Deming, Richard L.

8506 Background: A randomized study (Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 54:195–202, 2002) demonstrated a beneficial effect for octreotide in the treatment of diarrhea in patients receiving pelvic radiation therapy. This North Central Cancer Treatment Group study was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of depot octreotide in the prevention of diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy. Methods: Patients receiving pelvic radiation therapy, with a planned minimum dose of 45 Gy at 1.70–2.1 Gy per day, were eligible for this study. The study was designed for a Wilcoxon test, with 112 evaluable patients, to have 85% power to detect a further one grade decrease in diarrhea over and above that experienced by patients treated with placebo. Between June 13, 2002 and October 28, 2005, 120 evaluable patients were randomly allocated, in double blind fashion, to receive octreotide (62 patients) or placebo (58 patients), prior to the fourth radiation therapy fraction. Octreotide dosing: Octreotide, 100 micrograms subcutaneously on day 1 followed by depot octreotide, 20 milligrams intramuscularly on days 2 and 29. Results: Grade 0, 1, 2 and 3 diarrhea was observed in 17%, 32%, 26% and 26% of patients treated with octreotide and 18%, 34%, 22%, and 26% of patients treated with placebo (P=0.86). Grade 0, 1, 2 and 3 tenesmus was observed in 55%, 30%, 11% and 4% of patients treated with octreotide and 76%, 16%, 4%, and 4% of patients treated with placebo (P=0.04). No other statistically significant differences in toxicity were observed. Conclusions: Octreotide, as administered in this study, did not decrease diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy. [Table: see text]

e16572 Background: The Bowel Function Questionnaire (BFQ) has been used in clinical trials to document patient-reported symptoms following pelvic radiation therapy (RT). This study evaluated the importance patients placed on the symptoms included in the BFQ as measured by a Content Validity Questionnaire (CVQ). Methods: Patients treated with pelvic RT assessed symptoms and importance at baseline, after completion of RT (4 weeks), and 12 and 24 months. BFQ measured quality of life (QOL) and symptoms of: nocturnal bowel movements, incontinence, greater than one bowel movement in 30 minutes, need for protective clothing, inability to differentiate stool and gas, liquid bowel movements, urgency, cramping, and bleeding. Bowel movement frequency was also assessed. Symptoms were rated via the CVQ as “not very important,” “moderately unimportant,” “neutral,” “moderately important,” or “very important." Summary statistics were compiled. Fisher Exact, Chi-Square and Wilcoxon methodology compared BFQ and CVQ results. Results: 125 patients participated. All symptoms were rated as moderately important or very important by most patients.Measures of bowel function of greatest importance (moderately or very important) at baseline were ability to control bowel movements (94%), not having to wear protective clothing (90%), and not having rectal bleeding (93%). In general, patients gave similar ratings of symptom importance at all time points in the study and ratings were independent of whether the symptom was experienced. With the exception of the need for protective clothing, the presence of a symptom at 4 weeks was associated with significantly worse QOL (p-values < 0.001 to 0.005). Conclusions: The BFQ has excellent content validity. Patients rated most symptoms measured by the BFQ as moderately important or very important, indicating the BFQ is an appropriate tool for symptom assessment during and after pelvic RT. With the exception of the need for protective clothing, the presence of every symptom measured by the BFQ was associated with worse QOL. These criteria make them appropriate targets for future research to mitigate radiation-related bowel dysfunction.

19503 Background: This study was performed to assess the value of combined modality therapy in elderly patients by comparing the differences in outcome of those who received radiotherapy (RT) alone or RT plus chemotherapy for stage III NSCLC. Methods: North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) performed 2 recent phase III trials for stage III NSCLC. The first trial, 90–24–51, included 3 arms: once-daily radiotherapy (QDRT) alone, twice daily RT (BIDRT) alone, and concurrent chemotherapy plus BIDRT. The second trial, 94–24- 52 included 2 arms and compared concurrent chemotherapy with either QDRT or BIDRT. The chemotherapy arms of both trials included etoposide and cisplatin administered concurrently with RT. Only the patients ≥65 years of age (elderly) who participated in these trials were included in this analysis. Results: Of the 166 elderly patients included in this analysis, 37 received RT alone and 129 received concurrent chemotherapy plus RT. The median and 5-year survival rates were 10.5 months and 5.4% for the RT alone group compared to 13.7 months and 14.7% for the RT plus chemotherapy group (log-rank p=0.05). Patients who received RT plus chemotherapy experienced significantly greater severe (grade ≥3) toxicity than those who received RT alone (89.9% versus 32.4%, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Elderly patients who participated in these trials appear to gain a survival advantage from RT and chemotherapy compared to RT alone. As is the case with younger patients, this benefit comes at the cost of additional toxicity. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

LBA4 Background: WBRT significantly improves tumor control in the brain after SRS, yet the role of adjuvant WBRT remains undefined due to concerns regarding neurocognitive risks. Methods: Patients with 1-3 brain metastases, each < 3 cm by contrast MRI, were randomized to SRS alone or SRS + WBRT and underwent cognitive testing before and after treatment. The primary endpoint was cognitive progression (CP) defined as decline > 1 SD from baseline in any of the 6 cognitive tests at 3 months. Time to CP was estimated using cumulative incidence adjusting for survival as a competing risk. Results: 213 patients were enrolled with 2 ineligible and 3 cancels prior to receiving treatment. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between study arms. The median age was 60 and lung primary the most common (68%). CP at 3 months was more frequent after WBRT + SRS vs. SRS alone (88.0% vs. 61.9% respectively, p = 0.002). There was more deterioration in the WBRT + SRS arm in immediate recall (31% vs. 8%, p = 0.007), delayed recall (51% vs. 20%, p = 0.002), and verbal fluency (19% vs. 2%, p = 0.02). Intracranial tumor control at 6 and 12 months were 66.1% and 50.5% with SRS alone vs. 88.3% and 84.9% with SRS+WBRT (p < 0.001). Median OS was 10.7 for SRS alone vs. 7.5 months for SRS+WBRT respectively (HR = 1.02, p = 0.93). Conclusions: Decline in cognitive function, specifically immediate recall, memory and verbal fluency, was more frequent with the addition of WBRT to SRS. Adjuvant WBRT did not improve OS despite better brain control. Initial treatment with SRS and close monitoring is recommended to better preserve cognitive function in patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases that are amenable to SRS. Clinical trial information: NCT00377156.

AbstractTo examine, in a prospective fashion, the utilization and efficacy of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) in patients with resected desmoplastic melanoma (DM). Adult patients with resected, margin‐negative, and nonmetastatic DM were eligible for this single‐arm prospective phase II study. Patients were to receive postoperative RT, 30 Gy in five fractions, to the operative bed with 2‐ to 3‐cm margins (depending on the tumor location). Nodal basin RT was not allowed. The primary study endpoint was the 2‐year local recurrence rate (LRR). Secondary endpoints included the incidence of regional and distant metastatic disease, progression‐free survival, overall survival (OS), and treatment‐related toxicity. Twenty patients with a single de novo DM lesion meeting trial eligibility criteria were enrolled and treated. The 2‐year LRR was 10%, with two patients demonstrating a LR within 2 years of completion of protocol therapy. No regional or distant failures occurred. OS at 2 and 5 years was 95 and 77%, respectively. There were no grade 3 or higher acute or late adverse events that were related to the protocol therapy. Adjuvant RT after wide local excision (WLE) for DM is efficacious and well tolerated. It should be considered for DM patients after margin‐negative WLE. Additional study is needed to further refine low‐risk patient populations that can potentially have adjuvant RT omitted as part of the treatment plan.

Purpose To assess the effectiveness of depot octreotide for the prevention of diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy. Patients and Methods Patients receiving pelvic radiation therapy (planned minimum dose, 45 Gy; 1.7 to 2.1 Gy daily) were eligible for the study. From May 10, 2002, through October 14, 2005, 125 patients were randomly allocated in a double-blind fashion to receive octreotide (100 μg, administered subcutaneously on day 1, followed by depot octreotide, 20 mg, administered intramuscularly on days 2 and 29; n = 62) or to receive a placebo (n = 63). Results Grade 0, 1, 2, and 3 diarrhea were observed in 18%, 31%, 31%, and 21% of patients in the octreotide arm, respectively, and in 25%, 32%, 22%, and 21% of patients in the placebo arm, respectively (P = .64). Grade 0, 1, 2, and 3 abdominal cramps were observed in 32%, 45%, 21%, and 2% of patients receiving octreotide, respectively, and in 51%, 24%, 21%, and 5% of patients receiving the placebo, respectively (P = .053). Some patient-reported symptoms were worse in the octreotide group, including nocturnal bowel movements (70% v 45%; P = .004), clustering of bowel movements (90% v 69%; P = .004), and bleeding with bowel movements (57% v 35%; P = .01). Conclusion As administered in this study, octreotide did not decrease diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy. Some gastrointestinal symptoms were worse in patients treated with octreotide. Octreotide is not indicated for prevention of diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy.