Zwaan, Inga

Background/Objectives: Pneumonitis caused by radiotherapy for lung cancer may be missed since it often occurs only several months later. In a previous trial including patients of any age, a scoring system was tested to facilitate the correct diagnosis of radiation pneumonitis. Since elderly lung cancer patients have a greater risk of developing this complication, a separate scoring system for this group appears useful. Our prospective multi-center trial (NCT06480734) investigates a specific tool for elderly patients irradiated for lung cancer. Methods: Patients aged ≥65 years with lung cancer will complete paper-based questionnaires and rate symptoms potentially caused by pneumonitis weekly during and up to 24 weeks following radiotherapy. The total score of this symptom-based scoring system ranging from 0 to 9 points is correlated to pneumonitis. The discriminative power of the scoring system is evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Optimality is defined as a cut-off score with sensitivity ≥90% and specificity ≥80%. Moreover, the Youden index will be applied. Fifty-nine patients are required for the full analysis set. Assuming 5% will not qualify for this set, 65 patients should be enrolled. Moreover, patient satisfaction with the scoring system is evaluated. If the dissatisfaction rate is >20%, the system needs modifications; if the dissatisfaction rate is >40%, it is considered not useful. An optimal cut-off score facilitating the diagnosis of pneumonitis and its discrimination from other lung diseases will contribute to a corresponding mobile application to be used by elderly lung cancer patients at home.

Abstract Background: Pneumonitis caused by radiotherapy for lung cancer may be missed, since it often occurs only several months later. In a previous trial including patients of any age, a symptom-based scoring system was tested to facilitate the correct diagnosis of radiation pneumonitis. Since elderly lung cancer patients have a greater risk of developing this complication, a separate scoring system particularly for this age group appears reasonable. This trial investigates such a specific tool for elderly patients irradiated for lung cancer. Methods: Patients with lung cancer patients aged ≥65 years will be included in this prospective multi-center trial and complete paper-based questionnaires (symptom-based scoring system). Patients indicate and rate symptoms potentially caused by pneumonitis, namely cough, dyspnea, and fever, once a week during and up to 24 weeks following their radiotherapy course. If symptomatic (grade ≥2) pneumonitis is confirmed by corresponding diagnostic procedures, patients receive prednisolone whenever possible. The total score of the symptom-based scoring system, which ranges between 0 and 9 points, is correlated to pneumonitis (yes or no). The discriminative power of the scoring system is evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Optimality is defined as a cut-off score with sensitivity ≥90% and specificity ≥80%. In addition, the Youden index (sensitivity + specificity – 1) will be applied. Fifty-nine patients (18 with and 41 without pneumonitis) are required in the full analysis set. Assuming that 5% of the patients will not qualify for this set, 62 patients should be enrolled. In addition, patient satisfaction with the scoring system is evaluated. If the dissatisfaction rate is >20%, the score needs modifications; if the dissatisfaction rate is >40%, the scoring system is considered not useful. Discussion: If the optimal cut-off score facilitates the diagnosis of radiation pneumonitis and its discrimination from other lung diseases in elderly patients with lung cancer, it will contribute to the development of a mobile application for identification of radiation pneumonitis, which can be used by the patients at home. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06480734; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT06480734); protocol version 1.2, registered on 27th of June, 2024.

Many head and neck cancer patients assigned to definitive or adjuvant chemoradiation treatment do not complete the concurrent cisplatin dose. We determined corresponding risk factors and developed a prognostic instrument to help identify these patients. Ten pre-treatment characteristics were retrospectively analyzed in 154 patients with head and neck cancer who were treated via chemoradiation with cisplatin. These pre-treatment characteristics included age, sex, Karnofsky performance score, tumor site, primary tumor stage, nodal stage, histologic grade, upfront surgery, human papilloma virus status, and history of smoking. The characteristics significantly associated with the completion of cisplatin-based treatment, the receipt of ≥80% cisplatin, or showing a strong trend of association after multivariate analyses were used for the prognostic instrument. For each characteristic, 0 points were assigned for worse outcomes, and 1 point was assigned for better outcomes. Patients’ scores were calculated by adding these points. Age ≤ 60 years and a Karnofsky performance score of 90–100 were significantly associated with both endpoints after multivariate analysis, and male gender showed a trend for association with the receipt of ≥80% cisplatin. Patient scores were 0, 1, 2, and 3 points. The corresponding rates of completion of cisplatin-based treatment were 14%, 41%, 62%, and 72%, respectively (p = 0.004). The rates of receipt of ≥80% cisplatin were 29%, 54%, 72%, and 94%, respectively (p < 0.001). This new prognostic instrument helps to predict whether head and neck cancer patients scheduled for chemoradiation will receive cisplatin as planned.

Cisplatin is the standard for the chemoradiation of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC). Many patients cannot receive cisplatin due to impaired renal function. This study investigated carboplatin as an alternative option. In total, 131 patients assigned to two courses of cisplatin (20 mg/m2/d1-–5 or 25 mg/m2/d1–4) were matched to 45 patients not suitable for cisplatin and receiving carboplatin (AUC 1.0/d1–5 or AUC 1.5/d1–4). The endpoints included loco-regional control (LRC), metastases-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), toxicities, and the completion of chemotherapy. The patients in the carboplatin group were significantly older and had more G3 tumors. Otherwise, the baseline characteristics were balanced. The LRC rates at 2 and 3 years were 77% and 76% in the cisplatin group vs. 69% and 65% in the carboplatin group (p = 0.21). The MFS rates were 83% and 78% vs. 78% and 74% (p = 0.34) and the OS rates 83% and 79% vs. 83% and 75% (p = 0.64), respectively. The outcomes were not significantly different in the subgroups receiving definitive or adjuvant chemoradiation. No significant differences were found regarding toxicities. Non-significantly more patients in the carboplatin group completed their chemotherapy (78% vs. 66%, p = 0.15). Carboplatin was associated with similar outcomes and toxicities as cisplatin, although these patients had worse renal function, more aggressive tumors, and were older. Given the limitations of this study, carboplatin appears an option for patients not suitable for cisplatin.

Many patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) receive cisplatin-based chemoradiation. Cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every three weeks is toxic and alternative cisplatin regimens are desired. Two courses of 20 mg/m2/day 1–5 (cumulative 200 mg/m2) were shown to be similarly effective and better tolerated than 100 mg/m2 every three weeks. Previous studies suggested that cumulative doses >200 mg/m2 may further improve outcomes. In this study, 10 patients (group A) receiving two courses of 25 mg/m2/day 1–5 (cumulative 250 mg/m2) in 2022 were retrospectively matched and compared to 98 patients (group B) receiving two courses of 20 mg/m2/day 1–5 or 25 mg/m2/day 1–4 (cumulative 200 mg/m2). Follow-up was limited to 12 months to avoid bias. Group A achieved non-significantly better 12-month loco-regional control (100% vs. 83%, p = 0.27) and metastases-free survival (100% vs. 88%, p = 0.38), and similar overall survival (89% vs. 88%, p = 0.90). No significant differences were found regarding toxicities, completion of chemotherapy, and interruption of radiotherapy. Given the limitations of this study, chemoradiation with two courses of 25 mg/m2/day 1–5 appears an option for carefully selected patients as a personalized treatment approach. Longer follow-up and a larger sample size are needed to properly define its role.