To report single-institutional clinical outcomes and toxicity with SBRT for cholangiocarcinoma.

Background: The role of adjuvant chemoradiation therapy for ampullary carcinoma is unknown. Previous literature suggests that certain populations with high risk factors for recurrence may benefit from adjuvant chemoradiation. We combined the experience of two institutions to better delineate which patients may benefit from adjuvant chemoradiation. Methods: Patients who underwent curative surgery for ampullary carcinoma at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (n = 290; 1992-2007) and at the Mayo Clinic (n = 130; 1977-2005) were reviewed. Patients with <60 days of follow-up, metastatic disease at surgery, or insufficient pathologic data were excluded. The final combined study consisted of 186 patients (n = 104 Johns Hopkins, n = 82 Mayo). Most patients received 5-FU based chemoradiation with conformal radiation. Cox proportional hazards models were used for survival analysis. Results: Median overall-survival was 39.9 months with 2- and 5-year survival rates of 62.4% and 39.1%. On univariate analysis, adverse prognostic factors for overall survival included T3/T4 stage disease (RR = 1.86, p = 0.002), node positive status (RR = 3.18, p < 0.001), and poor histological grade (RR = 1.69, p = 0.011). Patients who received adjuvant chemoradiation (n = 66) vs. surgery alone (n = 120) showed a higher rate of T3/T4 stage disease (57.6% vs. 30.8%, P < 0.001), lymph node involvement (72.7% vs. 30.0%, P < 0.001), and close or positive margins (4.6% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.019). Five year survival rates among node negative and node positive patients were 58.7% and 18.4% respectively. When compared with surgery alone, use of adjuvant chemoradiation improved survival among node positive patients (mOS 32.1 vs. 15.7 mos, 5 yr OS: 27.5% vs. 5.9%; RR = 0.47, P = 0.004). After adjusting for adverse prognostic factors on multivariate analysis, patients treated with adjuvant chemoradiation demonstrated a significant survival benefit (RR = 0.40, P < 0.001). Disease relapse occurred in 37.1% of all patients, most commonly metastatic disease in the liver or peritoneum. Conclusions: Node-positive patients with resected ampullary adenocarcinoma may benefit from 5-FU based adjuvant chemoradiation. Since a significant proportion of patients develop metastatic disease, there is a need for more effective systemic treatment.

Although there have been significant advances in the adjuvant therapy of colorectal cancer, results for patients have historically been poor when complete resection is unlikely or not possible. Similarly, locally recurrent colorectal cancer patients often experience significant tumor related morbidity and disease control and long term survival have historically been poor with standard therapies. Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) has been proposed as a possible tool for dose escalation in patients with locally advanced colorectal cancer. For patients with locally advanced primary or recurrent colon cancer, the absence of prospective controlled trials limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions in completely resected patients. In subtotally resected patients, the available evidence is consistent with marked improvements in disease control and survival compared to historical controls. For patients with locally advanced primary or recurrent rectal cancer, a relatively large body of evidence suggests improved disease control and survival, especially in subtotally resected patients, with the addition of IORT to moderate dose external beam radiation (EBRT) and chemotherapy. The most important prognostic factor in nearly all series is the completeness of surgical resection. Many previously irradiated patients may be carefully re-treated with radiation and IORT in addition to chemotherapy resulting in long term survival in more than 25% of patients. Peripheral nerve is dose limiting for IORT and patients receiving 15 Gy or more are at higher risk. IORT is a useful tool when dose escalation beyond EBRT tolerance limits is required for acceptable local control in patients with locally advanced primary or recurrent colorectal cancer. Previously irradiated patients should not be excluded from treatment consideration.

Purpose: A phase II study was conducted to determine the efficacy and toxicity of radiotherapy with concomitant gemcitabine and cisplatin for patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Patients and Methods: Forty-eight patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma received gemcitabine (30 mg/m²) and cisplatin (10 mg/m²) twice weekly during the first 3 weeks of radiotherapy. The radiation dose to the primary tumor and regional nodes was 45 Gy in 25 fractions, and the gross tumor volume received an additional 5.4 Gy in three fractions. Four weeks after radiotherapy, patients received gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m²) once weekly every 3 of 4 weeks for a 12-week period. The primary end point was survival at 12 months. Secondary end points were time to progression, toxicity, and quality of life. Results: Survival at 1 year was 40% for 47 eligible patients. The median survival was 10.2 months. Confirmed responses were observed for 8.5% (two partial, two complete), and median time to progression was 7.3 months. Grade 4 or higher toxicity was observed for 31% and consisted primarily of hematologic and GI toxicity. There was a trend toward improved overall quality of life, measured by the Symptom Distress Scale (P = .06), with significant improvements in domains of insomnia, pain, and outlook. Conclusion: The combination of radiotherapy, gemcitabine, and cisplatin was well tolerated. Survival results were similar to those achieved with other treatment regimens for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer but did not meet our predefined criteria for additional evaluation of this regimen.

Over the past 20 years, several proton beam treatment programs have been implemented throughout the United States. Increasingly, the number of new programs under development is growing. Proton beam therapy has the potential for improving tumor control and survival through dose escalation. It also has potential for reducing harm to normal organs through dose reduction. However, proton beam therapy is more costly than conventional x-ray therapy. This increased cost may be offset by improved function, improved quality of life, and reduced costs related to treating the late effects of therapy. Clinical research opportunities are abundant to determine which patients will gain the most benefit from proton beam therapy. We review the clinical case for proton beam therapy.