SBRT in the management of oligometastatic gynaecological cancer: a mono-institutional experience.
GIUSEPPINA MANDURINO,
Italy
PD-0085
Abstract
SBRT in the management of oligometastatic gynaecological cancer: a mono-institutional experience.
Authors: Giuseppina Mandurino1, Andrei Fodor2, Stefano Lorenzo Villa1, Flavia Zerbetto3, Simone Baroni1, Ariadna Sanchez Galvan4, Roberta Tummineri1, Chiara Lucrezia Deantoni1, Paola Mangili4, Antonella Del Vecchio4, Stefano Arcangeli1, Nadia Gisella Di Muzio1,5
1IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, Milan, Italy; 2 IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, Milan, Italy; 3IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, MIlan, Italy; 4IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute,, Department of Radiation Oncology, Milan, Italy; 5Vita-Salute S. Raffaele University, Department of Radiation Oncology, Milan, Italy
Show Affiliations
Hide Affiliations
Purpose or Objective
The use of stereotactic
radiotherapy (SBRT) for oligometastases is supported by several literature
studies, but in the setting of gynecological tumors, this scenario remains
unexplored. This
study reports a preliminary assestement of clinical outcomes in a cohort of 46
patients (pts) with oligometastatic gynaecological cancers.
Material and Methods
From
4/2009 to 5/2021, 85 lesions in 46 pts were treated with SBRT. Five lesions of
4 pts were treated with Image Guided-helical Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IG-IMRT)
to a median dose of 54 (35-63) Gy in 6 (5-10) median fractions prescribed at
95% of the Planning Target Volume (PTV). Eighty lesions of 42 pts were treated with
robotic SBRT to a median dose of 40 (18-60) Gy in a median of 5 (1-8) fractions,
prescribed at a median isodose of 80% (68-84%). Nine PTVs (10.6%) were in the
same field of previous adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy performed with IG-IMRT with a median dose of 50.4 Gy. Primary
histology was: uterine in 42%, ovarian in 33%, cervical in 15.3% and other (fallopian
tubes, vulva and vagina) in 9.4
% of lesions, respectively. Target locations were 53.7% lymph nodes, 33% lung, 6%
bone, 6% central nervous system and 3.5% liver. Gross tumor volume was defined
by the fusion of CT, PET/CT and/or MRI images. Toxicity was assessed using
CTCAE version 4.03 criteria.
Results
The median age of
the cohort at the treatment was 67 years (33-91). Median
follow-up was 18 months (0.69–75.4). Eleven pts (24%) presented grade (G)
1-2 acute toxicity. No grade ≥3 acute toxicity was
observed. Two pts presented late toxicity: one had G2 rib pain persistent 28 months after
the end of the treatment, and the other, irradiated on D12 (lytic lesion), a
spine fracture 12 months later, with G3 bilateral leg pain and motor deficit,
and underwent surgical decompression. After
treatment 74% of targets had a complete response, 14% a partial response and 12%
a progression disease. Overall
survival (OS) at 6 and 12 months after the treatment was 87 % and 70 %, respectively.
Twelve-months local relapse-free survival was 89.7 % (Fig.1). Systemic
progression occurred in 67% of pts with a progression free-survival (PFS) of 5.6
months (0.56-67.2).
Conclusion
Our mono-institutional
experience supports the use of SBRT in the management of the oligometastatic
gynaecological cancer, with acceptable toxicity and promising results in terms
of local control. Distant progression remains the primary site of failure in
these pts, and this confirm the need for further research of effective salvage
systemic therapy.