Purpose: Retrospective audit of recurrent glioma patients treated by different fractionation schedules and to validate the modified Combs prognostic score in Indian patient cohort.Material and Methods: Between Jan 2009 and June 2022, 66 recurrent gliomas patients treated with standard adjuvant treatment—radiation (RT) ± temozolomide (chemotherapy)—and re-treated with RT (±chemotherapy) were categorized as per modified Combs prognostic criteria and outcomes were compared. Results: Sixty-six patients with recurrent gliomas who received reirradiation (re-RT) were audited—53% males; 61% Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥80 at time of re-RT; median age 41.5 years (range, 6 to 70 years); 67% <50 years; primary histology low-grade glioma in 33% ; grade III 27%, grade IV 40%; initial median dose of 60 Gy equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions EQD2; maximum safe resection at recurrence 41%; mean and median follow-up 78 ± 51 months and 66 months. Mean time interval between RT was 46.4 ± 39 months. Mean planning target volume (PTV) volume in conventional RT (Conv-RT), hypofractionated RT (Hypo-RT), and ultra-hypofractionated RT (UF-RT) was 226.1 ± 140.7 mL, 162.8 ± 123.3 mL, and 143.3 ± 145.8 mL. Mean dose for Conv-RT, Hypo-RT, and UF-RT was 50 Gy (range, 40 to 60), 31 Gy (range, 20 to 40), and 20 Gy (range, 10 to 30). Mean overall survival (OS) in Conv-RT, Hypo-RT, and UF-RT cohort was 18.8 months (range, 2.4 to 76.8); 6.6 months (range, 2 to 17.4), and 13.9 months (range, 3 to 131.9). Median OS as per Combs criteria were 16.6 months (Group a), 24.6 months (Group b), 4.6 months (Group c), and 3 months (Group d). Significant survival benefit was with good KPS score (KPS >80 vs. <80; 20.46 vs. 5.25 months; p < 0.001), patients receiving salvage chemotherapy (20.46 vs. 6.96 months; p = 0.001), and patients received re-RT biological equivalent dose BED3 >80 Gy (16.62 vs. 5.48 months; p = 0.03). Median OS in our patient cohort and Combs cohort in Group a was 16.6 and 19.5 months; Group b was 24.6 and 11.3 months; Group c was 4.7 and 8.1 months, and Group d was 2 and 5.5 months, respectively. Six months survival in our patient cohort and Combs cohort in Groups a, b, c, d were 100%, 92%, 34%, 17% and 94%, 79%, 70%, 41%, respectively. Twelve months survival in our patient cohort and Combs cohort in Groups a, b, c, d were 88%, 74%, 22%, 0% and 88%, 47%, 22%, 7%, respectively. Conclusion Modified Combs prognostic factors predicts OS and is applicable in Indian subcontinent patient population.

Background: Evaluate morbidities and “quality” of fiducial marker placement in primary liver tumours (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) for CyberKnife. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six HCC with portal vein thrombosis(PVT) were evaluated for “quality” of fiducial placement, placement time, pain score, complications, recovery time and factors influencing placement. Results: One hundred eight fiducials were placed in 36 patients. Fiducial placement radiation oncologist score was “good” in 24(67%), “fair” in 4(11%), and “poor” in 3(8%) patients. Concordance with radiologist score in “poor”, “fair”, and “good” score was 2/2(100%), 4/5(80%), and 24/27(89%), respectively(p=0.001). Child-Pugh score(p=0.080), performance status(PS) (p=0.014) and accrued during “learning curve”(p=0.013) affected placement score. Mean placement time(p=0.055), recovery time(p=0.025) was longer and higher major complications(p=0.009) with poor PS. Liver segment involved(p=0.484) and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer(BCLC) stage did not influence placement score. “Good” placement score was 30% in first cohort whereas 93% in last cohort(p=0.023). Time for placement was 42.2 and 14.3 minutes, respectively(p=0.069). Post-fiducial pain score 0–1 in 26 patients(72%) and pain score 3–4 was in 2(6%). Five patients (14%) admitted in “day-care”(2 mild pneumothorax, 3 pain). Mortality in 1 patient(3%) admitted for hemothorax. Conclusion Fiducial placement is safe and in experienced hands, “quality” of placement is “good” in majority. Major complications and admission after fiducial placement are rare. Complications, fiducial placement time, recovery time is more during the “learning curve”. Poor Child-Pugh score, extensive liver involvement, poor PS have higher probability of complications.

Background: Evaluate morbidities and “quality” of fiducial marker placement in primary liver tumours (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) for CyberKnife. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six HCC with portal vein thrombosis(PVT) were evaluated for “quality” of fiducial placement, placement time, pain score, complications, recovery time and factors influencing placement. Results: One hundred eight fiducials were placed in 36 patients. Fiducial placement radiation oncologist score was “good” in 24(67%), “fair” in 4(11%), and “poor” in 3(8%) patients. Concordance with radiologist score in “poor”, “fair”, and “good” score was 2/2(100%), 4/5(80%), and 24/27(89%), respectively(p=0.001). Child-Pugh score(p=0.080), performance status(PS) (p=0.014) and accrued during “learning curve”(p=0.013) affected placement score. Mean placement time(p=0.055), recovery time(p=0.025) was longer and higher major complications(p=0.009) with poor PS. Liver segment involved(p=0.484) and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer(BCLC) stage did not influence placement score. “Good” placement score was 30% in first cohort whereas 93% in last cohort(p=0.023). Time for placement was 42.2 and 14.3 minutes, respectively(p=0.069). Post-fiducial pain score 0–1 in 26 patients(72%) and pain score 3–4 was in 2(6%). Five patients (14%) admitted in “day-care”(2 mild pneumothorax, 3 pain). Mortality in 1 patient(3%) admitted for hemothorax. Conclusion Fiducial placement is safe and in experienced hands, “quality” of placement is “good” in majority. Major complications and admission after fiducial placement are rare. Complications, fiducial placement time, recovery time is more during the “learning curve”. Poor Child-Pugh score, extensive liver involvement, poor PS have higher probability of complications.