The chemokine CXCL12 promotes glioblastoma (GBM) recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) by facilitating vasculogenesis. Here we report outcomes of the dose-escalation part of GLORIA (NCT04121455), a phase I/II trial combining RT and the CXCL12-neutralizing aptamer olaptesed pegol (NOX-A12; 200/400/600 mg per week) in patients with incompletely resected, newly-diagnosed GBM lacking MGMT methylation. The primary endpoint was safety, secondary endpoints included maximum tolerable dose (MTD), recommended phase II dose (RP2D), NOX-A12 plasma levels, topography of recurrence, tumor vascularization, neurologic assessment in neuro-oncology (NANO), quality of life (QOL), median progression-free survival (PFS), 6-months PFS and overall survival (OS). Treatment was safe with no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related deaths. The MTD has not been reached and, thus, 600 mg per week of NOX-A12 was established as RP2D for the ongoing expansion part of the trial. With increasing NOX-A12 dose levels, a corresponding increase of NOX-A12 plasma levels was observed. Of ten patients enrolled, nine showed radiographic responses, four reached partial remission. All but one patient (90%) showed at best response reduced perfusion values in terms of relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV). The median PFS was 174 (range 58-260) days, 6-month PFS was 40.0% and the median OS 389 (144-562) days. In a post-hoc exploratory analysis of tumor tissue, higher frequency of CXCL12⁺ endothelial and glioma cells was significantly associated with longer PFS under NOX-A12. Our data imply safety of NOX-A12 and its efficacy signal warrants further investigation.

Cohort studies that quantify volumetric brain data among individuals with different levels of COVID-19 severity are presently limited. It is still uncertain whether there exists a potential correlation between disease severity and the effects of COVID-19 on brain integrity. Our objective was to assess the potential impact of COVID-19 on measured brain volume in patients with asymptomatic/mild and severe disease after recovery from infection, compared with healthy controls, using artificial intelligence (AI)-based MRI volumetry. A total of 155 participants were prospectively enrolled in this IRB-approved analysis of three cohorts with a mild course of COVID-19 (n = 51, MILD), a severe hospitalised course (n = 48, SEV), and healthy controls (n = 56, CTL) all undergoing a standardised MRI protocol of the brain. Automated AI-based determination of various brain volumes in mL and calculation of normalised percentiles of brain volume was performed with mdbrain software, using a 3D T1-weighted magnetisation-prepared rapid gradient echo (MPRAGE) sequence. The automatically measured brain volumes and percentiles were analysed for differences between groups. The estimated influence of COVID-19 and demographic/clinical variables on brain volume was determined using multivariate analysis. There were statistically significant differences in measured brain volumes and percentiles of various brain regions among groups, even after the exclusion of patients undergoing intensive care, with significant volume reductions in COVID-19 patients, which increased with disease severity (SEV > MILD > CTL) and mainly affected the supratentorial grey matter, frontal and parietal lobes, and right thalamus. Severe COVID-19 infection, in addition to established demographic parameters such as age and sex, was a significant predictor of brain volume loss upon multivariate analysis. In conclusion, neocortical brain degeneration was detected in patients who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to healthy controls, worsening with greater initial COVID-19 severity and mainly affecting the fronto-parietal brain and right thalamus, regardless of ICU treatment. This suggests a direct link between COVID-19 infection and subsequent brain atrophy, which may have major implications for clinical management and future cognitive rehabilitation strategies.

Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) of the operative cavity for surgically treated brain metastasis (BM) has gained increasing prominence with respect to improved local tumor control. However, IORT immediately performed at the time of surgery might be associated with increased levels of perioperative adverse events (PAEs). In the present study, we performed safety metric profiling in patients who had undergone surgery for BM with and without IORT in order to comparatively analyze feasibility of IORT as an adjuvant radiation approach. Between November 2020 and October 2021, 35 patients were surgically treated for BM with IORT at our neuro-oncological center. Perioperative complication profiles were collected in a prospective observational cohort study by means of patient safety indicators (PSIs), hospital-acquired conditions (HACs), and specific cranial-surgery-related complications (CSCs) as high-standard quality metric tools and compared to those of an institutional cohort of 388 patients with BM resection without IORT in a balanced comparative matched-pair analysis. Overall, 4 out of 35 patients (11%) with IORT in the course BM resection suffered from PAEs, accounting for 3 PSIs (9%) and 1 HAC (3%). Balanced matched-pair analysis did not reveal significant differences in the perioperative complication profiles between the cohorts of patients with and without IORT (p = 0.44). Thirty-day mortality rates were 6% for patients with IORT versus 8% for patients without IORT (p = 0.73). The present study demonstrates that IORT constitutes a safe and clinically feasible adjuvant treatment modality in patients undergoing surgical resection of BM.

Purpose: Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is an emerging alternative to adjuvant stereotactic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) following resection of brain metastases (BM). Advantages of IORT include an instant prevention of tumor regrowth, optimized dose-sparing of adjacent healthy brain tissue and immediate completion of BM treatment, allowing an earlier admission to subsequent systemic treatments. However, prospective outcome data are limited. We sought to assess long-term outcome of IORT in comparison to EBRT. Methods: A total of 35 consecutive patients, prospectively recruited within a study registry, who received IORT following BM resection at a single neuro-oncological center were evaluated for radiation necrosis (RN) incidence rates, local control rates (LCR), distant brain progression (DBP) and overall survival (OS) as long-term outcome parameters. The 1 year-estimated OS and survival rates were compared in a balanced comparative matched-pair analysis to those of our institutional database, encompassing 388 consecutive patients who underwent adjuvant EBRT after BM resection. Results: The median IORT dose was 30 Gy prescribed to the applicator surface. A 2.9% RN rate was observed. The estimated 1 year-LCR was 97.1% and the 1 year-DBP-free survival 73.5%. Median time to DBP was 6.4 (range 1.7–24) months in the subgroup of patients experiencing intracerebral progression. The median OS was 17.5 (0.5-not reached) months with a 1 year-survival rate of 61.3%, which did not not significantly differ from the comparative cohort (p = 0.55 and p = 0.82, respectively). Conclusion: IORT is a safe and effective fast-track approach following BM resection, with comparable long-term outcomes as adjuvant EBRT.

Radiation dermatitis (RD) is the most common acute side effect of breast irradiation. More than a century following the therapeutic utilisation of X-rays, potent preventative and therapeutic options are still lacking. Non-invasive physical plasma (NIPP) is an emerging approach towards treatment of various dermatological disorders. In this study, we sought to determine the safety and feasibility of a NIPP device on RD. Thirty patients undergoing hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation were included. Parallel to radiation treatment, the irradiated breast was treated with NIPP with different application regimens. RD was assessed during and after NIPP/radiation, using clinician- and patient-reported outcomes. Additionally, safety and feasibility features were recorded. None of the patients was prescribed topical corticosteroids and none considered the treatment to be unpleasant. RD was less frequent and milder in comparison with standard skin care. Neither NIPP-related adverse events nor side effects were reported. This proven safety and feasibility profile of a topical NIPP device in the prevention and treatment of RD will be used as the framework for a larger intrapatient-randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial, using objective and patient-reported outcome measures as an endpoint.

Purpose: Radiation dermatitis (RD) represents one of the most frequent side effects in radiotherapy (RT). Despite technical progress, mild and moderate RD still affects major subsets of patients and identification and management of patients with a high risk of severe RD is essential. We sought to characterize surveillance and nonpharmaceutical preventive management of RD in German-speaking hospitals and private centers. Methods: We conducted a survey on RD among German-speaking radiation oncologists inquiring for their evaluation of risk factors, assessment methods, and nonpharmaceutical preventive management of RD. Results: A total of 244 health professionals from public and private institutions in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland participated in the survey. RT-dependent factors were deemed most relevant for RD onset followed by lifestyle factors, emphasizing the impact of treatment conceptualization and patient education. While a broad majority of 92.8% assess RD at least once during RT, 59.0% of participants report RD at least partially arbitrarily and 17.4% stated to classify RD severity solely arbitrarily. 83.7% of all participants were unaware of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Consensus exists on some lifestyle recommendations like avoidance of sun exposure (98.7%), hot baths (95.1%), and mechanical irritation (91.8%) under RT, while deodorant use (63.4% not at all, 22.1% with restrictions) or application of skin lotion (15.1% disapproval) remain controversial and are not recommended by guidelines or evidence-based practices. Conclusion: Identification of patients at an increased risk of RD and subsequent implementation of adequate preventive measures remain relevant and challenging aspects of clinical routines. Consensus exists on several risk factors and nonpharmaceutical prevention recommendations, while RT-dependent risk factors, e.g., the fractionation scheme, or hygienic measures like deodorant use remain controversial. Surveillance is widely lacking methodology and objectivity. Intensifying outreach in the radiation oncology community is needed to improve practice patterns.