FitzGerald, Thomas J.

ABSTRACT Pediatric radiation therapy presents unique challenges compared to adult treatments, including those of immobilization, potential need for sedation, and the critical importance of accurate, reproducible positioning. Additionally, heightened attention to imaging doses is necessary to minimize long‐term toxicity in survivors. Many of these challenges must be addressed during the process of simulation. This report provides guidelines for pediatric radiotherapy simulation from the Children's Oncology Group. These guidelines cover all anatomic sites and include recommendations for photon and proton therapies, as well as specialized procedures such as stereotactic body radiation therapy, brachytherapy, and total body irradiation. These guidelines are presented as recommendations rather than prescriptive standards as the practice will vary depending on patient age, diagnosis, clinical judgment, and institutional resources.

AbstractRadiation oncology is an integral part of the multidisciplinary team caring for children with cancer. The primary goal of our committee is to enable the delivery of the safest dose of radiation therapy (RT) with the maximal potential for cure, and to minimize toxicity in children by delivering lower doses to normal tissues using advanced technologies like intensity‐modulated RT (IMRT) and proton therapy. We provide mentorship for y ators and are actively involved in educating the global radiation oncology community. We are leaders in the effort to discover novel radiosensitizers, radioprotectors, and advanced RT technologies that could help improve outcomes of children with cancer.

AbstractThis report by the Radiation Oncology Discipline of Children's Oncology Group (COG) describes the practice patterns of pediatric image‐guided radiotherapy (IGRT) based on a member survey and provides practice recommendations accordingly. The survey comprised of 11 vignettes asking clinicians about their recommended treatment modalities, IGRT preferences, and frequency of in‐room verification. Technical questions asked physicists about imaging protocols, dose reduction, setup correction, and adaptive therapy. In this report, the COG Radiation Oncology Discipline provides an IGRT modality/frequency decision tree and the expert guidelines for the practice of ionizing image guidance in pediatric radiotherapy patients.

PURPOSEDiffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) presents as a limited-stage disease in 25% to 30% of patients, with better overall survival (OS) than that for advanced-stage disease but with continuous relapse regardless of treatment approach. The preferred treatment is abbreviated rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) and radiation therapy. On the basis of promising results of positron emission tomography (PET)–directed treatment approaches, we designed a National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) study to improve outcomes and decrease toxicity.METHODSPatients with nonbulky (< 10 cm) stage I/II untreated DLBCL received 3 cycles of standard R-CHOP therapy and underwent a centrally reviewed interim PET/computed tomography scan (iPET). Those with a negative iPET proceeded with 1 additional cycle of R-CHOP, whereas those with a positive iPET received involved field radiation therapy followed by ibritumomab tiuxetan radioimmunotherapy.RESULTSOf 158 patients enrolled, 132 were eligible and 128 underwent iPET, which was positive in 14 (11%) of the patients. With a median follow-up of 4.92 years (range, 1.1-7.7 years), only 6 patients progressed and 3 died as a result of lymphoma. Eleven patients died as a result of nonlymphoma causes at a median age of 80 years. The 5-year progression-free survival estimate was 87% (95% CI, 79% to 92%) and the OS estimate was 89% (95% CI, 82% to 94%), with iPET-positive and iPET-negative patients having similar outcomes.CONCLUSIONTo our knowledge, S1001 is the largest prospective study in the United States of limited-stage DLBCL in the rituximab era, with the best NCTN results in this disease subset. With PET-directed therapy, 89% of the patients with a negative iPET received R-CHOP × 4, and only 11% had a positive iPET and required radiation, with both groups having excellent outcomes. The trial establishes R-CHOP × 4 alone as the new standard approach to limited-stage disease for the absolute majority of patients.

Introduction Limited stage disease accounts for 30-40% of Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), with better overall survival than advanced stage disease, but with increased late relapses regardless of treatment strategy (Stephens 2016). Preferred treatment for these patients (pts) per NCCN guidelines is abbreviated R-CHOP followed by radiotherapy. Based on promising results of radioimmunotherapy consolidation in SWOG S0313 (Persky 2015), and of PET-directed experience by the BC Cancer Agency (Sehn 2011), we designed a National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) PET-directed study to tailor therapy after 3 cycles of R-CHOP, to improve outcomes and decrease toxicities. Methods Pts had non-bulky (&lt; 10 cm) stage I/II untreated DLBCL. Mediastinal, HIV-associated, testicular, central nervous system, and indolent lymphoma were excluded. Pts received standard R-CHOP therapy and had an interim PET scan on day 15-18 of cycle 3, which was centrally reviewed in real time. Pts with negative PET scan (Deauville 1-3, iPET-neg) proceeded with 1 additional cycle of R-CHOP. Pts with positive PET scan (Deauville 4-5, iPET-pos) initiated 36 Gy of involved field radiation therapy (IFRT), plus additional boost to FDG-avid area up to 9 Gy, within 5 weeks of 3rd cycle of R-CHOP. This was followed by ibritumomab tiuxetan (IFRT-Zevalin) 3-6 weeks after completing IFRT. Final PET scan was performed 12 weeks after treatment completion. Results The study completed accrual in June 2016. Safety, response, interim PET, and immunohistochemistry-based cell of origin (COO) and MYC/BCL2 analyses were presented previously (Persky 2017, Stephens 2017). Of 159 pts enrolled, 1 was upstaged by PET, and 26 pts were ineligible - due to incorrect histology (mostly concurrent indolent or follicular lymphoma grade 3B) (21), lack of diagnostic tissue submission for central pathology review (3), and bulky disease (2). In 132 eligible pts, median age was 62 years, 62% had stage I, 17% had B symptoms, 14% had elevated LDH, 43% had extranodal involvement, and 66% had exclusive involvement of the head and neck region. Stage modified IPI (smIPI, Miller 1998) was 0 in 27%, 1 in 42%, 2 in 28%, and 3 in 4% of the pts. COO by Lymph2Cx was assessable in 87 pts - 68% were GCB, 23% were ABC, and 9% were unclassifiable. Double protein expressers (MYC and BCL2, DPE) were 16%, while 4 (3%) pts had "double hit" lymphoma (DHL) - 2 with MYC/BCL2 and 2 with MYC/BCL6 rearrangements - none of which were DPE. Of 132 eligible pts, 128 had an interim PET scan centrally reviewed, of which 110 were iPET-neg. Only 18 were iPET-pos, 4 of them due to infection (Deauville X) which were treated as iPET-neg. Of 14 truly iPET-pos pts (11%), 2 refused radiation, and 12 pts received IFRT-Zevalin. Eight pts (67%) converted from PR to CR after IFRT-Zevalin and 4 (33%) had PR, for an overall CR of 92% and PR of 4% (with 4% unevaluable). With median follow up of 4.5 yrs (range 1.1 - 7.5 yrs), only 5 pts progressed and 2 died from lymphoma. Of 5 progressors, 3 received R-CHOP x 4, 1 was iPET-pos but declined radiation, and 1 went off treatment after 1 cycle of R-CHOP. Eleven pts died from non-lymphoma causes, including 1 pt from secondary AML (iPET-neg arm), and 1 of lung adenocarcinoma diagnosed upon iPET. S1001 5-yr PFS estimate is 87% and OS estimate is 90% (figure 1), with iPET-pos and iPET-neg pts having similar outcomes - PFS 86% vs. 88%, OS 93% vs. 91%, respectively. Five-yr PFS by smIPI was 97% for smIPI of 0, 86% for 1-2, and 30% for 3. GCB had 5-yr PFS of 95%, vs. 70% for ABC and 47% for unclassifiable. DPE pts had 5-yr PFS of 70, vs. 89% for non-DPE pts. All 4 DHL pts maintain remission. Conclusions S1001 is the largest US study of limited stage DLBCL in the rituximab era, with best NCTN results in this disease subset. Only 5 patients progressed and 2 died from lymphoma. Our study confirms the distinct biology of limited stage DLBCL, with predominance of GCB origin (68%), and head and neck location (66%). Due to small number of lymphoma events, no strong conclusions about prognostic ability of smIPI, COO, DPE, or DHL, could be made. S1001 demonstrated that 89% of pts maintained excellent outcomes after R-CHOP x 4 with PET-directed therapy. Only 11% of pts were iPET-pos and required radiation, but they also had excellent outcomes. Together with the FLYER trial in younger pts (Poeschel 2018), this NCTN trial establishes R-CHOP x 4 alone as the new standard approach to limited stage disease for majority of the pts. Disclosures Persky: Sandoz: Consultancy; Morphosys: Other: Member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee; Debiopharm: Other: Member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee; Bayer: Consultancy. Stephens:Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bartlett:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genenetech: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Swinnen:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Barr:Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Leonard:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy. Kahl:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Fisher:Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Barclays: Honoraria; prIME: Honoraria. Rimsza:NanoSting: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution]. Smith:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. OffLabel Disclosure: Ibritumomab tiuxetan in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

205 Background: Central review is an important trial management and validation tool. Multisite trials require data systems to accommodate diverse image acquisition and review. Breast cancer is challenging as its imaging objects are not always easily shared across departments. Quality Assurance Review Center (QARC) has a diverse portfolio of facile data acquisition and powerful informatics support that meets these needs. We report on the role of QARC in three of the current breast cancer trials from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group. Methods: QARC data management system includes secure network infrastructure and a validated relational operating database (MAX). QARC has data acquisition/imaging re-distribution expertise for real time response reviews, response measuring tools and corresponding data archive for secondary reviews. MAX includes query ability; records link to digital information. QARC underwent systematic information systems validation process for 21 CFR Part 11. DICOM/non-DICOM files are stored in the QARC PACS. On-site/remote reviewers use MAX to retrieve, view, annotate and save images. Data extracted is securely sent to partner statistical centers. Results: In Z1031, a neoadjuvant endocrine therapy trial, all of the mammographic exams are archived at QARC. For Z1071, a sentinel lymph node trial, pre- and post-treatment ultrasound (US) images of 321 patients were remotely reviewed. For Z1072, the cryoablation US, pre and post-cryoablation MRI for 40 of 47 cases were remotely archived, retrieved and transferred to investigator workstation for post-processing and review. The other 7 patients did not have evaluable imaging studies. In all three trials, the costs of shipping hardcopies of exams and travel to QARC for central review functions were eliminated. Conclusions: QARC data management systems provide diverse informatics supports for multi-institutional trials, ranging from archives of images, provide remote access and download of data, and central review. The vibrant informatics supports meet the growing needs of clinical trials. Future directions include radiation field review for breast cancer trials and the incorporation of pathology microarray analysis as DICOM objects.