Stereotactic Radiation for Ultra-Central Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Safety and Efficacy Trial (SUNSET)

INTRODUCTION

The use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for tumors in close proximity to the central mediastinal structures has been associated with a high risk of toxicity. This study (BLINDED FOR REVIEW) aimed to determine the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of SBRT for ultra-central (UC) non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), using a time-to-event continual reassessment methodology (TITE-CRM).

METHODS

Patients with T1-3N0M0 (≤ 6 cm) NSCLC were eligible. The MTD was defined as the dose of radiotherapy associated with a ≤ 30% rate of grade (G) 3-5 pre-specified treatment-related toxicity occurring within 2 years of treatment. The starting dose level was 60 Gy in 8 daily fractions. The dose-maximum hotspot was limited to 120% and within the planning tumor volume (PTV); tumors with endobronchial invasion were excluded. This primary analysis occurred two years after completion of accrual.

RESULTS

Between March 2018 and April 2021, 30 patients were enrolled at 5 institutions. The median age was 73 years (range: 65-87) and 17 (57%) were female. PTV was abutting proximal bronchial tree in 19 (63%), esophagus 5 (17%), pulmonary vein 1 (3.3%) and pulmonary artery 14 (47%). All patients received 60 Gy in 8 fractions. The median follow-up was 37 months (range: 8.9-51). Two patients (6.7%) experienced G3-5 adverse events related to treatment: 1 patient with G3 dyspnea and 1 G5 pneumonia; the latter had CT findings consistent with a background of interstitial lung disease. Three-year overall survival was 72.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52.3-85.3%), progression-free survival 66.1% (95% CI: 46.1-80.2%), local control 89.6% (95% CI: 71.2-96.5%), regional control 96.4% (95% CI: 77.2-99.5%) and distant control 85.9% (95% CI: 66.7-94.5%). Quality of life scores declined numerically over time, but the decreases were not clinically or statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

60 Gy in 8 fractions, planned and delivered with only a moderate hotspot, has a favorable adverse event rate within the pre-specified acceptability criteria, and results in excellent control for UC tumors.

Stereotactic Radiation Therapy in Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Interstitial Lung Disease: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) and early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been reported to be at high risk of toxic effects after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), but for many patients, there are limited alternative treatment options.

Objective

To prospectively assess the benefits and toxic effects of SABR in this patient population.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study was conducted at 6 academic radiation oncology institutions, 5 in Canada and 1 in Scotland, with accrual between March 7, 2019, and January 12, 2022. Patients aged 18 years or older with fibrotic ILD and a diagnosis of T1-2N0 NSCLC who were not candidates for surgical resection were enrolled.

Intervention

Patients were treated with SABR to a dose of 50 Gy in 5 fractions every other day.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The study prespecified that SABR would be considered worthwhile if median overall survival-the primary end point-was longer than 1 year, with a grade 3 to 4 risk of toxic effects less than 35% and a grade 5 risk of toxic effects less than 15%. Secondary end points included toxic effects, progression-free survival (PFS), local control (LC), quality-of-life outcomes, and changes in pulmonary function. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted.

Results

Thirty-nine patients enrolled and received SABR. Median age was 78 (IQR, 67-83) years and 59% (n = 23) were male. At baseline, 70% (26 of 37) of patients reported dyspnea, median forced expiratory volume in first second of expiration was 80% (IQR, 66%-90%) predicted, median forced vital capacity was 84% (IQR, 69%-94%) predicted, and median diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide was 49% (IQR, 38%-61%) predicted. Median follow-up was 19 (IQR, 14-25) months. Overall survival at 1 year was 79% (95%, CI 62%-89%; P < .001 vs the unacceptable rate), and median overall survival was 25 months (95% CI, 14 months to not reached). Median PFS was 19 months (95% CI, 13-28 months), and 2-year LC was 92% (95% CI, 69%-98%). Adverse event rates (highest grade per patient) were grade 1 to 2: n = 12 (31%), grade 3: n = 4 (10%), grade 4: n = 0, and grade 5: n = 3 (7.7%, all due to respiratory deterioration).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this trial, use of SABR in patients with fibrotic ILD met the prespecified acceptability thresholds for both toxicity and efficacy, supporting the use of SABR for curative-intent treatment after a careful discussion of risks and benefits.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03485378.

What is the predictive value of RECIST criteria following stereotactic lung radiation?

PURPOSE

Response EvaluationCriteriain Solid Tumors (RECIST) is commonly used to assess response to anti-cancer therapies. However, its application after lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is complicated by radiation-induced lung changes. This study assesses the frequency of progressive disease (PD) by RECIST following lung SABR and correlates this with actual treatment outcomes as determined by longitudinal follow-up.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We reviewed patients treated with lung SABR for primary lung tumors or oligometastases between 2010 and 2015. Patients were treated with SABR doses of 54-60 Gy in 3-8 fractions. All follow-up scans were assessed and the treated lesion was serially measured over time, with the maximum diameter on axial CT slices used for RECIST calculations. Lesions demonstrating PD by RECIST criteria were identified and subsequently followed for long-term outcomes. The final 'gold-standard' assessment of response was based on size changes after PD and, as available, positron emission tomography scan and/or biopsy.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight lesions met inclusion criteria. Seventy-five were lung primaries and thirteen were lung metastases. Median follow-up was 52 months (interquartile range: 33-68). Two-thirds (66 %, 58/88) of treated lesions met RECIST criteria for PD; however, local recurrence was only confirmed in 16 % (9/58) of cases. Most lesions that triggered PD by RECIST (47/58, 81 %) were ultimately found not to represent recurrence, while a minority (2/58, 3 %) had an uncertain response. The positive predictive value [PPV] of a RECIST defined PD event was 0.16. If PD was triggered within 12-months post-treatment, PPV was 0.08, compared to 0.21 for lesions triggering PD after 12-months.

CONCLUSION

Using RECIST criteria, two-thirds of patients treated with lung SABR met criteria for PD. However, only a minority had recurrence, leading to a poor PPV of RECIST. This highlights the limitations of RECIST in this setting and provides context for physicians when interpreting post-lung SABR imaging.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy before resection to avoid delay for early-stage lung cancer or oligometastases during the COVID-19 pandemic: Pathologic outcomes from the SABR-BRIDGE protocol

BACKGROUND

During coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related operating room closures, some multidisciplinary thoracic oncology teams adopted a paradigm of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as a bridge to surgery, an approach called SABR-BRIDGE. This study presents the preliminary surgical and pathological results.

METHODS

Eligible participants from four institutions (three in Canada and one in the United States) had early-stage presumed or biopsy-proven lung malignancy that would normally be surgically resected. SABR was delivered using standard institutional guidelines, with surgery >3 months following SABR with standardized pathologic assessment. Pathological complete response (pCR) was defined as absence of viable cancer. Major pathologic response (MPR) was defined as ≤10% viable tissue.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients underwent SABR. Most common SABR regimens were 34 Gy/1 (29%, n = 21), 48 Gy/3-4 (26%, n = 19), and 50/55 Gy/5 (22%, n = 16). SABR was well-tolerated, with one grade 5 toxicity (death 10 days after SABR with COVID-19) and five grade 2-3 toxicities. Following SABR, 26 patients underwent resection thus far (13 pending surgery). Median time-to-surgery was 4.5 months post-SABR (range, 2-17.5 months). Surgery was reported as being more difficult because of SABR in 38% (n = 10) of cases. Thirteen patients (50%) had pCR and 19 (73%) had MPR. Rates of pCR trended higher in patients operated on at earlier time points (75% if within 3 months, 50% if 3-6 months, and 33% if ≥6 months; p = .069). In the exploratory best-case scenario analysis, pCR rate does not exceed 82%.

CONCLUSIONS

The SABR-BRIDGE approach allowed for delivery of treatment during a period of operating room closure and was well-tolerated. Even in the best-case scenario, pCR rate does not exceed 82%.

Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy with or Without Docetaxel for Localized High-risk Prostate Cancer: Long-term Follow-up from the Randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 Trial

BACKGROUND

Intensification of therapy may improve outcomes for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To provide long-term follow-up data from phase III RTOG 0521, which compared a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + docetaxel with ADT + EBRT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

High-risk localized prostate cancer patients (>50% of patients had Gleason 9-10 disease) were prospectively randomized to 2 yr of ADT + EBRT or ADT + EBRT + six cycles of docetaxel. A total of 612 patients were accrued, and 563 were eligible and included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed as prespecified in the protocol; however, there was evidence of nonproportional hazards. Thus, a post hoc analysis was performed using the restricted mean survival time (RMST). The secondary endpoints included biochemical failure, distant metastasis (DM) as detected by conventional imaging, and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

After 10.4 yr of median follow-up among survivors, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.89 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.14; one-sided log-rank p = 0.22). Survival at 10 yr was 64% for ADT + EBRT and 69% for ADT + EBRT + docetaxel. The RMST at 12 yr was 0.45 yr and not statistically significant (one-sided p = 0.053). No differences were detected in the incidence of DFS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), DM (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), or prostate-specific antigen recurrence risk (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.74-1.29). Two patients had grade 5 toxicity in the chemotherapy arm and zero patients in the control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

After a median follow-up of 10.4 yr among surviving patients, no significant differences are observed in clinical outcomes between the experimental and control arms. These data suggest that docetaxel should not be used for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Additional research may be warranted using novel predictive biomarkers.

PATIENT SUMMARY

No significant differences in survival were noted after long-term follow-up for high-risk localized prostate cancer patients in a large prospective trial where patients were treated with androgen deprivation therapy + radiation to the prostate ± docetaxel.

Ensuring Superior Reporting of Radiation Therapy Noninferiority Trials: A Systematic Review

Purpose

Although the frequency of noninferiority trials is increasing, the consistency of the reporting of these trials can vary. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the reporting quality of radiation therapy noninferiority trials.

Methods and Materials

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried for randomized controlled radiation therapy trials with noninferiority hypotheses published in English between January 2000 and July 2022, and this was performed by an information scientist. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.

Results

Of 423 records screened, 59 (14%) were included after full-text review. All were published after 2003 and open label. The most common primary cancer type was breast (n = 15, 25%). Altered radiation fractionation (n = 26, 45%) and radiation de-escalation (n = 11, 19%) were the most common types of interventions. The most common primary endpoints were locoregional control (n = 17, 29%) and progression-free survival (n = 14, 24%). Fifty-three (90%) reported the noninferiority margin, and only 9 (17%) provided statistical justification for the margin. The median absolute noninferiority margin was 9% (interquartile range, 5%-10%), and the median relative margin was 1.51 (interquartile range, 1.33-2.04). Sample size calculations and confidence intervals were reported in 54 studies (92%). Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were reported in 27 studies (46%). In 31 trials (53%), noninferiority of the primary endpoint was reached.

Conclusions

There was variability in the reporting of key components of noninferiority trials. We encourage consideration of additional statistical reasoning such as guidelines or previous trials in the selection of the noninferiority margin, reporting both absolute and relative margins, and the avoidance of statistically vague or misleading language in the reporting of future noninferiority trials.

Planning for the impact of XX trial on spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) utilization at a tertiary cancer centre

Purpose

The goal of this study was to assess the potential real-world effect of the recently reported SC.24 trial on spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) utilization. We estimated the proportion of patients treated with conventional radiation therapy (CRT) who would have been eligible for spine SBRT per trial inclusion criteria and analyzed the potential estimated increased costs to our institution.

Methods and Materials

This was a retrospective review of patients who received spine CRT at our institution between August and October 2020. Data abstracted included demographics, SC.24 eligibility criteria, provider-reported pain response, and survival. A cost analysis and time survey was performed using institutional and provincial data.

Results

Of 73 patients reviewed, 24 patients (33%) were eligible. The most common exclusion factors included irradiation of ≥3 consecutive spinal segments (n = 32, 44%), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >2 (n = 17, 23%), and symptomatic spinal cord compression (n = 13, 18%). Of eligible patients, the mean age was 68.92 years, median spinal instability in neoplasia score was 8 (interquartile range, 7-9), and median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 2 (interquartile range, 1-2). The most common primary cancer types among eligible patients were lung (n = 10) and breast (n = 4). The median survival of eligible patients was 10 months (95% confidence interval, 4 months to not reached) with 58% surviving longer than 3 months. Of patients who had subjective pain documented after CRT, 54% had at least some response. The cost of spine SBRT was estimated at CA$4764.80 compared with $3589.10 for CRT, and tasks for spine SBRT took roughly 3 times as long as those for CRT.

Conclusions

One-third of patients who received palliative spine CRT met eligibility criteria for SC.24. This possible expanded indication for spine SBRT can have a substantial effect on resource utilization. These data may be useful in guiding resource planning at institutions looking to commence a spine SBRT program.

Circulating tumor cells detected in follow-up predict survival outcomes in tri-modality management of advanced non-metastatic esophageal cancer: a secondary analysis of the QUINTETT randomized trial

Background

Our aim was to establish if presence of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) predicted worse outcome in patients with non-metastatic esophageal cancer undergoing tri-modality therapy.

Methods

We prospectively collected CTC data from patients with operable non-metastatic esophageal cancer from April 2009 to November 2016 enrolled in our QUINTETT esophageal cancer randomized trial (NCT00907543). Patients were randomized to receive either neoadjuvant cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus radiotherapy followed by surgical resection (Neoadjuvant) or adjuvant cisplatin, 5-FU, and epirubicin chemotherapy with concurrent extended volume radiotherapy following surgical resection (Adjuvant). CTCs were identified with the CellSearch® system before the initiation of any treatment (surgery or chemoradiotherapy) as well as at 6-, 12-, and 24-months post-treatment. The threshold for CTC positivity was one and the findings were correlated with patient prognosis.

Results

CTC data were available for 74 of 96 patients and identified in 27 patients (36.5%) at a median follow-up of 13.1months (interquartile range:6.8-24.1 months). Detection of CTCs at any follow-up visit was significantly predictive of worse disease-free survival (DFS;hazard ratio [HR]: 2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-4.24; p=0.002), regional control (HR: 6.18; 95% CI: 1.18-32.35; p=0.031), distant control (HR: 2.93; 95% CI: 1.52-5.65;p=0.001) and overall survival (OS;HR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.16-3.51; p=0.013). After adjusting for receiving neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the presence of CTCs at any follow-up visit remained significantly predictive of worse OS ([HR]:2.02;95% [Cl]:1.16-3.51; p=0.013) and DFS (HR: 2.49;95% Cl: 1.43-4.33; p=0.001). Similarly, any observed increase in CTCs was significantly predictive of worse OS (HR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.56-6.34; p=0.001) and DFS (HR: 3.34; 95% CI: 1.67-6.69; p<0.001).

Conclusion

The presence of CTCs in patients during follow-up after tri-modality therapy was associated with significantly poorer DFS and OS regardless of timing of chemoradiotherapy.

The quality of life in neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapy of esophageal cancer treatment trial (QUINTETT): Randomized parallel clinical superiority trial

Background

We compared the health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients undergoing trimodality therapy for resectable stage I‐III esophageal cancer.

Methods

A total of 96 patients were randomized to standard neoadjuvant cisplatin and 5‐fluorouracil chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (neoadjuvant) followed by surgical resection or adjuvant cisplatin, 5‐fluorouracil, and epirubicin chemotherapy with concurrent extended volume radiotherapy (adjuvant) following surgical resection.

Results

There was no significant difference in the functional assessment of cancer therapy‐esophageal (FACT‐E) total scores between arms at 1 year (p = 0.759) with 36% versus 41% (neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant), respectively, showing an increase of ≥15 points compared to pre‐treatment (p = 0.638). The HRQOL was significantly inferior at 2 months in the neoadjuvant arm for FACT‐E, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ‐OG25), and EuroQol 5‐D‐3 L in the dysphagia, reflux, pain, taste, and coughing domains (p < 0.05). Half of patients were able to complete the prescribed neoadjuvant arm chemotherapy without modification compared to only 14% in the adjuvant arm (p < 0.001). Chemotherapy related adverse events of grade ≥2 occurred significantly more frequently in the neoadjuvant arm (100% vs. 69%, p < 0.001). Surgery related adverse events of grade ≥2 were similar in both arms (72% vs. 86%, p = 0.107). There were no 30‐day mortalities and 2% vs. 10% 90‐day mortalities (p = 0.204). There were no significant differences in either overall survival (OS) (5‐year: 35% vs. 32%, p = 0.409) or disease‐free survival (DFS) (5‐year: 31% vs. 30%, p = 0.710).

Conclusion

Trimodality therapy is challenging for patients with resectable esophageal cancer regardless of whether it is given before or after surgery. Newer and less toxic protocols are needed.

The addition of androgen deprivation therapy and pelvic lymph node treatment to prostate bed salvage radiotherapy (NRG Oncology/RTOG 0534 SPPORT): an international, multicentre, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In men with a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after prostatectomy for prostate cancer, salvage prostate bed radiotherapy (PBRT) results in about 70% of patients being free of progression at 5 years. A three-group randomised trial was designed to determine whether incremental gains in patient outcomes can be achieved by adding either 4-6 months of short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to PBRT, or both short-term ADT and pelvic lymph node radiotherapy (PLNRT) to PBRT.

METHODS

The international, multicentre, randomised, controlled SPPORT trial was done at 283 radiation oncology cancer treatment centres in the USA, Canada, and Israel. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) were those who after prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate had a persistently detectable or an initially undetectable and rising PSA of between 0·1 and 2·0 ng/mL. Patients with and without lymphadenectomy (N0/Nx) were eligible if there was no clinical or pathological evidence of lymph node involvement. Other eligibility criteria included pT2 or pT3 disease, prostatectomy Gleason score of 9 or less, and a Zubrod performance status of 0-1. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive PBRT alone at a dose of 64·8-70·2 Gy at 1·8 Gy per fraction daily (group 1), PBRT plus short-term ADT (group 2), or PLNRT (45 Gy at 1·8 Gy per fraction, and then a volume reduction made to the planning target volume for the remaining 19·8-25 ·2 Gy) plus PBRT plus short-term ADT (group 3). The primary endpoint was freedom from progression, in which progression was defined as biochemical failure according to the Phoenix definition (PSA ≥2 ng/mL over the nadir PSA), clinical failure (local, regional, or distant), or death from any cause. A planned interim analysis of 1191 patents with minimum potential follow-up time of 5 years applied a Haybittle-Peto boundary of p<0·001 (one sided) for comparison of 5-year freedom from progression rates between the treatment groups. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00567580. The primary objectives of the trial have been completed, although long-term follow-up is continuing.

FINDINGS

Between March 31, 2008, and March 30, 2015, 1792 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the three treatment groups (592 to group 1 [PBRT alone], 602 to group 2 [PBRT plus short-term ADT], and 598 to group 3 [PLNRT plus PBRT plus short-term ADT]). 76 patients subsequently found to be ineligible were excluded from the analyses; thus, the evaluable patient population comprised 1716 patients. At the interim analysis (n=1191 patients; data cutoff May 23, 2018), the Haybittle-Peto boundary for 5-year freedom from progression was exceeded when group 1 was compared with group 3 (difference 17·9%, SE 2·9%; p<0·0001). The difference between groups 2 and 3 did not exceed the boundary (p=0·0063). With additional follow-up beyond the interim analysis (the final planned analysis; data cutoff May 26, 2021), at a median follow-up among survivors of 8·2 years (IQR 6·6-9·4), the 5-year freedom from progression rates in all 1716 eligible patients were 70·9% (95% CI 67·0-74·9) in group 1, 81·3% (78·0-84·6) in group 2, and 87·4% (84·7-90·2) in group 3. Per protocol criteria, freedom from progression in group 3 was superior to groups 1 and 2. Acute (≤3 months after radiotherapy) grade 2 or worse adverse events were significantly more common in group 3 (246 [44%] of 563 patients) than in group 2 (201 [36%] of 563; p=0·0034), which, in turn, were more common than in group 1 (98 [18%] of 547; p<0·0001). Similar findings were observed for grade 3 or worse adverse events. However, late toxicity (>3 months after radiotherapy) did not differ significantly between the groups, apart from more late grade 2 or worse blood or bone marrow events in group 3 versus group 2 (one-sided p=0·0060) attributable to the addition of PLNRT in this group.

INTERPRETATION

The results of this randomised trial establish the benefit of adding short-term ADT to PBRT to prevent progression in prostate cancer. To our knowledge, these are the first such findings to show that extending salvage radiotherapy to treat the pelvic lymph nodes when combined with short-term ADT results in meaningful reductions in progression after prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute.

Palliative Radiation for Advanced Central Lung Tumors With Intentional Avoidance of the Esophagus (PROACTIVE): A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Question

Can modern radiation techniques reduce the risk of radiation-associated esophageal adverse effects in patients with advanced lung cancer?

Findings

In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial of esophageal-sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ES-IMRT) or standard palliative radiotherapy for 90 patients with stage III/IV incurable non–small cell lung cancer, ES-IMRT significantly reduced symptomatic esophagitis (24% [n = 11] vs 2% [n = 1]), but did not significantly improve esophageal-related quality of life.

Meaning

In this trial, the use of ES-IMRT did not definitively improve esophageal quality of life but reduced symptomatic esophagitis in patients with advanced lung cancer who were receiving palliative thoracic radiotherapy; this technique holds merit for translation into clinical practice.

Importance

Palliative thoracic radiotherapy (RT) can alleviate local symptoms associated with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but esophagitis is a common treatment-related adverse event. Whether esophageal-sparing intensity-modulated RT (ES-IMRT) achieves a clinically relevant reduction in esophageal symptoms remains unclear.

Objective

To examine whether ES-IMRT achieves a clinically relevant reduction in esophageal symptoms compared with standard RT.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Palliative Radiation for Advanced Central Lung Tumors With Intentional Avoidance of the Esophagus (PROACTIVE) is a multicenter phase 3 randomized clinical trial that enrolled patients between June 24, 2016, and March 6, 2019. Data analysis was conducted from January 23, 2020, to October 22, 2021. Patients had up to 1 year of follow-up. Ninety patients at 6 tertiary academic cancer centers who had stage III/IV NSCLC and were eligible for palliative thoracic RT (20 Gy in 5 fractions or 30 Gy in 10 fractions) were included.

Interventions

Patients were randomized (1:1) to standard RT (control arm) or ES-IMRT. Target coverage was compromised to ensure the maximum esophagus dose was no more than 80% of the RT prescription dose.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was esophageal quality of life (QOL) 2 weeks post-RT, measured by the esophageal cancer subscale (ECS) of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: Esophagus questionnaire. Higher esophageal cancer subscale scores correspond with improved QOL, with a 2- to 3-point change considered clinically meaningful. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, toxic events, and other QOL metrics. Intention-to-treat analysis was used.

Results

Between June 24, 2016, and March 6, 2019, 90 patients were randomized to standard RT or ES-IMRT (median age at randomization, 72.0 years [IQR, 65.6-80.3]; 50 [56%] were female). Thirty-six patients (40%) received 20 Gy and 54 (60%) received 30 Gy. For the primary end point, the mean (SD) 2-week ECS score was 50.5 (10.2) in the control arm (95% CI, 47.2-53.8) and 54.3 (7.6) in the ES-IMRT arm (95% CI, 51.9-56.7) (P = .06). Symptomatic RT-associated esophagitis occurred in 24% (n = 11) of patients in the control arm vs 2% (n = 1) in the ES-IMRT arm (P = .002). In a post hoc subgroup analysis based on the stratification factor, reduction in esophagitis was most evident in patients receiving 30 Gy (30% [n = 8] vs 0%; P = .004). Overall survival was similar with standard RT (median, 8.6; 95% CI, 5.7-15.6 months) and ES-IMRT (median, 8.7; 95% CI, 5.1-10.2 months) (P = .62).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, ES-IMRT did not significantly improve esophageal QOL but significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic esophagitis. Because post hoc analysis found that reduced esophagitis was most evident in patients receiving 30 Gy of RT, these findings suggest that ES-IMRT may be most beneficial when the prescription dose is higher (30 Gy).

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02752126

American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Radiation Therapy in Oligometastatic or Oligoprogressive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Recent randomized studies have suggested improvements in progression-free and overall survival with the addition of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT, also known as SABR) in patients with oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Given the novelty and complexity of incorporating SBRT in the oligometastatic setting, the multidisciplinary American Radium Society Lung Cancer Panel was assigned to create appropriate use criteria on SBRT as part of consolidative local therapy for patients with oligometastatic and oligoprogressive non-small cell lung cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A review of the current literature was conducted from January 1, 2008, to December 25, 2020, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to systematically search the PubMed database to retrieve a comprehensive set of relevant articles.

RESULTS

Based on representation in existing randomized trials, the panel defined the term "oligometastasis" as ≤3 metastatic deposits (not including the primary tumor) in the previously untreated setting or after first-line systemic therapy after the initial diagnosis. "Oligoprogression" also referred to ≤3 discrete areas of progression in the setting of prior or ongoing receipt of systemic therapy. In all appropriate patients, the panel strongly recommends enrollment in a clinical trial whenever available. For oligometastatic disease, administering first-line systemic therapy followed by consolidative radiation therapy (to all sites plus the primary/nodal disease) is preferred over up-front radiation therapy. Owing to a dearth of data, the panel recommended that consolidative radiation therapy be considered on a case-by-case basis for 4 to 5 sites of oligometastatic disease, driver mutation-positive oligometastatic disease without progression on up-front targeted therapy, and oligoprogressive cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Although SBRT/SABR appears to be both safe and effective in treating patients with limited metastatic sites of disease, many clinical circumstances require individualized management and strong multidisciplinary discussion on account of the limited existing data.

Predicting pathological complete response (pCR) after stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) of lung cancer using quantitative dynamic [18F]FDG PET and CT perfusion: a prospective exploratory clinical study

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) is effective in treating inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but imaging assessment of response after SABR is difficult. This prospective study aimed to develop a predictive model for true pathologic complete response (pCR) to SABR using imaging-based biomarkers from dynamic [¹⁸F]FDG-PET and CT Perfusion (CTP).

METHODS

Twenty-six patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with SABR followed by surgical resection were included, as a pre-specified secondary analysis of a larger study. Dynamic [¹⁸F]FDG-PET and CTP were performed pre-SABR and 8-week post. Dynamic [¹⁸F]FDG-PET provided maximum and mean standardized uptake value (SUV) and kinetic parameters estimated using a previously developed flow-modified two-tissue compartment model while CTP measured blood flow, blood volume and vessel permeability surface product. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to establish a predictive model with the measured PET and CTP imaging biomarkers for predicting pCR. The model was compared to current RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1) and PERCIST (PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.0) criteria.

RESULTS

RPA identified three response groups based on tumour blood volume before SABR (BV_pre-SABR) and change in SUV_max (ΔSUV_max), the thresholds being BV_pre-SABR = 9.3 mL/100 g and ΔSUV_max = - 48.9%. The highest true pCR rate of 92% was observed in the group with BV_pre-SABR < 9.3 mL/100 g and ΔSUV_max < - 48.9% after SABR while the worst was observed in the group with BV_pre-SABR ≥ 9.3 mL/100 g (0%). RPA model achieved excellent pCR prediction (Concordance: 0.92; P = 0.03). RECIST and PERCIST showed poor pCR prediction (Concordance: 0.54 and 0.58, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we developed a predictive model based on dynamic [¹⁸F]FDG-PET and CT Perfusion imaging that was significantly better than RECIST and PERCIST criteria to predict pCR of NSCLC to SABR. The model used BV_pre-SABR and ΔSUV_max which correlates to tumour microvessel density and cell proliferation, respectively and warrants validation with larger sample size studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

MISSILE-NSCLC, NCT02136355 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Registered May 8, 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02136355.

American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria: Radiation Therapy for Limited-Stage SCLC 2020

INTRODUCTION

Combined modality therapy with concurrent chemotherapy and radiation has long been the standard of care for limited-stage SCLC (LS-SCLC). However, there is controversy over best combined modality practices for LS-SCLC. To address these controversies, the American Radium Society (ARS) Thoracic Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) Committee have developed updated consensus guidelines for the treatment of LS-SCLC.

METHODS

The ARS AUC are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guidelines include a review and analysis of current evidence with application of consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of treatments recommended by the panel for LS-SCLC. Agreement or consensus was defined as less than or equal to 3 rating points from the panel median. The consensus ratings and recommendations were then vetted by the ARS Executive Committee and subject to public comment before finalization.

RESULTS

The ARS Thoracic AUC committee developed multiple consensus recommendations for LS-SCLC. There was strong consensus that patients with unresectable LS-SCLC should receive concurrent chemotherapy with radiation delivered either once or twice daily. For medically inoperable T1-T2N0 LS-SCLC, either concurrent chemoradiation or stereotactic body radiation followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is a reasonable treatment option. The panel continues to recommend whole-brain prophylactic cranial irradiation after response to chemoradiation for LS-SCLC. There was panel agreement that prophylactic cranial irradiation with hippocampal avoidance and programmed cell death protein-1/programmed death-ligand 1-directed immune therapy should not be routinely administered outside the context of clinical trials at this time.

CONCLUSIONS

The ARS Thoracic AUC Committee provide consensus recommendations for LS-SCLC that aim to provide a groundwork for multidisciplinary care and clinical trials.

Is hypofractionated whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) as well tolerated as conventionally fractionated WPRT in prostate cancer patients? The HOPE trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with high-risk prostate cancer are at increased risk of lymph node metastasis and are thought to benefit from whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT). There has been recent interest in the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy in treating prostate cancer. However, toxicity and cancer outcomes associated with hypofractionated WPRT are unclear at this time. This phase II study aims to investigate the impact in quality of life associated with hypofractionated WPRT compared to conventionally fractionated WPRT.

METHODS

Fifty-eight patients with unfavourable intermediate-, high- or very high-risk prostate cancer will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio between high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) + conventionally fractionated (45 Gy in 25 fractions) WPRT vs. HDR-BT + hypofractionated (25 Gy in 5 fractions) WPRT. Randomization will be performed with a permuted block design without stratification. The primary endpoint is late bowel toxicity and the secondary endpoints include acute and late urinary and sexual toxicity, acute bowel toxicity, biochemical failure-, androgen deprivation therapy-, metastasis- and prostate cancer-free survival of the hypofractionated arm compared to the conventionally fractionated arm.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare hypofractionated WPRT to conventionally fractionated WPRT with HDR-BT boost. Hypofractionated WPRT is a more attractive and convenient treatment approach, and may become the new standard of care if demonstrated to be well-tolerated and effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04197141 on December 12, 2019.

American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria on Radiation Therapy for Extensive-Stage SCLC

INTRODUCTION

The standard-of-care therapy for extensive-stage SCLC has recently changed with the results of two large randomized trials revealing improved survival with the addition of immunotherapy to first-line platinum or etoposide chemotherapy. This has led to a lack of clarity around the role of consolidative thoracic radiation and prophylactic cranial irradiation in the setting of chemoimmunotherapy.

METHODS

The American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guidelines include a review and analysis of current evidence with the application of consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of treatments recommended by the panel for extensive-stage SCLC.

RESULTS

Current evidence supports either prophylactic cranial irradiation or surveillance with magnetic resonance imaging every 3 months for patients without evidence of brain metastases. Patients with brain metastases should receive whole-brain radiation with a recommended dose of 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Consolidative thoracic radiation can be considered in selected cases with the recommended dose ranging from 30 to 54 Gy; this recommendation was driven by expert opinion owing to the limited strength of evidence, as clinical trials addressing this question remain ongoing.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation therapy remains an integral component in the treatment paradigm for ES-SCLC.

A review of ongoing trials of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for oligometastatic disease in the context of new consensus definitions

The characterization and treatment of oligometastatic disease (OMD) are rapidly growing areas of research. Consensus statements have recently been developed by European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)/American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and ESTRO/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) in an effort to harmonize terminology describing OMD. The purpose of this study was to assess patient populations eligible for ongoing clinical trials evaluating stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in OMD in the context of key definitions from both statements. Using the clinicaltrials.gov database, a search of ongoing OMD clinical trials evaluating the use of SABR was performed from inception to January 2020, using the keywords "oligometastasis", "stereotactic radiotherapy", and related terms. Results were independently reviewed by two investigators, with discrepancies settled by a third. Information from these trials including study design, population criteria, and primary endpoints were extracted. OMD was defined in general as a limited number of metastases that could be safely treated with metastasis-directed therapy. States of OMD were broadly categorized into de novo, repeat, and induced, with synchronous and metachronous being subsets of de novo. The initial search strategy identified 293 trials, of which 85 met our eligibility criteria. Phase II trials were by far the most common (n=46, 52%). Most trials had a single treatment arm (n=43, 51%), and 31 (36%) were randomized. The majority of trials (n=65, 76%) had populations that included all three subsets of OMD. Notably, 70 trials (82%) also included oligoprogressive disease, which is debatably a distinct entity from OMD. Progression-free survival was the most common primary endpoint (n=31, 36%), followed by local control (n=17, 20%), toxicity (n=14, 16%) and overall survival (n=7, 8%). Although the use of SABR for OMD is an active area of prospective clinical trial research, ongoing studies include mixed populations as defined by new consensus statements. Therefore, the applicability of results from these trials should be considered within relevant OMD scenarios.

Does ADT benefit unfavourable intermediate risk prostate cancer patients treated with brachytherapy boost and external beam radiotherapy? A propensity-score matched analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the role of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in unfavorable intermediate risk (UIR) prostate cancer patients treated with high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) boost.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from 326 consecutive NCCN UIR prostate cancer patients treated in a single institution from 2009 to 2016 with 15 Gy HDR-BT boost plus 37.5 Gy external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in 15 fractions to prostate and proximal seminal vesicles were retrospectively collected. Baseline information was collected and patients receiving vs. not receiving ADT were matched using a propensity-score model. Primary endpoint was biochemical-failure-free survival (BFFS). Kaplan-Meier estimates and stratified log-rank tests (adjusting for matched design) were used to compare BFFS, castration-resistance (CRFS) and metastasis free survival (MFS) outcomes between both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 326 patients were included in the analysis of which 52 ADT patients were matched to 104 non-ADT patients in a 1:2 ratio. Median follow-up was 3.4 years and 5.5 years for ADT and non-ADT respectively. No significant baseline differences were observed. ADT was used for a median total time of 6 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 4-6) and delivered a median time of 2.7 months (IQR: 1.7-4.3) prior to HDR-BT. BFFS was significantly improved in the ADT group (stratified log-rank: p = 0.043) with 3-year and 6-year BFFS of 98% and 90% for the ADT group and 92% and 82% for the non-ADT group, respectively. No significant differences were detected for CRFS or MFS.

CONCLUSION

Short-term ADT increased BFFS in UIR prostate cancer patients treated with HDR-BT boost plus EBRT.

Are Female Radiation Oncologists Still Underrepresented in the Published Literature? An Analysis of Authorship Trends During the Past Decade

Purpose

We examined whether female authorship, traditionally underrepresented in the radiation oncology (RO) literature, has improved during the past decade, and whether the introduction of double-blind peer review (where reviewers are blinded to author names and vice-versa) improved female authorship rates.

Methods

We analyzed authorship lists during a 10-year period (2007-2016) from the 2 highest impact-factor RO journals: The International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (IJROBP) and Radiotherapy and Oncology (R&O). From each journal, 20 articles per year were randomly selected. Gender trends of the first, second, last, and collaborating authors (defined as all other positions), were analyzed. A one-sample proportion test was used to compare US female senior authorship (2012-2016) with the 2015 benchmark for female US academic radiation oncologists (30.6%).

Results

Across 400 articles, the mean ± standard deviation percentage of female authors was 30.9% ± 22.0% with 34.8% of first, 36.7% of second, and 25.4% of last authors being female. The total percentage of female authors per year increased from 2007 to 2016 (P = .005), with no significant increase in the percentage of first (P = .250), second (P = .063), or last (P = .213) female authors. Double-blind peer review was associated with an increase in the mean percentage of female authors (2007-2011: 27.4% vs 2012-2016: 34.0%; P = .012). The proportion of US female senior authors in the latter period (27.6%) and the proportion of female US academic radiation oncologists (30.6%) were not significantly different (P = .570).

Conclusions

Although the percentage of female authors in RO has increased during the past decade, this did not correspond to a higher representation of women in high-profile authorship positions. Introduction of double-blind peer review was associated with a rise in female authorship. The proportion of female US senior authors and academic radiation oncologists is similar, suggesting that senior authorship rates are approaching appropriate levels in the United States.

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastatic Cancers: Long-Term Results of the SABR-COMET Phase II Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

The oligometastatic paradigm hypothesizes that patients with a limited number of metastases may achieve long-term disease control, or even cure, if all sites of disease can be ablated. However, long-term randomized data that test this paradigm are lacking.

METHODS

< .20 indicates a positive trial). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). Herein, we present long-term outcomes from the trial.

RESULTS

= .001). There were no new grade 2-5 adverse events and no differences in QOL between arms.

CONCLUSION

With extended follow-up, the impact of SABR on OS was larger in magnitude than in the initial analysis and durable over time. There were no new safety signals, and SABR had no detrimental impact on QOL.

Practice recommendations for lung cancer radiotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: An ESTRO-ASTRO consensus statement

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused radiotherapy resource pressures and led to increased risks for lung cancer patients and healthcare staff. An international group of experts in lung cancer radiotherapy established this practice recommendation pertaining to whether and how to adapt radiotherapy for lung cancer in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

For this ESTRO & ASTRO endorsed project, 32 experts in lung cancer radiotherapy contributed to a modified Delphi consensus process. We assessed potential adaptations of radiotherapy in two pandemic scenarios. The first, an early pandemic scenario of risk mitigation, is characterized by an altered risk–benefit ratio of radiotherapy for lung cancer patients due to their increased susceptibility for severe COVID-19 infection, and minimization of patient travelling and exposure of radiotherapy staff. The second, a later pandemic scenario, is characterized by reduced radiotherapy resources requiring patient triage. Six common lung cancer cases were assessed for both scenarios: peripherally located stage I NSCLC, locally advanced NSCLC, postoperative radiotherapy after resection of pN2 NSCLC, thoracic radiotherapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation for limited stage SCLC and palliative thoracic radiotherapy for stage IV NSCLC.

Results

In a risk-mitigation pandemic scenario, efforts should be made not to compromise the prognosis of lung cancer patients by departing from guideline-recommended radiotherapy practice. In that same scenario, postponement or interruption of radiotherapy treatment of COVID-19 positive patients is generally recommended to avoid exposure of cancer patients and staff to an increased risk of COVID-19 infection. In a severe pandemic scenario characterized by reduced resources, if patients must be triaged, important factors for triage include potential for cure, relative benefit of radiation, life expectancy, and performance status. Case-specific consensus recommendations regarding multimodality treatment strategies and fractionation of radiotherapy are provided.

Conclusion

This joint ESTRO-ASTRO practice recommendation established pragmatic and balanced consensus recommendations in common clinical scenarios of radiotherapy for lung cancer in order to address the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Is lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy safe after pneumonectomy?-a systematic review

Patients treated with surgery for lung cancer are at risk of second primary lung cancers (SPLCs), which when localized, may be amenable to radical treatment. Treatment options, however, are limited due to reduced cardiopulmonary reserve and competing mortality risks. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of publications examining treatment planning considerations, clinical outcomes, and toxicity rates of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in patients who have previously undergone pneumonectomy. A systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using PubMed and EMBASE from inception to July 2018. Articles were limited to those published in the English language. Non-review articles with patients who received exclusively lung SABR post-pneumonectomy were included. Two reviewers independently performed abstract and full-text review, with discrepancies settled by a third reviewer. Of the 215 articles identified by the initial search, 6 articles comprising 53 patients who received lung SABR post-pneumonectomy met inclusion criteria. The mean age was 68, and most patients were male (73.7%). The mean time to pneumonectomy was 6.5 years. The mean biologically effective dose was 115 Gy, and the most common dose fractionation schemes were 54 Gy in 3 fractions, 48 Gy in 4 fractions, and 50 Gy in 5 fractions. The mean follow-up was 25.4 months. The mean 1-year overall survival and 2-year local control rates were 80.6% and 89.4%. Grade 3 or higher toxicity was reported in 13.2% of patients. SABR appears to be a safe and feasible option for SPLCs in patients with prior pneumonectomy. Multi-institutional and/or prospective studies would be helpful to determine the true risk and appropriateness of SABR in this high-risk patient population.

Measuring the Integration of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy Plus Surgery for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase 2 Clinical Trial

Importance

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a standard treatment option in patients with medically inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate after SABR is unknown. Neoadjuvant SABR in patients with cancer who are fit for resection has been hypothesized to improve local control and induce antitumor immune activity, potentially leading to better outcomes.

Objectives

To determine the pCR rate after SABR and to assess oncologic and toxicity outcomes after a combined approach of neoadjuvant SABR followed by surgery.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A phase 2, single-arm trial, with patient accrual from September 30, 2014, to August 15, 2017 (median follow-up, 19 months), was performed at a tertiary academic cancer center. Patients 18 years or older with T1T2N0M0 NSCLC and good performance status, with adequate pulmonary reserve to undergo surgical resection, were studied.

Interventions

Patients underwent neoadjuvant SABR using a risk-adapted fractionation scheme followed by surgery 10 weeks later.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The pCR rate as determined by hematoxylin-eosin staining.

Results

Forty patients (mean [SD] age, 68 [8] years; 23 [58%] female) were enrolled. Thirty-five patients underwent surgery and were evaluable for the primary end point. The pCR rate was 60% (95% CI, 44%-76%). The 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality rates were both 0%. Grade 3 or 4 toxic effects occurred in 7 patients (18%). In patients receiving surgery, 2-year overall survival was 77% (95% CI, 48%-91%), local control was 100% (95% CI, not defined), regional control was 53% (95% CI, 22%-76%), and distant control was 76% (95% CI, 45%-91%). Quality of life did not decline after treatment, with no significant changes in mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Lung-Trial Outcome Index score during the first year of follow-up.

Conclusions and Relevance

The pCR rate after SABR for early-stage NSCLC was 60%, lower than hypothesized. The combined approach had toxic effects comparable to series of surgery alone, and there was no perioperative mortality. Further studies are needed to evaluate this combined approach compared with surgical resection alone.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02136355.

Assessment of precision irradiation in early non-small cell lung cancer and interstitial lung disease (ASPIRE-ILD): study protocol for a phase II trial

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has become an established treatment option for medically-inoperable early-stage (Stage I-IIA) non-small cell lung cancer (ES-NSCLC). SABR is able to obtain high rates of local control with low rates of symptomatic toxicity in this patient population. However, in a subset of patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD), elevated rates of SABR-related toxicity and mortality have been described. The Assessment of Precision Irradiation in Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Interstitial Lung Disease (ASPIRE-ILD) study will conduct a thorough prospective evaluation of the clinical outcomes, toxicity, changes in diagnostic test parameters and patient-related outcomes following SABR for ES-NSCLC for patients with fibrotic ILD.

METHODS

ASPIRE-ILD is a single-arm Phase II prospective study. The accrual target is 39 adult patients with T1-2N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer with co-existing ILD who are not candidates for surgical excision. Pathological confirmation of diagnosis is strongly recommended but not strictly required. Enrolled patients will be stratified by ILD-related mortality risk. The starting SABR dose will be 50 Gy in 5 fractions every other day (biologically effective dose: 100 Gy10 or 217 Gy3), but the radiation dose can be de-escalated up to two times to 50 Gy in 10 fractions daily (75 Gy10 or 133 Gy3) and 45 Gy in 15 fractions daily (58 Gy10 or 90 Gy3). Dose de-escalation will occur if 2 or more of the first 7 patients in a cohort experiences grade 5 toxicity within 6 months of treatment. Similarly, dose de-escalation can also occur if 2 or more of the first 7 patients with a specific subtype of ILD experiences grade 5 toxicity within 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include toxicity (CTC-AE 4.0), progression-free survival, local control, patient-reported outcomes (cough severity and quality of life), rates of ILD exacerbation and changes in pulmonary function tests/high-resolution computed tomography findings post-SABR.

DISCUSSION

ASPIRE-ILD will be the first prospective study specifically designed to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of SABR for ES-NSCLC in patients with co-existing ILD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03485378. Date of registration: April 2, 2018.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of 4-10 oligometastatic tumors (SABR-COMET-10): study protocol for a randomized phase III trial

Background

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. SABR delivers precise, high-dose, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and achieves excellent rates of local control for primary tumors or metastases. A recent randomized phase II trial evaluated SABR in a group of patients with a small burden of oligometastatic disease (mostly with 1–3 metastatic lesions), and found that SABR was associated with benefits in progression-free survival and overall survival. The goal of this phase III trial is to assess the impact of SABR in patients with 4–10 metastatic cancer lesions.

Methods

One hundred and fifty-nine patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between the control arm (consisting of standard of care palliative-intent treatments), and the SABR arm (consisting of standard of care treatment + SABR to all sites of known disease). Randomization will be stratified by two factors: histology (Group 1: prostate, breast, or renal; Group 2: all others), and type of pre-specified systemic therapy (Group 1: immunotherapy/targeted; Group 2: cytotoxic; Group 3: observation). SABR is to be completed within 2 weeks, allowing for rapid initiation of systemic therapy. Recommended SABR doses are 20 Gy in 1 fraction, 30 Gy in 3 fractions, or 35 Gy in 5 fractions, chosen to minimize risks of toxicity. The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, time to development of new metastatic lesions, quality of life, and toxicity. Translational endpoints include assessment of circulating tumor cells, cell-free DNA, and tumor tissue as prognostic and predictive markers, including assessment of immunological predictors of response and long-term survival.

Discussion

This study will provide an assessment of the impact of SABR on clinical outcomes and quality of life, to determine if long-term survival can be achieved for selected patients with 4–10 oligometastatic lesions.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03721341. Date of registration: October 26, 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5977-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Review of Ongoing Trials of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Oligometastatic Cancers: Where Will the Evidence Lead?

Purpose: The oligometastatic state is a proposed entity between localized cancer and widely metastatic disease, comprising an intermediate subset of metastatic cancer patients. Most data to support locally-directed treatment, such as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), for oligometastases are from retrospective institutional reports. Following the success of a recently completed and reported phase II trial demonstrating important clinical outcomes, herein we review the current landscape of ongoing clinical trials in this context. Materials and methods: A review of currently activated and registered clinical trials was performed using the clinicaltrials.gov database from inception to February 2019. A search of actively recruiting trials, using the key words oligometastases, SABR, and various related terms was performed. Search results were independently reviewed by two investigators, with discrepancies settled by a third. Data abstracted from identified studies included study type, primary disease site, oncologic endpoints, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Results: Of the initial 216 entries identified, 64 met our review eligibility criteria after full-text review. The most common study type was a phase II clinical trial (n = 35, 55%) with other study designs ranging from observational registry trials to phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A minority of trials were randomized in design (n = 17, 27%). While most studies allowed for metastases from multiple primary disease sites (n = 22, 34%), the most common was prostate (n = 13, 15%), followed by breast, gastrointestinal, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal (n = 6, 9% each). In studies with a solitary target site, the most common was liver (n = 6, 9%) followed by lung (n = 3, 5%). The most common primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) (n = 20, 31%) and toxicity (n = 10, 16%). A combined strategy of systemic therapy and SABR was an emerging theme (n = 23, 36%), with more recent studies specifically evaluating SABR and immunotherapy (n = 9, 14%). Conclusion: The safety and efficacy of SABR as oligometastasis-directed treatment is increasingly being evaluated within prospective clinical trials. These data are awaited to compliment the abundance of existing observational studies and to guide clinical decision-making.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard of care palliative treatment in patients with oligometastatic cancers (SABR-COMET): a randomised, phase 2, open-label trial

BACKGROUND

The oligometastatic paradigm suggests that some patients with a limited number of metastases might be cured if all lesions are eradicated. Evidence from randomised controlled trials to support this paradigm is scarce. We aimed to assess the effect of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) on survival, oncological outcomes, toxicity, and quality of life in patients with a controlled primary tumour and one to five oligometastatic lesions.

METHODS

This randomised, open-label phase 2 study was done at 10 hospitals in Canada, the Netherlands, Scotland, and Australia. Patients aged 18 or older with a controlled primary tumour and one to five metastatic lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0-1, and a life expectancy of at least 6 months were eligible. After stratifying by the number of metastases (1-3 vs 4-5), we randomly assigned patients (1:2) to receive either palliative standard of care treatments alone (control group), or standard of care plus SABR to all metastatic lesions (SABR group), using a computer-generated randomisation list with permuted blocks of nine. Neither patients nor physicians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We used a randomised phase 2 screening design with a two-sided α of 0·20 (wherein p<0·20 designates a positive trial). All analyses were intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01446744.

FINDINGS

99 patients were randomised between Feb 10, 2012, and Aug 30, 2016. Of 99 patients, 33 (33%) were assigned to the control group and 66 (67%) to the SABR group. Two (3%) patients in the SABR group did not receive allocated treatment and withdrew from the trial; two (6%) patients in the control group also withdrew from the trial. Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 19-54) in the control group versus 26 months (23-37) in the SABR group. Median overall survival was 28 months (95% CI 19-33) in the control group versus 41 months (26-not reached) in the SABR group (hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·30-1·10; p=0·090). Adverse events of grade 2 or worse occurred in three (9%) of 33 controls and 19 (29%) of 66 patients in the SABR group (p=0·026), an absolute increase of 20% (95% CI 5-34). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (4·5%) of 66 patients after SABR, compared with none in the control group.

INTERPRETATION

SABR was associated with an improvement in overall survival, meeting the primary endpoint of this trial, but three (4·5%) of 66 patients in the SABR group had treatment-related death. Phase 3 trials are needed to conclusively show an overall survival benefit, and to determine the maximum number of metastatic lesions wherein SABR provides a benefit.

FUNDING

Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and London Regional Cancer Program Catalyst Grant.

Effect of Chemotherapy With Docetaxel With Androgen Suppression and Radiotherapy for Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer: The Randomized Phase III NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 Trial

PURPOSE

Radiotherapy (RT) plus long-term androgen suppression (AS) are a standard treatment option for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. We hypothesized that docetaxel chemotherapy (CT) could improve overall survival (OS) and clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The multicenter randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 study enrolled patients with high-risk nonmetastatic disease between 2005 and 2009. Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard long-term AS plus RT with or without adjuvant CT.

RESULTS

A total of 612 patients were enrolled; 563 were evaluable. Median prostate-specific antigen was 15.1 ng/mL; 53% had a Gleason score 9 to 10 cancer; 27% had cT3 to cT4 disease. Median follow-up was 5.7 years. Treatment was well tolerated in both arms. Four-year OS rate was 89% (95% CI, 84% to 92%) for AS + RT and 93% (95% CI, 90% to 96%) for AS + RT + CT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 90% CI, 0.49 to 0.97; one-sided P = .034). There were 59 deaths in the AS + RT arm and 43 in the AS + RT + CT arm, with fewer deaths resulting from prostate cancer in the AS + RT + CT arm versus AS + RT (23 v 16 deaths, respectively). Six-year rate of distant metastasis was 14% for AS + RT and 9.1% for AS + RT + CT, (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99; two-sided P = .044). Six-year disease-free survival rate was 55% for AS + RT and 65% for AS + RT + CT (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.99; two-sided P = .043).

CONCLUSION

For patients with high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer, CT with docetaxel improved OS from 89% to 93% at 4 years, with improved disease-free survival and reduction in the rate of distant metastasis. The trial suggests that docetaxel CT may be an option to be discussed with selected men with high-risk prostate cancer.

Survival outcome differences based on treatments used and knowledge of the primary tumour site for patients with cancer of unknown and known primary in Ontario

Introduction

Patients with cancer of unknown primary (cup) have pathologically confirmed metastatic tumours with unidentifiable primary tumours. Currently, very little is known about the relationship between the treatment of patients with cup and their survival outcomes. Thus, we compared oncologic treatment and survival outcomes for patients in Ontario with cup against those for a cohort of patients with metastatic cancer of known primary site.

Methods

Using the Ontario Cancer Registry and the Same-Day Surgery and Discharge Abstract databases maintained by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, we identified all Ontario patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2005. Ontario Health Insurance Plan treatment records were linked to identify codes for surgery, chemotherapy, or therapeutic radiation related to oncology. Multivariable Cox regression models were constructed, adjusting for histology, age, sex, and comorbidities.

Results

In 45,347 patients (96.3%), the primary tumour site was identifiable, and in 1743 patients (3.7%), cup was diagnosed. Among the main tumour sites, cup ranked as the 6th largest. The mean Charlson score was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in patients with cup (1.88) than in those with a known primary (1.42). Overall median survival was 1.9 months for patients with cup compared with 11.9 months for all patients with a known-primary cancer. Receipt of treatment was more likely for patients with a known primary site (n= 35,012, 77.2%) than for those with cup (n = 891, 51.1%). Among patients with a known primary site, median survival was significantly higher for treated than for untreated patients (19.0 months vs. 2.2 months, p < 0.0001). Among patients with cup, median survival was also higher for treated than for untreated patients (3.6 months vs. 1.1 months, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

In Ontario, patients with cup experience significantly lower survival than do patients with metastatic cancer of a known primary site. Treatment is associated with significantly increased survival both for patients with cup and for those with metastatic cancer of a known primary site.

A population-based analysis of outcomes after radiotherapy in intensive care unit patients with lung cancer

Background

As the value of radiotherapy (RT) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with lung cancer is of uncertain efficacy, we evaluated characteristics, outcomes and RT utilization for such patients in Ontario, Canada.

Methods

Multiple administrative databases were linked deterministically using unique encoded identifiers to identify eligible patients between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2014. Differences in patient, treatment, institution and tumor characteristics between RT and non-RT groups at the level of episode of care were compared. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with differences compared using the log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard modeling were performed to assess the effect of RT on survival.

Results

RT was delivered in 133 episodes of care to 1.0% (n=131) of the 13,739 unique patients with lung cancer. RT delivery was associated with younger age (median 65 vs. 68, P<0.001), ventilation (79.8% vs. 38.2%, P<0.001) and longer ventilation duration (median 6 vs. 0 days, P<0.001). Pre-ICU disposition via transfer (35.3% vs. 9.7%) or the emergency room (ER) (28.6% vs. 21.9%) was more likely in the RT group (P<0.001). RT delivery varied, with half of the regions treating ≤5 patients each. ICU discharge was common in both RT (n=75, 56.4%) and non-RT (n=10,405, 71.4%) cohorts. One-year OS was poor in both groups, but most notably in the RT group (11.3% vs. 42.4%). RT was associated with inferior 1-year OS on unadjusted modeling (HR =1.99, P<0.001), with ventilation and pre-ICU disposition adjusting this finding towards the null on multivariable modeling (HR =1.17, P=0.095).

Conclusions

Major geographic disparities exist in the rare use of RT for lung cancer in the ICU. A significant proportion of patients receiving RT achieve discharge and a minority achieve prolonged survival, suggesting that RT use may not be futile.

A prospective phase I dose-escalation trial of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as an alternative to cytoreductive nephrectomy for inoperable patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Cytoreductive nephrectomy is thought to improve survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). As many patients are ineligible for major surgery, we hypothesized that SABR could be a safe alternative.

METHODS

In this dose-escalation trial, inoperable mRCC patients underwent SABR targeting the entire affected kidney. Toxicity (CTCAE v3.0), quality of life (QoL), renal function, and tumour response (RECIST v1.0) were assessed.

RESULTS

Twelve patients of mostly intermediate (67%) or poor (25%) International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic class, median KPS of 70%, and median tumour size of 8.7 cm (range: 4.8-13.8) were enrolled in successive dose cohorts of 25 (n = 3), 30 (n = 6), and 35 Gy (n = 3) in 5 fractions. SABR was well tolerated with 3 grade 3 events: fatigue (2) and bone pain (1). QoL decreased for physical well-being (p = 0.016), but remained unchanged in other domains. SABR achieved a median tumour size reduction of - 17.3% (range: + 5.3 to - 54.4) at 5.3 months. All patients progressed systemically and median OS was 6.7 months. Crude median follow-up was 5.8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In non-operable mRCC patients, renal-ablative SABR to 35 Gy in 5 fractions yielded acceptable toxicity, renal function preservation, and stable QoL. SABR merits further prospective investigation as an alternative to cytoreductive nephrectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02264548. Registered July 22 2014 - Retrospectively registered: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02264548.

Phase I study of concurrent and consolidation cisplatin and docetaxel chemotherapy with thoracic radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

Background

We designed a phase i study of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (ccrt) with docetaxel (D) and cisplatin (C), followed by consolidation dc, for unresectable stage iii non-small cell lung cancer (nsclc).

Methods

Patients with histologically proven and unresectable stage iii nsclc were eligible. During ccrt, C was given every 3 weeks (75 mg/m²) and D given weekly. The starting dose of D was 20 mg/m², escalated in cohorts of 3 to define the maximum tolerated dose (mtd). Radiotherapy was prescribed to a dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions. This was followed by 2 cycles of consolidation dc, which were dose escalated if ccrt was tolerated.

Results

Twenty-six patients were enrolled, with 1 excluded following evidence of metastatic disease. Nineteen patients completed both phases of treatment. There were 7 grade 3 events during ccrt (5 esophagitis, 2 nausea), and 8 grade 3 events during consolidation (2 neutropenia, 2 leukopenia, 1 esophagitis, 2 nausea, and 1 pneumonitis). Three patients had grade 4 neutropenia. No patients died due to toxicities. The mtd of concurrent weekly D was 20 mg/m². Consolidation D and C were each dose escalated to 75 mg/m² in 8 patients. The median overall survival (os) and progression-free survival (pfs) of all patients were 33.6 months and 17.2 months, respectively, with median follow-up of 26.6 months (range 0.43-110.8).

Conclusions

The use of docetaxel 20 mg/m² weekly and cisplatin 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks concurrent with thoracic radiotherapy, followed by consolidation docetaxel and cisplatin, both given at 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks, appears to be safe in this phase i trial.

Patient selection for thoracic radiotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

Treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer remains a challenge with poor local control and overall survival. Chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment, consisting of a combination of a platinum agent plus etoposide. The role of consolidative chest radiotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer remains controversial. Two randomized clinical trials have been published demonstrating improved intrathoracic disease control with a small survival benefit, though interpretation and application of these results to clinical practice has been debated. These two trials examined different radiotherapy techniques and doses, with a third trial treating consolidative chest and oligometastatic disease having closed prematurely due to an interim analysis demonstrating treatment futility plus increased toxicity. Patients with residual intrathoracic disease after chemotherapy appear to benefit the most from consolidative chest radiotherapy, offering a potential tool to help select appropriate patients.

Short report: interim safety results for a phase II trial measuring the integration of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) plus surgery for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (MISSILE-NSCLC)

Abstract

A phase II trial was launched to evaluate if neoadjuvant stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) before surgery improves oncologic outcomes in patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report a mandated interim safety analysis for the first 10 patients who completed protocol treatment. Operable patients with biopsy-proven T1-2 N0 NSCLC were eligible. SABR was delivered using a risk-adapted fractionation (54Gy/3 fractions, 55/5 or 60/8). Surgical resection was planned 10 weeks later at a high-volume center (>200 lung cancer resections annually). Patients were imaged with dynamic positron emission tomography-computed tomography scans using ¹⁸F-fludeoxyglucose (¹⁸F-FDG-PET CT) and dynamic contrast-enhanced CT before SABR and again before surgery. Toxicity was recorded using CTCAE version 4.0. Twelve patients were enrolled between 09/2014 and 09/2015. Two did not undergo surgery, due to patient or surgeon preference; neither patient has developed toxicity or recurrence. For the 10 patients completing both treatments, median age was 70 (range: 54–76), 60% had T1 disease, and 60% had adenocarcinoma. Median FEV₁ was 73% predicted (range: 54–87%). Median time to surgery post-SABR was 10.1 weeks (range: 9.3–15.6 weeks). Surgery consisted of lobectomy (n = 8) or wedge resection (n = 2). Median follow-up post-SABR was 6.3 months. After combined treatment, the rate of acute grade 3–4 toxicity was 10%. There was no post-operative mortality at 90 days. The small sample size included herein precludes any definitive conclusions regarding overall toxicity rates until larger datasets are available. However, these data may inform others who are designing or conducting similar trials.

Trial registration

NCT02136355. Registered 8 May 2014.

New Strategies in Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Oligometastases

Patients with metastatic solid tumors are usually treated with palliative intent. Systemic therapy and palliative radiation are often used, with the goals of prolonging survival or maintaining quality of life, but not of cure. In contrast to this paradigm, the theory of oligometastasis suggests that some patients who have a small number of metastases may be amenable to cure if all lesions can be eradicated. Aggressive treatment of patients with oligometastases, using either surgery or radiotherapy, has become more common in the past decade, yet in most situations, no randomized evidence is available to support such an approach. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a novel treatment for oligometastases, delivering large doses of radiotherapy in only a few treatments, with excellent rates of local control, and appears to be an excellent noninvasive alternative to surgical resection of metastases. This article reviews recent biologic and clinical data that support the existence of the oligometastatic state and discusses gaps in this evidence base. The emerging role for SABR in the management of this challenging patient population is discussed with a focus on ongoing clinical trials in an attempt to improve overall survival, delay progression, or induce immunologic anticancer effects through the abscopal effect.

Identification and survival outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer of unknown primary in Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Cancer of unknown primary origin (CUP) is defined by the presence of pathologically identified metastatic disease without clinical or radiological evidence of a primary tumour. Our objective was to identify incident cases of CUP in Ontario, Canada, and determine the influence of histology and sites of metastases on overall survival (OS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We used the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) and the Same-Day Surgery and Discharge Abstract Database (SDS/DAD) to identify patients diagnosed with CUP in Ontario between 1 January 2000, and 31 December 2005. Patient diagnostic information, including histology and survival data, was obtained from the OCR. We cross-validated CUP diagnosis and obtained additional information about metastasis through data linkage with the SDS/DAD database. OS was assessed using Cox regression models adjusting for histology and sites of metastases.

RESULTS

We identified 3564 patients diagnosed with CUP. Patients without histologically confirmed disease (n = 1821) had a one-year OS of 10.9%, whereas patients with confirmed histology (n = 1743) had a one-year OS of 15.6%. The most common metastatic sites were in the respiratory or digestive systems (n = 1603), and the most common histology was adenocarcinoma (n = 939). Three-year survival rates were 3.5%, 5.3%, 41.6% and 3.6% among adenocarcinoma, unspecified carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and undifferentiated histology, respectively. Three-year survival rates were 40%, 2.4%, 8.0% and 4.6% among patients with metastases localised to lymph nodes, the respiratory or digestive systems, other specified sites, and unspecified sites, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CUP patients in Ontario have a poor prognosis. Some subgroups may have better survival rates, such as patients with metastases localised to lymph nodes and patients with squamous cell histology.

Impact of target volume segmentation accuracy and variability on treatment planning for 4D-CT-based non-small cell lung cancer radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Accurate target volume segmentation is crucial for success in image-guided radiotherapy. However, variability in anatomical segmentation is one of the most significant contributors to uncertainty in radiotherapy treatment planning. This is especially true for lung cancer where target volumes are subject to varying magnitudes of respiratory motion.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study aims to analyze multiple observer target volume segmentations and subsequent intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans defined by those segmentations against a reference standard for lung cancer patients imaged with four-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT). Target volume segmentations of 10 patients were performed manually by six physicians, allowing for the calculation of ground truth estimate segmentations via the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) algorithm. Segmentation variability was assessed in terms of distance- and volume-based metrics. Treatment plans defined by these segmentations were then subject to dosimetric evaluation consisting of both physical and radiobiological analysis of optimized 3D dose distributions.

RESULTS

Significant differences were noticed amongst observers in comparison to STAPLE segmentations and this variability directly extended into the treatment planning stages in the context of all dosimetric parameters used in this study. Mean primary tumor control probability (TCP) ranged from (22.6±11.9)% to (33.7±0.6)%, with standard deviation ranging from 0.5% to 11.9%. However, mean normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) based on treatment plans for each physician-derived target volume well as the NTCP derived from STAPLE-based treatment plans demonstrated no discernible trends and variability appeared to be patient-specific. This type of variability demonstrated the large-scale impact that target volume segmentation uncertainty can play in IMRT treatment planning.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant target volume segmentation and dosimetric variability exists in IMRT treatment planning amongst experts in the presence of a reference standard for 4D-CT-based lung cancer radiotherapy. Future work is needed to mitigate this uncertainty and ensure highly accurate and effective radiotherapy for lung cancer patients.

Functional lung avoidance for individualized radiotherapy (FLAIR): study protocol for a randomized, double-blind clinical trial

Background

Although radiotherapy is a key component of curative-intent treatment for locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), it can be associated with substantial pulmonary toxicity in some patients. Current radiotherapy planning techniques aim to minimize the radiation dose to the lungs, without accounting for regional variations in lung function. Many patients, particularly smokers, can have substantial regional differences in pulmonary ventilation patterns, and it has been hypothesized that preferential avoidance of functional lung during radiotherapy may reduce toxicity. Although several investigators have shown that functional lung can be identified using advanced imaging techniques and/or demonstrated the feasibility and theoretical advantages of avoiding functional lung during radiotherapy, to our knowledge this premise has never been tested via a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Methods/Design

Eligible patients will have Stage III NSCLC with intent to receive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Every patient will undergo a pre-treatment functional lung imaging study using hyperpolarized ³He MRI in order to identify the spatial distribution of normally-ventilated lung. Before randomization, two clinically-approved radiotherapy plans will be devised for all patients on trial, termed standard and avoidance. The standard plan will be designed without reference to the functional state of the lung, while the avoidance plan will be optimized such that dose to functional lung is as low as reasonably achievable. Patients will then be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the standard or the avoidance plan, with both the physician and the patient blinded to the randomization results. This study aims to accrue a total of 64 patients within two years. The primary endpoint will be a pulmonary quality of life (QOL) assessment at 3 months post-treatment, measured using the functional assessment of cancer therapy–lung cancer subscale. Secondary endpoints include: pulmonary QOL at other time-points, provider-reported toxicity, overall survival, progression-free survival, and quality-adjusted survival.

Discussion

This randomized, double-blind trial will comprehensively assess the impact of functional lung avoidance on pulmonary toxicity and quality of life in patients receiving concurrent CRT for locally advanced NSCLC.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02002052.

Radical-intent hypofractionated radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

To identify survival and toxicity characteristics associated with radical-intent hypofractionated radiotherapy for the treatment of stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant studies were identified from a systematic PubMed search of articles published between January 1990 and January 2014. All studies were peer reviewed and included both retrospective and prospective studies of NSCLC patients being treated with radical hypofractionated radiotherapy. Data on overall survival (OS) and toxicity were extracted from each of the studies where available.

RESULTS

Of 685 studies initially identified by the search, a total of 33 studies were found to be relevant and were included in this systematic review. The number of fractions ranged from 15 to 35, the dose per fraction ranged from 2.3 to 3.5 Gy, and the delivered dose ranged from 45.0 to 85.5 Gy. Fifteen of the studies included concurrent chemotherapy, while 18 did not. OS was found to be associated with tumor biological effective dose, with the Pearson correlation coefficient ranging from 0.34 to 0.48. For both concurrent and nonconcurrent chemoradiotherapy acute pulmonary, late esophageal and late pulmonary incidences of toxicity ranged from 1.2% to 12.2%, but had 95% confidence intervals that included zero. The greatest incidence of toxicity was acute esophageal toxicity at 14.9% (95% confidence interval, 0.7%, 29.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a moderate linear relationship between biological effective dose and OS, and greater acute esophageal toxicity with concurrent chemotherapy. Improving outcomes in stage III NSCLC may involve some form of hypofractionation in the context of systemic concurrent therapy.