A Randomized Phase 3 Trial of Palliative Radiation Therapy Versus Concurrent Chemotherapy and Palliative Radiation Therapy in Patients With Good Performance Status, Locally Advanced, or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Symptoms due to Intrathoracic Disease Who are Not Suitable for Radical Chemo-radiation Therapy: Results of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 11.03 Trial

Effect of thoracic radiotherapy dose on the prognosis of advanced lung adenocarcinoma harboring EGFR mutations

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different thoracic radiotherapy doses on OS and incidence of radiation pneumonia which may provide some basis for optimizing the comprehensive treatment scheme of these patients with advanced EGFR mutant lung adenocarcinoma.

Methods

Data from 111 patients with EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinoma who received thoracic radiotherapy were included in this retrospective study. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoints of the study. Kaplan–Meier method was used for the comparison of OS. The Cox proportional-hazard model was used for the multivariate and univariate analyses to determine the prognostic factors related to the disease.

Results

The mOS rates of the patients, who received radiotherapy dose scheme of less than 50 Gy, 50–60 Gy (including 50 Gy), and 60 Gy or more were 29.1 months, 34.4 months, and 51.0 months, respectively (log-rank P = 0.011). Although trend suggested a higher levels of pneumonia cases with increasing radiation doses, these lack statistical significance (χ2 = 1.331; P = 0.514). The multivariate analysis showed that the thoracic radiotherapy dose schemes were independently associated with the improved OS of patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.606; 95% CI, 0.382 to 0.961; P = 0.033).

Conclusions

For the patients with advanced EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinoma, the radical thoracic radiotherapy dose scheme (≥ 60 Gy) could significantly prolong the OS of patients during the whole course management.

Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Trials of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Approximately 50% of all patients with cancer have an indication for radiotherapy, and approximately 50% of radiotherapy is delivered with palliative intent, with the aim of alleviating symptoms. Symptoms are best assessed by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), yet their reliable interpretation requires adequate reporting in publications.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use and reporting of PROs in clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This preregistered systematic review searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy published from 1990 to 2020. Key eligibility criteria were palliative setting, palliative radiotherapy as treatment modality, and clinical trial design (per National Institutes of Health definition). Two authors independently assessed eligibility. Trial characteristics were extracted and standard of PRO reporting was assessed in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. The association of the year of publication with the use of PROs was assessed by logistic regression. Factors associated with higher CONSORT-PRO adherence were analyzed by multiple regression. This study is reported following the PRISMA guidelines.

FINDINGS

Among 7377 records screened, 225 published clinical trials representing 24 281 patients were eligible. Of these, 45 trials (20%) used a PRO as a primary end point and 71 trials (31%) used a PRO as a secondary end point. The most prevalent PRO measures were the Numeric Rating Scale/Visual Analogue Scale (38 trials), European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (32 trials), and trial-specific unvalidated measures (25 trials). A more recent year of publication was significantly associated with a higher chance of PROs as a secondary end point (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.07]; P = .03) but not as primary end point. Adherence to CONSORT-PRO was poor or moderate for most items. Mean (SD) adherence to the extension adherence score was 46.2% (19.6%) for trials with PROs as primary end point and 31.8% (19.8%) for trials with PROs as a secondary end point. PROs as a primary end point (regression coefficient, 9.755 [95% CI, 2.270-17.240]; P = .01), brachytherapy as radiotherapy modality (regression coefficient, 16.795 [95% CI, 5.840-27.751]; P = .003), and larger sample size (regression coefficient, 0.028 [95% CI, 0.006-0.049]; P = .01) were significantly associated with better PRO reporting per extension adherence score.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials, the use and reporting of PROs had room for improvement for future trials, preferably with PROs as a primary end point.

Comparison Efficacy and Safety of Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil plus Cisplatin for Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) and 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin (PF) for metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Methods

The clinical trials of GP and PF in the treatment of metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The literature search met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The software Revman 5.4 was used for data analysis, and STATA 15.0 was used for publication bias.

Results

10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that the GP group had a higher clinical remission rate than the PF group (RR = 1.22, 95% CI (1.03–1.44), P=0.02, P=0.02). GP and PF groups in OS, PFS, and DMFS had the same effect at 1, 2, and 3 years (OS at 1 year: RR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.95–1.15), P=0.37, P=0.37; 2 years: RR = 1.08, 95% CI (0.94 1.23), P=0.28, P=0.28; 3 years: RR = 1.07, 95% CI (0.89 1.29), P=0.46; PFS at 1 year: RR = 1.98, 95% CI (0.29 13.44), P=0.49; 2 years: RR = 3.09, 95% CI (0.10 97.55), P=0.52; 3 years: RR = 0.95, 95% CI (0.73 1.24), P=0.71; DMFS at 1 year: RR = 1.01, 95% CI (0.90–1.14), P=0.83; 3 years: RR = 1.10, 95% CI (0.85–1.41), P=0.47. The number of hematological adverse reactions occurred in GP group was higher than the PF group.

Conclusion

The GP and PF groups had similar OS, PFS, and DMFS, but the GP group had a higher clinical remission rate. Therefore, GP may be the first choice for metastatic NPC.