Purpose: The standard of care for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer is definitive chemoradiation followed by a brachytherapy boost. This review describes the current status and future directions of image-guided adaptive brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov databases was performed, focusing on studies published within the last 10 years. The search queried “cervical cancer [AND] image-guided brachytherapy [OR] magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [OR] adaptive brachytherapy”. Discussion: The retroEMBRACE and EMBRACE-I trials have established the use of MRI as the standard imaging modality for brachytherapy application and planning. Quantitative imaging and radiomics have the potential to improve outcomes, with three ongoing prospective studies examining the use of radiomics to further risk-stratify patients and personalize brachytherapy. Another active area of investigation includes utilizing the superior soft tissue contrast provided by MRI to increase the dose per fraction and decrease the number of fractions needed for brachytherapy, with several retrospective studies demonstrating the safety and feasibility of three-fraction courses. For developing countries with limited access to MRI, trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) appears to be an effective alternative, with several retrospective studies demonstrating improved target delineation with the use of TRUS in conjunction with CT guidance. Conclusions: Further investigation is needed to continue improving outcomes for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with image-guided brachytherapy.

Radiation treatment (RT) is a mainstay treatment for many types of cancer. Recommendations for RT and the radiation plan are individualized to each patient, taking into consideration the patient’s tumor pathology, staging, anatomy, and other clinical characteristics. Information on germline mutations and somatic tumor mutations is at present rarely used to guide specific clinical decisions in RT. Many genes, such as ATM, and BRCA1/2, have been identified in the laboratory to confer radiation sensitivity. However, our understanding of the clinical significance of mutations in these genes remains limited and, as individual mutations in such genes can be rare, their impact on tumor response and toxicity remains unclear. Current guidelines, including those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), provide limited guidance on how genetic results should be integrated into RT recommendations. With an increasing understanding of the molecular underpinning of radiation response, genomically-guided RT can inform decisions surrounding RT dose, volume, concurrent therapies, and even omission to further improve oncologic outcomes and reduce risks of toxicities. Here, we review existing evidence from laboratory, pre-clinical, and clinical studies with regard to how genetic alterations may affect radiosensitivity. We also summarize recent data from clinical trials and explore potential future directions to utilize genetic data to support clinical decision-making in developing a pathway toward personalized RT.

Talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC) is a genetically modified oncolytic herpes simplex virus (HSV-1) that is used for the intralesional treatment of advanced or metastatic melanoma. Given that TVEC produces the granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), recent reports have suggested that radiation treatment (RT) given in conjunction with TVEC may provide synergistic immune activation at the site, and possibly systemically. However, studies on combining RT with TVEC remain limited. We conducted a retrospective review of melanoma patients from a single cancer center who received TVEC and RT in the same region of the body and compared them to patients who received TVEC with RT at another site (other than the site of TVEC injection). Between January 2015 and September 2022, we identified twenty patients who were treated with TVEC and RT; fourteen patients received TVEC and RT in the same region, and six had treatments in separate regions. Regions were determined at the time of analysis and were based on anatomic sites (such as arm, leg, torso, etc.). Kaplan–Meier analysis of progression-free survival (PFS), analyses of time to distant metastasis (DM), overall survival (OS), and locoregional control (LRC), and the corresponding log-rank test were performed. With a median follow-up of 10.5 months [mos] (range 1.0–58.7 mos), we found an improvement in PFS with TVEC and RT in the same region compared to different regions, which were 6.4 mos (95% CI, 2.4–NR mos) and 2.8 mos (95% CI, 0.7–4.4 mos), respectively; p = 0.005. There was also a significant improvement in DM when TVEC and RT were used in the same region compared to different regions: 13.8 mos (95% CI, 4.6–NR mos) and 2.8 mos (95% CI, 0.7–4.4 mos), respectively (p = 0.001). However, we found no difference in overall survival (OS) between patients who had TVEC and RT in the same region (19.0 mos, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1–not reached [NR] mos) and those who received treatments in different regions (18.5 mos, 95% CI, 1.0–NR mos); p = 0.366. There was no statistically significant improvement in locoregional control (LRC) in patients who had TVEC and RT in the same region was 26.0 mos (95% CI, 6.4–26.0 mos) compared to patients who received TVEC and RT in different regions (4.4 mos) (95% CI, 0.7–NR mos) (p = 0.115). No grade 3 or higher toxicities were documented in either group. Overall, there were improvements in PFS and DM when TVEC and RT were delivered to the same region of the body compared to when they were used in different regions. However, we did not find a significant difference in locoregional recurrence or OS. Future studies are needed to assess the sequence and timing of combining RT and TVEC to potentially enhance the immune response both locally and distantly.