Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Radiation Therapy as a Drug and Use in Metastatic Disease

There is excitement at the potential for radiation therapy to improve cancer outcomes in metastatic disease. However, using a 'local' therapy is hard to conceptualize. I recommend reimagining radiation as a drug in this setting and discuss how it might be used. Example given for metastatic breast cancer clinical trial.

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Radiation Therapy as a Drug and Use in Metastatic Disease

  1. 1. Radiation Therapy as a Drug and Use in Metastatic Disease Reframing subatomic particles as medicine Matthew Katz, MD January 2020
  2. 2. Conflict of Interest  Partner, Radiation Oncology Associates PA  Stock in Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Healthcare Services Group, Mazor Robotics, U.S. Physical Therapy
  3. 3.  Overview  Framing Radiation as a drug  Clinical applications  Framework  Patterns of Failure  Possible clinical trials by disease  Strategic Value  Research funding  Influence in cancer care
  4. 4. Radiation Therapy  Poorly understood specialty  Used in 50% of cancer patients at some point during cancer experience  Often hard to determine value in treatment efficacy and cost
  5. 5. Aim  Reframe radiation therapy as a drug to make easier to compare to other cancer therapies  Efficacy  Design new combination therapies for systemic disease  Consider whether there is a clinically meaningful new role for it in metastatic disease
  6. 6. Origins of Radiation Oncology Particle Discovered Nobel X-Ray (photon) 1895 1901 Electron 1897 1906 Proton 1911 Neutron 1932 1935
  7. 7. Radiation: The Original Molecular Medicine  Discovery along with x-rays made it seen as mysterious but powerful  Not seen as a medicine but a physical force  Contemporary evaluation of cancer therapies at molecular level makes it reasonable to consider reframing
  8. 8. Definition of a Drug “A substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” -- Merriam-Webster Dictionary
  9. 9. Mechanism of Action  Radiation damages DNA (or other molecular targets)  Direct action = particles ionize target molecule  Indirect action = H2O+ radical ionizes target molecule
  10. 10. Pharmacokinetics of DNA Injury Event Time Comment Atom Ionization 10-12 sec Free radical formation 10-12 – 10-2 sec DNA damage 1 sec to hours Unrepaired DNA or misjoined DNA damage repair Hours to years Tumor  Death, apoptosis Normal tissue  early, late effects
  11. 11. Cellular sites of action Tepper & Gunderson, 2015
  12. 12. Different from many drugs  No drug receptors for subatomic particles  Cellular sites of action vary given that drug reaches entire cell  Interact with small molecules and ions  May alter biochemistry or function  Is there any receptor antagonist/agonist/inverse agonist activity from radiation, or how it affects response to other drugs
  13. 13. Route of Administration  PA (per aeram), by air Tepper & Gunderson, 2015
  14. 14. Absorption Photons Electrons Tepper & Gunderson, 2015
  15. 15. Comparing Particles
  16. 16. Other radiation drugs  PO = I-131 for thyroid cancer  IV = Radium-223  Brachytherapy = topical, interstitial insertion
  17. 17. Drug metabolism  Photons = ‘prodrug’  Create orbital electrons, which has biologic effect  Some just pass through patient without interacting  Not clear that there are phase II conjugation reactions  Usually endoplasmic reticulum/cytosol >nucleus  No definite impact of cytochrome P450 on radiation response?
  18. 18. Clinical Pharmacokinetics Component Time Comment Route of Administration EBRT: Per aeram Other: PO, IV, topical, interstitial Absorption 3.34 x 10-9 s Bioavailability No tissue binding per se Clearance 3.34 x 10-9 s Excretion No renal/biliary-fecal/skin excretion for external beam but apply with some unsealed sources
  19. 19. Volume of Distribution  Controlled by physician, treatment planning and equipment  Not related to plasma proteins or tissue binding  Varies by patient shape, body composition and position  May vary daily and affect dose delivery  Organ motion, varying air/tissue interfaces
  20. 20. Radiation reimbursement  Based on manipulating volume of distribution  Not based upon dose but devices/techniques [+/- particles] used for treatment
  21. 21. Whole Body vs. Partial Body Syndrome Type 50% Lethal Dose Time to Death Hematopoietic 250-500 cGy 4-8 weeks Gastrointestinal 500-1200 cGy 9-10 days Cerebrovascular 10000 cGy 24-48 hours Disease Dose 5+ year Gr 5 toxicity Breast cancer 4000-6000 cGy 0% Lung cancer* 5000-6000 cGy <1% Prostate cancer 6000-8000 cGy <1% Whole Body Partial Body (conventionally fractionated) *Stereotactic lung RT in 3-5 doses similar to surgery for cT1-2a N0 NSCLC
  22. 22. Tepper & Gunderson, 2015 Radiation Manufacturing Plant
  23. 23. Value of RT in Metastatic Settin g  Symptom relief/Improving quality of life  Avoidance of systemic therapy toxicity  Lengthening life
  24. 24. Risks of RT in Metastatic Setting  Progression free survival isn’t worth much if it’s radiologic and not based upon patient experience  Increases treatment toxicity  Increases financial toxicity
  25. 25. Framework  Need to reconceptualize metastatic spectrum better  Define disease states better  Guckenberger et al, Lancet Oncol 2020  Oligometastatis, oligoprogression distinguished  Include molecular biology into solid malignancy staging better, like in hematologic malignancies  Foster et al, JCO 2019  Unique biology may determine whether metastatic growth is focused, slow enough to benefit from RT
  26. 26. Patterns of Care  If we’re going to start using radiation in metastatic disease, we need to conduct sophisticated patterns of care studies like we have in curative intent cancers in the 1980s, 1990s  We need anatomical/spatial patterns of failure in treatment naïve and treatment resistant settings
  27. 27. Tumor Heterogeneity  Need a better understanding of how to individualize radiation dosing  May require biopsy, molecular data for prognosis, individualization  Scott et al, Lancet Oncol 2017  Better identification of radiation resistance  Kamran et al, Clin Cancer Res 2019
  28. 28. Clinical Applications  Reimaging use of radiation therapy beyond its cytotoxicity at higher doses  Priming agent (low vs. high dose)  Antigen presentation  Biologic response modifier for target tissue for drug delivery  Chemosensitizer (low dose)  Reverse of curative intent chemoradiation  Full dose chemotherapy, low dose radiation  Cytotoxic/Ablative agent  Conventional to stereotactic RT doses
  29. 29. Example: HER2+ Breast cancer  Increasingly systemic drugs working for non-CNS metastatic disease  Leptomeningeal disease still very challenging for any systemic agents  Higher HER2 expression may improve response to HER2-directed therapy (Scaltriti et al, Nishimura et al, Montemurro et al)  Ionizing radiation can upregulate HER-2 antibody targets in HER2+ and triple-negative breast cancer cell lines and can enhance cell kill effects of trastuzumab (Wattenberg et al)
  30. 30. Possible phase I/II clinical trial  Her2+ CNS progression only breast cancer patients  Treat with low dose (20-75 cGy) radiation prior to each intrathecal trastuzumab  MR-targeted to GTV vs. craniospinal CTV  Low-dose hypersensitivity without inducing intrinsic radiation resistance  Permits retreatment of previously irradiated patients
  31. 31. Possible uses in systemic disease Disease Stage Role Target Volume Dose/Fx AML CNS2/CN S3 Chemosensitization/syne rgy CTV = craniospinal axis 20-40 cGy w/IT chemotheratpy Breast, Her2+ IV Antigen presentation, synergy MR-targeted GTV vs. craniospinal CTV 25-75 cGy w/ IT trastuzumab DLBCL IVA+B Synergy, increase chemotherapy perfusion GTV = PET+ 25-75 cGy with R-CHOP Melanoma IV Antigen presentation, biologic response modifier GTV = PET+. Treat all vs. one lesion per organ w/metastases 25-150 cGy Myeloma Chemosensitization/syne rgy GTV = MRI+ 25-75 cGy NSCLC IV, PD-L1 >50% Priming immunotherapy +/- consolidative ablation GTV = PET+ 25-100 cGy +/- SBRT NSCLC IV, EGFR+, T790M- Synergy, biologic response modifier GTV = PET+ 25-75 cGy Prostate IV, new dx Consolidation +/- chemosensitization CTV = Prostate + pelvis vs Prostate w/only + LNs Definitive +/- 25-75 cGy
  32. 32. Advantages for low dose RT trials  Can start phase I/II trials for combination therapy quickly vs. new drugs with no human data  Low dose RT = 2D, 3D = low cost  Wide availability of linear accelerator makes easier to do trials compared to some targeted drugs
  33. 33. Uses in Non-Metastatic Malignancies Malignancy Stage Role Target Volume Bladder cT3 N0-1 or T2, Gr3 Chemosensitization CTV = Whole Pelvis pT4 or N1 Chemosensitization CTV = Whole Pelvis Colon (not rectum) pT3-4, N+ Chemosensitization CTV = Whole Abdomen Gastric cT2-3 or pT3-4, N+ Chemosensitization CTV = Whole Abdomen Glioblastoma Postop, away from chiasm/brainstem Chemosensitization w/full dose temozolomide CTV = GTV+ 3 cm Ovary Bulky Neoadjuvant chemosensitization, biologic response modifier CTV = Whole Abdomen II-III Chemosensitization CTV = Whole Abdomen Pancreas pT3-4 N0, N1 Chemosensitization CTV = Whole Abdomen cT3-4, unresectable Chemosensitization GTV=SBRT, CTV=low dose whole abdomen No established doses, consider 25-50 cGy pre-chemotherapy
  34. 34. Assessing Efficacy  Could compare to cancer drugs if agree to use the same endpoints for specific disease states  Cancer control  Toxicity  Cost of treatment  Would opinions about radiation differ if perceived as a drug?
  35. 35. Conclusion  Reimagine how we use radiation as something other than purely cytotoxic therapy  Conduct detailed studies to define patterns of failure, test new therapeutic approaches  Patient-centered goals must include treatment toxicity and financial toxicity in the value proposition