gy.
edge. Flash laterally, supraclavicular fossa. –– Cardiac: doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopa-
• 12 Gy in 8 fx if > 12 mos, not mandated on thy, 50%.
NWTS-5. –– Hepatic: dactinomycin-induced hepatotoxic-
• 10.5 Gy if < 12 mos. ity, ~10%.
• Historical AP/PA was from above clavicles –– Reproductive: female pts more likely to have
to below L1. Now, consider IMRT for car- IUGR, perinatal complications, perinatal mor-
diac sparing. tality, breast hypoplasia (80% of female get-
• Persistent mets should get resection or ting WLI). After WART, risk of oocyte
boost to 19.5 Gy. damange resultin in infertility is 60–70%.
• Tx concurrently w one large field vs two –– Ovarian failure: 10 Gy: low risk; 20 Gy: high
separate fields matching w appropriate risk.
gaps and feathering to avoid excessive liver –– Second malignancy: 1.6% at 15 years, all
RT, kidney RT. were solid tumors within the RT field. Excess
• If treating flank, give flank 10.5 Gy and risk of 1.4x baseline for every 10Gy.
raise inf border for last WLI fraction. –– Spine: scoliosis, muscular hypoplasia, kypho-
• Add PO Bactrim. sis, and iliac hypoplasia. 10 Gy → 3 cm short-
• Both lungs irradiated regardless of location ening; > 10 Gy → 7 cm shortening.
or numbers of mets. –– GI: SBO in 15%.
• Block humeral heads.
Organ Dose constraints, cutoffs
• Sup is 1 cm above 1st rib. inf is L1. Check
Contra kidney, 1/3 < 14.4 Gy
sagittal view to ensure coverage of lung
<1/2 of uninvolved liver <19.8 Gy
tissue. ¾ of liver w mets <30.6 Gy
Neuroblastoma [4–8, 30–35]

Prognostic factors (“SANDS”)
Stage 1,2,4S 3 4
Age <1 yo 1–4 yo 5–9 yo
N-myc − +
DNA ploidy Hyperdip or near triploid (DI > 1) DI = 1, no MYCN Diploid, DI = 1, MYCN+
Shimada (INPC) Schwann cells stroma rich
“SAD MiNd” Young age
G1/FH
Low MI
Non-nodular
INRGSS clinical staging (preop). New! –– Suprarenal (vs intrarenal for Wilms).
Stage L1 Localized tumor –– Homer-Wright rosettes.
Stage L2 Locally invasive by defined criteria –– Stains NSE+, synaptophysin+, and
Stage M Metastatic disease except MS neurofilament+.
Stage Metastatic to only the skin/liver/marrow –– Shimada classification: based on stroma, age,
MS and <18 m
diff, mitoses, and nodular/diffuse (SAD
INSS OLD staging (still used for risk groups)
MiNd).
I GTR (R0/1); Can include adherent LN –– Poorer prognosis: ↑stage, ↑age, n-myc amp,
II STR (R2) or ipsi LN diploid, and Shimada (SANDS).
III Unresectable or crosses midline (dz or LNs) –– Also poorer prognosis: LOH 1p or
IV Distant mets: distant LN or the bone, liver skin 11q,↑telomerase.
IVS < 1 yo, stage I–II, w/ BM < 10%, the liver, or skin –– Screening: Tumors can spontaneously
regress, so screening is not helpful (Japan,
Overview Canada, Austria trial); only recommend if
–– 650 cases/yr, the most common extracranial familial.
childhood tumor and most common cancer for –– Location: adrenal (35–40%), post-
children <18 m. mediastinum (20%), paraspinal ganglion (25–
–– Median dx is 17–22 m (Wilms is 3–4 yo). 32%), and the pelvis (5%). Thus, ~65% are
–– Represents ~8% of childhood cancers. abdominal.
–– Primitive neural crest cells (usually calcified; –– Associations: NF1, Hirschsprung, central
Wilms isn’t). hypovent, familial ALK mutations, Turner,
–– SRBCT. and material opiates.
Features Neuroblastoma Ganglioneuroblastoma Ganglioneuroma

Neuroblast Neuroblast dominant Mix Schwann dominant
Maturity Immature Mix Mature ganglions
Aggressiveness Y N
Manifestation –– CCG 3881: 374 pts with INSS 1-2B → sur-

–– “Sick kid” (vs Wilms). gery alone → stage 1 EFS 93%, stage 2 81%.
–– Abdominal mass, large, firm, and crossing Patients with n-myc amp, UF, LN+ at higher
midline. risk
–– Pain and fever (30%).
–– HTN from ↑catecholamines or by compres- Intermediate Risk
sion of renal art. –– Castleberry 1991: phase III, 62 pts >1 yo,
–– Thoracic tumor: respiratory sx. INSS 2B-3 → surgery→ postop chemo +/−
–– Paravertebral tumor: cord compression and RT → surgery→ chemo. RT was 24–30 Gy
Horner syndrome. based on age. CRT improved DFS
–– M+ disease: Blueberry muffin sign, raccoon (31 → 58%)
eyes (from retrobulbar or orbital mets causing –– POG 8742: phase II, INSS 2B-3 → surgery →
periorbital ecchymosis), and opsoclonus- chemo x5c → surgery → RT for
myoclonus-truncal ataxia. residual→chemoRT. 24-30Gy based on age.
–– Paraneoplastic syndrome: Opsomyoclonus – 2 year EFS was 85%
from Igs anti-muscle, in 2%, dancing eyes/
dancing feet syndrome (50% have NB), favor- High Risk
able prognosis, but symptoms persist after NB –– Historically, 15% survival.
treatment. –– No RCTs re RT.
–– CCG 3891, Matthay, 2009: phase III, 539
Chemos pts → chemo x5m → surgery (+10Gy if STR;
–– Cis or carboplatin, etoposide, cyclophospha- +10Gy/2 Gy fx to abdomen; 20 Gy/2 Gy to
mide, doxorubicin, ifosfamide, topotecan, and extra-ab sites) → bone marrow transplant +/−
vincristine TBI (3.33 Gy x 3 d). Then randomized to +/−
cis-retinoic acid. TBI and cis-retinoic acid
Workup improved 5 yr. OS.
–– H&P, labs, urine catecholamines (VMA, –– Matthay 2007: phase II of refractory
HVA), EKG, and MUGA/echo. NB. Showed a 36% response rate with I-131
–– BMBx: analyze n-myc and DNA ploidy. MIBG
–– MRI, CT CAP, MIBG scan (better than bone –– ANBL0532: (1) induction chemo; (2) radical
scan), and PET if negative. MIBG is NE ana- surg; (3) randomization of single vs tandem
log concentrated in adrenergic tissue. + in myeloablative consolidation; (4) local RT to
90% of neuroblastomas. 21.6 Gy to GTV based on preop scans w boost
–– Audiogram. to 36 Gy permitted if still residual postop
–– Tumor biopsy, after all other workup, unlike tumor, directed at MIBG-avid sites; and (5)
in Wilms, Tx is not driven based on “tumor cis-retinoic acid. Results at ASCO 2016: tan-
spillage” like it is for Wilms. dem had better EFS (61% vs 48%) but not OS
(~72%). Benefit of tandem ASCT preserved in
Studies pts also getting anti-GD2 tx, w 3y EFS 74% vs
Low Risk 56%. Toxicity similar.
–– POG 8104: 101 pts with INSS 1 → GTR → obs.
2 year DFS 89%
Guidelines Current High-Risk Studies

–– Low risk (includes 4S w FH and no N-myc) –– ANBL09P1 examines use of therapeutic
• Surgery 131
I-MIBG in induction chemo.
• obs if GTR –– ANBL12P1 examines use of Busulfan and
• STR or recur→chemo w carbo/VP-16 Melphalan in consolidation.
or carbo/cyclophos/doxorubicin
• RT rarely needed Technique
Residual dz, recurrence, persistence: 21Gy –– Initial GTV is the extent of dz at time of sur-
in 1.5 Gy/fx (COG 9641) gery, whenever surgery occurs. Typically,
Cord compression: induction chemo provides dramatic response.
< 3 yo, 9 Gy in 1.8 Gy/fx If resected before induction, initial GTV will
> 3 yo, 21.6 Gy in 1.8 Gy/fx be larger.
Can obs if clinically stable 4S low risk –– Pts often txd under anesthesia
–– Intermediate risk –– 4D planning to minimize PTVs
• Possible neoadjuvant chemo 4–8 months
(to increase resectability) General Doses (per A3973)
• Surgery → chemo –– GTV1: extent of dz at time of resection,
• RT rarely needed whether it is prior to or after induction chemo.
Residual dz, recurrence, persistence: Since NB is sensitive eto chemo, the post-
21-24Gy in 1.5 Gy/fx. CTV + 2 cm chemo, preop tumor based on CT /MIBG
(A3961) scans is preferred (this minimizes the
Cord compression: 21.6 Gy in 1.8 Gy/fx volume).
RT if there is bulky tumor causing organ –– CTV1 = GTV1 + 1 cm, anatomically con-
damage fined. Crop the kidney, liver, and bone.
–– High-risk treatment paradigm (Pinto, JCO –– PTV1 = CTV1 + 0.5 cm. Txd to 21.6 Gy in 12
2015): fx.
• (1) Chemo induction (CAPE: cyclophos- –– GTV2 = residual dz >1 cc or MIBG-avid.
phamide, adria, cisplatin, etoposide). This is a boost volume. On ANBL09P1, boost
Restage after chemo. is required for residual dz.
• (2) Surgery. CTV2 = GTV2 + 1 cm, anatomically confined.
• (3) Then stem cell harvest. PTV2 txd to 14.4 Gy in 8 fxs (on ANBL0532).
• (4) Consolidation with myeloablative Thus, will be 36 Gy total for gross residual.
chemo (e.g., cis, etoposide, melphalan, or –– RT for DMs is controversial. The standard
busulfan, melphalan), stem cell infusion/ practice remains treating mets that remain
rescue, MIBG scan. MIBG-avid on the pre-transplant MIBG scan.
• (5) ~4-6w after transplant or after 4c Usually 21.6 Gy in 12 fx for up to 5 mets.
chemo, RT (21.6 Gy at 1.8/fx, see below) –– Other scenarios:
to the primary site and MIBG-avid sites –– 4S, asymptomatic: observe!
after chemo. Boost gross residual to 36 Gy. –– 4S symptomatic liver involvement (Pepper
M+ sites: 21.6 Gy (no boost). syndrome: symptomatic w SOB, SVC syn-
• (6) Post-consolidation: immunotherapy (ch drome, dec renal perfusion). Chemo first.
14.18 mAb, GM-CSF, IL-2) + isotretinoin Then 4.5Gy at 1.5/fx to whole liver. Can avoid
(13-cis-retinoic acid) for minimal residual parts to spare the ovaries and kidney.
disease. GMCST improves antiGD2 –– cord compression: chemo first if life-
efficacy. threatening. 9 Gy if <3 yo. 21.6 Gy if >3 yo.
–– M: –– Kidneys: mean < 14.4 Gy, V19.8 < 50%

–– If >5 sites, repeat MIBG 28 • Ipsilateral: V19.8 < 50%, V14.4 < 100%
–– If <5, treat with RT • Contralateral: V12 < 20%, V8 < 50%
–– Liver: V9 < 50%, V18 < 25%
Dose Constraints –– Lungs: V15 < 33%
–– Tumor usually near the heart and liver. High
risk of cardiac dz (bc of adria) and sinusoidal
obstructive liver dz Outcomes
–– ANBL0532 constraints (likely over –– 5y OS for LR is 95%, IR is 80%, HR is 30%
conservative):
Retinoblastoma [4–8, 36–38] Workup

–– H&P, ophthalmology exam, labs, and genetic
Stage counseling
0 Conservative tx –– Bilateral ultrasound, MRI brain, and spine
I Enucleated, R0
–– BM biopsy and bone scan
II Enucleated, R1
III (a) R2/overt dz, (b) preauric or cervical LN+
–– If extraocular: bone scan and LP
IVA, (1) Single met; (2) multiple mets –– EUA, no biopsy bc it will seed
heme
mets Trials
IVB, (1) Prechiasmatic lesion (e.g., bilateral –– Shields 1997: retrospective of chemo +/−
CNS retinoblastoma and pineoblastoma), (2) CNS
mets mass, (3) LMD local therapy. Local treatment reduced LC
from ~70 → 0%
–– ARET0321: Induction chemo, consolidation
A ≤3 mm height, ≥3 mm from fovea, ≥1.5 mm from
w SCT (stage IVA/B only), and response-
ON
B >3 mm height, clear subretinal fluid
adapted EBRT.
C C1: localized subretinal seeding –– Stage II and III pts get induction chemo and
C2: ≤3 mm from tumor margin response-adapted RT w/o consolidation tx.
C3: both –– If there is residual stage II (orbital) or III
D Same as Group C but diffuse seeding (orbital and regional /LN) after induction
E No visual potential: tumor in anterior segment, ON,
ciliary body, neovascular glaucoma, hemorrhage,
chemo, dose is 45 Gy.
phthisical eye, orbital cellulitis, extraocular disease –– Stage IV pts get induction, SC harvest, con-
solidation w SC rescue, and response-adapted
EBRT.
Overview –– For IVa disease, <5 mm residual or CR gets no
–– 250 cases/yr. RT. If >5 mm, then tx residual to 36 Gy. If
–– Bilateral is hereditary, presents at younger residual dz for IVB (CNS dissemination) dose
age, and has higher risk of second malignancy is 36 Gy CSI, 45 Gy to cranium, 50.4 Gy to
(and that malignancy will likely cause death). pineal gland.
–– Unilateral is incidental.
–– Trilateral RB: bilateral RB + midline CNS Technique
PNET: uniformly fatal. –– Anesthesia.
–– Pts are prone to osteosarcomas. –– Supine, mask, IMRT, +/− bolus.
–– Leukocoria: white pupillary reflex caused by –– Cover entire retina and 5-8 mm of optic nerve.
tumor growing in the globe. Parents notice –– Dose is 36–40Gy in 1.8–2/fx (26Gy if
white reflection behind the pupil of affected post-chemo).
eye in flash photos of child. –– Protons spare orbital bone and lens.
–– RT increases risk of secondary malig from
Genetics and Pathology 25 → 50% at 50 years (1% per year).
–– RB1 tumor suppressor on ch13 → defect in
G1/S checkpoint
–– Flexner-Wintersteiner rosettes
Guidelines • Pre-chemo and presurgical disease +

–– RT is rarely used in management of retino- 5 mm = CTV
blastoma bc of high risk of second malignant • PTV = CTV + 5 mm
neoplasms; ~50% of pts w hereditary Rb • I-125 plaque: dose is 40Gy to apex
develop second malignancy in 50 years (Wong • Cryotherapy, photocoagulation
1997) • enucleation
–– Unilateral: eye/sight preservation ~75% with –– Bilateral: treat as separate primaries
EBRT –– Extraocular: orbital EBRT and chemo (high-
• Chemo: vincristine/carbo/etoposide x6c dose chemo + SCT?)
• Laser: small, far from fovea –– Trilateral: treat the eyes, chemo, CSI? (MS is
• EBRT (36-40Gy): small tumors or failed 11 m)
non-RT therapy
Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis (LCH) lesions, DI, and hemangiomas; lytic bone
lesions (thus, negative BS). Good prognosis. >
Risk group Definition 2 yo
Low 1 lesion in bone, LN, GI, CNS
High <2 yo w organ dysfunction; liver, spleen, BM
• Litterer-Siwe disease: Hepatosplenomegaly,
lymphadenopathy, pulmonary lesions, and
bone lesions. Widespread seborrheic rash.
Background
<2yo
• 1200 cases/y
• Manifestation: the bones in children and the
• 1–3 yo
lungs in adults. In children, usually bone pain,
• M > F
soft tissue mass, the lung, or oral mucous
• Dysregulation of monocular cell line
membrane involvement
• Previously called eosinophilic granuloma and
• Workup: HP, labs, skeletal survey (appears
histiocytosis X
“punched out”), NOT BS, biopsy
• LCs are SPCs to lymphocytes in the skin,
• Histology: Birbeck granules on EM. CD1a,
mucosa, and spleen.
S100, and CD207 (Langerin)
• Hand-Schuller-Christian dz: proliferation
of histiocytes causing exophthalmos, skull
Treatment
System If asymptomatic Tx modality RT Outcomes

involvement
Single Observed because typically For single lesion, esp RT if not healing after LC = >90%
self resolves symptomatic, local therapy w surgery, potential OS = 100%
surgery (e.g. ,surgery, curettage). compromise of critical
If the skin, then nitrogen mustard, structures, pain relief, DI
steroids, systemic tx
(within 14d of dx) Also
consider if in the eye,ear,
spine, weight-bearing bone
Multi Observed because typically If multisystem (e.g. fever, pain, OS:
self resolves severe skin involvement), then 33–54 if no organ
chemo w prednisone(1st line), dysfunction
then vinblastine. Single agent 82–96 if organ dysfunction
chemo is as good as multi-agent.
Planning
DI: 15 Gy to pituitary/hypothalamus within 14 d
Bone: 5–10 Gy (e.g. 3 Gy x 3 fractions w small margin) or 1.5 Gy x 8 fractions
Adult: 15–24 Gy/2 Gy fraction
Medulloblastoma (and Supratentorial PNET, Pineoblastoma) [4–8, 36, 39–44]

T1 T2 T3a T3b T4
< 3 cm diam ≥3 cm diam, Invades two adjacent struct or Arises from Penetrates aqueduct
In vermis, roof of invades one complete filling of 4th vent, floor of 4th to involve 3rd vent
4th vent, or adjacent struct or extensions into aqueduct of vent or midbrain or cord
cerebellar part filling 4th vent foramina, w marked hydro
hemisphere
M1 M2 M3a M3b M4
CSF micro mets Macro mets in Macro mets in spinal subarach- M2 + M3a Mets outside CNS
brain noid, but no M2
Note: Use Chang system, like germinoma, though not used as much as the risk groups
General –– Homer-wright rosettes (same as all blastomas

–– 500 cases/yr US. but retinoblastoma).
–– Bimodal (7–9 y/o and 25 y/o). –– Posterior fossa tumors (Ddx): brainstem
–– Most common infratentorial CNS malignancy glioma, ependymoma, astrocytoma, atypi-
(~45%), followed by JPAs (~30%). cal teratoid/rhabdoid (ATRT), and medul-
–– Assoc with: loblastoma.
• Gorlin syndrome (PTCH1), activation of –– Medulloblastoma variants
SHH pathway. Nevoid BCC of skin –– Classic.
• Turcot syndrome (APC). Familiar polyp- –– Nodular/desmoplastic: good prog (LOH 9q).
osis, brain tumors –– Large cell/anaplastic: poor prog.
–– Cell of origin is neuroectodermal cells from –– Four genetic subgroups:
the germinal matrix of the cerebellum. Thus, 1. WNT group: CTNNB1 mut, β-catenin(+),
arises in posterior fossa w high potential for APC mutation, assoc with Turcot (10%,
CSF spread (33% present w CSF dissemina- good prog)
tion). Obstructs cerebral aqueduct (Aqueduct 2. SHH group: PTCH1, GLI3, MYCN mut,
of Sylvius), which connects 3rd and 4th SMO, SUFU usually desmoplastic (30%,
ventricle. int prog)
–– In adult, medullo usually in lateral cerebellum. 3. Group 3: MYC amp, usually M+, usually
–– Medullo has an intact INI1. large cell (poor prog)
–– 94% in children, 52% in post fossa, 39% 4. Group 4: isochromosome 17q, MYCN,
supratent, 5% pineal, and 2% spinal. CDK6 amp (int prog)
Workup –– ACNS0331. What is role of reduced dose CSI

–– H&P, labs, fundoscopic exam, audiometry, and reduced boost field in avg risk medullo?
IQ, and growth measures. Pts are 3+, have ≤1.5 cm2 residual, M0. Pt
–– If ATRT, then need CT CAP to scan for con- 3-7yo rando to 23.4 Gy vs 18 Gy CSI. All pts.
current renal rhabdoid tumors (not mets). rando to entire PF boost vs involved surg field
–– No role for VP shunt now. Try high-dose ste- boost to GTV + cavity +1.5 cm margin,
roids. Can place at time of surg, remove before excluding bone and tentorium. PTV = +0.3–
pt dcd. 0.4 cm. Vcr qw concurrent. Then adjuvant
–– Preop MRI brain/spine. To avoid artifacts Vcr + cis + CCNU alternative w vcr/cyclo-
from resection; also guides aggressiveness of phos x9c q6w. No difference for involved field
surgery. vs entire PF boost for 5y OS (84%), EFS
–– MRI brain 24–48 hours postop. (~82%), and LR (~3%). However, improved
–– MRI spine 10–14 days postop. outcomes w 23.4 Gy CSI vs 18 Gy CSI, 5 yr
–– CSF cytology 10–14 days postop. Check OS: 78% vs 86%, EFS 72% vs 83%. 5y DM
WNt, SHH, c-myc. If too early, then contami- 13% vs 8% (NSS). Two percent of pts had sec-
nated from surgery, high FPs. ond malignancies in 6.5y.
–– After surgery, posterior fossa syndrome occurs –– ACNS 0332: high-risk medullo gets 36 Gy
in 20%. Mutism, dysphagia, truncal ataxia, CSI + 9 Gy boost to spinal dz (45 Gy total
hypotonia, head titubation, increased mood above terminus) and 19.8 Gy boost to post
lability, gaze palsy, and occas resp failure. fossa (55.8 Gy total). Examining efficacy of
carbo concomitantly w RT and isotretinoin as
Trials for Child Medulloblastoma pro-apoptotic agent.
–– POG 8631/CCG 923, Thomas, 2000: std risk
→ 36 vs 23.4 Gy CSI, then PF boost to 54 Gy. Trials for Adult Medulloblastoma
No chemo. Closed early due to inc relapse rate –– Brandes, 2007. Low-risk disease given CSI to
in low-dose arm, 5y EFS 67% vs 52%. 36 Gy, then boost PF 18.8 Gy to total 54.8 Gy.
–– Note there have been no RCTs of 36 Gy vs High-risk pts received combination chemo +
23.4 Gy CSI w concurrent chemo. RT. PFS and OS at 5 years were 72% and 75%
–– CCG 9892, Packer, 1999: std risk → 23.4 with for all pts.
vincristine→55.8 Gy PF boost→adj chemo.
Favorable EFS (phase II), 79% 5-year EFS Simulation/Planning
(which is excellent). Thus, 23.4 Gy + chemo –– Consent pt, family
became SOC on COG trials. –– Discuss anesthesia
–– Baby POG: <3 yo treated with chemo alone –– Supine 5-pt mask, head extended, and shoul-
until 3 yo. 5-yr OS was 40%. ders down
–– German BTSG: similar to baby POG (58% –– PCP ppx (TMP/SMX) if being treated
5 yr OS) –– Prone, neck extended, mask, and protons
–– ACNS 9961 (Packer, 2006, 2013). Adjuvant –– CSI, within 31d of surgery
chemo question. Note, not a CSI dose trial. –– Classic PF fields:
23.4 Gy CSI + 55.8 Gy PF boost + concurrent Ant: post clinoid
VCR, then rando: (1) Packer Regimen of Sup: 1 cm higher than midpoint bw foramen
CCNU/CDDP/VCR; vs (2) CTX/CDDP/ magnum and vertex
VCR. Similar 10 year EFS (76%), OS (81%). Post: internal occipital protuberance
Ten-year incidence secondary cancer was 4%. Field = PF + 1 cm
Twenty percent of pts developed PF syndrome –– New standard risk fields: cavity +1.5 cm
after surg. –– Sparing: supratentorial brain, cochlea, hypo-
–– Retrospective series and ACNS0331 show low thalamus, the eyes, optic structures, cervical
failures outside tumor bed. spine, and the skin
–– The entire tx takes ~1y. ACNS 0331 RT takes –– Adult medullo. Adults cannot tolerate chemo
6w. Concurrent chemo for 6w w vcr, then 9c like peds patients. Further, since adult is fully
of chemo q6w. Total = 55w tx grown, there is less concern about long-term
toxicity. Some argue tx like peds, others advo-
Dose Constraints cate RT alone.
–– Cochlea: V30 < 50%, max 35 Gy –– Standard risk cannot get chemo: treat like
high risk, 36 Gy CSI + 19.8 Gy boost.
Special Considerations (Mostly High Risk)
–– M2/Brain/thecal mets 54–55.8 Gy. Follow-up
–– Spinal mets 45 Gy if above terminus, 50.4 Gy –– Second malignancy rate is 0.4% per year
if below terminus. per ACNS 0332. (from ACNS 9961).
–– Diffuse spinal disease 39.6 Gy.
–– Pineoblastoma: Treat like a high-risk medullo
(CSI to 36, boost to 54 Gy).
COG Approach
COG approach
Risk group RT Trials
Age Surgery Chemo CSI Boost SJMB12 (approximate groups;
(y) note supratentorial PNET
excluded):
Low >3 MSR 15 Gy Tumor bed Stratum W1 4 cycles cyclo, cis,
to 54 Gy (WNT): 15 Gy VCR.
CSI, 51 Gy boost
Avg/Std Risk >3 MSR 23.4 Gy Tumor bed ACNS 0331 reported: RT to Stratum S1 4 cycles cyclo, cis,
/13 fx to 54 Gy tumor bed > posterior fossa. Still (SHH) 23.4 Gy VCR. Then
CTV = need 23.4 Gy CSI CSI, 54 Gy maintenance
GTV + 1.5 boost. vismodegib x 12
If chemo
cm. months
not
PTV =
given,
RT with vincristine 1.5 mg/m2, start 4 weeks after surg, then qw x 7c. Then adjuvant cis.
CTV + Stratum N1 4 cycles cyclo, cis,

then use (Non-SHH, Non- VCR.
0.3–0.5 cm
36 Gy/ WNT, Non-
20 fx MYC):23.4 Gy
CSI, 54 Gy
Adjuvant: Cis, vincristine, + either cyclophosphamide or CCNU
boost.
Stratum N2 AABAABB (7
Note: concurrent chemo not used on SJMB12
(Non-SHH, LCA cycles)

or MYC gain; A: cyclo, cis, VCR
standard risk): B: pem, gem
23.4 Gy CSI, 54
8 cycles q6w
Gy boost.
Stratum S1 4 cycles cyclo, cis,

(SHH): 23.4 Gy VCR.
CSI, 54 Gy boost
Stratum W2 4 cycles cyclo, cis,
(WNT, atypical): VCR.
23.4 Gy CSI, 54
Gy boost
High Risk >3 MSR. If 36 Gy / Posterior 3-21 yo. Rando to (1) concurrent Stratum S2 (SHH 4 cycles cyclo, cis,
unresectable, 20 fx fossa to VCR + RT vs (2) Concurrent + MYC): 36-39.6 VCR. Then
proceed w 54-55.8 VCR + carbo + RT. Then 2nd Gy CSI, 54 Gy maintenance
CRT rando for both for chemo alone vs boost. vismodegib x 12
chemo + isotretinoin months
Stratum W3 4 cycles cyclo, cis,

(WNT, MYC): VCR.
36-39.6 Gy CSI,
54 Gy boost.
Stratum N3 AABAABB (7
(Non-SHH, Non- cycles)
WNT, MYC A: cyclo, cis, VCR
amp; high risk): B: pemetrexed,
36–39.6 Gy CSI, gemcitabine
54 Gy boost.
<3 MSR Avoid RT (in general) bc of `

long-term sequelae.
Consider adjuvant chemo until 3
yo.
Otherwise, tx per high risk
Pineoblastoma Pineocytoma
–– Treat like a high-risk medulloblastoma patient. –– Treat like LGG.
–– CSI to 36 Gy with boost to 54 Gy, with CVP –– If GTR: observe.
chemo. –– If < GTR: RT to 54 Gy.
Atypical Teratoid Rhabdoid –– MRI brain 24–48 hours postop.

Tumor (ATRT) –– MRI spine 10–14 days postop.
–– CSF cytology 10–14 days postop. If too early,
Overview then contaminated from surgery, high FPs.
–– Median age < 3 yo. –– After surgery, posterior fossa syndrome occurs
–– 94% in <5 yo. in 20%. Mutism, dysphagia, truncal ataxia,
–– Has loss of INI1 in 85%. ATRT prev misclas- hypotonia, head titubation, increased mood
sified as PNET until ~1995. Have rhabdoid lability, gaze palsy, and occas resp failure.
cells +/− fields that resemble PNET. Vimentin,
EPA, and smooth muscle actin (SMA) are in Treatment
ATRT but not in medulloblastoma. –– Patients need multimodality therapy.
–– 52% in PF, 39% supratentorial, 5% pineal, and –– Chemotherapy regimens vary, but use multi-
2% spinal. ple IV and IT drugs. The IRS-3 regimen is
–– MST 1 y. used at many institutions.
–– Mainstay of tx is resection.
Workup –– Radiation treatment paradigms are similar to
–– H&P, labs, fundoscopic exam, audiometry, those for high-risk medulloblastoma.
and IQ. –– If >3yo, CSI to 36, boost to 54–55.8 Gy.
–– Unlike in medullo, for ATRT you need CT –– If <3yo, 50.4–54 Gy to primary site only. No
CAP to scan for concurrent renal rhabdoid CSI.
tumors (not mets). –– If diffuse spinal involvement, boost spine to
–– No role for VP shunts now. Try high-dose ste- 39.6 Gy. If focal, boost to 45 Gy in cord and
roids. Can place at time of surg; remove before 50–54 Gy in cauda.
pt dcd.
–– Preop MRI brain/spine. To avoid artifacts
from resection; also guides aggressiveness of
surgery.
Ependymoma [4–8, 45–47] Trials

–– Rogers 2005: posterior fossa ependymomas,
General retrospective. GTR, 10 yr LC improved with
–– Bimodal (5 yo and 35 yo). RT (50% → 100%). For STR + RT, 10 year
–– Assoc with NF2 (ch 22). LC was 36%. Thus, RT was recommended
–– WHO classification (2016). even for GTRs.
(a) I: myxopapillary and subependymoma, –– St. Jude experience (Merchant, 2009): Phase
indolent, and adults II. n = 153. 51% < 3 yo. GTR, then second-
(b) II: classic look surg if < GTR. Results: GTR rate was
(i) Test for RELA fusion, associated with 82%. Seven-year EFS 77% GTR vs 34% STR.
supratentorial tumors in children Seven-year EFS: 69% for all, 79% if G1, 61%
(c) III: anaplastic if G2–3, 77% if GTR, 34% if STR.
–– Perivascular pseudorosettes, ependymal Seven-year OS: 88% if GTR, 52% if
rosette. Tumor cells oriented radially around STR. Probability of failure more common in
central lumen. Gland-like structures. dedifferentiated tumors, 17% vs 5%.
–– Poor prognosis. –– Merchant 2009 and Koshy 2011 suggest
• ErbB-2/erbB-4 overexpression RT → ↑OS in children under 3yo.
• Age <4 yo –– Retrospective series show no benefit to CSI.
• Supratentorial location –– Retrospective evidence reveals improved out-
comes of 54 vs 50.4.
Natural history –– Extent of resection is most important
–– Cell of origin is the ependymal cell. prognosticator.
–– 95% intracranial, with 70% infratentorial and
1/3 supratentorial. Chemo
–– Classic natural history is tracking out of –– Role of chemo is not well established. No
foramen of Lushka through foramen known chemo response. Baby POG trial
magnum. sometimes used to support chemo until 3, but
–– Thus tends to fail locally, and CSI is usually very few ependymomas on trial.
not necessary. –– Response rate 5–15%.
–– No improvement as adjunct to RT.
Surgery –– May improve GTR rate (COG ACNS 0121).
–– Resection more difficult in PF vs supratent bc –– Being explored in ACNS 0831.
tumors extend to CPA and can have postop
MM Relative Indications
• STR
Workup • Child <3yo (to delay use of RT)
–– Similar to medullo
–– H&P, labs, fundoscopic exam, audiometry, COG Approach
and IQ –– Everyone gets upfront maximum safe resec-
–– Preop MRI brain/spine. 10% w spinal pri- tion. Consider re-resection if STR.
mary. < 10% CSF seeding: 9% infratent and • Establishes diagnosis, reestablishes CSF
2% supratent flow. Extent of resection is most important
–– MRI spine 10–14 days postop, if not done prognostic factor.
preop • If GTR and Grade 1, then observe. Rate
–– CSF cytology 10–14 days postop of GTR = 85%. More difficult to get R0 for
–– CT: usually have calcifications infratent tumors. If infratentorial, harder to
get R0.
• If STR then push for induction chemo, 7w –– If Spinal met: RT for incomplete resection or
of vcr, carbo cpm OR vcr, carbo, etop. anaplastic histology
Then re-resection so there is a GTR or (a) Two vert bodies above/below to 45 Gy.
NTR. On ACNS 0831, pts with STR do not (b) Boost to 50.4–59.4 Gy if no cord in field.
receive RT. –– Ependymoblastoma
• If GTR and high-risk features (e.g., (c) Treat like high-risk medulloblastoma
G2/3; adult patient), then adjuvant RT. Note
that RT usually local. Simulation/Planning
(i) > 3 yo: Resection and adj RT. R1 or G3 1. Local therapy (volumes from ACNS0831)
above the cord to 54, then comes (a) CTV1 = residual & cavity +1 cm
down (off brainstem, chiasm, cord) CTV2 = residual tumor and resection bed
to 59.4 Gy. above the cord
(ii) < 3 yo: Need to delay RT. Resection PTV1 = CTV1 + 0.3–0.5 cm
and chemo (cisplatin-cyclophos- PTV2 = CTV2 + 0.3–0.5 cm
etoposide) Can give 2 cycles then re- (b) Dose: Treat PTV1 to 54 Gy/1.8 Gy fx.
resection vs RT. If used, RT should be Boost PTV2 to 59.4 Gy if >18 m,
to 54 Gy. However, if pt < 18 m w GTR, then no
• Indications for CSI (ideally after 3 yo): focal boost.
(iii) M+ (e.g. +CSF, MRI positive) (c) No RCT for 54 vs 59.4. However, brain-
(iv) Grade IV (treat like medullo) stem toxicity can be fatal. Consider treat-
• ACNS0831. Supratent ependymoma. ing to only 54 Gy if close proximity to
Phase III study of: brainstem.
(1) Obs after GTR, differentiated supratent 2. If delivering CSI
ependymoma (a) Dose is 36 Gy
(2) After STR, induction chemo cinv carbo (b) If gross spine dz, would boost to 45 Gy
cyclosphos, and etopo, second-look
surg, then RT, then chemo Follow-Up
(3) All others get RT, then rando +/− 1. For >10 yrs, late recurrences happen.
chemo. Supratent ependymomas get 2. Craniospinal MRI Q3-6 m then Q1yr.
59.4/1.8. GTV is any residual
tumor+bed. Pre- and postop imaging Risk of brainstem toxicity: chemo, age < 3
used to define GTV. CTV = GTV + yo, ATRT, and multiple surgeries
0.5 cm. PTV = CTV + 3–5 mm (3 if
IGRT)
erm Cell and Non-Germ Cell Tumors (GCT/NGGCT/Germinoma)

G
and Pineal Tumors [4–8, 48–50]
T1 T2 T3a T3b T4
< 3 cm diam 3+ cm diam, invades Invades 2 adjacent struct or Arises Penetrates aqueduct
In vermis, roof of one adjacent struct complete filling of 4th vent, from floor to involve 3rd vent or
4th vent, or or part filling 4th extensions into aqueduct of of 4th vent midbrain or cord
cerebellar hemi- vent foramina, w marked hydro
sphere
M1 M2 M3 M4
CSF micro mets Macro mets in brain Macro mets in spinal subarachnoid Mets outside CNS
Note: no AJCC staging. Chang’s system used
General • Pseudo-Argyll-Robertson pupils

–– Histology –– Endocrinopathy (rare): diabetes insipidus
• Germinomas (65%) (occult tumor in floor of 4th ventricle or supra-
• NGGCT (35%) sellar region)
1. Choriocarcinoma (5%) –– “Bifocal” (synchronous suprasellar + pineal):
2. Endodermal sinus tumor (yolk sac)
M+ in USA but M0 in Europe
(18%)
3. Teratoma (20%) Clinical Presentation: Suprasellar Tumors
4. Embryonal carcinoma (7%) –– Hypothalamic/pituitary dysfunction
5. Mixed (25%) • Diabetes insipidus due to reduced ADH
–– Peak age: 10–12 yrs. Majority (90%) before secretion
20 yo and most others before 30 yo • GH abnormality: delayed or precocious
–– Very rare in early child hood puberty
–– Younger pts tend to have NGGCTs • Isolated growth hormone deficiency
–– Older pts tend to have pure germinomas • Hypothyroidism
–– Usually arise from proximal 3rd ventricle and • Adrenal insufficiency
affect supratentorial midline structures, e.g., –– Ophthalmologic abnormalities: usually bitem-
pineal, hypothalamus, and BG poral hemianopsia
–– Natural history: subependymal spread near
3rd and 4th vent Workup
–– H&P
Clinical Presentation: Pineal Tumors –– Serum: labs, bHCG, and AFP
–– Obstructive hydrocephalus (compression of –– CSF cytology with AFP, bHCG, PLAP, and
aqueduct of Sylvius in 3rd ventricle) c-KIT
• ⇧ICP (25–50%): H/A, N/V, papilledema, –– MRI brain/spine. Note: cannot distinguish
lethargy, and somnolence NGGCT vs germinoma
• Ataxia –– Surgery
• Seizures • Place shunt (do this before LP)
• Behavioral changes/decline in academic • Endoscopic third ventriculostomy
performance (ETV): opening from 3rd vent to pre-
–– Neuro-ophthalmologic abnormalities (up to pontine space
50%) • Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS): rarely
• Parinaud syndrome: poor upward gaze, get shunt met
accommodates but abnl light response • To obtain tissue diagnosis
(caused by pressure on the superior • If germinoma, then no need for resection
colliculus)
When to Biopsy had CR after RT. Five-year RFS 91% vs 88%.

–– SOC was historically to biopsy. ACNS 1123 Five-y OS 94% vs 92%. In 83/8 trial, no
allows for tx stratification based on CSF and relapse after 10y. In 89 trial, 5 pts relapsed at
serum tumor markers of AFP and BHCG. 10–33 m, 1 isolated spine met and 4 outside
–– Per ACNS 1123, if normal serum/CSF β-HCG CNS, salvaged w chemo. Tox was worse w
and AFP, should biopsy to distinguish pure 36 Gy > 30 Gy. Study demonstrated (1) exqui-
germinoma/mature teratoma from other site radiosensitivity; (2) 30/15 has 100%
tumors. CR. Thus, 30 Gy won.
–– SIOP CNS GCT96: M0 → CSI 24 Gy + 16 Gy
Germinoma Diagnostic Markers boost vs chemo+IFRT 40 Gy. All CRT failures
–– Always AFP negative or < 10 ng/mL (if pure) were in the ventricles.
–– β-HCG typically <50 ng/mL, << 100 ng/mL –– Rogers 2005, 2008: lit review with similar
• Minority of germinomas have ⇧β-HCG results. >90% OS at 10y.
(from syncytiotrophoblasts). If pt. has path –– Rogers, 2015.
revealing GCT, but has high BHCG, then
Rogers relapse review, WVRT or
path should be reviewed, but the tx will be
1988–2004 WBRT CSI
for a NGGCT. Overall relapse (%) 7.6 3.8
–– c-Kit positive Spinal relapse (%) 2.9 1.2
–– PLAP positive
–– Stains with placental alkaline phosphatase Conclude that WVRT+boost should replace
–– Molecular biology CSI in completely staged germinoma.
• Isochromosome 12p in adults.
• Poly-X in CNS teratoma. –– ACNS 0122: Stratum 1 is for
• Young children loss of 1p and 6q. NGGCT. HCG > 100; any elevation
AFP > 10 ng/mL or on bx/rxn, yolk sac,
Prognosis embryonal carcinoma, choriocarcinoma, tera-
–– Best: pure germinomas and teratomas toma, mixed GCT. Stratum 2 for pure germi-
–– Intermediate: germinoma w high HCG; imma- noma. Normal AFP, HCG < 50. Bifocal or
ture teratomas pineal lesion w DI and HCG < 100 + normal
–– Poor: choriocarcinoma, yolk sac, embryonal AFP.
–– ACNS1123: Stratum 1 is NGGCT, serum and/
Chemo or BHCG >100 mIU/mL, any elevation of
–– Balmaceda, MSKCC, 1996: 45 germinomas serum and CSF AFP > 10 ng/mL, or any of the
and 26 NGGCTs. Treat with CEP x4c. 57% following on bx/rsxn: yolk sac tumor, embry-
had CR. If <CR, then proceed to intensified onal carcinoma, choriocarcinoma, malignant/
chemo or second surgery. Overall, 78% immature teratoma, mixed GCT w malignant
achieved CR without RT. However, 50% of elements. Stratum 2 is pure germinoma: nor-
these patients recurred, and 10% had a tx- mal AFP and BHCG <50; b bifocal involve-
related mortality. Thus, chemo alone not SOC ment or pineal w DI and BHCG <100 mIU
for GCTs. and normal AFP; histologically confirmed
germinoma or mixed w mature teratoma and
Trials BHCG <100 mIU/mL and normal
–– MAKEI 83/86/39, Bamberg, 1999. RT alone. AFP. Stratum 2 receives (1) WVI + focal boost
MAKEI 83/86 (Pilot studies) – 36 Gy vs (2) 4 cycles carbo/etoposide, then WVRT
CSI + 14 Gy (N = 11). MAKEI 89–30 Gy to 18 Gy and IFRT to total of 30 Gy.
CSI + 15 Gy boost. Chemo only for salvage. CTV = GTV + 5 mm, limited by bone, falx,
High vs low dose had similar outcomes; all pts tent.
Planning • If CR: 21 Gy; WVRT; 30 Gy IFRT;

–– CT sim w ≤ 3 mm image thickness. Contrast CSI
is not required. • If PR or PD, consider a different
–– Fuse MR, post-Gt T1W, post-chemo T2W. diagnosis!
–– GTV + 5 mm = CTV. (c) ACNS 0112 Stratum 2: 4c carbo/etopo-
–– WVRT + pineal cistern + suprasellar cistern + side, then WVRT 18 Gy + IFRT to 30 Gy
prepontine cistern (optional). to primary.
–– CTV + 3–5 mm = PTV. Need daily IGRT w 4 . NGGCT: if labs suggest NGGCT, even w
3 mm. This is boost volume. path showing GCT, then treat as NGGCT. Treat
–– Whole ventricular volume like high-risk medullo: all get chemo, usually
(WVV)-CTV + 3 mm = PTV. get CSI. Usually worse prognosis than germi-
–– OARs: hypothalamus, pituitary, optic Ns, ret- nomas. In comparison to NSGCTs (of testes),
ina, cod, brainstem, and cochlea. RT plays a big role for NGGCTs
(a) Certain tumors do not need histo confir-
COG Approach mation per ACNS 1123, e.g., bifocal
1. Localized germinoma: RT only. Cure >90%. pineal + suprasellar tumors, pineal lesions
Historically, tumor was diagnosed by giving w DI, or mild elevation of HCG or AFP)
20 Gy and watching it melt. (b) Chemo RT
(a) ACNS1123: Chemo then RT. For pure (i) Induction platinum-based chemo
germinoma w/o CNS dissemination and (ii) Then CSI 30–36 Gy
CR to chemo, dose is 18 Gy (iii) Then boost 50.4–54 Gy
WVRT + 12 Gy boost (total of 30 Gy) to (c) Surgery + chemo
tumor bed/residual dz using 1.5 Gy (i) Resection
fractions. (ii) Adj platinum-based chemo
• If PR or SD w chemo, then dose is (iii) Restage
24 Gy WVRT and then 12 Gy boost (iv) CSI (36 → 50.4) vs IFRT
(total of 36 Gy). (d) Note: surgery not encouraged due to mor-
(b) Non-protocol standard therapy: bidity risk. Tumors are in midline
• WVRT to 21–24 Gy. PTV = structures.
CTV + 3–5 mm (e) ACNS 0122:
• Boost primary to 40–45 Gy Randomize to.
• If PR or PD, consider a different (1) Standard dose, CSI 36 Gy + boost to
diagnosis! 54 Gy; vs
• No CSI! (2) 30.6 Gy WVRT + boost to 54 Gy for
• If using chemo alone, relapse is 50%, pts w CR.
and mortality is 10%; thus, not SOC. (f) On current COG trial, ACNS 1123,
2. Bifocal/biphasic germinoma: involvement
NGGCT get chemo identical to ACNS
near third ventricle (usually pineal and supra- 0122, then
sellar). Treat as local-regional dz. WVRT (1) Control: 36 Gy CSI, then 54 Gy PF
without CSI. boost; vs
3. +CSF germinoma (like low-risk medullo) (2) Experimental: 30.6 Gy WVRT then
(a) The same as previous, but CSI to 24 Gy boost to 54 Gy if CR to chemo.
(b) Boost GTV to 45 Gy 5. Pineocytoma: treat like low-grade glioma
• Alternative: clinical trial with neoadju- (delayed RT)
vant chemo (2–4 cycles carbo/etop)
then response-based RT
Craniopharyngioma [4–8, 51–53] COG approach

1. Max safe resection (usually STR) then RT (or
General can observe). Fluid that drains is like “crank-
–– Rathke’s pouch origin case oil” – dark brown, thick.
–– Histologically benign but locally destructive 2. GTV = residual dz, inc cysts.
–– Bimodal (10 yo and 50 yo) • CTV = GTV + 0.5–1 cm
• PTV = CTV + 0.3–0.5 cm
Subtypes • Dose 50.4–54 Gy. Prefer 54 bc doses
–– Papillary <54 Gy associated worse LC.
–– Adamantinomatous (a) Mind hot spots in chiasm
(b) Watch for swelling
Workup 3. During RT, weekly MRIs should be obtained
–– H&P and labs to determine if there is reaccumulation of the
–– MRI brain cyst. CT scans (e.g., CBCT) not sensitive
–– CSF cytology with AFP and bHcG enough to clearly define reaccumulating cyst.
–– Check all anterior and posterior pituitary 4. Can use intracystic bleomycin.
hormones 5. SRS 12 Gy if <2 cm and > 5 mm from optics.
(a) Post pituitary: 6. Can use β-emitters (Y90, P32, Rh186). Rx is
(i) ADH 200–250 Gy to cyst wall.
(ii) Oxytocin (a) P32 is 0.7 MeV, t1/2 14 days, effective
(b) Ant pituitary: depth is 4 mm
(i) GH
(ii) TSH Toxicity/outcomes
(iii) LH/FSH 1. Long-term dz control after GTR and RT 90%.
(iv) ACTH 2. Neuro-cognitive is the primary concern.
(v) PRL 3. Endocrine is secondary concern. DI: 30% get
it after RT. Presents as hypernatremia, poly-
Trials uria, and thirst. Tx with desmopressin.
–– Stripp (2004): 10 yr LC with surgery worse
than surgery+RT (42% → 84%), but if RT
used as salvage 10 yr LC was unchanged.
–– Varlotto (2002) recommend doses of
54–60 Gy for craniopharyngiomas bc lower
doses have more failures
Hemangioblastoma Treatment
–– Surgery w MSR preferred
Background • No need to remove entire cyst if R0.
–– 20–50yos • 15% M/M
–– Arises in cerebellum • 50–80% LC
–– VHL association –– SRS is alternative, typically reserved for LR:
–– WHO I • 15–21 Gy to 50% IDL
–– Made of endothelial stem cells, “foamy cells” • 90% LC at 2y, 75% at 5y
that make “clear cell” morphology –– EBRT is for multiple tumors, after STR for
–– Single lesion = sporadic, older recurrence, large (>3 cm), lesions in eloquent
–– Multiple lesions = familiar, younger brain regions
• 50–55 Gy/2
VHL Hemangioblastomas
• Young age, mean 29, 50% in cord, 40% cere-
bellum, 10% brainstem
• PCV bc of EPO production by tumor
• Have better prognosis after EBRT
Workup
–– MRI: eccentric, peripheral cystic mass, and
70%. Intensely enhancing
Optic Pathway Glioma (OPG) Studies

–– CCG A9952. Compares chemos carbo and
General vinc vs thioguan, procarbazine, lomustine,
–– Bimodal distribution: 5y and 52y. and vincristine
–– 5% of CNS peds tumors.
–– Usually G1. Treatment
–– F > M in peds; M > F in adults. –– Controversial.
–– NF-1 association, 20% of NF-1 pts will get –– Chemo first, esp if < 10yo. Carbo and
OPG. vincristine.
–– Presents as painless proptosis. –– RT: delay due to possible toxicity. Consider if
–– 5y OS 89%. >10 yo, progression, declining visual acuity.
–– Optic N sheath better than chiasm, PFS 80% –– RT is 45–54 Gy/1.8 Gy fx.
vs 50%. –– Never SRS bc CNII tolerance is 8 Gy.
–– In adults, these behave like HGGs. In peds, –– Surg: if refractory and no useful vision.
esp with NF-1, they may regress. –– Should include learning to read Braille at time
of diagnosis.
Workup
–– HP, ophthalmology exam, MRI brain and
orbits, genetics eval, and endocrine eval
–– No bx necessary: imaging and exam enough
Low-Grade Gliomas (LGG) Indications for Adjuvant RT

–– R+
General –– Progressive/symptomatic
–– In children low grade > high grade –– Chemo refractory
–– JPA is the second most common pediatric –– Unresectable
brain tumor, after medullo
RT Options
Histology –– 50.4–54 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions
–– JPA: Rosenthal fibers
–– Oligodendroglioma: Loss of 1p or 19q Technique
–– GTV = visible tumor on MRI (T1 post and T2/
WHO Grading FLAIR)
–– I. JPA –– CTV = GTV + 0.5 cm
–– II. Diffuse fibrillary astrocytoma –– PTV = CTV + 0.3–0.5 cm
Treatment paradigm Toxicity

–– Observation w MRI to determine pace of pro- –– Endocrine
gression. NF-associated can regress. –– Moya-moya: vascular complications near cir-
–– Surgery w GTR sufficient. cle of Willis, constricted, develop collaterals
–– Chemo can delay RT. Reasonable in <10yo, as “puff of smoke” requires surgery.
prefer if <5yo and NF1+. Typically cannot –– Cognition decline
observe pts with G2+ tumors and sx. If >10yo –– second malignancy
and not surgical candidate, then RT
encouraged.
Chemo Options
–– Carbo 175 mg/m2 + vinc 1.5 mg/m2 induc-
tion, then maintenance x 12c
–– 6-thioguanine, procarbazine, dibromodulcitol,
CCNU, and vinc
–– Avastin + irino: recurrence
High-Grade Glioma (HGG) Management

–– Maximal Safe Resection and RT + TMZ
Histology –– FLAIR to 45 Gy, then comes down to enhance-
–– JPA: Rosenthal fibers (low grade) ment to 59.4 Gy
–– Oligodendroglioma: Loss of 1p or 19q –– CTV1: T2 FLAIR+2 cm
–– CTV2: T1 post contrast + GTV + 1.5 cm
WHO Grading –– PTV = CTV1 or CTV2 + 5 mm
–– III: anaplastic astrocytoma –– Outcomes: 3-year EFS for AA and GBM is
–– IV: GBM 13% and 7%
Chemo
–– No consensus on what is best.
–– PEI =cisplatin, etoposide, ifosfamide.
–– PEV = cisplatin, etoposide, vincristine.
–– VCR = vincristine.
iffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma

D Trials
(DIPG)/Midline Glioma/Brainstem –– Cohen 2011: no benefit to concurrent/adj
Glioma [4–8, 51, 54–62] TMZ.
–– POG/CCG trials showed no benefit to hyper-
General frac or dose escalation.
–– 80% arise in pons, and the rest are in the cer- –– Janssens 2013: hypofractionated treatment
vicomedullary junction, midbrain, and has same OS and PFS.
medulla –– No benefit has been shown for chemo in
–– Two classes DIPG.
(a) Focal: upper midbrain/lower medulla
(b) Diffuse: pons and upper medulla COG Approach
–– Steroids. Alternative is bev. This will help
Workup control peritumoral edema. In general surg is
–– H&P and labs not recommended due to likely damage to
–– MRI brain/spine. MRI will have indistinct brainstem.
margins, T1 hypointest, T2hyperintense, –– IMRT 54Gy/30 fx.
irregular enhancement w Gd, or none at all, no –– CTV = tumor + brainstem +0.5–1 cm. Current
cystic or exophytic parts trial COG-ADVL 1217 recommends GTV-
–– No biopsy CTV expansion of 1 cm, limited at calvarium,
–– IDH1, Histone 3 K27M mutation, MGMT falx, tentorium.
promoter methylation, 1p/19q co-deletion –– No role for dose escalation or hyperfraction-
status. ation (per POG). MST is 9–12 months.
–– Due to poor prognosis, other option is hypo-
Genetics frac: 3 Gy x 13 or 5.5 Gy x 6. Similar out-
–– Histone 3 K27M mutation: associated with comes to CFRT.
worse OS. Eighty percent of DIPGs have this –– Recurrence: 2 Gy x 12 fractions. GTV + 0.5 cm
mutation. margin.
References rationale for current COG studies. Pediatr Blood

Cancer. 2012;59:5–10.
16. Burgert EO Jr, Nesbit ME, Garnsey LA, et al.

1. Friedman DL, Whitton J, Leisenring W, et al.
Multimodal therapy for the management of nonpel-
Subsequent neoplasms in 5-year survivors of child-
vic, localized Ewing's sarcoma of bone: intergroup
hood cancer: the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J
study IESS-II. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1514–24.
Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:1083–95.
17. Donaldson SS, Torrey M, Link MP, et al. A multidis-
2. Schultz KR, Pullen DJ, Sather HN, et al. Risk-
ciplinary study investigating radiotherapy in Ewing’s
and response-based classification of childhood
sarcoma: end results of POG #8346. Pediatric
B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a com-
Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
bined analysis of prognostic markers from the
1998;42:125–35.
Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) and Children’s
18. Grier HE, Krailo MD, Tarbell NJ, et al. Addition of
Cancer Group (CCG). Blood. 2007;109:926–35.
ifosfamide and etoposide to standard chemotherapy
3. Anghelescu DL, Faughnan LG, Jeha S, et al.
for Ewing's sarcoma and primitive neuroectodermal
Neuropathic pain during treatment for childhood
tumor of bone. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:694–701.
acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Pediatr Blood Cancer.
19. Heyn RM, Holland R, Newton WA Jr, et al. The role of
2011;57:1147–53.
combined chemotherapy in the treatment of rhabdo-
4. Martinez-Monge R, Gomez-Iturriaga A, Cambeiro M,
myosarcoma in children. Cancer. 1974;34:2128–42.
et al. Phase I-II trial of perioperative high-dose-rate
20. Schuck A, Ahrens S, Paulussen M, et al. Local therapy
brachytherapy in oral cavity and oropharyngeal can-
in localized Ewing tumors: results of 1058 patients
cer. Brachytherapy. 2009;8:26–33.
treated in the CESS 81, CESS 86, and EICESS 92 tri-
5. Cook B DT: Wikibooks Radiation Oncology.
als. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55:168–77.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Radiation_Oncology.
21. Schuck A, Rube C, Konemann S, et al. Postoperative
Accessed April 2018.
radiotherapy in the treatment of Ewing tumors: influ-
6. Edge S, Byrd D, Compton C, et al. AJCC cancer stag-
ence of the interval between surgery and radiotherapy.
ing manual. New York: Springer; 2010.
Strahlenther Onkol. 2002;178:25–31.
7. Hansen E, Roach M. Handbook of evidence-based
22. D’Angio GJ, Breslow N, Beckwith JB, et al. Treatment
radiation oncology. 2nd ed. New York: Springer;
of Wilms’ tumor. Results of the Third National Wilms’
2010.
tumor study. Cancer. 1989;64:349–60.
8. Hristov B, Lin SH, Christodouleas JP. Radiation oncol-
23. D’Angio GJ, Evans A, Breslow N, et al. The treat-
ogy – a question based review. 2nd ed. Philadelphia:
ment of Wilms’ tumor: results of the Second National
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014.
Wilms’ tumor study. Cancer. 1981;47:2302–11.
9. Arndt CA, Stoner JA, Hawkins DS, et al. Vincristine,
24. D’Angio GJ, Evans AE, Breslow N, et al. The treat-
actinomycin, and cyclophosphamide compared with
ment of Wilms’ tumor: results of the National Wilms’
vincristine, actinomycin, and cyclophosphamide
tumor study. Cancer. 1976;38:633–46.
alternating with vincristine, topotecan, and cyclo-
25. Green DM, Breslow NE, Beckwith JB, et al.

phosphamide for intermediate-risk rhabdomyosar-
Comparison between single-dose and divided-dose
coma: children's oncology group study D9803. J Clin
administration of dactinomycin and doxorubicin
Oncol. 2009;27:5182–8.
for patients with Wilms’ tumor: a report from the
10. Crist W, Gehan EA, Ragab AH, et al. The third

National Wilms’ tumor study group. J Clin Oncol.
intergroup rhabdomyosarcoma study. J Clin Oncol.
1998;16:237–45.
1995;13:610–30.
26. Grundy PE, Breslow NE, Li S, et al. Loss of hetero-
11. Crist WM, Anderson JR, Meza JL, et al. Intergroup
zygosity for chromosomes 1p and 16q is an adverse
rhabdomyosarcoma study-IV: results for patients
prognostic factor in favorable-histology Wilms tumor:
with nonmetastatic disease. J Clin Oncol.
a report from the National Wilms Tumor Study Group.
2001;19:3091–102.
J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7312–21.
12. Maurer HM, Beltangady M, Gehan EA, et al. The
27. de Kraker J, Lemerle J, Voute PA, et al. Wilms’ tumor
intergroup rhabdomyosarcoma study-I. A final report.
with pulmonary metastases at diagnosis: the signifi-
Cancer. 1988;61:209–20.
cance of primary chemotherapy. International Society
13. Maurer HM, Gehan EA, Beltangady M, et al. The
of Pediatric Oncology Nephroblastoma Trial and
intergroup rhabdomyosarcoma study-II. Cancer.
Study Committee. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1187–90.
1993;71:1904–22.
28. Ruteshouser EC, Huff V. Familial Wilms tumor. Am J
14. Nesbit ME Jr, Gehan EA, Burgert EO Jr, et al.

Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2004;129c:29–34.
Multimodal therapy for the management of primary,
29.
Breslow N, Olshan A, Beckwith JB, et al.
nonmetastatic Ewing's sarcoma of bone: a long-term
Epidemiology of Wilms tumor. Med Pediatr Oncol.
follow-up of the first intergroup study. J Clin Oncol.
1993;21:172–81.
1990;8:1664–74.
30.
Castleberry RP, Kun LE, Shuster JJ, et al.
15. Malempati S, Hawkins DS. Rhabdomyosarcoma:

Radiotherapy improves the outlook for patients older
review of the Children’s Oncology Group (COG)
than 1 year with Pediatric Oncology Group stage C
Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Committee experience and
neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:789–95.
31. London WB, Castleberry RP, Matthay KK, et al.

45. Koshy M, Rich S, Merchant TE, et al. Post-operative
Evidence for an age cutoff greater than 365 days radiation improves survival in children younger than 3
for neuroblastoma risk group stratification in years with intracranial ependymoma. J Neuro-Oncol.
the Children’s Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2011;105:583–90.
2005;23:6459–65. 46. Merchant TE, Li C, Xiong X, et al. Conformal radio-
32. Matthay KK, Villablanca JG, Seeger RC, et al.
therapy after surgery for paediatric ependymoma: a
Treatment of high-risk neuroblastoma with intensive prospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:258–66.
chemotherapy, radiotherapy, autologous bone marrow 47. Rogers L, Pueschel J, Spetzler R, et al. Is gross-total
transplantation, and 13-cis-retinoic acid. Children’s resection sufficient treatment for posterior fossa epen-
Cancer Group. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1165–73. dymomas? J Neurosurg. 2005;102:629–36.
33. Matthay KK, Yanik G, Messina J, et al. Phase II study 48. Calaminus G, Kortmann R, Worch J, et al. SIOP CNS
on the effect of disease sites, age, and prior therapy GCT 96: final report of outcome of a prospective, mul-
on response to iodine-131-metaiodobenzylguanidine tinational nonrandomized trial for children and adults
therapy in refractory neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol. with intracranial germinoma, comparing craniospi-
2007;25:1054–60. nal irradiation alone with chemotherapy followed by
34. Nitschke R, Smith EI, Shochat S, et al. Localized neu- focal primary site irradiation for patients with local-
roblastoma treated by surgery: a Pediatric Oncology ized disease. Neuro-Oncology. 2013;15:788–96.
Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 1988;6:1271–9. 49.
Rogers SJ, Mosleh-Shirazi MA, Saran
35. Strother D, van Hoff J, Rao PV, et al. Event-free FH. Radiotherapy of localised intracranial germi-
survival of children with biologically favourable noma: time to sever historical ties? Lancet Oncol.
neuroblastoma based on the degree of initial tumour 2005;6:509–19.
resection: results from the Pediatric Oncology Group. 50. Balmaceda C, Heller G, Rosenblum M, et al.

Eur J Cancer. 1997;33:2121–5. Chemotherapy without irradiation--a novel approach
36. Shields CL, Shields JA, Needle M, et al. Combined for newly diagnosed CNS germ cell tumors: results
chemoreduction and adjuvant treatment for intraocular of an international cooperative trial. The First
retinoblastoma. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:2101–11. International Central Nervous System Germ Cell
37. Chantada G, Doz F, Antoneli CB, et al. A proposal Tumor Study. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2908–15.
for an international retinoblastoma staging system. 51. Stripp DC, Maity A, Janss AJ, et al. Surgery with or
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2006;47:801–5. without radiation therapy in the management of cra-
38. Wong FL, Boice JD Jr, Abramson DH, et al. Cancer niopharyngiomas in children and young adults. Int J
incidence after retinoblastoma. Radiation dose and Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;58:714–20.
sarcoma risk. JAMA. 1997;278:1262–7. 52. Regine WF, Kramer S. Pediatric craniopharyngio-

39. Duffner PK, Horowitz ME, Krischer JP, et al. The mas: long term results of combined treatment with
treatment of malignant brain tumors in infants and surgery and radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
very young children: an update of the Pediatric 1992;24:611–7.
Oncology Group experience. Neuro-Oncology. 53. Winkfield KM, Linsenmeier C, Yock TI, et al.

1999;1:152–61. Surveillance of craniopharyngioma cyst growth in
40. Packer RJ, Goldwein J, Nicholson HS, et al. Treatment children treated with proton radiotherapy. Int J Radiat
of children with medulloblastomas with reduced-dose Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:716–21.
craniospinal radiation therapy and adjuvant chemo- 54. Cohen KJ, Heideman RL, Zhou T, et al. Temozolomide
therapy: a Children’s Cancer Group Study. J Clin in the treatment of children with newly diagnosed
Oncol. 1999;17:2127–36. diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas: a report from
41. Rutkowski S, Bode U, Deinlein F, et al. Treatment of the Children’s Oncology Group. Neuro-Oncology.
early childhood medulloblastoma by postoperative 2011;13:410–6.
chemotherapy alone. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:978–86. 55. Edwards MS, Wara WM, Urtasun RC, et al.

42. Thomas PR, Deutsch M, Kepner JL, et al. Low-stage Hyperfractionated radiation therapy for brain-
medulloblastoma: final analysis of trial comparing stem glioma: a phase I-II trial. J Neurosurg.
standard-dose with reduced-dose neuraxis irradiation. 1989;70:691–700.
J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3004–11. 56. Greenberg ML, Fisher PG, Freeman C, et al. Etoposide,
43. Zeltzer PM, Boyett JM, Finlay JL, et al. Metastasis vincristine, and cyclosporin A with standard-dose
stage, adjuvant treatment, and residual tumor are radiation therapy in newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic
prognostic factors for medulloblastoma in children: brainstem gliomas: a pediatric oncology group phase
conclusions from the Children’s Cancer Group I study. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2005;45:644–8.
921 randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 57. Jalali R, Raut N, Arora B, et al. Prospective evalu-
1999;17:832–45. ation of radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant
44. Brandes AA, Franceschi E, Tosoni A, et al. Long- temozolomide in children with newly diagnosed dif-
term results of a prospective study on the treat- fuse intrinsic pontine glioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
ment of medulloblastoma in adults. Cancer. Phys. 2010;77:113–8.
2007;110:2035–41.
58. Janssens GO, Jansen MH, Lauwers SJ, et al.

intrinsic brainstem glioma in children: a pilot study.
Hypofractionation vs conventional radiation therapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:722–6.
for newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma: 61. Negretti L, Bouchireb K, Levy-Piedbois C, et al.
a matched-cohort analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Hypofractionated radiotherapy in the treatment
Phys. 2013;85:315–20. of diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma in children: a
59. Skowronska-Gardas A. A literature review of the
single institution’s experience. J Neuro-Oncol.
recent radiotherapy clinical trials in pediatric brain 2011;104:773–7.
tumors. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2009;4:42–55. 62. Wu G, Broniscer A, McEachron TA, et al. Somatic
60. Janssens GO, Gidding CE, Van Lindert EJ, et al. The histone H3 alterations in pediatric diffuse intrinsic
role of hypofractionation radiotherapy for diffuse pontine gliomas and non-brainstem glioblastomas.
Nat Genet. 2012;44:251–3.
Central Nervous System Cancers
3
Sameer K. Nath, Daniel M. Trifiletti,
Nicholas G. Zaorsky, and Chad G. Rusthoven
Abstract
ment of patients with central nervous system
tumors, with special focus on principles that
components of radiotherapy and radiosurgery
care are discussed.
S. K. Nath (*) · C. G. Rusthoven

University of Colorado School of Medicine,
Aurora, CO, USA
e-mail: sameer.nath@ucdenver.edu;
CHAD.RUSTHOVEN@UCDENVER.EDU
D. M. Trifiletti
N. G. Zaorsky

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4_3
84 S. K. Nath et al.
• Months – years after RT • ~2-6 months after RT • Months–years after RT

• RANO: T1W is >25% ↑, T2/FLAIR is ↑, new lesion, ↓ clinical • Damage to oligodendrocytes, transient • T2W MRI: “cut pepper” appearance
status interruption of myelin synthesis
• Imaging: • More common in MGMTm
• T1 Gd+ MRI: Ring -like enhancement • Imaging:
• T2W: hyperintense core, surrounding edema • T1W Gd+ MRI: Ring-like enhancement
• ADC map from DWI: hypointense signal surrounding • T2W MRI: hyperintense around ring
hyperintense core • DWI: ↑ diffusion around ring
• DWI: ↓ diffusion around ring
• MR perfusion: ↑ blood volume
Choline Creatine (Cr) N-acetylasparate Lactate, lipids
MRS (Cho) ATP recycler (NAA) (Lac / Lip)
Cell membrane Neuron metabolite Trauma metabolite
Amount component
@NicholasZaorsky
@DanTrifMD
4 3 2 1 Chemical shift (PPM)

Central Nervous System Cancers 85
CNS Pearls [1–10]
Brain pathology
Nuclear Atypia GBM
Mitotic index
Endothelial proliferation
Necrosis
Rosenthal fibers JPA
Psammoma bodies, whorls Meningioma
Verocay body Schwannoma
Schiller-Duval bodies Yolk sac
Fried egg Oligodendroglioma
Pseudorosettes Ependymoma: cystic, cerebellar
Homer-Wright rosettes Medulloblastoma, neuroblastoma, PNET, +/−pineoblastoma
Flexner-Wintersteiner rosettes Retinoblastoma, +/−pineoblastoma
Structure Constraint Risk End point Resource

Standard fractionation
Optic N/chiasm Dmax <55 Gy <3% Optic neuropathy QUANTEC
Dmax 55–60 Gy 3–7%
Dmax >60 Gy >7–20%
Retina Dmax <45 Gy (acceptable 45–50) Retinopathy NRG BN001
Lens Dmax <7 Gy (acceptable 7–10) Cataracts NRG BN001
Cochlea Mean < 45 Gy (preferable <35) Hearing loss QUANTEC
Brainstem D1–10 cc < 59 Gy <5% Neuropathy/necrosis QUANTEC
Dmax <60–64 Gy
Brain Dmax <60 Gy <3% Necrosis QUANTEC
Dmax = 72 5%
Dmax = 90 10%
Spinal cord Dmax 45 Gy <0.1% Myelopathy QUANTEC
Dmax 50 Gy 0.2%
Dmax 54 Gy <1%
Dmax 60 Gy 6%
Dmax 69 Gy 50%
Single- fraction SRS
Optic N/chiasm Dmax 8 Gy/1 fx (preferred) Rare Optic neuropathy QUANTEC
Dmax 12 Gy/1 fx (required) <10%
Brain V12 < 5–10 cc/1 fx Radiation necrosis QUANTEC
Brainstem Dmax <12.5 Gy/1 fx <5% Neuropathy/necrosis QUANTEC
Cochlea Mean dose <4 Gy/1 fx <25% Hearing loss Kano 2009
Tamura 2009
Spinal cord Dmax 14 Gy/1 fx Myelopathy Yamada 2008
Subvolume V10 < 10%/1 fx Ryu 2007
Esophagus Dmax <16 Gy Ulceration RTOG 0631
V11.2 < 5 cc
Additional resources for single and multi-fraction radiosurgery constraints:
UK Consensus on Normal Tissue Constraints for Stereotactic Radiosurgery (Hanna 2018)
Stereotactic body radiation therapy: the report of AAPM Task Group 101 (Benedict 2010)
CNS Workup –– After surgery, need MRI within 48 h

–– If ependymoma: MRI brain and spine preop
–– History: ask about risk factors for extracranial (if spine MRI not done preop, then must wait
disease (e.g., smoking) if it could be mets. For until >10 days post-op)
meningioma: ionizing radiation, NF-2, and
hormone replacement therapy (70% of gr1
tumors are PR+). MRI
–– If NF2: check for café au lait spots.
–– Physical exam: Neuro exam, HA, vision –– T1: longitudinal relaxation. Ideal for soft-
change, CN deficits, hypopituitarism, or tissue/normal anatomy. Enhances fat and soft
overproduction. tissues, does not enhance fluid. T1 + Gad con-
–– Prolactinoma: amenorrhea, infertility, and trast is ideal for visualizing brain tumors.
galactorrhea. –– T2: transverse relaxation. Ideal for fluid/
–– Cushing’s disease (ACTH): central obesity, edema.
HTN, DM, hirsutism, the skin changes, and –– FLAIR: T2 with moving fluid (i.e., CSF) sig-
osteoporosis. nal subtracted out.
–– Acromegaly (GH): changes in bones, HA,
and cardiac disease.
–– Differential: lymphoma, GBM, anaplastic MRI Spectroscopy
astrocytoma, metastasis, meningioma, and –– Tumors have ↑ choline.
abscess/infection (“L-GAMMA”). –– Necrosis has ↓ choline, ↑ lactate, and ↑ lipid.
–– Labs: CBC/CMP. –– Both have ↓ creatinine and NAA.
–– For pituitary tumor: endocrine panel (TSH,
FSH, LH, GH/IGF-1, cortisol, ACTH,
PRL). CSF flow
–– Dex suppression test (Cushing’s disease is
not suppressed by low dose but is sup- –– Choroid plexus is present in all four ventricles
pressed by high dose). and produces CSF. CSF flows from lateral
–– CT head thin cuts. ventricles → foramen of Monroe → 3rd ven-
–– Dural tail sign ddx: chloroma, lymphoma, tricle → cerebral aqueduct of Sylvius → 4th
sarcoid, meningioma (cats like spilled ventricle → foramen of Magendie and lateral
milk). foramina of Luschka → subarachnoid
–– MRI brain w/ and w/o contrast, thin slices. cisterns
–– Consider CT c/a/p if suspecting brain
metastasis.
–– Neurosurgical consultation. I ntradural Intramedullary Spinal Cord
–– Bx. Tumors
–– Biopsy if MRI compatible for lymphoma.
No steroids before bx. Differential Diagnosis
–– Send tissue for MGMT, IDH 1/IDH 2, –– Extradural spinal cord tumors: usually
EGFR, TERT promoter (WHO III–IV), mets. Primary tumors are chordomas, sarco-
1p/19q (WHO II). mas, lymphomas, plasmocytomas, MM, and
–– Decadron + PPI – if low likelihood of Langerhans.
lymphoma. –– Intradural extramedullary spinal cord
–– Keppra (500 mg BID) if seizure risk. tumors are 50% mets and 50% primary. Most
common are nerve sheath tumors (schwanno- with different dose gradients, for example,
mas, neurofibromas) and meningiomas. where isocenters have been inappropriately
–– Intradural intramedullary spinal cord centered on the edge of the target volume.
tumors are usually primary tumors. –– Conformity index (CI): (Rx isodose vol-
Subtypes: ependymoma (90%), astrocytoma, ume)/(PTV).
hemangioblastoma, subependymoma, and • Preferred <1.2 in lung SBRT
ganglioglioma. • Controversial use in CNS
SRS Evaluation Radionecrosis
–– Gradient index (GI): (volume of half the pre- –– Central hypodensity, ring enhancement, high
scription isodose)/(volume of the prescription edema to enhancing tumor ratio, T1/T2 mis-
isodose). match, low PET avidity, ↓ choline peak, ↑ lac-
• Preferred to be ~1.0 in CNS. tate peak, and ↑ lipid peak occur at >6 m post
• For example, for a plan normalized to the RT. Necrosis may have decreased blood flow
50% IDL, it is 25% isodose volume/50% on perfusion series (e.g., arterial spin labeling
isodose volume. GI will differentiate [ASL]), while some tumors (e.g., GBM,
between plans of similar conformity but metastases) will have increased blood flow.
Molecular Pathways for Adult Gliomas in 2018

IDH mutation?
IDH mutated (+) IDH wild-type (–)
1p/19q codeletion?
Yes No
Astrocytoma (grade 2 & 3) & Most primary GBMs &
Oligodendroglioma (grade 2 and 3) Other IDH wild-type gliomas
most secondary GBMs IDH(-) astros ("molecular GBMs")
TERT mutations common ATRX loss common MGMT promoter meth variable Correlate with clinical, imaging, histological, and
CIC and FUBP1 mutations variable P53 mutations common TERT mutations common molecular features.
MGMT promoter meth common MGMT promoter meth common Chromosome 10 loss common
PTEN mutation variable H3 K27M mutations (diffuse midline glioma)
EGFR amplification variable BRAF mutations (some PXAs, gangliogliomas,
pylocytic astros; also seen in epithelioid GBM)
The classification of gliomas has evolved signifi- mutated oligodendrogliomas and astrocytomas
cantly in the past decade. Historically, WHO will typically retain their characteristic molecular
grades I and II gliomas were broadly classified driver mutations after transformation to higher-
and treated as “low-grade” tumors, and WHO grade tumors, suggesting that grade II and III oli-
grades III and IV tumors were classified and godendrogliomas represent different points in the
treated as “high-grade” tumors based on light phenotypic evolution of tumors from a common
microscopy features. In the 2016 edition of the molecular lineage and the same could be said of
WHO classification of tumors of the CNS, glio- IDH-mutated astrocytomas of grades II, III, and
mas are now classified according to both histo- IV (i.e., secondary GBMs).
pathologic and defining molecular features. Primary GBMs, which are more common
Some of the most important updates are related (~90%) than secondary GBMs (~10%) and tend
to the recognition of IDH mutations as early, to occur in older adults, typically do not have
stable driver mutations in the majority of grades IDH mutations and are instead driven by other
II and III gliomas, as well as a characteristic fea- characteristic molecular features, including but
ture of most secondary GBMs (i.e., those GBMs not limited to TERT mutations, chromosome 10
that arise from lower-grade tumors). IDH- loss, PTEN mutations, and EGFR amplification.
mutated tumors that subsequently develop down- IDH wild-type astrocytomas often exhibit molec-
stream codeletion of chromosomal arms 1p and ular profiles and clinical behaviors that are more
19q are now classified as oligodendroglial similar to primary GBMs than to IDH-mutated
tumors by definition, whereas IDH-mutated astrocytomas and are sometimes referred to as
tumors without 1p/19q codeletion are classified “molecular GBMs.”
as astrocytic tumors and commonly have down- In 2018, the majority of the available clinical
stream ATRX loss and p53 mutations (Eckel- data is based on older WHO classification sys-
Passow 2005, Cancer Genome Atlas Research tems, and guideline-endorsed treatment para-
Atlas 2015) [3, 4]. digms are driven more by histologic grade than
The assignment of WHO grades II, III, and IV molecular profile (see below). However, it is
is still dependent on histopathologic features clear that future risk stratification and treatment
including atypia, mitoses, microvascular prolif- algorithms will be increasingly based on genomic
eration, and necrosis. However, both IDH- alterations.
General Glioma Treatment Paradigms in 2018

Grade 2, astrocytomas and oligodendrogliomas Trial justification for preferred strategies Notes
Grade 2 risk stratification is based on RTOG
"High-Risk" RT + chemo (preferred) RTOG 9802 (Bucker, NEJM 2016)
9802 inclusion criteria: High-risk is either
RT alone ≥40y OR a subtotal resection. Low-risk is
Max safe resection Chemo alone <40y AND a gross total resection. However,
additional high-risk criteria have been used
Observation in other studies (eg, large tumors, crossing
midline, symptomatic, recurrent).
"Low-risk" Observation (preferred) EORTC 22845 "non-believers" trial
(van den Bent, Lancet 2005) Caution should be exercised when
RT + chemo deeming an IDH(-) astrocytoma as "low-
RT alone risk", as these tumors can exhibit
molecular profiles and natural histories
Chemo alone
similar to primary GBMs.
Grade 3, anaplastic astrocytomas and oligodendrogliomas

Max safe resection RT + chemo (preferred) EORTC 26951 (van den Bent, JCO 2012)
RT alone RTOG 9402 (Cairncross,JCO 2012)
CATNON (van den Bent, Lancet 2017)
Chemo alone
-Level 1 evidence supports RT + concurrent
and adjuvant TMZ as preferred treatment
Grade 4, glioblastomas for GBM regardless of age for both younger
(Stupp 2005) and elderly patients (Perry
Max safe resection RT + TMZ (preferred) +/– TTF EORTC/NCIC (Stupp, NEJM 2005) 2017) who are suitable candidates for
EORTC/NCIC/TROG Elderly Trial (Perry, NEJM 2017) combined therapy.
RT alone TTF-trial (Stupp, JAMA 2015)
-Hypofractionated RT may be selected
TMZ alone or preferred for elderly or those with
(Only in MGMT+; Wick 2012, Malmstrom 2012) poor performance status (Perry 2017,
Roa 2004, Roa 2015, Malmstrom 2012).
ow-Grade Glioma (WHO Grades

L –– CT CAP or PET/CT sometimes appropriate to
I–II, Oligo, Astro, and Mixed Oligo- rule out metastases if diagnosis in question.
Astro) [11–25] –– Decadron or anti-seizure meds: appropriate
for symptoms, generally not indicated
General prophylactically.
–– Frequently diagnosed in 30s and 40s. –– MRI w/ or w/o gad. LGGs commonly do not
–– Approx 20% of gliomas are low grade. enhance with contrast, usually show T2
–– Protracted natural hx often undergo high-grade bright signal, and often appear mass-like
transformation in the years after dx. RT not (gyral fullness, sulci effacement). Although
assoc with ↑ malignant trans (EORTC 22845). most non-enhancing gliomas are low grade,
foci of higher-grade disease may be found on
Histology pathology.
–– Historically, four determinants of grade: –– Calcifications may be seen with oligos.
atypia, mitosis, microvascular proliferation, –– Hearing/ophtho eval as indicated.
and necrosis. –– Surgery eval for maximum safe resection.
–– Grade I subtypes: JPA, pleomorphic xantho- Rarely biopsy first, unless unresectable or
astrocytoma, subependymal giant cell astrocy- diagnosis in question.
toma, subependymoma, and gangliogliomas. –– Post-op MRI indicated within 72 hrs of sur-
–– Grade II subtypes (common): diffuse astrocy- gery and within 24 hrs when possible.
tomas and oligodendrogliomas.
–– Oligo-astrocytoma no longer exists in Surgery for LGGs
WHO. These are now oligo lineage (IDH+, –– Smith 2008: retro, 216 pts, resection >90%
1p/19q codel+) or astrocytoma lineage (IDH+ correlated with 5yr OS (97% vs 76%)
but 1p/19q neg or IDH wild-type astros). –– Jakola 2017: parallel Norwegian pop-based
–– Juvenile pilocytic astrocytoma (JPA): cohorts received watchful waiting vs resection
(a) Rosenthal fibers histologically. for grade II lesions. Median OS 14 yrs
(b) WHO I: treat with surgery; consider
(resection) vs 6 yrs (obs)
PORT if STR or recurrent.
(c) Pilomyxoid astrocytoma is an atypical RT for LGGs
JPA, more aggressive. –– EORTC 22845 Non-Believers trial (van den
–– Subependymal giant cell tumor: Bent, Lancet 2005). 314 patients randomized
(a) Associated with tuberous sclerosis (ch9) to early radiation (54 Gy/30 Fx) vs observa-
(b) WHO I tion and RT at progression. No chemo. OS
similar (median 7.4 vs 7.2 yrs, NS). Early RT
Symptoms assoc with improved PFS (5.3 vs 3.4 yrs, HR
–– Seizures: common presenting symptom due to 0.59, p < 0.001) and better seizure control at
superficial location of tumor, infiltration into 1 year. Salvage RT recorded in 46% of the obs
brain parenchyma, and slow growth rate. pts. Seventy percent of pts had transformation
–– Other symptoms include, but are not limited to HGG irrespective of early vs delayed
to, motor or language deficit, personality RT. Study can be used to argue for obs (delay
changes, headaches, and vomiting. RT until progression) due to lack of OS differ-
ence but can also be used to argue for early RT
Workup due to improved PFS. Prognostic factors for
–– H&P and neurological exam. worse OS on MVA: age >40, astro histo, 6+
–– History: previous scans, cancer history, and cm, crossing midline, and neuro deficit prior
cancer screening. to surgery.
–– Basic labs to rule out infection.
–– EORTC 22844 Believers (dose-esc) trial PFS and OS in Major LGG Randomized
(Karim, IJROBP 1996). 379 patients with Trials
LGG randomized to 45 Gy/25 Fx vs
PFS OS
59.4 Gy/33 Fx. No difference in OS.
Trial Treatment (years) (years)
–– Intergroup (dose-esc) trial (Shaw, JCO Non- Obs (delayed RT) 3.4 7.2
2002): 203 patients randomized to 50.4 Gy/28 Believers
Fx vs 64.8 Gy/36 Fx. No difference in OS. RT (54 Gy) 5.3 7.4
High-grade neurotox worse with high-dose Believers RT (45 or 59.4 Gy) 4 to 5 6 to 7
RT. Ninety-two percent of failures were Intergroup RT (50.4 or 64.8 Gy) 5.5 9.3
EORTC RT (50.4 Gy) 3.8 –
infield. OS better with age <40, oligo histo,
22033
and smaller size. TMZ 3.2 –
RTOG 9802 RT (54 Gy) 4.0 7.8
RT +/– Chemotherapy for LGGs Combined RT (54 Gy) 10.4 13.3
–– RTOG 9802 (Buckner NEJM 2016). High- and then PCV x6c
risk LGG (defined as age ≥ 40 or STR), 251
NEW NCCN high risk OLD high risk (SATANIC)
patients randomized to 54 Gy/30 Fx +/− PCV
>40 yo or STR Size ≥6 cm
chemo x 6 cycles. 43% oligodendro. With
Age >40yo
12-yr follow-up, PCV dramatically improved Tumor crossing midline
OS (median 13.3 vs 7.8 yrs) and PFS (10.4 vs Astrocytoma (pure)
4.0 yrs). Curves separate at 4y. Neuro deficit preop
–– RTOG 0424 (Fisher 2015): Single-arm phase IDH1/2 non-mutated as high
II. 129 patients with high-risk LGG, with 3 or risk
1p/19q non-Codeleted
more risk factors (age ≥ 40, astro, bi-
hemispherical tumor, ≥6 cm, or preop neuro
function status of >1), were treated with RT Treatment Paradigms in 2018
(54 Gy/ 30 Fx) plus concurrent and adjuvant –– Cranial LGGs need max safe resection first.
TMZ. Three-year OS of 73% improved vs his- Per 2017 NCCN, if low risk (GTR and age <40
torical control of 54%. per RTOG 9802), may follow with close
–– EORTC 22033-26033 (Baumert, Lancet observation.
Oncol 2016): Randomized single-modality –– If high-risk (STR or age >40y), then adjuvant
comparison of RT alone (50.4 Gy) vs TMZ RT + chemo. PCV is category-1 based on
alone (max 12 cycles) in high-risk supratent RTOG 9802, but many centers use TMZ.
LGG, with at least one of these features: –– The contemporary NCCN stratification of high
age >40, progressive dz, size >5 cm, cross vs low risk provides a useful backbone for
midline, and neuro sx. No diff in median LGG management; however, we would caution
PFS, 46 months for RT vs 39 months for the conceptual overreliance on the high- vs
TMZ. OS results still maturing and not low-risk inclusion criteria from a single trial
reported in 2016 publication. Results should (i.e., RTOG 9802). Additional clinical risk fac-
be taken in context of the RTOG 98-02 tors have been identified and used in other trials
results showing best outcomes with (e.g., tumor size, histology, symptoms, crossing
RT + chemotherapy. midline, progressive, etc.). Molecular-based
stratifications (IDH, 1p/19q) are also likely to –– Two dedicated randomized RT dose-esc trials
gain increasing importance in future trials. from the pre-chemo era (EORTC 22844 and
IDH-negative astros, in particular, may exhibit Intergroup) do not support an advantage of RT
natural histories similar to primary GBMs doses above 45–50.4 Gy. The RTOG 9802
(Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, used 54 Gy/30 fx. EORTC used 50.4 Gy/28
NEJM 2015). fx. Consequently, 2017 NCCN acknowledges
–– For spinal LGGs, the adj RT paradigm is simi- doses from 45–54 Gy.
lar, although the role of chemotherapy is cur- –– New CODEL trial incorporates boost for GRD
rently undefined. Surgery with max safe to 59.4 Gy.
resection first. If GTR, role of adj RT is con-
troversial and may be individualized. If STR Simulation/Planning – Spine
or less, adj RT is usually advocated because –– Supine, vacloc, aquaplast mask if above T4.
failure is typically local. –– MRI should be used to define the GTV.
–– Classically, fields targeted 2 VBs above and
Simulation/Planning: Brain below the myelogram-defined tumor. With
–– Supine, aquaplast, and fuse post-op MRI. Fusion modern MRI-based planning, a CTV of
of preop MRI may be useful for reference. GTV + 0.5–1.0 cm is reasonable.
–– GTV = post-op cavity + any T1 post-contrast –– PTV = 3–5 mm with daily IGRT.
and T2 FLAIR abnormality. Most LGGs will –– Dose: 45–50.4 Gy are reasonable for LGG;
not have T1 post-contrast enhancement. extrapolated from cranial disease; higher
–– CTV = 0.5–1.0 cm exp, cropped at anatomic doses can be considered based on size, loca-
boundaries (e.g., falx, tentorium, bone, cis- tion, tumor grade, and risks of radiation-
terns). CTVs should be allowed to cross white induced myelopathy vs myelopathy from
matter tracts commonly including corpus cal- tumor regrowth.
losum but where appropriate consideration
should also be given to cerebral/cerebellar Follow-Up
peduncles and ant/post commissures. –– NCCN advocates MRI Q6m for 5 years and
–– PTV = 2–5 mm with daily IGRT. *PTVs should then annually.
be based on institutional technical standards. –– Lifelong surveillance recommended.
igh-Grade Glioma (WHO Grades

H –– MGMT (O-6-methylguanine-DNA-methyl-
III–IV) [11–15, 26–86] transferase).
–– DNA repair enzyme that removes alkyl
General groups from O6 guanine.
–– Most common primary malignant brain tumor. –– Methylation of the MGMT promotor
–– Majority are sporadic. silences MGMT, increasing the antitumor
–– Some hereditary syndromes (e.g., Cowden, effects of alkylating agents like temozolo-
Turcot, Lynch, Li-Fraumeni, NF1). mide (TMZ).
–– Symptoms may include headache, seizure, –– MGMT promoter meth observed in
focal neuro deficits, and personality changes. 35–45% of primary GBMs and ≥ 80% of
–– MRI typically shows T1p enhancing lesion secondary (IDH+) GBMs and IDH+ grade
with T2-bright vasogenic edema. III gliomas
–– DDx may include brain metastases, lym- –– MGMT status is a well-validated predictor
phoma, infection, stroke, and demyelinating of improved TMZ response.
lesion. –– MGMT status has not reliably predicted as
–– In GBM, defining histopath features include outcomes in patients treated with RT alone
necrosis and microvascular proliferation. (Malmstrom 2012, Wick 2012, Perry 2017).
–– H3 K27M mutations define diffuse midline –– A subset of pts without MGMT promoter
gliomas (WHO grade IV). meth still benefit from TMZ (Stupp 2009,
Perry 2017), but features identifying these
Molecular patients have not yet been defined.
–– Grade III (anaplastic) gliomas.
–– Anaplastic oligos (IDH+, 1p/19q code- Workup
leted), same molecular signature as grade –– H&P, neuro exam
II oligos. –– MRI w/ or w/o gad
–– Anaplastic astros (IDH+, 1p19q non-codel) –– History: prior MRIs, cancer hx, cancer
or (IDH-negative, sometimes referred to as screening
“molecular GBMs”), same as grade II –– Basic labs to rule out infection
astros. –– CT CAP or PET/CT sometimes appropriate to
–– Oligo-astro no longer recognized; now rule out metastases if diagnosis in question
classified as oligos or astros based on –– Decadron or anti-seizure meds: appropriate
molecular signatures above. for symptoms, generally not indicated prophy-
–– Primary vs secondary GBM: molecularly lactically. If longer-term steroids needed, con-
related to IDH mutational status. sider PPI and PCP prophylaxis
–– Primary GBMs (90%): typically IDH wild –– Hearing/optho eval as indicated
type, worse prognosis, older patients, usu- –– Surgery eval for maximum safe resection.
ally not preceded by a lower-grade tumor. Typically no need for biopsy, unless unresect-
–– Secondary GBMs (10%): typically IDH- able or diagnosis in question.
mutated, better prognosis, younger
patients, often preceded by a lower-grade Extent of Resection (EOR)
tumor. May have molecular features simi- –– Vuorinen 2003. Finland. Small randomized
lar to IDH+ astro (e.g., ATRX loss, p53 trial (N = 30) of resection plus RT vs biopsy
mutation). plus RT for suspected HGG in the elderly
(>65 yrs). Resection associated with improved Strategies that Have not Improved on
OS (5.7 vs 2.8 mo, p = 0.035). 60 Gy/30 Fx
–– Brown 2016: Meta of >41,000 pts; improved –– SRS boost (e.g., RTOG 9305, RTOG 0023)
OS with GTR >STR and STR >biopsy alone. –– Hyper Fx (e.g., RTOG 9006, RTOG 8302)
–– Lacroix 2001: n = 416. Ninety-eight EOR –– Brachytherapy (e.g., BTCG NIH 8701)
was cut off and contributed to all or none sur-
gical philosophy. Elderly: RT vs Best Supportive Care
–– Sanai 2011: n = 500. EOR as low as 78% ben- –– Keime-Guibert 2007: 81 patients >70 yrs.
eficial. Stepwise improvement in OS for EOR RCT of 50.4 Gy vs best supportive care. No
thresholds of 95%, 98%, and 100%. chemo. Trial stopped at first interim analysis
–– Chaichana 2014: n = 259. EOR at >70% with superior OS with RT, 7.3 vs 4.3 mo.
beneficial.
Elderly/Poor KPS: Hypofractionation,
BCNU/Carmustine (Gliadel) Wafers in the No TMZ
Surgical Cavity –– Roa 2004 (“Roa 1”): 100 elderly (>60 yo)
–– Westphal 2006: RCT (N = 240) of newly GBM patients. Surgery, then randomize
diagnosed HGG. Improved OS with wafers, 60 Gy/30 Fx vs hypofractionated RT 40 Gy/15
13.8 vs 11.6 mo (p = 0.017). Fx. No chemo. No difference in median OS:
–– Valtonen 1997: RCT (N = 32) of newly diag- 5.1 vs 5.6 mo. No change in average KPS score
nosed HGG. Improved OS with wafers, 53 vs or KPS over time.
40 weeks (p = 0.008) for GBM. –– Roa 2015 (“Roa 2”): 98 with GBM. Three
–– Brem 1995: RCT (N = 222) of recurrent patient types included: frail = age 50+ and KPS
HGG. Improved OS with wafers, 31 vs 50–70, elderly = age 65+ and KPS 80–100, and
23 weeks (p = 0.006). elderly and frail. Note that 40/15 is 70% BED
–– 2017 NCCN acknowledges wafers in cavity at of 60 Gy/2. Randomized to 25 Gy/5 Fx vs
resection as an option for both newly diagnosed 40 Gy/15 Fx. No chemo. No diff in OS, PFS, or
and recurrent HGGs, but note that this can be QOL. Dose constraint is the max dose (40 Gy).
an exclusion criterion for some clinical trials.
Elderly/Poor KPS: Hypofractionation
Surgery +/– RT in the Pre-TMZ Era and + TMZ
–– Laperriere 2002. Systematic review and pooled –– Nordic trial (Malmstrom 2012): Single-
analysis of six RCTs from the pre- TMZ era modality comparisons – TMZ alone vs hypo-
(Shapiro 1976, Walker 1978, Anderson 1978, frac RT 34/10 alone vs standard RT 60/30
Walker 1980, Kristiansen 1981, Sandberg- alone for GBM in >60yo. OS outcomes with
Wollheim 1991). OS favored RT (HR 0.81, TMZ alone (8.3 mo) similar to 34/10 (7.5 mo)
p < 0.0001). These historic trials used doses from and superior to 60/30 (6 mo). Standard RT
45 to 60 Gy and most involved whole-brain RT. 60/30 patients were less likely to complete
treatment. MGMT+ patients did best with
WBRT vs Limited-Field RT TMZ alone. In MGMT-negative, RT alone
–– Shapiro 1989: Trial included a randomization was superior to TMZ alone. Supports use of
of WBRT 60 Gy vs WBRT 43 Gy and then 34/10 over 60/30 for elderly.
cone down to 60 Gy. No differences in OS. –– NCI Canada/EORTC/TROG (Perry 2017):
Elderly pts ≥70 yrs, randomized to hypofrac-
RT Dose tionated RT (40 Gy/15 Fx) +/− conc/adj
–– RTOG 74-01 (Nelson 1988): No benefit to TMZ. Improved OS (9.3 vs 7.6 mo) with TMZ
70 Gy over 60 Gy for GBM overall and in MGMT methy (p < 0.001) and
–– MRC (Bleehen 1991): 474 pts. 45/20 vs unmeth patients (p = 0.055). This trial effec-
60/30. 60 Gy improved OS (12 vs 9 mo) tively ended the preceding debate about the
role of single-modality therapy in elderly Tumor-Treating Fields (TTF)

GBM patients: RT + TMZ is the gold standard –– Stupp 2015, 2017: 695 GBM patients com-
in elderly patients who are suitable for completed RT/TMZ and then randomized 2:1 to
bined therapy. TTF plus TMZ or TMZ alone. TTF associated
with improved OS (21 v 16 mo) and PFS (6.7
TMZ v 4 mo). Criticisms: no sham device (i.e., no
–– EORTC/NCIC (Stupp 2005, 2009): 573 placebo) and increased support in TTF
GBM pts (≤70 years). RCT of RT (60 Gy) patients. No palliative care (see Temel NEJM);
+/− conc/adj TMZ. Median OS improved Currently category-2A for adjuvant GBM
with TMZ (14.6 v 12.1 mo), and 2-year 27% treatment.
vs 11%, and 5-year 10% vs 2%. Largest ben-
efit of TMZ in MGMT+, but a subset of Grade 3 Glioma: RT +/– Chemotherapy
MGMT unmethylated patients also benefited, –– RTOG 9402 (Cairncross 2013). 289 patients
making TMZ the guideline standard irrespec- w/grade III oligos or oligo-astros. RCT of
tive of MGMT status. RT (59.4 Gy) +/− neoadj PCV. No diff in
–– RTOG 0525 (Gilbert 2013): RCT of standard OS overall, but curves split after 5 yrs. In
TMZ vs dose-dense TMZ; no diff in OS or 1p/19q codeleted, OS dramatically improved
PFS. with PCV (median 14.7 vs 7.3 years,
–– NOA-08 (Wick 2012): German elderly trial. p = 0.03). Subsequent analysis (Cairncross
Single-modality comparisons for standard RT 2014) also showed a benefit to PCV in IDH-
60/30 alone vs dose-dense TMZ alone in mutated, 1p/19q non-codeleted (i.e., molec-
patients 65+ years. No difference in OS or ular astrocytomas in the contemporary
PFS. TMZ alone reasonable for MGMT+ WHO).
patients unsuitable for combined RT + TMZ. –– EORTC 26951 (van den Bent 2012): 268 pts
–– Rusthoven 2016. NCDB: over 16,000 GBM w/ grade III oligos or oligo-astros. RCT of
patients ≥65y in the TMZ era (2005+). OS RT (59.4 Gy) +/− PCV. PCV improved OS
best with chemoRT (9 mo); OS with RT alone in the overall cohort (median 42.3 vs 30.6
(4.7 mo) and chemo alone (4.3 mo) was simi- mo). The benefit was largest for 1p/19q
lar; no-RT/no-chemo cohort associated with codeleted.
shortest OS (2.8 mo). –– CATNON: EORTC 26053-22054. (van den
Bent 2017). Patients with grade III astros
without 1p/19q codeletion. Two-by-two
Bevacizumab in Up-Front GBM design randomizing patients to RT (59.4 Gy)
+/− conc TMZ +/− adj TMZ. Interim results
–– RTOG 0825 (Gilbert 2014): 637 pts with in 2017 specifically reporting on the +/−
GBM: RCT of RT/TMZ +/− conc/adj Bev. No adjuvant TMZ randomization showed
diff in OS. Bev was assoc with superior PFS improved OS with adj TMZ (5-year OS, 56
but also inferior QOL and more adverse vs 44%).
events.
–– AVAGLIO (Chinot 2014): 921 patients with Grade III Gliomas: RT vs Chemotherapy
GBM: RCT of RT/TMZ +/− conc/adj/mainte- –– NOA-04 (Wick 2009). 318 patients with grade
nance Bev. No diff in OS. Bev was assoc with III gliomas. RCT of up-front RT alone (60 Gy)
superior PFS and QOL but also higher adverse vs chemo alone (PCV or TMZ). Comparable
events. outcomes (TTF, PFS, and OS) with up-front
–– Bevacizumab is not considered standard ther- RT alone vs chemo alone.
apy for newly diagnosed GBM.
Patterns of Failure and Evolving RT –– CTV60 = post-op cavity + residual enhancement

Treatment Technique +2 cm (cropped to 5 mm at natural barriers).
–– PTV = CTV + 3 mm (only if using daily
–– RTOG and EORTC have historically used 2+ CBCT).
cm CTV margins for GBM based on autopsy –– Goal is to start within 4 weeks of surgery.
and recurrence series from the pre-MRI era –– TMZ is 75 mg/m2/day 7 days per week con-
showing most recurrences within 2 cm of the current, then 1 m break, and then 150 mg/m2/
resection cavity and contrast enhancement. day d1–5 q28 days x 6–12 cycles adjuvant.
–– More recent clinical series have suggested Give Bactrim for PCP ppx.
comparable outcomes with smaller CTV mar- –– Do not give bevacizumab up-front (two nega-
gins ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 cm, with most tive RCTs).
failures remaining infield (Paulsson 2014,
Gebhardt 2014, McDonald 2011). As a result, pecial Scenario: Elderly >65 yo
S
the 2016 ASTRO GBM consensus statement and KPS >60–70
(Cabrera 2016) acknowledges that margins –– Old Roa: Hypofractionated RT to 40 Gy in 15
<2 cm are acceptable. fractions + concurrent TMZ. CTV = T1 post
–– RTOG cone-down technique: Initial treat- enhancement +2 cm, PTV = CTV + 3 mm.
ment to larger T2 abnormality, then cone down • No TMZ on trial.
for last 14–16 Gy to cavity+T1 post-contrast –– New Roa: Ultra-hypofrac RT to 25 Gy in 5
abnormality. fractions
–– EORTC single-volume technique: Cavity+T1 • No TMZ on trial.
post-contrast abnormality to full dose. No dedi- –– Nordic: 34 Gy in 10 fractions alone
cated coverage of T2 abnormality. –– Perry: 40 Gy/10 fractions + TMZ → TMZ
–– Minniti 2010: failure patterns in the TMZ era alone
using EORT single-volume technique, ana-
lyzed by MGMT +/−. Recurrences were pecial scenario: KPS <60–70
S
infield for 64% of methylated, 91% for –– Nordic: If MGMT methylated → TMZ alone
unmethylated. (150–200 mg/m2 × 5d q28d × 6).
–– Chang 2007: MDACC study, edema not
included in target volumes; patterns of recur- esponse Assessment in Neuro-
R
rence reviewed and patients re-planned based Oncology (RANO) Criteria for GBM
on RTOG guidelines; including edema would Recurrence
not have altered failure patterns.
CR PR SD PD
T1 Gd+ dz None >50% <50% if ↓ >25% ↑
<25% if ↑
WHO IV/GBM Simulation/Planning
–– Post-op MRI within 72 h (preferably within T2/FLAIR Stable or improved ↑

24 hours when possible) New lesion No Yes
–– Supine, aquaplast. Fuse post-op MRI for vol- Steroid use? No Stable or ↓ N/A
umes. Fusion of preop MRI may be useful in Clinical Stable or improved ↓
status
some cases for reference.
Requirement All All All Any
–– Primary techniques are RTOG-style cone for response
down and EORTC-style single-volume tech-
nique as noted above.
–– CTV46 = post-op T2 FLAIR + cavity +2 cm –– Simplified RANO: new enhancement outside
(cropped to 5 mm at natural barriers). RT field, increase >25% in size, unexplained
clinical deterioration
–– Call progression within 3 months of RT only –– RTOG 1205 (ongoing): RCT of bevacizumab
if new enhancement is beyond 80% IDL alone vs bevacizumab plus reRT. RT is 35
–– Unequivocal pathological evidence of viable Gy/10 Fx to cavity and T1 post-contrast
tumor abnormality with tight margins.
Revised EORTC RPA for GBM

–– III: age <50 and PS 0 rade III Glioma (AA, AO, AOA)
G
–– IV: age <50 and PS 1–2 management
–– Age >50, GTR/STR, and MMSE>27
–– V: age >50 and bx only or MMSE<27 –– Maximal safe resection (or stereotactic biopsy
if not feasible)
Median Survival w/ TMZ + RT –– Send tissue for: 1p/19q and IDH1 for oligos
–– RPA III – 21–24 mo (all 1p/19q codel also are IDH1 mut)
–– RPA IV – 14–16 mo –– Post-op MRI w/ in 48 hr
–– RPA V – 9–10 mo –– If codeleted: RT → PCV six cycles.
PCV = procarbazine, CCNU, vincristine q6
Follow-Up weeks × six cycles
–– 2017 NCCN: MRI q2–4 months x 3 years and –– If non-codeleted or AA: Stupp regimen as
then 6 q months indefinitely. per GBM. Concurrent TMZ and RT → adju-
–– Majority of HGG recurrences (80–90%) are vant TMZ
local; 20–30% of patients have pseudopro-
gression after RT + TMZ (Taal 2008). RT Details
–– MGMT methylation status increases the inci- –– Simulation: Supine, three-point face mask. CT
dence of pseudoprogression after TMZ + RT sim w/o contrast, and MRI sim with contrast.
(Brandes 2008). Ensure to obtain T1 post and T2-FLAIR sequences
–– CTV45 = Post-op T2 FLAIR + cavity +2 cm
Recurrence (cropped to 5 mm at natural barriers)
–– Approx 80–90% recurrences are local/infield –– CTV59.4 = If enhancing: post-op cavity +
–– There is no universal standard of care for residual enhancement +2 cm (cropped to
recurrent HGG. Cases should ideally be dis- 5 mm at natural barriers). If non-enhancing:
cussed in multidisciplinary setting. Clinical T2-FLAIR+5 mm
trials are preferred when available. –– PTV = CTV + 3 mm (only if using daily CBCT)
–– Options for therapy may include combina- –– Planning:
tions of re-resection +/− chemotherapy wafer –– Dose: 45 Gy to FLAIR and 59.4 Gy to cone
placement in the cavity, chemo/systemic ther- down
apy (e.g., TMZ re-challenge, alternative sys- –– IMRT
temic agent, bevacizumab), TTF (Stupp 2012), –– Daily CBCT
and re-irradiation.
–– ReRT carries increased risk of side effects Special Scenario: Elderly or Low KPS. See
and should generally be delayed to at least GBM
>6 months and ideally >12 months after Outcomes:
prior RT. RTOG 94-02 (Grade III AO or AOA)
–– Combs 2005. Series of reRT in 172 patients, RT vs PCV → RT
conventional fractionation 36 Gy/18 Fx –– Median OS (yrs): RT PCV → RT
–– Fogh 2010. Series of reRT in 145 patients, –– 1p/19q codel (all IDH1 mut) 7 15
hypofractionated RT 35 Gy/10 Fx –– 1p/19q intact, IDH1 mut 3.3 5.5
–– Shapiro 2013. Series of 24 patients reRT –– Intact/WT 1.3 1.0
with, SBRT 30 Gy/5 Fx + bevacizumab
rimary CNS Lymphoma (PCNSL)

P –– Thalamus, basal ganglia, and corpus callosum
[11–15, 87–103] are common areas, followed by frontal, pari-
etal, temporal, and occipital lobes.
Prognostics, Ferreri, JCO, 2003 –– Borders tend to be sharply circumscribed in
Age > 60 Risk group # Factors 2y OS % most cases but can be ill-defined (~15%).
ECOG > 1 Low risk 0–1 80
LDH > UNL
–– Differential may include lymphoma, brain
Int risk 2–3 50
CSF prot > UNL High risk 4–5 15 metastases, glioma, infection, demyelination,
Deep brain involved and neurosarcoid. Considerations specific to
HIV may include toxoplasmosis and progres-
sive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
Stage: All Are Stage IE (Extranodal NHL)
General Workup
–– 4% of primary CNS tumors. –– H&P, CBC, CMP, LDH, HIV
–– In immunocompetent pts, most dx between 45 –– Stereotactic brain biopsy; hold steroids until
and 65 years of age. path bc of 40% response rate
–– The primary risk factor is immunodeficiency: –– CSF cytology if safe
HIV, iatrogenic immune deficiency, –– Slit lamp exam to rule out ocular involvement
autoimmune disorders, and genetic immune –– MRI +/−spine if spinal canal involvement
deficiency syndromes. suspected. MRI has classic “cotton” wool
–– EBV+ in 60% of immunocompetent cases. appearance with fuzzy borders
–– Gain of chr12 → ↑MDM2 → ↓p53. –– CT CAP or PET-CT to rule out systemic NHL
–– Most (>95%) have a negative systemic lym- –– Testicular ultrasound for men >60 years
phoma workup. If lymphoma found outside –– Consider BM biopsy
CNS, it is NHL with CNS involvement. –– SPECT if immunocompromised
–– The majority of PCNLS are DLBCL. –– Vitrectomy for diagnosis if ocular lymphoma
–– There are normally no B cells in the CNS. suspected
–– Clinical prognostic groups (Ferreri JCO 2003)
based on age, PS, serum LDH, CSF protein Chemo +/– RT
concentration, and deep brain involvement: –– G-PCNSL-SG-1 (Thiel 2010): Phase 3 non-
age >60, ECOG >1, elevated LDH, elevated inferiority trial. 551 enrolled (318 treated per
CSF protein, deep brain involvement. protocol), immunocompetent patients ran-
–– “ABCDE” domized to high-dose MTX (with or without
–– Abrey/MSKCC, 2006 nomogram: ifosfamide) +/− WBRT (45 Gy/1.5 Gy Fx
• RPA1: Age <50. MST 8.5 y daily). No diff in OS (but failed to reach non-
• RPA2: Age >50, KPS >70: MST 3.2 y inferiority margin). WBRT assoc with
• RPA3: Age >50, KPS <70: MST 1.1 y improved PFS and more neurotox.
–– RTOG 1114 (ongoing): R-MVP and consoli-
dative Ara-C +/− low-dose WBRT (23.4 Gy)
Imaging
–– T1p homogenously enhancing mass, pre-con Chemo + Low-Dose WBRT
T1 hypointense, T2 iso to hyperintense. –– Morris 2013. Multicenter phase II, 52 patients.
–– Majority (60–70%) are solitary lesions in R-MVP (MTX, procarbazine, VCR,
immunocompetent pts, with higher rates of ritux) + reduced dose RT to 23.4 Gy in the case
multifocality in the immunocompromised. of CR or 45 Gy for PR, then consolidation cyta-
–– Lesions tend to be nonhemorrhagic, periven- rabine. 2-year PFS 77%, median PFS 7.7 years.
tricular masses, in deep white matter. 3-year OS 87%. Median OS not reached.
–– Shah 2007: methotrexate, vincrist, procarb + Salvage WBRT

rituximab (R-MVP) + RT 23.4 Gy in the case –– Nguyen 2005. Series of 27 pts treated with
of CR or 45 Gy for PR, then consolidation salvage WBRT (median 36 Gy). 74% had a
cytarabine. 2 year OS 67%. 2/3 had CR. With response (37% CR, 37% PR). Medians OS 11
CR to chemo, 2-year OS 89%, PFS 79%. Note mo after WBRT. Neurotox higher if >60 yo
reduced dose used bc earlier trials showed v and if >36 Gy.
high rates of neurotoxicity if >60 yo and
45 Gy. Treatment Paradigms in 2018
–– High-dose IV methotrexate induction ther-
Chemo + Hyper-fractionated RT apy is the backbone of contemporary
–– RTOG 93–10 (Fisher 2005): All receive management.
induction chemo 5 cycles MVP (MTX 2.5 m/ –– Historically, PCNLS was managed WBRT
m2, vincrist, procarb) and then WBRT. alone, but responses were not durable, and
Initially RT to 45 Gy (1.8 Gy Fx), until aware- median OS was only 10–18 months (e.g.,
ness of delayed neurotoxicity: 80% of patients RTOG 8315). With MTX-based therapy (with
>60y had neurocognitive defects vs 6% in or without WBRT), median OS may range
patients <60y. RT dose was decreased to from 3 to 5 years.
36 Gy (1.2 Gy Fx BID). –– Therapy is divided into induction (with high-
–– RTOG 0227 (Glass 2016): Phase I/II, 65 dose MTX-based regimens) and consolidation.
patients. MTX + TMZ + rituximab. Hyper- –– Induction:
fractionated WBRT 1.2 Gy BID to 36 Gy. –– MTX may be monotherapy or delivered
2-year OS and PFS were 81% and 64%, with other chemotherapy agents and/or
respectively. rituximab.
–– Goal a complete response (CR).
Chemotherapy Alone (Without RT) –– Consolidation after CR:
–– NABTT 9607 (Batchelor 2003): Phase 2, HD –– NCCN recognizes options include high-
MTX, no RT. MS 22.8 mo. No reported dose chemotherapy + autologous stem cell
neurotox rescue, non-myeloablative chemotherapy,
–– MSKCC (Gavrilovic 2006): Series of 57 consolidative MTX, and low-dose WBRT
patients treated with high-dose MTX with or (23.4 Gy).
without WBRT. Median OS 51 mo. Median –– Role of WBRT after CR is controversial.
OS for pts >60y was 29 mo irrespective of The one RCT of WBRT after CR (Thiel
WBRT 2010) found improved response rates but
–– EORTC 26952 (Hoang-Xuan 2003). Phase no difference in OS. Several trials involv-
2 in patients over 60y, MTX, no WBRT. 55 ing WBRT randomizations are ongoing
patients. 42% CR, 6% PR. Median OS 14.3 (RTOG 1114, IELSG 32, PRECIS).
mo. 1-yr PFS 40% –– When WBRT offered after a CR, low-dose
–– Illerhaus 2009: Phase 2, 30 elderly pts (57– WBRT 23.4 Gy/1.8 Gy is preferred.
79 y, median 70 y). MTX + CCNU + procar- –– If <CR: 30–36 Gy, WBRT + involved field
bazine, no WBRT. CR 44%, PR 25%. 5-year boost to 45 Gy is reasonable (NCCN
OS 33%. 2017).
–– Juergens 2010: Phase I/II, 65 patients, treated –– If unable to tolerate high-dose MTX, con-
with systemic and intraventricular chemo, no sider alternate chemo or WBRT to
WBRT. Concluded that half of patients could 24–36 Gy + involved field boost to 45 Gy
achieve long-term DFS without WBRT. (NCCN 2017).
–– If ocular involvement alone (primary ocu- Simulation/Planning

lar lymphoma), options include intraocular –– Place BBs at the lateral canthi to approximate
chemotherapy and/or systemic therapy posterior third of orbit
and/or RT to eyes (~36 Gy, Yahalom 2014). –– Helmet field, treat down to C2/3
–– Due to concerns over neurotox, many cen- –– If no ocular involvement, treat posterior 1/3 of
ters defer WBRT up-front and reserve the globe. If ocular involvement, include
WBRT for salvage. There is particular con- entire orbits (Yahalom 2014).
cern for neurotox in patients >60 yrs.
–– Relapse:
–– Options may include chemotherapy, high- Primary Ocular DLBCL
dose chemo + stem cell rescue, WBRT if
not previously given, and palliative/best –– RT is primary tx
supportive care. –– Orbits only 36 Gy in 1.8/fx w/ half beam block
–– The NCCN 2017 stratifies relapse para- posteriorly at posterior optic canal (treat optic
digms by duration of initial response to up- nerves up to chiasm)
front therapy >12 months. –– If only one eye involved, treat ipsilateral globe
–– Patients unable to tolerate high-dose MTX: + optic nerve up to the chiasm
–– May be offered and alternate chemother-
apy regimen or WBRT (per NCCN 2017,
24–36 Gy followed by focal boost to
45 Gy)
–– Patients with HIV:
–– Treated with MTX-based therapy in con-
junction with anti-retrovirals, with or with-
out WBRT
Meningioma [11–15, 96, 104–127]

Simpson resection grade (1957) 5-y LRR G1, surg + G3, surg+RT 10-y LRR 15-y LRR
RT5-y LRR 5-y LRR
0: GTR + dural attachment + bone + 2cm dural strip 5
1: GTR + dural attachment + bone 10 N/A 33 20 24
2: GTR + coagulation of dural attachment 20 25 32
3: GTR tumor only, extradural extension 30
4: STR 40 90 55 60 80
5: Decompression +/– biopsy 100 55
General
History
–– 34% of all primary tumors.
–– Many are asymptomatic: HA, personality
–– From arachnoid cap cells in arachnoid villi.
changes, CN deficits, paresis, paresthesias,
–– Approximately 2–3% of the population may
and seizures.
have meningiomas.
–– If suspecting NF-2, check for café au lait
–– Second most common primary brain tumor (at
spots.
15–30%), and the incidence increases with
age.
Workup
–– Two percent of the population may have
–– Make the diagnosis radiographically. If not
meningiomas (based on autopsy series),
possible, then consider biopsy or octreotide
though 90% are benign.
scan.
–– Median age 65, rare in children (increased in
–– CT head thin cuts w/ and w/o contrast.
NF2 or after early RT exposure).
–– MRI brain w/ and w/o contrast.
–– Female:male ratio 2–3:1 for grade I s but less
pronounced in grades II–III s.
MRI
–– Risk factors: RT, hormone therapy, NF2,
–– Extra-axial, dural-based mass.
schwannomatosis, and MEN1 syndrome.
–– Classically pre-contrast T1 isointense or
–– Somatic NF2 mutations may be present in up
hypointense, T2 isointense or hyperintense.
to 1/2 of sporadic meningiomas.
–– Strong, homogenous T1 post-contrast
–– Psammoma bodies and calcifications and ker-
enhancing.
atin whorls (Starry Night by Van Gogh sign).
–– Frequently have adjacent dural thickening that
–– Factors predicting slow progression: calcifica-
tapers peripherally (“dural tail”).
tions, hypointense on T1 MRI, old age, and no
–– Features which may suggest a grade II–III
growth on serial scans.
meningioma: brain invasion, brain edema,
intratumoral cystic change, extension through
WHO Rate Name
grade
Mitosis Cellularity
bone, hyperostosis or adjacent bone destruc-
I >80% Benign,
Angioblastic,
<4 /10 HPF tion, and elevated blood volume.
All others –– No imaging feature is pathognomonic for
II 7–15% Atypical ≥4 /10 HPF Increased cellularity
Clear cell Brain invasion Small cells, high N:C high-grade meningiomas in the absence of
Chordoid or ≥3 of the Prominent nucleoli
OR benign w/ following: Patternless or sheetlike growth pathology.
brain Foci necrosis
invasion
III 4% Anaplastic ≥20 /10 HPF
Rhabdoid And/or:
Resemble carcinoma, sarcoma,
melanoma
CT Head Thin Cuts w/ and w/o Contrast
Papillary Loss of usual patterns –– Majority contrast enhancing, peritumoral
Infiltration of brain
Mitoses + atypical forms edema in 60%, bony changes (hyperostosis) in
Multifocal foci necrosis
15–20%; 15% have calcification.
Extent of Resection 5-yr follow-up, 37% progressed; only 6% of

–– GTR often attempted for tumors located along those observed had symptomatic progression.
convexities, anterior parasagittal/sagittal sinus –– Observation after surgery (grade I): RTOG
area, olfactory groove, and some tentorial and 0539 low-risk cohort. Rogers 2016 (ASTRO
posterior fossa lesions. abstract 2016). Prospective phase II study.
–– STR may be attempted for less accessible Sixty-five patients with grade I meningioma
tumors including the skull base, clivus, and s/p GTR or STR (only 5 had STR)
posterior parasagittal/sagittal sinus area. The prospectively observed without RT. 3/5 year:
risks and benefits of partial resection need to LC 93/87%, PFS 92/86%, and OS 98/98%.
be weighed on an individual basis. For
example, an attempt to relieve mass effect or Conventionally Fractionated RT
debulking of large tumors may warrant
–– RTOG 0539: Intermediate-risk cohort:
planned STR when GTR is unfeasible. Rogers 2017. Recurrent grade I or grade II
–– Biopsy alone or empiric radiation therapy after GTR. Treated to 54 Gy/30 Fx. 3/5 year:
without biopsy may be appropriate for high- LC 96/86%, PFS 94%/84%, and OS 96/96%
risk areas, such as the cavernous sinus, skull –– Tanlzer 2011: 88 patients treated to mean
base, and optic nerve sheath. 52.5 Gy. Median follow-up 8 years. 10-year
LC 99%
General Outcomes with/Without RT (RANO –– Solda 2013: 222 patients treated with
Review, Rogers 2015; Gr2/3 Review, Sun 2015) 50–55 Gy. Five- or 10-year LC were 93%/86%
–– Grade I s, reported tumor control rates and OS 93%/84%
(a) GTR without RT: approx. 80–90% control –– Fokas 2014: 318 patients treated with RT
at 5 yrs, 60–80% at 10 yrs, and 40–75% at (80%), hypofractionated SRS (15%), SRS
15 yrs 5%. 5/10-year LC 93%/88%, OS 89%/74%,
(b) STR without RT: approx. 40–60% control and CSS 97%/97%
at 5 yrs, 0–50% at 10 yrs, and 0–30% at
15 yrs Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS)
(c) After RT (EBRT or SRS) as primary or –– Considered most appropriate for smaller
post-op treatment: approx. 70–95% lesions (often <3 cm or <10 cc), tumors with
control at 10 yrs. distinct margins, and those at sufficient
–– Grade II s, reported tumor control rates distance from functionally important areas
(a) GTR, approx 60–90% control at 5 yrs with- (e.g., optic nerves, chiasm)
out RT and 70–100% control with EBRT –– Excellent local control rates (80–95% at
(b) STR, approx 0–60% control at 5 years with- 10 yrs) have been reported with single-fraction
out RT and 45–90% control with EBRT doses from 12 to 16 Gy for grade I
(c) SRS for recurrent or residual grade II s, meningiomas (Rogers 2015), with no clear
reports are heterogeneous with widely dose response with higher doses (Stafford
ranging control from 0% to 90%, with 2001, Kondziolka 1998)
most reports ranging from 50% to 80% at –– Kondziolka (2008). Series of 972 patients
2 yrs (Rogers 2015) treated with GK-SRS, mean marginal dose of
–– Grade III s 14 Gy. Median follow-up 4 yrs. Ten-year
(a) GTR/STR + RT: 5-year PFS 0–60%, OS control in grade I s was 91%. Overall morbidity
30–60% 7.7%.
–– Santacroce (2012). Multicenter retrospective
Observation of 15 centers, 4565 patients treated with GK
–– Observation alone, Yano 2006: 351 patients SRS (median marginal dose of 14 Gy) for grade
with asymptomatic meningiomas were I s. Median imaging follow-up 63 months. PFS
observed without surgery. Among patients with at 5/10 yrs was 95%/87%. Permanent morbid-
ity in 6.6%.
–– Reports of SRS for grade II s are primarily in –– Growth after surgery:
the setting of STR or recurrence, with widely (a) RT and/or re-resection depending on

ranging control rates from 0 to 90% at 2 yrs, scenario
with most between 50 and 80% (Rogers 2015). –– RT technique:
–– Symptomatic edema is reported more com- (a) SRS generally preferred for suitable lesions
monly after single-fraction SRS for larger due to similar efficacy to conventional RT,
meningiomas and those in parasagittal/para- favorable toxicity, and convenience.
falcine or convexity locations (Sheehan 2015; (b) SRS dose is typically 12–16 Gy for grade I.
Patil 2008; Girvigian 2008). Some authors (c) Conventionally RT is typically 45–55 Gy
have advocated fractionated SRS or for grade I.
conventional RT for such cases.
–– Multi-fraction SRS (frequently in the range Grade II
20–25 Gy delivered in 3–5 fx) has been associ- –– Max safe resection:
ated with encouraging LC and may represent (a) GTR: Role of adj RT is controversial. Either
an attractive option for tumors located near RT or close observation may be acceptable:
critical structures such the optic nerves/chiasm (i) Ongoing NRG BN003 and ROAM/

or brainstem (Marchetti 2016; Navarria 2015). EORTC 1308: Grade II s post-GTR
Overall, the available follow-up durations in randomized to RT (59.4 or 60 Gy) vs
series of multi-fraction SRS are shorter than close observation
the single-fraction SRS literature. (b) STR: Post-op RT is standard.
–– RT technique:
(a) Conventionally fractionated RT is typi-
Treatment Paradigm
cally standard, 54–60 Gy.
Grade I
(b) SRS can be considered in select cases.
–– Small (typically <2–3 cm but no strict size cri-
teria), asymptomatic:
Grade III
(a) Up-front observation preferred. Growth

–– Max safe resection - >adj RT (59.4–60 Gy) is
rate = 4 mm/y
standard.
–– Symptomatic, large (>~3 cm), or growing:
(a) Max safe resection preferred: Pediatric Meningioma
(i) GTR: Observation preferred –– Very rare.
(ii) STR: Observation generally preferred –– Manage primarily w/ surgery.
for grade I. If close to critical struc- –– Consider adjuvant RT if anaplastic, R+, brain
tures, consider RT invasion, and benign meningioma at a site
(b) Unresectable: Radiation alone. FSRT pre- where risks of recurrence outweigh risks of
ferred. SRS cat 2b RT, progressive, or unresectable.
Conventional fractionation planning: RTOG 0539

Risk group Definition Treatment 3y 5y Follow-up: MRI at 3
PFS /LC/OS PFS/LC/OS m, then every q6m for
3y, and then q12m for 10 y.
Low GTR G1 (Simpson I–III) observe 92/93/98 86/87/98 RTOG 05-39: MRI
STR G1(Simpson IV–V) q6m for 3y, then q12m
for 10y
Intermed GTR G2 GTV=tumor bed and enhancement 94/96/96 84/86/96 RTOG 05-39: MRI at 3,
Recurrent G1 CTV54=GTV + 1cm 6, 12 months, then
PTV54=CTV54 + 3-5mm every 6-12m for 5y,
then MRI q1-3y.
High GTR G3 CTV54=GTV + 2cm 59/69/79 – RTOG 05-39: MRI at 3
Recurrent G2 PTV54=CTV54+ 3–5mm m, then every q6m for
STR G2 Then followed by 6 Gy boost 3y,then q12m for 10 y.
CTV60 = GTV + 1cm
PTV60 = CTV54 + 3–5mm
Optic Nerve Sheath Meningioma (b) CTV = 3–5 mm expansion on GTV for
grade I–II meningiomas:
Literature (i) CTVs can be shaved off anatomic bar-
–– Paulsen 2012: 109 patients treated with riers of spread and can be minimized
54 Gy. Radiographic tumor control 98% at at brain parenchymal interface in the
5 yrs. Visual acuity preserved in 91% at 5 yrs. absence of pathologic brain invasion.
–– Milker-Zabel 2009: 32 patients. Median RT Brain parenchyma should be included
dose 54.9 Gy. Median follow-up was 4.5 yrs. in the setting of brain invasion.
LC 100%. (ii) In the setting of suspected or con-
–– Saeed 2010: Br J Opthalmol, 2010. 34 firmed bone involvement, CTVs
patients treated with fractionated RT. At should not be shaved off bone.
median of 58 months, 41% showed improved (iii) The RTOG 0539 used larger expan-
visual acuity, vision stabilized in 50%, dete- sions (1 cm for int risk and 1–2 cm for
riorated in 9%. high risk); however, due to the pre-
dominately infield pattern of failure
RT Technique and low rates of marginal failures, the
–– Simulate supine, aquaplast mask. follow-up NRG BN003 (grade II
–– At minimum, fuse with T1 post-contrast MRIs. meningiomas s/p GTR) uses smaller
T2 series are frequently helpful in distinguish- margins with 5 mm CTV expansions
ing tumor from normal tissues. Neuroradiology which can be shaved down to 3 mm
review recommended for complex cases. around critical structures.
–– Conventionally fractionated RT: (c) CTVs for grade III s may be 0.5–2 cm
(a) GTV = gross tumor, typically defined on depending on institutional practice and
T1 post-contrast MRI: generally include brain parenchyma
(i) Surgical cavity typically included in (d) PTV: Typically 2–5 mm based on

adjuvant RT cases. institution- specific technical and IGRT
(ii) The dural tail is generally not included standards
in protocols. –– Stereotactic radiosurgery
(a) GTV = gross tumor, typically defined on
T1 post-contrast MRI
(b) CTV/PTV expansions: dependent of insti-
tutional practice: often no expansion or
1–2 mm.
Brain Metastases [11–15, 128–161] –– Spinal axis MRI and CSF analysis may be
appropriate when concerned for spinal metas-
General tases and/or leptomeningeal spread.
–– Brain metastases are the most common adult
brain tumor. Symptomatic Brain Metastases
–– Occur in approximately 20–40% of patients
with advanced cancers. –– For patients with symptomatic brain metasta-
–– Lung, breast, melanoma, and renal cell carci- ses, corticosteroids are usually appropriate.
nomas are the most common. –– Corticosteroids are generally not indicated in
–– Hemorrhagic metastases are more common in the absence of symptoms; anticonvulsants are
melanoma and renal cell. generally not indicated in the absence of
–– The blood-brain barrier (BBB) can signifi- seizures.
cantly reduce the concentrations of many sys- –– For patients with large and/or symptomatic
temic agents, which can make the CNS a brain metastases associated with significant
pharmacologic sanctuary for metastatic vasogenic edema, midline shift, or risk of her-
progression. niation, urgent neurosurgical consult is
–– Approximately 80% occur in cerebral hemi- indicated.
spheres, 15% in the cerebellum, 5% in the –– Neurosurgical resection for large and/or
brainstem. symptomatic lesions is often preferred for
–– Nomenclature: “solitary” brain metasta- single brain lesions.
sis = only metastatic lesion in the entire body; –– Resection may also be appropriate in select
“single” brain metastasis = only metastatic cases of multiple metastases when surgery is
lesion in the brain. considered the best approach to relieve mass
effect or prevent herniation from a larger
Workup lesion.
–– MRI brain with and without gadolinium. –– If resection is not appropriate or not offered,
–– Brain metastases are typically T1 post-contrast corticosteroids and evaluation for potential
enhancing. radiation therapy should be pursued.
–– Hemorrhage is intrinsically T1 hyperintense
on non-contrast images. General Management Paradigms for
–– Brain metastases may be single or multiple, Asymptomatic Brain Metastases in 2018
typically have circumscribed margins, often –– Single brain lesions:
occur preferentially at the gray-white matter –– SRS alone
interface, may have areas of central necrosis/ –– Neurosurgical resection +/− postoperative
hemorrhage/or cyst, and may be associated SRS to the resection cavity:
with large amounts of vasogenic edema or –– Resection often preferred for large,
mass effect in relation to the lesion size. symptomatic, or threatening lesions.
–– Differential may include metastases, primary –– Limited brain metastases:
brain tumors (e.g., GBM, high-grade glio- –– SRS alone preferred
mas), primary CNS lymphoma, and infection. –– More extensive brain metastases:
Multiple lesions raise suspicion for metasta- –– WBRT
ses, though not pathognomonic. –– SRS to multiple lesions with close MRI
–– Brain biopsy is often not necessary when the surveillance:
probability of metastases is considered high –– SRS candidacy is evolving. Historically,
based on the overall clinical picture (e.g., can- SRS was offered for 1–3 or 4 lesions
cer history, prior brain metastases, multiple based on the inclusion criteria of the
brain lesions, metastases to other organs, ris- randomized SRS +/− WBRT trials
ing tumor markers, etc.). (Aoyama 2006; Chang 2009; Kocher
2011; Brown 2016); however, there is a –– Vecht 1993. 63 Patients with single met,
growing literature supporting SRS for received WBRT 40 Gy/20 Fx BID randomized
4–10+ lesions (Yamamoto 2014), sug- to +/− up-front Sx. Sx improved median OS
gesting that SRS candidacy should be (10 vs 6 mo).
increasingly individualized. –– Mintz 1996. 84 patients with single met,
received WBRT 30 Gy/10 Fx randomized to
Evolution of Prognostic Models +/− up-front Sx. No difference in OS.
–– Older trials incorporated the RTOG recursive
partitioning analysis (RPA) (Gaspar 1997), Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS)
stratifying Class 1 (KPS ≥70, age <65, con-
trolled primary, and no extracranial metasta- WBRT +/− SRS
ses: median OS 7.1 months), Class 3 (KPS –– RTOG 9508 (Andrews 2004): 331 patients
<70; median OS 2.3 months), and Class 2 (not with 1–3 mets, received WBRT 37.5 Gy/15 Fx
Class 1 or 3: median OS 4.2 months). Original randomized to +/− SRS. SRS assoc with
RPA underestimates OS in the modern era, but improved OS for single met (6.5 vs 4.9 mo),
familiarity remains useful for historical pur- LC, KPS, and steroid independence at 6 mo.
poses and interpreting the literature. No diff in OS for all patients with 1–3 mets,
–– Graded prognostic assessment (GPA) neurologic death, or time to any intracranial
(Sperduto 2008) adds # of mets. failure.
–– Diagnosis-specific GPA (DS-GPA) (Sperduto –– Kondziolka 1999. 27 patients with 2–4 mets
2012) modified GPA by histo. randomized to WBRT +/− SRS. Stopped early
–– Lung molecular GPA (lung-molGPA) due to LC benefit with SRS on interim
(Sperduto 2017) adds EGFR and ALK to analysis. 1-yr LC 100% vs 8%. Time to local
GPA. Includes 2186 patients, 2006–2014 with failure 36 vs 6 months.
NSCLC (1521 adenocarcinoma and 665 non-
adenocarcinoma). Median OS 12 months in SRS +/− WBRT
the entire cohort (better than any group in the –– JROSG 99-1 (Aoyama 2006): 132 patients
original 1997 RPA). Patients with high lung- with 1–4 mets, randomized to SRS +/− WBRT
molGPA scores had prolonged median OS of 30 Gy/10 Fx. No difference in OS or neuro-
nearly 4 yrs after brain mets. logic death. WBRT assoc with improved LC,
distant brain control.
–– MDACC (Chang 2009): 58 patients with 1–3
Clinical Data mets randomized to SRS +/− WBRT 30 Gy/12
Fx. Stopped early due to worse cognitive out-
Whole-Brain Radiation (WBRT) comes in WBRT arm. SRS alone assoc with
WBRT vs Supportive Care improved 4-month Hopkins verbal learning test
–– MRC “QUARTZ” trial (Mulvenna 2016). and improved median OS (15 vs 6 mo). WBRT
538 patients with NSCLC, randomized to sup- assoc with improved LC and CNS DFS.
portive care +/− WBRT 20 Gy/5 Fx. No sig- –– EORTC 22952 (Kocher 2011): Local therapy
nificant difference in OS or quality of life. (surgery or SRS) randomized to +/−
WBRT. No difference in OS or time to KPS
WBRT +/− Up-Front Surgery (Sx) for Single deterioration with WBRT. WBRT reduced LR,
Met distant recurrence, and decreased neurologic
–– Patchell 1990. 48 patients with single met, deaths. Soffietti 2013 Patient-reported QOL
received WBRT 36 Gy/12 Fx randomized to analysis of the EORTC 22952. WBRT assoc
+/− up-front Sx. Median OS improved with with decline in global health at 9 mo, cogni-
Sx (40 vs 15 weeks). Sx reduced rates of neu- tive function at 12 mo, physical function and
rologic death (20% vs 52%). fatigue at 2 mo.
–– Brown 2016. 213 patients with 1–3 mets, ran- >2 cm. Multi-fraction assoc with better 1-yr
domized to SRS +/− WBRT 30 Gy/12 Fx. LC (91% vs 77%) and lower rates radionecro-
SRS alone assoc with less cognitive decline at sis (11% vs 20%).
3 mo (and 12 mo in longer-term survivors). –– Eaton 2015. Cohort of 76 resected brain
QOL improved with SRS alone. WBRT assoc metastases cavities ≥3 cm treated with single-
with better CNS control. No diff in OS or fraction SRS (N = 40) or three-to-five fraction
functional independence. SRS (N = 36). LF was equivalent at 1-yr (27
vs 25%). Radionecrosis was lower with multi-
SRS Alone for Multiple Metastases fraction at 1-yr (10 vs 19%).
–– LGK0901 (Yamamoto 2014): Prospective
observational study. 1194 patients with 1–10 Postoperative Radiation
brain metastases treated with single-fraction
SRS alone. Median OS: best for single lesion Surgery +/− Postoperative WBRT
(13.9 mo) but no diff in OS between 2–4 –– Patchell 1998. 95 Patients, status post com-
lesions (10.8 mo) vs 5–10 lesions (10.8 mo). plete resection of single met randomized to
No diff in toxicity. Neurologic mortality rates +/− WBRT 50.4 Gy/28 Fx. No diff in OS or
were low overall with SRS alone (8%), with length of functional independence. WBRT
no diff between groups. reduced local and distant brain recurrence,
decreased neurologic deaths.
SRS Alone for Multiple Metastases and –– EORTC 22952 (Kocher 2011). Local therapy
Targetable Mutations (surgery or SRS) randomized to +/−
–– Colorado (Robin 2017): Cohort of ALK and WBRT. No diff in OS or time to KPS deterio-
EGFR NSCLC, SRS alone to ≥4 mets in a ration with WBRT. WBRT reduced LR,
single session (range 4–26). Median OS in yrs distant recurrence, and decreased neurologic
from brain mets was 4.2 (ALK) and 2.4 deaths.
(EGFR). Five-year freedom from WBRT was
97% and from neurologic death was 84%. For Surgery +/− Postoperative SRS to the Cavity
patients treated to >10 mets in single SRS ses- –– MDACC (Mahajan 2017): RCT of 132
sion, mean whole-brain and hippocampal patients status post complete resection of 1–3
doses were only 1.2 Gy and 0.8 Gy, mets <4 cm randomized to +/− single-fraction
respectively. SRS to the cavity (volume-based dosing,
12–16 Gy). SRS assoc with improved LC at 1
SRS Dose year (72% vs 43%). No diff in OS.
–– RTOG 90-05 (Shaw 1996, 2000): Prospective
SRS dose-escalation study. 156 patients who Surgery + Post-op Fractionated SRS to the
received prior conventionally fractionated Cavity
radiation. One-third had recurrent brain –– Stanford (Soltys ASTRO 2015). Single-arm
tumors and two-thirds had recurrent brain phase I/II dose-escalation from 24 to 33 Gy in
mets. Trial established safe single-fraction 3 Fx. 50 patients. At 12 mo: local failures 7%,
SRS doses of 24 Gy for ≤2 cm, 18 Gy for distant 50%, leptomeningeal disease 15%.
2–3 cm, and 15 Gy for 3–4 cm. Neurotoxicity Authors recommend 27–30 Gy/3 Fx for cavi-
associated with tumor size, SRS dose, and ties 2–4 cm.
KPS. –– MSKCC (Brennan 2014). Single-arm phase
II trial. Forty-nine patients treated with
Multi-fraction SRS for Larger Targets 15–22 Gy (median 18 Gy). At 12 mo, local
–– Minniti 2016. Cohort of 289 patients treated failures 22%, distant 44%. Tumors ≥3 cm
with single-fraction vs multi-fraction with superficial dural/pial involvement had
(27 Gy/3 Fx) SRS for unresected lesions the highest risk of local failure.
Surgery + Post-op SRS vs Post-op WBRT –– Dose: commonly 30 Gy/10 Fx for better
–– NCCTG N107C (Brown 2017). 194 patients KPS, 20 Gy/5 Fx reasonable for poor KPS.
status post resection of one brain metastasis –– For SRS, fuse with thin-slice T1 post-contrast
randomized to WBRT or single-fraction SRS MRI images.
(volume-based dosing, 12–20 Gy). Improved –– For post-op cases, fuse post-op T1 post images
cog deterioration-free survival with post-op at a minimum. Preop MRIs may also be
SRS over WBRT. SRS assoc with shorter time useful.
to any intracranial tumor progression. No diff –– Target definition:
in OS. –– For intact (unresected) targets = gross
tumor.
Clinical Data Summary Notes –– For post-op cases: surgical cavity + any
–– For single brain metastases, tumor ablation residual tumor at a minimum. In some
(surgery or SRS) has been associated with case, more generous volumes at postopera-
improved OS in RCTs. tive dural areas may be appropriate in an
–– Compared to supportive care, surgery alone, effort to lower risk of dural/leptomeningeal
and SRS alone, the addition of WBRT recurrence.
improves CNS disease control, but does not –– A postoperative SRS contouring consen-
improve OS. sus paper (Soliman 2018) recommends
–– WBRT is associated with measurable declines inclusion of the surgical tract, a CTV
in cognitive function and QOL. expansion of 5 to 10 mm along the dura in
–– SRS alone was historically offered for one to cases of preoperative dural contact, and a
three or four lesions based on the inclusion margin of ≤5 mm into the adjacent venous
criteria of SRS +/− WBRT trials. Growing sinus when preoperative venous sinus con-
data suggests that SRS may be appropriate for tact was present. The recommended inclu-
patients with ≥4 lesions in the setting of close sion of the entire surgical tract and
MRI surveillance. relatively large expansions remain
–– Postoperative SRS to the surgical cavity controversial.
improves LC but not OS (Mahajan 2017). –– Expansions:
–– Multi-fraction SRS has been associated with –– For intact cases, typically 0–1 mm.
encouraging LC and toxicity rates and may be –– For postoperative cases, typically at least
particularly useful for larger intact or postop- 1–2 mm around the resection cavity and
erative targets. possibly larger expansions in the case of
–– As emerging systemic agents demonstrate preoperative dural or venous sinus contact
improved CNS penetration and activity (Peters (Soliman 2018).
2017; Mok, 2017; Davies 2017), brain metas- –– In general, expansions for SRS are indi-
tases paradigms are likely to evolve to incor- vidualized based on institutional practices,
porate multidisciplinary approaches involving physician comfort level, and IGRT/immo-
local and systemic therapy. bilization standards.
–– Typical SRS dose fractionation
Planning –– Single fraction:
–– Sim supine, head neutral, and aquaplast mask. • 20–24 Gy for <2 cm,
–– For WBRT: • 18 Gy 2–3 cm,
–– Opposed lateral beams, block orbits, cover • and 15 Gy for 3–4 cm are common.
below foramen magnum, and flash skin. –– Multi-fraction, 24–30 Gy/3 fraction, and
–– Confirm adequate coverage of intracranial 25–30 Gy/5 fractions are common.
contents including temporal fossa and –– SRS often prescribed to the 50–80% isodose
cribriform plate on lateral fields and 3D lines (corresponding to central hot spots of
dose eval. 125–200% of the prescription dose).
Ependymoma pinal Cord Ependymoma

S
Management
Background
–– Most common intramedullary tumor in adults Grade I/II
–– Peak 30–40yo –– If GTR = observe
–– Arises from filum terminale, a filamentous –– If STR = limited field RT to 50.4 Gy
process that anchors the dural sac inferiorly to –– Spine mets present = CSI to 36 Gy and boost
coccyx to 54 Gy tumors
–– Follow for >10y because late recurrences
occur in 10% of pts Grade III
–– Grade I = subependymomas and –– If GTR/STR = limited field RT to 50.4 Gy
myxopapillary –– Spine mets present = CSI to 36 Gy and boost
–– Grade II (classic ependymomas) to 54 Gy tumors
–– Grade III (anaplastic ependymomas)
Contours
–– For caudal ependymomas, should cover thecal
Brain Ependymoma Management sac down to S2–3.
–– The typical sup-inf margin is 3–5 cm.
–– Maximum safe resection (reresect if STR; try
to get GTR). EFS5 if GTR = 80%. EFS5 if Ependymoblastoma (Actually Medullo)
STR = 40%. –– Treat like STPNET/high-risk medullo with
–– Consider induction chemo → 2nd look sur- CSI to 36 Gy + boost to 55.8 Gy
gery for GTR.
–– MRI post-op (w/ in 48 hr).
–– Chemo has no proven benefit. Intradural Spinal Cord Astrocytoma
Simulation –– Rare, aggressive

–– Supine in 3 point face mask. –– Usually in C/T spine
–– CT sim w/o contrast and MRI sim w/ contrast. –– Associated w/ cysts
–– Fuse preop MRI. –– MST 6 months
–– Use IMRT. –– 2/3 of patients die of local and disseminated
disease
Contours –– Typically occurs in 2 yrs, infield
–– CTV: drawn out initial tumor volume; tumor –– Treatment: 50.4 Gy–54 Gy
bed +1 cm.
–– PTV: CTV + 3 mm (with daily CBCT).
–– RT to involved fields to 54 Gy (grade II) or
59.4 Gy (grade III) (start within 56 days).
–– If MRI spine/LP+ = CSI to 36 Gy.
–– Boost gross spinal dz to 45 Gy.
Pituitary Tumors [11–15, 162–173]

Type and notes % Sx Normal Surgical, medical tx Stop drugs prior to RT Response to
incidence range (rec if secretory) RT? RT (%)
Non-secretory 25 Surgery first line. 95% LC 45–50.4 Gy 14–18 Gy/1 fx 5 y LC 94%,
Chromophobic after transsphenoidal for no GTV or 10 y LC 76%
Males, elderly resection overall. Risk for non-
¯ LC: age, >2cm, functioning
Prolactinoma 30 Galactorrhea, 2–25 DA agonists e.g. Stop bromocriptine 2-4 50-54 Gy if 20 Gy/1 fx 25–50
DA secreted by amenorrhea, bromocriptine are first line mos prior to RT GTV
hypothalamus, infertility, and work in 85% of pts.
suppressing PL vaginal 30% cannot tolerate bromo Optic nerve max
production in dryness, bc of N/V, HA, fatigue. 8 Gy, need 3–4
pituitary. alibido, ED Surgery if medical failure mm distance
Compression of fails or visual sx. from tumor to
pituitary stalk chiasm
inhibits DA
suppression,leading
to overproduction
of PL.
Common to have
calcifications,
amyloid
GH 25 Acromegaly, <10 Somatostatin (octreotide), Hold for 2–4 months. 80–100
HA, cardiac lancreotide. DA agonists are Patients on octreotide
dz, bone ineffective in acromegaly, reach normal GH and
changes but can be used in 2nd line. IGF -1 level after
significant longer
interval
(radioprotective?).
ACTH 15 Cushings, 15 Ketoconazole (the best), Pegvisomant and 50–80
Nelson syndrome: HTN, DM, cyproheptadine (inhibits ketoconazole can be
ACTH adenoma hirsutism, ACTH), RU-486 given during RT
develops after skin Consider adrenalectomy
adrenalectomy changes,
Males, elderly osteoporosis
TSH <1% Hyperthyroid <1 Somatostatin (octreotide) Hold for 2–4 months.
–– Headache
General
–– Pituitary apoplexy (sudden hemorrhage)
–– 75% functional, 25% nonfunctional.
–– Prolactinomas: galactorrhea, amenorrhea,
–– Associated with MEN-1.
infertility, or hypogonadism
–– Macroadenoma (≥1 cm) (more common in
–– GH-secreting adenomas: acromegaly
nonsecretory).
–– ACTH-secreting adenomas: Cushings
–– Microadenoma (<1 cm).
–– Prolactinomas are most common (30%).
Differential Diagnosis
DDx Sellar Mass –– Craniopharyngioma, meningioma, cyst, GCT,
–– Craniopharyngioma chordoma
–– Glioma –– Metastases to the pituitary: most likely from
–– Pituitary adenoma or carcinoma breast and lung cancer
–– Germ cell tumors –– Benign pituitary hyperplasia due to preg-
–– Ependymomas nancy, lactation, long-standing primary hypo-
–– Meningioma thyroidism or hypogonadism, cirrhosis
–– Metastasis
–– Benign: cyst, abscess, cavernous sinus AVM Workup
–– H&P, labs: serum prolactin, IGF-1, 24-h
Presentation urine-free cortisol, LH/FSH, and free/total T4/
–– Symptoms due to mass effect or ↑hormone TSH.
secretion –– Thin-cut MRI is only imaging needed; normal
–– Bitemporal hemianopsia or other patterns of pituitary and adenomas are isointense to
vision impairment slightly hyperintense on T1 and may have T2
signal intensity due to cystic changes. Normal Nonsecretory Adenomas

pituitary tissue enhances with gadolinium; –– Treat like meningioma. Transsphenoidal sur-
however, adenomas typically have lesser gery fist.
enhancement than normal pituitary tissue. –– If no residual disease seen on MRI (sugges-
–– Formal visual field testing as indicated. tive of GTR), then chance of regrowth is
<5% at 5 years, and observation is
Histology recommended.
–– IHC stains for synaptophysin, chromogranin, –– If STR, then chance of regrowth is ~50%;
hormone-specific stains. adjuvant RT could be given or close follow-up
–– 2017 WHO classification includes increasing with RT offered as an alternative to surgery at
role of transcription factors, PIT-1 and SF-1, the time of regrowth.
for characterization. –– There is a higher risk of regrowth if there is
–– Special variants of adenomas with aggressive residual disease outside of the sella.
behavior and higher recurrence rates include –– Local tumor control is >90% in most RT
sparsely granulated somatotroph, plurihor- series.
monal PIT-1-positive, silent corticotroph, lac- –– Key studies: Brochier 2010; Chang 2008,
totroph in men, and crooke cell (Lopes 2017). Sheehan 2013.
General Principles of Treatment Lactotroph Adenomas (Prolactinoma)

–– Up-front surgery, usually by a transsphenoi- –– 90% respond to dopamine agonists and can
dal approach, is the mainstay of therapy for all then be treated with surgery as second-line
except prolactinomas. –– RT is rarely used as the initial modality but is
–– For prolactinoma, DA agonist (bromocriptine) indicated in patients who have failed surgical
is first-line therapy and causes 90% PRL or medical management. As such, patients
normalization. undergoing RT typically have a more aggres-
–– Radiation is reserved for patients who have sive phenotype.
exhausted surgical and medical options. –– Endocrine remission defined as normal serum
–– Adjuvant RT can be considered for STR or if prolactin level.
persistent function/growth after surgery. –– Endocrine remission rates are more variably
–– RT is very effective at stopping tumor growth reported but average ~25% for medically
but less effective at normalizing hormone lev- refractory adenomas; higher marginal doses
els; higher RT doses are required for hormone may be associated with better remission
normalization (Sheehan 2011; McCollough rate.
1991). RT has 90% PFS, 88% for all patients, –– Median time to hormone remission is
92% for non-functioning adenoma. ~24 months.
–– Hormone normalization, when achieved, may –– Local control in RT series is ~90%.
take several years (median ~1–5 years in stud- –– Key studies: Pouratian 2006; Liu 2013.
ies). While monitoring for hormone remission,
continued medical therapy is often necessary. Corticotroph Adenomas (Cushings)
–– Asymptomatic adenomas can be observed up –– Radiation is indicated for patients who fail to
front or after STR. obtain endocrine remission or tumor control
–– Prolactinomas are managed medically first. from surgical or medical management.
–– Literature suggests that it may be beneficial to –– Endocrine remission defined as normal 24-h
hold antisecretory meds during RT (e.g., urine-free cortisol and serum cortisol.
dopamine agonists, ketoconazole, or soma- –– Endocrine remission rate is ~50% in major
tostatin analogs) and for several weeks before series but increases with longer follow-up and
RT. However, the data is non-randomized, and higher marginal doses.
the need for concurrent secretory medications –– Mean time to hormone remission in success-
may be a surrogate for worse tumors. ful cases is ~12 months.
–– Local tumor control in RT series is ~95%. If no hormone normalization after full surgi-
–– Key series: Jagannathan 2007; Minniti 2007; cal + RT treatment and med management:
Sheehan 2013.
–– Cushings → adrenalectomy
Somatotroph Adenomas (Growth Hormone) –– TSH → thyroidectomy
–– Radiation is indicated for patients who fail to
obtain endocrine remission or tumor control Outcomes
from surgical or medical management. –– Non-functioning adenomas: LC is >90%.
–– Endocrine remission defined as normalization –– Functioning adenomas (rates of hormone
of serum GH and IGF-1 levels; some studies normalization):
use oral glucose tolerance test results to define • 50% with RT alone vs >80% with
remission. RT + medical therapy
–– Endocrine remission rates vary across series • >2 years to hormone normalization
but average ~50%. • PRL: 50% with RT alone vs >80% with
–– Mean time to hormone remission is RT + medical therapy.
~24 months but can take up to 15 years. • Time to normalization is 2–8 years.
–– Local tumor control in RT series is ~95%. • ACTH: 50% with RT alone vs >80% with
–– Key studies: Losa 2008; Lee 2014. RT + medical therapy:
• Time to normalization is 1–4 years.
RT indications • GH: 50% w/ RT alone at 10 years, with
–– Inoperable medical therapy is 70%:
–– STR with persistent hypersecretion or residual • Time to normalization is 3–10 years.
near critical structures
–– Recurrence/progression after surgery Toxicity/Follow-up
–– TSH secreting (always give post-op RT) –– 100% will get some deficiency.
–– Panhypopituitarism is most common.
Radiation Technique Hypopituitarism occurs in about 20% at
–– SRS or fractionated RT can be considered. The 5 years but may rise up to 80% at 10 years
literature suggests that both are equally effective (Sheehan 2011; Minniti 2007):
in local control, although non-randomized com- • GH deficiency, 100% at 5y
parisons suggest a shorter interval to hormone • GnRH 60% at 10y
normalization with SRS. However, these are ret- • ACTH <60% at 10y
rospective studies, and SRS may have been • TSH <30% at 10y
preferentially used on smaller tumors. • HyperPRL 20–50%
–– SRS is appropriate for tumors <3 cm and at –– Sensitivity of hormones to RT (“G FLAT”):
least 3–5 mm from the optic pathway. (1) GH, (2) FSH/LH, (3) TSH/ACTH. Because
–– The majority of SRS series have used GK, but prolactin should not be elevated in a
linac-based approaches are reasonable. nonpregnant adult, it is not reported as
–– Standard doses for nonfunctional adenomas suppressed after RT to the pituitary.
are 14–16 Gy in 1 fraction or 45–50.4 Gy in Vasopressin and oxytocin are made in
1.8 Gy fractions. posterior pituitary and are resistant to
–– Standard doses for functional adenomas are RT. Thus, RT is not linked to DI.
16–25 Gy in 1 fraction or 50.4–54 Gy in –– Low risk for optic pathway injury or second
1.8 Gy fractions. malignancy.
–– Constraints: –– MRI and labs q6–12 months.
• Chiasm = 54 Gy –– Endocrinology evaluation and follow-up
• SRS = 8 Gy (need 3–4 mm distance from recommended.
tumor to chiasm)
estibular Schwannoma (VS)/

V Workup
Acoustic Neuroma (AN) [9, 174–207] –– H&P
–– MRI, with gadolinium, with thin (1–1.5 mm)
Koos Grade slices. On T1 gad, VS will appear as a homog-
I Intracanalicular enously enhancing mass in the CPA
II <2 cm –– Audiometry: asymmetric sensorineural loss,
III Extracanillicular, <3 cm more prominent in higher frequencies
IV Displaces trunk or CNs, >3 cm –– Rene, Weber tests
–– If NF, image neuroaxis
General –– Weber test – differentiates conductive vs sen-
–– Arise from Schwann cells of CN8. sorineural hearing loss
–– 5–10% of intracranial, 80% of CPA tumors. • Conductive loss → sound toward bad ear
–– Mostly sporadic, minority related to NF2. • Sensorineural loss → sound toward good ear
–– Bilateral VS are associated NF2.
–– Sporadic VS is usually unilateral, occurring in Grading Systems
ages of 40s–60s. –– Koos: Tumor extent
–– Typically slow growing, median <2 mm/yr. –– (1) IAC only, (2) CPA, (3) brainstem con-
–– Intracanicular and small tumors associated tact, and (4) 4th vent shift
with slower growth. –– Hearing function:
–– Tinnitus associated with increased odd ratio of • AAO-HNS
growth (Agrawal 2010). • Class A (good) to D
–– 10% show spontaneous shrinkage. • Gardner-Robertson
–– Malignant transformation is extremely rare. • Grade I (good) to V (deaf)
• AAO-HNS class A/B and GR I/II typi-
Risk Factors cally = preserved/serviceable hearing in
–– NF2 studies
–– Radiation exposure –– Audiogram: Gardner-Robertson scale to
–– History of parathyroid adenoma assess serviceable hearing
–– Loud noise exposure, although recall bias may • Often have high frequency sensorineural
confound self-report series hearing loss.
• Serviceable hearing = >50% on speech dis-
Histopathology crimination and can hear at less than 50
–– Most commonly arise from superior or infe- dbs.
rior vestibular nerve, rarely cochlear branch • Speech reception threshold (SRT) is low-
–– Characterized by alternate dense (Antonin A) est intensity level (in db) at which the
and sparse (Antonin B) cellularity patient can correctly identify 50% of
–– S100+ common two-syllable words (baseball).
• Pure-tone average (PTA) is the average of
Symptoms (Mathias 1997) hearing sensitivity at 500, 1000, and 2000.
–– Hearing loss in 95% This average should approximate the speech
–– Tinnitus 63% (may be associated with reception threshold (SRT), within 5 dB.
increased risk of growth) • If the SRT is significantly better than the
–– Vestibular symptoms 61% PTA, the possibility of pseudohypoacu-
–– CN5 symptoms 17% sis should be considered.
–– CN7 symptoms 6% • If the PTA is significantly better than the
–– Compressive symptoms (ataxia, lower CN SRT, the possibility of central involve-
deficits, hydrocephalus) ment should be considered.
–– House-Brackman: CN7 motor dysfunction the 56 presenting with serviceable hearing, 41

• 1 = normal, 2 = slight, 3 = moderate, (73%) maintained useful hearing at last
4 = moderately severe, 5 = severe, 6 = total follow-up.
paralysis
Surgery
Treatment Paradigms in 2018 –– Often preferred for large (>3 cm), symptom-
–– Options include observation, RT (SRS or frac- atic tumors, mass effect, and sometimes for
tionated), and surgery. younger patients.
–– In the absence of randomized trials, optimal –– Three main approaches:
VS management is individualized based on • Middle cranial fossa: for small tumors in
factors including tumor size and extent, age, IAC with intact hearing
performance status, hearing, and other CN • Retrosigmoid: can attempt GTR of larger
symptoms. tumors and can attempt hearing
–– Ideally, cases should be reviewed by both a preservation
radiation oncologist and surgeon. • Translabrynthine: can attempt GTR of
–– In a contemporary systematic review (Carlson larger tumors, sacrifices hearing. Preferred
2018), all approaches (observation, radiation, in some cases where hearing is already
surgery) are associated with poor serviceable lost
hearing preservation in the range of 25–50% –– Complications from surgery include mortality
with long-term (>10-yr) follow-up. Thus, 0.2–1%, CN deficits 5–15%, and CSF leak
while RT and surgery improve LC over obser- 8–15%.
vation, long-term hearing preservation rates –– Hearing preservation rates range from approx-
remain suboptimal. imately 25–75% at 0–2 yrs, 25–75% at 5 yrs,
–– Comparisons of surgery and RT suggest com- and 25–50% at >10 yrs (Carlson 2018).
parable LC rates, with improved QOL, hear- –– Surgery is associated with an increased risk
ing, and CN preservation with RT (Pollock of immediate hearing loss compared to RT
2006, Myrseth 2009). However, the potential and observation. If hearing is maintained
for selection bias (i.e., surgery for worse postoperatively, it can be durable in a subset
tumors) is acknowledged. of cases.
–– Factors associated with better hearing preser-
Observation vation rates after surgery include good pre-
–– May be preferred initial approach intracanicu- treatment hearing, small (<1 cm) tumors, and
lar or small (<2 cm) without tinnitus (Germano presence of a “fundal cap” of CSF distal to the
2018) and attractive for some elderly pts with tumor in the IAC.
comorbidities (Tsao 2017). –– Outcomes appear best with high-volume sur-
–– Hearing preservation rates: 75–100% at 2 yrs, geons and centers (Barker 2003).
50–75% at 5 yrs, and 25–50% at 10 yrs
(Carlson 2018). Radiosurgery (SRS) and Fractionated RT
–– Factors associated with improved hearing –– LC excellent >80–90% with either approach
preservation are good hearing at diagnosis and (Tsao 2017).
tumor non-growth (Sughrue 2010, 2011). –– Larger tumors and NF2 have worse LC.
–– Stangerup 2010. 1144 patients initially –– Hearing preservation: 75–100% at 2 yrs,
observed, 377 with ≥5 yr and 102 with ≥10 yr 50–75% at 5 yrs, 25–50% at 10 yrs (Carlson
follow-up. 249 of 455 (55%) patients who pre- 2018).
sented with class A/B hearing maintained ser- –– Hearing preservation, CN5, and CN7 function
viceable hearing at last follow-up. appear comparable with SRS and FSRT (Tsao
–– Ferri 2008. Prospective study of 123 patients 2017), although better hearing with FSRT has
initially observed. At a median of 4.8 yrs, of also been suggested (Andrews 2001).
–– SRS usually preferred over FSRT in cases Toxicities from RT

suitable for either intervention. Some use SRS –– CN5 numbness 0–10% for FSRT, up to 20%
if <3 cm, FSRT if >3 cm. with SRS.
–– Prospective observational studies have shown –– CN7 neuropathy, palsy: 0–5% in FSRT, 20%
mixed results regarding the effect of SRS on with SRS.
hearing preservation compared to observation –– CN8, hearing preservation: 64–97% in FSRT,
(Regis 2010, Breivik 2013). 50% with SRS.
–– Some retrospective data suggests hearing pres- –– Tinnitus <5%.
ervation is better with SRS vs observation in –– Vestibular symptoms <5–15%.
patients with good baseline hearing (Apkinar –– Tinnitus and vertigo can improve or arise after
2016). treatment (Badakhshi 2014).
–– SRS dose 12–13 Gy. Dose >13 Gy associated –– Cranial neuropathy is associated with larger
with more toxicity, without improved LC tumors (Spiegelmann 2001) and pre-existing
(Germano 2018, Lunsford 2005). deficits (Kondziolka 1998).
–– Fractionated RT doses 45–57.6 Gy in 1.8–2 Gy –– Serviceable hearing rates continue to
fractions. decline with long-term follow-up (25–50%
–– Various multi-fraction SRS/hypofractionated at 10 yrs)
RT doses: 6 Gy x 3 Fx, 5 Gy x 4–5 Fx, 3 Gy x
10 Fx (Meijer 2003, Hansasuta 2011, Follow-Up
Puataweepong 2013) –– MRI q6–12 months initially and spaced out
more over time.
Radiation Technique –– Audiogram q12 months as indicated.
–– SRS: –– Pseudoprogression is known to occur in
–– GTV per post-contrast MRI +/− FIESTA 20–30% vestibular schwannoma patients
sequence. treated with RT. For asymptomatic enlarge-
–– No CTV. ment within 3 years of RT, observation is
–– PTV 0–2 mm. favored (Tsao 2017).
–– Perform CT when using GK due to arti- –– There may also be alternating enlargement
facts from MRI at this level. and regression of the tumor at up to 50 months
–– Most common dose selected is 12–13 Gy, post treatment (Nakamura 2000).
to 50% IDL with GK or 80% IDL with a –– Malignant transformation is extremely rare
LINAC. (1/1000 to 1/10,000).
–– Cochlear dose <4 Gy with SRS has been
associated with better hearing preservation NF2 patients
(Kano 2009, Yomo 2012). –– NF2 patients require imaging of the entire cra-
–– Repeat SRS for progression may be con- nial spinal axis.
sidered and appears to be associated with –– Typically have a more aggressive disease
good LC but decreased hearing preserva- course and lower hearing preservation
tion and mildly increased cranial neuropa- rates.
thy rates based on small retrospective series –– Bevacizumab may be a targeted therapy for
(Germano 2018). VSs due to the high VEGF expression in NF2
–– FSRT: patients (Plotkin 2009).
–– GTV per post-contrast MRI +/− FIESTA –– Radiation is a reasonable option for NF2
sequence patients with enlarging VS or hearing loss
–– No CTV expansion (Germano 2018).
–– PTV 1–3 mm
–– Cochlear mean dose <35 (Quantec 2010)
and ALARA
Trigeminal Neuralgia (TN) [208–214] Pain relief was equivalent between two arms,
but two-isocenter arm had more toxicity.
Background –– Maesawa 2001: n = 220. GKRS. Median age
–– Increases with age; most occur after age 50. 70. Sixty-one percent previous surgery.
–– More common in women than men (approx. Complete or partial pain relief in 86% at 1 y.
1.5:1). Complete pain relief 65% at 6 m, 70% at 1 yr
–– Classical TN is either related to vascular CN5 and 75% at 33 m. Only 10% of pts developed
compression or idiopathic. new of increased facial numbness. Facial numb-
–– Secondary TN, or trigeminal neuropathy, may ness was a predictor of long-lasting pain relief.
arise from herpes zoster, postherpetic neural- –– Lopez 2004: Systematic review. Seventy-five
gia, MS, CN5 trauma, and nonvascular CN5 percent of pts have CR after SRS at 1 yr. Only
compression. Sensory loss, bilateral involve- 50% maintain this at 3 yrs.
ment, and younger age are associated with a –– Patients with classic TGN features felt to have
higher risk of secondary TN. better responses to therapy (Taich 2016).
–– Classical TN pain is paroxysmal, unilateral,
lancinating, and provocable (e.g., by talking, Treatment
brushing teeth, chewing). –– Medical therapy: first-line therapy.
–– Classic TN has the following features: Carbamazepine (Tegretol) or other anticon-
(a) Paroxysmal attacks lasting 1 s–2 min, vulsants. Side effects may be intolerable in
affecting any branch of CN5. some patients.
(b) Pain has at least one feature: sharp,
–– Microvascular decompression (MVD) is
intense, stabbing, or superficial. preferred if compressing vessel is found
(c) Attacks are stereotyped in the patient. –– Other surgical procedures: RFA, glycerol
(d) Not attributed to another disorder. injection, balloon compression.
–– Pretreatment MRI to rule out structural causes. –– Gamma Knife SRS: reserved for medically
–– CISS and 3D FIESTA sequences can offer refractory cases. A single 4 mm collimator
high-resolution views of the TGN. gamma knife “shot” is placed on the dorsal
root entry zone where CN5 exits from the
BNI Grade pons, with the 50% IDL placed at the interface
–– (I) No pain, taking no med of the entry zone and the brainstem. 80–85 Gy
–– (II) Occasional pain, but taking no med max point dose prescribed to the 100%
–– (III) Some pain, controlled w/ meds IDL. Brainstem max 45 Gy.
–– (IIIa) No pain, continued med
–– (IIIb) Persistent pain, controlled w/ med Follow-Up
–– (IV) Some pain, not controlled w/ meds –– Median time to some pain relief is 1–2 mo.
–– (V) Severe pain or no relief –– 60–80% some pain relief at 6 mo.
–– 50% complete relief.
Studies –– TN pain can recur during follow-up. Repeat
–– Flickinger 2001: RCT of 87 pts comparing SRS may be an option for carefully selected
one vs two isocenters. Two isocenters patients (Herman 2004, Pollock 2005,
increased length of trigeminal nerve being Hasegawa 2002).
treated. Sixty-eight percent of pts w/ response. –– Check for loss of corneal reflex.
rteriovenous Malformation (AVM)

A Eloquent are sensorimotor, language, visual,
[215–223] thalamus, hypothalamus, internal capsule, brain-
stem, cerebellar peduncles, and deep cerebellar
Background nuclei. Various combinations result in cumulative
–– Congenital lesions with a risk for hemorrhage. grades of I–V.
–– Occurs in 0.1% of the population.
–– Underlying pathophysiology involves an aber- Treatment
rant connection between an artery and vein –– Consider the risk of rupture as well as risks of
without an intervening capillary bed. intervention when deciding to intervene.
–– Abnormal development of the vessel and –– Microsurgery is the mainstay of treatment,
increased blood flow/pressure lead to rupture. best for small, superficial lesions in non-
–– A variety of flow-related phenomenon are eloquent brain.
often seen, including vascular tangles, aneu- –– Embolization is typically not curative but can
rysms, and adjacent gliotic brain. be combined with SRS or surgery.
–– SRS is best for small (<3 cm), deep AVMs
Natural History with a well-defined focus.
–– 2–4% annual risk of bleeding. –– Goal of SRS is obliteration and works by vas-
–– 30–50% risk of morbidity/bleed. cular wall thickening and luminal thrombosis.
–– Ten percent risk of death/bleed. –– Lag time of 1–3 yrs to complete obliteration,
–– 6–8% harbor aneurysms. during which bleeding is still possible but
–– Risk factors for future hemorrhage include reduced by 50% (Marayuma 2005).
prior hemorrhage, associated aneurysms, and –– Dose: 16–22 Gy at margin in one fraction,
deep brain location. depending on size.
–– If large, consider volume-staged procedure
Presentation (Kano 2012). Dose-staged has also been used,
–– Intracranial hemorrhage although one systematic review found inferior
–– Seizure outcomes compared to volume-staged (Moosa
–– Neurologic deficits 2014).
–– Intractable vascular headache
Outcomes/Studies
Diagnosis –– Lunsford 1991: n = 227. Two-year obliteration
–– CT is often the initial study, which may show rates according to volume were 100% for
hemorrhage, flow voids, and edema. AVMs <1 cc, 85% for AVMs 1–4 cc, and 58%
–– MRI useful for identifying the location of the for AVMs greater than 4 cc.
nidus. –– Friedman 1995: n = 158. Mean dose 15.6 Gy
–– Angiography is the gold standard for diagno- to periphery. Mean FU of 33 months. 1–4 cc,
sis and treatment planning. 81% obliteration. 4–10 cc, 89% obliteration.
>10 cc, 69% obliteration.
Grading System –– Maruyama 2005: n = 500. 81% obliteration at
–– Spetzler-Martin system historically used to 4y wth GK.
determine the risk of open neurosurgery for an –– ARUBA trial (Mohr 2014): Brain AVMs ran-
AVM domized to (1) medical management vs (2)
Spetzler-Martin grading system (1986) same + intervention (surgery, embolization,
Points 0 1 2 3 SRS alone, or in combination). Trial stopped
Size (cm) <3 3–6 >6 early due to superiority of medical manage-
Location Non-eloquent Eloquent ment. Risk of death or stroke from intervention
Venous drainage Superficial Deep was higher than medical therapy (31% vs 10%)
SRS Toxicity Follow-Up

–– MRI every 6 months
–– Early: seizures in 10%, N/V, H/A. –– Angiogram to confirm obliteration
–– Late: Symptomatic radionecrosis (1–3%),
edema, cyst formation.
–– Factors associated with a higher risk of devel-
oping symptomatic toxicity include larger vol-
ume, higher dose, larger 12 Gy volume, and
higher Spetzler-Martin grade (Kano 2017).
Hemangiopericytoma (HPC) –– Soyuer 2004: N = 29. Five-year OS 85%; 5-yr

[224–227] LC 68%. LC better if GTR. Adjuvant RT
given to ten patients, median dose 54 Gy.
Background Concluded attempted GTR with limited field
–– Rare, dural-based tumors, <1% of CNS RT is a reasonable initial approach.
tumors. –– Staples 1990: N = 15. LC after RT was 100%
–– Arise from smooth muscle cells or fibroblasts if dose >55 Gy.
(mesenchymal cells). –– Guthrie 1989; N = 44. 10 developed extracra-
–– Occur in adults, aged 40–50 on average. nial mets a median of 99 mo after first
–– Appear on imaging as an extra-axial mass. operation.
Enhance with contrast-like meningiomas but
lack calcifications. May have a dural tail or Treatment paradigm
adjacent bone erosion. –– Complete surgical resection is the mainstay of
–– Seventy percent supratent, 15% post fossa, therapy.
and 15% spinal. –– Adj RT (54–60 Gy) is generally recommended
–– WHO categorizes solitary fibrous tumors for all tumors with HPC phenotype.
(SFT) (gr I) and HPC (gr II and III) on a phe- –– During RT target delineation, it is important to
notypic spectrum. remember that HPCs are meningeal-based
–– Both SFT and HPC are characterized by tumors.
NAB2-STAT6 fusion protein. –– There is some data on the feasibility of SRS
(Spina 2016, Cohen-Inbar 2017).
Studies –– Recurrent tumors after radiation may benefit
–– Rutkowski 2012: N = 40. Median survival from anti-angiogenic therapies.
16 years. 5-year OS 92%, but 5-year PFS
~50%. RT improved local control but did not Follow-Up
impact survival or development metastases. –– MRI brain surveillance similar to gliomas
Extracranial mets occurred in 20%. protocols.
–– Schiariti, 2011. N = 39. 15-year recurrence –– Consider systemic surveillance imaging for
92%. Extracranial mets were common (26%), extracranial metastases.
occurring at a median of 126 mo after initial
surgery. RT decreased risk of recurrence by
one-third.
hyroid Ophthalmopathy (TO)

T steroids if more severe) and response in
[228–232] ~60%, if refractory consider rituximab,
mycophenolate, surgery, or RT.
Background –– Sight-threatening: this is a medical emer-
–– Autoimmune disease of the retro-orbital gency; initiate high-dose steroids, and con-
tissues. sider urgent orbital decompression surgery.
–– Caused in part by a T-cell lymphocytic
infiltration. Radiation Therapy
–– Associated with Graves’ disease and –– External orbital radiation is rarely used for TO
Hashimoto thyroiditis. in modern times and is typically reserved for
–– Variable natural history may worsen or those patients with moderate-to-severe symp-
improve without treatment. toms who cannot tolerate or fail to respond to
steroids.
Symptoms –– The benefit of RT for TO is controversial with
–– Exophthalmos, impaired EOM, diplopia, conflicting evidence from RCTs.
edema/redness, lid retraction. –– RT may improve eye motility and diplopia
–– Mild symptoms per EUGOGO (Bartalena compared to sham tx; however, the duration of
2016): minor lid retraction (<2 mm), mild benefit may be limited, and RT may not
soft-tissue involvement, exophthalmos <3 mm improve quality of life (Prummel 2004).
above normal for race and gender, no or inter-
mittent diplopia, and corneal exposure respon- Studies
sive to lubricant. –– Prummel 2004: mild TO. RCT of RT vs
–– Moderate-severe symptom per EUGOGO: lid sham. RT won, 52% vs 27% response. No
retraction ≥2 mm, moderate or severe QOL or cost change.
soft-
tissue involvement, or exophthalmos –– Gorman 2001: mild TO. RCT w/ crossover,
≥3 mm above normal for race and gender, to 1 orbit, then opposite at 6 m. At 6 m, no dif-
inconstant, or constant diplopia. ference in results w/ either eye. At 12 m, minor
–– Sight-threatening per EUGOGO: dysthy- improvement in the first treated eye.
roid optic neuropathy or corneal breakdown; Concluded RT not justified.
loss of color vision may be an early sign. –– Mourits 2000: Double-blind, RCT of RT vs
sham RT. RT improved diplopia 60% vs 31%
Workup at 24 w but had no benefit for proptosis or eye-
–– HP, Hertel exophthalmometer, CBC, CMP, lid swelling. Seventy-five percent of RT
TFs, and CT/MRI orbit patients still required strabismus surgery.
–– Prummel 1993: Severe TO. RCT RT vs sham.
Treatment RT improved diplopia but not proptosis and
–– Treat underlying disorder and reverse eyelid edema. Conclude that RT best for
hyperthyroidism. motility EOM impairment only.
–– Smoking cessation (exacerbates orbital dz).
–– Local measures to reduce surface irritation: RT planning
eye shades, artificial tears, and raising head of –– 20 Gy in ten fractions is the most common
bed at night. regimen.
–– Additional therapy should be tailored based –– Other less common options: 10 Gy in ten frac-
on severity of symptoms: tions or 20 Gy/1 per week × 20 weeks.
–– Mild: local measures only, NSAIDs, con- –– Opposed laterals, half beam block to mini-
sider a 6-month course of Selenium. mize divergence to contralateral lens.
–– Mod-severe: high-dose steroids are SOC –– Try to limit lens dose to <8–10 Gy to prevent
(prednisone 30 mg qday x 4 weeks vs IV cataracts.
Follow-up 16. Karim AB, Maat B, Hatlevoll R, et al. A random-

–– Ophthalmology follow-up ized trial on dose-response in radiation therapy of
low-grade cerebral glioma: European Organization
–– Toxicity: cataracts, dry eye, retinopathy, and for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)
optic neuropathy Study 22844. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
1996;36:549–56.
17. Pignatti F, van den Bent M, Curran D, et al. Prognostic
factors for survival in adult patients with cerebral
References low-grade glioma. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:2076–84.
18. Shaw E, Arusell R, Scheithauer B, et al. Prospective
1. Mayo C, Martel MK, Marks LB, et al. Radiation randomized trial of low- versus high-dose radia-
dose-volume effects of optic nerves and chiasm. Int tion therapy in adults with supratentorial low-grade
J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:S28–35. glioma: initial report of a North Central Cancer
2. Marks LB, Yorke ED, Jackson A, et al. Use of nor- Treatment Group/Radiation Therapy Oncology
mal tissue complication probability models in the Group/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study.
clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:S10–9. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:2267–76.
3. Cancer Genome Atlas Research N, Brat DJ, Verhaak 19. Shaw EG, Wang M, Coons SW, et al. Randomized
RG, et al. Comprehensive, integrative genomic anal- trial of radiation therapy plus procarbazine, lomus-
ysis of diffuse Lower-grade gliomas. N Engl J Med. tine, and vincristine chemotherapy for supratento-
2015;372:2481–98. rial adult low-grade glioma: initial results of RTOG
4. Eckel-Passow JE, Lachance DH, Molinaro AM, 9802. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3065–70.
et al. Glioma Groups Based on 1p/19q, IDH, and 20. van den Bent MJ, Afra D, de Witte O, et al. Long-
TERT Promoter Mutations in Tumors. N Engl J term efficacy of early versus delayed radiotherapy
Med. 2015;372:2499–508. for low-grade astrocytoma and oligodendroglioma in
5. Yamada Y, Bilsky MH, Lovelock DM, et al. High- adults: the EORTC 22845 randomised trial. Lancet.
dose, single-fraction image-guided intensity- 2005;366:985–90.
modulated radiotherapy for metastatic spinal lesions. 21. Jakola AS, Skjulsvik AJ, Myrmel KS, et al. Surgical
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:484–90. resection versus watchful waiting in low-grade glio-
6. Parsons JT, Bova FJ, Mendenhall WM, et al. mas. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1942–8.
Response of the normal eye to high dose radiother- 22. Smith JS, Chang EF, Lamborn KR, et al. Role
apy. Oncology (Williston Park). 1996;10:837–47; of extent of resection in the long-term outcome
discussion 847–8, 851–2. of low-grade hemispheric gliomas. J Clin Oncol.
7. Hanna GG, Murray L, Patel R, et al. UK consen- 2008;26:1338–45.
sus on normal tissue dose constraints for stereo- 23. Buckner JC, Shaw EG, Pugh SL, et al. Radiation
tactic radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). plus Procarbazine, CCNU, and Vincristine in Low-
2018;30:5–14. Grade Glioma. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1344–55.
8. Benedict SH, Yenice KM, Followill D, et al. 24. Fisher BJ, Hu C, Macdonald DR, et al. Phase 2 study
Stereotactic body radiation therapy: the of temozolomide-based chemoradiation therapy for
report of AAPM Task Group 101. Med Phys. high-risk low-grade gliomas: preliminary results
2010;37:4078–101. of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0424. Int J
9. Kano H, Kondziolka D, Khan A, et al. Predictors of Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91:497–504.
hearing preservation after stereotactic radiosurgery 25. Baumert BG, Hegi ME, van den Bent MJ, et al.
for acoustic neuroma. J Neurosurg. 2009;111:863–73. Temozolomide chemotherapy versus radiotherapy in
10. Tamura M, Carron R, Yomo S, et al. Hearing preser- high-risk low-grade glioma (EORTC 22033-26033):
vation after gamma knife radiosurgery for vestibular a randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study.
schwannomas presenting with high-level hearing. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1521–32.
Neurosurgery. 2009;64:289–96; discussion 296. 26. Cairncross G, Berkey B, Shaw E, et al. Phase III
11. Martinez-Monge R, Gomez-Iturriaga A, Cambeiro trial of chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared
M, et al. Phase I-II trial of perioperative high-dose- with radiotherapy alone for pure and mixed ana-
rate brachytherapy in oral cavity and oropharyngeal plastic oligodendroglioma: Intergroup Radiation
cancer. Brachytherapy. 2009;8:26–33. Therapy Oncology Group Trial 9402. J Clin Oncol.
12. Cook B DT. Wikibooks Radiation Oncology. 2006;24:2707–14.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Radiation_Oncology. 27. Cairncross G, Wang M, Shaw E, et al. Phase III trial
Accessed April 2018. of chemoradiotherapy for anaplastic oligodendrogli-
13. Edge S, Byrd D, Compton C, et al. AJCC cancer oma: long-term results of RTOG 9402. J Clin Oncol.
staging manual. New York: Springer; 2010. 2013;31:337–43.
14. Hansen E, Roach M. Handbook of evidence-based 28. DeAngelis LM. Anaplastic glioma: how to prognos-
radiation oncology. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2010. ticate outcome and choose a treatment strategy. [cor-
15. Hristov B, Lin SH, Christodouleas JP. Radiation rected]. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5861–2.
oncology – a question based review. 2nd ed. 29. Roa W, Brasher PM, Bauman G, et al. Abbreviated
Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014. course of radiation therapy in older patients with
glioblastoma multiforme: a prospective randomized radiotherapy boost, external radiation therapy, and
clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1583–8. carmustine. Neurosurgery. 2002;51:343–55; discus-
30. Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP, et al. Effects of sion 355–7.
radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temo- 42. Laperriere NJ, Leung PM, McKenzie S, et al.
zolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in Randomized study of brachytherapy in the initial
glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year management of patients with malignant astrocytoma.
analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;41:1005–11.
2009;10:459–66. 43. Souhami L, Seiferheld W, Brachman D, et al.
31. van den Bent MJ, Carpentier AF, Brandes AA, Randomized comparison of stereotactic radiosurgery
et al. Adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vin- followed by conventional radiotherapy with carmus-
cristine improves progression-free survival but not tine to conventional radiotherapy with carmustine
overall survival in newly diagnosed anaplastic oli- for patients with glioblastoma multiforme: report of
godendrogliomas and oligoastrocytomas: a ran- Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 93-05 protocol.
domized European Organisation for Research and Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:853–60.
Treatment of Cancer phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 44. Tsien C, Moughan J, Michalski JM, et al. Phase I
2006;24:2715–22. three-dimensional conformal radiation dose esca-
32. Walker MD, Alexander E Jr, Hunt WE, et al. lation study in newly diagnosed glioblastoma:
Evaluation of BCNU and/or radiotherapy in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Trial 98-03. Int
treatment of anaplastic gliomas. A cooperative clini- J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:699–708.
cal trial. J Neurosurg. 1978;49:333–43. 45. Stewart LA. Chemotherapy in adult high-grade
33. Wick W, Hartmann C, Engel C, et al. NOA-04 glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of
randomized phase III trial of sequential radioche- individual patient data from 12 randomised trials.
motherapy of anaplastic glioma with procarbazine, Lancet. 2002;359:1011–8.
lomustine, and vincristine or temozolomide. J Clin 46. Stupp R, Taillibert S, Kanner AA, et al. Maintenance
Oncol. 2009;27:5874–80. therapy with tumor-treating fields plus temozolo-
34. Wick W, Platten M, Meisner C, et al. Temozolomide mide vs temozolomide alone for glioblastoma: a ran-
chemotherapy alone versus radiotherapy alone domized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:2535–43.
for malignant astrocytoma in the elderly: the 47. Hildebrand J, Gorlia T, Kros JM, et al. Adjuvant
NOA-08 randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. dibromodulcitol and BCNU chemotherapy in
2012;13:707–15. anaplastic astrocytoma: results of a randomised
35. Roa W, Kepka L, Kumar N, et al. International European Organisation for Research and Treatment
Atomic Energy Agency randomized phase III Study of Cancer phase III study (EORTC study 26882).
of radiation therapy in elderly and/or frail patients Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:1210–6.
with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme. J 48. Niyazi M, Brada M, Chalmers AJ, et al. ESTRO-
Clin Oncol. 2015;33:4145–50. ACROP guideline "target delineation of glioblasto-
36. Brandes AA, Franceschi E, Tosoni A, et al. MGMT mas". Radiother Oncol. 2016;118:35–42.
promoter methylation status can predict the incidence 49. Chang S, Zhang P, Cairncross JG, et al. Phase III
and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomi- randomized study of radiation and temozolomide
tant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glio- versus radiation and nitrosourea therapy for
blastoma patients. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2192–7. anaplastic astrocytoma: results of NRG Oncology
37. Ruben JD, Dally M, Bailey M, et al. Cerebral RTOG 9813. Neuro-Oncology. 2017;19:252–8.
radiation necrosis: incidence, outcomes, and risk 50. Cabrera AR, Kirkpatrick JP, Fiveash JB, et al.
factors with emphasis on radiation parameters Radiation therapy for glioblastoma: executive sum-
and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. mary of an American Society for Radiation Oncology
2006;65:499–508. Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline. Pract
38. Hochberg FH, Pruitt A. Assumptions in the radiother- Radiat Oncol. 2016;6:217–25.
apy of glioblastoma. Neurology. 1980;30:907–11. 51. Lacroix M, Abi-Said D, Fourney DR, et al. A mul-
39. Walker MD, Green SB, Byar DP, et al. Randomized tivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma
comparisons of radiotherapy and nitrosoureas for the multiforme: prognosis, extent of resection, and sur-
treatment of malignant glioma after surgery. N Engl vival. J Neurosurg. 2001;95:190–8.
J Med. 1980;303:1323–9. 52. Sanai N, Polley MY, McDermott MW, et al. An
40. Shapiro WR, Green SB, Burger PC, et al. extent of resection threshold for newly diagnosed
Randomized trial of three chemotherapy regimens glioblastomas. J Neurosurg. 2011;115:3–8.
and two radiotherapy regimens and two radiotherapy 53. Chaichana KL, Jusue-Torres I, Navarro-Ramirez R,
regimens in postoperative treatment of malignant et al. Establishing percent resection and residual vol-
glioma. Brain Tumor Cooperative Group Trial 8001. ume thresholds affecting survival and recurrence for
J Neurosurg. 1989;71:1–9. patients with newly diagnosed intracranial glioblas-
41. Selker RG, Shapiro WR, Burger P, et al. The Brain toma. Neuro-Oncology. 2014;16:113–22.
Tumor Cooperative Group NIH Trial 87-01: a ran- 54. Brown TJ, Brennan MC, Li M, et al. Association
domized comparison of surgery, external radio- of the Extent of Resection With Survival in
therapy, and carmustine versus surgery, interstitial
Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Meta- 66. Malmstrom A, Gronberg BH, Marosi C, et al.
analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:1460–9. Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radio-
55. Valtonen S, Timonen U, Toivanen P, et al. Interstitial therapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in
chemotherapy with carmustine-loaded polymers patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the
for high-grade gliomas: a randomized double-blind Nordic randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol.
study. Neurosurgery. 1997;41:44–8; discussion 2012;13:916–26.
48–9. 67. Perry JR, Laperriere N, O’Callaghan CJ, et al.
56. Westphal M, Ram Z, Riddle V, et al. Gliadel wafer Short-Course Radiation plus Temozolomide in
in initial surgery for malignant glioma: long-term Elderly Patients with Glioblastoma. N Engl J Med.
follow-up of a multicenter controlled trial. Acta 2017;376:1027–37.
Neurochir (Wien). 2006;148:269–75; discussion 68. van den Bent MJ, Baumert B, Erridge SC, et al.
275. Interim results from the CATNON trial (EORTC
57. Garside R, Pitt M, Anderson R, et al. The effective- study 26053-22054) of treatment with concurrent and
ness and cost-effectiveness of carmustine implants adjuvant temozolomide for 1p/19q non-co-deleted
and temozolomide for the treatment of newly anaplastic glioma: a phase 3, randomised, open-label
diagnosed high-grade glioma: a systematic review intergroup study. Lancet. 2017;390:1645–53.
and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 69. Gilbert MR, Wang M, Aldape KD, et al. Dose-dense
2007;11:iii-iv–x-221. temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma:
58. Kristiansen K, Hagen S, Kollevold T, et al. Combined a randomized phase III clinical trial. J Clin Oncol.
modality therapy of operated astrocytomas grade III 2013;31:4085–91.
and IV. Confirmation of the value of postoperative 70. Rusthoven CG, Koshy M, Sher DJ, et al. Combined-
irradiation and lack of potentiation of bleomycin on modality therapy with radiation and chemotherapy
survival time: a prospective multicenter trial of the for elderly patients with glioblastoma in the temo-
Scandinavian Glioblastoma Study Group. Cancer. zolomide era: a national cancer database analysis.
1981;47:649–52. JAMA Neurol. 2016;73:821–8.
59. Bleehen NM, Stenning SP. A Medical Research 71. Gilbert MR, Dignam JJ, Armstrong TS, et al. A ran-
Council trial of two radiotherapy doses in the treat- domized trial of bevacizumab for newly diagnosed
ment of grades 3 and 4 astrocytoma. The Medical glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:699–708.
Research Council Brain Tumour Working Party. Br J 72. Chinot OL, Wick W, Mason W, et al. Bevacizumab
Cancer. 1991;64:769–74. plus radiotherapy-temozolomide for newly diagnosed
60. Cardinale R, Won M, Choucair A, et al. A phase II glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:709–22.
trial of accelerated radiotherapy using weekly ste- 73. McDonald MW, Shu HK, Curran WJ Jr, et al. Pattern
reotactic conformal boost for supratentorial glioblas- of failure after limited margin radiotherapy and
toma multiforme: RTOG 0023. Int J Radiat Oncol temozolomide for glioblastoma. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys. 2006;65:1422–8. Biol Phys. 2011;79:130–6.
61. Nelson DF, Diener-West M, Horton J, et al. 74. Minniti G, Amelio D, Amichetti M, et al. Patterns
Combined modality approach to treatment of of failure and comparison of different target vol-
malignant gliomas--re-evaluation of RTOG 7401/ ume delineations in patients with glioblastoma
ECOG 1374 with long-term follow-up: a joint study treated with conformal radiotherapy plus concomi-
of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and the tant and adjuvant temozolomide. Radiother Oncol.
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. NCI Monogr. 2010;97:377–81.
1988;6:279–84. 75. Gebhardt BJ, Dobelbower MC, Ennis WH, et al.
62. Nelson DF, Curran WJ Jr, Scott C, et al. Patterns of failure for glioblastoma multiforme fol-
Hyperfractionated radiation therapy and bis- lowing limited-margin radiation and concurrent
chlorethyl nitrosourea in the treatment of malignant temozolomide. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9:130.
glioma--possible advantage observed at 72.0 Gy 76. Paulsson AK, McMullen KP, Peiffer AM, et al.
in 1.2 Gy B.I.D. fractions: report of the Radiation Limited margins using modern radiotherapy tech-
Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 8302. Int J niques does not increase marginal failure rate of
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;25:193–207. glioblastoma. Am J Clin Oncol. 2014;37:177–81.
63. Werner-Wasik M, Scott CB, Nelson DF, et al. Final 77. Chang EL, Akyurek S, Avalos T, et al. Evaluation of
report of a phase I/II trial of hyperfractionated and peritumoral edema in the delineation of radiotherapy
accelerated hyperfractionated radiation therapy with clinical target volumes for glioblastoma. Int J Radiat
carmustine for adults with supratentorial malignant Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68:144–50.
gliomas. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Study 78. Combs SE, Thilmann C, Edler L, et al. Efficacy of
83-02. Cancer. 1996;77:1535–43. fractionated stereotactic reirradiation in recurrent
64. Keime-Guibert F, Chinot O, Taillandier L, et al. gliomas: long-term results in 172 patients treated in
Radiotherapy for glioblastoma in the elderly. N Engl a single institution. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8863–9.
J Med. 2007;356:1527–35. 79. Fogh SE, Andrews DW, Glass J, et al.
65. Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Gorlia T, et al. MGMT gene Hypofractionated stereotactic radiation therapy: an
silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glio- effective therapy for recurrent high-grade gliomas. J
blastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:997–1003. Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3048–53.
80. Stupp R, Wong ET, Kanner AA, et al. NovoTTF- International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group
100A versus physician's choice chemotherapy in experience. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:266–72.
recurrent glioblastoma: a randomised phase III 93. Nguyen PL, Chakravarti A, Finkelstein DM, et al.
trial of a novel treatment modality. Eur J Cancer. Results of whole-brain radiation as salvage of
2012;48:2192–202. methotrexate failure for immunocompetent patients
81. Shapiro LQ, Beal K, Goenka A, et al. Patterns of with primary CNS lymphoma. J Clin Oncol.
failure after concurrent bevacizumab and hypofrac- 2005;23:1507–13.
tionated stereotactic radiation therapy for recurrent 94. Murray K, Kun L, Cox J. Primary malignant lym-
high-grade glioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. phoma of the central nervous system. Results of
2013;85:636–42. treatment of 11 cases and review of the literature. J
82. Vuorinen V, Hinkka S, Farkkila M, et al. Debulking Neurosurg. 1986;65:600–7.
or biopsy of malignant glioma in elderly people – a 95. Batchelor T, Carson K, O'Neill A, et al. Treatment
randomised study. Acta Neurochir. 2003;145:5–10. of primary CNS lymphoma with methotrexate and
83. Brem H, Piantadosi S, Burger PC, et al. Placebo- deferred radiotherapy: a report of NABTT 96-07. J
controlled trial of safety and efficacy of intra- Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1044–9.
operative controlled delivery by biodegradable 96. Gavrilovic IT, Hormigo A, Yahalom J, et al. Long-
polymers of chemotherapy for recurrent gliomas. term follow-up of high-dose methotrexate-based
The Polymer-brain Tumor Treatment Group. Lancet. therapy with and without whole brain irradiation for
1995;345:1008–12. newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma. J Clin
84. Laperriere N, Zuraw L, Cairncross G, et al. Oncol. 2006;24:4570–4.
Radiotherapy for newly diagnosed malignant glioma 97. Glass J, Won M, Schultz CJ, et al. Phase I and II
in adults: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol. study of induction chemotherapy with methotrexate,
2002;64:259–73. rituximab, and temozolomide, followed by whole-
85. Stupp R, Taillibert S, Kanner A, et al. Effect of brain radiotherapy and postirradiation temozolo-
tumor-treating fields plus maintenance temozolomide for primary cns lymphoma: NRG Oncology
mide vs maintenance temozolomide alone on sur- RTOG 0227. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1620–5.
vival in patients with glioblastoma: a randomized 98. Fisher B, Seiferheld W, Schultz C, et al. Secondary
clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:2306–16. analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group
86. Cairncross JG, Wang M, Jenkins RB, et al. Benefit study (RTOG) 9310: an intergroup phase II com-
from procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine in oli- bined modality treatment of primary central nervous
godendroglial tumors is associated with mutation of system lymphoma. J Neuro-Oncol. 2005;74:201–5.
IDH. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:783–90. 99. Hoang-Xuan K, Taillandier L, Chinot O, et al.
87. Abrey LE, Ben-Porat L, Panageas KS, et al. Primary Chemotherapy alone as initial treatment for primary
central nervous system lymphoma: the Memorial CNS lymphoma in patients older than 60 years: a
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model. J multicenter phase II study (26952) of the European
Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5711–5. Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer
88. DeAngelis LM, Seiferheld W, Schold SC, et al. Brain Tumor Group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2726–31.
Combination chemotherapy and radiotherapy 100. Morris PG, Correa DD, Yahalom J, et al. Rituximab,
for primary central nervous system lymphoma: methotrexate, procarbazine, and vincristine followed
Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Study 93-10. J by consolidation reduced-dose whole-brain radio-
Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4643–8. therapy and cytarabine in newly diagnosed primary
89. Laack NN, Ballman KV, Brown PB, et al. Whole- CNS lymphoma: final results and long-term out-
brain radiotherapy and high-dose methylpred- come. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3971–9.
nisolone for elderly patients with primary central 101. Illerhaus G, Marks R, Muller F, et al. High-dose
nervous system lymphoma: Results of North Central methotrexate combined with procarbazine and
Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) 96-73-51. Int J CCNU for primary CNS lymphoma in the elderly:
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:1429–39. results of a prospective pilot and phase II study. Ann
90. Nelson DF, Martz KL, Bonner H, et al. Non- Oncol. 2009;20:319–25.
Hodgkin’s lymphoma of the brain: can high dose, 102. Juergens A, Pels H, Rogowski S, et al. Long-term
large volume radiation therapy improve survival? survival with favorable cognitive outcome after
Report on a prospective trial by the Radiation chemotherapy in primary central nervous system

Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG): RTOG 8315. Int lymphoma. Ann Neurol. 2010;67:182–9.
J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;23:9–17. 103. Yahalom J, Illidge T, Specht L, et al. Modern radia-
91. Thiel E, Korfel A, Martus P, et al. High-dose metho- tion therapy for extranodal lymphomas: field and
trexate with or without whole brain radiotherapy for dose guidelines from the International Lymphoma
primary CNS lymphoma (G-PCNSL-SG-1): a phase Radiation Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
3, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. Phys. 2015;92:11–31.
2010;11:1036–47. 104. Goldsmith BJ, Wara WM, Wilson CB, et al.
92. Ferreri AJ, Blay JY, Reni M, et al. Prognostic Postoperative irradiation for subtotally resected
scoring system for primary CNS lymphomas: the meningiomas. A retrospective analysis of 140
patients treated from 1967 to 1990. J Neurosurg. outcome in 318 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
1994;80:195–201. Phys. 2014;89:569–75.
105. Olivero WC, Lister JR, Elwood PW. The natural his- 120. Kondziolka D, Flickinger JC, Perez B. Judicious
tory and growth rate of asymptomatic meningiomas: resection and/or radiosurgery for parasagit-
a review of 60 patients. J Neurosurg. 1995;83:222–4. tal meningiomas: outcomes from a multicenter
106. Attia A, Chan MD, Mott RT, et al. Patterns of review. Gamma Knife Meningioma Study Group.
failure after treatment of atypical meningioma Neurosurgery. 1998;43:405–13; discussion 413–4.
with gamma knife radiosurgery. J Neuro-Oncol. 121. Patil CG, Hoang S, Borchers DJ 3rd, et al. Predictors
2012;108:179–85. of peritumoral edema after stereotactic radiosur-
107. Bos D, Poels MM, Adams HH, et al. Prevalence, gery of supratentorial meningiomas. Neurosurgery.
clinical management, and natural course of inci- 2008;63:435–40; discussion 440–2.
dental findings on brain mr images: the population- 122. Marchetti M, Bianchi S, Pinzi V, et al. Multisession
based Rotterdam Scan Study. Radiology. radiosurgery for sellar and parasellar benign menin-
2016;281:507–15. giomas: long-term tumor growth control and visual
108. Simpson D. The recurrence of intracranial menin- outcome. Neurosurgery. 2016;78:638–46.
giomas after surgical treatment. J Neurol Neurosurg 123. Navarria P, Pessina F, Cozzi L, et al. Hypofractionated
Psychiatry. 1957;20:22–39. stereotactic radiation therapy in skull base meningi-
109. Sughrue ME, Kane AJ, Shangari G, et al. Prevalence omas. J Neuro-Oncol. 2015;124:283–9.
of previous extracranial malignancies in a series 124. Paulsen F, Doerr S, Wilhelm H, et al. Fractionated
of 1228 patients presenting with meningioma. J stereotactic radiotherapy in patients with optic nerve
Neurosurg. 2010;113:1115–21. sheath meningioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
110. Oya S, Kawai K, Nakatomi H, et al. Significance 2012;82:773–8.
of Simpson grading system in modern meningioma 125. Milker-Zabel S, Huber P, Schlegel W, et al.
surgery: integration of the grade with MIB-1 label- Fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy in the
ing index as a key to predict the recurrence of WHO management of primary optic nerve sheath menin-
Grade I meningiomas. J Neurosurg. 2012;117:121–8. giomas. J Neuro-Oncol. 2009;94:419–24.
111. Rogers L, Barani I, Chamberlain M, et al. 126. Kondziolka D, Mathieu D, Lunsford LD, et al.
Meningiomas: knowledge base, treatment outcomes, Radiosurgery as definitive management of intra-
and uncertainties. A RANO review. J Neurosurg. cranial meningiomas. Neurosurgery. 2008;62:53–8;
2015;122:4–23. discussion 58–60.
112. Sun SQ, Hawasli AH, Huang J, et al. An evidence- 127. Santacroce A, Walier M, Regis J, et al. Long-term
based treatment algorithm for the management of tumor control of benign intracranial meningio-
WHO Grade II and III meningiomas. Neurosurg mas after radiosurgery in a series of 4565 patients.
Focus. 2015;38:E3. Neurosurgery. 2012;70:32–9; discussion 39.
113. Yano S, Kuratsu J, Kumamoto Brain Tumor 128. Andrews DW, Scott CB, Sperduto PW, et al. Whole
Research Group. Indications for surgery in patients brain radiation therapy with or without stereotactic
with asymptomatic meningiomas based on an exten- radiosurgery boost for patients with one to three
sive experience. J Neurosurg. 2006;105:538–43. brain metastases: phase III results of the RTOG 9508
114. Rogers L, Zhang P, Vogelbaum MA, et al. randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;363:1665–72.
Intermediate-risk meningioma: initial outcomes 129. Aoyama H, Shirato H, Tago M, et al. Stereotactic
from NRG Oncology RTOG 0539. J Neurosurg. radiosurgery plus whole-brain radiation therapy vs
2017;1:1–13. stereotactic radiosurgery alone for treatment of brain
115. Tanzler E, Morris CG, Kirwan JM, et al. Outcomes metastases: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA.
of WHO Grade I meningiomas receiving definitive 2006;295:2483–91.
or postoperative radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol 130. Chang EL, Wefel JS, Hess KR, et al. Neurocognition
Biol Phys. 2011;79:508–13. in patients with brain metastases treated with radio-
116. Solda F, Wharram B, De Ieso PB, et al. Long-term surgery or radiosurgery plus whole-brain irradia-
efficacy of fractionated radiotherapy for benign tion: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol.
meningiomas. Radiother Oncol. 2013;109:330–4. 2009;10:1037–44.
117. Stafford SL, Pollock BE, Foote RL, et al. 131. Gaspar L, Scott C, Rotman M, et al. Recursive par-
Meningioma radiosurgery: tumor control, out- titioning analysis (RPA) of prognostic factors in
comes, and complications among 190 consecutive three Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)
patients. Neurosurgery. 2001;49:1029–37; discus- brain metastases trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
sion 1037–8. 1997;37:745–51.
118. Sheehan JP, Cohen-Inbar O, Ruangkanchanasetr R, 132. Gelber RD, Larson M, Borgelt BB, et al. Equivalence
et al. Post-radiosurgical edema associated with para- of radiation schedules for the palliative treatment of
sagittal and parafalcine meningiomas: a multicenter brain metastases in patients with favorable progno-
study. J Neuro-Oncol. 2015;125:317–24. sis. Cancer. 1981;48:1749–53.
119. Fokas E, Henzel M, Surber G, et al. Stereotactic 133. Kocher M, Soffietti R, Abacioglu U, et al. Adjuvant
radiation therapy for benign meningioma: long-term whole-brain radiotherapy versus observation after
radiosurgery or surgical resection of one to three for lung cancer using molecular markers (Lung-
cerebral metastases: results of the EORTC 22952- molGPA). JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:827–31.
26001 study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:134–41. 147. Horton J, Baxter DH, Olson KB. The management
134. Kurtz JM, Gelber R, Brady LW, et al. The palliation of metastases to the brain by irradiation and corti-
of brain metastases in a favorable patient population: costeroids. Am J Roentgenol Radium Therapy, Nucl
a randomized clinical trial by the Radiation Therapy Med. 1971;111:334–6.
Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 148. Mulvenna P, Nankivell M, Barton R, et al.
1981;7:891–5. Dexamethasone and supportive care with or without
135. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, et al. whole brain radiotherapy in treating patients with
Postoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of single non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases
metastases to the brain: a randomized trial. JAMA. unsuitable for resection or stereotactic radiotherapy
1998;280:1485–9. (QUARTZ): results from a phase 3, non-inferiority,
136. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Walsh JW, et al. A random- randomised trial. Lancet. 2016;388:2004–14.
ized trial of surgery in the treatment of single metas- 149. Vecht CJ, Haaxma-Reiche H, Noordijk EM, et al.
tases to the brain. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:494–500. Treatment of single brain metastasis: radiotherapy
137. Minniti G, Scaringi C, Paolini S, et al. Single- alone or combined with neurosurgery? Ann Neurol.
fraction versus multifraction (3 × 9 Gy) stereotac- 1993;33:583–90.
tic radiosurgery for large (>2 cm) brain metastases: 150. Kondziolka D, Patel A, Lunsford LD, et al.
a comparative analysis of local control and risk of Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole brain radio-
radiation-induced brain necrosis. Int J Radiat Oncol therapy versus radiotherapy alone for patients with
Biol Phys. 2016;95(4):1142–8. multiple brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
138. Sneed PK, Suh JH, Goetsch SJ, et al. A multi- Phys. 1999;45:427–34.
institutional review of radiosurgery alone vs. radio- 151. Mintz AH, Kestle J, Rathbone MP, et al. A random-
surgery with whole brain radiotherapy as the initial ized trial to assess the efficacy of surgery in addi-
management of brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol tion to radiotherapy in patients with a single cerebral
Biol Phys. 2002;53:519–26. metastasis. Cancer. 1996;78:1470–6.
139. Yamamoto M, Serizawa T, Shuto T, et al. Stereotactic 152. Soffietti R, Kocher M, Abacioglu UM, et al. A
radiosurgery for patients with multiple brain metas- European Organisation for Research and Treatment
tases (JLGK0901): a multi-institutional prospective of Cancer phase III trial of adjuvant whole-brain
observational study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:387–95. radiotherapy versus observation in patients with one
140. Choi CY, Chang SD, Gibbs IC, et al. Stereotactic to three brain metastases from solid tumors after
radiosurgery of the postoperative resection cavity surgical resection or radiosurgery: quality-of-life
for brain metastases: prospective evaluation of tar- results. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:65–72.
get margin on tumor control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol 153. Shaw E, Scott C, Souhami L, et al. Radiosurgery
Phys. 2012;84:336–42. for the treatment of previously irradiated recur-
141. Brown PD, Jaeckle K, Ballman KV, et al. Effect of rent primary brain tumors and brain metastases:
radiosurgery alone vs radiosurgery with whole brain initial report of radiation therapy oncology group
radiation therapy on cognitive function in patients protocol (90- 05). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
with 1 to 3 brain metastases: a randomized clinical 1996;34:647–54.
trial. JAMA. 2016;316:401–9. 154. Shaw E, Scott C, Souhami L, et al. Single dose
142. Brown PD, Ahluwalia MS, Khan OH, et al. Whole- radiosurgical treatment of recurrent previously irra-
brain radiotherapy for brain metastases: evolution or diated primary brain tumors and brain metastases:
revolution? J Clin Oncol. 2017: JCO2017759589. final report of RTOG protocol 90-05. Int J Radiat
143. Robin TP, Camidge DR, Stuhr K, et al. Excellent Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47:291–8.
outcomes with radiosurgery for multiple brain 155. Eaton BR, LaRiviere MJ, Kim S, et al.
metastases in oncogene-addicted non-small-cell Hypofractionated radiosurgery has a better safety
lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13(5):715–20. profile than single fraction radiosurgery for
144. Sperduto PW, Berkey B, Gaspar LE, et al. A new large resected brain metastases. J Neuro-Oncol.
prognostic index and comparison to three other indi- 2015;123:103–11.
ces for patients with brain metastases: an analysis of 156. Mahajan A, Ahmed S, McAleer MF, et al. Post-
1,960 patients in the RTOG database. Int J Radiat operative stereotactic radiosurgery versus observa-
Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:510–4. tion for completely resected brain metastases: a
145. Sperduto PW, Kased N, Roberge D, et al. Summary single-centre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.
report on the graded prognostic assessment: an accu- Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1040–8.
rate and facile diagnosis-specific tool to estimate 157. Mok TS, Wu YL, Ahn MJ, et al. Osimertinib or
survival for patients with brain metastases. J Clin platinum-pemetrexed in EGFR T790M-positive lung
Oncol. 2012;30:419–25. cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:629–40.
146. Sperduto PW, Yang TJ, Beal K, et al. Estimating sur- 158. Peters S, Camidge DR, Shaw AT, et al. Alectinib ver-
vival in patients with lung cancer and brain metasta- sus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive non-small-
ses: an update of the graded prognostic assessment cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:829–38.
159. Davies MA, Saiag P, Robert C, et al. Dabrafenib 174. Preston-Martin S, Thomas DC, Wright WE, et al.
plus trametinib in patients with BRAF(V600)- Noise trauma in the aetiology of acoustic neuromas
mutant melanoma brain metastases (COMBI-MB): in men in Los Angeles County, 1978–1985. Br J
a multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 trial. Cancer. 1989;59:783–6.
Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:863–73. 175. Matthies C, Samii M. Direct brainstem record-
160. Brennan C, Yang TJ, Hilden P, et al. A phase 2 trial ing of auditory evoked potentials during vestibular
of stereotactic radiosurgery boost after surgical schwannoma resection: nuclear BAEP recording.
resection for brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Technical note and preliminary results. J Neurosurg.
Biol Phys. 2014;88:130–6. 1997;86:1057–62.
161. Soliman H, Ruschin M, Angelov L, et al. Consensus 176. Baschnagel AM, Chen PY, Bojrab D, et al. Hearing
contouring guidelines for postoperative com- preservation in patients with vestibular schwannoma
pletely resected cavity stereotactic radiosurgery treated with d surgery. J Neurosurg. 2013;118:571–8.
for brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 177. Plotkin SR, Stemmer-Rachamimov AO, Barker FG
2018;100:436–42. 2nd, et al. Hearing improvement after bevacizumab
162. McCollough WM, Marcus RB Jr, Rhoton AL Jr, in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2. N Engl J
et al. Long-term follow-up of radiotherapy for pitu- Med. 2009;361:358–67.
itary adenoma: the absence of late recurrence after 178. Noren G. Long-term complications following
greater than or equal to 4500 cGy. Int J Radiat Oncol gamma knife radiosurgery of vestibular schwan-
Biol Phys. 1991;21:607–14. nomas. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 1998;70(Suppl
163. Lopes MB, Sloan E, Polder J. Mixed gangliocytoma- 1):65–73.
pituitary adenoma: insights on the pathogenesis of a 179. Regis J, Pellet W, Delsanti C, et al. Functional
rare sellar tumor. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41:586–95. outcome after gamma knife surgery or microsur-
164. Sheehan JP, Pouratian N, Steiner L, et al. Gamma gery for vestibular schwannomas. J Neurosurg.
knife surgery for pituitary adenomas: factors 2002;97:1091–100.
related to radiological and endocrine outcomes. J 180. Pollock BE. Management of vestibular schwan-
Neurosurg. 2011;114:303–9. nomas that enlarge after stereotactic radiosurgery:
165. Jagannathan J, Sherman JH, Mehta GU, et al. treatment recommendations based on a 15 year
Radiobiology of brain metastasis: applications experience. Neurosurgery. 2006;58:241–8; discus-
in stereotactic radiosurgery. Neurosurg Focus. sion 241–8.
2007;22:E4. 181. Pollock BE, Driscoll CL, Foote RL, et al. Patient out-
166. Minniti G, Osti M, Jaffrain-Rea ML, et al. Long- comes after vestibular schwannoma management:
term follow-up results of postoperative radiation a prospective comparison of microsurgical resec-
therapy for Cushing’s disease. J Neuro-Oncol. tion and stereotactic radiosurgery. Neurosurgery.
2007;84:79–84. 2006;59:77–85; discussion 77–85.
167. Sheehan JP, Xu Z, Salvetti DJ, et al. Results of 182. Maniakas A, Saliba I. Microsurgery versus stereo-
gamma knife surgery for Cushing’s disease. J tactic radiation for small vestibular schwannomas:
Neurosurg. 2013;119:1486–92. a meta-analysis of patients with more than 5 years'
168. Brochier S, Galland F, Kujas M, et al. Factors pre- follow-up. Otol Neurotol. 2012;33:1611–20.
dicting relapse of nonfunctioning pituitary macroad- 183. Lunsford LD, Niranjan A, Flickinger JC, et al.
enomas after neurosurgery: a study of 142 patients. Radiosurgery of vestibular schwannomas: sum-
Eur J Endocrinol. 2010;163:193–200. mary of experience in 829 cases. J Neurosurg.
169. Chang EF, Zada G, Kim S, et al. Long-term recur- 2005;102(Suppl):195–9.
rence and mortality after surgery and adjuvant radio- 184. Meijer OW, Vandertop WP, Baayen JC, et al.
therapy for nonfunctional pituitary adenomas. J Single-fraction vs. fractionated linac-based ste-
Neurosurg. 2008;108:736–45. reotactic radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma:
170. Pouratian N, Sheehan J, Jagannathan J, et al. a single-institution study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Gamma knife radiosurgery for medically and sur- Phys. 2003;56:1390–6.
gically refractory prolactinomas. Neurosurgery. 185. Andrews DW, Suarez O, Goldman HW, et al.
2006;59:255–66; discussion 255–66. Stereotactic radiosurgery and fractionated
171. Liu X, Kano H, Kondziolka D, et al. Gamma stereotactic radiotherapy for the treatment of acous-
knife stereotactic radiosurgery for drug resistant tic schwannomas: comparative observations of 125
or intolerant invasive prolactinomas. Pituitary. patients treated at one institution. Int J Radiat Oncol
2013;16:68–75. Biol Phys. 2001;50:1265–78.
172. Losa M, Gioia L, Picozzi P, et al. The role of stereo- 186. Andrews DW, Werner-Wasik M, Den RB, et al.
tactic radiotherapy in patients with growth hormone- Toward dose optimization for fractionated stereotac-
secreting pituitary adenoma. J Clin Endocrinol tic radiotherapy for acoustic neuromas: comparison
Metab. 2008;93:2546–52. of two dose cohorts. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
173. Lee CC, Vance ML, Xu Z, et al. Stereotactic radio- 2009;74:419–26.
surgery for acromegaly. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 187. Nakamura H, Jokura H, Takahashi K, et al. Serial
2014;99:1273–81. follow-up MR imaging after gamma knife radio-
surgery for vestibular schwannoma. AJNR Am J 202. Puataweepong P, Dhanachai M, Dangprasert S,

Neuroradiol. 2000;21:1540–6. et al. Linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery and
188. Agrawal Y, Clark JH, Limb CJ, et al. Predictors of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for vestibu-
vestibular schwannoma growth and clinical implica- lar schwannomas: comparative observations of 139
tions. Otol Neurotol. 2010;31:807–12. patients treated at a single institution. J Radiat Res.
189. Matthies C, Samii M. Management of 1000 vestibu- 2014;55:351–8.
lar schwannomas (acoustic neuromas): clinical pre- 203. Yomo S, Carron R, Thomassin JM, et al. Longitudinal
sentation. Neurosurgery. 1997;40:1–9; discussion analysis of hearing before and after radiosur-
9–10. gery for vestibular schwannoma. J Neurosurg.
190. Carlson ML, Vivas EX, McCracken DJ, et al. 2012;117:877–85.
Congress of neurological surgeons systematic review 204. Badakhshi H, Muellner S, Wiener E, et al. Image-
and evidence-based guidelines on hearing preserva- guided stereotactic radiotherapy for patients
tion outcomes in patients with sporadic vestibular with vestibular schwannoma. A clinical study.
schwannomas. Neurosurgery. 2018;82:E35–9. Strahlenther Onkol. 2014;190:533–7.
191. Myrseth E, Moller P, Pedersen PH, et al. Vestibular 205. Spiegelmann R, Lidar Z, Gofman J, et al. Linear
schwannoma: surgery or gamma knife radiosurgery? accelerator radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma.
A prospective, nonrandomized study. Neurosurgery. J Neurosurg. 2001;94:7–13.
2009;64:654–61; discussion 661–3. 206. Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD, McLaughlin MR, et al.
192. Germano IM, Sheehan J, Parish J, et al. Congress Long-term outcomes after radiosurgery for acoustic
of neurological surgeons systematic review and neuromas. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1426–33.
evidence-based guidelines on the role of radio- 207. Akpinar B, Mousavi SH, McDowell MM, et al.
surgery and radiation therapy in the manage- Early radiosurgery improves hearing preservation in
ment of patients with vestibular schwannomas. vestibular schwannoma patients with normal hear-
Neurosurgery. 2018;82:E49–51. ing at the time of diagnosis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
193. Sughrue ME, Yang I, Aranda D, et al. The natural Phys. 2016;95:729–34.
history of untreated sporadic vestibular schwanno- 208. Lopez BC, Hamlyn PJ, Zakrzewska JM. Stereotactic
mas: a comprehensive review of hearing outcomes. J radiosurgery for primary trigeminal neuralgia:
Neurosurg. 2010;112:163–7. state of the evidence and recommendations for
194. Sughrue ME, Kane AJ, Kaur R, et al. A prospective future reports. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry.
study of hearing preservation in untreated vestibular 2004;75:1019–24.
schwannomas. J Neurosurg. 2011;114:381–5. 209. Flickinger JC, Pollock BE, Kondziolka D, et al.
195. Stangerup SE, Thomsen J, Tos M, et al. Long-term Does increased nerve length within the treatment
hearing preservation in vestibular schwannoma. Otol volume improve trigeminal neuralgia radiosurgery?
Neurotol. 2010;31:271–5. A prospective double-blind, randomized study. Int J
196. Ferri GG, Modugno GC, Pirodda A, et al. Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;51:449–54.
Conservative management of vestibular schwan- 210. Maesawa S, Salame C, Flickinger JC, et al.
nomas: an effective strategy. Laryngoscope. Clinical outcomes after stereotactic radiosurgery
2008;118:951–7. for idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia. J Neurosurg.
197. Barker FG 2nd, Carter BS, Ojemann RG, et al. 2001;94:14–20.
Surgical excision of acoustic neuroma: patient 211. Herman JM, Petit JH, Amin P, et al. Repeat gamma
outcome and provider caseload. Laryngoscope. knife radiosurgery for refractory or recurrent tri-
2003;113:1332–43. geminal neuralgia: treatment outcomes and quality-
198. Tsao MN, Sahgal A, Xu W, et al. Stereotactic radio- of-life assessment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
surgery for vestibular schwannoma: International 2004;59:112–6.
Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS) practice 212. Pollock BE, Foote RL, Link MJ, et al. Repeat radio-
guideline. J Radiosurg SBRT. 2017;5:5–24. surgery for idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia. Int J
199. Regis J, Carron R, Park MC, et al. Wait-and-see Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61:192–5.
strategy compared with proactive gamma knife 213. Hasegawa T, Kondziolka D, Spiro R, et al. Repeat
surgery in patients with intracanalicular vestibu- radiosurgery for refractory trigeminal neuralgia.
lar schwannomas: clinical article. J Neurosurg. Neurosurgery. 2002;50:494–500; discussion 500–2.
2013;119(Suppl):105–11. 214. Taich ZJ, Goetsch SJ, Monaco E, et al. Stereotactic
200. Breivik CN, Nilsen RM, Myrseth E, et al. radiosurgery treatment of trigeminal neuralgia:
Conservative management or gamma knife radio- clinical outcomes and prognostic factors. World
surgery for vestibular schwannoma: tumor growth, Neurosurg. 2016;90:604–612 e11.
symptoms, and quality of life. Neurosurgery. 215. Maruyama K, Kawahara N, Shin M, et al. The
2013;73:48–56; discussion 56–7. risk of hemorrhage after radiosurgery for cere-
201. Hansasuta A, Choi CY, Gibbs IC, et al. Multisession bral arteriovenous malformations. N Engl J Med.
stereotactic radiosurgery for vestibular schwanno- 2005;352:146–53.
mas: single-institution experience with 383 cases. 216. Friedman WA, Bova FJ, Mendenhall WM. Linear
Neurosurgery. 2011;69:1200–9. accelerator radiosurgery for arteriovenous mal-
formations: the relationship of size to outcome. J 225. Schiariti M, Goetz P, El-Maghraby H, et al.
Neurosurg. 1995;82:180–9. Hemangiopericytoma: long-term outcome revisited.
217. Spetzler RF, Martin NA. A proposed grading sys- Clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2011;114:747–55.
tem for arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg. 226. Rutkowski MJ, Jian BJ, Bloch O, et al. Intracranial
1986;65:476–83. hemangiopericytoma: clinical experience and treat-
218. Mohr JP, Parides MK, Stapf C, et al. Medical man- ment considerations in a modern series of 40 adult
agement with or without interventional therapy patients. Cancer. 2012;118:1628–36.
for unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations 227. Soyuer S, Chang EL, Selek U, et al. Intracranial
(ARUBA): a multicentre, non-blinded, randomised meningeal hemangiopericytoma: the role of radio-
trial. Lancet. 2014;383:614–21. therapy: report of 29 cases and review of the litera-
219. Kano H, Kondziolka D, Flickinger JC, et al. ture. Cancer. 2004;100:1491–7.
Stereotactic radiosurgery for arteriovenous malfor- 228. Gorman CA, Garrity JA, Fatourechi V, et al.
mations, Part 6: multistaged volumetric management A prospective, randomized, double-blind,
of large arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg. placebo-controlled study of orbital radiotherapy
2012;116:54–65. for Graves’ ophthalmopathy. Ophthalmology.
220. Kano H, Flickinger JC, Tonetti D, et al. Estimating 2001;108:1523–34.
the risks of adverse radiation effects after gamma 229. Prummel MF, Mourits MP, Blank L, et al.
knife radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations. Randomized double-blind trial of prednisone versus
Stroke. 2017;48:84–90. radiotherapy in Graves' ophthalmopathy. Lancet.
221. Moosa S, Chen CJ, Ding D, et al. Volume-staged 1993;342:949–54.
versus dose-staged radiosurgery outcomes for large 230. Prummel MF, Terwee CB, Gerding MN, et al. A
intracranial arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurg randomized controlled trial of orbital radiother-
Focus. 2014;37:E18. apy versus sham irradiation in patients with mild
222. Spina A, Boari N, Gagliardi F, et al. The current role Graves’ ophthalmopathy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab.
of gamma knife radiosurgery in the management of 2004;89:15–20.
intracranial haemangiopericytoma. Acta Neurochir. 231. Bartalena L, Baldeschi L, Boboridis K, et al. The
2016;158:635–42. 2016 European Thyroid Association/European
223. Cohen-Inbar O, Lee CC, Mousavi SH, et al. Group on Graves’ orbitopathy guidelines for the
Stereotactic radiosurgery for intracranial heman- management of Graves’ orbitopathy. Eur Thyroid J.
giopericytomas: a multicenter study. J Neurosurg. 2016;5:9–26.
2017;126:744–54. 232. Mourits MP, van Kempen-Harteveld ML, Garcia
224. Staples JJ, Robinson RA, Wen BC, et al. MB, et al. Radiotherapy for Graves’ orbitopa-
Hemangiopericytoma--the role of radiotherapy. Int J thy: randomised placebo-controlled study. Lancet.
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990;19:445–51. 2000;355:1505–9.
Head and Neck Cancers
4
and Henry S. Park
Abstract
ment of patients with head and neck cancers,
with special focus on principles that guide
radiotherapy management. Several key com-
ponents of trimodality care and radiation field
design are discussed.
D. M. Trifiletti (*)
N. G. Zaorsky
H. S. Park
Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4_4
134 D. M. Trifiletti et al.
HN Pearls [1–9] Pre-RT Dental Evaluation
History and Physical –– Complete oral and HN exam, radiographs of

all teeth.
–– History –– Risk assessment and tx for caries, periodontal
–– Neck mass dz.
–– Tobacco and EtOH –– Eliminate potential sources of infection.
–– Odynophagia and dysphagia –– Extractions.
–– CN deficits, trismus and dysarthria –– 2+ wks prior to start of RT
–– “Hot potato” voice = BOT involvement –– Teeth w non-restorable caries or those
–– Otalgia (inner/middle ear) = Jacobson (CN extending to gum line
IX) –– Teeth w large compromised restorations,
–– HPV risk factors (M, high SES, never mar- significant periodontal loss (pocket >5 mm)
ried, smoker) –– Teeth w severe erosion or abrasion or if in
–– SGL = dysphagia/odynophagia, otalgia high-dose region
(Arnold). Ask about voice changes (hoarse- –– For metal restorations: silicone guards to min-
ness), swallowing, aspiration, and imize RT backscatter.
pulmonary status (can the patient climb a –– Return visit for re-eval and prevention in last
set of stairs) week of RT (e.g., fluoride trays).
–– Physical –– Eval for oral candidiasis.
• OPX: oral cavity inspection w/ BOT palpa- –– Bite block or tongue depressor can be consid-
tion, “stick out your tongue,” LN exam, CN ered to displace tongue during sim and RT to
exam. decrease integral dose. Bite block looks like a
• OC: oral cavity inspection w/ palpation of mouth guard for athletes.
tongue and FOM; examine tongue mobility
(CN XII), sensation (V), and taste (VII,
IX); LN exam, CN exam. Differential Diagnosis
• LX: palpate larynx (mass at thyroid
notch = pre-epiglottis space/PES invasion), –– Benign
gently move (loss of laryngeal click = post- –– Developmental (thyroglossal duct cyst,
cricoid area/PCA invasion), palpate tongue, branchial cleft cysts, inclusion cysts)
and BOT, LN exam –– Inflammatory (e.g., lymphadenitis, benign
• “fixed” = when you move the mass, the reactive hyperplasia, infected sebaceous
patient moves with it. Implies ECE/attach- cyst)
ment to soft tissue or musculature. –– Benign neoplasm (e.g., lipoma, fibroma,
–– Labs: CBC, SMP, EBV for NPX hemangioma, neurofibroma, schwannoma,
–– Imaging: CT neck w contrast, MRI, PET-CT parathyroid adenoma, goiter)
–– Referrals (“SANDS”): speech/swallow, audi- –– Malignant
ometry, nutrition, dental, smoking cessation –– Primary HN SCC >>adeno
–– Metastatic cancer
–– Lymphoma, leukemia
–– Carotid body tumor
–– Thyroid cancer
–– Parathyroid cancer
–– Histiocytosis
–– Carcinoid
Head and Neck Cancers 135
Biopsy –– Extended neck dissection (END)

–– Removes levels I–V.
–– FNA preferred –– Additionally removes more LN groups or
–– Open biopsy non-lymphatic structures.
–– Alters lymphatics –– Selective neck dissection (SND)
–– Seeding or dissemination of tumor –– Supraomohyoid: removes levels I–III (not
–– Wound necrosis IV or V)
–– Lateral: levels II–IV
–– Posterolateral: levels II–V
Types of Neck Dissections –– Anterior: level VI
–– Radical neck dissection (RND)

No further Post-op RT Alone Post-op CRT
–– Removes levels I-V treatment
–– Removes SCM, IJV, CN XI Margin ≥5mm Close margin Positive Margin
Ø PNI PNI ECE
–– Modified radical neck dissection (MRND) Ø LVSI LVSI 4+ other factors
–– Removes levels I–V. N0-N1 2+ LN
–– Preserves other parts, per subtypes. Bulky LN (>3cm)
T3-T4
–– Type I MRND preserves CN XI. OPX/OC level IV-V LN
–– Type II MRND preserves CN XI and IJV.
–– Type III MRND (“functional neck dissec-
tion”) preserves the CN XI, IJV, and SCM.
Dissecon
Dissectionname
name Lymph nodes
Lymph nodesMuscles, vessels,
Muscles, vessels,
removed
removed nerves removed
nerves or or
removed
preserved
preserved
Radical neck I-V Removes SCM, IJV,
dissection (RND) CN XI
Modified radical neck I-V Preservation below
dissection (MRND)
• Type I I-V Preserves CN XI

• Type II I-V Preserves IJV, CN
XI
• Type III (“functional I-V Preserves IJV, SCM,
neck dissection”) CN XI
Extended neck I-V, + more LN

dissection (END) groups or non
lymph
structures
Selective neck Removal below Preserves IJV, SCM,
dissection (SND) CN XI
• Supraomohyoid I-III
• Lateral II-IV
• Posterolateral II-V
• Anterior IV
• Central VI
Level Term Sup Inf Ant Post Lat Med

IA Submental Mandible Hyoid Mandible, Hyoid Ant digastric --
platysma
IB Submandibular Sup edge of Mid body Mandible, Post edge Mandible, Ant
SMG hyoid platysma SMG platysma digastric
II Upper 1/3 of Inf edge C1 Inf edge Int carotid, post Post edge Medial SCM Int carotid,
IIA: ant to the IJV and CN XI transverse hyoid edge SMG SCM levator
post IJV process scap
IIB: post to the
post IJV
III Middle 1/3 IJV Inf edge Inf edge Ant edge SCM Post edge Medial SCM Int carotid,
hyoid cricoid SCM paraspinal
M
IV Lower 1/3 IJV Inf edge of sternum Ant edge SCM Post edge Medial SCM Int carotid,
IVa: low and medial cricoid SCM paraspinal
juguelar sclav M
IVb: medial
sclav
V Post triangle Sup edge Trans cervical Post edge SCM Trap Platysma, Paraspinal
Va: upper post hyoid vessels skin M
triangle
Vb: lower post
triagle
Vc: lat sclav
VI Ant Inf edge Sup edge Platysma, skin Ant and lat Thyroid and None or
VIa : ant jugular compartment thyroid cart manubrium trachea SCM midline
VIb :
prelaryngeal ,
pretracheal ,
paratracheal
VII Sup edge Innominate Manubrium Ant and lat Carotids or ---
IIA manubrium vein trachea mediastinum
VIIa RS BOS Sup edge Pharyngeal Prevertebral Styloid, deep Medial

hyoid mucosa Ms parotid lobe edge ICA
VIIb RP BOS Inf edge C1 Retrostyloid M BOS or V Parotid Midline
common carotid art
transverse body
process
VIII Parotid Zygomatic Angle of Post mandibular Ant of SCM, Styloid
arch, EAC mandible ramus, post belly of process
masseter, digastric
medial pterygoid
musc
IV
Pain location CN branches Distal Passage Proximal Major

ganglion ganglion CN
Ant 2/3 tongue Lingual n N/A Foramen Trigeminal / V3

Inf OC Buccal n ovale Gasserion
Palate Inf Alveolar n
Lower teeth
Mandible, TMJ
Parotid, SMG
Preauricular Auriculotemporal n N/A Foramen Trigeminal / V3
ovale Gasserion
Post 1/3 tongue Pharyngeal n Inf petrosal Jugular Sup IX

PTP Lingual n Tonsillar n ganglion foramen glossopharyn
Inf NPX geal ganglion
Paraphargyngeal space
Retropharyngeal space
Inner/middle ear Tympanic n of N/A N/A Sup IX
Jacobson glossopharyn
geal ganglion
SGL Internal laryngeal Inf (nodose) Jugular Sup vagal X
Laryngeal and lingual epiglottis branch of sup vagal foramen ganglion
Lower pharynx laryngeal branch and ganglion
pharyngeal
External canal, post-auricular Tympanic n and Sup vagal N/A Sup vagal X
plexus ganglion ganglion
Auricular n (Arnold)
Nasal mucosa Vidian n Geniculate Internal N/A VII
Post ethmoid sinus Greater sup petrosal n ganglion acoustic
Sphenoid sinus meatus
Soft palate
Inf ear, pinna, post-auricular Post auricular n Geniculate Internal N/A VII
ganglion acoustic
meatus
Surgical Margins CTV Expansions

–– 0.5–1.0 cm GTV to CTV margin
–– Positive surgical margins at initial frozen sec- –– Indications to cover level VI: emergent
tion despite negative final path being a strong trach, > minimal subglottic space extension,
predictor of LR (HR 3.3). PORT should be extension thru thyroid cartilage, apex, or
considered for these patients even when final pyriform sinus involvement for hypophar-
path margins were negative (Ettl, 2016). ynx primaries
PTV Expansion
Flap Coverage –– 0.3–0.5 cm CTV to PTV margin if using daily
KV and/or CBCT
–– In PORT for the head and neck, the entire
post-op bed and flap should be covered in case
of ECE. PET-CT
Split-Field vs. Whole-Neck IMRT –– Often in N+ pts when conventional imaging is

equivocal, if primary site unknown, if recur-
–– Whole-neck IMRT: easier setup; fewer hot rent, and if salvage.
spots at junction; potential for inadequate –– Consider in stages III–IV OC, OPX, HPX,
dose. LX, NPX (non-keratinizing, N2–3), and
–– Split-field: allows better larynx sparing unknown primary before EUA
(V10 = 100% vs V10 = 45%); has more com- –– Mehanna, 2016: Is PET noninferior to planned
plicated setup – higher potential setup errors. neck dissection for HNSCC N2–3? n = 564,
Low anterior neck (LAN) is prescribed to 2007–2012, N2–3 M0. 84% OPX. 57% T1–2.
3 cm depth. Can’t match through gross dz or 79% N2a-2b. Randomize: (1) PET/CT sur-
for high-risk dz s/p surgery (e.g., advanced veillance 12w after end of CRT. If <CR, then
larynx s/p TL ad BL LND). undergo ND in 4w after PET-CT. vs (2)
–– LAN borders: sup border is match line Planned ND. CT or MRI at 12w. Nineteen
(level of thyroid notch); inf border is 1 cm percent of PET-CT pts needed ND. Two-yr OS
below the clavicles; lat border is medial; 85% vs 82%, slightly favoring surveillance,
2/3 of clavicle mid border is the larynx. meeting noninferiority criteria. Small QOL
–– Place Iso in the middle of the vertebral benefit for PET at 6mo, similar thereafter.
body at level of thyroid notch. LRC 91% in both. DMs similar in both. Thus,
–– Dosimetric match at 50% IDL line of after CRT, surveillance PET-CT preferred for
IMRT and LAN fields. OS, QOL, and cost
–– Can feather the junction to spread out dose.
Mastication Immunotherapy
–– Lateral pterygoid originates from lat ptery- –– Checkmate 141, Ferris, UPMC, 2016. M HN
goid plate and inserts onto the neck of con- SCC w dz. progression 6 m after platinum
dyloid process of the mandible –> opens chemo. Nivo > standard tx, 1-year OS 36% vs
jaw 17%, response rate 13% vs 6%. Response in
–– Masseter and medial pterygoid –> closes jaw both p16+/−. Nivo had stable physical and
social function, which worsened w chemo. If
>1% PD-L1 expression, then favorable OS,
Speech and Swallow HR 0.55. No further benefit if >5% of >10%
expression.
–– Baseline eval for speech and swallowing
dysfunction.
–– Dysphagia/aspiration-related structure Contouring Normal Structures
(DARS): pharyngeal constrictors, supraglot-
tic, and glottic larynx. Brainstem
–– For patients receiving CRT, SLP improves Spinal cord
swallowing at up to 9 months of follow-up. Dorsal vagal complex (DVC), area pos-
trema – Level of inferior cerebellum (on sag),
contour two to three slices of posterior brainstem
PEG or NG Tube going inf (1 above level of hemisphere, 1 at, and
1 below level of hemisphere)
–– Not routinely recommended Cochlea: lucency anterior to IAC on bone
–– Higher G-tube dependence windows. Prefer slices ≤1 mm. Avg volume
–– Higher late esophageal stricture 0.13–0.56 mL. Note cochlea has no known
–– Consider w severe weight loss (5% in 1 month, threshold for sensorineural hearing loss, rec to
10% in 6 months), dehydration, dysphagia, keep dose ALARA.
anorexia, significant comorbidities, aspiration Vestib complex: lucency post to IAC
risk, and large RT fields Pharyngeal constrictors: three sets of con-
tours. Contour 3 mm slice of posterior pharynx.
Sup: when pterygoid plates disappear, superior
Treatment Initiation PC begins. Goes inf to sup hyoid bone.
Middle: spans hyoid bone (sup to inf). Inf:
–– Ideally start definitive therapy within 4 wks start when hyoid no longer visualized and ends at
and post-op therapy with 6 wks the esophagus. Make wider near the inferior
aspect (cricopharyngeus muscle joins pharynx to
Induction Chemo esophagus and is wide)
–– Current indications: Possibly T4b or N3
non-oropharynx cancers, metastatic NPX
cancer to gain control over DMs prior to LR
RT, borderline/unresectable sinonasal neuro-
endocrine tumors, pt unable to lie flat
–– In general, not recommended over concurrent
CRT. PARADIGM and DeCIDE negative for
OS advantage of induction vs concurrent.
Esophagus ose Constraints (Guidelines Vary

D
Parotids: starts at superior level of the external Depending on Proximity/Importance
auditory canal and ends at angle of mandible. of PTV Coverage)
SMG: under the mandible, sup aspect ends
under floor of mouth (mylohyoid muscle). Spinal cord PRV 0.1 cc < 50 Gy
DVC Mean < 12 Gy
OC: contains minor salivary glands
Brainstem 0.1 cc < 54 Gy
Lips: for OC, look on sagittal view. Contralateral parotid Mean < 20 Gy
Glottic/Supraglottic larynx (GSL): spans Combination parotids Mean < 26 Gy
C3-C6 – prism-shaped volume. Start at the bottom Contra SMG Mean < 39 Gy
of hyoid, large contour, between pharyngeal con- GSL (larynx) Mean < 35 Gy; V55 < 10%
strictors and submandibular glands. Continue con- OC, ant V30 < 65%; V35 < 35%
touring external all of thyroid cartilage. Inf border OC Mean < 30 Gy;
0.1 cc < 60 Gy
is inf cricoid cartilage, stops at the esophagus.
Lips Mean < 20 Gy
Trachea does not have cartilage all the way around, Mandible 0.1 cc < 70 Gy
cricoid does and includes AC to arytenoids. Pharyngeal constrictor, V55 < 80%; V65 < 30%
sup
Mandible Pharyngeal constrictor, V65 < 75%
Maxilla mid
Pharyngeal constrictor, V50 < 33%; mean < 45 Gy;
Brachial plexus: 5 mm diameter, start at C5, uninvolved V60 < 15%
end at T1. Esophagus Mean < 30 Gy
CNV1: ophthalmic division arises from sup Brachial plexus (L or R) 0.03 cc < 70 Gy
aspect of TG ganglion, courses along lateral wall Optic N 0.1 cc < 54 Gy
of cavernous sinus, and enters orbit via sup Chiasm 0.1 cc < 54 Gy
orbital fissure. Temporal lobe 0.1 cc < 68 Gy;
1 cc < 58 Gy
CN V2: maxillary division arises from inf por-
Lens 0.1 cc < 10 Gy
tion of TG ganglion, courses along lat wall of Cochlea V30 < 50%, max 35 Gy
cavernous sinus, and enters pterygopalatine fossa Retina 0.1 cc < 45 Gy
via foramen rotundum. Lacrimal gland Mean < 34 Gy
CN V3: mandibular division arises from inf
portion of TG ganglion and passes through fora-
men ovale to inf surface of skull.
CN VII: exits via stylomastoid foramen.
Branches are temporal, zygomatic, buccal, man-
dibular, and cervical (“Two Zebras Bit My
Coccyx”).
CN XII: hypoglossal. W/ neuro deficit, tongue
points to affected side. BOS tumor may damage
it in the hypoglossal canal.
Nodal Stations and Boundaries of the HN [10, 11]
142
When to
Level Term Sup Inf Ant Post Lat Med Drainage from treat
IA Submental Mandible Hyoid Mandible, Hyoid Ant digastric -- Skin of the chin,
platysma mid-low lip, tip of the
tongue, ant FOM, ant
oral tongue, and
mandibular alveolar
ridge
IB Submandibular Sup edge of Mid body Mandible, Post-edge Mandible, Ant IA, lower nasal cavity,
SMG hyoid platysma SMG platysma digastric hard/soft palate,
maxillary and mandib
alveolar ridges, cheek,
lips, ant tongue, OC, ant
NC, midface, SMG
IIIIA: ant to the Upper 1/3 of IJV Inf edge C1 Inf edge Int carotid, post Post edge Medial SCM Int carotid, “Grand central station”: Standard
post IJVIIB: and CN XI transverse hyoid edge SMG SCM levator face, parotid, SMG, IA, hemi -neck
post to the post process scapulae IB, VIIa, NC, NPX, OC,
IJV OPX, LX, HPX, EAC,
middle ear
IIB: OPX, NPX >> OC,
LX, HPX
III Middle 1/3 IJV Inf edge Inf edge Ant edge SCM Post edge Medial SCM Int carotid, NPX, OC, OPX, LX,
hyoid cricoid SCM paraspinal HPX
M
IV Lower 1/3 IJV Inf edge of Midway b/w Ant edge SCM Post edge Medial SCM Int carotid, NPX, OPX, LX, HPX.
IVa: low and medial sclav cricoid cricoid and SCM paraspinal Infrequently: OC
juguelar clavicle head M
IVb: medial
sclav
V Post triangle Sup edge Trans cervical Post edge SCM Trap Platysma, Paraspinal NPX Post-op,
Va: upper post hyoid vessels skin M node-
triangle positive
Vb: lower post hemi rt neck
triangle
Vc: lat sclav
D. M. Trifiletti et al.
VI Ant compartment Inf edge Sup edge Platysma, skin Ant and lat Thyroid and None or thyroid, LX (subglottic
VIa: ant jugular thyroid cart manubrium trachea SCM midline involvement), extension
VIb: through the thyroid
prelaryngeal, cartilage, HPX
pretracheal,
paratracheal
VII (older) Sup edge Innominate Manubrium Ant and lat Carotids or ---
manubrium vein trachea mediastinum
VIIa/RP Retropharyngeal BOS Sup edge Pharyngeal Prevertebral Med edge int Midline Paranasal sinuses If gross
hyoid mucosa Ms carotid positive or
PPW
involved.
Anything
with
“pharynx” in
name of dz
VIIb/RS Retrostyloid BOS Inf edge C1 Retrostyloid M BOS or V Parotid Lat edge int Post-op,
transverse body carotid cLN+
process hemi-neck
VIII Parotid Zygomatic Angle of Post mandibular Ant of SCM, Styloid
arch, EAC mandible ramus, masseter, post belly of process
medial digastric
pterygoid musc
Supraclav Inf border Sup edge SCM and Carotid and Clavicle or SCM,
level 4–5 manubrium clavicle paraspinal fat space carotid,
MS med
clavicle
SMG typically none bc Primary
encapsulated SMG cancer
Parotid
143
HN Toxicity Management [12–18] Xerostomia Defined by symptoms (taste, dry-

ness not relieved by sipping water, difficulty
Mucositis Most common cause of tx breaks. It chewing, swallowing), quantify by salivary
causes severe pain, dysphagia, and weight loss. production.
–– Risk factors: poor hygiene, nutrition, immu-
nosuppression, poorly fitting dentures, spicy –– SMGs for basal flow produce predominance
food, betel nut, EtOH, tobacco, prior RT, of unstimulated saliva (65%) vs parotids
chemo, dec saliva, concurrent chemo, dose, (20%). SMG secretions are more mucinous
site, location, transplanted tissue, metallic and results in more moisture in mouth and
dental work alleviate feeling of xerostomia.
–– Parotid for saliva bolus; thus, sparing at
–– Prevention least one parotid reduces xerostomia.
–– 4–6x/d w 1 qt water: 1 tsp salt: 1 tsp baking PARSPORT was RCT of conventional vs
soda IMRT, 60–65 Gy/30 fx. IMRT decreased
–– Soft toothbrush and mild toothpaste after G2+ xerostomia at 12 and 20 months (83%
every meal/QHS vs 29%), but fatigue is more prevalent in
–– Don’t start flossing during RT. Gentle if IMRT group.
you already do –– Minor salivary glands thought to be important
–– Avoid alcohol mouthwash for resting salivation, a key component of sen-
–– Lip moisturizer sation of dry mouth.
–– Fluoride trays
–– Humidifier in bedroom Hiccups Treat w chlorpromazine, 25 mg PO
–– Avoid oral irritants TID or QID. Often, a single dose will break the
cycle. If this does not work, try baclofen, 5 mg
–– Management PO TID.
–– Magic mouthwash before meals, QHS, up
to 8x/day: Mylanta 160 ml, Benadryl Osteoradionecrosis (ORN)
160 ml, and Viscous Xylocaine 2% 160 ml –– Pathophys: Non-vital bone in site of prior
–– Doxepin mouthwash before meals RT. Occurs secondary to hypocellularity,
–– Pain medications (narcotics) hypoxia, and hypovascularity.
–– Antibacterial or antifungal prn –– Risk factors: pre- or post-RT extraction or
–– Manuka honey vs. placebo (Bardy, OMS, surgery, close to tumor, location: post mandi-
2011): no difference in G3 mucositis, ble > ant mandible > post maxilla > ant max-
severity, or duration of mucositis illa, dental dz., dose >60 Gy, time from pre-RT
–– Palifermin, a recombinant keratinocyte extractions to start of RT < 14 d.
factor, decreases oral mucositis. However, –– Work-up: rule out tumor recurrence, bx PRN,
no change in tx breaks, opiate use. imaging w CT and/or MRI
–– Oral candidiasis: from candida colonization. –– Presentation: pain, swelling, trismus, exposed
Worsened by xerostomia. Before treatment, bone, path fx, malocclusion, oral cutaneous
must check meds and LFTs. Treatment: fistula formation.
–– Nystatin. Unpleasant taste. Can cause N/V. –– Clinical criteria: exposed bone and fistula.
–– Fluconazole: possible hepatotoxicity. P450 But not pain, dysesthesia, trismus, fistula
inhibitor and can interact w other meds, –– Radiographic criteria: diffuse radiolucency
e.g., coumadin. + bone exposure and sequestration, but not
–– Amphotericin B: possible liver toxicity. periosteal thickening, mottled areas of osteo-
porosis, increased density
–– Grading: comes. However, used imprecise definition of

–– I: exposed alveolar bone ORN compared to standard clinical practice
–– II: above, doesn’t respond to HBO (see criteria above), excluded grade III. Also,
–– III: full thickness involvement +/− path fx HBO was BID and not QD; 75% of tx group
–– Incidence: 3–12%. 12% if tx prior to 1968. did not get full 30 dives. Sham HBO was actu-
Three percent in studies since 1997. Rare if ally ~21% O2.
dose to mandible <60 Gy –– Marx (Marx, JADA, 1986). RCT of HBO (20
–– Prevention: dental eval, extractions of non- sessions prior +10 after extraction) vs
restorable teeth prior to RT start. Daily fluo- penicillin for ORN. HBO decreased rate of
ride treatment (1% NaF gel) for life ORN 30% vs 5%.
–– Treatment:
–– PENTOCLO regimen: trental 400 mg
BID, vit E 500 IR, BID, clodronate Brachial Plexopathy
1600 mg QD, prednisone 20 mg QD, cipro
500 mg BID. Must be taken for 8–9 months. –– Classical type (unlikely w <60 Gy): chronic
In the U.S., vit E is in 400 mg capsules. progressive fibrosis, variable time to onset
Trental reduced to BID for avoidance of (0.25–26 years post-RT), presents w sensory
vascular effects. Clodronate is not avail- or motor sx in ipsi limb, less likely to have
able, so Fosamax may be used. pain. Twenty percent of pts will develop this
–– HBO: Marx protocol is 20 dives prior to in 5y, more likely if treated w 3D, getting
operation and 10 dives after, to 2.4 chemo.
ATM × 90 min. Would do 30 + 10 dives if –– Transient type: ~4 month onset, resolves
there is already necrosis. spontaneously
–– Yes if dose to tooth >50 Gy.
–– Consider if dose 40–50 Gy. Thyroid Dysfunction
–– No HBO if <40 Gy. –– Hypothyroidism rates in 22–48% at 5 years,
~50% at 10 years
–– HBO literature. –– Check serum TSH q6m for first 5 years, then
–– ORN 96 (Annane, JCO, 2006). RCT of HBO yearly
vs sham HBO for ORN. No difference in out-
NPX Maxillary sinus Nasal cavity/ Salivary gland OC OPX Supraglottis Glottis Subglottis Hypopharynx Thyroid Melanoma Skin SCC/BCC Merkel
Ethmoid
anatomy Ant: choanae *Subsites of Stage only applies Subsites: mucosal Subsites: tonsil, *5 Supraglottic TVCs, ant/post 5mm below * 3 Hypopharynx HR factors:
Post: clivus, C1, nasal cavity of to major salivary lips, buccal mucosa, (includes ATP, subsites (“A VISA”): commissures glottis to subsites (“3 Ps”): area L > 20
C2 nasal cavity: glands (parotid, sup and inf alveolar PTP, GTS), arytenoids, inferior Pyriform sinus, mm, M >10
Sup: sphenoid septum, SMG, SL). Minor ridge (aka upper, vallecula, BOT, false cords cricoid or 1st Hypopharyngeal wall mm, H > 6 mm;
poorly defined;
sinus floor, salivary gland = lower gingiva), PPW, soft palate (ventricular bands), tracheal ring (lateral and post),
recurrent;
Inf: soft palate lateral wall, stage as primary retromolar trigone infrahyoid postcricoid region immune
vestibule. site! (RMT), hard palate, epiglottis, (mucosa overlying suppressed;
Note: that most floor (FOM), ant 2/3 suprahyoid cricoid cartilage, w prior RT; rapid
vestibule tongue (anterior to epiglottis, arytenoids mucosa growth; PNI;
cancers are skin terminal sulcus, aka aryepiglottic folds, superiorly and G3; adenoid;
cancers, have vallate papillae). esophageal mucosa Clark IV+
different tx inferiorly)
Borders: hyoid bone
or tip of epiglottis
(sup); bottom of
cricoid cart or
cricopharyngeus
muscle (inf)
T1 NPX, OPX, or Limited to 1 subsite*, no £2 cm w/o £2 cm (new in AJCC £2 cm 1 subsite*, normal Normal VC Subglottis One subsite**, £2 cm T1a - £1cm £1mm thick £2 cm £2 cm
nasal cavity maxillary sinus bony invasion extraparenchy- 8: and £5 mm DOI) VCs movement only T1b – 1-2 cm T1a – no ulcer, <
without bone mal extension (T1a one cord, T1b 0.8mm
erosion T1b –ulcer or
both)
0.8-1.0 mm
T2 Parapharyngeal Invading hard 2+ subsites* 2-–4cm w/o 2–4cm or 5-£10 mm 2–4cm 2+ subsites or Supra/subglottis or VCs w 2+ subsites, 2–4cm 2–4 cm, capsule 1.01-2mm thick 2–4 cm 2–5cm
space (AJCC 8: palate, middle (doesn’t matter if extraparenchymal glottis, or region normal intact T2a - no ulcer
+/- med or lat nasal meatus invading hard extension outside supraglottis mobility T2b - ulcer
pterygoid, palate or middle
(BOT [e.g. hot VCs w impaired VCs w
prevertebral nasal meatus)
muscles, carotid potato voice], mobility (previously impaired
space) vallecula, medial T2b) mobility
wall pyriform)
T3 Bony structures, Posterior wall of Maxillary sinus, >4 cm or >4 cm or >10 -£20 >4 cm or lingual Fixed cord T3a - > 4 cm but 2.01–4mm thick >4cm or minor >5cm
skull base, or maxillary sinus, medial orbital extraparenchymal mm DOI surface of limited to thyroid T3a - no ulcer bone erosion,
paranasal sinuses subQ, orbital wall, palate, extension epiglottis Post-cricoid area, >4 cm, esophagus T3b – Gross T3b - ulcer or c/p/rPNI or
wall, pterygoid cribriform plate paraglottic space, Paraglottic space extrathyroidal deep
fossa, ethmoid (“COMP”) pre-epiglottic space extension into
Inner thyroid cartilage strap muscles
T4a Intracranial,any T4a – anterior Anterior orbit, Skin, mandible, Non-lip:>20 mm DOI, (p16- is split a/b, Through thyroid cartilage Cricoid, Thyroid/cricoid T4a – subQ, >4 mm thick Gross cortical Into bone,
CNs, orbit, skin, skin, pterygoid ear canal, CN VII cortical bone, however p16+ is thyroid cartilage, hyoid, larynx, trachea, T4a - no ulcer bone invasion muscle,
infratemporal pterygoid plates, plates, cranial maxillary sinus, deep lumped cartilage central compartment esophagus, fascia,
fossa, infratemporal fossa, muscles of tongue together into T4 invasion recurrent cartilage
hypopharynx, fossa, cribriform sphenoid/frontal (genio, hyo, stylo, alone) larynx, (AJCC 7:any laryngeal, or any
orbit, parotid, plate, sinuses (“POS palatoglossus). Note: deep tongue cartilage was anaplastic
masticator space, sphenoid/frontal CSF”) superficial bone does muscles, medial T4a)
soft tissue sinuses not count pterygoid, hard
beyond lat lip: through cortical palate, Beyond larynx (e.g.esophagus, soft tissues of neck,
pterygoid, bone, inf alveolar N mandible extrinsic tongue muscles, strap muscles, thyroid)
parotid gland, (V3), FOM, skin of *No mention of
masseter muscle face (skin, nose) PNI
T4b Orbital apex, Orbital apex, Skull base, Masticator space, Lateral pterygoid Prevertebral space, carotid, mediastinum T4b – T4b – ulcer BOS
dura, brain, dura, brain, pterygoid plates, pterygoid plates, (e.g. trismus < prevertebral
middle cranial middle cranial carotid skull base, encases 4 cm),pterygoid fascia, carotid,
fossa, CNs other fossa, CNs other carotid plates, lateral mediastinum
than V2, than V2, nasopharynx, (anaplastic out of
nasopharynx, nasopharynx, skull base, thyroid)
clivus clivus carotid
147
––
148
NPX OPX p16+ Maxillary sinus Thyroid Melanoma Merkel

EBV + SCCUP (T0 NPX) p16+ SCCUP (T0 OPX) Nasal cavity
OC
OPX p16-
SCCUP p16- and EBV-
All LX
HPX
All Salivary
Skin SCC, BCC
cN pN cN pN cN pN
What is 6 cm, ipsi/bilateral, above vs 6 cm, ipsi/contra/bilateral 4 vs 4+ 3 cm/6 cm, 3 cm/6 cm, VI-VII (central) vs I- 1 vs 2–3 vs 4+ Regional vs in Regional vs in
important? below cricoid ipsi/contra/bilateral, ipsi/contra/bilateral, V (lat) or RP occult vs matted transit transit
single/multiple, ECE single/multiple, ECE
N1 Unilateral, ≤6 cm, above inf Ipsi nodes, all ≤ 6 cm ≤ 4 nodes, any location Single ipsi node ≤ 3 cm, no Single ipsi node ≤ 3 cm, no N1a – level VI-VII 1 node Regional pN1a: clinically
cricoid; or any RPs ECE ECE N1b – level I-V or N1a – clinically occult node (SLNBx) occult LNs
RPs N1b – clinically apparent node pN1b: clinically
N1c – no nodes, but in- apparent LNs
transit/satellite/microsatellite
N2 Bilateral, ≤6cm, above inf Contra or bilateral, all ≤ > 4 nodes, any location N2a: Single ipsi, 3–6 cm, no Single ipsi, 3–6 cm, no ECE; or 2–3 nodes In transit mets, In transit mets,
cricoid 6 cm ECE ipsi/contra < 3 cm with ECE+ N2a – clinically occult no LNs no nodes
N2b – at least one clinically apparent
N2b: Multiple ipsi, ≤6cm, no Multiple ipsi, 3-6 cm, no ECE
N2c – 1 clinical node, and in-
ECE
N2c: Bilateral or contralat, Bilateral or contralat, 3-6 cm,
≤6 cm, no ECE no ECE
N3 >6 cm and/or below inf cricoid Any node > 6 cm N3a: >6 cm, no ECE >6 cm, no ECE ≥4 nodes In transit mets In transit mets
N3b: Any clinically overt ECE Single >3 cm with ECE; or N3a - ≥4 nodes, all occult AND nodes AND nodes
multi nodes with any ECE+ N3b - ≥4 nodes some felt, or matted
nodes
N3c –2+ clinical nodes, and in-
Ocular/Uveal Melanoma [19–29]

COMS staging
Apical Basal 10yr OS Treatment
height diameter
(AH) (BD)
Small ≤3 mm ≤5 mm 80% Observation or local therapy. 33% progress with obs
Medium 3–8 mm <16mm 60% Enucleation, plaque, SRS (25–40Gy to 50% isodose),
or protons (56 cGyE)
Large >8 mm >16 mm 40% Enucleation (SOC) or protons. Protons best as
substitute for BT or enucleation and for tumors near
macula or near orbital muscles
Diffuse Thickness <20% basal
Metastatic N1, M1 <7 m
Overview Trials
–– 2000 cases/yr (1/3 asymptomatic), 4/1 –– COMS 1997: obs small tumors. Five-yr OS
million. 94%, 33% progressed
–– 98% Caucasians. –– COMS 28, 2006: (COMS
–– Ocular melanoma is the #1 eye malignancy of medium)→enucleation vs eye plaque. Same
primary cancers. 12-yr OS (~20%), 13% of plaque pts ended up
–– Usually arises from choroid (85%) > adnexa getting enucleations 2/2 tumor or pain
(10%) > conjunctiva (5%). –– COMS medium, Quivey 1993: retrospective
–– Melanocytes of uveal stroma (neural crest ori- I-125. 13% local failure at 5y, due to tx failure
gin) give rise to ocular melanoma. or pain from BT complications
–– 1–2% present w DM. Usually mets to liver –– COMS large: preop RT does not improve DFS
(90%). Twenty percent will had DM over 5y, or OS between two tx groups.
50% at 15y.
–– BAP1 inactivation found in most ocular Plaque Technique
melanoma. –– I-125 seeds, 0.7–1 Gy/h. Treatment time
4–7 days.
Anatomy –– Ru-106, a beta emitter may be used, because it
–– Layers of globe: outer fibrous layer (sclera), has limited dose penetration vs I-125, so it
middle vascular layer (choroid), inner nerve results in less toxicity and is easier to insert.
layer (retina) –– 85 Gy to apex (if less than 5 mm apex→Rx to
–– Macular important for color vision 5 mm).
–– Optic disk is 2 mm medial to macula, 1.5 mm –– 2 mm around tumor.
diameter –– LC 93%.
Presentation Thirty percent asymptomatic. Protons

Most have vision loss, scotoma, flashing lights. –– 70 Cobalt Gy Equivalent in 5 fractions over
10 days
Work-up H&P, eye exam, slit lamp, B-scan u/s, –– LC 93%
LFTs, liver u/s, biopsy not necessary
Toxicity
Histology Spindle cell (best), mixed, epithelioid –– Loss of vision: 50% of pts lose >5 lines vision
(worst) –– Cataracts: 83%
asopharyngeal (NPX) Cancer

N –– N1 – unilateral, ≤6 cm, above inf cricoid, or
[19–23, 30–41] any RPs
–– N2 – bilateral, ≤6 cm, above cricoid
• T1 – NPX, OPX, or nasal cavity –– N3 – >6 cm or below cricoid cartilage
• T2 – parapharyngeal space (AJCC 8 adds:
+/− med or lat pterygoid, prevertebral mus- T1 T2 T3 T4
cles, carotid space) N0 I II III IVA
N1 II II III
• T3 – bony structures, skull base, or paranasal N2 III III III
sinuses N3 IVA
• T4 – intracranial, CNs, infratemporal fossa, M1 IVB
hypopharynx, orbit, parotid, masticator space,
soft tissue beyond lat pterygoid, parotid gland,
masseter muscle
Pathology
WHO Old WHO keratin EBV assoc? Differentiated Notes
I Keratinizing N Differentiated Smokers,
radioresistant,
U.S.
II IIA Non-keratinizing Y Differentiated
III IIB (EBV associated) Y Undiff,
lymphoepithelioma
Basaloid Rare
–– EBV: titers >1500 copies/ml→ ↓OS. Persistent –– Villaret/Jugular foramen syndrome: para-

EBV after tx → ↓OS (Lin et al) pharyngeal space invasion (CN IX-XII, sym-
–– EBV/HPV pathetic nerve palsy)
–– EBV+: best prognosis –– Jugular foramen: IX, X, XI
–– HPV+: intermediate –– Hypoglossal canal: XII
–– EBV-/HPV-: poor prognosis –– Foramen Spinosum: middle meningeal
–– 70% cN+, 90% pN+, 50% BL N+ artery/vein, CN V3 recurrent branch, lesser
–– Poor prognosticators: high stage, male, superficial petrosal nerve
age > ~45, WHO I, high EBV (>1500 copies/ –– Foramen Rotundum: V2
mL), detectable EBV after RT –– Foramen Ovale: V3, lesser petrosal nerve,
accessory meningeal art, emissary veins
LRC w RT alone, % –– Foramen Lacerum: carotid→cavernous
T1–2 75–95 sinus→cranial fossa (Jacod syndrome)
T3–4 50–75 –– Cavernous sinus: carotid, III, IV, V1, V2, VI
N0–1 90
–– Triangle of Ho: superior clavicle point where
N–3 70
the neck meets the shoulder
Anatomy Workup
–– Borders –– H/P: hearing loss, otalgia; nasal congestion,
–– Ant: choanae epistaxis
–– Post: clivus, C1, C2 • CN deficits (vision) or trismus.
–– Sup: sphenoid sinus • First nerve affected: CN VI through fora-
–– Inf: soft palate men lacerum, then V1 and V2
–– Lat: eustachian tube, torus tubarius, fossa of • If spread through foramen rotundum: V2
Rosenmuller (deep is parapharyngeal space) and V3
• If parapharyngeal extension: IX-XI IMRT

• Trismus bc of involvement of masticator –– Lee et al. IMRT to 70 Gy: 4-yr OS 88%, LRC
space 87%.
–– Usually presents w unilat LN mass (75%) or –– RTOG 0225: phase II to investigate feasibility
bilat LN masses (505). M+ in 5–10%. of IMRT w or w/o chemo, assess toxicity, fail-
–– H&P, FNL, otoscopy, CN exam, labs (EBV ure patterns, survival. GTV based on MRI,
IgA/DNA). PET, CT. Treatment; 70 Gy at 2.12, 59.4 at
–– MRI (thin cuts), CT w con, PET-CT. 1.8, 50.4 at 1.8 w/ cis + adj cis/5FU. All SIB.
–– Level 5 LAD is suspicious for NPX cancer. • CTV70 = GTV + 5 mm.
–– Parapharyngeal tumors (differential): para- • CTV 59.4 = CTV-70 + 5 mm + areas at
ganglioma, schwannoma, sarcoma. risk for microscopic involvement, includ-
–– Level 4 LAD is suspicious for malignancy ing NPX, RP LNs, skull base, clivus,
below clavicles (e.g., lung, breast, cervix). pterygoid fossae, sphenoid sinus, poste-
–– DDx: lymphoma, minor salivary gland rior 1/3 of nasal cavity/max sinuses,
tumor, plasmacytoma, melanoma, chordoma, including pterygopalatine fossae and lev-
RMS. els I–V.
• CTV 50.4/1.8 = optional inclusion of low
RT +/– chemo neck; otherwise, could use split field, and
–– Al-Sarraf, 1998. Int 0099 / RTOG 88–18 treat to 50.4
(mostly WHO I) stage III/IV:70/35 + − HD cis • PTV margin = 3–5 mm. May reduce to
d1,22,43 and adj cis/5FU q4w × 3c. RT to 1 mm near brainstem. Two-yr LRC 91%,
GTV + 2 cm margin was 70 Gy. cN- neck gets OS 79%. Note this is a benchmark vs his-
50. LNs <2 cm get 66 Gy. CRT won; 3-yr OS torical control (at 50–70%)
47→78%, PFS 24→65%. Purportedly the –– RTOG 0615.
largest OS difference in a RCT? Mostly WHO –– Kam (2007): IMRT has lower xerostomia vs
I, which is radioresistant. 2D: 39% vs 82%.
–– Wee, 2005: confirmed Int 0999 for WHO III: –– Pow (2006) IMRT has better recover of pre-
2-yr OS 78→85% RT whole saliva (50% vs 5%) and parotid
–– Chen, 2005: RT +/− LD cis: 59→70%, lower saliva (83% vs 10%).
toxicity
–– Baujet: meta-analysis, chemo improved OS Sim
when given concurrent –– Dental eval, Aquaplast, supine, MRI fusion.
–– Chen 2012: NPX Stage III/IV, but not T3–4No. –– CT sim through BOS should be 1–2 mm
CRT +/−adj cis/5FU. Cis is 40 mg/m2 qw × 7c. slices. Can be 3 mm through the neck.
RT was 2–2.27 Gy/fx to 66 Gy to primary, or
60–66 to involved neck. Adj chemo was NCCN
80 mg/m2 cis and 800 mg/m2 5-FU for 120 h T1N0 →RT alone
q4w for 3c. no benefit to added chemo for –– 70(2)/63(1.8)/56(1.6) in 33 fractions
FFS, OS, DMFS, LCFS, long-term data pend- –– b/l: RP, II-V w/ RSS
ing. Not designed as noninferiority. Twenty
percent of pts randomized to adj chemo arm ≥T2 or N+ CRT → chemo
did not actually get adj chemo. –– 70(2.12)/59.4(1.8)/54.12(1.64) in 33 fractions
–– Blanchard, 2015: meta-analysis: CRT –– cN0: RP, II-V w/ RSS
improves OS by 5% vs RT alone. –– cN+: RP + IB-V w/ RSS
–– Cis (100 mg/m2) days 1, 22, 43 → Cis/5-FU × 3
Neoadj Chemo –– *residual disease → neck dissection
–– Debated, mostly no benefit in phase III trials –– Metastatic: chemo. Focal RT for palliation
CTV70 = 70Gy in 2Gy fx to primary + posi- CTV56 = 56Gy/35fx to elective LN

tive nodes –– Always treat bilateral levels II–V (including
–– Any abnormal LN is suspicious (>10 mm VB), RP, Sclav. Ib in cN+ neck.
short-axis or centrally necrotic). –– cN0: consider omitting IB.
–– CTV70 = GTV + 3 mm (per HN-001). –– Nancy Lee: CTV 54 at 1.64
–– Nancy Lee: CTV70: @2.12 = GTV.
–– PTV = CTV + 3 mm. Dose Limits
–– Target coverage:
CTV63 = 63 Gy/35 fx to 1st echelon LN: D95 (dose to 95% of the PTV) ≥100% Rx
–– High-risk subclinical disease including D99 (dose to 99% of the PTV) ≥93% Rx
CTV70 + 5–10 mm, entire NPX, anterior 1/3 Dmax: no more than 110% Rx dose
clivus (entire if involved), skull base includ- –– Brainstem: 54 Gy (60 Gy max)
ing bilateral foramen ovale (V3) and fora- –– Optics: 54 Gy
men rotundum (V2), bilateral pterygoid –– Retina 45 Gy, lens 10 Gy
fossa (V2) and parapharyngeal space, infe- –– Parotid mean < 26Gy
rior sphenoid sinus, posterior 1/4 nasal cav- –– Inner ear <50 Gy
ity and maxillary sinuses (covering –– Larynx: V50 < 30%
pterygopalatine fossa where V2 resides),
and soft palate inferiorly always include ret- Not Meeting Constraints Shrink PTV margin
rostyloid space (inf edge of transverse pro- to 1 mm if using Exactrac; go w QUANTEC con-
cess of C1 to BOS). straints (up to 59 to brainstem); induction chemo
–– Pterygoid fossa is bordered by the medial and instead of adjuvant; hyperfractionation
lateral pterygoid plates and contains the
medial pterygoid muscle. Follow-up
–– T3/T4: add entire sphenoid sinus and cav- –– q3 mo × 1 year, q4 mo × 2 years, q6 mo for
ernous sinus. years 3, 4, and 5
–– Nancy Lee: CTV59.4 at 1.8 = nasopharynx, –– Follow-up of initially positive neck:
sphenoid sinus, cavernous sinus, skull base, • Reimage with PET/CT in 12 weeks
clivus, RPN, post 1/3 maxillary, post 1/3 nasal, • If node (+) on PET, do FNA
pteryopalatine fossa (V2), pterygopharyngeal –– If FNA (+), send for neck dissection
space (V3). • If node (−) on PET, observe
axillary Sinus Cancer

M Neck RT indications Cover ipsi neck only,
[19–23, 42–44] unless tumor crosses midline or invades struc-
tures with bilateral lymphatics (i.e., nasal cavity,
• T1 – limited to maxillary sinus without bone soft palate, upper lip)
erosion
• T2 – invading hard palate, middle nasal 1. pT3-T4
meatus 2. N+
• T3 – posterior wall of maxillary sinus, subQ, 3. Undifferentiated
orbital wall, pterygoid fossa, ethmoid
cN1 Single ipsi node pN1 Single ipsi node
• T4 -
≤3 cm, no ECE ≤3 cm, no ECE
• T4a – anterior orbit, skin, pterygoid plates, cN2 pN2
infratemporal fossa, cribriform plate, sphe- cN2a Single ipsi, pN2a Single ipsi, 3–6 cm,
noid/frontal sinuses 3–6 cm, no ECE no ECE; OR <3 cm
• T4b – orbital apex, dura, brain, middle cra- with ECE
nial fossa, CNs other than V2, nasophar- cN2b Multiple ipsi, pN2b Multiple ipsi,
3–6 cm, no ECE 3–6 cm, no ECE
ynx, clivus cN2c Bilateral or pN2c Bilateral or
Note pterygoid plate is T4a; pterygoid contralat, contralat, 3–6 cm,
fossa is T3 3–6 cm, no ECE no ECE
cN3 pN3
T1 T2 T3 T4a T4b cN3a >6 cm, no ECE pN3a >6 cm, no ECE
N0 I II III IVA cN3a Any clinically pN3b Single >3 cm with
N1 III III III IVB overt ECE ECE; or multi-nodes
N2 IVA with any ECE
N3 IVB
M1 IVC Maxillary Sinus RT Volumes
–– Post-op RT dose and coverage for
Anatomy MAXILLARY primary:
CN V2 is the most likely CN to be involved. –– CTV60–63 = surgical bed and grossly
enlarged nodes preop (2–2.12Gy × 30
Studies fractions)
–– Le et al. 2000: retrospective, +/− surgery, +/− –– CTV50–54 = CTV60 + 1 cm mgn and ipsi
RT: 20% neck failure without ENI but 0% maxillary sinus, nasal cavity, ethmoid
neck failure with ENI sinus, ipsi PPF, pterygoid space, and NPX
–– Bristol et al. 2007: retrospective, surgery + adj (CTV P)
RT: clinical outcomes similar but justifies base • ipsi level IB, II, RP, RSS if indicated
of skull and ENI coverage in at-risk patients (CTV N) (1.7–1.8Gy × 30 fractions)
–– *Bilateral neck if invades the nasal cavity,
NCCN soft palate, upper lip
Resectable = Sx +/− PORT –– If PNI present, cover cranial nerve to base
PORT indications of skull foramina (e.g., if V2 involved, go
to foramen rotundum, cavernous sinus)
1. + margin
–– Treatment of the neck
2. PNI
–– Controversial. Consider elective nodal cov-
3. ACC
erage for T3-T4 or undifferentiated histol-
4. Locally advanced (pT3-T4)
ogy. If so, cover level IB-II and RP
5. N+
6. Undifferentiated
asal Cavity (Aka Nasal Fossa)

N Anatomy
and Ethmoid Sinus Cancer [19–23, –– Nasal cavity borders: limen nasi (ant), choana
42–46] (post), hard palate (inf), BOS (sup), mucosa-
covered bone (lateral walls) w 3 turbinates.
• T1 – one subsite*, no bony invasion –– Communications w nasal cavity: NPX;
• T2 – two subsites*, +/− bony invasion (doesn’t nasal vestibule.
matter if invading hard palate or middle nasal –– Paranasal sinuses (4 in #): frontal, ethmoid,
meatus) maxillary, and sphenoid. These drain primar-
• T3 – maxillary sinus, medial orbital wall, pal- ily to RP LNs.
ate, cribriform plate (“COMP”) –– Lamina papyracea: medial wall of orbit (thin
• T4 - bone).
• T4a – anterior orbit, skin, pterygoid plates, –– Ohngren’s Line: medial canthus to angle of
cranial fossa, sphenoid/frontal sinuses mandible (superior-posterior to this is
(“POS CSF”) worse).
• T4b – orbital apex, dura, brain, middle cra- –– Lymph drains to IB, parotid, RPN, and II.
nial fossa, CNs other than V2, nasophar- –– Paranasal sinuses have limited lymph and cap-
ynx, clivus illary supply, so incidence of cervical LN+ is
*Subsites of nasal cavity: septum, floor, lat- 5–10%, higher if invasion into sites w exten-
eral wall, vestibule. Note that most vestibule can- sive LN drainage (OC, skin, NPX).
cers are skin cancers and have different tx. –– Cantu (2008): n = 704 pts w paranasal sinus
tumors. Two percent of ethmoid cancers had
cLN+; 8% of maxillary cancers had cLN+.
ang Classification for Nasal
W Incidence of LN recurrence 4% for ethmoid
Vestibule Carcinoma group, 12% maxillary sinus.
• T1 – superficial Work-up

• T2 – skin of nose, upper lip, nasal septum –– H&P, FNL, CN exam, biopsy
• T3 – bone (e.g., paranasal sinus, hard palate, –– CT/MRI, CT chest, +/− PET
turbinates, septum, buccogingival sulcus)
Nasal Cavity Studies
–– Dulguerov et al. 2001: mixed group, 5-yr OS
Esthesioneuroblastoma, Kadish 40%, LRC 59%. Worse prognosis: pterygo-
Staging maxillary fossa, frontal/sphenoid sinuses,
cribriform/dural erosion. If periorbital fat or
A: Confined to nasal cavity ocular muscle invasion →enucleation (no enu-
B: Nasal cavity + paranasal sinus cleation if just bone)
C: Beyond nasal cavity/paranasal sinus
D: LN or distant mets Management
–– T1 or T2 lesions located in the infrastructure:
Histology (MDACC/Allen, 2008) surgery alone (usually partial (or total) maxil-
–– SCC most common (60–80%), also Adenoid lectomy to neg. margins).
cystic (18%), minor salivary gland, plasmacy- –– T3 or T4 lesions in patients that can undergo
toma, lymphoma, SNUC (4%), etc. surgery; the combination of surgery and RT
(usually postoperative) is the treatment of
Outcomes (5y OS) choice.
–– SCC, Adeno, ACC = 50–60% (SCC > Adeno) –– Radical maxillectomy +/− orbital exentera-
–– SNUC = 30% tion is often necessary.
–– Indications for adjuvant radiation therapy –– Add chemo for +margin, ECE, SNUC
include: –– 60–66 Gy to primary, 50–54 to necks
–– T1N0 w positive margins –– T2+/N + = Sx → PORT
–– Consider for T2N0 –– 66/60/54 (same for all nasal cavity/parana-
–– T3 or T4 sal sinus)
–– Perineural invasion • Bilateral IB-II
–– Adenoid cystic histology –– N+: IB, RSS/II-V
–– For any N+, add neck RT –– *posterior 2/3 involvement: cover RP nodes
–– Radiation therapy alone can be used as a pri- –– *nasal vestibule involvement: cover facial
mary modality for inoperable patients. nodes
–– Unresectable: chemo-RT to 70 Gy, cisplatin
Chemo? –– When to cover elective LNs in N0 dz: (1)
–– Sinus cancers are not included in post-op CRT involvement of NPX bc of high rate of
trials, but indications (i.e., margins, ECE) usu- lymphatic spread; (2) T3/4; (3) PNI, G3–4,
ally extrapolated from SCC histology. olfactory neuroblastoma
–– LN volumes controversial
Historical Treatment –– Consider alt fractionation for tissue sparing
3D-CRT w 4 field: AP photons, wedged opposed –– Accelerated: BID once per week (6 fx/wk)
la photons, and interorbital anterior electron field. –– Concomitant boost: BID last 2 wks
Wedge pairs were also used. –– Hyperfractionation: BID throughout
–– CTV1 = GTV + 1–1.5 cm margin, modi-
Sinus Sim/Planning (Based on Nancy Lee’s fied at natural barriers + ENI (bilateral
Recs) RP + level II-IV)
–– Dentistry, supine, mask, eyes straight, bite –– Phase I (initial volume): 48.4 Gy in 44 fx at
block. 1.1 Gy BID
–– Diagnostic MRI co-registered with planning –– CTV2 = GTV + 0.5–1 cm margin, modi-
CT for contouring. fied by natural barriers.
–– Standard is 1.8–2 Gy daily. • Phase II (small field boost): 24.2 Gy in
–– 50 Gy if neoadjuvant 22 fx @ 1.1 Gy BID
–– 60–66 if post-op • PTV = CTV + 3 mm
–– 70 Gy if definitive • Total PTV dose: 72.6 Gy in 66 fx @
–– Esthesioneuroblastoma can do cist/estopo x2 1.1 Gy BID
cycles, then 50 Gy (with ENI), then • IMRT preferred for normal tissue
resection. sparing
–– Dose limits: • Preop RT or CRT to 50 Gy accepted
–– Brainstem: 54 Gy (60 Gy max)
–– Optics: 54 Gy SNUC
–– Retina 45 Gy, lens 10 Gy –– A, B, C = Surgery → PORT (for low-grade A,
–– Parotid mean < 26Gy can consider RT alone)
–– Pituitary/thyroid (62% develop hormone –– B, C = + bilateral RP, IB-II
deficiencies) –– Consider adj cis/etop bc SRBCT
NCCN
–– Resectable: surgery + RT for T3, T4,+margin,
PNI, ACC, ethmoid (all ethmoid tumors need
adj RT)
asal NK/T-cell Lymphoma/Lethal

N Treatment
Midline Granuloma [47, 48] Localized (Stage I–II)
• Concurrent Chemo-RT (50 Gy/2 Gy frac-
Overview tions) to involved dz w/ concurrent cisplati-
–– Locally aggressive extranodal lymphoma that num → 3c DeVIC (Dexamethasone,
can lead to progressive midline facial Etoposide (VP-16), Ifosfamide, Carboplatin)
destruction. • Unfit for chemo = RT alone (54 Gy)
–– Usually originates from NK cell, sometimes
from cytotoxic T cells Stage IV
–– Sometimes EBV associated. • Concurrent chemo-RT → likely transplant
–– Isobe, 2006: Doses >50 Gy had improved LC.
–– Kim, 2009: Concurrent CRT is best tx option. RT Targets
• Stage IE → primary site only
Sites –– Cover nasal cavity and adjacent paranasal
–– Nasal cavity/paranasal sinus sinuses
–– Waldeyer’s ring (more aggressive, usually –– If posterior nasal tumor, include
nodal involvement +/− advanced stage) nasopharynx
–– If adjacent structures involved, include
Workup those too
–– H&P: ENT exam, nasopharyngoscopy, testic- • Stage IIE (i.e., N+) → include involved nodal
ular exam, skin exam levels, but no ENI
–– Labs: CBC/CMP/LDH, serum EBV
–– Procedures/imaging: Outcomes
–– Biopsy tumor: stain for CD56 and pcr for –– OS5 70%
EBV
–– PET/CT and CT w/ contrast and MRI of
head and neck
–– BM biopsy
Oral Cavity (OC) Cancer [19–23, 49–66]
T1 T2 T3 T4a T4b
N0 I II III IVA
N1 III III III IVB
N2 IVA
N3 IVB
M1 IVC
• T1 – ≤2 cm and ≤5 mm DOI (note DOI new (anterior to terminal sulcus, aka vallate
in AJCC8 vs 7) papillae).
• T2 – 2–4 cm or >5 – ≤10 mm DOI • The circumvallate papilla differentiates the
• T3 – >4 cm or >10 mm DOI oral tongue from BOT; on axial CT it is
• T4 separated by uvula.
• T4a (everything but lip) – cortical bone, –– Extrinsic tongue muscles: genioglossus, sty-
maxillary sinus, deep muscles of tongue loglossus, palatoglossus, hyoglossus
(genio, hyo, stylo, palatoglossus). Note:
superficial bone does not count. 5y OS
• T4a (lip) – through the cortical bone, inf Lip 89%
Oral tongue 65%
alveolar N (V3), FOM, skin of face (chin,
FOM 52%
nose)
Gum 59%
• T4b – masticator space, pterygoid plates,
skull base, encases carotid
LN drainage
Single ipsi node Single ipsi node Lip
cN1 ≤3 cm, no ECEpN1 ≤3 cm, no ECE –– Upper (10%, worse prognosis) → Facial, IB, II
cN2 pN2
–– Lower (90%) → IA, IB, II
cN2a Single ipsi, pN2a Single ipsi, 3–6 cm,
3–6 cm, no ECE no ECE; or <3 cm –– Oral commissure → 15% LN risk
with ECE+
cN2b Multiple ipsi, pN2b Multiple ipsi, 3–6 cm, Alveolar Ridge
3–6 cm, no ECE no ECE –– Lower (80%), often involves molars, presents
cN2c Bilateral or pN2c Bilateral or contralat, as ill-fitting dentures
contralat, 3–6 cm, no ECE
3–6 cm, no ECE –– Alveolar ridge w/ PNI need to cover length of
cN3 pN3 IAN
cN3a >6 cm, no ECE pN3a >6 cm, no ECE
cN3b Any clinically pN3b Single >3 cm with RMT
overt ECE ECE, or multi-nodes –– Anterior spread along alveolar ridge, IAN
with any ECE+
–– Pterygomandibular raphe → masticator space
and FOM
Anatomy
Oral Tongue
–– Subsites: mucosal lips (most common), FOM –– LN drainage
(2nd most common), buccal mucosa, superior • Tip of tongue = IA
alveolar ridge (aka upper gingiva), inferior • Anterior tongue = IB and III
alveolar ridge (aka lower gingiva), retromolar • Posterior tongue = IB and II
trigone (RMT), hard palate, ant 2/3 tongue
–– Anterior and midline = more likely to be –– MACH-NC update, Blanchard, 2011: benefit
bilateral broken down by dz sites:
• 5% bilateral overall • OC: 9%, NSS
• If N+ ipsilateral, 30% bilateral • OPX: 8%, SS
• LX: 5%, SS
Floor of Mouth • HPX: 4%, NSS
–– DOI ≥ 1.5 mm = high risk of LN involvement,
therefore needs neck dissection Post-op RT, CRT
–– LN drainage = IB –– Ang 2001: OC SCC: n = 213. Aim to deter-
–– Often invades oral tongue, alveolar ridge, and mine validity of previously reported path risk
mandible factors. All pts had surgery. RFs were then:
–– Mylohyoid muscle divides sublingual space primary site (OC), +margin, PNI, ECE, num-
from submandibular space ber and location of post LNs. Pts w no risk
factors (low risk) observed. Pts w 1 RF besides
Workup ECE (intermed risk) got 57.6/32. Pts w 2 RFs
–– H&P or ECE (high risk) randomized to either CFRT
–– Tobacco, ETOH, poor hygiene, betel/areca 63/35 in 6.5 w vs AFRT 63/35 in 5 wks. Risk
nuts groups were validated and had ↑failure with-
–– Oral leukoplakia (10% risk) out post-op RT. For high risk, trend for
–– Erythroplakia (30% risk) improved LRC and OS for AFRT vs CFRT.
–– CN XII, motor; CN V, sensory; CN VII, taste –– EORTC 22931: operable stage III/IV H&N
(BOT CN IX taste) SCC of OC, OP, larynx, hypopharynx. pT3–4
–– Otalgia: auriculotemporal nerve (CN V3) any nodal, except T3N0 of LX, w R0, or T1–2
–– palpation, FNL, CN exam, bx, labs w N2–3 M0. Patients w Stage T1–2 N0–1 w
–– MRI + CT, CT chest, +/− PET unfavorable path findings (e.g., ECE, R+,
–– Dentistry PNI, LVI) also eligible. Randomize: post-op
66/33 +/− concurrent cisplatin (100 mg/m2
Studies Q3wks). CRT won: 5-yr DFS 36→47%, OS
Altered Fractionation (No Chemo) 40→53%, LRC 69→82% (DM unchanged
–– RTOG 9003: advanced H&N SCC→ 70/35 ~25%). ↑toxicity (21→41%).
(std) vs 81.6 at 1.2 BID (hyperfrac) vs 67.2 at –– RTOG 9501: operable H&N (≥2 LN, ECE,
1.6 BID split (split) vs 72 w/ last 12fx BID +margin): 66/33 +/− concurrent cisplatin
(conboost). Hyperfrac and Conboost won (100 mg/m2 Q3wks): CRT won: 2 yr DFS
(LRC 54%, DFS 39%, OS 53%). ↑toxicity 43→54%, LRC 72→82%, trend for OS.
–– MARCH meta-analysis: 6515 pts. 3.4% OS ↑toxicity.
benefit at 5 years for altered fractionation, –– Meta-analysis of 9501 and 22,931: CRT
mostly for young pts improved OS, DFS and LRC for ECE
or + margins. Trend for stage III/IV, PNI,
Chemo-RT LVSI, low neck nodes.
–– MACH-NC meta-analysis, Pignon, 2009: –– MDACC: Peters, IJROBP, 1993, RCT to
17,346 pts from 87 RCTs. Median 5.6y fol- determine optimal dose. Pts stratified by
low-up. At 5y, 4.5% OS benefit with any che- adverse path features (e.g., ECE, SMs, 2+
motherapy (neoadjuvant, concurrent, LN+, T stage, PNI, OC primary) into low and
adjuvant), HR 0.88. The greatest benefit with high risk. Subsequently, low-risk patients
concurrent (6.5%). Platinum-monotherapy is observed. Intermediate-risk patients random-
a gold standard, no benefit if age >71. ized to 57.6 Gy/32 or 63 Gy/35; high risk to
63 Gy/35 or 68.4 Gy /38. <54 Gy had higher though volume should be kept as small as
failure. ECE >63 Gy. # adverse features (0–1; possible
2–3; ECE; 4 or greater; in order or worsening –– CTV60 = preop GTV + entire post-op bed
prognosis) predicted for poorer LRC. 4+ neg- including residual tongue, BOT, FOM, glosso-
ative factors had a similar LRC to ECE. tonsillar sulcus, and anterior tonsillar pillar
(CTV P):
Post-op RT Timing • For R0 resection in pT4 mandible, go 1 cm
–– Daly, Stanford, IJROBP, 2011: 37 pts. Worse into bone
LC if initiating >6w after vs <6w: LC was • For midline OC tumor, always treat contra IB
80% vs 40%. Also noted difference in treat- • If pN+, include ipsilateral hemineck (CTV N)
ment package time of > vs <12 w. –– Note: if using LAN to 50 Gy, can do
10 Gy ipsi boost on involved side
Surgery and Pathology • CTV54–56 = low-risk subclinical disease,
–– Finding PNI raises risk of LR by 20–40%. often contralateral neck, ipsi RSS
PNI likely not sign of neurotropism (like in –– Dose limits:
melanoma or adenoid cystic) but for SM. –– Cord <45 Gy max
–– Finding LVI likely increases risk of LNMs –– Parotid mean <26Gy
(similar to cervical cancer). –– Larynx mean <43.5 Gy
–– Mandible <70 Gy max
Neck Dissection
–– For oral SCC neck dissection needs at least 16 Management
LNs
–– Tata Memorial / D’Cruz, NEJM, 2016: ipsi General Oral Cavity
elective ND vs therapeutic ND (at time of
relapse) for cT1–2N0 OC SCC. n = 500. At 3 T1–2N0
y, END had improved OS 80% vs 68%. Rate –– Surgical resection preferred
of LN positivity in END arm is 30%. –– No commissure involvement: surgery (Mohs
Correlated with DOI: 3 mm = 6%, for or WLE). Indications for adj RT: + margin,
4 mm = 17%. Rate of adverse events 6.6% vs PNI, LVI. Oral Tongue requiring LND: >3 mm
3.6%. Thus, need ND if 3+ mm DOI. Thirty- DOI, grade 3, +LVSI, recurrence
three percent of END group recurred vs 58% –– Adequate margin in OC SCC: 1 cm (1.5 cm
in the therapeutic ND recurred. Of the thera- for tongue)
peutic ND pts who recurred, 53% died of PD, –– Commissure involved: RT 66–70 Gy to pri-
emphasizing limited success of salvage. mary only
–– EBRT and BT generally not done as definitive
Sim/Planning therapy for oral cavity because of morbidity.
–– Dental eval, PEG?, aquaplast, supine, bite –– EBRT + brachy boost (50Gy + 21Gy/7fx HDR
block boost)
–– Sim: supine on head rest, neck extended, –– For HDR, must be >1 cm from mandible
shoulders down, immobilization with thermo-
plastic mask, wire scars/nodes, IV contrast, T3–4N0
Iso typically placed at thyroid cartilage notch. –– Surgical resection +/− neck dissection
Bolus for tumor invading skin/violated neck –– Concurrent CDDP chemo with RT 70 Gy
w/ECE standard frac, treat full neck inc LAN for
T4N0
Volumes –– Altered frac RT 70 Gy alone for T3
–– CTV66 = include areas at very high risk of –– Bone/nerve invasion = Surgery + RT (RT
recurrence such as close/+mgn and ECE, alone = 90% LF)
N+ –– Adjuvant (C)RT for high-risk features.

–– Surgical resection (w/ reconstruction prn) and Volumes:
neck dissection (preferred). Post-op RT: –– Consider covering the entire residual
pT3/4, close margin, multiple LN, PNI, and tongue in post-op volume.
LVSI –– CTV_66 = + margin/gross residual/ECE. If
–– Concurrent cisplatin with RT 70 Gy /35fx to extensive PNI, consider tracing V3 to fora-
primary/involved LN; 50–63/1.8–2Gy/fx men ovale.
–– EBRT + brachy boost (50Gy + 21Gy/7fx –– CTV_60 = cN+ neck; +tumor Bed, entire
HDR boost) oral tongue (+muscles), BOT, GTS, ATP,
FOM.
–– CTV_54 = cN0 neck. Cover bilateral levels
Lip I-IV for oral tongue primary; RP nodes
rarely involved. If II-III involved, cover
–– Commissure involvement→↑nodal risk RSS and V. Unilateral neck RT can be con-
–– Surgery preferred unless concern for post-op sidered for a well-lateralized T1–2 lesion
function. ND for: >3 mm DOI, T2+ not including anterior 1/3 of tongue, though
–– T1/2: electrons (+bolus), orthovoltage, brachy controversial.
(50/25 + boost of 10–16 Gy), no neck tx –– PTVs = CTVs +5 mm.
–– Upper lip = bilateral facial, IB, II –– If chemo RT indications, then Cis (100 mg/
–– Lower lip = bilateral IA, IB, II m2), days 1, 22, 43.
–– T3: 50/25 + boost of 20 Gy, treat neck levels
I/II T3–4N+
–– T4 or N+: same as T3 but treat neck I-IV –– 1. Surgery + post-op RT +/− concurrent
chemo
–– RT dose: 60Gy/30fx to primary/involved LN
Oral Tongue levels; 54Gy/30fx (1.8Gy/fx) to elective LN,
Boost ECE/positive margin to 66Gy/30fx.
T1–2N0 –– 2. Definitive Chemoradiation with cisplatin,
–– Surgery – hemiglossectomy + elective neck less preferred than upfront surgery
dissection for T2 (and lesions >1.5 mm: 30% –– RT dose (EBRT alone): 70Gy/35fx to primary
fail in neck) and involved LN, 56Gy to intermediate risk
ropharyngeal (OPX) Cancer

O AJCC 7 Staging
[19–23, 49–61, 67–73] –– N2 was stage IVA.
–– T3N0 T1-3N1 was stage III.
• T1 – ≤2 cm [74–77]
• T2 – 2–4 cm International Collaboration on
• T3 – >4 cm or lingual surface of epiglottis Oropharyngeal Cancer Network for Staging
• T4 (p16- is split a/b; however p16+ is lumped (ICON-S)
together into T4 alone) –– O’Sullivan, 2016: Aims to develop staging for
• T4a – larynx, deep tongue muscles, medial HPV+. Smoking was prognostic in cohort w
pterygoid, hard palate, mandible HR of 1.01 but was not included in final model.
• T4b – lateral pterygoid (e.g., trismus –– Husain, 2016: Validated in NCDB.
<4 cm), pterygoid plates, lateral nasophar-
ynx, skull base, carotid
Subsites: tonsil, (includes ATP, PTP, GTS), p16- Oropharynx neck staging
cN1 Single ipsi node ≤ pN1 Single ipsi node ≤3 cm, no
vallecula, BOT, PPW, soft palate 3 cm, no ECE ECE
cN2 pN2
p16+ Oropharynx neck staging cN2a Single ipsi, 3–6cm, pN2a Single ipsi, 3–6 cm, no ECE;
no ECE or <3 cm with ECE+
cN1 Ipsi nodes, all ≤6 cm pN1 ≤4 nodes, any cN2b Multiple ipsi, 3–6 cm, pN2b Multiple ipsi, 3–6 cm, no
location no ECE ECE
cN2c Bilateral or pN2c
cN2 Contra or bilateral, pN2 >4 nodes, any Bilateral or contralat, 3–6 cm,
contralat, 3–6 cm, no
all ≤6 cm location ECE
no ECE
cN3 Any node >6 cm cN3 pN3

cN3b Any clinically overt pN3b Single >3 cm with ECE;
p16+ Oropharynx clinical ECE or multi nodes with any
ECE+
group staging
Note: both radiographic AND clinical findings (e.g. skin
T1 T2 T3 T4 involvement) needed to achieve cN3b
N0
I
N1 II III
p16-Oropharynx group staging
N2 II
T1 T2 T3 T4a T4b
N3 III N0 I II III IVA
M1 IV N1 III III III IVB
N2 IVA
N3 IVB
p16+ Oropharynx M1 IVC
pathologic group staging
T1 T2 T3 T4
N0 ICON-S (O’Sullivan)
I II T1 T2 T3 T4
N1
N0
N2 II III N1
I
M1 IV N2a II
III
N2b
N2c II
N3 III
M1 IV
Anatomy Anatomy
–– Subsites: soft palate, palatine tonsils, tonsillar
–– Vallecula: part of boundary bw LX and OPX pillars, base of tongue, pharyngeal wall
–– ventricle / Morgangi’s sinus: part of LX bw –– Borders: superior soft palate to superior hyoid
TVC and FVC bone (floor of vallecula)
–– Ear pain?
HPV+ vs HPV– –– Oral tongue: auriculotemporal nerve
–– RTOG 0129, 0522 patients (CN V)
–– Similar rates of DM, but improved OS for –– BOT: Jacobson’s nerve (CN IX) – inner-
HPV+ vates the post 1/3 of the tongue and tonsil-
lar fossae/pillars and the ear (via tympanic
nerve)
–– Larynx/HPX: Arnold’s nerve (CN X)
SS in yellow HPV+ HPV– pval
Median time to 8 7 NS
progression, m
Work-up
patients w DM, % 46 43 NS
–– H&P, palpation, FNA, CN exam, biopsy (p16)
First site of progression 55 Similar
–– MRI + CT, CT chest, +/− PET, dentistry
LRR only, % patterns
First site of progression 39 of Surgery
DM only, % failure –– Need 18+ LNs for LN dissection, diagnostic,
LRR+DM, % 2 and therapeutic (Ebrahimi, Cancer, 2010;
DM 2y after dx 13% 4% SS Divi, Cancer, 2016).
2y OS, % 55 28 SS –– For tonsil primary with cN0 neck, the rate of
MST after progression, 2.6 0.8 SS contra LNs is 10–15%.
y
Preop vs Post-op RT
–– RTOG 7303 HN Surg, 1987, advanced
HPV+ SCC HNSCC, preop RT (50 Gy) vs. post-op RT
–– Younger, nonsmokers (~60% of new (60 Gy) vs. definitive RT alone (65–70 Gy)
cancers) +/− salvage surgery (the third arm was not
–– subtypes 16(80%), 18: ↑nodes, ↑mets offered to patients with cancer of the supra-
–– E6→↓p53; E7→↓Rb→↑p16 glottic larynx or HPX). Post-op RT vs. preop
–– Chin / Wash U St Louis, 2011: p16+ OPX w RT vs. RT alone had marginally improved
ECE or close/R+. 60 vs 66Gy IMRT. No dif- OS (36% vs. 33%, vs. 33%, NS) and LRC
ference in LRC 2 years 99% vs 99% (65% vs. 48% vs. 38%). Thus, preop RT typ-
–– RTOG 0129: CFX + concurrent chemo (cis ically not used for SCC. The benefit of RT is
100 mg/m2 d1,22,43) vs AFX + concurrent likely secondary to preservation of the surgi-
chemo (cis 100 mg/m2 d1,22). Three-year OS cal site. The 60 Gy dose became the “stan-
was 70% vs 64% (NSS). ECOG 0–1. No diff in dard” Fletcher dose for subsequent HN
PFS, patterns of failure, acute/late tox. Subgroup RCTs.
analysis: better 3-yr OS for HPV+ (57→82%)
• RPA: (1) HPV; (2) PYs: 10, 20 cut points; Altered Fractionation (RT Alone, NO
(3) T-Stage; (4) N-stage CHEMO)
• Low risk: HPV+ and < 10 PY; or HPV+ –– IAEA ACC, Overgaard, 2010. 9 centers.
and > 10 PY and N0-2 N = 908. Stage I-IV larynx, pharynx, OC. No
• High risk: HPV- and > 10 PY; or HPV- NPX or stage I glottic. Pts got either 6fx/w for
and < 10 PY and T4 40d vs 5fx/w for 47d. Total dose 66–70/2.
• Three-year OS for 93% for low, 71% for 5-year DSS 50% vs 40%, LRC 42% vs 30%.
intermed, and 46% for high-risk groups OS 35% vs 28%. favoring ACC.
–– RTOG 00–22: T1–2N01 OPX SCC: 66 Gy 93% vs 85% vs 73%. cCR 27% vs 40% vs
in 30 fx (@2.2). Accelerated hypofrac 49%. Concurrent CRT became SOC for unre-
IMRT. Treatment to primary dz and bilat sectable dz after this trial.
neck. RT was 66/2.2, over 6w. PTVs –– GORTEC 99–02, Bourhis, 2012: Stage III/IV
received 54–60 Gy at 1.8–2 Gy/fx w SIB. OC, OPX, HPX, LX. 66% OPX, 55% T4,
2 yr LRC 91% (N staging clinical only), 25% N2c. n = 840. SCC. Randomize: (1)
DFS 82%, OS 96%. 70/35+ carbo/5FU vs (2) 70/30
–– RTOG 9003: advanced HNSCC→ 70/35 (std) (6w) + carbo/5FU vs (3) very accelerated RT
vs 81.6 @1.2 BID (hyperfrac) vs 67.2 @1.6 (VART), 64.8/18, no chemo. Best outcomes
BID (split) vs 72 w/ last 12fx BID (conboost). and toxicity in conventionally fractionated +
Hyperfrac and Conboost won (LRC 54%, chemo. ↑acute tox, feeding tube dependence
DFS 39%) though ↑toxicity. No difference in in 64.8/18 arm. Pts receiving accel frac +
OS 53%. chemo only received 2c chemo. Conclusion is
–– EORTC 22791: T2/3 oropharynx 70/35 vs not to do altered fx + chemo or VART bc no
80.5/70 @1.15 BID. 1980–87. n = 356. T2–3 change in outcome, but worse tox.
N0–1 < 3 cm, age < 75, KPS >60. No BOT in –– MACH-NC meta-analysis: see OPX section.
this trial. Hyperfrac ↑LRC 40→59%, OS
31→47% at 5y. Greatest benefit in T3N0, RT +/– Cetuximab
T3N1. Acute tox worse; 7.5 vs 4.5% had tx –– Bonner 2006: advanced OP, larynx, hypophar-
interruption. Thus, for pts unfit for chemo, ynx: RT vs CRT (cetuximab). RT was 70/35,
hypofx an option. 72–76.8/1.2 BID, or 72/42 concomitant boost,
–– MARCH meta-analysis, Baujat, 2010: 6515 with 32.4/1.8 followed by 21.6/1.8 in AM and
pts 3.4% OS benefit and 6.4% LC benefit at 18.0/1.5 in PM. RT per tx institution. Cetux
5 yrs for altered frac, mostly in young pts., was initial loading of 400 mg/m2 1w prior to
mostly with the use of hyperfractionated RT RT, then weekly 250 mg/m2 during RT. CRT
(rather than accelerated RT) won, 3-yr LRC 34→47%, OS 45→55%. Rash
–– DAHANCA, 2003: n = 1476. RT in 5 vs. with cetuximab, and those pts. w G2–4 rash
6 weeks to 66–68/2. 5-yr LRC 70% vs 60% for did better: MST 69 vs 26 m, HR 0.5. Delayed
accelerated. DFS: 73% vs 66%. No OS differ- accelerated CB + cetux did the best.
ence. Acute mucositis worse w accelerated:
53% vs 33%, but all pts healed within 3 months CRT +/– Cetuximab
of start. No difference in severe late tox. –– RTOG 0522 (Ang, 2014): T2N2–3M0 or T3–4
any N SCC OPX, HPX, LX. Randomize to (1)
Chemo-RT RT (either 72 Gy/42 over 6 w, BID RT for 12
–– GORTEC 9401, Denis, 2004: stage III/IV oro- d; or 70 Gy/35) + cis 100 mg/m2 vs (2)
pharynx: 70/35 +/− carbo/5-FU. Carbo RT + cis + cetux 400 mg/m2. Three-year OS
70 mg/m2 and 5-FU 600 mg/m2 on d1,22,42. (73% vs 76%), PFS (61% vs 59%), LRF (20%
CRT improved 5-yr LC 25→48%, DFS vs 26%), DMs (13% vs 10%) were similar.
15→27%, OS 16→23%. Cis-cetux-RT had more interruptions (27% vs
–– INT, Adelstein 2003: unresectable stage III/ 15%) and G3 mucositis (43% vs 33%).
IV H&N SCC. Excludes NPX, parotid, para- • pCR is 86% for HPV associated OPX SCC.
nasal sinus. (1) RT 70 /2 (2) + cisplatin –– MSKCC retrospective (Koutcher, 2011):
(100 mg/m2 Q3wks) (3) split course CRT w 3 2 year LRF of cis-RT vs. cetux-RT is 6% vs
courses 4-day CI 5-FU 1 g/m2 + cisplat bolus 40% – 8x the failure! 2-year OS 92% vs 67%.
75 mg/m2 on d1 q4w. RT was 30, then 30–40
Gyk, for total of 60–70 Gy. RT break was Post-op RT +/– Chemo
planned for possible surg. Arm 2/CRT won. –– EORTC 22931, Bernier: operable stage III/IV
3 yr OS 23% vs 37% vs 27%, compliance H&N SCC of OC, OP, larynx, hypopharynx
(ECE, +margin, PNI, LVSI, level IV/V nodes): 73% induction; 78% CRT)). More adverse
post-op 66/33 +/− concurrent cisplatin events.
(100 mg/m2 Q3wks): CRT won: 5-yr DFS –– Madrid, Hitt 2014: Induction then concurrent
36→47%, OS 40→53%, LRC 69→82% (DM RT vs concurrent CRT. Induction w TPF or
unchanged ~25%). ↑toxicity (21→41%). PF. Chemo-RT was cis 100 mg/m2 q3w. No
–– RTOG 9501, Cooper: operable H&N (≥2 LN, benefit in OS of induction over concurrent.
ECE, +margin): 66/33 +/− concurrent cispla-
tin (100 mg/m2 Q3wks). CRT won: 2-yr DFS Sim/Planning
43→54%, LRC 72→82%, trend for OS. ↑tox- –– Dental eval, PEG?, aquaplast, supine, 35 fx
icity. On unplanned subset analysis, R+ and/or IMRT
ECE had benefit in LRC (33% vs 21%) and –– Bilateral neck unless T1–2N0 tonsil with
DFS (12% vs 18%). Lack of OS benefits likely <1 cm BOT of soft palate invasion (O’Sullivan
bc of high OPX proportion, in comparison to 2001: 3.5% contralateral neck failure, all N+)
EORTC.
–– Meta-analysis of 95–01 and 22,931 (Bernier, Recurrence
2005): CRT improved OS, DFS and LRC for • All pts should be seen at 6 week post-tx clini-
ECE or + margins. Trend for stage III/IV, PNI, cal assessment, and if there is primary pro-
LVSI, low neck nodes gression, then consider surgery. PET is
preferred to post-tx neck dissection. Post-
Induction Chemo chemo-RT PET-CT should be at 3 months. If
–– TAX 323: unresectable H&N SCC: TPF vs PF negative, 0% recurrence. Ninety percent of
induction →RT alone. TPF increased MS equivocal PET CTs will become negative.
16→19 months. • Recurrent p16 positive has MST of 2.6 years
–– TAX 324, Lorch 2011: See LX section. vs. PST negative of 0.8 years MST. Surgery is
Posner: unresectable H&N SCC: taxotere + better than reRT.
cisplatin +5-FU (TPF) vs PF induction →CRT
with carboplatin. Induction CRT won. NCCN
Three-yr OS 48→62%. Five-year OS 52% vs Early Stage
42% MST 71 m vs 35 m. PFS 38 m vs 13 m. T1N0(</= 2 cm)/ T2N0 (>2 cm, </= 4 cm) /
Twenty-five percent of patients never made it Or N1
to RT (progressed, died, withdrew). Concluded Surgery or RT: results are equivalent.
that taxotere needed for induction.
–– DeCIDE trial, Chicago, Cohen, 2014: locally 1. Surgery+/-PORT: Tonsillectomy/hemiglos-
advanced H&N SCC: (1) CRT with docetaxel, sectomy w/elective neck dissection or WLE of
5FU, hydroxyurea, BID fx vs (2) TPF induc- soft palate
tion then same CRT. CRT was 1.5 Gy BID, 2. RT alone:
74–75 Gy to GTV, 54 Gy to high risk, and • High-risk CTV:66–70Gy/30–35fx (boost
39 Gy to low risk. More adverse events w primary to 66 Gy for T1, 70Gy for T2).
induction. No difference in DFS, RFS, and Includes tumor +1 cm margin (min 5 mm)
OS. Underpowered. Fifty-eight percent of and involved LNs.
deaths were from HNSCC; remainder due to • Intermediate-risk CTV(optional):
PNA, PE, drug toxicity, and other cancers. 63Gy/35fx rest of level with involved
–– PARADIGM trial, Harvard (Haddad, 2013): LN/1st echelon LNs
2004–2008. N = 145. Unresectable or unlikely • Low-risk CTV:56 Gy/35fx to elective neck
to be cured surgically. III/IV, N2–3. TPF (levels II-IV, ipsi RP).
induction + CRT with docetaxel or carboplatin • LAN: 50Gy/25 fx; boost 10Gy/5fx if LN+
vs CRT with cisplatin: no difference (3-yr OS hemineck.
• HPV positive: most commonly use tongue, and if vallecula involved include
50 Gy/25 fractions in 5 weeks, QD; suprahyoid epiglottic larynx (CTV P); as well
64 Gy/40 fractions. 4 w, BID is the second as involved neck levels plus one level above
most common. and below (CTV N).
Well-lateralized tonsil/soft palate: treat • For tonsil:
unilaterally, for N0-1. All N2b + should get High-risk subclinical disease includes CTV70
bilateral neck RT. plus adjacent buccal mucosa, palate, and BOT,
3. Altered fract ≥T2N0 (BID, concomitant as well as first echelon nodes
boost, DAHANCA (Easiest: 2Gy/fx; 6fx/wk, More advanced tonsil include mandibular
add extra fraction on Fridays starting week 2.) bone, ipsi pterygoid muscle, parapharyngeal
**Can boost w 20–30 Gy boost via Ir-192 implant space, and adjacent NPX
• Low-risk CTV (i.e., CTV3):56 Gy/35fx to
Tumor Nodal coverage Primary
elective neck (levels II-V, RP, retrostyloid
coverage space)
Tonsil N-hemineck: II–IV* Ipsilateral soft • LAN: 50Gy/25 fx; boost 10Gy/5fx if LN+
N+ hemineck: RS, RP, palate, BOT,
IB-V, SCV GTS hemineck
BOT N-hemineck: II–IV* GTS, vallecula, • Post-LN-positive hemineck should treat
N+ hemineck: RS, RP, pre-epiglottic
II–IV and RP LNs; and additionally, treat
IB-V, SCV space
Soft palate N-hemineck: RP, II–IV Entire soft level V
N+ hemineck: RS, RP, palate, adj HPV-: lower threshold for neck dissec-
IB-V, SCV NPX, sup tonsil
tion after chemo-RT
2. Altered frac RT (RTOG 9003) if pt. refuses
*Coverage of RP nodes on “involved” node- chemo
negative hemineck is recommended 3
. Surgery (total glossectomy) + post-op RT or
CMT for T4/+margin/ECE
Advanced Stage
Chemoradiation is preferred. Post-op RT Indicated for
Neck
1. Definitive Chemoradiation: 70Gy + concur- • Multiple positive nodes
rent cisplatin (100 mg/m2, q3 weeks or 40 mg/ • >3 cm
m2 weekly); carbo/taxol if poor kidneys; • Extracapsular spread of nodal disease
cetuximab • Close or positive margins
• High-risk CTV (i.e., CTV1): 70Gy/35fx • Prior biopsy/violation of neck/trach prior to
(include gross dz +1–2 cm margin) laryngectomy
• Intermediate-risk CTV (i.e., CTV2;
optional): 63Gy/35fx rest of level with Primary tumor
involved LN/1st echelon LNs • T4
• For BOT: • Extensive subglottic extension
High-risk subclinical disease includes • + Margin/close margins (<5 mm)
CTV70 + 5–10 mm expansion, plus entire • Perineural/vascular invasion
BOT, vallecula, generous portions of oral • High-grade histology
• Concerned surgeon
quamous Cell Cancer Metastatic to Cervical Nodes from Unknown Primary

S
(SCCUP) [19–23, 78–85]
p16+ Neck staging
cN1 Ipsi nodes, all ≤6 cm pN1 ≤4 nodes, any location
cN2 Contra or bilateral, all ≤6 cm pN2 >4 nodes, any location
cN3 Any node >6 cm
p16-Neck staging
cN1 Single ipsi node ≤3 cm, no ECE pN1 Single ipsi node ≤3 cm, no ECE
cN2 pN2
cN2a Single ipsi, 3–6 cm, no ECE pN2a Single ipsi, 3–6 cm, no ECE; or <3 cm with ECE
cN2b Multiple ipsi, 3–6 cm, no ECE pN2b Multiple ipsi, 3–6 cm, no ECE
cN2c Bilateral or contralat, 3–6 cm, no ECE pN2c Bilateral or contralat, 3–6 cm, no ECE
cN3 pN3
cN3b Any clinically overt ECE pN3b Single >3 cm with ECE; or multi nodes with any ECE
–– The most common primary is tonsil or BOT.

Epidemiology –– 40% w single enlarged LN, typically level 2.
–– 1–4% of HNSCCs –– This suggests OPX primary
–– Increasing bc of HPV –– 80% of patients with bulk of dz in level 2, with
–– Diagnosis of exclusion smaller volume of dz in level 3.
–– Usually presents w painless neck mass –– LAD in level 3 w/o level 2 suggests supraglot-
–– NCCN: painless neck mass in >40yo is cancer tic LX or HPX because these drain to the mid
UPO neck.
–– DDx: –– LAD in level 4 and/or supraclav fossa are sel-
–– Branchial cleft cyst: congenital abnormal- dom result of a primary above the clavicles.
ity manifesting in adulthood. Appear in –– 45% tonsil, 40% BOT, and 10% pyriform
20s–30s, usually not >40. Note that HPV- sinus.
assoc LNs are usually cystic. –– Waldeyer’s ring: palatine, tubal, pharyngeal,
–– PTC: if FNA suggests thyroid ca, then and lingual tonsils.
must do thyroid US and biopsy. –– When primary is found:
–– Skin SCC of the LNs: may also be p16+. ~50% of time by directed Bx
Rarely in level II. Usually in >70yos, ~25% of time by tonsillectomy
immunocompromised. LNs of skin SCC ~25% of time by PET
that is p16+ typically will not have HPV ~10% w/bilateral neck disease
DNA. –– If just neck dissection alone:
–– Adenocarcinoma, lymphoma, thyroid, ~50% fail at primary
melanoma, salivary, and sarcoma. ~15% fail in the dissected neck (~60% if ECE)
–– ~40% fail in node (−) neck if you treat only
Staging ipsilateral.
–– Primary T category: T0.
–– N-category designated according to anatomic Suspicion Based on Nodal Station
site based on EBV and HPV status: • Level I = OC. If not SCC, may be salivary,
• EBV+ Stage like NPC skin, malar face
• HPV+ Stage like p16+ OPC
• HPV- Stage like p16- OPC
–– Usually N2a or N2b (AJCC 7).
• Level II = OPX; for Level 2B close to parotid –– HPV: can be detected in FNA specimen.
consider skin met to parotid or salivary gland Should check in all. If positive, tonsillectomy
primary (usually b/l) recommended. TORS results in
• Level V or RP = HPX or NPX 63–100% detection of primary.
• Level IV = often outside H&N. The lung and –– Thyroglobulin, calcitonin, PAX8, or TTF
esophagus (left SCV is Virchow’s node so for anaplastic/undifferentiated tumors
look below diaphragm!)
• Level VI = thyroid Retrospective Reports
–– McQuone 1998: improved diagnostic yield
Work-up with tonsillectomy over biopsy.
–– FNA of LN is preferred. If non-dx, then repeat –– UF 2001: LC 78%, OS 47%.
with US. –– Baker 2005: larynx-sparing RT is just as effec-
–– Open biopsy contraindicated because of: tive, less toxic.
–– Potential tumor spill and disruption of fas- –– Loyola 1997: unilateral neck RT led to 44%
cial planes (which naturally prevent tumor contralateral neck failure and 44% primary
spread) emergence rate.
–– Limitation of future treatments –– Soushtari 2011 (UVA): all IMRT. Five-yr OS
–– Scar formation and increased morbidity 71%, DFS 85%. All nodal failures had bulky
(biopsy wound must be excised or covered disease.
in higher dose volume)
–– Necessitation of second operation if path Treatment Paradigm
staging pursued –– Natural history: Failure usually in ipsi neck >
–– “Neck violation”: incisional/excisional distal. Among surgically treated patients,
biopsy of node mucosal progression is 18% in old series,
–– CT +/− MRI. likely <10% now.
–– PET-CT: detects tumors in 25% of patients. –– Typically, multimodal.
Can show DMs, non-HN primary. FPR: 20%; –– Usually neck dissection + aRT
thus, confirmatory bx necessary. PET scan –– ECEmic in p16+ patients: unknown if aCRT is
PPV 90%, NPV 75%. beneficial. Currently, any ECE is indication
–– Fiberoptic endoscopy. for aCRT.
–– EUA (DL and direct bx): not necessary if pri-
mary found otherwise. For level 2/3 LNs, RT Planning
biopsy of NPX, b/l BOT, b/l pyriform –– Timing of RT does not appear to influence
sinuses, SGL recommended. Tonsil cancers in DFS.
crypts may not be seen. B/l tonsillectomy rec- –– Volumes:
ommended if tissue present. If HPX ca sus- –– Contra neck and mucosal subsites (b/l ton-
pected, then biopsy the pyriform sinus. sil, BOT) controversial, sometimes
–– Pathology: excluded in p16+/EBV- with N1 disease.
• SCC or undifferentiated ➔ HPV (p16 –– NPX is typically included; consider exclud-
staining) and EBV testing ing in non-Asian with p16+/EBV- LNs. NPX
• Adenocarcinoma ➔ TG and calcitonin contour: base of skull to soft palate, posterior
staining. If TG and calcitonin negative (and choana and posterior pharyngeal wall, and
level I-III) likely parotid origin laterally cover fossa of Rosenmuller.
–– Triple endoscopy if levels IV–V. –– LN volumes: bilat RP nodes, bilat IB-IV,
–– EBV: rarely elevated in North American ipsi V. Neck RT will include the RS space
patients w SCCUP. Can check EBV in FNA and RP LNs (level VII) with IMRT. Thus,
specimens. Recommended to direct bx for NPX will receive considerable dose even if
patients from endemic area. not in CTV.
–– Include oral cavity only if LN in IA/IB (can –– Doses:

exclude NPX then). –– GTV: 66–70 Gy.
–– Larynx-sparing RT inappropriate for –– Adjuvant: 60–66 Gy. Elective: 45–54 Gy.
SCCUP of level 3 w/o level 2 bc primary –– Mucosa: 50–60 Gy/25 (per NCCN) or
likely in LX or HPX. Otherwise, Larynx/ 54Gy/30 (per EORTC 22205). Sometimes
HPX = hyoid to bottom of cricoid inc ipsi OPX to 60.
–– Include OC and exclude NPX if level IB
node Chemo
–– Use mainly for ECE, R+.
–– Also for aCRT in T0N3.
–– Main benefit for chemo is inc LRC. Distant
benefit dubious.
Stage Incidence Outcomes Treatment Post-tx

T0N1 Rare Good Unimodal, usually neck
dissection or RT. May consider
aRT omission
T0N2a Common Good P16+, <10PYs, no ECE: as
above
Good P16– or >10PYs: neck
dissection + RT
Variable ECE: CRT because aCRT ECE should receive CRT. PET-CT 12 w
would be required post-surgery post-tx. If no CR, neck dissection
T0N2b Common Good. Unknown Neck dissection + RT
which tx better CRT
T0N2c Rare CRT PET-CT 12 w post-tx. If no CR in
hemineck, neck dissection
T0N3 Common CRT bc most N3 LNs have PET-CT 12 w post-tx. If no CR, neck
ECE dissection. Neck dissection with <CR
Surg only if no ECE. Then aRT still reasonable
Gross CRT
ECE
Likely primary site of SCC when no primary found

Smoker Never smoker, level II–V
Level III/IV EBV+ HPV+ EBV–/HPV–
NPX NPX NPX NPX
OPX OPX OPX
HPX, SGL
Likely primary site of adenocarcinoma when no

primary found
Thyroglobulin–/calcitonin
Level Ib-III Level IV–V
Parotid. Perform neck Infraclavicular, e.g.,
dissection, ipsilateral the breast, lung, and GI
Parotidectomy –> PORT
alivary Gland Cancer [19–23,

S –– No further treatment unless positive mar-
86–93] gins typically
–– High grade: adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC;
• TX: cannot be assessed. T0: no tumor sometimes called “low grade”, but treat like
• T1 – ≤2 cm w/o extraparenchymal extension high grade), high-grade mucoepidermoid car-
• T2 – 2–4 cm w/o extraparenchymal extension cinoma (most common; the more epidermoid,
• T3 – >4 cm or extraparenchymal extension the worse, since more like SCC), malignant
• T4 mixed, adenocarcinoma, SCC
• T4a – skin, mandible, ear, CN VII –– Negative SM is 5 mm.
• T4b – skull base, pterygoid plates, carotid –– All get adjuvant RT. Consider chemo-RT.
*Only applies to major salivary glands –– ACC, ductal, undifferentiated → ↑DM
(parotid, SMG, SL). Minor salivary (lung, bone, liver).
gland = stage as primary site!
Glands
cN1 Single ipsi node pN1 Single ipsi node –– Major glands: parotid, SMG, SL.
≤3 cm, no ECE ≤3 cm, no ECE –– Minor glands: submucosa and the mouth
cN2 pN2 (90% malignant).
cN2a Single ipsi, pN2a Single ipsi, 3–6 cm, –– Typically, the smaller the gland, the more
3–6 cm, no ECE no ECE; or <3 cm
malignant the tumor
with ECE
cN2b Multiple ipsi, pN2b Multiple ipsi, 3–6 cm,
3–6 cm, no ECE no ECE
cN2c Bilateral or pN2c Bilateral or contralat, Anatomy
contralat, 3–6 cm, no ECE –– Parotid: facial nerve divides superfic and
3–6 cm, no ECE
deep lobes, has Stensen’s duct, most common
cN3 pN3
location, malignant less common (20%).
cN3b Any clinically pN3b Single >3 cm with –– Most common histo: pleomorphic
overt ECE ECE; or multi-nodes –– Most common malignant:
with any ECE mucoepidermoid
–– Anatomic landmarks: ECA, retromandibu-
lar vein, CN VII (all behind mandible)
T1 T2 T3 T4a T4b
–– Frey’s syndrome, auriculotemporal nerve
N0 I II III IVA
syndrome, and gustatory sweating (CN VII
N1 III III III IVB
damage)
N2 IVA
–– Submandibular: lingual nerve (V3) and
N3 IVB
XII, Wharton’s duct, more likely malignant
M1 IVC (50%).
–– Sublingual: superior to mylohyoid, Rivinus/
Bartholin’s ducts, incidence debated (90%?).
–– Benign: pleomorphic (most common),
–– Minor salivary, 90% malignant. Usually
Warthin’s, Godwin’s, oncocytoma, basal cell
ACC.
adenoma, myoepithelioma
–– Negative SM is 1 cell (i.e., no tumor on ink)
LN drainage
–– Usually mobile superficial lobe, slow
–– Parotid: preauricular, peri/intraparotid, levels
growth, no pain, VII intact, no LNs
II–IV
–– Low grade: acinic cell; basal cell adenocarci-
–– SMG/sublingual: levels I/II, less often III/IV
noma; low-grade mucoepidermoid (G1);
–– Minor salivary: depends on location, have
oncocytic carcinoma
highest propensity for LN spread
–– Negative SM is 1 cell
Benign (B) v Incidence

cancer (C) and among B Common Occult DM ER or
Histologies G and C location LNMs+ potential Her-2 EGFR c-kit AR PR
Adenoid cystic C. Treat as G3. Most <10% Sporadic <5% variable >50% <5% <5%
carcinoma tubular, common can have
(ACC) cribriform cancer in >10y to
(~G1), solid SMG, DM. Forty
(~G3) minor SGs percent
predilection have lung
for PNI mets
Adenocarcinoma 35% <25% <25% Vvariable <25% <5%
Mucoepidermoid C, most G1 >50 Parotid 35% <25% >50% <5% <5% <5%
Salivary duct C, most G3 >50% >50% <5% >50% <5%
Carcinoma ex C, most G3 High >50%
pleomorphic Surrogate name
adenoma for salivary
(CexPA) ductal ca
Microscopically
similar to breast
ca
Acinic cell C, most G1
Pleomorphic B 65 Usually
adenoma parotid
Work-up Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma

–– History: Duration of mass/speed of growth, –– Slow growing, not expected to benefit from
painless or painful, numbness/CN deficit, chemo. PNI w skip lesions and facial nerve
neck mass involvement common.
• DDx = recent infection, salivary cysts, sali- –– Chen 2006: ACC is locally infiltrative, spreads
vary gland stones, sarcoid, Sjogren’s syn- along CNs, has skip lesions, and can recur in
drome, other malignancy (salivary primary, >10y. Minimize time bw surg and RT to
lymphoma, met) <42 days.
–– Physical: oral cavity inspection w/ palpation of –– Garden 1995: ACC→surgery+RT: 10 yr LRC
tongue and FOM; examine tongue mobility 86%, worse for +margins and clinical
(CN XII), sensation (V), and taste (VII, IX); PNI. Provides justification for definitive tx if
LN exam, CN exam (especially VII, V, and XII) M1 (long natural hx).
–– FNL, biopsy (FNA). MRI + CT, CT chest, +/− –– Mendenhall 2004: ACC: surgery+RT better
PET, dentistry than RT alone (91% vs 43%) worse for T3–4
and clinical PNI.
Post-op RT and Elective Nodal Irradiation –– For ACC irradiate nerve to skull base, ulti-
–– Terhaard 2005: retrospective; surgery +/−RT: mately 40% will develop lung mets
10 yr LC improved (T3–4 18→84%) (close
55→95%) (+margin 18→84%) (+bone RT+/–Chemo
54→86%) (PNI 60→88%) –– Currently no prospective data.
–– Chen 2007: cN0 salivary gland→surgery+RT: –– NCDB: no improvement w post-op CRT vs
ENI reduced nodal failure from 26→0% RT. However, the CRT group had more
(more with ↑T, SCC, undiff, adeno). Usually high-grade cases and some had adenoid
ipsilateral only cystic.
Neutrons RT Doses
–– RTOG-MRC trial: 32 inoperable salivary –– Post-op:
gland: neutron vs photon/electron: closed –– 60–63 Gy @ 1.8 Gy–2Gy, 66Gy for posi-
early, neutrons won: 10 yr LRC 17→56%, OS tive margin
unchanged (15→25%) –– When to treat BOS: cPNI, rPNI, named
–– 19.2nGy to GTV (1.2nGy x4/wk), 13.2nGy to nerve involved, “extensive” PNI; adenoid
PTV2 cystic
–– PNI considerations:
NCCN –– Parotid:
–– Surgery is the mainstay of treatment. LND –– VII: track to styloid foramen; if VII grossly
indications (supraomohyoid, I-III): HG involved, extend to include facial canal
(except ACC), cN+,4+ cm. through petrous bone
–– Parotidectomy subtypes: –– Submandibular:
• Superficial = superficial –– V3 (lingual): track nerve to foramen ovale,
• Total = superficial + deep, spares VII include Meckel’s cave
• Radical = includes VII and skin/fascia –– XII: track nerve to hypoglossal canal
• Indications for post-op RT: –– VII: track to styloid foramen
1. high grade
2. PNI or LVI Definitive for Unresectable/nonsurgical
3. LN + or ECE 70Gy/35fx for gross dz
4. Recurrent
5. Adenoid cystic histology Treat elective neck to 50–54 Gy in 1.8-2Gy/fx
–– Indications for post-op chemo-RT: Consider neutrons
1. close (<2 mm)/positive margins
2. ECE
–– Indications to treat LNs (N0: IB-III; N+: IB,
RSS/II-V)
1. HG (except ACC)
2. pN+
3. Recurrent
Laryngeal (LX) and Hypopharyngeal (HPX) Cancer [19–23, 94–111]
Laryngeal (LX) and Hypopharyngeal (HPX) Cancer19-23,94-111
Supraglottis Glottis Subglottis Hypopharynx

% of LX 35 60 2
cancer
anatomy *5 Supraglottic subsites TVCs, ant/post commissures 5mm below glottis to ** 3 Hypopharynx subsites
(“A VISA”): inferior cricoid or 1st (“3 Ps”): Pyriform sinus,
arytenoids, tracheal ring Hypopharyngeal wall (lateral
false cords (ventricular and post), postcricoid region
bands), (mucosa overlying cricoid
infrahyoid epiglottis, cartilage, w arytenoids
suprahyoid epiglottis, mucosa superiorly and
aryepiglottic folds, esophageal mucosa inferiorly)
Borders: hyoid bone or tip of
epiglottis (sup); bottom of
cricoid cart or
cricopharyngeus muscle (inf)
LNM Rich LN supply 55% N1+, for T1, <2%; for T2 <7%; ~20% 60%+
16% N2c, 33% occult for T3, 20%; for T4, 25%
T1 1 subsite*, normal VCs Normal VC movement Subglottis only One subsite**, ≤2 cm
(T1a one cord, T1b both)
T2 2+ subsites or glottis, or Supra/subglottis or To VCs w normal or 2+ subsites, 2–4 cm
region outside supraglottis impaired mobility
VCs w impaired mobility
(BOT, vallecula, medial
(AJCC6 T2b)
wall pyriform )
T3 Fixed cord
Post-cricoid area, >4 cm, esophagus
Paraglottic space, Paraglottic space
Pre-epiglottic space
Inner thyroid cartilage
T4a Outer thyroid cartilage Cricoid invasion, Thyroid/cricoid cartilage,
ANY cartilage hyoid, central compartment
invasion
beyond larynx(e.g. esophagus, soft tissues of neck, extrinsic tongue muscles,

strap muscles, thyroid)
T4b Prevertebral space, carotid, mediastinum
T1 T2 T3 T4a T4b Anatomy

N0 I II III IVA
N1 III III III IVB cN1 Single ipsi node ≤3 cm, no pN1 Single ipsi node ≤3 cm, no ECE
ECE
N2 IVA cN2 pN2
N3 IVB cN2a Single ipsi, 3–6 cm, no ECE pN2a Single ipsi, 3–6 cm, no ECE; or <3 cm
with ECE
M1 IVC cN2b Multiple ipsi, 3–6 cm, no ECE pN2b Multiple ipsi, 3–6 cm, no ECE
cN2c Bilateral or contralat, 3–6 cm pN2c Bilateral or contralat, 3–6 cm, no ECE
, no ECE6cm, no ECE
cN3 pN3
Risk Factors cN3a >6 cm, no ECE pN3a >6 cm, no ECE
–– Smoking, EtOH, GERD, asbestos, paint cN3b Any clinically overt ECE pN3b Single >3 cm with ECE; or multi
nodes with any ECE
fumes, Ni, soot, tar, vitamin deficiencies (Fe,
B12, C), betel nuts
–– Larynx innervation: all vagus (X), via recur- –– RTOG 9003, Fu, 2009: compared
rent laryngeal nerve and the superior laryngeal • CFRT (70/35over 7 weeks) vs.
nerve • Hyperfrac RT (81.6/68over 7 weeks, i.e.,
–– Note: thyroid cartilage invasion and extrala- 1.2 Gy BID) vs.
ryngeal spread difficult to determine by CT • Accelerated frac w split course (67.2/42
(PPV, 81%; NPV, 71%; sens, 49%; spec, 92%) fractions over 6 weeks, i.e., 1.6 Gy BID;
Ear pain? with a split course where there was a break
–– Oral tongue: auriculotemporal nerve (CN V) in the middle of treatment) vs.
–– BOT: Jacobson’s nerve (CN IX) • Accelerated frac with delayed concomitant
–– Larynx/HPX: Arnold’s nerve (CN X) boost (1.8 Gy/fx 5d/w w 1.5 Gy/fx as boost
–– Anatomic landmarks: field as second daily tx over the last 12d;
–– Hyoid = C3 total, 72/gy42 fractions). All tumors from
–– Superior border of thyroid = C4 lip to esophageal verge eligible, except
–– Cricoid cartilage = C6 glottic larynx. Parallel opposed field.
• LRF: 29% vs 51% vs 58% vs 52%.
Work-up • OS 30% vs 37% vs 31% vs 34%. Both
–– FNL, biopsy hyperfrac and DCB had improvement in
–– History: SGL = dysphagia/odynophagia, and LRF.
otalgia (Arnold) • OS and LRF improved in the hyperfrac
–– Voice changes (hoarseness), swallowing, aspi- arm. 1% LRC improvement for each day tx
ration, and pulmonary status (can the patient shortened. CFRT had lowest acute tox vs
climb a set of stairs) all others. Worse outcomes in on-tx smok-
–– Physical: palpate larynx (mass at thyroid ers, more so than previous heavy smokers.
notch = preepiglottis space/PES invasion),
gently move (loss of laryngeal click = postcri- LX Cancer – Larynx Preservation
coid area/PCA invasion), palpate tongue and –– VA Larynx Trial (Wolf, 1991): III/IV larynx:
BOT, LN exam (1) surgery+PORT vs (2) Chemoselection:
–– CT +/− MRI, CT chest, +/− PET, dentistry induction cis/5FU x 2c, then re-eval, then 1c
–– PFTs (total 3c), then RT if PR+ or surg/PORT if
<PR. At 4y, LX preservation was 12% vs 64%.
OS ~50% (NSS). TL 88% for surg vs 38%
Studies CRT. Pts alive w larynx 5% vs 31%, favoring
CRT. LC lower for CRT (98→88%). Salvage
RT Alone Fractionation laryngectomy rate 56% in T4, 29% in < T4
–– Yamazaki 2006: phase III, T1 glottis: 2Gy/fx tumors. Note, most T4 is now T3 (bc any thyr
to 60–66 Gy vs 2.25 Gy/fx to 56–63 Gy. ctx invasion was T4, now minor invasion T3)
Hypofrac won. Five-yr LC 77→92%, CSS, –– RTOG 91–11 (Forastiere, 2003; 2013): III/
OS, toxicity unchanged (Bledsoe 2017 showed IV larynx, T2/T3/ “early T4” (now T3) of
possible OS advantage to hypofrac in T1-T2 glottic/supraglottic. Technically some resect-
from NCDB) able. Randomize: (1) RT alone vs (2) induc-
–– RTOG 9512: T2 glottis. N = 250. 70/35 vs tion chemo (cis 100 mg/m2 on d1 and 5-FU
79.2 BID (1.2 Gy). No change, trend for ↑LC 1000 mg/m2 q24h CI, qw, x2c), followed by
w hyperfrac (70→79%, p > 0.11), LRC 67% RT if PR+ or surg/PORT if <PR vs (3) concom
vs 73%, DFS 50% vs 49%, OS 63% vs 72%. CRT (cis 100 mg/m3 q3w × 3c). RT 70/2 and
Hyperfrac better numerically, but not SS, 50/2 to elective neck and sclav. All cN2
likely bc underpowered. Similar late G3+ tox, patients got planned neck dissection after
8%. For cost and pt convenience, consider RT. Endpoint: LX preservation. Concurrent
other fractionation regimens, e.g., 2.25 Gy/d CRT won for LC and LRC (69→55→51%),
established it as SOC. Concurrent CRT was NR get surg, then PORT. No OS difference.
better for LX preservation vs RT alone, but However, CT + RT +/− surgery had 17% LX
there was no difference bw two chemo groups. preservation rate at 5 years (EORTC 24891
Five-yr larynx preservation 84→71→66%. Lefebvre, JNCI, 1996) and 8.7% at 10 years.
Chemo reduced DMs (13% vs 22%). OS Ten-year DM 36% with surgery and RT, 25%
unchanged. Some argue induction arm is the with chemo, RT, +/− surgery, low OS in both
best (esp if w TPF and not PF). Larynx preser- arms likely due to poor salvage success
vation acceptable for T3
Induction Sim/Planning
–– TAX 324 (Posner, Lorch 2011): unresectable
head and neck (33% larynx/hypopharynx): –– Mask, shoulders down
induction taxotere + cisplatin +5-FU (TPF) vs
induction PF x3 cycles, then 70 Gy CRT. CRT
was 70–74 Gy w concurrent carbo AUC 1.5. General Treatment Recommendation
Induction TPF won. Three-yr OS 48 vs 62%,
5-yr OS 52% vs 42%. MST 71 m vs 35 m. –– Stages I–II: unimodal therapy
LRC 62→70%, DM unchanged. TPF was –– Stages III–IV: multimodal therapy (e.g.,
toxic. chemo-RT)
–– EORTC 24891: same as VA trial but with pyri-
form sinus and required CR. Same OS (~40%).
5-yr functional larynx 35%. Surgery Types
–– GORTEC 2000–01, Janoray, 2015: III-IV LX,
HPX SCC who required TL randomized to –– SGL
TPF vs PF induction. Responders get • Supraglottic laryngectomy (T1, T2, T3 by
RT. Primary endpoint was LX preservation. PES only)
TPF increased LX preservation and larynx • Removes: upper 1/2 thyroid cartilage, preepi-
function. No change in OS, DFS, LRC. TPF glottic space, epiglottis, AE folds, false cords,
also w less G3–4 tox, 17% vs 9%. up to one arytenoid (need to preserve one)
–– Contraindications:
Chemo-RT –– B/L arytenoids
–– See oropharynx (RTOG 9501, EORTC –– Fixed cord/any true cord
22931). –– Inadequate pulmonary reserve/ “cannot
–– For larynx and hypopharynx, the rate of long- walk up two flights” (unable to tolerate
term G-tube placement after tx is 50% (vs. aspiration)
40% for oral cavity and OPX). –– Thyroid/cricoid cartilage
–– For just hypopharynx, the rate is 25%.
–– In the MACH-NC meta-analysis, the benefit GL
of chemo-RT is not higher than that for other –– Mucosal stripping (CIS)
dz sites. –– Transoral laser excision/cordectomy (T1a).
–– If no pCR, the median DFS is 12 months. Contraindicated for AC involvement
–– Vertical partial laryngectomy (T1a, T1b, select
HPX Trials T2)Removes: 1/2 thyroid cartilage + ≤ 1 and
–– Treatment paradigm similar to LX cancer 1/3 TVC
–– EORTC 24891 Lefebvre, 1996, 2012. Rando SGL/GL
(1) surgery, PORT, or (2) induction chemo –– Total laryngectomy (T3, T4a)Removes: hyoid,
(i.e., with cisplatin and 5-FU x3), then (2a) thyroid, cricoid w/ entire larynx +strap
patients with CR get RT, (2b) patients w PR or muscles
• Patient left with permanent tracheostomy and –– After CO2 laser, do not need adjuvant RT if no
pharynx reconstruction (by suturing to BOT) tumor on ink.
• Most common failure sites = BOT and stoma –– Stripping uses H2O jet to lift the tumor off; it
is not an oncologic procedure and needs adju-
Speech After Laryngectomy vant RT.
–– Failure rate is local only (not LNs), so need
–– Esophageal speech very close follow-up, q 3 m.
–– Tracheoesophageal puncture –– Tis: cord stripping (laser/CO2) or RT.
–– Electrolarynx –– RT:
–– T1: 63 Gy/28 fractions at 2.25 Gy
–– T2: 65.25 Gy/ 29 fractions at 2.25 Gy
Treatment for Supraglottic Larynx –– Historically 5 × 5 field for T1 or 6x6 field for
T2, now more based on anatomic borders.
–– T1N0 Treat in <43 days
–– Supraglottic laryngectomy w/bilateral –– Iso @TVC
MRLND –– 6MV photons, wedges w heels anterior
–– RT alone 66 Gy to primary, 50 Gy to bilat –– Bolus if AC involved
neck –– Hotspot <110%
–– T2N0 –– 3D: CTV covers entire larynx, including glot-
–– (1) Supraglottic laryngectomy with bilat- tis (TVCs, anterior and posterior commissures),
eral modified radical LND part of supraglottis (FVCs, arytenoids) to top of
–– (2) RT alone 70 Gy to primary, 50 Gy to thyroid notch and subglottis inferiorly to cri-
bilat neck (for bulky T2, could consider coid cartilage (can extend to first tracheal ring
altered fractionation schedule but not for T2); paraglottic space and thyroid cartilage
standard) can be included if deemed at risk. CTV should
–– T3-4N+ extend ≥2 cm craniocaudally.
–– CTV70. avoid SIB, esp >2Gy per fraction, –– 2D: superior border is the top of the thyroid
due to risk of late toxicity. cartilage; inferior border is the bottom of the
–– High-risk CTV 63Gy/35fx. Includes cricoid (at C6) or one tracheal ring below cri-
CTV70 + entire larynx (top thyroid notch coid if T2 for subglottic involvement; ante-
to bottom cricoid), paraglottic and preepi- rior border has a 1 cm flash; and posterior
glottic space, pyriform sinuses, vallecula, border is the anterior edge of the vertebral
and up to 1 cm BOT, as well as high-risk body.
first echelon nodes –– Alternative for favorable T2a is 79.2 Gy @ 1.2
–– Elective LN: 56Gy/35fx., e.g., upper level BID, per RTOG 95–12.
II, RPLNs. LAN: 50Gy/25 fx; boost –– Unfavorable T2: “old T2b,” if there is more
10Gy/5fx if LN+ hemineck extensive disease (e.g., cord hypomobility),
then consider chemo-RT and 70 Gy w RNI w
concurrent cis. Argument for this is compar-
Treatment for Glottic Larynx ing CRT arm of 91–11 vs. HFX arm of 9512.
–– T3 or N+: CRT (surgery salvage) or induction
–– Early larynx options: stripping, laser, RT, chemo or laryngectomy.
cordectomy, vertical hemilaryngectomy –– Primary and involved LN: 70Gy in 35 fx.
–– Contraindications to vertical hemilaryn- –– High risk CTV 63Gy/35fx. CTV70 + entire
gectomy: Involves more than one true larynx (top thyroid notch to bottom cricoid),
cord, epiglottic invasion, fixed cord, paraglottic and preepiglottic space, pyriform
bilateral arytenoids involvement, 5 mm
sinuses, vallecula, and up to 1 cm BOT, as
subglottic extension. well as high risk first echelon nodes.
• If level II/III involvement, do not need to levels III-IV bilaterally, and add level II for
cover RP, level IB, level V. advanced T stage or N+
• If dz. breaks through cartilage, cover level VI. –– CTV50–56* = low-risk elective, including
–– Primary + b/l neck: 70/63/54 in 35 fx. entire larynx (top thyroid notch to bottom cri-
–– cN0: II-IV. coid), paraglottic and preepiglottic space, pyri-
• [+ VI for subglottic extension, HPX form sinuses, vallecula, as well as first echelon
involvement, emergent trach, soft tissue nodes (see above)
extension of primary to neck
• + VII involvement for subglottic extension, Covering level VI indications: emergent
HPX involvement, SCV node] trach, subglottic extension, apex or pyriform
• cN+: IB + RSS/II–V. sinus involvement
–– [+ VI for subglottic extension, HPX involve-
ment, emergent trach, soft tissue extension of
primary to neck
Treatment for Hypopharynx
–– + VII involvement for subglottic extension,
–– T1N0
HPX involvement, SCV node]
–– (1) Partial laryngopharyngectomy w/ bilat-
–– *with any HPX involvement add b/l RP.
eral MRLND
–– CTV70 = primary, gross LN.
–– (2) RT alone 70 Gy to primary, 50 Gy to
–– CTV63 = [CTV_70 + 5 mm], remaining lar-
bilat neck
ynx, piriform sinuses, paraglottic space, PES,
T2N0
vallecula, cN+ neck.
–– (1) Partial or total laryngopharyngectomy
–– CTV56 = cN0 neck.
with bilateral modified radical LND
–– Cis (100 mg/m2) days 1, 22, 43.
–– (2) RT alone: altered fractionation
–– T4: laryngectomy preferred over chemo-RT
T3N+: Chemo-RT if functional larynx and not
because of failure rates on VA larynx.
aspirating
–– PO(C)RT.
–– Primary + b/l neck: 70/60/54 in 35 fx
• Post-op bed + b/l neck: 66/60/54 in 30 fx
–– cN0: RP (stop at C1), II-IV [+ VI for exten-
• Cis (100 mg/m2) days 1, 22, 43.
sion below cricoid or into PS apex]
–– CTV66 = post-op bed if + margin or ECE.
–– cN+: RP (stop at BOS), IB + RSS/II-V [+
–– CTV60 = post-op bed, cN+ neck.
VI for extension below cricoid or into PS
–– CTV54 = stoma, cN0 neck.
apex]
–– CTV70 = primary, gross LN
–– CTV63 = CTV_70 + Entire LX/HPX (hyoid
Treatment for Subglottic Larynx
to cricoid), 3 cm sup/inf if pharyngeal wall
involvement, cN+ neck
T1-2N0 RT alone
–– CTV_56 = cN0 neck
–– RT alone 70 Gy to primary + b/l neck (II-
–– T4a
IV + VI): 70/60/54 in 35 Fx, BID Friday
–– Total laryngectomy +/− post-op RT or CRT
–– For bulky T2, could consider altered fraction-
ation schedule but not standard
I ndications for Treating Stoma
T3-4N+ (“No ESCAPE”)
–– Cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, 22, 43 w/con- –– Nodes: multiple LNs or positive LN close to
current CTV70 = GTV + 5–10 mm, carving stoma
out bone/air –– Emergency tracheostomy
–– CTV60–63 = high-risk elective, consider N+ –– Subglottic extension >5 mm
neck plus one level above/below. For subglot- –– Surgical scar crosses stoma
tic involvement, always treat level VI and con- –– Anterior soft tissue/skin involvement
sider superior mediastinum. Always cover LN –– Positive/close margins
Surgery Candidate Removed Contraindications
Mucosal CIS Mucosa T1+

stripping
Transoral T1a Part of TVC AC involvement
laser excision
/ cordectomy
Vertical T1a/b, ½ thyroid cart + £ B/L arytenoids,
partial some T2 1 and 1/3 TVC epiglottis involvement,
laryngectomy > 5 mm subglottic
extension, T3/T4
Supraglottic T1-2, T3 Upper ½ thyroid B/L arytenoid
vallecula laryngectomy by PES cart, PES, Fixed cord/any true
only epiglottis, AE cord
folds, FVCs, up to Inadequate lung
1 arytenoid (need reserve
to preserve 1) Thyroid/cricoid
cartilage
Total T3, T4a Hyoid, thyroid,
laryngectomy cricoid, entire
larynx + strap
muscles
(sternohyoid,
sternothyroid,
thyrohyoid,
sup/inf bellies of
omohyoid)
PC
––ECE
Nasopharynx Mandibular
condyle
Pterygoid plate Foramen

IJV magnum
RP
Tonsil node C1 Spinal canal
C2 Spinous
JD process
node
II
Vallecula C3
Pyriform sinus
C4
Hyoid
Thyroid carlage
C5 III
Arytenoids
True vocal cords
C6
Cricoid carlage
Subglos
hyroid Cancer: PTC, FTC, MTC,

T –– Medullary carcinoma (parafollicular/C cells)
and ATC [19–23, 112–120] –– Excrete calcitonin (↓serum calcium), can
be tracked
• T1 – –– 25% associated w/ MEN syndrome(RET,
• T1a – ≤1 cm Ch 10)
• T1b – 1–2 cm –– MEN2A: pheochromocytoma, hyper-
• T2 – 2–4 cm, capsule intact parathyroid, MTC
• T3 – –– MEN2B: marfanoid, ganglioneuromas,
• T3a – >4 cm but limited to thyroid pheochromocytoma, MTC
• T3b – Gross extrathyroidal extension into –– Don’t take up RAI
strap muscles –– Test RET on all patients
• T4 – –– Anaplastic carcinoma
• T4a – subQ, larynx, trachea, esophagus, –– ↑ age, mets, does not take up RAI
recurrent laryngeal, or any anaplastic
• T4b – prevertebral fascia, carotid, medias- Work-up
tinum (anaplastic out of thyroid) –– H&P, TSH, T3, T4
• N1a – level VI-VII –– CT (no iodine), +/– CT chest, +/− RAI scan
• N1b – level I-V or RPs –– For MTC: calcitonin, CEA, catecholamines,
RET
Papillary/follicular Papillary/follicular, Anaplastic
–– BRAF + TERT mutation: poor prognostic
medullary markers for PTC
<55 years old ≥55 years old
(and all medullary)
–– MEN2: rule out pheochromocytoma with
M0 I T1 or T2 I serum and urine catecholamines. Rule out
M1 II T1-2 & N1 II hyperparathyroidism with PTH and Ca
or T3
T4a III –– US, then FNA. ↓TSH ➔ thyroid radionuclide
T4b IVA N0 IVA scan:
M1 IVB T3b-4 IVB
or N1
• If functional ➔ no FNA
M1 IVC • If nonfunctional ➔ FNA
Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

Pathology –– PMH and Hong Kong retrospective reviews
–– Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) = papil- show ~90% LC, improved with RAI if stage
lary and follicular II+, >45 y/o. EBRT ↑LRC, but not OS or CSS
–– Papillary carcinoma (follicular cells)
–– Has a “follicular variant” Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer
–– Good prognosis except diffuse sclerosing, –– SEER (Chen): EBRT improved OS for
tall cell, columnar cell patients with >1 m survival and ETE, by no
–– Takes up RAI mets
–– Hurthle cell is a variant (does not take up –– De Crevoiser 2004: suggests treating with sur-
RAI) gery, then chemo, then 40 Gy BID, then
–– 30% LN+, 5% DM+ chemo again (cisplatin and doxorubicin)
–– Follicular carcinoma (Follicular cells)
–– Looks like follicular adenoma but invasive
–– Takes up RAI
–– Requires capsular or vascular invasion,
cannot be diagnosed on FNA
–– 10% LN+, 15% DM+
For Primary Therapy –– High risk is gross ETE, margin-positive, elevated

–– Total thyroidectomy for cT3 or cN1 or M1 post-op Tg, metastatic, give 100–200 mCi
–– Lobectomy or total thyroidectomy for cT1-2 –– Medullary: no RAI. Check RET proto-
cN0 oncogene. Get liver MRI
–– Lobectomy for cT1a –– Max lifetime dose 800 mCi
– – If cN+/pN+, then bilateral neck dissection
+ VI After RAI
–– With total thyroidectomy, can follow thyro-
globulin for recurrence (should be undetect- –– Resume levothyroxine 2–3 d after I–131.
able after total thyroidectomy) –– Restage.
–– Anaplastic rarely early stage. If early, still rec- –– Excellent response is negative imaging and
ommend resection. either suppressed Tg (<0.2 ng/mL) or TSH
stimulated Tg <1 ng/mL. see yearly.
Post-op –– Indeterminate response is indeterminate imag-
ing, non-stimulated Tg low (<1 ng/mL).
–– Check thyroglobulin, Tg ab. If pt has Tg ab, –– Biochemical incomplete response. Suppressed
then the Tg is not interpretable. Tg >1 ng/mL
–– Check TSH should be >30.
–– If distant mets seen on cross-section imaging NCCN
need 123-I imaging. –– Contains criteria for biopsy (anything >1 cm)
–– Surgery if feasible
Radioactive Iodine –– Neck dissection if <15 y/o, >45 y/o, RT his-
–– Use in PTC, FTC, HTC tory, T3+, N+
–– Avoid iodine contrast 4–6 months prior to –– RAI indications: ETE, >4 cm, post-op
treatment Thyroglobulin>5 ng/mL (consider for N+,
–– I: 8d half-life, 364 keV, beta minus
131
>1 cm, LVSI, anti Tg antibodies, poorly
–– Rx is 100–200 mCi with 5 days of scan differentiated)
–– Rescan 7–10 days following to ensure –– EBRT: no defined role, consider for:
uptake, then 4–6 months later to eval for –– Extensive R+ or ECE
new sites –– Unresectable disease that doesn’t take RAI
–– Low iodine diet, stop levothyroxine for 6 wks –– Tracheal involvement
(can give T3 for the first 3 weeks) –– Post-op locally invasive MTC (50/25)
–– Recombinant TSH (thyrogen) avoids with- –– Anaplastic histology (>5% of cells)
drawal symptoms prior to RAI scan –– Bulky mets after RAI
–– Side effects: sialadenitis, xerostomia, cystitis, –– Doses similar to SCC (50→70Gy)
gastritis, diarrhea, oligospermia
–– Maximum lifetime RAI dose is ~800 mCi RT
–– Primary + b/l neck: 70/66/60/54 in 35 Fx
Adjuvant Therapy RAI for any high risk –– PET/CT simulation
–– 70 for gross disease
–– Low risk: typically no RAI. –– 66 for + margin/microscopic disease
–– Intermediate risk is aggressive histology, –– 60 for HR neck
minor ETE, vascular invasion, or >5 LNs –– 54 for bilateral II-V + VI, VII and include
involved. Give 30 mCi (for ablation) – mediastinal LN to carina for N+
150 mCi (residual dz. in neck) –– Anaplastic = + low-dose Adriamycin or taxol
Melanoma [19–23, 121–139] • N1c – no nodes but in transit/satellite/

microsatellite
• T1 – ≤1 mm thick –– N2–2–3 nodes
• T1a – nonulcerated <0.8 mm • N2a – clinically occult
• T1b – ulcerated or 0.8–1.0 mm • N2b – at least one clinically apparent
• T2 – 1.01–2 mm thick • N2c – 1 clinical node and in transit/satel-
• T2a – nonulcerated lite/microsatellite
• T2b – ulcerated –– N3 – ≥ 4 nodes
• T3 – 2.01–4 mm thick • N3a – ≥ 4 nodes, all occult
• T3a – nonulcerated • N3b – ≥ 4 nodes some felt or matted nodes
• T3b – ulcerated • N3c – 2+ clinical nodes and in transit/satel-
• T4 – >4 mm thick lite/microsatellite
• T4a – nonulcerated • M1a – skin, subQ, distant nodes
• T4b – ulcerated • M1b – lung
–– N1–1 node • M1c – visceral non-CNS mets
• N1a – clinically occult node (SLNBx) • M1d – CNS mets
• N1b – clinically apparent node
Clinical staging
T1a T1b/T2a T2b/T3a T3b/T4a T4b
N0 IA IB IIA IIB IIC
cN+ III
M1 IV
Pathologic staging
T1a/T1b T2a T2b/T3a T3b/T4a T4b
N0 IA IB IIA IIB IIC
N+
pIIIA T1-T2a and N1a/N2a
pIIIB T1-T2a N1b/c r N2b or T2b-T3a NN1a-N2b
pIIIC T1-T3a N2c/N3 or T3b-4aN+ or T4b N1-
2c
pIIID T4bN3
M1 IV
General Workup
–– Subtypes: superficial spreading (65%), nodu- –– WLE with SLN
lar (25%) lentigo maligna, and acral –– <1 mm: nothing special
lentiginous. –– >1 mm, labs, CXR, consider CT for nodes
–– Wu, 2016: Sunburns are associated w –– No shave biopsy unless index of suspicion low
increased risk of melanoma (vs any other type –– LN+: PET-CT, MRI
of cancer): RR 2.41 in melanoma, 1.48 for –– SLNB if 1+ mm thickness. If pos, then com-
SCC, 1.18 for BCC. plete dissection of all involved LN basins.
–– ABCDE (for melanoma): asymmetry, borders, Twenty percent chance more LNs. Must do
color, diameter >5 mm, enlargement. dissection if cLN+.
–– Imaging: LND). Five-yr LRC 88%, OS 47%. This was

–– Stages 1–2: consider nodal US for equivo- better than historical outcomes. Toxicity toler-
cal exam findings able. OS better if LN burden lower. Based on
–– Stage 3: obtain PET and brain MRI these results, RTOG 9302 closed early due to
–– In transit: intra-lymphatic tumor in skin or poor accrual.
subQ tissue >2 cm from primary but not –– Chang 2006: 56 pts retrospective, 30/5 vs
past nearest regional nodes 60/30: no difference, more complications with
30/5.
Pathology –– TROG 96.06: 234 pts, 48/20 (if +margin
–– On report: got 50/21). 5 yr in field failure 6.8%, OS
–– Breslow thickness 36%. Rate of G3 lymphedema 19% in gorin
–– Mitotic rate and 9% in axilla. This RCT is precursor to
–– Ulceration 02.01.
–– Margin status –– MDACC/Ballo et al.: Risk factors for nodal
–– Microsatellitosis recurrence: ECE, 4+ LNs involved, any LN
–– PNI measuring >3 cm, cervical LN location,
–– Clark Level (if <1 mm) recurrence.
–– LVSI –– TROG 02.01: phase III, 250 pts.
–– Breslow method: path assessment of primary Resection+LND, then observation vs 48/20.
tumor thickness Dose technically designed for lymphatics.
–– Clark method: path assessment of primary Had to have at least 1 high-risk feature: 1+
tumor level of DOI parotid LN, 2+ axillary LN, 3+ groin LN, any
–– Clark Levels ECE, LN ≥3 cm in neck, LN ≥4 cm in axilla
–– I: epidermis only or groin. RT ↑LRC (60→82%, SS) but did not
–– II: into papillary dermis affect RFS, OS.
–– III: filling papillary dermis, compressing –– Overgaard: primary RT. 50 Gy in 20 fx with
reticular dermis 100–250 kv, 1.5 cm margin and hyperthermia.
–– IV: invading reticular dermis Consider in lentigo maligna of the face.
–– V: into subQ
–– S-100+, melan-A+, HNB-45 Surgery
–– BRAF if M1 –– IA: WLE alone, no SLNB
–– IB2: WLE + SLNB. 1 cm margin for T1. 2 cm
Surgical Margins margin for T2 4
–– III: WLE
–– The UK melanoma study group: 1–2 cm vs
3–5 cm margins. For >1 mm depth, 2 cm surg Adjuvant Ipilimumab
margins wins. In case of LRR, 5-year OS is –– Ipi is anti-CTLA4 antibody
10%. If no LRR, 5-y OS 86%. –– Eggermont, 2016: Stage III melanoma ran-
domized to placebo vs ipi. Five-year RFS
Adjuvant Therapy 41 vs 30%; 5-year OS 65% vs 54%, favor-
ing ipi
–– Interferon alpha (ECOG 1684/1690/1694): –– Hodi, 2010: M+ melanoma. Ipi improved
IFN-alpha for T4 or N+ pts provided ↑ 10% MST by 10 mos vs gp100. Median OS 9 m vs
RFS, not OS. 11 m. >10% OS advantage at 1-, 2-, 3-year
–– Ang 1994: phase II. patients had high-risk time points
features, inc Breslow >1.5 mm, clinically –– Robert, 2011: M+ melanoma. Dacarbazine
LN+, recurrent dz. 79 pts WLE + 30 Gy/5 +/− ipi. MST w ipi 9–11 mos. 3–y OS 20 vs
twice weekly over 2.5w (some patients got 12%
Definitive RT Primary site Nodes

–– RTOG 8305: Showed 32/4 same as 50/20, CR Volume RT to encompass the site Nodal
~25% scar with 3–4 cm margin basin
–– Overgaard 1995: 24 or 27 Gy in 3 fx over
8 days followed by hyperthermia.
–– Contouring/planning based on location.
Hyperthermia and 27 Gy improved LC (each
Immobilize and use bolus 5 mm
~25→50%)
–– Electrons: Similar to MCC. Primary +4–5 cm
margin to blocked edge. Can use smaller mar-
NCCN
gin of 2–3 cm if in head and neck
–– Surgery for everyone
–– Photons: same for electrons but mainly when
–– Stage 1: T1-T2a, N0
LNs needed to be covered
• WLE [w 1 cm margin for T1, 2 cm for T2]
• (+SLNB if >1 mitosis/HPF or T1b)
Metastatic Disease
–– Stage 2: T2b-T4b, N0
–– Ipilimumab (CTLA4 antibody) improves OS
• WLE [w 2 cm margin]
–– Vemurafenib, dabrafenib (BRAF inhibitors,
• + SLNB
V600 mutation)
–– Stage 3: Node (+)
–– IL-2
• WLE w 2 cm margin + LND
–– Imatinib (C-kit)
• Systemic options: nivo (preferred), dab-
rafenib/trametinib for BRAF V600+, high-
Outcomes
dose ipi, or interferon alpha.
–– LC stage I/II: 80–90%
• Hold BRAF/MEKi during RT
–– Stage III w/ adjuvant RT: RR 20%
–– Stage 4: M1
–– OS 50%
• If limited, resect. Otherwise, systemic tx.
Radiation Therapy
Mucosal Melanoma
Primary site Nodes
Indications (almost never) ECE –– T3 and T4 only
for RT R+ 4+ LNs in –– Sinus/nasal cavity: surgery with ND if N1 or
extensive neurotropism groin
4+ LN in
def RT if T4b
axilla –– PORT to primary site and include neck if N1
2+ cervical –– OC/OPX, LX, HPX: surgery, ND, PORT. If
3+ cm LN T4b, then def RT
Doses 70/35 60/30
50/20 (2.5 Gy) 48/20
35/5 (7 Gy) (2.4 Gy)
30/5
(6 Gy)
kin Squamous Cell and Basal Cell

S –– BCC: low PNI, LN, or DM
Carcinoma (SCC/BCC) [19–23, –– SCC: PNI in 10%. If G3, >3 cm, DOI >4 mm,
140–144] lips or temple, then 15% LN met.
–– Gorlin syndrome: increase risk BCC, medullo,
• T1 – ≤ 2 cm RT sensitivity
• T2–2–4 cm
• T3 –> 4 cm or minor bone erosion or PNI 1+ Anatomic Areas
mm or deep –– Nasal vestibule, w epithelium that is hair fol-
• T4 licle bearing skin. Triangular space. Nasal
• T4a – gross cortical bone invasion vestibule SCCs extremely rare, tend to do
• T4b – skull base invasion worse
• Borders: Limen nasi (post); alae nasi (lat);
T1 T2 T3 T4
membranous septum and coumella
N0 I II III IV (medial); floor of nasal cavity(inf)
N1 III
N2 Workup
N3 IV
M1 –– H&P, exam, biopsy
–– Contraindications to RT: XP, Gorlin’s syn-
drome/basal cell nevus syndrome, epidermo-
AJCC8: No staging system for BCC or cuta- dysplasia verruciformis
neous SCC outside H&N –– If HN, then do neuro exam specifically assess-
ing CN5 and seven for PNI
cN1 Single ipsi node pN1 Single ipsi node
≤3 cm, no ECE ≤3 cm, no ECE
–– If medial/let canthus lesion, CT to assess DOI
cN2 pN2 into orbit
cN2a Single ipsi, pN2a Single ipsi, 3–6 cm, –– PET if LN+
3–6 cm, no ECE no ECE; or <3 cm –– MRI if PNI
with ECE
cN2b Multiple ipsi, pN2b Multiple ipsi, 3–6 cm,
Retrospective Reports
3–6 cm, no ECE no ECE
cN2c Bilateral or pN2c Bilateral or contralat, –– Rogers and Coldiron 2009: showed that RT
contralat, 3–6 cm, no ECE was most expensive treatment of available
3–6 cm, no ECE options
cN3 pN3 –– Roussy 1988: survery vs RT (interstitial or
cN3a >6 cm, no ECE pN3a > 6 cm, no ECE
orthovoltage). Surgery won. LC 7.5→0.7%.
cN3b Any clinically pN3b Single >3 cm with
overt ECE ECE; or multi-nodes Orthovoltage was best of RT options (5%)
with any ECE –– Balamucki et al. pts with BCC or SCC with
PNI benefit from ENI (18–0% neck failure)
Nasal Vestibule SCC Chemo

• T1 – superficial, only in vestibule –– Vismodegib, a SHH inhibitor, approved in
• T2 – skin of nose, upper lip, nasal septum 2012, for LA and M+ BCC
• T3 – bone, deep muscle
Surgery Background
General –– BCC: 4 mm SMs
–– Associated conditions: albino, xeroderma pig- –– SCC: 5–6 mm SMs
mentosum, Turcot syndrome, Fanconi –– There has been a RCT of surgery vs RT. RFS
Anemia, Gorlin syndrome is 0.7 vs. 7.5% for surgery vs RT. Cosmetic
–– Marjolin’s ulcer: SCC from chronic outcome also better with surgery
inflammation
High-Risk Factors for Local Recurrence • Range (<5% dose) is E/2 (cm)
–– Trunk and extremities >2 cm; check/ • Required thickness of lead shielding
forehead/scalp/neck >1 cm; mask areas of the (mm) = E/2
face, genitalia, hands, feet >6 mm
–– Poorly circumscribed
–– Recurrent Standard Skin SCC, NCCN
–– Immune suppression
–– Prior RT or chronic inflammation –– Prefer WLE or Mohs
–– PNI –– PORT for high-risk features
–– Rapid growth –– T3/4
–– G3-4 –– parotid gland
–– adenoid/adenosquamous/desmoplastic –– R+
–– Clark level IV/V or >2–5 mm thick. –– PNI: should be of a named nerve bc nerves
–– For SCC: acantholytic, adenosquamous, des- <0.1 mm tend to not have higher LRs vs no
moplastic, or metaplastic PNI.
–– For BCC: morpheaform, basosquamous, scle- –– Multi high-risk features (>2 mm thick,
rosing, mixed infiltrative, or micronodular clarke ≥IV (invades reticular dermis), pni,
poorly/undiff, ear or nonhair bearing lip)
Orthovoltage Background –– Indication for RT to regional LNs: N2+,
–– Has max dose at surface, less beam constric- ECE, T3/4, PNI
tion at surface and depth, can use smaller –– Topical 5FU/imiquimod for low-risk superfi-
fields, has less penetration through eye shields cial BCC
–– However, has higher exit dose than electrons, –– Definitive RT for
higher absorption in bone/cartilage, not avail- –– high risk or nonsurgical candidates, e.g.,
able in most depths large lesion of scalp, ears, forehead
(>2 cm); central face including >0.5 cm
Electron Background involving the eyelids, ala, nose, lips
–– Similar outcomes to photons –– cartilage, bone, muscle involvement
–– Have lower RBE than orthovoltage X-rays by –– recurrent
15–20% and require commensurate increase –– Neck treatment same as other H&N cancer. If
in dose. Thus, most authors of NCCN will near parotid, treat parotid and levels II–IV on
equate electrons dosed to 90% IDL vs ortho- hemineck
voltage dose to dmax
–– Require bolus, at least 0.5–1 cm RT Contraindications
–– Confirm w OSLDs and phantom –– Poor blood supply (shin, back of hand)
–– Require larger field size to allow sufficient –– Gorlin’s syndrome
buildup and account for lateral constriction, –– ATM
usually 1.0–1.5 cm margin. Wider margins –– Xeroderma pigmentosum
necessary than w orthovoltage X-rays bc of –– Scleroderma
constriction of higher IDLs at depth
–– “Tertiary collimation”: using lead on the skin Sim
to reduce beam penumbra and make tighter –– Based on location. Immobilize and use bolus
margins for OARs. Does not work for superfi- 5 mm
cial X-rays bc of backscatter
–– 4-3-2-2 rule.
–– For an electron beam with energy, E
• Depth to 90% dose (cm) at E/4 cm
• Depth to 80% dose (cm) at E/3 cm
Contouring/Planning Chemo
–– Electrons –– BCC: only if metastatic (hedgehog inhibitor)
–– Primary/post-op area plus 1.5 cm margin –– SCC: may consider cisplatin for locally
–– 6–12 MeV advanced cases
–– Prescribe to 90% IDL
–– Lead eye shield: use if treating medial can-
thus/eyelid tumors
–– Try to block out lacrimal gland
–– Photons
–– Use IMRT when covering regional LNs
Tumor RT
diam margins Dose
<2 cm 1–1.5 cm 60–64 Gy/30–32 fx @ 2 Gy in
6–6.4 w
55 Gy/20 fx @ 2.75 Gy in 4 w
50 Gy/15 fx in 3 w
30 Gy/5 fx in 2–3 w
12–20 Gy/1 fraction for
symptomatic management of
large bleeding tumors of very ill/
nursing home type patient
>2 cm 1.5–2 cm 66–70 Gy/33–35 fx @ 2 Gy in
6.6–7 w
55 Gy/20 fx @ 2.75 Gy in 4w
Post-op 50 Gy/20 fx @ 2.5 Gy
60 Gy/30 fx
Nasal Vestibule SCC Medial Canthus SCC
–– Behaves like a skin cancer but stages as nasal Treatment Paradigm

cavity –– Mohs w flap. If R+, re-resect or RT. Or defini-
–– H&P: Nodal exam. Note extension to septum tive RT if plan for R2
or lip. Intranasal endoscopy and biopsy
–– MRI for depth, LN, PNI Indications for Adjuvant RT
–– To primary: R+, PNI, DOI >4 mm, multiple
Treatment HR features
–– Surgery then RT –– To regional LNs: N2+, ECE, T3/4, PNI
–– Supine with immobilization
–– Intraoral stent to displace tongue posteriorly Technique
and partially shield upper alveolar ridge –– En Face Electrons
–– Fill nasal cavity with bolus as much as • Always cover CN PNI to BOS
possible • 6–9 MeV, prescribe to 90% IDL
–– Wax bolus over entire nose to convert it into a • Pack nose with bolus/saline gauze and lead
box-like contour to improve dose distribution. shielding
Lead skin collimation and wax bolus over • Custom beeswax bolus over the treatment
nose area
• Ceramic-coated lead lens cup (Pb
Dose
mm = MeV/2) during treatment: need anes-
Tumor Targets (Gy)
<1.5 cm and GTV + 2 cm 66 thetic drops for daily placement, risk of
well diff corneal injury due to loss of corneal reflex
>1.5 cm or GTV + 2 cm 66 so must patch the eye after daily treatment
poor diff Vestibule, anterior nasal 60 • Try to block out lacrimal gland
cavity, 2 cm margin above lip –– Photons: Use IMRT when need to cover
Bilat facial, level IB-II 54
regional LNs
N+: ChemoRT GTV + 0.5 cm 70
Vestibule, anterior nasal 60
cavity, 2 cm margin above lip
Bilat facial, level IB-IV 54
erkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC)

M Immunostains
[19–23, 145–148] –– Positive
–– NSE, though also found in SCLC, SC
• T1 – ≤2 cm melanoma
• T2–2–5 cm –– 80–100% caused by Merkel cell polyoma-
• T3 – >5 cm virus (MCPyV)
• T4 – into bone, muscle, fascia, cartilage –– CK20: + in 95%
• M1a – skin, subQ, distant nodes; M1b – lung; –– Negative
M1c – other –– TTF1, CK7: found in neuroendocrine ca of
lung. Negative in 95% of MC
cN1 Regional nodes pN1 –– PS100: found in melanoma
pN1a Clinically occult –– HMB45
nodes –– CD45: found in lymphoma
pN1b Clinically apparent –– LCA: found in lymphoma
nodes
cN2 In-transit mets, no pN2 In transit mets, no
nodes nodes Anatomy
cN3 In-transit mets and pN3 In transit mets and –– HN, 36%; UE, 22%; trunk, 11%; LE, 15%
nodes nodes
Workup
–– H&P (nodal exam), Biopsy (check CK-20,
Clinical staging
NSE – should be positive), CT, MR, or
T1 T2 T3 T4
PET-CT. For non-HN need SLNB. The use of
N0 I IIA IIB
SLNBx debated for H/N as drainage can be
N+ III
erratic
M1 IV
–– SLNB+ ➔ LN dissection and/or RT to LNs
–– SLNB- ➔ observe nodal basin
Pathologic staging
T1 T2 T3 T4
Retrospective Reports
N0 I IIA IIB –– Mojica 2007: SEER analysis, 1665 pts, sur-
N1a IIIA gery +/− PORT. RT improved mean survival
N1b-N3 IIIB for all size tumors.
M1 IV –– TROG 96.07, Poulsen 2003, 2006: phase II,
high risk (e.g., primary >1cm_, cLN+, recur-
rence after initial surgery (outside prior RT
General field), R2, occult primary w + LNs, biopsy
–– Arises from Merkel cells (tactile receptors, proven MCC: 1996–2001. n = 53. 50/25 with
maybe neural crest derived) concurrent carbo AUC 4.5/etop 80 mg/m2. For
–– “Extrapulmonary small cell”/cutaneous neu- RT, margins were 3–5 cm. Bolus PRN. Dermal
roendocrine carcinoma/trabecular carcinoma. lymphatic and regional LNs covered if within
Not good 20 cm of primary. Clinically uninvolved LNs
–– Risk factors: males, age >70, immunosuppres- txd to 45 Gy. Chemo was q3w × 4c. 3 yr LRC
sion, CLL, UV rad exposure, Merkel cell 75%, DMFS 76%, OS 76%. No benefit of
polyomavirus CRT over historical controls.
–– T1–-2 N0 Merkel: if <1 cm, rate of LNs is 0%;
for 1–2 cm, rate of LNs is 25%.
NCCN Palliation [149–151]

–– WLE with 1–2 cm SMs. For cN0, do Pain/Symptom Management
SLNB. For cN1, proceed with biopsy, then
imaging. Assess for adjuvant RT. –– QUAD SHOT: 14 Gy over 4 BID fractions in
2 days. Can repeat x2 every 4 weeks up to a
Scenario Dose
Gross tumor 60–66 Gy
dose of 42 Gy/12 fractions, if tolerated.
Microscopic disease (or s/p SLNB or LND) 56–60 Gy Provided BED just below the threshold for
R0 or N0 50 Gy mucositis; thus, toxicity is minimal.
–– 0-7-21: Give 8 Gy on day 1, then again on day
• Primary site 8, then again on day 22. In a single arm
–– T < 1 cm, N0: observation is option if mar- Ontario trial, 40% CR for symptoms, 31%
gins >1–2 cm. Note this is rare. decrease in tumor size, 42% PR symptoms,
–– All others: RT to primary, 3–5 cm of mar- 50% PR in tumor size
gin for risk of in-transit mets. –– Split course: 20Gy/5 or 30Gy/10, 3–4 week
If PNI, always cover CN5 and 7 to BOS. break, then reassess
• “The RT field for Merkel cells stops when you –– Aggressive palliation: 50Gy/20, could plan
run into a critical organ. In a few weeks, for 2 week break after 10 fx
Merkel cell will fail at your field margin.”
• Dose typically 50–55Gy if R0, 60 if R1, 66 if
R2. Sialorrhea
• Nodal bed
–– SLNB: if SLNB not performed and cN0, –– Treat inferior 2/3 of the parotids and entire
LN RT given if suspicion high, 45–50Gy; if SMGs. 81% PR. Median dose is 5 Gy, to
cN+, 60-66Gy 10–15 Gy.
–– SLNB without LND:
–– SLNB(−), LN RT not indicated unless
large tumor. If in H/N or risk for false Graves ophthalmopathy
neg, then 46–50 Gy
–– SLNB(+), LN RT indicated to regional –– Autoimmune process of retroorbital space
lymphatics. Treat axilla or groin to –– Activation of T-cells by TSH antigen, causes
50–54 Gy, HN to 56–60 Gy. If covering cytokine production (TNF and IFN-g), causes
regional LNs, always cover in-transit retroorbital fibroblasts to produce hydrophilic
sites. glycosaminoglycans
–– Glycosaminoglycans changes osmotic bal-
Outcomes, OS5 by Stage ance with accompanying influx of fluid and
–– 1: 75% pressure in retroorbital space
–– 2: 50% –– RT rationale: decreases lymphocyte concen-
–– 3: 25% tration, GAG production
–– 4: <5% –– Treatment:
• For mild sx (e.g., photophobia, wind sensi-
tivity), conservative management recom-
mended. When pt develops chronic
irritation, diplopia, and/or proptosis, trial
of prednisone 30 mg/d for 4w should be
initiated.
• RT if patients do not have “burnt-out” Graves.
• 20 Gy/10 fx per eye over 2 w. No benefit to
dose escalation (Petersen 1990, 30 Gy no
better).
References induced oral mucositis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg.

2012;50:221–6.
14. Delanian S, Chatel C, Porcher R, et al. Complete resto-
1. Apisarnthanarax S, Elliott DD, El-Naggar AK, et al.
ration of refractory mandibular osteoradionecrosis by
Determining optimal clinical target volume mar-
prolonged treatment with a pentoxifylline-tocopherol-
gins in head-and-neck cancer based on microscopic
clodronate combination (PENTOCLO): a phase II
extracapsular extension of metastatic neck nodes. Int
trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80:832–9.
J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64:678–83.
15. Garcia-Serra A, Amdur RJ, Morris CG, et al. Thyroid
2. Ben-David MA, Diamante M, Radawski JD, et al.
function should be monitored following radiotherapy
Lack of osteoradionecrosis of the mandible after
to the low neck. Am J Clin Oncol. 2005;28:255–8.
intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck
16. Mercado G, Adelstein DJ, Saxton JP, et al.
cancer: likely contributions of both dental care and
Hypothyroidism: a frequent event after radiother-
improved dose distributions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
apy and after radiotherapy with chemotherapy for
Phys. 2007;68:396–402.
patients with head and neck carcinoma. Cancer.
3. Caudell JJ, Schaner PE, Desmond RA, et al.
2001;92:2892–7.
Dosimetric factors associated with long-term dys-
17. Henke M, Alfonsi M, Foa P, et al. Palifermin
phagia after definitive radiotherapy for squamous
decreases severe oral mucositis of patients undergo-
cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Int J Radiat
ing postoperative radiochemotherapy for head and
Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:403–9.
neck cancer: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.
4. Chen AM, Li BQ, Lau DH, et al. Evaluating the role
J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2815–20.
of prophylactic gastrostomy tube placement prior to
18. Chen AM, Hall WH, Li J, et al. Brachial plexus-
definitive chemoradiotherapy for head and neck can-
associated neuropathy after high-dose radiation
cer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78:1026–32.
therapy for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol
5. Kotz T, Federman AD, Kao J, et al. Prophylactic
Biol Phys. 2012;84:165–9.
swallowing exercises in patients with head and
19. Martinez-Monge R, Gomez-Iturriaga A, Cambeiro
neck cancer undergoing chemoradiation: a ran-
M, et al. Phase I-II trial of perioperative high-dose-
domized trial. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
rate brachytherapy in oral cavity and oropharyngeal
2012;138:376–82.
cancer. Brachytherapy. 2009;8:26–33.
6. McGuirt WF, McCabe BF. Significance of node
20. Cook B, Dvorak T. Wikibooks Radiation Oncology.
biopsy before definitive treatment of cervical meta-
static carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 1978;88:594–7.
7. Mehanna H, Wong WL, McConkey CC, et al.
21. Edge S, Byrd D, Compton C, et al. AJCC cancer
PET-CT surveillance versus neck dissection in
staging manual. New York: Springer; 2010.
advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med.
2016;374:1444–54.
radiation oncology. 2nd ed. Cham: Springer; 2010.
8. Ettl T, El-Gindi A, Hautmann M, et al. Positive
23. Hristov B, Lin SH, Christodouleas JP. Radiation
frozen section margins predict local recurrence in
oncology – a question based review. 2nd ed: LWW;
R0-resected squamous cell carcinoma of the head
2014.
and neck. Oral Oncol. 2016;55:17–23.
24. Mortality in patients with small choroidal mela-
9. Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr, Fayette J, et al.
noma. COMS report no. 4. The Collaborative
Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell car-
Ocular Melanoma Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol.
cinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med.
1997;115:886–93.
2016;375:1856–67.
25. The COMS randomized trial of iodine 125 brachy-
10. Gregoire V, Ang K, Budach W, et al. Delineation
therapy for choroidal melanoma: V. Twelve-year
of the neck node levels for head and neck tumors:
mortality rates and prognostic factors: COMS report
a 2013 update. DAHANCA, EORTC, HKNPCSG,
No. 28. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:1684–93.
NCIC CTG, NCRI, RTOG, TROG consensus guide-
26. Diener-West M, Hawkins BS, Markowitz JA, et al. A
lines. Radiother Oncol. 2014;110:172–81.
review of mortality from choroidal melanoma. II. A
11. Gregoire V, Eisbruch A, Hamoir M, et al. Proposal
meta-analysis of 5-year mortality rates following
for the delineation of the nodal CTV in the node-
enucleation, 1966 through 1988. Arch Ophthalmol.
positive and the post-operative neck. Radiother
1992;110:245–50.
Oncol. 2006;79:15–20.
27. Hawkins BS. The Collaborative Ocular Melanoma
12. Annane D, Depondt J, Aubert P, et al. Hyperbaric
Study (COMS) randomized trial of pre-enucleation
oxygen therapy for radionecrosis of the jaw: a
radiation of large choroidal melanoma: IV. Ten-year
randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind
mortality findings and prognostic factors. COMS report
trial from the ORN96 study group. J Clin Oncol.
number 24. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:936–51.
2004;22:4893–900.
28. Nag S, Quivey JM, Earle JD, et al. The American
13. Bardy J, Molassiotis A, Ryder WD, et al. A double-
Brachytherapy Society recommendations for
blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of active
brachytherapy of uveal melanomas. Int J Radiat
manuka honey and standard oral care for radiation-
29. Straatsma BR, Diener-West M, Caldwell R, et al. a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Radiat
Mortality after deferral of treatment or no treat- Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66:981–91.
ment for choroidal melanoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 42. Bristol IJ, Ahamad A, Garden AS, et al. Postoperative
2003;136:47–54. radiotherapy for maxillary sinus cancer: long-term
30. Al-Sarraf M, LeBlanc M, Giri PG, et al. outcomes and toxicities of treatment. Int J Radiat
Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy in patients Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68:719–30.
with advanced nasopharyngeal cancer: phase III 43. Dulguerov P, Jacobsen MS, Allal AS, et al. Nasal
randomized Intergroup study 0099. J Clin Oncol. and paranasal sinus carcinoma: are we making
1998;16:1310–7. progress? A series of 220 patients and a systematic
31. Baujat B, Audry H, Bourhis J, et al. Chemotherapy review. Cancer. 2001;92:3012–29.
in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an 44. Le QT, Fu KK, Kaplan MJ, et al. Lymph node
individual patient data meta-analysis of eight ran- metastasis in maxillary sinus carcinoma. Int J Radiat
domized trials and 1753 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46:541–9.
Biol Phys. 2006;64:47–56. 45. Allen MW, Schwartz DL, Rana V, et al. Long-term
32. Chen QY, Wen YF, Guo L, et al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy outcomes for nasal cavity and septal can-
radiotherapy vs radiotherapy alone in stage II naso- cers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:401–6.
pharyngeal carcinoma: phase III randomized trial. J 46. Cantu G, Bimbi G, Miceli R, et al. Lymph node
Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1761–70. metastases in malignant tumors of the parana-
33. Lee AW, Lau WH, Tung SY, et al. Preliminary sal sinuses: prognostic value and treatment. Arch
results of a randomized study on therapeutic gain by Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;134:170–7.
concurrent chemotherapy for regionally-advanced 47. Kim SJ, Kim K, Kim BS, et al. Phase II trial of con-
nasopharyngeal carcinoma: NPC-9901 Trial by the current radiation and weekly cisplatin followed by
Hong Kong Nasopharyngeal Cancer Study Group. J VIPD chemotherapy in newly diagnosed, stage IE to
Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6966–75. IIE, nasal, extranodal NK/T-Cell Lymphoma: con-
34. Lee AW, Tung SY, Chan AT, et al. Preliminary sortium for improving survival of lymphoma study. J
results of a randomized study (NPC-9902 Trial) on Clin Oncol. 2009;27:6027–32.
therapeutic gain by concurrent chemotherapy and/or 48. Isobe K, Uno T, Tamaru J, et al. Extranodal natu-
accelerated fractionation for locally advanced naso- ral killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type: the sig-
pharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. nificance of radiotherapeutic parameters. Cancer.
2006;66:142–51. 2006;106:609–15.
35. Lee N, Harris J, Garden AS, et al. Intensity- 49. Ang KK, Harris J, Wheeler R, et al. Human papillo-
modulated radiation therapy with or without che- mavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal
motherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: radiation cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:24–35.
therapy oncology group phase II trial 0225. J Clin 50. Ang KK, Trotti A, Brown BW, et al. Randomized
Oncol. 2009;27:3684–90. trial addressing risk features and time factors
36. Lee N, Xia P, Quivey JM, et al. Intensity-modulated of surgery plus radiotherapy in advanced head-
radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
carcinoma: an update of the UCSF experience. Int J 2001;51:571–8.
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53:12–22. 51. Beitler JJ, Zhang Q, Fu KK, et al. Final results of
37. Sultanem K, Shu HK, Xia P, et al. Three-dimensional local-regional control and late toxicity of RTOG
intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment 9003: a randomized trial of altered fractionation
of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: the University of radiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer.
California-San Francisco experience. Int J Radiat Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89:13–20.
Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48:711–22. 52. Bernier J, Cooper JS, Pajak TF, et al. Defining
38. Lin JC, Wang WY, Liang WM, et al. Long-term risk levels in locally advanced head and neck can-
prognostic effects of plasma epstein-barr virus DNA cers: a comparative analysis of concurrent postop-
by minor groove binder-probe real-time quantitative erative radiation plus chemotherapy trials of the
PCR on nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients receiv- EORTC (#22931) and RTOG (# 9501). Head Neck.
ing concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Int J Radiat 2005;27:843–50.
Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68:1342–8. 53. Bernier J, Domenge C, Ozsahin M, et al.
39. Wei WI, Sham JS. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Postoperative irradiation with or without concomi-
Lancet. 2005;365:2041–54. tant chemotherapy for locally advanced head and
40. Kam MK, Leung SF, Zee B, et al. Prospective neck cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1945–52.
randomized study of intensity-modulated radio- 54. Calais G, Alfonsi M, Bardet E, et al. Randomized
therapy on salivary gland function in early-stage trial of radiation therapy versus concomitant che-
nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. J Clin Oncol. motherapy and radiation therapy for advanced-
2007;25:4873–9. stage oropharynx carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst.
41. Pow EH, Kwong DL, McMillan AS, et al. Xerostomia 1999;91:2081–6.
and quality of life after intensity-modulated radio- 55. Cooper JS, Pajak TF, Forastiere AA, et al.
therapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for early- Postoperative concurrent radiotherapy and che-
stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: initial report on motherapy for high-risk squamous-cell car-
cinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med. papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal squamous cell
2004;350:1937–44. carcinoma. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:358–65.
56. Eisbruch A, Harris J, Garden AS, et al. Multi- 70. Huang SH, Perez-Ordonez B, Weinreb I, et al.
institutional trial of accelerated hypofractionated Natural course of distant metastases following radio-
intensity-modulated radiation therapy for early-stage therapy or chemoradiotherapy in HPV-related oro-
oropharyngeal cancer (RTOG 00-22). Int J Radiat pharyngeal cancer. Oral Oncol. 2013;49:79–85.
Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:1333–8. 71. Chin RI, Spencer CR, DeWees T, et al. Reevaluation
57. Grabenbauer GG, Rodel C, Brunner T, et al. of postoperative radiation dose in the management
Interstitial brachytherapy with Ir-192 low-dose-rate of human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal
in the treatment of primary and recurrent cancer cancer. Head Neck. 2016;38:1643–9.
of the oral cavity and oropharynx. Review of 318 72. Overgaard J, Mohanti BK, Begum N, et al. Five
patients treated between 1985 and 1997. Strahlenther versus six fractions of radiotherapy per week for
Onkol. 2001;177:338–44. squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck
58. Marcial VA, Pajak TF, Kramer S, et al. Radiation (IAEA-ACC study): a randomised, multicentre trial.
Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) studies in head Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:553–60.
and neck cancer. Semin Oncol. 1988;15:39–60. 73. Koutcher L, Sherman E, Fury M, et al. Concurrent
59. Pignon JP, le Maitre A, Maillard E, et al. Meta- cisplatin and radiation versus cetuximab and radia-
analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer tion for locally advanced head-and-neck cancer. Int J
(MACH-NC): an update on 93 randomised trials and Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81:915–22.
17,346 patients. Radiother Oncol. 2009;92:4–14. 74. Chera BS, Amdur RJ, Tepper J, et al. Phase 2 trial of
60. Posner MR, Hershock DM, Blajman CR, de-intensified chemoradiation therapy for favorable-
et al. Cisplatin and fluorouracil alone or with risk human papillomavirus-associated oropharyn-
docetaxel in head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med. geal squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol
2007;357:1705–15. Biol Phys. 2015;93:976–85.
61. Vermorken JB, Remenar E, van Herpen C, et al. Cisplatin, 75. Fakhry C, Zhang Q, Nguyen-Tan PF, et al. Human
fluorouracil, and docetaxel in unresectable head and papillomavirus and overall survival after progression
neck cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1695–704. of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin
62. D’Cruz AK, Vaish R, Kapre N, et al. Elective ver- Oncol. 2014;32:3365–73.
sus therapeutic neck dissection in node-negative oral 76. O’Sullivan B, Huang SH, Perez-Ordonez B, et al.
cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:521–9. Outcomes of HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer
63. Kuo P, Mehra S, Sosa JA, et al. Proposing prognostic patients treated by radiotherapy alone using altered
thresholds for lymph node yield in clinically lymph fractionation. Radiother Oncol. 2012;103:49–56.
node-negative and lymph node-positive cancers of 77. Porceddu SV, Pryor DI, Burmeister E, et al.
the oral cavity. Cancer. 2016;122:3624–31. Results of a prospective study of positron emission
64. Daly ME, Le QT, Kozak MM, et al. Intensity- tomography-directed management of residual nodal
modulated radiotherapy for oral cavity squamous abnormalities in node-positive head and neck can-
cell carcinoma: patterns of failure and predic- cer after definitive radiotherapy with or without sys-
tors of local control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. temic therapy. Head Neck. 2011;33:1675–82.
2011;80:1412–22. 78. Barker CA, Morris CG, Mendenhall WM. Larynx-
65. Peters LJ, Goepfert H, Ang KK, et al. Evaluation sparing radiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma
of the dose for postoperative radiation therapy of from an unknown head and neck primary site. Am J
head and neck cancer: first report of a prospective Clin Oncol. 2005;28:445–8.
randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 79. Erkal HS, Mendenhall WM, Amdur RJ, et al.
1993;26:3–11. Squamous cell carcinomas metastatic to cervi-
66. Blanchard P, Baujat B, Holostenco V, et al. Meta- cal lymph nodes from an unknown head-and-neck
analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer mucosal site treated with radiation therapy alone or
(MACH-NC): a comprehensive analysis by tumour in combination with neck dissection. Int J Radiat
site. Radiother Oncol. 2011;100:33–40. Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50:55–63.
67. Ang KK, Zhang Q, Rosenthal DI, et al. Randomized 80. McQuone SJ, Eisele DW, Lee DJ, et al. Occult
phase III trial of concurrent accelerated radiation tonsillar carcinoma in the unknown primary.
plus cisplatin with or without cetuximab for stage III Laryngoscope. 1998;108:1605–10.
to IV head and neck carcinoma: RTOG 0522. J Clin 81. Reddy SP, Marks JE. Metastatic carcinoma in the
Oncol. 2014;32:2940–50. cervical lymph nodes from an unknown primary site:
68. O’Sullivan B, Huang SH, Su J, et al. Development results of bilateral neck plus mucosal irradiation vs.
and validation of a staging system for HPV- ipsilateral neck irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
related oropharyngeal cancer by the International Phys. 1997;37:797–802.
Collaboration on Oropharyngeal cancer Network 82. Shoushtari A, Saylor D, Kerr KL, et al. Outcomes
for Staging (ICON-S): a multicentre cohort study. of patients with head-and-neck cancer of unknown
Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:440–51. primary origin treated with intensity-modulated
69. Husain ZA, Chen T, Corso CD, et al. A comparison radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
of prognostic ability of staging systems for human 2011;81:e83–91.
83. Galloway TJ, Ridge JA. Management of squamous n onsurgical treatment strategies to preserve the lar-
cancer metastatic to cervical nodes with an unknown ynx in patients with locally advanced larynx cancer.
primary site. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3328–37. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:845–52.
84. Jesse RH, Perez CA, Fletcher GH. Cervical lymph 97. Lefebvre JL, Andry G, Chevalier D, et al. Laryngeal
node metastasis: unknown primary cancer. Cancer. preservation with induction chemotherapy for
1973;31:854–9. hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma:
85. Mourad WF, Hu KS, Shasha D, et al. Initial expe- 10-year results of EORTC trial 24891. Ann Oncol.
rience with oropharynx-targeted radiation therapy 2012;23:2708–14.
for metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of unknown 98. Lefebvre JL, Rolland F, Tesselaar M, et al.
primary of the head and neck. Anticancer Res. Phase 3 randomized trial on larynx preserva-
2014;34:243–8. tion comparing sequential vs alternating che-
86. Chen AM, Bucci MK, Quivey JM, et al. Long-term motherapy and radiotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst.
outcome of patients treated by radiation therapy 2009;101:142–52.
alone for salivary gland carcinomas. Int J Radiat 99. Olsen KD. Reexamining the treatment of advanced
Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66:1044–50. laryngeal cancer. Head Neck. 2010;32:1–7.
87. Chen AM, Bucci MK, Weinberg V, et al. Adenoid 100. Richard JM, Sancho-Garnier H, Pessey JJ, et al.
cystic carcinoma of the head and neck treated by sur- Randomized trial of induction chemotherapy in lar-
gery with or without postoperative radiation therapy: ynx carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 1998;34:224–8.
prognostic features of recurrence. Int J Radiat Oncol 101. Trotti A 3rd, Zhang Q, Bentzen SM, et al.
Biol Phys. 2006;66:152–9. Randomized trial of hyperfractionation versus con-
88. Chen AM, Garcia J, Lee NY, et al. Patterns of nodal ventional fractionation in T2 squamous cell carci-
relapse after surgery and postoperative radiation noma of the vocal cord (RTOG 9512). Int J Radiat
therapy for carcinomas of the major and minor sali- Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89:958–63.
vary glands: what is the role of elective neck irradia- 102. Weber RS, Berkey BA, Forastiere A, et al. Outcome
tion? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:988–94. of salvage total laryngectomy following organ pres-
89. Laramore GE, Krall JM, Griffin TW, et al. Neutron ervation therapy: the Radiation Therapy Oncology
versus photon irradiation for unresectable salivary Group trial 91-11. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck
gland tumors: final report of an RTOG-MRC ran- Surg. 2003;129:44–9.
domized clinical trial. Radiation Therapy Oncology 103. Yamazaki H, Nishiyama K, Tanaka E, et al.
Group. Medical Research Council. Int J Radiat Radiotherapy for early glottic carcinoma (T1N0M0):
Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;27:235–40. results of prospective randomized study of radiation
90. Mendenhall WM, Morris CG, Amdur RJ, et al. fraction size and overall treatment time. Int J Radiat
Radiotherapy alone or combined with surgery for Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64:77–82.
adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck. Head 104. Akimoto T, Nonaka T, Kitamoto Y, et al. Radiation
Neck. 2004;26:154–62. therapy for T2N0 laryngeal cancer: a retrospective
91. Mendenhall WM, Morris CG, Amdur RJ, et al. analysis for the impact of concurrent chemother-
Radiotherapy alone or combined with sur- apy on local control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
gery for salivary gland carcinoma. Cancer. 2006;64:995–1001.
2005;103:2544–50. 105. Beitler JJ, Muller S, Grist WJ, et al. Prognostic accu-
92. Terhaard CH, Lubsen H, Rasch CR, et al. The role racy of computed tomography findings for patients
of radiotherapy in the treatment of malignant sali- with laryngeal cancer undergoing laryngectomy. J
vary gland tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2318–22.
2005;61:103–11. 106. Bhayani MK, Hutcheson KA, Barringer DA, et al.
93. Amini A, Waxweiler TV, Brower JV, et al. Gastrostomy tube placement in patients with hypo-
Association of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy vs pharyngeal cancer treated with radiotherapy or
radiotherapy alone with survival in patients with chemoradiotherapy: factors affecting placement and
resected major salivary gland carcinoma: data from dependence. Head Neck. 2013;35:1641–6.
the National Cancer Data Base. JAMA Otolaryngol 107. Furusaka T, Matsuda A, Saito T, et al. Concurrent
Head Neck Surg. 2016;142:1100–10. chemoradiation therapy with docetaxel (DOC)
94. Induction chemotherapy plus radiation compared for laryngeal preservation in T2N0M0 glot-
with surgery plus radiation in patients with advanced tic squamous cell carcinomas. Acta Otolaryngol.
laryngeal cancer. The Department of Veterans 2013;133:99–112.
Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Study Group. N Engl J 108. Garden AS, Forster K, Wong PF, et al. Results of
Med. 1991;324:1685–90. radiotherapy for T2N0 glottic carcinoma: does the
95. Forastiere AA, Goepfert H, Maor M, et al. Concurrent “2” stand for twice-daily treatment? Int J Radiat
chemotherapy and radiotherapy for organ preserva- Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55:322–8.
tion in advanced laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med. 109. Le QT, Fu KK, Kroll S, et al. Influence of fraction
2003;349:2091–8. size, total dose, and overall time on local control of
96. Forastiere AA, Zhang Q, Weber RS, et al. Long- T1-T2 glottic carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
term results of RTOG 91-11: a comparison of three Phys. 1997;39:115–26.
110. Machtay M, Moughan J, Trotti A, et al. Factors 124. Ballo MT, Strom EA, Zagars GK, et al. Adjuvant
associated with severe late toxicity after c oncurrent irradiation for axillary metastases from malig-
chemoradiation for locally advanced head and nant melanoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
neck cancer: an RTOG analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2002;52:964–72.
2008;26:3582–9. 125. Beadle BM, Guadagnolo BA, Ballo MT, et al.
111. Janoray G, Pointreau Y, Garaud P, et al. Long- Radiation therapy field extent for adjuvant treatment
term results of a multicenter randomized phase of axillary metastases from malignant melanoma. Int
III trial of induction chemotherapy with Cisplatin, J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:1376–82.
5-fluorouracil, +/− Docetaxel for Larynx preserva- 126. Bonnen MD, Ballo MT, Myers JN, et al. Elective
tion. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108:1–7. radiotherapy provides regional control for patients
112. Brierley JD, Panzarella T, Tsang RW, et al. A com- with cutaneous melanoma of the head and neck.
parison of different staging systems predictability of Cancer. 2004;100:383–9.
patient outcome. Thyroid carcinoma as an example. 127. Burmeister BH, Mark Smithers B, Burmeister E,
Cancer. 1997;79:2414–23. et al. A prospective phase II study of adjuvant post-
113. Chen J, Tward JD, Shrieve DC, et al. Surgery and operative radiation therapy following nodal surgery
radiotherapy improves survival in patients with ana- in malignant melanoma-Trans Tasman Radiation
plastic thyroid carcinoma: analysis of the surveil- Oncology Group (TROG) Study 96.06. Radiother
lance, epidemiology, and end results 1983-2002. Am Oncol. 2006;81:136–42.
J Clin Oncol. 2008;31:460–4. 128. Chang DT, Amdur RJ, Morris CG, et al. Adjuvant
114. De Crevoisier R, Baudin E, Bachelot A, et al. radiotherapy for cutaneous melanoma: comparing
Combined treatment of anaplastic thyroid carcinoma hypofractionation to conventional fractionation. Int
with surgery, chemotherapy, and hyperfractionated J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66:1051–5.
accelerated external radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol 129. Overgaard J. The role of radiotherapy in recur-
Biol Phys. 2004;60:1137–43. rent and metastatic malignant melanoma: a clinical
115. Haigh PI, Ituarte PH, Wu HS, et al. Completely radiobiological study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
resected anaplastic thyroid carcinoma com- 1986;12:867–72.
bined with adjuvant chemotherapy and irradia- 130. Overgaard J, Gonzalez Gonzalez D, Hulshof MC,
tion is associated with prolonged survival. Cancer. et al. Randomised trial of hyperthermia as adjuvant
2001;91:2335–42. to radiotherapy for recurrent or metastatic malig-
116. Kebebew E, Greenspan FS, Clark OH, et al. nant melanoma. European Society for Hyperthermic
Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma. Treatment outcome Oncology. Lancet. 1995;345:540–3.
and prognostic factors. Cancer. 2005;103:1330–5. 131. Sause WT, Cooper JS, Rush S, et al. Fraction size
117. Robbins RJ, Schlumberger MJ. The evolving role of in external beam radiation therapy in the treat-
(131)I for the treatment of differentiated thyroid car- ment of melanoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
cinoma. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(Suppl 1):28S–37S. 1991;20:429–32.
118. Rosenbluth BD, Serrano V, Happersett L, et al. 132. Agrawal S, Kane JM 3rd, Guadagnolo BA, et al. The
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treat- benefits of adjuvant radiation therapy after therapeu-
ment of nonanaplastic thyroid cancer. Int J Radiat tic lymphadenectomy for clinically advanced, high-
Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63:1419–26. risk, lymph node-metastatic melanoma. Cancer.
119. Tennvall J, Lundell G, Hallquist A, et al. Combined 2009;115:5836–44.
doxorubicin, hyperfractionated radiotherapy, and 133. Eggermont AM, Chiarion-Sileni V, Grob JJ, et al.
surgery in anaplastic thyroid carcinoma. Report on Adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete
two protocols. The Swedish Anaplastic Thyroid resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC
Cancer Group. Cancer. 1994;74:1348–54. 18071): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.
120. Tsang RW, Brierley JD, Simpson WJ, et al. The Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:522–30.
effects of surgery, radioiodine, and external radia- 134. Kirkwood JM, Manola J, Ibrahim J, et al. A pooled
tion therapy on the clinical outcome of patients analysis of eastern cooperative oncology group and
with differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Cancer. intergroup trials of adjuvant high-dose interferon for
1998;82:375–88. melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:1670–7.
121. Ang KK, Peters LJ, Weber RS, et al. Postoperative 135. Balch CM, Soong SJ, Smith T, et al. Long-term
radiotherapy for cutaneous melanoma of the head results of a prospective surgical trial comparing
and neck region. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2 cm vs. 4 cm excision margins for 740 patients with
1994;30:795–8. 1-4 mm melanomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8:101–8.
122. Ballo MT, Bonnen MD, Garden AS, et al. Adjuvant 136. Wu S, Cho E, Li WQ, et al. History of severe sun-
irradiation for cervical lymph node metastases from burn and risk of skin cancer among women and men
melanoma. Cancer. 2003;97:1789–96. in 2 prospective cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol.
123. Ballo MT, Garden AS, Myers JN, et al. Melanoma 2016;183:824–33.
metastatic to cervical lymph nodes: can radiother- 137. Thomas JM, Newton-Bishop J, A’Hern R, et al.
apy replace formal dissection after local excision of Excision margins in high-risk malignant melanoma.
nodal disease? Head Neck. 2005;27:718–21. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:757–66.
138. Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, et al. Improved 146. Mojica P, Smith D, Ellenhorn JD. Adjuvant radia-
survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic tion therapy is associated with improved survival
melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:711–23. in Merkel cell carcinoma of the skin. J Clin Oncol.
139. Robert C, Thomas L, Bondarenko I, et al. Ipilimumab 2007;25:1043–7.
plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic 147. Poulsen M, Rischin D, Walpole E, et al. High-risk
melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2517–26. Merkel cell carcinoma of the skin treated with syn-
140. Avril MF, Auperin A, Margulis A, et al. Basal
chronous carboplatin/etoposide and radiation: a
cell carcinoma of the face: surgery or radiother- Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Study--
apy? Results of a randomized study Br J Cancer. TROG 96:07. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:4371–6.
1997;76:100–6. 148. Lewis KG, Weinstock MA, Weaver AL, et al.
141. Balamucki CJ, Mancuso AA, Amdur RJ, et al. Skin Adjuvant local irradiation for Merkel cell carci-
carcinoma of the head and neck with perineural inva- noma. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142:693–700.
sion. Am J Otolaryngol. 2012;33:447–54. 149. Ghoshal S, Chakraborty S, Moudgil N, et al. Quad
142. Garcia-Serra A, Hinerman RW, Mendenhall WM, shot: a short but effective schedule for palliative
et al. Carcinoma of the skin with perineural invasion. radiation for head and neck carcinoma. Indian J
Head Neck. 2003;25:1027–33. Palliat Care. 2009;15:137–40.
143. Mendenhall WM, Parsons JT, Mendenhall NP, et al. 150. Nguyen NT, Doerwald-Munoz L, Zhang H, et al.
T2-T4 carcinoma of the skin of the head and neck 0-7-21 hypofractionated palliative radiotherapy: an
treated with radical irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol effective treatment for advanced head and neck can-
Biol Phys. 1987;13:975–81. cers. Br J Radiol. 2015;88:20140646.
144. Rogers HW, Weinstock MA, Harris AR, et al. 151. Petersen IA, Kriss JP, McDougall IR, et al. Prognostic
Incidence estimate of nonmelanoma skin cancer in the factors in the radiotherapy of Graves’ ophthalmopa-
United States, 2006. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146:283–7. thy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990;19:259–64.
145. Mendenhall WM, Kirwan JM, Morris CG, et al.
Cutaneous Merkel cell carcinoma. Am J Otolaryngol.
2012;33:88–92.
Lung Cancer
5
and Henry Wagner Jr
Abstract
ment of patients with thoracic cancers, with
special focus on principles that guide radio-
therapy management. Several key components
of trimodality care and stereotactic body radi-
ation therapy (SBRT) are discussed.
N. G. Zaorsky (*) · H. Wagner Jr

e-mail: nzaorsky@pennstatehealth.psu.edu;
hwagner@hmc.psu.edu
D. M. Trifiletti

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4_5
50% 60% 70% 80%
FEV1 Lobectomy (70%; 1.2 L)

Pneumonectomy (80%; 2 L)
DLCO Inoperable Equivocal Operable
FVC
Lung Cancer 199
Lung Pearls [1, 2] AJCC 7 T1 T2a T2b T3 T4

N0 IA IB IIA IIB IIIA
odal and Distant Staging
N N1 IIA IIB IIIA
(7th + 8th Edition) N2 IIIA IIIB
N3 IIIB
M1 IV
• N1 – ipsi intrapulmonary, hilar (N10–14)
• N2 – ipsi mediastinal (N1–9)
• N3 – contra mediastinal, hilar; BL scalene, AJCC 7th Edition Staging
supraclav
• M1a – tumor in contra lung, pleural nodules, • T1 – ≤3 cm
malignant effusion • T1a – ≤2 cm
• M1b – 1 distant met • T1b – 2–3 cm
• M1c – 2+ distant mets • T2 – 3–7 cm or main stem bronchus (>2 cm
from carina), visceral pleura, atelectasis
• T2a – 3–5 cm or T2 <3 cm w above
AJCC 8th Edition Staging
features
• T2b – 5–7 cm
• T1 – ≤3 cm
• T3 – >7 cm
• T1a – ≤ 1 cm
• or parietal pleura, chest wall, diaphragm,
• T1b – 1.01–2 cm
phrenic nerve, pericardium, bronchus
• T1c – 2.01–3 cm
<2 cm from carina, whole lung atelectasis,
• T2 – 3–5 cm
tumor in the same lobe
• T2a – 3.01–4 cm or main stem bronchus
• T4 – mediastinum, heart, great vessels, tra-
(but not carina), visceral pleura, atelectasis
chea, recurrent laryngeal, esophagus, verte-
(VAB)
brae, carina, separate tumors in ipsi lobes
• T2b – 4.01–5 cm
• T3 – 5.01–≤7 cm
AJCC 8 T1a T1b T1c T2a T2b T3 T4
• or parietal pleura, chest wall, diaphragm,
N0 IA1 IA2 IA3 IB IIA IIB IIIA
phrenic nerve, pericardium, carina (<2 cm
N1 IIB IIIA
to carina doesn’t matter now), whole lung
N2 IIIA IIIB
atelectasis, tumor in the same lobe
N3 IIIB IIIC
• T4 – >7 cm
M1 IV
• or mediastinum, heart, great vessels, tra-
chea, recurrent laryngeal, esophagus, ver-
tebrae, carina, separate tumors in ipsi lobes
1 Low cervical, SCV 8 Paraesophageal,

↓carina
2 Upper paratracheal 9 Pulm ligament
3 Pre(3A) & retro(3P) 10 Hilar
trach
4 Lower paratracheal 11 Interlobar
5 AP window 12 Lobar
6 Paraaortic 13 Segmental
7 subcarinal 14 subsegmental
Overview • Smoking history, cancer history, family

history
–– Lung ca: 228,200 cases/yr, 160,000 deaths • Occupation, infectious agents
(U.S. only, increasing in Africa and Asia). –– Labs: CBC, CMP, LFTs, alk phos, LDH
–– 5-year OS for severe COPD is 40%. –– CXR: compare to priors
–– Risk factors: smoking, asbestos, radon. –– CT: with contrast, from thyroid to liver/adre-
–– Five lobes, five segments/lobe (except RUL-3 nals LN staging – Se 60%, Sp 80%
and RML-2). –– PET scan: may be used as mediastinal stag-
–– 40% adeno, 35% SCC, 15% large cell, ing. Se 85%, Sp 90%. If PET+ in mediasti-
10–15% SCLC. num, need path confirmation
–– Adeno in situ (BAC): not assc with smoking. –– MRI brain if symptoms, SCLC, stage IB+,
Spreads along alveoli, responds to TKIs. NSCLC
–– Stains TTF-1+ (except SCC). –– MRI thoracic inlet for superior sulcus
–– +/− EGFR (90% SCC, 30% adeno) exon –– PFTs
19. –– Mediastinal staging: do this first if suspicious
–– TKIs work until T790 M mutation (newer 3rd- mediastinal or hilar lesion since it upstages
gen TKIs target T790 M). patient
–– Kras and ↑ERCC1 don’t respond well to plati- –– Bronchoscopic bx for central lesion
num. KRAS in 35% of adenos and has the –– CT-guided biopsy for peripheral lesion. 20%
poorest prognoses. EGFR and ALK are risk PTX
targetable. –– Smoking cessation
Screening Paraneoplastic Syndromes
–– USPSTF: current or recent smokers, 55–79 –– Hypertrophic osteoarthropathy: joint pain

yo, more than 30 pack/yrs → low-dose CT without bone mets (can see elevated perios-
annually x several years. teum on plain films and will be positive on
–– National Lung Screening Trial: 53 K pts at bone scan), adenoCA
high risk for lung ca in the U.S.. Rando to –– Hypercalcemia: SCC from PTH-related pep-
three annual screening w low-dose CT vs tide (PTHrP)
single PA X-ray. Adherence >90%. Rate of + –– SCLC: SIADH, cerebellar ataxia,
tests 24% vs 7%. A total of 96% vs 95% Eaton-Lambert
were false positives. CT screening had rela-
tive reduction in mortality vs X-ray by 20%.
Rate of death from any cause also decreased Mediastinal Staging
by 7%.
–– NCCN recommends 3+ stations sampled and
sampling 8 and 9 (harder to reach).
Workup –– For R-sided tumors, 2R, 4R, 7, and 10R should
be sampled.
–– History: –– For L-sided tumors, 5, 6, 7, and 10 L should
• Cough (75%), hemoptysis (57%), dyspnea be sampled.
• Weight loss –– Go after highest stage LN.
• Voice changes (common with L lung –– If there are suspicious M1 lesions, biopsy
tumors) these if possible rather than N1 or N2 sites. In
• Dysphagia (esophageal compression) general, biopsy most advanced suspicious
• Apical tumors: arm weakness, pain lesion first.
Lung Cancer 201
–– Cervical mediastinoscopy –– EUS-FNA

• Levels 1–4R, 7, 10 • Levels 4, 7, 8, 9
• Requires thoracic surgeon, may be omitted –– ACOSOG Z0030, Darling, 2011: no benefit
in inoperable patients of complete mediastinal LND if thorough
–– Chamberlain nodal sampling was negative.
• Levels 4L, 5, 6, 7
• Left median sternotomy via left second
intercostal space
–– EBUS-FNA
• Levels 2, 4, 7, 10
• Great for pts unable to get mediastinoscopy
due to medical comorbidity
LN Stations NSCLC General Volumes

–– Definitive RT for early stage: treat primary
–– Level 1 – low cervical and supraclavicular and involved nodes only (Sibley review – no
lymph nodes benefit to elective nodal RT).
–– Level 2 – upper paratracheal lymph nodes –– Conc chemoRT: treat primary and mediasti-
–– Level 3A – prevascular lymph nodes num 40–45Gy, and boost primary
–– Level 3P – retrotracheal lymph nodes and + nodes to 60 Gy (limited role of ENI;
–– Level 4 – lower paratracheal lymph nodes most will say define one volume and treat
–– Level 5 – subaortic lymph nodes that volume).
–– Level 6 – para-aortic lymph nodes –– Post-op RT: role in N2. See doses below.
–– Level 7 – subcarinal lymph nodes –– Post-op RT for R+: treat margin area only.
–– Level 8 – paraesophageal lymph nodes
–– Level 9 – pulmonary ligament lymph nodes
Simulation
Brachial Plexus –– Orders: supine, arms raised, alpha cradle, CT

sim + contrast, 2.5 mm slice thickness, image
–– Find C4–5 and T1–2 neural foramina on thoracic inlet to below diaphragm (s’clav or
sagittal. lower lobe involvement may require extension
–– Contour ventral rami of C5–T1 as exiting of image borders). Consider taking bottom of
foramina. scan to bottom of the liver. Tumor volume out-
–– Contour trunks of BP bw ant and mid-scalene lined. Contours of the lungs, heart, esophagus,
muscles. spinal cord, and body surface.
–– Follow insertion of scalene muscles into first –– When analyzing DVH for lung dose, should
rib. look at whole lung – GTV, per RTOG 1306
–– Contour BP divisions, cords, and terminal and RTOG 1308. Using whole lung, CTV
nerves by following subclavian artery into or PTV will decrease apparent lung doses
axilla. but should not be used when comparing a tx
plan to dose criteria per RTOG protocols.
The use of contrast varies if there is a recent
PFTs enhanced scan of CT/PET available for
fusion.
Inoperable Desirable
FEV1 <50% 1.5 L or 70% predicted for
or <1.2 L lobectomy
2 L or 80% predicted for
pneumonectomy
FVC <70% >70%
DLCO <50% >60%
Predicted FEV1 >0.8 L or 40%
post-op
Lung Cancer 203
Conventional Fractionation Contours –– *Depending on med onc, may give additional

–– Standard-free breathing CT w IV contrast two cyc after RT.
–– GTV: tumor + involved nodes (from CT, –– EP vs CP: previous RCTs show equivalence
PET). Nodes and primary contoured between EP and CP (Wang, 2012). VA analy-
separately. sis (2015) of concurrent CRT showed no dif-
–– When contouring for SBRT, should use the ference in outcomes; however, EP patients are
“pulmonary” window. Other presets will more likely to be hospitalized, have more out-
underestimate the size of target. patient clinic visits, and have infections, dehy-
–– 4D CT dration, and esophagitis.
–– GTV = primary tumor and involved LNs –– Cisplatin: alkylator.
(>1 cm short axis diameter or PET avid). –– Etoposide: topoisomerase II inhibitor.
–– iGTV = GTV + margin for motion from –– Taxol: prevents microtubule disassembly.
MIP or on three breath hold scans,
–– ITV: created in one of two ways – (1) iGTV
+8 mm to include subclinical miscoscopic Chemo for Advanced/Metastatic
dz, shave at natural barriers and (2) com- Disease
bine all CTVs in all respiratory phases.
–– CTV: GTV + ITV + 6 for SCC and 8 mm –– Carbo AUC5 on d1 and pemetrexed 500 mg/
for adeno for primary (Giraud, IJROBP, m2 on d1, q21 d for 4c: for non-SCC
2000) and 3–5 mm for LN. Connect fat –– Cis 75 mg/m2 on d1 and pemetrexed 500 mg/
betweenLN stations (e.g., cover 4 if 2 and 7 m2 on d1, q21 d for 3c: for non-SCC
are involved). Otherwise, no ENI. –– Cis and gem for SCC (folic acid premed if
–– PTV: CTV + 5 mm (setup error). using PEM)
–– 4D CT takes multiple images in thin sec-
tions; then the images in each section are Other Chemo Considerations
sorted into each breathing phase and recon- –– Cetux (from RTOG 0617): 400 mg/m2 d1 and
structed into a 4D movie. If tumor is EVER then 250 mg/m2 weekly (doesn’t work).
in a given area during breathing, that area is –– Cis is given with dex, Zofran, and aprepitant.
included in the ITV. –– Cis/etop and cis/vinblast can be given full
dose with RT.
–– Carbo/taxol, Carbo/gem, and Cis/vinorelbine
Chemo for Localized Disease require dose reduction.
–– Cisplatin/Etoposide (EP)* historically the Follow-Up

SWOG regimen. SOC for SCLC; can also be –– H&P and contrast-enhanced chest CT every
used in NSCLC. Cis is 50 mg/m2 on d1, 8, 29, 4–6 mo for 2 y.
36; etoposide is 50 mg/m2 per day on d1–5, –– Then H&P and non-contrast-enhanced chest
29–33. CT annually.
–– Carbo/Paclitaxel (CP)* preferred CALGB –– Smoking cessation counseling.
regimen. Also used for sequential CRT. Used –– PET or brain MRI is not indicated for routine
in NSCLC. follow-up.
–– CP is typically given as a weekly regimen and
give typical doses (e.g. Carbo AUC 2, pacli-
taxel 45mg/m2).
Common hypofractionated RT doses (Gy) Toxicity of RT

Total Dose/
dose fx fx Example indications –– Dermatitis
24–34 34 1 Peripheral, small (<2 cm)
tumor, esp >1 cm from CW
–– Esophagitis
(RTOG 0915) –– Cough
45–60 3 Peripheral tumor and >1 cm –– Fatigue
from CW –– Heme, monitor CBC weekly
48–50 12 4 Central or peripheral tumors –– Pulmonary fibrosis
<4–5 cm, esp <1 cm from CW
–– Pericarditis
50–55 10 5 Central or peripheral tumors,
esp <1 cm from CW –– Brachial plexopathy
60–70 7.5 8–10 Central tumors –– Lhermitte’s
70 4.12 17 Central tumors (CALGB –– Radiation pneumonitis:
39904) –– No clear thresholds, though accepted limits
60 5 12 Central tumors (the
are V20 <30–35% and MLD <20 Gy for
Netherlands)
20% risk of pneumonitis.
Common RT doses (Gy)
–– Risk of pneumonitis for V20.
Total Dose/ • <20%: 2%
dose fx fx Example indications • 20–30%: 10%
60–70 2 30–35 Definitive RT, +/− chemo • >30%: 15–40%
45–54 1.8–2 ~25– Pre-op –– Risk of pneumonitis MLD
28
• <10: 5%
50–54 1.8–2 25–30 Post-op, R0
• 10–20: 10–15%
54–60 1.8–2 ~30 Post-op, ECE or R1
60–66 2 30–33 Post-op, R2 (70 Gy is high) • >20: 25%
30–45 3 10–15 Palliation, obstruction –– Type 1 pneumocytes die, and type 2 prolif-
20–30 4–3 5–10 Palliation, bone me, w soft erate. Subacute reaction, occurring 6w to
tissue mass 6 m after RT.
8–30 8–3 1–10 Palliation, bone me, no soft –– Increased levels of TGF-B before and dur-
tissue mass
17 8.5 2 Palliation, chest dz, poor PS
ing RT (not after) are correlated with pneu-
8–20 8–4 1–5 Any mets, poor PS monitis, pulm fibrosis, and RILD. TGF-B
activates SMAD3, which binds to type 1
and 2 receptors.
–– Fever, SOB, tachycardia, hypoxia.
PORT
–– Diffusing capacity may be decreased.
–– CTV: bronchial stump + nodal stations, tumor
–– Rule out other processes.
bed only if parietal pleura invasion
–– Refer to pulmonology.
–– Get PFTs to monitor.
–– Treat with prednisone (1 mg/kg/d). Taper
What if Not Meeting Constraints?
as tolerated.
–– Use more AP/PA beams (vs angled), tighter
ITV, do induction chemo first, re-CT after
36–45 Gy, do gating, do IMRT, amifostine.
Lung Cancer 205
Dose Constraints in Gy (RTOG 0618, 0813, 0915; QUANTEC) [3–5]

OAR 1 fraction 3 fractions 4 fractions 5 fractions 30–35 fractions
Max Max/ Max Max/ Max/
Max total total fx total fx Max total fx Max total Others
Cord 14 18 6 26 6.5 30 6 50
Lung RTOG 0813: V20 <35%
per RTOG, V20 <10% V5 <65%
lung – GTV D1.5 L max 12.5 Gy MLD <20 Gy
should be used (2.5 Gy/fx)
for RTOG 1306, D1L max 13.5 Gy
1308 (2.7 Gy/fx)
Esophagus 15.4 27 9 30 7.5 105% PTV 105% PTV Mean <34
prescription prescription V60 <17%
Brachial plexus 17.5 24 6 27.2 6.8 32 6.4 66
RTOG 0813:
D3cc <6 Gy/fraction
Heart/ 22 30 10 34 8.5 105% PTV V30 <50%
pericardium prescription (1308)
V45 <35%
(1308)
V60 <30%
Mean <35 Gy
Great vessels 37 NS 49 12.25 105% PTV
prescription
Trachea/ 20.2 30 10 34.8 8.7 105% PTV
proximal bronchi prescription
Rib 30 30 10 40 10 NS
Skin 26 24 8 36 9 32 6.4
Stomach 12.4 NS NS 27.2 6.9 NS
arly-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung

E –– RTOG 9311: dose escalation safe up to
Cancer (NSCLC) [6–32] 90.3 Gy. 84 Gy recommended LRC ~60%. No
ENI given and nodal failure <10%.
General
–– Raz, 2007. n = 1432 registry analysis. Without RFA
tx, MST 1 year, and 5-year OS <10%. Most –– Option for <3 cm lesions.
pts died of lung cancer w 5-year CSM ~15%. –– Not recommended by NCCN.
–– Johnson, 1988: After treatment for early-stage –– Hiraki, 2006: 224 lesions. PNX in 52% of ses-
NSCLC, risk is 1–2%/y for another lung can- sions, 11% requiring tube. Pleural effusion I
cer. For SCLC, risk is 6%/year. 19%. 30-d mortality rate 2.6%. No benefit
over SBRT.
Inoperability
–– Cor pulm or severe CAD SBRT
–– Renal failure –– RTOG 0236 (Timmerman 2006, 2010): T1–
–– Poor pulmonary function: T2 N0 <5 cm treated to 60–66 Gy in 3 fx. 2-yr
–– DLCO <60% or FEV1 <40% LC 94%, OS 72%. 3-yr LC 91%, regional
(~<1.2–1.5 L) control rate 87%, DM 22%, OS 56%. 5-year
–– FVC <60% LC 88%, OS 43%, 9% regional failure.
–– FEV1/FVC ratio <50–75% predicted Initially started at 20 Gy × 3.GTV to CTV was
–– Poor predicted post-op FEV1 <0.8 L or 0 mm. PTV margin up to 10 mm in CC dimen-
75% sion and 5 mm radially. If 4D CT scan/gating
and IGRT used, then reducing to 5 mm uni-
Surgery form expansion from ITV was appropriate.
–– Cervical mediastinoscopy: evals 1–4R. • On review, determined that dose delivered
–– Ant mediastinoscopy (Chamberlain): adds was overestimated because of lack of het-
4 L–7. erogeneity corrections and charged particle
–– Ginsburg, LCSG 821: T1 N0 → lobe vs wedge equilibrium. Thus, dose actually 18 Gy × 3.
w 2 cm margin. Both staged intraop. Wedge 2-yr LC 95%. 2-year OS 55%. G3–5 tox in
↑LF (6 → 18%). Also trend for ↑ CSM. No 20% and higher for centrally located
diff in periop M/M, functional improvement tumors (46%) vs peripheral (17%).
in wedge group. Established lobectomy as –– Onishi, 2004: 245 pts; BED10 ≥100Gy
SOC for minimal resection for lung ca. Still, improved LF (26 → 8%) and 3-yr OS
lobectomy not tolerated if poor pulm reserve. (69 → 88%).
–– CALGB 9761 (D’Cunha, 2005): n = 489. cT1 –– CALGB 39904 (Bogart): 38 inoperable Stage
undergo resection. Only 72% were pT1. 14% T1–2, <4 cm, N0 patients. Required to have
p Stage II. 13% p Stage III. 1% p Stage IV. high-risk comorbid medical illness of pulm
dysfunction FEV1 <40%, predicted DLCO
Brachytherapy <50%, predicted PCO2 >45 mmg Hg, VO2
–– ACOSOG Z4043: sublobar resection +/− max <15 mg (kg/min), or on O2. Randomized
mesh BT. No benefit for OS for BT, even if to 70 Gy in 29, 29, 23, 20, or 17 fractions.
suspected R+. Allows central tumors <4 cm size.
CTV = GTV + 1 cm. PTV = CTV + 1.5 cm.
Conventional RT Alone Constraints: V18 <25%, V2.2 <10%. 17 frac-
–– Dosoretz, 1996: T1–3 N0 med inop review. tions (4.11 Gy/fx) did not have more toxicity.
Dose >64 Gy improved PFS. Similar outcomes to SBRT (historic control),
–– Sibley, 1998: T1–2 N0 review. 60–66Gy. 5-yr 92% LC, 18% DMs. No G3–4 late tox. Only
OS was 15%. 50% LF. two G3 acute tox, dyspnea, and pain.
Lung Cancer 207
–– RTOG 0618: operable SBRT. 33 pts, 18 × 3 SBRT Eligibility

SBRT. 2-yr LF 19.2%, OS 84.4%.
–– Chang/MDACC (Lancet Onc, 2015): STARS –– T1 or T2 <= 5 cm, N0
+ ROSEL. SBRT vs surg. Both RCTs closed –– Peripheral vs central/CW approximate
due to slow accrual. Median FU 40 m SABR –– Goal BED10 >100 Gy
and 35 surg. 3-year OS 95% vs 79%, p = 0.04. –– Match to spine or carina, some match to tumor
3-year RFS 86% vs 80%, p = 0.05. More tox-
icity with surg.
–– MSKCC (Mutter, 2012): n = 126. 3–5 fraction Simulation
to 40–60 Gy. No dose constraints initially. –– Supine, arms up, in alpha cradle.
Eval for dose-volume metrics. G2+ CW pain –– CT sim + CONTRAST; 4D CT at level of the
if CW3cm V30 Gy >70 cc. tumor. If dramatic excursion → use abdominal
–– UVA (Dunlap, 2010): keep CW3cm compression to get motion down to 1 cm.
V30 Gy <30 cc.
–– Cleveland Clinic (Woody, 2015): n = 40, Contours
>5 cm, SBRT, median dose 50/5. 18 m LC –– Fuse PET to planning CT.
91%. G3+ tox 8%. Conclude that these tumors –– Contour GTV on free breathing CT,
can be treated w good LC and toxicity. –– ITV using 4D CT to expand GTV to encom-
pass tumor on all ten phases of breathing
cycle.
Ongoing SBRT Trials –– PTV = ITV + 5 mm (no CTV), consider
–– RTOG 0813: Tox results from 0236 drove +8 mm sup/inf.
0813. SBRT for “central” NSCLC. w/in 2 cm –– Contour the esophagus, heart, lungs, cord,
of proximal bronchial tree. 10 Gy × 5 up to CW, and BP.
12 Gy × 5. Results pending.
–– RTOG 0915: Peripheral I NSCLC only, Planning
<5 cm. Most tumors are <3 cm, so may not –– 3D-CRT, usually 7–12 coplanar and nonco-
apply to 3–5 cm. 34 ×1 vs 12 × 4. Expecting to planar beams
have similar LC w less toxicity vs 54/3 arm of –– 6 MV
RTOG 0236. Appears promising per ASTRO –– Tissue heterogeneity corrections required
2013. Initial LC 97% for 34 × 1 and 93% for –– No block edge margin, Rx to 60–90% IDL
12 × 4. Further results pending. –– V100 >95%, Max 120%
–– Dmax in PTV
SBRT Requirements in Pulm Function –– Conformality index = Rx isodose volume/
–– No clear minimum FEV1. PTV <1.2
–– FEV1 change ~0.05 L, which is about 1.9% –– R50 = ratio of 50% Rx isodose volume to PTV
decrease in predicted FEV1. volume <5 (but varies by PTV volume)
–– RTOG 0236 secondary analysis: In 2y, FEV1 –– D2cm = max dose in % of dose prescribed at
and DLCO declined by 6%. 2 cm from PTV. Should be <50%
Peripheral SBRT Regimens –– (3) Enlarging opacity after 12 months

–– 18 Gy × 3 (RTOG 0236) –– (4) Bulging margin
–– 10–12 Gy × 5 (Cleveland) –– (5) Loss of linear margin
–– 12 Gy × 4 (Japan) –– (6) Air bronchogram loss
–– 34 Gy × 1 (Japan)
Follow-Up
During RT –– CT chest q6–12 months for 2 years
–– CBCT each fraction, not kV-kV! –– No definite role for PET because scar tissue
–– 2–3 fx per week, minimum 40 h apart may be FDG avid for 1–2 years; useful to
guide biopsy if one area very PET avid or for
High-Risk Features Suggesting Failure nodal recurrence
After SBRT
–– (1) Enlarging opacity at primary site
–– (2) Sequential enlarging opacity
Stage (AJCC 7) NCCN treatment options

IA (T1 N0) Surgery alone (resection + mediastinal LN dissection) or SBRT (inoper/unwilling for
surg). *Prefer lobectomy, if SLR obtain 2 cm margin
T2a/b <5 cm may do SBRT
T2–3(3–7 cm)N0 Surgery (SOC is lobectomy, mediastinal sampling/dissection, and resection), +/− risk-
T1 N1(ipsi peribroch/hil) adapted cisplatin-based chemo, +/− risk-adapted RT (see next section)
T2 N1
T4(>7)N0
T3 N1
Lung Cancer 209
NSCLC: Post-op Therapy [22, 33, 34] PORT not mandatory, given per each center’s
policy. Chemo had improved OS, benefit to
Adjuvant Chemo Stage II/IIIA (pN+), no benefit to Stage
–– CALGB 9633 (Strauss, JCO, 2008): Stage IB I. Chemo and PORT had best outcomes, and
T2 N0 randomized to carbo/taxol vs obs. PORT is better than obs. PORT techniques
Stopped early because of OS benefit, though relatively modern.
not SS. Exploratory analysis: adjuvant chemo –– LCSG 773: T3 or N2 → obs vs PORT (50Gy).
improves outcomes if primary ≥4 cm (contro- PORT improved LR (41 → 3%) but same OS.
versial) or ≥5 cm (higher SS). Thus, while not –– PORT meta-analysis Trialists Group, 1998:
level I evidence, should be discussed w ten trials. PORT→↓OS, mostly in Stages I–
patient. II. Included old techniques (Co-60 in four tri-
als), large fraction sizes, high total doses
Adjuvant BT delivered, mostly early stage. No detriment to
–– Allegheny Gen Hosp (Colonias, 2011): pN2.
Retrospective. Stage I NSCLC get sublobar –– SEER (Lally, 2006): Benefit for pN2 patients,
resection and interop I-125 mesh. 1996–2008. HR of 0.86 for death.
n = 145. Mean dose 117 Gy to 33 cm2. Periop –– No benefit to CRT over PORT alone (INT
mortality 3%. LR 4%, 6% w regional failure, 0115/RTOG 9105/ECOG 3590).
17% w DMs. On MVA, no factors predictive –– RTOG 0214: Evaluated PCI. Stage III NSCLC
of LR s/p definitive thoracic treatment. PCI 30 Gy/15
–– ACOSOG Z4032 (Fernando, 2013). n = 224. reduced brain failure (18% vs 8%), but same
Sublobar resection +/− BT. No improvement OS 76%. No diff in 1 year for QOL, MMSE,
in LR w BT, at 8% or ADLs; however, there were neurocog dif-
ferences at 3 months (major difference
Adjuvant Chemo and RT between eligibility criteria and in positive
–– LACE meta-analysis: 5% for OS at 5 yrs for SCLC trials).
Stages I–II after resection. Most benefit in N1
pts. Subset analysis: no benefit for chemo in
IA/B dz. However, CALGB 9633 data not Technique
included in this trial. –– Need to ask what LN stations were
–– Pre- vs post-op chemo: no difference (EORTC dissected.
08012, CHEST trial, NATCH Spanish trial). –– Lung Adjuvant RT Trial (Lung ART): RCT for
–– Italian study (Trodella, 2002): 104 pts, pN2 to PORT vs obs provides guidelines. In
pN0 → PORT vs obs. 50.4 Gy. PORT all patients, bronchial stump, ipsi hilum,
improved LF (23 → 2%) and 5-yr OS extension to mediastinal pleura facing resec-
(58 → 67%). tion bed always in CTV. Also cover involved
–– ANITA trial + reanalysis (Arriagada, 2004; LN level, LN levels at risk.
Douillard, 2008): NSCLC w surgery, R0. –– For N0–N1 R1, cover region of R1. For N2,
Adjuvant vinorelbine + cis vs observation. cover involved LN region.
AJCC 7 stage NCCN adjuvant treatment recommendations

pT1 N0 R0 Observe
pT2a N0 R0 Standard risk: observe
High risk (G3, LVI, wedge, tumor >4 cm [i.e., large AJCC 7 pT2a or AJCC 8 pT2b], visceral
pleural involvement): chemo
pT2b N0 R0 Chemotherapy alone
pT3 N0 R0 Chemotherapy alone
pT1–3 pN1 R0 Chemotherapy alone preferred
If cannot receive chemo, then consider adj RT (soft data, based on ANITA)
pN2 R0 ECE0 Sequential chemo cis (100 mg/m2), eto (100 mg/m2), restage, and then PORT to 50.4Gy
pN2 R0 ECE1 Sequential vs concurrent chemo, restage, and then PORT to 54 Gy
R1–2 Concurrent chemo-PORT preferred over sequential chemo and then RT
R1: 54–60 Gy. If N0, treat site of R+ only
R2: 60–66 Gy at the primary site, and 50–54 to elective mediastinum/hilum
Lung Cancer 211
ocally Advanced Non-Small Cell

L after induction CRT. n = 57. Chemo is carbo/
Lung Cancer [3, 6–11, 35–62] taxol. RT is 50.4 to mediastinum and primary,
and then boost 10.8 Gy to GTV. Mediastinum
Induction (or Neoadjuvant) Chemo reassessed pathologically after completion of
–– MDACC (1998): surgery +/− neoadj cis/etop/ RT. 63% achieved mediastinal LN clearance.
cyclophos. Chemo ↑MS (14 → 21 m). –– SAKK 17/04 (Pless, Lancet, 2015): IIIA/N2
–– Madrid (1999): same as MDACC but cis/ifos/ NSCLC. Rando to (1) neoadj chemo (cis
mitoC. MS 10 → 22 m. 100 mg/m2 and docetaxel 85 mg/m2) then RT
–– Spanish Trial 9901: phase II. N2 or T4 → cis/ (42/22) then surg vs (2) 3 c neoadj chemo, and
gem/docetaxel x3c → surgery. pCR 13%. MS then surg. Primary endpoint was LRRFS:
16 m. 9.4 m vs 7.6 m (NSS). MST 37 vs 26 m (NSS).
–– EORTC 08941: IIIA→chemo→ surgery vs Critiques: low number of pts to show non-
RT. PORT permitted. Same OS. Pts did worse inferiority. The pCR rate was 12% in chemo
after pneumonectomy. group vs 16% in chemoRT group, while NA
–– See CALGB 8433 (Dillman, 1990, 1996) CRT usually around 30%. There were 25 pts
regimen. in each arm that did not get assigned tx.
Finally, this may have been lower-risk popula-
Neoadj CRT tion of IIIA without bulky LNs.
–– German LCCGT: Stage IIIA–B → induction
cis/etop x3c → surgery. Randomized to preop Hypofractionation
CRT or post-op RT. pCR improved with preop –– Norway (Sundstrom, JCO, 2004): Inoperable,
CRT (20 → 60%), but same OS. Worse OS if too advanced for cure, chest sx, and tumor
pneumonectomy. threatening airway. n = 421. No concurrent
–– INT 0139 (Albain, 2009): IIIA→ neoadjuvant chemo. Only six had recd prev chemo. Rando
CRT (45Gy) + surgery vs definitive CRT alone to 17 Gy/2 fx vs 42 Gy/15 fx vs 50 Gy/25 fx.
(61Gy). Both got post cis/etop. Cis was 50 mg/ QOL and sx relief equivalent. MST was 8.2 vs
m2 and etop 50 mg/m2 in both arms, with first 7.0 vs 6.8 m, though NSS. Hypofrac recom-
2 c given during TRT. For neoadj arm, pts mended for these pts.
assessed at the end of RT to make sure they
don’t have PD. Surgery improved LF Definitive CRT
(22 → 10%) and DFS, but same OS: 27% w ↑Dose
trimodality vs 20% w CRT at 5y. Pts w pN0 dz –– RTOG 7301: dose escalation. 40 → 60Gy.
(aka “mediastinal nodal clearance) had median Arms: (1) split course 40; (2) CFRT 40; (3)
OS 34 m vs 26 m for N1–3. Subgroup analy- CFRT 50; (4) CFRT 60. 60Gy had improved
sis: possible that only pts w lobectomy (not OS. Split course had worst outcomes, 3-year
pneumonectomy) will benefit. OS at 5y OS 6%, LR 55%.
dependent on surgery type 36% lobectomy vs –– RTOG 8311: dose escalation BID. 1.2/
18% pneumonectomy. fx → 69.6Gy improved OS.
–– ESPATUE (Eberhardt, 2015): N2 dz. Similar –– RTOG 9311: dose escalation with chemo.
to Albain. Dose for NA RT was 45 Gy/1.5 Gy 70 → 90Gy. 83.8 Gy had best OS.
BID. For definitive RT, dose was up to –– RTOG 0617: Stage III. 2 × 2 factorial. 60 vs
61.2 Gy, with a “risk-adapted” boost up to 74 Gy and +/− cetuximab. All pts rec concur-
65–71 Gy. Trial plan for 500 pts, close early w rent chemo, paclitaxel 45 mg/m2, and carbo
246 pts bc of lack of funding and lack of qweek AUC2. Mean esophagus dose <34 Gy,
accrual. 5-year OS ~42% (NSS). suggested. After CRT, given 3-week carbo
Underpowered for primary endpoint. AUC 6 and taxol 200 mg/m2. Closed early.
–– RTOG 02–29 (Suntharalingam, 2012): pur- • 74Gy more toxic, worse OS, worse LR.
pose to eval mediastinal LN clearance rates • MST 29 m vs 20 m.
• 1-year LR 15% vs 25%, favoring 60 Gy. –– CALGB 39801 (Vokes, JCO, 2007):
• 2-year LR 31% vs 39%, favoring 60 Gy. Unresectable Stage III. CRT to 66 Gy +/−
• G3+ tox similar bw RT groups. Esophagitis induction chemo (carbo/taxol). Chemo was
worse w 74 Gy, 21% vs 7%. carbo AUC 2 and paclitaxel 50 mg/m2. Same
• +/− cetux had the same OS. OS, around 30%. Toxicity worse during induc-
• G3+ tox worse w cetux, 86% vs 70%. tion, 38% w G3+ neutropenia.
• On MVA, factors predicting OS were RT
dose (60 Gy), max esophagitis grade, PTV,
heart V5, and heart V30. Sequential Chemo Versus Concurrent Chemo
• On MVA, predictors of G3+ pneumonitis –– LAMP trial: three arms – Dillman
were RT technique, Stage IIIA vs IIIB, and (chemo→RT) vs (chemo→CRT) vs
lung V20. (CRT → chemo). Chemo was carbo/taxol.
• RT and chemo compliance, RT technique, CRT → chemo improved MS
not significant for OS. IMRT did reduce (13 → 16.3 → 12.7 m).
pneumonitis. –– Auperin meta-analysis (Auperin, JCO,
–– RTOG 0617 secondary analysis (Chun, 2016): 2010): sequential vs. concurrent CRT for LA
IMRT associated w less G3+ pneumonitis NSCLC – At 5 y, OS was 15.1% vs 10.6%,
than 3D CRT (3% vs 8%). No difference in 4.5% absolute improvement for concurrent.
OS, PFS, LR, DMFS. IMRT assoc w lower Also has decreased LRP (HR 0.77) but higher
heart dose. Heart V40 associated w OS. Lung G3 esophagitis (18% vs 4%).
V5 not assoc w G3+ toxicity, but V20 was.
–– CHART: 54 Gy at 1.5Gy TID (x12 consec Consolidation Chemo
days) vs 60/30. TID improved 3-yr OS by –– SWOG 9504 (Gandara, 2003): path IIIB
10% but ↑tox. Mostly SCC. NSCLC. Concurrent CRT. Chemo is cis
50 mg/m2 d1, 8, 29, 36 and etoposide 50 mg/
Induction Chemo + RT vs RT Alone m2 d 1–5, 29–33. Concurrent TRT to 61 Gy.
–– Induction generally only appropriate if upfront Consolidation docetaxel started 4–6w after
CRT plan exceeding DVH constraints. CRT, at initial dose 75 mg/m2. Did not improve
–– CALGB 8433 (Dillman, 1990, 1996): OS.
IIIA→60/30 vs cis/vinblast induction +60/30 –– HOG: IIIA/B cis/etop x2c with RT 60 Gy + −
(sequential). Cis was 100 mg/mq q28d and consolid docetaxel. No diff OS, more
vinblast was 5 mg/m2 qw. Sequential CRT toxicity.
improved ↑MS (10 → 14 m). 5-yr OS –– SWOG: IIIA/B cis/etop x2c with RT 61 Gy
(7 → 19%). - > docetaxel + − gefitinib (Iressa). Worse OS
–– RTOG 9410 (Curran, 2011): Dillman trial with gefitinib.
worked, so now will concurrent chemo beat
sequential? Three arms→Dillman to 63Gy vs Immunotherapy
concurrent CRT to 63Gy vs 69.6Gy CRT –– Checkmate 057, Borghaei, 2015. Nivolumab
BID. Chemo was cis/vinblast, but BID arm vs docetaxel in M+. Nivo improved 1-y OS
got cis/etop. Conventional CRT improved MS 51% vs 39%, MST 12 vs 9 m.
(14.6 → 17 → 15.6 m). More tox with chemo.
This RCT defined current SOC. (not cis/vbl). Toxicity
–– RTOG 8808 (Sause, 2000): II–IIIB→ 60/30 –– Palma, 2013: 1082 patients received concur-
vs 69.6 BID vs cis/vinblast induction +60/30 rent CRT from 4 continents. V60 was best pre-
(Dillman style). CRT improved MS dictor of esophagitis. Cut points of
(11.4 → 12 → 13.2 m). V60 <0.07%, 0.07–17, and >17%. Thus, keep
V60 <17%.
Lung Cancer 213
ENI vs 79%, OS 39% vs 26%, all favoring

–– No great data. IFRT. OS difference not persisting to 5 years.
–– RTOG 1308. II–IIIB NSCLC. Photons vs pro- Because of higher doses of IFRT, there was
tons. 70 Gy RBE. 2 Gy/fx. Concurrent plati- more pneumonitis than ENI, 17% vs 29%
num doublet chemo w CP or EP. Heart (SS). Other toxicities similar.
constraints coming from 0617 analysis.
–– Yuan, 2007. China. n = 200. Randomized LA PCI for NSCLC
NSCLC to IFRT 68–74 Gy vs ENI 60–64 Gy. –– RTOG 0214: ↓ # of mets, but no ∆ OS/DFS
4–6c platinum-based chemo is given, and TRT –– Differences in eligibility from SCLC
was to start after c2. At 2y, response rate 90%
Superior Sulcus Tumors CRT to 45 Gy/25 with cis 50 mg/m2 + etop
(Pancoast) [63] 50 mg/m2. Repeat CT during last week of RT
(week 5) to allow surgeon to make decision
Staging regarding resectability. If ineligible, continue
–– By definition at least T3 RT to 61.2/1.8. Then surgery and post-op
chemo. 20% pts unresectable and went on to
Symptoms complete RT to 60 Gy. Of 80% who went to
–– Pancoast triad: (1) shoulder pain, (2) brachial surg, 94% had R0 resection, 29% had pCR,
plexus palsy, (3) Horner’s syndrome (ptosis, and 26% had minimal microscopic residual,
meiosis, enophthalmos, and ipsilateral with a combined rate of 56% for response.
anhidrosis) 5-yr OS 44%. Recurrence: distant (non-brain)
–– Pancoast syndrome: pain in C8/T1, lower bra- only 33%, brain only 33%, local only 17%,
chial plexopathy from invasion of stellate gan- local + distant 12%. Created SOC for these
glion, + chest wall (rib invasion), has to be at tumors.
least T3 –– SWOG 0220 EP concurrent, docetaxel
consolidation.
Outcomes (NCI data)
–– 2-yr OS: 55%, 5-yr OS = 44%
–– 3-y/5-y OS: 61%/56% Treatment
–– 3-y OS: 56% –– Trimodality: neoadj cis/etop +45Gy
–– Check CT at last week of RT
Studies –– If resectable, → surgery →EP consolidation or
–– INT study (Loehrer, 1997). Evaluating PAC docetaxel per 0220
chemo. Pts get 2–4c q3w cis (50 mg/m2), –– If unresectable at 45Gy, go to 60–66Gy + adj
doxorubicin (50 mg/m2), and cyclophospha- chemo. Thus, need to save immobilization
mide (500 mg/m2). For those without PD, devices until surgeon reviews CTs and pt has
mediastinal RT to 54 Gy was delivered. surgery. No evidence for boost in patients w
n = 23, with 5 CRs and 11 PRs to chemo. RT R+ resection (per 0160)
converted 80% of pts w SD to a CR or PR. –– Contraindications to surgery: involves bra-
5-year OS 53%. chial plexus, subclavian artery, VB, esopha-
–– SWOG 9416/INT 0160 (Rusch, 2007): supe- gus, mediastinal LNs, or DMs
rior sulcus phase II of T3/4 N0/1 induction
Lung Cancer 215
Stage NCCN treatment options

IIIA Options:
resectable (1) Surgery, followed by chemo, with or without RT
(2) Chemo (Cis 100 mg/m2 + Eto 10 mg/m2 × 4), followed by surgery
(3) Trimodality: chemoRT, followed by surgeryIn the U.S., the standard of care with known Stage III
disease is to first receive definitive chemo, or RT, or both, but not go straight to the OR. The
patients with IIIA disease who receive surgery first are those where mediastinal LNs were not
expected
Good PS and is operable
EP 50/50 × 2: cisplatin 50 mg/m2 D1, 8, 29, 36; with etoposide 50 mg/m2 D1–5, 29–33; with RT
45 Gy (per INT 0139, Albain, Lancet, 2009). RT to 60 Gy possible
Complete resection and avoid pneumonectomy if possible
Then adjuvant EP 75/100: cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and etoposide 100 mg/m2 q 21 days × 2c
Poor PS and is operable
Carboplatin AUC 2 and paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 weekly with RT to 45 Gy
Then complete resection and avoid pneumonectomy
Then adjuvant carboplatin AUC 6 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 q 21 days
Contraindications to surgery in IIIA
Poor PFTs
T4 or ECE
Multi-station N2
High N2 disease
Pneumonectomy required (relative)
IIIA/B Concurrent CRT, 60 Gy, + adjuvant carbo/taxol (if carbo/taxol w CRT) × 2–3 (LAMP Regimen)
unresectable Consider + outback durvalumab q2 w × 12 m (NEJM, 2017)
Can also try pemetrexed, works on non-squamous, but not on squamous
If inoperable, then do RT with chemo to 60 Gy, and then consolidate as above
For definitive RT: treat primary and nodal dz (>1 cm) or hypermetabolic or + meds. No elective nodal
irradiation (allows for tumor dose escalation and is associated w low nodal relapse (6% – Rosenzweig
2007)
For highly symptomatic dz: can do RT 1st for local relief
For bulky dz too large to safely contain in RT port: consider induction chemo 1st
Pancoast Trimodality (if possible): Neoadj cis/etop +45Gy
T3–4 N0–1 Check CT at last week of RT
If resectable → surgery →EP consolidation or docetaxel per 0220
If unresectable at 45Gy, go to 60-66Gy + adj chemo
Thus, need to save immobilization devices until surgeon reviews CTs and pt has surgery. No evidence
for boost in patients w R+ resection (per 0160)
T4Nx Definitive CRT
IIIA/B not Consider 17 Gy/2 fractions vs 42 Gy/15 fractions (Sundstrom, JCO, 2004)
curable,
central sx
Contra Contralateral nodules: treat as 2 primary tumors if curable (some may disagree)
nodule
(M1a)
Metastatic Lung Cancer Novel agents

–– EGFR mutated: erlotinib 1st line
Treatment –– EML4-ALK: crizotinib 1st line
–– ECOG PS 0–2: Chemo ± palliative RT –– Non-mutated: platinum doublet
–– First-line chemo uses two agents for 3–4 cycles –– Addition of bevacizumab to carboplatin-
–– ECOG PS 3–4: Best supportive care paclitaxel improves survival Bevacizumab cri-
teria = non-squamous, no h/o hemoptysis, no
CNS mets, not on therapeutic anticoagulation
–– Role of RT is palliative.
–– MS? 6–18 mo, usually ~8–10 mo.
Lung Cancer 217
Tracheal Cancer [64, 65] Treatment

–– Surgery first.
Overview –– Then PORT as needed. Typically 50 Gy for
–– 44% SCC microscopic disease and 60–63 for R+.
–– 16% adenoid cystic Consider concurrent chemo for macroscopic
–– ~30% are adeno, adenosquam, carcinoid, residual or unresectable disease.
epidermoid
Studies
Xie, 2012: SEER. Improved outcomes w RT. If
treated w RT alone, MST 12 m vs 5 m w/ RT
–– Urdaneta, 2011: SEER. No benefit for OS w

RT.
Carcinoid Typical Carcinoid

–– Lobectomy + LND; N0 and N+ →
H/P observation
–– Flushing, diarrhea, wheezing
–– Labs: Urine 5HIAA; ACTH/cortisol per Atypical Carcinoid
NCCN –– Lobectomy + LND: N0 → observation; N+ →
PORT. Adjuvant dose is 50 Gy. Definitive
Imaging dose is 60–70 Gy.
–– Octreotide scan
–– CT C/A
Diagnostic
–– Broch. Mediastinoscopy if LNs on CT
Neuroendocrine
–– Typical carcinoid – (<2 mitoses/10 hpf)
–– Atypical carcinoid – (2–10 mitoses/10 hpf
or + necrosis)
–– Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (>=11
mitoses/10 hpf, large polygonal cells,
necrosis)
–– Small cell lung cancer (15% of lung cancers)
Lung Cancer 219
mall Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC)

S –– The pt will therefore receive 2c during RT (if
[6–10, 66–81, 82] getting BID) and 2c after RT for total of
320 mg/m2 (if using 80 mg/m2 × 4c). This is
Overview similar to HNSCC chemo.
–– 15% of lung cancer.
–– 1/3 pts present with limited stage dz; 2/3 have Limited Stage (LS-SCLC, i.e., Stages I–III)
mets, and 15% have brain mets. –– Definition: one RT port, one hemithorax,
–– Markers: S100, synaptophysin, chromogranin, excludes contra sclav, malignant effusion.
neurotensin, EGFR. Contra hilar is often considered ES-SCLC.
–– Del3p14–25, amplification of bcl2 and c-myc –– ~24-month median OS.
family; inactivation RB1; p53 mutations. –– NCCTG (Schild, 2004): n = 262. Induction
–– On spectrum of neuroendocrine tumors chemo w 3c EP. RT on c4. Randomize to
(which are CD56+), SCLC has the highest 50.4/1.8 vs 48/1.5 BID. In the BID arm, pts
mitotic rate. could have 2-wk break after initial 24 Gy. No
–– Ki-67 should be >20–25%. difference in MST (21 m) or 5-year OR (22%).
–– On imaging classically appears as hilar mass Inc tox in hyperfx arm.
w massive mediastinal LAD. –– Pignon 1992: meta-analysis (2140 pts) of
chemo +/− thoracic RT. RT improved 3-yr OS
Presentation (8.9 → 14.3%), 5% absolute OS benefit. Best
–– Hypercalcemia for <55 yo. Subgroups >55 yo had minimal
–– Hypercoagulable state benefit, esp if >70 yo.
–– Hypertrophic osteoarthropathy –– Fried 2004: meta-analysis of early vs delayed
–– SIADH – headaches, confusion, N/V RT. Early improved 2-yr OS by 5.2%.
–– Ectopic ACTH –– Takada 2002: concurrent vs sequential
–– Eaton-Lambert CRT. Concurrent improved 5-yr OS
–– Cerebellar ataxia (20 → 30%).
–– Retinopathy. –– INT 0096 (Turrisi, NEJM, 1999): 417
pts → cis/etop with RT (45/25 vs 45 Gy at 1.5/
Workup fx BID). Chemo was cis 60 mg/m2 and etopo
–– H&P. 120 mg/m2, given q3w for 4c total. RT was to
–– CBC, platelets, CMP. ipsi hilum and bilat mediastinum. Sclav LNs
–– Biopsy, PET-CT and eval adrenals (should do not routine included. Inf aspect of field was
in all lung cancer), MRI brain, BM bx if ↑LDH 5 cm below carina or at bottom of involved
or red cell aplasia (this can upstage them). hilm, whichever was lower. AM+PM tx on
PET will upstage 10% LS to ES, cord for w1; then AM dose on cord, PM dose
–– 4% abs OS benefit to not smoking during RT off cord w obliques during w2–3. BID ↓LF
(5% vs 9%). (52 → 36%) and ↑5-yr OS (15 → 26%). BID ↑
–– If CBC abnormal, BM bisy, grade 3 esophagitis (11 → 27%). Cord max
36 Gy. BEDs not equivalent: 45 Gy
Chemo BID = ~60 Gy/30.
–– Etoposide + platinum (EP) chemo is SOC –– Komaki, 2013: patterns of care study. Only
and cat 1 rec from NCCN. Two dose 20% of physicians use BID 2006–2007,
options. though it increased from 8% in 1998–999.
–– Etoposide, 100 mg/m2, d1–3 + cisplatin, –– CALGB 30610/RTOG 0538. Ongoing.
80 mg/m2, d1 q3w. Taken from CALGB Concurrent chemo and high-dose TRT. Similar
30610. to 0096 but at similar BEDs: 45 Gy BID vs
–– Etoposide 120 mg/m2 d1–3 + cis 60 mg/m2 d1 70 Gy/30. 61.2 Gy concomitant boost arm was
q3w. Taken from INT0096/Turrisi. closed early (planned to close 1 arm, was not
inferior). The better comparison is 70 and before RT. Mostly verbal memory, frontal
45 Gy BID. MDACC arm was less acceptable. lobe dysfunction, fine motor coordination. In
PCI is given 3–6 w after completion of all 4 c 11 pts who had post-RT testing, no SS differ-
chemo. ence in neuro status pre vs post RT.
–– CONVERT trial (Faivre-Finn, 2017): –– NRG hippocampal avoidance trial: improved
International. Concurrent CRT w 45 Gy BID Hopkins verbal learning.
vs 66 QD for LS-SCLC and ECOG 0–1. –– Takahashi, 2017: PCI in ES-SCLC with neg
ASCO 2016: 2-y OS 56% vs 51% and MST MRI prior to randomization. PCI did not
30 m vs 25 m (NSS). No difference in toxicity. improve OS.
Currently supporting either regimen as SOC.
–– RTOG 0239: phase II → RT to 61.2 Gy, par- Extensive Stage (ES-SCLC, i.e., Stage IV)
tially BID. Improved OS compared to Turrisi. –– 9-Month OS
–– CALGB 8837: phase I trial, dose escalated to –– Definition: can’t fit in one RT port.
over 70 Gy with good results. –– Yugoslavia, Jeremic 1999: PR or CR after
–– RTOG 0538: pending. Turrisi vs RTOG 0329 chemo→ chest RT vs more chemo. RT
(0239) vs 70/35 (CALGB 8837). This trial improved 5-yr OS (3.7 → 9.1%).
includes ENI. The spinal cord tolerance is –– Bonner, Mayo, 1995. ES-SCLC gets chemo.
36 Gy in the BID arm. If PR or CR, +/−TRT. 3/19 pts alive
>5 years.
Induction Chemo –– CREST (Chest Radiotherapy Extensive-Stage
–– SWOG 7924 (Kies, 1987): All got induction Small Cell Lung Cancer Trial), Slotman 2014:
chemo for LS-SCLC and then randomize to ES-SCLC get chemo. If PR or CR → +/− tho-
post-op tx. If CR, then rando to TRT or further racic RT (30/10). PCI is for all. 90% of pts had
chemo. Those with PR or had SD to induction residual thoracic dz after initial chemo, only
were rando to TRT to either pre-induction 5% w CR. For TRT, PTV = post-chemo vol-
(“wide field”) or post-induction (“reduced ume + 1.5 cm margin, also all LN stations
field”) target volume. No difference in OS, involved pre-chemo, including hilum + medi-
patterns of failure astinum, even w CR. Lung (defined as lungs
minus PTV) V20 <35%. Pts only get CNS
PCI imaging if there are clinical sx. 1-year OS
–– 5.4% OS3 absolute improvement. 25 Gy/10 fx. similar 28–33%, NSS. However, RT improved
–– Contraindications: poor mental status, stable, 2-yr OS (3 → 13%). Intrathoracic PFS
or progressing disease. improved 20% vs 47%. Toxicity similar be
–– Auperin 1999: meta-analysis of PCI. PCI arms, G3+ esophagitis <2%.
reduced 3-yr brain mets (59 → 33%) and –– Giuliani, PMH, 2011: ES-SCLC pts get con-
increased 3-yr OS (15.3 → 20.7%). Better if solidative TRT, 30+ Gy. LR was 26% in 1 y
given early. and 39% in 2 y.
–– Le Pechoux 2003: randomized LS cCR –– RTOG 0937: ES-SCLC w up to four extracra-
patients to 25/10 vs 36/18 PCI. Same brain nial mets get PCI 25/10 +/− consolidative
met rate, worse OS in high dose. TRT and met-directed RT. Must have at least
–– EORTC 08993 (Slotman 2007): ES with any radiographic PR in one site and no PD. Can
response to 4–6c chemo→ +/− PCI. PCI have max four extracranial metastatic lesions.
improved 1-yr OS (13 → 27%). No routine Rec max dose is 45 Gy/15 fx at 3 Gy.
MRIs done. Extracranial progression Alternative is 30–40 Gy/10 fx. Closed due to
unchanged (89% vs 93%, NSS). poor accrual and futility boundary for
–– Komaki, 1995: MDACC neurocog study. 97% OS. High G4+ toxicity in TRT arm.
of pts had neuro decline after chemo but
Lung Cancer 221
Simulation Historical, from Turrisi

–– Supine, arms up, in alpha cradle –– PTV: GTV + 1.5–2 cm, ipsilateral hilum,
–– CT sim w contrast (from cricoids to include include all mediastinum + involved LNs.
liver); 4D CT –– IFRT appears OK if PET-staged.
–– BID:
LS-SCLC Contours • 1st week AP/PA AM and PM
–– Fuse PET to planning CT and contour GTV • Then AP/PA AM, oblique PM
on free breathing CT: primary tumor, ipsilat- • Cord tolerance 36 Gy (41 Gy to a point, per
eral hilum, and clinically positive lymph CALGB, RTOG 0538)
nodes (>1 cm in short axis) or pretreatment
PET/CT (SUV >3). BID Dose Constraints
–– Some patients need 1–2 cycle chemo induc- –– Spinal cord: Dmax <41 Gy (36 Gy)
tion. RT is to post-induction volume accept- –– Total lung-CTV: V20 <25%, MLD <13 Gy
able, no apparent increase in marginal failure
(SWOG 7924, Kies, 1987; Liengswanwong, ES-SCLC Contours (per CREST)
JCO, 1994). –– All patients get PCI.
–– *If no PET, need to treat gross tumor, ipsilat- –– TRT is 30 Gy/10.
eral hilum, and bilateral mediastinum per –– PTV = post-chemo GTV + 1.5 cm + initially
Turrisi. involved hilar and mediastinal LN stations
–– Using 4D CT, create ITV by expanding GTV (even if CR with chemo).
to encompass tumor on ten phases of breath-
ing cycle. Recurrence
–– CTV = ITV + 1 cm; PTV = CTV + 5 mm. Topotecan is currently the only FDA-approved
–– OARs: esophagus, heart, lungs, cord, BP. second-line tx but has poor response rate.
Ardizzoni, 1997, four courses of topotecan w
Dose 22% response. Depends on response to EP
–– LS-SCLC: 45 Gy in 1.5 Gy BID fractions, (Brahmer and Ettinger 1998). Responders vs
minimum 6 hours between treatments nonresponder MST 12 m vs 5 m.
–– ES-SCLC: 30 Gy in 3 Gy fractions
Prognosis
Planning –– Good KPS; weight; females do better
–– 3D CRT, all fields daily
–– 6 MV beam energy
–– Block edge margin = 5 mm
On Treatment
–– Daily KV imaging
Stage Tx paradigm
SIADH and hypoNa Fluid restriction
Give hypertonic saline, correct 1–2 nmol/L/h
Demeclocycline
Antineoplastic therapy
Vasopressin receptor inhibitors
Cushing syndrome Consider ketoconazole and then metyrapone
Consider before initiation of antineoplastic tx
T1–2 N0 Mediastinal sampling. If neg → lobectomy and node dissection
pN0: post-op chemo
pN+: post-op CRT
Still recommend PCI
LS-SCLC: “Concurrent platin doublet + RT” (Turrisi and Pignon meta-analysis)
“fits in one port” Four cycles of EP chemo: etoposide, 120 mg/m2, d1–3 + cisplatin, 60 mg/m2, d1 q3w
Concurrent RT at 1st cycle if possible. Some pts w massive LAD may need 1–2 cycle
induction chemo before TRT. In this case, RT is to post-induction volume, no apparent
increase in marginal failure (SWOG 7924, Kies, 1987; Liengswanwong, JCO, 1994)
RT: 45Gy/1.5Gy/fx >6 h apart or 60–70 Gy 1.8–2Gy (Turrisi or CALGB 39808)
“Early RT” (Murray and Fried meta): start date to end date of RT should be 3 weeks w
BID
Wait for 3–6 w after all chemo, and do CT chest and MRI brain. If CR or PR, then PCI,
25 Gy/10 fx
If progression use topotecan
LS-SCLC w SVC Try chemo first and then proceed per above.
syndrome
ES-SCLC: “doesn’t” Platin doublet, four cycle EP chemo (80/80)
Then CT chest, to bottom of adrenals and MRI brain
If CR or PR: PCI for all. Concurrent consolidative TRT to 30 Gy in ten fractions to
GTV + 1.5 cm and ENI if involved up front (EORTC CREST/Slotman)
RT to other sites not recommended (RTOG 0937)
If progression: topotecan
M1, non-brain met SVC/lobar obstruction/bone mets: Chemo + RT
Cord compression: palliative RT first
M1, brain met Asx: may do chemo 1st, then WBRT
Sx: WBRT and then chemo
Lung Cancer 223
hymoma and Thymic Carcinoma

T • T4 – into aorta, arch vessels, heart, trachea,
[6–10, 83–89] esophagus
–– N1 – ant mediastinal nodes
AJCC 8th Edition Staging –– N2 – intrathoracic nodes
• T1 – encapsulated or into mediastinal fat –– N3 – supraclav
• T1a: not into mediastinal pleura
• T1b: into mediastinal pleura T1 T2 T3 T4
• T2 – invasion into pericardium N0 I II IIIA IIIB
• T3 – adjacent organs: into the lung, brachioce- N1 or M1a IVA
phalic vein, vena cava, phrenic nerve, chest N2 or M1b IVB
wall, or pulm artery/vein
Masaoka Staging • T4 – pleural/pericardial

• T1 – encapsulated –– N1 – ant mediastinal nodes
• T2 – through capsule –– N2 – intrathoracic nodes
• T2a – microscopic invasion –– N3 – supraclav
• T2b – macro invasion, into fat, mediastinal
pleura T1 T2 T3 T4
N0 I II III IVA
• T3 – into organs N1-3
• T3a – into adj organs M1 IV
• T3b – into great vessels
Overview Paraneoplastic Syndromes

–– Anterior mediastinal mass: DDx is the four –– Myasthenia gravis, present in 30–50% of thy-
Ts: thymic tumor, thyroid mass, terrible lym- moma patients. Higher OR risk due to crisis.
phoma, teratoma (GCT) All pts will need AChR inhibition prior to sur-
–– Assoc with MG, red cell aplasia, gery (e.g., neostigmine, pyridostigmine). 15%
hypogammaglobulinemia of myasthenia patients have thymoma.
–– 50% of ant mediastinal masses are thymomas –– Pure red cell aplasia.
–– 50% of thymomas have MG, and 15% of MGs –– Hypogammaglobulinemia.
have thymoma –– Addison’s or Cushing’s syndrome.
–– WHO grading (A, AB, B1–3, C).
–– Type A: spindle cell, medullary. Benign Workup
course. 10-year DFS 95% –– Same as NSCLC, plus rule out germ cell
–– Type AB: borderline/mixed. 10-year DFS tumor: serum beta-HCG, AFP
90% –– TSH, T3, T4 as needed
–– Type B1–3: moderately malignant. 10-year –– Serum anti-AChR antibodies MUST BE
DFS 40–85% DRAWN BEFORE ANY SURGERY
• B1: tumor represents normal functional –– Biopsy not needed if suspected clinically and
thymus, “lymphocyte-rich” radiographically. If performed, should not use
• B2: mixed, cortical transpleural approach to prevent seeding
• B3: predominantly neoplastic epithelial –– PET-CT
cells, few lymphocytes –– PFTs
–– Type C: highly malignant (thymic –– MRI chest as needed
carcinoma)
–– Thymic carcinoid/carcinoma (30% N+)
What You Need to Know From Surgery Adj Chemo

–– Histology (thymoma can be observed if Stage –– Mornex 1995: +/− cisplatin, unclear benefit.
I R0; thymic carcinoma always gets at least –– Wright 2008: retrospective of ten patients,
RT) Stages III–IV. cis/etop + RT. Then resection
–– Margin status (all R1s get at least RT) and post-op chemo. Four had radiographic
–– Capsular status, infiltration of mediastinum or PR. 5-year OS 70%.
surrounding organs (invasion is at least T2)
–– WHO classification Treatment Paradigm (Based on Masaoka
Staging)
Natural History –– Operable: resect, median sternotomy + en
–– Failure typically pleural or pericardial mets bloc thymectomy
(Stage IVA). Can still attempt resection of –– Stage I
implants for long-term survival • Thymoma, R0: obs
• Carcinoma R0: 45–50 Gy
Neoadjuvant Chemo • Carcinoma R1: PORT +/−chemo, 50–54Gy
–– MDACC (Kim, 2004): unresectable invasive • Carcinoma R2: PORT +/−chemo, 60Gy
thymoma II–IVB given 3c induction cyclo, –– Stage II, R0–R1, B2–B3, 45–50Gy
doxo, cis, pred q3–4w, then resect, and then –– Stage III–IVA, R0: 45–50Gy+. R1: 54 Gy.
PORT. 50 Gy for R0 and 60 Gy for R1 or if Note R0 for Masaoka Stage III difficult to
<80% tumor necrosis. Then give 3c consolida- achieve.
tion chemo. Induction chemo had response of –– Stage III–IVA, Unresectable or R2, 60–70 Gy
77%. 76% had R0. 5-year OS 95%. 7-year OS
79%. Inoperable
–– MGH experience (Wright, 2008): ten pts w –– Adriamycin-based chemo, usually CAP
Masaoka III or IVA. Given 2c cis and etopo (cyclophosphamide, adria, cisplatin). Some
and concurrent RT, 40–45 Gy. Re-eval and have tried cis/etop as well. Then surgery if
then resection at 4–8w. 80% w R0 resection. resectable and then RT (≥60Gy) then more
–– INT/Indiana (Loehrer, JCO, 1997): unresect- chemo.
able thymomas given 2–4 cycles of cisplatin, –– If still unresectable, CRT (60–70Gy).
doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (PAC). If no –– For R1–2 carcinomas, cis-based chemo with
PD, then RT to primary and regional LNs to 60–70 Gy RT preferred.
54. 70% response, 22% CR. Overall 5-y free-
dom from failure 54%. 5y-OS 52%. Technique
–– Hamaji, 2015: meta-analysis of 12 studies, –– Supine, 4D, cast, arms up, IV contrast.
266 pts, w thymic epithelial tumors (TETs) w –– 3D-CRT w AP/PA or wedged pair or IMRT
cis induction. Response rate to induction –– CTV = thymic space, tumor bed, and clips,
chemo 59%. CR 73%. 5-year OS 5%. 10-year involved LN. ENI not recommended bc thy-
OS 76%. momas rarely go to LNs. Talk to thoracic
surgeon.
PORT –– PTV = CTV + 1.5–2 cm.
–– Forquer 2009: SEER database. PORT
improved 5-yr OS for Stages II–III (5-yr OS Posttreatment
66 → 76%), but not stage I. –– 50% of MG pts will improve.
–– Curren 1988: 103 pts. No recurrence for Stage –– 30% of red cell aplasia will improve.
I without RT. Stage II–III patients had ↓LF –– Hypogammo does not improve.
with PORT (53 → 0%). 21% if subtotal resec-
tion and PORT.
–– Mangi 2002 and Haniuda 1996 challenged
PORT for Stage II thymoma.
Lung Cancer 225
RT details
Margin Histology Post-op paradigm (“just say 50 or 60”)
R0 Thymoma or I: Surveillance w CT chest q6–12 months for 2 y and
carcinoma then annually for 5y for carcinoma and 10 y for
thymoma
Thymoma II–IV: +/− post-op RT Stage II R0–1 B2–3:
45–50 Gy
Carcinoma II–IV: + post-op RT (cat 2b) Stage II R0–1 B3: 50–54Gy
Note R0 for Masaoka Stage
III difficult to achieve
R1 Thymoma Post-op RT 50–54Gy
Carcinoma Post-op RT +/− chemo 50–54Gy
Then surveillance w CT chest q6–12 months for 2 y
and then annually for 5 y for carcinoma and 10 y for
thymoma
R2 Thymoma Post-op RT +/− chemo 50–54Gy
Carcinoma Post-op RT + chemo Unresectable or R2,
60–70 Gy
Unresectable Chemo first. Then CT with contrast and PET-CT. Then
reconsider for resection. If unresectable, then RT
+/− chemo
Pleural Mesothelioma [6–10, 90–94]
AJCC8 AJCC8 T1 T2 T3 T4
• T1 – ipsilateral pleural disease only N0 IA IB
• T2 – into diaphragm muscle or pulmonary N1 II IIIA IIIB
parenchyma
N2 IIIB
• T3 – endothoracic fascia, mediastinal fat,
chest wall, outer pericardium (potentially M1 IV
resectable)
• T4 – multifocal, into peritoneum, contralateral pleura, mediastinal organ, spine, internal pericar-
dium (unresectable)
–– N1 – ipsi hilar/mediastinal
–– N2 – contralateral or SVC
AJCC7
• T1 AJCC7 T1a T1b T2 T3 T4
• T1a – ipsi parietal pleura, no visceral N0 IA IB II III
• T1b – ipsi parietal pleura, +visceral N1 IV
• T2 – into diaphragm muscle or pulmonary III
N2
parenchyma
• T3 – endothoracic fascia, mediastinal fat, N3
IV
chest wall, outer pericardium M1
• T4 – multifocal, into peritoneum, contralateral
pleura, mediastinal organ, spine, internal pericardium
• N1 – ipsi hilar
• N2 – ipsi mediastinal/IM, or subcarinal, or peridiaphragmatic
• N3 – contra mediastinal/IM, supraclav
Overview • Med/EBUS of nodes

–– 2500 cases/yr. • PET/CT
–– 80% involve asbestos. RT, smoking is • PFTs and stress test: Goal >40% EF and no
synergistic. reversible ischemia, perfusion studies to
–– Stains for calretinin, vimentin WT1, assess contralateral lung. Post-op FEV1
cytokeratin. expected to be >30% and >0.8 L
–– Arise from pleura, peritoneum, pericardium, –– PET/CT optional per NCCN. May be useful
and tunica vaginalis (embryonic outpouching for pts with prior talc pleurodesis as this can
of peritoneum). mimic tumor. If no prior pleurodesis, obtain
–– 80% of mesos are pleural. PET prior to talc.
–– Majority of pts will die of LR. –– Thoracentesis for cytology.
Work-Up Surgery
–– H&P – asbestos exposure, if transthoracic –– Extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP)
extension, then SC/Ax LNs at increased risk. removes parietal/visceral pleura, lung, medi-
–– CT CAP. astinal nodes, pericardium, and ipsi dia-
–– MRI chest/abd to rule diaphragm invasion. phragm. ~5–15% mortality. 2-year OS is 35%.
–– Pleural bx: VATS preferred over open. Needle Contraindicated if extension through
bx can seed track. diaphragm.
–– If surgery planned (clinical Stages I–III):
Lung Cancer 227
–– Pleurectomy/decortication (P/D): more like –– *Avoid aggressive surgery if poor PS, N+,
debulking, resection of pleura w/o lung or sarcomatoid b/c poor prognosis
removal. Possible removal/recon of dia- • For N+, palliative chemo is the SOC.
phragm or pericardium. Only 2% operative –– Chemo: anti-folate/platinum doublet (e.g., cis/
mortality but only curative for T1, so it is pem).
reserved for early stage. Adjuvant RT limited –– Thymic carcinoma needs adjuvant therapy.
by remaining underlying intact lung.
Radiation
Adj RT –– Post-op after EPP: R0: 50–54Gy; R+
–– Adj RT typically part of package after EPP, 54–60Gy. 41.4 Gy is prescribed to contra
but some centers have published good out- vertebral.
comes of post-op IMRT and IMPT after P/D. –– Prophylactic to prevent tract recurrence:
–– Rusch 2001: phase II → EPP and hemitho- 21Gy/3 fx at 7 Gy.
racic 54 Gy. MS 34 m for Stages I–II, 10 m for
Stages III–IV. Technique
–– Flores 2006: induction gem/ –– Sim w supine arms akimbo since tx usually
cis → EPP → 54Gy. MS 33 m. AP PA and en face electron patches under
–– Rosenzweig (2012) Good review esp toxicity shielding.
of IMRT and ways to minimize this. –– Simulation, CTV:
–– Sup: top of T1
Chemotherapy –– Inf: bottom of L2
–– Vogelzang 2003: metastatic→cis +/−peme- –– Lat: flash skin
trexed. Pem is 500 mg/m2 and cis is 75 mg/m2 –– Medial: 1.5–2 cm beyond contra VB
q3w. This is superior to cis alone in patients border
unfit for surg for MST (12 vs 9 m), PFS (6 vs –– Stomach (for L-sided lesion) and liver (for
4 m), and radiographic response (41% vs R-sided lesion) blocked through entire hemi-
17%). thoracic RT course.
–– If on L, ant heart block at 19.8 Gy to prevent
RT pericarditis.
–– O’Rourke: n = 61. Rate of tract seeding simi- –– Cord blocked after 41.4 Gy.
lar bw RT arm (13%) and obs (10%). Questions –– Electron field patch is used centrally to sup-
need for prophylactic tract RT. plement pleural space under block, to treat the
diaphragmatic recesses around the liver. Dose
NCCN usually 1.53 Gy/d. This dose is used because
Early Stage/Resectable photon field scatters 15% of dose to blocked
–– Highly controversial. Radical pleurectomy portion. Electrons prescribed to 90% IDL.
increasingly option over EPP. RT after radical
pleurectomy only on trial. Constraints
–– If RT after P/D: lung V20Gy <20% and
Advanced Stage/Unresectable MLD <9.5 Gy
–– Induction chemo (cis and pem) →surgery → –– Hemithoracic RT 4–8 wks post-op to 54 Gy
+/−RT. –– Contralateral lung V20 <7%, V5 <50%,
–– Surgery (definitive/palliative): mean <8.5Gy
–– EPP –– Heart V40Gy <50%
–– P/D
SVC Syndrome [95, 96] Life-Threatening

–– Sx: hoarseness, dyspnea, facial plethora,
Management laryngeal edema.
–– Biopsy (if nonemergent case) to rule out –– Eval for protective intubation, emergent stent
benign causes or other sensitive tumors placement, steroids.
–– Most commonly seen with lung ca (80%) –– Begin immediate RT, AP/PA midplane.
Meanwhile, dosimetry will develop conformal
Non-life-Threatening plan for definitive treatment.
–– 1–2c systemic therapy. Has been shown to
relieve sx in 80% of SCLC and 60% of
NSCLC.
–– RT not recommended prior to getting path
diagnosis, esp if there is mediastinal mass.
Lung Cancer 229
References 15. Moiseenko V, Liu M, Bergman AM, et al. Monte

Carlo calculation of dose distribution in early stage
NSCLC patients planned for accelerated hypofrac-
1. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced
tionated radiation therapy in the NCIC-BR25 proto-
lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomo-
col. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:723–33.
graphic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395–409.
16. Onishi H, Araki T, Shirato H, et al. Stereotactic hypo-
2. Darling GE, Allen MS, Decker PA, et al. Randomized
fractionated high-dose irradiation for stage I nonsmall
trial of mediastinal lymph node sampling versus com-
cell lung carcinoma: clinical outcomes in 245 sub-
plete lymphadenectomy during pulmonary resection
jects in a Japanese multiinstitutional study. Cancer.
in the patient with N0 or N1 (less than hilar) non-
2004;101:1623–31.
small cell carcinoma: results of the American College
17.
Sibley GS, Jamieson TA, Marks LB, et al.
of Surgery Oncology Group Z0030 Trial. J Thorac
Radiotherapy alone for medically inoperable stage I
Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141:662–70.
non-small-cell lung cancer: the Duke experience. Int J
3. Palma DA, Senan S, Oberije C, et al. Predicting esoph-
agitis after chemoradiation therapy for non-small cell
18. Timmerman R, McGarry R, Yiannoutsos C, et al.

lung cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis.
Excessive toxicity when treating central tumors in a
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87:690–6.
phase II study of stereotactic body radiation therapy
4. Marks LB, Yorke ED, Jackson A, et al. Use of normal
for medically inoperable early-stage lung cancer. J
tissue complication probability models in the clinic.
Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4833–9.
19. Timmerman R, Paulus R, Galvin J, et al. Stereotactic
5. Videtic GM, Hu C, Singh AK, et al. A randomized
body radiation therapy for inoperable early stage lung
phase 2 study comparing 2 stereotactic body radiation
cancer. JAMA. 2010;303:1070–6.
therapy schedules for medically inoperable patients
20. Trodella L, Granone P, Valente S, et al. Adjuvant
with stage I peripheral non-small cell lung cancer:
radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with path-
NRG Oncology RTOG 0915 (NCCTG N0927). Int J
ological stage I: definitive results of a phase III ran-
domized trial. Radiother Oncol. 2002;62:11–9.
6. Bylund A, Stattin P, Widmark A, et al. Predictive
21. Corradetti MN, Mitra N, Bonner Millar LP, et al. A
value of bcl-2 immunoreactivity in prostate cancer
moving target: image guidance for stereotactic body
patients treated with radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol.
radiation therapy for early-stage non-small cell lung
1998;49:143–8.
cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2013;3:307–15.
7. Cook B, DT. Wikibooks Radiation Oncology.
22. Fernando HC, Landreneau RJ, Mandrekar SJ, et al.
Impact of brachytherapy on local recurrence rates
after sublobar resection: results from ACOSOG
Z4032 (Alliance), a phase III randomized trial for
high-risk operable non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin
Oncol. 2014;32:2456–62.
23. Xiao Y, Papiez L, Paulus R, et al. Dosimetric evalu-
2010.
ation of heterogeneity corrections for RTOG 0236:
stereotactic body radiotherapy of inoperable stage I-II
ogy - A question based review. 2nd ed. Philadelphia:
non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys. 2009;73:1235–42.
11. Bradley J, Graham MV, Winter K, et al. Toxicity and
24. Hiraki T, Tajiri N, Mimura H, et al. Pneumothorax,
outcome results of RTOG 9311: a phase I-II dose-
pleural effusion, and chest tube placement after radio-
escalation study using three-dimensional conformal
frequency ablation of lung tumors: incidence and risk
radiotherapy in patients with inoperable non-small-
factors. Radiology. 2006;241:275–83.
cell lung carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
25. Johnson BE. Second lung cancers in patients after
2005;61:318–28.
treatment for an initial lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst.
12. Dosoretz DE, Katin MJ, Blitzer PH, et al. Medically
1998;90:1335–45.
inoperable lung carcinoma: the role of radiation ther-
26. D'Cunha J, Herndon JE 2nd, Herzan DL, et al. Poor
apy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 1996;6:98–104.
correspondence between clinical and pathologic stag-
13. Gilligan D, Nicolson M, Smith I, et al. Preoperative
ing in stage 1 non-small cell lung cancer: results
chemotherapy in patients with resectable non-
from CALGB 9761, a prospective trial. Lung Cancer.
small cell lung cancer: results of the MRC LU22/
2005;48:241–6.
NVALT 2/EORTC 08012 multicentre randomised
27. Mutter RW, Liu F, Abreu A, et al. Dose-volume

trial and update of systematic review. Lancet.
parameters predict for the development of chest wall
2007;369:1929–37.
pain after stereotactic body radiation for lung cancer.
14. Ginsberg RJ, Rubinstein LV. Randomized trial of

lobectomy versus limited resection for T1 N0 non-
28. Dunlap NE, Cai J, Biedermann GB, et al. Chest

small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer Study Group.
wall volume receiving >30 Gy predicts risk of
Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;60:615–22; discussion 622-3.
severe pain and/or rib fracture after lung stereotac-
tic body radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. favorable patients with Radiation Therapy Oncology
2010;76:796–801. Group stage III non-small-cell lung carcinoma: report
29.
Stephans KL, Djemil T, Reddy CA, et al. of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 83-11. J Clin
Comprehensive analysis of pulmonary function Test Oncol. 1990;8:1543–55.
(PFT) changes after stereotactic body radiotherapy 41. Dillman RO, Seagren SL, Propert KJ, et al. A random-
(SBRT) for stage I lung cancer in medically inoper- ized trial of induction chemotherapy plus high-dose
able patients. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4:838–44. radiation versus radiation alone in stage III non-small-
30. Videtic GM, Stephans K, Reddy C, et al. Intensity- cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:940–5.
modulated radiotherapy-based stereotactic body 42. Gore EM, Bae K, Wong SJ, et al. Phase III compari-
radiotherapy for medically inoperable early-stage son of prophylactic cranial irradiation versus observa-
lung cancer: excellent local control. Int J Radiat tion in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell
Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77:344–9. lung cancer: primary analysis of radiation therapy
31. Nagata Y, Takayama K, Matsuo Y, et al. Clinical out- oncology group study RTOG 0214. J Clin Oncol.
comes of a phase I/II study of 48 Gy of stereotactic 2011;29:272–8.
body radiotherapy in 4 fractions for primary lung can- 43. Keller SM, Adak S, Wagner H, et al. A randomized
cer using a stereotactic body frame. Int J Radiat Oncol trial of postoperative adjuvant therapy in patients with
Biol Phys. 2005;63:1427–31. completely resected stage II or IIIA non-small-cell
32. Hara R, Itami J, Kondo T, et al. Clinical outcomes of lung cancer. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. N
single-fraction stereotactic radiation therapy of lung Engl J Med. 2000;343:1217–22.
tumors. Cancer. 2006;106:1347–52. 44. Perez CA, Stanley K, Rubin P, et al. Patterns of tumor
33. Strauss GM, Herndon JE 2nd, Maddaus MA, et al. recurrence after definitive irradiation for inoperable
Adjuvant paclitaxel plus carboplatin compared with non-oat cell carcinoma of the lung. Int J Radiat Oncol
observation in stage IB non-small-cell lung cancer: Biol Phys. 1980;6:987–94.
CALGB 9633 with the Cancer and Leukemia Group 45. Rosell R, Gomez-Codina J, Camps C, et al.

B, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, and North Preresectional chemotherapy in stage IIIA non-small-
Central Cancer Treatment Group Study Groups. J cell lung cancer: a 7-year assessment of a randomized
Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5043–51. controlled trial. Lung Cancer. 1999;26:7–14.
34. Spoelstra FO, Senan S, Le Pechoux C, et al. Variations 46. Roth JA, Atkinson EN, Fossella F, et al. Long-term
in target volume definition for postoperative radio- follow-up of patients enrolled in a randomized trial
therapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: analy- comparing perioperative chemotherapy and surgery
sis of an international contouring study. Int J Radiat with surgery alone in resectable stage IIIA non-small-
Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:1106–13. cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 1998;21:1–6.
35.
Postoperative radiotherapy for non-small cell 47. Rusch VW, Giroux DJ, Kraut MJ, et al. Induction
lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005; chemoradiation and surgical resection for non-small
CD002142. cell lung carcinomas of the superior sulcus: initial
36. PL03.05. An intergroup randomized phase III com- results of Southwest Oncology Group Trial 9416
parison of standard-dose (60 Gy) vs high-dose (74 (Intergroup Trial 0160). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.
Gy) chemoradiotherapy (CRT) +/− cetuximab (cetux) 2001;121:472–83.
for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): 48. Sause W, Kolesar P, Taylor SI, et al. Final results
results on cetux from RTOG 0617. Clin Adv Hematol of phase III trial in regionally advanced unresect-
Oncol. 2014;12(2–4). able non-small cell lung cancer: Radiation Therapy
37. Albain KS, Swann RS, Rusch VW, et al. Radiotherapy Oncology Group, Eastern Cooperative Oncology
plus chemotherapy with or without surgical resection Group, and Southwest Oncology Group. Chest.
for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III ran- 2000;117:358–64.
domised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374:379–86. 49. Thomas M, Rube C, Hoffknecht P, et al. Effect of
38. Ball D, Bishop J, Smith J, et al. A randomised phase preoperative chemoradiation in addition to pre-
III study of accelerated or standard fraction radio- operative chemotherapy: a randomised trial in
therapy with or without concurrent carboplatin in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet Oncol.
inoperable non-small cell lung cancer: final report 2008;9:636–48.
of an Australian multi-centre trial. Radiother Oncol. 50. van Meerbeeck JP, Kramer GW, Van Schil PE, et al.
1999;52:129–36. Randomized controlled trial of resection versus
39. Belani CP, Choy H, Bonomi P, et al. Combined
radiotherapy after induction chemotherapy in stage
chemoradiotherapy regimens of paclitaxel and car- IIIA-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer
boplatin for locally advanced non-small-cell lung Inst. 2007;99:442–50.
cancer: a randomized phase II locally advanced multi- 51. Weisenburger TH. Effects of postoperative mediasti-
modality protocol. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:5883–91. nal radiation on completely resected stage II and stage
40. Cox JD, Azarnia N, Byhardt RW, et al. A randomized III epidermoid cancer of the lung. LCSG 773. Chest.
phase I/II trial of hyperfractionated radiation therapy 1994;106:297S–301S.
with total doses of 60.0 Gy to 79.2 Gy: possible sur- 52. Werner-Wasik M, Paulus R, Curran WJ Jr, et al.

vival benefit with greater than or equal to 69.6 Gy in Acute esophagitis and late lung toxicity in concurrent
Lung Cancer 231
chemoradiotherapy trials in patients with locally tion therapy for limited-stage unresectable thymoma:
advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of the an intergroup trial. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:3093–9.
radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) database. 64. Xie L, Fan M, Sheets NC, et al. The use of radia-
Clin Lung Cancer. 2011;12:245–51. tion therapy appears to improve outcome in patients
53. Stinchcombe TE, Hodgson L, Herndon JE, et al.
with malignant primary tracheal tumors: a SEER-
Treatment outcomes of different prognostic groups based analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
of patients on Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 2012;84:464–70.
39801: induction chemotherapy followed by chemo- 65. Urdaneta AI, Yu JB, Wilson LD. Population based
radiotherapy compared with chemoradiotherapy cancer registry analysis of primary tracheal carci-
alone for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung noma. Am J Clin Oncol. 2011;34:32–7.
cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4:1117–25. 66. Auperin A, Arriagada R, Pignon JP, et al. Prophylactic
54. Wang L, Wu S, Ou G, et al. Randomized phase II cranial irradiation for patients with small-cell lung
study of concurrent cisplatin/etoposide or paclitaxel/ cancer in complete remission. Prophylactic Cranial
carboplatin and thoracic radiotherapy in patients with Irradiation Overview Collaborative Group. N Engl J
stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. Med. 1999;341:476–84.
2012;77:89–96. 67. Choi NC, Herndon JE 2nd, Rosenman J, et al. Phase
55. Santana-Davila R, Devisetty K, Szabo A, et al.
I study to determine the maximum-tolerated dose of
Cisplatin and etoposide versus carboplatin and pacli- radiation in standard daily and hyperfractionated-
taxel with concurrent radiotherapy for stage III non- accelerated twice-daily radiation schedules with
small-cell lung cancer: an analysis of Veterans Health concurrent chemotherapy for limited-stage small-cell
Administration data. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:567–74. lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:3528–36.
56.
Sundstrom S, Bremnes R, Aasebo U, et al. 68. Jeremic B, Shibamoto Y, Nikolic N, et al. Role of radi-
Hypofractionated palliative radiotherapy (17 Gy per ation therapy in the combined-modality treatment of
two fractions) in advanced non-small-cell lung car- patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer:
cinoma is comparable to standard fractionation for a randomized study. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:2092–9.
symptom control and survival: a national phase III 69. Le Pechoux C, Dunant A, Senan S, et al. Standard-
trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:801–10. dose versus higher-dose prophylactic cranial irradia-
57. Auperin A, Le Pechoux C, Rolland E, et al. Meta- tion (PCI) in patients with limited-stage small-cell
analysis of concomitant versus sequential radioche- lung cancer in complete remission after chemotherapy
motherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell lung and thoracic radiotherapy (PCI 99-01, EORTC 22003-
cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2181–90. 08004, RTOG 0212, and IFCT 99-01): a randomised
58. Eberhardt WE, Pottgen C, Gauler TC, et al. Phase clinical trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:467–74.
III study of surgery versus definitive concurrent 70. Pignon JP, Arriagada R, Ihde DC, et al. A meta-

chemoradiotherapy boost in patients with resectable analysis of thoracic radiotherapy for small-cell lung
stage IIIA(N2) and selected IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:1618–24.
cancer after induction chemotherapy and concur- 71. Slotman B, Faivre-Finn C, Kramer G, et al.

rent chemoradiotherapy (ESPATUE). J Clin Oncol. Prophylactic cranial irradiation in extensive small-cell
2015;33:4194–201. lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:664–72.
59. Suntharalingam M, Paulus R, Edelman MJ, et al.
72. Slotman BJ, van Tinteren H, Praag JO, et al. Use of
Radiation therapy oncology group protocol 02-29: a thoracic radiotherapy for extensive stage small-cell
phase II trial of neoadjuvant therapy with concurrent lung cancer: a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.
chemotherapy and full-dose radiation therapy fol- Lancet. 2015;385:36–42.
lowed by surgical resection and consolidative therapy 73. Takada M, Fukuoka M, Kawahara M, et al. Phase III
for locally advanced non-small cell carcinoma of the study of concurrent versus sequential thoracic radio-
lung. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84:456–63. therapy in combination with cisplatin and etoposide
60.
Gandara DR, Chansky K, Albain KS, et al. for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: results of the
Consolidation docetaxel after concurrent chemora- Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study 9104. J Clin
diotherapy in stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer: Oncol. 2002;20:3054–60.
phase II Southwest Oncology Group Study S9504. J 74. Turrisi AT 3rd, Kim K, Blum R, et al. Twice-daily
Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2004–10. compared with once-daily thoracic radiotherapy
61. Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, et al. Nivolumab ver- in limited small-cell lung cancer treated concur-
sus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small- rently with cisplatin and etoposide. N Engl J Med.
cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1627–39. 1999;340:265–71.
62. Yuan S, Sun X, Li M, et al. A randomized study of 75. Schild SE, Bonner JA, Shanahan TG, et al. Long-term
involved-field irradiation versus elective nodal irra- results of a phase III trial comparing once-daily radio-
diation in combination with concurrent chemotherapy therapy with twice-daily radiotherapy in limited-stage
for inoperable stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer. Am small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
J Clin Oncol. 2007;30:239–44. 2004;59:943–51.
63. Loehrer PJ Sr, Chen M, Kim K, et al. Cisplatin, doxo- 76. Kies MS, Mira JG, Crowley JJ, et al. Multimodal
rubicin, and cyclophosphamide plus thoracic radia- therapy for limited small-cell lung cancer: a ran-
domized study of induction combination chemother- trialists. Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte
apy with or without thoracic radiation in complete Contre le Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
responders; and with wide-field versus reduced-field 1995;32:651–9.
radiation in partial responders: a Southwest Oncology 87. Wright CD. Management of thymomas. Crit Rev

Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 1987;5:592–600. Oncol Hematol. 2008;65:109–20.
77. Liengswangwong V, Bonner JA, Shaw EG, et al.
88. Wright CD, Choi NC, Wain JC, et al. Induction

Limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: patterns of chemoradiotherapy followed by resection for locally
intrathoracic recurrence and the implications for tho- advanced Masaoka stage III and IVA thymic tumors.
racic radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12:496–502. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85:385–9.
78. Komaki R, Khalid N, Langer CJ, et al. Penetration 89. Hamaji M, Ali SO, Burt BM. A meta-analysis of
of recommended procedures for lung cancer staging induction therapy for advanced thymic epithelial
and management in the United States over 10 years: tumors. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:1848–56.
a quality research in radiation oncology survey. Int J 90. Flores RM, Krug LM, Rosenzweig KE, et al.

Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:1082–9. Induction chemotherapy, extrapleural pneumonec-
79. Komaki R, Meyers CA, Shin DM, et al. Evaluation of tomy, and postoperative high-dose radiotherapy for
cognitive function in patients with limited small cell locally advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma: a
lung cancer prior to and shortly following prophylac- phase II trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2006;1:289–95.
tic cranial irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 91. Rusch VW, Rosenzweig K, Venkatraman E, et al.
1995;33:179–82. A phase II trial of surgical resection and adjuvant
80. Giuliani ME, Atallah S, Sun A, et al. Clinical out- high-dose hemithoracic radiation for malignant
comes of extensive stage small cell lung carcinoma pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.
patients treated with consolidative thoracic radiother- 2001;122:788–95.
apy. Clin Lung Cancer. 2011;12:375–9. 92. Vogelzang NJ, Rusthoven JJ, Symanowski J, et al.
81. Brahmer JR, Ettinger DS. The Role of Topotecan in Phase III study of pemetrexed in combination with
the Treatment of Small Cell Lung Cancer. Oncologist. cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with
1998;3:11–4. malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol.
82. Takahashi T, Yamanaka T, Seto T, et al. Prophylactic 2003;21:2636–44.
cranial irradiation versus observation in patients with 93. Stahel RA, Riesterer O, Xyrafas A, et al. Neoadjuvant
extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer: a multi- chemotherapy and extrapleural pneumonectomy of
centre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet malignant pleural mesothelioma with or without
Oncol. 2017;18:663–71. hemithoracic radiotherapy (SAKK 17/04): a ran-
83. Forquer JA, Rong N, Fakiris AJ, et al. Postoperative domised, international, multicentre phase 2 trial.
radiotherapy after surgical resection of thymoma: dif- Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1651–8.
fering roles in localized and regional disease. Int J 94. O'Rourke N, Garcia JC, Paul J, et al. A randomised
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:440–5. controlled trial of intervention site radiotherapy in
84. Haniuda M, Miyazawa M, Yoshida K, et al. Is post- malignant pleural mesothelioma. Radiother Oncol.
operative radiotherapy for thymoma effective? Ann 2007;84:18–22.
Surg. 1996;224:219–24. 95. Wilson LD, Detterbeck FC, Yahalom J. Clinical prac-
85. Mangi AA, Wright CD, Allan JS, et al. Adjuvant radi- tice. Superior vena cava syndrome with malignant
ation therapy for stage II thymoma. Ann Thorac Surg. causes. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1862–9.
2002;74:1033–7. 96. Loeffler JS, Leopold KA, Recht A, et al. Emergency
86. Mornex F, Resbeut M, Richaud P, et al. Radiotherapy prebiopsy radiation for mediastinal masses: impact on
and chemotherapy for invasive thymomas: a multicen- subsequent pathologic diagnosis and outcome. J Clin
tric retrospective review of 90 cases. The FNCLCC Oncol. 1986;4:716–21.
Breast Cancer
6
and Jennifer Rosenberg
Abstract
ment of patients with breast cancers, with spe-
cial focus on principles that guide radiotherapy
management. Several key components of tri-
modality care and accelerated partial breast
irradiation (APBI) are discussed.
N. G. Zaorsky (*) · J. Rosenberg

jrosenberg1@pennstatehealth.psu.edu
D. M. Trifiletti

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4_6
Breast Pearls [1–17]

Breast Cancer 235
T1 – ≤2 cm T1 T2 T3 T4
T1mi – ≤0.1 cm N0 IA IIA IIB
N1mi = IB IIIB
T1a – >0.1 and ≤0.5 cm N1 IIA IIB IIIA
T1b – >0.5 and ≤1 cm N2 IIIA
T1c – >1.0 and ≤2 cm N3 IIIC
M1 IV
T2 – >2.0 and ≤5 cm
T3 – >5 cm
T4 - AJCC 8th Edition Changes/Staging
T4a –
chest wall (not pec, but serratus, Clarifications
intercostal, ribs) –– LCIS no longer included in Tis, it is benign.
T4b – ulceration, peau d’orange, nodules, and/or –– Multifocal: 2+ tumors in the same quadrant.
edema that is not T4d –– Multicentric: 2+ tumors in diff quadrants,
T4c – 4a + 4b separated by >5 cm.
T4d – inflammatory breast cancer (IBC): –– For multifocal disease, use size of max focus
Rapid onset of breast erythema, edema, (do not sum).
and/or peau d’orange involving >1/3 of –– Anatomic stage: Only based on TNM.
breast with or without palpable mass. –– Prognostic stage: Includes TNM, ER/PR/
<6-month duration. Her2 status, +/− Oncotype testing
Pathological confirmation: core bx con- –– pT1–2 N0 that is ER/PR+ and HER2- and
firms invasive ca, skin punch bx (minimum Oncotype <11 is stage IA.
of 2). DLI pathognomonic but not required. –– Intramammary LN count as axillary nodes for
staging.
cN0 No nodes pN0 No nodes
cN1 Mobile level I-II nodes pN1mi Micromets (0.2-2mm)
pN1a 1-3 nodes (>2mm)
pN1b Micro IM nodes
pN1c pN1a +pN1b
cN2a Fixed/matted axillary nodes pN2a 4-9 nodes (>2 mm)
cN2b Clinical IM nodes only pN2b Clinical IM nodes with
pathologically neg axilla
cN3a Infraclav nodes (ax level III) pN3a 10+ axillary or any infraclav
cN3b IM + axillary nodes pN3b IM + axillary nodes
cN3c Ipsilateral Supraclav pN3c Ipsilateral Supraclav
Anatomy
–– Chest wall (CW) = ribs, intercostals, serratus

anterior
Nodal sup inf ant post lat med

region
sclav
1 I Axillary
vessels
Pec major
insert into
Plane of ant Ant surface Medial
surface pec subscapular dorsi
Lat border
pec minor
cross lat ribs major and is
edge pec lat dorsi
minor
II Axillary Axillary Ant surface Ribs + Lat border Medial

vessels vessels pec m intercostal pec minor border pec
cross med cross lat minor
2 edge pec edge pec
minor minor
III Pec minor Axillary Post Med border Thoracic
insert onto vessels surface pec pec minor inlet
coracoid cross med major
edge pec
I minor
sclav Sup cricoid Brachiocep SCM Ant scalene Sup: lat Exclude
halic v SCM thyroid,
3 meets Inf: 1st rib/ trachea
Sup 4th rib
clavicle clavicle
head
IM Sup 1st rib Sup 4th rib
lat dorsi
4
1 2 3 4
Breast Cancer 237
Pectoralis Minor –– Breast MRI controversial (consider for young

–– Arises from third to fifth ribs or BRCA+)
–– Inserts at coracoid process –– T3, N1+, or symptoms: bone scan and CT
chest/abd/pelv, +/− PET, +/− MRI
Axillary LN Levels –– Adjunctive markers of progression: CEA, CA
–– Level I: lateral to pec minor. 15–3, CA 27.29
–– Level II: behind + including pec minor.
–– Level III: medial to pec minor. Biopsy
–– IMNs: lie in first–third intercostal spaces, in –– Stereotactic core biopsy w/ clip placement.
between the sternum and rib. Sup border is –– US-guided core biopsy w/ clip placement.
sup border of the first rib; inf border should be –– What is a suspicious US? Irregular, hypoechoic,
sup to the fourth rib. posterior shadowing, taller than wide.
–– Supraclav: –– Stereotactic, wire-localized excisional biopsy
–– Superior = below cricoid cartilage (near CW, near nipple, very faint calcs).
–– Inferior = below clavicular head –– Place a clip in both primary mass and any
–– Anterior = SCM nodes.
–– Posterior = anterior scalene –– If ADH/LCIS still needs excision, bc could be
–– Medial = trachea associated with IDC/DCIS.
–– Lateral = lateral edge of SCM –– If cN+ → axillary U/S + FNA.
Risk of Axillary LN Involvement

Workup –– T1 5–20%
–– T2 40%
–– History –– T3 75%
–– Age –– T4 85%
–– Early menarche, late menopause, nullipar-
ity, first pregnancy ≥ 30 yo Risk of Level III/SCV Involvement
–– Exogenous estrogen (HRT → 1.24 RR) –– 1–3 LN 10%/5%
–– MMG history, previous breast biopsies, –– 4+ LN 50%/15%
previous breast cancer
–– FH of breast cancer Men Versus Women
–– Previous chest RT –– Male breast cancer represents 1% of all breast
–– Pregnancy cancer.
–– Scleroderma, active SLE (RA ok) –– Men present at later age, median 71 yo.
–– Physical exam, including breast and LN –– Men more likely to have LN+, ER/PR+. 90%
exam IDC. Few DCIS (10%) or LCIS (1%).
–– Review previous mammos –– No difference in outcomes of men vs
–– Obtain b/l diagnostic mammo and U/S women.
–– Calcs → magnification view –– MKSCC: Male breast CA more likely to be ER+
–– Palpable → compression views (87% vs 55%). Gestational breast cancer: defini-
–– HCG tion is during pregnancy, lactation, or first post-
–– Fertility counseling/genetics referral PRN partum year. Recommended approach is ALND.
Genetic Testing Screening Mammos Timing

General –– USPSTF recommends screening patients
population 50–74 every 2 years. For women <40 or 50 yo,
BRCA1 BRCA2 (lifetime risk) regular screening initiation should be based on
Breast cancer 47–66% 40–57% 12.5% a patient’s specific context.
Breast cancer Usually Usually –– Normal risk.
histo TNBC ER+
Contralateral Up to 65% Up to 50% 0.5–1% per yr
–– ≥20–39 yo clinical exam q 1–3 years.
cancer –– ≥40 yo annual mammo and exam.
Ovarian 35–46% 13–23% 1.5% –– Strong FH: 10 years before the age at which
cancer youngest family member diagnosed.
Male breast Increased, 3.2–12% 0.1% –– Meta-analyses estimate 20–35% relative risk
not as
much as reduction in breast cancer mortality in women
BRCA2 50–69. In women who are 40–49, the RR
Prostate 35–40% 15% reduction is 15%.
Pancreas <10% 1.3%
Uveal <10%
melanoma
MRI
–– Lifetime risk of breast/ovarian cancer w/ –– Screening indications

either BRCA 1 or 2 is 60%. –– ACS recommends MRI for risk
–– Risk of endometrial cancer similar between ≥20–25%.
BRCA 1 and 2. –– BRCA 1 and 2: ≥25yo, annual MMG and
–– TNBC: 20% of pts have BRCA mutation. MRI (stagger q 6 months).
–– 5% of all breast ca pts have a hereditary –– Prior chest RT before age 30: 10 y post
mutation. RT. Annual mammo and MRI (stagger q
–– WECARE study, Malone, 2010: population- 6 months).
based, international. 10y risk of a second con- –– Diagnostic indications
tralat breast cancer diagnosed >1y after –– Multicentric, multifocal
original breast cancer dx. BRCA1 or 2 carrier, –– Response to NACT
18%. Noncarrier 5%. –– Occult primary
Genetic Referral Indicated If What is an Adequate Mammogram?

–– Family member with BRCA –– MLO: Perpendicular line from the pectoralis
–– Triple negative breast ca and <60 yo to nipple. Inframammary fold should be
–– Breast ca at age <50 visible.
–– Personal hx breast or ovarian primaries –– CC: The pectoralis can be visualized in 30%;
–– 1+ relative with breast ca <50 yo the nipple is in profile.
–– 1+ relative with ovarian ca –– Compare to prior mammos.
–– 2+ relatives with breast or pancreas ca –– What are suspicious mammo findings/buzz-
–– 2+ same side fam members with breast, panc, words? Large size, spiculated/ill-defined
prostate (GS7+), sarcoma, adrenocortical, borders, architectural distortion, pleomorphic
brain, endometrial, leukemia/lymphoma, thy- calcifications, microcalcifications in a linear
roid, diffuse gastric branching pattern, granular calcifications.
–– Ashkenazi Jew –– Calcifications present→Mag views. Can be
–– Male breast CA described as a heterogeneous cluster of pleo-
morphic calcifications. Stereotactic biopsy.
Breast Cancer 239
–– Mass present→compression views. If it per-

sists, then it is a true mass.
–– Screening mammo = CC, MLO.
–– Diagnostic mammo = CC, MLO, and addi-
tional views (magnification and compression).
MLO CC
R L R L
Pe
c
ma
jor
upper outer
nipple
lower inner
BIRADS: Breast Imaging Reporting and –– Grade 1 = score 3–5.

Data System –– Grade 2 = score 6–7.
Score Findings % Malig Recs –– Grade 3 = score 8–9.
0 Incomplete study N/A Further imaging
1 Normal <1% Cont screening
2 Benign lesion <1% Cont screening Molecular Subtypes
3 Prob benign <2% Short-term fu in (Invasive Disease)
6 months
4 Suspicious 5–95% Biopsy IHC status Grade
5 Highly suspicious >95% Biopsy Lum A ER+ PR+ Her2− Ki67+ 1, 2
6 Known cancer 100% Treatment Lum B ER+ PR+ Her2− Ki67− 2, 3
ER+ PR+ Her2+ Ki67+
Her2 ER− PR− Her2+ 2, 3
Factor Affecting Recurrence (Botteri, 2010) Basal ER− PR− Her2- 3
Local/regional Distant
Size LVI
ER status LN status HER2 (Wolff et al. JCO 2013)
Ki-67
Young age ISH FISH single probe FISH dual probe
Her2+ 3+ ≥6 copies/cell OR HER2:CEP17
ratio ≥ 2
Path Evaluation Equiv 2+ 4–6 copies/cell HER2:CEP17
–– LNs: #, ECE. This is the single most powerful AND ratio < 2
Her2− 0–1+ <4 copies/cell HER2:CEP17
predictor of LRR, DFS, and OS. AND ratio < 2
–– Size and extent (multifocal?).
–– Grade (1–3).
–– Calcifications and necrosis assoc. w/ DCIS.
–– DCIS in non-calcified areas. Oncotype DX
–– Margins >2 mm for DCIS and post-
MRM. Margins are 0 mm for BCT. –– Assessed in NSABP B-14 and B-20, where
–– Necrosis. patients were ER+ and node negative
–– LVI. –– High risk: Score 31+
–– ER/PR/Her2 status. –– Intermediate risk: Score 18–30
–– Low risk: Score <18
Nottingham Factors for Grade (Elston-Ellis
Modification)
–– Based on (1) tubular differentiation, (2)
nuclear pleomorphism, and (3) mitotic
count.
–– Each category is given a score from 1 to 3.
Final grade is the composite.
Breast Cancer 241
Surgery Types
Surgery type Breast removed Muscle removed Nodes removed Predictors of LC Predictors of OS
RM Yes Pec major and minor ALND I, II, III 1. Axl LNs
MRM Yes Pec major fascia ALND I, II 1. # Axl LNs 2. T stage
2. T stage
TM Yes Pec major fascia No
WLE Partial No No
Excisional bx Partial No No
BCS Partial No Typically w/ SLN (I) 1. R+
2. young age
Reconstruction Types –– Chemo can be considered after first trimester

(usually doxo, cytoxan, 5FU): AC.
–– Gel implants –– First trimester: consider termination; OR mas-
–– Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap tectomy and ALND (no SLNB), chemo in sec-
–– Nipple sparing ond trimester, deliver then XRT and Tam.
–– Second: mastectomy/BCS and ALND (no
SLNB), chemo as needed, then RT and
BCS Basics Tam.
–– Third: mastectomy/BCS and ALND (no
–– SLN biopsy is part of package for invasive. SLNB), deliver then chemo/RT/Tam.
For DCIS, need SLN if palpable/ >4 cm,
extensive high grade, microinvasion.
–– All BCSs get into-op specimen radiograph to Surgical Margins
confirm calcs/biopsy clip are in specimen. (Moran, 2014; Morrow, 2016)
Margins Tumor Notes
On ink IDC R+ associated w/ 2x increase in
BCS Contraindications (NCCN) IBRT vs R0
≥2 mm DCIS If <2 mm, individualize tx
Absolute: pregnancy, diffuse microcalcifica-
tions, poor cosmesis expected, persistent or dif-
fuse +margin, multicentric (evaluated in Z11102), Shave Margins
widespread disease, ATM mutation –– Chagpar (NEJM, 2015). Stage 0–III breast
Relative: prior RT, connective tissue disease ca getting partial mastectomy. 23% IDC,
(scleroderma/lupus), T3/tumors >5 cm (cat 2B), 19% DCIS, 53% both. n = 235. Rando to fur-
focally +margin, genetic predisposition (e.g., ther cavity shave margins vs not. In both
BRCA, Li-Fraumeni) arms, surgeons allowed to remove selective
margins on basis of gross and radiographic
findings. Then, pts randomized intra-op.
Diagnosis During Pregnancy Primary outcome = tumor on ink and <1 mm
of edge of DCIS specimen. Rate of positive
–– Regardless of trimester, no RT, SNLBx, or margins decreased 19% in shave vs 34%
Tam/AI during preg. non-shave. Also lower rate of re-resection to
–– US and MRI can be done, not mammo. clear margins (10% vs 21%). Similar
–– Other staging studies typically cannot be complications.
done.
Systemic Therapy Chemoprevention with Endocrine

Therapy
Chemotherapy Agents –– NSABP P01, Fisher 1998, 2005: women
–– CMF: cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5FU age >60, or 35–59 with inc risk, or hx of LCIS
(historical standard). given Tam or placebo. Tam won.
–– AC: Adriamycin, cyclophosphamide (should 56% reduced risk with hx of LCIS
be “dose-dense” given q2w x 4 cycles). 49% reduced risk of invasive cancer overall
–– AC→T: adding paclitaxel decreases CSM by RR 2.53 for endometrial cancer
4% (RR 0.83, NSABP B-28). Thus, adding a –– ASCO/NCCN recs for chemoprevention in 35
taxol to adj chemo provides the same DSS yo w/ >10 year life expectancy and one of the
benefit as adding regional nodal irradiation to following:
early-stage N+ or high-risk node neg pts on –– Atypical hyperplasia.
MA-20 (HR 0.76, DFS 82 vs 77%). –– LCIS.
–– Paclitaxel either given q2w x 4c (with G-CSF) –– A >1.7% 5 year risk for breast cancer (per
or weekly x 12c (no need for G-CSF). Gail model).
–– AC→THP: + Herceptin +Perjeta (if Her2+) –– Consider w/ flat epithelial atypia.
–– Herceptin/trastuzumab: neoadjuvant and –– Get baseline GYN assessment, bone density
given for 1 year post BCT. scan
–– Perjeta/pertuzumab: currently approved in the
neoadjuvant setting only. Tamoxifen
–– TC: docetaxel (taxotere), cyclophosphamide –– Tamoxifen dose usually 20 mg QD x 5–10y.
given q3w x 4 cycles. –– SERM: Selective estrogen receptor
–– Trastuzumab: monoclonal antibody for modulator.
HER2/neu. Give 4 mg/kg IV over 90 min and –– Toxicity: hot flashes, ↑thromboembolic dz,
then 1 mg /kg over 30 min qWeek during ↑uterine cancer.
chemo for 12 weeks of paclitaxel or –– Follow-up: HP q6–12 m x 5y, then yearly.
docetaxel. mammo q12m. annual GYN exam,
–– CDK4/6 inhibitors: palbociclib, ribociclib, –– NSABP B-24: BCT (lump +50Gy) +/−
abemaciclib; used in metastatic setting with tamox(5 yrs). At 10 yr tamox improved IBRT
AI in ER+ postmenopausal pts. (15 → 11%) and contralateral cancer
(5.4 → 4.5%). Same DM and OS. If ER+,
Endocrine Therapy 50% risk reduction.
–– Menopausal if: prior b/l oophorectomy, age –– UKCCR trial (see DCIS section).
60+, age <60, and amenorrheic x 12 m. –– TEXT trial: Oral exemestane 25 mg
–– Consider FSH/estradiol testing if uncertain QD + triptorelin or Trelstar IM injection q28 d
status. vs oral tamoxifen. Bilat oophorectomy or
–– Aromatase inhibitors block peripheral conver- ovarian RT allowed if at least 6 m of triptore-
sion of androgen→estrogen. lin in both arms.
–– In premenopausal women, main source of –– SOFT trial: Exemestane + ovarian suppres-
estrogen is ovaries (vs peripheral conversion sion (triptorelin, bilateral oophorectomy, or
in postmenopausal women). Aromatase can be ovarian RT) vs tamoxifen + ovarian suppres-
increased in premenopausal women. Thus, sion vs tamoxifen alone.
AIs are not as effective in premenopausal
women, and the decreased peripheral
conversion of estrogen may stimulate ovaries
to make more estrogen.
–– Premenopausal: tamoxifen.
–– Postmenopausal: raloxifene, tamoxifen, or AI.
Breast Cancer 243
romatase Inhibitors (AIs)

A Length of Endocrine Therapy
–– Drugs: –– MA-17 (Goss, NEJM, 2016): 10 years of AI
Exemestane (Aromasin): Irreversible steroi- >5 years
dal AI. Dose is 25 mg PO daily x 5 y. –– DATA trial: equivocal results in 5 vs 10 y
Anastrozole (Arimidex, 1 mg QD); letrozole –– NSABP B42: equivocal results in 5 vs 10 y
(Femara): Nonsteroidal reversible AIs.
–– Toxicity: Bone pain, osteoporosis, SOB, CDK4/6 Inhibitors
cough, F/C, –– Palbo is a CDK4/6 inhibitor, which regulates
–– AIs are superior to Tam in postmenopausal cell cycle at the G1/S interface. Palbo blocks
women (ATAC trial, Cuzick 2010; EBCTCG cells from moving from G1 to S.
2015). –– At this point, approved only for metastatic
–– In premenopausal: Tam +/− ovarian suppres- dz.
sion or AI + ovarian suppression. –– PALOMA-2 (Finn, 2016). 666 postmeno-
–– TEXT/SOFT combined analysis. Pagani pausal women w/ ER+ HER2-M+ breast can-
(NEJM, 2014): Is exemestane + ovarian sup- cer, 50% w/ prior chemo and 56% had prior
pression better than tam + ovarian suppres- endocrine. Rando to letrozole +/− palbo.
sion? 4690 premenopausal women with Palbo improved PFS: 25 m vs 14 m (HR
operable high-risk breast cancer and 0.58).
ER > 10%+. Randomized to oral exemestane –– MONALEESA-2 (Hortobagyu, 2016): similar
(25 mg QD) + triptorelin (for ovarian suppres- results.
sion) vs tamoxifen (20 mg QD) + triptorelin. –– PALOMA-3 (Cristofanilli, 2016): HR+
Exemestane beat tamoxifen. Improved 5-yr HER2- M+ breast cancer progressed on prior
DFS (91% vs 87%), breast cancer FS (93% vs endocrine therapy. Rando to oral palbo + ful-
89%), DMFS (94% vs 92%). Thus, for patients vestrant vs placebo + fulvestrant. Median FU
premenopausal women w/ high-risk early 9 months. Median PFS 9.5 m vs 4.6 m. G3–4
breast ca, exemestane + ovarian suppression is tox 73% in combo group vs 22% in fulvestrant
an option. Note that in pt not getting chemo, group. Mainly heme tox.
there were fewer DMs and no appreciable DM –– MONARCH2 (Sledge, 2017): ER+ M+ breast
difference was found for exemestane and tam cancer pts; PFS improved with addition of
groups. abemaciclib to letrozole.
AI Versus Tamoxifen in Postmenopausal Bisphosphonates

–– NSABP B-35 (Margolese, Lancet, 2016): –– Z-fast (Brufsky, 2007)
3104 postmenopausal women. Tam 20 mg QD –– ZO-FAST (Bundred, 2008)
vs anastrozole 1 mg PO QD for 5 years. –– SABRE (van Pozkan, 2010)
Improved breast cancer-free interval (BCFI), –– All demonstrate effectiveness of bisphospho-
mainly in women <60 yo (this was not seen at nates in reducing bone loss in women receiv-
5 years, but it was seen at 10 years). Increased ing AIs.
thrombosis/embo w/ tam vs anastrozole, 2.7% –– ASCO Guidelines (JCO 2017): adj bisphos-
vs 0.8%. phonates reduce recurrence in postmeno-
–– EBCTCG meta-analysis Lancet 2015: pausal pts with nonmetastatic dz.
Recurrence ratio favors AIs in years 0–4 and
nonsignificantly thereafter. 10-y CSM lower Chemo Trials
with AI 12% vs 14%. AI lowers CSM vs tam –– Joint Center (Recht, 1996; Bellon, 2005).
by 15% and by 40% vs no endocrine What is best chemo/RT sequence? Stage I–II
therapy. breast ca. BCS + ALND. Rando to (1) adjuvant
chemo, then RT vs (2) RT, then chemo. Chemo after BCS. For any size tumor with pCR, LRR
was CMF, prednisone, leucovorin. RT was rates were 0%. Highest LRR rates if ypN+.
45 + 16 Gy. Long-term FU: no benefit for –– After MRM, predictors of recurrence were
LRR, time to failure, DMs, OS. (1) tumor size prior to chemo, (2) LN status
prior to chemo, and (3) ypN status.
Recht trial Chemo→RT RT → chemo –– Predictors of recurrence in BCS were (1)
10 y rate of any event 46% 51%, p = 0.88
age, (2) cLN status, and (3) ypN status.
(IBTR, CBTR, breast
cancer, second –– The very low LRR rates are the rationale
malignancy, or death) for NSABP B-51.
10 y distant metastases 35% 36%, p = 0.70 –– NSABP B-28: LN+ pts randomized to AC vs
10 y mortality 28% 33%, p = 0.41 ACT. Taxane improved 5-yr DFS 72 → 76%
(RR 0.83). No OS benefit. MA-20 showed
–– EBCTCG chemo/HT: meta-analysis, 6 m similar DSS benefit to adding RNI to early
anthracycline-based chemo reduced breast ca stage N+ patients (HR 0.76, DFS 82 vs 77%).
death by 38% if <50 yo and 20% if 50–69 yo. –– NCCTG N9831: HER2 pos women rando to
Tamoxifen x5 yrs reduced breast ca death by AC, then T vs AC then T then trastuzumab vs
31%. AC, then T+ trastuzumab, then transtuzumab
–– NSABP B-20: surgery and pN0, ER+. alone.
Randomized to Tamox vs Tamox +MF chemo –– NSABP B-31: HER2+ pts: ACT vs
vs Tamox + CMF. Chemo improved 12 yr ACT+H. Herceptin improved 3-yr DFS
DFS, but not OS (p = 0.068). These pts were (75 → 87%) and OS (92 → 94%).
used in the validation of Oncotype recurrence –– N9831 and B-31 joint analysis (Perez, 2011):
score. AC→T +/− trastuzumab. 10y DFS 75 vs 84%,
–– CALGB 9741: showed that dose dense ACT OS 62 vs 74%.
improved 4 yr DFS 75 → 82% as well as OS. –– ATAC Trial (Howell, 2005; Cuzick, 2010):
–– NSABP B-14: ER+ pts. Tamox 10 mg BID x5 ER+/− postmen pts: anastrozole 1 mg QD,
yrs vs placebo. Tamox improved 15-yr DFS/ tamoxifen 20 mg QD, or both. AI improved
OS. DFS over tamox (89 vs 87%); both were 87%,
–– NSABP B-18: cT1–3 N01. Preop vs postop but only for ER+ pts. No dif in OS.
AC x4c. n = 1523. At 9 yrs, no difference in
DFS or OS. More BCT in preop group (~25%
converted), but more LR in those patients Systemic Therapy, Clinical Use
(10.7 vs 7.6%). More LR if mastectomy con-
verted to BCT (9.6 vs 15.7%). Main benefit of I ndications for Adjuvant Chemo
NA CT was downstaging tumor for BCT. At –– ER+, HER2-:
time of surgery, pts w/ NA CT were ypN = 41% 1. + LN (>2 mm) or
of time vs 57% if no NA CT. 2. Tumor >0.5 cm → Oncotype, ≥31
–– NSABP B-27: Neoadj ACx4→surg vs –– All other subtypes:
ACx4 →docetaxel→surg vs ACx4→surg→ 1. + LN (>2 mm) or
docetaxel. More toxicity with AC then 2. Tumor >1 cm
docetaxel (G4 = 23% vs 10%). However,
response increased (40% vs 64% cCR; 14% vs gents Used and Schedule
A
26% pCR). Similar rates of BCS. –– ddAC x 4 → T x 4, q 2 weeks (dose dense).
–– B-18 + B-27 combined analysis (Mamounas, *Adriamycin 60 mg/m2 and cyclophospha-
2012): n = 3088. NA chemo with AC or mide 600 mg/m2 are both on day 1, cycled q
AC-T. Patients who had MRM did not get 14 days for 4 cycles (2 months total).
adjuvant RT. Patients w/ BCS had WBI. Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 weekly x 4 weeks.
10-year LR was 12% after MRM and 10% Preferred for LN+.
Breast Cancer 245
–– TC –– Indications:
Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV day 1. LN(−) and ER(+) who will be tx with
Cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 IV day 1. tamoxifen
Cycled q21d x 4 cycles with filgrastim support SWOG 8814 also demonstrated predictive
for each cycle. magnitude in ER+ LN+ patients
Some use AC, but not “preferred” per NCCN. –– 0–17 low risk. 31+ high risk
–– ER+: Tam (20 mg QD) or anastrozole (1 mg
QD) x 5–10 years. elative Indications for Neoadjuvant
R
–– HER2+: Herceptin (start with first dose of Chemotherapy (NACT)
paclitaxel if w/ CT) x 1 year. 4 mg/kg once per –– To get to BCS (T2, T3)
week. Cardiac monitoring at 3, 6, and 9 months. –– Locally advanced tumors (N2, T3N1, T4, N3)
–– + herceptin if + LN, > 2 cm (Herceptin: –– Inflammatory
4 mg/kg loading then 2 mg/kg weekly during
chemo, then 6 mg/kg q3wks x 1 y after) o Ensure Post-NACT SLNBx FNR < 10%
T
–– FNA w/ clip placement so the primary is not
lost
AI Follow-Up –– Dual radiocolloid and blue dye tracer
–– Check DEXA at baseline –– IHC to define any positivity
–– Toxicities: Osteoporosis, arthralgia, SOB, –– 3+ SLN
cough, fever/chills
Hot Flashes/Antidepressants
–– Venlafaxine, paroxetine, fluoxetine, and ser-
Oncotype Dx traline all decrease hot flashes vs placebo.
–– PCR study of 21 genes (5 reference/16 cancer) Sertraline has been shown to decrease hot
–– Prediction/prognostication: flashes in women on hormonal therapy.
Likelihood of disease recurrence and survival –– Fluoxetine/paroxetine may decrease forma-
(prognostic) tion of tamoxifen metabolites.
Response to chemo (predictive)
RT Simulation/Planning Technique –– Inferior

2 cm margin on inframammary fold
–– Supine, arms up, head turned slightly, angled –– Anterior
breast board to make sternum parallel to 2 cm flash
couch, alpha cradle. –– Posterior
–– Wire scar, sup wire at inf clavicular head, inf Match wire marking midline.
wire 2 cm below inframammary fold, lateral Adjust block to make straight sup-inf line at
wire at mid-axillary line, med wire at sternum. the mid-sternum and avoid contralateral
Use contralateral breast to identify inframam- breast.
mary fold if postmastectomy.
–– DIBH for L sided w/ scout film to check. Field in Field (FIF)/Forward Planned IMRT
–– If large/pendulous breasts, consider prone –– Copy open medial field. Creating hot spot vol-
tx vs tx in bra; cut out opposite side most ume, 120%. Block it in the new field.
often so contralateral breast falls out of the
way. Boost
–– Contour seroma and clips.
“Two-Field”/Tangents Only –– Add 2-cm margin for electrons.
–– Tangents include the sup/inf wire. –– e-cover volume with 90% IDL or use mini
–– Set medial tangent to stay off the contralateral tangents.
breast. –– Consider re-sim in lateral decub position if
–– Add collimation to maximize coverage and tumor bed is far lateral.
minimize lung/heart exposure (cannot colli-
mate if treating LNs with three fields). “Three-Field” Breast Treatment
–– Iso: midpoint sup/inf, midpoint enter/exit, just –– Same setup as two-field but adds sclav field
inside CW. Note that if you will treat LNs, you (i.e., treating nodes, levels I–III, and
should first try monoisocentric technique and supraclavicular).
set iso near inf clavicular head. If field size –– If it is possible to treat the entire breast and the
>20 cm, then breast should be treated with supraclav in one field, set isocenter at clavicular
couch kicks. head for single-iso technique (cannot
–– Oppose beam for lateral tangent. collimate).
–– Match posterior border or half beam block. –– Start with tangent fields, same procedure as
–– 1 cm lung = 6% irradiated. above, but half-beam block for superior half
–– 2 cm lung = 16% irradiated (goal is <2 cm). of field.
–– 3 cm lung = 26% irradiated. –– SCV field: angled 10–15° away from cord. If
–– Iso at midpoint between med and lat wires. treating L sided, RAO is used; if treating R
–– High tangents: top border 2 cm below sided, LAO is used.
humerus. –– Sup: cricoid
–– Field in field. –– Inf: bottom of clavicular head/top tangents
–– Hot spot <107% is the goal. Max 110%. –– Lateral: coracoid process or humeral head
–– Medial: pedicles (angle field 10° to stay off
Beams Eye View (BEV) cord)
–– Superior –– Look at CT plan to ensure coverage. Use
Inferior aspect of head of clavicle higher E (e.g., 16 MV vs 6 MV) when needed.
Below humeral head –– If tangent field too long, need dual-isocenter
technique.
Breast Cancer 247
“Four-Field” Breast Treatment –– DCBG-IMN Trial: Prospective cohort study

–– Same as three-field, but adds PAB field to of 3089 pts with N+ breast cancer. R-sided pts
cover posterior axilla. received IM-RT; L-sided pts did not. Improved
–– Brings dose up to midplane of axilla to 50 Gy, 8y OS 75% vs 72% with IM-RT (HR 0.82).
usually 40–60 cGy/fx b/c; most dose comes DSS also improved.
from SCV.
–– Uses: undissected axilla, gross ECE, larger
patient (where three-field does not penetrate IMN Technique Options
deeply). 1. Deep tangents: to cover the breast and the
–– Field is 180° gantry angle opposite from SCV IMN, but it is hard to meet the lung/heart dose
field. constraints with deep tangents. Easiest.
–– Borders the same as full SCV field, except 2. VMAT/IMRT.
block lung and above clavicle: 3. Shallow tangents and matching electron field
–– Sup: clavicle (to cover the IMN). Set match line at 4 cm past
–– Inf: match line at bottom of clavicular head midline with 1 cm feathering technique to avoid
(with half-beam block) hot/cold spots. Hot spot would be at depth.
–– Lateral: include humeral head (a) Target volume: first–third ICSs.
–– Medial: clavicle-CW interface (b) Medial border of tangent will move later-
ally when using an IMN field.
(c) Angle IMN field away from medial tan-
“Kicking the Couch” gent 5–10 °.
–– Use when breast/CW is >20 cm and need to (d) Match line is at skin.
treat breast and LNs in a two-isocenter (e) Minimize cold spot and avoid match line
technique fibrosis.
–– Options: (f) Up to 12 MeV electrons, usually pre-
–– Extended SSD with monoisocentric tech- scribed to 90%.
nique OR
–– Dual-isocenter technique Volumes
1. Set patient up as you would for standard –– PTV_eval created for DVH analysis
tangents and set up supraclav field. –– RTOG 1005:
2. Half beam block, supraclav iso is at the • Breast CTV = breast tissue (clinically and
bottom of the field. CT), bound post by surface of pec then
3. Breast isocenter is in the tangent. cropped 5 mm from skin (see pic)
4. Match superior border of tangent to the • Breast PTV = breast CTV +7 mm (no
inferior border of the supraclav by heart)
“kicking the couch” (foot of bed) away • Breast PTV_eval = PTV cropped 5 mm
from gantry. from skin and at anterior ribs (includes
5. When you collimate the tangents, the muscle, excludes the rib, lung, heart)
superior part of the tangent will overlap
w/ the third field. CCN Dose Guidelines (General)
N
–– WBRT hypofractionation (T1–2 BCS):
IMN Field 42.5 Gy/16 fractions → 10 Gy boost
NCIC and UK START trials
–– Still controversial; ASCO/ASTRO guidelines Margins –ve, <25 cm sep
generally recommend including IM nodes –– WBRT conventional fractionation: 45–50 at
when PMRT is used. 1.8–2/fx, then 10 Gy boost, use if young and
–– Hennequin et al.: Randomized trial looking at G3. CTV_boost is the lumpectomy cavity
PMRT +/− IM nodes. Stage I–II pts, did not +1 cm. PTV_boost is +7 mm.
show benefit of DFS or OS. Old RT tech- –– APBI 38.5 Gy in 10 fractions.
niques, little QA, underpowered. –– Inflammatory: 60 Gy.
Breast Cancer 249
ose Constraints for Conventional

D Treatment
–– 95% of volume getting 95% of dose. Relaxed –– Early → Aquaphor (dry desquamation); 1%
to allow for better cosmesis hydrocortisone (pruritus).
–– V105 < 10%. Dmax 108% –– Advanced → Hydrogel wound dressings,
–– Heart: V30 ≤ 1%, mean < 2–3 Gy Silvadene
–– Lung, ipsi: V20 ≤ 15%. three-field: V20 < 30% Others
–– Lung, contra: V5 < 10% –– Rib fracture
–– Breast, contra: Max 3 Gy –– 0.5% with 4–6 MV
–– 1–2% with Co-60
I f Unable to Meet Heart Constraints –– Pneumonitis
–– Heart block in tangents –– 2–3% – tangents
–– Change gantry/collimator angle –– 5% – SCV
–– IMRT –– Lymphedema – 10%
–– Shallow tangents and match to electron field –– SLN or RT: 5%
–– Prone breast board –– SLN + RT: 10%
–– Breath-hold techniques –– ALND: 7–10% (~1% per LN removed)
–– Undercover IMNs –– ALND + RT: 13% (“+50% relative increase
over ALND alone”)
–– Axillary vein stripping – 40%
Breast Reconstruction –– Brachial plexopathy – 1.8%
–– BC retrospective, 2014: MRM with expander –– Second malignancies – 0.2–0.9%. 32%
placement vs those w/ permanent implant increase in lung cancer risk for smokers
placed 6 m after completion of RT. Rate of –– Breast fibrosis/asymmetry: 1/3 of pts
G3–4 capsular contracture 22% vs 10% for –– Capsular contracture
expander vs not. Rate of revision surgery also –– Cosmesis: 80% good, 5% poor
higher 30% vs 21%.
–– May need to deflate contralateral implant. Heart Disease
–– If flap-based reconstruction, these are usually –– Darby, 2013: 7.4% increase in cardiac events
plugged into IM arteries. for each 1 Gy mean heart dose. Mean heart
dose better predictor than dose to LAD.
–– Pericarditis – 2% (for left sided breast).
Toxicities of RT
Radiation Dermatitis Follow-Up

–– G1 Faint erythema, dry desquamation
–– G2 Moderate erythema, moist desquama- –– Interval H&P q 6 months x 5 years, then
tion confined to skin folds annually.
–– G3 Moist desquamation in areas other than –– Annual mammo.
skin folds, bleeding induced by minor –– Wait at least 6 months from completion of RT.
trauma –– Routine imaging of reconstructed breast is not
–– G4 Life-threatening skin necrosis, ulcer- indicated.
ation, spontaneous bleeding from –– Women on tamoxifen: gynecologic exam if
involved site, skin graft indicated the uterus present.
–– G5 Death –– Women on AI: periodic bone mineral density.
uctal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)

D Prognostic Factors for 10-Year EFS
[18–35] (from EORTC 10853, JCO 2006)
–– Age < 40: 66% vs 81%
General –– Detection: 74% (clinical) vs 82% (mammo)
–– Stage I (Tis N0 M0). –– Size 59% (>2 cm) vs 79% (1–2 cm) vs 82%
–– 15–20% of all breast cancer. (<1 cm)
–– 95% present with calcs on mammo. –– Histo: 74% (G3+) vs 73% (G2) vs 86% (G1)
–– 1/3 progress to IDC at 10 yrs. –– Architecture: 73% (solid/comedo) vs 74%
–– 50% of DCIS recurrences are invasive (cribriform) vs 91% (micropap)
(EBCTCG meta-analysis). –– Margin: 68% (R+) vs 81% (R0)
–– ~10% risk of IBTR for lump only.
–– Multicentricity more likely with larger
tumors. Mastectomy Versus Lumpectomy +/− RT
–– If associated with microinvasion (<1 mm), –– B-06 pathology analysis, Fisher 1986, 1991:
should consider as DCIS when determining 78 pt had DCIS. Of 48 pts w/ segmental mas-
appropriate margin width (2 mm vs no tumor tectomy +/−RT, 7% of RT had LR, and 43% in
on ink for IDC). surg alone had LR. 28 pts total mastectomy
–– Post-lumpectomy mammogram should be pts had DCIS, and only 4% had LR. These
performed to check for residual calcs. data provide estimates of LR for DCIS, since
–– No clear role for MRI in DCIS. there is no RCT comparing them.
–– No RCTs for BCT vs MRM for DCIS; extrap-
olated from IDC. DCIS Lumpectomy +/− RT
–– RT only adds LC benefit, not OS benefit. –– NSABP B-17, Fisher, 1993, 2001: lump +/−
50 Gy. 9% of pts received a boost. At 12 yrs
RT reduced IBTR 32 → 16%. Same DM and
Molecular/History OS (87%). 50% of recurrences were invasive.
–– Comedo (worse prog), cribriform, papillary, –– EORTC 10853: lump +/− 50 Gy. At 10 yrs RT
micropapillary, solid reduced LRF 26 → 15%, same DM and OS.
–– E-cadherin + –– Swedish: lump +/− 50 Gy. At 5 yrs RT
–– Grade: 1–3, based on nuclear score reduced LF 22 → 7%, same DM and OS.
–– UKCCR: lump then (50Gy, tamox, neither, both).
All breast events 8, 18, 22, 6% respectively.
HER2 –– Meta-analysis of above: BCS +/− RT: HR
–– HER2 testing not recommended, nor is HER2 0.49, all subgroups benefit from RT without
therapy. significant long-term toxicity.
–– G3 DCIS more likely to be HER2 positive. –– RTOG 98–04 (McCormick, 2015): 636 pts with
–– If extensive DCIS, and only small component G1–2 DCIS, <2.5 cm, margins 3 mm or greater
of IDC, HER2 eval should be performed only randomized to lump +/− RT. Tam optional,
on the invasive component and not on the given in 62%. RT was WBI 50/2, 50.4/1.8, or
DCIS portion bc of high FP rate. 42.5/16. No boost allowed. RT improved 7-year
– – NSABP B-43: ongoing. Rando to WBI vs LR 1% vs 7%. Similar CBTR (5%), MRM
WBI + trastuzumab IV once in weeks 1 (3%), G3–4 toxicity (4%), DFS, and OS. Late
and 4. RT toxicity for RT: 30% G1, 5% G2.
Breast Cancer 251
BCS Alone, No RT –– If pt foregoes RT, should have at least 2 mm

–– MGH (Wong, 2006) n = 158. G1–2 DCIS margin. If SMs are persistently positive, then
≤2.5 cm on mammo and SM ≥1 cm or R0 re- refer for MRM.
excision. Lump alone. No tam. Closed early –– Re-excision in pts with margins <2 mm should
due to high number of LRs, 12% at 5y. Of be on case-by-case basis.
these recurrences 69% had DCIS and 31% had
invasive dz. Rate of LR too high to warrant Indications for SLNBx
surg alone. –– Palpable/>4 cm
–– ECOG 5194 (Hughes, 2009; Solin, JCO, –– Extensive high grade
2015): Prospective, nonrandomized. Median –– Microinvasion
age 60. DCIS w/ lump alone. Two cohorts
studied (1). G1–2 ≤ 2.5 cm OR (2) G3 ≤ 1 cm. NCCN Guidelines
All pts had SMs ≥3 mm, no residual calcs on –– Lumpectomy (no ALND) + WBRT (cat 1).
post-surg mammo. Tam discretionary (used in –– RT is conventional or hypofractionation (for
30%). This study later used to validate suitable candidates).
Oncotype Dx DCIS score. –– Lumpectomy without WBRT (cat 2B)/omis-
sion of RT (per 9804): low G, size <2 cm, SMs
ECOG 5194 Group 1 Group 2
3+ mm, ER+. Counsel on risk of higher LR
5y LR 6% 15%
7y LR 11% 18%
6% vs 1% at 7 years.
12y LR 14% 25% –– Consider boost for margins <1 mm, age < 50,
G3. No direct evidence. May improve LC, not
OS.
Surgical Margins (Morrow, 2016)
–– TM +/− SLNBx +/− reconstruction.
–– Neg margins have risk of IBTR vs pos
–– Tamoxifen/AI x 5 yrs. if ER+.
margins.
–– 2 mm margin is considered adequate in pts
with DCIS treated with WBRT.
Follow-Up
–– Exam and mammo annually x5 years
obular Carcinoma In Situ

L LCIS Lumpectomy
(LCIS) [18–30, 36, 37] –– NSABP P-1: 13 K pts with high risk for breast
CA; +/− tamox for risk reduction. Included
Background 180pts with LCIS treated with BCT. At 12y,
–– The risk of developing breast cancer is 9–12x 14% had IBTR, and 8% had contra CBRT. 1/3
higher in pt w/ biopsy-proven LCIS vs general of IBTRs invasive (5% of total cohort). Given
population. low incidence of invasive cancers, these
–– Can present w/ multicentric dz in 90% of mas- patients typically not treated w/ RT after
tectomy specimens; bilateral involvement in lumpectomy.
35–60% of mastectomy specimens.
–– If dx’d on bx, must excise to rule out DCIS/ NCCN
invasive dz as LCIS does not result in mam- –– Surgical resection, then cancer risk reduction
mographic or physical findings. Other options with tamox, no RT indicated.
for LCIS include close surveillance w/ exam –– R0 not necessary.
and imaging and tam. –– 15–30% lifetime risk of developing breast
–– Typically not associated with calcs. cancer, bilateral (but more common in affected
–– Finding LCIS in path specimen of IDC or DCIS breast), so follow closely.
does not change management or outcomes. –– Surveillance is annual mammo (not MRI).
–– CDH-1 gene loss common, leading to loss of –– Consider chemoprevention w/ tam.
protein e-cadherin.
–– E-cadherin negative in 95% (single-file cells).
–– Most ER+. Should add tamoxifen for high-risk
pts (young age, diffuse involvement, FHx).
–– 50/50 lobular/ductal.
–– Tam decreases invasive dz by ~50%.
Breast Cancer 253
arly-Stage Breast Cancer/Invasive

E SLNs were negative on intra-op cytology.
Ductal or Lobular Carcinoma (IDC/ Results FNR of 10%. Removal of >1 SLN
ILC) [18–22, 28, 38–62] decreases FNR. Between two groups, similar
OS, DFS, regional control.
General –– SLNB less morbid than ALND, per Z0011,
–– 85% IDC. IBCSG 23–01, and AMAROS.
–– Extensive intraductal component (EIC):
≥25% DCIS.
–– Tubular/mucinous histologies are favorable. Mastectomy Versus BCS
–– Paget’s: crusting, bleeding, pruritus, ulcer- –– NSABP B-06, Fisher, 1985: stage I/II, <4 cm,
ation of nipple. About 50% of women will neg margins: TM vs segmental mastectomy vs
present with a palpable mass. If mass detected, segmental mastecomy+50Gy. At 20 yrs, same
90% will be invasive. DFS, OS, and DMFS. LR: 3% for mastec-
tomy, 7% for lumpectomy + RT, and 43% for
Mastectomy +/− RT lumpectomy alone. 20y IBTR: 39% vs 14%.
–– NSABP B-04: 1971. Is less extensive surg +/− –– B-06 pathology analysis: see DCIS section.
RT as effective as Halsted RM? Two groups: –– EORTC 10801: stage I/II: MRM vs
(I) cN0: (1) RM vs (2) TM + ALND vs (3) lump+50Gy + boost. At 10 yrs MRM reduced
TM + regional RT, without ALND (at the time LF (20 → 12%) but the same OS (65%). 48%
the LNs were found to be positive). (II) cN+: in lumpectomy group had pos margins.
(1) RM vs (2) TM + regional RT. –– Milan I: T1 N0, RM vs quad+60Gy, at 20 yrs.
No systemic tx. RT as 50/25 +/− 10–20 Gy RM reduced LF 8.8 → 2.3%, same OS.
boost to LNs if LN+. IMNs and sclav txd to
45/25. At 25 yr. f/u, no difference in DFS or
OS. Lumpectomy +/− RT
In cN0 patients, 25y DFS was 19% vs 13% vs –– NSABP B-06 above
19% (NSS). –– Milan III: <70 yo, ≤2.5 cm. Quad+ALND
In cN+ patients, 25y DFS was 11% vs 10% +/− 60Gy. At 10 yrs RT reduced LF
(NSS). (23.5 → 8%), same OS. All patients received
Nodal treatment (by RT or LND) reduced systemic therapy.
LRF from 19% to 4%. The ~risk of dz in the –– Swedish Trial: ≤3 cm. lump +/− 50Gy. At
axilla was 40%, but regional relapse rate in pts 5 yrs LR 14 → 4%, same OS.
with TM alone was 19%. Overall, B-04 sug- –– PMH: stage I/II. Tamox +/−RT. At 8 yrs RT
gested that RT was as effective as RMs in reduced LR (12.2 → 4.1%), same OS.
controlling +LNs and that in pts w/ cN- dz, –– CALGB 9343 (Hughes): >70 yo, pT1 N0,
there is no benefit in removing ALNs. ER+. Tamox +/− RT. RT improved 8 yr LF
(7 → 1%), but OS same.
SLNBx –– NSABP B-21 (Fisher, 2002): Is Tam as effec-
–– van der Ploeg, 2008: systematic review, meta- tive as RT after BCS in IDC pN0, ≤1 cm?
analysis, axillary LN recurrence in SLN- Three arms: tamox vs RT vs both. Tam is
negative patients 0.3%. given 10 mg BID. Only 70% of pts had known
–– Kim 2006: meta-analysis of SLNBx. False ER/PR status. 13% ER neg; thus, likely that
neg rate 7.3%. LF would be higher if only ER+ included. At
–– Unaffected by neoadj chemo? (Buchholz 8 yrs LF 16.5%, 9.3%, and 2.8% (SS), respec-
2008). tively, same OS.
–– NSABP B-32 (Krag, 2007): SLNB vs ALND. –– B-21 subset analysis of available path (Fisher,
n = 561. cN0 axilla. Rando to SLN then imme- 2007) n = 638. 14-year outcomes: 80% vs
diate ALND vs SLN without ALND if the 89% vs 90% (SS). The benefit of combination
RT + tam (vs RT alone) is lost w/ long-term APBI

follow-up. –– RTOG 0413/NSABP B-39. Early stage
–– EBCTCG meta-analysis, Lancet, 2005, randomized to 50–50.4 optional boost to

2011. 10 RCTs evaluating adj RT after 60–66.6 vs PBI. APBI with any of these:
BCS. Overall, 5y risk LR reduced from 26%
to 7%. In each individual RCT, RR was ~0.3;
thus, 70% relative risk reduction with RT. No Intracavitary/
Technique Interstitial balloon 3D-CRT
difference in OS or CSM in individual RCTs.
Dose 3.4 Gy x 10 BID 3.85 Gy x 10
However, overall 15y CSM was reduced from BID
36% to 30%. Thus a 20% LR decrease in 5y CTV and 15 mm 10 mm from 15 mm
results in reduction in CSM by 5% at 15 years – PTV from cavity expansion
this is “The 4:1 rule” of breast cancer. cavity from cavity,
+ 10 mm for
–– EBCTCG update, 2011: 10y recurrence was
PTV.
decreased by 50% w/ RT 35% vs 19%. The Clip Limit to 5 mm from skin surface
reduction in LRR as the first site of recurrence
was still decreased by 66%.
–– PRIME II (Kunkler, 2015): includes age 65+,
BCS and path axillary staging, T1–2, < 3 cm, –– TARGIT A (Lancet, 2014): Pts randomized to
ER/PR+, SM 1+ mm, G3 or LVI (but not single dose IORT vs standard Fx WBRT after
both). Rando to 40–50 Gy/15–25 frax WBRT surg. All pts. >45y with IDC. 85% <2 cm,
vs no RT. n = 1326. 5-year IBTR 4.1% vs 84% G1–2, 93% N0, 82% ER+, 69% PR+.
1.3% (p < 0.01). 5-year CSS and OS similar. WBRT required if margins <1 mm, EIC or
Also, results similar to Hughes, 2004 study. unexpected ILC, and per inst policy (nonuni-
form). 22% of pts. received subsequent
Timing WBRT. Median fu 2.5y. 5y LR 3.3% vs 1.3%
–– JCRT Sequencing: stage I/II. chemoRT vs (p = 0.04) favoring WBRT but met 2.5% non-
RTchemo. At 11 yrs, same OS, DM, etc. For inferiority threshold of 2.5%. No dif in CSM,
close margins (<1 mm), LR improved with RT OS. Results are controversial.
first (32 → 4%), for +margins, no difference. –– Strnad (Lancet, 2016): n = 1184. DCIS or
IDC. Age > 40, pTis or pT1–2 (up to 3 cm),
Boost pN0 or pN1mi, unifocal, no EIC, no skin
–– EORTC Boost Trial: Stage I/II s/p lump involvement or Paget’s dz, negative
+50Gy +/− 16 Gy boost. At 10 yrs boost SM > 1 mm and > 5 mm for ILC or DCIS,
improved LF 10.2 → 6.2%. All patients bene- no LVI, DCIS w/ VNPI <8. If IDC, then
fited but more for <40 yo. Boost had more SLNBx or ALND w/ 6+ LNs required.
severe fibrosis (1.6 → 4.4%). Rando to WBI vs APBI. APBI is intersti-
–– Lyon Boost Trial: <3 cm. Lump+ALND+50Gy tial, m ulti-catheter BT, to dose of 32 Gy/8
+/−10Gy boost. At 3 yrs boost improved LF fx or 30.3 Gy/7 fx (BID) w/ HDR, or 50 Gy
4.5 → 3.6%. Cosmesis unchanged. w/ pulses of 0.6–0.8 Gy/h (1 pulse/h, 24 he
–– RTOG 10–05. Assessing sequential vs con- per day) w/ PDR BT. WBI was 50–50.4 Gy,
current boost. then 10 Gy electron boost. The 5-year LR
CTV = GTV + 1 cm. CTV excludes ant sur- was 1.4% APBI vs 0.9 WBO (NSS). G2–3
face of pec major, anterolat 5 mm from skin, skin toxicity 3% APBI vs 6% WBO
and any extension past midline. (p = 0.08). Grade 2/3 subcut late tox 7% vs
PTV = CTV + 0.7 cm. PTV excludes heart. 6% (NSS). Grade 2–3 breast pain lower w/
PTV-eval excludes the part of PTV outside of the APBI (1% vs 3%, p = 0.04). Conclusion:
ipsi breast, the first 5 mm of tissue under skin, APBI is not inferior to WBI in select, low-
and expansion into CW, pec muscle, and lung. risk pts.
Breast Cancer 255
–– Livi, Florence, 2015: PBI 6 Gy x 5 fx vs I nvasive Breast Cancer, Management

50/20 + 10 Gy boost. n = 520. IBRT was 1.5% of the Axilla
in both arms. This fractionation scheme
adopted by Formenti. –– BCS
–– Formenti, 2012: n = 100 APBI like Florence. –– cN0 → SLNBx
IBTR1%. –– SLNBx (−) = done
–– SLNBx (+) =
Hypofractionation 1. T1-T2, 1–2 LN+, BCS, getting whole
–– Whelan (Canadian): invasive, LN neg breast breast RT → done
cancer. 50/25 vs 42.5/16. No boost, no >25 cm 2. All others (e.g., T3) → ALND
separation, no tumor >5 cm.10-yr LR –– cN+ →Axillary u/s + FNA:
unchanged (~6.4%, NSS), cosmesis excellent (−) FNA → SLNBx w/ removal of
or good in ~70% (NSS). Only group w/ worse abnormality
outcomes were high grade (10-yr LR 5% vs (+) FNA → ALND
16%, p = 0.01). –– TM: all get ALND after SLNB, except
–– Bane, 2014: subset analysis of Whelan trial. T1–2 N0
Central path review of molecular subtype was
predictive of LR (luminal A, B, HER-2
enriched); however, unlike original NCCN for ≤T3, ≤N1
manuscript, tumor grade did not predict

response to hypofractionation. –– Lumpectomy with SLNBx
–– START A: 50/25 vs 41.6/13 vs 39/13. ~25% –– (If >1 cm, pN+) chemo first
chemo, ~25% N+, ~50% boosted, ~10% –– (pN0) WBRT +/−boost
PMRT. 5 yr LRR same. –– (pN+) 3field +/− boost
–– START B: 50/25 vs 40/15. Boost allowed in –– (pT1 N0, ER+, >70yo): HT +/− RT
both START A and B but not required. Same –– HT/Herceptin based on N, ER, HER2
findings as START A. Less adverse effects –– TM + SLNBx (RT if N+)
with hypofrac. 10-year LRR 6% vs 7% (NSS). –– Neoadj chemo (aiming for BCT)
10-year DMFS 16% vs 10% (p = 0.01), OM –– Core bx with clips placed, LN eval
19% vs 16% (p = 0.04), both favoring
hypofrac. Hypofractionation (ASTRO, 2018):
–– RMH/GO3: similar doses to START –– All, except if doing RNI
A. Showed that 42.9/13 had lowest IBTR.
–– FCCC: 45/2.25 + 56/2.8 concomitant boost, in Hypofractionation (ASTRO, 2011):
20 fx. Similar LC, cosmesis. –– Pt > 50yo at dx.
–– pT1–2 N0, sp. BCS.
–– No systemic chemo.
–– In the breast along the central axis, the mini-
mum dose is >93%, and max dose is <107%
of prescription dose, as calculated w/ 2D tx
planning w/o heterogeneity correction.
Omission of RT
Consider if age > 65–70, ER/PR+, T1 N0 tumors,
on hormonal therapy (similar to CALGB 9343,
PRIME II inclusion).
Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation (APBI) [63]
ASTRO APBI Criteria (2016 updates in bold)63

Suitable Cautionary Unsuitable
40-49 y if no other risk factors OR ³ < 40 y
Age ³ 50 y 50 y and at least 1 pathologic RF, OR 40 -49 not meeting
but no other unsuitable factors criteria for cautionary
BRCA1/2 Not present Present
Tumor size £ 2 cm 2.1-3.0 cm > 3 cm
T1
T -stage OR low risk Tis (<2.5 cm, T2 T3 -4
G1 -2, ³ 3 mm SM)
Margins ³ 2 mm <2 mm Positive
Grade Any
LVSI No Limited/focal Extensive
ER status Positive Negative
Multicentricity Unicentric only Multicentric
Clinically unifocal and Clinically multifocal or
Clinically unifocal and pathologic
Multifocality pathologic extent of disease £ microscopically multifocal >3
extent of dz 2-3 cm
2 cm cm in total size
Invasive ductal or other
Histology Invasive lobular
favorable subtypes
low risk Tis (<2.5 cm, G1-2, ³ £ 3 cm and not meeting “suitable”
Pure DCIS > 3 cm
3 mm SM, screen detected) criteria
EIC Not allowed £ 3 cm > 3 cm
Associated LCIS Allowed
- +
N stage pN0(i ,i ) pN1, pN2, pN3
Nodal surgery SLN Bx or ALND None performed
Neoadjuvant
No Yes
therapy
Restrict IORT for suitable pts
IORT Low E IORT should be on
study
APBI Planning with EBRT PBI MammoSite Treatment Planning

A
Evaluation
–– CTV = lump +1.5 cm
–– PTV = CTV + 1 cm –– Tissue/balloon conformance (no air/fluid
–– PTV_EVAL = PTV – 5 mm at skin surface cavities)
and pec maj –– Balloon symmetry
–– Balloon to skin distance (>7 mm)
–– Skin dose <145% prescription
APBI EBRT Planning Evaluation –– Breast DVH:
90% volume gets 90% of dose.
–– Whole breast V50% Rx < 60% V150 < 50 cc.
–– Lung ipsi V30% Rx < 15% V200 < 10 cc.
–– Lung contra V5% Rx < 15%
Dose Constraints for APBI

APBI Planning with MammoSite
–– Contralateral Dmax ≤3 Gy
–– CTV = balloon +1 cm –– Ipsi lung V20 < 15%, V5 < 50%
–– PTV = CTV –– Contra lung V5% < 15%
–– PTV_EVAL = PTV – 5 mm at skin surface –– Heart V20 < 5%, mean < 4 Gy
and pec maj
Breast Cancer 257
reast Cancer, Postmastectomy RT

B Hypofractionation
(PMRT) [64, 65] –– British Columbia trial (Ragaz, 2005): pre-
menopausal. MRM + CMF +/−RT. Mean 11
NSABP pooled analysis of MRM without RT (from LNs excised. RT was five-field. CW to
NSABP)
#LNs 10 year LRF
37.5/16. Bilat IMN chain to 37.5/16. Sclav to
1–3 13% 35/15. At 20 yrs PMRT improved LRF
4–9 24% (26 → 10%) and OS (37 → 47%).
10+ 32% –– EBCTCG meta-analysis, Clark, 2005: 8135
Tumor size women, 22 RCTs to assess effect of
≤2 cm 15% PMRT. PMRT improves LR (~18% at 5 yrs)
2.1–5 cm 21%
and breast cancer mortality (5.4% at 15 yrs).
>5 cm 25%
4:1 ratio. RT ↑ contralateral breast cancer,
lung cancer, and heart disease.
Conventional Fractionation –– EBCTCG meta-analysis, 2016 update:
–– Danish 82b: premenopausal (“B is pre”). Stratified by #N+. In pts with 1–3 N+, RT
n = 1708. High-risk breast cancer w/ cN+, decreased 10y LR 20% → 4%, decreased
tumor size >5 cm, or skin/pec fascia involve- 10y DSM 50% → 42%. Similar benefit for
ment. MRM + CMF +/− RT. RT was to CW, pts with 4+ LN. No benefit for pts who are
sclav LNs, IMNs. At 10 yrs PMRT improved N0.
LRF (32 → 9%), DFS (34 → 48%), and OS –– NSABP pooled analysis of 5 RCTs, Taghian,
(45 → 54%). Improvements regardless of 2004.
tumor size or #LNs (mean 7 LNs excised).
–– Danish 82c, Overgaard, 1999: postmeno-
pausal, high-risk breast cancer (positive LNs, EBCTCG 10y LRR 10y any 20y 20y OM
data first recurrence CSM
tumor size >5 cm, or skin/pec fascia involve-
SS in RT No RT No RT No No No No
ment). MRM + tamox +/− RT. PMRT was to yellow RT RT RT RT RT
CW, supraclav LNs, and IMNs. At 10 yrs pN0 3 2 22 21 29 27 48 42
PMRT improved LRF (35 → 8%), DFS pN+ 8 26 52 62 58 66 65 70
(24 → 36%), and OS (36 → 45%). No benefit 1-3 LN 4 20 34 46 42 50 53 56
for N0 patients. 4+ 13 32 66 75 71 80 75 83
–– In both 82b/c, rate of recurrence 3%/y.
20–30%LRR benefit, 10% OS benefit.
–– In both 82b and c, criticism was inadequate
ALND. Thus, subgroup analysis done of 1152 PMRT Technique
patients with 8+ LNs removed. In 1–3+ LNs, –– 50/25. Custom wax bolus QOD.
15-year LRR 4% w/ RT vs 27% no RT. 15-year –– Include CW, axilla, supraclav and axillary
OS 57% w/ RT vs 48% no RT (both SS). In 4+ LNs, ipsi IM LNs.
LN benefit, similar benefit for 15-year LRR –– Tissue expanders (if present) should not be
10% vs 51% and OS 21% vs 12%. expanded during RT.
Scenario Absolute indications Relative indications Observation (must meet all)

Indications for PMRT > 5 cm (i.e. T3) young age T1-2
R+, which is < 2 mm SMs (this is in nipple involvement N0
contrast to the post-BCT setting, < 10 LNs resected R0
where it is 0 mm) > 20% LN involvement and
4+ LNs, or 3+ LNs (EBCTCG) tumor < 3.5 cm OR < 20% LNs involved
> 20% LNs involved and and tumor > 5 cm
tumor > 3.5 cm (MDACC) gross multicentric
muscle involvement
G3
HER2+
Indications for PMRT cT1-2 N0-1 tumors, achieving pCR,
after NA chemo (expert ypN0; or ypN1 and ER+, age > 40, no
opinion only) LVI, no ECE
ocally Advanced Breast Cancer

L (Whelan, ASCO, 2011), the OS failed to reach
[18–22, 39, 59, 66–81] SS at 92 vs 91%. LR was SS improved with
RNI, at 97% vs 95% (though these values are
General very close); and the DMFS was improved with
–– Risk of IMN+ RNI at 90% vs 84% (p = 0.003). DM was
–– 5% of tumors have IMN as sentinel node decreased in the group that received RNI (sur-
–– 10% if Ax node neg prisingly, because the benefit for LC was not
–– 20–50% if Ax node pos so drastic); and this benefit likely had an
impact on OS. With RT, we typically see large
differences in LRR reduction translate to small
RNI differences in DMFS improvement, with the
–– EORTC 22922, Poortmans, 2015. Stages I– idea being that we decrease the source of met-
III, central or medial primary, MRM or BCS astatic disease spread. These results suggest
and ALND. 76% had BCS, 24% MRM. Some the importance of RNI with treatment of the
w/ SLNB, then ALND if +LN. n = 4004. IMNs: it is clinically negative, not appreci-
Rando WBRT or CW RT alone 50 Gy/25+/− ated, not screened. Thus, a patient with a IMN
RNI RT to first 3 IC spaces, up to first 5 IC LRR would never be counted, but the patient
spaces for lower inner quad tumors. 99% LN+ would be counted with a DM. This is why
and 66% LN- got systemic tx. RNI won. there is an inverse in the 4:1 ratio of LRR vs
10 year OS 81% vs 82% (p = 0.06). DFS 69% OS that we typically quote. These results sug-
vs 72% (p = 0.04) DMFS 75% vs 78% gest that a longer follow-up and more detailed
(p = 0.02). Any recurrence 23% vs 19% analysis of the data are needed; moreover,
(p = 0.01). CSM 14% vs 12% (p = 0.01). RNI these patients are very different from the
had worse pulm fibrosis (4 vs 2%) and cardiac Z0011 data. However, increase risk in pneu-
fibrosis (1.2% vs 0.6%), but not brachial monitis (0.2% vs 1.3%) and lymphedema
plexopathy. Thus, for LN+ or high-risk LN- (4.1% vs 7.3%) with RNI though felt to be
breast cancer, addition of RNI improves DFS, acceptable. Thus, more time is necessary
DMFS, and BCSM, without concomitant before this is called practice changing.
effect on OS. Nonetheless, the data suggest that RLNI ben-
–– NCIC MA.20 (Whelan, NEJM, 2016). efits higher-risk patients (from Z11).
Women were randomized to BCS (i.e., Moreover, we know from the B-04 trial that
lumpectomy) + ALND +/− chemo + WBRT the chance of a woman getting lymphedema
vs lumpectomy + ALND +/− chemo + WBRT continues to increase over time.
and RNI (which included SCV and IMNs –
the axilla was not treated because it was dis-
sected during ALND). Notably, most patients Local Treatment of Metastatic Patients
went straight to ALND; only 40% of patients –– Tata memorial (Bawde, 2015): M+ breast ca,
had a SLNB prior to the ALND. The primary given chemo6–8 cycles, then randomized to
endpoints were OS and morbidity. Of the locoregional tx (MRM in 72% or BCS in 23%)
patients, ~50% were > 2 cm, 42% were Grade or not. Median OS similar (20 months). With
3, 74% were ER+, the median number of LNs LRT, LRPFS improved (median not attained
removed was 12, 85% had 1–3 + LNs, 10% vs 18 months). In the no LRT group, only 10%
were high-risk N0 (e.g., triple negative, of women ultimately required palliative sur-
young), 5% had 4 or more LNs, 91% received gery. Thus, LC for M1 patients not warranted.
AC chemo, and 71% received endocrine ther-
apy. The trial was therefore mostly a trial of Axillary dissection
women with 1–3+ LNs. The RCT had overlap –– ACOSOG Z0011:T1–2, cN0, SLNBx+ (1 or
eligibility with Z0011. The dissected axilla 2 SLN by H&E). Randomization: lumpec-
was not in the radiation volume. At 5 years tomy with neg margins +/− ALND. All got
Breast Cancer 259
PORT (tangents). 97% got systemic therapy NCCN for T3+, N2+
(HT or chemo) at discretion of physician. –– Neoadj chemo → MRM → PMRT.
5-yr regional control same (99 + %), OS –– OR MRM, then chemo and RT.
same (92%). Radiation field design varied –– If doing NACT, place markers to localize
widely: 89% got WBRT, 15% got RNI tumor bed.
(though it wasn’t allowed), high tangents –– If NACT, and given AC x 4 but no response,
used in 50%. try taxol x 4 (per B-27).
–– Which patients do not quality for Z0011? If –– Contraindications to BCT after NACT:
cannot find the node, if gross ECE, if clini- Multicentric, IBC (T4d), diffuse microcalcs,
cally LN+, R+, >3 LNs involved, matted LNs, residual skin involvement.
neoadjuvant systemic tx.
I nflammatory Breast Cancer (IBC) Outcomes

[79, 82] –– LRR5: 10–20%. If no RT LRR 50%
–– DFS5: 40–50%
General –– OS5: 50–60%
–– Definition:
1. Rapid onset of breast erythema, edema,
Chemo
and/or peau d’orange of >1/3 of the breast: –– MDACC retrospective, Cristofanilli (2004).
+/− calor Addition of taxanes to 5-FU/adria/cyclophos
+/− underlying palpable mass improved PFS and OS.
2. < 6-month duration (i.e., not from neglect).
3. Histologic dx of breast cancer. RT
4. DLI can be seen on path, but not necessary –– MDACC (Liao, 2000; Bristol, 2008):
for dx. Retrospective of trimodality tx for M0
–– Stage IIIB (T4d N0 M0) IBC. RT was (1) 50/2 + 10 Gy boost (1977–
–– Metastatic disease in 25–30% 1981) or (2) 45–51 Gy/1.5 BID w/ 15 Gy
–– Haagensen’s grave signs (1943). Factors used boost (1982+). For BID RT, 5-year LRC was
to determine operability in pts w/ LABC. If 84% (66 Gy BID) vs 58% (60 Gy BID), and
two or more of the following present, then it is 10y LRC was 77% (66 Gy BID) vs 58%
a contraindication to mastectomy: (60 Gy BID), all SS. For those txd w/ BID RT,
• Skin ulceration G3+ toxicity was 29% vs 15%, lymphedema
• Fixation to CW 9% vs 25%, fibrosis 6% vs 4%, and brachial
• Edema <1/3 of skin of the breast plexopathy 2% vs 0%. 66 Gy had improved
• Axillary LNs > 2.5 cm LRC in those w/ < PR to chemo, R+ or close
• Fixed axillary LNs SMs, and < 45 yo. Thus, do not treat to 66 Gy
–– Haagensen’s signs of very poor outcome unless warranted.
• >50% skin edema
• Satellite skin nodules Treatment
• Inflammatory –– Workup! Then, treatment.
• Clinically involved SCF and IM LNs –– Combined-modality therapy: ddAC x4 →
• Arm edema T x 12 → MRM → comprehensive PMRT.
–– If no response, try different chemo.
–– If still no response to NA chemo, consider NA
Workup RT.
–– HP –– Then MRM and ALND. Never SLNBx.
–– Bilateral mammo –– Always need PMRT.
–– Full metastatic workup: –– RT to cover CW for PMRT (or whole breast if
• Breast MRI optional preop), RNI. Patient- and institution-
• Labs: CBC and CMP including LFT dependent: ± IMNs ± PAB ± scar boost.
• Chest X-ray –– RT is to the CW, axilla. Escalate to 66 Gy if
• CT c/a/p (can be performed the same time <45 yo, close or positive SMs, four or more
as PET) LNs following preop systemic treatment, or
• Bone scan or sodium-fluoride PET-CT poor response to systemic treatment.
(Category 2B) –– 5–10 mm bolus QD until desquamation.
• Fertility counseling –– Boost scar 60 Gy if pCR, 66 Gy if <pCR.
• Genetic testing –– +/− late reconstruction. Never early because it
can compromise outcomes.
Breast Cancer 261
Phyllodes Tumor [83, 84] Paget Disease
Overview Overview
–– Large, fast growing. –– Eczematoid changes, crusting, redness,
–– Arises from periductal stromal cells. discharge
–– Accounts for <1% of breast neoplasms.
–– 30% are malignant. Workup
–– Stomal overgrowth, tumor size >7 cm. –– Full thickness skin biopsy
–– Infiltrative borders, necrosis, and high mitotic –– PE + MMG; if both (−) → MRI for patients
count are the main high-risk features for who are candidates for BCT
DMs.
–– Classification: benign, borderline, and malig-
nant (only malignant get RT). Treatment
–– Paget alone (Tis); Paget + DCIS (Tis); Paget +
Differential invasive disease (staged per invasive)
–– Fibroadenoma, IDC –– BCS (with removal of full nipple areolar com-
plex) + RT vs TM
Treatment –– EORTC 10873, Bijker, 2001: 5-year LR 5%
–– Optimal management is surgery. after complete excision of nipple-areolar com-
–– Re-excise for R+. No axillary staging. plex and underlying breast + WBI 50 Gy
–– Consider PORT if unresectable (cat 2b) or if
very large and removed w/ MRM (e.g., >
10 cm) or if >5 cm and removed w/ BCS.
References 16. Perez EA, Romond EH, Suman VJ, et al. Four-year
follow-up of trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy
for operable human epidermal growth factor receptor
1. Ho AL, Bovill ES, Macadam SA, et al. 2-positive breast cancer: joint analysis of data from
Postmastectomy radiation therapy after immediate NCCTG N9831 and NSABP B-31. J Clin Oncol.
two-stage tissue expander/implant breast reconstruc- 2011;29:3366–73.
tion: a University of British Columbia perspective. 17. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Baum M, et al. Effect of anastro-
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:1e–10e. zole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-
2. Borgen PI, Senie RT, McKinnon WM, et al. stage breast cancer: 10-year analysis of the ATAC
Carcinoma of the male breast: analysis of prognosis trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:1135–41.
compared with matched female patients. Ann Surg 18. Martinez-Monge R, Gomez-Iturriaga A, Cambeiro M,
Oncol. 1997;4:385–8. et al. Phase I-II trial of perioperative high-dose-rate
3. Botteri E, Bagnardi V, Rotmensz N, et al. Analysis of brachytherapy in oral cavity and oropharyngeal can-
local and regional recurrences in breast cancer after cer. Brachytherapy. 2009;8:26–33.
conservative surgery. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:723–8. 19. Cook B DT. Wikibooks radiation oncology. https://
4. Amin MB, Edge SB, Byrd DR, et al. American Joint en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Radiation_Oncology. Accessed
Committee on Cancer (AJCC) cancer staging manual. April 2018.
8th ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2017. 20. Edge S, Byrd D, Compton C, et al. AJCC cancer stag-
5. Chagpar AB, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, et al. A ran- ing manual. New York, NY: Springer; 2010.
domized, controlled trial of cavity shave margins in 21. Hansen ERM. Handbook of evidence-based radiation
breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:503–10. oncology. 2nd ed: Springer; 2010.
6. Finn RS, Martin M, Rugo HS, et al. Palbociclib and 22. Hristov BLS, Christodouleas JP. Radiation oncology -
letrozole in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. a question based review. 2nd ed: LWW; 2014.
2016;375:1925–36. 23. Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL, et al. Breast-
7. Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA, et al. conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in
Ribociclib as first–line therapy for HR–positive, ductal carcinoma-in-situ: ten-year results of European
advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375: Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer
1738–48. randomized phase III trial 10853--a study by the
8. Cristofanilli M, Turner NC, Bondarenko I, et al. EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC
Fulvestrant plus palbociclib versus fulvestrant plus pla- Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3381–7.
cebo for treatment of hormone-receptor-positive, HER2- 24. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Tamoxifen
negative metastatic breast cancer that progressed on in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National
previous endocrine therapy (PALOMA-3): final analy- Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 ran-
sis of the multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised domised controlled trial. Lancet. 1999;353:1993–2000.
controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:425–39. 25. Holmberg L, Garmo H, Granstrand B, et al. Absolute
9. Pagani O, Regan MM, Walley BA, et al. Adjuvant risk reductions for local recurrence after postoperative
exemestane with ovarian suppression in premeno- radiotherapy after sector resection for ductal carcinoma
pausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:107–18. in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1247–52.
10. Brufsky A, Harker WG, Beck JT, et al. Zoledronic 26. Houghton J, George WD, Cuzick J, et al. Radiotherapy
acid inhibits adjuvant letrozole-induced bone loss in and tamoxifen in women with completely excised
postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. J ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the UK,
Clin Oncol. 2007;25:829–36. Australia, and New Zealand: randomised controlled
11. Bundred NJ, Campbell ID, Davidson N, et al. Effective trial. Lancet. 2003;362:95–102.
inhibition of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone 27. Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, et al. Long-term
loss by zoledronic acid in postmenopausal women outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recur-
with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant letrozole: rences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24
ZO-FAST study results. Cancer. 2008;112:1001–10. randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer
12. Van Poznak C, Hannon RA, Mackey JR, et al. Prevention Inst. 2011;103:478–88.
of aromatase inhibitor-induced bone loss using risedro- 28. Dunne C, Burke JP, Morrow M, et al. Effect of margin
nate: the SABRE trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:967–75. status on local recurrence after breast conservation
13. Margolese RG, Cecchini RS, Julian TB, et al. Anastrozole and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J
versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1615–20.
carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radio- 29. Solin LJ, Gray R, Baehner FL, et al. A multigene
therapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for
phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet. 2016;387:849–56. ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer
14. Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group
Inst. 2013;105:701–10.
(EBCTCG). Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen 30. Hughes LL, Wang M, Page DL, et al. Local exci-
in early breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of sion alone without irradiation for ductal carcinoma in
the randomised trials. Lancet. 2015;386:1341–52. situ of the breast: a trial of the Eastern Cooperative
15. Goss PE, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI, et al. Extending aro- Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5319–24.
matase–inhibitor adjuvant therapy to 10 years. N Engl 31. Allred DC, Clark GM, Molina R, et al. Overexpression
J Med. 2016;375:209–19. of HER-2/neu and its relationship with other prog-
Breast Cancer 263
nostic factors change during the progression of in tectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy fol-
situ to invasive breast cancer. Hum Pathol. 1992; lowed by irradiation. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:567–75.
23:974–9. 46. Haviland JS, Owen JR, Dewar JA, et al. The UK
32. McCormick B, Winter K, Hudis C, et al. RTOG 9804: standardisation of breast radiotherapy (START) tri-
a prospective randomized trial for good-risk ductal als of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment
carcinoma in situ comparing radiotherapy with obser- of early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results
vation. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:709–15. of two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol.
33. Wong JS, Kaelin CM, Troyan SL, et al. Prospective 2013;14:1086–94.
study of wide excision alone for ductal carcinoma in 47. Hughes KS, Schnaper LA, Berry D, et al. Lumpectomy
situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1031–6. plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women
34. Fisher ER, Sass R, Fisher B, et al. Pathologic findings 70 years of age or older with early breast cancer. N
from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project Engl J Med. 2004;351:971–7.
(protocol 6). I. Intraductal carcinoma (DCIS). Cancer. 48. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Technical
1986;57:197–208. outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and con-
35. Fisher ER, Leeming R, Anderson S, et al. Conservative ventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients
management of intraductal carcinoma (DCIS) of the with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results
breast. Collaborating NSABP investigators. J Surg from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial.
Oncol. 1991;47:139–47. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:881–8.
36. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al.
49. Romestaing P, Lehingue Y, Carrie C, et al. Role of
Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the a 10-Gy boost in the conservative treatment of early
National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project breast cancer: results of a randomized clinical trial in
P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1371–88. Lyon, France. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:963–8.
37. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen 50. van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS, et al. Long-
for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-
National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project conserving therapy with mastectomy: European
P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1652–62. Organization for research and treatment of cancer
38. Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans PM, et al. Impact 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1143–50.
of a higher radiation dose on local control and sur- 51. Vernon CC, Hand JW, Field SB, et al. Radiotherapy
vival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast can- with or without hyperthermia in the treatment of super-
cer: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus ficial localized breast cancer: results from five ran-
no boost EORTC 22881-10882 trial. J Clin Oncol. domized controlled trials. International Collaborative
2007;25:3259–65. Hyperthermia Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
39. Bellon JR, Come SE, Gelman RS, et al. Sequencing 1996;35:731–44.
of chemotherapy and radiation therapy in early-stage 52. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year
breast cancer: updated results of a prospective ran- follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-
domized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1934–40. conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early
40. Bentzen SM, Agrawal RK, Aird EG, et al. The UK breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–32.
standardisation of breast radiotherapy (START) trial 53. Whelan TJ, Pignol JP, Levine MN, et al. Long-term
A of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of results of hypofractionated radiation therapy for
early breast cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:513–20.
2008;9:331–41. 54. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary
41. Buchholz TA, Lehman CD, Harris JR, et al. Statement dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with
of the science concerning locoregional treatments invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a
after preoperative chemotherapy for breast cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305:569–75.
National Cancer Institute conference. J Clin Oncol. 55. Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S, et al. Axillary
2008;26:791–7. dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients
42. Cascinelli N, Greco M, Bufalino R, et al. Prognosis with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG
of breast cancer with axillary node metastases after 23-01): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.
surgical treatment only. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:297–305.
1987;23:795–9. 56. Donker M, van Tienhoven G, Straver ME, et al.
43. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive
follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mas- sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023
tectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradia- AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase
tion for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1303–10.
J Med. 2002;347:1233–41. 57. Bijker N, Rutgers EJ, Duchateau L, et al. Breast-
44. Fisher B, Bryant J, Dignam JJ, et al. Tamoxifen,
conserving therapy for Paget disease of the nipple:
radiation therapy, or both for prevention of ipsilateral a prospective European Organization for Research
breast tumor recurrence after lumpectomy in women and Treatment of cancer study of 61 patients. Cancer.
with invasive breast cancers of one centimeter or less. 2001;91:472–7.
J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4141–9. 58. van der Ploeg IM, Nieweg OE, van Rijk MC, et al.
45. Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, et al. Twenty-five-year Axillary recurrence after a tumour-negative sentinel
follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mas- node biopsy in breast cancer patients: a systematic
review and meta-analysis of the literature. Eur J Surg chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: results
Oncol. 2008;34:1277–84. from NSABP B-28. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3686–96.
59. Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, et al. Effects of radio- 71. McGale P, Taylor C, Correa C, et al. Effect of radiother-
therapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for apy after mastectomy and axillary surgery on 10-year
early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year recurrence and 20-year breast cancer mortality: meta-
survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. analysis of individual patient data for 8135 women in
2005;366:2087–106. 22 randomised trials. Lancet. 2014;383:2127–35.
60. Strnad V, Ott OJ. Hildebrandt G, et al: 5-year results 72. Olson JA Jr, McCall LM, Beitsch P, et al. Impact of
of accelerated partial breast irradiation using sole immediate versus delayed axillary node dissection on
interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy versus whole- surgical outcomes in breast cancer patients with posi-
breast irradiation with boost after breast-conserving tive sentinel nodes: results from American College of
surgery for low-risk invasive and in-situ carcinoma Surgeons Oncology Group trials Z0010 and Z0011. J
of the female breast: a randomised, phase 3, non- Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3530–5.
inferiority trial. Lancet. 2016;387:229–38. 73. Overgaard M, Hansen PS, Overgaard J, et al.

61. Livi L, Meattini I, Marrazzo L, et al. Accelerated Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk premeno-
partial breast irradiation using intensity-modulated pausal women with breast cancer who receive adjuvant
radiotherapy versus whole breast irradiation: 5-year chemotherapy. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative
survival analysis of a phase 3 randomised controlled Group 82b trial. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:949–55.
trial. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:451–63. 74. Overgaard M, Jensen MB, Overgaard J, et al.

62. Formenti SC, Hsu H, Fenton-Kerimian M, et al. Prone Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk postmeno-
accelerated partial breast irradiation after breast- pausal breast-cancer patients given adjuvant tamoxi-
conserving surgery: five-year results of 100 patients. fen: Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group DBCG
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84:606–11. 82c randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;353:1641–8.
63. Correa C, Harris EE, Leonardi MC, et al. Accelerated 75.
Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, et al.
partial breast irradiation: executive summary for Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for oper-
the update of an ASTRO evidence-based consen- able HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med.
sus statement. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2017;7(2):73–9. 2005;353:1673–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2016.09.007. 76. Truong PT, Olivotto IA, Kader HA, et al. Selecting
64. Katz A, Buchholz TA, Thames H, et al. Recursive breast cancer patients with T1-T2 tumors and one to
partitioning analysis of locoregional recurrence pat- three positive axillary nodes at high postmastectomy
terns following mastectomy: implications for adjuvant locoregional recurrence risk for adjuvant radiother-
irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50: apy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61:1337–47.
397–403. 77. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, et al. Preoperative
65. Taghian A, Jeong JH, Mamounas E, et al. Patterns of chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer:
locoregional failure in patients with operable breast nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant
cancer treated by mastectomy and adjuvant chemo- Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst
therapy with or without tamoxifen and without radio- Monogr. 2001:96–102.
therapy: results from five National Surgical Adjuvant 78. Recht A, Come SE, Henderson IC, et al. The sequenc-
Breast and Bowel Project randomized clinical trials. J ing of chemotherapy and radiation therapy after con-
Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4247–54. servative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. N Engl
66.
Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, et al. J Med. 1996;334:1356–61.
Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally 79. Cristofanilli M, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Buzdar AU,
scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combina- et al. Paclitaxel improves the prognosis in estrogen
tion chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment receptor negative inflammatory breast cancer: the M.
of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of D. Anderson cancer center experience. Clin Breast
Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group Cancer. 2004;4:415–9.
B trial 9741. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1431–9. 80. Liao Z, Strom EA, Buzdar AU, et al. Locoregional
67. Fisher B, Dignam J, Bryant J, et al. Five versus more irradiation for inflammatory breast cancer: effective-
than five years of tamoxifen for lymph node-negative ness of dose escalation in decreasing recurrence. Int J
breast cancer: updated findings from the National Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47:1191–200.
Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-14 81. Bristol IJ, Woodward WA, Strom EA, et al.

randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:684–90. Locoregional treatment outcomes after multimodal-
68. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Tamoxifen ity management of inflammatory breast cancer. Int J
and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72:474–84.
receptor-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 82. Haagensen CD, Stout AP. Carcinoma of the breast:
1997;89:1673–82. II. Criteria of operability. Ann Surg. 1943;118:859–70.
69. Howell A, Cuzick J, Baum M, et al. Results of the 83. Pezner RD, Schultheiss TE, Paz IB. Malignant phyl-
ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen, alone or in combina- lodes tumor of the breast: local control rates with
tion) trial after completion of 5 years' adjuvant treat- surgery alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;
ment for breast cancer. Lancet. 2005;365:60–2. 71:710–3.
70. Mamounas EP, Bryant J, Lembersky B, et al. Paclitaxel 84. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical

after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant Practice Guidelines. Breast cancer v 2.2016.
Gastrointestinal Cancers
7
Daniel M. Trifiletti, Leila Tchelebi,
Nicholas G. Zaorsky, and Einsley Marie Janowski
Abstract
ment of patients with gastrointestinal cancers,
ponents of trimodality care and stereotactic
body radiation therapy (SBRT) are discussed.
L. Tchelebi · N. G. Zaorsky
E. M. Janowski
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
e-mail: ej8t@hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4_7
Esophageal Cancer [1–23] Siewert (assess for all adenoCA of GEJ; from Siewert,
1998)
• T1 Epicenter Treat
like
–– T1a – into lamina propria or muscular 1 Lower esophagus within Above Esoph
mucosae 1–5 cm above GEJ GEJ
–– T1b – into submucosa 2 Cardia within 1 cm above and At GEJ Esoph
• T2 – muscularis propria 2 cm below GEJ
• T3 – adventitia 3 Subcardinal with center 2–5 Below Gastric
below GEJ, infiltrates GEJ GEJ
• T4 – adj structures from below
–– T4a – pleura, pericardium, azygos, dia- (Tx 1–2 like esophageal; 3 like gastric)
phragm, peritoneum
–– T4b – aorta, vertebrae, trachea AJCC esophagus cm from
• N1 – 1–2 nodes section incisors Landmark
• N2 – 3–6 nodes 15 Cricoid
Cervical 15–20
• N3 – 7+ nodes
20 Thoracic inlet,
sternal notch
Additions to AJCC 8th, from 7th Upper T 20–25
25 Azygous, carina
–– Changed definition of location of tumor from Mid T 25–30
top to its epicenter. 30 Inf pulmonary vein
–– Any tumor extending <2 cm into stomach is Lower T 30–40
40–42 GEJ
esophageal; if >2 cm, then it is gastric.
–– Added ypTNM prognostic staging, which
does not distinguish between adenoCA vs AJCC 8 T1a T1b T2 T3 T4a T4b
N0 IA-SCC IB-SCC IB-SCC IIA-SCC IIIB IVA
squam. G1 G1-3 G1 G1up/mid
IB-SCC IB-aden IIA-SCC or G1-3
low
General Anatomy/Staging G2/3 G1-2 G2/3
IA-aden IC-aden IIB-SCC
G1 G1/2 G2/3
–– Tumors arising at the GEJ or in the cardia of IB-aden up/mid
the stomach within 5 cm of GEJ and extend G2
IC-aden IIA-aden IIB-aden-
into the GEJ are staged as esophageal. G3 G3 G1-3
–– All others with an epicenter in the stomach N1 IIB IIIA IIIB IIIB
>5 cm from the GEJ or those <5 cm without N2 IIIA IIIB IIIB IVA
N3 IVA
extension into the GEJ are staged as gastric. M1 IVB
–– The staging system differs for N0 patients; it
depends on histology.
–– Once a pt. is LN+, staging and prognosis are AJCC 7 T1 T2 T3 T4a T4b
similar. N0 Depends on histo, G; loc IIIA IIIC
for SC
–– Location matters for SCC; prognosis is worse
N1 IIB IIB IIIA IIIC IIIC
with more proximal tumors.
N2 IIIA IIIA IIIB IIIC IIIC
N3 IIIC
M1 IV
Gastrointestinal Cancers 267
AJCC 8 ypT0 ypT1 ypT2 ypT3 ypT4a –– Thus, CTV margin <30 mm OK in 94% of
ypTNM cases, except distal GEJ adenoCA, which
ypN0 I I I II IIIB need 50 mm.
ypN1 IIIA IIIA IIIA IIIA IVA
ypN2 IIIB IIIB IIIB IIIB IVA Surgical Techniques
ypN3 IVA
–– Endoscopic mucosal resection
M1 IVB
–– No ulceration, no LVSI, <2 cm, G1–2,
T1aN0 (SCC), T1a/superficT1b (adenoCA)
Overview –– 98% OS (Ell 2007)
–– 17, 300 cases/yr., 15, 800 deaths/yr. –– Transhiatal esophagectomy: no thoracotomy,
–– Barrett esophagus annual conversion 0.2– two incisions, pull up Inability to perform a
2%/yr. full thoracic LN dissection, but better toler-
–– Risk factors: tobacco, ETOH, nitrosamines, ated, no mediastinitis risk
Plummer-Vinson syndrome, achalasia, –– Ivor-Lewis (right thoracotomy): good expo-
GERD. sure, risk mediastinitis
–– Note: no serosal lining of esophagus and rich –– Left thoracotomy: good for lower third
submucosal lymphatic network; thus, locore- resections
gional spread common. 90% of tx failures after –– Optimum # nodes = 23 (Peyre 2008); min 15
definitive CRT are within GTV (Welsh, 2012). (NCCN)
–– Surgery alone ~20% 3-year OS
T Tis T1a T1b T2 T3
Risk LN+ <3% 7 20 40 >40
Preop/Periop Chemo
–– RTOG 8911 (Kelsen 1998): T1–2Nx → sur-
Workup
gery +/− preop cis/5-FU. n = 440. Same OS,
–– EGD, EUS with FNA.
2.5% pCR.
–– On US, layers 1, 3, and 5 are bright, whereas 2
–– MAGIC trial (Cunningham 2006): T1–3 N0–1
and 4 are dark. Layer 3, submucosa (T1); layer
gastric/GE/lower esophagus adenosCAs→
4, muscularis propria (T2); layer 5, serosa
surgery +/− periop epirubicin, cisplatin, 5-FU.
(T4).
n = 503. Only 42% of patients assigned to
–– PET-CT or CT chest (40% have lung mets).
periop chemo arm are able to complete all
–– PFTs if planning surgery.
cycles. Only 49% of pts who got all preop
–– Barium swallow as needed.
chemo completed all three cycles of adjuvant
–– Nutrition eval.
chemo. Chemo ↑ 5-yr OS (23 → 36%).
–– Port/J-tube; consider lap (in GEJ adenoCA);
–– FLOT4 (abstract only): MAGIC regimen (3c
Her-2 in M1; CBC; CMP; LFT; EtOH, tobacco
ECF preop and post-op) vs FLOT (4c
abuse.
docetaxel, oxaliplatin, 5-FU preop and post-
–– Bronch if tumor is above carina (at ~25 cm)
op). FLOT improved MST (35 m vs 50 m) and
and M0 to rule out a tracheoesophageal
3-yr OS (48% vs 57%).
fistula.
–– Staging lap and thoracoscopy in LA dz. to
limit futile CMT.
–– Assess Siewert.
–– Pathological microscopic spread (Gao,
IJROBP):
–– AdenoCA: 10 ± 7 mm prox, 18 ± 16 mm
distal.
–– SCC: 10 ± 14 mm prox, 11 ± 8 distal.
Preop CRT –– Gebski 2007: metanalysis with 1209 pts.

–– Michigan (Walsh 1996): RCT specifically for Preop CRT improves OS compared to surgery
adenosCAs. n = 113. Ran to CRT 40 Gy/15 at alone.
2.67 + cis/5-FU, then surg vs surg alone. MST –– Meta-analysis of 12 trials (Sjoquist, Lancet Onc
improved w CRT: 16 m vs 11 m. Criticisms: 2011). NA-CRT vs surgery alone in operable
short median FU; 11 pts withdrew from CMT esophageal carcinoma. With NA-CRT, there is
arm vs 1 in surg arm; outcome of surg arm 8.7% absolute improvement in 2-year OS vs sur-
poor (10–20% lower than expected vs gery alone. Also, 5.1% absolute improvement in
Michigan and EORTC trials). 25% pCR. 2-year OS w chemo alone vs surgery.
–– EORTC (Bosset 1997): T1–3 N0 or T1–2 N1, –– RTOG 1010: current RCT. CROSS trimodal-
SCC only→ surgery +/− preopCRT (cis x2c ity +/− trastuzumab to 50.4 Gy. Must have
with 37/10 split course). n = 282. pCR 26%, HER2 overexpress.
same OS (18 m). 26% pCR.
–– Michigan, Urba 2001. n = 100. Median FU Definitive RT
8 yrs. NA-CRT 45/1.5 BID w cis, 5-FU, vin- –– Sai (IJROBP 2005). Retrospective of 34 patients
blast then surg vs surg alone. No difference in with T1 CA, either EBRT alone (64 Gy) or
MST 18 m. However, only powered to detect EBRT (52 Gy) + ILBT (8–12 Gy/2–3 fx). 5-year
increase from 1–2.2 years. 28% pCR. OS 59%, RFS 68%, CSS 80%
–– Burmeister 2006: T1–3 N0–1 → surgery +/−
preop CRT (cis5-FU with 35/15). n = 256. BT for Inoperable Esophageal CA
Same DFS and OS but better R0 resection in –– RTOG 9207, Gasper, 2000. 50/25 w cis and
CMT. 13% pCR. 5-FU, wait 2w, then HDR 5 Gyx3 or LDR
–– CALGB 9781 (Tepper 2008): T1–3 N1 → sur- 20 Gy. 1-year OS 49%. Fistulas in 14%. RIP
gery +/−preop CRT (cis5-FU with 50.4 Gy). brachy.
CRT ↑5 yr OS (16 → 39%). 40% pCR.
–– POET (Preop Chemo versus chemo + CRT in Definitive CRT
Esophagogastric AdenoCA Trial. [Really, –– RTOG 85–01 (Herskovic 1991; Cooper,
“PreOCOREGAT”])/Stahl 2009: T3–4NX 1999): T1–3 N0–1. 86% SCC, 14% adenoCA.
adenoCA of lower esoph and gastric cardia → Randomize→RT (64 Gy) vs CRT (cis 75 mg/
neoadj chemo 2.5 c of cis/5-FU/leucovorin vs m2 and CI 5-FU 1000 mg/m2 with 50 Gy/25).
2 c same chemo followed by CRT CRT improved 5-year OS (0 → 27%). This
(30/15 + etoposide+cis). All got surgery 3–4wk RCT established CRT as superior to RT alone
after. Closed early but CRT had better pCR for T1–3 N0–1 pts not eligible for surgery.
(2 → 15.6%) and rate of pathologically Doses 64.8 and 50.4 later become INT doses
involved LNs (38% vs 64%). Also trended bet- by Minsky.
ter OS (3 yr., 28 → 47%, p = 0.07). 3-year LR –– INT0123 (RTOG 9405): T1–4 N0–1 → CRT to
lower in NA-CRT arm 24% vs 41%, p = 0.06. 50 Gy vs 64.8 Gy (50.4 + 14.4 boost to
Stopped early bc poor accrual. Authors con- GTV + 2 cm). Chemo was cis 75 mg/m2 + 5-FU
clude underpowered for OS benefit. 1000 mg/m2. Interestingly, mostly SCC > aden-
–– CROSS (van Hagen, NEJM 2012): 368 pts oCA. Stopped early because of ↑death
(75% adenoCA, 23% SCC, 2% large cell (2 → 10%, but 7/11 deaths were prior to 50.4 Gy
undif) → surgery +/−preop CRT. 41.4 Gy in in high-dose group). 2-year OS 40 vs 31% (NS).
23 fx with carbo/taxol. Carbo was AUC 2, and –– Stahl 2005: T3–4 N0–1 SCC → chemo x
paclitaxel was 50 mg/m2 weekly during RT. 3c → CRT alone (64–65 (50/25 + BID EBRT
–– ↑MST (24 m → 49.4 m) boost or HDR boost)) vs CRT + surgery (40/20).
–– 5-year OS 47% vs 34% Surgery improved LC, but CRT had less treat-
–– ↑R0 resection with CRT (69 → 92%) ment-related mortality (13 → 4%–SS).
–– pCR 29% overall. pCR 23% adenoCA and
49% SCC
NCCN Technique
1. Definitive surgery –– Generally sim supine, arms up, IV and PO
–– Tis-T1a: EMR vs esophagectomy. Risk of contrast, motion assessment/management for
LNMs <3% lower tumors.
–– T1bN0: esophagectomy (EMR for superfi- –– Cervical eso: supraclav, neck nodes
cial adenosCAs) –– Upper thoracic: include SCV and mediasti-
–– Adjuvant treatment: nal nodes
–– AdenosCAs: surveillance or CRT for pT3– –– Mid thoracic: paraesophageal nodes
T4, bad T2 (high-grade, LVI, PNI, or –– Low thoracic: consider gastric nodes,
age <50 yo), LN+, or R1 or R2 resection celiac axis
–– Squams: CRT only for + margins –– No benefit to dose escalation (INT 0123,
–– Nonsurgical candidate: Minsky).
–– 45–50 Gy + 2 drug chemo. –– PET SUV of 2.5 at baseline (not post chemo)
–– Higher doses may be considered in cervical. is good threshold.
2. Neoadjuvant CRT –– Assimilate EGD and EUS report.
–– T2–T4a or N+. –– IMRT:
–– ChemoRT → surgery (non-cervical) by week –– CTV = 4 cm sup/inf mucosal expansion
6. (only 2 cm into stomach if distal) and
–– RT: 41.4–50.4 Gy. 1–1.5 cm radial expansion for primary
Chemo: weekly carbo (2AUC)/taxol(50) x 5 tumor +1–1.5 cm expansion for gross nodal
wks; CP 75–100 on d1 and d29 + 5-FU 750–1000 disease. Incorporate CT, US, PET. CTV
CI d1–4&d29–32. should be shaved off the bones, aorta, and
3. Definitive CRT (cervical esoph; if decline
heart (limit 0.5 cm into the heart but can
surg; not candidate for surgery). Consider sal- shave off if motion management is used).
vage esophagostomy for persistent disease. –– Upper 1/3: + SCV.
RT: 50–50.4 Gy. –– Distal 1/3: + celiac LNs to the bifurcation.
Chemo: CP 75–100 d1 + 5-FU 750–1000 –– PTV = 0.5 expansion w daily kV imaging.
CI d1–4. Q28d for 2–4 cycles. Another option
is FOLFOX. (Note that the chemo is different Constraints
from the recommended preop carbo/taxol, but –– Lung: V20 <20%; V10 <40%; V5 <50%;
weekly carbo/taxol can be considered). mean ALARA, <5–8 Gy (Wang, 2013)
4. Esophagectomy (non-cervical) – if low risk –– Heart: V50 <33%; V30 <30%; V25 <50%;
(T1 N0, <2 cm, well-differentiated). mean <30 Gy
5. Defin CRT –– Liver: mean <25 Gy; V30 <20%; V20 <30%
–– If cervical or decline surg (50–50.4) –– Kidney: 2/3 <18 Gy; combined mean <18 Gy
–– Then PET/EGD. Can observe if cCR and
SCC
–– T4b: defin CRT (50–50.4)
–– Dysphagia palliation: RT preferred over
stent or CRT
Gastric Cancer [1–5, 9, 24–34] –– GEJ, fundus: 35%, diffuse. Seiwert III
esophageal CA treated like gastric
• T1 –– Body: 25%
• T1a – into lamina propria or muscular –– Antrum: 40%, intestinal
mucosae
• T1b – into submucosa Workup:
• T2 – muscularis propria (this is the “fourth –– H&P, nodal eval, CBC, CMP, H pylori eval,
layer” on EUS). EGD, EUS, bx, CT CAP w/ IV + oral
• T3 – subserosa contrast
• T4 –– Nutritional assessment and counseling.
• T4a – serosa Consider J-tube (not G)
• T4b – adj structures –– HER2 and MSI/MMR testing if M+ adenocar-
• N1 – 1–2 nodes cinoma is documented/suspected
• N2 – 3–6 nodes –– Assess Siewert category
• N3 – 7+ nodes –– Smoking cessation
• N3a – 7–15 nodes –– Screen for FH
• N3b – 16+ nodes –– PET for T2+, suspicious LN
–– Laparoscopy if T1b + or N+: 20–35% have
M1: metastatic occult peritoneal mets
Mnemonic: IA (T# + N#; i.e., T1 N0) adds to
1; IB adds to 2 (i.e., T2 N0 or T1 N1); IIA adds to Surgical Anatomy
3; IIB adds to 4 –– What is unresectable? Infiltrating mesenteric
root, PA-LNs+, invades major vasculature
(not splenic vessels), DMs, peritoneal
AJCC8 T1 T2 T3 T4a T4b seeding.
N0 IA IB IIA IIB IIIA –– Need subtotal gastrectomy for distal lesion.
N1 IB IIA IIB IIIB –– Aim for >3–5 cm margins, ≥15 LNs.
IIIA
N2 IIA IIB IIIA IIIB –– D0: no or incomplete perigastric nodal
N3a IIB IIIA IIIB IIIB IIIC dissection.
N3b IIIB IIIB IIIC IIIC IIIC –– D1: perigastric nodes.
M1 IV –– D2: D1+ left gastric, common hepatic, splenic,
celiac (“Gotta Harvest Supplementary Cancer”).
–– D3: D2 + hepatoduodenal, retropancreatic,
Overview mesenteric root, PA, middle colic.
–– 22,700 cases/yr., 12,000 deaths/yr. –– Extent of dissection controversial. More com-
–– Risk factors: salt, nitrates, H pylori, perni- plications with D2+ but seemingly improved
cious anemia. CSS.
–– ≈ 20% HER2 positive; MSI/MMR and EBV –– Supplement fat-soluble vitamins (ADEK) and
are other relevant biomarkers B12 post-op.
–– CDH1 mutation: AD truncating mutation,
gene encodes cell adhesion molecule LN Anatomy
E-cadherin. Found in ≈ 40% of hereditary dif- –– Regional LNs of gastric cancer:
fuse gastric cancer (HDGC). For pts w syn- –– Greater curvature: greater curvature,
drome, avg. age of gastric cancer 37 yo, >70% greater omental, gastroduodenal, gastroep-
develop it by age 80. On path, appears diffuse, iploic, pyloric, pancreaticoduodenal
w signet rings. –– Pancreatic and splenic: pancreatolienal,
–– Anatomy peripancreatic, splenic
–– Lesser curvature: lesser curvature, lesser docetaxel, oxaliplatin, 5-FU preop and post-
omental, L gastric, cardioesophageal, com- op). FLOT improved MST (35 m vs 50 m) and
mon hepatic, celiac, hepatoduodenal 3-yr OS (48% vs 57%).
–– LNs/spread that is metastatic: retropancreatic, –– RTOG 9904 (Ajana 2006): phase II: preop
PA, portal, retroperitoneal, mesenteric, posi- CRT (induction chemo followed by 45 Gy
tive peritoneal cytology with 5-FU + taxol). pCR 26%.
–– Critics (ASCO 2016 abstract): phase II trial of
Surgery stage IB-IVM0 resectable gastric or GE junc-
–– Note, no RCT reveals OS benefit of D2 versus tion cancers rand to (1) periop ECX/EOX vs
D1 resection, but there is a CSS (Dutch trial). (2) ECX/EOX X 3 → surgery → CRT
–– Gouzi 1989: subtotal vs total gastrectomy for (45 Gy + XP). No difference in OS (41%) or
gastric antrum cancers: no difference in OS. PFS with higher heme tox for arm 1 and higher
–– MRC trial (Cuschieri 1996,1999): D1 vs D2. GI tox for arm 2. 87% of patients had at least
Same 5-yr OS, SS higher M/M with D2 Dutch a D1+ dissection with median 20 LNs.
trial (Bonenkamp 1999,Songun 2010): D1 vs –– TOPGEAR. Phase III perioperative ECF
D2. D2 had more complications/deaths. Same chemo versus perioperative chemo + preop
5-yr OS but the 15 yr. data showed D2 ↑CSS CRT – awaiting final results.
(37 → 48%) and ↓ locoregional recurrence.
–– For Dutch and MRC, criticism is 10% op mor- Post-op CRT and/or Chemo
tality, perhaps from inexperience of surgeons. –– INT 0116 (Macdonald 2001,2012): 556 pts,
–– Yu, 2006. RCT of splenectomy vs splenic R0 surgery +/− CRT. Stage IB-IVM0. 54%
preservation in proximal gastric cancer getting D0 resection. Chemo was 5-FU, leucovorin
gastrectomy. No OS benefit. NS higher M/M given once before RT started, then x 5d per w
w splenectomy. No impact on OS in pts w #1 and #5 of RT. RT was 45/25. CRT improved
mets to LNs at hilum of spleen or along splenic DFS and OS. 3-year OS 50% vs 41%; 3-year
artery. RFS 48% vs 31%.
–– Taiwanese trial (Wu 2006): D1 vs D3. D3 ↑ –– Kim 2005: retrospective. 990 pts with D2
5-yr OS (54 → 60%). No adj chemo or RT. +/-CRT. 5-yr OS improved with CRT
–– JCOG9501 trial (Sasako 2008): D2 vs (51 → 57%).
D2 + PAs. Longer surgery; no OS or RFS –– ARTIST: Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in
benefit. Stomach Tumors (Lee, 2012; Park, 2015):
2004–2008. n = 458. South Korea. Gastric ade-
Periop/Preop Chemo/CRT noCA s/p R0 gastrectomy + D2 LND. Rand:
–– Theoretical disadvantage is tumor regression (1) chemo alone (“XP”), 6c cape 2000 mg/mg
and perforation, targeting accuracy, and gas- on d1, 14 and cis 60 mg/mg2 on d1, repeat q3w.
tric ulceration. vs (2) 2c of cape and cis +, then 45 Gy + con-
–– MAGIC (Cunningham 2006): mostly gastric current cape 825 mg/m2 BID, and then 2c of
but some GEJ/eso → surgery +/− pre-/post-op cape and cis. RT decreased LRR (13% vs 7%),
chemo (ECF). 42% completed all 6c chemo. but no change in 5-year OS (~74%), DFS
Only 49% of pts completing preop chemo (~75%), DMs (~26%). No benefit in DFS for
completed all 3c adjuvant chemo. CR rate 0%. entire group (p = 0.08) but CRT beneficial if
Chemo improved downstaging, R0, 5 yr OS LN+ (p = 0.04), and in pts w intestinal-type GC
(23 → 36%). Bc of difficulty completing (3 yr. 94% vs 83%). Criticisms: no surg
chemo, benefit of post-op chemo component QA. Borderline significance.
unclear. –– CLASSIC (Noh 2014): 37 centers in SK,
–– FLOT4 (abstract only): MAGIC regimen (3c China, Taiwan. D2 resected II-IIIB gastric
ECF preop and post-op) vs FLOT (4c CA. n = 1035. Surgically resected then rand:
(1) adjuvant oral cape 1000 mg/m2 BID on Post-surgical R1–R2 ± Preop Chemo
d1,14 x 8c + oxali 130 mg/m2 on d1 for 6 m; Treatment
vs (2) obs only. 3-year DFS 75% vs 60%. –– R1: CRT (chemo alone if received preop can
5-year OS 78% vs 69%. G3–4 tox in 56% vs be considered)
6%, favoring surg only. Chemo arm won for –– R2: CRT or palliative
OS, but >9x the severe toxicity.
–– CALGB 80101 (Fuchs 2017): Stage IB-IVM0
patients treated with surgery→ chemo→CRT Technique
(5-FU + 45 Gy) → chemo sandwich, testing –– Fast for 3 hrs before sim.
either ECF versus 5-FU/leucovorin. 3-yr data –– Supine, arms up, IV contrast, oral contrast, 4D.
show similar outcomes. –– Fuse w preop scans.
–– ARTIST II: ongoing. Looking at adjuvant
chemo versus CRT in LN+ patients; chemo is “Classic” Four-Field Technique (from
S1 vs S1 and oxaliplatin. Gunderson Patterns of Failure Paper)
–– 3D CRT w/ four fields (heavy weighting of
Metastatic APPA with RAO/LPO)
–– ToGA trial (Bang 2010): metastatic gastric, –– Superior = Level of L hemidiaphragm
cis/5-FU +/− trastuzumab. Improved median (unless anastomosis above diaphragm), often
OS (11.1 → 13.8 m). T9/10.
–– For proximal T3 lesions, cover medial 2/3 L
NCCN hemidiaphragm.
–– Inferior = L3/L4 for most pts. If upper 1/3
Pre-surgical Recommendations
lesion w/ only 1–2 nodes (+), consider raising
–– Tis-1aN0: endoscopic resection or gastrec-
border to L2 b/c lower risk of sub-pyloric
tomy alone
nodes.
–– T1b: surgery alone
–– Right lateral = 3 cm to right of vertebral
–– T2+ or N+
body. Look at preop/post-op imaging to
1. Perioperative chemotherapy + surg [5-FU
include porta hepatis, gastroduodenal nodes,
and cis x3 →surgery →5-FU and cis] (cat 1)
antrum, medial duodenal wall.
2.
Preoperative CRT (carbo/taxol;
–– Left lateral = Variable. 2/3 of L hemidia-
CP/5-FU) + surgery (cat 2B)
phragm +1 cm. Shield L kidney in lower por-
–– Unresectable: 5-FU-based CRT
tion of field if possible.
–– 6 MV beam energy.
Post-surgical R0 with No Preop Treatment
–– Block edge margin = 5 mm.
–– Tis or T1: surveillance.
–– T2 N0 – surveillance or MacDonald or chemo
–– Volume based:
(if D2 dissection); CRT can be considered for
–– CTVp: residual dz. + remaining stomach +
pT2 N0 w unfav features (LVSI, <D2 LN
anastomosis, 3–5 cm margin. No need to treat
dissection).
entire gastric volume.
–– T3+/N+: MacDonald [MacDonald: surgery +
–– Consider boost for close SM (<5 mm).
post-op chemoRT: 5-FU (425 mg/m2) + leucovo-
–– CTVn (contouring atlas available Wo et al.
rin (20 mg/m2) X 1 cycle → concomitant chemo/
2013).
RT (45 Gy w/ 2 cycles 5-FU(400 mg/m2)/
–– IGRT Mandatory!
LV(20 mg/m2) → 2 additional cycles 5-FU(425 mg/
m2)/LV (5 cycles of chemo, RT w/cycles 2 + 3)].
Tumor location Constraints

Proximal –– Isodose distribution in PTV <10% variation
1/3 Distal –– Heart: V30 <30%, mean <30 Gy
Fundus Middle 1/3
–– Lung: V20 <30%, V10 <40%, V5 <60%,
Regional sections/LNs to Cardia 1/3 Antrum
cover GEJ Body Pylorus mean <20 Gy
Stomach sections (+ x x x –– Small bowel: V45 <150 cc, V30 <300 cc
gastric bed, remnant, –– Liver: V30 <33% mean <25 Gy
anastomoses, clips) –– Kidney: mean <18 Gy; V20 <33%
Perigastric x x x
Suprapancreatic x x x
SMA x x x
Supportive Care
CA x x x –– PPI/H2 blockers
Porta hepatic x x x –– Supplements: B12, CA++, Fe
Esophageal, 5 cm x
splenic x x
supra/sub-pyloric x x
pancreaticoduodenal x x
duodenal, 5 cm x
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor –– Large size (>10 cm)

(GIST) [35–37] –– Tumor >5 cm w > 5 mitoses/hpf
–– Necrosis
• T1- ≤2 cm –– Infiltration of surrounding structures
• T2 – >2 cm but ≤5 cm
• T3 – >5 cm but ≤10 cm Studies
• T4 – >10 cm –– SSG XVIII/AIO (Joensuu 2012, 2016). 36 m
• N0 – no regional nodes imatinib superior to 12 m adjuvantly for RFS
• N1 – + regional nodes and OS (92.0 vs 81.7%) in high-risk* surgi-
M1: metastatic cally resected KIT-positive GIST.
Mitotic rate: –– Le Cesne, 2010/French. Interrupting imatinib
Low: 5 or fewer mitoses per 5mm2 or per 50 has high risk of progression, 80% vs 16%.
HPF
High: >5 mitoses per 5 mm2 or per 50 HPF Treatment
–– Surgery: main treatment for resectable tumors
Overview even for metastatic disease.
–– Considered a type of sarcoma. –– Imatinib (Gleevec): a TKI for the c-KIT gene
–– ≈85% of cases are driven from an activating product CD-117. 400 mg/d
mutation in either KIT or PDGFRA, leading –– Use as primary therapy for unresectable or
to active intracellular TK. borderline resectable tumors. Given for at
–– Location: stomach 60%, SB, 35%, rectum, least 6 months to achieve maximal response
esophagus, omentum, mesentery <5%. for resectability.
–– There are different staging systems for gas- –– Give adjuvant for at least 36 months if high-risk*
tric/omental versus small intestine/esopha- tumor: >10 cm, >10 mitoses/50 HPF; tumor
geal/colorectal/mesenteric. >5 cm and >5 mitoses/HPF, tumor rupture.
–– If pt. had SD on imatinib, do not stop, or there
Workup is ↑ risk of progression (80% vs 16%).
–– H&P –– Sunitinib followed by regorafenib can be
–– CT abdomen/pelvis and or abdominal given for progression.
MRI ± chest imaging if GIST is T2+ –– RT only as palliative therapy (mostly for bone
–– Testing for KIT and PDGFRA metastases)
Predictors of Malignancy
–– >5 mitoses/50 HPF = “high”
–– High MIB1 index
Pancreatic Cancer [1–5, 38–57] AJCC 8 T1 T2 T3 T4

N0 IA IB IIA
III
AJCC 8th Edition N1 IIB
• T1 – ≤2 cm N2 III
–– T1a – ≤0.5 cm
M1 IV
–– T1b – >0.5–<1 cm
–– T1c – ≥1.0–≤2.0 cm
• T2 – >2–≤4 cm AJCC 7 T1 T2 T3 T4
• T3 – >4 cm N0 IA IB IIA III
• T4 – involves celiac, SMA, and/or common N1 IIB
HA. M1 IV
–– N1–1–3 nodes
–– N2–4+ nodes
Resectable Borderline Locally

Advanced
Criterion Resectable Borderline resectable Locally advanced/unresectable

DMs No DM No DM DM
SMV No SMV or portal vein SMV/portal vein abutment/ Unreconstructable SMV/PV (e.g.,
abutment, distortion, tumor encasement involvement of splenic v, PV,
thrombus, or venous SMV)
encasement Contact w/ proximal draining
jejunal branch into SMV
SMA Clear fat plane around vessel Abutment of SMA ≤180° SMA >180
Contact w/ first jejunal SMA
branch
Celiac axis Clear fat plane around vessel Abutment of CA CA >180
≤180° for pancreatic
body/tail
CA >180° w/o aorta
and GDA
involvement to allow
Appleby
(controversial)
IVC Solid contact with IVC
Other Clear fat planes around celiac Solid contact w CHA,
axis, hepatic artery, SMA without extension to CA or
HA bifurcation
Notes Note: as long as SMV Unreconstructable SMV/PV due to
reconstructable, it is resectable tumor involvement or thrombus
AJCC 7th Edition Overview

• T1 – ≤2 cm –– 45,000 cases/yr., 35,000 deaths/yr. in US.
• T2 – >2 cm –– Risk factors: tobacco, dietary fat, RT, chemo.
• T3 – beyond pancreas –– First echelon LNs: pancreaticoduodenal,
• T4 – involves SMA or celiac suprapancreatic, pyloric, pancreaticosplenic.
• N1 = any LNs –– 50% are M1 at diagnosis.
–– 30% are LAPC, M0.
–– Most common in 70s. –– Whipple: remove partial pancreas, duode-

–– CA 19–9: use primarily in management of num, prox jejunum, distal stomach, GB + cys-
panc CA but can be elevated in colon cancer. tic duct, CBD, regional LNs, +/−spleen.
–– Chromogranin A: can be sign of nonfunc- –– Everything needs to be reconnected to
tional panc neuroendocrine tumor, esp. if nor- jejunum.
mal amount of gastrin, insulin, glucagon. –– Reconstruction w/Roux-en-Y: choledochoje-
junostomy (hepatic duct to jejunum), pancre-
Panc Panc
aticojejunostomy (pancreas to jejunum), and
LN drainage head body/tail
Ant and post pancreaticoduodenal Y gastrojejunostomy (stomach to jejunum) or
LNs partial pancreatectomy for distal tumors.
Hepatoduodenal ligament Y –– No benefit to extended LND (Riall 2005).
(including porta hepatis) –– NCCN recommends high-volume center,
SMA Y Y >15–20 panc resections/yr.
Splenic artery Y
–– JHU rapid autopsy series, Iacobuzio, 2009:
Celiac Y
PA Y 30% of pts had locally destructive panc CA,
Inf panc Y and 70% died from DMs. Divergent failure
patterns at autopsy were unrelated to clinical
stage at initial presentation, treatment history,
Anatomy
pathology. DPC4 status correlated w M+.
–– T12: celiac artery.
–– L1–2: head of pancreas. SMA originates at
Pro-Post-op CRT
lower L1.
–– L3: IMA origin.
–– GITSG 9173 (Kalser, 1985): 43 pts. Surgery
+/− CRT (5-FU + 40 Gy split). CRT improved
Workup
OS (5 → 14%).
–– H&P, jaundice, DRE, LFTs, CA19–9, throm-
–– SEER analysis (Hazard 2007): RT → ↑OS
botic events (Trousseau’s migratory
(12 → 17 m MS). No benefit for T1–2 N0.
thrombophlebitis).
–– Mayo Clinic (Corsini 2008): retrospective,
–– EGD, EUS, ERCP, bx, stent?, CT C/A/P,
472 pts. T1–3 N0–1 with R0 resection.
+/-MRI.
Patients who got 5-FU + 50.4 Gy did better
–– PET-CT if suspicious LNs.
than observation (MS 19 → 25 m).
–– 3Ps: PPI, pancreatic enzymes, pain control.
–– RTOG 9704, (Regine 2008, 2011): 451 pts.
–– Stent: only if obstructed. Need to have
86% panc head, others w body and
metal > plastic if doing RT. Plastic has short
tail→R0–1 → CRT sandwich. Randomization:
lifespan and higher risk of clot and infection,
(1) gem 1000 × 3w, then 5-FU + RT, then gem
which is deadly in pancytopenic patient. On
1000 mg × 12 w vs (2) 5-FU CI 250 mg/m2 ×
the other hand, plastic stent preferred if pt. is
3, then RT+ 5-FU, then 5-FU × 12 w. Gem
preop bc the metal stent makes surgery
was Qwk. 5-FU was 250 mg/m2 w RT. RT was
complicated.
50.4 Gy, 4 field. ChemoRT is same in both
–– CT: pancreatic protocol. IV and oral contrast.
arms. Classic borders: Sup T10/11. Inf L3/4.
Arterial and venous phase. 2–3 mm cut at
Ant 2–3 cm ant to preop GTV. Post-splits
level of the pancreas. Pancreatic carcinoma is
VBs. Lat includes hepatic hilum porta hepatis,
hypovascular tumor and is seen best on later
pancreatic remnant, 1.5–2 cm off VBs to cover
arterial phase.
the PA-LNs. Gem arm trended toward 3-yr
↑OS (22 → 31%) but not SS. ~73% of pts
Surgery
failed distantly first; LR was 25% for 5-FU
–– For head lesions: Whipple/pancreaticoduode-
arm and 30% for gem arm. In panc head
nectomy (classic or pylorus-sparing): ~4%
tumors receiving gem trend to improved OS.
mortality.
–– Johns Hopkins + Mayo (Hsu 2010): adj CRT Borderline Resectable

vs obs. CRT had improved median OS 21.1 m
vs 15.5 m. –– MDACC (Katz, 2008): Retrospective. BR
panc CA, all get neoadj chemo, 4 c induction
Anti-Post-op RT gem, then CRT w 5-FU, then resection.
–– EORTC 40891 (Klinkenbijl 1999, Smeenk n = 125. 78% completed preop tx and restag-
2007): surgery +/− CRT (5-FU + 40 Gy split). ing. 41% underwent pancreatectomy. 94%
No difference in 5- or 10-yr OS (10-yr OS who had surgery had R0. MST 40 m if receive
18%). Included periampullary (no diff) and all tx vs 13 m if no surg.
pancreas (5-yr OS 20 vs 10% NSS).
–– UK, ESPAC-1 (Neoptolemos 2001,2004): Unresectable
surgery→2×2 (+/−5-FU, +/−40 Gy split). –– GITSG 9273 (Moertel 1981): 40 Gy + con-
Chemo ↑OS (14 → 19 m), but CRT worsened current 5-FU 500 mg/m2 vs 60 Gy + concur-
5-yr OS (20 → 10%). Criticisms: physicians rent 5-FU vs 60 Gy/30 alone. All arms use
pick tx; crossover allowed; split course; no RT split-course RT. CRT improved MS (5 → 9 m,
QA (many pts >60 Gy). SS). This is the only old trial to show OS ben-
–– Meta-analysis (Stocken 2005): 875 pts, chemo efit for CRT vs RT alone.
improved MS (13.5 → 19 m), but not CRT –– GITSG 9283. (JNCI 1988). n = 43. RT + con-
(~15 m). RT improved outcomes for positive current 5-FU vs streptozocin, MMC,
margins. 5-FU. Concurrent CRT won. MST 10 m vs 7 m.
–– Tempero 2003: big bolus vs small bolus gem-
Adjuvant Chemo citabine. Slow infusion ↑OS (5 → 8 m).
–– CONKO-001, (Oettle 2007,2013): –– RTOG 9812 (Rich 2004): phase II: 50.4
368pts → R0 or R1 +/− gemcitabine x6c. Gy + paclitaxel. MS was 11 m.
Gem → ↑DFS (6.7 → 13.4 m) and 5-yr OS –– Huguet 2007: retrospective of LAPC on
(10% → 20%). No RT GERCOR studies. At 3 months after chemo,
–– Krishnan 2007: retrospective. Induction 29% had DMs. Thus, avoid upfront CRT in
chemo → CRT had longer MS then upfront LAPC.
CRT (8 → 12 m). –– French FFCD (Chauffert 2008): phase
–– ESPAC-3 (Neoptolemos 2010): panc ductal, III. Gem +/− RT with 5-FU. CRT had worse
R0–1. 5-FU vs gem. No RT. Same MS survival (13 → 8.6 m).
(~23 m). –– ECOG 4201 (Loehrer 2011): closed early. 71
–– ESPAC-4 (Neoptolemos 2017): panc ductal, pts → gem +/− RT. CRT improved median OS
R0–1. Gem vs gem+ capecitabine. No (9.2 → 11.1 m) but more toxicity.
RT. MS was 25.5 vs 28 m (SS) favoring gem –– LAP-07 (Hammel, 2016): RCT in LAPC of gem
+ cap. +/− erlotinib. If no progression during chemo at
4 months, then rando to chemo vs CRT (54 Gy
Neoadjuvant CRT for Resectable with Xeloda). RT volumes: GTV (including
–– MDACC (Evans JCO, 2008): phase II. Stage LNs >1 cm) + 3 cm cm sup/inf and 1.5 cm else-
I/II resectable panc adenoCA of head or unci- where = PTV. Large to account for setup and
nate process treated w/ CRT w 7 weeks gem respiratory motion. No ENI, so no CTV! CRT
400 mg/m2 IV over 30 m qw + RT 30 Gy/10 provided no OS benefit (MST ~15 m) or PFS
fx. Restage in 4–6w, then surg if no PD. 85% (~8–10 months). LR improved w CRT, 32% vs
taken to surg. 74% had successful Whipple. 46%. No difference in adverse toxic events gen-
Median OS 23 m and 5-year OS 36% in those erally, except more G3–4 nausea (SS).
who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. If –– RTOG 1201: dose escalation trial of gem/
no surg, MST 7 m, 5-year OS 0%. abraxane ± CRT to either 63 vs 50.4 Gy.
–– ALLIANCE trial: chemotherapy ±SBRT for Sim Technique

borderline resectable pancreatic head –– Sim supine, arms up, +IV and PO contrast, 4D
tumors. CT and/or motion management; fiducials pre-
ferred; consider NPO.
–– PO contrast does not work well for tail
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer lesions.
–– Conroy 2011: 342 stage IV pancreatic cancer Post-op. Indications: R+, LN+
rand: FOLFIRINOX vs gem. MS was 11.1 vs –– Abdominal nodal volumes (peripancreatic,
6.8 m favoring FOLFIRINOX. celiac, SMA, porta hepatis, para-aortic), anas-
–– VonHoff 2013: Stage IV pancreatic cancer tomoses, tumor bed
patients rando: gem vs gem+abraxane. MS 6.7 –– Post-op nodal beds +1 cm
vs 8.5 m favoring gem+abraxane. –– Classic borders: Sup T10/11. Inf L3/4
Per RTOG 0848, Contours

Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma –– Structures: CA, SMA, aorta, PV, PJ, tumor
Treatment bed/clips
–– Expansion 1: CA (1 cm prox); SMA (3 cm
–– Resectable prox); PV; PJ; preop tumor volume + 1 cm
–– Resection→ chemo (gem x 5c or 5-FU/leuc expansion; post-op bed w clips
or gem/cap) or sandwich chemo with –– Note that pancreaticogastrostomy is not
CRT. No RT right after surgery because of included in CTV.
high risk of mets. –– Expansion 2: Aorta from most cephalad
–– RTOG 0848: 50.4 Gy, no boost contour of CA, PV, or PJ to bottom of L2.
–– RTOG 9704: 1-month chemo, CRT, Lower if GTV is lower, to include all L3.
3-month chemo Expand ~ 2.5–3 cm to R, 2–2.5 cm ant,
–– Option: 45–46 Gy (1.8–2/fx) + 5–9 Gy 0.2 cm post, 1 cm L. Shave bowel, kidneys,
boost. VBs.
–– Borderline –– For tail lesions: Splenic artery/vein; no PV.
–– Neoadj chemo (FOLFIRINOX or gem/ –– CTV50.4 = Expansion 1 + Expansion 2.
abraxane) +/−RT –– IMRT.
–– After resection can consider additional chemo –– 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions.
–– SBRT: on trial [ALLIANCE: –– Concurrent chemo: gemcitabine or capecitabine.
25–36 Gy/5Fx] Capecitabine preferred due to ↓ toxicity.
–– Unresectable –– Tolerances:
–– FOLFIRINOX or gem+/−abraxane or –– Kidney V18 <50%.
gem/cap –– Bowel/stomach max 55 Gy, V45 <15%.
–– CRT or SBRT after “adequate course of –– Liver mean <25 Gy.
chemo” (4–5 months or RTOG 9704 is
1-month chemo, CRT, then 3-month Intact, Conventional Fractionation
chemo). Neoadjuvant chemo given to –– GTV + 2–3 cm
allow occult M+ disease to manifest and –– May consider coverage of pancreaticoduode-
spare pts toxicity of RT. Then adjuvant nal, suprapancreatic, celiac, porta hepatis,
chemo duodenal loop (splenic for tail tumors) but
–– CRT: 45–54 Gy (1.8–2.5/fx) ENI is controversial
–– SBRT: on trial preferred 25–45 Gy in 3–5 –– See 0848 volumes above
fractions.
Intact, SBRT Follow-Up

–– Contraindicated if duodenal or gastric
invasion. –– q3–6, HP, labs, CA 19–9, CT abd x 2 y, then
–– Fiducials, contour on bone window. annual.
–– Empty stomach; NPO 3 h prior. –– Give pancreatic enzyme replacement.
–– IV and PO contrast.
–– 4D CT Outcomes
–– Expiratory phase is ideal time for sim and
Resectable
treatment (Taniguchi, 2013) bc of less overlap
–– LC 70–80% with chemoRT vs 50% RT alone
bw PTV and duodenum, stomach.
–– MST 24 months
–– Volumes:
–– OS3 = 30%
–– GTV. If enlarged LN near tumor, then can
treat. Otherwise, this is a contraindication.
Unresectable
–– TVI = tumor vessel interface.
–– MST 10 mo
–– iGTV = GTV on 4D CT respiratory phase
–– OS2 10–20%
scans or breath-hold scans.
–– PTV = GTV + 3–5 mm.
–– Dose is 30–45 Gy/3 fractions vs 25–45 Gy/5
Pancreatic Neuroendocrine
fractions and consideration of dose escala-
Treatment
tion to TVI.
–– Tolerances:
–– Pts w localized disease are managed w/ defini-
–– Kidneys V12 <25%
tive surgical resection. For panc head, surgery
–– Duodenum/SB/stomach max: 35 Gy,
is enucleation of primary tumor + LND (small
V20 <20 cc, V35 Gy <1 cc
≤2 cm), or pancreaticoduodenectomy
–– Cord V20 <1 cc
(Whipple). For distal pancreas, pts should get
–– Liver V12 <50%
pancreatectomy + splenectomy and LND.
–– Single fraction Duodenum (Murphy 2010):
–– CRT is not a curative therapy.
V15 <9 cc; V 20 <3 cc; Dmax <23 Gy
–– If M+ but resectable, they can also be treated
–– Liver V30 <10%
with surgery. If M+ and unresectable, then
–– Cord max 20 Gy
systemic agents include octreotide or lanreo-
–– Hold chemo for 1 week prior to and 1 week
tide (first line) or everolimus or sunitinib or
after. Total will be 3w off chemo.
chemo for progression.
allbladder and Biliary Tract/Cholangiocarcinoma: Extrahepatic

G
Cholangiocarcinoma (EHCC), Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
(IHCC) [58–66]
Gallbladder • T1: the bile duct only or muscle or fibrous

tissue.
GB T1 T2a T2b T3 T4 • T2: invades beyond the wall of the bile duct.
N0 I IIA IIB IIIA • T2a: invades surrounding adipose tissue.
IVA
N1 IIIB • T2b: invades liver parenchyma.
N2
IVB • T3: invades unilateral branches of PV or HA.
M1
• T4: invades main PV or bilat PV branches or
CHA; or unilateral radicals w/ contralateral
• T1a: lamina propria or T1b, muscularis. PV or HA.
• T2: perimuscular connective tissue • N1: 1–3 nodes.
• T2a: On peritoneal side • N2: ≥4 nodes.
• T2b: On hepatic side • M1: DMs.
• T3: into the serosa (visceral peritoneum); • Note, preop Blumgart T-stage predicts
liver; other organs resectability.
• T4: involved PV or HA; or 2+ EH organs
–– N1: 1–3 nodes EHCC: Distal (<30% of Tumors)
–– N2: ≥4 nodes
–– M1: DMs EHCC- T1 T2 T3 T4
distal
N0 IA IIA IIB IIIB
IHCC (<30% of Tumors) N1 IIA IIB
IHCC T1a T1b T2 T3 T4 N2 IIIA

N0 IA IB II IIIA M1 IV
IIIB
N1 IIIB
M1 IV
• T1: confined to the bile duct or invades <5 mm
• T2: 5–12 mm depth of invasion
• T1: solitary, no vascular invasion • T3: invades >12 mm
• T1a – ≤5 cm • T4: invades celiac, SMA, CHA
• T1b – >5 cm • N1: 1–3 nodes
• T2: solitary with vascular invasion or multiple • N2: ≥4 nodes
tumors • M1: DMs
• T3: perforates visceral peritoneum
• T4: extrahepatic invasion Locations
• N1: regional LNs. M1: DMs –– Biliary tract cancer locations:
–– Klatskin (hilar) – 10% of all liver and bili-
EHCC: Perihilar/Hilar (40–60% of Tumors) ary carcinomas. 60% of biliary tract
cancers.
EHCC-perihilar/hilar T1 T2a T2b T3 T4 –– Surgery: Roux-en-Y, hepatectomy, lobectomy.
N0 I II II IIIA IIIB
–– Definition = “a perihilar cholangiocarcinoma
N1 IIIC
N2
involving the confluence of the L and R
IVA
M1 IVB
hepatic bile ducts.”
–– Type I involves CHD; Type II is bifurcation. mets. No PV, HA invasion. No organ invasion.
IIIA is R IH duct. IIIB is L IH duct. IV is bilat- No DMs.
eral IH ducts. IV is multicentric. –– Transplant: only an option of EHCC (hilar).
–– Distal – 30%.
–– Surgery is a Whipple. Studies
–– Intrahepatic/diffuse/multifocal – 10%.
Papillary – best prognosis. CRT After Surgery
–– Venous drainage – PV (posterior to CBD). –– Limited data.
–– Lymphatic drainage – submucosa to porta –– Mayo Clinic (Gold 2009). Retrospective.
hepatis, celiac axis, pancreaticoduodenal LN. Stage I (T1–2 N0) or II (T3 N0 or T1–3 N1)
gallbladder. Median dose 50.4/28. 5-FU-based
–– GB cancer natural history: tends to chemo. Of 73 pts included, 25 received adj
metastasize. CRT. Adj CRT assoc. w improved OS.
–– HCC cancer natural history: LR spread pre- –– Wang, 2011: Nomogram of OS benefit with
dominates (e.g., liver, stomach, duodenum, adjuvant chemo or CRT for resect gallbladder
pancreas, colon, omentum, abd wall). LN CA.
mets in 40–80%. First echelon: cystic and –– Adjuvant chemo recommended if T4 and/or
pericholedochal. Second echelon: pancreati- N+.
coduodenal, celiac, PA. –– Adjuvant CRT has small benefit in T2–3 N0
–– DM rate: adenoCA of GB > IHCC > hilar CC. and has large benefit in T4 N0 or any N+.
–– LR continues over time (unlike HCC, where –– SWOG 0809 (Ben-Josef 2015). Phase II feasi-
LR is in 1 year). bility study of 79 patients with gallbladder or
extrahepatic cholangios (pT2–4 or N+ or posi-
–– E/IHCC risk factors: gallstones, PSC, UC, tive resection margins) treated with adjuvant
family hx, parasites, meds (e.g., INH, chemo + CRT. Chemo is cape 1500 mg/m2/d
thorotrast). (in two doses: 750 mg/m2 q12h) for 14d; and
–– GB risk factors: cholelithiasis; chronic gem 1 g/m2 on d1 and d8; give for 4 cycles
inflammation (e.g., salmonella); porcelain (12 w). Reimage. Then concurrent cape
GB; polyps; congenital cysts; obesity. 1330 mg/m2 (in two doses: 665 mg/m2
q12h) + RT 45, 5x per week for 5–6w. 2-yr OS
–– Workup: HP; labs: CBC, LFT, CA 19–9, was 65%.
coags, CEA, Hep panel; imaging: US will ID
obstruction location; CT chest w contrast; CRT Followed by Transplant
multiphasic abdominal/pelvic CT/MRI with –– Mayo (Rea, 2005). Hilar cholangiocarcinoma
contrast; cholangiogram; ERCP/MRCP. get NA-CRT 45 Gy/1.5 Gy BID w concurrent
5-FU, then 12–16 Gy intracavity BT of 6 Gy
–– Markers: CA 19–9 and CA 50 can be elevated x2 or 4 Gy x 4 BID, w concurrent 5-FU, fol-
in cholangiocarcinoma. lowed by the liver txp compared to similar
–– CA19–9 also seen in other GI malignancies, patients treated with resection. 5-year OS 82%
e.g., HCC, esophageal, CRC. for transplant versus 21% after resection.
–– Initial management: relieve obstruction w Chemo

stent or bypass. If incidental finding, consider –– ABC-02 (Valle, 2010). n = 410 locally
staging lap. advanced or M+ bile duct, GB, or ampullary
–– Surgery: SOC. Staging lap, then resection carcinoma. Rand to cis 25 mg/m2, then gem
and LN removal. 100 mg/m2 on d1 and 8 q3w for 8 cycles vs
–– Resectability criteria: See Blumgart T-Stage. gem alone d 1, 8, 15 q4w for 6c, up to 24w.
No RP or paraceliac involvement, no liver Primary endpoint was OS. Median OS 12 m
vs 8 m for combination therapy. Median PFS R0 Resection, N0

8 m vs 5 m. Tumor response (CR or PR) 81% –– Observe or clinical trial or adjuvant chemo
vs 72%.
Positive Margins or Positive Nodes
NCCN Treatment Recommendations –– Adjuvant CRT followed or adjuvant chemo
alone (positive nodes only).
Perihilar ± Gallbladder
–– Resectable = Extended cholecystectomy + Unresectable
partial hepatectomy+ LND → CapeRT for R1/ –– Chemo w gem/cis. Cis + gem > gem alone
N+. (per ABC-2, 2010) (Category 1).
–– Unresectable = Gem/Cis. –– NRG GI-001 has gem/cis +/− hypofraction-
ated RT per above.
Gallbladder/Extrahepatic Cholangios –– CRT should be 50–59.4 Gy with 45 Gy to at
–– Resectable = Whipple → capeRT for R1/N+ risk lymph node volumes. No benefit dose
–– Unresectable = Gem/Cis escalation >60 Gy.
–– Hypofractionated radiation or SBRT can be
Incidental T1 N0 Gallbladder considered for intrahepatic cholangios. One
–– Return to OR for extended cholecystectomy. option is 75 Gy in 25 fractions with SIB to
Remove GB, 2 cm of liver tissue around GB tumor center 100 Gy in 25 fractions. Make
bed, regional LNs. 5 mm PRVs for OARs. Keep BED >80.
Gem+cis neoadj OK. Concurrent cape is OK.
pT1 N0R0 89% of recurrences are local.
–– Surgery. No adjuvant therapy –– NRG-GI001 is ongoing.
pT2-T4 Adjuvant CRT Technique (Form

–– Observation or adjuvant CRT or chemo SWOG 0809)
–– CT sim supine, IV and oral contrast, 4DCT.
Positive Margins or Positive Nodes –– CTV45 = hepaticojejunal (choledochojejunal)
–– Adjuvant CRT followed by chemo (SWOG anastomosis + celiac LNs (1 cm around ves-
0809) or adjuvant chemo alone (positive nodes sels) + anterior and posterior pancreaticoduo-
only) denal + porta hepatis (1 cm around
vessels) + retroduodenal.
Unresectable –– CTV54–59.4 = post-op bed (include all surgi-
–– Chemo w gem/cis. Cis + gem > gem alone cal clips), GTV bed + ITV bed. Up to 59.4 Gy
(per ABC-2, 2010). (Category 1). at physician’s discretion for R1. For positive
–– NRG GI-001 has gem/cis +/− hypofraction- margin in IMRT patients, dose was 55 Gy at
ated RT. Doses based on remnant liver. Range 220 cGy per day.
is from 37.5 in 2.5 s to 67.5 in 4.5 s. Treatment –– PTV=CTV + 5 mm.
is to tumor alone, no LNs. Keep liver –– Concurrent capecitabine 1330 mg/m2 (in two
mean <22 Gy. doses: 665 mg/m2 q12h) 7 days per week.
–– CRT should be 50–59.4 Gy with 45 Gy to at –– Constraints per SWOG: Kidneys max dose
risk lymph node volumes. No benefit dose ≤20 Gy; no more than 10% between 18–20 Gy.
escalation >60 Gy. Bowel/stomach max ≤54 Gy, V50 <2%,
V45 <25%. Duodenum max ≤54 Gy, V45 <33%.
Intrahepatic Cholangios Liver mean <30 Gy. Spinal cord ≤45 Gy.
–– Resectable = Partial hepatectomy → CapeRT
for R1/N+
–– Unresectable = Gem/Cis
epatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)

H –– Cirrhosis or HepB+ → screening w/ US every
[1–5, 67–78] 6 months w/ optional AFP testing
T1a T1b T2 T3a T4 Workup

N0 IA IB II IIIA IIIB –– Labs, CMP, LFTs, CBC, AFP, hep panels, PT/
N1 IVA
INR ultrasound
M1 IVB
–– Triphasic liver CT or MRI: late arterial, portal
venous, and delayed phases. Should enhance,
• T1 – single tumor have washout
• T1a: ≤2 cm –– chest CT,
• T1b: >2 cm without vascular invasion –– If <1 cm: repeat US in 3 mos
• T2 – single >2 cm with vascular invasion or –– if >1 cm and classic by imaging, it is
multiple tumors all ≤5 cm HCC. Avoid bx. Tumor seeding in 3%
• T3 – multiple tumors, at least one >5 cm –– Higher hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)
• T4 – adj organs or visceral peritoneum or (>~2000) correlated w increasing CP score
involving major branch of portal vein or
hepatic vein Surgery
–– N1 – regional nodes –– Partial hepatectomy: 5-yr OS ~50%, recur-
–– M1 – distant mets rence at 5 yrs >70%.
–– Transplant: 5-yr OS ~70%.
–– Okuda: >50% liver; ascites; alb ≤3 g/ dL; bili –– Lau 2008: surgery + postoperative
≥3 mg/dL. Stage A: no factors. Stage C: 3–4 131I- lipiodol→↑OS.
factors. –– Penna (2002): 75–80% of the liver in non-
–– BCLC (more of a tx algorithm rather than cirrhotic can be safely resected.
staging):
IR Procedures
–– A: All of these: ECOG 0. Single or three –– RFA: better for deep tumors <3 cm.
tumors <3 cm. Okuda I-II. CP A-B. –– Cryoablation: can treat up to 6 cm (not in US).
–– B: Large multinodular + ECOG 0 + CP A-B. –– EtOH injection (not in US).
–– C: ECOG 1–2 or T4 or N1. CP A-B. –– TACE: 50% response.
–– D: Any of these: ECOG 3–4. Okuda III. CP C. –– Prospective studies have shown that down-
staging with local therapies prior to transplant
Child-Pugh (CP) Points. Score:
Eval for cirrchosis A = 5–6. 85% 2 year OS
improves DFS and recurrence.
“Pour Another Beer B = 7–9. 57% 2 year OS
At Eleven.” C = 10–15. 35% 2-year OS
Sorafenib
Components 1 2 3
T Bili <34 (≤2 34–50 (2–3) >50 (>3) –– TKI against c-rad and PDGF-α.
mg/dL) –– Llovet 2008: advanced HCC (not eligible for
Albumin (g/L) >3.5 2.8–3.5 <2.8
INR or <1.7 1.7–2.3 >2.3
local therapy or had disease progression after
PT <4 4–6 >6 locoregional/surgical therapies w/ ECOG ≤2
Ascites None Mild–Mod Sev
and CP A) → sorafenib vs placebo. Sorafenib
Encephalopathy None G1–2 G3–4
↑OS (7.9 → 10.7 m)
Overview Treatment Paradigm

–– 22,000 cases/yr., 17,000 deaths/yr 1. Surgical assessment first:
–– Assoc with cirrhosis, hepB, hepC, aflatoxin B,
NASH
–– Resect if feasible: CP A, B. No portal –– (1) Sorafenib

HTN. Good liver reserve. No tumor –– (2) Consider RT if portal invasion
thrombus. –– Stage D (PS >2, Child-Pugh C)
–– Milan/UNOS criteria for transplant:
• One tumor <5 cm
• Or 2–3 tumors <3 cm each Radioembolization
• No vascular involvement
• N0 M0 –– Y90: 50–80% response
• UCSD criteria for transplant:
• One tumor <6.5 cm
• Or three tumors all <4.5 cm Liver EBRT and SBRT
• And cumulative size <8 cm
–– For transplantable candidates, can con- –– Best for focal (1–3 tumors) disease, hard to
sider locoregional bridge therapies as access with surgery.
indicated. –– Traditionally was 50+ Gy (2 Gy/fx) 3D or
2. If no resection, consider local therapies: IMRT but SBRT increasing in frequency.
–– Ablation or arterial directed therapies –– Tse 2008: 41 pts CPA HCC or IHCC median
(TAE, TACE, Deb-TACE, RE). “TACE 36 Gy in 6 fx. Median OS 11.7 m for HCC.
refractory” = PD in 6 months or need three –– Bujold 2013: 102 pts w/ CP A HCC w/ at least
TACEs in 6 months. 700 cc of uninvolved liver (52% had prior
–– EBRT is cat 2B. local therapies), median 36 Gy/6, median OS
–– Avoid RE (Y90) if bili > 2 mg/dL or CP 17 m, LC 87%, 30% grade 3+ tox. Dose
class C. >30 Gy had NS ↑ in LC.
–– Arterially directed therapies are relatively –– Wahl 2015: Retrospective comparison of out-
contraindicated for bili >3 mg/dL, CP C, or comes of non-met HCC treated with RFA ver-
main portal vein thrombosis. sus SBRT. FFLP improved in tumors ≥2 cm
treated with SBRT. SBRT 3–5 fx, 27–60 Gy.
Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC – See All BED10s ≥100.
above) –– Brade 2016: phase I suggests sorafenib ↑RT
–– Stage 0 (PS 0, Child-Pugh A) toxicity.
–– (1) Single, <2 cm, Nl bili – resection. –– Nugent 2017 GI ASCO abstract: phase II trial
–– (2) Local therapies for non-resection of CP A-B (<9) w/ 1–2 HCC tumors treated
candidates. with either Deb-TACE versus SBRT (40–
–– Stage A (single or 3 nodules <3 cm, PS 0) 50 Gy in 5 fx wt uninvolved liver >700 cc) as
–– (1) Single or <3 nodules a bridge to transplant. SBRT had ↓ toxicity
<3 cm, Nl bili – resection. and better QOL.
–– (2) Abnl bili or other diseases – liver trans- –– Criteria per RTOG 11–12.
plant or PEI/RFA. –– Child-Pugh A.
–– (3) Consider local therapies as bridge to –– 700–800 cc uninvolved liver.
transplant. –– No size criteria, up to four lesions.
–– Stage B (Multinodular, PS 0)
–– (1) TACE SBRT Techniques
–– (2) Consider RT if refractory to TACE or if
portal invasion –– 3–6 fraction SBRT technique:
–– Stage C (Portal Invasion, N1, M1, PS 1–2). –– Best for CP A, B7 patients.
–– CT, MRI, fiducial marker, 4DCT, IV con- –– Soliman 2013 (Toronto): phase II of 8 Gy x1
trast, arms up, vac lock, Abd compression to whole liver for patients with HCC of liver
or other motion management. tumor-related pain. Exclusion criteria: sys-
–– Late arterial phase of CT should be used bc temic tx in 2 w or TACE in 1 month. Plts >25,
contrast enhances within tumor allowing Hgb <7, INR >3, bili >100 umol/L, AST or
superior delineation vs liver parenchyma. This ALT >10 x normal. Premed with granisetron,
is in contrast to liver mets or IHCC. decadron 2 mg 1 h prior to RT. GTV. CTV is
–– GTV + ITV + 5 mm = PTV. majority of the liver. CTV + 1 cm = PTV. 8 Gy
–– SBRT dose varies by institution. 10–20 Gy x x1. 95% of PTV >7 Gy; improved QOL, 48%
3, 5–12 Gy x 5 are most common. Get BED10 had ↓symptoms at 1 month.
to >100.
–– More details in liver mets section. Non-SBRT Constraint: Mean <25 Gy
–– QUANTEC Constraints
Toxicity
QUANTEC Treating HCC Treating mets
Mean liver dose 3 fx 6 fx 3 fx 6fx
(liver – GTV)
–– Classic RILD: anicteric hepatomegaly, asci-
<13 Gy <18 Gy <15 Gy <20 Gy
Critical liver vol >700 mL normal liver receives
tes, elevated liver enzymes. 1–2 months after
≤15 Gy in 3 fx of ≤21 Gy in 5 fx RT. Fatigue, RUQ pain, ascites, high LFTs
(esp ALP). Pathologic: VOD, central venous
congestion, spares large veins, entraps RBCs.
Supportive management. 10% mortality
Whole-Liver RT Palliation
–– Non-Classic RILD: Elevation of liver
enzymes, reactivation of hepB or C, liver
–– Russell 1993: 1.5 Gy BID dose escalation for
function decline
patients with liver metastases. Recommended
–– Biliary obstruction
dose of 30 Gy (33 Gy was unsafe). No longer
–– GI Bleed, obstruction, fistula
performed.
–– Patients w baseline dysfunction, anything not
–– Hanson recommends 21 Gy in 7 fx.
fitting classic
Liver Metastasis [73] –– Soliman 2013 (Toronto): phase II of 8 Gy x1

to whole liver for patients with HCC of liver
Background tumor-related pain. Exclusion criteria: sys-
–– Usually from CRC. 20% CRC patients have temic tx in 2 w or TACE in 1 month. Plts >25,
present with mets. 40% will develop. Hgb <7, INR >3, bili >100 umol/L, AST or
–– Pts w synchronous tumors do worse than ALT >10 x normal. Premed with granisetron,
metachronous tumors. decadron 2 mg 1 h prior to RT. GTV. CTV is
majority of the liver. CTV + 1 cm = PTV. 8 Gy
Anatomy x1. 95% of PTV >7 Gy; improved QOL, 48%
–– Liver blood supply is 60–80% from hepatic had ↓symptoms at 1 month.
PV, 20–40% from HA.
–– Hepatic PV is nutrient rich, O2 poor. SBRT Technique
–– HA is O2 rich. Provides 80–100% of the –– Sim orders: arms up, vac-lock bag, IV con-
tumor blood supply. trast, fiducials, 4D CT, motion management,
daily cone beam CT.
Pre-Tx –– Portal venous phase of CT should be used,
–– PV embolization: if pt. is unresectable bc of maximizing contrast enhancement in non-
insufficient remnant liver volume, embo will diseased portion of the liver, while targets will
cause hypertrophy of remnant volume. be hypodense on CT. This is in contrast to
HCC.
Treatment Options –– Manage motion w abdominal compression
–– No therapy. Median OS 6–9 m (decreases TV), breath-hold (limits diaphrag-
–– Chemo: irinotecan or oxaliplatin based matic motion), respiratory gating (turns beam
–– RFA: for 1–3 lesions, <3 cm. 5-year OS up to on/off w respiratory cycle).
40% –– GTV + ITV + 5 mm = PTV. No ITV if RF
–– Surgery beacons used.
–– TACE. median OS 5 mos –– 50–60 Gy in 5 fractions most common.
–– SBRT Modify based on constraints. CRC more
–– 1 year 70% LC for 75 cc treated to median radioresistant, tend to need 60/5.
41.8 Gy in 6 fractions (Lee, 2009) and –– Liver Veff: liver volume minus all GTVs,
median OS 17 months vs 95% 1 year LC which, if irradiated uniformly to the treatment
(100% for tumors <3 cm) (Rusthoven dose, would be associated with the same risk
2009) of toxicity as the nonuniform dose distribution
–– Rusthoven (JCO 2009): SBRT for 1–3 liver allowed.
mets. Dose esc from 36 Gy to 60 Gy in
Phase I. Phase II, 60 Gy used. Medial Y90 Radioembolization
tumor diam 2.7 cm. Veff: 700 mL should –– Radioactive beta emitter embedded in resin
get <15 Gy. 2-year LC 92%. MST (SIRS) or glass (TheraSpheres). Max energy
21 months. G3 tox <2%. 2.3 MeV. Mean range 2.5 mm. Half-life 65 h.
Most dose delivered 2–4 mm from source.
Virtually none >1 cm from source.
Whole-Liver RT Palliation –– Pt selection: liver-only or liver-dominant dis-
ease. Good liver function w bili <2. ECOG <3.
–– Russell 1993: 1.5 Gy BID dose escalation for Failed standard therapies (chemotherapy
patients with liver metastases. Recommended resistant).
dose of 30 Gy (33 Gy was unsafe). No longer –– Absolute contraindications: shunt >20%;
performed. Blood flow to GD region.
–– Relative contraindications: Prior EBRT to Tradename SIR-Spheres TheraSpheres

liver. Bili >2. Concurrent chemo w cape. Diam (um) 20–60 20–30
–– Mapping session: SPECT scan to determine SG (g/dL) 1.6 3.6
percent lung shunting. If >20% lung shunting, Activity per particle 50 2500
(Bq)
not eligible. Occlusion of collaterals (GDA) to
Number of 40–80 M 1.2 M
prevent gastric ulcers. Calculate RT dose microspheres/3 GBq
based on BSA. Material Resin w Glass w
–– Tx session: Antiemetic and steroids given pre- bound Y90 Y90 in matrix
tx. Can treat whole-liver or sequential seg- Approval CRC None. Has rare
disease
ments. Advantage of segmental is can monitor
exemption,
for AE. Deliver spheres until full dose given or including
until stasis. HCC
Stasis vs Causes stasis Much hotter.
radioembolization prior to Does not
radioablation causes stasis
Liver Dose Constraints
Liver dose constraints

Timmerman 5 fraction Timmerman 3 Other
constraints fraction
constraints
Serial Tissue Vol (cc) Volume Max Point Dose (Gy)** Volume Max Endpoint (≥Grade 3)
Max Max Point
(Gy) (Gy) Dose
(Gy)**
Spinal cord <10% 22 28 18 22.5
subvolume
Esophagus* <5 19.5 35 17.7 Gy 25.2 Gy stenosis/fistula
Brachial Plexus <3 27 32.5 22 Gy 26 Gy neuropathy
Heart/Pericardium <15 32 38 24 Gy 30 Gy pericarditis
Great vessels <10 47 53 39 Gy 45 Gy aneurysm
Rib <5 45 57 40 Gy 50 Gy Pain or fracture
Skin <10 36.5 38.5 31 Gy 33 Gy ulceration
Stomach <5 cc 26.5 35 22.5 Gy 30 Gy ulceration/fistula
Bile duct 41 36 Gy stenosis
Duodenum* <5 18.5 26 15.6 Gy 22.2 Gy ulceration
<10 14.5 12.9 Gy
Jejunum/Ileum* <30 20 32 17.4 Gy 27 Gy enteritis/obstruction
Colon* <20 28.5 40 24 Gy 34.5 Gy colitis/fistula
Renal 15 23 15 cc 19.5 Gy malignant hypertension
hilum/vascular
trunk
Central biliary V80 (in EQD2) = 0 Biliary stenosis[79]
system (CBS) =
CBD, CHD, HDs,
GB
Parallel tissue vol (cc) Critical Endpoint (≥Grade 3)
Volume
Dmax
(Gy)
Lung (R + L) 1500 12.5 10.5 Gy Basic Lung Function
Lung (R + L) 1000 13.5 V-13.5Gy<37% 11.4 Gy Pneumonitis
Liver 700 21 17.1 Gy TD 5/5 = 30 Gy Basic Liver Function
Renal ctx (R+L) 200 18 15 Gy Basic renal function
*Avoid circumferential irradiation
** “point” defined as 0.035 cc or less
Rectal Cancer [1–5, 80–97] –– FH (colorectal CA, FAP, HNPCC).

–– DRE: distance from verge, circumference,
• Tis – mucosa total length, sphincter function.
• T1 – submucosa –– Pelvic for women.
• T2 – muscularis propria –– Labs: CEA, CMP, CBC, LFTs. PSA for all
• T3 – pericolorectal tissues males.
• T4: –– Colonoscopy: to check for another lesion
• T4a – visceral peritoneum higher up, bx.
• T4b – adj organs –– Prior RT, IBD.
• N1 –– CT C/A/P, +/− MRI.
–– N1a – 1 node –– Note, PET-CT not routinely indicated for
–– N1b – 2–3 nodes colon or rectal cancer. Can be used to evaluate
–– N1c – no nodes, but tumor deposits in sub- equivocal CT findings.
serosa, mesentery, or nonperitonealized –– EUS: 85–90% accuracy T-stage, 75% for N
pericolic or perirectal tissues stage.
• N2 –– CEA can be tracked for response.
–– N2a – 4–6 nodes
–– N2b – 7+ nodes Anatomy
• M1a – one organ –– Anal verge: transition to hair-bearing/sweat
• M1b – multiple organs gland skin.
• M1c – peritoneal surface metastases –– Anal canal: sup of the AV. 3–4 cm in length. A
surgeon needs 2 cm from the AV to perform LAR.
–– Low tumor is <~5 cm. Mid is 5–10 cm. High
LN T1 T2 T3 T4a T4b
description is 10–15 cm.
N0 0 I IIA IIB IIC
N1a 1 IIIA IIIB IIIC Chemo
N1b 2-3 IIIA IIIB IIIC –– FOLFOX: folinic acid, 5-FU, oxaliplatin.
N1c 0, deposits IIIA IIIB IIIC
–– 5-FU if given for NA-CRT, dose for CI is
N2a 4-6 IIIA IIIB IIIC
N2b 7+ IIIB IIIC 225 mg/m2 over 24 h for 5–7 d /w during
M1 IVA, IVB, IVC, respectively RT. Bolus 5-FU is 400 mg/m2 IV w leucovorin
20 mg/m2 IV over 4d w1 and 5 of RT.
–– Capecitabine (Xeloda) is 825 mg/m2 BID for
Overview 5d/w during RT. Cape is reaches optimal
–– 110,000 colon cancer/yr., 41,000 rectal can- blood levels 1–2 h after single oral administra-
cer/yr. tion, and doses decrease rapidly thereafter (Yi,
–– Screening: ≥50-yr colonoscopy Q10yrs. 2007). 1 h time can improve pCR (24% vs
–– FAP: APC gene, HNPCC: DNA mismatch. 10%), T-stage.
–– HNPCC affects MMR genes, e.g., MSH2, –– Patients w dihydropyridine dehydrogenase
MLH1, MSH6. 80% lifetime risk of colon (DPD) deficiency have AR disorder w absent
cancer, also at risk for endometrial and gastric activity of DPD, which metabolizes uracil to
cancer. thymine. AA > white. May have G4–5 tox
–– Ulcerative colitis: risk of colon cancer 0.5%/yr after 5-FU or cape infusion.
for 10–20 years, then 1% /yr after.
–– Rectum: rectosigmoid (S3) to 2 cm prox to Abdominoperineal Resection (APR)
dentate line. –– Completely removes the distal colon, rectum,
and anal sphincter complex using both ante-
Workup rior abdominal and perineal incisions, result-
–– H&P, symptoms such as change in bowel habits, ing in a permanent colostomy
caliber, bleeding, sx of anemia, weight loss, KPS. –– Necessary for low lesions (<5 cm from AV)
Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) CFRT. Post-op CRT was 40 or 44 Gy CFRT w

–– Goal to remove micrometastatic dz., reduce concurrent 5-FU 500 m/m2, then adjuvant
radial +margin rate 5-FU M-CCNU. CRT improved OS 10 yrs.
–– Sharp dissection beyond the plane of the (45 vs 27%) and LRR (10 v 25%).
mesorectum –– NSABP R-01 (Fisher 1988): Dukes B&C
–– Well-defined circumferential margins pts → obs vs MOF chemo vs 46 Gy. Chemo
–– Surrounding perirectal fat and lymph nodes improved DFS and OS, RT → ↑LRC.
are removed as a single specimen –– Intergroup/NCCTG 794751 (Krook 1991):
–– Gold standard for surgery stage II-III T3–4 or N+ post-op→ RT alone
–– Decreases the LR by 50% 50.4/28 vs chemo (semustine and 5-FU) and
CRT w concurrent bolus 5-FU. CRT ↓ death
Transanal Excision rate by 29%, DM by 37%, and LR by 46%, but
–– Criteria: T1, within 8 cm from anal verge, had worse toxicity.
mobile, <30% circumference, <3 cm tumor, –– INT NCCTG 86–47-51 (OConnell 1994). 660
>3 mm margin, grade 1–2, N0, no LVSI, no post-op pts Stage II-III rectal adenoCA 2x2
PNI, reliable pt randomization. 5-FU and semustine vs 5-FU
–– Data supporting this approach: CALGB 89–84 alone; and type of 5-FU infusion w RT (bolus
(Greenberg 2008): 10 yr. LF 8%......RTOG vs CI). All pts receive 9w systemic chemo,
89–02 (Russell 2000): 5 yr. LF 4% then concurrent RT, 45 Gy to pelvis and boost
–– Adj CRT or completion APR/LAR if doesn’t of 5.4 to 9 Gy to total of 50.4–54 Gy w 5-FU,
meet criteria then additional chemo. Bolus 5-FU was
500 mg/m2 on d1–3 w 1 + 5 during RT; CI
LAR: Low Abdominal Resection 5-FU was 225 mg/m2 daily during RT. CI
–– Coloanal anastomosis or J-pouch reservoir 5-FU won: less relapse (47% vs 37%), DM
formation (40% vs 31%), RFS (63% vs 53%), OS (70%
–– Preserves sphincter function vs 60%) at 4 yrs. CI 5-Fu is superior. No ben-
efit to semustine.
LND –– NSABP R-02 (Wolmark 2000). 694
–– Need ≥14 LNs removed for adequate dissec- patients w/ Dukes B/C treated with sur-
tion in colon cancer gery followed by Adj 5-FU + LV vs
5-FU + LV + RT. Improved LR w adj CRT.
Chemo Recs (per NCCN)
Adjuvant or neoadjuvant if locally advanced: Neoadj Chemo/XRT Studies
–– FOLFOX: folinic acid, 5-FU, oxaliplatin (pre- –– ACCORD-12 (Gerard 2010, 2012): T3–4 Nx
ferred). Other options: CAPEOX or 5/FU/lec resectable rectal cancer. n = 598. Rando to
or capecitabine 45/25 + cape vs 50/5 + cape + oxali. TME
planned 6w after CRT. 3-year OS 88% for
Concurrent: both. Similar pCR, 14–19%. No diff in LR,
–– 5-FU CI: 225 mg/m2 over 24 h for 5–7 d dur- ~5% or DFS, ~70%. Much higher preop G3+
ing RT tox w cape-ox, 25% vs 1%. Over 3-y FU, tox
–– Bolus 5-FU 400 mg/m2 w leucovorin 20 mg/ was similar bw arms.
m2 over 4d during week 1 and 5 of RT
–– Xeloda 825 mg/m2 BID, 5 d/wk. during RT Post-op RT
–– MRC 3. (Lancet 1996) Dukes B/C: surg vs
Adj Chemo/XRT Studies surg +40/20. Improved LR (34 vs 21%) w
–– GITSG 7175 (NEJM 1985, Thomas 1988): post-op RT
T3–4 or N+ patients treated with surgery→ –– MRC CR07: preop 5 x5 vs selective post-op
obs vs chemo vs RT vs CRT (2x2 45 + 5 FU. Preop won
randomization). RT was 40 or 45 Gy

Preop RT –– Sphincter – preservation in subgroup anal-

–– Swedish Uppsala (Pahlman 1990, Frykholm ysis: 28% anticipated →39% (preop CRT)
1993): 25/5 preop vs selective 60 Gy post-op vs only 19% (post-op CRT)
(split course – to high-risk patients). No OS –– Acute tox: 40 → 27%
difference, but preop ↓LR (13 vs 22%). –– Late tox: 24 → 14%
–– Wash U (Myerson 1999). 20 Gy/5 preop. –– French FFCD 9203 (Gerard 2006): T3–4 NX
5 year FU. 95% LC, 77% DSS. G3+ periop or rectal adenoCA. Preop RT vs preop CRT
late tox in 13% of pts. (5-FU, 350 mg/m2 and leucovorin on d1–5,
–– Dutch TME trial (Kapitejin 2001, Peeters w1, 5). RT was 45/1.8. Both groups got adj
2007): TME +/− preop 25/5, 1 w prior to surg. chemo x4c 5-FU and leucovorin after surg. No
No chemo. If the pts in the TME alone arm pts difference in 5y OS or sphincter preservation.
had SMs <2 mm, it was mandatory they CRT had worse tox but ↓5-yr LR (16.5 → 8.1%)
receive PORT. 5 yrs.: No OS benefit (63%). and ↑pCR (3.6 → 11.4%).
RT ↓LRR (5.6 vs 10.9%). Effect of RT stron- –– EORTC 22921(Bosset 2006, 2014). T3–4
ger in tumors 5–10 cm from AV. resectable, n = 1011. 2x2 design w 4 arms: (1)
–– Swedish (Folkesson, 2005): n = 1168, 908 neoadj RT alone; (2) neoadj CRT; (3) neoadj
treated curatively. Surgery +/− preop 25/5. RT RT alone and adj chemo; (4) neoadj CRT and
↑OS (38% vs 30%), CSS (72% vs 62%), and adj chemo. RT was 45/25. Chemo was daily
LRR (9% vs 26%). TME was not used. RT 5-FU 350 mg/m2 and leucovorin 20 mg/m2.
makes up for bad surgery. Only RCT to show No difference in 5-y OS, 65%. However, neo-
OS benefit for rectal cancer. adj CRT improved LR 9% vs 17%. The long-
–– Peeters, 2007. Dutch TME subgroup analysis, term follow-up did not show benefit to adj
RT was best in those w LN+, lesions 5–10 cm chemo.
from the AV, uninvolved circumferential –– Polish (Bujko 2006). n = 312. T3–4 resectable
resection margin. rectal cancer. Rando to 25/5 + surgery in 7d vs
–– Stockholm 3 (Erlandsson 2017). Preop 5x5, NA-CRT 50.4/28 w concurrent bolus 5-FU
wait 1–7d vs 5x5, wait 4–8 w, vs 25 x 2 wait and leucovorin, surg in 4–6w. No difference in
4–8 w for surg. Similar tox rates among all OS, DFS, severe late tox. pCR was improved
groups, but, in assessment of two short courses in long-course arm, 16% vs 1%, and incidence
there was higher acute XRT toxicity but sig ↓ of radial R+ decreased in long course 13% vs
postoperative complications w/ delayed short 4%. Increased acute G3+ tox 18% vs 3%.
course group. –– RTOG-0012 (Mohiuddin 2006, 2013): ran-
domized phase II of NA-CRT for T3–4 rectal
Preop CRT adenoCA 0–9 cm from dentate line (3–12 cm
–– German (Sauer 2004): T3+ or N + → preop from anal verge) treated w/ 1) CVI
50.4 + 5-FU (1000 mg x2c) vs post-op 5-FU + HRT (45.6 Gy at 1.2 Gy BID plus
55.8/31 + 5-FU (1000 mg x2c on d1–5, w1 9.6–14.4 Gy boost) or 2) CVI 5-FU + irinote-
and w5). All pts got post-op 5-FU (500 mg/ can + RT (45 Gy at 1.8 Gy Qday +5.4–9 Gy
m2/day x 4c). Preop CRT won, but only 54% boost). No diff in toxicity, pCR. High pCR
(vs 92% in preop) of adj pts got full dose. and improved DSS w/ 5-FU and higher dose
–– Same 5-yr OS (~75%) of radiation in T4 cancers.
–– 18% patients overtreated bc path revealed –– NSABP R-03 (Roh 2009): T3+ or N+. Similar
pT1–2 dz. at resection design as GRCT but poor accrual. 5-FU + LV
–– All favoring preop: w/ 50.4 Gy pre- vs post-op. Trend toward ↑OS
–– LR: 13 → 6% with neoadj. ↑DFS w/ neoadj (65 vs 53%).
–– pCR: 8% pCR in 15%. No pat w pCR recurred.
–– TROG 01.04 (Ngan 2012): T3 N0–2 rectal –– Endoscopically removed polyp with cancer
adenoCA. (1) 5x5, wait 1 month, surg, then 6c of indeterminate pathology
of 5-FU vs (2) 50.4/1.8 + 5-FU, surg, then –– No LVI, PNI
5-FU x4c. LR were 4.4% vs 7.5% (NS). ~28%
had DMs in both arms (NS). 5y OS similar, –– T1 N0: transanal vs APR/LAR
72%. Similar G3+ acute tox: 6%; chronic: 8%. –– High-risk features: T2, +margin, LVSI, G3.
Increased pCR in long-course arm 15% vs –– Post-op dose is 45 Gy + 5.4–9 Gy boost.
1%. “Either no difference or favoring LC for –– T2 N0 R0: FOLFOX x 2 m, then capeRT,
distal tumors.” then FOLFOX.
–– NSABP R-04 (Allegra 2015): Stage II-III rec- –– Post-op CRT if R+, T3+ or N+, may also
tal cancer getting preop RT 45/25 + 5.4– consider after transanal w/ high-risk fea-
10.8 Gy boost. Chemo CVI 5-FU vs tures that does not have surgical resection
capecitabine +/− oxaliplatin: no difference in as either definitive or neoadjuvant
OS or LC. Adding oxaliplatin only worsened treatment).
tox. Cap is SOC. –– Adjuvant chemo is FOLFOX (preferred)
for 6 months, q 2 weeks.
Local Recurrence
–– MDACC (Das 2010). 39 Gy in 1.5 Gy BID if
re treat >1 y or 30 Gy if <1 yr. Concurrent –– T3+ or N+: neoadj CRT, then TME, then
chemo in 98%. 36% had surg after RT. 3-year adj chemo
OS 39% for all; better if received surg, 66% vs –– Preoperative capeRT (45 Gy + 5.4 Gy to
27%. 3-yr freedom from LP was 33%. G3–4 primary) → surgery → FOLFOX x 8
tox 35%. (4 months).
–– Italy (Valentini 2006). 30 Gy in 1.2 Gy BID, –– Chemo is CI 5-FU 225 mg/m2 over 24 h (or
then 10.8 Gy boost w concurrent 5-FU. Then capecitabine 825 mg BID) during RT.
surg in 6–8 w. All received adjuvant Ralitrexed. –– Surgery is 6 weeks after CRT.
CR and PR 44%. Surgery in 51%. 5-year OS –– Low-lying = <5 cm from anal verge, need
67% if R0, 22% if R+ or no surg. G3 tox 5%. APR.
–– IORT (12.5–15 Gy) for positive margin.
NCCN –– If obstructing distal lesion → temporary
–– For 5 × 5, NCCN recommends surgery diverting colostomy. Avoid stent.
1–2 weeks after radiation, but there is some –– Unresectable: ChemoRT to 59.4 Gy.
evidence that waiting 4–8 weeks will ↑ pCR
rate and ↓ postoperative complications. 5 × 5 Resectable Mets
is not recommended for T4 tumors. –– FOLFOX × 6 (3 months) → capeRT → surger-
–– Even if patient needs APR, need to do NA- ies (synchronous/staged)
CRT because of the high recurrence rate. –– Liver/lung rules: Primary tumor out or can be
taken out, no unresectable extrahepatic/extra-
Rectal pulmonary disease, Complete resection
–– Local excision alone requirements (rule of possible
3 s):
–– <1/3 bowel circumference Technique
–– <3 cm –– Prone, belly board, PO ± IV contrast, full
–– SM > 3 mm bladder, (wire scar and include if post-op),
–– T1 N0 fuse CT sim with MRI.
–– Mobile –– If there is gross residual in a paracolic gutter,
–– G1–2 then sim the patient in the contra lateral decu-
–– <8 cm from anal verge bitus (e.g., if dz. in R, then sim L lat decub).
This will push SB away from tx fields, posi- –– IMRT

tion ipsi kidney out of field. Use daily imaging –– When to use: young patients, concern for
to verify setup. long-term sequelae; LN burden; SB issues;
–– 3D-CRT (per RTOG-0012): post-op; anal canal involvement; immuno-
–– 3D-CRT, 3F plan, Wedges on laterals with suppressed; bulky disease, re-irradiation.
heal toward posterior –– RTOG 0822 (Hong 2015) showed no ben-
–– Often need 16 MV due to patient efit of IMRT vs 3DCRT. However, IMRT
thickness was w oxaliplatin (which increased toxicity
–– Sup: L5/S1 and did not improve outcomes), and it was
–– Inf: >5 cm from inf extent of primary or the compared to historical control.
anal verge for distal cancers as identified
by marker on CT sim Follow-Up
–– If not on R-0012: 3 cm below tumor or below –– q3 month H + P exam, CEA if elevated at
obturator foramen onset x 2 years, then q6 mo for total 5 years,
–– Lateral: 2 cm outside pelvic brim c-scope in 1 y and then every 5 years, CT c/a/p
–– Post: entire sacrum and presacral space annually for 3–5 years
(for coverage of presacral space)
T4: 1 cm post to the sacrum:
T3: 2 cm post to the presacrum. Do not split Overall Outcomes
sacrum since 2/3 LRs are in presacral space –– OS5:
–– Ant: –– T1–2: 90%
T3: cover the lower common and ext. iliac –– T3 or N+: 75%
LNs to 1 cm post to the symphysis pubis –– T4N+: 50%
T4: ant to pub symph, but ensure 3 cm mar- –– ~50% LRF reduction with RT
gin on tumor –– All comers LRR <10% with preop CRT
–– Boost GTV +2–3 cm –– DM 30%
–– 45 Gy WPRT +5.4 Gy boost if preop –– M1 resectable liver met: 30–40%
–– Up to 54 if post-op, though no good data on
50.4 vs 54.
–– If R+, IORT to 15 Gy or EBRT 15 Gy
–– On treatment: daily kV imaging
Colon Cancer [85, 91, 98] –– MOSAIC (Andre, NEJM, 2004):4-FU + leu-

covorin +/− oxaliplatin in resected colon can-
Anatomy cer, Stage II-III. Established FOLFOX x
–– Ascending and descending colon are retroper- 12 cycles (6 m) as standard post-op adjuvant
itoneal. They do not move within abdominal chemo regimen w/ better DFS.
cavity and can sometimes be treated similar to –– Toronto/Cukier, 2012: retrospective; 33 pts w
rectal CA, i.e., w preop CRT. potentially resectable M0 T4b colon cancer.
Received N-CR 45–50 Gy/25 w 5-FU, then
Studies multivisceral resection. Median FU 36 m. All
–– Intergroup 0130 (Martenson 2004): T4 or pts R0. 3-year OS 86%, DFS 74%. Post-op
T3 N1–2 of retroperitoneal colon (i.e., ascend- complications in 36%.
ing and descending colon) → adj chemo or adj
CRT. No difference in 5-yr OS or DFS and tox NCCN
worse w CRT. 5y OS 62% vs 58%; DFS was –– Consider pre- or post-op RT for T4 or pos
51%. Toxicity was 54% vs 42% in heme; no margins
difference in nonheme G3 + toxicity, 35% vs –– 50 Gy with 5-FU for tumor, 45 Gy to LNs
44%. Only accrued 222/700 pts, so may be a
Type II error. Consider RT for R+ or tumor
adherence noted during surgery.
Anal Cancer [1–5, 99–110]
AJCC 8th Edition Staging AJCC 8 T1 T2 T3 T4

• T1 – ≤2 cm N0 I IIA IIB IIIB
• T2 – 2–5 cm N1abc IIIA IIIC
• T3 – >5 cm M1 IV
• T4 – adj organ
• N1a – inguinal, mesorectal, internal iliac AJCC 7th Edition Staging (N Stage Differs
• N1b – external iliac only from 8th)
–– N1c – external iliac and any N1a node –– N1 – perirectal nodes
–– M1 – DMs, e.g., dermal involvement of vulva –– N2 – No perirectal
–– But, unilat internal iliac, unilat inguinal, or both
–– N3 – perirectal+inguinal, bilateral internal
iliac, bilateral inguinal
–– M1 – DMs, e.g., dermal involvement of vulva
AJCC 7 TNM T1 T2 T3 T4
N0 I II IIIA
N1: Perirectal IIIA IIIB
N2: Unilat int iliac or unilat IIIB
inguinal or both
N3: perirectal+inguinal,
bilateral internal iliac,
bilateral inguinal
M1 IV
Overview –– On DRE: note distance from verge, sup

–– 7000 cases/yr. extent, clock location, circumferential
–– 80% SCC, 15% adenoCA. involvement
–– HPV associated (16, 18), AIDS assoc. –– Pelvic exam in women, inc cervical CA
–– HPV 16 in 81%, 18 in 2%, 33 in 5%. screening
–– 33% are N+, but only 50% of cN+ are pN+.
–– Anatomy: anal canal is 3–4 cm long, from Chemo
anal verge (inf) to anorectal ring (sup). –– Mitomycin C: hypoxic cell radiosensitizer
–– Dentate line divides rectum and anus. Perianal –– 5-FU: 1000 mg/m2/day continuous infusion
skin may have skin cancers. Above dentate –– MitoC: 10 mg/m2 bolus on days 1 and 29
drains to rectal nodes. Below drains to –– Capecitabine: 825 mg/m2 BID Mon–Fri
inguinals.
–– Anal margin: 5 cm ring around anus, treat HGSIL
like skin cancer if T1 N0 and well- –– Pineda, 2008 n = 246 HGSIL. Used electro-
differentiated; otherwise treat like anal. cautery. 57% recurrence but complications in
only 9 pts
Workup
–– H&P, GYN exam, DRE, CBC, CMP, HIV,
PET-CT CAP, +/− MRI, anoscopy, HCG. If
cN+, FNA and avoid open bx
Local Excision Alone or RT Alone 2 cm lat to greater sciatic notch. Then true pel-
–– Boman 1984: T1, G1, neg margins, <40% cir- vis (to 45 Gy): same field, but sup border
cumference, no sphincter involvement (LC lowed to inf border of the SI joints. If N0, then
>90%). field reduced off inguinal nodes also. 5 yr OS
–– Deniaud-Alexandre 2003: RT alone for with mitoC better (71 → 78%). 5-year
T1 N0, 100% LC. colostomy-free survival better w MMC 72%
vs 65%. 5 yr. DFS (68% vs 58%). G3+ heme
RT vs CRT acute tox worse w MMC, 62% vs 41%.
–– Nigro 1974: 30/15 + 5-FU + mitoC. 5-FU is –– EXTRA-(Glynne-Jones 2008): phase II data
100 mg/m2 CI x2c, and MMC is 15 mg/m2 of mitomycin combined with capecitabine
bolus d1. RT was AP/PA to pelvis and ingui- instead of 5-FU. Good results.
nals. Then surgery for some. 71% pCR. Same –– UKCCCR ACT II (James 2013): Can we
control with or without APR (~80%). replace MMC w cis? 50.4 Gy with
Foundation trial for definitive CRT. 5-FU + mitoC vs cisplatin. Then +/− mainte-
–– UKCCCR ACT I (Lancet 1996, Northover nance chemo. Superiority trial. n = 472. 3-year
2010): anal SCC, excluding T1 N0. Randomize PFS was 75%. No diff in PFS, OS, colostomy-
45 Gy/20–25 fx (institutional prefer- FS, or CR at 26w. At 26w, CR was 91% in
ence) + boost w Ir-192 BT+/− MMC arm and 90% in cis arm. 5-FU/
5-FU + mitoC. Split course RT. If no response, MMC + 50.4 Gy RT in 28 fx w/o maintenance
then pt. go to salvage surgery. At 12y, CRT recommended as SOC bc this was not a non-
improved LRC 66% vs 41%, colostomy-free inferiority trial.
survival 89% vs 73%, but not OS (27–33%). –– RTOG 0529 (Kachnic 2013): phase II of dose
CRT w 5-FU/MMC became SOC. painted IMRT. Entire pelvis gets up to 54/1.8
–– RTOG 8704 (Flam 1996): 45–50.4 Gy with (30 fx) depending on stage. Inguinal LNs get
5-FU +/− mitoC. 5-FU was 1000 mg/m2 on 45 Gy if negative, 50.4 if <3 cm (1.68 Gy/fx),
d1–4 and d29–32. MitoC was 10 mg/m2 on d1 and 54 Gy if >3 cm. A T2 N0 tumor in this
and 29. MMC improved CR rate (85 → 92%) protocol is treated w 50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy to pri-
and ↓colostomy rate (22% vs 9%) and 4-year mary and 42 Gy/1.5 Gy fx to pelvis and
DFS (51% vs 73%) but same OS. However, inguinal LNs. Less grade 2+ heme, grade 3+
MMC had more G4–5 tox, 26% vs 8%. GI, and grade 3+ derm toxicity but primary
–– EORTC trial (Bartelink 1997): similar ACT endpoint (combined acute grade 2 toxicity GI
I. 45/25 + boost of 15–20 Gy if CR or PR after and GU).
6w vs CRT 45/25 + 5-FU CI and MMC. CRT –– Contours per RTOG 0529.
arm had better LC, 68% vs 50% and
colostomy-free survival 72% vs 40%. 5-yr OS Anal Cancer Treatment Paradigm
similar – 56%. –– Everyone gets definitive CRT.
–– Salama 2007: 53 pts s/p che- –– MMC and 5-FU/capecitabine.
moIMRT. Favorable results. –– Chemotherapy wks 1 and 5.
–– CALGB 9281 (Meropol 2008): neoadj chemo –– Capecitabine 825 mg/m2 PO BID M-F.
phase II trial for T3–4 and/or N2–3. At 4 yrs. –– MMC 10 mg/m2, D1 and 29 (or 12 mg/m2 on
showed 68% OS and 50% sphincter D1 only if capecitabine).
preservation. –– Do not use cisplatin in place of MMC, unless
–– RTOG 9811 (Ajani 2008, Gunderson 2012): AIDS. RTOG 98–11: Worse OS and DFS with
T2–4,NX, n = 644 patients. 5-FU + cis with cis, although confounded by addition of
induction vs 5-FU + mitoC without induction. induction cis/5-FU in cis arm. UK ACT II: No
RT was 3D CRT. sup L5/S1. Whole pelvis difference b/w MMC and cis; no benefit to
(30.6 Gy): Inf 2.5 cm margin around tumor outback chemo.
and anus. Lat to include lat inguinal LNs and
Risk Groups (lower rows Treatment Hold RT If

from 9811) –– ANC <500
HGSIL Topical therapy, immune
–– Plts <50
modulation, IR coag,
electrocautery ablation. –– Diarrhea >7 BM/d
T1 anal margin or V low risk, surg alone, w risk –– Grade 4 dermatitis (ulceration)
perianal tx like skin adapted therapy. For R1, –– Grade 3 vomiting
CA re-resect, or RT+5-FU
T1 anal canal V low risk CRT w 5-FU/MMC
Anal Cancer Outcomes
T2-3N0 Low risk CRT –– cCR = 90%
T4N0, T2N1-3 Intermediate CRT –– pCR = 80–85%
T3N1-3, T4N1-2 High risk CRT –– Colostomy rate 10%
–– LRR (the dominant failure pattern):
Unique Situations • T1–T3 N0 = 15–20%
–– SCC of anal margin: Tumors ≤2 cm = WLE • T2N+ or T4 N0 = 30%
alone with ≥1 cm margin. All others treated as • T3/T4N+ = 35–40%
SCC of anal canal. –– DM: ~ 20%
–– AdenoCA of anal canal: Preoperative CapeRT –– Salvage APR success = ~ 50%
→ APR → FOLFOX x 8 (4 months). Use
IMRT, with regional lymph nodes treated Toxicity
per anal cancer. –– Acute toxicity: Perianal skin reaction, diar-
rhea, nausea, pain, dehydration, mucositis
Management of AIDS Patient with 5-FU, heme toxicity with mitomycin C
–– Start HAART. –– Late toxicity: Fistula, fecal incontinence,
–– Ask about CD4 count and if they are on ulceration, bleeding, colostomy, sexual side
HAART. effects, sterility, impotence and vaginal dry-
–– If new dx and CD4 >200 → treat with 5 U/ ness/stenosis
MMC/RT.
–– If CD4 <200 →consider holding MMC or Follow-Up
substituting CDDP. –– Follow-up w DRE at 8–12w, then q4w until
CR is achieved. Once CR is achieved, DRE
Management of Diarrhea >6 BM/d and inguinal LN exam q3–6 m for 5 years.
–– Imodium/lomotil/paregoric (anhydrous –– Anoscope q6-12 m for 3yr.
morphine). –– CTCAP qy for 3y if T3–4 or inguinal LN+.
–– Check treatment plan. –– Biopsy only if evidence of PD or significant
–– Check for C diff. clinical concern.
–– Electrolytes/IV fluids/hospitalize. –– Counsel vaginal dilator use.
–– Hold 5-FU. –– No benefit to routine posttreatment biopsy
–– Hold RT if unresponsive to above until <7 (Cummings 1991; ACT II, James, Lancet Onc,
BM/day. 2013). Continues to regress for up to
12 months.
rectal location terminology

S3
upper third
(12-16 cm)
middle third
(6-12 cm)
peritoneal reflection
anal columns of
anal location
Morgagni terminology
rectal mucosa
levatorani
drainage to pelvic LNs lower third
pectinate/dentate line anoderm
analvalve (<6 cm)
squamous mucosa; anal crypts, glands
drainage to inguinal LNs pecten
perianal skin anatomical surgical anal

anal canal canal
(anal verge to (anal verge to
analverge pectinate line) puborectalis
anal margin: anal verge +
5 cm skin (not mucosa) sling)
nal and Rectal Cancer

A • Anal marker, vaginal marker as indicated.
Planning [111] • Comfortably full bladder.
• Small bowel contrast. IV Contrast.
Simulation • BB on anal verge, wire distal edge of tumor if
needed for anal.
• Supine and frog leg for anal. • CT-based planning. Fuse with PET for treat-
• Prone on a belly board for rectal. ment planning for anal.
• Place iso in the anal canal.
Pelvic Anatomy: Australasia GI Trials Group Contouring Atlas

CTVA CTVB CTVC
Presacral Obturator Ext iliac
Mesorectum space Int iliac LNs Ischiorectal fossa LNs LNs Inguinal LNs
Cranial Rectosigmoid Sacral Bifurcation of Apex formed by 3–5 Bifurcation Ext iliac art
junction promontory common iliac levator ani, glut cranial to of common leaves bony
(L5/S1) artery maximus, obturator iliac artery pelvis to
interspace obturator canal become
internus femoral artery
Caudal Anorectal Inferior edge Level of Anal verge Obturator Roof of Lower edge of
junction coccyx obturator canal or canal, acetabulum ischial
where no space where obt and sup tuberosities,
bw obturator artery pubic rami 2 cm caudad to
internus and exits the saphenous/
midline organs pelvis femoral
junction
Post Presacral Post to ant N/A Transverse plane Int iliac Int iliac Muscle
space border of bw ant edge of LNs LNs
sacral bone, medial walls of
include sacral glut maximum
hollow muscle
Ant Males: penile 1 cm ant to Obturator Where obturator Ant extent 7 mm Minimum
bulb, prostate, sacral border internus internus, levator of margin ant 2 cm margin
SVs, bladder upper pelvis: ani, sphincter obturator to ext. iliac on inguinal
both: bladder, 7 mm margin muscle fuse internus vessels vessels
+ 1 cm added around int iliac inf: 10–20 mm
to ant border vessels ant to sphincter
muscles
Lateral Lower pelvis: SI joints Medial edge of Ischial Obturator Iliopsoas Medial edge of
medial edge of muscle or bone tuberosity, internus muscle sartorius or
levator ani muscles iliopsoas
upper pelvis:
int iliac LNs
Medial N/A N/A Lower pelvis: N/A Bladder Bladder or 1–2 cm margin
mesorectum and 7 mm around femoral
presacral space margin vessels
upper pelvis: around
7 mm around vessel
vessel
Anorectal Elective LN Regions per RTOG Anorectal Contouring Atlas (Myerson, 2009)
Volume Description Rectal cancer (per RTOG 0822) Anal cancer
GTV Part of CTVA GTV = dz. on imaging and DRE
CTVA Perirectal, presacral, internal iliacs Always treated: CTV A + B + C always treated
Sup: ≥2 cm from gross disease, including entire CTV50.4 = GTV + 2 cm sup/inf CTVA = GTV + entire anal canal +2–2.5 cm sup/inf expansion
mesorectum + pelvic floor, or rectosigmoid junction mucosally +1.3 cm radially plus +1.5 cm radial expansion. Include pre-sacral space and
(whichever is more sup). Follow to where iliac vessels entire mesorectum including the mesorectum at involved levels. Inf, should extend >2–2.5 cm
Gastrointestinal Cancers
bifurcate to ext./int iliacs (~sacral promontory) presacral space at the level. around anal verge (or from GTV, if perieanal skin involved).
Lateral: extend to lateral pelvic sidewall musculature or Same for 50.4 Gy or 5x5 Gy Lat, include <3 mm beyond levator ani (unless levator ani
bone. Unless evidence of extension into ischiorectal fossa, CTV45 = at least 2 cm inferior to involved, then 1–2 cm margin up to bone)
no need to go more >mm beyond levator m gross disease or to the pelvic floor, CTV node boost = GTV node +5-7 mm. No accepted
Anterior: 1 cm into the posterior bladder to account for whichever is lower. Lateral to standard.
day-to-day variation pelvic sidewall muscles, include CTV(42–50): remainder of the CTVA + B + C
Posterior: posterior internal obturator vessels (lie posterior portion of internal T3–4/N+ (30 fractions)
between external and internal iliacs), + 7–8 mm around obturator vessels. Sup to PTV_A = 54/30 at 1.8
vessels bifurcation of common iliacs to int/ PTV_A_B_C = 45/30 at 1.5
ext. iliacs. PTV_CD ≤3 cm = 50.4/30 at 1.68
PTV = CTV + 3-5 mm, inside skin PTV_CD ≥3 cm = 54/30 at 1.8
CTVB External iliac region Sometimes treated: T1–2/N0 (28 fractions)
Inf extent of internal obturator vessels (bony landmark: Cover if tumor extending anteriorly PTV_A = 50.4/28 at 1.8
upper edge of sup pubic rami) (i.e., T4 lesion – GI/GU structures), PTV_A_B_C = 42/28 at 1.5
recommend 7 mm margin in soft tissue around the iliac or abutting anal canal
vessels but at least 1 cm ant, especially if cN+
Trim off uninvolved muscle and bone
CTVC Inguinal region. Cover for tumors invading anal canal. Sometimes treated:
Should be 2 cm below saphenous/femoral junction Cover if invading anal canal
(continued)
305
Volume Description Rectal cancer (per RTOG 0822) Anal cancer
306
Treatment T1 N0: transanal vs APR/LAR ChemoRT for all

paradigm If high risk (>2/3 of circumference, RTOG 98–11 RTOG 0529 Sequential IMRT
G2+), then TME and post-op CRT (sequential volume with SIB: boost:
if T3+ or N+ reduction) T1–2 N0 Entire pelvis:
High risk: pT2, +margin, LVSI, G3 Entire pelvis (L5/S1, PTVA 45/30/1.8
Adjuvant chemo is for 6 months, q 2.5 cm margin on (primary): Boost to 54–59.4 to
2 weeks tumor+anus, include lat 50.4/28/1.8 primary T2 should go
T2+ or N+: neoadj CRT, then inguinal LNs on AP PTV42 (all to 50.4T3–4 should
TME, then adj chemo. 50.4 Gy field, include 2 cm lat to nodal go to 54
with Xeloda greater sciatic notch on regions): cN0 inguinal LNs:
PA): 30.6/1.8 42/28/1.5 T3 + N0 36/20/1.8:
Boost: 14.4/1.8, same T3–4 N0 T2 N0 42/28/1.5
field but sup border is SI PTVA: N+ <3 cm:
joints 54/30/1.8 50.4/28/1.8
If N0, reduce field off PTV45: N+ >3 cm: 54/30/1.8
inguinal LNs after 36 Gy 45/30/1.5 Note: No volume
Primary boost: For N+ reduction after initial
T3–4 dz., N+ dz., or PTVA: 30.6
residual dz. after delivery54/30
of 45 Gy, a boost of PTV54
10–14.4 Gy to (nodes
GTV + 2–2.5 cm margin >3 cm):
allowed, to 54–59 Gy 54/30/1.8
PTV50.4
(nodes
<3 cm):
50.4/30/1.68
PTV45:
45/30
Chemo 5-FU-based, 225 mg/m2 5-FU 1000 mg/m2 d1–4 and d29–32, MMC 10 mg/m2 d1 and
Maintenance used d29
Can use cape instead of 5-FU.
No maintenance chemo
Dose Constraints [112] 9. Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, et al.
Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for
RTOG 0822 RTOG 0529 resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med.
(rectal) (anal) 2006;355:11–20.
10. Gebski V, Burmeister B, Smithers BM, et al. Survival
Small bowel Dmax <50 Gy
benefits from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or
V45 <65 cc V45 <20 cc
chemotherapy in oesophageal carcinoma: a meta-
V40 <100 cc analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:226–34.
V35 <180 cc V35 <150 cc 11. Kelsen DP, Winter KA, Gunderson LL, et al. Long-
V30 <300 cc V30 <200 cc term results of RTOG trial 8911 (USA Intergroup
Large bowel V45 <20 cc 113): a random assignment trial comparison of
V35 <150 cc chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with
V30 <200 cc surgery alone for esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol.
Femoral heads V50 <0.5 cc V44 <5% 2007;25:3719–25.
V40 <35% 12. Minsky BD, Pajak TF, Ginsberg RJ, et al. INT 0123
V30 <50% (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 94-05) phase
Bladder V40 <40% V35 <50% III trial of combined-modality therapy for esopha-
V50 <0.5 cc V40 <35% geal cancer: high-dose versus standard-dose radia-
V50 <5% tion therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1167–74.
Kidneys V18 <2/3 of 13. Peyre CG, Hagen JA, DeMeester SR, et al. Predicting
kidney systemic disease in patients with esophageal cancer
Iliac crest V50 <5% after esophagectomy: a multinational study on the
V40 <35% significance of the number of involved lymph nodes.
V30 <50% Ann Surg. 2008;248:979–85.
14. Stahl M, Walz MK, Stuschke M, et al. Phase III
Pelvic bone
comparison of preoperative chemotherapy compared
marrow
with chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally
Genitalia V20 <50%
advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric
V30 <35%
junction. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:851–6.
V40 <5%
15. Tepper J, Krasna MJ, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Phase III
trial of trimodality therapy with cisplatin, fluoroura-
cil, radiotherapy, and surgery compared with surgery
alone for esophageal cancer: CALGB 9781. J Clin
References Oncol. 2008;26:1086–92.
16. van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al.
1. Martinez-Monge R, Gomez-Iturriaga A, Cambeiro Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or
M, et al. Phase I-II trial of perioperative high-dose- junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2074–84.
rate brachytherapy in oral cavity and oropharyngeal 17. Sjoquist KM, Burmeister BH, Smithers BM, et al.
cancer. Brachytherapy. 2009;8:26–33. Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemo-
2. Cook B DT. Wikibooks radiation oncology. radiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carci-
3. Edge S, Byrd D, Compton C, et al. AJCC cancer noma: an updated meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol.
staging manual. New York: Springer; 2010. 2011;12:681–92.
4. Hansen ERM. Handbook of evidence-based radia- 18. Sai H, Mitsumori M, Araki N, et al. Long-term results
tion oncology. 2nd ed: Springer; 2010. of definitive radiotherapy for stage I esophageal can-
5. Hristov BLS, Christodouleas JP. Radiation oncol- cer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62:1339–44.
ogy – A question based review. 2nd ed: LWW; 2014. 19. Gaspar LE, Winter K, Kocha WI, et al. A phase I/II
6. Bosset JF, Gignoux M, Triboulet JP, et al. study of external beam radiation, brachytherapy, and
Chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery compared concurrent chemotherapy for patients with local-
with surgery alone in squamous-cell cancer of the ized carcinoma of the esophagus (Radiation Therapy
esophagus. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:161–7. Oncology Group Study 9207): final report. Cancer.
7. Burmeister BH, Smithers BM, Gebski V, et al. 2000;88:988–95.
Surgery alone versus chemoradiotherapy followed 20. Siewert JR, Stein HJ. Classification of adenocarci-
by surgery for resectable cancer of the oesophagus: a noma of the oesophagogastric junction. Br J Surg.
randomised controlled phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 1998;85:1457–9.
2005;6:659–68. 21. Urba SG, Orringer MB, Turrisi A, et al. Randomized
8. Cooper JS, Guo MD, Herskovic A, et al. trial of preoperative chemoradiation versus surgery
Chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced esophageal alone in patients with locoregional esophageal carci-
cancer: long-term follow-up of a prospective ran- noma. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:305–13.
domized trial (RTOG 85-01). Radiation Therapy 3/ 22. Walsh TN, Noonan N, Hollywood D, et al. A
yj;Oncology Group. JAMA. 1999;281:1623–7. comparison of multimodal therapy and surgery
for esophageal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 37. Joensuu H, Eriksson M, Sundby Hall K, et al. One vs
1996;335:462–7. three years of adjuvant imatinib for operable gastro-
23. Welsh J, Settle SH, Amini A, et al. Failure patterns in intestinal stromal tumor: a randomized trial. JAMA.
patients with esophageal cancer treated with defini- 2012;307:1265–72.
tive chemoradiation. Cancer. 2012;118:2632–40. 38. Chauffert B, Mornex F, Bonnetain F, et al. Phase
24. Ajani JA, Winter K, Okawara GS, et al. Phase II III trial comparing intensive induction chemoradio-
trial of preoperative chemoradiation in patients with therapy (60 Gy, infusional 5-FU and intermittent cis-
localized gastric adenocarcinoma (RTOG 9904): platin) followed by maintenance gemcitabine with
quality of combined modality therapy and patho- gemcitabine alone for locally advanced unresectable
logic response. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3953–8. pancreatic cancer. Definitive results of the 2000-01
25. Bang YJ, Van Cutsem E, Feyereislova A, et al. FFCD/SFRO study. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1592–9.
Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy 39. Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, et al. FOLFIRI-
versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2- NOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic
positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1817–25.
junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, ran- 40. Corsini MM, Miller RC, Haddock MG, et al.
domised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;376:687–97. Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy for pan-
26. Bonenkamp JJ, Hermans J, Sasako M, et al. creatic carcinoma: the Mayo Clinic experience
Extended lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer. (1975-2005). J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3511–6.
N Engl J Med. 1999;340:908–14. 41. Hazard L, Tward JD, Szabo A, et al. Radiation
27. Cuschieri A, Weeden S, Fielding J, et al. Patient sur- therapy is associated with improved survival in
vival after D1 and D2 resections for gastric cancer: patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma: results
long-term results of the MRC randomized surgical of a study from the Surveillance, Epidemiology,
trial. Surgical Co-operative Group. Br J Cancer. and End Results (SEER) registry data. Cancer.
1999;79:1522–30. 2007;110:2191–201.
28. Gouzi JL, Huguier M, Fagniez PL, et al. Total versus 42. Herman JM, Swartz MJ, Hsu CC, et al. Analysis
subtotal gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma of the gas- of fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy and
tric antrum. A French prospective controlled study. radiation after pancreaticoduodenectomy for duc-
Ann Surg. 1989;209:162–6. tal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: results of a
29. Hartgrink HH, van de Velde CJ, Putter H, et al. Neo- large, prospectively collected database at the Johns
adjuvant chemotherapy for operable gastric cancer: Hopkins Hospital. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3503–10.
long term results of the Dutch randomised FAMTX 43. Kalser MH, Ellenberg SS. Pancreatic cancer.
trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:643–9. Adjuvant combined radiation and chemother-
30. Kim HH, Hyung WJ, Cho GS, et al. Morbidity and apy following curative resection. Arch Surg.
mortality of laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open 1985;120:899–903.
gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an interim report--a 44. Krishnan S, Rana V, Janjan NA, et al. Induction che-
phase III multicenter, prospective, randomized Trial motherapy selects patients with locally advanced,
(KLASS Trial). Ann Surg. 2010;251:417–20. unresectable pancreatic cancer for optimal benefit
31. Macdonald JS, Smalley SR, Benedetti J, et al. from consolidative chemoradiation therapy. Cancer.
Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with 2007;110:47–55.
surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stom- 45. Loehrer PJ Sr, Feng Y, Cardenes H, et al. Gemcitabine
ach or gastroesophageal junction. N Engl J Med. alone versus gemcitabine plus radiotherapy in
2001;345:725–30. patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer: an
32. Sasako M, Sano T, Yamamoto S, et al. D2 lymphad- Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial. J Clin
enectomy alone or with para-aortic nodal dissection Oncol. 2011;29:4105–12.
for gastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:453–62. 46. Neoptolemos JP, Dunn JA, Stocken DD, et al.
33. Yu W, Choi GS, Chung HY. Randomized clinical Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy
trial of splenectomy versus splenic preservation in in resectable pancreatic cancer: a randomised con-
patients with proximal gastric cancer. Br J Surg. trolled trial. Lancet. 2001;358:1576–85.
2006;93:559–63. 47. Oettle H, Post S, Neuhaus P, et al. Adjuvant chemo-
34. Tepper JE, Gunderson LL. Radiation treatment therapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients
parameters in the adjuvant postoperative therapy of undergoing curative-intent resection of pancre-
gastric cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2002;12:187–95. atic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA.
35. Le Cesne A, Ray-Coquard I, Bui BN, et al. 2007;297:267–77.
Discontinuation of imatinib in patients with 48. Regine WF, Winter KA, Abrams RA, et al.
advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours after 3 Fluorouracil vs gemcitabine chemotherapy before
years of treatment: an open-label multicentre ran- and after fluorouracil-based chemoradiation follow-
domised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:942–9. ing resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a ran-
36. Bucher P, Taylor S, Villiger P, et al. Are there any domized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299:1019–26.
prognostic factors for small intestinal stromal 49. Rich T, Harris J, Abrams R, et al. Phase II study of
tumors? Am J Surg. 2004;187:761–6. external irradiation and weekly paclitaxel for non-
metastatic, unresectable pancreatic cancer: RTOG- 63. Ben-David MA, Griffith KA, Abu-Isa E, et al.
98-12. Am J Clin Oncol. 2004;27:51–6. External-beam radiotherapy for localized extrahe-
50. Smeenk HG, van Eijck CH, Hop WC, et al. Long- patic cholangiocarcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
term survival and metastatic pattern of pancreatic Phys. 2006;66:772–9.
and periampullary cancer after adjuvant chemora- 64. Hamamoto Y, Niino K, Ishiyama H, et al. Impact
diation or observation: long-term results of EORTC of pretreatment cholinesterase level on survival of
trial 40891. Ann Surg. 2007;246:734–40. inoperable intrahepatic or hepatic-hilar carcinomas
51. Stocken DD, Buchler MW, Dervenis C, et al. treated with three-dimensional conformal radiother-
Meta- analysis of randomised adjuvant therapy. Radiat Med. 2004;22:316–23.
apy trials for pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer. 65. Gold DG, Miller RC, Haddock MG, et al. Adjuvant
2005;92:1372–81. therapy for gallbladder carcinoma: the Mayo
52. Valle JW, Palmer D, Jackson R, et al. Optimal dura- Clinic Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
tion and timing of adjuvant chemotherapy after 2009;75:150–5.
definitive surgery for ductal adenocarcinoma of the 66. Rea DJ, Heimbach JK, Rosen CB, et al. Liver
pancreas: ongoing lessons from the ESPAC-3 study. transplantation with neoadjuvant chemoradiation is
J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:504–12. more effective than resection for hilar cholangio-
53. Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, et al. Increased sur- carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2005;242:451–8; discussion
vival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus 458–61.
gemcitabine. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1691–703. 67. Bujold A, Massey CA, Kim JJ, et al. Sequential
54. Iacobuzio-Donahue CA, Fu B, Yachida S, et al. DPC4 phase I and II trials of stereotactic body radiotherapy
gene status of the primary carcinoma correlates with for locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J
patterns of failure in patients with pancreatic cancer. Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1631–9.
J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1806–13. 68. Dawson LA, Hashem S, Bujold A. Stereotactic body
55. Katz MH, Pisters PW, Evans DB, et al. Borderline radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Am
resectable pancreatic cancer: the importance of Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2012:261–4.
this emerging stage of disease. J Am Coll Surg. 69. Lau WY, Lai EC. Treatment of unresectable hepa-
2008;206:833–46.; discussion 846–8. tocellular carcinoma with transarterial radio-
56. Treatment of locally unresectable carcinoma of the embolization: iodine-131-lipiodol. ANZ J Surg.
pancreas: comparison of combined-modality therapy 2008;78:331–2.
(chemotherapy plus radiotherapy) to chemotherapy 70. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in
alone. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. J Natl advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med.
Cancer Inst. 1988;80:751–5. 2008;359:378–90.
57. Taniguchi CM, Murphy JD, Eclov N, et al. 71. Meng MB, Cui YL, Lu Y, et al. Transcatheter arte-
Dosimetric analysis of organs at risk during expi- rial chemoembolization in combination with radio-
ratory gating in stereotactic body radiation therapy therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma:
for pancreatic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother
2013;85:1090–5. Oncol. 2009;92:184–94.
58. Ben-Josef E, Guthrie KA, El-Khoueiry AB, et al. 72. Russell AH, Clyde C, Wasserman TH, et al.
SWOG S0809: A Phase II Intergroup Trial of Accelerated hyperfractionated hepatic irradiation in
Adjuvant Capecitabine and Gemcitabine Followed the management of patients with liver metastases:
by Radiotherapy and Concurrent Capecitabine in results of the RTOG dose escalating protocol. Int J
Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;27:117–23.
Carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2617–22. 73. Rusthoven KE, Kavanagh BD, Cardenes H, et al.
59. Jarnagin WR, Fong Y, DeMatteo RP, et al. Staging, Multi-institutional phase I/II trial of stereotactic
resectability, and outcome in 225 patients with hilar body radiation therapy for liver metastases. J Clin
cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2001;234:507–17; Oncol. 2009;27:1572–8.
discussion 517–9. 74. Soliman H, Ringash J, Jiang H, et al. Phase II trial of
60. Matsuo K, Rocha FG, Ito K, et al. The Blumgart pre- palliative radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma
operative staging system for hilar cholangiocarci- and liver metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3980–6.
noma: analysis of resectability and outcomes in 380 75. Tse RV, Hawkins M, Lockwood G, et al. Phase I
patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:343–55. study of individualized stereotactic body radiother-
61. Tao R, Krishnan S, Bhosale PR, et al. Ablative apy for hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic
Radiotherapy Doses Lead to a Substantial cholangiocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:657–64.
Prolongation of Survival in Patients With Inoperable 76. Klein J, Dawson LA. Hepatocellular carcinoma radi-
Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Retrospective ation therapy: review of evidence and future opportu-
Dose Response Analysis. J Clin Oncol. nities. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87:22–32.
2016;34:219–26. 77. Wahl DR, Stenmark MH, Tao Y, et al. Outcomes
62. Valle J, Wasan H, Palmer DH, et al. Cisplatin plus after stereotactic body radiotherapy or radiofre-
gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract can- quency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin
cer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1273–81. Oncol. 2016;34:452–9.
78. Penna C, Nordlinger B. Colorectal metastasis (liver vant treatment for colon cancer. N Engl J Med.
and lung). Surg Clin North Am. 2002;82:1075–90. 2004;350:2343–51.
x-xi. 92. Yu CS, Kim TW, Kim JH, et al. Optimal time interval
79. Eriguchi T, Takeda A, Sanuki N, et al. Acceptable between capecitabine intake and radiotherapy in pre-
toxicity after stereotactic body radiation therapy for operative chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal
liver tumors adjacent to the central biliary system. cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:1020–6.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:1006–11. 93. Myerson RJ, Genovesi D, Lockett MA, et al. Five
80. Collette L, Bosset JF, den Dulk M, et al. Patients with fractions of preoperative radiotherapy for selected
curative resection of cT3-4 rectal cancer after pre- cases of rectal carcinoma: long-term tumor control
operative radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy: does and tolerance to treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
anybody benefit from adjuvant fluorouracil-based Phys. 1999;43:537–43.
chemotherapy? A trial of the European Organisation 94. O'Connell MJ, Martenson JA, Wieand HS, et al.
for Research and Treatment of Cancer Radiation Improving adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer by
Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4379–86. combining protracted-infusion fluorouracil with
81. Fisher B, Wolmark N, Rockette H, et al. Postoperative radiation therapy after curative surgery. N Engl J
adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy for rec- Med. 1994;331:502–7.
tal cancer: results from NSABP protocol R-01. J 95. Gerard JP, Azria D, Gourgou-Bourgade S, et al.
Natl Cancer Inst. 1988;80:21–9. Clinical outcome of the ACCORD 12/0405
82. Frykholm GJ, Glimelius B, Pahlman L. Preoperative PRODIGE 2 randomized trial in rectal cancer. J Clin
or postoperative irradiation in adenocarcinoma of Oncol. 2012;30:4558–65.
the rectum: final treatment results of a randomized 96. Bujko K, Nowacki MP, Nasierowska-Guttmejer A,
trial and an evaluation of late secondary effects. Dis et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial com-
Colon Rectum. 1993;36:564–72. paring preoperative short-course radiotherapy with
83. Gerard JP, Conroy T, Bonnetain F, et al. Preoperative preoperative conventionally fractionated chemoradi-
radiotherapy with or without concurrent fluoroura- ation for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93:1215–23.
cil and leucovorin in T3-4 rectal cancers: results of 97. Das P, Delclos ME, Skibber JM, et al.
FFCD 9203. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4620–5. Hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy for rec-
84. Krook JE, Moertel CG, Gunderson LL, et al. tal cancer in patients with prior pelvic irradiation. Int
Effective surgical adjuvant therapy for high-risk rec- J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77:60–5.
tal carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:709–15. 98. Cukier M, Smith AJ, Milot L, et al. Neoadjuvant
85. Martenson JA Jr, Willett CG, Sargent DJ, et al. chemoradiotherapy and multivisceral resection for
Phase III study of adjuvant chemotherapy and radia- primary locally advanced adherent colon cancer:
tion therapy compared with chemotherapy alone a single institution experience. Eur J Surg Oncol.
in the surgical adjuvant treatment of colon cancer: 2012;38:677–82.
results of intergroup protocol 0130. J Clin Oncol. 99. Ajani JA, Winter KA, Gunderson LL, et al.
2004;22:3277–83. Fluorouracil, mitomycin, and radiotherapy vs fluo-
86. Pahlman L, Glimelius B. Pre- or postoperative rouracil, cisplatin, and radiotherapy for carcinoma of
radiotherapy in rectal and rectosigmoid carcinoma. the anal canal: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA.
Report from a randomized multicenter trial. Ann 2008;299:1914–21.
Surg. 1990;211:187–95. 100. Bartelink H, Roelofsen F, Eschwege F, et al.
87. Peeters KC, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, et al. Concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy is
The TME trial after a median follow-up of 6 years: superior to radiotherapy alone in the treatment of
increased local control but no survival benefit in irra- locally advanced anal cancer: results of a phase III
diated patients with resectable rectal carcinoma. Ann randomized trial of the European Organization for
Surg. 2007;246:693–701. Research and Treatment of Cancer Radiotherapy and
88. Roh MS, Colangelo LH, O'Connell MJ, et al. Gastrointestinal Cooperative Groups. J Clin Oncol.
Preoperative multimodality therapy improves 1997;15:2040–9.
disease-free survival in patients with carci- 101. Boman BM, Moertel CG, O'Connell MJ, et al.
noma of the rectum: NSABP R-03. J Clin Oncol. Carcinoma of the anal canal. A clinical and patho-
2009;27:5124–30. logic study of 188 cases. Cancer. 1984;54:114–25.
89. Russell AH, Harris J, Rosenberg PJ, et al. Anal 102. Deniaud-Alexandre E, Touboul E, Tiret E, et al.
sphincter conservation for patients with adenocarci- Epidermoid carcinomas of the anal canal treated
noma of the distal rectum: long-term results of radi- with definitive radiation therapy in a series of 305
ation therapy oncology group protocol 89-02. Int J patients. Cancer Radiother. 2003;7:237–53.
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46:313–22. 103. Flam M, John M, Pajak TF, et al. Role of mitomycin
90. Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, et al. Preopera- in combination with fluorouracil and radiotherapy,
tive versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rec- and of salvage chemoradiation in the definitive non-
tal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1731–40. surgical treatment of epidermoid carcinoma of the
91. Andre T, Boni C, Mounedji-Boudiaf L, et al. anal canal: results of a phase III randomized inter-
Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adju- group study. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2527–39.
104. Glynne-Jones R, Meadows H, Wan S, et al. EXTRA – moid anal cancer: 13-year follow-up of the first ran-
a multicenter phase II study of chemoradiation using domised UKCCCR Anal Cancer Trial (ACT I). Br J
a 5 day per week oral regimen of capecitabine and Cancer. 2010;102:1123–8.
intravenous mitomycin C in anal cancer. Int J Radiat 109. Salama JK, Mell LK, Schomas DA, et al. Concurrent
Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72:119–26. chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiation
105. James RD, Glynne-Jones R, Meadows HM, et al. therapy for anal canal cancer patients: a multicenter
Mitomycin or cisplatin chemoradiation with or experience. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4581–6.
without maintenance chemotherapy for treatment 110. Pineda CE, Berry JM, Jay N, et al. High-resolution
of squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a anoscopy targeted surgical destruction of anal high-
randomised, phase 3, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial trial. grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: a ten-year
Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:516–24. experience. Dis Colon Rectum. 51:829–35; vdiscus-
106. Kachnic LA, Winter K, Myerson RJ, et al. RTOG sion 835–7, 2008.
0529: a phase 2 evaluation of dose-painted intensity 111. Ng M, Leong T, Chander S, et al. Australasian
modulated radiation therapy in combination with Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG) contour-
5-fluorouracil and mitomycin-C for the reduction of ing atlas and planning guidelines for intensity-
acute morbidity in carcinoma of the anal canal. Int J modulated radiotherapy in anal cancer. Int J Radiat
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86:27–33. Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83:1455–62.
107. Nigro ND, Vaitkevicius VK, Considine B Jr. 112. Marks LB, Yorke ED, Jackson A, et al. Use of
Combined therapy for cancer of the anal canal: a pre- normal tissue complication probability mod-
liminary report. Dis Colon Rectum. 1974;17:354–6. els in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
108. Northover J, Glynne-Jones R, Sebag-Montefiore D, 2010;76:S10–9.
et al. Chemoradiation for the treatment of epider-
Genitourinary Cancers
8
and Katherine Tzou
Abstract
ment of patients with genitourinary tract can-
cers, with special focus on principles that
components of trimodality care and brachy-
therapy are discussed.
N. G. Zaorsky (*)
D. M. Trifiletti · K. Tzou
e-mail: Trifiletti.daniel@mayo.edu;
Tzou.Katherine@mayo.edu

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4_8
Prostate Cancer Overview [1–5]

–– 230,000 cases, 27,000 deaths annually
Group TNM PSA GS –– Zones: peripheral (2/3 cancers), transitional
I T1-T2 < 10 3+3 (BPH), central, anterior fibromuscular stroma.
T1 or T2a 10-20
IIA 3+3 –– PSA velocity: ≥2 ng/ml/yr. → ↑GS7.
T2b-c < 20
IIB T1-2 < 20 3+4 –– PSA density (PSA/gland volume): >7% → ↑risk.
IIC T1-2 < 20 4+3 or 4+4 –– Free PSA <25% → ↑cancer.
IIIA T1-2 ³ 20 <9 –– Natural history (JHU, MSKCC): time from
IIIB T3-4 - <9 BF to DMs is 5–8 years, time from BF to
IIIC - - 9 or 10 CSM is 10.5y. Time from DM to CSM is
IVA N1 - -
5 years.
IVB M1 - -
–– Screening: 50 y/o, DRE & PSA, debated.
–– 1400 screened → 48 cancers → 1 death
• T1 – clinically unapparent prevented
• T1a: incidental <5% of tissue resected
• T1b: incidental >5% of tissue resected Workup
• T1c: needle biopsy (↑PSA) –– DRE
• T2 – confined within prostate –– AUA/QOL/SHIM scores, history of IBD, his-
• T2a: ≤½ of one lobe tory of prior RT.
• T2b: >½ of one lobe –– Labs: PSA/testosterone, check LFTs if giving
• T2c: both lobes ADT.
• T3 – through capsule –– Bone scan/CT for unfavorable intermediate
• T3a: EPE or microscopic invasion of blad- risk+.
der neck –– Colonoscopy within past 5 years.
• T3b: seminal vesicles –– TRUS-guided 6–12 core bx of prostate (path:
• T4 – invades adjacent structures: external Gleason score, # cores, % of core involved),
sphincter, rectum, levator muscles, and/or pel- endorectal MRI, or proctoscopy/cystoscopy if
vic wall warranted.
• N1 – pelvic, hypogastric, obturator, iliac –– mp MRI, 3 T, no coil.
(internal, external), and sacral • T2: tumor is dark compared to prostate.
• M1a – non-regional lymph nodes • DWI w/ ADC map: tumor is dark.
• M1b – bone –– DCE: tumor shows early arterial enhancement.
• M1c – other sites –– Bone scan if unfavorable intermediate or
symptoms.
WHO 2016 grade GS Screening

1 <7 –– ERSPC, Schroder, 2009, 2012, 2014. 21%
2 3 + 4 = 7 relative decrease in death (absolute of 0.71 per
3 4 + 3 = 7 1000 men) in PCSM with screening. No dif-
4 8 ference in OS. Number needed to invite to
5 9−10
PSA screening to prevent 1 death = 781; num-
Genitourinary Cancers 315
ber needed to detect = 27. Authors did not rec- Roach Formulas

ommend population-based screening. –– ECE = 3/2(PSA) + 10(GS-3)
–– PLCO trial, Andriole, 2009. No benefit for –– SVI = PSA + 10(GS-6)
annual screening. However, high contamina- –– LN = 2/3(PSA) + 10(GS-6)
tion rate, with 80% of screening arm screened, –– Treat nodes for >15%
while 50% of the non-screening arm was
screened.
Anatomy
–– Prostate apex starts 5 mm above the GU dia-
phragm, which can be identified on CT sim as
the top of the urethrogram beak.
Prostate Cancer Treatment Considerations and Planning

Contraindications to prostate RT modalities
As first-line therapy Post-
RP
RT subtypes
Possible contraindications BT EBRT EBRT
LDR or CFRT HFRT SBRT CFRT
HDR
Limited life expectancy (e.g. <10 years; patient will not realize benefit of RT in lifetime)
Unacceptable operative risks, or medically unsuited for anesthesia ** ** *, ** **
Distant metastases *** *** *,*** *

Absence of rectum such that TRUS-guidance is precluded ** ** ** **
Large TURP defects which preclude seed placement and acceptable radiation dosimetry ** ** * N/A
Ataxia telangiectasia
Preexisting rectal fistula
Risk of bleeding (e.g. from anticoagulants) ** ** ** **
Moderate-severe urinary symptoms (e.g. high IPSS score, typically defined as > 20) Consider Consider Consider
CFRT CFRT CFRT
History of prior pelvic radiotherapy * *
Large prostate (e.g. >60 cm3) N/A
Large median lobes N/A
Inflammatory bowel disease * *
Pubic arch interference (e.g. prior pelvic fracture, irregular pelvic anatomy, or a penile
prosthesis)
Patient peak flow rate <10 cc/s and post void residual volume prior to brachytherapy > 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
cc
Concurrent androgen deprivation therapy use *

Abbreviations: N/A: not applicable; IPSS: International Prostate Symptom Score; TRUS: transrectal ultrasound; TURP: transurethral resection of
prostate; RT: radiation therapy
Note: * Excluded on clinical trial; ** Placement of fiducials for IGRT may be difficult; *** Depends on intra-vs. extra-prostatic disease
burden
Green color refers to items that are not contraindications for RT.
Yellow color refers to items that may be contraindications for RT, or logistics. Red color refers to items that are contraindications for RT.
RT treatment options for men with NCCN risk group-stratified prostate cancer, in relation to other treatment options.
NCCN risk group
Post-RP RT19
Very Low Adjuvant
T1c, Low Intermediate indications: pT3;
and GS <6, High Very High positive SMs, GS
T1-T2a, T2b-T2c,
and PSA <10 ng/mL, T3a, T3b-T4, 8-10, seminal
and GS < or GS 7 (3+4)/GG 2,
Options and subtypes and <3 positive cores or GS 8/GG 4, or primary GP vesicle involvement
6/GG 1, or GS 7 (4+3)/GG 3,
with <50% or GS 9-10/GG 5, 5/GG 5, Salvage
and PSA <10 or PSA ≥10 ng/ml ≤
cancer/core, or PSA > 20 ng/ml, or >4 cores with indications:
ng/ml, 20 ng/ml
and PSA density <0.15 GS 8-10/ GG 4 or 5 suspected LR (e.g.
ng/mL/g rising PSA,
imaging, biopsy-
proven)
Active surveillance / watchful Yes; typically the

Yes Usually no Usually no Usually No N/A
waiting / observation preferred option
open,
Radical Monotherapy
laparoscopic, Monotherapy if >20
prostatectomy if >10 years Monotherapy Monotherapy Monotherapy N/A
robotic years life expectancy
(RP) life expectancy
approaches
Monotherapy
Monotherapy if >20 Monotherapy or Monotherapy or Monotherapy or
low dose rate if >10 years No
years life expectancy boost boost boost
life expectancy
Brachytherapy
Monotherapy Monotherapy or
Monotherapy if >20 Monotherapy or Monotherapy or No
high dose rate if >10 years boost
years life expectancy boost boost
life expectancy
Monotherapy
conventional Monotherapy if >20 Monotherapy or Monotherapy or Monotherapy or
if >10 years Yes
fractionation years life expectancy boost boost boost
life expectancy
External beam
Monotherapy
radiation Monotherapy if >20 Monotherapy or Monotherapy or Monotherapy or
hypofractionation if >10 years No
therapy years life expectancy boost boost boost
life expectancy
(EBRT)
stereotactic body Monotherapy if >20
Monotherapy* Monotherapy* Monotherapy*
radiation therapy years life expectancy* No No
(sometimes) (sometimes) (rarely)
(SBRT) (sometimes)
± Androgen
Almost always, Almost always,
deprivation No No Sometimes* Sometimes*
(24–36 months) (24–36 months)
therapy
Abbreviations: BT: brachytherapy; GG: Gleason grade group; GP: Gleason pattern GS: Gleason score; PSA: prostate specific antigen; SBRT: stereotactic
body radiation therapy; SMs: surgical margins
Note:
Green color refers to accepted treatments, NCCN Category 2A2. Additionally, NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a
clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged.
Yellow color refers to controversial topics, or those being explored on clinical trials. * Denotes treatment options that are largely investigational or
controversial (clinical trial reference provided, if available).
Red color refers to treatments that are not recommended.
For ease of review, subsequent tables will combine very low and low risk together, as well as high and very high risk together
“Boost” refers to the use of BT + EBRT, as opposed to either treatment alone.
Active Surveillance (AS) Brachytherapy (BT)
–– Eligibility: life expectancy <20 years, cancer Contraindications

up to T1c or T2a. PSA <10 ng/mL. GS 6 with –– >60 cc, <20 cc (if prostate too large can give
no 4 or 5 component. PSA/prostate volume ADT to shrink by 1/3)
(i.e., the density) <0.15. –– Size cutoffs are mostly for LDR-BT
–– Components: biannual DRE/PSA, annual Bx. –– TURP defect
Not indicated after age 75 or within 6 months –– Large median lobe
if <10 cores or discordant findings. DRE no –– Pubic arch interference
more than yearly. 25% will end up getting –– IPSS >15 (>20 absolute)
treated. –– Anesthesia/sedation risk
–– Indications to begin treatment: ↑ in # positive –– IBD/prior RT
cores/percent involvement, ≥ GS 4; PSA –– Unless considering salvage BT for local recur-
DT <3 years. rence. All local recurrences should be biopsied
Definitions
Prostate brachytherapy terms. Note, these are generally specific to prostate, do not apply to
other organs
D0.1 cc or Dmax The average dose to the hottest point of a volume. “D0.1 cc” is sometimes used because this
approximates the maximum dose to the smallest volume that can be calculated on a computer
D2cc The average dose to 2 cc of a volume
D10 The average dose to 10% of a volume, in Gy. The urethra D10 should be <150% of the
prescribed dose. This constraint limits the dose to the urethra
D30 The average dose to 30% of a volume, in Gy. The urethra D30 should be <130% of the
prescribed dose. This constraint limits the dose to the urethra
D90 In prostate cancer brachytherapy, this is the minimum dose in the hottest 90% of a volume, in
Gy. The prostate D90% should be >100%. This constraint ensures the prostate volume receives
adequate dose
Dwell time The time that the 192Ir source spends in a predetermined dwell position during HDR-BT. A
longer dwell time in a position translates to a greater dose deposited in the volume around the
position
Dwell position The position where a 192Ir source is located during HDR-BT. A combination of dwell
positions in different needles allows the delivery of a predetermined dose to the CTV
Hot spot A colloquialism used to describe volume outside the PTV which receives dose larger than
100% of the specified PTV dose
RV100 In prostate cancer brachytherapy, this is the volume of the rectum receiving 100% of the dose
and should be <1 cc
V100 In prostate cancer brachytherapy, this is the percentage of a structure receiving 100% of the
dose. For example, the V100 for the prostate should be >90%, meaning that 100% of the
prostate CTV should receive more than 90% of the prescribed dose. V100 is a surrogate for
post-implant D90
V150 In prostate cancer brachytherapy, this is the percentage of a structure receiving 150% of the
dose. The V150 for the prostate CTV should be <50–60%, meaning that <50–60% of the CTV
should receive >150% of the prescribed dose. V150 is surrogate for chronic urethral toxicity
UV5 In prostate cancer brachytherapy, this is the average dose to 5% of the urethral volume
receiving the highest dose. The UV5 should receive <150% of the dose
UV30 In prostate cancer BT, this is the average dose to 30% of the urethral volume receiving the
highest dose. The UV30 should be <125% of the dose
UV150 In prostate cancer BT, this is the volume of the urethra receiving 150% of the prescribe
dose. UV150 of the urethra should be 0%, meaning that 0% of the volume should receive
150% of the prescribed dose
–– Pd: 17d, 21 keV, EC, 125 Gy mono, 100 Gy

103
1 3. Withdraw needles, apply perineal pressure.
w/ EBRT 14. For LDR: cystoscopy by urologist, check

–– 125I: 60d, 28 keV, EC, 145 Gy mono, 110 w/ bladder for seeds. Rad safety should check
EBRT room for seeds.
–– 192Ir: 74d, 3.8 MeV (~13.5 Gy × 2 or 15. Remove Foley, voiding trial. If can’t void
10.5 Gy × 3 mono, 15 Gy × 1 or 9.5 Gy × 2 w/ within 4–8 h, admit as inpatient. Otherwise,
EBRT) discharge with pain meds, Flomax × 1 week,
–– GS 7 can get LDR monotherapy if all this: Motrin, Cipro.
3+ 4, PSA <10, ≤4/12 cores, ≤T2a, ≤50% 16. [For LDR: Follow-up CT after 1 m to assess
each core, between 20–65 cc gland dosimetry]
• [For HDR: second fraction in 1 week]
17. Peri-op expect pain, dysuria, hemat, freq,

Brachytherapy Procedure urinary retention (obs ur sx resolve 6–12 m!)
1. [Some use Flomax 0.4 mg daily for 1 with 18. Avoid exercise and sex for 2–3 weeks.
prior to implant]. 19. [For LDR: avoid pregnant women and chil-
2. Bowel prep evening before. dren for one half-life (60 days/17 days)].
3. General anesthesia, pre-op abx are institution-
dependent (some use Ancef 1 g IV). Plan Isodose Evaluation
4. Place in dorsal lithotomy position. –– On DVH the x-axis is dose and y-axis is vol-
5. Place Foley, irrigate rectum. Bladder drained ume in percentages.
and filled w/ 50 cc contrast +100 cc H2O. –– Get D90 by going to y-axis and 90% then
6. Prep perineum with betadine, tape scrotum, going across till you cross the curve.
avoid tape on perineum. –– Get V100 by finding 100% of prescribed
7. Insert TRUS. 5–7.5 Hz. Evaluate prostate dose on x-axis (e.g., 145 Gy for I125) and
size, geometry. Urethra will be midline on them moving up vertically where curve
sag view. Confirm you can see base through crosses. This is the volume of prostate get-
apex. Lock probe/stepper into position and ting 100% of the prescribed dose. V100 can-
secure template to cradle. not be >100%.
8. Place needles. For LDR: 70% peripherally, –– 100% to cover CTV (no PTV).
30 centrally. For HDR: keep 1 cm part, no –– 200% are islands.
dwell positions in last 9 mm. –– 150% may touch occasionally.
9. Confirm needle depths on sagittal US. –– Post implant dosimetry.
10. Capture transverse US images every 5 mm. –– Post-brachy obstruction risk ≈ AUA score
Some inject aerated KY jelly. (%).
11.
Contour prostate, urethra, rectum.
CTV = GTV + 3–5 mm. PTV = + 0 mm bc PSA bounces: more common in younger
no movement. patients.
12. [For LDR: intraop/real-time. For LDR:
Management of acute frequency/urgency:
remove trocars. Watch for urine or blood NSAIDs, alpha blockers.
leaks). Attach Mick applicator to needle, Management of acute urinary obstruction:
being careful not to push needle. Use Mick Catheter. Follow until able to void.
applicator to insert seeds according to plan
under US and fluoro guidance.]
• [For HDR: inverse planning with remote
afterloading system.]
320
Average
Mono dose Boost dose t1/2 energy
Radionuclide (Gy) (Gy) (days) (keV) Prostate (CTV) Urethra Rectum
EBRT is D90 V100 V150
45–50.4
125I 145 110 59.4 28.4 >100% of >90– <50– UV150 ~0 (in volume) V100 D2cc < prescribed dose and
103Pd 110 100 17.0 20.7 dose 95% 60% UV5 <150% <1 cc on D0.1 cc <200 Gy
131Cs 120 9.7 30.4 UV30 <125% day 0; and
<1.3 cc on
day 30
192Ir 13.5 × 2 15 73.8 380 >90– D0.1 ≤120 Gy EQD2 D2cc ≤75 Gy EQD2
9.5 × 4 4 × 8.5 95% of D10 ≤120 Gy EQD2
dose D30 ≤105 Gy EQD2
V150 = 0 cc
No normal tissue constraints from ABS due to wide range of fractionation
options [7]
EBRT SBRT
–– Fiducials for guidance.
Conventional and Hypofractionation –– Contour prostate urethra (insert Foley if no
–– Bowel prep. MRI).
–– Supine. –– GTV: prostate w/o SVs.
–– Comfortably full bladder. –– PTV: GTV + 3 mm.
–– Immobilized w/custom thermoplastic casts. –– D95 >100% prescription.
–– CT and MRI (3 mm) images obtained. No –– Maximum point dose <120%.
MRI for pacer or metal foreign bodies (orbital –– <15% of the PTV or <10 cc should be treated
XR). MRI before Calypso placed. to >115% of prescription dose.
–– For intermediate risk, proximal 1 cm of SVs –– Ratio of prescription isodose volume to PTV
should be covered by CTV (per RTOG 0815). volume of <1.2.
–– Definition of PTV: –– Volume outside PTV receiving >100% of dose
–– Prostate +8 mm (except posteriorly) should be <15% of PTV volume.
–– Prostate +5 mm posteriorly –– Hot spots in CTV if possible.
–– Proximal/distal SVs same as prostate –– Urethra: maximum point dose 110%,
–– LNs → no margin V39.3 Gy <20%.
–– CFRT: 75.6–79.2 Gy @ 1.8/fx, 80 Gy @
2 Gy / fx.
–– HFRT:
• FCCC: 70.2 Gy @ 2.7/fx
• MDACC: 72 Gy @ 2.4/fx.
• 0415: 70 Gy @ 2.5/fx
• Italy: 62 Gy @ 3.1/fx
–– NCIC 52.5 Gy @ 2.63/fx
–– No nodes/ADT for low risk
–– On treatment:
• Daily KV imaging if fiducials.
• Daily CBCT if no fiducials. Align to PTV.
ADT –– Toxicity: All analogues can cause initial T

flare, followed by suppression. Hot flashes,
Studies bone loss, anemia, fatigue, decreased
–– Bria, 2009: meta-analysis of 7 RCTs, ADT libido, impotence, decreased insulin sensi-
improves OS 10%. tivity, dyslipidemia, increased BMI.
–– Increased risk of DM and CAD but no
Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal Axis increase in cardiac deaths.
–– Hypothalamus makes GNRH, which is also –– Get baseline bone scan.
called LHRH. LHRH is released in pulsatile –– All men should be started on vit D
matter, causing hypothalamus to release FSH 1000 IU/d and Ca 1200 mg/d prophylaxis.
and LH from pituitary. LH stimulates Leydig –– Antiandrogens
cells in testes to make T, which is then con- –– Bicalutamide (Casodex). 50 mg po
verted by 5-alpha-reductase to DHT. QD. Causes gynecomastia, hepatotoxicity,
–– For men with BF after RT, should observe if diarrhea. Check LFTs monthly; d/c if 2.5x
PSA-DT is >12 months. Can start ADT if high ULN
absolute PSA level, PSA-DT <12 months. –– Nonsteroidal antiandrogen: flutamide.
250 mg po q8 hours.
Types of ADT –– Estrogens
–– Castration –– Ketoconazole: blocks P450
–– GnRH analogue –– Degarelix: GnRH antagonist, no initial
–– Goserelin (Zoladex) GnRH analogue/ flare
LHRH agonist induces hypogonadism by –– NCCN
reducing the secretion of gonadotropin and –– Up to 81 Gy permitted
therefore testosterone. 3.6 mg implant SC –– +/− 4–6 m ADT unfavorable intermediate
q28 days or 10.8 mg SC q12 weeks. risk
–– Leuprolide (Lupron) inhibits LH produc- –– + 2–3 yrs. ADT high risk
tion, which in turn causes a suppression of
testosterone and dihydrotestosterone, 1 mg
SC qday, 7.5 mg IM q month, 22.5 mg IM
q 3mos
–– Triptorelin (Trelstar).
Postoperative EBRT Volumes, Michalski, 2010

–– CTV extends sup from approximately the cau-
–– Indications for adjuvant RT: pT3a/b, SM+. dal vas deferens remnant to >8–12 mm inf of
Always check PSA before RT. the UVA.
• Wait for urinary function to stabilize before –– Superior: level of vas deferens or 3 cm above
starting RT. Once RT is delivered, urinary pubic symphysis
QOL is locked in place. –– Inferior: 1 cm below VUA
• PSA half-life 2–3 days so must wait –– Lateral: obturator internus
~1 month before PSA will be undetectable –– Posterior: rectum.
post-RP. –– Anterior: entire bladder below pubic sym-
–– Indications for salvage RT: persistent or ris- physis and 1 cm of it superior to it.
ing PSA post-RP (BF = >0.2 ng/ml on 2 sepa- –– PTV = CTV +5–6 mm.
rate PSA tests). “Early salvage” is –– Do not routinely cover pelvic LNs, unless
recommendation for RT for any rising PSA, LN+.
per updated Stephenson analysis. 5-yr FFBF –– Contour bladder, rectum, bowel, cord.
was 56% overall, improved with RT was given
with lower pre-SRT PSA level: onstraints (RTOG 05–34)
C
• 71% for those with 0.01 to 0.2 ng/mL –– Rectum V65 <35% and V40 <55%.
• 63% for those with a PSA of 0.21 to –– Bladder (defined as bladder – CTVp)
0.50 ng/mL V65 <50%, V40 <70%.
• 54% for those with a PSA of 0.51 to –– Constraints relaxed because dosimetric rela-
1.0 ng/mL tionship of volume exposed to marker doses is
• 43% for those with a PSA of 1.01 to less clear, and bladder neck is in CTVp.
2.0 ng/mL –– Femoral heads: V50 <10%.
• 37% for those with a PSA >2.0 ng/mL –– Penile bulb: D90 <50 Gy to keep risk of severe
ED <35%.
Workup
–– MRI pelvis to determine gross LR. Post-op ADT
–– Bone scan if PSA >10. –– Indications are unclear.
–– Do not use fiducials. –– High-risk features supporting ADT are short
PSA-DT (<6–12 m), GS 8+, detectable PSA
Simulation post-op, if PSA >0.7–1.5 ng/mL (continuous
–– Full bladder (two cups an hour before) and variable, see RTOG 96–01).
empty rectum (have a BM before sim) –– Adjuvant setting, N0 = RT alone. Discuss
–– Supine, arms on chest, in Aquaplast mold risks/benefits of ADT.
–– CT sim +/− PO contrast –– Adjuvant setting, N+ = RT + 24 months of
ADT. Messing was lifelong ADT.
Post-op Dosing –– Salvage setting, N0 = RT +/− 6–24 months
–– 64–72 Gy @ 1.8-2 Gy/fx. ADT.
–– Some physicians treat to 65–66.6 Gy in adju- –– Salvage RT, N+ = RT + 24 months of ADT.
vant setting and 66.6–72 Gy in the salvage
setting.
–– If gross local recurrence, then treat GTV to
74 Gy, standard-risk volume to ~68 Gy. All
dose escalation trials went to 74–80 Gy for
GTV.
M+ Prostate Cancer Systemic Therapy –– 1000 kBq/ml, Rx is 50 kBq/kg Q4wks x

6 treatments
–– Metastatic –– Requires
–– First line: ADT –– ANC ≥ 1.5 × 109/L
–– Second line: docetaxel/prednisone –– PLT ≥ 100 × 109/L
–– SWOG 9916 –– Hgb ≥ 10 g/dL
–– TAX 327
–– 223Ra (Alpharadin): bone only mets
–– 11.4d, alpha emitter, 5.8 MeV avg
Rising PSA Systemic Therapy Options:
326
Hormone-sensitive Castrate-resistant prostate cancer

prostate cancer
Non-metastatic Metastatic Non-metastatic Metastatic
No prior docetaxel Prior docetaxel
Asymptomatic or
minimally
symptomatic Symptomatic
good KPS Poor KPS Good KPS Poor KPS
• Abiraterone + • Abiraterone +
prednisone • Docetaxel • Abiraterone + prednisone
• Observation,
• Docetaxel • Radium-223 prednisone • Cabazitaxel • Palliative care
continued ADT • Enzalutamide
• GnRH agonist • Sipuleucel T • Enzalutamide • Radium-223
• Enzalutamide • Radium-223
• GnRH
antagonist • ADT +/-
• GnRH analog+
chemotherapy
Therapy
AA • 1st gen AA • Abiraterone + • Ketoconazole + • Ketoconazole +
• Abiraterone +
Indicated
• orchiectomy • Ketoconazole + prednisone steroid steroid
• 1st gen AA • Other prednisone
steroid • Ketoconazole +
• 1st gen ASI • Enzalutamide
• Observation radionuclide
steroid • ketoconazole +
Disease progression
• 1st gen ASI therapy • Docetaxel
• Mitoxantrone steroid
• Other continuation / • Radionuclide
radionuclide • Docetaxel retreatment therapy
therapy • Mitoxantrone
• Supplemental Ca, vitamin D
• If there are bony metastases: zoledronic acid or denosumab
SRE prevention
• Systemic
chemotherapy* • Sipuleucel-T • Sipuleucel-T
• Immunotherapy*
Contraindicated
Standard of care Recommendation Option Expert opinion *= unless in clinical trial
• Benefits are < or > harms • Benefits are < or > harms • Benefits are = harms
KEY • Level of evidence: A or B • Level of evidence: C • Level of evidence: A, B, or C
• May be for select patients
NICHOLAS G. ZAORSKY. M.D.
Low-Risk Studies [8–31] Dose escalation trials: (↑ bPFS ~20%, no

change in OS)
Lifestyle
–– Nobes, 2012: men on ADT randomized to –– PROG 9509, Zietman, 2005, 2010: 58% low
metformin, low glycemic diet, and exercise. risk, 37% intermediate risk, and only 4% high
At 6 m, men had improvement in abdominal risk; 50.4 then proton boost to 70.2 vs
girth, weight, BMI, SBP. No difference in bio- 79.2 GyE. No ADT for anyone. 10 yr. bFail:
markers of insulin resistance. 32 → 17%. Salvage ADT in 11% vs 6%.
–– SELECT: Screening study with men random- –– MDACC (Pollack 2002, Kuban 2008, 2010):
ized to Vit E, selenium, or both. Men with Vit mixed risk, 205 low, 46% intermediate, 34%
E and selenium had more aggressive prostate high. No ADT for anyone. 70 vs 78 Gy to iso-
cancers. center; 8 yr. FFF 59 → 78%; CSS (97%) and
OS (78%) unchanged. G2 rectal toxicity 26%
RP Versus RT vs 13%. G3 rectal toxicity 7% vs 1%.
–– ProtecT, Hamdy, 2016. UK. Randomize –– Peeters, 2006, Netherlands: 68 vs 78 Gy; 7 yr.
between (1) active monitoring; (2) EBRT; (3) bPFS 45 → 56%. Stratified by use of ADT.
RP. Men 50–69 yo, mostly low risk, median –– MRC, Dearnaley, 2007, 2014: All patients
age 62, median PSA 4.6, 77% GS6, 76% cT1c, received ADT, neoadjuvant, 3–6 m before start
90% PSA <10, only 1% of patients nonwhite, of RT, and continued until end of RT. High
76% cT1c, the rest had cT2. At 10 y, no differ- dose won. 64 vs 74 Gy, 5 yr. bPFS 60 → 71%.
ence in PCSM (1%), OM (10%). AS more –– GETUG: 70 vs 80 Gy; 5 yr. PSA failure
likely to have progression (20% vs 8%), DM 31 → 24%.
(6% vs 2.5%). 55% of AS patients eventually –– Zelefsky, 2008. Retrospective. 3D CRT.
got tx. No difference in RP vs EBRT. For uri- n = 339 with post-tx biopsied after median
nary function, RP had worse impact on incon- time of 6.25 yrs. For intermediate-risk patients,
tinence at all time points, but there was some if dose >75.6, then 24% positive biopsy; if
recovery after 6 m. Voiding sx were worse with <70.2, then 42% positive biopsies. For high
RT at 6 m but then returned to baseline by 1 y. risk, it was 33% vs 51%. For patients who did
Nocturia worsened in all groups, esp. in RT, not get NA-ADT, 42% had +bx vs 16% who
but at 1 y was at baseline. Sexual function did get NA-ADT.
declined in all, but worse in RP; 12% of men
had erections firm enough for intercourse, vs HFRT Trials
22% in RT, and 52% in AS. Erections remained –– CHHiP, Dearnaley, 2016: phase 3, non-
worse at all time points for RP group. In RT inferiority. T1b-T3N0M0. n = 3216.
group number of erections for intercourse rose Randomize to one of 3 tx regimens: 74/2 vs
between 6–12 m, then seclined again to 27% at 60/3 (EQD2 ~77 Gy) vs 57.3 (EQD2 ~73 Gy).
6y. However, most of these men got 3–6 m of 5y FFBF similar, 97% among all. Worse acute
NA-ADT. Bowel function was worse only in bowel toxicity with hypofrac, 25% vs 38% vs
RT group, pronounced at 6 m. QOL better in 38%. Acute bladder toxicity similar between
EBRT. both fractionation regimens.
EBRT Trials SBRT

–– Swedish Trial (Bill-Axelson): mixed group, –– Kim, 2014. using 45–50 Gy/5 fractions for
RP vs WW: RP improves CSS, not OS. Before prostate cancer. 7% rectal toxicity.
PSA-era. Recommend keep V50 <3 cc and V24 <50%
–– RP vs EBRT vs brachy (Kupelian 2004) ≈ 80% circumference of rectal wall.
5 yr. FFS (51% if <72 Gy).
Intermediate-/High-Risk Studies Intermediate-Risk RT +/– ADT: Most

[8–12, 18, 31–50] Improve OS 5–10%
–– RTOG 8610: high risk, T2–4 bulky dz., +/−
SV Involvement cLN+; 70 Gy +/− 4 m ADT neoadjuvantcon-
–– Kestin, 2002: 7% of SV invasion extends current +/− additional 2y ADT; 10 yr. CSS
>1 cm; only 1% extends >1 cm in low-risk 64 → 77%, ↓DM, ↑OS trend.
patients RTOG 0815 recommends including –– RTOG 9408: intermediate risk. 68 Gy +/− 4 m
prox 1 cm for intermediate-risk patients ADT; 12 yr. OS 51 → 56%.
–– Harvard/DFCI, D’Amico, JAMA, 2008: T1b-
High-Risk Chemo T2b and GS 7 dz. OR PSA >10 ng/mL OR
–– STAMPEDE (James, Lancet Onc, 2016): ECE. mostly intermediate risk; 70 Gy +/− 6 m
high-risk, LA, M1, or recurrent PCa get ADT ADT, given as 2 m neoadjuvant, 2 m concur-
+/− zolendronic acid, docetaxel, or both. rent, 2 m adjuvant; 8 yr. OS 61 → 74% in the
2:1:1:1 randomization. Docetaxel was 75 mg/ intermediate-risk group. (13% difference!)
m2 q3w × 6c with prednisolone 10 mg daily. Men with no/minimum comorbidity had the
OS improved for both arms with docetaxel by most benefit. If mod-severe comorbidity, then
10 months. G3–5 toxicity increased with worse survival, 25% vs 54%, though not
docetaxel: 52% vs 32%. SS. Findings being re-examined in RTOG
0815, which uses higher doses.
ADT +/− RT –– TROG 96.01 (Denham, 2011): mostly high
–– Scandinavian (SPCG-7) : intermediate/high risk; 3 arms: 66 Gy +/− ADT (3 m, 6 m); DFS
risk; 3 m ADT +/− 70 Gy. RT was delivered 32 → 49 → 52%, local progression 28% vs
using 3D CRT prescribed to central dose of 16% vs 13% (NSS). ↑PCSM with ADT: at 10
50 Gy. Boost was 20 Gy to prostate. 10 yr. y, 22% vs 19% vs 11%. 10y ↑OM: 42% vs
FFBF 75% vs 26%, a threefold difference. OS 37% vs 29% (SS for 6 m). Thus, 6 m of NADT
61 → 70%, CSS 76 → 88%. +66 Gy superior to 3 m for intermediate-and
high-risk patients.
BT Boost –– Crook: mixed risk: 66 Gy + ADT (3 m vs
–– ASCENDE-RT: RCT of EBRT to 78 Gy vs 6 m); no differences (longer better for high
EBRT + LDR-BT. EBRT was dose escalated, risk).
46 Gy to pelvis, boost to 78. Both arms got –– RTOG 9413: intermediate/high risk, 2 × 2
12 m ADT for intermediate- and high-risk (+/− WP, neoadj/adj ADT): mixed data, no
patients n = 400. 9-y FFBF was better with clear result.
CMT 83% vs 62%. However, there was worse –– RTOG 0815. Ongoing. Dose escalated RT +/−
G3+ late GU toxicity, 19% vs 5%, mostly ure- ST-ADT for intermediate risk. Maximum
thral stricture. dose in PTV is 107%, to volume at least
–– RTOG 0232, Prestige, 2006. Intermediate 0.03 cc. minimum dose in PTV is >95% of
risk. cT1c-T2b GS 6 PSA 10–20 or GS 7 and prescribed dose. Hotspots 107–110 are accept-
PSA <10 rando to 45 Gy EBRT + LDR-BT able. Coldspots 93–95 are acceptable.
boost vs BT mono. No difference in PFS, 85%
for both arms at 5y. Acute G3 toxicity similar, High-Risk RT +/− ADT: Improves OS
8% for both. Late G3 toxicity 12% for CMT –– RTOG 8531, Pilepich, 2005: T3 or N+, non-
and 7% for brachy alone. bulky patients WP RT; 70 Gy +/− indefinite
–– Hoskin, 2012: RCT in UK. 55 Gy/20 fx EBRT goserelin; 10 yr. OS 39 → 49% for GS 7–10.
(non-dose escalated) vs 35.75 Gy/13 fx EBRT –– EORTC 22863, Bolla, 2010: cT1–2 WHO G3
+ HDR-BT 8.5 × 2. Improved DFS in boost or T3–4 any G with WHO PS of 0–2 random-
arm. ized: WP RT 70 Gy, with 50 Gy to WP and
20 Gy boost to prostate) +/− 3 yr. goserelin. Salvage ADT?

ADT started first day or RT and continued –– King (2004): Salvage RT +/− ADT; 5 yr. OS
monthly injections for 3 y. Oral AA cyproter- 87 → 100%, bPFS 31 → 57%.
one 50 mg TID orally for 1 m prior to start of
Whole Pelvis RT?
goserelin to prevent flare from T surge. 10 yr.
OS 32 → 42%. PCSM 10 vs 30% LRF 6 vs –– All failed to show a clear subgroup with
24%. FFDM 51% vs 30%. benefit.
–– RTOG 7706.
ADT Duration –– RTOG 9413.
–– RTOG 92–02, Hanks, 2003. cT2c-T4, –– GETUG-01.
PSA <150 ng. mL, KPS >70. Rando to 4 m –– RTOG 09–24. Ongoing. ADT + RT +/− WPRT
goserelin and flutamide, 2 m before and 2 m in unfavorable intermediate or favorable high
during RT (65–70 Gy to prostate and risk. Total dose 79.2 Gy. Arm 1: 45 Gy to pros-
44–50 Gy to PLNs) with short-term ADT vs tate and SVs, then 34.2 Gy to prostate and prox
same RT + long-term ADT (additional SVs. Arm 2: 45 Gy to prostate and SVs and
24 months, for a total of 2 y 2 m). 5-y DFS whole pelvis, then 34.2 Gy to prostate and
28% vs 46%. DM 17% vs 11%. CSS 91% vs prox SVs. The WP volume goes to L4/L5, if
95%. Local progression 12% vs 6%. All feasible; if not feasible, then can go to L5-S1
favored LTADT. or S3 to meet dose constraints to rectum.
–– EORTC 22961, Bolla, 2009: phase 3 non- CTV = iliac vessels +7 mm margin in 3D, not
inferiority. pT1c-T2a/b, pN1or2 M0 patients extending outside true pelvis, into muscula-
or cT2c-T4 N0–2 M0. PSA <40. All had high ture, or organs. PTV = CTV + 0.5 cm minimum
risk. WP RT; 70 Gy + 6 m vs 3 yr. ADT. The and 1.5 cm maximum.
first 6 m of ADT was CAB wLHRH analogue –– Spiotto, 2007. WPRT vs prostate bed RT after
on d1 of RT and AA agent, 750 mg flutamide/d RP. 160 patients included. WPRT superior to
or 50 mg bicalutamide QD, started 1w before prostate bed only in high risk, and only with
LHRH analogue. 5 yr. OS 81 → 85% with concurrent ADT. No difference in low risk.
3 yrs. 5y PCSM 3% vs 5%, SS. Note good
outcomes, long disease course. PA LN RT
–– RTOG 9910, Pisansky: localized dz., interme- –– RTOG 7506, Hanks. 90 patients with pelvic
diate and high risk. ADT 8w vs 28w before LN+ treated with definitive RT. Randomize to
RT. Both groups get 8-week ADT during RT pelvic vs pelvic + PA LN RT. 2% of patients
also, so really 16w vs 34w. No difference in were cured. 10y OS 29%. 10y NED rate of
DM, OS, CSS. Death was much lower than 7%.
expected.
– – DART 01/05, GICOR, Zapatero, 2015:
RCT of intermediate- and high-risk
patients to 4 vs 28 m ADT. There was an
OS benefit to 28 m.
Adjuvant/Salvage and Metastatic BF 30%, LR 13%, DM 8% with postsurgical

Prostate Cancer Studies [6, 8–12, 40, PSA ≤0.2. If >1, then 10y risk reduction for
51–62] BF 6%, LR, 16%, DM 26%.
–– King IJROBP 2012: systematic review, 41
PSA Failure studies, 5597 patients. PSA level pre-RT and
–– After RP: >/0.2 ng/mL rise with second con- RT dose independently associated with RFS.
firmatory level detected at >/= 0.2 ng/mL. 2.6% decline in RFS for each 0.1 ng/mL
–– 1996 ASTRO definition: 3 consecutive rises, increase in PSA at time of salvage RT.
then backdated. –– Stephenson, 2004: 501 patients got salvage
–– 2005 Phoenix definition: rise of 2 ng/mL over RT at 5 U.S. institutions. Median Fu of
nadir. 45 months, 50% had disease progression. On
–– This is the definition you should use. MVA, predictors of progression were GS8–
–– PSA bounce: ↑2 ng/mL ~12 m out (~20% 10, pre-RT pSA >2 ng/mL, negative SMs,
risk). PSA-DT <10 m, and SV invasion.
–– Tendulkar/Stephenson, 2016: n = 2460.
Location of Failure Post RP Improved FFBF with lower pre-tx PSA. if
–– Sella, 2004: 82 patients with endorectal coil <0.2, then 71%. If >2, then 37%. Same trend
MRI after RP. Sensitivity 95%, specificity for DMs: if <0.2, then 10y DM rate 9%; if
100%. LR at retrovesical space in 40%, peri- >2.0, then 37% DM rate.
anastomotic site 29%, retained SV remnants –– In the original nomogram, the trigger for adju-
22%, ant or lat SMs 9%. vant RT was PSA >0.2 ng/ml x2 or PSA
>0.5 × 1.
Adjuvant RT
–– Definition = undetectable post RP PSA. Salvage RT + ADT
–– Note GS 8–10 not enrollment criterion for any –– RTOG 9601, Shipley, NEJM, 2017. n = 760.
adjuvant or salvage RCTs. all post RP with LND, with elevated PSA of
–– Note, all 3 RCTs treated prostate bed only, not 0.2–4 ng/mL, pT3 N0 or pT2N0
pelvis. with + SM. Randomize: (1) RT + ADT; (2) RT
–– German ARO 96–02: pT3 N0 or + M, PSA 0. alone. RT was 64.8 in 36 fx. ADT was 24 m of
Note, the only RCT to require undetectable Casodex 150 mg QD, during and after
PSA. n = 385. rando: “wait and see” policy vs RT. Primary endpoint was OS. 10y OS was
adj RT, 60 Gy; bPFS 54 → 72%, OS same. 76% vs 71%, SS. 12y FFMD 14% vs 23%, SS.
12y PCSM 6% vs 13, SS. Late adverse effects
“Adjuvant” but Really “Early Salvage” RT similar. Gynecomastia 70% vs 11%. Thus,
–– Definition = detectable post RP PSA. addition of 24 m ADT to salvage RT improves
–– SWOG 8794: pT3 N0 or + SM; obs with salv all outcomes.
RT vs adj RT; 15 yr. OS 37 → 47%, LF –– GETUG-AFU 16, lancet Onc, 2016: 742
22 → 8%. patients randomized to RT alone or
–– EORTC 22911, Bolla, 2005, 2012: criteria: RT + ADT. RT was 66 Gy. ADT was 6 m
cT0-3 N0 with either ECE, SVI (i.e., pT3a/b), starting on d1 RT. ITT analysis showed
or + SM. All patients <76 yo. RT within 16w improved PFS for RT + ADT 62% vas 80%
of surgery. n = 1005. Randomize: obs with for combo. ADT increased toxicity with hot
salv RT 60 Gy vs adj RT; 5 yr. bPFS 53 → 74%, flashes, sweating. No OS differences.
OS same. LRFS same.
Node Positive
Salvage at Different PSAs –– Messing trial: pN+; RP +/− ADT. Immediate
–– Swanson analysis of 8794 (JCO <2007): all ADT FFBF is 7% vs 18% observation. 12 yr.
PSA levels (<0.2, 0.2–1.0, >1.0) benefit from MS 11.3 → 13.0 yrs.
adjuvant RT. Absolute reduction in 10y risk of –– ADT was for life.
–– RTOG 8531, Lawton, 2005: Subset analysis 90d. 35% received aRT. The CSS rate at 5y
of N+ patients of 8531. 173 patients had pN+ was 96% vs 82%, favoring CMT. 2 groups
dz. in this group 98 received RT + immediate benefits (1) Patients with <3 + LNs and GS7–
goserelin, and 75 patients got RT alone with 10 with pT3b/pT4 dz. or R+; (2) Patients with
goserelin at relapse. 9 yr. OS 38 → 62%. 95 3–4 + LNs, regardless of any other character-
PFS 33% vs 4%. Thus, immediate ADT won. istics. Other patients (e.g., >5) did not benefit
–– Abdollah, 2014: Milan + Mayo data. 1107 from aRT, suggesting extra-pelvic dz.
pN1 patients analyzed to determine benefit of –– Zagars, 2001. 255, retrospective. ADT vs
aRT. All had RP + EPLND, then aRT within ADT + RT. improves 10y OS, 46% vs 67%.
Gynecomastia Prophylaxis 4/50, and 17/50. Breast pain: 29/51, 3/50, and
15/50. Thus, both tam and RT reduce risk of
Studies breast pain and gynecomastia for men taking
–– Perdona, 2005: tam vs RT for prevention of AA. RT good as tam alternative.
breast pain and gynecomastia during bicalu-
tamide monotherapy. n = 151. Rando to 3 Regimens
arms: (1) bicalutamide 150 mg QD; (2) bicalu- –– 4 Gy × 3 or 10 Gy × 1 with en face electrons
tamide 150 mg QD + tam 10 mg QD; (3) prescribed to 85% IDL. 10 cm diameter circu-
bicalutamide 150 mg QD + RT, one 12 Gy lar block centered over the nipple. No bolus
fraction when starting bic. In these arms, since skin not target.
development of gynecomastia was 35/51,
Bladder Cancer [3, 8–12, 63–75] Workup

–– H&P: ask about smoking and work. Examine
Stage Nodal risk LR with cystectomy 5 yr OS external genitalia (penis/testicular for males
pT1 5% <5% 88% and rectal exam, pelvic exam for women), LN,
pT2 18% 10% 63% CVA tenderness.
pT3a 26% 30% 46% –– Labs: CBC, CMP, UA, alk phos, urine
pT3b 46% cytology.
pT4 42% 50% 15%
–– Cystoscopy, biopsy, bladder mapping, EUA,
TURBT+ random biopsies. Make sure you
• Tis, Ta – CIS, noninvasive, papillary ask to assess for muscle invasion on TURBT
• T1 – subepithelial path. If trigone/bladder neck → urethral
• T2 – muscularis propria biopsies.
• T2a – inner half –– Check eGFR if planning cisplatin. Rule out
• T2b – outer half hydro; stent if planning bladder preservation.
• T3 - perivesical tissue –– Superficial: CT pelv + IVP to evaluate upper
• T3a – microscopic urinary tract (UUT) for synchronous lesions
• T3b – macroscopic and evaluate LN.
• T4 – adjacent organs –– Muscle invasive: CT chest/abd/pelv
• T4a – prostatic stroma, uterus, vagina +/− MRI.
• T4b – pelvic wall, abd wall –– Increased alk phos or symptoms → bone scan.
• N1– 1 LN below common iliac
• N2 – multiple LNs below common iliac Neoadjuvant Chemo and RT
• N3 – common iliac LN –– Chemo meta-analysis 2003: 5% OS advantage
at 5 yrs. with multiagent cisplatin.
AJCC8 Ta,Tis T1 T2 T3 T4a T4b –– Cole 1995: MDACC: pre-op 50/25 vs no pre-
N0 0a,0is I II IIIA IVA op therapy 5 yr. LC improved 72 → 91%, but
N1 IIIA nothing else.
N2, N3 IIIB
M1 IV
Chemo Options
–– Based on meta-analysis of RCTs, neoadjuvant
AJCC7 Ta,Tis T1 T2 T3 T4a T4b cisplatin-based chemo is recommended
N0 0a,0is I II III III IV because it confers a 5% OS benefit.
N+ IV
–– ddMVAC: methotrexate, vinblastine, doxoru-
bicin, cisplatin. dd is preferred over standard.
Overview Standard MVAC is q4w for 12 weeks total;
–– Risk factors: smoking, dyes, irritation (Foley), dd-accelerated MVAC is q2weeks, 6 weeks
chronic UTI, schistosoma, aromatic amines, total.
prior pelvic RT. –– gem + cis (4 cycles). Acceptable alternative to
–– 93% TCC (5% SCC, 2% adenocarcinoma). ddMVAC with similar PFS and OS, per
–– 75% Ta, Tis, T1 at presentation. Danish study,
–– 20% T2 –– CMV: cisplatin, methotrexate, vinblastine.
–– 8% M+.
–– 60% NMIBC will recur, and 15% of superfi- Cystectomy
cial will progress to MIBC. –– Removal of bladder, urethra.
–– Women: ant wall of vagina, uterus, fallopian
tubes, ovaries, and surrounding fascia.
–– Men: prostate, SVs, prox vas deferens, prox Reconstructive Options Following
urethra, and margin of fat and peritoneum. Cystectomy
–– PLND performed. pelvic LNs distal to com- –– Ileal conduit – conduit for urine to drain from
mon iliac bifurcation removed. Presacral LNs kidneys, exteriorized via stoma through
and common iliac LNs up to bifurcation abdominal wall (continuous drainage of urine).
removed. –– Continent cutaneous diversion – Kock,
–– 42% upstaging and 6% downstaging follow- Indiana, Miami pouch, low-pressure pouch
ing surgery. from bowel segments connected to the skin
require intermittent clean catheterization (no
stoma needed).
Cystectomy Male Female

Components
Common
Non-continent Continent cutaneous Orthotopic

cutaneous diversion diversion neobladder
(ileal conduit)
–– Orthotopic neobladders – internal reservoir was fx 1, 12 mg/m2. CRT improved LR DFS

connected to native urethra, rely on external at 2 years (67% vs 54%), RFS 18% vs 32%,
sphincter for continence, constructed from the cystectomy rate 11% vs 17% (p = 0.07), trend
intestine, and anastomosed to urinary outflow to improve OS. Also 11% absolute improve-
tract. ment in DMs.
–– RTOG 9906: same as others but BID RT and
Penn/SWOG post cystectomy risk groups for LRFS added paclitaxel concurrent and adjuvant
Stage Nodal Risk 5-yr LRFS gemcitabine. Same results.
Low pT0 -2 8% –– Mak, 2014: pooled analysis of 6 RCTs with
Intermed pT3-4, R+ in soft tissue 20%
bladder preservation, pCR was 69%.
and 10+ LN dissected
High pT3-4, R+ in soft tissue >40% –– Advanced bladder cancer (ABC) meta-
and <10 LN dissected analysis, 2005: 11 RCTs with 3005 patients
that compared NA chemo then local tx, vs
local tx alone. Absolute OS benefit of 5% at
Cystectomy Data 5 years (50% vs 45%).
–– Zehnder, 2011: USC + German pooled data. 5y –– 5-year OS: T2 70%. T3–4 30%
RFS is 60% for pT2N0 dz.and 35% for pT3 dz. –– 5-year bladder preservation: T2 60%. T3–4
45%
Bladder Preservation Data
–– NCIC Coppin 1996: T2–4: pre-op RT +/− cis- Bladder Preservation Predictors of Poor
platin. Chemo ↓LRF but same OS. Outcomes
–– RTOG 8512: T2–4 N0–2: phase 2: RT –– Hydronephrosis
40/20 + cisplatin then restage and 24/12 for –– Tumor near ureteral orifice
CR. 67% CR, 5 yr. OS 52%, LC 42%. –– LNs near bifurcation
–– RTOG 8903: 123 patients cT2–4aNx: RT –– Small bladder capacity
39.6/22 with cisplatin +/− neoadj MCV 2c. –– >5 cm tumor
25.2 Gy boost for CR (64.8 Gy). Stopped early –– Residual dz. post TURBT
(14% of MCV arm died). No change in CR, OS.
–– RTOG 9506: 34 patients T2–4aNx: similar to NCCN
prior. 3 yr. OS 83%, 66% intact bladder, 45% –– Tis: bacillus Calmette-Guerin/BCG (alt:
Tis failure. MMC, gem).
–– MGH Shipley 2002: same as RTOG 8903, 190 –– Ta: observation or TURBT +/-BCG.
patients 5 yr. OS 54%, intact bladder 46%, –– T1: TURBT + BCG (upfront cystectomy for
hydronephrosis didn’t matter. high grade). If residual, then BCG or cystec-
–– BC2001 (UK), James: phase 3 trial of concur- tomy. Cysto Q3–6 months for first 2 yrs. CT if
rent chemo RT (5FU + mitomycin C) vs. RT high grade.
alone. RT was 55 Gy/20 (40% of patients) or –– For Ta, T1, Tis, EBRT alone is rarely
64 Gy/32 (60% of patients) to bladder with appropriate.
margin. No ENI. However, adjacent LNs were
likely in tx field given the technique. 5-FU –– Recurrence.
was 500 mg/m2 CI fx 1–5 and 16–20; MMC –– Repeat TURBT.
→ BCG x 6 3D-CRT (if Treating per MGH Regimen to

→ if residual: cystectomy. Include Pelvic LNs)
–– Cytology only → mapping biopsies and ure- –– The minipelvis field will be treated with empty
teroscopy (could be UUT primary). bladder, thus covering entire tumor/bladder.
The comedown will treat just the tumor, avoid
–– Stage II-III. the bowel.
• Radical cystectomy (category I) –– Minipelvis (EMPTY bladder).
• Partial cystectomy (small, dome, no CIS) • AP/PA: Sup = S1/S2; Inf = bottom of obtu-
• Bladder preservation therapy (IIB) rator foramen; Lats = 2 cm pelvic rim
• Chemo alone (MVAC or MCV) • Block medial border of femoral heads.
–– T4b or N+: chemo or CRT then surgery vs • Laterals = 2 cm off anterior bladder/exter-
more RT. nal iliacs (front of PS); 2 cm off post blad-
der/internal iliacs
Indications for Adjuvant RT • Block small bowel, pubic skin, anal canal,
–– R+ (primary) posterior rectum
–– Positive soft tissue SMs –– CD (full bladder), try to treat with just laterals.
–– N+ –– CD = tumor bed +2 cm to field edge
–– Minipelvis (4 field) to 39.6 + cisplatin
Relative Indications for Adjuvant RT (100 mg/m2) d 1 + 22 → rescope + urine
–– Number LNs dissected (<10). cytology, if PR → cystectomy
–– pT3–4 (relative indication) –– “After completing 45 Gy minipelvis, I would
request a restaging cystoscopy with directed
Failure Patterns Anatomic Regions and random biopsies. If invasive tumor any-
–– If soft tissue R+: most likely in cystectomy where or CIS at the original site, I would refer
bed and presacral region. the patient for cystectomy. Otherwise, I would
–– If soft tissue R0: most likely pelvic sidewall. continue to 64.8 Gy using CD fields.”
–– If CR → complete 45 Gy to whole pelvis
Bladder Preservation Contraindications –– CD (sim w/full bladder) to primary +2 cm mar-
–– Tumor>5 cm, hydronephrosis, multifocal, poor gin to 64.8 Gy + additional cycle of cisplatin
bladder fx, carcinoma in situ (CIS), incomplete –– Cystoscopy w/ biopsies and cytology (75%
TURBT, non-TCC histology, M+ disease, near CR)
ureteral orifices –– Boost to 60–65 Gy if no tumor remaining (T0
and neg cytology)
Bladder Preservation Technique
–– Maximal TURBT (to negative margin) IMRT
–– Bladder map from urologists, with biopsies –– 60–66 Gy to whole bladder with IMRT using
from different parts of bladder to plan boost daily IGRT w/cisplatin 35-40 mg/m2 weekly.
–– Review cystoscopy • Note that treating bladder alone (no lymph
–– Pre-TURBT imaging nodes) is acceptable, per the UK MRC study.
–– Concurrent CRT or RT alone most successful –– 55 Gy/20 fractions.
if no hydronephrosis, no extensive CIS
–– Adjuvant IMRT volumes:
Simulation • If treating LNs: hypogastric, o1bturator,
–– Supine, arms on chest, in Alpha Cradle. intermediate/ext. iliac, perivesical, sacral,
–– CT sim with EMPTY bladder; second CT sim
with FULL bladder.
presacral. For cLN+, the common iliac Special Cases

LNs are site of secondary involvement. –– N+ bladder cancer. If N+ found at time of
–– If R+, all above, and cystectomy bed (i.e., cystectomy, surgery is aborted! For cN+ dis-
everything below pubic symphysis). ease, Gem/Cis → ChemoRT or surgery. 5y
–– If N+, boost cN+ GTV to highest achievable OS = 30%.
dose. –– Hydronephrosis. Surgery (or ChemoRT if
not surgical candidate). 35% CR with bladder
Follow-Up preservation (versus 70%).
–– Hx & PE, LFTs, Cr, lytes, chest imaging –– Urachal: Adenocarcinoma that involves
Q6–12 mo. the bladder and comes from enteric epithe-
–– Cystoscopy + urine cytology every 3–6 mo × lium in embryonic tissue between dome of
2 yrs., then increasing intervals bladder and umbilicus. Treatment with sur-
–– Imaging of upper tracts, abdo and pelvis for gery (cystectomy and take out the umbili-
recurrence every 3–6 mo × 2 yrs., then as clin- cus). Post-op RT to bed to 60 Gy for positive
ically indicated margins. Adjuvant cisplatin/5-FU for posi-
tive LNs.
Late Effects
–– Reduced bladder compliance (20%): chronic
cystitis, hematuria (telangiectasia), contracted
bladder
–– Bowel urgency/rectal bleeding (25%)
–– Impotence (50%)
Adjuvant volumes Components Description from NRG-GU001

CTV cystectomy bed Sup 2 cm above pubic symphysis
Ant Post of pubic rami/symphysis. Above and below, contour will stop at the
Include if R+. planes defined by extending linesup and inf from the post aspect of symphysis
Dose 54–60 Gy Post Abut the ant 1/3 of the external ano-rectal circumference w/o extending into
anorectum. Above the level of rectum, stop posteriorly at plane defined by line
going superior from ant border of rectum
Lat Medial border obturator internus muscles.
Inferiorly, it is at the vaginal wall or prostate bed
Inf 2-3 mm (1 axial CT slice) above the penile bulb for males, 1 cm below lower
pole of obturator foramen for females.
CTV LNs Trim LNs at pelvis, muscle, bone
Do not trim at bowel bc risk of marginal miss
LN CTV mirror high-risk prostate LN CTV
Pelvic LNs: distal common iliac, internal iliac, external iliac, obturator
Always include (R0 or R+) Sup at L5-S1
Externals iliacs extend inf to top of femoral heads
R0: 45–50.4 Int iliacs extentinf until no longer visible, or exit through greater sciatic notch
R+: 54–60 Expand by 7 mm in ant, post, lat dimensions
Presacral LNs: From L5-S1 to S2-3. Include 1-1.5 cm of tissue ant to sacrum and between vessels
Sup at inf border of iliac contours
Include if R+ Inf at top of pubic symphysis
54–60 Gy 1 cm width of tissue medial to obturator internus muscles, from ant border or
ilium to post border or ilium
OARs ostomy bag for patients with non-continent diversions
sim and treat with empty bag
Bowel entire bowel space, inc bowel, cecum, colon. sup at 3 cm above sup extent of
LN CTV
Rectum from RS junction sup to level of iscial tuberosities inf
Pelvic bones Start 1 cm sup above nodal CTV and go 1 cm inf of CTV
ransitional Cell Carcinoma (TCC)/

T Stage I: T1
Urothelial Cell Carcinoma (UCC) [76] Stage II: T2
Stage III: T3
Ta: papillary, noninvasive Stage IV: T4 or N+ or M+
Tis
T1: subepithelial connective tissue Treatment
T2: muscularis –– Surgery.
T3:
into fat or renal parenchyma (for renal –– For pT2–4 or pN+, adjuvant chemo
pelvis) recommended.
T4: adj organs –– Primary indication for RT is R+.
N0: none –– RT should include primary tumor bed and
N1: 1 regional LN, ≤ 2 cm entire length of ureter.
N2: 1 regional LN, 2 - ≤5 cm, or 2+ LNs all –– Ureter goes from renal fossa to the trigone to
≤5 cm ipsi bladder.
N3: 1 LN >5 cm –– Dose is 45–50.4/1.8.
–– Boost GTV to 54–60 Gy, if OAR constraints
met.
enal Cell Cancer (RCC) [8–12,

R RCC Subtypes
77–84] –– Clear cell: 80%, typically 3p deletion, assoc.
with VHL
• T1 – ≤7 cm, kidney only. –– Papillary or chromophilic: 10%
• T1a – ≤4 cm. –– Chromophobe: 5%
• T1b – 4-7 cm. –– Collecting duct: <5%
• T2 – >7 cm, kidney only. –– Renal medullary: rare, aggressive. Associated
• T2a – 7-10 cm. with sickle cell dz.
• T2b – >10 cm.
• T3 – into major veins or perinephric tissues. Workup
• T3a – into renal vein or perirenal fat. –– H&P, CBC, CMP with corrected calcium, Cr,
• T3b – into vena cava below diaphragm. LFTs, CT chest/abd/pelv, urinalysis.
• T3c – into vena cava above the diaphragm –– If dye cannot be given or if there is IVC
or wall of vena cava. involvement, then abdominal MRI should be
• T4 – invades Gerota’s fascia. performed.
• N1 – renal hilum, caval (para-/pre-/retrocaval), –– No role for PET. Low sensitivity but high
interaortocaval, aortic (para-/pre-/retroaortic). specificity.
–– Cytology, cysto, ureteroscopy.
–– CT or MRI brain only if suggested M+, sx.
T1 T2 T3 T4
N0 I II III
–– LDH in M+. LDH is prognostic and predictive.
N1 III IV
M1 IV Select Trials
–– Four randomized trials show no benefit to
PORT (Rotterdam, Sweden, Fugitt, Kjaer).
Overview –– Stein 1992: 147 patients, PORT vs obs: in
–– “RCC” refers to tumors arising within renal T3 N0 patients, PORT won. LR 37% → 10%.
ctx, as opposed to renal medulla or pelvis –– Escudier/AVOREN: stage IV RCC given IFα
–– 60 K/year, 13 K deaths/y in the USA. +/− Avastin. Avastin doubled PFS
–– M > F. (5 → 10 months).
–– 5y OS: I = 81%, II = 74%, III = 53%, IV = 8% –– Escudier/TARGET: treatment-resistant RCC
–– Genetic conditions: VHL (for clear cell RCC), +/− sorafenib. Sorafenib doubled PFS
Dirt-Hogg-Dube syndrome, tuberous sclero- (2.8 → 5.5 mo).
sis, met proto-oncogene. –– Motzer, 2007: metastatic RCC: sunitinib vs
–– Sporadic RCC: mutation in the VHL tumor IFα, sunitinib won.
suppressor gene on 3p25.
–– Classic triad: hematuria, flank pain, mass. NCCN
–– Paraneoplastic syndromes (20%): ↑Ca, HTN, –– Local disease: surgery (no radiation). If R0,
↑LFTs. then AS. CT or MRI in 6 m and then imaging
–– Pathologic subtypes: clear cell (70%), chro- q12m.
mophilic, chromophobic, collecting duct. • PORT: controversial. Consider for +SM, +
LN
Renal Neoplasms –– Metastatic disease: surgery (palliative
–– RCCs are 90% of primary renal neoplasms. nephrectomy), sunitinib (multi-TKI), temsiro-
–– Oncocytoma: benign, 5% of primary renal limus, bevacizumab and IFN, interleukin-2,
neoplasma. sorafenib (Multi-TKI).
Urethral Cancer [8–12, 85–88] Male Early Stage

• Ta, Tis – noninvasive papillary, polypoid, or –– Surgery: MSKCC (Dalbagni 1999): Tis-T1,
verrucous carcinoma 10 patients, surgery only 5-yr. DFS 83%
• T1 – subepithelial –– RT: (Heysek 1985): 5 patients, LC in 4/5
• T2 – spongiosum, prostate, periurethral
muscle Male Locally Advanced
• T3 – cavernosum, EPE, ant vagina, bladder –– Surgery: MSKCC (Dalbagni 1999): T2-T4, 36
neck patients, surgery only 5-yr. DFS 45%.
• T4 – adj organs (including bladder)
• N1 – single, below common iliac Female
• N2 – multiple below common iliac or a presa- –– After pelvic exenteration: 5-yr. OS 20%, LF
cral node 66%
–– RT alone: 5-yr. OS 75% early stage, 34%
T1 T2 T3 T4
advanced stage (Kreig 1999)
N0 I II III IV –– RT alone approach: 50–60 Gy brachy alone or
N1 III EBRT (45 Gy) + 20–25 Gy brachy
N2 IV
M1 IV Concurrent Chemo
–– Only case reports, consider 5FU/mitoC, 5FU/
Anatomy cisplatin, carbo/taxol (Eng 2003).
–– Epithelium transitions from squamous (out-
side) to pseudostratified to transitional cell RT
–– Most common site in men: bulbomembra- –– Prostatic only involvement: treat similar to
nous (~60%) prostate
–– Non-prostatic: parallel opposed fields cover-
Workup ing groin and pelvis with perineal and inguinal
–– H&P, labs, UA, alk phos, urine cytology. boost
–– Cystoscopy, biopsy.
–– MRI pelvis, chest imaging. NCCN
–– T2–3 is most common. 15% of all patients –– Tis/Ta: TUR
with DMs. –– T1–2: surgery +/− PORT or chemoRT
(66–70 Gy)
–– T3-T4 or N+: chemoRT
Testicular Cancer/Seminoma • S0 – normal serum markers (ALL POST

(SGCT)/NSGCT [8–12, 89–108] ORCHIECTOMY).
• S1 - LDH <1.5 ULN AND hCG <5000
• T1 – testis (including rete), epididymis, no AND AFP <1000.
LVSI, no vaginalis. AJCC8 has size break- • S2 – LDH 1.5–10 ULN OR hCG 5000–
down: T1a is ≤3 cm. T1b is >3 cm. 50,000 OR AFP 1000–10,000.
• T2 – T1 + LVSI or vaginalis (i.e., beyond • S3 – LDH >10 ULN OR hCG >50,000
albuginea). OR AFP >10,000.
• T3 – spermatic cord.
• T4 – scrotum. Note no Stage IV for testicular cancer.
–– N1 – N+, all ≤2 cm (no more than 5 total T1 T2 T3 T4 10 yr

Any pT IS
pN+). N0 M0
–– N2 – N+, all 2 - ≤5 cm (or more than 5 pN+, S1-3
or ECE) (this is “bulky” for NSGCT). N0 IA (S0) IB (S0) 98% RFS
–– N3 – N+, >5 cm (this is “bulky” for SGCT). N1 IIA (S0-1) 92% RFS
N2 IIB (S0-1) 86% RFS
N3 IIC (S0-1) 70% RFS
• M1a – non-regional nodes or lung mets. M1a IIIA (S0-1, any N) 90% OS
• M1b – distant. N+ S2 IIIB
N+ S3 IIIC 80% OS
M1b
S–Staging from International Germ Cell Consensus
Stage normal Half-life S1 S2 S3 Units Tumor Can be elevated by

LDH 1 <1.5 1.5-10 >10 ULN
hCG <5 22–36h <5K 5K–50K >50K mIU/mL GCT > THC, reagent cross-reaction with
NSGCT LH
AFP 6 5–7d <1K 1–10K >10K ng/mL NSGCT. HCC, cirrhosis, hepatitis
Never
GCT.
Need to have… all any any
Stage with N0 IS IS IS
Stage with N+ IIIB IIIC
Needed for risk M0 M0 M1
group
Risk group Good Intermed Poor
(need all (need all (need
above) above) ANY
above)
Overview 5 year RFS 95%. Only 1 patient died of semi-

–– Lymph flows to PA nodes (left vein drains to noma, so CSS was 100%.
renal vein). –– Danish, Daugaard, 2003: 394 patients
–– 95% GCTs (seminomas/NSGCTs). observed. 17% had relapses. Median time tor
elapse 13 months. No deaths from seminoma.
DDx –– Kollmannsberger, 2010. Canada+Sweden.
–– Benign: hydrocele, spermatocele, varicose N = 2483 stage I on AS. Relapse in 19% of
veins, epididymitis non-seminoma and 13% for seminoma
–– Malignant: seminoma, NSGCT, lymphoma patients. >90% of relapses in first 2 years.
–– Third Spanish GC Group (Aparicio, 2011):
Subtypes n = 227. Patients with 0–1 RF observed.
–– Seminoma (60%): beta-human chorionic Patients with 2 RFs get 2c carbo. 10% of
gonadotropin (bHcG) can be ↑ (15%) but Group 1 had relapse vs 1% in carbo group. All
NEVER AFP but one of the relapses was in the RP LNs.
–– NSGCTs (30%; ↑↑↑ aFP [produced by yolk 3-year DFS was 88% for surveillance vs 98%
sac], BHCG). for carbo. 3-year OS 100%. Based on recent
–– Mixed (60%) analyses, risk-adapted tx recommended.
–– Embryonal carcinoma (20%) NCCN testicular panel discourages using
–– Yolk sac (↑AFP, Schiller Duval bodies) 4 cm cutoff and rete testis invasion to guide
–– Choriocarcinoma (↑↑↑bHcG) management bc they have not been validated.
–– Teratoma
–– Others.
–– Sertoli cell: ↑estrogen Stage I Seminoma Treatment Studies
–– Leydig cell: ↑androgens –– Norway MRC (Fossa 1999): RT field. stage I
–– Lymphomas, sarcomas seminoma 30/15. Patients rando to PA only or
–– Mixed GCT/NSGCT PA + ipsi iliac (dogfield). Sup border was
T10/11; inf border was mid obturator fora-
Seminoma NSGCT
men. Ipsi margin was renal hilum down to L5/
Solid Cystic areas
S1. Contra margin was transverse processes.
Hypoechoic Calcifications within tumor
Clear margins Ill-defined margins 3-yr. RFS/OS same (~98%) and PA better tol-
Homogeneous Heterogeneous erated for heme toxicity (leukopenia 42% vs
19%) and diarrhea (7% vs 14%). With DL,
Risk factors: cryptorchidism, first born, poly- 92% had normal sperm count in 3y. Thus PA
vinyl chloride, Downs, Klinefelter’s, HIV became SOC for stage I.
Workup: H&P, sperm banking?, Human cho- –– Germany, Bruns, 2005. Where should we
rionic gonadotropin (bHcG), alpha fetoprotein place sup border? No increased relapses when
(AFP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), labs, CT T11/12 used. Thus, it became SOC per NCCN.
abd/pelv +/− chest, +/-PET. Do not biopsy. Ask –– RT dose: MRC (Jones 2005): stage I semi-
about prior pelvic surgeries bc of altered lym- noma, 20/10 vs 30/15. Mostly PA only. 5 yr.
phatic drainage. Consult surgery for inguinal RFS same (~97%).
orchiectomy and high spermatic cord ligation. –– MRC/EORTC TE 19 (Oliver 2005): 3:5, carbo
Type of surgery is a prognostic factor for relapse. vs RT. Carbo was AUC 7 × 1 c. RT was
Trans-scrotal orchiectomy not recommended due 20–30 Gy either PA (87%) or dog leg (13%).
to possible seeding of scrotum and inguinal LNs. This was a non-inferiority trial. RFS same
(~95%). Relapse location varied but chemo
Stage I Seminoma Observation Studies better tolerated. Rate of contra GCTs was
–– PMH (Warde 1995): Obs vs RT. stage I semi- reduced, n = 2 vs n = 15, p = 0.03.
noma 1981–1991. n = 364. randomized to RT –– Pooled analysis of four RCTs for prognostic
vs obs. Obs arm: 5 year RFS 82%. RT arm: factors (Warde, 2002): stage I seminoma. (1)
Tumor size >4 cm and (3) rete testis invasion –– Long-term effects of treatment:
identified as risk factors. –– CV disease HR = 5.3 with CRT, HR = RT
–– Chung, 2010: validation study of the 2 RFs: alone, HR = 1 for surgery alone.
rete testes involvement did not predict relapse. –– Metabolic syndrome: 17% for CRT vs 10%
for carbo or surg.
NCCN –– Duodenal ulcer: 5% risk if orchiectomy.
–– All patients: radical transinguinal orchiec- –– Bleo-induced pneumonitis in 10–20%, of
tomy with high ligation of the spermatic cord those 10% die.
(never biopsy), then repeat tumor markers. –– Non-fatherhood with RT: 18%.
LNs not routinely dissected unless it is NSGCT. –– Nephro-/neurotoxicity with cisplatin.
• General options: surveillance (NCCN pre- –– Risk of contralateral cancer: 0.1% per year.
ferred); adjuvant RT (20 Gy to RP/PA –– Wait 1 year to have kid.
LNs), adjuvant single agent chemo. –– 50% have azoospermia at diagnosis
–– Risk factors of recurrence: size >4 cm. –– Only 30% can have kids.
–– Surveillance: At 15 yrs., 20% may relapse,
<1% CSM. Adjuvant Seminoma
–– Follow-up studies:
• AFP, b-hCG, LDH – q3–4 mo years 1–2, –– I: Obs* (13–16% LRF) or 20 Gy PA or carbo-
q6–12 mo years 3–4, then annually. platin AUC 6. CSS is 99% for all! Previously,
• CT abdo/pelvis – q6 mo years 1–2, rete testis invasion and tumor size >4 cm were
q6–12 mo year 3, annually yr. 4–5. risk factors for relapse; since 2010, these are
• CXR as clinically indicated. no longer used.
–– High-risk features for recurrence: LVI+, size –– For observation. HP q 3–6 m, CT at 3,6,12 m.
>4 cm, hCG >200 IU/L.
–– Stage I seminoma RT:
Counsel –– PA field is T11/12 (note, lower than Fossa/
–– Fertility and sperm banking (per above) MRC trial) to L5/S1, laterally through trans-
–– Surveillance (per above) verse process (~2 cm margin on nodes).
–– Second malignancy: 36% vs 23% in general –– For a right-sided tumor, includes paracaval,
population. RR = ~2 for RT, chemo, or precaval, and interaortocaval LNs.
combination –– For a left-sided tumor, include the above plus
at least the latero-aortic and preaortic LNs.
–– CTV = (IVC + 1.2 cm) + (aorta +1.9 cm).
–– PTV = CTV + 0.5 cm. A 0.7 cm uniform mar-
gin around PTV to block edge accounts for
penumbra.
–– AP-PA, never IMRT
• for a left-sided tumor, include the above
plus at least the lateroaortic and preaortic
LNs and include left renal hilum.
–– IIA: 20 Gy* (dogleg+boost GTV to 30) or cis/ –– IIC-III: chemo (cis/etop +/− bleo) x 3 cycles.
etop x2c –– Adjuvant NSGCT: RT palliative only.
• Prior CTV for PA LNs for a stage I. –– I: obs (30% LRF) vs RP-LND (30% path
–– Note modified dogleg I used for N+ seminoma. +) vs cis/etop/bleo x 3c (usually chemo not
–– IIB: Cis/etop x2c is preferred OR 20 Gy recommended).
(dogleg+boost GTV to 36) if LN is <3 cm. –– II:
–– Contour the ipsi common, external, and proxi- • pN1: Surveillance preferred bc 60–90%
mal internal iliac veins and arteries down infe- of patients are cures with RPLND alone.
riorly to the upper border of the acetabulum. If there is a low LN burned and the
–– Dogleg: PA field but down to mid-obturator serum markers normalize after surgery,
foramen (near top of acetabulum). 20/10, then observe; if not, then consider 2c EP
boost IIA nodes to 30 Gy, IIB nodes to 36 Gy. or BEP.
–– CTV = PA CTV + 1.2 cm vessel expansion, • pN2: 2c EP or BEP.
exclude bone and bowel. • pN3: 3c EP or BEP.
–– CTV boost = GTV + 0.8 cm, exclude bone and –– IIIB or IIIC: BEP x 4 c.
bowel.
–– PTV = CTV + 0.7 cm to block edge Positive tumor markers after surgery → chemo
–– D50 <8 Gy for each kidney.
Technique, Other Considerations Contraindications to RT

–– Supine, arms down, in Alpha Cradle. –– Horseshoe kidney – kidney overlaps with
–– Position penis out of filed, place clamshell. regional LNs targeted. RT would cause nephri-
–– Clamshell is a scrotal shield used to block the tis in 50% of cases. Further, standard RT fields
remaining testicle from internal + external may not cover sites of potential relapse.
scatter. Recommendation for stage I dz. is surveil-
–– CT sim WITH IV CONTRAST to delineate lance. RPLND is an option if patient declines
vessels. surveillance. For stage II, recommendation is
–– Start at 6 weeks after wound healed. BEP x3 of EP x4.
–– Use AP/PA, do not use IMRT bc there will –– IBD.
be increased low dose spill with IMRT. –– Previous RT to abd or pelvis.
–– 2 cm margin on GTV nodes to block edge
Doses to remaining testicle

Dose Constraints
Treating without shield with shield
–– 50 cGy: transient azoospermia
PA 2 cGy/fx 0.7 cGy/fx
PA+ ipsi iliacs 4 cGy/fx 1.5 cGy/fx –– 2 Gy causes sterilization
–– 30% of patients are fertile after RT
–– Kidneys: D50% <8 Gy.
–– If only 1 kidney, D15% <20 Gy.
xtragonadal GCT and NGGCTs

E Treatment per Stage
[108] –– Stage IA: observation (T1 N0).
–– Stage IB (T2–4, N0):
Overview • 1. BEP x 2 c.
–– For example, medistainum or • 2. RPLND
retroperitoneum. –– Stage IS (persistently elevated markers).
–– In mediastinum, 30% of mediastinal GCTs are • Primary CTX: BEP x 3c
dxd incidentally with X-ray. –– Stage II–III.
–– Local sx include dyspnea (25%), chest pain • BEP x 3 cycles. Post-chemo CT scan:
(23%), cough, fever, weight loss. • LN <1 cm: observe.
• LN >1 cm → RPLND.
Studies No role for RT except in patients who refuse
–– Bokemeyer, 2002: n = 524 extragonadal, chemo (then give ~40 Gy).
either of mediastinum or RP, NSGCT. 5-year
OS was 45% for mediastinal tumor and 62%
for RP tumors.
Treatment Paradigm
–– (1) Cis-based chemo. Chemo is usually BEP
x3 or EP x 4
–– (2) Surg for residual disease. +/− 40 Gy for
residual dz.
• objective response rate is 90%, with 2/3 of
patients having CR.
Penile Cancer [8–12, 109–117]
Tis, Ta T1a T1b T2 T3 T4

Noninvasive Subepithelial, no LVSI, Subepithelial, +LVSI, Spongiosum Cavernosum Other
verrucous no PNI, no G3-4 +PNI, or G3-4 organ
N0 0 I IIA IIB
N1 Unilat inguinal - IIIA IV
N2 Mult, or bilat - IIIB
inguinal
N3 Fixed (ECE) or IV
pelvic
M1
• Tis, Ta: CIS, noninvasive verrucous. LN

• T1 –– cN0 → 20% pN+
• T1a – subepithelial, no LVSI, no PNI, no –– cN+ → 30–50% pN0
G3–4. –– Inguinal node borders:
• T1b – subepithelial, +LVSI, +PNI, or –– Superior: inguinal ligament
G3–4. –– Interior: fossa ovalis
• T2 – spongiosum +/− urethra. –– Lateral: sartorious
• T3 – cavernosum +/− urethra. –– Medially: adductor longus
• T4 – adj structures (inc prostate). –– Male bulbomembranous and prostatic urethra:
• N1 – unilateral inguinal. go to iliac, sacral, obturator LNs. Prepuce,
• N2 – multiple or bilateral inguinal. shaft, etc. go to inguinals. Inguinal LNMs most
• N3 – fixed or pelvic (ECE). common.
Overview Early-Stage EBRT

–– Located in glans 50%. foreskin 25%. both 9%. –– Grabstald & Kelly (1980): 10 patients, stage
shaft in 2%. I-II: 90% LC.
–– Risk factors: phimosis, poor hygiene, HPV –– McLean 1993: 26 patients, stage I–II: mostly
16, 18, 50/20: 5 yr. DFS 50%.
–– HPV detected in 40–45%. HPV status should
be documented. Unclear if HPV infection Early-Stage Brachy
associated with prognosis. –– Crook 2005: 49 patients, T1–3, Ir-192 to
–– Workup: H&P, sperm banking? EUA if 55–65 Gy. 5 yr. LC 85%, OS 78%, penile
advanced, ultrasound or MRI, CT for nodes, preservation 86%.
CXR, biopsy. –– Mazeron 1984: T1–3 Ir-192 to ~65 Gy, LC
–– No randomized trials, mostly extracted from 78%, penile preservation 74%.
vulvar data.
–– Need 5 cm for sexual intercourse. Surgical Salvage
–– Need 3 cm to urinate standing. –– Zouhair, 2001: 23 patients with LR, 80% sal-
–– Overall, 45–80% are HPV related. vage rate.
–– PMH, Crook, 2002: 4/30 patients had LR. All
Subsequent HPV
salvaged.
Precursor name Histology Cancer relation
Erythroplasia of PIN Warty, >80%
Queryat basaloid
Bowen dz SCC in
situ
Lichen sclerosis, Keratinizing, 35%
condylomata, or verrucous
SC hyperplasia
Locally Advanced –– PORT: for multiple LNs + without ECE,

–– Krieg 1981: 17 patients stage I–IV, surgery+/- adjuvant dose if 45–50 Gy. If ECE, then dose
LND +/−RT, but 88% of patients without should be 60–70 Gy.
nodal treatment failed in nodes.
–– Sarin 1997: 101 patients stage I–IV, mixed –– Locally advanced (T3 N+):
treatments, 10 yr. OS 39%, LC 55%, validated –– Neoadj chemo for N2+, >4 cm nodes, T4.
use of RT with surgical salvage. 2 patients • Paclitaxel/ifosfamide/cisplatin.
attempted suicide after penectomy. –– ChemoRT: 50 Gy WPRT +10–20 Gy boost.
–– Radical penectomy + LND +/− post-op RT
Inguinal LN Assessment (either LND or (same doses as head and neck).
DSNB) if:
–– LVI
–– ≥pT1 G3 Technique
–– T2 any G –– Brachytherapy.
–– Brachytherapy mold (tube loaded with Ir-192),
Pelvic LND if: 2+ inguinal LNs, ECE, or seen Paris system.
on imaging. –– Interstitial: 1 cm spacing, Ir-192.
–– EBRT
Penile Preservation –– Ideally should be prone, with penis suspended
–– Best for T1–2 N0, primary <4 cm in m aximum in water bath.
diameter, maximum DOI 1 cm. –– Otherwise, sim supine, foley, bolus, frog leg.
–– Traditionally, a 2 cm surgical margin was rec- –– Tape up if treating pelvis.
ommended; however, now 5–10 mm SM rec- –– GTV: visible disease.
ommended by NCCN, 3 mm SM by EAU. –– CTV: GTV + whole shaft of penis, +/−super-
–– In event of LR, surgical salvage in 80%. ficial and deep inguinal nodes, +/− pelvic
nodes.
–– PTV: CTV +1 cm.
NCCN –– 50 Gy to a portion or entire penis.
–– In general, first do circumcision. Important if –– Cover pelvic nodes and bilateral inguinal
using RT to minimize toxicity. nodes.
–– Tis: Resection, imiquimod, topical 5FU. –– 20 Gy CD to gross tumor +2 cm margin (total
–– T1: WLE or RT to GTV + 2 cm, 70 Gy. dose 70 Gy).
–– T1–2 N0: –– Weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2).
–– Partial vs radical penectomy (need 1–2 cm –– Dose limits:
margin) –– Urethra 60 Gy (stricture).
• Inguinal node dissection if T1b+ –– Testes 3 Gy (sterilization).
• Pelvic dissection if ≥2 inguinal nodes
–– Circumcision with brachy (<4 cm)
• 65 Gy HDR interstitial (preferred)
• 60 Gy mold
–– Circumcision with 65–70 Gy with 2 cm
margin
–– chemoRT (category 3),
Male Urethral Cancer Upper Urothelial Tract (UUT) Cancer
Staging = Renal pelvis + ureter

–– T1 Subepithelial connective tissue
–– T2 Periurethral muscle, prostate, Staging
spongiosum –– T1 Subepithelial connective tissue
–– T3 Bladder neck, prostate capsule, –– T2 Periurethral muscle, prostate,
cavernosum spongiosum
–– T4 Adjacent organs –– T3 Bladder neck, prostate capsule,
–– N0. cavernosum
–– N+. –– T4 Adjacent organs
Background Background
–– 20% cN+ versus penile 50% cN+ –– Renal pelvis 3–4x more common than ureter.
–– But 90% of cN+ are pN+ –– UUT have worse stage-for-stage prognosis
than bladder.
Treatment –– 20% UUT tumors → synchronous/metachro-
–– Prostatic urethra = radical cystoprostatec- nous bladder cancer (only 1–4% vice versa).
tomy + PLND
–– Bulbomembranous = radical cystoprostatec- Treatment
tomy + en bloc penectomy + PLND Radical nephroureterectomy: radical nephrec-
–– Penile urethra = treat like penile tomy including ureter + part of bladder.
References cancer: results of the Dutch multicenter randomized

phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with
78 Gy. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1990–6.
1. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al.
18. Pommier P, Chabaud S, Lagrange JL, et al. Is there
Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N
a role for pelvic irradiation in localized prostate ade-
Engl J Med. 2012;366:981–90.
nocarcinoma? Preliminary results of GETUG-01. J
2. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al.
Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5366–73.
Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of
19. Zietman AL, Bae K, Slater JD, et al. Randomized
the European randomised study of screening for
trial comparing conventional-dose with high-dose
prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up.
conformal radiation therapy in early-stage adeno-
Lancet. 2014;384:2027–35.
carcinoma of the prostate: long-term results from
3. Baumann BC, Guzzo TJ, He J, et al. Bladder can-
proton radiation oncology group/american college
cer patterns of pelvic failure: implications for adju-
of radiology 95-09. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1106–11.
vant radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
20. Avkshtol V, Dong Y, Hayes SB, et al. A comparison
2013;85:363–9.
of robotic arm versus gantry linear accelerator ste-
4. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, et al. Natural
reotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer.
history of progression after PSA elevation following
Res Rep Urol. 2016;8:145–58.
radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 1999;281:1591–7.
21. Johnson ME, Zaorsky NG, Martin JM, et al. Patient
5. Kucway R, Vicini F, Huang R, et al. Prostate volume
reported outcomes among treatment modalities for
reduction with androgen deprivation therapy before
prostate cancer. Can J Urol. 2016;23:8535–45.
interstitial brachytherapy. J Urol. 2002;167:2443–7.
22. Zaorsky NG, Egleston BL, Horwitz EM, et al. The
6. Thompson IM, Valicenti RK, Albertsen P, et al.
missing pieces in reporting of randomized con-
Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after pros-
trolled trials of external beam radiation therapy dose
tatectomy: AUA/ASTRO guideline. J Urol.
escalation for prostate Cancer. Am J Clin Oncol.
2013;190:441–9.
2016;39:321–6.
7. Yamada Y, Rogers L, Demanes DJ, et al. American
23. Zaorsky NG, Harrison AS, Trabulsi EJ, et al.
brachytherapy society consensus guidelines for high-
Evolution of advanced technologies in prostate can-
dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy.
cer radiotherapy. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10:565–79.
2012;11:20–32.
24. Zaorsky NG, Keith SW, Shaikh T, et al. Impact
8. Martinez-Monge R, Gomez-Iturriaga A, Cambeiro
of radiation therapy dose escalation on prostate
M, et al. Phase I-II trial of perioperative high-dose-
Cancer outcomes and toxicities. Am J Clin Oncol.
rate brachytherapy in oral cavity and oropharyngeal
2018;41(4):409–15.
cancer. Brachytherapy. 2009;8:26–33.
25. Zaorsky NG, Ohri N, Showalter TN, et al. Systematic
9. Cook B DT: Wikibooks radiation oncology.
review of hypofractionated radiation therapy for
10. Edge S, Byrd D, Compton C, et al. AJCC cancer
prostate cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39:728–36.
staging manual. New York: Springer; 2010.
26. Zaorsky NG, Palmer JD, Hurwitz MD, et al. What
11. Hansen ERM. Handbook of evidence-based radia-
is the ideal radiotherapy dose to treat prostate can-
tion oncology second edition: Springer; 2010.
cer? A meta-analysis of biologically equivalent dose
12. Hristov BLS, Christodouleas JP. Radiation oncol-
escalation. Radiother Oncol. 2015;115:295–300.
ogy – a question based review. 2nd ed: LWW; 2014.
27. Zaorsky NG, Shaikh T, Murphy CT, et al. Comparison
13. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. Radical
of outcomes and toxicities among radiation therapy
prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early pros-
treatment options for prostate cancer. Cancer Treat
tate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1977–84.
Rev. 2016;48:50–60.
14. Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Graham JD, et al.
28. Nobes JP, Langley SE, Klopper T, et al. A prospec-
Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal
tive, randomized pilot study evaluating the effects
radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from
of metformin and lifestyle intervention on patients
the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet
with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation
Oncol. 2007;8:475–87.
therapy. BJU Int. 2012;109:1495–502.
15. Kuban DA, Tucker SL, Dong L, et al. Long-term
29. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-year
results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-
outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiother-
escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat
apy for localized prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med.
2016;375:1415–24.
16. Kupelian PA, Elshaikh M, Reddy CA, et al.
30. Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H, et al.
Comparison of the efficacy of local therapies for
Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose
localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific
intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate
antigen era: a large single-institution experience
cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-
with radical prostatectomy and external-beam radio-
inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol.
therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:3376–85.
2016;17:1047–60.
17. Peeters ST, Heemsbergen WD, Koper PC, et al.
31. Kestin L, Goldstein N, Vicini F, et al. Treatment of
Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate
prostate cancer with radiotherapy: should the entire
seminal vesicles be included in the clinical target vol- 3): an open randomised phase III trial. Lancet.
ume? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:686–97. 2009;373:301–8.
32. Asbell SO, Krall JM, Pilepich MV, et al. Elective 45. Morris WJ, Tyldesley S, Rodda S, et al. Androgen
pelvic irradiation in stage A2, B carcinoma of the suppression combined with elective nodal and dose
prostate: analysis of RTOG 77-06. Int J Radiat Oncol escalated radiation therapy (the ASCENDE-RT
Biol Phys. 1988;15:1307–16. trial): an analysis of survival endpoints for a
33. Bolla M, Collette L, Blank L, et al. Long-term results randomized trial comparing a low-dose-rate
with immediate androgen suppression and external brachytherapy boost to a dose-escalated exter-
irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate nal beam boost for high- and intermediate-risk
cancer (an EORTC study): a phase III randomised prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
trial. Lancet. 2002;360:103–6. 2017;98:275–85.
34. Bolla M, de Reijke TM, Van Tienhoven G, et al. 46. Hanks GE, Pajak TF, Porter A, et al. Phase III trial of
Duration of androgen suppression in the treatment of long-term adjuvant androgen deprivation after neo-
prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2516–27. adjuvant hormonal cytoreduction and radiotherapy
35. Crook J, Patil N, Wallace K, et al. A phase III ran- in locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate: the
domized trial of the timing of meloxicam with radiation therapy oncology group protocol 92-02. J
iodine-125 prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3972–8.
Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77:496–501. 47. Pisansky TM, Hunt D, Gomella LG, et al. Duration
36. Denham JW, Steigler A, Lamb DS, et al. Short-term of androgen suppression before radiotherapy for
androgen deprivation and radiotherapy for locally localized prostate cancer: radiation therapy oncol-
advanced prostate cancer: results from the trans- ogy group randomized clinical trial 9910. J Clin
Tasman radiation oncology group 96.01 randomised Oncol. 2015;33:332–9.
controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:841–50. 48. Zapatero A, Guerrero A, Maldonado X, et al. High-
37. Horwitz EM, Bae K, Hanks GE, et al. Ten-year fol- dose radiotherapy with short-term or long-term
low-up of radiation therapy oncology group protocol androgen deprivation in localised prostate cancer
92-02: a phase III trial of the duration of elective (DART01/05 GICOR): a randomised, controlled,
androgen deprivation in locally advanced prostate phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:320–7.
cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2497–504. 49. Spiotto MT, Hancock SL, King CR. Radiotherapy
38. Jones CU, Hunt D, McGowan DG, et al. Radiotherapy after prostatectomy: improved biochemical relapse-
and short-term androgen deprivation for localized free survival with whole pelvic compared with
prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:107–18. prostate bed only for high-risk patients. Int J Radiat
39. Lawton CA, DeSilvio M, Roach M 3rd, et al. An Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69:54–61.
update of the phase III trial comparing whole pel- 50. Hanks GE, Buzydlowski J, Sause WT, et al. Ten-
vic to prostate only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant to year outcomes for pathologic node-positive patients
adjuvant total androgen suppression: updated analy- treated in RTOG 75-06. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
sis of RTOG 94-13, with emphasis on unexpected Phys. 1998;40:765–8.
hormone/radiation interactions. Int J Radiat Oncol 51. Bolla M, van Poppel H, Collette L, et al.
Biol Phys. 2007;69:646–55. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatec-
40. Pilepich MV, Winter K, Lawton CA, et al. Androgen tomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial
suppression adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy 22911). Lancet. 2005;366:572–8.
in prostate carcinoma--long-term results of phase 52. King CR, Presti JC Jr, Gill H, et al. Radiotherapy
III RTOG 85-31. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. after radical prostatectomy: does transient androgen
2005;61:1285–90. suppression improve outcomes? Int J Radiat Oncol
41. Roach M 3rd, Bae K, Speight J, et al. Short-term Biol Phys. 2004;59:341–7.
neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy and 53. Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J, et al. Immediate
external-beam radiotherapy for locally advanced versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in
prostate cancer: long-term results of RTOG 8610. J patients with node-positive prostate cancer after
Clin Oncol. 2008;26:585–91. radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy.
42. Steigler A, Denham JW, Lamb DS, et al. Risk strati- Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:472–9.
fication after biochemical failure following cura- 54. Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, et al.
tive treatment of locally advanced prostate Cancer: Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0
data from the TROG 96.01 trial. Prostate Cancer. prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metasta-
2012;814724:2012. ses and improves survival: long-term follow-up of a
43. Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, et al. randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2009;181:956–62.
Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical pros- 55. Wiegel T, Bottke D, Steiner U, et al. Phase III post-
tatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific operative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prosta-
antigen era. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4300–5. tectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone
44. Widmark A, Klepp O, Solberg A, et al. Endocrine in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetect-
treatment, with or without radiotherapy, in locally able prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP
advanced prostate cancer (SPCG-7/SFUO- 09/95. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2924–30.
56. Zagars GK, Pollack A, von Eschenbach AC. Addition bladder preservation by combined radiation ther-
of radiation therapy to androgen ablation improves apy and chemotherapy: initial results of radia-
outcome for subclinically node-positive prostate tion therapy oncology group 89-03. J Clin Oncol.
cancer. Urology. 2001;58:233–9. 1998;16:3576–83.
57. Swanson GP, Hussey MA, Tangen CM, et al. 69. Tester W, Porter A, Asbell S, et al. Combined
Predominant treatment failure in postprostatectomy modality program with possible organ preservation
patients is local: analysis of patterns of treatment fail- for invasive bladder carcinoma: results of RTOG
ure in SWOG 8794. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2225–9. protocol 85-12. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
58. Sella T, Schwartz LH, Swindle PW, et al. Suspected 1993;25:783–90.
local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorec- 70. James ND, Hussain SA, Hall E, et al. Radiotherapy
tal coil MR imaging. Radiology. 2004;231:379–85. with or without chemotherapy in muscle-invasive
59. Carrie C, Hasbini A, de Laroche G, et al. Salvage bladder cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1477–88.
radiotherapy with or without short-term hormone 71. Plimack ER, Hoffman-Censits JH, Viterbo R, et al.
therapy for rising prostate-specific antigen concen- Accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubi-
tration after radical prostatectomy (GETUG-AFU cin, and cisplatin is safe, effective, and efficient
16): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 3 neoadjuvant treatment for muscle-invasive bladder
trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:747–56. cancer: results of a multicenter phase II study with
60. Abdollah F, Karnes RJ, Suardi N, et al. Impact molecular correlates of response and toxicity. J Clin
of adjuvant radiotherapy on survival of patients Oncol. 2014;32:1895–901.
with node-positive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 72. von der Maase H, Sengelov L, Roberts JT, et al.
2014;32:3939–47. Long-term survival results of a randomized trial
61. Stephenson AJ, Shariat SF, Zelefsky MJ, et al. comparing gemcitabine plus cisplatin, with meth-
Salvage radiotherapy for recurrent prostate can- otrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, plus cispla-
cer after radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2004;291: tin in patients with bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol.
1325–32. 2005;23:4602–8.
62. Michalski JM, Lawton C, El Naqa I, et al. 73. Zehnder P, Studer UE, Skinner EC, et al. Super
Development of RTOG consensus guidelines for the extended versus extended pelvic lymph node dis-
definition of the clinical target volume for postopera- section in patients undergoing radical cystectomy
tive conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer. for bladder cancer: a comparative study. J Urol.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:361–8. 2011;186:1261–8.
63. Advanced Bladder Cancer Meta-analysis 74. Mak RH, Hunt D, Shipley WU, et al. Long-term
Collaboration. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in inva- outcomes in patients with muscle-invasive blad-
sive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta- der cancer after selective bladder-preserving
analysis. Lancet. 2003;361:1927–34. combined-modality therapy: a pooled analysis of
64. Cole CJ, Pollack A, Zagars GK, et al. Local control of radiation therapy oncology group protocols 8802,
muscle-invasive bladder cancer: preoperative radio- 8903, 9506, 9706, 9906, and 0233. J Clin Oncol.
therapy and cystectomy versus cystectomy alone. Int 2014;32:3801–9.
J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;32:331–40. 75. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder can-
65. Coppin CM, Gospodarowicz MK, James K, et al. cer: update of a systematic review and meta-analysis
Improved local control of invasive bladder cancer by of individual patient data advanced bladder can-
concurrent cisplatin and preoperative or definitive cer (ABC) meta-analysis collaboration. Eur Urol.
radiation. The National Cancer Institute of Canada 2005;48:202–5; discussion 205-6.
clinical trials group. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2901–7. 76. Amin MB, Edge SB, Byrd DR, et al. American joint
66. Kaufman DS, Winter KA, Shipley WU, et al. The committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer staging man-
initial results in muscle-invading bladder cancer of ual. 8th ed. New York: Springer; 2017.
RTOG 95-06: phase I/II trial of transurethral sur- 77. Escudier B, Bellmunt J, Negrier S, et al. Phase
gery plus radiation therapy with concurrent cispla- III trial of bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a
tin and 5-fluorouracil followed by selective bladder in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma
preservation or cystectomy depending on the initial (AVOREN): final analysis of overall survival. J Clin
response. Oncologist. 2000;5:471–6. Oncol. 2010;28:2144–50.
67. Kaufman DS, Winter KA, Shipley WU, et al. Phase 78. Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Sorafenib in
I-II RTOG study (99-06) of patients with muscle- advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J
invasive bladder cancer undergoing transurethral Med. 2007;356:125–34.
surgery, paclitaxel, cisplatin, and twice-daily radio- 79. Kjaer M, Iversen P, Hvidt V, et al. A randomized trial
therapy followed by selective bladder preservation of postoperative radiotherapy versus observation in
or radical cystectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy. stage II and III renal adenocarcinoma. A study by the
Urology. 2009;73:833–7. Copenhagen renal Cancer study group. Scand J Urol
68. Shipley WU, Winter KA, Kaufman DS, et al. Phase Nephrol. 1987;21:285–9.
III trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients 80. Motzer RJ, Basch E. Targeted drugs for metastatic
with invasive bladder cancer treated with selective renal cell carcinoma. Lancet. 2007;370:2071–3.
81. Stein M, Kuten A, Halpern J, et al. The value of post- testicular cancer managed with active surveillance. J
operative irradiation in renal cell cancer. Radiother Clin Oncol. 2015;33:51–7.
Oncol. 1992;24:41–4. 97. Mortensen MS, Lauritsen J, Gundgaard MG, et al.
82. Patard JJ, Leray E, Rioux-Leclercq N, et al. A nationwide cohort study of stage I seminoma
Prognostic value of histologic subtypes in renal cell patients followed on a surveillance program. Eur
carcinoma: a multicenter experience. J Clin Oncol. Urol. 2014;66:1172–8.
2005;23:2763–71. 98. Paly JJ, Efstathiou JA, Hedgire SS, et al. Mapping
83. Kang DE, White RL Jr, Zuger JH, et al. Clinical patterns of nodal metastases in seminoma:
use of fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission rethinking radiotherapy fields. Radiother Oncol.
tomography for detection of renal cell carcinoma. J 2013;106:64–8.
Urol. 2004;171:1806–9. 99. Shamash J, Powles T, Wilson P, et al. Prognostic
84. Armstrong AJ, George DJ, Halabi S. Serum lactate factors in cytokine-refractory renal cell carcinoma
dehydrogenase predicts for overall survival benefit in treated with irinotecan, Cisplatin, and mitomycin
patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1323–5.
with inhibition of mammalian target of rapamycin. J 100. Travis LB, Fossa SD, Schonfeld SJ, et al. Second
Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3402–7. cancers among 40,576 testicular cancer patients:
85. Dalbagni G, Zhang ZF, Lacombe L, et al. Male focus on long-term survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst.
urethral carcinoma: analysis of treatment outcome. 2005;97:1354–65.
Urology. 1999;53:1126–32. 101. Willemse PM, Burggraaf J, Hamdy NA, et al.
86. Eng TY, Naguib M, Galang T, et al. Retrospective Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome and car-
study of the treatment of urethral cancer. Am J Clin diovascular disease risk in chemotherapy-treated
Oncol. 2003;26:558–62. testicular germ cell tumour survivors. Br J Cancer.
87. Heysek RV, Parsons JT, Drylie DM, et al. Carcinoma 2013;109:60–7.
of the male urethra. J Urol. 1985;134:753–5. 102. International Germ Cell Consensus Classification. A
88. Krieg R, Hoffman R. Current management of prognostic factor-based staging system for metastatic
unusual genitourinary cancers. Part 2: urethral can- germ cell cancers. International germ cell Cancer
cer. Oncology (Williston Park). 1520;13:1511–7. collaborative group. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:594–603.
discussion 1523-4, 1999 103. Bieri S, Rouzaud M, Miralbell R. Seminoma of the
89. Fossa SD, Horwich A, Russell JM, et al. Optimal testis: is scrotal shielding necessary when radiother-
planning target volume for stage I testicular semi- apy is limited to the Para-aortic nodes? Radiother
noma: a Medical Research Council randomized trial. Oncol. 1999;50:349–53.
Medical Research Council testicular tumor working 104. Bruns F, Bremer M, Meyer A, et al. Adjuvant radio-
group. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1146. therapy in stage I seminoma: is there a role for fur-
90. Jones WG, Fossa SD, Mead GM, et al. Randomized ther reduction of treatment volume? Acta Oncol.
trial of 30 versus 20 Gy in the adjuvant treatment 2005;44:142–8.
of stage I testicular seminoma: a report on Medical 105. Warde P, Specht L, Horwich A, et al. Prognostic
Research Council trial TE18, European organ- factors for relapse in stage I seminoma managed
isation for the research and treatment of Cancer by surveillance: a pooled analysis. J Clin Oncol.
trial 30942 (ISRCTN18525328). J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4448–52.
2005;23:1200–8. 106. Daugaard G, Petersen PM, Rorth M. Surveillance in
91. Oliver RT, Mason MD, Mead GM, et al. Radiotherapy stage I testicular cancer. APMIS. 2003;111:76–83.;
versus single-dose carboplatin in adjuvant treatment discussion 83-5.
of stage I seminoma: a randomised trial. Lancet. 107. Aparicio J, Maroto P, del Muro XG, et al. Risk-
2005;366:293–300. adapted treatment in clinical stage I testicular semi-
92. Brydoy M, Fossa SD, Klepp O, et al. Paternity fol- noma: the third Spanish germ cell Cancer group
lowing treatment for testicular cancer. J Natl Cancer study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4677–81.
Inst. 2005;97:1580–8. 108. Bokemeyer C, Nichols CR, Droz JP, et al.
93. Classen J, Schmidberger H, Meisner C, et al. Extragonadal germ cell tumors of the mediastinum
Radiotherapy for stages IIA/B testicular seminoma: and retroperitoneum: results from an international
final report of a prospective multicenter clinical trial. analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1864–73.
J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1101–6. 109. Crook JM, Jezioranski J, Grimard L, et al. Penile
94. Fossa SD, Cvancarova M, Chen L, et al. Adverse brachytherapy: results for 49 patients. Int J Radiat
prognostic factors for testicular cancer-specific sur- Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62:460–7.
vival: a population-based study of 27,948 patients. J 110. Grabstald H, Kelley CD. Radiation therapy of
Clin Oncol. 2011;29:963–70. penile cancer: six to ten-year follow-up. Urology.
95. Hamilton CR, Horwich A, Bliss JM, et al. 1980;15:575–6.
Gastrointestinal morbidity of adjuvant radiotherapy 111. Krieg RM, Luk KH. Carcinoma of penis. Review of
in stage I malignant teratoma of the testis. Radiother cases treated by surgery and radiation therapy 1960-
Oncol. 1987;10:85–90. 1977. Urology. 1981;18:149–54.
96. Kollmannsberger C, Tandstad T, Bedard PL, et al. 112. Mazeron JJ, Langlois D, Lobo PA, et al. Interstitial
Patterns of relapse in patients with clinical stage I radiation therapy for carcinoma of the penis using
iridium 192 wires: the Henri Mondor experi- 115. Miralles-Guri C, Bruni L, Cubilla AL, et al. Human
ence (1970-1979). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. papillomavirus prevalence and type distribution in
1984;10:1891–5. penile carcinoma. J Clin Pathol. 2009;62:870–8.
113. McLean M, Akl AM, Warde P, et al. The results of 116. Zouhair A, Coucke PA, Jeanneret W, et al. Radiation
primary radiation therapy in the management of therapy alone or combined surgery and radiation
squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Int J Radiat therapy in squamous-cell carcinoma of the penis?
Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;25:623–8. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:198–203.
114. Sarin R, Norman AR, Steel GG, et al. Treatment 117. Crook J, Grimard L, Tsihlias J, et al. Interstitial
results and prognostic factors in 101 men treated for brachytherapy for penile cancer: an alternative to
squamous carcinoma of the penis. Int J Radiat Oncol amputation. J Urol. 2002;167:506–11.
Biol Phys. 1997;38:713–22.
Gynecologic Cancers
9
and Surbhi Grover
Abstract
This chapter discusses the general management
of patients with gynecologic system cancers,
ponents of trimodality care and brachytherapy
are discussed.
N. G. Zaorsky
S. Grover
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
e-mail: Surbhi.Grover@uphs.upenn.edu

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4_9
362
Endometrial Cervical Vaginal Vulvar
FIGO staging is pathological FIGO staging is clinical, only allows CXR, IVP, FIGO staging is clinical FIGO staging is clinical,
barium enema, EUA, cysto, procto If involving or history of cervical/vulvar ca in 5y, pathological, radiographical
stage as primary/recurrence of those sites
Gynecologic Cancers 363
GYN LN Anatomy
Interior iliac LNs Obturator LNs External iliac LNs Inguinal LNs
Cranial Bifurcation of common iliac artery 3–5 mm cranial to Bifurcation of External iliac art leaves
obturator canal common iliac bony pelvis to become
artery femoral artery
Caudal Level of obturator canal; or where Obturator canal, Roof of Lower edge of ischial
no space between obturator where obturator acetabulum and tuberosities
internus and midline organs artery exits pelvis sup pubic rami
Post N/A Interior iliac LNs Interior iliac LNs Medial aspect of anterior
pectineal muscle
Ant Obturator internus Ant extent of 7 mm margin ant to Ant edge of sartorius
upper pelvis: 7 mm margin around obturator internus ext. iliac vessels muscle
internal iliac vessels
Lateral Medial edge of muscle or bone Obturator internus Iliopsoas muscle Medial edge iliopsoas
Medial Lower pelvis: mesorectum and Bladder Bladder or 7 mm Lateral aspect of adductor
presacral space margin around long or medial aspect of
upper pelvis: 7 mm around vessel vessel pectineus
int iliac LNs obturator LNs ext iliac LNs inguinal LNs
cranial bifurcation of 3-5 mm cranial bifurcation of ext iliac art
common iliac to obturator common iliac leaves bony
artery canal artery pelvis to
become
femoral artery
caudal level of obturator roof of lower edge of
obturator canal, where acetabulum ischial
canal; or where obt artery exits and sup pubic tuberosities
no space bw pelvis rami
obturator
internus and
midline organs
post N/A int iliac LNs int iliac LNs medial aspect
Int iliac
of anterior
pectineal
muscle
ant obturator ant extent of 7 mm margin ant edge of
internus obturator ant to ext iliac sartorius
upper pelvis: 7 internus vessels muscle
mm margin
around int iliac
vessels
lateral medial edge of obturator iliopsoas medial edge

muscle or bone internus muscle iliopsoas
medial lower pelvis: bladder bladder or 7 lat aspect of

mesorectum mm margin adductor long
and presacral around vessel or medial
space aspect of
upper pelvis: 7 pectineus
mm around
vessel
Cervical Cancer [1–18]

Simple / Extrafascial hysterectomy Modified radical hysterectomy Radical hysterectomy
Trachelectomy
(Type I) (Type II) (Type III)
Abbreviation TAH MRH RH
Indication (cervix, IA1 IA1 w LVSI; IA2 + IB1-2; IIA1 HSIL; IA1; IB1 < 2cm
endometrial) Endometrial ca (+BSO) Endometrial ca w cervix involved (+BSO)
Cervix Removed Removed Removed Removed
Uterus Removed Removed Removed Spared
Ovaries Optional removal Optional removal Optional removal Spared
Vaginal margin 1-2 mm 1-2 cm Upper ~25-50% None - upper ~25-50%
Ureters (tunnel through…) N/A Broad lig Broad lig N/A vs tunnel through broad lig
Bladder (mobilized to…) Base of cervix Upper vag Middle vag Peritoneal reflection
Rectum (mobilized to…) N/A Below cervix Below mid vag Peritoneal reflection
Uterine artery (ligate at…) Uterus Ureter Internal iliacs
Cardinal ligs Resect at uterine/cervix border Divided medial to ureters Divide at pelvic sidewall Resect at cervical border vs divide at
pelvic sidewall
Uterosacral ligs Divide at cervical border Partially resected Divided near sacral origin Divide at cervical vs near sacral origin
Approach Laparotomy vs laparoscopy Laparotomy vs laparoscopy vs robotic Laparotomy vs laparoscopy vs robotic Vag vs laparotomy vs laparoscopy vs
robotic
uterus
uterus
rectum
Ureter
I and
pelvic
sidewall I
IIA IIB IIIB
bladder
IVA II IVA
IIIA
III
T1 cervix only Screening

• T1a (IA) – micro –– 21–30 pap q3y if normal.
• T1a1 (IA1) – <3 mm DOI, ≤7 mm wide –– 30–65 years, HPV testing plus Pap every
• T1a2 (IA2) – 3–5 mm DOI, ≤7 mm 5 years or just Pap every 3 years (American
wide Cancer Society)
• T1b (IB) – macro –– >65 yo: none.
• T1b1 (IB1) – ≤4 cm –– Pap smear: obtain good “scrapings,” use small
• T1b2 (IB2) – >4 cm brush to obtain endocervical sample; no Pap
• T2 outside cervix smear if actively bleeding.
• T2a (IIA) – upper 2/3 vagina –– ASCUS: repeat Pap 6 m. 2/3 resolve.
• T2a1 (IIA1) – ≤4 cm –– ASCUS/LSIL → reflex HPV DNA; HPV
• T2a2 (IIA2) – >4 cm DNA (−) → repeat Pap in 6 mo, HPV DNA
• T2b (IIB) – parametrium (+) → colposcopy. 1/2 resolve.
• T3 –– HGSIL: 1/3 resolve. Colposcopy and biopsy.
• T3a (IIIA) – lower 1/3 vagina
• T3b (IIIB) – pelvic wall or hydronephrosis Directed Biopsy Results
• T4 (IVA) – bladder or rectum involvement –– CIN1 → repeat Pap in 6 months.
• N1 – regional (up to common iliac) –– CIN2/3 → excision or ablation of transforma-
• M1 (IVB) – distant including supraclavicular tion zone.
nodes
Vaccination
–– 90% of HPV infections are cleared or
Anatomy
suppressed by immunity in 1–2y of exposure
–– Ligaments: broad (lateral from the uterus to
–– Cervarix: 16,18
pelvic sidewall), round (anterolateral from the
–– Gardasil: 6, 11, 16, 18
uterus to pelvic sidewall, then through ingui-
–– Gardasil 9: 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, 58
nal canal to connective tissue of labia majora),
–– Boys and girls, age 11–12 → HPV vaccine (3
cardinal (lateral from the cervix to pelvic
shots over 6 months)
sidewall), uterosacral (posterior from the cer-
–– Does not prevent or speed clearance of an
vix to sacrum around S1–S3)
existing HPV infection.
–– Uterosacral ligament allows spread posteri-
–– In vaccinated, decreases by 50% the
orly into presacral space.
development of high-grade disease.
Histology • Rectovaginal exam to assess for parame-

–– 80% of cervical cancer are SCC. Nearly all of trial extension. Keep index finger in the
these are HPV associated (in contrast to penile vagina, place middle finger in the rectum,
cancer, where it is ~80%). and sweep fingers side to side. If you
–– HPV types 16 and 18. cannot get your fingers around mass,

–– Other histologies: adeno (15%), mucinous, possible pelvic sidewall.
endometrioid, serous, clear cell. • Can’t visualize lesion → colposcopy w/
cone biopsy.
Workup • Visualize lesion → cervical punch biopsy.
–– History: –– Sigmoidoscopy/cystoscopy for IB2+. Edema
• Postcoital bleeding: Vaginal bleeding rela- on cysto does not change stage.
tive to intercourse. Bleeding after menstru- –– Labs: especially hemoglobin and renal func-
ation, pain, dizziness. tion tests, HIV test. Transfuse if Hgb <10.
• Pap smear history, HPV vaccination, his- –– Smoking cessation.
tory of STDs, and HIV, pregnancy test. –– Imaging:
• Prior surgery, IBD, pelvic RT. • FIGO only allows CXR, IVP, EUA,
–– Vital signs; CBC and CMP; transfuse if Hgb <10. cystoscopy, proctoscopy, and barium

–– Pelvic exam, with EUA PRN. enema.
• Patient in dorsal lithotomy position. • Not allowed in FIGO staging: CT, MRI,
• Inspect external genitalia, then eval cervix. PET/CT, and exploratory surgery. However,
• Pap smear: obtain good “scrapings,” and these can be used to guide treatment.
use small brush to obtain endocervical Patient with IB cancer with PET-avid nodes
sample; no Pap smear if actively bleeding. would be “IB, node positive.”
• Vaginal exam to assess vaginal extension, • Only one finding on imaging changes stag-
place right index and middle finger on ing: hydronephrosis.
either side of cervix, assessing size and • PET for IB1+.
rotating around to check fornices. • MRI for bulky tumors.
• Bimanual exam: place index and middle
within the vagina; place other hand supra-
pubic, putting pressure against the uterus
and laterally to access adnexa. If cannot
move, the mass = fixed.
Stage Pelvic LN+ PA LN+ OS5 ↓LF (21% vs 14%), ↓mets, ↑PFS
IA1 <1 0 98 (65 → 78%). OS borderlines better 80% vs
IA2 6 3 95 71%. Thus, if these factors are present,
IB1 15 10 85 should recommend post-op WPRT.
IB2
–– INT 0107/SWOG 8797/RTOG 9112/GOG
IIA 30 15 73
IIB 30 20 66
109 (Peters, 2000): 243 pts. IA2, B-IIA
III 45 30 40 RadHys, had to have either (+margin, +LN,
IVA 60 40 22 +parametrium [i.e., pT2b]). Then randomize
IVB 9 → RT +/− cis/5FU. EBRT was whole pelvis
49.3/1.7, with 45 Gy to PA LNs if common
–– LN risk (%) by stage: “rule of 15 s” = stage x 15 iliacs +. No brachy. Chemo was cis 70 mg/m2
–– Risk for PA LN involvement = 50% risk of and 5FU 1000 mg/m3 q3w x4c total, 2c con-
pelvic LN involvement current, 2 cycles adj. CRT improved 4-yr. PFS
–– OS5 = rule of 15 s (63 → 80%) and OS (71 → 81%). Identified
the 3 Ps. Use of adjuvant chemo investiga-
tional; it is studied in RTOG 0724.
Surgery: Preserves ovarian function, treatment –– GOG 109 reanalysis (Monk, 2005): tumor
done in less time, does not cause second malig- size <2 cm and 1 LN involved have no OS
nancies (important in young women), takes only benefit of chemo.
up to half of the vagina (preserves sexual func- –– High-risk post-op (Peters RTOG 91–12):
tion), does not cause stenosis, but is more inva- IA2–IIA (with positive margins, positive
sive (risk of bleeding, infection), and some will nodes, and/or parametrial invasion), RT
require PORT (49.3Gy) vs cisplatin (70 mg/m2) + 5FU
(1000 mg/m2) q 3wks x 4 + RT.
Pathology Report Components: Stromal inva- –– RTOG 0724: early-stage, high-risk cervical
sion (and extent), LVSI, tumor size (esp. at 4 cm cut- ca, s/p rad hysterectomy. IA2, IB, and IIA,
off), parametrial invasion, margins, involved nodes who have +LNs, +parametria, or + PA LNs.
Stratify by BT, 3D vs IMRT, WPRT dose (45
Surgery vs RT vs 50.4). Rando to weekly cis (40 mg/
–– Italian, Landoni 1997: 343 pts. IB-IIA → RT m2) + RT vs concurrent weekly
vs RadHyst. RT was 47 Gy (range 40–53 Gy), cis + RT + adjuvant carbo (AUC 5) and pacli-
delivered to WP using AP/PA or 4 fields, then taxel (135 mg/m2). For 3D WPRT, sup is
LDR-BT to a total median dose of 76 Gy. For L4/5. Inferior is bottom of obturator foramen.
surgery, adjuvant RT 50.4 given for stage Lateral is 1–2 cm lateral of true pelvic diam-
>IIA, <3 mm of uninvolved cervical stroma, eter. If common iliac LNs+, then go up to L1/
cut through, LN+. Unchanged OS, DFS, but L2 sup. If PA LNs+, then go up to T11/T12.
morbidity worse in surgery arm (28% vs For lateral fields, ant border is 2 cm ant to the
12%). Limitation: 65% of surgery pts. received CB or 1 cm ant to contoured PA LNs. Post is
adjuvant RT, and tox highest in combined tx. 1–1.5 cm into the CB or >1 cm post to con-
Thus, for IB2 and IIA2, CRT is recommended toured PA LNs.
over surgery.
3D vs IMRT
Post-op RT and Chemo –– RTOG 1203 (TIME-C), Klopp, Yeung. 3D vs
–– GOG 92 (Sedlis 1999/Rotman 2006): 277 IMRT pelvis. Endometrial or cervical cancer
pts. IB2 → RadHys +/− WPRT. Had to have s/p hysterectomy and have indication for
2 of (>4 cm, LVSI, middle/deep stroma adjuvant RT. ASTRO 2016: reduced acute GI/
invasion – note these are simplified). PORT GU tox with IMRT. Sup border is L4–L5.
Pre-op Chemo vs Pre-op CRT CRT +/– Outback Chemo

–– GOG 123, Keys 1999 (“123 is P-R-E”). –– B9E-MC-JHQD (Duenas-Gonzalez, JCO,
IB2. Rando to pre-op RT vs pre-op CRT. 2011): RCT of (1) concurrent CRT with cis
Note results of GOG 71 not yet available at 40 mg/m2 + EBRT + BT to point A dose 85 Gy
that time. RT was WPRT 45 Gy then LDR vs (2) concurrent CRT with cis 40 + gem 125,
BT, total point A dose of 75 Gy. Concurrent then adjuvant chemo with cis 50 + gem 1000 x
RT arm was cis 40 mg/m2 qw x 6w. Wait 2c. n = 500, stage IIB–IVA. Cis and gem had
3–6w, then surgery was Class I extrafascial improved PFS (65% vs 74%) and OS (69% vs
histo. CRT improved 5-year PFS 60% vs 80%) but had worse G3–G4 tox (46% vs 86%)
71% and OS, 64% vs 78%. pCR increased and had 2 tx-related deaths. Thus, currently
from 41% to 52%. CRT increased acute cat 2b rec by NCCN.
heme and GI tox, but not late. Conclude
that LC and OS improvement was from RT + Different Chemos
chemo, not the use of adjuvant –– Both weekly cis and cis/5FU used in RCTs of
hysterectomy. CRT. No RCTs comparing the two. Most
clinicians prefer weekly cis due to lower acute
Definitive RT and CRT toxicity.
–– RTOG 90–01, Morris MDACC, 1999; Eifel, –– GOG 85/SWOG 8695, Whitney, TJUH, 1999.
2004: 386 pts. IIB–IVA, >5 cm or IIB–IVA cervix. Concurrent CRT with either
LN+ → EFRT vs WPRT+cis (75 mg/ hydroxyurea or cis/5FU. Cis/5FU won for OS
m2)/5FU(1000 mg/m2) q 3w chemo. EFRT and tox.
sup border for PA LNs was L1/2. For WPRT, –– GOG 120, Rose 2007: IIB–IVA cervical can-
sup border was L4/5. Inferior border was mid- cer. 526 pts., IIB–IVA → RT with (cis vs cis/
pubis or 4 cm below lowest extent of dz. FU/hydroxyurea vs hydroxyurea). Cisplatin
Lateral fields encompass S3. Both groups get containing arms won. OS benefit, esp. for IIB
45 Gy EBRT +. All pts. got brachy, total 85 Gy and III patients.
to point A. CRT won. 8-yr. OS 41 → 67%,
LRF 35 → 18%, DM 35 → 20%. More PA LN Chemo + Different RTs
failures with WPRT+chemo (8 vs 4%), –– NCIC: 353 pts. → CRT with LDR (35Gy) vs
NSS. Thus, use CRT, and do not treat elective HDR (8x3). No difference in 5-yr. OS
PA LNs. Note current PA LN border now goes
to T12/L1 (level of renal hilum).
–– NCIC, Pearcey, 2002: IB–IVA. n = 250. RT Treatment
alone +/− chemo. RT was 45 Gy. Chemo was
concurrent weekly cis 40 mg/m2 x6c. No dif- –– “Primary therapy should avoid the routine use
ference in 5-year OS, 62% vs 58%. Lack of of both radical surgery and RT.”
surgery LN staging? More anemia in CRT –– Dysplasia:
arm? Underpowered? • LEEP is typically for CIN3.
–– GOG 71, Keys 2003: 282 pts. IB2 → RT +/− • Conization is typically for CIN3.
adjuvant hysterectomy. No difference in OS, • Cryotherapy.
more LF in RT arm. Thus, conclude that –– IA1 R0 on biopsy/LEEP w/o LVSI:
should use definitive concurrent CRT for stage • CKC (DOI <3 mm, no LVSI)
IB2. Results not available prior to starting • Radical trachelectomy (removal of cervix,
GOG 123. parametria with cerclage placed, leaving
–– Chemo for cervical cancer collaboration, uterus intact)
2008: for CRT v RT, 6% improvement in OS • Extrafascial hysterectomy (i.e., a type I
and HR of 0.81, favoring CRT. hysterectomy)
–– IA1 R+ on biopsy/LEEP or LVSI: • Weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2)

• CKC + PLND • IIB/IIIB/IVA: PM boost to 54 Gy
• If desiring fertility preservation, radical • Gross LN: boost to 59.4 Gy (if LN >3 cm
trachelectomy with LND → surgery)
–– Incidental IA1 after TAH:
• No LVSI or 3Ps: observe.
• +LVSI or 3Ps: completion RadHys or RT
–– IA2: Adjuvant RT Technique
• Fertility-sparing = radical trachelectomy + CT Simulation for EBRT:
LND. –– IV contrast helps visualize vessels for nodal
• MRH (type II) + PLND. contours.
• Assess need for adjuvant therapy –– Instruct patient to arrive with full bladder to
(depending on risk factors*). Adjuvant RT: allow for both full and empty bladder CT
45–50Gy pelvic EBRT +/− vaginal brachy. scans.
• RT alone: 45 pelvic EBRT + brachy (dose –– Fuse empty bladder scan for contouring and
to Pt A = 70–80 Gy). planning on full bladder scan (then treat on
–– IB1: full bladder).
• Type III radical hysterectomy + PLND. –– Recommended: Place radiopaque marker at
• Another option is EBRT + BT. vaginal apex.
• If desires fertility preservation, radical –– If rectum distended, include anterior rectum in
trachelectomy and PLND are possible. CTV, or consider re-sim if >3.5 cm rectal
–– IIA1: diameter.
• Type III radical hysterectomy + PLND. –– MRI: T2 is best to see cervix, tumor, and criti-
• For young healthy patients with small cal structures. T1 will be isointense.
tumors, type II MRH is preferred to RT. –– IMRT contours (per Consensus Guideline
2008 and RTOG 0418):
–– Post-op setting:
–– Indications for RT alone, per modified CTV Nodes:
Sedlis/GOG 92: (need 2 of 3): –– Common, external, and internal iliac (includ-
• >1/3 stromal invasion ing obturator) nodes; ~7 mm margin from ves-
• LVI sels excluding the bone, small bowel, and
• Tumor >4 cm iliopsoas muscle.
–– Common iliacs: posterolateral hugs vertebral
–– Indications for chemo-RT, per Peters/ bodies and psoas.
SWOG 8797/GOG 109: –– External iliac: inferior border is top of femoral
• Positive margins (i.e., <3 mm) head (surrogate for inguinal ligament).
• Positive parametrial involvement –– Internal iliac: post border is piriform.
• Positive LNs –– Obturator: top of femoral head to top of
• 50.4 Gy. pubic symphysis.
• Weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2) –– Presacral space: including 1.5 cm anterior to
•
+ IVRT for (+)/close vaginal margin S1–S3, not extending into foramina, stopping
(5 Gy x3 to surface) when piriform becomes visible.
–– Include pertinent surgical clips.
–– (+) pelvic LN → proximal PA (L1/L2)
–– IB2, IIA2–IVA: –– (+) PA nodes → T11/T12
• Definitive chemo-RT –– CTV vagina/parametria:
• 45 Gy + 600 cGy x 5 HDR to point A –– ≥1.5 cm at midline (can include anterior
(85 Gy) rectum and posterior bladder)
–– Inferior border ≥3 cm from vaginal apex or • Lateral: 2 cm lateral to pelvic brim. Do
1 cm above bottom of obturator foramen not block femoral heads.
(whichever is lower) • Extended field:
–– ITV vagina/parametria: • (+) Pelvic lymph nodes = L1/L2.
–– Vaginal cuff = create vagina ITV, sum of vagi- • (+) PA nodes = T11/T12.
nal contours full + empty bladder, include –– Parametrial boost: boost sidewall 10 Gy for
vaginal cuff and at least 3 cm of vagina +parametria.
inferior. –– Sup = bottom of SI joint.
–– PTV45–50.4 = (CTV nodes + ITV vagina/ –– Inferior = same (bottom of obturator fora-
parametria) + 7 mm margin. Total PTV = 1.5– men); 5 cm midline block.
2.0 cm, including the ITV + SM. –– LN boost: LN GTV + 2 cm.
–– IMRT reduces acute and chronic GI toxicity –– Dose: 45 Gy to large fields w/ sequential CD
(per Mundt et al.) and decreases neutropenia, to 54 Gy PM boost, 59.4 Gy LN boost.
improving ability to give concurrent chemo –– First BT should be performed 4–6w after initi-
(per Brixey et al. IJROBP 2002). ating EBRT to allow for tumor shrinkage.
–– Dose: 50.4 Gy
–– Planning: IMRT.
–– On treatment: Daily CBCT and KV Chemo:
imaging. –– Cisplatin 40 mg/m2 weekly, given Mon/Tues,
–– If bladder not full enough, re-instruct patient/ before RT
drink more water.
–– If gas, insert red rubber catheter.
( 2) Definitive Brachytherapy Technique
–– Vaginal brachytherapy (VB) “cuff” boost
–– General anesthesia.
was not permitted on either GOG 92 or GOG
–– Patient in dorsal lithotomy.
109. However, ABS Consensus G uideline
–– EUA, confirm less than 4 cm for good implant
2012 specify it can be considered in patients at
geometry.
high risk of local relapse (e.g., R+).
–– Prep, drape.
–– Foley, inflate with 7 cc of 30% Renografin
Definitive RT Technique solution.
–– +/− gold seeds into cervix at 12 + 6 o’clock.
( 1) External Beam RT –– Sound the cervix. Grab with tenaculum to pro-
Simulation: vide countertraction and advance until slight
–– Full bladder (two cups an hour before) and resistance and note depth.
empty rectum (have a BM before sim). –– Dilate cervix using progressively larger dila-
–– Supine, arms on chest, Alpha Cradle. tors up to 16 French (6 mm). Note: 1 “French”
–– Place two gold seeds at the cervix. or “Fr” = 0.33 mm = 0.013″.
–– CT sim with IV contrast. –– Insert Smit sleeve: Smit length = sound
–– Anatomy based: traditional LN negative depth – 5 mm; suture in place.
WPRT field is 4-field box: –– Insert tandem: curvature = uterus shape;
• Anterior/post: 1 cm ant to pubic sym- length = sound depth – 5 mm.
physis, covering the entire sacrum/ –– Place ovoids over the tandem and slide ovoids
sacral hollow. into the vagina. Use largest ovoids that com-
• Superior: bifurcation of the common fortably fit. Why? Inverse square law: ↑ size, ↓
iliacs (L4/5). vaginal surface dose.
• Inferior: obturator foramen or 3 cm –– Pack radio-opaque gauze posteriorly first,
below most inferior extent of vaginal then anteriorly, using two separate packs.
involvement. –– Ensure bladder is fully drained, clamp Foley,
and inject 30–60 cc of dilute contrast.
–– Take AP and lateral films to evaluate T&O • Bladder pt: defined w/ 7 cc of contrast in
placement. balloon, perpendicular distance to surface
–– What to look for on orthogonals: of Foley catheter at the center in sup-
• AP: tandem bisects ovoids, tandem not inferior plane of Foley balloon and closest
rotated, phalange close to cervical marker, to applicator.
ovoids high in fornix with 0.5–1 cm spac- • Vaginal pt: at midpoint of lateral surface
ing, no packing above ovoids of ovoid on AP film.
• Lateral: tandem bisects ovoids, midway • Rectal point is most anterior point along
between the sacrum and bladder, at least line that bisects the ovoids.
3 cm away from sacral promontory, suffi- • IIB/parametrial involvement: needs para-
cient anterior, and post packing, Foley bal- metrial boost, 5.4–9 Gy.
loon pulled down • PA LNs: tx only if involved or in pt. who
–– HDR-BT T&O: cannot get chemo. Sup border is T12/L1
• 5.5 Gy x 5, for patients with <4 cm residual (higher than 90–01).
dz. This gives EQD2 >85 Gy
• 6 Gy in 5 fractions, for pts. with >4 cm –– Volume based:
residual dz. This has 35–45 EQD2 • GTVD – macroscopic tumor seen clinically
• 5 Gy x 6 or on MR at diagnosis.
• 7 Gy x 4 • GTVB1, GTVB2 – tumor seen clinically or
–– LDR-BT. Dose rate is 0.4–0.6 Gy/hr. (e.g., on MR at brachytherapy insertion 1, 2,
with Cs-137). Lower dose rates prolong tx etc.
time and have reduced efficacy. Higher dose • HR CTVB1: High-risk CTV includes whole
rates have more late toxicity. cervix and presumed extracervical exten-
–– LDR-BT target dose to point A is 80–90 Gy. sion (volume receiving total Rx dose).
After 45 Gy EBRT, 35–45 Gy prescribed with ~85Gy, D90 = 80–90 Gy.
LDR-BT. • IR CTVB1: Intermediate risk corresponds
to initial macroscopic disease ± margin;
–– ICRU 38 (1985) Guidelines HR CTV + 5–15 mm margin (5 mm AP,
• “Standard loading” of LDR-BT. Tandem 10 mm lateral/craniocaudal). ~60Gy.
and Fletcher-Suit-Delclos ovoid. Using • Primary: PTV identical to CTV.
137Cs. Per ABS, tandem is loaded 15-10- • LN: CTV to PTV expansion for nodal
10 mgRaeq from cephalad to caudad. Tip treatment should be 7 mm.
loaded with more activity to provide ade- • Cumulative EQD2 maximums.
quate coverage in lower uterine segment. • D2cc bladder ≤85 Gy.
Small ovoids then loaded with 10-15 • D2cc rectum ≤75Gy.
mgRaeq. Mini ovoid loaded with doses • D2cc sigmoid ≤75Gy.
5–7.5 mgRaeq because they lack internal –– Total Tx time <7–8 wks, i.e., 56 days. 0.5–
shielding. 1.0% decrement in LC for each day delay after
• Pt A: 2 cm sup and 2 cm lateral from exter- 8w, but no decrease in OS.
nal os (parametria) – 85 Gy EQD2.
• Pt B: 5 cm lateral from midline at the same
level at point A, but in the plane of the
patient/midline, and not from the tandem.
The dose to point B should be ¼ to 1/3 the
dose to point A. Represents obturator
nodes, gets 25% pt. A dose – 55 Gy.
Cervical cancer whole pelvic field

traditional LN negative WPRT field is
4-field box:
ant: 1 cm ant to pubic symphysis,
covering the entire sacrum / sacral
hollow.
sup: bifurcation of the common iliacs
(L4/5).
inf: obturator foramen or 3 cm below
most inferior extent of vaginal
involvement.
lateral: 2cm lat to pelvic brim. do not
block femoral heads
Extended field
3D/IMRT: 7 mm around vessels
(+) Pelvic lymph nodes = L1/L2
(+) PA nodes = T11/T12
45 Gy in 25 fx
Parametrial boost
Sidewall +10 Gy for +parametria
Sup = bottom of SI joint;
Inf = same (bottom of obturator
foramen); 5 cm midline block
Conedown to 54 Gy
LN boost
Boost gross nodes to 60 Gy with IMRT
Incomplete Definitive Therapy Acute RT Effects

–– Fatigue, urinary frequency/urgency, diarrhea,
–– If <85 Gy given for CRT for stage IB2, epilation skin irritation
“adjuvant” hysterectomy is recommended per –– Diarrhea = Imodium → Lomotil .
NCCN.
Late RT Effects
–– Vaginal shortening, atrophy/dryness, stenosis
Follow-Up • Recommend dilator starting 1 month after
treatment, 3x/w indefinitely.
–– PET/CT at 12 weeks posttreatment • Topical estrogen creams, lube, and
–– q3 mo x 1 year, q4 mo x 2 years, q6 mo for moisturizers.
years 3, 4, and 5 –– Vesicovaginal or rectovaginal fistula (<2%)
• If pt comes in with stool coming out of
vagina → diverting colostomy.
Cervical Recurrence • SBO/perforation (<5%), rectal bleeding.
• If pt comes with rectal bleed:
–– w/u = H&P, imaging (MR, PET/CT), and • feel rectal anterior wall, hemorrhoids, and
biopsy CBC.
–– Central recurrence (prior RT) → surgery (radi- • If Hgb normal, f/u in 6 weeks w/ instruc-
cal hysterectomy or pelvic exenteration) tions to use stool softeners. If still low GI
–– Isolated PA nodal recurrence → CRT or sur- consult/colonoscopy, instruct to not bx,
gery followed by CRT. consider argon laser.
–– CRT: match inferior border to previous treat- –– Pelvic insufficiency fracture = 5%; w/
ment field (L4–L5), sup border = T11–T12. osteoporosis = 15%
–– Dose = 54 Gy; then 59.4 Gy conedown. –– Femoral neck fracture
–– Outcomes = 25% salvage. –– Ovarian failure
Chemo Toxicity
–– Cis: myelosuppression, n/v, renal toxicity,
neuropathy, hearing loss.
–– ANC <500 for >7 days or febrile neutropenia:
hold for a week and then repeat CBC.
–– Cr >2.0 mg/dl: hold for 1w. Prevent with
diuresis.
Uterine/Endometrial Cancer [1–4, 19–30]
• T1 Pathology
• T1a (IA) – <½ myometrium –– Simple hyperplasia→ cancer (<2%)
• T1b (IB) – ≥ ½ myometrium –– Complex hyperplasia→ cancer (40%)
• T2 (II) – cervical stroma –– Subtypes:
• T3 • Type I. 80%. Endometrioid histology.
• T3a (IIIA) – serosa/adnexa (SAy it ain’t so) Endometrial hyperplasia. G1–G2.
• T3b (IIIB) – vagina/parametrium (B agina, B Perimenopausal. ER driven. PI3K, PTEN,
arametria) MSI. Less aggressive.
• T4 (IVA) – bladder or rectum • Type II. 20%. G3 Endometrioid. Non-
• N1 (IIIC1) – regional (pelvic/up to common endometrioid histology, e.g., clear cell,
iliac) serous, and carcinosarcoma. Non-ER driven.
• N2 (IIIC2) – para-aortic nodes Postmenopausal. Poor prognosis. p53.
• M1 (IVB) – distant
Workup:
–– H&P: Postmenopausal bleeding, ask about
FIGO 1971 (Inoperable Endometrial
unopposed estrogen: nulliparity, obesity,
Cancer Staging)
tamoxifen, early menarche, late menopause,
I. Confined to corpus
T2DM. Ask about IBD, pelvic RT.
IA. Length of uterine cavity 8 cm or less
–– Labs: CBC, CMP, CA-125 (for trending in
IB. Length of uterine cavity >8 cm
III/IV).
II. Involves corpus and cervix, but no extension
–– US: Endometrial biopsy, imaging/scopes for
beyond the uterus
symptoms. Normal endometrial stripe <5 mm.
III. Extends outside uterus but not outside the
FNR is 10%. If negative and still symptom-
true pelvis
atic, do D/C.
IV. Outside the true pelvis or involves the blad-
–– CXR + CT AP, MRI pelvis if suspected
der or rectum
extrauterine involvement or not going to
IVA. Involves the bladder, rectum, sigmoid,
surgery.
or small bowel
IVB. Distant mets
–– HNPCC (5%): <50 yo or FH colon or endo- –– Type II MRH: Same as cervix above. Use
metrial → genetic testing. this for endometrial cancers with cervical
• HNPCC = colonic + extracolonic (endo- involvement.
metrial, other GI, ovarian).
• Median age = 45; 80% colon, 60% Surgery +/– LND +/– RT
endometrial.
• Genetic testing = MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, –– MRC ASTEC trial 2009: stage I dz.: first ran-
PMS2. domization: TAH/BSO +/− LND. second ran-
–– + pelvic nodes → 33% chance of + PA nodes. domization: intermed and high-risk pts. get
–– Creasman tables (uses AJCC 6 staging). obs vs adjuvant pelvic RT. No difference in
OS for LND, 5-year OS 80%.
–– NCIC EN.5 Study group.
Risk pelvic LN+ G1 G2 G3
Endometrium only 0 3 0
Inner 3 5 9 G1 G2 G3
Mid 0 9 4
I
Deep 11 19 34
II
Risk PA LN+ G1 G2 G3
(2/3 risk of pelvic LN)
Endometrium only 0 3 0 –– ASTEC/EN.5 combination, 2009: Reported
Inner 1 4 4
results of adjuvant RT. No difference in 5-year
Mid 5 0 0
Deep 6 14 23 OS (84%) or DSS (~90%). WPRT reduced
pelvic and vaginal recurrence, 6% vs 3%;
however, had higher toxicity. Adverse risk fac-
Surgical Procedure tors identified: age >60, LVSI, tumor>2 cm,
–– TAH-BSO + pelvic LND +/− PA sampling (if +cervical gland, ↑grade. These would later be
biopsy proven cervical ext.→ radical hysterec- used in PORTEC-1 and GOG 99.
tomy instead). G1 G2 G3
–– Make midline incision. I
–– Inspect serosal, peritoneal, and diaphragmatic II
surfaces.
–– Peritoneal washing (does not affect staging). Surgery +/− WPRT
–– Omental biopsy for serous, clear cell, and –– GOG-99, Keys 2004:
carcinosarcoma. –– Early-stage endometrial TAH/BSO + LND
–– Perform LND (in the U.S., not Europe) = com- +/−50.4 Gy WPRT. No VCBT. LND was selec-
mon iliacs, external iliacs, internal iliacs, tive for any suspicious LNs. Initially enrolled
obturators + PA sampling. intermediate risk (old stage I with any MI;
–– Sample PA for deeply invasive, high grade, occult II). Enrollment criteria revised while
serous, clear cell, and carcinosarcoma. ongoing to only high-intermediate risk: (1)
–– Perform TAH, bivalve the uterus, and BSO. age >70 + 1 RF; (2) age >50 + 2 RF; (3) any
age + 3 RFs. RFs are G2–3, LVSI, outer 1/3 MI.
Hysterectomy Types –– RT won. 4-yr. LRR 12 → 3% (SS), OS
–– Type I: extrafascial hysterectomy. Spares 86 → 92% (NSS). Mostly benefited high-risk
parametrium; ureters not mobilized; ligate patients. 72% recurrences in VC. Note differ-
UA at the uterus. Takes 1–2 mm of vaginal ence for “high-intermed” risk for GOG-99 vs
cuff. PORTEC-1.
–– Omental biopsy for uterine papillary serous
carcinoma (UPSC) clear cell carcinoma G1 G2 G3
(CCC). Use type I RH for most endometrial I
II
cancers.
–– PORTEC-1: Adjuvant WPRT with IMRT

Old IB (G2–3) + IC (G1–2): TAH/BSO w/o pel- –– RTCMIENDOMETRE, Barillot, 2014: IBG3,
vic LND. Pts. with 50 + % MI specifically IC, or II endometrial cancer. Volumes per
excluded. Randomized to +/−46 Gy WPRT, and RTOG 041 study. 45Gy/25fx. CTCAE used at
possible VCBT boost if cervical involvement. week 15. Toxicity was 27% had acute GI G2
RT won. LRR 14 → 4% between group 1 and toxicity. No G3+ toxicity. G1 tox in <20%.
group 2, 75% of failures in cuff. After vaginal
recurrence, 2-year OS was 79% vs 21% if pelvic Adjuvant RT +/– Chemo
LN or DM. 15-yr rate of LRR: 16% (WPRT) vs –– PORTEC-3, Creutzberg, de Boer, 2016. High-
6% (VCBT), but no OS benefit (both ~85%). risk pts.: stage IAG3 + LVSI, IB G3, II, IIIA/
Defined “high-intermediate” risk features: (1) B/C, I–III serous or clear cell. Randomize:
>60yo; (2) MI >50%; (3) G3 dz. If pt has two of Adjuvant WPRT + chemo vs WPRT alone in
these three RFs, then LR decreased from 24% to high-risk endometrial cancer. RT is 48.6/1.8 + 2
4%. These pts. will be used to form cohort for c concurrent cis 50 mg/m2 in w1 and w4, then
PORTEC-2. Criticism was exclusion of pts. adjuvant carbo AUC5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/
with >50% MI and G3, who would benefit most m2 at 21 d intervals (adapted from RTOG
from WPRT. Among the points with two of these 9708). In both arms, if cervical involvement,
major risk factors, WPRT decreased LRR from then VCBT. Primary outcome is 5y OS and
23% to 5%. FFS, currently no difference (ASCO, 2017).
Worse QOL at 6 m for CRT, resolve by 1–2y.
Adjuvant VCBT +/– WPRT –– RTOG 9708: phase II: high risk early stage:
–– Norway, Aalders 1980: old IB + IC: TAH/ WPRT + concurrent cisplatin, Q3wk. 4-yr. OS
BSO + VC +/− 40 Gy WPRT (no LND). 85%, low failures.
WPRT ↓LRR (7 → 2%). However DM slightly
higher 5%, vs 10%, NSS. Unchanged Adjuvant RT vs Adjuvant Chemo
OS. Subset analysis: >50% MI and G3 had –– GOG 122, Randall 2006: stage III/IV: debulk-
improved CSM with WPRT, 28% vs 18%. ing, then WART (30Gy/20fx, then pelvic LN
LVSO and age >60 also identified as high-risk boost of 15Gy/8 = total 45) vs chemo only
features. (doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 + cisplatin 50 mg/m2
q3w x 7c, then 1c cis alone). For RT, if pelvic
Adjuvant WPRT vs VCBT LNs were + and PA LNs not sampled, boost
–– PORTEC-2, Nout, 2010: old IB + IC + IIA. was to extended field covering all LNs. Fields
“High-intermediate dz”: (1) >60 yo stage I, AP/PA with PA kidney blocks, then 4-field
>50% MI or G3; (2) any age with endocer- box. Chemo won OS 42 → 55%, DFS
vical glandular involvement, but not G3 38 → 50%, but ↑toxicity. The only RCT
with >50% MI. Randomize: 46 Gy WPRT where adjuvant RT loses? Criticisms: RT vol-
vs VCBT. WPRT was to prox half of VC, ume huge and doses inadequate for
parametrial, internal and exterior iliacs, and GTV. VCBT not used. Only 63% of pts. com-
caudal part of common iliac chain. VC was pleted all planned chemo cycled due to toxic-
LDR 30 Gy at 0.5–.7Gy/h, medium DR, ity. Reported survival sts adjusted for stage,
28 Gy at 1 Gy/h, or HDR, 21/3 – all to 5 mm which shouldn’t be done for RCTs. There are
from cylinder, 45–50 Gy equiv to mucosa. no stats for unadjusted curves. This trial
Similar results. Initial abstract, WPRT established SOC of chemo for III–IV endo-
reduced pelvic failure (3y: 3.6 → 0.7%), metrial cancer.
however NSS by 5 years. VC recurrence –– GOG 249, presented ASTRO 2017: high risk
similar between VCBT and WPRT: ~1.7%. stages I–II, serous, clear cell. Randomized
55% vs 13% had G1–2 GI toxicity. Tox between 45 Gy WPRT and cuff + carbo/Taxol.
resolved by 2y. Nout, 2009: update, WPRT 3-year. OS 91% vs 88% (NSS). Acute toxicity
has ↓QOL. worse with brachy/chemo, late toxicity similar.
Adjuvant Chemo +/– RT Survival After Vaginal LR

–– GOG 258, Matei ASCO 2017. Stage III/IVA –– Creutzberg/PORTEC-1, 39 patients with iso-
endometrial cancer. Adjuvant RT + concur- lated vaginal relapse, 87% txd with curative
rent cis + 4c adjuvant carbo/Taxol vs 6c carbo/ intent, either EBRT or BT. CR was 89%. At
Taxol alone. n = 813. Similar G3+ tox, 58% 3y, OS in salvage RT group 73%.5y OS 65%
CRT vs 63% CT. CRT reduced vaginal in control group vs 43% in RT group.
recurrence (3% vs 7%), pelvic+ PA LN recur-
rence (10% vs 21%). DMs more common
with CRT (28% vs 21%).
Second Malignancy
–– PORTEC 1 + 2 + Dutch TME pooled (2015):
n = 2554. No increased risk of malignancy
from RT: 26% in 15 years for both RT and
non-RT arms.
Treatment Paradigm
–– All patients go for surgery if able: TAH/BSO, peritoneal inspection, fluid cytology, +/− LND (usu-
ally for grade 2/3), rad hysterectomy if cervical involvement.
G1 G2 G3
IA None None vs VCBT None vs VCBT
HR: ± VCBT HR: ± VCBT HR: ± WPRT
IB VCBT VCBT VCBT and/or WPRT
HR: ± WPRT HR: ± WPRT
II VCBT and/or WPRT VCBT and/or WPRT WPRT ± VCBT ± Chemo Chemo
IIIA WPRT ± VCBT + Chemo Chemo
*Chemo is carbo AUC5 , paclitaxel 175 x5c
IIIB Chemo and/or WPRT + VCBT
IIIC Chemo and/or WPRT ± VCBT
IV Debulk to R0 -1. Then Chemo ± WPRT ± VCBT
High Risk (HR) = >60 yo, LVSI, Cervical Segment Involvement

Indications for post-op RT with vaginal brachytherapy (VB) alone (per ASCO Consensus
Guideline 2015):
• Recommended for FIGO IAG3, IBG1–2.

• Consider for FIGO IAG1–2 but high-risk features (+LVSI or >60yo).
Nomogram to predict local (A) and distant (B) recurrence (Creutzberg, 2015)
Score
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Age (years)
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Radiotherapy
EBRT VBT none
FIGO grade
G1 G2 G3
Myometrial invasion depth
< 50% > 50%
Vascular invasion
no yes
Sum of scores
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Locoreginal relapse
within 5 years [%] 1 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
95
Score
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Age (years)
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
FIGO grade
G1 G2 G3
Vascular invasion
no yes
Myometrial invasion depth

< 50% > 50%
Sum of scores
-20 -10 0 10 20 30
Distance relapse
within 5 years [%] 1 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Endometrial general dosing

Setting Treatment Doses EQD2 recommended
Post-op VCBT alone to prox 6 Gy × 5 to 0 mm 60 Gy
3–4 cm vagina 4 Gy × 6 to 0 mm If prescribing to 5 mm, vaginal
5.5 Gy × 4 to 5 mm surface dose is 130%; rectal dose
7 Gy × 3 to 5 mm (increased tox) is 70%
VCBT + WPRT 6 Gy × 3 to 0 mm + 45 Gy (0921) 70 Gy to vaginal mucosa
6 Gy × 2 to 0 mm + 50.4 Gy (0418)
“4–6 Gy × 2–3 to 0 mm + 45–50” (NCCN)
Definitive EBRT + Y-BT “Individualized” (NCCN) BT alone EQD2 D90 >48 Gy
BT + EBRT EQD2 D90 >65 Gy
If MRI used EQD2 >80 Gy
Techniques considered for serous/clear cell histology,

grade 3, or extensive LVI, but should be
CBT CT Sim
V used with caution (per ABS Consensus
• Wait 6–8 weeks after surgery, generally Guideline 2012).
<12 weeks. • NOTE: “active length” must be converted to
• +/− gold seed fiducial markers into vaginal actual vaginal treatment length per institu-
cuff (exam room). tional standards.
• Patient gets on CT simulation table, cylinder
placed in vaginal canal, using largest diameter CBT Alone Dose
V
possible, and cylinder secured to treatment • Dose is EQD2 ~60 Gy to vaginal mucosa.
table. • 7 Gy x 3 fractions (3x/week) to 0.5 cm depth
• Take scout film to ensure cylinder is sup. (per PORTEC-2), though this has higher tox-
• Obtain CT simulation and transfer patient to icity. Rx to 0.5 cm depth results in 130–170%
stretcher while doing CT-based plan. dose at surface (10.5 Gy), rectal dose 70%.
• Contour the bladder, rectum, and bowel. • 6 Gy x 5 to vaginal mucosa.
• 4 Gy x 6 to vaginal mucosa.
VCBT Technique
• Cylinder allows treatment of entire length of WPRT Technique
the vagina, if needed. Cylinder diameter • IMRT.
should be largest that will fit comfortably to • Contour nodal CTV based upon RTOG
minimize air pockets (3 cm average). guidelines.
• Ovoids may improve lateral coverage if rem- • If (+) pelvic LN → proximal PA (L1/L2).
nants of vaginal fornices present, but must still • If (+) PA nodes → T11/T12.
ensure adequate coverage at vaginal apex. • Common iliac = artery/vein +7 mm, ensure
• Check for air gaps at the surface of the cylin- posterolateral coverage hugging vertebral
der. If present, consider a larger diameter bodies/psoas.
cylinder. • Presacral includes 2 cm of tissue anterior to
• When contouring the rectum, thickness of S1, S2 [+S3 if cervix involved], should not
vaginal wall is ~5 mm, so rectal contour extend into foramina, and should stop when
should not extend to <5 mm from cylinder. piriform muscle becomes visible.
• Length of the vagina treated predicts vaginal • External iliac = artery/vein +7 mm to top of
stenosis (Brachytherapy, Park et al. 2015). femoral head (surrogate for inguinal liga-
• Volume is the cylinder itself, not the tissue. ment), ensure adequate anterior coverage.
• Treat proximal 3–5 cm of the vagina. • Internal iliac = artery/vein +7 mm, posteriorly
Rarely, entire length of the vagina can be bounded by piriform muscle.
• Obturator = top of femoral head to top of Stage III/IV

pubic symphysis, include 1.5 cm of soft tissue –– Post-op chemo and RT. Most guidelines do
medial to pelvic sidewall. not specify sequence. Study by Alvarez et al.
• Vaginal cuff = create vagina ITV, sum of vagi- compared order. Sandwich won.
nal contours full + empty bladder, include
vaginal cuff and at least 3 cm of vagina Alvarez, stage III/IV chemo and RT 3y PFS 3y
order OS
inferior.
RT, then chemo 47 54
• PTV = CTV + 5–7 mm. Chemo, then RT 52 57
• Contour bladder, rectum, bowel, cord. Chemo, RT, chemo 69 88
• Dose = 50.4 Gy if WPRT alone. 45 Gy if
VCBT boost.
Salvage
• Boost gross nodes to 60 Gy with IMRT.
–– WPRT + VC boost.
–– Dose = 54 Gy; then: either IC (IVRT) (<5 mm)
On Treatment
or IS (>5 mm) brachytherapy, 6 Gy x 5, or
–– Daily CBCT or KV imaging
59.4 Gy conedown.
• If bladder not full enough, re-instruct
patient/drink more water.
• If gas, insert red rubber catheter.
Indications for Chemotherapy
(Weekly Cis)
WPRT+VCBT:
• ~70 Gy needed to vaginal mucosa.
1. + LN
• 45 Gy EBRT +6 Gy × 3 to vaginal mucosa
2. Bulky (>4 cm)
(RTOG 0921 regimen).
3. High-risk pathology
• OR 50.4 Gy EBRT +6 Gy × 2 to vaginal
mucosa (RTOG 0418 regimen).
• Boost: 6 Gy × 5 fractions (twice weekly) to
Fertility Preservation
vaginal surface (ASTRO Consensus Guideline
2014).
–– For PR+ tumors, Megace may be attempted
• Constraints w/ EBRT: D2cc rectum ≤70 Gy;
with EBRT or TAHBSO in select cases. Pts.
D2cc bladder ≤90 Gy.
should have G1, endometrial histology, stage
• If doing pre-op RT, dose is 75–80 Gy with
IA on MRI, limited comorbidity. CR in 50%
BT + WPRT.
of pts. Monitor q3-6 m with endometrial
sampling.
Medically Inoperable
–– For stage I, should treat to EQD2 >48 Gy for
BT alone, and >65 Gy for EBRT+BT Constraints
(Schwartz, 2015).
• 45 Gy WPRT + Y-app (8.5 × 2) or just –– Vagina.
Y-app 8.5 × 4. Full list of doses for intra- • Upper third: 120 Gy
uterine sources below. • Middle third: 80–90 Gy
• Lower third: 60–70 Gy
Equiv dose Equiv dose
# HDR HDR dose/fx for tumor late effects –– Sterilization occurs after 2–3 Gy.
fx (Gy at 2 cm) (Gy) (Gy) –– Ovarian failure occurs after 5–10 Gy.
4 8.5 52 43
5 7.3 53 41
6 6.4 53 30
7 5.7 52 39
Follow-Up Uterine Serous Adenocarcinoma
–– Surveillance for stage I patients who don’t get Background

RT/follow-up –– Previously uterine papillary serous carcinoma,
–– q3 mo x 1 year, q4 mo x 2 years, q6 mo for UPSC
years 3, 4, and 5 –– <10% of uterine cancers
–– Dilator at 2–4 wks post-RT → indefinitely –– More aggressive than endometrial adeno
–– Histologically like ovarian cancer
–– G3 by definition
Toxicity –– UPSC classically fails subdiaphragmatic
Acute RT Effects Treatment

–– Fatigue, urinary frequency/urgency, diarrhea, –– Treatment is TAH-BSO.
epilation skin irritation –– LN staging, peritoneal lavage with cytology,
–– Diarrhea = Imodium → Lomotil and omental/peritoneal biopsies.
–– Then adjuvant chemo, with platinum/taxane-
Late RT Effects based agents. Then +/− tumor-directed RT. RT
–– Vaginal shortening, atrophy/dryness, stenosis. usually VCBT or pelvic/PA LN RT, depending
–– Recommend dilator starting 1 month after on extend of PLND.
treatment, 3x/w indefinitely. • I – IVRT + chemo
–– Topical estrogen creams, lube and moisturizers. • II, III – pelvic + IVRT + chemo → chemo
–– Vesicovaginal or rectovaginal fistula (<2%). with Cis (40 mg/m2) weekly, carbo/Taxol
• If pt comes in with stool coming out of x3
vagina → vitamin E, HBO, Trental, con- –– WART not considered tumor-directed therapy
sider diverting colostomy. and is no longer recommended.
–– SBO/perforation (<5%), rectal bleeding.
• If pt comes with rectal bleed:
–– Feel rectal anterior wall, hemorrhoids,
and CBC.
–– If Hgb normal, f/u in 6 weeks w/ instruc-
tions to use stool softeners. If still low
GI consult/colonoscopy, instruct to not
bx, and consider argon laser.
–– Pelvic insufficiency fracture = 5%; if
osteoporosis = 15%.
–– Femoral neck fracture: refer to ortho.
–– Ovarian failure.
Outcomes (OS5)
–– I – 90
–– II – 70
–– III – 50
Uterine Sarcoma [1–4, 31–34] Adenosarcoma
Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) • T1.

and Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma • T1a (IA) – endometrium only
(ESS) • T1b (IB) – ≤½ myometrium
• T1c (IC) – >½ myometrium
• T1 • T2.
• T1a (IA) – ≤5 cm • T2a (IIA) – adnexa
• T1b (IB) – >5 cm • T2b (IIB) – pelvic tissues
• T2 • T3 – invades abdominal tissues
• T2a (IIA) – adnexa • T3a (IIIA) – one site
• T2b (IIB) – pelvic tissues • T3b (IIIB) – multiple sites
• T3 – invades abdominal tissues • T4 (IVA) – bladder or rectum
• T3a (IIIA) – one site • N1 (IIIC) – nodes
• T3b (IIIB) – multiple sites • M1 (IVB) – distant
• T4 (IVA) – bladder or rectum
• N1 (IIIC) – nodes
• M1 (IVB) – distant
Adjuvant
LNM WPRT
Tumor Staging Symptoms Behavior incidence Surg, LND indications
Carcinosarcoma Treat and Vaginal Epithelial component 20–38 PLND, (Similar to
(MMMT) stage like bleeding dictates prognosis and PA-LND endometrial):
Malignant mixed regular treatment, not usually >60yo
mesodermal tumor/ high-grade sarcomatous recommended >50% MI
malignant mixed endometrial component Most have II
Mullerian tumor cancer (FIGO serous or G3 LN+
staging) endometrioid R+
histology and behave
as their pure uterine
cancer counterpart
Leiomyosarcoma IA/B: 5 cm Uterine 7–9 PLND, R+
(LMS) cutoff fibroid like PA-LND
Endometrial stromal IIA: adnexa symptoms Grade most important 10 usually not R+
sarcoma (ESS) IIB: pelvic (vs LMS or MMMT) recommended
tissues G1: hormone unless
IIIA: 1 sensitive, indolent extrauterine dz
abdominal courseG3: aggressive,
tissue site similar to LMS and
IIIB: >1 site MMMT Similar to
IVA: bladder undifferentiated
or rectum sarcoma
IV: DM
Adenosarcoma Like AJCC R+
6th edition
FIGO staging
Overview RT improved LC (40% vs 22%), but not

–– 4% of uterine malignancies OS. Benefit for carcinosarcoma, no benefit
–– Higher rate of DM than regular uterine for LMS. 92 enrolled had carcinosarcoma,
cancer which is no longer classified as uterine
–– Prognostic index for STS does not apply to sarcoma.
uterine sarcomas –– Wright 2008: SEER database. Showed PORT
improves OS for MMMT but not LMS.
Genetics –– Mayo clinic: retrospective LMS. WPRT did
–– Hereditary leiomyomatosis and RCC not change OS but ↓LC.
(HLRCC) syndrome are rare, AD, caused by –– GOG 150: carcinosarcoma→ WART vs
mutations in fumarate hydratase, a Krebs chemo. No difference but WART had ↑tox.
cycle enzyme.
–– P53 mutation. NCCN
–– ATRX mutations. –– TAH/BSO initial treatment of choice.
–– MED2 mutation. –– Limited randomized data after.
• I – Observe.
Trials • ≥II – Gemcitabine/docetaxel
–– EORTC 55874: stage I–II sarcomas (41% –– WPRT fields are the same.
carcinoma) → surgery +/− WPRT 50.4/28. –– Indications per table.
Vulvar Cancer [1–4, 35–44]
FIGO is combination of clinical, surgical, and Stage 5-yr OS

path staging. I 90%
II 81%
• Tis – CIS. III 68%
• T1. IV 20%
• T1a (IA) – ≤2 cm and ≤1 mm DOI.
• T1b (IB) – >2 cm or >1 mm DOI.
• T2 (II) – ↓1/3 urethra, ↓1/3 vagina, or anus.
• T3 (IVA) – ↑2/3 urethra, ↑2/3 vagina, adjuvant
organs
• Note no T4 for vulvar cancer.
• N1 (IIIA) – note all LNs are inguinal, not

pelvic.
• N1a – 1–2 LNs, each <5 mm.
• N1b – 1 LN, ≥5 mm.
• N2.
• N2a (IIIB) – 3+ LNs, each <5 mm.
• N2b (IIIB) – 2+ LN ≥5 mm.
• N2c (IIIC) – ECE.
• N3 (IVA) – fixed/ulcerated LN.
• M1 (IVB) – distant (pelvis LN is M1 disease.
This will likely change in next AJCC manual.)
T1a T1b T2 T3
≤2cm + >2cm 1/3 2/3
≤1mm or Urethra, Urethra,
DOI >1mm Vag; Vag; Anus;
DOI Anus other organ
II
N0 IA IB
(UVA)
1-2,
N1a
<5mm IIIA
N1b 1, ≥5mm IVA
N2a 3+, <5mm
IIIB
N2b 2+≥5mm
N2c ECE IIIC
N3 ulcer IVA
M1 IVB
Overview Nodal Risk

–– 3500 dx/yr. in the U.S., 5% GYN malignant,
1% female malignant –– LN status is the most important prognostic
–– Subsites: labia majora/minora (70%), mons factor for OS.
pubis, clitoris (10%), vestibule, perineal body –– LN spread: superficial inguinofemoral → deep
(5%), posterior fourchette, Skene’s inguinofemoral → exterior iliac. Exception:
glands = posterior to urethra, Bartholin’s clitoris can bypass the superficial LNs and can
glands = posterior to introitus spread straight to deep femoral LNs and pel-
–– Workup: H&P, CBC, UA, HIV, EUA/PAP/ vic LNs (obturator and external iliac).
DRE, PET-CT (strongly recommended, esp. • Cloquet’s node: most superior deep ingui-
for T2+) vs MRI based on size/stage nal/femoral node. Can be mistaken for
–– Vulvar pruritus and pain inguinal hernia.
–– Younger: VIN, Pap smear history, HPV vac- –– cN0 →
cination, smoking history, HIV, pregnancy • 25% inguinofemoral LN+
• <5% of patients w/ VIN → invasive cancer • if IF LN (+) → 30% pelvic LN+, → 25%
• Basaloid SCC (often p16 positive) contralateral inguinal femorals LN+.
–– Older: vulvar dystrophy, including lichen
sclerosis, smoking, laundry facility worker –– Size and nodal risk
• 5% of patients w/ LS → invasive cancer • 2 cm tumor – 25%
• Keratinizing SCC (p16 negative), 80% of
cases –– DOI and nodal risk (for tumor ≤2 cm)
–– ≤1 mm – <1%
Physical –– 2 mm – 8%
–– Vaginal, rectal, inguinal LN exam –– 3 mm – 10%
–– Pelvic exam w/ Pap smear –– 5 mm – 25%
–– Bx primary and inguinal u/s (*highest sensi- –– >5 mm – 40%
tivity = u/s, >90%) w/ FNA of suspicious –– lower UVA – >30%,
LN.
–– MRI, PET/CT Surgery
–– EUA –– Lymphadenectomy for DOI >1 mm or G3 or
–– Cystoscopy/proctoscopy for bladder/rectal LVSI (all stage IB+ pts).
involvement –– 2 cm margin is goal.
–– PORT for +margin, close margin (8 mm fixed,
1 cm frozen), LVSI, DOI >5 mm.
–– GROINSS-V:T1–T2 → SLNBx→no LND if
neg. 3-yr. regional failure 2.3%. All isolated
groin recurrences w/in 16 m. 10-yr. CSS 91%
among SLNB- pts.; 65% if SLNB+. Lower
tox for SLNB than LND.
–– GOG 173, Levenback, 2012: SLNB, then
completion inguinofemoral LND for T1–T2.
92% sensitivity of SLNB. FNR 2% if <4 cm;
7% if 4+ cm.
–– Role of SLNB: Tumor <4 cm, >1 mm DOI, no
palpable LNs, unifocal, no previous vulvar
surgery, surgeon has performed >10 SLNBs
prior.
Nodal RT Neoadjuvant CRT for Unresectable Disease

–– Note: groin LN recurrences are almost never –– GOG 101: advanced primary or
salvageable. nodes→cisplatin/5FU + RT; 47.6 Gy BID;
–– GOG 37, Homesley, 1986; Kunos, 2009: 97% were converted to resectable (31% pCR).
n = 114. Rad vulvectomy with bilateral ingui- –– GOG 205, Moore, 2012: phase II, T3–4
nal LND → PLND vs RT (pelvic +groin). RT unresectable→inguinal LND → pre-op CRT
was 6w post-op, 45–50/1.8–2, AP/PA. RT (cisplatin 40 mg/m2 qw + 57.6Gy/32fx).
won, study closed early. 2-yr. LRR 24 → 5%, 45 Gy AP/PA pelvis, 12.6 Gy boost. Then
2-yr OS 54 → 68%. Subset analysis: benefit resection or biopsy to confirm CR. 78% pCR,
limited to cN+ or matted LNs, 2+ LNs (simi- 64% cCR, 40% 2-yr. OS. Note the higher
lar to H&N sites), or ECE+. 6y OS NSS, but pCR rates vs GOG 101 – likely bc of higher
CSM was: 51% surgery vs 29% RT; as was dose, no break.
groin failure 24% surgery, 5% RT. OS benefit
also seen in RT with >20% ipsilateral LN+.
–– GOG 88: cN0 with WLE → RT vs Treatment Paradigm/Pearls
ILND+PORT. LR, PFS, and OS favored
ILND+PORT. –– If resectable (can get 8+ mm margins w/o mor-
• Criticisms: no CT staging, 50 Gy mixed bidity), then resect. If DOI >1 mm, then need
beam to 3 cm depth (inadequate dose and Bx. Then assess for indications for post-op RT.
coverage for gross disease). –– No RCTs comparing chemo regimens.
• Koh 1993: mean inguinal depth 6.1 cm,
failures in GOG88 <47Gy. Indications for Post-op RT:
–– Katz 2003: modern RT techniques; LC with to the primary (based on Heaps/UCLA data)
RT ~90%.
• R+: <1 cm clinical margin; <0.8 cm fixed mar-
Patterns of Failure gin. This was the strongest predictor in Heaps
–– GOG 74 + 88. Stehman, 1996. Stages I–III data, 48% vs 0%.
all had rad hemivulvectomy or vulvectomy. • LVSI.
Most had inguinal LND. 92% of groin recur- • DOI >5 mm – 10 mm (continuous).
rences later died. Other vulvar recurrences, • >9.1 mm had 15% LR on Heaps.
32% died. Thus, thorough eval and tx of • Size >4 cm.
groin nodes key; although GOG 37 recom- • Infiltrative pattern.
mends RT for 2+ LNs, many would recom-
mend for 1+. RT to the Nodes:
• cLN+.
Chemo • >0–1 pLN+.
–– Gill, 2015: NCDB. pLN+ vulvar cancer. CRT vs • ECE.
RT alone. Chemo reduced risk of death by 35%.
Indications to add chemo: T2–3, N+
Management Technique
IA: Simulation:
–– Radical vulvectomy vs WLE (if well • Full bladder and empty rectum
lateralized). • Supine, frog leg, Alpha Cradle
–– No need to address nodes. • Wire entire vulva, place additional fiducial
markers around gross disease
IB: • CT sim + IV contrast
–– Radical vulvectomy vs WLE (if well lateral-
ized) + SLNBx, if (+) SLN → b/l IFLND. Contours:
–– Only SLNBx if primary ≤4 cm, dual tracer • GTV = Primary/gross residual
(dye + radiotracer). If primary >4 cm need • CTV_Vulva = GTV + 1 cm and encompassing
upfront bilateral IFLND. at least entire vulva
–– In GROINSS-V, if SLN (−), only 3% LR in –– Anterior vulva includes at least 2 cm of the
untreated IFLN basin. urethra to bladder neck.
–– Complications, SLNBx vs IFLND: ↓lymph- –– Posterior vulva includes perineum between
edema (2% vs 25%), ↓wound breakdown/ posterior fourchette and anal verge.
cellulitis –– Vaginal extension: gross dz. + 3 cm.
Consider entire vagina with creation of
II (spread to lower 1/3 urethra, vagina, anus): vaginal ITV (w/ full and empty blad-
der) + presacral LN.
–– Radical vulvectomy + unilateral or bilateral –– Anal canal includes entire mesorectum and
inguinal LND +/− post-op RT. perirectal LN.
• PTV_Vulva = CTV_Vulva +1 cm
III-IVa – Radical vulvectomy+ bilateral ILND • CTV_LN = external iliacs, internal iliacs,
→Chemo RT obturators, inguinals (+ presacral LN for vagi-
Post-op CRT nal extension and + mesorectum/perirectal for
–– 50.4 Gy to CTV (vulva and elective LN) anal canal). If posterior vaginal, then presacral
–– 59.4 Gy to +SM or + LN nodes. In certain cases, lower common iliacs
–– 64.8 Gy to GRD (L5/S1)
–– Weekly cis (40 mg/m2) • Inguinal LN contours:
Unresectable = definitive CRT
–– 50.4 Gy to CTV (vulva and elective LN) ASTRO consensus for Radial margin around
inguinal LN coverage femoral vessels (mm)
–– 59.4 Gy to +SM or + LN Anteromedial ≥35
–– 64.8 Gy to GRD Anterior ≥23
–– Weekly cis (40 mg/m2) Anterolateral ≥25
–– GOG 205: cis + RT (57.6 Gy) → incisional Medial ≥22
biopsy to assess response, if (+) → radical Posterior 0
vulvectomy Lateral 0
–– cCR = 65%, pCR = 50%
–– Sup = top of femoral heads On treatment:

–– Inferior = 2 cm below saphenofemoral junction • Bolus and OSLD with first fraction
–– Medial = beginning of adductor longus; • Daily KV imaging
lateral = iliopsoas
–– Anterior = anterior border of sartorius; poste-
rior = posterior border of pectineus Side Effects
–– PTV_nodes = CTV_LN + 7 mm –– Cisplatin toxicity.
–– PTV_LN_CD = GTV_LN + 1–2 cm –– Standard gynecologic pelvic toxicity.
–– Moist desquamation by 3rd–5th week. If des-
Doses (per ACR Consensus Guidelines): quamation occurs earlier, then treat with fluco-
• Primary RT dosing. nazole; if it worsens, then likely superinfection
–– R0: 45–50.4 Gy should be treated with Cipro.
–– Close margin (<5 mm): 56–60 Gy
–– R1: 63–66 Gy
–– R2/gross residual: 64.8–70 Gy Outcomes
• LN RT dosing.
–– 45 Gy to b/l groin nodes and pelvis. Boost 5 yr OS
involved LN (Viswanathan): I 80
–– 1 LN: 50.4Gy II 60
–– 2+ LN: 54–60Gy III 40
–– ECE: 60–65Gy
–– Gross nodes (undissected): 64.8–70Gy
Follow-Up
Planning:
• IMRT q3 mo × 1 year, q4 mo × 2 years, q6 mo for years
3, 4, and 5
Vaginal Cancer [1–4, 45–49]

Lian Frank 2005, 5y
AJCC 8 2008 Crevoisier values (%)
FIGO Original 5-yr 2007 Pelvic
stage FIGO Description Treatment DFS 5-yr DFS DFS control CSS
CIS
I I Vagina mucosa only Surgery or VCBT 90% 83% 85 86 85
If >5 mm deep, >2 cm or
G3: add LND or WPRT
II II Paravaginal tissue/ WPRT to 45 Gy + Cisplatin- 87% 76% 78 84 78
submucosa based chemotherapy, rescan,
III II (if just Pelvic wall (T3) or then + VCBT to 75 Gy (6 Gy 32% 52% 83 71 58
N1) pelvic/inguinal LN x3 HDR)
III (if up to common iliac
T3) (N1)
IV IV A: bladder or 26% –
rectumB: DMs
Original FIGO Staging (Hacker, 2012) does not Pathology

mention LN involvement. Thus, T2 N1 is FIGO II. –– SCC
–– Adenocarcinoma: most commonly mets;
Overview DES-related clear cell (mean age 26); non-
–– Primary vaginal cancer is rare, only 1–2% of DES-related clear cell (mean age 70)
GYN malignancies. If the tumor extends to –– Melanoma
either cervix or the vulva, it is primary of those –– Sarcoma
sites, not the vagina. If history of cervical or –– LMS most common
vulvar cancer in past 5 years, it is recurrence.
–– Risk factors: CIS, HPV, irritation, ↑sex, DES. Poor Prognostic Features
–– Risk of nodal involvement. –– Stage
• I: 5% –– Age >60
• II: 25% –– Low hemoglobin
• III: 75% –– >4 cm
• IV: 85% –– Middle/lower 1/3
Workup Post-op RT Alone

–– h/o prior cancer, HPV, VAIN/CIS, vaginal irri- –– Frank 2005. 5-year pelvic control 86% for
tation, maternal DES exposure stage I, 84% stage II, and 71% for stages III–
–– Physical, including inguinal LN exam, pelvic IVA. 20% got concurrent cis-based chemo.
exam, and Pap 5-year DSS 86% stage I, 84% stage II, and
–– EUA: necessary; in contrast EUA rarely nec- 71% stages III–IVA. Predominant relapse was
essary for cervical LRR, 68% for Stage I-II, 83% for III-
–– Bx primary w/ FNA of suspicious LN IVA. Major complications: 4% Stage I, 21%
–– If adenocarcinoma → D&C to r/o Stage III-VIA. Tumors >4 cm had worse CSS,
endometrial 60% vs 82%. Predominant failure for SCC
–– MRI with aqueous gel in the vagina, PET/CT was locoregional, while clear cell more likely
–– Cystoscopy/proctoscopy for anterior/posterior to have DMs.
wall involvement, respectively –– Note there are no RCTs to show benefit of
concurrent CRT for vaginal cancer; still stages
II–IV dz. treated with definitive CRT, usually
with weekly cis.
Neoadjuvant CRT for Unresectable Disease –– III/IVA:

–– GOG 101 advanced primary or –– Definitive CRT with cisplatin (40 mg/m2
nodes→cisplatin/5FU + RT; 47.6 Gy BID; weekly)
97% were converted to resectable (31% pCR). –– WPRT (45 Gy) + IS brachytherapy or IMRT
boost
Treatment Technique
–– VAIN 1: observation –– Sim frog leg.
–– VAIN 2/3: WLE, laser, 5FU, Vcuff. –– Vaginal marker.
–– I: surgery or VCBT to 6 Gy x 5. –– Fields: pelvic, R/L inguinal.
• If >5 mm deep, >2 cm or G3: add LND or –– Sup border at L5–S1. Inferior is 2 cm below
WPRT. vag introitus. Lateral is 2 cm lateral to pelvic
brim.
–– II: –– If disease involves the rectovaginal septum
–– (Option 1) WPRT to 45 Gy + BT to 75 Gy (e.g., near pouch of Douglas) or bladder, then
(6 Gy x 3 HDR) + cisplatin-based chemother- include the perirectal LNs, do not BT because
apy (40 mg/m2 weekly) of high risk of fistula, and use IMRT boost.
–– Same simulation/fields as vulva (L5/S1) –– Vagina Tolerance
–– If involves lower 1/3 vagina, include inguinal • Upper vagina = 120 Gy
LN. • Middle vagina = 100 Gy
–– Reevaluate patient at 40 Gy for whether • Lower vagina = 80 Gy
<5 mm or ≥ 5 mm.
–– BT when possible: ABS/UPMC/MDACC Recommendations
• IC BT is for superficial lesions <0.5 cm Based on Location:
from surface. Apex: and <0.5 cm, use ICRT. If >0.5 cm, EBRT
• IS BT is for deep tumors >0.5 cm from or interstitial.
surface. Mid-vagina: interstitial therapy for anterior or
• Apex = template. Lateral and lateral. If posterior or massive, use EBRT boost.
distal = freehand. Distal: confined lesions gevt interstitial. Massive
tumors need EBRT boost.
(Option 2): Radical vulvovaginectomy + pel- Who should get vaginal cylinder alone?
vic LND + IFLND for distal 1/3 Superficial (<0.5 cm thickness).
Who should get interstitial brachy? Apical
tumor, well defined, mobile, and >0.5 cm thick.
Who gets chemo? Stage III+, high-risk dz.
varian Cancer and Fallopian Tube

O –– Epithelial 65%, germ cell 25%, sex cord stro-
Cancer [1–4, 47, 50–55] mal 5%, mets 5%.
–– Workup: H&P, gyn exam, labs, CA125, AFP/
AJCC 8th Edition bHcG.
• T1. –– US, CT C/A/P.
• T1a (IA) – one ovary, capsule intact –– Surgical staging and debulking.
• T1b (IB) – both ovaries, capsule intact –– Similar to fallopian tube, presents at advanced
• T1c (IC) – capsule ruptured or + washings stage.
• T2 – pelvic extension. –– Domchek, 2010; Finch, 2014: For BRCA+
• T2a (IIA) – implants on uterus/tube, women, a BSO decreases risk of ovarian ca
−wash development by 70–80% and additionally
• T2b (IIB) – implants in pelvis, −wash appears to decrease risk of breast cancer and
• T2c (IIC) – implants with +wash all-cause mortality.
• T3.
• T3a (IIIA2) – micro-peritoneal implants Trials
• T3b (IIIB) – macro-peritoneal implants –– GOG 111: cis/paclitxel improved OS
<2 cm –– GOG 158: carb/paclitxel less toxic
• T3c (IIIC) – macro-peritoneal implants –– GOG 172: intraperitoneal chemo toxic but
≥2 cm effective
• N1 (IIIA1) – intra-abdominal/inguinal nodes –– Smith 1975: WART vs old chemo. Same
• M1 (IV) – distant results but more tox with WART (WART is
30 Gy at 1.5/fx)
AJCC 7th Edition (Changes in stage III dz):
NCCN
• T3 –– Tx = Symptoms/debulking → chemotherapy
• T3a (IIIA) – micro-peritoneal implants –– Pt refuses chemo → WART 30 Gy at 1.5 Gy
• T3b (IIIB) – macro-peritoneal implants fractions + pelvis and PA LN boost to 45 Gy
<2 cm • Block kidneys at 15 Gy, liver at 25 Gy
• T3c (IIIC) – macro-peritoneal implants –– RT generally only for local recurrence or
≥2 cm palliation
• N1 (IIIC) – intra-abdominal/inguinal nodes
Fallopian Tube
Overview –– Made mostly of epithelial cells.
–– BRCA1: 45% risk, BRCA2 25% risk (also • Serous carcinomas are 75% of cancers,
HNPCC). endometrioid and mucinous are 10%.
References 14. Lim K, Small W Jr, Portelance L, et al. Consensus

guidelines for delineation of clinical target volume for
intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy for the defin-
1. Cook B DT. Wikibooks radiation oncology. Accessed:
itive treatment of cervix cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol
2015. Available at: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/
Biol Phys. 2011;79:348–55.
Radiation_Oncology.
15. Song S, Rudra S, Hasselle MD, et al. The effect of
2. Edge S, Byrd D, Compton C, et al. Ajcc cancer stag-
treatment time in locally advanced cervical cancer
in the era of concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Cancer.
3. Hansen ERM. Handbook of evidence-based radiation
2013;119:325–31.
oncology. 2nd ed: Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2010.
16. Plummer M, Schiffman M, Castle PE, et al. A 2-year
4. Hristov BLS, Christodouleas JP. Radiation oncol-
prospective study of human papillomavirus persis-
ogy – a question based review. 2nd ed: Philadelphia,
tence among women with a cytological diagnosis of
PA: LWW; 2014.
atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance
5. Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, et al. Radiation
or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. J Infect
therapy with and without extrafascial hysterectomy
Dis. 2007;195:1582–9.
for bulky stage Ib cervical carcinoma: a randomized
17. Eifel PJ, Winter K, Morris M, et al. Pelvic irradia-
trial of the gynecologic oncology group. Gynecol
tion with concurrent chemotherapy versus pelvic
Oncol. 2003;89:343–53.
and para-aortic irradiation for high-risk cervical
6. Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, et al. Randomised
cancer: An update of radiation therapy oncology
Study of Radical Surgery Versus Radiotherapy for
group trial (Rtog) 90-01. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:
Stage Ib-Iia Cervical Cancer. Lancet. 1997;350:
872–80.
535–40.
18.
Reducing Uncertainties About the Effects of
7. Pearcey R, Brundage M, Drouin P, et al. Phase III trial
Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer. A
comparing radical radiotherapy with and without cispla-
Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual
tin chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous
patient data from 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol.
cell Cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:966–72.
2008;26:5802–12.
8. Peters WA 3rd, Liu PY, Barrett RJ 2nd, et al.
19. Aalders J, Abeler V, Kolstad P, et al. Postoperative
Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation ther-
external irradiation and prognostic parameters in
apy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone
stage i endometrial carcinoma: clinical and histo-
as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-
pathologic study of 540 patients. Obstet Gynecol.
risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol.
1980;56:419–27.
2000;18:1606–13.
20. Greven K, Winter K, Underhill K, et al. Final analysis
9. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, et al. Concurrent
of rtog 9708: adjuvant postoperative irradiation com-
cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for
bined with cisplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy follow-
locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med.
ing surgery for patients with high-risk endometrial
1999;340:1144–53.
cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:155–9.
10. Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ, et al. A random-
21. Keys HM, Roberts JA, Brunetto VL, et al. A phase
ized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further
III trial of surgery with or without adjunctive external
therapy in selected patients with stage Ib carcinoma
pelvic radiation therapy in intermediate risk endome-
of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic
trial adenocarcinoma: a gynecologic oncology group
lymphadenectomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group
study. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;92:744–51.
Study. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;73:177–83.
22. Nout RA, Smit VT, Putter H, et al. Vaginal brachy-
11. Duenas-Gonzalez A, Zarba JJ, Patel F, et al. Phase
therapy versus pelvic external beam radiotherapy for
III, open-label, randomized study comparing con-
patients with endometrial cancer of high-intermediate
current gemcitabine plus cisplatin and radiation fol-
risk (portec-2): an open-label, non-inferiority, ran-
lowed by adjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin versus
domised trial. Lancet. 2010;375:816–23.
concurrent cisplatin and radiation in patients with
23. Nout RA, van de Poll-Franse LV, Lybeert ML, et al.
stage Iib to Iva carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol.
Long-term outcome and quality of life of patients
2011;29:1678–85.
with endometrial carcinoma treated with or without
1 2. Dimopoulos JC, Petrow P, Tanderup K, et al.
pelvic radiotherapy in the post operative radiation
Recommendations from Gynaecological (Gyn)
therapy in endometrial carcinoma 1 (Portec-1) trial. J
Gec-Estro Working Group (Iv): Basic Principles
Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1692–700.
and Parameters for Mr Imaging within the Frame of
24. Randall ME, Filiaci VL, Muss H, et al. Randomized
Image Based Adaptive Cervix Cancer Brachytherapy.
phase III trial of whole-abdominal irradiation versus
Radiother Oncol. 2012;103:113–22.
doxorubicin and cisplatin chemotherapy in advanced
13. Lee LJ, Das IJ, Higgins SA, et al. American

endometrial carcinoma: a gynecologic oncology
Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for
group study. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:36–44.
locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Part Iii:
25. Wiltink LM, Nout RA, Fiocco M, et al. Increased risk
low-dose-rate and pulsed-dose-rate brachytherapy.
of second cancer after radiotherapy in patients treated
Brachytherapy. 2012;11:53–7.
for rectal or endometrial cancer in the randomized
tme, portec-1, and portec-2 trials. J Clin Oncol. carcinoma of the vulva: a gynecologic oncology
2015;33:1640–6. group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124:529–33.
26. Blake P, Swart AM, Orton J, et al. Adjuvant external 38. Moore DH, Thomas GM, Montana GS, et al.

beam radiotherapy in the treatment of endometrial Preoperative chemoradiation for advanced vulvar
cancer (Mrc Astec and Ncic Ctg En.5 Randomised cancer: a phase II study of the gynecologic oncology
Trials): pooled trial results, systematic review, and group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;42:79–85.
meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009;373:137–46. 39. Stehman FB, Bundy BN, Thomas G, et al. Groin dis-
27. Scholten AN, van Putten WL, Beerman H, et al.
section versus groin radiation in carcinoma of the
Postoperative radiotherapy for stage 1 endometrial vulva: a gynecologic oncology group study. Int J
carcinoma: long-term outcome of the randomized Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;24:389–96.
portec trial with central pathology review. Int J Radiat 40. Coleman RL, Ali S, Levenback CF, et al. Is bilateral
Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63:834–8. lymphadenectomy for midline squamous carcinoma
28. Barillot I, Tavernier E, Peignaux K, et al. Impact of the vulva always necessary? an analysis from gyne-
of post operative intensity modulated radiotherapy cologic oncology group (Gog) 173. Gynecol Oncol.
on acute gastro-intestinal toxicity for patients with 2013;128:155–9.
endometrial cancer: results of the phase II rtcmien- 41. Viswanathan AN, Pinto AP, Schultz D, et al.

dometre french multicentre trial. Radiother Oncol. Relationship of margin status and radiation dose
2014;111:138–43. to recurrence in post-operative vulvar carcinoma.
29. Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Koper PC, et al.
Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:545–9.
Survival after relapse in patients with endometrial 42. Stehman FB, Bundy BN, Ball H, et al. Sites of failure
cancer: results from a randomized trial. Gynecol and times to failure in carcinoma of the vulva treated
Oncol. 2003;89:201–9. conservatively: a gynecologic oncology group study.
30. Schwarz JK, Beriwal S, Esthappan J, et al. Consensus Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:1128–32; discussion
statement for brachytherapy for the treatment of med- 1132–1123.
ically inoperable endometrial cancer. Brachytherapy. 43. Gill BS, Bernard ME, Lin JF, et al. Impact of adjuvant
2015;14:587–99. chemotherapy with radiation for node-positive vulvar
31. Giuntoli RL 2nd, Metzinger DS, DiMarco CS, et al. cancer: a national cancer data base (Ncdb) analysis.
Retrospective review of 208 patients with leiomyo- Gynecol Oncol. 2015;137:365–72.
sarcoma of the uterus: prognostic indicators, surgical 44. Gaffney DK, King B, Viswanathan AN, et al.

Management, and adjuvant therapy. Gynecol Oncol. Consensus recommendations for radiation therapy
2003;89:460–9. contouring and treatment of vulvar carcinoma. Int J
32. Reed NS, Mangioni C, Malmstrom H, et al. Phase Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95:1191–200.
III randomised study to evaluate the role of adjuvant 45. Montana GS, Thomas GM, Moore DH, et al.

pelvic radiotherapy in the treatment of uterine sar- Preoperative chemo-radiation for carcinoma of
comas stages I and II: an european organisation for the vulva with N2/N3 nodes: a gynecologic oncol-
research and treatment of cancer gynaecological can- ogy group study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
cer group STUDY (Protocol 55874). Eur J Cancer. 2000;48:1007–13.
2008;44:808–18. 46. de Crevoisier R, Sanfilippo N, Gerbaulet A, et al.
33. Wolfson AH, Brady MF, Rocereto T, et al. A
Exclusive radiotherapy for primary squamous
Gynecologic oncology group randomized phase cell carcinoma of the vagina. Radiother Oncol.
III trial of whole abdominal irradiation (Wai) Vs. 2007;85:362–70.
cisplatin-ifosfamide and mesna (Cim) as post-surgical 47. Frank SJ, Jhingran A, Levenback C, et al. Definitive
therapy in stage I-IV carcinosarcoma (Cs) of the radiation therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of
uterus. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107:177–85. the vagina. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62:
34. Wright JD, Seshan VE, Shah M, et al. The role of 138–47.
radiation in improving survival for early-stage car- 48. Lian J, Dundas G, Carlone M, et al. Twenty-year
cinosarcoma and leiomyosarcoma. Am J Obstet review of radiotherapy for vaginal cancer: an institu-
Gynecol. 2008;199:536 e531–8. tional experience. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:298–306.
3 5. Katz A, Eifel PJ, Jhingran A, et al. The role of 49. Hacker NF, Eifel PJ, van der Velden J. Cancer of
radiation therapy in preventing regional recur- the vagina. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;131(Suppl
rences of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of 2):S84–7.
the vulva. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57: 50. McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, Brady MF, et al.

409–18. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin versus paclitaxel
36. Kunos C, Simpkins F, Gibbons H, et al. Radiation and cisplatin: a phase III randomized trial in patients
therapy compared with pelvic node resection for with suboptimal stage iii/iv ovarian cancer (from
node-positive vulvar cancer: a randomized controlled the gynecologic oncology group). Semin Oncol.
trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:537–46. 1996;23:40–7.
37. Moore DH, Ali S, Koh WJ, et al. A phase II trial of 51. Ozols RF, Bundy BN, Greer BE, et al. Phase III trial
radiation therapy and weekly cisplatin chemotherapy of carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin
for the treatment of locally-advanced squamous cell and paclitaxel in patients with optimally resected
stage iii ovarian cancer: a gynecologic oncology logic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:
group study. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3194–200. 437–43.
52. Smith JP, Rutledge FN, Delclos L. Postoperative
54. Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Singer CF, et al.

treatment of early cancer of the ovary: a random trial Association of risk-reducing surgery in Brca1 or
between postoperative irradiation and chemotherapy. Brca2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortal-
Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1975;42:149–53. ity. JAMA. 2010;304:967–75.
53. Wenzel LB, Huang HQ, Armstrong DK, et al.
55. Finch AP, Lubinski J, Moller P, et al. Impact of

Health-related quality of life during and after oophorectomy on cancer incidence and mortality in
intraperitoneal versus intravenous chemotherapy women with a Brca1 or Brca2 mutation. J Clin Oncol.
for optimally debulked ovarian cancer: a gyneco- 2014;32:1547–53.
Hematologic Cancers
10
and Jennifer L. Peterson
Abstract
ment of patients with hematologic cancers,
ponents of trimodality care and radiotherapy
field design are discussed.
N. G. Zaorsky (*)
D. M. Trifiletti · J. L. Peterson
e-mail: Trifiletti.daniel@mayo.edu;
peterson.jennifer2@mayo.edu

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4_10
Uptake No uptake Mediastinum Liver New site

Deauville 1 2 3 4 5a 5b
Interpretation Negative Equivocal Positive
1965 Rye symposium Ann Arbor EORTC German Hodgkin

22 sites 9 sites 5 sites 5 sites
Lymph node groups Ann Arbor EORTC German NCCN

R cervical, supraclav
R infraclav, subpec
R axilla
L cervical, supraclav
L infraclav, subpec N/A
L axilla
Mediastinum
R hilum
L hilum
Unfavorable Age ≥50

risk factors ESR and B A: >50, B: >30 A: >50, B: >30 ≥50 or B
Mediastinal MTR > .35 MMR > .33 MMR > .33
for Stage I-II Lymph node groups
R hilum
L hilum
Age
ESR and B
Mediastinal
#Nodal sites
Ann Arbor EORTC
R cervical, supraclav
R infraclav, subpec
R axilla
L cervical, supraclav
L infraclav, subpec
L axilla
Mediastinum
≥50
German
A: >50, B: >30
>3
NCCN
A: >50, B: >30
>2
N/A
≥50 or B
MTR > .35 MMR > .33MMR > .33
>3
#Nodal sites
E lesion any
Bulky >10 cm
>3 >2 >3

Classic HL E lesion any
Bulky >10 cm
Hematologic Cancers 399
Hematologic Pearls [1–3] Syndromes
General Workup –– Wiskott-Aldrich: X-linked recessive. Eczema,

thrombocytopenia, and immune deficiency.
–– History: High risk for leukemia and lymphoma.
–– B-sx: fever >38°, drenching night sweats, –– Ataxia-telangiectasia. ATM mutation, which
weight loss >10% over 6 months. produces protein for DNA DSB repair. Pts
–– Also ask about pruritus/pain with EtOH. have ataxia, telangiectasia, involuntary move-
–– Physical: examine all nodal stations (spleen, ments, immune deficiency, leukemia, and
liver, Waldeyer’s ring); slit lamp, ophtho exam lymphoma.
if ocular involvement.
–– Fertility preservation: sperm/egg bank,
oophoropexy. Treatment Planning
–– Core or excisional bx (not FNA because need
architecture), with CD markers and relevant Technique (mostly for HL): IFRT, ISRT, and
translocations. INRT
–– Labs: CBC, CMP w/ diff, ESR, LFTs, albu- –– TLI/STLI: 1970s+; 30–45 Gy; TLI – mantle
min, LDH, HCG, HIV, beta-2 microglobulin followed by inverted Y + spleen (usually 2-3w
for NHL, HepB/HepC for rituximab because break). STLI: mantle + upper abdominal (w/o
of HBV reactivation from CHOP. pelvic).
–– Smoking cessation. –– EFRT: 1980s+ – usually mantle or inverted
–– PFTs for bleomycin. Y; covers involved region + uninvolved
–– MUGA for adriamycin. region.
–– Vaccines if splenic RT: pneumococcal, H flu, –– Inverted Y = PA + pelvic fields.
meningococcal. –– Mantle:
–– BM Bx: • Base of mandible to diaphragm, from
• For HL, previously if B-sx, stage III/IV, 2–3 cm above tip of mastoid to ~4 cm
cytopenias with negative PET, recurrence. above xiphoid.
Now only if cytopenias with negative • Submandibular, cervical, supraclav,
PET-CT. infraclav, axillary, mediastinal, and hilar
• Get it for all NHL. nodes.
• Not needed for MALT. • Blocks placed over humeral heads,
–– Always consider referral for protons, espe- occiput, and mouth AP/PA.
cially in young. • HVL block over larynx anteriorly, cer-
–– Follow-up: cardiac, lung tox, second cancer, vical cord posteriorly.
TSH q6-12 m if treating neck, annual MRI • If high cervical nodes are involved,
and mammo for women 8–10 y after RT or extend field to include preauricular
age 10–30 yo. nodes.
Risk Factors for CNS Mets
–– Burkitt’s lymphoma
–– Lymphoblastic
–– Immunocompromised
–– BM+
–– Parameningeal
–– Testicular relapse
–– IFRT (do not use this anymore!) – 1995+; –– INRT: subtype of ISRT where pre-
20–30 Gy; site of clinically involved LN, chemo imaging available, no margin for
Kaplan/Rye group (per below); LN grouping imaging limitations; upfront PET-CT
not clearly defined; depends on bony anatomy; mandatory in tx position; typically,
2D. SOC since HD8. pregnant women not eligible because
–– Cervical/supraclav: extends from base of CT and PET are avoided.
the skull to clavicles. Patient positioned in • INRT alone acceptable for NLPHL,
mark. Oral cavity block placed if tumor though CTV is more generous
coverage not compromised. (~3–5 cm along vessel).
–– Axilla: C5/6, tip of scapula or 2 cm below • INRT is the SOC for early-stage fav
LNs, ipsi transverse process, flash axilla. HL per ILROG, if pre-treatment
–– Mediastinum: imaging in the treatment position is
• Upper border should be at C5–6. If available.
sclav is involved, then upper border –– INRT contours (Specht, IJROBP, 2014)
should be top of the larynx. (A) Prechemotherapy GTVCT on preche-
• Lower border is 5 cm below carina or motherapy CT scan.
2 cm below inf extent of pre-chemo dz. (B) Prechemotherapy GTVPET on preche-
• Lat borders are 1.5 cm margin on post- motherapy CT scan.
chemo volume. (C) Postchemotherapy GTVCT on post-
–– PA field: chemotherapy CT scan.
• Top of T11 or 2 cm above pre-chemo (D) Postchemotherapy GTVPET on post-
volume to aortic bifurcation (bottom chemotherapy CT scan.
L4) or 2 cm below pre-chemo volume. (E) Clinical target volume, created by mod-
• Encompass lateral transverse processed ifying GTVCT and GTVPET, on the post-
of L-spine and 2 cm from post-chemo chemotherapy CT scan.
volume. –– Take into account tumor shrinkage, ana-
–– Pelvic field: tomic changes.
• Includes external iliac, inguinal, femoral –– CTV encompasses all initial lymphoma
nodes, middle SI joint to 5 cm below lesser volume while still respecting normal struc-
trochanter; lateral border includes greater tures (e.g., lungs, CW, muscles).
trochanter, medial border at obturator fora- –– ITV – CTV + margin, create by using 4D
men, including 2 cm beyond involved CT or fluoro to account for motion.
nodes –– ITV + setup error margin = PTV. Use
• ISRT: 3D; 2008+; pre-chemo GTV deter- DIBH if involving mediastinum.
mines CTV (carve out bone, lung); becom- –– Commence 3–4w after completing
ing the SOC. chemo,
–– Supine, head extended, alpha cradle,
arms akimbo.
–– Pure ISRT: routine in the USA; optimal
pre-tx imaging not available. Not pos-
sible to reduce CTV to same extent as
INRT. GTV + ~1 cm = CTV. CTV + 1
cm = PTV.
Total Body Irradiation (TBI) –– Technique: 18 MV preferred over lower E

beams to improve homogeneity.
–– Dose of RT alone to achieve immunosup- –– AP/PA or opposed laterals with lung blocks.
pression is too high and would cause toxic- –– Use beam spoiler to increase surface dose.
ity. Combine with chemo. RT targets all
anatomic compartments, while chemo is
unable to penetrate sanctuary sites (e.g., TBI Studies
brain, testes). –– Hartman, 1998: meta-analysis. Busulfan/
–– Lymphocytes are both sensitive to RT and cyclophos vs TBI. TBI won because it had
chemo; however, some may be present in less VOD. Other endpoints, OS, DFS, acute
areas of low blood supply or sanctuary sites GVHD, chronic GVHD, pneumonitis, were
where chemo is not effective, but RT is. similar.
–– Clift, 1990; Clift, 1991: 16 Gy vs 12 Gy in pts.
Indications with relapsed AML or CML. 16 Gy arms had
–– Bulk >5 cm at time of recurrence lower relapses but more tox, so 12 Gy was
–– PR to salvage chemo or persistent disease chosen.
posttransplant
Planning
Pretransplant Preferred –– Typically 400 cm SSD.
–– Irradiating large volume of BM. –– Large SSD reduces the % change in PDD due
–– LC will affect the transplant. to ISL.
–– Suboptimal response to chemo. –– 40 × 40 cm tx field becomes 160 × 60 cm at
–– Residual dz. pretransplant such as FDG-avid 4 m SSD
tumor or >2 cm tumor. –– Dose per MU is 1/16 of the dose at 100 cm
SSD.
Posttransplant Preferred
–– Large radiation exposure to the lung Benefits Over Chemo
–– Delay in transplant undesirable –– No “sanctuary” sites (e.g., testes, brain).
–– Maximal cytoreduction desired for RT –– Dose delivered independent of blood supply.
planning –– Dose delivered independent of renal, hepatic
–– Recurrence localized function.
–– No cross-resistance with chemo.
Peri-ASCT Studies –– Dose can be homogenous.
–– Hoppe, 2008: refractory DLCL receiving –– Dose tailored to boost areas at risk and spare
IFRT. 1.5 Gy BID to 30 Gy. 5 yr PFS 53%, sensitive organs (e.g., lungs w/ lung blocks).
5 yr OS 58%. Minimal tx-related mortality
and morbidity. Toxicities of TBI
–– Common regimens: –– Nausea, parotitis, fatigue, and erythema are
• 2 Gy x 1 fraction. Non-myeloablative. most common.
• 2 Gy, BID, for 3 days, to a total dose of –– Radiation pneumonitis and RT-induced malig-
12 Gy. nancies are relatively uncommon.
• If not giving etoposide for conditioning,
some protocols call for 13.8 Gy in 1.65 Gy
fx, BID.
Pediatric Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
COG risk group Definition Treatment Outcomes

Low Stage I or II; not B, X, E ABVE x 2 cycles→ EFS5 90%
(favorable) If CR →ABVE x 2 (no RT)
If PR →ABVE x 2 →ISRT 21 Gy / 1.5 Gy fxs
Intermediate Everyone else: unfavorable ABVE-PC x2. EFS5 85%
(unfavorable) stage I/II, or stage IIIA (1) If rapid early response (RER),
ABVE-PC x2. If CR, then no RT. If < CR,
then IFRT.
(2) If slow early response (SERs),
then randomize (2a) augmented chemo w
DECAx2 +ABVE-PCx2 + 21 Gy/1.5 IFRT vs
(2b) ABVD-PC x2 + 21 Gy/1.5
High Stage IIIB or IVB ABVD x6 → IFRT EFS5 80%
Workup Peds HL, Intermediate-High Risk

–– Ask about B symptoms. –– AHOD 0031 Friedman, JCO: Peds lymphoma.
–– Complete nodal exam and examination of Int risk HL pts., excludes I-IIA and IIIB-
spleen and liver. IVB. Pts get doxo, bleomycin vcr, etoposide,
–– Labs: CBC, CMP, ESR, LDH, albumin, preg- prednisone, cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC)
nancy test. x2.
–– PET with diagnostic CT w/ or w/o contrast. • (1) If rapid early response (RER),
–– BM bx if stage III/IV or B-sx. ABVE-PC x2. If CR, then (1a) 21 Gy
IFRT (standard arm) vs (1b) no IFRT.
Chemos (1c) If < CR, then IFRT.
–– ABVE-PC = adriamycin, bleomycin, vincris- • (2) If slow early response (SERs), then
tine, etoposide, prednisone, randomize (2a) augmented chemo w/
cyclophosphamide DECAx2 + ABVE-PCx2 + 21 Gy/1.5
IFRT vs (2b) ABVD-PC x2 + 21 Gy/1.5.
Peds HL, Low and Intermediate Risk For RER, definition is >60% response on
–– COG AHOD 0431: low-risk peds HL AVPC interval CT. For CR in RER group, defini-
x3c, then IFRT vs obs. IFRT is 21 Gy/1.5 Gy. tion is 80 + % reduction in perpendicular
–– HOD99, Donaldson, 2007: VAMP chemo and diameters on CT, return to normal size
low-dose 15 Gy IFRT. 10y EFS 89%. for lesions, no residual extramediastinal
–– HD95, Dorfell, 2013: early-stage pts. rando to LN mass >2 cm, no dz. in nonmeasurable
IFRT vs omission. Had similar 10y PFS 97% sites, negative gallium or FDG-PET. No
vs 93%. Int risk pts., including IIB, rando to difference in outcomes w/ RT.
RT vs no RT. RT won, w/ 10y PFS 91% vs • (3) IF PD, then off-protocol tx.
68%. • Results: RER better than SER: 4y EFS
–– CCG 5942, Nachman, 2002; Wolden 2012: all 87% vs 77% and OS 99% vs 95%. RERs
risk groups w/ CR rando to IFRT vs no w/ CR by PET had no benefit w/ IFRT:
RT. Closed early due to worse EFS, even in 4y EFS 87% vs 87%. SERs w/ PET+ dz.
low-risk group I pts. 32/34 relapses in previ- had improved EFS w/ DECA vs ABVE
ously involved dz. 10y EFS 91% vs 83%. OS 71% vs 55%. Thus, if RER after 2c of
was similar ~96%. Majority of deaths due to chemo and CR after 4c chemo, then do
PD or toxicity of salvage. not need RT. If pts. had recurrence, it
was rarely in a new site.
Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (HL) [4–37]

-X
I II III IV -A -E Dropped in AJCC8 -B
Single 2+ LN Both sides Multifocal no extralymphatic Bulky dz.: B-sx
LN regions on 1 of organ B-sx site >1/3 mid-thoracic Temp >38 °C
region, side of diaphragm (e.g., liver, diameter (~T5/6 on PA within prev
or 1 diaphragm; BM, CXR), or >10 cm on CT month; unex-
organ or 1 organ + lung)+/− Trials: cutoff of 5 cm or plained >10%
regional LN LNs 10 cm MSKCC: >7 cm weight loss in last
Lugano: >10 cm or 6 m; drenching
MTR >1/3 night sweats
Stage III-IV HL IPS, cells w/ very lobulated nuclei. 5% of cases.

Hasenclever, 1998
Indolent, peripheral LNs, usually stage I–II,
(“ALL SHAM”)
late relapse, excellent OS, need follow-up
25 centers, 5K pts, all txd w chemo+/-RT
more than classic HL, high death from non-
HL dz. highest propensity to become DLBCL.
Age >/= 45 Risk factors FFP
• For NLPHL, RT is mainstay of treatment.
Leukocytosis >15 0 84
Lymphocytopenia <8% or <0.6 1 77

Overview
Stage IV 2 67
–– 8200 cases/yr. in the USA, 1300 deaths
Hgb <10.5 3 60
–– Common sx: asx LAD (70%) in neck, (70%,
Albumin <4.0 4 51
mediastinum (60%), PAs (35%), RP (25%),
Male 5+ 42 axilla (25%); B-sx (30%); EtOH-induced pain
at LAD site; pruritus (poor prognostic if
severe).
Subtypes
–– Classical: CD 15+, 30+, 45−, 20−. EBV + in Workup
50%. T > B cells. Reed-Sternberg cells –– LN exam.
pathognomonic, large, both mono- –– Kaplan / Rye LN groups (1966): includes 14
/multinucleated and lobulated. Divided into sites total. Some LNs are within one group:
stage I–II F, stage I–II UF, stage III–IV. A • Waldeyer’s ring: palatine, pharyngeal, lin-
single risk factor makes pt. UF. Among risk gual tonsils
groups, extranodal dz. rare. • Cervical/supraclav/occipital/preauricular
–– Nodular sclerosing (NSHL): >70% of HL • Epitrochlear/brachial
in the USA, young adults. • Inguinal/femoral
–– Mixed cellularity (MCCHL): bimodal: –– Smoking cessation.
childhood/older adults, abdominal, splenic –– Fertility preservation: sperm/egg bank; ooph-
involvement, EBV+. oropexy if pelvic RT anticipated.
–– Lymphocyte depleted (LDCHL): <1% of –– Excisional bx (to preserve LN architecture) w/
cases, HIV+. IHC. Tumor cells are <1% of tissue. If in HN
–– Lymphocyte rich (LRCHL): usually lim- area and concern for SCC, could try FNA first.
ited dz., no systemic sx, males, older age. –– CBC w/diff, CMP, ESR, LDH, LFTs, albu-
–– Nonclassical/nodular lymphocyte predomi- min, HepB/HepC, HIV, BHcG.
nant HL (NLPHL): CD 15-, 30-, 20+, 45+, –– diagnostic CT, PET-CT.
79a+, 57+. EBV neg. B > T cells. Small, –– PFTs (bleomycin), echocardiogram/MUGA
mononucleated, multi-lobulated. (adriamycin).
L&H/“popcorn” cells – small variants of RS
–– BM Bx: previously if B-sympx, stage III/IV, Chemotherapy

cytopenias with negative PET, recurrence. –– ABVD:
Now only if cytopenias with negative PET-CT. • 28-day cycle:
• Doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 15.
Unfavorable risk factors GHSG [38] NCCN [38]
Tox is cardiomyopathy, max dose is 400–
ESR & B symptoms >50 if A; >50 or B
(*normal ESR <20 mm/hr) >30 if B 500 mg/m2 in life.
Mediastinal mass MMR >0.33 MMR >0.33 • Bleomycin 10 units/m2, days 1 and 15. Tox
# of nodal sites >2 >3 is pulmonary fibrosis. Check PET-CT and
E lesion any CT sim.
Bulky >10 cm • Vinblastine 6 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 15.
Tox is neuropathy, cytopenias, and hair
–– International prognostic score (IPS) for HL: loss.
age >45; male sex; stage IV; Hgb <10.5; albu- • Dacarbazine, 375 mg/m2, days 1 and 15.
min <4.0; WBC >15; lymphocytopenia <0.6 Tox is infertility, sterility, birth defects,
of 8% of WBCs. May influence chemo; should N/V.
be used in stage III–IV dz. • HD13 found that dacarbazine is crucial.
–– Gene assay for CD68+, CD163+ macrophages: –– Stanford V: mechlorethamine, Oncovin (vin-
presence of cells is a poor prognostic factor. cristine), prednisone, etoposide, adriamycin,
–– Staging laparotomy not needed with STNI or bleomycin, vinblastine (MOPE-ABV).
chemo (EORTC H6F). Always needs RT.
–– Note: GHSG/EORTC unfav has different • Stanford V is 3 months; ABVD is
nodal grouping: mediastinum and hilum are 4 months; Stanford V omits procarbazine,
one site; EORTC IF/SP with axilla; GHSG IF/ has lower dose of bleomycin (5 vs 10)
SP with cervical LN. and less overall cumulative dose of
–– Favorable vs unfavorable: single risk factor doxorubicin.
makes one unfavorable. –– AVPC: adriamycin, vincristine, prednisone,
–– Advanced HL (stage III/IV) IPS (NEJM, cyclophosphamide.
1998): age 45+, leukocytosis >15, lymphope- –– MOPP: mechlorethamine, vincristine, pro-
nia, stage IV, Hgb <10.5, albumin <4, male carbazine, prednisone.
(“ALLSHAM”). Each risk factor decreases –– BEACOPP: bleomycin, etoposide, adriamy-
FFPD by 8%. cin, cyclophosphamide, Oncovin, procarba-
–– van Nimwegen, 2016: 2617 HL survivors, zine, prednisone. Usually use in UF. Hesitancy
1965–1995 in the Netherlands. Median inter- to use esc-BEACOPP in US because acute tox,
val bw dx and CAD dx is 19y. Risk of CAD inc risk leukemia w/ agents, toxic for elderly.
increased linearly w/ increasing mean heart
dose, ERR of 7.4%/Gy, which resulted in a Large Volume and Staging
2.5-fold increased risk of CAD w/ mean heart –– EORTC H6 (Carde, 1993): stages I–II.
dose of 20 Gy. • H6F patients randomized to clinical stag-
ing + STNI vs staging lap, then mantle RT
Ann Arbor GHSG or chemo as indicated. There were no OS
9 sites EORTC 5 sites 5 sites
R cervical
differences, lap abandoned.
R infraclav • H6U patients all receive mantle RT. Then
R axilla randomize to ABVD vs MOPP. 6-year
L cervical FFP 88% vs 76%, favor ABVD. OS was
L infraclav 93% vs 89% (NSS) mainly from lap-
L axilla related death. Less heme, gonad toxicity
mediastinum
w/ ABVD. Increased pulm tox w/
R hilum
L hilum
bleomycin.
RT vs CRT Chemo +/– RT

–– Four trials showed improvement with CRT, –– Laskar: very mixed group: 6c ABVD with
one with OS improvement (H8F): CR → IFRT vs obs. RT won: 8 yr. EFS
• EORTC H7F, H8F, German HD7, SWOG 76 → 88%, OS 89 → 100%.
S9133. –– Cochrane meta-analysis: Five trials (CALGB
–– EORTC H7F, Noordijk, 2006. Parallel to H8. 7751, EORTC-GELA H9-F, GATLA 9-H-77,
Goal to reduce toxicity. n = 333 fav risk pts. Mexico B2H031, MSK 90–44): HR for OS and
Rando: EBVP x 6c, then IFRT 36–40 Gy vs PFS was 0.4, in favor for chemo + RT. H9-F
STNI 40. CRT improved 10y EFS 88% vs closed early because so many failures.
78%, but not OS, 92%.
–– EORTC 7 U: 389 U risk pts. randomized to Intermediate-High Risk
(1) EBVP x 6c, then IFRT 36–40 Gy vs; (2) –– HD11: I-II U, then rando to ABVDx4 or
MOPP/ABV x 6c, then IFRT 36–40 Gy. After BEACOPP x4; then secondary rando IFRT
10 y EFS 68% vs 88%, favoring MOPP/ABV, 30 Gy vs 20 Gy. n = 1395. No PETs. No diff
prompting early closure. 10y OS was also bet- in outcomes for chemo. Similar outcomes for
ter 79% vs 87%. BEACOPP+ 20 or 30 Gy and ABVD +30 Gy.
–– EORTC H8F. n = 542. Rando to MOPP/ Suggestion for worse outcomes w/ 20 Gy, but
ABV x3c + IFRT 36–40 Gy vs STNI 36–40 Gy not powered to detect difference. Worse tox w/
alone. CMT improved EFS and OS. Thus, BEACOPP. Thus, ABVD x4, then IFRT 30 Gy
chemo and IFRT are preferred. is SOC.
–– EORTC H8-U, Ferme, 2007. n = 996. Rando –– HD14, von Tresckow, 2012: early stage,
to MOPP/ABV x6c + IFRT 36–40 Gy vs UF. Follows HD11; will further intensification
MOPP/ABV x 4c + IFRT 36–40 Gy vs MOPP/ help? Rando: ABVD x4 + 30 Gy IFRT vs
ABV x 4c + STNI 36–40 Gy. No difference in BEACOPPesc x2 + ABVD x2 + 30 Gy IFRT
5y EFS (~85%) or OS (~86%). Thus 4c (intensified arm). 5-year FFTF was 88% vs
CMT + IFRT sufficient. 95%, favoring intensification. OS 97% both.
–– Milan, Bonadonna, 2004. early HL, F and No difference in CR, both at 95%. G3–4 tox
UF. ABVDx4c, then STNI 30.6–40 vs IFRT worse 87% vs 51%. Thus, although
36–40. No difference in RFS or OS. Shows PFS + FFTF better, ABVDx4 remains SOC. If
IFRT sufficient. X dz., some recommend x6–8.
–– HD7, Engert, 2007. 650 fav HL. EFRT 30–40 –– EORTC H10: what is role of interim PET?
vs ABVDx2c, then EFRT. 7y FFTF 67% vs Two cohort patients, F and UF. Interim PET
88%, favoring CMT. No difference in OS, 93%, was valid prognosticator.
mostly because chemo salvage still available. • H10F cohort got ABVD x 3c, then INRT
30 Gy, despite interim PET after 2c.
Chemo vs RT Experimental arm got ABVD x 2 followed
–– NCIC/ECOG HD.6, Meyer, 2012: unfav/fav by PET. If negative interim PET, 2 cycles
I-II, nonbulky. ABVD and if positive, BEACOPPesc x
–– : ABVD x4-6c vs STNI +/− ABVDx2 2c + INRT 30 Gy Decreased PFS in ABVD
(depending on risk): 5 yr. PFS initially favored alone arm, stopped this arm.
CRT (88 → 95%), same OS; 12 yr. f/u showed • H10U cohort got ABVD x4c + INRT 30 Gy
↓OS in chemoRT arm (94% vs 87%). For as SOC. Experimental arm got ABVD x 2c
good risk pts., STNI had better outcomes than then PET. If neg, then ABVD x4c. (This
ABVDx4-6c. For high-risk pts., STNI arm no-RT arm closed due to inc failures.) If
only got 2c chemo. Concluded ABVD supe- pos, then BEACOPesc + INRT 30 Gy.
rior to STNI alone. Criticisms: STNI w/o
chemo not SOC. Dose too high. RT alone
group had many pts. >40 yo. 5/24 deaths in RT
arm not from RT.
Advanced-Stage Chemo OS 91%, and FFTF 85% (NSS). EFRT had

–– Aleman/SWOG: III –IV → 4–6c MOPP-ABV more toxicity. IFRT was winner.
w/ CR → IFRT vs obs. Same EFS and OS. –– German HD10, Engert, 2010: stages I–II
–– ECOG 2496: Stanford V better than ABVD favorable (GHSG fav criteria): 2x2 design
for IPS 3–7. (2-4c ABVD and 20–30 IFRT): 5 yr. DFS and
–– HD9 BEACOPP x 8 vs esc BEACOPP x8 vs OS were same in all arms.
COPP-ABVD x 8 (though not all got ABVD). –– UK RAPID (Radford, 2015): IA/IIA HL. Pts
Esc BEACOPP had best FFP and OS, but get 3c ABVD, then rando: IFRT 30 Gy vs obs.
more G4 tox, more AML/MDS. Non-inferiority. 3-year PFS was 95% vs 91%;
–– EORTC 20012: esc BEACOPP x4 vs ABVD x however, 4% absolute diff 95%CI was above
8, no RT. Similar outcomes. the 7% non-inferiority margin, so treatments
were not deemed non-inferior. Still, authors
Advanced-Stage Consolidative RT conclude omission possible given excellent
–– EORTC 20884, Aleman 2003: Advanced HL, prognosis.
II–IV, not IIB. ABV/MOPP x 6c. If CR, IFRT
30 Gy vs obs. If PR, 30 Gy IFRT. No PETs, NLPHL
only CTs. No diff in OS or RFS among the –– Chen, JCO, 2011: stages I–II. N = 93 receiv-
pts. w/ CR. Thus, no need for RT if there is CR ing RT alone. 13 got CMT. 7 got chemo alone.
after ABV/MOPP x 6c. Among the pts. w/ PR 10-yr. PFS 85% and 61% for stages I and II,
to chemo, outcomes not different from those resp. OS >90%. No PFS or OS differences bw
w/ CR after chemo. Thus, 30 Gy IFRT after EFRT vs regional RT vs limited field RT; but
PR improves prognosis. However, pts. w/ X more second malignancy, CV deaths with
dz. more likely to have PR than CR. No differ- EFRT. 6/7 chemo pts. had early relapses.
ences in second malignancy rates for pts. w/ –– BCCA / Al-Mansour, 2010: n = 95. 7% risk to
CR vs PR and then RT. There was more leuke- become DLBCL at 10y; 30% at 20y.
mia in the CR-RT arm, cause unknown.
Criticism is use of MOPP/ABV, highly toxic; PETs and Deauville PET Criteria
in the USA, ABVD is used, no known
Uptake No uptake Mediastinum Liver New site
superiority. Deauville 1 2 3 4 5a 5b
–– SWOG 7808: no benefit with IFRT after Interpretation Negative Equivocal Positive
chemo if CR.
–– Laskar, Tata Memorial, 2004. Mostly MC HL, –– 1: No uptake
a better prognosis subtype. ABVD x6c. If CR, –– 2: Uptake ≤ mediastinum
rando to obs vs IFRT 21 Gy + 10 Gy boost to –– 3: Mediastinum < uptake ≤ liver
X. EFS 88% vs 76% favoring RT. OS 100% vs –– 4: ↑Moderately compared to liver
89% favoring RT. 15% pts. did receive EFRT –– 5a: ↑Markedly compared to liver
and 115 got inverted Y. 50% pts. <15 yo and –– 5b: New FDG avid site
half stages I–II. –– 1–2 are neg; 4–5 are positive; 3 can be either,
–– German, HD15, Engert, 2012. Eval different depending on goal of study (e.g., esc vs de-
chemo. Only residual dz. >2.5 cm and PET+ esc). Usually negative.
txd w/ 30 Gy IFRT. –– Restaging PET/CT is 2 weeks after day 15 of
last cycle of ABVD. If Deauville 4 on interim
↓Field Size, ↓Dose, ↓Chemo PET-CT, the ast PET-CT is 6–8 wk. after
–– GPMC, German HD8, Milan, EORTC H8U chemo or 8–12 wk. after RT.
all ↓ FS. –– Do not perform 7-10d after chemo to avoid
–– German HD8, Engert, 2010. Early unfav. false positive from inflammation.
COPPx2 and ABVDx2, then rando to 30 Gy –– Interim PET is + in 14% F and 24% UF
EFRT vs 30 Gy IFRT. X dz. boost +10 Gy. 5-y patients.
Treatment Paradigm –– if PR (Deauville 4–5), esc BEACOPP or

ABVD x 4 cycles, 30–36 Gy ISRT to
HL, Classical (i.e., NSHL, CD 15/30+), I–IIF initially bulky or PET+ sites.
–– NCCN (very favorable, meeting GHSG HD10 –– Stanford V x 12 weeks + ISRT to initial sites
criteria): ABVD x 2 → restage w/ PET →: >5 cm, involved spleen, 30–36 Gy.
• Deauville 1–3 → ISRT 20 Gy. –– Esc BEACOPP x 6 cycles, then 30–36 Gy for
• Deauville 4 → Consider another ABVD residual PET+ sites >2.5 cm.
x2c then ISRT 20 Gy.
–– UK RAPID trial approach is ABVD x3 cycles Bulky Dz: 30–36 Gy w/ ABVD, 36 Gy w/
(intent for chemo alone), then PET: Stanford V
–– Deauville 1–2, then observe vs fourth c
ABVD. Relapsed/Refractory
–– Deauville 3–4, then fourth c ABVD +30 Gy –– Chemo: ICE or BEAM → Transplant and
ISRT. stem cell rescue.
–– Deauville 5, biopsy. –– Consider ISRT to persistent disease or initially
–– Stanford V × 8 weeks +30 Gy ISRT. bulky sites.
–– Cannot omit RT even PET-neg after chemo
(EORTC H10F, H10U, RAPID). HL, Nonclassical (i.e., NLPHL, CD20+)
–– RT mainstay of tx
Classic HL, I–IIU –– IA-IIA: ISRT w/ 30 Gy (preferred vs obs) →
–– NCCN: PET/CT →
• ABVD x 4 → restage w/ PET →. • CR = observe
• Deauville 1–3 = ISRT 30 Gy vs (2 • PR = refer to medonc for R-CHOP or
more cycles and no RT). All X should ABVD.
get RT. –– IB-IIB or IAX/IIAX: chemo + rituximab +ISRT
• Deauville 4 → ABVD x 2 → restage w/ (30 Gy; 36 for bulk, ABVD+/−R or R-CHOP).
PET → Deauville 1–3 → ISRT 30 Gy –– IIIA, IVA: chemo + rituximab +/− ISRT OR
• Persistent Deauville 4 or 5 needs bx → if rituximab alone OR local RT palliation for
(+) it is refractory. symptomatic dz.
–– HD11: ABVD x 2; then PET; then two more –– IIIB, IV: chemo + rituximab +/− ISRT.
cycles, IFRT 30 Gy. –– All pts. should be followed because relapses
–– Esc BEACOPP x2, ABVDx2 then 30 Gy occur up to 15 y post-tx.
ISRT. –– RT: CTV + 2–5 cm. For CD, can use 1 cm.
–– Stanford V x 12 w, then 30–36 Gy ISRT.
–– Cannot omit RT even PET-neg after chemo Pregnant Women: HL more common
(EORTC H10F, H10U, RAPID). because immune-suppressed; some avoid CT and
PET staging and use US; if asx, tx may be delayed
Classic HL, III–IV til after delivery; avoid RT; can use ABVD in
–– Calculate the advanced IPS score: male, 2nd/3rd trimester.
age ≥45, stage IV, Hgb <10.5, Alb <4, leuko-
cytosis >15 k, lymphocytopenia <0.6 k/mL Treatment
(or <8%). –– GTV = Post-chemo disease if present.
–– NCCN: –– CTV = Prechemotherapy PET-CT. Adjusted
• ABVD x 2 PET →. to exclude uninvolved normal tissues (lung
–– if CR (Deauville 1–3), 4 cycles (6 total), after chemo shrinkage).
no RT. May consider ISRT to sites of –– ITV = CTV + motion (4D-CT).
initial bulk, 30–36 Gy (controversial, no –– PTV = CTV + 5 mm.
benefit in Aleman or SWOG). –– Use DIBH if in mediastinum.
Protons: best for mediastinum, spleen, PA –– Lhermitte’s: 20% in HL, likely from chemo.
LNs. No correlation w/ dose. Should resolve w/
time.
Constraints (per ILROG): –– Adriamycin: cardiomyopathy (limit is 450 mg
–– Lung: V20 <20%; mean lung <12 Gy. w/ RT, 550 w/o RT).
–– Heart: mean <15 Gy. –– Bleomycin: pulmonary fibrosis.
–– Bone growth affected at 8 Gy. –– Vinblastine: neuropathy and hair loss.
–– Breast tissue growth affected at 5–10 Gy.
–– Thyroid: >15 Gy assoc. w/ 30% risk Late Effects Monitoring (After 5 Years)
insufficiency. –– Optimize cardiovascular health, baseline
–– TD 5/5: echo, and stress test q10y, especially if cardiac
• Testes: 2 Gy (permanent sterility), 0.5 Gy RT.
(temporary azoospermia). –– Carotid ultrasound at 10 y if neck RT.
• Oocytes. Sterilization by 2 Gy. Failure by –– If splenic RT → pneumo, meningo, flu vac-
6–10 Gy (single fx), 12–15 Gy fractionated cines q5y.
in age <40. –– Chest XR/CT qyr if at risk for lung ca.
–– Female age >25: Start breast mammo 10 years
Follow-Up after treatment or at 40, whichever earlier if
–– Need one PET-CT to confirm response after chest or axillary RT.Get annual breast MRI at
RT; otherwise, no role for routine PET-CT in age 40 or 10 yrs. after RT.
follow-up. • Cumulative risk of breast cancer in 30y
–– q3 mo x 2y, q6 mo x3y, then annually with after treatment for HL 19% (~0.7% per
H&P, labs including TSH. year) and 26% for women <21 yo.
–– CXR or CT q6 mo x5y (alternate PET-CT
with CT yearly). Outcomes
–– Early stage favorable/unfavorable and
Toxicity NLPHL: 10-yr. OS = 90% – 10-yr. EFS = 85%.
–– Dermatitis, post scalp hair loss, xerostomia, –– Advanced stage:
dental caries (fluoride x 2 years after RT), • 10-yr. OS = 80% – 10-yr. EFS = 75%
esophagitis, thyroid dysfunction, Lhermitte’s,
herpes zoster, pneumonitis, and pericarditis.
on-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL)

N –– Richter syndrome: SLL/CLL → DLBCL
[4–8, 39–48] transformation (5%): ↑bcl-2; t(14,18); others
• DLBCL is most common lymphoid neo-
Overview plasm; AIDS-defining illness.
–– NHL (vs HL): more LN+, more E-LN dz., less –– “Double hit”: bcl-2 OR 6, AND c-myc
contiguous, rare to have stage I NHL (only translocation
10%). –– “Triple hit”: bcl-2 AND 6 AND c-myc
–– Incidence rose in 1970s–1980s, as did death translocation
rates; both plateaued in the 1990s and 2000s. –– Translocation more common than overexpres-
Rituximab was approved in 1997. sion (i.e., gene amplification); “double-
expressor” lymphomas have similar poor
Categories prognosis.
–– Low-grade NHL: follicular (G1, G2, G3A),
SLL/CLL, MALT, MF CD Markers:
–– Intermediate-grade NHL: follicular (G3B), –– B cell: CD19, 20, and 21.
mantle cell, DLBCL, T/NK cell, peripheral T –– T cell: CD2, 3, 7, 8.
cell, anaplastic large cell (100% CD30+, –– Anaplastic large cell lymphoma CD 30+ (ki-1
>90% ALK rearrangement) antigen).
–– High-grade NHL: Burkitt’s lymphoma, –– Natural killer T-cell lymphoma CD 56+.
lymphoblastic
Workup
History –– CBC w/diff, CMP, LDH, B2micro, SPEP,
–– Painless lymphadenopathy ~2/3; B symptoms HIV.
~40% –– HepB, HepC: Need to check because ritux-
–– Indolent lymphomas: Slow-growing, waxing/ imab may react to hepatitis B.
waning LAD, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, –– Excisional bx (not FNA).
or cytopenias –– BM biopsy for all DLBCL, T cell, and FL!
–– Aggressive lymphomas: Fulminant symptoms The only exception is gastric MALT
relating to rapidly enlarging mass • NCCN says b/l or unilateral core biopsy (as
long as biopsy is >1.6 cm).
Genetics –– Any area of DLBCL in FL of any grade = treat
–– Germinal center B cell (GCB): hypermuta- as DLBCL.
tions, REL amp, bcl-2 translocation. –– PET-CT.
OS5 = 64%.
–– Primary mediastinal B-Cell (PMBCL): simi- Special Case Workup
lar to NSHL. OS5 = 60%. –– Check CSF with LP if HIV+, testicular, epi-
–– Activated B-cell (ABC): NFKB activated. dural, or paranasal sinus involvement, double-
OS5 = 30%. expressor lymphoma, bone marrow with large
–– Follicular: t(14,18) → ↑bcl-2, an anti- cell lymphoma, or four to six risk factors (>1
apoptosis gene. extranodal site, elevated LDH, age >60,
–– Mantle cell: t(11,14) → ↑bcl-1. PS >1, stage III or IV, kidney/adrenal gland
–– MALT: t(11,18), tri3. If translocation present, involvement, 2+ E sites).
then resistant to abx. –– MRI if getting LP.
–– Burkitt’s lymphoma: t(8,14) → ↑c-myc, a –– Echo if getting anthracyclines.
proto-oncogene. –– For mantle cell early stage → EGD and
–– SLL/CLL: del13, t(14,19), tri12. colonoscopy.
Staging –– Adriamycin 50 mg/m2 d1. inhibits nucleic

–– Same as for Hodgkin’s lymphoma. acid production. Heart limit is ~400 w/ RT,
–– Bulky = >7.5 cm. ~500 w/ RT.
–– Practical staging: Limited, I–II whether bulky –– Oncovin (vincristine) 1.4 mg/m2 d1. Inhibits
is limited or advanced depends on histology. microtubule formation, arrests cells in
Advanced, III–IV. metaphase.
–– Prednisone 100 mg/d PO d 1–4. Unclear
Chemotherapy mechanism, synergistic?
–– R-CHOP is q 3 weeks.
–– Rituximab. Anti-CD20. May reactivate HBV.
–– Cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 d1. DNA
alykator, N-mustard.
Intermediate-High-Grade Lymphoma
NHL/DLBCL [51–55]
Revised Age-adjusted IPI for pts <60 yo, Schipp, 1993
International Prognostic Index (IPI) IPI (ritux (“APLES w/o the vowels”)
(APLES or LAKES) adds 10%) ECOG ≥2 Risk group #
Age >60 Risk group # 5 yr. OS 5 yr. OS LDH > ULN Low risk 0–1
ECOG ≥2/ Low risk 0–1 73% 94% Stage III/IV Int risk 2
KPS <70 Low/int risk 2 51% 79% Int/high risk 3
LDH >ULN Int/high risk 3 43% 55%
>1 extranodal High risk 4–5 26%
Stage III/IV
Stage-adjusted IPI from SWOG 8736 (Miller, 1998)

(PALS)
Excludes E dz. and stage III/IV. Use only for stage I/II
Age >60 Risk group # 5 yr. PFS
ECOG ≥2 Low risk 0–1 77%
LDH > ULN Low/int risk 2 60%
Stage II Int/high risk 3 34%
High risk 4 0%
Isolated
The 4 Any local local Distant
RCTs Patients Arms Outcomes Criticisms relapse relapse relapse
GELA >60 y/o, CHOP 4c 5 yr. EFS and OS RT started >5w after 63% vs 47% vs 53% vs
LNH93–4 low risk, +/− 40 Gy (~70%) same chemo in 50% pts. 34% 21% 79%
(elderly) age- IFRT Only 88% pts. in Criticized
Bonnet, adjusted CMT arm got RT. In for this hi
2007 IPI 0, field recurrence 34%, value
stages which is >10% than
I–II. 8% the other GELA study
X.56% E and >15% than the
two US studies. This
was a very specific
population
GELA ≤ 60 yo, AVCBP x3c + AVCBP w/o RT won. Effect of RT difficult 62% 41% vs 59% vs
LNH93–1 low risk consolidation 5y EFS 82% vs 74%. to interpret given the (AVCBP) 23% 77%
(young) (IPI 0) (e.g. MTX, OS 90% vs 81% different chemos + vs 28%
Reyes, stages leucovorin, consolidation.
2005 I–II (E or etoposide, ifos, AVCBP is toxic
X cytarabine) vs (150% intensity of
allowed) CHOP x3c + CHOP; needs
40 Gy IFRT hospitalization, hi rate
of AML, lung ca)
ECOG I–IIE, int CHOP 8c For the pts. w/ CR, RT More X pts. on RT 48% 52%
1484Horn- grade If CR, then won over obs. Primary arm; not powered for (15/31) (16/31)
ing, 2004 NHL 30 Gy vs obsIf endpoint was DFS. OS vs 17% vs 82%
PR, 40 Gy for 6 yr. DFS 56 → 73%, (3/17) (14/17)
all pts OS numerically better
but NSS. Conversion
from PR → CR did
not influence DFS
SWOG I–IIE int CHOP 8c vs 5 yr. results favored (1) Differing # 0% with Relapses not
8736, grade CHOP CRT, but 8 yr. chemos; (2) Stage RT reported in
Miller, NHL 3c + 40–55 overlapped. In-field adjusted IPI = 0 in primary
1998 IFRT LRR 0%. Inc. rates of 90% of pts., low risk publication or
cardio tox in 8c of of failure. (3) Relapses abstracts.
chemo vs 3 c + IFRT. not reported in Note that
As advanced stage is primary pub or DLBCL I-II IPI
factor in original IPI, abstracts. Anecdotal 2–4 pts. felt to
investigators modified reports state excess drive the late
index to make late relapses out of out-of-field
“stage-adjusted IPI” field recurrences;
to exclude >1 E sites thus, felt to
and stages III– benefit from
IV. IFRT felt to more chemo
compensate for
reduction in chemo
Intermediate-Grade Trials for DLBCL Rituximab Era, Elderly

Pre-rituximab Era –– Rationale for RT is that pts. cannot tolerate 6c
–– For the four main RCTs, 45% of relapses in R-CHOP.
the chemo alone arms were in initial dz. sites. –– RICOVER-60, Pfreudschun, 2008. Any dz.
RT improved LC by ~70%. LC may improve stage or IPI previously untxd aggressive B-cell
OS w/ longer dz. control from rituximab. NHL, 61–80 yo. Four arms: CHOP x6c or 8c
–– Mexico, Aviles, 2005: NHL, got chemo, had +/− Rit. IFRT 36 Gy to X dz. or ENI. 6c
residual. Rando to 30/1.5 vs obs. RT improved RCHOP arm declared superior over
PFS and OS. Main RCT to suggest this CHOP. Investigators tried to omit RT in this
approach before RICOVER-60. arm.
–– RICOVER-noRTh, Held, 2014: Amendment
Post-rituximab Era (Approved 1997) to RICOVER-60 to compare pts. receiving RT
–– SWOG 0014, Persky, 2008: Single arm. 36 Gy to cohort receiving same immuno-
RCHOP x3c + IFRT (40–46 Gy). PFS chemo but no RT (RICOVER-noRTh). In ITT
improved vs 8736 (historic control). and as treated analyses, RT benefits elderly
–– MInT: II-IV or IX, IPA 0–1. CHOP-like x 6 pts. w/ X. Trend toward worse PFS and OS
+/− ritux. Ritux won. 6 yr. EFS 56 → 74%. w/o RT. In per-protocol analysis, EFS, PFS,
Not an RT trial, but RT to all sites initial bulk/ and OS all improved w/ RT.
ENI.
–– MDACC: n = 469; I-IV; DLBCL; 30% Relapse
received consolidative RT. On MVA, RT –– MSKCC, Hoppe, 2008: IFRT prior to high-
improved PFS (HR, 0.19), and OS. dose ASCR as salvage for 164 pts. w/ relapse
–– Unfolder: four arms: R-CHOP 21 x 6 or or refractory NHL. RT 30 Gy IFRT in 1.5 Gy
RCHOP 14 x 6 +/− RT (bulky >7.5 cm or BID. Many received TBI. 2y OS 67%, 5 y OS
ENI). All must have PR+. The no-RT arms 58%.
were closed because of hi relapse.
–– MDACC retrospective (Phan, 2010): RT vs Chemo
Consolidative RT after RCHOP improves OS Pugh, 2010, SEER: RT has cardioprotective
and PFS for early and late stage dz. effect for NHL, supposedly because there are a
reduced number of CHOP cycles w/ adriamycin.
Treatment –– RT technique:
• Tape penis up.
DLBCL, General • Measure scrotum separation.
–– I-II (non-X, i.e., <7.5 cm): • Use en face electrons (flash lat and inf.);
• For IPI 0–1, RCHOP x 3c preferred. Then 9–12 MeV.
PET-CT. Then ISRT 30–36 Gy. Boost • No bolus.
FDG-avid residual dz. to 40–46 Gy. • Want ≥80% of dose from 0.5 cm depth to
• Reduces risk of relapse by 50–60%. 0.5 cm from posterior.
• Alternative (cat 2b) is R-CHOP x 6c and no
further treatment. DLBCL of Bone (See Separate Section)
• For IPI 2–4, RCHOP x6c. –– R-CHOP x three cycles + RT 45 G to GTV
• Then ISRT 30–36 Gy. +2–3 cmy. Cover larger volume of bone.
• If unable to tolerate chemo, then 36–45 Gy –– Using less chemo but more RT as local
ISRT (depending on response to chemo). therapy.
• Boost FDG-avid residual dz. after chemo
to 40–46 Gy. DLBCL of the Breast
–– I-II (X, i.e., >7.5 cm): RCHOP x6c +/− ISRT –– R-CHOP x six cycles + RT 36 Gy to whole
30–36 Gy. X dz. (RICOVER-noRTh) breast (use tangents).
–– Using more chemo but less RT to minimize
–– III/IV: dose to breast.
• If high IPI, clinical trial for high-dose
chemo with autologous stem cell rescue. Mantle Cell
• R-CHOP x 4 → restage w/ PET. –– Most often advanced stage. Median OS
• CR→ R-CHOP x 2 → observe. Consider 3–4 years.
ISRT only to initial bulk (36 Gy), per –– I–II: chemo+RT.
German group. • RT for stages I–II: 30–36 Gy at 1.5 Gy/fx.
• PR → R-CHOP x 2→ restage w/ PET. –– III+: chemo.
• If PET negative: ISRT only to initial bulk –– Palliation: 2 Gy x 2 fx (“Boom boom”), can
(36 Gy). repeat PRN.
• If PET positive: refractory, go to
transplant. Primary Cutaneous B-Cell Lymphoma,
Leg Type
–– Aggressive histology (e.g., double/triple hit, –– Complete skin exam; labs w/ LDH, HBV, CT
Burkitt’s lymphoma): CAP and or PET, BM bx.
• da-R-EPOCH or R-CHOP x 6c, then –– Leg type has poor prognosis.
PET-CT, then 30 Gy ISRT for PR. –– NCCN: R-CHOP and local RT 30 Gy.
–– Palliation: 2 Gy × 2.
Gastric DLBCL
–– Same treatment as above [R-CHOP x 3 → Which DLBCLs Need CSF
ISRT (30 Gy)]. Chemoprophylaxis?
–– Testicular, paranasal sinus, epidural, BM
Testicular DLBCL involvement.
–– Orchiectomy→ R-CHOP x 6 w/ IT-MTX → –– Give 4–8c of IT MTX.
scrotal RT to 30 Gy (high contralateral relapse
rate w/o RT).
rimary Mediastinal B-Cell Lymphoma

P ediastinal Gray Zone Lymphoma
M
(PMBCL) [48] Overview
Overview –– B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, males,
–– Note this is different from DLBCL (not 20–40
“diffuse”!). –– Male version of PMBCL
–– Arises in B-cell clones in thymus, and not in
nodal B-cells. CD 19/20+, CD3-, consistent Treatment
w/ B-cell immunophenotype. May be CD30+ –– R-da-EPOCH vs R-CHOP.
or CD45+. Mostly younger women; thus, aim –– Consolidate all early-stage patients regardless
to avoid RT. Invasive in pleura, pericardium. of PET.
2/3 present w/ mass >10 cm. 30–40% w/ SVC –– 30 Gy ISRT. Boost 10–15 Gy for PR.
obstruction.
–– Females in 30s.
–– Present with early-stage, X disease.
Workup
Same as NHL: LDH, CBC, urate, PET CT, BM
biopsy, get IPI, HBV, echo or MUGA, pregnancy
testing.
Studies
–– Dunleavy, 2013: NCI regimen of
DA-EPOCH-R. n = 51. No RT. Untreated. At
5-y, EFS is 93%, OS 97%. CR rate is 96%.
• These outcomes are unprecedented in a
phase II study.
Treatment
–– Tx w/ DA-EPOCH-R x 6c (Dunleavy, 2013).
Chemo requires inpt stay for 1 w.
–– Then PET-CT.
–– No RT unless persistent focal disease.
–– Less preferred: R-CHOP x6 w/ ISRT 30 Gy;
or R-CHOP x4, then ICE x3c, +/− ISRT
30 Gy.
rimary Lymphoma of Bone [56, 57]

P Treatment
Overview –– Chemo then remains SOC.
–– <2% adult lymphoma –– R-CHOP x3–6c, then shrinking RT field, sim-
–– >90% occur over 30 yo ilar to DLBCL: 30–36 Gy for CR and
–– Most are DLBCLs and can have B-sx. 40–45 Gy for PR. Spare joint space if not
–– TROG/ALLG, Christie, 2010: 3c CHOP, then involved. CTV = GTV + 1 cm.
shrinking RT field of 45 Gy/1.8: first entire –– Alternative: 6c R-CHOP 36 Gy to the GTV
involved bone txd to 36 Gy, w/ final 5 fx to (based on pre-chemo dz., PET, MRI) + 1 cm.
2 cm margins. LC was 72%. OS 90% at 5 y. –– MRI planning is helpful to delineate full
Closed early due to poor accrual and new extent of involvement.
availability of rituximab.
–– Bologna, Pellegrini, 2011: chemo w/
R-MACOP-B vs R-CHOP21 x 6c. rituximab
gave 95% CR and 8 year OS 95%, PFS 100%.
11/21 pts. got RT.
–– Held, JCO 2013: RT after chemo improves
PFS.
ow-Grade Indolent NHL

L –– Grade correlates to density of centroblasts:
(Non-MALT) [49, 50] –– G1: <5 centroblasts/hpf.
–– G2: 5–15/hpf.
FL International Prognostic Index (FLIPI): (“NoooooLASH”)
–– G3: >15/hpf. Treat like DLBCL.
Nodal Sites: ≥ 5 Risk group # factors 5y OS 10yr
LDH > ULN % OS %
Age ≥60 GELF Criteria:
Stage III/IV
Hgb <12
Low risk 0-1 91 71 –– Criteria for treating follicular lymphoma
Int risk 2 78 50 –– ≥3 nodal sites (each >3 cm), mass ≥7 cm,
High risk 3-5 53 36 B-sympx, splenomegaly, effusion/ascites,
cytopenia, leukemia
FLIPI-2 (“B-BLAH”) Stages I–II, Staging Studies:

B2micro > ULN Risk group # factors 10yr OS –– FLIPI-2, Federico, 2009: prospective data col-
BM involvement
Largest LN >6 cm
Low risk 0-1 80% lection to make better prognostic index. See in
Age ≥60 Int risk 2 51% staging.
Hgb <12
High risk 3-5 19%
Stages I–II, Observation:
–– Stanford/Advani, 2004, 63% of pts. avoided tx
Subtypes: Follicular lymphoma (FL), Marginal in 86 months. Freedom from treatment 56% at
zone lymphoma (MZL), SLL, 10y. OS 97% at 5y, 85% at 10y, and 22% at
lymphoplasmacytic. 20y
FL subtypes: typical, FL with 1p36 transloca-
tion, duodenal FL, large B-cell lymphoma with Stages I–II, RT Alone:
IRF-4 translocation, pediatric-like FL. –– With RT: 50% without progression at 10 y.
–– National LymphoCare Study: Stage I pts.,
FL Natural History and Outcomes: only 27% of patients receiving RT up front.
–– EFS5 = 65% 17% observe; others get chemo, PFS better
–– OS5 = 85% with chemo.
–– EFS15 = 30% –– MacManus, 1996: n = 43 FL Stage 1–2. IFRT,
–– OS15 = 60% EFRT, and TLI. Dose 35–50 Gy. RT to both
–– FL fails distantly sides of diaphragm was associated w/ better
–– 30–65% transform to DLBCL 10y FFR, 67% vs 36%.
–– 80% present as stage III/IV
–– 50% of FL patients have + BM (vs 15% of FL stages I–II, Adjuvant Chemo:
DLBCL) –– Five RCTs failed to show benefit of RT + adju-
vant chemo w/ CVP or CHOP.
FL Genetics:
–– t(14;18) seen in 90% of FLs. This results in Dose, Fractionation:
overexpression of anti-apoptotic Bcl-2. –– UK British Nat Lymphoma investigation
(Lowry, 2011): indolent NHL (mostly FL,
FL Frading: MZL): 40–45/2 vs 24/2. Non-inferiority.
–– Demonstrates mix of centrocytes (small, Response similar, 93%. No diff in in-field
cleaved cells) and centroblasts (large, non- progression.
cleaved cells),
–– “Boom boom”/the Netherlands. Salvage for RIT:

previously-irradiated recurrent indolent lym- –– SWOG S0016, Press, 2013: RCT of advanced-
phoma. Tx 2 Gy x 2 fx. Response rate 92%. stage FL, RCHOP x6c vs CHOP RIT w/
CR 61%, PR 31%, SD 5%, PD 2%. Median Bexxar (I-131 tositumomab, a CD-20 radio-
time to progression 14 m. therapeutic Ig). No difference in 2y PFS
–– Follicular Radiotherapy Trial, FORT, Hoskin, (~78%) or OS (~95%). Bexxar now off
2014: any stage. Recurrent or definitive MZL market.
or FL. 4 Gy / 2 vs 24 Gy /12 measure response
in 12 w. CR 68% vs 50% in favor or 24 Gy.
primary endpoint LC w/ ITT. OS unchanged.
reatment Paradigm Follicular

T Indications for Treatment of Stages
Lymphoma III–IV, FL:
–– Grade determines management for FL. G1–2 –– Candidate for RCT
is indolent (G3A often considered indolent). –– Symptomatic dz.
G3 is aggressive, treated like DLBCL. –– End-organ dysfunction
–– Cytopenias
Stages I–II, G1–2 FL: –– X
–– ISRT alone results in 50% DFS. –– Dz. progression
–– 24 Gy / 2 Gy fractions. Or 4 Gy / 2. –– Clinical trial
• CTV = GTV + 5 cm prox and distal, 1.5 cm –– Pt preference
radially. The CC margin is not specified for
pelvis/extremity. Surveillance:
• If excised entirely, observation is an option. –– H&P with labs q6m x 5 years
• Provide generous coverage of nodal region. –– CT C/A/P annually x 2 years, then clinically
• Cutaneous FL/MZL = 24 Gy to lesion indicated
+1–1.5 cm.
• If CR or PR, then observe. Relapse:
• If SD or PD, then treat like stage III/IV. –– Biopsy to r/o transformation to high grade
• ALCL = 30 Gy –– Chemo/Zevalin (CD20 Y-90)/Bexxar (CD20
–– Consider immunotherapy+/− chemotherapy if I-131). Zevalin (ibritumomab tiuxetan) is a
bulky or non-contiguous LN regions involved. CD20-specific mAb that is conjugated to
Y-90
Stages I–II, G3 FL: –– Contraindications: plts <100 k, <15% marrow
–– Treat like DLBCL. cellularity, >25 marrow involved, pregnancy,
–– R-CHOP 3c if IPI 0–1, 6 otherwise, then ISRT nursing mother
30 Gy for CR. –– Pre-tx biodistribution scan 1 wk. before tx
–– I-131 Bexaar (I-tositumomab)
Stages III–IV, FL: • Beta/gamma
–– No treatment considered curative. • 0.4 mCi/kg
–– Several RCTs show that tx can be deferred • 75% cytopenia in 6–8 wks, 5%
without reducing survival. hypothyroid
–– Observation is an option if no indication for –– Y-90 Zevalin (Y-ibritumomab)
treatment. • pure beta
–– Immunotherapy + chemotherapy. • 75 cGy
–– R + bendamustine (BR) • 75% cytopenia (thrombo/neutro) in 6–8
–– RCHOP wks
–– RCVP
–– R
–– Palliative RT, 2 Gy x 2. 90% response rate.
60% CR.
Marginal Zone Lymphoma (MZL) [58] ALT Site-Specific Recommendations

M
Gastric MALT
–– Three subtypes: splenic; nodal; extranodal –– Commonly caused by H. pylori. High-grade
(includes MALT). MALT likely to be DLBCL and likely would
–– Most common stage is IAE. not be affected. Can initially check serum
–– Consider surgery for certain sites: e.g., lung, anti-H. pylori IgG, but this will remain posi-
breast, thyroid, bowel. tive even if dz. treated.
–– Typical treatment is 24–30 Gy to whole organ. –– MSKCC, Schecter, 1998: 17 pts. who failed
–– LC >95%. OS is excellent. abx. After FU of 27 m, 100% biopsy-
–– Failure pattern is outside of the RT field. confirmed pCR and 100% EFS after IFRT
–– Disease for paired organs (e.g. orbit, parotid, 30/20.
skin) has higher distant relapse rate. –– Tx strategy
–– Rapid urease test.
Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue –– Quadruple therapy: “Mmm BLT!” (bis-
(MALT) Lymphoma [4–8, 58, 59] muth 30 mg QID; lansoprazole 300 mg
BID; tetracycline 500 mg QID; metronida-
Lugano staging
A, no B-sx; B, has B-sx zole 500 mg TID for 14 d) is superior to
IE1 Confined to GI Mucosa/submucosa triple therapy (clarithromycin 500 mg
IE2 tract Into muscularis/serosa BID; amoxicillin 1 g BID or metronidazole
IIE1 Outside GI tract Perigastric LNs 500 mg BID for PCN allrg; omeprazole).
IIE2 Distant abd LNs –– Urea breath test 1 m after abx. Urea is
IIIE Into adventitia hydrolyzed by H. pylori to make CO2 and
IVE Across diaphragm/distant
mets
ammonia. A labeled nonradioactive carbon
isotope (13C) is given PO and then
detected. Positive UBT indicates H. pylori
Overview is present.
–– Arises from Peyer’s patches, marginal zone. –– EGD w/ bx Q3m.
–– Etiology is chronic inflammation from infec- –– Secondary abx if still H. pylori positive
tion or autoimmune disorder. +/− persistent dz.
–– Most commonly (80–90%) in stomach, fol- –– ISRT (chemo if XRT contraindicated) for
lowed by lung (12%), orbit (<10%), skin persistence/progression.
(<10%). –– Note: DLBCL of stomach → RCHOP x3–6
–– Low-grade B-cell lymphoma: t(11:18), (depends on IPI) + ISRT.
t(14;18),tri3, CD 20+, 35+, 5−, 10−. –– RT indications
–– Use FLIPI (HASSL). –– H. Pylori negative.
–– Ann Arbor or Lugano staging. For Ann Arbor, –– t(11,18) → (<5% respond to abx)
80% are IAE, B-sx rare. –– Invasion past submucosa
–– Progression on abx
Workup –– Failure after two courses of abx. Note, lag
–– H&P. Detailed exam of other MALT sites of CR may be 28 months
(eyes, skin, thyroid, parotids). –– Rapid/symptomatic progression
–– Labs: CBC w/diff, CMP, LDH.
–– Imaging: CT C/A/P,
–– EGD/EUS if gastric. H. pylori test on histopa-
thology. If negative, perform rapid urease test
(RUT) and blood antibody.
–– BM Bx generally not indicated, only for
advanced (unlike for FL).
–– Fertility counseling: 2–4 Gy for sperm, 8 Gy
for eggs.
–– Technique Lacrimal MALT

–– RT most common for IAE or IIAE H. –– Detailed ophthalmologic exam
pylori-negative patients, t(11;18), or deeply –– MRI orbits
invasive lesions. –– 24 Gy / 12 fractions to entire gland
–– Sim fasting for 3 h with small volume PO
contrast, 4D with breath-hold. Conjunctival MALT
–– ISRT with 3D or IMRT For 3D use half –– Chlamydia psittaci
beam block to avoid liver, obliques to avoid –– 24 Gy / 12 fractions to entire gland with elec-
kidney. trons or superficial x-rays
–– CTV: Cover whole stomach + perigastric –– Eye shield
nodes ITV = CTV + margin for motion,
1–2 cm. Salivary MALT
–– PTV = ITV + 1 cm. –– Commonly caused by Sjogren’s syndrome
–– 30 Gy in 20 fx, i.e. 1.5 Gy fractions. Boost –– Treat whole gland
residual to 36 Gy. Shechter (MSKCC, –– 24–30 Gy in 12–20 fx
1998): response rate to 30/20 is 100%. –– Cervical nodes if involved
–– Prophylactic antiemetics and H2 blocker or
PPI. mall bowel MALT
S
–– Kidney mean <20 Gy, liver V25 <50%. –– Associated with Campylobacter jejuni
–– Surg. If R0, observe. Else, consider RT
Orbital MALT 24 Gy/12 fx
–– Detailed ophthalmologic exam.
–– MRI orbits. Thyroid MALT
–– 90% caused by Chlamydia psittaci. –– Associated with Hashimoto’s.
–– Abx: doxycycline for Chlamydia psittaci. –– Surg. If R0, observe. Else, consider RT
60% ORR. 24 Gy/12 fx.
–– RT commonly 24 Gy / 12 or 16 fractions to
entire orbit. Breast MALT
–– If arising from extraocular muscles, then cover –– Surg. If R0, observe. Else, consider RT
whole orbit, with bolus, which limits the dose 24 Gy/12 fx, WBI w/ tangents.
to Meibomian gland and conjunctiva and lim-
its risk of dry eyes. Skin MALT
–– Pts develop dry eyes because of dose to –– Commonly caused by Borrelia burgdorferi
Meibomian glands and not lacrimal gland. (abx: doxycycline)
–– 95% local control (↑distant failure) –– Surgery vs electrons
–– If conjunctival MALT, cover just conjunctiva –– 24–30 Gy in 12–20 fx
with single anterior electron field,
6 MeV + 2 cm margin with lens shield. Also Lung MALT
can try 25–30 Gy in 10–20fx (can dose reduce –– Early stage → surgery with PORT for +margin
for low grade to 19.5–24 Gy). or mediastinal nodes
–– Advanced stage → chemo +/− IFRT
Solitary Plasmacytoma (SP, SEP and SBP) [4–8, 60, 61]
Overview
–– 15,000 cases/yr. in UA.
–– Workup: H&P, CBC w/ diff, CMP, LDH, Ca/albumin, B2micro (tells how bulky tumor is), SPEP
with immunofixation, UPEP with immunofixation, 24 hr urine for total protein, serum-free light-
chain assay, skeletal survey (not bone scan) biopsy lesion AND unilateral BMbx; bone marrow
MRI upstages 30%.
–– PET-CT can be helpful but no bone scan (lytic lesions).
–– M-protein: a “monoclonal protein,” aka paraprotein, aka M-component. It is not IgM.
• Note: Compared to MM, “solitary” plasmacytoma RT dose different; plasmacytoma (bone met)
tx in setting of MM is palliative; SPs are not staged.
• SBP 40% more common than SEP.
Dx criteria Progress
for SPs, all Location to MM
Tumor required (usually) LN+ at 10y DDx Treatment RT technique LC Follow-up
SEP SEP/SBP HN 30– 25% NHL, RT or Mass + primary LC = q3–6 m:
lesion by 40% MALToma surgery LNs. 88–100%. CBC
skeletal Head and neck: Tsang, CMP
survey consider treating 2001: SPEP
(negative first echelon LN mostly UPEP
on bone GTV + 2–3 cm SBP, some FLC
scan!) to 50.4 Gy, ENI SEP. 8y PRN:
Plasmacy- to 40 Gy. LC 83%, LDH
toma by Keep GTV OS 65%, B2 micro
biopsy, ≥45 Gy DFS 44% BM Bx
SBP <5% Axial Rare 75% Mets, MM RT or Bone GTV + Body MRI, CT,
plasma skeleton surgery 2-3 cm PET
cells Spine: whole VB Skel surv
No Standard tx is (or q1y)
end-organ RT, 40–50 Gy.
damage No ENI. In
(CRAB - cases of surgical
calcium, resection,
renal, adjuvant RT still
anemia, recommended
bone)
Plasma Cell M Protein BM Plasma End Organ

Neoplasm M-Spike < 3 g/dL Cells >10% Damage (CRAB)
SBP/SEP + +/- - - -
MGUS +/- + - - -
Smoldering MM + + + + -
MM + + + + +
Multiple Myeloma (MM) [62–65]
Stage I Stage Stage III

International Staging System (ISS) for MM, Greipp, 2005 II
MST 62m 44m 29m

B2-microglobulin <3.5 mg/L – ≥ 5.5 mg/L
Albumin ≥ 3.5 g/dL - any
*Subclassification: A =
Cr <2.0 mg/dL; B= Cr ≥
2.0 mg/dL
Revised ISS Stage I Stage Stage III
II
ISS I (and both of below) III (and either of below)
chromosomal abnormalities by FISH standard risk - high risk
Serum LDH ≤ULN - >ULN
Durie Salmon
- criteria staging for MM
Smoldering myeloma Stage I Stage Stage III

II
Hgb (>12 or 13.5 is WNL) No end organ damage, so all >10 g/dL <8.5 g/dL
Serum Ca (8.5-10.2 is WNL) should be WNL ≤12 mg/dL >12 mg/dL
Bone xray WNL, or SBP only Advanced lesions
M protein production Low High
IgG <5 g/dL IgG >7 g/dL
IgA <3 g/dL IgA >5 g/dL
Light chain loss < 4g/24h Light chain loss > 12g/24h
SPEP M-spike ≥ 3 g/dL ≥ 3 g/dL

OR or free light chain (FLC)ratio > 100
BJ protein ≥ 500 mg/24h
BM plasma cells ≥10% -60% ≥10%
POEMS Syndrome: –– Note: No clinical features / only a + b is

–– Polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopa- “smoldering MM/smoldering myeloma
thy, M-spike, skin changes. (SM).” Most SMs are detected because of
–– Variant of MM w/ solitary or limited sclerotic MGUS.
bone lesions,
–– Elevated VEGF. Prognosticators of poor OS
–– POEMS patients respond well to RT. –– Plasma cell labeling index >1%
–– Low albumin (<3.5 g/dL)
Dx Criteria for MM (All Required) –– High beta2 microglobulin
–– A. Clonal plasma cells (≥10% BM bx) or
biopsy + SBP/SEP. MM Treatment Paradigm
–– B. M-spike (>3 g/L) on SPEP or UPEP. 1.
Myeloma chemotherapy (bortezomib/
–– C. End-organ damage: “CRAB.” lenalidomide/dexa) followed by HDCT +
• Ca >11.5 mg/dL autologous SCT. The preferred approach for
• Cr >2 mg/dL anyone eligible for transplant. For txp, mel-
• Hgb <10 g/dL (anemia) phalan commonly used for conditioning (not
• Bone lesions (on skeletal survey; not BS usually TBI)
because lesions are lytic/osteopenic, not 2. Primary chemotherapy (bortezomib/lenalido-
blastic) mide/dexamethasone). Preferred in high-risk
• Others used as evidence for organ damage pts. not candidates for transplant
but not diagnostic of MM 3. Bisphosphonates
• Frequent severe infections 4. Palliative RT, 30 Gy /10 fractions
• Amyloidosis
• Hyperviscosity syndrome
Bone Marrow Transplant (ASCT) Palliative RT

• Primary treatment after myeloma-based • Dose: 20–37.5 Gy @ 1.5–2.5 Gy/fx, e.g.
chemotherapy. 20 Gy / 10 fraction; can also do 8 Gy / 1 frac-
• Condition with high-dose melphalan. tion. If non-weight-bearing bone, then do
• PARMA (NEJM 1995): compared HDC +/− 20 Gy/10 fractions.
BMT. IFRT given for >5 cm disease in both • If uncontrolled pain, weight-bearing bone,
arms. BMT improved OS at 5 yrs. – 32% vs impending fx, or spinal cord compression: can
53%. IFRT reduced relapses in BMT arm go up to 30–37.5 Gy in 10–15 fx. For spinal
(35% vs 55%). cord compression, this leads to improvement
in motor deficits in 50% (Rades, 2006).
Bisphosphonates (Skeletal Events 41 → 24%)
Chemotherapy (Lots of Options)
• Bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone.
Note bortezomib has increased incidence of
HZV reactivation.
• Maintenance with lenalidomide or
bortezomib.
ycosis Fungoides (MF)/Cutaneous

M Background
T-cell Lymphoma (CTCL)/Sezary –– 5–10% of patients w/ CTCL present w/ Sezary
Syndrome [66, 67] syndrome
–– Sezary cells are enlarged atypical lympho-
AJCC 8th Stage, Olsen, 2007. cytes w/ convoluted nuclei and are found in
skin, nodes, and peripheral blood.
Incidence (%) Progression (%): –– Sezary syndrome: presence of Sezary cells in
T1 < 10% BSA 28 0 peripheral blood, >1 K cells/uL + diffuse
T1a patch
T1b plaque +/- patch erythroderma.
T2 ≥10% BSA 36 10 –– 17% of primary CTCL present w/ generalized
T2a patch
T2b plaque +/- patch erythroderma, and 50% of those cases have
T3 tumors, ≥1cm diameter 20 36 diagnosis of Sezary syndrome.
T4 generalized, >80% BSA 16 41
N0 Workup
N1 Dutch G1 or NCI LN0-2
N2 Dutch G2 or NCI LN3 –– Skin biopsy: Immunophenotype commonly
N3 Dutch G3-4 or NCI LN4
CD2+, 3+, 4+, 5+, CD 8-, 30-, PCR for T-cell
M0
M1 Visceral involvement receptor gene rearrangement
B0 No Sezary cells, <5% circulating –– Biopsy only cLN+, those that are firm, irregu-
of lymphocytes
B1 Sezary cells, >5%; or neither B0 8
lar, clustered, fixed, or >1.5 cm diameter
or B2 –– If palpable but biopsy negative, still N1
B2 ≥ 1000 Sezary cells/uL
–– CBC with Sezary screen, CMP, LDH
–– Flow cytometry, PCR for T-cell receptor gene
IA T1 N0M0 B0-1. 10y OS 93%
rearrangement
IB T2 N0M0 B0-1. 10y OS 93%
–– PET/CT for stage IB+
IIA T1-2 N1-2 M0 B0-1
IIB T3 N0-2 M0 B0-1
IIIA T4 N0-2 M0 B0. 10 y OS 50%
IIIB T4 N0-2 M0 B1 CD30+ Lymphoproliferative
IVA1:T1-4 N0-2 M0 B2. 10y OS 24% Disorders
IVA2:T1-4 N3 M0 B0-2
IVB: T1-4 N0-3 M1 B0-2 –– Lymphomatoid papulosis: indolent, chronic,
recurrent, self-healing. Disappears in
Primary cutaneous Incidence 3–12 weeks. Histologically indistinguishable
lymphoma type Cell Behavior (%)
MF T Indolent 50
from cutaneous ALCL,
Anaplastic large cell T Indolent 8 –– ALCL: cutaneous lymphoma. Persistent and
(ALCL) (CD30+) progressive. ISRT 30–40 Gy. 99% CR to RT,
Lymphomatoid papulosis T Indolent 12 but 40% relapse. If multifocal, consider MTX,
CD4+ pleomorphic T Indolent 2 systemic retinoids, brentuximab, pralatrexate,
Sezary T Aggressive 3 observation if asymptomatic. If cutaneous
NK/T T Aggressive <3
ALCL within regional LNs, then MTX +/−
Primary MZL B Indolent 7
Primary FCL, t(14;18) B Indolent 11 RT, pralatrexate+/− RT, brentuximab +/− RT,
neg CHOP +/− RT.
Primary DLBCL, leg type B Aggressive 4
Treatment for CTCL –– Extended SSD of ~3.5–4 m used and pt.

Limited Patch/Plaque (T1–3): rotated through series of 6 different
–– Topical corticosteroids, chemotherapy, positions.
retinoids –– Large acrylic sheet is placed 20 cm from pt.
–– Local XRT, palliation: 8–12 Gy, unilesional: surface to scatter the electron beam.
20–30 Gy –– 6 MeV w/ beam spoiler to make 4 MeV
–– Measure OSLDs at skin surface. Most com-
Stage III: mon dose verification sites are vertex of
–– TSEBT: 12–24 Gy in 2 Gy fractions to total scalp, axillae, inframammary folds,
skin, 20–30 Gy boost to scalp, perineum, perineum, intergluteal cleft, medial thigh,
soles. soles of feet, palms.
–– Prescribed to skin surface such that 80% IDL –– Shielding: Eyes and nail beds often shielded
covers 4 mm depth. throughout therapy as are tops of feet to avoid
–– Use 1 Gy per day, 4 days per week. edema. Toes and finger nails are shielded after
–– Gantry angles 12–23° to point above pts. head 9 Gy.
and below feet to allow for photon contamina- –– Boost: soles, perineum, scalp.
tion from gantry head to avoid striking the pt.
(<1% per dual field). Complications Desquamation, hair loss,
–– 6 pt. positions (AP/LPO/RPO d1, PA/LAO/ lymphedema, nail loss, loss of perspiration, sec-
RAO d2) tx 3 positions/day, 4d/wk., for 9 wks ond CA, and parotiditis
to 36 Gy.
Day of week
Mon Tues Weds Thurs Fri
1 fraction
RPO AP LPO
RPO LAO RPO LAO
1 week AP PA AP PA OFF
LPO RAO LPO RAO
LAO PA RAO
References 15. Longo DL, Glatstein E, Duffey PL, et al. Radiation
therapy versus combination chemotherapy in the
treatment of early-stage Hodgkin's disease: seven-
1. Hartman AR, Williams SF, Dillon JJ. Survival,
year results of a prospective randomized trial. J Clin
disease-free survival and adverse effects of condi-
Oncol. 1991;9:906–17.
tioning for allogeneic bone marrow transplantation
16. Noordijk EM, Carde P, Dupouy N, et al. Combined-
with busulfan/cyclophosphamide vs total body irra-
modality therapy for clinical stage I or II Hodgkin's
diation: a meta-analysis. Bone Marrow Transplant.
lymphoma: long-term results of the European
1998;22:439–43.
Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer
2. Clift RA, Buckner CD, Appelbaum FR, et al.
H7 randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol.
Allogeneic marrow transplantation in patients with
2006;24:3128–35.
chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase: a
17. Press OW, LeBlanc M, Lichter AS, et al. Phase III
randomized trial of two irradiation regimens. Blood.
randomized intergroup trial of subtotal lymphoid irra-
1991;77:1660–5.
diation versus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and subtotal
3. Clift RA, Buckner CD, Appelbaum FR, et al.
lymphoid irradiation for stage IA to IIA Hodgkin's
Allogeneic marrow transplantation in patients with
disease. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:4238–44.
acute myeloid leukemia in first remission: a ran-
18. Carde P, Karrasch M, Fortpied C, et al. Eight Cycles
domized trial of two irradiation regimens. Blood.
of ABVD Versus Four Cycles of BEACOPPescalated
1990;76:1867–71.
Plus Four Cycles of BEACOPPbaseline in Stage III
to IV, International Prognostic Score >/= 3, High-
Risk Hodgkin Lymphoma: First Results of the Phase
III EORTC 20012 Intergroup Trial. J Clin Oncol.
1998;49:143–8.
2016;34:2028–36.
5. Cook B DT: Wikibooks radiation oncology. https://
19. Diehl V, Franklin J, Pfreundschuh M, et al. Standard
en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Radiation_Oncology. Accessed
and increased-dose BEACOPP chemotherapy com-
April 2018.
pared with COPP-ABVD for advanced Hodgkin's
disease. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2386–95.
2 0.
Eichenauer DA, Bredenfeld H, Haverkamp
7. Hansen ERM. Handbook of evidence-based radiation
H, et al. Hodgkin's lymphoma in adolescents
oncology. 2nd ed: Springer; 2010.
treated with adult protocols: a report from the
8. Hristov BLS, Christodouleas JP. Radiation oncology -
German Hodgkin study group. J Clin Oncol.
a question based review. 2nd ed: LWW; 2014.
2009;27:6079–85.
9. Aleman BM, Raemaekers JM, Tirelli U, et al.
21. Engert A, Diehl V, Franklin J, et al. Escalated-

Involved-field radiotherapy for advanced Hodgkin's
dose BEACOPP in the treatment of patients with
lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2396–406.
advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: 10 years of
10. Engert A, Franklin J, Eich HT, et al. Two cycles of
follow-up of the GHSG HD9 study. J Clin Oncol.
doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarba-
2009;27:4548–54.
zine plus extended-field radiotherapy is superior to
22. Hasenclever D, Diehl V. A prognostic score for

radiotherapy alone in early favorable Hodgkin's lym-
advanced Hodgkin's disease. International Prognostic
phoma: final results of the GHSG HD7 trial. J Clin
Factors Project on Advanced Hodgkin's Disease. N
Oncol. 2007;25:3495–502.
Engl J Med. 1998;339:1506–14.
11. Engert A, Plutschow A, Eich HT, et al. Reduced treat-
23. Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, et al. Position emis-
ment intensity in patients with early-stage Hodgkin's
sion tomography with or without computed tomogra-
lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:640–52.
phy in the primary staging of Hodgkin's lymphoma.
12. Engert A, Schiller P, Josting A, et al. Involved-field
Haematologica. 2006;91:482–9.
radiotherapy is equally effective and less toxic com-
24. Specht L, Yahalom J, Illidge T, et al. Modern radia-
pared with extended-field radiotherapy after four
tion therapy for Hodgkin lymphoma: field and dose
cycles of chemotherapy in patients with early-stage
guidelines from the international lymphoma radiation
unfavorable Hodgkin's lymphoma: results of the HD8
oncology group (ILROG). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
trial of the German Hodgkin's Lymphoma Study
Phys. 2014;89:854–62.
Group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3601–8.
25. Steidl C, Lee T, Shah SP, et al. Tumor-associated
13.
Ferme C, Eghbali H, Meerwaldt JH, et al.
macrophages and survival in classic Hodgkin's lym-
Chemotherapy plus involved-field radiation in
phoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:875–85.
early-stage Hodgkin's disease. N Engl J Med.
26. Herbst C, Rehan FA, Skoetz N, et al. Chemotherapy
2007;357:1916–27.
alone versus chemotherapy plus radiotherapy for
14. Laskar S, Gupta T, Vimal S, et al. Consolidation

early stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Cochrane Database
radiation after complete remission in Hodgkin's dis-
Syst Rev. 2011:Cd007110.
ease following six cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin,
27. Raemaekers JM, Andre MP, Federico M, et al.

vinblastine, and dacarbazine chemotherapy: is there a
Omitting radiotherapy in early positron emission
need? J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:62–8.
tomography-negative stage I/II Hodgkin lymphoma
is associated with an increased risk of early relapse: 40. Horning SJ, Weller E, Kim K, et al. Chemotherapy
Clinical results of the preplanned interim analysis of with or without radiotherapy in limited-stage d iffuse
the randomized EORTC/LYSA/FIL H10 trial. J Clin aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: Eastern
Oncol. 2014;32:1188–94. Cooperative Oncology Group study 1484. J Clin
28. De Bruin ML, Sparidans J, van't Veer MB, et al. Oncol. 2004;22:3032–8.
Breast cancer risk in female survivors of Hodgkin's 41.
Miller TP, Dahlberg S, Cassady JR, et al.
lymphoma: lower risk after smaller radiation vol- Chemotherapy alone compared with chemotherapy
umes. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4239–46. plus radiotherapy for localized intermediate- and
29. Chen RC, Chin MS, Ng AK, et al. Early-stage,
high-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med.
lymphocyte- predominant Hodgkin's lymphoma: 1998;339:21–6.
patient outcomes from a large, single-institution series 42. Friedberg JW, Byrtek M, Link BK, et al. Effectiveness
with long follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:136–41. of first-line management strategies for stage I follicu-
30. Al-Mansour M, Connors JM, Gascoyne RD, et al. lar lymphoma: analysis of the National LymphoCare
Transformation to aggressive lymphoma in nodular Study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3368–75.
lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin's lymphoma. J 43. Friedberg JW, Taylor MD, Cerhan JR, et al. Follicular
Clin Oncol. 2010;28:793–9. lymphoma in the United States: first report of
31. Bonadonna G, Bonfante V, Viviani S, et al. ABVD the national LymphoCare study. J Clin Oncol.
plus subtotal nodal versus involved-field radiotherapy 2009;27:1202–8.
in early-stage Hodgkin's disease: long-term results. J 44. Hoskin PJ, Kirkwood AA, Popova B, et al. 4 Gy ver-
Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2835–41. sus 24 Gy radiotherapy for patients with indolent lym-
32. Donaldson SS, Link MP, Weinstein HJ, et al. Final phoma (FORT): a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority
results of a prospective clinical trial with VAMP trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:457–63.
and low-dose involved-field radiation for children 45. Pfreundschuh M, Trumper L, Osterborg A, et al.

with low-risk Hodgkin's disease. J Clin Oncol. CHOP-like chemotherapy plus rituximab versus
2007;25:332–7. CHOP-like chemotherapy alone in young patients
33. Dorffel W, Ruhl U, Luders H, et al. Treatment of chil- with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma:
dren and adolescents with Hodgkin lymphoma with- a randomised controlled trial by the MabThera
out radiotherapy for patients in complete remission International Trial (MInT) Group. Lancet Oncol.
after chemotherapy: final results of the multinational 2006;7:379–91.
trial GPOH-HD95. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1562–8. 46. Phan J, Mazloom A, Medeiros LJ, et al. Benefit of
34. Engert A, Haverkamp H, Kobe C, et al. Reduced- consolidative radiation therapy in patients with dif-
intensity chemotherapy and PET-guided radiotherapy fuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP
in patients with advanced stage Hodgkin's lymphoma chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4170–6.
(HD15 trial): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 non- 47. Lowry L, Smith P, Qian W, et al. Reduced dose

inferiority trial. Lancet. 2012;379:1791–9. radiotherapy for local control in non-Hodgkin lym-
35. Friedman DL, Chen L, Wolden S, et al. Dose-intensive phoma: a randomised phase III trial. Radiother Oncol.
response-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy 2011;100:86–92.
for children and adolescents with newly diagnosed 48. Dunleavy K, Pittaluga S, Maeda LS, et al. Dose-
intermediate-risk hodgkin lymphoma: a report from adjusted EPOCH-rituximab therapy in primary
the Children's Oncology Group Study AHOD0031. J mediastinal B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med.
Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3651–8. 2013;368:1408–16.
36. van Nimwegen FA, Schaapveld M, Cutter DJ, et al. 49. Solal-Celigny P, Roy P, Colombat P, et al. Follicular
Radiation Dose-Response Relationship for Risk of lymphoma international prognostic index. Blood.
Coronary Heart Disease in Survivors of Hodgkin 2004;104:1258–65.
Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:235–43. 50. Haas RL, Poortmans P, de Jong D, et al. High

37. Wolden SL, Chen L, Kelly KM, et al. Long-term response rates and lasting remissions after low-dose
results of CCG 5942: a randomized comparison involved field radiotherapy in indolent lymphomas. J
of chemotherapy with and without radiotherapy Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2474–80.
for children with Hodgkin's lymphoma--a report 51. International Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Prognostic
from the Children's Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. Factors Project. A predictive model for aggressive
2012;30:3174–80. non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med 329:987–
38.
Littrup PJ, Williams CR, Egglin TK, et al. 94, 1993.
Determination of prostate volume with transrec- 52. Hoppe BS, Moskowitz CH, Filippa DA, et al.

tal ultrasound for cancer screening. Radiology. Involved-field radiotherapy before high-dose therapy
1991;179:49–53. and autologous stem-cell rescue in diffuse large-cell
39. Bonnet C, Fillet G, Mounier N, et al. CHOP alone lymphoma: long-term disease control and toxicity. J
compared with CHOP plus radiotherapy for localized Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1858–64.
aggressive lymphoma in elderly patients: a study by 53. Pugh TJ, Ballonoff A, Rusthoven KE, et al. Cardiac
the Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adulte. J mortality in patients with stage I and II diffuse large
Clin Oncol. 2007;25:787–92. B-cell lymphoma treated with and without radiation: a
surveillance, epidemiology, and end-results analysis. the local control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:845–9. 2006;64:1013–7.
54. Aviles A, Neri N, Delgado S, et al. Residual dis- 61. Tsang RW, Gospodarowicz MK, Pintilie M, et al.
ease after chemotherapy in aggressive malignant Solitary plasmacytoma treated with radiotherapy:
lymphoma: the role of radiotherapy. Med Oncol. impact of tumor size on outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol
2005;22:383–7. Biol Phys. 2001;50:113–20.
55. Held G, Murawski N, Ziepert M, et al. Role of
62. Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG, et al. International
radiotherapy to bulky disease in elderly patients staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol.
with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3412–20.
2014;32:1112–8. 63. Steensma DP, Gertz MA, Greipp PR, et al. A high bone
56. Christie D, Dear K, Le T, et al. Limited chemotherapy marrow plasma cell labeling index in stable plateau-
and shrinking field radiotherapy for Osteolymphoma phase multiple myeloma is a marker for early disease
(primary bone lymphoma): results from the trans- progression and death. Blood. 2001;97:2522–3.
Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 99.04 and 64. Rades D, Hoskin PJ, Stalpers LJ, et al. Short-course
Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group radiotherapy is not optimal for spinal cord compres-
LY02 prospective trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. sion due to myeloma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
2011;80:1164–70. 2006;64:1452–7.
57. Pellegrini C, Gandolfi L, Quirini F, et al. Primary 65. Salazar OM, Rubin P, Hendrickson FR, et al.

bone lymphoma: evaluation of chemoimmunotherapy Single-dose half-body irradiation for palliation of
as front-line treatment in 21 patients. Clin Lymphoma multiple bone metastases from solid tumors. Final
Myeloma Leuk. 2011;11:321–5. radiation therapy oncology group report. Cancer.
58. Schechter NR, Portlock CS, Yahalom J. Treatment 1986;58:29–36.
of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma 66. Olsen E, Vonderheid E, Pimpinelli N, et al. Revisions
of the stomach with radiation alone. J Clin Oncol. to the staging and classification of mycosis fungoides
1998;16:1916–21. and Sezary syndrome: a proposal of the International
59. Fischbach W, Goebeler ME, Ruskone-Fourmestraux Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas (ISCL) and the
A, et al. Most patients with minimal histological cutaneous lymphoma task force of the European
residuals of gastric MALT lymphoma after success- Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer
ful eradication of Helicobacter pylori can be managed (EORTC). Blood. 2007;110:1713–22.
safely by a watch and wait strategy: experience from 67. Quaglino P, Pimpinelli N, Berti E, et al. Time

a large international series. Gut. 2007;56:1685–7. course, clinical pathways, and long-term hazards risk
60. Tournier-Rangeard L, Lapeyre M, Graff-Caillaud
trends of disease progression in patients with clas-
P, et al. Radiotherapy for solitary extramedullary sic mycosis fungoides: a multicenter, retrospective
plasmacytoma in the head-and-neck region: A dose follow-up study from the Italian Group of Cutaneous
greater than 45 Gy to the target volume improves Lymphomas. Cancer. 2012;118:5830–9.
Soft Tissue Cancers
11
and Heath B. Mackley
Abstract
ment of patients with sarcomas, particularly
soft tissue sarcomas, with special focus on
principles that guide radiotherapy manage-
ment. Several key components of trimodality
care and radiation field design are discussed.
N. G. Zaorsky (*) · H. B. Mackley

hmackley@pennstatehealth.psu.edu
D. M. Trifiletti

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4_11
Soft Tissue Cancers 433
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Points
>50
Age
<=50
>5cm
Size
<=5cm
Close or Positive
Margin
Negative
High
Grade
Low
Others
Histology
Atypical Lipoma or well Diff
Total Points
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Predicted LR rate at year 3

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Predicted LR rate at year 5

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Nomogram to predict the rate of local recurrence of extremity soft tissue sarcoma, after resection, without radiation
therapy. Adapted from [1]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Points
Other Chest Wall

Tumor Site
Abdominal Wall GI/Intraabdominal Extermity
Tumor Size (cm)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Age
85 5 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15
Total Points
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
3-Year LRFS
0.95 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
5-Year LRFS
0.95 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.05
7-Year LRFS
0.95 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.05
Median Time to LR (years)

3.5 2 1.5
Nomogram to predict the rate of local recurrence of desmoid after surgery, without adjuvant therapy. Adapted from [2]
Osteosarcoma [3–16] Subtypes

–– Classic: 75% of cases, presents in areas of
rapidly proliferating intramedullary bone.
AJCC 7 T1 T2 T3 –– Juxtacortical: rare, arises adjacent to outer
N0 IA (G1,2,X) IB (G1,2,X) IB (G1,2,X) surface of cortical bone. Usually G1 (paros-
IIA (G3,4) IIB (G3,4) III (G3) teal) or G2 (periosteal). G1 has low DM rate
and is curable w surgery alone. G2 has 20%
N1 IVB
DM rate, and role of chemo is controversial.
M1a IVA
M1b IVB Anatomy
–– Bone has diaphysis (shaft), epiphysis (end),
AJCC 8 T1 T2 T3 and metaphysis (joining the parts).
N0 IA (G1) IB (G1) IB (G1) –– Osteosarcoma most frequently arises in
IIA (G3) IIB (G2) III (G3) appendicular skeleton at metaphyses of the
femur, tibia, and humerus.
N1 IVB
M1a IVA
Presentation
M1b IVB
–– Localized bone pain and soft tissue mass
–– “Growing pains”
• T1 – ≤8 cm
• T2 – >8 cm Workup
• T3 – discontinuous tumors –– H&P, labs, Alk Phos, ESR, plain films, CT
• N1 – nodes primary+chest, MRI primary, and bone scan.
• M1a – lung –– Biopsy after images. Need to excise biopsy
• M1b – others site.
–– Bx should be performed at same institution
Overview doing surgery.
–– Prevalence: osteosarcoma (56% of peds bone –– Bx should avoid contamination of other areas.
tumors) > chondrosarcoma > Ewing (36% of –– Bx should not increase the extent of subse-
peds bone tumors) > MFH. quent surgery.
–– 800 cases/year, 2× more common than Ewing
sarcoma. Imaging for Osteosarcoma
–– Bimodal distribution: 15 yo and >65 yo (usu- –– Sunburst periosteal reaction.
ally associated with Paget disease and fibrous –– Sclerotic, metaphysis.
dysplasia). –– Codman’s triangle.
–– If pt. w RB loss and retinoblastoma, later as –– In contrast, Ewing sarcoma usually lytic, at
risk for osteosarcoma. diaphysis, has onion skin.
–– High rate of bone production and turnover are
risk factors. Studies
–– Boys > girls. –– Neoadj and adj chemo ↓LF (Link 1986, Eilber
–– 90% have localized dz. If treated w NA-chemo 1987).
and surg, OS is 65%. –– Ozaki 2003: retrospec. RT improved OS for
–– 90% of pts. w localized dz develop mets w/o R1 or R2.
chemo, usually to the lung. OS is 20%. –– Machak, Mayo, 2003: 5-year OS for unresect-
–– MDR1 gene (multidrug resistance gene) able osteosarc receiving NACT, RT, and adj
makes p-glycoprotein, removes doxo from chemo is 60%.
cells, and increases mortality. –– Souhami, 1997: doublet chemo w doxorubicin
and cis better tolerated. No difference in OS.
–– DeLaney: retrospective. Doses >55 Gy have
better LC.
Treatment Paradigm Role of RT

–– Treatment paradigm is pre-op chemo with –– If unresectable (e.g., pelvis, sacrum, spine),
MAP (methotrexate, adria, cisplatin), surg, then neoadjuvant chemo, then RT to 60–70 Gy
then adj chemo for 4 m. Long-term survival is +/− sensitizers, and adj chemo (cat 1).
60% w CMT vs 20% for surgery alone. –– If R1 resection where re-resection difficult
–– In rare cases of resectable tumors, then go (e.g., jaw). R1 PORT to 60 Gy.
straight to surgery. If R0, then observe. If R+, –– If R2 after surgery: dose is >55 Gy w boost to
then adjuvant chemo. 64–68 Gy to areas.
–– Inoperable: 70 Gy.
–– Palliation as needed
–– Sm-153 being investigated.
Chondrosarcoma [17] –– Core needle or open biopsy. FNA not

recommended.
AJCC 8 T1 T2 T3 –– Neuro-ophtho and endocrine workup for BOS
N0 IA (G1) IB(G1) IB(G1) chondrosarcoma.
IIA (G3) IIB (G2) III (G3)
Studies
N1 IVB
–– Rosenberg, 1999. Surg and adj RT yields
M1a IVA
>90% LC is BOS, superior to chordoma.
M1b IVB
Treatment Paradigm
Background –– WLE first.
–– 30% of primary bone tumors, behind osteosar- –– For ACT/CS1 intracompartmental chondro-
coma, MM. sarcomas, intralesional curettage and adjuvant
–– 75% arise in the proximal femur, pelvis, and cryosurgery can be used as alternative.
proximal humerus. –– RT if unresectable. Dose >60 Gy for R+. In
–– In skull base they arise from petroclival bone BOS, dose should be >65 Gy.
and spheno-occipital junction and are locally –– No chemo generally. Consider for mesenchy-
aggressive. mal type.
–– Skull base chondrosarcoma has better 5-year
LC vs chordomas: 85–95%. 10-year OS 80%. Follow-Up
–– Imaging locally and chest q6-12 m for 2 years
Subtypes and then q12m for 10 + years.
–– Conventional: 85% of tumors
• G1: atypical cartilaginous tumor/chondro- AJCC 7 T1 T2 T3
sarcoma G1 (ACT/CS1) N0 IA (G1,2,X) IB(G1,2,X) IB(G1,2,X)
• G2–3: malignant, due to DM potential IIA (G3,4) IIB (G3,4) III (G3)
–– Other types: Dedifferentiated, mesenchymal, N1 IVB
and clear cell. M1a IVA
M1b IVB
Workup
–– Plain radiographs, MRI, and CT.
–– CT CAP for DMs, esp. for G3.
–– On plain film, mineralization of matrix may
produce punctate or ring-and-arc pattern of
calcification.
Chordoma [13, 18–23] Studies

–– UF/UPMC, 2014: 5-year LC w RT is 30–60%.
Background LC approximates CSM. RT dose required is
–– Originates from midline notochord remnant, >60 Gy. UF treats to 75/1.8, going past dose
which extend from the sella turcica to the constraints to get LC.
sacrococcygeal bone in the fetus. Chordomas – – UPMC: SRS is tx option.
can rise anywhere along this tract but are most – – Carpentier, 2002: pts. managed w surgery
frequent in the BOS or sacrococcygeal bones. +RT have improved recurrence vs salvage RT.
–– Typically at BOS; thus, resection is difficult. 5-year OS 80% vs 50%. 10-year OS 65% vs
–– DMs in 5%. 0%.
–– Poor prognostic factors: recurrence, BOS, –– Delaney, 2014: phase II of pre- or post-op RT.
female, tumor necrosis in pre-tx biopsy, and 11% LR. Favors dose of 77.4 Gy RBE for pri-
>70 cc. mary tumors, 70 Gy for adjuvant.
–– Catton, 1996: retrospective for BOS chordo-
Location: sacrococcygeal (50%), spheno- mas. 50 Gy photons. 85% pts. had pain pallia-
occipital (35%), and vertebral column (15%) tion, but LC was 27%, 5-year PFS 23%, and
DDx of Sacral Bone Lesion: Mets, MST 62 m.
MM. Chordoma is the most frequent primary –– Yamada, 2013: SRS. 24 Gy in 1 fraction. 95%
malignant bone tumor of sacrum and mobile LC rate at 24 m.
spine. Other lesions: chondrosarcoma, Ewing –– Hug, 1999, Loma Linda: 58 pts., 33 chordo-
sarcoma, osteosarcoma, PNET, Paget, and benign mas, 25 chondrosarcoma. LC 76% for chor-
tumors (e.g., giant-cell tumor, hemangioma) doma, 92% chondrosarcoma. 5-year OS
Symptoms: Depend on site of origin. Usually chordoma 79% vs 100% chondrosarcoma.
pain of gradual onset High volume of residual (>25 cc) worse.
–– Fagundes, 1995: recurrence. Surg + RT vs
Subtypes BSC. 2-year OS 63% vs 21%. However,
–– Classic (no cartilaginous or mesenchymal 5-year OS was only 6%.
components)
–– Dedifferentiated Chemo
–– Chondroid, 30% of cranial region –– Not shown to be effective
chondrosarcomas –– Imatinib: some activity if PDGF-beta
overexpression
Natural History: 95% of patients will have
LR; 40% will have LR and DMs after tx. DM Treatment Paradigm
most likely to the lung and bone –– Maximal safe resection w adjuvant RT..
–– For surgery, SOC is en bloc spondylectomy.
Workup • Low = sacrifice S4 and below.
–– Do not perform transrectal biopsy due to pro- • Mid = sacrifice S3 and below.
pensity to seed along tracts in the rectum. All • High = sacrifice S2 and below.
biopsy tracts should be marked and removed • Total = sacrifice S1 and below.
in subsequent surgery. –– Consider protons or SRS for chordoma at
–– MRI: T1 intermediate–low. T2 high. BoS.
–– Otherwise RT, aim for dose escalation >60 Gy,
Pathology conventional fractionation. Another option is
–– Physaliferous cells SRS, 24 Gy/ 1fx. Chordomas are
–– Express cytokeratin and epithelial membrane radioresistant.
antigen
–– S-100+
Technique for Chondrosarcoma and Toxicity

Chordoma –– 26% of BOS chordomas will have endocrine
–– Spare 2 cm of skin. abnormalities.
–– CTV is surgical bed + scar +2 cm. –– 10% will have vision loss, brainstem injury,
–– In the brain, they can be treated by 72 Gy at and temporal lobe injury in 5 years.
1.8 Gy fractions. –– Risk of sacral neuropathy increases if >77 Gy.
Recurrence
Can try surgery and RT again
Chloroma/Granulocytic Sarcoma Studies

or Myeloid Sarcoma –– Bakst, MSKCC, 2012: symptom relief in
95%, 37% relief during RT
Background
–– Extramedullary manifestation of AML, a solid Treatment
collection of leukemic cells occurring outside –– 24 Gy/2 Gy fractions adequate
of the bone marrow –– GTV + 2–3 cm
–– Sometimes associated w AML but can also be –– 80% LC
present w myeloproliferative disorders.
–– Usually an ominous sign, possibly preceding
blast crisis or conversion to AML.
–– Green is from myeloperoxidase on path speci-
men. Name derived from “chloros.”
–– Most are in craniofacial bones or orbit.
–– Radiosensitive.
Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma (eSTS) [3–7, 24–53]
AJCC 8th edition (deep/superficial not important)
• T1 – ≤5 cm AJCC8 TNM G AJCC7 TNM G Paradigm

• T2– 5–10 cm. IA T1 1 IA T1 1 Surg alone w good margins
• T3– 10–15 cm IB T2-4 1 IB T2 1 Surg alone w good margins,RT (cat 1)
• T4 – >15 cm II T1 2/3 IIA T1 2/3 Pre-op RT (cat 1) then surg, then +/- RT boost +/- chemo
IIB T2 2 Surg (cat 2a), then RT (cat 1) +/- chemo

• N1 – nodes. Preop chemo +/-RT (cat 2b), then surg,+/- RT boost +/- chemo
IIIA T2 2/3 III T2 or 3
• AJCC 7th edition N1 - *If unresectable: RT+/- chemo, then reconsider surg
IIIB T3-4 2/3
(deep/superficial IV N1 or M1 - IV M1 - Oligo: treat curatively
important) Disseminated: chemo, RT, surg, ablate, embolize
• T1 – ≤5 cm
• T1a – superficial
• T1b – deep (inc all RP)
• T2 – >5 cm
• T2a – superficial
• T2b – deep
• N1 – nodes
Grading • Angiosarcoma. 21% of RT-induced

–– AJCC recommends a 3-tier system. sarcomas
–– FNCLCC (French Federation of Cancer • Ewing/PNET: t(11,22), EWSR-FLI1
Centers) is preferred. • >50 other subtypes
–– Three parameters: differentiation, mitotic –– STS arises from primitive mesenchyme of
activity, and extent of necrosis. mesoderm.
–– Risk factors: RT, chemo, genetics, viral,
Overview chronic edema, thorotrast, chlorophenols,
–– 11,000 cases/year, 4400 deaths/year vinyl chloride, arsenic, and herbicides.
–– Median age 45–55 yo. –– Anatomic location (per ACS): 46% in LE
–– Histology: (75% of these above knee), 18% trunk, 13%
• Unclassified (or undifferentiated) pleo- UE, 12% RP, 9% HN, and 1% mediastinum.
morphic sarcoma, aka malignant fibrous –– Finnish database: RT as risk factor, 0.03% at
histiocytoma (MFH). 25% of cases. 26% 10 years.
of RT-induced histology.
• Liposarcoma 15%, 12q amplification Syndromes
involving MDM2 and CDK4. –– Stewart-Treves syndrome and lymphangiosar-
• Subtypes: coma from lymphedema, e.g., from breast
• Myxoid/round cell liposarcoma cancer tx. Usually angiosarcoma
t(12;16) –– Li-Fraumeni, AD, and “sarcoma, breast, leu-
• Pleomorphic liposarcoma kemia, and adrenal gland cancer syndrome.”
• Well differentiated/dedifferentiated
• Leiomyosarcoma 10% ↑LN+: “CARE”
• Synovial sarcoma 5% [t(x,18)], –– Clear cell, 28%
SYX-SSX –– Angio, 11%
• Malignant peripheral nerve sheath –– Rhabdo, 15%
tumor (MPNST) (5%) –– Epithelioid, 20%
• Clear cell <5% [t(12,22)] –– Synovial no longer thought to have high LN
involvement (thus, no more “SCARE”)
Workup Pisters, 1996 Toulmonde, 2014

Any LR Late LR
–– H&P: Age >50, R+, prev recurrence, Internal trunk location
• Ask about kinetics of growth and neuro sx. histologic subtypes (25% of pts) and
(fibrosarcoma, MPNST) tumor size >10 cm
• Extremity exam regarding ROM and (14% of pts)
lymphedema Any DM Late DM
• Neuro exam for re-strength and sensation Large tumor size, G3, deep G2–3
• LN exam for CARE tumors location, recurrent dz,
–– Xray, CT, MRI, CXR (<5 cm), or CT chest histologic subtypes
(leiomyosarcoma)
(>5 cm)
–– Fertility preservation.
–– Incisional biopsy: longitudinal, placed along Angiosarcoma
future resection axis, preferably by the sur- –– 2% of STS
geon who will later do resection. –– Elderly white males on scalp and face
–– Excisional biopsy contaminates surround- –– 50% cutaneous in HN
ing tissue. –– Very poor prognosis due to field
–– Genetic testing (Li-Fraumeni, h/o early breast cancerization
ca, bone sarcoma, brain tumors) DM, lung –– Presents as “spreading bruise” that is red/blue
(RP sarcoma→ liver).
–– PET best for prognostication, grading, deter- Surgery Alone
mine response to chemo. –– MDACC, Pisters, 2007: n = 88 w T1, any G,
–– CT A/P: myxoid/round cell liposarcoma, all get LSS alone if R0. 10-year LR 11%, and
epithelioid, angiosarcoma, and most recurrences in high grade
leiomyosarcoma.
–– MRI spine: myxoid and round cell. RT Alone
–– MRI brain: alveolar soft part sarcoma –– Lingberg, 1972: 2-year LR 66% and 2-year
(ASPS) or angiosarcoma. DFS 17%
–– For surg, goal is 1 cm SMs in all
directions. Chemo
–– Limited data.
DDx: Primary or metastatic carcinoma, lym- –– SMAC, Pervaiz 2008: meta-analysis for
phoma, desmoid tumors, and benign lesions chemo (doxorubicin based). Chemo improved
(lipoma, lymphangioma, leiomyoma, neuroma, LC 4% (HR 0.73) and OS 6% (HR 0.77).
schwannoma) NNT was 17 to prevent 1 death. Doxo + ifos
better than doxo alone.
Recurrence After Surgery Alone –– MGH (Delaney, 2003): retrospective 48 pts.
–– Simple excision: 90% with neoadj CRT (MAID +44/22 split course)
–– WLE: 40% with boost post-op if R1. At 5 years LC 92%
–– Soft part excision: 25% and OS 87%. Compared to historical control,
–– Amputation: 15% there was improved 5-year DMs (75% vs
44%), DFS (70% vs 42%), and OS (87% vs
Prognostic Factors 58%). Trend toward improved LC in CRT
–– Toulmonde analyzed 719 pts. from the FSG group vs historical control (92% vs 86%).
alive and event free for >5 years after dz 9% –– RTOG 9514: used Harvard neoadj CRT, more
had a late LR 6% had DM+. intense chemo, with 64 pts. showing similar
–– Pisters analyzed 1041 pts. from MSKCC, results (OS 71%), but toxic. 5% tx-related
1982–1994. deaths, mostly AML. 84% had G4 toxicity.
–– MSKCC [1] nomogram for LR after LSS for –– EORTC STBSG 62871, Gortzak, 2001: RCT
STS of extremities. STS 8+ cm, G2–3. Rando to surg alone vs NA
doxo/ifos. PORT for marginal surg, R+, more late fibrosis with post-op. Trial closed
LR. No difference in 5-year DFS (~54%) or early because of higher rates of wound com-
OS (~65%), but not powered for this. plications w pre-op, esp. in ant thigh (45% vs
38%).
Post-op RT • Secondary endpoints: Same LC (93%) and
–– NCIC / Yang 1998: WLE w 1–2 cm margin R0 DM (25%). Pre-op had slight benefit for
+/-EBRT (45 Gy wide field +18 Gy boost to OS (85% vs 72%) but washed out after
bed = 63 Gy). n = 91. G3 tumors got chemo. 5 years, and it was underpowered. Pre-op
RT improved LC for all grades (70% vs RT had higher acute wound complications
100%), but no change in OS or DMFS (similar (35% vs 17%), but lower rate of G2+ fibro-
to MSKCC). For G1 patients, LC favored RT sis (32% vs 48%), edema (15% vs 23%),
arm, 95% vs 67%, NSS. RT worsened joint and joint stiffness (18% vs 23%). Overall,
motion and edema. supports use of pre-op RT in STS.
–– Pisters 1996: 1982–1994. WLE+/−brachy –– CAN-NCIC-SRS (Davis, 2005): compared
(45 Gy LDR Ir-192). Tx volume was 2 cm late RT morbidity from O’Sullivan study,
sup/inf and 1.5–2 cm med/lat. Brachy →↑LC more detailed metrics.
for G3 (89% vs 66% at 5 years), but not for
G1–2. Pre-op RT +/– Boost
• Subset analysis on 20% of pts.: BT –– Toronto, Al Yami, 2010. N = 216. All treated w
improved LC if R0 but not if R2. pre-op RT and have R+. Retrospective review.
–– Higher LR if age >50, recurrent at presenta- 50/25 for 52 pts.; 41 pts. received 16 Gy boost.
tion, R+, fibrosarcoma or malignant periph- No difference in OS 11.5% w/o boost, 22% w
eral nerve tumor. Higher DM if large tumor, boost. 5-year LC 90% vs 74% (NSS).
G3, deep location, recurrent dz, and –– MGH, Pan, 2014. N = 67. Similar to above.
leiomyosarcoma. No difference in LC for boost. Thus, do not
–– MGH (Delaney, 2007): n = 154. Retrospective. boost.
All R+. At 5 years, LC 76%, DFS 48%, and
OS 65%. LC highest if dose >64 Gy (85% vs Hyperthermia
66%). –– EORTC 62961, Issels, ASCO 2007. 341 pts. w
5+ cm G2–3, deep and extracompartmental
Amputation Versus LSS STS get NA EIA +/− regional hyperthermia.
–– NCI, Rosenberg 1982: STS, G3 → amputa- Hyperthermia won, improved LRC 3.8 years
tion vs WLE + RT (boost to 60–70 Gy). vs 2 years and median DFS 2.6 years vs 1.4
Randomization favored LSS, 2:1. No differ- years.
ence in OS (83% at 5 years). Increased LR w
LSS, 20% vs 0%. No difference in 5-year DFS Toxicity
88% vs 83% (NSS) –– MGH (Baldini, 2013): n = 103. STS of
extremity or trunk pre-op RT median dose
Pre-op Versus Post-op RT 50 Gy. Twenty-three had BT boost, median
–– Pollack 1998: pre-op (50 Gy) vs post-op (60– 18 Gy in 2–4 Gy fractions BID. 90%
66 Gy). Same LC (81%). LC. Major wound complications (MWC) rate
–– O’Sullivan 2002: pre-op (50 Gy) vs post-op 35%, and 25% of these required reoperation.
(66–70 Gy). If +margin, pre-op got 16 Gy MWC higher if diabetes, size >10 cm, prox-
boost, and 10/88 pts. received this boost. imity to the skin <3 mm, use of vascular flap
PTV1 expansion was 5 cm prox and distal to or STSG closure. Authors conclude they favor
GTV; PTV2 was reduced to 2 cm around tar- pre-op RT, but 35% MWC rate is
get. Primary endpoint, more temporary wound concerning.
healing problems with pre-op (35 vs 15%) but
–– Toronto (Griffin, 2015): n = 798. 30% had –– Stage II–III:

WCs. No difference for IMRT vs 3D. Trend • Surgery + PORT
for more WCs if surg after 6 w • Pre-op RT + surgery
• Pre-op chemo cat 2b
EBRT Versus BT –– Angiosarcoma: WLE + post-op to primary
–– MSKCC (Alektiar, 2011): IMRT vs LDR-BT, and regional LNs
retrospective. IMRT was 50 Gy pre-op; 63 Gy
post-op. LDR-BT was 45 Gy, ~950 cGy/day. Pre-op eSTS Technique
On MVA, IMRT associated w improved LC. Simulation
–– Supine (upper inner thigh) vs prone (buttock/
IMRT Versus 3D-CRT posterior thigh)
–– Folkert. JCO 2014. n = 319. 5-year LR 8% vs –– Rigid immobilization
15%, (54% relative reduction) favoring –– CT sim without contrast
IMRT. Factors associated w LR included
lesion size (< vs >10 cm; age <50 vs >50). Contours
–– PMH (O’Sullivan, 2013): n = 70. Phase 2 of –– Fuse T1 post + T2 MRI with planning CT
pre-op IGRT IMRT. 5-year LC 88%. IGRT/ –– GTV = T1 post-MRI volume
IMRT decreased need for tissue transfer. –– CTV = 1.5 cm radial, 4 cm longitudinal
–– *ensure this covers the T2 edema.
IMRT • [CTV_50 = operative bed +1.5 cm radial,
–– Alektiar, 2008. 41 pts. extremity STS w LSS 4 cm longitudinal]
and IMRT. 51% had close or R+. IMRT used • [CTV_66 = operative bed +1.5 cm radial,
in pre-op in 7 pts. and post-op in 21. At 5 years 2 cm longitudinal]
LC 94%, DMFS 61%, and OS 64% –– PTV = CTV + 5 mm
IGRT Dose
–– RTOG 0630 (Wang, JCO, 2015). Multi- –– 50 Gy in 25 fractions
institutional assessing late tox of STS of
extremity w pre-op IGRT. In pts. with G3 Planning
tumors ≥8 cm, the CTV = GTV + 3 cm longi- –– IMRT or 3D.
tudinal and 1.5 cm radial. For G1 tumors or –– 6 MV beam energy
tumors <8 cm, CTV = GTV + 2 cm longitudi- –– Daily KV imaging
nal and 1 cm radial. 50 Gy/25 to 95% of
PTV. Primary endpoint was toxicity, plan to Technique (for Both Pre- and Post-op)
test 20% abs improvement in G2+ tox at –– Spare >1 cm of limb cross section to decrease
2 years from 37% in the pre-op RT arm of lymphedema risk.
CAN-NCIC-SRT2 study. G2 late tox (subQ –– Treat ½ bone circumference if possible.
fibrosis, joint stiffness, edema) was 10.5% vs –– Minimize joint treated.
37% in CAN-NCIC-SR2. Fibrosis 5.4% vs –– >60 Gy to femur – risk of osteonecrosis.
31%. Joint stiffness 3.5% vs 18%. Edema –– When to treat scar:
15% vs 5.3%. 2-year LC was 94%, all failures • Traditionally, it was always covered.
in CTV. • Haas IJROBP, 2012 review recommenda-
tions: (1) CTV large (>5 cm); (2) G2–3; (3)
R1.
Treatment Paradigm • In low-risk pts. (G1, wide R0), coverage
to drain sites can be omitted. Tx will
–– Stage I: surgery alone, aim for >1 cm SMs, increase risk of late morbidity.
consider RT for +margin (cat 2b) or close SMs
• Drain site should be marked w BB. Others

• Treat scar to full dose, using bolus if –– Epiphysis <20 Gy (prevent premature
necessary. closure).
Constraints Brachytherapy
(RTOG 0630) –– CTV: Tumor bed plus 2–3 cm sup/inf &
–– Joints V50 <50% 1–1.5 cm circumferentially.
–– Bone, weight-bearing V50 <50% –– Afterloading catheters placed 1 cm apart.
–– Skin + subq tissue, longitudinal V20 <50% –– Catheters loaded with iridium-192 loaded
–– Anus V30 <50% after POD 7–14 to permit wound healing.
–– Femoral head: V60% <5% –– Time >7 days can lead to higher infection risk.
–– Kidney V14 <50% –– Dose:
–– Lungs V20 <20% –– 15–25 Gy at 40–50 cGy/hr. given as boost
tx plus 45–50 Gy with EBRT
Additional Constraints, to Prevent Bone –– 45 Gy over 4–6 days, which is equivalent to
Fracture, Pre-op (Dickie, 2009) 60 Gy EBRT, can be given for definitive
–– Bone V40 <64% post-op tx or for tx of recurrent disease
–– Mean bone dose <37 Gy –– HDR-BT: 3.4 Gy BID × 10 fx over 5 days
–– Max bone dose <59 Gy
Pathologic Fracture Risk Factors

–– Bone V40 >64%
–– Bone mean >37 Gy
–– Bone Dmax >59 Gy
–– Female
–– >55 yo
etroperitoneal Sarcoma (RPS)

R Post-op
[54–58] –– Bates, 2015, SEER. n = 114. Adj RT associ-
ated w improved median OS in high-grade
Background RPS, 36 m vs 27 m, HR 0.79. Absolute OS
–– Incidence 2.7 per 1 M. benefit 21%. On MVA, RT, male sex, age >65,
–– 10–15% of all STSs. stage, all associated w survival
–– Mendenhall 2005: review of lit. GTR in ~50%,
but close margins. Most fail locally. At 5 years Pre-op Versus Post-op
LC 50% and OS 50%. –– Bolla, 2007: worse toxicity w PORT vs pre-
–– Failure pattern mostly local, unlike extremity op, 23% vs 0%
STS.
–– Most likely metastasize to the liver. IORT/PORT Versus PORT
–– Most likely histology liposarcoma (30–60%) –– NCI, Sindelar, 1993: IORT + PORT vs
and leiomyosarcoma (20–30%). PORT alone. 35 pts. randomized. IORT is
–– DDx: sarcoma, GIST, lymphoma, GCT, DT, 20 Gy and PORT is 35–40 Gy. PORT alone
lipoma, PNST. is 50–55 Gy. Both get doxo, cyclophos, and
–– CT: usually homogenous, fat density, MTX. No difference in OS at 5 years. MST
–– Biopsy remains controversial for patients ~4 years. With IORT, there was a decrease in
receiving surgery first. If CT suggestive, no LR, 80% vs 40%; dec in RT enteritis, 50%
further dx tests are needed. NCCN rec CT- vs 13%; dec in peripheral neuropathy, 80%
guided core bx before pre-op chemo and/or vs 60%.
RT. Goal is to avoid inappropriate tx of non- –– MGH, Gieschen, 2001: 29 pts. 16 get IORT,
malignant tumor. 10–20 Gy w intraop electrons, and 13 get no
IORT. All get 45 Gy EBRT. LC improved w
Organs in RP Space: The pancreas, kidneys, IORT, 83% vs 61%.
adrenals, ureters, and ascending/descending –– Stucky, JSO, 2014: 1996–2011. pre-op RT,
colon surg, then IOERT. EBRT 45–50 Gy/1.8–2.
Histology: Liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma Then, surg, and IOERT to any close or high-
most likely; in children, RMS most likely risk SM, dose 10–20 Gy. 5-year LC 89% for
surg+RT vs 46% for surg alone.
Pre-op
–– Alabama, Tzeng, 2006: pre-op RT (45/25) w Surg Versus Pre-op RT Then Surg
selective dose escalation (to 57.5) to margin at –– ACOSOG Z9031 (Pisters). Surg alone vs
risk. 2-year LR 20% pre-op RT then surg. Closed due to poor
–– Koshy, 2003: IMRT vs 3D-CRT retrospective accrual.
at Emory. 50.4 to PTV. IMRT decreased dose –– EORTC 62092–22,092: Surg alone vs pre-op
to small bowel 36 Gy to 27 Gy. Max and min RT then surg. Ongoing. Primary endpt is dif-
doses delivered to PTV significantly increased ference in RFS. Secondary endpts are DMFS,
by 6 and 22%, respectively. V95 improved rumor response, and toxicity. Using 3D or
from 95% to 99%. No difference in LR IMRT, 50.4/28.
–– Toronto/MDACC, Pawlik, 2006: G2–3 RPS
treated w pre-op RT (median 45 Gy) w con- Growth Rate
current low-dose doxorubicin. N = 72. 57 –– PMH (Wong, 2014) n = 39 w 118 CBCT. GTV
(89%) pts. had laparotomy, 95% w R0–1. increase in volume mean 7% during first 2w of
Recurrence rate 52% if R0. At 5 years, LRFS RT, then by 4% by the end of pre-op
60%, DFS 46%, and OS 61%. Favorable vs RT. Breathing motion correlated w more sup
historic controls tumors, supporting use of 4D.
Treatment Paradigm Absolute Contraindications to Resection

–– Pre-op RT, then surgery. Tumor displaces nor- –– Spinal cord involvement
mal bowel and areas at high risk for toxicity. –– Distant metastases
Further, LR is 50–95% after surgery. Dose –– Peritoneal implants
escalates areas at risk for R+ (e.g., vessels) w –– Involvement of superior mesenteric vessels
dose painting. Avoid post-op because bowel –– Extensive vascular involvement (e.g., aorta)
will be near R+ site, and vascular supply lim-
its BEDs. Relative Contraindications to Resection
–– RT is 50.4/1.8 (MDACC regimen), or 45/25 –– Involvement of IVC and iliac veins (as they
with SIB to 57.5 (Alabama regimen). can be ligated or grafted)
Pre-op Versus Post-op for Sarcoma [50, 61]

Extremity STS RPS
Pre-op preferred for Stage II-III Post-op, as needed for Stage IB Pre-op preferredfor M0
vs. amputation Comparable outcomes with LSS +RT vs. N/A
amputation (Rosenberg, Ann Surg, 1982)
Indications Preferred over post-op for G2-3 at G1-3 with R+ Preferred over post-op, as <70% amenable
MGH LR s/p prior surgery alone to R0.
Amputation, NV bundle sacrifice, Location not amenable to salvage surgery Pre-op will give smaller field, less chance to
Unavoidable + margin have to escalate near bowel
Timing 3-6 weeks. >6 w assoc w > late fibrosis. 3-8 weeks 3-6 weeks
Pros/cons Smaller field, lower dose (50 Gy), ↑ Bigger fields (~330 cm2 vs. ~420 cm2), N/A
(O’Sullivan, acute wound comps (35 vs 17%), ↓- higher dose (60-66 Gy),
Lancet, 2002) stage; reduced surgical seeding; ↓ acute wound comps,
improved tumor oxygenation (?); may ↑ long-term fibrosis,
improve resectability and chance ↓ ROM;
for R0; <15% LR <15% LR; scar bolus; possible hypoxia in
toxicities are temporary tumor bed
toxicities are permanent
Volumes (Haas, GTV = MR T1 post-gadolinium GTV = MR T1 post-gadolinium (if present) (per IEP) CTV = iGTV + 1.5 cm symmetric
IJROBP, 2012; CTV = GTV CTV = GTV post op bed margins. 4DCT for sim w some form of
White, 2005; + T2 peri-tumoral edema + 4 cm + 4 cm prox/distal, respiratory control if tumor >1 cm. Trim
Wang, 2011; prox/distal, +1.5 cm radial, edited at bone, scar from uninvolved bone, kidney, liver,
Bahig, 2013; +1.5 cm radial, edited at bone bowel/air cavity, extension below uninvolved
Wang, 2015) [59,60] (White). Reasonable to decrease to 3 Haas IJROBP drain site coverage skin, expansion beyond RP compartment. If
cm prox/distal (Wang). recommendations: (1) CTV large (>5 cm); 4D unavailable for upper abd tumor, then
PTV = CTV + 5-10 mm (depending (2) G2-3; (3) R1. CTV is 2-2.5 cm cephalon-caudal, and 1.5-
on IGRT use) PTV = CTV + 5-10 mm 2.0 cm radially.
PTV1 = 50 Gy (per RTOG S-0124) CTV= 5 cm
PTV = 50 Gy PTV2 (cone down to GTV) = 16-20 Gy circumferential margin, trim at OARs down
60-66Gy for R0 to 3 cm.
RTOG 0630 volume (Wang):
66-68Gy for R1
G2/3 tumor AND≥8 cm, CTV sup/inf 70-76Gy for R2
margins 3 cm, radial 1.5 cm. Also Consider SIB PTV 57.5 Gy @ 2.3 Gy/fx
cover edema on T2 MR
ALL OTHERS, CTV sup/inf margins
2 cm, radial 1 cm. Also cover edema
on T2 MR
If R+, consider boost:
10-16 Gy IORT
12-20 Gy BT
10-14 or 16-20 or 20-26 Gy EBRT
Outcomes Likely no difference in outcomes, esp. when control for SM status: LC (O’Sullivan,
Lancet, 2002; Pollack, IJROBP, 1998); OS (O’Sullivan, ASCO, 2004)
LC, DFS, LNM, DM rates (Zagars, IJROBP, 2003). Trend toward improved OS,
LC on meta-analysis (Al-Absi, Ann Surg Onc, 2010)
Toxicities Fibrosis 23% Fibrosis 48%

G2+(O’Sullivan, Edema 15% Edema 23%
Lancet, 2002) Joint stiffness 18% Joint stiffness 23%
Pt QOL No difference in 3-year QOL; QOL is likely dependent on tumor characteristics (Davis, JCO, 2002)
Kaposi Sarcoma [62, 63] Greater dose a/w higher response rate, lower
incidence of residual pigmentation, longer
Overview duration of tumor control
–– Limited data –– South Africa (Radiother Oncol,
–– Treatment not recommended unless cosmetic 2008;88:211). PRT, n = 60. Inclusion criteria,
or functional impairment, not responding to epidemic KS. Arms, 20/5 vs 24/12. Results,
HAART. arms equivalent
Kaposi Sarcoma
–– Four types: Treatment
• AIDS assoc –– Good life expectancy: 40 Gy / 20 fractions,
• Iatrogenic, from immune suppression 30 Gy/15 fx.
• Endemic to sub-Saharan Africa –– Poor life expectancy: Palliate 20 Gy /5 frac-
• Classic – in elderly men w Mediterranean tions, 8–12 Gy/1fx.
or East European heritage –– Other considerations:
–– HHV8 infection • 15 Gy for oral lesions.
• 20 Gy for the eyelids, conjunctiva, and
Studies genitals.
–– Kirova 1998: 30 Gy (15–10 for face/groins). • TSEB given in 4 Gy fractions weekly for
92% response 6–8 weeks has also been used.
–– Stelzer (IJROBP 27,;1993). PRT. Arms: 8 Gy
/ 1 vs 20 Gy / 10f x vs 40 Gy / 20 fx. Results:
Desmoid Tumor (DT)/Aggressive Studies

Fibromatosis [3–7, 64–69] –– Quintini 2012: OS for FAP associated tumors
76%.
Cleveland Clinic for FAP-Associated Intra- –– Crago, 2013: n = 495. 1982–2011. 5-year LC
abdominal Tumors 69%. Adj RT not associated w LC or
–– I asymptomatic, <10 cm, not growing RFS. MVA factors associated w recurrence:
–– II mildly symptomatic, <10 cm, not growing extremity location, young age, large tumor
–– III moderately symptomatic (restrictive, but size. Abd wall had best outcomes, w 5-year
not hospitalized), 10–20 cm, or slow grow RFS 91%. Nomogram provided.
–– IV severely symptomatic, septic complica- –– Keus, 2013: inoperable, recurrent, or R+ des-
tions (e.g., fistula, abscess), >20 cm, or rapid moids received 56 Gy/28. At 3 years LC 82%,
growth CR 14%, PR 36%, SD 41%, and PD 7%.
Acute G3 toxicity limited to skin and mem-
Overview branes and pain.
–– 900 cases/year –– Ballo, 1998: surgery alone. LR 13% for R0.
–– Don’t metastasize 52% for R1.
–– Eval for Gardner’s syndrome or FAP, caused –– Nuyttens 2000: dose >50 Gy (50–56) for GTV
by APC gene mutation and post-op 50 Gy. 22% LR.
–– Locations:
(1) Abd wall is most common. Surgery
(2) Trunk or extremity. –– Goal is 2 cm margin
(3) Intra-abdominal. –– R0: 15% LR
–– More common in women (abdominal –– R1: 26% LR
wall) –– Crago 2013: R1 resection → observed. Did
well
Workup
–– H&P, MRI, and bx to rule out STS. Do not need Medical Options
systemic imaging since no DM potential. –– Tamoxifen, NSAIDs, MTX, and imatinib
–– Incisional biopsy is preferred because it pro-
vides greater amount of tissue for pathologic NCCN
review and allows more accurate delineation –– Observe
between benign and malignant process. –– Resect
–– Imaging: no characteristics to distinguish • R0: observe
desmoid from malignancy. • R1: observe (Crago 2013) or reresect
• R2: reresect + RT (50 Gy per NCCN; some
Risk Factors say to 56 Gy)
–– Trauma –– Unresectable: RT (54–58 Gy) or systemic
–– High estrogen states, e.g., pregnancy therapy. Unresectable usually in extremity,
superficial trunk, HN; GENERALLY NOT
Manifestation retroperitoneal. RT alone has 80% LC.
–– Benign, fibroblastic neoplasms, slow growing
–– If in the abdomen, typically presents w intesti-
nal obstruction and bowel ischemia. Most are
associated w Gardner syndrome. Usually high
M/M
–– Dose response at ≥55 Gy a/w better LC in RR • Low-dose cytotoxic chemo, e.g., MTX and
(Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2011). doxo
–– MDACC recommends 56 Gy based on their • Targeted tx, e.g., imatinib
experience (IJROBP 2008) because higher
doses have more toxicity. Treatment Planning
–– Nonsurgical approaches: –– CTV = GTV + 3–5 cm longitudinal and 2 cm
• Hormone ablation, e.g., w tam in all other directions
• NSAIDs, e.g., sulindac
Paraganglioma (Previously finding is blushing tympanic membrane w

Glomus Tumor, Chemodectoma, pulsatile tinnitus.
Nonchromaffin Paraganglioma) –– 5% of HN paragangliomas produce
[70–73] catecholamines.
–– MRI: “salt and pepper appearance.”
Glasscock-Jackson Staging –– Vagal N typically must be removed during
surgery.
I Jugular bulb, middle ear, or mastoid
II Under IAC +/− intracranial
III To petrous apex +/− intracranial
Studies
IV Clivus or infratemporal fossa –– Suarez, 2012, systematic review for vagal
paraganglioma. SRS, CFRT, surgery com-
pared. For CFRT, LC 89%; for SRS LC 94%
Overview
(NSS). Reduction in tumor size unknown.
–– 2% of soft tissue tumors.
3.2% of pts. died from dz progression. In 14
–– 40–60 yos.
SRS studies w 261 patients, 32% of tumors
–– Arise from glomus cells (chemoreceptors
decreased in size, 61% unchanged, 6% grew
along blood vessels) that originate from neural
during treatment, and 0% had CR of tumor.
crest and regulate BP and flow.
<5% of pts. maintain vagal function after
–– 75% of sympathetic paragangliomas arise in
surgery.
the abdomen, usually at confluence of L renal
–– Combs, 2014: n = 39. CTV is GTV as seen on
vain and the vena cava or inf to mesenteric
T1 MRI + 1–5 mm. PTV = CTV + 1–2 mm.
artery near aortic bifurcation (organ of
LC 97%.
Zuckerkandl).
–– Guss, IJROBP, 2011: meta-analysis. For
–– May be associated w tympanic branch of glos-
linac-
based cases, most common marginal
sopharyngeal nerve (nerve of Jacobson) or the
dose was 15 Gy, and range was 15–20 Gy. In
auricular branch of the vagus nerve (nerve of
Gamma Knife treatment, most common aver-
Arnold).
age marginal dose was 15 Gy, and range was
12–18 Gy.
Nail
–– Arises from glomus body under the nail, in the
Glomus Tumor Treatment
fingertip or foot.
–– Surgery. For jugular foramen tumors, this is
–– “Glomus tumor” is antiquated and refers to
indicated if tumor secretes catecholamines
nail bed tumors.
(as RT has not been shown to decrease lev-
els); facial CN palsy suitable for repair w
Ear
nerve graft; intracranial extension and mass
–– Glomus tympanicum: arises from Jacobson
effect; young pts. w minimal risk of CN
nerve at cochlear promontory. Presents w pul-
damage.
satile tinnitus, otalgia, and conductive hearing
–– RT to 45 Gy is most acceptable. > dose does
loss.
not improve LC. CTV is GTV as seen on T1
–– Majority are benign and may be malignant.
MRI + 1–5 mm. PTV = CTV + 1–2 mm. LC is
–– Paragangliomas of the middle ear/jugulotym-
89%.
panic paragangliomas (glomus tympanicum)/
–– SRS: 15–20 Gy on LINAC or 12–18 Gy on
chemodectomas /nonchromaffin paraganglio-
GK.
mas, vascular, benign tumors, arising from
–– Embolization sometimes used to stabilize or
paraganglia in the middle ear. Pathognomonic
shrink tumor and used as adjunct to RT.
References 17.
Rosenberg AE, Nielsen GP, Keel SB, et al.
Chondrosarcoma of the base of the skull: a clini-
copathologic study of 200 cases with emphasis on
1. Cahlon O, Brennan MF, Jia X, Qin LX, Singer S,
its distinction from chordoma. Am J Surg Pathol.
Alektiar KM. A postoperative nomogram for local
1999;23:1370–8.
recurrence risk in extremity soft tissue sarcomas after
18. Fernandez-Miranda JC, Gardner PA, Snyderman CH,
limb-sparing surgery without adjuvant radiation. Ann
et al. Clival chordomas: A pathological, surgical, and
Surg. 2012;255(2):343–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/
radiotherapeutic review. Head Neck. 2014;36:892–906.
SLA.0b013e3182367aa7.
19. Carpentier A, Polivka M, Blanquet A, et al.

2. Crago AM, Denton B, Salas S, Dufresne A, Mezhir JJ,
Suboccipital and cervical chordomas: the value of
Hameed M, Gonen M, Singer S, Brennan MF. A prog-
aggressive treatment at first presentation of the dis-
nostic nomogram for prediction of recurrence in des-
ease. J Neurosurg. 2002;97:1070–7.
moid fibromatosis. Ann Surg. 2013;258(2):347–53.
20. Catton C, O'Sullivan B, Bell R, et al. Chordoma:
https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31828c8a30.
long-term follow-up after radical photon irradiation.
21. Yamada Y, Laufer I, Cox BW, et al. Preliminary

results of high-dose single-fraction radiotherapy
1998;49:143–8.
for the management of chordomas of the spine and
4. Cook B DT. Wikibooks radiation oncology. https://
sacrum. Neurosurgery. 2013;73:673–80; discussion
en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Radiation_Oncology.
680.
22. Hug EB, Loredo LN, Slater JD, et al. Proton radiation
therapy for chordomas and chondrosarcomas of the
skull base. J Neurosurg. 1999;91:432–9.
6. Hansen EK, Long JD. Handbook of Evidence-Based
23. Fagundes MA, Hug EB, Liebsch NJ, et al. Radiation
Radiation Oncology. 2nd ed: Springer; 2018. ISBN-
therapy for chordomas of the base of skull and cervi-
13: 9783319626413
cal spine: patterns of failure and outcome after relapse.
7. Hristov B, Lin SH, Christodouleas JP. Radiation
oncology – a question based review. 2nd ed: LWW;
24. DeLaney TF, Spiro IJ, Suit HD, et al. Neoadjuvant
2014.
chemotherapy and radiotherapy for large extremity
8. Eilber F, Giuliano A, Eckardt J, et al. Adjuvant che-
soft-tissue sarcomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
motherapy for osteosarcoma: a randomized prospec-
2003;56:1117–27.
tive trial. J Clin Oncol. 1987;5:21–6.
25. Kirova YM, Belembaogo E, Frikha H, et al.

9. Link MP, Goorin AM, Miser AW, et al. The effect of
Radiotherapy in the management of epidemic
adjuvant chemotherapy on relapse-free survival in
Kaposi's sarcoma: a retrospective study of 643 cases.
patients with osteosarcoma of the extremity. N Engl
J Med. 1986;314:1600–6.
26. Kraybill WG, Harris J, Spiro IJ, et al. Phase II study
10. Ozaki T, Flege S, Kevric M, et al. Osteosarcoma of the
of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy in
pelvis: experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma
the management of high-risk, high-grade, soft tissue
Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:334–41.
sarcomas of the extremities and body wall: Radiation
11. Noel G, Feuvret L, Ferrand R, et al. Radiotherapeutic
Therapy Oncology Group Trial 9514. J Clin Oncol.
factors in the management of cervical-basal chor-
2006;24:619–25.
domas and chondrosarcomas. Neurosurgery.
27. Mendenhall WM, Zlotecki RA, Hochwald SN,

2004;55:1252–60; discussion 1260–2.
et al. Retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer.
12. Amichetti M, Cianchetti M, Amelio D, et al. Proton
2005;104:669–75.
therapy in chordoma of the base of the skull: a sys-
28.
O'Sullivan B, Davis AM, Turcotte R, et al.
tematic review. Neurosurg Rev. 2009;32:403–16.
Preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in
13. Kano H, Lunsford LD. Stereotactic radiosurgery of
soft-tissue sarcoma of the limbs: a randomised trial.
intracranial chordomas, chondrosarcomas, and glo-
Lancet. 2002;359:2235–41.
mus tumors. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2013;24:553–60.
29. Pervaiz N, Colterjohn N, Farrokhyar F, et al. A sys-
14. Bakst R, Wolden S, Yahalom J. Radiation therapy for
tematic meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
chloroma (granulocytic sarcoma). Int J Radiat Oncol
of adjuvant chemotherapy for localized resectable
Biol Phys. 2012;82:1816–22.
soft-tissue sarcoma. Cancer. 2008;113:573–81.
15. Machak GN, Tkachev SI, Solovyev YN, et al.

30. Pisters PW, Harrison LB, Leung DH, et al. Long-term
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and local radiotherapy
results of a prospective randomized trial of adjuvant
for high-grade osteosarcoma of the extremities. Mayo
brachytherapy in soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol.
Clin Proc. 2003;78:147–55.
1996;14:859–68.
16. Souhami RL, Craft AW, Van der Eijken JW, et al.
31. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Goswitz MS, et al. Preopera-
Randomised trial of two regimens of chemotherapy
tive vs. postoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of
in operable osteosarcoma: a study of the European
soft tissue sarcomas: a matter of presentation. Int J
Osteosarcoma Intergroup. Lancet. 1997;350:911–7.
32. Rosenberg SA, Tepper J, Glatstein E, et al. The

soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities. J Clin Oncol.
treatment of soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities: 1996;14:1679–89.
prospective randomized evaluations of (1) limb-
46. Toulmonde M, Le Cesne A, Mendiboure J, et al.

sparing surgery plus radiation therapy compared with Long-term recurrence of soft tissue sarcomas: prog-
amputation and (2) the role of adjuvant chemotherapy. nostic factors and implications for prolonged follow-
Ann Surg. 1982;196:305–15. up. Cancer. 2014;120:3003–6.
33. Yang JC, Chang AE, Baker AR, et al. Randomized 47. Delaney TF, Kepka L, Goldberg SI, et al. Radiation
prospective study of the benefit of adjuvant radiation therapy for control of soft-tissue sarcomas resected
therapy in the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas of the with positive margins. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
extremity. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:197–203. 2007;67:1460–9.
34. Guadagnolo BA, Zagars GK, Araujo D, et al.
48.
Folkert MR, Singer S, Brennan MF, et al.
Outcomes after definitive treatment for cutaneous Comparison of local recurrence with conventional
angiosarcoma of the face and scalp. Head Neck. and i ntensity-modulated radiation therapy for primary
2011;33:661–7. soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremity. J Clin Oncol.
35. Lin PP, Schupak KD, Boland PJ, et al. Pathologic 2014;32:3236–41.
femoral fracture after periosteal excision and radia- 49. O’Sullivan B, Griffin AM, Dickie CI, et al. Phase
tion for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer. 2 study of preoperative image-guided intensity-
1998;82:2356–65. modulated radiation therapy to reduce wound and
36. Holt GE, Griffin AM, Pintilie M, et al. Fractures fol- combined modality morbidities in lower extremity
lowing radiotherapy and limb-salvage surgery for soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer. 2013;119:1878–84.
lower extremity soft-tissue sarcomas. A comparison 50. Davis AM, O'Sullivan B, Turcotte R, et al. Late radia-
of high-dose and low-dose radiotherapy. J Bone Joint tion morbidity following randomization to preopera-
Surg Am. 2005;87:315–9. tive versus postoperative radiotherapy in extremity
37. Gortzak Y, Lockwood GA, Mahendra A, et al.
soft tissue sarcoma. Radiother Oncol. 2005;75:48–53.
Prediction of pathologic fracture risk of the femur 51. Pan E, Goldberg SI, Chen YL, et al. Role of post-
after combined modality treatment of soft tissue sar- operative radiation boost for soft tissue sarcomas with
coma of the thigh. Cancer. 2010;116:1553–9. positive margins following pre-operative radiation
38. Coindre JM, Terrier P, Guillou L, et al. Predictive and surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110:817–22.
value of grade for metastasis development in the main 52. Baldini EH, Lapidus MR, Wang Q, et al. Predictors
histologic types of adult soft tissue sarcomas: a study for major wound complications following preop-
of 1240 patients from the French Federation of Cancer erative radiotherapy and surgery for soft-tissue sar-
Centers Sarcoma Group. Cancer. 2001;91:1914–26. coma of the extremities and trunk: importance of
39. Lawrence W Jr, Donegan WL, Natarajan N, et al. tumor proximity to skin surface. Ann Surg Oncol.
Adult soft tissue sarcomas. A pattern of care survey 2013;20:1494–9.
of the American College of Surgeons. Ann Surg. 53. Griffin AM, Dickie CI, Catton CN, et al. The influ-
1987;205:349–59. ence of time interval between preoperative radiation
40. Virtanen A, Pukkala E, Auvinen A. Incidence of bone and surgical resection on the development of wound
and soft tissue sarcoma after radiotherapy: a cohort healing complications in extremity soft tissue sar-
study of 295,712 Finnish cancer patients. Int J Cancer. coma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:2824–30.
2006;118:1017–21. 54. Stucky CC, Wasif N, Ashman JB, et al. Excellent
41. Stewart FW, Treves N. Lymphangiosarcoma in post- local control with preoperative radiation therapy, sur-
mastectomy lymphedema; a report of six cases in gical resection, and intra-operative electron radiation
elephantiasis chirurgica. Cancer. 1948;1:64–81. therapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma. J Surg Oncol.
42. Gladdy RA, Qin LX, Moraco N, et al. Do radiation- 2014;109:798–803.
associated soft tissue sarcomas have the same prog- 55. Wong P, Dickie C, Lee D, et al. Spatial and volu-
nosis as sporadic soft tissue sarcomas? J Clin Oncol. metric changes of retroperitoneal sarcomas dur-
2010;28:2064–9. ing preoperative radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol.
43. Bernier J. Potential risks and benefits of radiation 2014;112:308–13.
therapy as adjuvant treatment in patients with low-risk 56. Tzeng CW, Fiveash JB, Popple RA, et al. Preoperative
carcinoma of the mammary gland: taking cutaneous radiation therapy with selective dose escalation to the
postradiation angiosarcoma as an opportunity for a margin at risk for retroperitoneal sarcoma. Cancer.
critical appraisal of postoperative radiotherapy. Ann 2006;107:371–9.
Oncol. 2007;18:619–21. 57. Koshy M, Landry JC, Lawson JD, et al. Intensity
44. Coindre JM, Hostein I, Terrier P, et al. Diagnosis of modulated radiation therapy for retroperitoneal sar-
clear cell sarcoma by real-time reverse transcriptase- coma: a case for dose escalation and organ at risk tox-
polymerase chain reaction analysis of paraffin embed- icity reduction. Sarcoma. 2003;7:137–48.
ded tissues: clinicopathologic and molecular analysis 58. Pawlik TM, Pisters PW, Mikula L, et al. Long-term
of 44 patients from the French sarcoma group. Cancer. results of two prospective trials of preoperative exter-
2006;107:1055–64. nal beam radiotherapy for localized intermediate- or
45. Pisters PW, Leung DH, Woodruff J, et al. Analysis high-grade retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. Ann
of prognostic factors in 1,041 patients with localized Surg Oncol. 2006;13:508–17.
59. Bahig H, Roberge D, Bosch W, et al. Agreement

66. Keus RB, Nout RA, Blay JY, et al. Results of a phase
among RTOG sarcoma radiation oncologists in con- II pilot study of moderate dose radiotherapy for
touring suspicious peritumoral edema for preoperative inoperable desmoid-type fibromatosis--an EORTC
radiation therapy of soft tissue sarcoma of the extrem- STBSG and ROG study (EORTC 62991-22998). Ann
ity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86:298–303. Oncol. 2013;24:2672–6.
60. Wang D, Bosch W, Roberge D, et al. RTOG sarcoma 67. Quintini C, Ward G, Shatnawei A, et al. Mortality
radiation oncologists reach consensus on gross tumor of intra-abdominal desmoid tumors in patients with
volume and clinical target volume on computed tomo- familial adenomatous polyposis: a single center
graphic images for preoperative radiotherapy of pri- review of 154 patients. Ann Surg. 2012;255:511–6.
mary soft tissue sarcoma of extremity in Radiation 68. Rutenberg MS, Indelicato DJ, Knapik JA, et al.

Therapy Oncology Group studies. Int J Radiat Oncol External-beam radiotherapy for pediatric and
Biol Phys. 2011;81:e525–8. young adult desmoid tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer.
61. Wang D, Zhang Q, Eisenberg BL, et al. Significant 2011;57:435–42.
Reduction of Late Toxicities in Patients With 69. Guadagnolo BA, Zagars GK, Ballo MT. Long-term
Extremity Sarcoma Treated With Image-Guided outcomes for desmoid tumors treated with radiation
Radiation Therapy to a Reduced Target Volume: therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:441–7.
Results of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 70. Suarez C, Rodrigo JP, Bodeker CC, et al. Jugular and
RTOG-0630 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2231–8. vagal paragangliomas: Systematic study of manage-
62. Stelzer KJ, Griffin TW. A randomized prospec-
ment with surgery and radiotherapy. Head Neck.
tive trial of radiation therapy for AIDS-associated 2013;35:1195–204.
Kaposi's sarcoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 71. Combs SE, Salehi-Allameh B, Habermehl D, et al.
1993;27:1057–61. Clinical response and tumor control based on long-
63. Singh NB, Lakier RH, Donde B. Hypofractionated term follow-up and patient-reported outcomes in
radiation therapy in the treatment of epidemic Kaposi patients with chemodectomas of the skull base and
sarcoma--a prospective randomized trial. Radiother head and neck region treated with highly conformal
Oncol. 2008;88:211–6. radiation therapy. Head Neck. 2014;36:22–7.
64. Crago AM, Denton B, Salas S, et al. A prognostic 72. Guss ZD, Batra S, Limb CJ, et al. Radiosurgery of
nomogram for prediction of recurrence in desmoid glomus jugulare tumors: a meta-analysis. Int J Radiat
fibromatosis. Ann Surg. 2013;258:347–53. Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81:e497–502.
6 5. Nuyttens JJ, Rust PF, Thomas CR Jr, et al.
73. Jackson CG, Glasscock ME 3rd, Nissen AJ, et al.
Surgery versus radiation therapy for patients Glomus tumor surgery: the approach, results, and
with aggressive fibromatosis or desmoid tumors: problems. Otolaryngol Clin N Am. 1982;15:897–916.
A comparative review of 22 articles. Cancer.
2000;88:1517–23.
Bone/Spine Cancers
12
and Daniel E. Spratt
Abstract
This chapter discusses the general management of patients with bone and spine tumors, with special
focus on principles that guide radiotherapy and radiosurgery management. Several key components
of trimodality care and palliative care are discussed.
N. G. Zaorsky
D. E. Spratt
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4_12
Lumbar Thoracic Cervical
Cortex (rim)
Cancellous
Body
Pedicle
Transverse
process
a
in
m
la
Sup articular
process NICHOLAS G ZAORSKY, MD
Spinous process
Bone/Spine Cancers 457
Malignant Spinal Cord Compression (MSCC) [1–20]
Goals of Care
1. Preserve/restore neurologic function
2. Reduce pain
3. Provide local control
Epidemiology
• 300,000 patients have osseous metastatic disease/year in the USA.
• The spine is the most common location of bone metastases (60% spine).
• 10% of patients with spine metastases will develop MSCC (~20,000 per year).
• Usually in >50-year-olds.
• Most common cancers causing MSCC are lung cancer, prostate cancer, multiple myeloma, breast
cancer, and lymphoma.
• 20% of MSCC cases lack history of cancer – usually from non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, and
small-cell lung cancer.
Anatomy
• Most commonly arises from the vertebral body (80%)
• Most commonly in the thoracic spine (60%)
Presentation
• Most common: Pain (70–95%)
• Also common: Sensory deficit (45–90%), weakness (61–91%), and autonomic dysfunction
(40–57%)
Pain Types
• Biologic pain: cancer-related pain and night and morning pain. Non-positional. Inflammatory.
Steroids often help.
• Mechanical: from mechanical strain, not n ecessary cancer-related, positional pain.
• Radicular: radiating pain from osseous or cancer compressing neural foramen, often positional.
• Funicular: radiating pain from compression of the cord itself, non-positional.
Workup
• H&P, full neuro exam assessing for sensation, motor, bowel/bladder, and gait/proprioception
• Steroids (dexamethasone 10 mg IV × 1 and then 4–6 mg Q6H). Careful if no cancer diagnosis is
known (e.g., lymphoma)
• Surgical consult for stability, decompression, fixation
• MRI total spine (20% have additional tumors), emergent bx if needed if no cancer diagnosis
• CT myelogram if MRI contraindicated
• Surgery = 360 degree decompression with s tabilization (not laminectomy)
• CT appearance:
• Lytic: hypodense. Lung, breast, GI, thyroid, melanoma, myeloma, renal cell, urothelial, and ovarian
• Blastic: hyperdense. Lung, breast, GI, prostate, and nasopharynx
MSCC Compression Grading Scale (Bilsky Scale)

0. No compression
1. Indenting epidural space, obscuring some CSF, no cord contact
2. Abutment of the spinal cord
3. Frank compression and displacement of s pinal cord
Steroids
• Vecht 1989: loading dose 10 mg IV vs 100 mg IV. Both went on to 16 mg daily. No difference.
• Sorenson, 1994: Randomize to (1) 96 mg IV × 1, then 24 mg QID ×3, then taper over 10 d vs (2)
no dex. Gait function following tx: 81% vs 63%. Ambulatory at 6 m: 59% vs 33%.
SINS Score (Spine Oncology Study Group, 2010)
Component scores Score

Spine location
Junctional 3
Mobile spine (other C- and L-spine) 2
Semirigid (other T-spine) 1
Rigid (other sacrum) 0
Pain relief with recumbence and/or pain with movement/loading of the spine
Yes 3
No (occasional pain but not mechanical) 1
Pain-free lesion 0
Bone lesion quality
Lytic 2
Mixed 1
Blastic 0
Radiographic spinal alignment
Subluxation/translation 4
De novo deformity (kyphosis/scoliosis) 2
Normal alignment 0
Vertebral body collapse
>50% collapse 3
<50% collapse 2
No collapse with >50% body involved 1
None of the above 0
Posterolateral involvement of spinal elements
Bilateral 3
Unilateral 1
None of the above 0
The SINS score = sum all six component scores (range 0–18)
Score Classification Action
0 to 6 Stable Stabilization not indicated
7 to 12 Potentially stable Stabilization may be indicated
13 to 18 Instability Stabilization indicated
Surgery +/− PORT

• Patchell, Lancet, 2005: n = 100. 30 Gy vs surgery +30Gy. All received steroids, one lesion, no
cauda equina, >3 m life expectancy, paralyzed<48 hrs, and not radiosensitive. Primary endpoint
was ability to walk.
• Stopped early. Surgery + RT winner. Regained ambulation 19 → 62%, sustained ambulation
13 → 122 days, and OS 100 → 126 days. Also improved continence, mental ambulation, and narc use.
Duration of sx and Neurologic Improvement

• Rades 2002. 1998–2000. n = 98. MSCC. Prospective analysis.
• Favorable predictors of ambulation: time-to-develop motor deficit (slower better), type of tumor
(favorable = myeloma, lymphoma, SCLC, testicular better), and pretreatment ambulation
(ambulation better).
RT: Short Versus Long Course

• Rades 2009: nonrandomized. 1–5 fx vs 10–20 fx. Long course won. 1 yr LC 61 → 81%.
• Rades 2011: short course (8/1 and 20/5) vs long course (30/10 and 50/20) RT for MSCC. n = 265.
1-year LC 61% vs 81% (favored long course). 1-year OR 23% vs 30% (NSS). Unchanged motor
functional improvement. Thus, pts. w favorable survival should receive long-course RT.
• RTOG 97–14 (Howell, 2013) subgroup analysis of painful vertebral body bone mets, treated with
single fraction vs multifraction (SFRT vs MFRT): Similar pain relief 62–70%. Lower acute tox
with SFRT (20% vs 10%). Higher 3-month re-tx rate w SFRT (5% vs 15%).
• SCORE-2. Non-inf RCT 30/10 vs 20/5 for MSCC. Poor performance patients (~50% died within
2 months). Only 10% fit enough for surgery. No difference in any endpoint.
• SCORAD-3. Presented, not published as of December 2017. 8/1 vs 20/5. MSCC. Very poor per-
formance status patients, too sick for surgery. 1/3 of cohort did not even live to 8-week f/u. No
differences in any endpoint.
NCCN
• Dexamethasone 8–10 mg dexamethasone bolus, then 4 mg Q6H minimum
• Debulking/fixation if solitary site with >3 m life expectancy, paraplegia <24 hrs, not hematologic
cancer, or if unstable
• Post-op RT 1–3 weeks post-op
• Chemo for hematologic cancers
• SBRT not for MSCC
• OAR: thecal sac or cord PRV + 1.5 mm
Surgery Versus RT Paradigm

• Surgery if there are no histologic proof of cancer, mechanical instability, radioresistance, and pre-
viously irradiated site. Always follow with post-op RT if possible.
• All other cases → conventional EBRT (cEBRT).
SBRT Versus cEBRT Paradigm

• SBRT never for MSCC with grade 2–3 disease. Possible to use for select grade 1. Grade 0 is no
compression so this is simply a bone, only spine metastasis.
• SBRT for MSCC is for radioresistant tumors postoperatively after the epidural space has been
reconstituted and decompressed.
Radioresponsiveness
Intermediate
Very Favorable Unfavorable Resistant
Lymphoma Prostate HPV-squamous cell Melanoma
Multiple myeloma Breast NSCLC Sarcoma
Germinoma HPV+ squamous cell Renal cell
cEBRT Sim/Planning
• Cervical spine: laterals, pull shoulders down.
• Thoracic/lumbar: Usually AP/PA. Make sure spine is straight.
• Add +/− 1 vertebral body.
• 30/10, 20/5, and 8/1.
Spine SBRT Sim/Planning

• Below T4: total body immobilization (e.g., BodyFix)
• Above T4: 5-point mask
• Myelogram simulation preferred, however MRI registration acceptable to define cord
Spine SBRT Dose Constraints

Serial tissue Volume Volume max (Gy)
Spinal cord D0.35 cc 10 Gy
D10% 10 Gy
D0.03 cc 14 Gy
Cauda equina <0.03 cc 16 Gy
<5 cc 14 Gy
Sacral plexus <0.03 cc 18 Gy
<5 cc 14.4 Gy
Esophagus <0.03 cc 16 Gy
<5 cc 11.9 Gy
MNOP Algorithm for Patient with MSCC (Spratt DE et al. Lancet Onc 2017)
M Unstable Stable
N Tumor extends to epidural space or

spinal cord compression
Radioresponsiveness (Histology)
Favorable Intermediate Unfavorable
cEBRT Surgery →
Surgically cEBRT or SBRT
P
Stabilize Surgery →
cEBRT or SBRT
Simplified
Radiosensitive Radioresistant
Low-grade MSCC cEBRT SBRT
High-grade MSCC cEBRT Surgery, then
SBRT
Bone Metastases [1–5, 21–33]
Overview
–– Sites: spine > pelvis > ribs > femur > skull
Fracture Risk
–– Femur: 65%; subtrochanteric > fem neck > peritrochanteric
–– Acetabulum: 9%
–– Tibia: 8%
–– Humerus: 17%
–– Forearm: 2%
Surgery
–– Mirels 1989: scoring system for fracture from mets to long bones. Mean score 7 in nonfracture
group. >8 should get surgical evaluation for prophylactic internal fixation prior to RT.
Mirels points 1 2 3
Site UE LE Peritroch
Pain Mild Mod Mechanical
Radiograph Blastic Mix Lytic
% of shaft <33% 34–67% >68%
Mirels score n Fracture rate, %

<7 11 0
7 19 5
8 12 33
9 7 57
10–12 18 100
–– VanderLinden 2004: femur cortical involvement >30 mm and/or circumferential >50% predict
for fx
Algorithm
–– (1) Fracture: surgery and then post-op RT.
–– (2) No fracture: if painless, observe; if painful, then assess for impending fracture. If no impending
fracture, then RT. If yes, then surgery.
EBRT
–– RTOG 97–14 (Harstell 2005): breast and prostate bone mets → 8 × 1 vs 30/10. Overall response
66%. Pain CR same: 15–18%. At 3 mos, 33% no longer required narcotics. More G2+ tox with
30/10 (17% vs 10% G2-4 tox). More retreatment with 8 × 1 (9 vs 18%).
–– TROG 96.05: 1996–2002, RCT of 8 Gy x 1 vs 20 Gy x 5. 8 × 1 not effective as 20/5, but not SS
worse.
–– Bone pain trial working party: 8 × 1 vs 20/5 vs 30/10. Same effectiveness. More reRT with 8 × 1
(23 vs 10%).
–– Chow 2007: meta-analysis. No differences except 2.5× increase in retreatment if 8 × 1.
–– ASTRO guidelines: Essentially 8 Gy x 1 for everything.
Radiopharmaceuticals
–– Strontium-89 (β): Sciuto 2002 and Porter 1993
–– Samarium-153 (β and γ): Sartor 2004 and Oosterhof 2003
–– Radium-223 (α):
• ALSYMPCA: Ra223 improved OS (11 → 14.9 m) over placebo for symptomatic mCRPC
patients
PORT
–– Townsend 1994: PORT reduced need for 2nd surgery (15 → 2%) and improved function
PORT Pain Flares

–– Hird, IJROBP, 2009: 8 Gy x1 or 20 Gy/5. 40% pain flare in 10 d after RT.
–– Loblaw, 2006: RCT of 8 Gy x1 vs 20 Gy/5. Monitor for 7 d. Pain flare has 2 pt increase in intensity
w/o change in analgesics. Overall rate 34%. Higher in 8 Gy x1: 43% vs 24%.
–– Bomez, 2015: Most had w/ 20 Gy/5 (61%), some 8 Gy/1 (31%). Pain flare incidence 38%. Usually
on d1-5, lasting 3d.
Steroids for Pain Flare

–– Chow, Lancet Onc, 2015: n = 298. Randomize to dexamethasone 8 mg taken >1 h prior to RT w/
8 Gy x1, then 8 mg QD for 4d after tx (total 40 mg over 5 d); vs placebo. Decrease in acute pain
flare 26% vs 35% (~8–9% absolute difference). Largest difference in 0–5 d post RT. No difference
in 6–10 days post-RT.
SRS/SBRT
General concept – SRS/SBRT often used for radioresistant histologies (sarcoma, melanoma, RCC)
and oligometastatic disease. However, for simple pain control, ASTRO recommends 8 Gy x 1.
–– Gerstzen 2007: Retrospective, median 20Gy x1. Improved pain in 86%, LC 90%. More durable
than historical series of 8 Gy x 1 or 30 Gy in 10 fx.
References 16. Maranzano E, Latini P, Checcaglini F, et al. Radiation

therapy of spinal cord compression caused by breast
cancer: report of a prospective trial. Int J Radiat Oncol
1. Martinez-Monge R, Gomez-Iturriaga A, Cambeiro M,
Biol Phys. 1992;24:301–6.
et al. Phase I-II trial of perioperative high-dose-rate
17. Loblaw DA, Mitera G, Ford M, et al. A 2011 updated
brachytherapy in oral cavity and oropharyngeal can-
systematic review and clinical practice guideline
cer. Brachytherapy. 2009;8:26–33.
for the management of malignant extradural spinal
2. Cook B DT: Wikibooks Radiation Oncology.
cord compression. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
2012;84:312–7.
18. Rades D, Veninga T, Conde-Moreno AJ, et al. Results
of a multicenter study investigating the potential
impact of the overall treatment time on outcomes of
radiation therapy alone with 5x4 Gy for metastatic
epidural spinal cord compression. Pract Radiat Oncol.
2010.
2017;7:137–44.
19. Rades D, Janssen S, Conde-Moreno AJ, et al. Role
ogy – a question based review. 2nd ed. Philadelphia:
of the overall treatment time of radiotherapy with 10
x 3 Gy for outcomes in patients with metastatic spi-
6. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, et al. Direct
nal cord compression. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol.
decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of
2017;61:388–93.
spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer:
20. Nieder C, Grosu AL, Andratschke NH, et al. Update
a randomised trial. Lancet. 2005;366:643–8.
of human spinal cord reirradiation tolerance based on
7. Rades D, Lange M, Veninga T, et al. Preliminary
additional data from 38 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol
results of spinal cord compression recurrence evalu-
Biol Phys. 2006;66:1446–9.
ation (score-1) study comparing short-course versus
21. 8 Gy single fraction radiotherapy for the treatment of
long-course radiotherapy for local control of malig-
metastatic skeletal pain: randomised comparison with
nant epidural spinal cord compression. Int J Radiat
a multifraction schedule over 12 months of patient
follow-up. Bone Pain Trial Working Party. Radiother
8. Rades D, Rudat V, Veninga T, et al. Prognostic factors
Oncol. 52:111, 1999–21.
for functional outcome and survival after reirradiation
22. Chow E, Harris K, Fan G, et al. Palliative radiother-
for in-field recurrences of metastatic spinal cord com-
apy trials for bone metastases: a systematic review. J
pression. Cancer. 2008;113:1090–6.
Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1423–36.
9. Rades D, Stalpers LJ, Veninga T, et al. Evaluation of
23. Gerszten PC, Burton SA, Ozhasoglu C, et al.

five radiation schedules and prognostic factors for
Radiosurgery for spinal metastases: clinical experi-
metastatic spinal cord compression. J Clin Oncol.
ence in 500 cases from a single institution. Spine
2005;23:3366–75.
(Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:193–9.
10. Vecht CJ, Haaxma-Reiche H, van Putten WL, et al.
24. Hartsell WF, Scott CB, Bruner DW, et al. Randomized
Initial bolus of conventional versus high-dose dexa-
trial of short- versus long-course radiotherapy for pal-
methasone in metastatic spinal cord compression.
liation of painful bone metastases. J Natl Cancer Inst.
Neurology. 1989;39:1255–7.
2005;97:798–804.
11. Laufer I, Rubin DG, Lis E, et al. The NOMS frame-
25. Mirels H. Metastatic disease in long bones. A proposed
work: approach to the treatment of spinal metastatic
scoring system for diagnosing impending pathologic
tumors. Oncologist. 2013;18:744–51.
fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989:256–64.
12. Versteeg AL, Verlaan JJ, Sahgal A, et al. The spi-
26. Townsend PW, Rosenthal HG, Smalley SR, et al.

nal instability neoplastic score: impact on onco-
Impact of postoperative radiation therapy and other
logic decision- making. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).
perioperative factors on outcome after orthopedic sta-
2016;41(Suppl 20):S231–s237.
bilization of impending or pathologic fractures due to
13. Pollono D, Tomarchia S, Drut R, et al. Spinal cord
metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12:2345–50.
compression: a review of 70 pediatric patients. Pediatr
27. Van der Linden YM, Dijkstra PD, Kroon HM, et al.
Hematol Oncol. 2003;20:457–66.
Comparative analysis of risk factors for pathological
14. Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Ryken TC, et al. A novel clas-
fracture with femoral metastases. J Bone Joint Surg
sification system for spinal instability in neoplastic
Br. 2004;86:566–73.
disease: an evidence-based approach and expert con-
28. Roos DE, Turner SL, O'Brien PC, et al. Randomized
sensus from the Spine Oncology Study Group. Spine
trial of 8 Gy in 1 versus 20 Gy in 5 fractions of radio-
(Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:E1221–9.
therapy for neuropathic pain due to bone metastases
15. Rades D, Heidenreich F, Karstens JH. Final results of
(Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, TROG
a prospective study of the prognostic value of the time
96.05). Radiother Oncol. 2005;75:54–63.
to develop motor deficits before irradiation in meta-
29. Chow E, Meyer RM, Ding K, et al. Dexamethasone in
static spinal cord compression. Int J Radiat Oncol
the prophylaxis of radiation-induced pain flare after
Biol Phys. 2002;53:975–9.
palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: a double-
blind, randomised placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Canadian Cancer Centers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1463–72. Phys. 2009;75:193–7.
30. Howell DD, James JL, Hartsell WF, et al. Single- 3 2. Loblaw DA, Wu JS, Kirkbride P, et al. Pain flare in
fraction radiotherapy versus multifraction radio- patients with bone metastases after palliative radio-
therapy for palliation of painful vertebral bone therapy--a nested randomized control trial. Support
metastases-
equivalent efficacy, less toxicity, more Care Cancer. 2007;15:451–5.
convenient: a subset analysis of Radiation Therapy 33. Gomez-Iturriaga A, Cacicedo J, Navarro A, et al.
Oncology Group trial 97–14. Cancer. 2013;119: Incidence of pain flare following palliative radiother-
888–96. apy for symptomatic bone metastases: multicenter
31. Hird A, Chow E, Zhang L, et al. Determining the inci- prospective observational study. BMC Palliat Care.
dence of pain flare following palliative radiotherapy 2015;14:48.
for symptomatic bone metastases: results from three
Physics and Radiobiology
13
and David J. Schlesinger
Abstract
This chapter discusses the basics of clinical radiation physics and radiation biology. Special
emphasis is placed on the key aspects of physics and radiobiology that guide clinical management
and preparation for board exams and maintenance of certification exams.
Radiation Physics
This chapter discusses the basics of clinical radiation physics and radiation biology. Special emphasis
is placed on the key aspects of physics and radiobiology that guide clinical management and prepara-
tion for board exams and maintenance of certification exams.
Units
Measurement Common units Official (SI) unit
Energy Joules (J), mega-electron volts (MeV) Joules (J)
Activity: disintegrations per unit time Curie (Ci) Becquerel (Bq)
Exposure: ionization Roentgen (R) Coulombs/kg (C/kg)
Absorbed dose: energy deposited in tissue Rad Gray (Gy)
1 Gy = 1 J/kg
Dose equivalent: biological effect Rem Sievert (Sv)
N. G. Zaorsky D. J. Schlesinger
Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA, USA University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
e-mail: nzaorsky@pennstatehealth.psu.edu e-mail: djs9c@hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4_13
Useful Constants
• Planck’s constant: 6.62 × 10−34 (J*sec)

• Speed of light in a vacuum = 3e8 (m/sec)
• Electron volt: 1 eV = 1 V * 1.6 × 10−19 C = 1.6 × 10−19 J
• Rest mass of electron: 0.511 MeV
• Rest mass of proton: 938.2 MeV
• Rest mass of neutron: 939.6 MeV
• 1 amu = 931 MeV
• 1 Ci = 3.7 × 1010 disintegrations/sec = 3.7 × 1010 Bq = 37 GBq
• Avogadro’s number: 6.02 × 1023 atoms per gram atomic weight
• 1 roentgen = 2.58 × 10−4 C/kg
• 100 rad = 1 Gy
Decay Equations and Calculations
A(t ) = A0 e - lt = A( 0) e( -0.693t ) / (t1/ 2)

• Unit: Bq = 1 decay/second. Older unit = 1 Ci = 3.7 × 1010 Bq

• Given at time 0, need to find activity at later time:
l = ( 0.693) / t1/ 2 = ln ( 2 ) / t1/ 2

• λ = “lambda” is the inverse of the mean lifetime, aka decay rate, or how much decays in a given
amount of time. Units is disintegrations / (time period you are using).
A0 = A(t ) e + lt = A(t ) e( 0.693t ) / (t1/ 2)

Given at activity new time, need to find original activity:

( (
t1/ 2 = -.693* t / ln A(t ) / A0 ))
Given activities, need to find the half-life:
Mean Life = 1 / l = 1.44 •t 1/ 2
Photon Attenuation Equations
I x = I0e- m x

• Photon beam intensity.

• μ is the linear attenuation coefficient in cm−1.
Physics and Radiobiology 469
• x is the distance traveled in cm.

HVL = ln ( 2 ) / = 0.693 /
w
TVL = ln (10 ) / = 3.32 HVL*

Mean free path = 1/μ = average distance a photon travels between collisions
Dose Ratios
• SSD: Source to surface distance

• SAD: Source axis distance (distance from source to isocenter)
Percent Depth Dose ( PDD ) = Ddepth / Dd 0

• Ddepth = dose at some depth

• Dd0 = dose at depth at some fixed reference depth. For orthovoltage d0 = surface. For megavoltage,
d0 = depth of dose maximum
• For PDD, the distance from the source to the detector changes (i.e., water level remains constant,
detector moves)
Tissue Phantom Ratio ( TPR ) = Ddepth / Ddref

• Ddepth = dose at some depth.

• Ddref = dose at some reference depth.
• For TPR, the distance from source todetector is fixed (i.e., water level changes, detector remains
stationary).
Tissue Maximum Ratio ( TMR ) = Ddepth / Dmax

• Ddepth = dose at some depth.

• Ddmax = dose at depth of dose maximum.
• TMR is the TPR where dref is thedepth of dose maximum.
Tissue Air Ratio ( TAR ) = Ddepth / Dfreespace

• Ddepth = dose at some depth

• Dfreesoace = dose “in air” (with a miniphantom forbuildup) as the same source to detector distance
as Ddepth
Basic Hand Calculations [1]
Equivalent square field = 2* ( A* B ) / ( A + B )

For Photon SSD Setups

D = MU* K ref * ( Sc * S p * PDD / 100* INV 2 )

INV 2 = éë( SSD ref + d ref ) / ( SSD + d ref ) ùû

2
• Kref = calibrated dose rate (usually 1 cGy/MU, 10 × 10 cm field at surface, dref = dmax)

• Sc field size = collimator opening
• Sp field size = field size at surface
For Photon SAD Setups

D = MU* K ref * ( Sc * S p * TMR * INV 2 )

2
INV 2 = éëSAD ref / SAD p ùû

• Kref = calibrated dose rate (usually 1 cGy/MU, 10 × 10cm field at SADref, dref = dmax)

• Sc field size = collimator opening
• Sp field size = fields size at depth of calc point p
For Electron Beams (Always SSD Setup)
D = MU* K ref * ( CF* PDD / 100* INV 2 )

• Kref = calibrated dose rate

• CF = cone factor
Mayneord Ffactor = é( SSD + d ) / ( SSD + d )2 ù ´ é( SSD + d ) / ( SSD + d ) ù 2

ë 2 max 1 max û ë 1 2 û

Optimum Relationship Between Wedge Angle and Hinge Angle

q = 90° - j / 2
ϴ = wedge angle, φ = hinge angle
Field-Matching Problems
To Eliminate Divergence of Parallel–Opposed Fields
q = arctan ( 0.5* FW / SAD )

Additional requiredrotation = 2* ϴ
Linear Accelerator Calibration (AAPM TG-51) [2]
For MV Photon Beams

D Q w = M * kQ* N 60Co D , w

• DQw = dose to water for your beam quality (Q)

• M = corrected ion chamber reading
• kQ = beam quality correction factor from reference 60Co beam to your beam quality
• N60CoD,w = calibration factor for absorbed dose to water for reference 60Co beam
For MV ElectronBeams
D Q w = M * Pgr Q* k ¢R 50* kecal * N 60Co D ,w

• DQw = dose to water for your beam quality (Q)

• M = corrected ion chamber reading
• PgrQ = gradient correction factor
• k’R50 = electron quality conversion factor
• kecal = photon-electron conversion factor
• N60CoD,w = calibration factor for absorbed dose to water for reference 60Co beam
Corrected Ion Chamber Reading
M = M raw *Ct , p * pion * ppol

• Mraw = raw electrometer reading
Temperature and Pressure Correction (Ct,p)

• [(273 + Tcelsius)/(273 + 22)] × [760/P]
• STP is 22 C and 760 mm Hg
• The reading will:
• Decrease with increasing temperature (i.e., it is inversely proportional to T).
• Increase with increasing pressure (i.e., it is directly proportional to P).
Ion Recombination Correction (pion)
pion = éë(1 - VH / VL ) / ( M H / M L - VH / VL ) ùû

• VH = high bias voltage (usually 300 V), ML = low bias voltage (usually 150 V)
• MH = measurement under high bias, ML = measurement under low voltage
• Pion >1 since MH should be greater than ML
Polarity Correction (ppol)
Ppol = | ( M + raw - M - raw ) / 2 M raw |

• M+ = measurement under positive bias (usually 300 V)

• M− = measurement under negative bias (usually -300 V)
• M = measurement under clinically used bias
Film Analysis
Optical density = log (Io/It).
Radiation Safety and Dose Limits

∗
Equivalent dose (H) = WR D, units Sv
• Adjusts absorbed dose for the biological effectiveness of the type of radiation
• D = absorbed dose (Gy)
• WR = radiation weighting factor
Radiation Weighting Factors [3]

Radiation type WR
Photons/electrons 1
Neutrons 5–20 (energy dependent. Peak value of 20 at ~ 1 MeV)
Protons 2
Alpha particles 20
Effective dose ( E ) = å (WT * H T )

T
• Adjusts absorbed dose to account for the sensitivity of each organ to each type of radiation
• T = organ
• WT = weighting factor for organ
• HT = equivalent dose for organ T
• ∑T *WT = 1
Organ Weighting Factors [3, 4]

Organ WT
Gonads 0.2
Red bone marrow 0.12
Colon 0.12
Lung 0.12
Stomach 0.12
Bladder 0.05
Breast 0.05
Liver 0.05
Esophagus 0.05
Thyroid 0.05
Skin 0.01
Bone surfaces 0.01
Remaining organs 0.05
Whole body dose limits (1 rem = 0.01 mSv) [3]

Per year Per hr
Occupational 50 mSv 0.02 mSv
Fetus 0.5 mSv/month
Public cont. exposure 1 mSv
Public intermittent exposure 5 mSv
Total effective dose per individual in the U.S. from background sources: 3.1 mSv/yr. [5]
Acute total body exposures [6]

<2 Gy Observe
2–5 Gy Prodrome, latency, cytopenias?
5–10 Gy Hospitalize, hypotension?
10–20 Gy GI syndrome, fatal
>50 Gy Cerebrovascular syndrome, fatal
Typical External Beam Parameters (Assume a 10 × 10 Field) [7]

Beam Superficial Orthovoltage Co-60 4 MV 6 MV 10 MV 18 MV 25MV
Dmax 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2.5 3.5 5
Radiation Linear Energy Transfer and Weighting Factors [3]

Radiation LET (keV/μm)
2.5 MeV α 150
1 GeV Fe ions 150
14 MeV neutrons 100
250 kV Xrays 2
150 MeV protons 0.5
60
Co γ 0.2
Brachytherapy
Brachytherapy Sources [8, 9]

Isotope τ Energy Decay mechanism Use
103
Pd 17 days 21 keV photons (avg) Electron capture Prostate LDR
125
I 60 days 28 keV photons (avg) Electron capture Prostate LDR, eye plaque
131
Cs 9.7 days 30 keV photons (avg) Electron capture Prostate LDR
99m
Tc 6 hrs 140 keV photons Isometric transition SPECT, bone scan
131
I 8 days 364 keV photons (avg) Beta −/gamma Thyroid ablation
192
Ir 74 days 380 keV photons (avg) Beta − HDR or LDR
198
Au 2.7 days 412 keV photons Beta − Prostate LDR, eye plaque (historical)
90
Sr 28 yrs 546 keV β Beta − Source of 90Y, ophthalmic applicator,
(max, mean ~ 1/3) intravascular
18
F 110 min 633 keV positrons Beta + PET, annihilation 511 keV photons × 2
137
Cs 30 yrs 660 keV photons Beta − GYN Brachy, LDR
226
Ra 1622 yrs 830 keV photons (avg) Alpha GYN Brachy, LDR (historical)
223
Ra 11.4 days 5.8 MeV α Alpha Xofigo
222
Rn 3.8 days 830 keV photons (avg) Alpha Environmental hazard, radium daughter
5.5 MeV alpha
Co
60
5.3 yrs 1.25 MeV photons (avg) Beta − Teletherapy, radiosurgery
K
40
109 yrs 1.3 MeV β Beta − Small amts. commonly found in nature,
(max, mean ~ 1/3) animals, bananas, etc.
Sr
89
50 days 1.5 MeV β Beta − IV tx of bone mets
(max, mean ~ 1/3)
P
32
14.3 days 1.7 MeV β Beta − IV tx of bone mets, polycythemia vera,
(max, mean ~ 1/3) intravascular
Y
90
2.7 days 2.3 MeV β Beta − TheraSpheres, SIR-Spheres
(max, mean ~ 1/3)
Brachytherapy Patient Release Regulations [10]

Release with Release with instructions if Release without Release without instructions
instructions if activity < dose rate at 1 m < instructions if activity < if dose rate at 1 m <
125
I 9 mCi 0.01 mSv/h 2 mCi 0.002 mSv/h
103
Pd 40 mCi 0.03 mSv/h 8 mCi 0.007 mSv/h
192
Ir 2 mCi 0.008 mSv/h 0.3 mCi 0.002 mSv/h
131
I 33 mCi 0.07 mSv/h – –
Radiotherapy Structural Shielding Equations [11]
Workload (W): How often radiation source is used.

Use factor (U): Fraction of time beam is aimed in particular direction.
Occupancy factor (T): Howoften adjacent area is occupied.
Distance (d): Distance from area of interest to source.
Design goals: 0.1 mSv / week (controlled areas), 0.02 mSv/week (uncontrolled areas), 0.02 mSv/h
[CITE NCRP]
Primary Barrier
B = Pd 2 / WUT
# requiredTVLs = n = −log(B)
Required barrier thickness = X = TVL1 + (n−1)TVLe
Type of area Occupancy factor (T)

Office, lab, reception, nursing station, etc. 1
Patient exam room and treatment room 0.5
Corridors, lounges, staff rest rooms, patient rooms 0.2
Corridor doors to treatment/imaging rooms 0.125
Public restrooms, storage rooms, holding areas 0.05
Unattended outdoor areas, stairways 0.025
Radiobiology
Dose/Fractionation Calculations [6]

• Early responding tissues: α/β = 10
• Early responding tissues: α/β = 3
BED = total dose* relative effectiveness = nd * éë1 + d / (a / b ) ùû

• n = number of fractions
• d = dose per fraction
• α/β = alpha/beta ratio for target
To Compare Fractionation Schemes

( nd / n1d1 ) = (a / b + d1 ) / ( a / b + d )
• n = standard # fractions
• n1 = equivalent # fractions needed for altered schedule
• d = standard dose / fraction
• d1 = desired dose / fraction
EQD 2 = éë BED / (1 + 2 / (a / b ) ) ùû

• EQD2 is the equivalent total dose in 2 Gy fractions.

Important Tumor Markers

Marker Classic association Also seen in
AFP HCC, NSGCTs GI, pregnancy, cirrhosis
β2microglob Myeloma B cell, lung, breast, bone dz
CA-125 Ovarian GYN, breast, lung, abdominal
CA 15–3 Breast Ovary, lung prostate
CA 19–9 Pancreas, bile duct Abdominal
CA 50 HCC GI
CA 27.29 Breast Various
Calcitonin Medullary thyroid Various
CEA Colorectal Various
Neuron-enolase (NSE) Neuroblastoma, SCLC Wilms, melanoma, thyroid, testicle,
Merkel cell
PSA Prostate Benign GU
Thyroglobulin Thyroid (non-MTC) Benign thyroid
Desmin Sarcoma, colorectal Intermediate filaments in skeletal muscle
tissue, smooth muscle, cardiac muscle
βHcG NSGCTs, choriocarcinomas Pregnancy
S100 Melanoma, schwannoma, neurofibroma,
MNST, paraganglioma, clear cell sarcoma
BCR-ABL t(9:22), usually in CML
Translocation Cancer
t(2:13) and t(1:13) Alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma
t(8:14) and t(8:22) Burkitt’s, B-cell All
t(11:14) Mantle cell (BCL1, cyclin D1)
t(11:22) Ewings, PNET
t(12:22) Clear cell sarcoma
t(14:18) Follicular, DLBCL (BCL2)
t(14:19) CLL (BCL3)
t(X:18) Synovial cell sarcoma
Cancer CD testing
All lymphoid 45+
B cells 19+, 20+, 22+
T cells 2+, 3+, 5+, 7+, 4 + (helper), 8+ (cytotoxic)
NK cells 16+, 56+, 57+
Follicular 5-, 10+, 43-
Mantle cell 5+, 23−, 43+
MALT 5−, 10−, 23−
Hodgkin 15+, 30+
References ments report no. 160. Bethesda: National Council on

radiation protection and measurements; 2009.
6. Hall EJ, Giaccia AJ. Radiobiology for the radiologist.
1. Khan FM, Gibbons JP. Khan's the physics of radia- Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health; 2012.
tion therapy. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health; 7. Podgorsak E. Radiation Oncology Physics. Vienna:
2014. International Atomic Energy Agency; 2005.
2. Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, et al. AAPM's p. 161–218.
TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of 8. Hansen ERM. Handbook of evidence-based radiation
high-energy photon and electron beams. Med Phys. oncology. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Springer; 2010.
1999;26:1847–70. 9. Wikibooks Radiation Oncology. 2015 at https://
3. Protection NCoR, Measurements. Limitation of en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Radiation_Oncology.
exposure to ionizing radiation: recommendations of 10. Howe DB, Beardsley M, Bakhsh SR. NUREG-1556
the National Council on Radiation Protection and volume 9 rev 2: consolidated guidance about materials
Measurements: The Council; 1993. licenses: program-specific guidance about medical use
4. Dieterich S, Ford E, Pavord D, Zeng J. Practical radia- licenses. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
tion oncology physics: a companion to Gunderson & Commission; 2008.
Tepper’s clinical radiation oncology. Philadelphia: 11. Protection NCoR, Measurements. NCRP Report
Elsevier; 2015. 151: Structural shielding design and evaluation for
5. Protection NCoR, Measurements. Ionizing radia- megavoltage x- and gamma-ray radiotherapy facili-

tion exposure of the population of the United States. ties. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation
National Coucil on radiation protection and measure- Protection and Measurements; 2005.
Index
A B
Abdominoperineal Resection (APR), 293 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC), 287
Active surveillance (AS), 318 Basal cell carcinoma (BCC), 184
Adenocarcinoma, 166 anatomic areas, 184
Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC), 169, 170 chemo, 184
Adjuvant chemo, 151 electron background, 185
Adjuvant ipilimumab, 182 general, 184
Adjuvant radiation therapy, 155, 187 local recurrence, high-risk factors for, 185
Adjuvant therapy, 180, 182 orthovoltage background, 185
Adriamycin, 180 retrospective reports, 184
Aggressive palliation, 189 surgery background, 184
Alveolar ridge, 157 workup, 184
Amphotericin B, 145 Benadryl, 145
Anal cancer Bevacizumab, 97
AJCC, 300 Bilateral neck, 153
anorectal contouring, 305, 306 Bilateral Wilms’ approach, 53
Australasia GI Trials, 304 Biliary tract cancer, 282, 283
dose constraints, 307 Bladder cancer, 333–337
follow-up, 302 Bone metastases, 55
HGSIL, 300 algorithm, 462
management, 302 EBRT, 462
outcomes, 302 PORT, 463
overview, 300 radiopharmaceuticals, 463
RT vs. CRT, 301 risk of, 462
simulation, 304 SRS/SBRT, 463
toxicity, 302 surgery, 462
treatment, 301 Brachial plexopathy, 146
Anaplastic carcinoma, 179 Brachial plexus, 141, 202, 205
Anaplastic thyroid cancer, 179 Brachytherapy, 474–475
Anterior border, 175 Brain metastases, 55
Arnold’s nerve, 162, 173 asymptomatic brain metastases, 107
Arteriovenous malformation (AVM) diagnosis, 107
clinical presentation, 119 postoperative radiation, 109, 110
diagnosis, 119 prognostic models evolution, 108
follow-up, 120 SRS
grading system, 119 dose, 109
natural history, 119 multi-fraction SRS for larger targets, 109
outcomes, 119 multiple metastases, 109
pathophysiology, 119 SRS +/− WBRT, 108, 109
SRS toxicity, 120 targetable mutations, 109
treatment, 119 WBRT +/− SRS, 108
Atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (ATRT), 67 symptomatic brain metastases, 107
Auriculotemporal nerve, 169, 173 Brainstem glioma, 78

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96809-4
482 Index
Branchial cleft cyst, 166 Craniopharyngioma, 73

Breslow method, 182 Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma (CTCL), 425, 426
C D
Carboplatin, 156, 164 Dabrafenib, 183
Carcinoid DeCIDE trial, 164
diagnosis, 218 Desmoid tumor (DT), 449, 450
H/P, 218 Dexamethasone, 156
imaging, 218 Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), 179
neuroendocrine carcinoid, 218 Diffuse anaplasia (DA), 52
Cavernous sinus, 150, 152 Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG), 78
Central nervous system (CNS) tumors Dihydropyridine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency, 293
AVM (see Arteriovenous malformation) Dorsal vagal complex (DVC), 140
brain metastases (see Brain metastases) Doxepin mouthwash, 145
brain pathology, 87 Dysphagia/aspiration-related structure (DARS), 140
clinical history, 88
conformity index, 89
CSF flow, 88 E
diagnosis, 88 Early-stage non-small cell lung cancer
ependymoma (see Ependymoma) brachytherapy, 206
gliomas (see High-grade glioma (HGG)) (see contours, 207
Low-grade glioma (LGG)) conventional RT alone, 206
gradient index, 89 during RT, 208
hemangiopericytoma, 121 follow-up, 208
intradural intramedullary spinal cord inoperability, 206
tumors, 88, 89 RFA, 206
meningioma (see Meningioma) risks, 206
MRI, 88 SBRT, 206, 207
optic nerve sheath meningioma, 106 eligibility, 207
PCNSL (see Primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL)) high-risk factors, failure after, 208
pituitary tumors (see Pituitary tumors) ongoing trials, 207
primary ocular DLBCL, 102 peripheral regimens, 208
radionecrosis, 89 requirements in Pulm function, 207
single-fraction SRS, 87 simulation, 207
standard fractionation, 87 surgery, 206
TN (see Trigeminal neuralgia) Ear pain, 162, 173
TO (see Thyroid ophthalmopathy) Elective nodal irradiation, 170
VS/AN (see Vestibular schwannoma/acoustic Electrons, 183
neuroma) Endocrine remission, 113, 114
Cetuximab, 163, 165 Endometrial cancer
Chemoradiation, 165 adjuvant chemo, 378
Children’s Oncology Group (COG) approach, 66 adjuvant RT, 377
craniopharyngioma, 73 adjuvant VCBT, 377
ependymoma, 68, 69 adjuvant WPRT, 377
germinoma, 72 fertility preservation, 381
NGGCT, 72 follow-up, 382
pineoblastoma, 66 general dosing, 380
pineocytoma, 66 hysterectomy types, 376
Chlorpromazine, 145 imaging, 375
Cipro, 146 indications, 381
Cisplatin, 160, 164, 165 malignancy, 378
Cisplatinum, 156 pathology, 375
Clark method, 182 salvage, 381
Clinical target volume (CTV) expansions, 139, 175 stage I, 375, 381
Clivus, 152 stage III/IV, 375, 381
Clodronate, 146 surgery, 376, 377
Cochlea, 140 toxicity, 382
Colon cancer, 299 treatment, 379
Corticotroph adenomas (Cushings), 113, 114 vaginal relapse, 378
Index 483
VCBT, 380 Floor of mouth, 158

WPRT, 380, 381 Fluconazole, 145
Endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS), 383 Follicular carcinoma, 179
En face electrons, 187 Follicular lymphoma (FL), 417–419
Entire sphenoid sinus, 152 Foramen lacerum, 150
Ependymoblastoma, 69 Foramen ovale, 150, 152
Ependymoma Foramen rotundum, 150, 152
brain management, 111 Foramen Spinosum, 150
chemo, 68 Frey’s syndrome, 169
COG approach, 68, 69
follow-up, 69
general, 68 G
intradural spinal cord astrocytoma, 111 Gallbladder, 282
natural history, 68 CRT, 283
relative indications, 68 EHCC, 282
simulation/planning, 69 IHCC, 282
spinal cord management, 111 NCCN, 284
surgery, 68 Gastric cancer, 271–274
trials, 68 Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor (GIST), 276
workup, 68 Genitourinary tract cancer
Esophageal cancer extragonadal GCT and NGGCTs, 351
anatomy/staging, 266 penile cancer, 352, 353
components, 266 prostate cancer
constraints, 269 active surveillance, 318
definitive CRT, 268 adjuvant studies, 330
definitive RT, 268 ADT, 322
labs, 267 anatomy, 315
motion assessment/management, 269 brachytherapy, 318–319
NCCN, 269 components, 314
overview, 267 conventional and hypofractionation, 321
preop CRT, 268 gynecomastia prophylaxis, 332
surgical techniques, 267 intermediate/high risk studies, 328, 329
Esthesioneuroblastoma, 154–155 low-risk studies, 327
Ethmoid sinus cancer, 154, 155 overview, 314
Etoposide, 156 postoperative EBRT, 323
Ewing sarcoma proctoscopy/cystoscopy, 314
chemotherapy toxicity, 49, 50 Roach formulas, 315
follow-up, 50 salvage studies, 330, 331
histology, 48 SBRT, 321
natural history, 48 screening, 314
NCCN, 49, 50 systemic therapy, 325
overview, 48 RCC, 339
treatment considerations, 50 TCC, 338
treatment paradigm, 49 testicular Cancer/seminoma (SGCT)/NSGCT,
trials, 48, 49 342–346
workup, 48 UCC, 338
Exactrac, 152 urethral cancer, 340, 354
Extended neck dissection (END), 135 UUT cancer, 354
Extensive stage (ES-SCLC), 220 Germinomas
External beam radiation therapy (EBRT), 180 bifocal/biphasic germinoma, 72
Extradural spinal cord tumors, 88 biopsy, 71
Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (EHCC), 282 chemo, 71
Extrapulmonary small cell, 188 +CSF germinoma, 72
Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma (eSTS), 440–444 diagnostic markers, 71
Extrinsic tongue muscles, 157 localized germinoma, 72
planning, 72
prognosis, 71
F trials, 71
Facial nerve, 169 workup, 70
Fiberoptic endoscopy, 167 Glottic/Supraglottic larynx (GSL), 141, 175, 176
484 Index
Gorlin syndrome, 63 brachial plexopathy, 146

Graves ophthalmopathy, 189 contouring normal structure
Gynecologic cancer brainstem, 140
adenosarcoma, 383, 384 esophagus, 141
anatomy, 363 mandible, 141
cervical cancer differential diagnosis
adjuvant hysterectomy, 374 benign, 134
adjuvant RT technique, 370–371 malignant, 134
anatomy, 366 dose constraints, 141–142
biopsy results, 366 flap coverage
components, 366 CTV expansions, 139
CRT, 369 PTV expansions, 139
definitive brachytherapy technique, 371, 372 split-field, 139
definitive RT, 369 whole-neck IMRT, 139
external beam RT, 371 history, 134
follow-up, 374 immunotherapy, 140
history, 367 mastication, 140
imaging, 367 maxillary sinus cancer (see Maxillary sinus cancer)
pelvic exam, 367 nasal cavity cancer (see Nasal cavity cancer)
post-op RT and chemo, 368 neck dissections, types of, 135
pre-op RT vs. pre-op CRT, 369 nodal stations and boundaries, 142–145
recurrence, 374 NPX (see Nasopharyngeal (NPX) cancer)
screening, 366 OC cancer (see Oral cavity (OC) cancer)
surgery vs. RT, 368 ocular melanoma (see Ocular melanoma)
3D vs. IMRT, 368 OPX cancer (see Oropharyngeal (OPX) cancer)
treatment, 369–370 PEG/NG Tube, 140
vaccination, 366 PET-CT, 139
ESS, 383 physical, 134
LMS, 383 pre-RT dental evaluation, 134
ovarian cancer and fallopian tube cancer, 392 speech and swallowing dysfunction, 140
uterine/endometrial cancer surgical margins, 139
adjuvant chemo, 378 thyroid cancer (see Thyroid cancer)
adjuvant RT, 377 toxicity management
adjuvant VCBT, 377 hiccups, 145
adjuvant WPRT, 377 mucositis, 145
fertility preservation, 381 ORN, 145–146
follow-up, 382 xerostomia, 145
general dosing, 380 treatment initiation, 140
hysterectomy types, 376 Hemangioblastoma, 74
imaging, 375 Hemangiopericytoma (HPC), 121
indications, 381 Hematologic cancer
malignancy, 378 Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 403–408
pathology, 375 MF/CTCL, 425, 426
salvage, 381 MM, 423, 424
stage I, 375, 381 MZL, 420, 421
stage III/IV, 375, 381 NHL, 409–419
surgery, 376, 377 overview, 399
toxicity, 382 pediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 402
treatment, 379 risk factors, 399
vaginal relapse, 378 solitary plasmacytoma, 422
VCBT, 380 syndromes, 399
WPRT, 380, 381 TBI, 401
uterine serous adenocarcinoma, 382 treatment planning, 399, 400
vaginal cancer, 390–391 Hemorrhagic metastases, 107
vulvar cancer, 385–389 Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)
BCLC, 287
IR procedures, 286
H overview, 286
Head and neck cancer radioembolization, 287
biopsy, 135 SBRT, 287, 288
Index 485
sorafenib, 286 Intradural extramedullary spinal cord tumors, 88

surgery, 286 Intradural intramedullary spinal cord tumors, 88, 89
toxicity, 288 Intradural spinal cord astrocytoma, 111
treatment, 286, 287 Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), 282
whole-liver RT palliation, 288 Ipilimumab, 183
Hiccups, 145
High-grade glioma (HGG), 77
BCNU/carmustine (gliadel) wafers in the surgical J
cavity, 96 Jacobson’s nerve, 162, 173
bevacizumab in up-front GBM, 97 Juvenile pilocytic astrocytoma (JPA), 92
diagnosis, 95
elderly/poor KPS, 98
hypofractionation and + TMZ, 96 K
hypofractionation and no TMZ, 96 Kadish Staging, 154–155
RT vs. best supportive care, 96 Koos grade, 115
TMZ, 97
extent of resection, 95, 96
follow-up, 99 L
grade III glioma management, 99 Lactotroph adenomas (prolactinoma), 113
molecular GBMs, 95 Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH), 62
RANO criteria for GBM, 99 Laryngeal (LX) cancer
recurrences, 99 anatomy, 173
RT, 96 chemo-RT, 174
vs. chemotherapy, 97 general treatment recommendation, 174
failure patterns and evolution of, 98 GL, 174
RT +/– chemotherapy, 97 induction, 174
surgery +/– RT in the pre-TMZ era, 96 risk factors, 172
tumor-treating fields, 97 RT alone fractionation, 173
WBRT vs. limited-field RT, 96 RTOG 91–11, 173
WHO IV/GBM simulation/planning, 98 SGL, 174
Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL), 403–408 simulation/planning, 174
HPV, 167 VA Larynx Trial, 173
HPV+ work-up, 173
vs. HPV, 162 Leiomyosarcoma (LMS), 383
SCC, 162 Levothyroxine, 180
Hypercalcemia, 200, 219 Limited stage (LS-SCLC), 219, 220
Hypertrophic osteoarthropathy, 200, 219 Liver metastasis, 55
Hypopharyngeal (HPX) cancer, 176 anatomy, 290
anatomy, 173 treatment options, 290
general treatment recommendation, 174 whole-liver RT palliation, 290, 291
GL, 174 Locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer
risk factors, 172 consolidation chemo, 212
RT alone fractionation, 173 definitive CRT, 211, 212
SGL, 174 ENI, 213
simulation/planning, 174 hypofractionation, 211
trials, 174 immunotherapy, 212
work-up, 173 induction chemo + RT vs. RT alone, 211, 212
Hypopharynx, 176 neoadj CRT, 211
Hypothyroidism, 146 PCI for NSCLC, 213
sequential chemo vs. concurrent chemo, 212
toxicity, 212
I Low abdominal resection (LAR), 294
Ifosfamide, 156 Low-grade glioma (LGG), 76
Imatinib, 183 diagnosis, 92
Imiquimod, 185 follow-up, 94
IMRT, 151 histology, 92
Inferior border, 175 RT
Interferon alpha, 182 EORTC 22844 believers (dose-esc) trial, 93
International Collaboration on Oropharyngeal Cancer EORTC 22845 non-believers trial, 92
Network for Staging (ICON-S), 161 intergroup (dose-esc) trial, 93
486 Index
Low-grade glioma (LGG) (cont.) NCCN, 459

RT +/– chemotherapy neurologic improvement, 459
EORTC 22033-26033, 93 pain types, 457
RTOG 0424, 93 RT, 459
RTOG 9802, 93 SBRT, 460
simulation and planning SINS score, 458
brain, 94 steroids, 458
spine, 94 surgery, 459
surgery, 92 Marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), 420, 421
symptoms, 92 Marx protocol, 146
treatment, 93, 94 Maxilla, 141
Lung cancer Maxillary sinus cancer, 153
AJCC 7th edition staging, 199 anatomy, 153
AJCC 8th edition staging, 199 neck RT indications, 153
brachial plexus, 202 PORT indications, 153
NSCLC, 202 RT volumes, 153
PFTs, 202 studies, 153
carcinoid (see Carcinoid) Medial canthus SCC, 187
chemo, 203 Medullary carcinoma, 179
follow-up, 203 Medulloblastoma
for advanced/metastatic disease, 203 dose constraints, 65
for localized disease, 203 follow-up, 65
PORT, 204 general, 63
diagnosis, 200 high risk, 65
dose constraints, 205–206 simulation/planning, 64, 65
early stage NSCLC (see Early-stage non-small cell trials
lung cancer) for adult, 64
LN stations, 202 for child, 64
locally advanced NSCLC (see Locally advanced workup, 64
non-small cell lung cancer) Melanoma, 166, 181
mediastinal staging, 200, 201 adjuvant ipilimumab, 182
metastasis (see Metastatic lung cancer) adjuvant therapy, 182
nodal staging, 199 definitive RT, 183
paraneoplastic syndromes, 200 general, 181
pleural mesothelioma (see Pleural mesothelioma) metastatic disease, 183
prevalence, 200 mucosal melanoma, 183
risk factors, 200 NCCN, 183
RT toxicity, 204 outcomes, 183
SCLC (see Small cell lung cancer (SCLC)) pathology, 182
screening, 200 radiation therapy, 183
simulation, 202, 203 surgery, 182
superior sulcus tumors (see Superior sulcus tumors) surgical margin, 182
SVC syndrome workup, 181
life-threatening syndrome, 228 Meningioma
management, 228 clinical history, 103
non-life-threatening syndrome, 228 conventionally fractionated RT, 104
thymoma (see Thymoma and thymic carcinoma) CT head thin cuts, 103
tracheal cancer, 217 diagnosis, 103
clinical studies, 217 extent of resection, 104
treatment, 217 general outcomes, 104
Lymphoma, 166 MRI, 103
observation, 104
pediatric meningioma, 105
M risk factors, 103
Malignant Spinal Cord Compression (MSCC) stereotactic radiosurgery, 104, 105
anatomy, 457 treatment
cEBRT, 459, 460 grade I, 105
clinical presentation, 457 grade II, 105
diagnosis, 457 grade III, 105
epidemiology, 457 Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), 188, 189
MNOP algorithm, 461 anatomy, 188
Index 487
general, 188 NPX cancer, 151

immunostains, 188 OPX cancer, 164
NCCN, 189 salivary gland cancer, 171
outcomes, 189 SCC, 185
retrospective reports, 188 thyroid cancer, 180
workup, 188 Neck violation, 167
Metastatic lung cancer Neoadj chemo, 151
novel agents, 216 Nephroblastoma (Wilms’ tumor/WT)
treatment, 216 bilateral Wilms’ approach, 53
Midline glioma, 78 chemo types, 53
Minor salivary, 169 genetics, 52
Modified radical neck dissection (MRND), 135 information from surgery, 53
Molecular GBMs, 90, 95 late effects, 55
Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue (MALT), 420, 421 overview, 52
Mucosal melanoma, 183 presentation, 52
Mucositis, 145 RT general rules, 53
management, 145 technique, 54, 55
oral candidiasis, 145 treatment paradigms, 52, 53
prevention, 145 trials, 53
risk factors, 145 workup, 52
Multiple myeloma (MM), 423, 424 Neuroblastoma
Mycosis fungoides (MF), 425, 426 chemos, 57
Mylanta, 145 dose constraints, 59
features, 56
general doses (per A3973), 58, 59
N guidelines, 58
Nasal cavity cancer high risk, 57, 58
anatomy, 154 INRGSS clinical staging, 56
historical treatment, 155 INSS OLD staging, 56
management, 154–155 intermediate risk, 57
NCCN, 155 low risk, 57
sinus simulation/planning, 155 manifestation, 57
SNUC, 155 outcomes, 59
studies, 154 overview, 56
Wang Classification, 154 prognostic factors, 56
work-up, 154 technique, 58
Nasal NK/T-cell lymphoma workup, 57
outcomes, 156 NG tube, 140
RT targets, 156 Non-germ cell tumors (NGGCT)
sites, 156 COG approach, 72
stage IV, 156 histology, 70
treatment, 156 Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL), 409–419
work-up, 156 Non rhabdoid soft tissue sarcoma (NRSTS), 47
Nasal vestibule carcinoma, 154 Nonsecretory adenomas, 113
Nasal vestibule SCC, 184, 187 Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Nasopharyngeal (NPX) cancer, 150 adjuvant BT, 209
anatomy, 150 adjuvant chemo, 209
constraints, 152 NCCN adjuvant treatment, 209, 210
dose limit, 152 RT, 209
follow-up, 152 Nystatin, 145
IMRT, 151
NCCN, 151–152
neoadj chemo, 151 O
pathology, 150 Occupancy factor (T), 475
RT +/ chemo, 151 Ocular melanoma
simulation, 151 anatomy, 149
work-up, 150 BAP1 inactivation, 149
NCCN histology, 149
melanoma, 183 melanocytes of uveal stroma, 149
MCC, 189 plaque technique, 149
nasal cavity cancer, 155 presentation, 149
488 Index
Ocular melanoma (cont.) radiographic criteria, 145

protons, 149 risk factors, 145
toxicity, 149 treatment
trials, 149 HBO, 146
work-up, 149 PENTOCLO regimen, 146
Open biopsy, 167 work-up, 145
Optic nerve sheath meningioma, 106
Optic pathway glioma (OPG), 75
Oral cavity (OC) cancer, 157 P
altered fractionation, 158 Palifermin, 145
anatomy, 157 Palliation
chemo-RT, 158 graves ophthalmopathy, 189
general oral cavity, 159–160 pain/symptom management, 189
lip, 160 sialorrhea, 189
LN drainage Pancreatic cancer
alveolar ridge, 157 adjuvant chemo, 279
floor of mouth, 158 AJCC, 277
lip, 157 anatomy, 278
oral tongue, 157 anti-post-op RT, 279
RMT, 157 metastatic cancer, 280
workup, 158 overview, 277
neck dissection, 159 pancreatic adenocarcinoma treatment, 280–281
oral tongue, 160 pancreatic neuroendocrine treatment, 281
post-op RT pro-post-op CRT, 278, 279
CRT, 158–159 resectable panc adeno, 279
timing, 159 surgery, 278
simulation/planning, 159 thrombotic events, 278
surgery and pathology, 159 unresectable, 279
volumes, 159 Papillary carcinoma, 179
Oral tongue, 157, 160 PARADIGM trial, 164
Organ weighting factors, 473 Paranasal sinuses, 154
Oropharyngeal (OPX) cancer, 161 Paraneoplastic syndrome, 200
advanced stage, 165 Parapharyngeal space, 152
AJCC 7 staging, 161 Parapharyngeal tumors, 151
altered fractionation, 162–163 Parotid, 141, 169, 171
anatomy, 162 Parotidectomy subtypes, 171
cetuximab, 163 Partial laryngopharyngectomy, 176
chemo-RT, 163 Pediatric leukemia
HPV+ vs. HPV, 162 ALL chemo, 40
HPV+ SCC, 162 genetics, 40
induction chemo, 164 histology, 40
ICON-S, 161 presentation, 40
NCCN, 164–165 risk factors, 40
post-op RT +/– chemo, 163, 164 T-ALL, 40
post-op RT indicated for target, 40
neck, 165 testicular leukemia, 40
primary tumor, 165 treatment, 40
preop vs. Post-op RT, 162 workup, 40
recurrence, 164 Pediatric tumors
simulation/planning, 164 BM biopsy, 30
surgery, 162 CSI, 31
work-up, 162 LP for, 30
Osteoradionecrosis (ORN), 145 molecular markers, 30–31
clinical criteria, 145 pain management in peds, 32
grading, 146 pineal tumor, 30
incidence, 146 posterior fossa tumor, 29
pathophysiology, 145 protons, 31
presentation, 145 second neoplasm, 32
prevention, 146 small-round-blue-cell tumors (SRBCTs), 30
Index 489
suprasellar mass, 29 R
treatment comparison, 33–39 Radiation physics
PEG tube, 140 brachytherapy
PENTOCLO regimen, 146 patient release regulations, 474–475
PET-CT, 139, 167 sources, 474
Pharyngeal constrictors, 140 constants, 468
Photons, 183, 187 corrected ion chamber reading, 471
Pineal tumors, 70 decay equations and calculations, 468
Pineoblastoma, 66 divergence of parallel–opposed fields, 470
Pineocytoma, 66, 72 dose ratios, 469
Pituitary tumors electron beams, 470
clinical presentation, 112 film analysis, 472
corticotroph adenomas (Cushings), 113, 114 ion recombination correction, 471
DDx sellar mass, 112 linear accelerator calibration
diagnosis, 112, 113 MV electron beams, 471
differential diagnosis, 112 MV photon beams, 471
lactotroph adenomas (prolactinoma), 113 organ weighting factors, 473
nonsecretory adenomas, 113 photon attenuation equations, 468
outcomes, 114 photon SAD setups, 470
RT, 114 photon SSD setups, 470
somatotroph adenomas (growth hormone), 114 polarity correction, 472
toxicity/follow-up, 114 radiation linear energy transfer and weighting factors,
treatment, 113 473–474
Plaque technique, 149 radiation safety and dose limits, 472
Platinum-monotherapy, 158 radiation weighting factors, 472
Pleural mesothelioma radiotherapy structural shielding equations, 475
adj RT, 227 temperature and pressure correction, 471
advanced stage/unresectable, 227 tumor markers, 476–478
AJCC7 staging, 226 typical external beam parameters, 473
AJCC8 staging, 226 units, 467–468
chemotherapy, 227 wedge angle and hinge angle, 470
constraints, 227 Radiation weighting factors, 472
diagnosis, 226 Radical neck dissection (RND), 135
NCCN guidelines, 227 Radioactive iodine, 180
radiation, 227 Radiobiology, 475
surgery, 226 Radionecrosis, 89
techniques, 227 Radiotherapy structural shielding equations, 475
Posterior border, 175 Rectal cancer
Posterior fossa syndrome, 29 adj chemo/XRT studies, 294
Posterior fossa tumors (Ddx), 63 anatomy, 293
Prednisone, 146 APR, 293
Primary barrier, 475 chemo, 293
Primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) follow-Up, 297
chemo + hyper-fractionated RT, 101 IMRT, 297
chemo + low-dose WBRT, 100 LAR, 294
chemo +/– RT, 100 local recurrence, 296
diagnosis, 100 NCCN, 296
extranodal NHL, 100 neoadj chemo/XRT studies, 294
imaging, 100 outcomes, 297
prognosis, 100 overview, 293
salvage WBRT, 101 post-op RT, 294
simulation/planning, 102 preop CRT, 295, 296
treatment, 101, 102 preop RT, 295
Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma requirements, 296
(PMBCL), 415 3D-CRT, 297
Primary ocular DLBCL, 102 TME, 294
Pterygoid fossa, 152 transanal vs. APR/LAR, 296
Pterygopalatine fossa, 152 transanal excision, 294
PTV expansions, 139 Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA), 108
490 Index
Renal cell cancer (RCC), 339 HPV+, 162

Response assessment in neuro-oncology (RANO) medial canthus SCC, 187
criteria, 98, 99 nasal vestibule SCC, 184, 187
Retinoblastoma NCCN, 185
genetics and pathology, 60 orthovoltage background, 185
guidelines, 61 outcomes, 154
overview, 60 photons, 186
stages, 60 retrospective reports, 184
technique, 60 RT contraindications, 185
trials, 60 simulation, 185
workup, 60 surgery background, 184
Retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS), 445, 446 workup, 184
Retrostyloid space, 152 Skull base, 152
Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) Small cell lung cancer (SCLC)
chemo, 43 BID dose constraints, 221
genetics, 43 chemo, 219
guidelines, 44 clinical presentation, 219
high-yield cases, 46 diagnosis, 219
lung mets, 44 dosage, 221
management, 44 ES-SCLC, 220, 221
N1, 41 historical, from Turrisi, 221
no surgery for, 44 induction chemo, 220
parameningeal sites, 43 LS-SCLC, 219–221
T1, 41 PCI, 220
T2, 41 planning, 221
technique, 44, 45 prognosis, 221
timing, 45 recurrence, 221
trials, 43, 44 simulation, 221
workup, 43 treatment, 221
RTOG 9501, 164 Small-round-blue-cell tumors (SRBCTs), 30
SNUC, 155
Soft palate inferiorly, 152
S Soft tissue sarcoma
Salivary gland cancer, 166, 169 chloroma/granulocytic sarcoma, 439
adenoid cystic carcinoma, 170 chondrosarcoma, 436
anatomy, 169 chordoma, 437–438
benign, 169 desmoid tumor/aggressive fibromatosis, 449, 450
high grade, 169 eSTS, 440–444
LN drainage, 169 Kaposi Sarcoma, 448
low grade, 169 myeloid sarcoma, 439
major glands, 169 osteosarcoma
minor glands, 169 anatomy, 434
NCCN, 171 imaging, 434
neutron, 171 overview, 434
post-op RT and elective nodal irradiation, 170 retrospective studies, 434
RT+/–chemo, 170 treatment paradigm, 435
RT doses, 171 paraganglioma, 451
unresectable/nonsurgical, definitive for, 171 RPS, 445, 446
work-up, 170 Solitary plasmacytoma (SP), 422
Sarcoma, 166 Somatotroph adenomas (growth hormone), 114
Selective neck dissection (SND), 135 Source axis distance (SAD), 469, 470
Sezary syndrome, 425, 426 Source to surface distance (SSD), 469, 470
Sialorrhea, 189 Speech after laryngectomy, 175
Skin squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), 184 Sphenoid sinus, 152
anatomic areas, 184 Spinal cord, 140
chemo, 184 Squamous cell cancer metastatic to cervical nodes from
electrons, 185, 186 unknown primary (SCCUP)
general, 184 chemo, 168
high-risk factors for local recurrence, 185 epidemiology, 166
histology, 154 retrospective reports, 167
Index 491
RT planning clinical studies, 122

doses, 168 diagnosis, 122
volumes, 167 follow-up, 123
staging, 166 radiation therapy, 122
suspicion, nodal station, 166, 167 RT planning, 122
treatment paradigm, 167 symptoms, 122
work-up, 167 treatment, 122
Stoma, 176 Total Body Irradiation (TBI), 401
Subependymal giant cell tumor, 92 Total laryngopharyngectomy, 176
Subglottic larynx, 176 Total Mesorectal Excision (TME), 294
Sublingual, 169 Total thyroidectomy, 180
Submandibular, 169 Tracheal cancer, 217
Subsites of nasal cavity, 154 Transitional Cell Carcinoma (TCC), 338
Sunburns, 181 Trental, 146
Superior border, 175 Triangle of Ho, 150
Superior sulcus tumors Trigeminal neuralgia (TN)
clinical studies, 214 BNI grade, 118
outcomes, 214 classical TN, 118
staging, 214 clinical studies, 118
symptoms, 214 follow-up, 118
treatment, 214, 215 treatment, 118
Supraglottic laryngectomy (SGL), 174, 175 Triple endoscopy, 167
Supraglottic larynx, 175 Tumor-treating fields (TTF), 97
Suprasellar tumors, 70 Turcot syndrome, 63
SVC syndrome, 228
U
T Upper Urothelial Tract (UUT) Cancer, 354
Taxol, 180 Urothelial Cell Carcinoma (UCC), 338
Taxotere, 164 Use factor (U), 475
T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia Uterine cancer
(T-ALL), 40 adjuvant chemo, 378
Thymoma and thymic carcinoma adjuvant RT, 377
adj chemo, 224 adjuvant VCBT, 377
AJCC 8th edition staging, 223 adjuvant WPRT, 377
diagnosis, 223 fertility preservation, 381
inoperable surgery, 224 follow-up, 382
masaoka staging, 223 general dosing, 380
natural history, 224 hysterectomy types, 376
neoadjuvant chemo, 224 imaging, 375
paraneoplastic syndrome, 223 indications, 381
PORT, 224 malignancy, 378
posttreatment, 224 pathology, 375
surgery, 224 salvage, 381
treatment, 224 stage I, 375, 381
WHO grading, 223 stage III/IV, 375, 381
Thyroid cancer, 166, 179 surgery, 376, 377
adjuvant therapy, 180 toxicity, 382
after RAI, 180 treatment, 379
anaplastic thyroid cancer, 179 vaginal relapse, 378
differentiated, 179 VCBT, 380
NCCN, 180 WPRT, 380, 381
pathology, 179 Uveal melanoma (see Ocular melanoma)
post-op, 180
primary therapy, 180
radioactive iodine, 180 V
RT, 180 Vaginal cancer, 390–391
work-up, 179 VA Larynx Trial, 173
Thyroid dysfunction, 146 Vemurafenib, 183
Thyroid ophthalmopathy (TO) Vertical hemilaryngectomy, 175
492 Index
Very accelerated RT (VART), 163 Villaret/Jugular foramen syndrome, 150

Vestibular schwannoma (VS)/acoustic neuroma Vismodegib, 184
(AN), 140 Vitamin E, 146
diagnosis, 115 Vulvar cancer, 385–389
follow-up, 117
fractionated RT, 116, 117
grading systems, 115, 116 W
histopathology, 115 Waldeyer’s ring, 166
Koos grade, 115 Wang classification, 154
NF2 patients, 117 Well-lateralized tonsil/soft palate, 165
observation, 116 Whole abdomen RT (WART), 55
radiation technique, 117 Whole lung irradiation (WLI), 55
risk factors, 115 Workload (W), 475
SRS, 116
surgery, 116
symptoms, 115 X
toxicities from RT, 117 Xerostomia, 145
treatment, 116 Xylocaine, 145

Absolute Clinical Radiation Oncology Review (PDFDrive) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Absolute Clinical Radiation Oncology Review (PDFDrive) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Absolute Clinical Radiation Oncology Review (PDFDrive) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Absolute Clinical

ISBN 978-3-319-96808-7 ISBN 978-3-319-96809-4 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018964264

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

1 General Principles of Radiation Oncology������������������������������������ 1

12 Bone/Spine Cancers ������������������������������������������������������������������������ 455

Daniel W. Golden, MD University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

FISH Fluorescence in situ hybridization

LPO Left posterior oblique

NSABP National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project

STD Sexually transmitted disease

+ Meaning with or and (as in Surgery + RT)

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

Tumor GTV: gross tumor volume

CTV: clinical target volume

Normal SM: setup margin

-Nutritional c/s +/– PEJ duodenal stump if distal –14

Definitive: ITV (gross disease

Disease Workup Scenario Contraindications Treatment CTV PTV Dose Systemic tx

Bladder GU/rectal/GYN exam Ta-LG Obs

Testicular LDH, HCG, AFP; do bilat IS: Any pT N0 M0 S1-3 obs

General Principles [1–22] Resection Nomenclature

 ell Cycle and Radiosensitivity

Blood Vessel Radiosensitivity

Physics  ife Expectancy (US Social Security

LN Metastasis Nomenclature Groups

1-year OS 63% vs 48%, a 15% absolute bene- KPS vs ECOG

Immunotherapy CT Scans

Immune activation –– 0 Hounsfield units (HU) = density of water,

–– Sleep changes: increase during day or

Pituitary hormones Timing: (“G FLAT”)

Disorders, Syndromes, and Genetics

High-Yield Neoadjuvant RT and pCR Rates

CTCAE v4.0 Grading [6]

QUANTEC Dose Constraints

Dose/ Max Toxicity

Cord Max 30 Max < 45–50

Kidney (1 of 2) D50 < 8 Gy

Urethra D1cc <107% Rx UV150 ~0 (in volume) D0.1 £ 120 Gy

Testis Sterilize: 2 PA: < 0.1 Gy

References 15. Mukesh M, Harris E, Jena R, et al. Relationship

DDx Posterior Fossa Tumor DDx Suprasellar Mass

• Mnemonic: MADE JAM • Mnemonic: COP GEMM

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 29

DDx Pineal Tumor BM Biopsy for

• GCT • Basically everything except medullo, non-­

• Mnemonic: (PAGE Neurosurgery)

CSI and 13th fraction or every 9 Gy. Cold

Pain Management in Peds Second Neoplasm

NF2 unknown or 50–54 if no cord in

Pediatric Leukemia (T-ALL, B-ALL) [2, 3]

Pediatric leukemia (T-ALL, B-ALL)2,3

CNS stage Definition Notes Incidence, %

B-cell risk Definition

Standard Favorable response to treatment

Very high No remission after induction (>5% blasts d28)

Risk group Treatment

General T-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) [4–15]

1 General Principles of Radiation Oncology�� 1

12 Bone/Spine Cancers �� 455

General Principles [1–22] Resection Nomenclature

ell Cycle and Radiosensitivity

Blood Vessel Radiosensitivity

Physics ife Expectancy (US Social Security

LN Metastasis Nomenclature Groups

1-year OS 63% vs 48%, a 15% absolute bene- KPS vs ECOG

Immunotherapy CT Scans

Pituitary hormones Timing: (“G FLAT”)

Disorders, Syndromes, and Genetics

High-Yield Neoadjuvant RT and pCR Rates

CTCAE v4.0 Grading [6]

QUANTEC Dose Constraints

DDx Posterior Fossa Tumor DDx Suprasellar Mass

DDx Pineal Tumor BM Biopsy for

• GCT • Basically everything except medullo, non-

CSI and 13th fraction or every 9 Gy. Cold

Pain Management in Peds Second Neoplasm

Pediatric Leukemia (T-ALL, B-ALL) [2, 3]

Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) [4–15]

High-Yield Cases Vaginal/uterine: stage I, group III

on Rhabdoid Soft Tissue Sarcoma

Nephroblastoma (Wilms’ Tumor/WT) [4–8, 22–29]

Neuroblastoma [4–8, 30–35]

Retinoblastoma [4–8, 36–38] Workup

Medulloblastoma (and Supratentorial PNET, Pineoblastoma) [4–8, 36, 39–44]

Atypical Teratoid Rhabdoid –– MRI brain 24–48 hours postop.

Ependymoma [4–8, 45–47] Trials

erm Cell and Non-Germ Cell Tumors (GCT/NGGCT/Germinoma)

Craniopharyngioma [4–8, 51–53] COG approach

Optic Pathway Glioma (OPG) Studies

Low-Grade Gliomas (LGG) Indications for Adjuvant RT

High-Grade Glioma (HGG) Management

iffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma

CNS Pearls [1–10]

CNS Workup –– After surgery, need MRI within 48 h

SRS Evaluation Radionecrosis

Molecular Pathways for Adult Gliomas in 2018

General Glioma Treatment Paradigms in 2018

ow-Grade Glioma (WHO Grades

igh-Grade Glioma (WHO Grades