Mix, M.

AbstractBackgroundCALGB 30610 trial demonstrated that once daily thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) was not superior compared to standard twice daily TRT, in patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer. Quality of life outcomes may help oncologists decide the best treatment approach.MethodsA total of 417 patients on CALGB 30610 participated in the quality‐of‐life substudy (CALGB 70702), which included the FACT Trial Outcome Index‐Lung Cancer (FACT‐L TOI), FACT‐Esophageal Cancer (FACT‐E) Eating and Swallowing Indices, ECOG Acute Esophagitis Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), difficulty swallowing, EQ‐5D, and treatment convenience assessment at baseline, 3, 5, 7, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after starting TRT. Primary end points included FACT‐L TOI and FACT‐E at 12 weeks. Mean changes from baseline were compared between arms using general linear mixed models.ResultsFACT‐L worsening was more in the twice daily arm at week 3 (–1.0 vs. –7.0). FACT‐L TOI worsening was less at week 3 (–2.9 vs. –7.6) and greater at week 12 (–7.6 vs. –2.8) in the once daily arm. The once daily arm had a lower EQ‐5D index worsening at 3 weeks (0.01 vs. –0.02). Increase in acute esophagitis score (1.06 vs. 2.89; p < .001) and difficulty swallowing (0.39 vs. 1.14) were greater in the twice daily arm at week 3. A total of 74.5% of patients on the once daily arm felt that treatment was convenient, compared to 67% of patients in the twice daily arm (p = .03).ConclusionsThe once daily arm had better quality‐of‐life scores earlier during treatment and was perceived to be more convenient.

Importance The impact of patient-specific, disease-related, and social factors on outcomes in limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) is not well defined. A post hoc secondary analysis of such factors from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 30610–Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0538 trial may impact future trial design. Objective To assess the comprehensive demographic, disease-related, treatment-related, and social factors for potential associations with survival outcomes and understand whether specific subpopulations may benefit from radiotherapy (RT) dose escalation in LS-SCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants This post hoc secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial included 638 adults with LS-SCLC treated at 186 unique treatment sites with at least 1 accrual for all patients from March 15, 2008, to December 1, 2019; 313 patients were randomized to receive RT twice daily to a dosage of 45 Gy for 3 weeks and 325 to receive RT once daily to a dosage of 70 Gy for 7 weeks. Data were locked February 28, 2022, and analyzed from November 28, 2022, to June 4, 2024. Interventions Twice-daily RT or once-daily RT. Main Outcomes and Measures Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the association of treatment groups and other risk factors with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Patient-specific factors included age, sex, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Disease-related factors included tumor, nodal, and overall cancer stages. Treatment-related factors included type of chemotherapy, timing of concurrent RT, RT technique, and prophylactic cranial irradiation. Social factors included marital status and treatment center accrual volume. Results Among 507 patients (260 [51.3%] female and 247 [48.7%] male; mean [SD] age, 62.6 [7.9] years) included in the multivariate survival analysis, with a median follow-up of 4.7 (IQR, 3.7-7.1) years, female sex was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.58-0.91]; P = .006), while being 70 years or older was associated with decreased OS (HR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.14-1.98]; P = .004). Neither age nor sex was associated with PFS. When compared with those with N1 disease, OS and PFS were worse in patients with N2 (HRs, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.19-2.26]; P = .002 and 1.36 [95% CI, 1.02-1.81]; P = .04, respectively) and N3 (HRs, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.40-2.93]; P &amp;lt; .001 and 1.63 [95% CI, 1.17-2.26]; P = .004) disease. Compared with stage II cancer, OS was worse for stage IIIA (HR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.17-2.31]; P = .004) and stage IIIB (HR, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.34-2.83]; P &amp;lt; .001). Compared with high-volume accrual centers, treatment at low- or middle-volume accrual centers was associated with worse PFS (HRs, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.33-2.82; P &amp;lt; .001] and 1.44 [95% CI, 1.15-1.82; P = .002], respectively) and worse OS (HRs, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.03-2.32; P = .03] and 1.33 [95% CI, 1.04-1.70; P = .02], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance This secondary analysis of the CALGB 30610–RTOG 0538 randomized clinical trial of patients with LS-SCLC found associations between female sex or being younger than 70 years and improved overall survival and between advanced nodal stage or treatment at low- or middle-volume accrual centers and worse outcomes. These findings suggest that stratification by nodal stage, clinical stage, and age should be considered in future randomized trials. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00632853

TPS8123 Background: A minority of patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may be cured by chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Adjuvant checkpoint inhibition through PD-L1 blockade after CRT improved survival compared to placebo in the PACIFIC trial (median progression-free survival (mPFS) 16.9 vs 5.6 months (mo), median overall survival (mOS) 47.5 vs 29.1 mo), but overall survival at 5 years remains below 50% (Spigel D, et al J Clin Oncol 2022, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9015199/ . Only patients completing CRT without progression and with good performance status were eligible for this approach. Neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibition would allow more patients the opportunity to benefit from immunotherapy and may attenuate tumor-related immunosuppression via depletion of regulatory T cells and clonal expansion of effector T cells, thereby improving tumor immunogenicity. Neoadjuvant atezolizumab had favorable outcomes compared to historic PACIFIC data in the phase II single arm trial, AFT-16 (mPFS 30 mo and mOS not reached). Whether combination immunotherapy therapy before CRT will improve outcomes in this setting is the question posed in the AFT-57 trial. Methods: This phase II randomized Alliance Foundation Trials study (AFT-57) will evaluate safety and efficacy of atezolizumab with or without the anti-TIGIT monoclonal antibody, tiragolumab, before and after definitive CRT with concurrent atezolizumab. The primary endpoint is PFS in the two experimental arms with a goal to select the most promising regimen for further study. AFT-57 will randomly assign 158 patients with stage III NSCLC (AJCC v8), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, no active autoimmune disease and no underlying organ dysfunction to 2 cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously [IV] every 21 days) with or without tiragolumab (600 mg IV). Non-progressing patients will receive carboplatin and paclitaxel weekly with atezolizumab 1200 mg IV every 21 days concurrent with 60 Gray involved field thoracic radiation in 30 daily fractions (Monday - Friday) followed by atezolizumab with or without tiragolumab on the same schedule as the neoadjuvant doses, with a plan to complete one year of therapy. A pilot cohort of 20 patients for whom tiragolumab will be combined with atezolizumab during chemoradiotherapy is planned toward the end of accrual. Correlative science includes tissue and blood-based immune-related biomarkers at baseline and during therapy. This trial utilizes the Alliance Participant Engagement Portal, a patient-facing site designed to provide information and resources to Alliance clinical trial participants. The trial was activated on 12/7/23 with the first patient screened 1/19/24. Clinical trial information: NCT05798663 .

8504 Background: The CALGB 30610 trial demonstrated that 70Gy QD TRT was not associated with a superior overall survival compared to standard BID 45Gy TRT in limited stage small cell lung cancer. Since both arms appeared to provide similar clinical benefit, other factors such as quality of life may help oncologists decide on the best treatment approach for their patients. The present analysis was conducted to compare patients’ quality of life between these regimens in terms of their physical symptoms, physical functioning and psychological state. Methods: In the CALGB 30610 planned sub-study CALGB 70702, patients were administered the FACT-L, FACT Trial Outcome Index-Lung Cancer (FACT-L TOI), FACT-Esophageal Cancer Eating and Swallowing Indices, ECOG Acute Esophagitis Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the EQ-5D at baseline and a single item assessing difficulty swallowing at baseline, 3, 5, 7, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after starting radiation therapy. Patients were also asked to assess treatment inconvenience at these time points. The primary endpoints of CALGB 70702 were FACT-L TOI and FACT eating and swallowing subscales at 12 weeks. Mean changes from baseline were compared between arms using general linear mixed models. Results: 417 patients consented to participate in the patient-reported outcomes substudy. The completion rate of the questionnaires was 87% at baseline and 71% at week 52. The FACT-L total score mean worsening was significantly less in the QD arm compared to the BID arm at week 3 (-1.0 vs -7.0; P=.003), and marginally less at week 5 (-5.3 vs -11.0; P=.06). The FACT-L TOI mean worsening was significantly less in the QD arm than in the BID arm at week 3 (-2.9 vs -7.6; P=.003) and greater at week 12 (-7.6 vs -2.8; P=.03). The QD arm also had a lesser EQ-5D index mean worsening at 3 weeks (-0.04 vs 0.03; P=.002). Mean increase in the acute esophagitis score (1.06 vs 2.89; P<.001) and difficulty swallowing (0.39 vs 1.14; P<.001) were significantly greater in the BID arm at week 3. Mean worsening in HADS anxiety was significantly less in the QD arm at week 5 (-1.99 vs -0.95; P=.03). There were no other significant differences at the remaining timepoints between the two arms. Across visits on the QD arm, patients felt that treatment was inconvenient at 26% (96/376) assessments, compared to 33% (116/352) in the BID arm (chi-sq P=.03). Conclusions: Both radiation regimens were well tolerated. However, the QD arm had better quality of life scores at week 3 and was perceived to be less inconvenient. Clinical trial information: NCT00632853.