Purpose: Over the past decade, high-dose methotrexate has emerged as the single most effective agent in the initial treatment of primary nervous system lymphoma. However, the majority of patients who respond initially to treatment relapse. The optimal management of these patients has not been determined. We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of high-dose methotrexate in patients with relapsed central nervous system lymphoma.Experimental Design: Patients with relapsed disease were eligible if they achieved a complete response to initial treatment with methotrexate-based chemotherapy or received methotrexate after gross total resection or interstitial radiation. All of the patients were retreated with a regimen containing high-dose methotrexate (>3 g/m 2 ). Results: Twenty-two patients with a median age of 58 years were included in the study. Overall response rates were 91% to first salvage (20 of 22 patients) and 100% to second salvage (4 of 4 patients). Median survival was 61.9 months after first relapse (95% confidence interval, 42.1-ؕ) and 91.9 months overall (95% confidence interval, 47.2-ؕ). Toxicity was primarily hematologic with 10 episodes of grade 3 or 4 toxicity during 566 cycles of chemotherapy.Conclusions: These results indicate that high-dose methotrexate remains effective for relapsed central nervous system lymphoma in patients who initially respond to methotrexate and raise the possibility of deferring more toxic salvage regimens in this select group of patients.

Purpose To report dosimetry and early toxicity data in breast cancer patients treated with postoperative proton radiation therapy. Methods and Materials From March 2013 to April 2014, 30 patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer and no history of prior radiation were treated with proton therapy at a single proton center. Patient characteristics and dosimetry were obtained through chart review. Patients were seen weekly while on treatment, at 1 month after radiation therapy completion, and at 3- to 6-month intervals thereafter. Toxicity was scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Frequencies of toxicities were tabulated. Results Median dose delivered was 50.4 Gy (relative biological equivalent [RBE]) in 5 weeks. Target volumes included the breast/chest wall and regional lymph nodes including the internal mammary lymph nodes (in 93%). No patients required a treatment break. Among patients with >3 months of follow-up (n = 28), grade 2 dermatitis occurred in 20 patients (71.4%), with 8 (28.6%) experiencing moist desquamation. Grade 2 esophagitis occurred in 8 patients (28.6%). Grade 3 reconstructive complications occurred in 1 patient. The median planning target volume V95 was 96.43% (range, 79.39%-99.60%). The median mean heart dose was 0.88 Gy (RBE) [range, 0.01–3.20 Gy (RBE)] for all patients, and 1.00 Gy (RBE) among patients with left-sided tumors. The median V20 of the ipsilateral lung was 16.50% (range, 6.1%–30.3%). The median contralateral lung V5 was 0.34% (range, 0%–5.30%). The median maximal point dose to the esophagus was 45.65 Gy (RBE) [range, 0–65.4 Gy (RBE)]. The median contralateral breast mean dose was 0.29 Gy (RBE) [range, 0.03–3.50 Gy (RBE)]. Conclusions Postoperative proton therapy is well tolerated, with acceptable rates of skin toxicity. Proton therapy favorably spares normal tissue without compromising target coverage. Further follow-up is necessary to assess for clinical outcomes and cardiopulmonary toxicities.

In South Koreans, more severe myopia was associated with greater odds of glaucoma as defined by ISGEO criteria.

Purpose. Some patients with nonmalignant systemic diseases, like collagen vascular disease (CVD), hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), tolerate radiation therapy poorly. Although the mechanisms of each of these disease processes are different, they share a common microvessel pathology that is potentially exacerbated by radiotherapy. This article reviews and evaluates available data examining the effects of these benign disease processes on radiation tolerance.Methods. We conducted a thorough review of the Anglo-American medical literature from 1960 to 2001 on the effects of radiotherapy on CVD, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and IBD.Results. Fifteen studies were identified that examined the effects of radiation therapy for cancer in patients with CVDs. Thirteen of 15 studies documented greater occurrences of acute and late toxicities (range 7%-100%). Higher rates of complications were noted especially for nonrheumatoid arthritis CVDs. Nine studies evaluated the effects of hypertension and diabetes on radiation tolerance. All nine studies documented higher rates of late toxicities than in a "control" group (range 34%-100%). When patients had both diabetes and hypertension, the risk of late toxicities was even higher. Six studies examined radiation tolerance of patients with IBD irradiated to the abdomen and pelvis. Five of these six studies showed greater occurrences of acute and late toxicities for patients with IBD, even with precautionary measures like reduced fraction size and volume and patient immobilization (13%-29%).Conclusion. The majority of published studies documented lower radiation tolerance for patients who have CVD, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and IBD. This may reflect a publication bias, as the majority of these studies are retrospective with small numbers of patients and use different scoring scales for complications. These factors may contribute to an overestimation of true radiationinduced morbidity. Although the paucity of data makes precise estimates difficult, a subset of patients, in particular, those with active CVD, IBD, or a combination of uncontrolled hypertension with type I diabetes, is likely to be at higher risk. Future prospective trials need to document these disease entities when reporting treatmentrelated complications and also must monitor toxicities associated with quiescent versus active IBD and CVD, type I versus type II diabetes, and levels of hypertension (controlled versus uncontrolled) matched for radiationspecific treatment sites, field size, fractionation, and total dose.