PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Agarwal, Jai Prakash
AU  - Karmakar, Shreyasee
AU  - Tibdewal, Anil
AU  - Mummudi, Naveen
TI  - BRAIN RE-IRRADIATION IN LUNG CANCER – NOT AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY
AID  - 10.1101/2020.04.15.20061879
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.04.15.20061879
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/17/2020.04.15.20061879.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/17/2020.04.15.20061879.full
AB  - BACKGROUND Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is an effective palliative measure and provides durable symptom relief in lung cancer patients with multiple brain metastases (BM). Clinico-radiological progression of BM after WBRT is a common and challenging scenario; treatment is tailored, with various factors like driver mutation status, age, performance status, progression free interval and time since last irradiation influencing the treatment decision. Surgery or focal RT with stereotactic techniques may be an option for patients with oligo-metastases. However, they might not be a feasible option for patients with multiple BM. We aim to study the impact and outcome of patients with BM from lung cancer receiving re-WBRT for clinico-radiological progression.MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively analyzed patients with BM from lung cancer who were registered at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India between January 2016 to January 2019 and had undergone two courses of WBRT. Data of patients were retrieved from electronic medical records. Patients were treated using conventional or conformal technique with either tele-cobalt or Linear accelerator.RESULTS Out of 446 patients with lung cancer, diagnosed and treated with WBRT for BM, 6% patients (n=28) received re-WBRT. There were 16 men and 12 women with a median age of 53 years (range 30 to 70 years). Primary histology was adenocarcinoma in all except two patients who had small cell histology. Eighteen patients had driver mutation positive disease (11 with EGFR and 7 with ALK mutation) and a majority of patients (54%) had BM at presentation. Clinico-radiological progression was the commonest indication of re-WBRT. A majority of these patients had developed new symptoms while about 25% had recurrence of previous symptoms. Mean Karnofsky performance score (KPS) prior to re-WBRT was more than 70 in 13 patients (57%). Mean time interval between the two courses of WBRT were 16 months (range 5-37 months). Most patients received WBRT using a conventional technique (91%) and were treated in a tele-cobalt unit (83%). Re-WBRT fractionation schedule was 25 Gy/10 fractions (n=17, 61%) or 20 Gy/5 fractions (n=10, 36%). Mean biological effective dose (BED2Gy) for the first and second courses of WBRT were 63Gy and 56Gy respectively. The average cumulative BED2Gy was 118.91Gy (range 116.25 – 120Gy). Almost all patients received short acting steroids during the course of re-WBRT. All patients except for one completed the course of treatment. At a median follow up of 2.5 years, median survival of patients after re-WBRT was 5 months. Median survival since re-WBRT was 8 months if pre first course of WBRT ds-GPA was 3.5-4 vs 1 month if it was 0-1 (p= 0.025).CONCLUSION In lung cancer patients with symptomatic progression of multiple BM and good prognostic features (driver mutation positive, good performance status and long time interval since last WBRT), re-WBRT is safe and associated with better outcomes.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding receivedAuthor DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData is available