onc brain

About · curated by Nick Boehling, MD · @nb2276

2026-05-22

digest generated 2026-09-26

DBCG IMN2: IMNI in node-positive breast cancer → adjusted OS HR 0.85 (0.76-0.94), 15y OS 65.0% vs 60.8%; cohort allocated by laterality, not randomized.
Elective nodal RT led in breast and prostate. DBCG IMN2, a nonrandomized population-based cohort, links IMNI in node-positive breast cancer to an adjusted OS HR of 0.85. PEACE V-STORM, a phase 2 RCT (α 0.20), favours whole-pelvis ENRT over MDT for pelvic nodal oligorecurrence (4yr MFS 76% vs 63%, HR 0.62). EORTC endorses reduced-dose RT for cutaneous lymphoma without randomized evidence.

Lymphoma

EORTC expert opinion recommends reduced-dose RT across indolent cutaneous lymphomas, but registry data conflict on 4 Gy in pcMZL/pcFCL.

EORTC cutaneous lymphoma RT recommendations

TL;DRReduced-dose RT recommended across indolent cutaneous lymphomas; local MF lesions 8-12 Gy in 2-3 fx, 1-yr local control ≥92%, no randomized evidence.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The de-escalation is not uniform: 4 Gy is endorsed for CD4+ small/medium T-cell LPD and many pcFCL/pcMZL, but gave inferior MF local control and worse outcomes in B-cell lesions >5 cm. The algorithm handles this with response-adapted escalation to cumulative 24 Gy rather than upfront conventional dosing. The longer read

9 details 4 trials watching

Expert opinion from the EORTC cutaneous lymphoma tumour group, summarizing retrospective series and small prospective cohorts into a dose algorithm (Figs 2A/2B). No new patient data.

MF local lesions 8-12 Gy in 2-3 fx; low-dose TSEBT 8-12 Gy for palliation, up to 24 Gy before autologous SCT. CD4+ small/medium T-cell LPD 4 Gy in 2 fx; pcFCL/pcMZL start at 4 Gy with escalation to cumulative 24 Gy for residual disease or local failure.

Moves away from conventional 30-40 Gy, the standard until about 20 years ago, and builds on prior EORTC consensus treatment-selection recommendations. The 4 Gy question in cutaneous B-cell disease remains contested between small series and a long-f/u registry analysis.

indolent primary cutaneous lymphomas (MF, pcALCL, CD4+ small/medium T-cell LPD, pcMZL, pcFCL) and palliative or pre-transplant TSEBT in advanced MF/SS
Does not represent aggressive rare CTCL subtypes (panniculitis-like, gamma/delta, CD8+ aggressive epidermotropic, NK/T-cell), where low-dose RT has a limited role.

Supporting series use varied endpoints (ORR, CR, local relapse, DOR, TTNT) and heterogeneous fractionation, so cross-series comparison is loose. QoL data after modern doses are sparse.

Low-dose local RT gives rapid symptom relief with low toxicity and few local relapses, but low-dose TSEBT relapses are common. Authors call for a prospective randomized dose trial with translational endpoints, and combined-modality work in advanced MF, SS and DLBCL leg type.

Sourced from Khaled Elsayad et al.

📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER Khaled Elsayad; Emmanuella Guenova; Chalid Assaf et al. · European Journal of Cancer (2024)
Radiotherapy in cutaneous lymphomas: Recommendations from the EORTC cutaneous lymphoma tumour group

Breast

Population-based OS data now back IMNI in node-positive disease, including 1-3 LN (post hoc HR 0.85).

Confirmatory

DBCG IMN2 NCT06549920

ForNode-positive early breast, upfront surgery + ALND, no neoadjuvant therapy

Overall survival

HR 0.85

95% CI 0.76-0.94, p=0.0016; 15y OS 65.0% vs 60.8%

TL;DRAdjusted OS HR 0.85 (0.76-0.94) with IMNI in node-positive breast cancer; 15y OS 65.0% vs 60.8% despite taxanes, trastuzumab, AIs and 3D RT.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The benefit held in the 1-3 node group, HR 0.85 (0.73-0.97), the population where guidelines still hedge on IMNI. It was delivered with free-breathing 3D wide tangents at 50 Gy/25 Fx, and dilution (20.4% incidental coverage left-sided) biases toward the null, so modern gated or VMAT coverage likely does no worse.

Monday clinic

In node-positive breast cancer after upfront surgery and ALND, including 1-3 positive nodes, this supports covering the IMN in the regional field; it does not extend to pts treated after neoadjuvant therapy. The longer read

11 details 3 trials watching

Prospective nationwide population-based cohort across 6 Danish RT centres, N=4541, 2007-2014. Not randomized: IMNI allocated by tumour laterality per national guideline; ITT right vs left. Median follow-up 13.7y.

Macrometastatic node-positive breast cancer, all with ALND, mastectomy or BCS. Excluded neoadjuvant systemic therapy, bilateral BC, prior malignancy, recurrence before RT. Median age 59; 68.3% had 1-3 positive nodes.

EC x3 then docetaxel x3 when chemo indicated; AI postmenopausal, tamoxifen premenopausal; trastuzumab concurrent for HER2+. 96.2% of chemo pts received taxanes.

48 Gy/24 Fx before Jan 2009, 50 Gy/25 Fx after. IMN target ICS 1-4 with 3D conformal wide tangents, free breathing, plus level II-III, interpectoral and level IV in all pts.

Primary: OS. Secondary: breast cancer mortality and distant metastasis, with non-breast-cancer death as competing event.

15y death from ischemic or valvular heart disease 0.2% right vs 0.7% left. 15y secondary lung cancer death 1.8% vs 2.2%. No smoking or baseline cardiac data.

OS HR 0.85 sits with the EBCTCG regional RT RR 0.90 (0.84-0.96) and underpowered KROG 08-06 HR 0.87 (0.57-1.31). Magnitude matches DBCG IMN1, which treated pts before taxanes and 3D planning.

node-positive early breast cancer after upfront surgery and ALND on taxane, AI and trastuzumab era systemic therapy
Does not represent pts after neoadjuvant therapy, pCR, or those receiving adjuvant IO or ADCs.

Left-sided controls got incidental IMN dose (median CTV V90% 20.4%) and 10.1% received IMNI, compressing separation. 1-3 node analysis was post hoc; no correction for multiple testing across subgroups.

Newer systemic therapy did not erase the IMNI gain. The medial/central ≥4 node HR 0.98 and ER-/HER2+ HR 1.49 are exploratory signals, not omission criteria; authors found no subgroup for safe omission.

EndpointIMNI (n=2194)No IMNI (n=2347)Adjusted HR (95% CI), p
OS at 15y65.0%60.8%0.85 (0.76-0.94), p=0.0016
Breast cancer mortality, 15y CI21.4%23.6%0.84 (0.74-0.95), p=0.0077
Distant metastasis, 15y CI25.1%26.9%0.87 (0.78-0.98), p=0.026
SubgroupHR (95% CI)15y OS IMNI vs no IMNI
1-3 LN (n=3100, post hoc)0.85 (0.73-0.97)72.3% vs 68.0%
4-9 LN0.92 (0.75-1.12)55.3% vs 51.6%
≥10 LN0.75 (0.59-0.96)39.2% vs 31.1%
Lateral ≥4 LN0.77 (0.64-0.93)53.8% vs 41.7%
Medial/central ≥4 LN0.98 (0.79-1.21)43.6% vs 50.4%
ER-/HER2+1.49 (0.98-2.25)57.7% vs 68.2%

Large prospective multicentre cohort, primary endpoint met with 13.7y f/u, but laterality allocation is not randomization. Aligns with EBCTCG and DBCG IMN1.

Sourced from Anders W. Mølby Nielsen et al.

📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER Anders W. Mølby Nielsen; Lise B. J. Thorsen; Demet Özcan et al. · The Lancet Regional Health - Europe (2025-02)
Internal mammary node irradiation in 4541 node-positive breast cancer patients treated with newer systemic therapies and 3D-based radiotherapy (DBCG IMN2): a prospective, nationwide, population-based cohort study

Prostate

For pelvic nodal oligorecurrence, elective pelvic RT beats MDT on MFS and locoregional RFS with no G2+ GU/GI toxicity difference. The benefit is concentrated in PSMA-staged pts with PSA <1.

Confirmatory

PEACE V-STORM NCT03569241

ForPelvic nodal oligorecurrence (≤5 PET+ nodes) after radical local prostate tx

Metastasis-free survival surrogate

4yr 76% vs 63%, HR 0.62

80% CI 0.44-0.86, p=0.063 (α 0.20)

TL;DR4yr MFS 76% vs 63% (HR 0.62, 80% CI 0.44-0.86) favoring whole-pelvis ENRT over MDT for pelvic nodal oligorecurrence, both with 6mo ADT.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The RT signal is regional: 4yr locoregional RFS 85% vs 62% (HR 0.45), consistent with MDT failing mostly in the pelvis. The benefit sat in PSMA-staged pts (HR 0.48) and PSA <1 (HR 0.27), so it moves the choice from nodal SBRT to whole-pelvis 45/25 with 65 Gy SIB. Prostate bed inclusion, not the pelvic field, drove added GI toxicity.

Monday clinic

In a man with up to five PET-detected pelvic nodal recurrences below the aortic bifurcation after radical local treatment, this supports whole-pelvis ENRT with nodal SIB over nodal SBRT alone, both with 6 mo ADT; it does not extend to para-aortic, bone, or visceral disease. The longer read

11 details 2 trials watching

Phase 2, open-label, randomised (1:1) trial at 21 hospitals in Australia, Belgium, Italy, Norway, Spain, Switzerland. Minimisation stratified by PET tracer (choline vs PSMA) and MDT type (sLND vs SBRT/SIB). Median follow-up 50 mo (IQR 42-58).

Biochemical relapse after RP, postoperative RT or definitive RT, with ≤5 PET-detected pelvic nodes up to the aortic bifurcation. Excluded: bone/visceral mets, nodes above the bifurcation, testosterone <50 ng/dL. Median PSA 1.00 vs 0.85 ng/mL; 81% and 83% PSMA-staged.

ENRT: 45 Gy/25 fx whole pelvis + 65 Gy SIB to PET+ nodes, IMRT/VMAT mandatory. MDT: SBRT 30 Gy/3 fx every other day, 3 mm PTV margin, or extended sLND. Prostate bed RT ≥66 Gy/33 fx suggested for high-risk RP features in both arms, with benchmark-case QA.

6 mo LHRH agonist or antagonist in both arms, started no later than the first fraction. ADT was not to be restarted without clinical progression.

Primary: MFS (any M1 on PET or death). Secondary: bRFS, locoregional RFS, ADT-free survival, late G2+ GU/GI toxicity. OS, PCSS and time to castration resistance had too few events to report.

4yr cumulative G2+ GU 28% vs 31% (p=0.73) and GI 7% vs 9% (p=0.93), MDT vs ENRT. One ENRT pt had a recto-urethral fistula needing surgery. No treatment-related deaths.

First randomised comparison of MDT vs ENRT for nodal oligorecurrence. The single-arm GETUG-P07-OLIGOPELVIS reported 3yr bRFS 45% with ENRT, in a higher-PSA, choline-staged cohort. POINTER-PC (phase 3) and GETUG-P12-OLIGOPELVIS 2 are the confirmatory tests.

hormone-sensitive (testosterone ≥50 ng/dL) pts with ≤5 PET-positive pelvic nodes after radical local therapy, predominantly PSMA-staged
Does not represent para-aortic, bone or visceral recurrence, or pts on ongoing ADT.

Prostate bed RT was unevenly used (25% vs 41%) and linked to both local control and GI toxicity, which muddies attribution to the pelvic field. No central PET review, and the PSA and nodal-level subgroups are post hoc.

The MFS gain is mostly prevention of further nodal (M1a) spread, consistent with PSMA PET under-staging microscopic pelvic disease. It does not settle whether the benefit holds at higher PSA or with choline staging, or whether it reaches survival.

EndpointENRTMDTHR (80% CI), p
MFS (1°)76% (69-81)63% (56-69)0.62 (0.44-0.86), p=0.063
bRFS57% (50-64)41% (34-47)0.62 (0.48-0.80), p=0.014
Locoregional RFS85% (80-90)62% (55-69)0.45 (0.31-0.65), p=0.0047
ADT-free survival77% (70-82)60% (53-67)0.60 (0.43-0.83), p=0.049
SubgroupHR (80% CI)Interaction p
PSMA PET0.48 (0.32-0.72)0.12
Choline PET1.21 (0.64-2.28)0.12
PSA <10.27 (0.14-0.52)0.029
PSA ≥11.00 (0.67-1.50)0.029
No common iliac node0.49 (0.33-0.74)0.20
Common iliac node1.04 (0.55-1.95)0.20
EndpointMDTENRTp
4yr cumulative G2+ GU27/97 (28%)29/93 (31%)0.73
4yr cumulative G2+ GI7/97 (7%)8/93 (9%)0.93
G3 urinary incontinence6 (6%)9 (10%)n/a
G3 diarrhoea1 (1%)2 (2%)n/a
CONSORT flow
Assessed / enrolled 198
↓ 2 excluded
Randomized196
↓
MDT + 6 mo ADT
allocated 99
analyzed 97
4yr MFS 63%
ENRT + 6 mo ADT
allocated 97
analyzed 93
4yr MFS 76%

Randomised phase 2 hit its MFS primary at 50 mo median f/u, but was powered at α 0.20 with 80% CIs; authors call for phase 3 confirmation (POINTER-PC).

Sourced from Piet Ost et al.

📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER Piet Ost; Shankar Siva; Sigmund Brabrand et al. · The Lancet Oncology (2025-05)
Salvage metastasis-directed therapy versus elective nodal radiotherapy for oligorecurrent nodal prostate cancer metastases (PEACE V–STORM): a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial